The Palace of Diocletian at Split

A Thesis

-----------------

Presented to

the Faculty of the Graduate School

University of Missouri Columbia

-----------------

In Partial Fulfilment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

-----------------

By

Guy Dominic Robson Sanders

Kathleen Warner Slane THESIS SUPERVISOR

August 1989

i

CONTENTS

Page numbers

List of figures.................. ii-iv

Abbreviations .................. v-vi

Chapter 1 Introduction............... 1-11

Chapter 2 Diocletian's Palace at Split 12-35

Chapter 3 Camps 36-63

Chapter 4 Palaces 64-95

Introduction............... 64

Antioch.................... 70

Thessalonika............... 74

Summary.................... 89

Chapter 5 Villas 93-120

Mogorjelo.................. 94

Gamzigrad.................. 97

Maxentius' Villa........... 106

Piazza Armerina............ 111

Chapter 6 Conclusions................. 117-130

Bibliography.......................... 131-142

Figures .......................... End plates

ii

LIST OF PLATES.

1.1 Jacob Spon's view of Split. Bulic, pl. I.

1.2 Hebrard and Zeiller's plan of Split. Hebrard

-Zeiller, fig. 1.

1.3 Gerasa. MacDonald, Architecture II, fig 35.

1.4 Philippopolis. Butler, fig. 135.

1.5 Split - sectors of excavation 1968-1974. McNally

et al. Drawing 1.

2.1 Modern town of Split showing area of Diocletian's

Palace. Marasovic et al. Drawing 15.

2.2 Split - State plan of Diocletian's Palace Late Roman

Walls. Marasovic et al. Drawing 28.

2.3 Split - Reconstructed plan of Diocletian's Palace.

Marasovic et al. Drawing 28 and GDRS.

2.4 Split - East-West cross sections through mausoleum

and temple (above), through gates (below). Niemann

fig. 5.

2.5 Split - Isometric drawing of the peristyle and

surrouding monuments. Niemann pl. 15.

2.6 Split - Elevation of Mausoleum and section through

vestibule. Niemann pl. 7.

2.7 Split - Mosiac floor and walls in N.W. quadrant.

Niemann fig. 114-115.

2.8 Split - State plan of mausoleum. Niemann pl. 9.

2.9 Split - Elevation of Vestibule facade and section

through mausoleum. Niemann pl. 13.

2.10 Split - Plan of peristyle court east of the

mausoleum. McNally et al. Drawing 2.

2.11 Split - Elevation of Vestibule facade. Niemann fig.

56.

2.12 Split - North-south longitudinal sections through

mausoleum (above), through vestibule and hall

(below). Niemann fig. 136, 137.

iii

3.1 Traditional legionary fortress according to

Polybius. Fabricius, fig. 1.

3.2 Housesteads, Yorkshire. 2nd cent. traditional

castrum. Sear fig. 22.

3.3 Lambaesis. M. Janon, "Lambaesis," Antike Welt 8.2

(1977) fig. 1.

3.4 Porchester castle, Hants. Saxon Shore castrum of the

late 3rd century. Cunliffe, AJ 52 (1972) pp. 70-83,

fig. 1.

3.5 Drobeta. Left: phase 2 = 2/2 3rd. century, right:

last phase = late 4th. century. Lander, figs. 155,

274.

3.6 el-Leggun, Syria. Castrum of c. 300 A.C. Brunnow and

Domaszewski, pl. XLII.

3.7 Tamara. �Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, p.1148.

3.8 Qasr Qarun. Carrie, MEFR 86, fig. 1.

3.9 Palmyra, Camp of Diocletian. Palmyre VIII, map 1.

3.10 Palmyra, Camp of Diocletian. Palmyre VIII, map 2.

3.11 Luxor, Temple of Ammon. I. Kalavrezou Maxeiner,

fig. A.

4.1 Rome, Plan of central monuments.� MacDonald,

Architecture II, fig. 206.

4.2 Milan. Modern city showing Late Roman monuments.

Enciclopedia dell' arte antichita, Vol. V, fig.2.

4.3 Trier.� Plan of Late Roman city. MacDonald,

Architecture II, fig. 34.

4.4 Aquileia. Plan of Late Roman city. Enciclopedia

dell' arte antichita, Vol. I, fig. 692.

4.5 Sirmium. Modern city with location of Late Roman

monuments. Sirmium I, fig. 3.

4.6 Nikomedeia. Modern Izmit with location of ancient

monuments. Ozture, map 1.

iv

4.7 Nikomedeia. Sketch plan of Late Roman city. GDRS.

4.8 Antioch. Reconstructed plan of Late Roman Monuments.

GDRS.

4.9 Antioch. Late Roman city plan. Downey, History of

Antioch, fig. 11.

4.10 Thessalonika. Plan of city with Late Roman

monuments. Spieser, gatefold.

4.11 Thessalonika. Plan of Galerius' Palace. GDRS after

Moutsopoulos, pl. 10.

4.12 Thessalonika.� Arch of Galerius, phase 1 (above),

phase 2 (below).� Velenis, figs. 14 & 15.

4.13 Thessalonika. Octagon and central court.

Moutsopoulos, pl. VIII.

5.1 Mogorjelo. Plan and elevation. Wilkes, fig. 10,

after Dyggve.

5.2 Gamzigrad. Plan of monuments.� Srejovic, Arch. Jug.

22-3, fig. 5.

5.3 Maxentius' Palace on the Via Appia.� Villa, early

4th. century phase. Pisani Sartorio and Calza, pl.

48.

5.4 Piazza Armerina. Wilson, fig. 1.

v

ABBREVIATIONS.

Abbreviations follow those listed in AJA 82 (1978) 3-10

with addenda and corrigenda in AJA 84 (1980) 3-4. Other

frequently cited works are listed below.

Brunnow and Domaszewski: Brunnow, R.E. and Domaszewski,

A. V. Die provincia Arabia. vol. 2, Strassburg,

1905.

Bulic: Bulic, F. Kaiser Diokletians Palast in Split.

Translated by L. Karaman. Zagreb, 1929.

Downey, Antioch: Downey, G. A History of Antioch in

Syria. Princeton, 1961.

Downey, "Libanius": Downey, G., "Libanius' Oration in

Praise of Antioch (Oration XI)," ProcPhilAs 103

(1959) 652-86.

Downey, "Palace": Downey, G. "The Palace of Diocletian at

Antioch," Les annales archeologiques de Syrie 3

(1953) 106-16.

Fellmann, Die Principia: Fellmann, R. Die Principia

des Legionslagers Vindonissa und das Zentralgebaude

der romischen Lager und Kastelle. Vindonissamuseum,

1958, pp. 75-92.

Fellmann, Diokletianspalast: Fellmann, R. "Der

Diokletianspalast von Split im rahmen der

spatromischen Militararchitektur," Antike Welt 10

(1979) 47-55.

Fellmann, "le Camp,": Fellmann, R., "Le `Camp de

Diocletien' a Palmyre et l'architcture militaire

du Bas Empire," in �Melanges d'histoire anciennes

et d'archeologie offerts a Paul Collart. (Cahiers

d'archeologie romande. no.5). Lausanne, 1976,

pp. 173-91.

Lander: Lander, J. Roman Stone Fortifications. Oxford,

1984.

Marasovic et al.: Marasovic, J., Marasovic, T., MacNally,

S. and Wilkes, J.J. Diocletians Palace: Report on

Joint Excavations in Southeast quarter. Part 1.

Split, 1972.

Niemann: Niemann, G. Der Palast Diokletians in Spalato.

Vienna, 1910.

vi

RIA: Ward-Perkins, J.B. Roman Imperial Architecture.

Harmondsworth, 1981.

Vickers, "Hellenistic Thessalonike,": Vickers, M.

"Hellenistic Thessaloniki," JHS 92 (1972)

156-70.

Vickers, "Hippodrome,": Vickers, M. "The Hippodrome at

Thessaloniki," JRS 62 (1972) 25-32.

Vickers, "Octagon,": Vickers, M. "Observations on the

Octogon at Thessaloniki," JRS 63 (1973) 111-20.

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.

Recent research accepts the view that the plan of

Diocletian's residence at Split was derived from the

design of Roman castra.1 This assumption stems from the

visual resemblance between the plan of Split and that of a

traditional Roman camp such as Lampasas or the city of

Timgad. In such a camp the principal streets, the via

praetorian and via principalis, met at right angles in the

form of the letter T in front of the praetorium. The

praetorium has been understood by most scholars to be the

residence of the garrison commander. At Split, however,

the decumanus and cardo were designed to meet at right

angles in the form of a Latin cross in front of what is

thought to be the residence of the former emperor.

Parallels drawn between the “T” plan of castra and Latin

cross arrangement at Split on the one hand, and the

location of the praetorium of camps and Diocletian's

private apartments at Split on the other, seem to indicate

a close affinity between the two designs.2

The idea that Diocletian's residence was derived from

the military camp is firmly established in literature.

1 RIA 454-56; F. Sear, Roman Architecture. Ithaca, 1982, p. 265. 2 Various reconstructions of the street plan attempt to demonstrate

the similarity of Split and the traditional castra plan. These follow

the basic scheme outlined above.� F. Weilbach, "Zur Rekonstruktion des

Diocletians Palast," in Strena Buliciana , pp. 123-125. Edited by E.

Wiegand. Zagreb-Split, 1924, proposed that a via quintana bisected the

northern part of Split and that the plan thus paralleled that of the

Polybian more closely than formerly thought.

2

The earliest academic reference to the plan of Split seems

to be that of Serlio (b.1475) who sketched a walled

Polybian castra in Dalmatia described to him by Marco

Grimani, the patriarch of Aquileia. According to Dinsmoor

this illustration is an early representation of the

residence at Split.3 Late in the 16th century Palladio

made detailed drawings of parts of the residence.4

Spon and Wheler, who visited Split in 1677, were the

first to provide eyewitness accounts of the remains. Both

outlined the major visible remains and drew sketches of

Split (fig. 1.1).� Although there are notable differences

in their plans, each describes the peristyle, the

vestibule, the mausoleum, the temple and the colonnaded

gallery on the south wall. There is some evidence in their

accounts that they understood the residence to have been a

development of a military camp plan.5

3 W.B. Dinsmoor, "The Literary Remains of Sebastiano Serlio," ArtB 24

(1942) 55-91. Dinsmoor refers to Munich MS. cod. iconogr. 190, fol.1,

dated to ca.1558. Dinsmoor may have assumed that the Trajanic camp was

Split because of its castra like plan and its location in Dalmatia

rather than for objective reasons. In other words, he may have

identified Serlio's drawing as Split because of the plan and concluded

that Serlio thought that the residence appeared to be a castra. 4 D. Keckemet, "Louis Francois Cassas i njegove slike Istre i

Dalmacije 1782," RAD. Jugoslavenskie Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti

379 (1979) 7-200. 5 Spon drew the site as a square with square corner towers, four gates

with the main gate to the west, and the colonnaded gallery running

between the west gate and the south-west tower. Inside he drew the

peristyle, with the mausoleum, the vestibule and the temple, all

described as temples, disposed

around it; for this plan see Bulic, pl.6. Wheler drew a rectangular

site oriented east to west with square angle towers and three gates

with the main gate at the north. His internal arrangement is much the

same as that of Spon. In the text he mentions the gallery on the south

side and Spon's conjecture that there was originally a door in the

3

In 1751 Farlati devoted four chapters of his book on

Illyricum to Diocletian and Split,6 which with verbal

accounts of other travellers, encouraged Robert Adam to

visit the site. In the company of his assistant,

Clerisseau, and two draftsmen, Adam surveyed the standing

remains and produced the first scale plan of Split. His

reconstruction was based on both the visible remains and

on the writings of Vitruvius and Pliny.7 Throughout he was

clearly influenced by the Renaissance and Baroque ideas on

Roman architecture developed by Palladio and others.

Eighteen years later, Cassas travelled to Split to correct

Adam's drawings and subsequently published a state plan of

the remains.8 New finds encouraged Lanza to publish a

revised state plan in 1855,9 and at the beginning of this

century, Niemann and Hebrard and Zeiller independently

resurveyed, illustrated and described the site (Fig.

south side, see G. Wheler, Voyage de Dalmatie, de Grece et du Levant.

vol.I, Paris, 1723, pp.25-9 and fig. on p.17. 6 D. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum. Venice, 1751. 7 R. Adam, Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalatro

in Dalmatia. London, 1764. The drawings are all the work of Clerisseau

and the draftsmen, while the text was largely written by William

Robertson the historian. Adam provided the money and inspiration but

little of the actual work but gave no credit to his co-workers. The

plates are very accurate with minor errors of detail.� For an account

of Adam's work at Split see J. Fleming, "The Journey to Spalatro,"

Architectural Review 123 (1958) 103-107. 8 L.F. Cassas, Voyage pittoresque et historique de l'Histrie et de la

Dalmatie, Paris 1802. Cassas not only used some of Clerisseau's

drawings but aslo recognised his his hitherto unacknowledged role in

the production Adam's book. D. Keckemet, op. cit. illustrates many of

Cassas' plates and discusses his work in detail. 9 F. Lanza, Dell' antico palazzo di Diocleziano in Spalato. Trieste,

1855.

4

1.2).10 The most complete description to date is that of

Bulic, a cleric and amateur archaeologist who lived in

Split at the turn of the 20th century. Bulic's familiarity

with the town, its remains, the fragments found by

excavation and by accident, and the ancient and modern

literature is evident in his text.11 Each of these scholars

emphasised the relationsip between Split and the plan of

traditional castra and indicating that the structure was

at once both camp and villa.

The scholarship on the origins of the plan of

Diocletian's residence at Split falls into four broad

categories. The most widely held theory is that Split was

planned using military archetypes, but the influence of

regional palace design, city planning and fortified villas

has been upheld by a few.

The interpretation of Split as a glorified camp was

strongly reinforced by Downey who saw a superficial

resemblance between the New City at Antioch, with its

streets crossing at a tetrapylon and gallery overlooking

the Orontes, and similar features at Split. He argued that

the palace at Antioch was built on the site of a military

camp laid out by Valerian, and that the palace plan

closely followed the earlier lay-out. Downey concluded

10 Niemann, passim; E. Hebrard and F. Zeiller, Spalato, le palais de

Diocletien. Paris, 1912. 11 F. Bulic, Palaca Cara Dioclecijana u Spilitu. Zagreb, 1927; idem,

Kaiser Diokletians Palast, trans. L. Karaman, Zagreb, 1929.

5

that since the palace had the appearance of a camp and

since it resembled Split therefore the Antioch palace was

the inspiration for Diocletian's residence at Split.12

Since Downey, numerous other scholars have referred

to the palace at Antioch as further proof of the influence

of military planning on the plan of Split. To L'Orange the

plan was "clearly influenced by Roman military

architecture."13 MacMullen thought that the mix of civil

and military architecture was natural and that Diocletian,

sentimental for his campaigning days, sought to surround

himself with a nostalgic architectural reminder of them.14

The textbooks of Roman architecture promote the

association. Ward-Perkins goes further than his colleagues

and denies any major influence from city plans in the

Roman east such as Gerasa and Philippopolis, stating that

the plan is of purely military inspiration,15 and in this

is endorsed by Sear.16 Some scholars have interpreted the

remains of Split as a palace and take the plan as the

prototype of later constructions such as the so-called

Palace of Theodoric at Ravenna.17 With this end in mind,

12 G. Downey, "The Palace of Diocletian at Antioch," Les Annales de

Syrie 3 (1953) 111, n.2. 13 H.P. L'Orange, Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire,

Princeton, 1965, p. 73. 14 R. MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Late Roman Empire ,

Cambridge, MA, 1963, p. 42-6. 15 RIA, p. 454-59. 16 Sear, op. cit.. pp. 261-65. 17 K.M. Swoboda, Romische und Romanische Palaste, Vienna, 1919.�

Swoboda gave Split an important position in the development of the

militarisation of palace plans of which he gives Mshatta and Kasr Ibn

Wardan as examples.

6

Dyggve discussed the southern extension of the cardo

beyond the central crossing in terms of an "open air

basilica". This he considered to be part of the complex of

architectural spaces that eventually led, through the

monumental porch and vestibule, to the "throne room" in

the great basilica hall. Implicit in this interpretation

is the idea that Diocletian did not retire to private life

as an ordinary citizen but retained both the trappings of

oriental kingship and the aura of his godhead, with which

he was supposedly invested early in his reign.18

This grandiose approach to the "throne room" had

immense appeal to architectural iconographers such as

Swoboda, who included Split prominently in his survey of

the Late Roman and Medieval palaces. Swoboda reconstructed

the southern extension of the cardo as a peristyle

approaching the "Throne Room" in the domed vestibule, with

the tablinum to the south.19 Other scholars such as Smith

portrayed Split as a sacred �castrum cum palatium,20 while

l'Orange identified the central elements of the residence

18 E. Dyggve, Ravennatum Palatium Sacrum, Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabem

Selskab, Archaeologisk-Kunsthistorische Meddelelser, III, Copenhagen,

1941. 19 K. Swoboda, "The Problem of the Iconography of Late Antique and

Early Medieval Palaces," JSAH 20 (1961) 78-89.� Swoboda agrees with

Dyggve that the peristyle was an area of importance in the Imperial

cult and draws parallels between elements of Split and palaces

throughout the Late Antique, Byzantine and Islamic world. 20 E. B. Smith, Architectural symbolism of Imperial Rome and the

Middle Ages. Princeton, 1956 pp. 141-42. Smith followed Downey in

thinking that the plan of Split was copied from the castra plan of

Antioch and suggested that it ultimately influenced the plan of the

Great Palace at Constantinople. In each of these the castra form of

the palace was symbolic of the centre of divine authority.

7

and peristyle as the Palatium Sacrum around which the

remaining structures in the camp-palace were arranged.21

Finally, Strzygowski saw parallels between the arcade of

the peristyle and Syrian and Mesopotamian examples. He

acknowledged the resemblance to castra but theorised that

the plan of Split was ultimately derived from eastern city

plans such as those of Philippopolis and the New City on

the island at Antioch. He compared the fortification, the

crossing streets with axial tetrapylon and the location of

the palace at the end of the cardo to Split, and observed

that the gallery existed at both Split and Antioch.22

New information on the plan of Split has been added

by various reports of rescue excavations undertaken since

World War II and by a joint project conducted by the

University of Minnesota and a Yugoslav team in the 1970's

(fig. 1.3).23 As a result of the most recent research,

numerous details can be added to the basic plan produced

by Adam and Clerisseau's survey. These details along with

modern knowledge of Roman architecture afford a radically

different reconstruction of the original form of the

complex. However, according to the Yugoslav and University

21 H.P. l'Orange, op. cit., pp. 69-85. 22J. Strzygowski, "Spalato, ein Markstein der romanischen Kunst bei

ihrem Ubergange vom Orient nach dem Abendlande," Studien aus Kunst und

Geschichte Fr. Scneider gewidmet, Fiebourg-en-Brisgau, 1906 from which

extracts were translated and published by N.Duval in the Bulletin de

la Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1961) 110-17. 23 Marasovic et al. and S. MacNally, J. Marasovic and T. Marasovic,

Diocletians Palace. Report on Joint Excavations Part 2. Split, 1976.

8

of Minnesota excavators, Split's plan should still be

viewed as a combination of villa and castra.24

The idea that Split is derived from Roman military camps

has been enlarged upon by Fellmann, who draws parallels

not only between the plan of Split and the traditional

Polybian camp, but also with border fortlets of the Late

Empire found principally in the Balkans and along the

eastern limes. Unlike Ward-Perkins, Fellmann considered

the peristyle at Split to be part of the overall design

and compared the resulting cruciform lay-out to the camps

of Portchester, Cardiff and Palmyra, among others. He also

observed that use of the curtain wall for the arrangement

of barracks at Split echoed the use of the walls of small

forts as the back walls of strigae, stables and stores.25

The sole dissentor to the views outlined above is

Duval. Acknowledging that little is known of Late Roman

palaces, Duval observed that Split, castra and palaces

have virtually nothing in common. He contended that

Strzygowski's arguments associating Split with the city

plans of Antioch and Philippopolis are in error because

the walls of Split are quite unlike city walls, the

residential zone is not limited to the southern part and

the plan lacks a tetrapylon. He also denied that Split can

be compared with camp plans and pointed out that the

24 Marasovic et al., p. 3. 25 Fellmann, Diokletianspalast.

9

arguments using as proof the lay-outs of Luxor, Palmyra

and castra are circular in nature. For Duval Split was

merely a rich fortified villa described best as a

"Chateau". He felt that no `Royal' interpretation could be

given to the Peristyle, vestibule and "tablinum" if Split

was not a palatium and Diocletian was no longer emperor.26

The most recent commentary, written by Wilkes, one of

the principal investigators of the Minnesota and Yugoslav

excavations, recognises the importance of Duval's

interpretation but gives equal consideration to that of

Fellmann. While praising both Duval's and Fellmann's

interpretations, Wilkes stresses the importance of the

Peristyle and central block for the interpretation of the

site. He concludes that clarification of the idea behind

the plan will come with a better understanding of

Galerius' fortified retirement villa at Gamzigrad, which

he feels resembles Split in intent and plan.27

The plan of Split can be redrawn and recast. What was

previously held to be the residence proper is only one

part of the whole; the temple, the Mausoleum and the

26 N.Duval, "La place de Split dans l'architecture aulique du bas-

empire," Urbs 4 (1961-62) 67-95. Duval points out that palaces are

urban administrative centres whereas Split is a rural residence, that

the walls are unlike urban fortifications, that the Peristyle was not

symbolic of imperial authority but rather a traditional facade and

that the street plan is typical of Roman cities especially in the

east. His primary argument is published in a minor journal put out by

the Town Planning Institute of Split. This paper was presented orally

to the Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France of which the text

was subsequently published: N.Duval, "Le „palais‟ de Diocletien a

Spalato a la lumiere des recentes decouvertes," Bulletin de la Societe

nationale des Antiquaires de France (1961) 71-109. 27 J.J. Wilkes, Diocletian's Palace, Split. Sheffield, 1986, pp.56-70.

10

northern blocks are all integral parts of the villa which

occupied the entire area within the walls rather than just

the southern portion. Instead of streets meeting at a

central point in front of the "residence", the streets run

through the residence and cross at a central point marked

by a tetrapylon, with the cardo continuing to the entrance

of the private apartments.28

In the following pages I have examined the design of

the various agglomerations that are supposed to have

influenced the lay-out of Split. It will be seen that

Duval was essentially correct in rejecting the association

between Split, palaces and castra. In fact, many of

assumptions about Diocletian's godhead, kingship, and the

iconography of architectural programmes are open to doubt.

It will be seen that castra had developed new forms by the

time of the Tetrarchy, that Antioch cannot be used freely

as a parallel for Split, that Late Roman palaces are

fundamentally different from Split in scale, function,

location and plan and that Split was not, by definition, a

palace.

The following chapters include a brief description of

the extant remains of Split and a likely reconstruction of

the original appearance. This is followed by a discussion

28 The foundations of the tetrapylon, considered by Duval to be

significantly absent, may have been found in the early 1960's; see B.

Gabricevic, "Decussis Dioklecijanove Palace u Splitu." Vjesnik za

Archeologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku 53-54 (1961-62) 113-24.

11

of the various building types starting with castra and

continuing with palaces and villas. A final chapter places

Diocletian's retirement villa in its true perspective.

12

CHAPTER 2. DIOCLETIAN'S PALACE AT SPLIT.

In May of 305 Diocletian retired from public office

to a residence he had built at Split near his birthplace

at Salona. His prior intention to retire is implicit in

his creation of the joint rule by four emperors,29 and

indicates that the residence was probably under

construction and perhaps even finished by 305. The site is

described in the late 4th and early 5th centuries as "his

villa at Split, not far from Salona".30

Split (fig. 2.1) is located on the Dalmatian coast on

a peninsula opposite the large island of Bras. It was

built on previously undeveloped land31 at the landward end

of a peninsula separating the ria on which Salona stands

from the sea. Neither Salona nor Split had much strategic

or economic importance; Salona was 150 kilometres from the

main road from Aquileia to Sirmium, but both sites had

29 According to a contemporary source, Lactantius 18-19.6, Diocletian

retired at Nicomedeia after his vicennalia in 304. Lactantius suggests

that Diocletian had intended to retire for some time, but that his

decision was precipitated by pressure from his Caesar, Galerius.

Lactantius says that after abdicating Diocletian returned to his

native country but mentions nothing of Split or of Diocletian going to

Salona. Lactantius may have exaggerated Galerius' role, and it is

generally accepted that retirement was part of Diocletian's long-range

plans. Indeed, Lactantius 20.4 says that Galerius himself intended to

retire after his own vicennalia "and at that stage....he in his turn

could lay down his power". Later, at Carnuntum, Diocletian expressed

his happiness in retirement; Aurelius Victor Epitome 39.6. 30 "haut procul a Salonis in villa sua Spalato," Jerome, chronicle, p.

230. "Diocletianus haud procul a Salonis in villa sua Spalato

moritur," Prosper Tiro, Epit. Chron. (Chronica Minora vol. I p. 428).

"in villa quae haud procul a Salonus est," Eutropius, IX.28. 31 Recent excavations found no trace of earlier building activity on

the site: Marasovic et al., p. 41.

13

direct access to the sea and thus to other cities on the

coast of the Adriatic.

The residence at Split stands on gently sloping

ground near the sea shore. It consists of a trapezoidal

enclosure covering a total area of c. 38,400 square

metres. It is oriented 30 degrees west of north and

measures 174.9 and 180.9 metres on the short sides and

215.5 metres on the long sides (fig. 2.2). The walls are

fortified with square angle and interval towers, while

polygonal towers flank the three main gates in the

middle of the north, east and west sides. On the south

side facing the sea there is a small postern and, at

second storey elevation, an arcuated gallery.

The plan of Split is a coherent whole, designed and

laid out on a strictly geometrical basis. The site was

divided on two axes into four parts from a point of origin

at the crossing of the cardo and decumanus32 located about

3 metres north of the geometric centre of the site. This

central point was monumentalised by a freestanding four-

square structure, probably a tetrapylon or tetrakionion,

which also marked the point at which the site surveyor may

32 O.A.W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors. New York, 1971, pp. 231-33.

These terms were used by Roman agrimensores for the north-south and

east-west axes respectively when laying out the limites of

agricultural land holdings. Both words may have originated as augurs'

terms describing the principal axes of towns. Neither was used to

describe the principal streets of camps.

14

have placed his groma or dioptra.33 The walls of the

complex were laid out perpendicular to the axes of the

main streets from an origin at the geometric centre of the

site, rather than the centre of the street intersection. A

module of 55 Roman feet was used to mark off the north and

south walls of the temenoi (fig. 2.3), the north line of

the decumanus, the axis of the mausoleum and the temple,

the wall of the residence and the north wall of the

gallery. The same module can be recognised in the

placement of the east and west walls of the west temenos,

the northern blocks, the cardo, the temple and to a lesser

extent in the complex in the south part of the site.34

Internally the plan of the residence is divided into

five parts. In addition to the four quarters created by

the streets, there is a block extending the width of the

southern part of the site. The area between the temenoi

33 Sir H. G. Lyons, "Land Surveying in Ancient Times," Geographical

Journal 69 (1927) 132-143. The groma was a surveying instrument used

for laying out perpendicular axes. It consisted of a staff on which a

cross-shaped instrument, with plumb lines at the end of each arm, was

set. By sighting along the axes of the plumb lines a surveyor could

describe lines set at 45 and 90 degrees to each other. The dioptra

was an instrument similar to a modern theodolite which was used mainly

in astronomy for the measurement of angles rather than for setting

points. 34 I calculated the length of the foot from the dimensions of the

decumanus from east to west gate (approximately 158.08 metres) and the

cardo from the Porta Aurea to the north wall of the gallery

(approximately 184.43 metres). The ratio of the lengths is exactly 6:7

in units of 26.35 metres. Assuming each of these units is a whole

number of feet long, then each unit is 90 Roman feet of 0.293 metres.

This foot length corresponds with the Roman foot of the third century

and later of 0.294 metres. O.A.W. Dilke, op. cit., p. 82 notes that

military surveyors used 5 Roman feet as a basic measure (2 paces = 1

passus). The Split module of 55 feet is not necessarily a military

measure; W. Macdonald, The Architecture of theRoman World. New Haven,

1982, p. 140 notes that multiples of 5 Roman feet were usual in Roman

buildings.

15

and the fortification walls was used for bath buildings

and other structures. In the northern half of the site a

perimeter street separates cubicles built against the

defensive wall from large complexes of which the plan and

function are unclear.35

The materials used for the construction include white

limestone, quarried on the island of Bras, and small

quantities of a yellow limestone, used for the Porta

Aurea, from Sutilija. For architectural details, exotic

stones were used. These include red and white marble,

porphyry, cipollino, and Egyptian grey and red granites

mainly for the columns and revetments, Proconnesian marble

for the capitals, and tuff from the River Jader for the

arches. Bricks for the walls of internal structures came

from local factories, but those used in the dome of the

mausoleum were imported from Aquileia.36

The fortification walls of the complex are just over

2 metres thick. They rise from a height of 14.5 metres on

the north side to about 16.5 metres on the south side

owing to the seaward slope of the terrain.37 The tops of

the walls in the north part are level, but step down

35 The description of Split given here is derived from Bulic, and from

recent excavation reports. Occasional recourse has been made to

earlier works, notably R. Adam, op. cit. and Niemann. 36 Bulic, pp. 18-20; Marasovic et al., p. 3. 37 Niemann, pl.1; the elevations are scaled from the threshold of the

Porta Aurea to the top of the wall and from ground level at the

southeast corner. Bulic, p. 22 gives these dimensions as 17 and 24

metres respectively. Bulic, measured from the estimated ancient level,

while Niemann measured from the present ground level.

16

slightly immediately to the south of the interval towers

on the south side. The wall in the northern sector has two

storeys. The upper level is pierced at regular intervals

by broad arched windows, 2 metres wide by 3.8 metres high.

Where the wall-top steps down, on the line of the north

face of the residence block, there are three storeys. Here

the window zone descends to the middle-storey elevation.38

On the south side, 9 metres above the ancient ground

level, is a columnar arcade. Originally, at the centre and

at each end of the arcade, were tetrastyle loggias with

tall columns supporting a horizontal architrave broken in

the middle by an arch. Of these the central loggia no

longer stands.� Between the loggias the arcade of the

gallery is interrupted by two taller bays with arcuated

architraves. The gallery is divided into a total of 51

bays. The three central bays and the three at either end

are united to form the loggias. The loggias are separated

by 42 arched bays of which the twelfth to either side of

the central loggia is slightly larger. Above the gallery

the wall probably continued another 5 metres.39

In the middle of each of the sides are gates. Of

these, the north, east and west are large impressive

38 Niemann, fig. 8. 39 Bulic, p. 23 considers the rusticated masonry above the gallery to

be ancient, whereas Niemann, pl. XVIII restores a pitched roof sloping

from the back wall of the gallery to just above the architrave and

with pediments above the loggias. The original wall probably continued

higher and cannot be clearly traced in the present wall which has been

much rebuilt.

17

portals, while that on the seaward side is little more

than a postern or a door leading from the cellars of the

residence to the shore. The north gate, now called the

"Porta Aurea" has a single entrance measuring 4.17 metres

wide by almost 5 metres tall and has a flat arch lintel.�

Above the lintel is a relieving arch, 1.9 metres in

diameter, decorated with a double fascia, a wreath and a

Lesbian cymation moulding on the archivolt.40 Flanking the

arch and above the gate are a series of niches. The two

niches to either side of the arch are semicircular in plan

and 3.1 metres tall. The ornamented sill of each niche

projects beyond the wall plane. Corinthian pilasters

framing the niches are supported by ornate brackets. The

frame of the niches probably supported a Syrian arch

within a triangular pediment. The attic storey was

embellished by an arcaded gallery on colonettes, with

Corinthian capitals and a continuous cornice at the level

of the springers. The colonettes, which survived as late

as 1820, rested on consoles which, except the middle pair

which have minotaur heads, were decorated with acanthus

leaves. Three rectangular niches over the door and niches

of the second elevation alternate with bays with a flat

facade. These and the semicircular niches may have

40 A similar door is shown in a fresco on the wall of St. Apollinare

at Ravenna depicting the palatium of Theodoric. The tympanum of the

gate is in-filled with a mosaic decoration showing Constantine (?)

trampling a serpent. It is possible that the Porta Aurea was an early

example of a decorated relieving arch, see Bulic, p. 25.

18

contained statuary; possibly figures of the Tetrarchs.

Four bases, two large and two small, that still stand atop

the gate may be in situ and may also have supported

sculpture.41

The west gate, the Porta Ferrea, was complete until

damaged by thirteenth century construction. The single

entrance is 3.5 metres wide and originally stood about 5

metres tall. Like the Porta Aurea, it had a flat arch

lintel below a relieving arch. Semicircular niches similar

to those of the north gate originally flanked the arch,

but have now been in-filled.42 Instead of an arcaded

gallery over the gate, the arched windows that run along

the upper part of the curtain wall continue. The east gate

is not well preserved, but was probably similar to the

west gate.� Inside each of the three main gates there is a

courtyard, 9.3 metres deep and 10.6 metres broad, with and

a deep inner portal opposite the entrance. These inner

courts were overlooked and defended by a parapet. The

north and west gates have grooves for a portcullis in the

jambs of the outer portal. It is likely that the east gate

was similarly equipped.43

41 Three colonettes and bases of two others are shown still standing

in Adam's elevation of the gate, while the tympanum was in-filled with

brick and plastered over. For Adam's drawing see Bulic, pl. 13 and pp.

25-7 for a description. Niemann, pl. III. is an excellent state

drawing of the gate. 42 Adam saw and drew the traces of one of these niches. For a

reconstruction of the gate see Niemann, fig. 36. 43 Bulic, pp. 27-8; Niemann, figs. 28-40 for the west gate, figs. 47-

50 for the east gate. The portcullises could be drawn up in grooves

19

Flanking the main gates were fully projecting

octagonal towers of which only vestiges still survive.

Each of these stood three storeys high, and extended above

the curtain wall. Traces of access stairs set within the

wall are evidence for the third storey. The lower storeys

seem to have been roofed with domical vaults of which

traces of the springers are still visible. The corner and

interval towers were square and also projected beyond the

walls. The interval towers are fragmentary, but vestiges

of these can be seen mid-way between the corner towers and

octagonal towers on each side except the south. Enough

remains of a tower north of the west gate to show that

they measured approximately 9 by 9 metres and were three

storeys high. In each of the ground storey walls were

narrow embrasured windows, while in upper storeys were

pairs of arched windows. The angle towers still stand in

relatively good repair. These are 12 metres square and are

attached to the curtain wall only at their inner corners.

The north angle towers had three storeys, while the south

towers had four and projected above the curtain wall. Like

the interval towers there were embrasured windows in the

lowest storey and larger arched windows in the higher

storeys.44

extending vertically through the arches of the gates. This does not

necessarily mean that the tympana were unfilled. 44 Bulic, p. 28. For drawings of the angle towers see Niemann, figs.

12-17, for the interval tower, see fig. 18.

20

On the inside, to the north of the decumanus,

cubicles were attached to the fortification wall, so that

the wall acted as the back wall of each unit. The cubicles

have been traced, immured in the walls of medieval houses,

only at the north end of the west side and at two points

along the north half of the east side. Each unit was 5.5

metres deep and approximately 4.6 metres broad with a door

1.2 metres wide. Approximately 60 units of this size can

be reconstructed, 13 to each side of the Porta Aurea and

17 along both the east and west walls. At the corners and

adjacent to the gates, the units were larger and gave

access to the polygonal and corner towers.45 These rooms

seem to have been used as magazines for storage.46 The

cubicles opened onto an arcuated portico, 4.3 metres wide,

supported on large rectangular piers. Immediately above

the keystones of the arches was a moulded cornice

apparently marking the level of an upper floor.47 The

pavement of the portico was perhaps brick set on a clay

45 Although physical evidence for larger corner cubicles is lacking,

the dimensions along the wall would have allowed space for larger

units at the corners. 46 S. MacNally et al. pp.63-65 for details of Probe `B' in Julija

Nepota Street. This probe uncovered parts of two units, one gave

access to the interval tower on the east side, the other contained one

complete amphora and numerous fragments. The discovery of amphorae in

one room suggests that some rooms were used as magazines.� Others may

have lodged soldiers and their equipment but there is no evidence for

this. 47 See Niemann, fig.51 for a plan and elevation of the piers and

arcade standing at the location of Probe `B'. The openings were 2.6

metres wide. The piers, 1.3 metres wide by 1.7 metres long, stood 1.9

metres high and were surmounted by arches.

21

and mortar base.48 Above the cubicles and portico may have

been more rooms or, as reconstructed by Niemann, a broad

corridor-like parapet or walkway running around the wall

and lit by the arched windows in the upper part of the

curtain wall. This walkway was probably covered by a

longitudinally running, pitched roof (fig. 2.4).49 Running

around the interior in front of the portico and cubicles

is a street about 10 metres wide and paved with

flagstones. This perimeter road joins the cardo and

decumanus at an arch in the colonnades near the main gates

and provides access to the wall, towers and magazines.

In both plan and elevation the cardo and decumanus

with their flanking colonnades are the most prominent

features of the site. They are 12.4 and 11.7 metres wide

respectively with porticoes, 5.6 metres wide, on each

side. The colonnades stood approximately 4.5 metres from

ground to architrave. From the cross-vault at the

intersections of the perimeter street, the columns appear

to have supported a horizontal architrave.50 Beyond the

crossing the line of the cardo continues a further 38.5

metres to the porch of the private apartments (fig. 2.5).

The street is wider here (13.25 metres) and is lined with

48 S. MacNally �et al. pp.64-65.� From various state plans the portico

appears to have extended all the way around the north half of the

site. 49 Niemann, figs.5,10.� Niemann did not find any evidence that the

upper portions were partitioned.� See also Bulic, p.31. 50 Bulic, p.33 notes traces of the colonnades still standing immured

in the bishop's palace as evidence of their appearance.

22

colonnades with arcuated rather than trabeated architraves

(fig. 2.6). The red granite columns of these colonnades

stand 5.25 metres high and rest on pedestals set on square

plinths. The arches spring from Corinthian capitals, and

have a three fascia moulding. Above the arcade the wall

continues to a complex wall-top cornice.51 Cuttings in the

sides of the lower parts of the columns indicate that

balustrades, 2.4 metres high, ran between them.52 The cardo

slopes gently down from the north gate to the porch of the

residence.

Farlati reconstructed two pillars supporting statues

at the intersection of the main streets despite the lack

of any evidence for embellishment at that time.53 In the

early 1960's excavation revealed the foundations of a

massive square structure at the crossing which may

reasonably be interpreted as the base of a tetrapylon

(figs. 2.2, 2.3).54 The foundations indicate that this

51 The cornice consisted of a string course, a torus supporting

dentils, and consoles supporting a projecting cornice decorated with

leaf and tongue motives. 52 Bulic, pp.33-34; Niemann, pl.V,VI, figs.53, 57-58, 61-67.� The

colonnade still stands and is now the Cathedral Square. It is usually

styled `The peristyle' by those describing it, but is rather merely a

street flanked by colonnades ending in a monumental entrance porch. 53 Bulic, pl.7. 54 B. Gabricevic "Decussis Dioklecijanove Palace u Splitu", Vjesnik za

Archeologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku 53-54 (1961-1962), 113-124 with

summary in French. The excavations at the intersection revealed

massive foundations 0.8 metres below the ancient paving. At the

corners of the crossing were four 4 metre square foundations, set 4.2

metres apart, and linked by walls 1.4 metres wide walling. Between the

top of the stones of the foundation and the ancient street level was a

thick layer of cement. The excavator dismissed the possibility of a

tetrapylon because of the cement layer, because the angles of the

stoas did not appear to attach to the central structure and because

such a monument would not be in keeping with the "open plan of the

23

structure exactly filled the intersection and narrowed the

streets to as little as 4.2 metres as they passed under

it.

The northern half of the residence was divided

equally by the cardo, separated from the southern half by

the decumanus and was surrounded by the perimeter street.

Traces of structures in the north half are fragmentary,

and are buried in the walls of later buildings. In the

northwest quadrant remains suggest that the block was

surrounded by a continuous wall (figs. 2.2, 2.3), perhaps

with an entrance in the middle of the west side. The

interior of the block appears to have had a central

court with an arcade set on massive piers, at least on the

west side.55 This arcade probably supported an upper

storey. Considerably more of the northeast block has been

recovered. Here too a continuous wall surrounded the

block. The remains suggest that the block was divided into

three unequal parts and that the north and south parts

were further subdivided, possibly into three large rooms

residence." He suggested that this massive substructure had some

connection with the surveying of the site and was the place where the

groma was set up. Professor Suic interpreted the remains as the

mundus, a sacrificial pit associated with the act of foundation. One

wonders what purpose the foundation could have served in the placement

of the groma which was a lightweight, portable instrument. It seems

more probable that a tetrapylon was intended but never built, or

perhaps built and removed at a later date. 55 See S. MacNally, et al. Dr. 28. For a restored section see Niemann,

figs. 117-118. The perimeter wall has been located intermittently in

the north half of the area only. A file of five piers of the arcade,

resembling those of the arcade in front of the cubicles, has been

identified running parallel to, and circa 11 metres from the west

wall.

24

(figs. 2.2, 2.3). In the middle of the south part, two

edges and a corner of a mosaic pavement of interlocking

circles has been found (fig. 2.7). One edge is bounded by

a stone curb 1.2 metres from a wide east-west wall, the

other runs up to the stub of a wall perpendicular to the

first. About 64 square metres of the mosaic has been

found, indicating that the space within the central room

was probably completely covered. The central section of

the three parts may have been open, for a small drain runs

along the northern side of the east-west wall at floor

level.56 The functions of these areas are unclear. Bulic,

suggested that they were used for servant and military

accommodations but equally they could be an integral part

of the residence itself.57

The basic plan south of the decumanus is more

symmetrical. To either side of the cardo temenoi face onto

the street through the arcuated colonnade (fig. 2.5). The

western temenos is a rectangle measuring approximately 34

by 53 metres (fig. 2.2).� It contains a small podium

temple (9.2 x 20.7 metres) in the western part of the

templum and two circular structures in the eastern part.

The temple is set on a podium 2.87 metres high that

56 Niemann, pp.86-89, figs.113-115. 57 Bulic, p.32. There are problems with this interpretation. No

interior walls have been found in the northwest block, and the lay-out

suggests an open atrium or peristyle court. The northeast block with

its large halls and splendid carpet mosaic does not suggest quarters

for domestic staff, but rather more suites of Diocletian's personal

residence.

25

contains a vaulted cellar. A stairway on the east side,

now destroyed, led up to the deep porch supported on six

columns with Corinthian capitals, four across the facade

and two aligned with the antae. The cella itself,

measuring 5.86 by 7.27 metres, is roofed by a vault with

decorated coffers. The architectural details, including

the door jambs and lintels, the architraves, the consoles

and the cornices are all highly decorated with vegetal

motives, egg-and-dart, bead-and-reel, and even figural

designs.58 The two round structures are adjacent to and

parallel with the colonnade. They have a diameter of

around 11 metres, and appear to have been circular

temples.59

The eastern temenos encloses an area of

approximately 32 by 42 metres and is almost completely

filled by the mausoleum (figs. 2.2, 2.8, 2.9). The

mausoleum is set on an octagonal podium, 5 metres tall and

25.7 metres in diameter, with roughly dressed foundations

rising to a course of orthostats and a projecting wall

head cymation.60 A narrow L-shaped passage in the southwest

corner of the podium runs north to the cross axis of the

58 Bulic, pp.36-38 reconstructs the temple as tetrastyle prostyle with

columns in antis, whereas Niemann prefers the arrangement described,

as no traces of columns in antis could be found and the length of the

porch suggested an intermediate pair of columns. For a reconstruction

and state drawings see Niemann, pp.80-86, pl. XVI-XVII, figs.102-110. 59 J. Marasovic, et al. p.3. They could also, conceivably, have been

foundations for columns like that of Trajan in the Forum of Trajan at

Rome or that of Jupiter Optimus Maximus at Mainz. 60 For the identification of the structure as a mausoleum see Bulic,

p.39.

26

mausoleum then turns east where it enters a low, domed

crypt by descending three steps. The crypt is circular

with eight deep wedge-shaped niches in the walls and a

rectangular wellhead located off centre. The mausoleum is

an octagonal structure with a maximum diameter of 18

metres (7.7 metres on each side) and is surrounded by a

peripteral colonnade standing 3.3 metres from the wall.61

On the west side of the mausoleum the podium is

extended for the porch. A flight of steps ascends between

the extended arms of the parastades to a tetrastyle

prostyle porch. The columns of the porch and the peristyle

are of the Corinthian order and support a horizontal

three-fascia architrave and denticulated cornice. The

central vessel of the mausoleum is two storeys high and

covered with an octagonal, pitched roof. The interior is

circular, 13.3 metres in diameter, with eight niches

alternately semi-circular and rectangular in plan. Each

niche is surmounted by an arch and flanked by free

standing Corinthian columns attached to the entablature by

brackets. In the second storey the exedrae are omitted,

but shorter columns duplicate the ground storey. The

entablature is intricate and consists of two fasciae, an

egg-and-dart moulding, a wreath band, a guilloche band,

61 See MacNally et al. pp.51. The crypt was not used for burial. The

walls are unfinished and rough and there was no trace of settings for

a sarcophaus. Apparently the crypt was closed after construction of

the mausoleum was completed.

27

dentils, and consoles supporting a decorated cornice. The

upper entablature is less ornate, but has a frieze with

hunting scenes and putti holding garlands. The structure

is covered with a brick dome to a height of 21.5 metres.62

Between the temenoi and the fortification wall and

residence the area is filled with different structures. It

was formerly assumed that cubicles flanked the curtain

wall and that the perimeter street continued around and

under the vestibule, but this is not the case.63 Southwest

of the temple is a bath complex of which six small rooms

have been excavated (fig. 2.2). These were oriented on

different rectilinear axes; three had apses and were

probably vaulted, two were circular with niches and were

probably domed. The bath complex left no room for either a

street or cubicles on the west side.64 To the east of the

mausoleum is a peristyle court measuring 13 by 19 metres

(fig. 2.2, 2.10).� The court is entered from the south

colonnade of the decumanus at a point adjacent to the east

gate and opposite the junction with the perimeter road.

The court is bounded by the back wall of the portico and

the mausoleum temenos and has a triple arched doorway on

62 Bulic, pp.39-57; Niemann, pp.62-79 pl.VII,IX-XIV figs.76-98. 63 In earlier reconstructions the cubicles are shown running around

the whole inner face of the defensive wall from the residence block

north; see Niemann, fig.2 for Adam's plan, fig.3 for Clerisseau's and

fig.4 for Niemann's; Hebrard and Zeillers' plan is reproduced in

Bulic, pl.17. Later plans still show this arrangement despite the

physical evidence, for example RIA, fig.308. The true disposition is

shown in F. Sear, op. cit. fig.173. 64 MacNally, op. cit. pp.53-58.

28

piers on the east side. To the south a door led to other

apartments, and finally to another bath complex. The

covered portions of the court were paved with

geometrically patterned mosaics. Gold tesserae indicate

that the walls of the portico or the vaults on the east

side were covered with mosaic decoration.65 At the

southeast corner of the mausoleum temenos is a second bath

building of which the apse and service area of one room

have been uncovered (fig. 2.2). Again, these structures

leave no space for a street or magazines.66

The private apartments occupy the southern fifth of

the complex. The entrance vestibule is 55 Roman feet

square (c. 16 metres) and protrudes beyond this block of

buildings as far as the line of the south walls of the

mausoleum and temple temenoi (fig. 2.2). The vestibule is

approached on the axis of the cardo by a broad flight of

steps leading to a tetrastyle prostyle porch (fig. 2.11).

The columns of the porch are Corinthian and support an

architrave which arches over the central span. The porch

is attached to the ends of the peristyle arcade by short

lengths of wall slightly offset from the line of the

arcade. This effectively closes off the cardo, creating

what is essentially a courtyard flanked by an arcuated

colonnade, terminated at the northern end by the

65 J. Marasovic, et al. pp.13-16. 66 Ibid , pp.27-30.

29

tetrapylon and at the south by a monumental entranceway.

The visual unity of the court is enhanced by the

continuation of the cornice above lateral colonnades as

the architrave of the vestibule porch (fig. 2.5).67

The porch has a triangular pediment with a large

base, perhaps for a statue group at the apex. The

decoration of the entablature is identical to that of the

peristyle.68 The highly decorated door of the vestibule is

centrally placed and measures 3.8 by 2.35 metres. The

jambs have intricate mouldings while the lintel is

embellished with egg-and-dart, dentils, consoles,

guilloche and a vegetal scroll. In the brickwork of the

wall above the door is the chord of a segmental brick

relieving arch. Evidently the surface was originally

covered with marble veneer. The interior of the vestibule

is circular in plan (diameter 11.2 metres) with four

semicircular niches located in the corner piers and a door

opposite the north entrance. This room had two storeys and

measured 16 metres from the floor to the top of the domed

ceiling (fig. 2.6). Within the southeast and southwest

corner piers were stairways leading up through the

thickness of the wall to the second storey gallery. The

masonry is of roughly dressed stone coursed with zones of

brick. The interior was lit by arched windows located

67 Niemann, pls. VI-VII. 68 For illustrations of the porch of the vestibule see Niemann,

pl.XIV,XV, and especially figs.56-58.

30

above the entrance and in the lateral sides at the second

storey level and by windows in the lower part of the dome.

The walls were originally decorated with coloured marble,

moldings, pilasters and pediments over the niches. Beneath

the vestibule is a vaulted cellar, similar to that under

the mausoleum but without niches, that serves as a

crossing of thoroughfares. One passage originated with a

steeply inclined stairway located in the middle of the

porch steps, which ran under the southern block to the

postern in the south wall. The second passage ran between

the service areas of the bath complexes to the southeast

of the mausoleum and southwest of the temple.69

Much of the plan of the southern block is known from

the substructures, which are well preserved in medieval

house walls (fig. 2.2). The upper storey is poorly

preserved, but is sufficient to indicate that its plan

closely followed that of the basement level. Access to the

basement was restricted to the small postern, to the

corridor originating under the main entrance and to stairs

down from a hall in the upper storey. It seems probable

that this part of the complex served primarily as

magazines and provided access from the shore to the

northern part of the site in general.70

69 For elevations and sections of the vestibule see Niemann, pp.55-61;

Bulic, pp.61-62. 70 Bulic, p.24 considers the postern as an exit in case of emergency,

but the inaccessibility precludes this explaination.� R. Fellmann,

31

To judge from the substructures, the first floor

consisted of an intricate complex of small and large rooms

of rectilinear and circular plans. Access to the upper

part of the residence was through the vestibule alone. On

passing through the vestibule, a visitor entered a long

basilical hall, 11.5 by 31 metres, divided into three

aisles by two rows of four piers (fig. 2.2). Doors in the

side walls open onto rooms to the east and west. The hall

was probably roofed with a series of cross vaults. A door

at the south end opens onto the long gallery, 8 by 137

metres, flanked on the south side by the arcade in the

south wall of the enceinte. This gallery gave access to

the various rooms of the complex arranged perpendicular to

it.

On the west side of the axial hall are three blocks

of rooms separated by long narrow spaces which perhaps

served as light wells. Immediately to the west and

parallel to the hall is a block (W1) of six cubicles in

series, each 6 by 4 metres, which open westwards onto a

long corridor.71 The second and fifth units also have a

door in their east sides which communicates with the

central hall through an intermediate light well. This

block is duplicated on the east side of the central hall

"Diokletianspalast" pp.47-55 sees the passage as a continuation of the

cardo. 71 To facilitate discussion the blocks have been designated as W1-3

for the west range and E1-3 for the east range (fig. 2.3). The

description of the private apartments block relies heavily on the

state plan in Marasovic et al. fig.28.

32

(E1). The second block (W2) consists of a large basilical

hall, oriented north to south and measuring 13 by 28

metres. This hall is subdivided into a nave and aisles by

arcades supported on piers. Three doors open onto the hall

from the gallery on the south side and give access

directly to the nave and aisles. At the north end of the

nave a semicircular apse, 7 metres in diameter, cuts into

the thickness of the north wall and is separated from the

nave by spur walls. Flanking the apse are square stair

wells perhaps leading up to the second level galleries

over the aisles and descending to the basement where they

open into the cellars and onto the service area of the

bath to the north. Like the central hall, this upper space

was probably roofed with cross vaults. Two doors in each

of the side walls communicate with the blocks to the east

and west through light wells. The third block (W3)

consists of fourteen interconnecting rooms. The largest

room, immediately to the west of the basilica hall, is a

long hall with an apse at its north end. Of the remaining

rooms, six are rectangular in plan, two circular, one

square, one square with a large apse, two cruciform and

one quatrefoil. The rooms must have been covered with

vaults appropriate to their plan, i.e. domes, semi-domes,

barrel and cross vaults. Together these rooms presented a

complex series of variously-shaped spaces which were

perhaps highly decorated with mosaic and marble veneer,

33

designed both to impress the visitor and to please the

owner.

To the east of the central hall are three more blocks

of rooms. The first (E1) mirrors the range of rectangular

cubicles on the west side. The second block (E2) is

cruciform and set within a rectangular, perhaps unroofed,

space that extends as much as 36 by 30 metres and is

surrounded on three sides by corridors and on the fourth

by the gallery. From the gallery the main room is

approached through a small rectangular vestibule flanked

by and perhaps adjoining two small rooms. The main room

has a cruciform interior plan with semicircular corner

niches. Doors in the north, east and west walls open onto

smaller cruciform rooms that in turn have doors in their

outer walls giving access to the area between the

corridors and the block itself. The ceilings of the side

chambers must have been cross-vaulted while the central

room may have had a domical vault. The wall surfaces were

perhaps covered with marble veneer and decorative

architectural elements. The third block (E3) is not well

known and seems to have been a simple series of large

rectangular rooms separated from block E2 by a light

well.72

72 See MacNally,et al. pp.13-15 for excavation of the substructures of

the easternmost block. A general description of the residence is

provided by Bulic, pp.63-67 and Niemann, pp.95-109, figs. 129-140.

34

The function of the southern part of the site has

been much discussed. It is generally thought to have been

the personal residence of Diocletian whereas the area to

the north is regarded as storage and housing of

Diocletian's retinue.73 The domed vestibule has been

granted ceremonial status, perhaps a throne room, although

the location of doors in both the north and south sides

makes this space unsuitable for such a use. More likely it

was just a transitional room between the outside street

and the apartments within, in other words, a vestibule74

like that opening onto the northwest portico of the Domus

Flavia on the Palatine at Rome.75 The hall to the south of

the vestibule, often interpreted as the tablinum, should

rather be seen as a splendid hall giving access to the

gallery and to blocks W1 and E1 on either side.76 The rows

of small rooms, W1 and E1, are open onto corridors and are

flanked by light wells for the larger structures on either

side.� Block W2 is basilical in form and closely parallels

the basilical halls acting as tablina in contemporary

73 Bulic, pp.32,61-67. 74 J.J. Wilkes, op. cit , p.62.

75 RIA, fig.36; W. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire, II

, New Haven, 1982, p.54, fig. 40 #8. This room of the Domus Flavia has

a square outside plan. The interior is circular with semicircular

niches in the corners. Four doors, one in each of the sides, give

access on one axis to the peristyle and on the other axis to flanking

complexes of semicircular rooms. The room probably had a domed roof. 76 J.J. Wilkes, op. cit. p.62.

35

villas and palaces.77 The form is an element common to

domestic architecture and must have served as a reception

room.78 The block of 14 small rooms, W3, must have been

relatively private apartments for the relaxation of

Diocletian, and perhaps included his bedchamber. The oddly

shaped block, E2, resembles a similar block of rooms at

Gamzigrad and to a certain extent the triconch at the

Piazza Armerina. It is set within a rectangular area, and

presumably was well lit from outside. It was perhaps used

as the triclinium or dining room.79 Finally, the gallery

provided access to the various apartments and as a

promenade overlooking the sea.

77 For instance at Piazza Armerina and the Villa of Maxentius on the

Via Appia. Close parallels on a larger scale can also be found in the

basilical halls of the palaces of Trier and Thessalonika. 78 Ibid, p.62. 79 The structure at Gamzigrad has not been fully interpreted, but

according to Sear, Roman Architecture, p. 270, the triconch at the

Piazza Armerina may have been a triclinium.

36

CHAPTER 3. CAMPS.

The idea that Split's plan was derived from Roman

military camps has become an accepted fact in the most

authoritative textbooks in English. In the introduction I

have pointed out that this idea may have originated with

Sebastiano Serlio in the fifteenth-century, and was

certainly entertained by Spon in 1677. The idea still

appears in the accounts of recent excavations at Split80

and in a recent article which compares the plan of Split

to the arrangements of those found in Late Roman castra

with a cruciform street plan and limes forts.81 In order to

establish whether military architecture influenced the

plan of Split it is necessary to examine the various types

of plan used as comparanda by previous commentators. These

include traditional full scale legionary camps, camps with

crossing streets and limes forts. The degree to which

Split was influenced by these building types will be

assessed. Finally the Camp of Diocletian at Palmyra and

the complex at Luxor will be discussed and their function

and plan compared with Split.

80 J. Marasovic et al., 3. 81 Fellmann, "Diokletianspalast", 47-55. Fellmann assigned Split to

his last "catch-all" group, which displays mixed features. These

include the fortifications, principia and shape of traditional camps,

the arrangement of strigae found in small forts such as Alzei and

Tamara, the crossing street plan found at Portchester, Palmyra and

Luxor, and the overall arrangement of forts like Daganiya and Qasr

Qarun. It will become apparent that Fellmann's typology is flawed and

that his examples either do not have

the features he describes, are anachronistic comparisons or are "odd".

37

The descriptions of a traditional camp plan provided

by Hygenus (before the mid third-century) and Polybius

(c.200-c.117 B.C.)82 refer specifically to the construction

of marching camps (fig. 3.1). Archaeological evidence for

permanent legionary camps corresponds to these

descriptions and the plan abounds throughout the empire.

Typical examples are the castra of Neuss, built in stone

on the lines of its turf original in the late first-

century, Housesteads (fig. 3.2), a second-century castra

built for 800 men, and the Syrian camp of el-Leggun (fig.

3.5) on the eastern limes, which was constructed in the

early years of the fourth-century.

The camp described by Polybius (fig. 3.1) was one

designed for two legions and allies (about 18,600 men). It

was to be laid out in a square 2017 Roman feet to each

side (596 metres), and enclosing an area of about 35.5

hectares. The camp was divided into two unequal parts by

the via principalis which ran from the porta principalis

sinistra to the porta principalis dextra and flanked the

front edge of the principia enclosure. The via praetoria

ran perpendicular to the via principalis from the porta

praetoria to the entrance of the principia where it joined

the via principalis. Lesser streets divided the interior

of the camp into orthogonal blocks laid out for the

housing of troops, for the stabling of animals and for the

82 Hygenus, De munitionibus castorum. Polybius, Historiae 6.27-42.

38

storage of weapons and supplies. The via decumana extended

the line of the via praetoria beyond the principia

compound, and led to the fourth of the main gates, the

porta decumana. An intervallum street ringed the occupied

interior and separated it from the circuit wall; this

street is often called the via sagularis. The via

sagularis gave free access to the ramparts and ensured

free circulation from all parts of the camp to each of the

four gates.83

The Hygenian camp was for three legions

(approximately 40,000 men) and in most respects it closely

resembled the plan of Polybius.84 Lambaesis (fig. 3.3), in

North Africa, from the Hadrianic period, follows the

Hygenian scheme. It was rectangular with sides 550 by 450

metres long and was divided into three parts by

transverse, east-west streets running in front of and

behind the principia. These correspond to the via

principalis and via quintana respectively. Joining the via

principia at a monumental tetrapylon in front of the

principia, the via praetoria ran north to the north gate.

Both these main streets were over 20 metres wide, were

flanked by colonnades, and unlike the lesser throughfares

which had earth surfaces, were paved. The principia was

83 E. Fabricius, "Some Notes on Polybius's Description of Roman

Camps", JRS, 22 (1932) 78-87; Lander, pp. 12-15; A. Johnson, Roman

Forts, London 1983, 27-29. 84 A. Johnson, op. cit., pp. 29-30.

39

particularly large, measuring 102 by 93 metres (9500

sq.m). On the south side a row of four structures with

apses flanked administration buildings. In front of this

range was a large court surrounded on three sides by

smaller rooms which opened onto colonnades. Access to the

complex was through a monumental entranceway straddling

the junction of the via principalis and the via

praetoria.85 The remaining area is subdivided into blocks

reserved for barracks and storage.

It can be seen from this discussion of traditional

Roman legionary camps that the principal streets describe

a "T" plan not a "+" plan as is found at Split.

A late development, starting in the "crisis" of the

third-century, and put into effect largely by Diocletian,

was the reorganisation of the limes to create a `frontier

in depth'. As a result, the traditional legionary camp

acted as a headquarters and strategic reserve behind the

lines, while a large number of forts and fortlets were

spread densely along the limes. The traditional camps were

modified in design resulting in the reduction of the

importance of certain gates. The porta decumana and porta

praetoria of these camps are often small, not much more

than posterns, while the porta principalis sinistra and

dextra remained important. In this new scheme the via

85 F. Sear, op. cit. p 206-208; A. Johnson, op. cit. 120, fig. 92.

40

principalis became the primary thoroughfare, and the main

axis of the camp thus flanked the principia rather than

running up to it. This change in plan is visible in many

camps, for instance the forts of the Saxon Shore which

belong mostly to the late third and early fourth

centuries.86

Portchester castle (fig. 3.4) is a typical example of

such a fort and is of importance to Split not only because

it is contemporary, but also because it was thought to

have had a cruciform street plan.87 This however, is not

the case. The castra is almost square, measuring 182

metres by 188 metres, with U-shaped interval and corner

towers. The four gates are located in the middle of each

side. The east and west gates, only 3 metres wide, are

built into 11-metre wide recesses formed by the inturning

of the curtain wall. They are plainly the main entrances

to the camp, and the road running between them the main

thoroughfare. The gates in the middle of the north and

south walls were probably postern gates. Although a street

led from the south gate to the centre of the camp, there

is no evidence to suggest that it continued to the north

postern.88 The finds and stratigraphy suggest a

86 For the forts of the Saxon Shore see R. E. Collingwood, and I.

Richmond, The Archaeology of Roman Britain , London 1939, 1969, p 47-

56, fig. 20. 87 Fellmann, "Diokletianspalast", 49, fig. 4. 88 B. Cunliffe, "Excavations at Portchester Castle, Hants. 1961-3," AJ

43 (1963) 218-227; �idem , "Excavations at Portchester Castle, Hants.

41

construction date in the late third-century under

Carausius. There is no evidence at Portchester that the

via principalis and via praetoria crossed, or to suppose

that the principia occupied any but its expected position

to the north of the intersection of the via principalis

and via praetoria.89

The cruciform street plan of Drobeta has, like that

thought to exist at Portchester, been compared with

Split.90 Drobeta, a small traditional legionary camp

measuring 127 by 144 metres, was laid out during the reign

of Trajan (fig. 3.5 left).91 At some point, probably during

the reign of Aurelian (270-275), the camp was modified.

The gates at the ends of the via principalis and via

praetoria were closed off and converted into interval

towers, while fan-shaped towers were added at the corners

with projecting interval towers in between. The camp was

further modified under Valentinian (364-375), when the

principia was either moved or eliminated (fig. 3.5

right).92 This final phase of construction radically

changed the internal plan of the camp. The main north-

south street remained on the axis of the original gates,

1966-1968" AJ 49 (1969) 62-74; idem "Excavations at Portchester

Castle, Hants. 1969-71," AJ 52 (1972) 70-84. 89 R. Fellmann, "Diokletianspalast" fig. 4 uses a plan reproduced by

H. Von Petrikowits, "Fortifications in the North Western Roman Empire

from the Third to the Fifth Centuries A.D.", JRS 61 (1971) 178-218,

fig. 20. In this illustration the lines of the streets are shown

running for a short distance from the four gates giving the misleading

impression that they crossed at the centre of the camp. 90 Fellmann, Diokletianspalast, 49, fig. 10. 91 Lander, 171, fig. 30. 92 Lander, fig. 274.

42

while the main east-west street was moved from the line of

the via principalis northwards to intersect the via

praetoria at the middle of the camp. Both streets were

flanked by colonnades and strigae.

At Porchester therse is no evidence for crossing

streets, and at Drobeta the pattern seems to have evolved

in the latter part of the fourth century, long after the

construction of Diocletian's Palace at Split. Comparisons

between Split and cruciform plans are therefore, at best,

anachronistic.93

In another part of the empire, the traditional

"playing card" plan persisted, but even though the "T"

shaped arrangement of streets continued to be employed,

the emphasis on their relative importance shifts. El-

Leggun (fig. 3.6) has only recently been explored in

detail, but the Diocletianic date and apparently

traditional plan have been long known.94 The camp was

rectangular, measuring approximately 270 by 210 metres,

with circular corner towers and projecting U-shaped

interval towers. Of the gates in each of the sides the

north and east have a triple entrance consisting of the

main gate with flanking passageways for pedestrian

traffic. Both the west and south gates have only one

aperture. The principal streets lead from the north, east

93 Lander, 171. 94 Brunnow and Domaszewski, fig. 42; S. Thomas Parker, "Central Limes

arabicus Project", ASOR Newsletter, December, 1982 p 6-14.

43

and south gates and meet at the centre of the camp in

front of the principia. Recent excavations have revealed

the remains of a monumental tetrapylon marking the groma

at the intersection of the principal streets.95 The

principia complex consisted of a large rectangular court,

64 by 41 metres in plan, with three large buildings at the

west end. The central structure of the complex had a

monumental entrance 3 metres wide which still preserves

fragments of a metal barred door. Around the walls a low

podium was carried on barrel vaults, and opposite the door

was a raised pier with a socket, perhaps to receive the

legionary standard. It has been suggested that the vaults

lining the wall served as strong boxes of the bank.

Displaced to either side of the principia were blocks of

barracks and stores.

The features in the plan of Split thought to have

been drawn from Legionary camps are the street plan, the

form of the fortifications, and the location of the

principia. The cruciform arrangement at Split was compared

with that of camps such as Portchester and Drobeta by

Fellmann, but these comparisons do not stand scrutiny.

At Portchester there is clear evidence that the streets

did not cross, whereas Drobeta did not acquire its

cruciform plan until long after Split was built. In

95 For the tetrapylon see S. Thomas Parker, "Central Limes arabicus

Project" Syria Vol. 63 (1986) pp. 401-5.

44

addition, the comparison of the Split plan with that of

the traditional castra is anachronistic. Portchester and

el-Leggun are just two examples of how, by the turn of the

fourth-century, the emphasis of axis and access had

changed in large camps. These examples demonstrate a

reduction in the number and location of principal gates

and consequently the emphasis on the major axes.96 At

Split, the gates and main streets show little of this

emphasis. As is proper, the cardo is larger than the

decumanus and it is clear that the Porta Aurea is the

principal entrance. This the form expected in the plan of

both cities and the older castra but not that of

contemporary castra. It must, however, be admitted that

there is a visual, if illusory, resemblance in the plan

and that Split's fortifications are derived ultimately

from a military source.

The southern block at Split has been compared with

the principia of camps as both were thought to have been

residences; at Split that of Diocletian, and in camps that

of the commander. In camps the principia occupied a

central location at the intersection of the via

principalis and the via praetoria where it was accessible

to all the garrison. It consisted of a open area for

parades and buildings devoted to the administration of the

96 Other examples include numerous eastern forts, see Lander, figs.

185, 202, 207, 211, 212, and 220.

45

camp, including the bank, offices, and the temple of the

signia. The residence of the commander was not in the

principia, but in a separate smaller complex called the

praetoria, also near the centre of the camp. For instance,

at Dura on the Euphrates the commander resided in quarters

near the principia, while the villa of the Dux ripae stood

on the edge of the city some distance from the centre of

the camp.97

At Split the element thought to be comparable to the

principia was neither central nor accessible; the private

apartments occupied the whole width of the extreme south

end of the site and was accessible only from a single

entrance on the north side. There was no Temple of the

Signia, no bank, no offices, no mustering place, indeed it

was private not public space. It is also essential to

recognise, as emphasised in chapter 2, that the private

apartments were only a fraction of the residence as a

whole, which occupied the whole interior of the walled

enclosure.

97 Fellmann, Die Principia, p 75-92, and idem. "Le Camp" 178,

convincingly argues that the principia and praetorium had quite

separate functions. The former had a purely military and religous

function

while the latter was the residence of the military commander. Fellmann

places both near the centre of the camp, but puts the principium at

the intersection of the principal streets. Some still prefer to refer

to the central complex as the praetorium, for example, A. Johnson,

�op. cit.. p 29-30 and 311, n. 24.

46

The cubicles ranged around the curtain wall have been

compared with the strigae of small forts in general. By

the turn of the fourth-century Small forts were used

increasingly frequently for outposts and garrisons on the

limes. These were generally limited in scale and made

economical use of all the available area within the walls.

The space saving features developed by military architects

included the removal of storage and living quarters from

the centre of the camp and arranging them along the

defensive walls. It is this innovation that was apparently

used in the northern part of the enceinte at Split, and

raises the question whether the plan of Split may have

been influenced by fort design. Of the many forts of this

type, two serve to illustrate the variety of plans

employed. These have been chosen because they have been

used as comparanda for Split.

The simplest type is exemplified by Masad Tamar (fig.

3.7) which is typical of small of the limes in the east

and in North Africa in Late Roman times. Particularly

interesting is the identification of the function of the

various rooms in the fort, especially the recognition of

the principia, headquarters and praetorium.98 The fort is

located on the limes palestinae in the northern Negev

desert about 20 miles south of the Sea of Galilee, and is

98 M. Gichon, "Three Years Excavation at Masad Tamar (Tamara)",

Saalburger Jahrbuch 33 (1976).

47

attributed to Aurelian (270-275) or to Probus (276-282).

It was laid out in a square, 38 by 38 metres in plan, with

square angle towers and a single gate in the middle of the

northwest side.� The buildings were arranged exclusively

along the curtain wall leaving a central courtyard

occupied by a large subterranean cistern. The strigae , in

two groups of six rooms, were placed along the the

southwest and southeast sides only, and had colonnades in

front of them. The rooms on the northeast side were larger

than the strigae and have been interpreted as the

sacellum, principia and, in a suite of rooms in the

northeast corner, the praetorium. On the northwest side,

guard chambers flanked the gate, while other rooms were

apparently stores and a bakery.99 Access to the ramparts

above the rooms abutting the wall was provided by steps to

either side of the gate and in the southeast corner of the

courtyard. Gichon suggests that each striga was occupied

by as many as 10 men, and that the whole fort, only 1450

square metres, housed a total of over 100. The fort was

built at the end of the third-century and was

discontinuously occupied until 635.100

A variant of the basic plan represented by Masad

Tamar is to be found at Qasr Qarun (fig.3.8), southeast of

99 In the room identified as a bakery there were found grinding stones

for milling grain and a furnace. 100 M. Gichon, "Tamara" in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations

in the Holy Land, p 1148-1152. Edited by M.Avi-Yonah, and E.Stern.

Jerusalem, English edition, 1978.

48

Cairo in Egypt.101 The fort is larger than Masad Tamar and

incorporates interior blocks of strigae into the plan.

Besides the strigae, the short street flanked by

colonnades is of particular interest, for it has evoked

comparison with the street leading to the vestibule at

Split.

Qasr Qarun had a rectangular circuit, measuring 93 by

79 metres in plan, with square angle towers and U-shaped

interval towers. The solitary gate on the north side

consisted of a triple portal which enclosed a narrow space

in the thickness of the wall, and between the second and

third portals, a small court flanked by benches. The

interior of the fort was divided into two halves by an

7.5-metre wide avenue flanked by colonnades which ran from

the gate to a structure against the south wall. This

building, measuring 12 by 7 metres in plan, consisted of a

small square cella entered from the north through a

shallow porch offset from the avenue by a short flight of

steps and by columns in antis. The south wall of the cella

was filled by a broad semi-circular apse and doors in the

west wall gave access to two small rooms. The

identification of this structure as a temple was based

partly on the plan and partly the discovery of a small

Tyche or Nemesis statue found in the cella.

101 J. Schwartz, et al. Qasr Qarun/Dionysias II, 1950, Cairo, 1969.

49

To the west of the temple a 17.5 by 20-metre block of

rooms abutted the south wall of the fort. These

interconnecting rooms were arranged around a central

staircase leading to an upper storey and were thought to

have been the administrative block.� To the east of the

temple was a long hall lined with a bench along the walls.

The barracks were arranged along the walls on every side

except the west end of the south wall. Two extra blocks of

strigae flanked the colonnaded avenue and were entered on

the side away from the street. The blocks were disposed so

that the doors of the strigae opened onto porticoes

surrounding two courtyards. Stairways in each block gave

access to both the defensive towers and a second storey.

The date of Qasr Qarun is fixed by references to the

fort in papyri. A number of documents contain

administrative data prepared by the commander of the camp,

Flavius Abinaeus, who was appointed the prefect of a

cavalry ala quingeneria (500 men) in March 340. Such texts

demonstrate that the fort existed by the middle of the

fourth-century, and earlier fragments may attest its

existence at the beginning of the century. Its location,

set well inside the southern border of the empire,

suggests a role linked with administration rather than

defence.

The fort has attracted the attention of architectural

iconographers because of its unusual colonnaded street

50

leading from the gate to the temple. The excavators

concluded that this was part of a single building element

which they interpreted as the archetype of a "ceremonial

basilica". They compared this with the approach to the

vestibule at Split and also to that part of the palace of

Theodoric shown in the early sixth century mosaic in San

Apollinare Nuovo at Ravenna.102 The concept of a

"ceremonial basilica", however, is inappropriate because

the avenue is a thoroughfare not a self-contained

building. The similarity between the the approach to the

temple at Qasr Qarun and the approach to the vestibule at

Split is striking, particularly if the temple facade were

to be reconstructed with a "Syrian arch", but not

nesessarily significant. Streets with colonnades and

"Syrian arches" were particularly common in the east, and

it would be surprising if the two were not used together

frequently. Differences between Split and Qasr Qarun are

reflected in the relative complexity of their plans; that

one was a residence, the other an administrative fort, in

one the colonnades lead to the vestibule of the private

apartments, in the other to a temple. Similarities are the

cubicles, the gate form and the street.

102 J. Schwartz, et al., op. cit.; for the mosaic in San Apollinare see

E.Dyggve, Ravennatum Palatium Sacrum, fig. 49; J.-M. Carrie, "Les

Castra Dionysiados et l'evolution de l'architecture militaire romaine

tardive", MEFR 86 (1974) 819-850.

51

The use of the defensive wall at Split as the back

wall of magazines has been compared with the similar

features in small military forts. This use of the

fortification enceinte for the back wall of barracks and

other military structures is considered to be a relatively

late phenomenon, but a number of earlier examples are

known from as early as the end of the second-century.103 It

now appears that this practice was not chronologically

significant, but rather a question of size. The use of

cubicles along the defensive wall is usually restricted to

smaller defensive structures with wall lengths between 40

and 65 metres, although castra of intermediate size, such

as Qasr Qarun, often display a combination of internal

structures with structures built along the wall. The

displacement of structures within forts was intended to

save space, and a similar concern may have prompted the

designers of Split to adopt this already well established

practice.

The plan of Split does seem to have been influenced

by the design of forts in as much as the architects of

both utilised as much of the available interior space as

possible. Apart from banal comparisons between the

fortifications of forts and Split, similarities are hard

103 For example, Tisavar in Tripolitania, dates to the reign of

Commodus (180-192); Lander, 102-4. Qser el-Uweinid, Lander, 139, fig.

132; Qasr el-Hallabat in its final phase, Lander, 139 and 260; Qasr

el-Aseiklun, Lander, 139, fig. 132, all date to the early third-

century.

52

to find. The avenue and colonnades approaching the temple

at Qasr Qarun, which are reminiscent of the Peristyle of

Split, are hardly typical of military architecture, and

more likely are derived from a third, unrelated source.

This element seems to be tied to the function of the camp

as an administrative centre. The majority of forts have a

practical plan related to their military function. They

are strung along the limes and are extremely small.104

Split too has a plan related to its function, but this is

residential not military. Any resemblance between Split's

plan and forts lies in the fortifications and the presence

of cubicles along the defensive wall.

The closest parallels for the street plan of Split

are to be found at Palmyra and Luxor. These three have a

cruciform plan unparalleled in military architecture of

the period. The argument that Luxor, Split and Palmyra

have military functions is somewhat circular; when

pointing to the military plan of one, the other two are

invoked as proof, yet independent evidence is not

forthcoming. Similarly circular is the argument that the

"Camp of Diocletian" at Palmyra was a palace of Zenobia.

The city of Palmyra grew rapidly during the first-

century. The city reached its apogee of wealth in the 3rd

104 The largest fort, Da'janiya (1 ha.), Brunnow and Domaszewski, 8-13,

fig.1, is only 25% of the size of Split (3.9 ha.), while the smallest,

Masad Tamar (0.15 ha.) has only 4% of the area of Split.

53

century, and declined after a brief spell of independence

under Septimius Odenathus and his wife Zenobia. Under the

Tetrarchs the town played a part in his system of defence

in depth on the limes arabicus. Diocletian constructed new

walls, refurbished a number of existing buildings and

perhaps added new ones.105 Numerous major monuments have

survived including two Roman military camps. Of one camp

relatively little is known except from late second-century

inscriptions and associated finds.106 The other camp is the

so-called "Camp of Diocletian" located just within the

western salient of the defensive wall next to the Damascus

gate off the Transverse Colonnade.

The "Camp of Diocletian" lies within an irregular

westward extension of the city fortification wall (fig.

3.9).� The complex is separated from the remainder of the

city by a long wall running parallel with the Transverse

Colonnade. This wall is pierced by a single triple gateway

called the porta praetoria by the excavators. The

excavated lower part of the camp is divided into four

irregularly shaped blocks by two broad streets

intersecting at a monumental tetrapylon. The primary

street, the via praetoria, runs west from the porta

praetoria 58 metres to the tetrapylon and thence 47 metres

105 M. A. R. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra, London 1976, 11-23; D.

Crouch, "The Ramparts of Palmyra" Studia Palmyrenskie 6 (1975) 6-44. 106 I. A. Richmond, "Palmyra Under Rome" JRS 53 (1963) 43-54, 49. For

the location see J. Starcky, Palmyre Paris, 1959, 42, pl. 3.

54

to steps leading to the gateway of the forum and the

principia beyond. This street, about 12.5 metres wide, is

flanked by continuous colonnades on a line with the

pilasters of the tetrapylon to which they were was

attached. The via principalis, which crosses the via

praetoria at the tetrapylon gives the "camp" its cruciform

plan; it is narrower and was not attached to the

tetrapylon.107

The tetrapylon is rectangular, 14.25 by 14.45 metres

in plan, and is made of white calcareous blocks. Nothing

of the superstructure has survived, but sufficient

evidence exists to show that it had a pediment and

architrave. These were supported by facades with pilasters

and columns in antis standing 7.4 metres from the ground

to the architrave.108

According to the excavators the

streets and the tetrapylon were not contemporary. The

earliest phase consists of the colonnade in front of the

temple of Allat which may predate the tetrapylon by as

much as 150 years. The other colonnades were also

constructed before the tetrapylon.109 Although the

decoration and style of the tetrapylon suggest a date in

the middle of the third-century, the presence of reused

architectural, sculptural and inscription fragments built

107 K. Michalowski, Palmyre I. Fouilles Polonaises, 1959 , Paris, 1960,

41ff. 108 Ibid., 10-12. 109 Idem, Palmyre II. Fouilles Polonaises, 1960 , Warsaw 1962,20,40-1.

55

into the foundations are thought to be evidence that it

was constructed after the Aurelian sack, probably during

the reign of Diocletian.110

At the west end of the via praetoria a stairway leads

to the entrance of the forum. This gate is almost

completely preserved to the top of the pediment.111 The

colonnades of the street run up to the facade and the

porticoes open onto subsidiary entrances to each side of

the principal gate. The central door is preceded by two

columns, apparently free standing, and is flanked by

pilasters supporting the pediment above the door which is

broken by a "Syrian arch" with an in-filled tympanum. Two

phases of the gate have been identified. The earlier was

built after the middle of the second-century; the later,

on the basis of its architectural decoration, was built at

the same time as the tetrapylon.112

The forum is a rectangular space, 48.5 by 62.4

metres, surrounded on three sides by a colonnaded portico.

On the east and west sides small rooms open onto the

portico, with a small latrine in the southwest corner. On

the north side of the forum, stretching its whole length,

is the �principia. It is entered through a triple

entranceway preceded by a tetrastyle porch and a grandiose

110 Fellmann, "Le Camp", 174-5. 111 K. Michalowski, Palmyre III. Fouilles Polonaises, 1961, PWN: Warsaw

1963, 21 and fig.20. 112 Idem, Palmyre II, 38; M. Krogulska, "A Ceramic Workshop in the

Western Quarter of Palmyra," Studia Palmyrenskie VIII (1985) 68.

56

flight of steps.113 The triple door opens onto a long

transverse hall stretching the length of the building

(62.5 metres).� Off the hall a series of rooms along the

west wall are entered through broad doors divided by

columns in antis. The central room of this series lies on

the central axis of the complex, and has been described as

the "Temple of the Signia" by the excavators. It is 14.6

metres long by 11.9 metres broad with an 9.5 metre

diameter apse opposite the door. It was above this door

that the inscription thought to identify the complex was

found by early travellers.114 To either side of the

`Temple' are flanking rooms which presumably served as

scholae and archive rooms. The decoration appears to be

contemporary with the tetrapylon and the entrance to the

forum.115

There is controversy about the date and function of

the "Camp of Diocletian". Early travellers made no

connection between the inscription found in the principia

and the area in which it was found, thinking that it

113 M. Krogulska, "Les principia" in M.Galikowski, ed. Palmyre VIII,

Warsaw 1984, 70-90. 114 AA 21 (1906) 43.� The inscription reads; [reparato]res orbis sui et

propagatores generis humani DD Diocletianus [et Maximianus]/

[invicti]ssimi imp et Constantius et Maximianus nobb caess castra

feliciter condiderunt/ [curam age]ite Sossiano Hieroclete V.P. Praes

Provinciae D. N.M. Q. eorum/

CIL, III 133 no.6661. The name of Maximian was erased and later

redrawn in purple, presumably after the death of Maxentius. The second

Maximian refers to Galerius. Sossianus Hierocles was governor of

Augusta Libanensis between 293 and c.300. Before 303 he became

vicarius of Oriens: T. D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian, 141,

153. 115 M. Galikowski, "Les Principia de Diokletien, `Temple des

Enseignes'" in M. Galikowski, ed. Palmyre VIII, Warsaw 1984, 10-48.

57

referred to the refortification of the whole city by

Diocletian.116 Most scholars except Schlumberger accept the

identification of the area as a camp. Schlumberger

concluded that the camp was actually a palace of Odenathus

and Zenobia adapted for a military use at a later date.�

As proof he offered the unusual plan, the lack of regular

ramparts, the date of the architectural decoration and the

apparent similarity to Split.117

In favour of the camp

interpretation are the plan of the �principia and the

inscription.

A summary of the chronological phases demonstrates

the problems of interpretation that have been encountered.

Initially, part the site was used as a cemetery, and part

as a pottery workshop. Sometime in the second-century,

crossing streets with colonnades and a stairway up to a

gate on the west side of the site were constructed, and

the Temple of Allat built. This early phase of the plan

was later modified by the addition of a tetrapylon at the

intersection of the street, a new stair ramp and gateway,

and a large building called the principia by the

excavators. This phase is datable on decorational style to

the middle of the third-century, but may represent reuse

of decorated architectural elements during the reign of

116 R. Wood, The Ruins of Palmyra Otherwise Known as Tedmor in the

Desert, London 1753, 31. 117 D. Schlumberger, “Le pretendu Camp de Diocletien a Palmyre,” MUSJ

38 (1962) 82.

58

the Tetrarchs. It is unlikely that reused blocks could

have been used to produce such a unified and complete

decorational programme as is found in these three later

major structures, thus Schlumberger's suggestion, that the

buildings were merely refurbished for a military use by

Sossianus Hierocles, is a real possibility.118

Whatever the original and final intent for the

complex, it is difficult to compare it with Roman camps,

on the one hand, or with Split on the other. The Street

plan, even if original and designed this way, is only

exceptionally found in castra.119

The principia, however,

does have close parallels with that of Lambaesis.120As the

plan evidently developed over the course of a century or

more, and cannot be considered typical of camp plans, the

use of the "Camp of Diocletian" as proof that Split

developed from military architecture is totally

inappropriate. There is no evidence to support

Schlumberger's contention, based on comparison with Split,

that the complex at Palmyra was a palace. Both Split and

the "Camp" have crossing streets, but in one it was a

planned element in a residence, in the other it is a odd

survivor of a pre-existing city plan later employed for a

different function. The principia so closely parallels

118 Ibid., 82. 119 At Luxor, and in rather a different form in the latest phase at

Drobeta. 120 Fellmann, "Le Camp" 173-191.

59

military administration blocks that comparison with the

private quarters at Split is difficult to accept.

LUXOR

Another site compared with Split is the contemporary

double castra at Luxor in Egypt (fig. 3.11). Again the

point of comparison is the cruciform street plan. The camp

was laid out at the beginning of the fourth century

encompassing the New Kingdom Temple of Ammon at Luxor.121

Up to this time the temple had consisted of a large

complex of hypostyle halls and courtyards arranged on axis

and covering an area of 60 by 250 metres. The camp was

laid out parallel with the east bank of the Nile and

incorporated the temple as its long axis. Enough has been

uncovered to show that the walls extended perhaps as far

as the south wall of the temple and enclosed an area of

approximately 190 by 250 metres (4.7 ha.). Excluding the

pylon of Ramses II on the north side of his courtyard,

three gates have been revealed and the location of a

fourth is implied. Two gates are situated one to either

side of the Pylon of Ramses II, and there is one in the

east wall. As at Split, each of the gates is flanked by

towers and opens into a rectangular court closed by a

121 See M. P. Lacau, "Inscriptions latines du temple de Luxour,"

Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte, 34 (1934) 17-46; V.

Monneret de Villard, "The Temple of the Imperial Cult at Luxor,"

Archeologia 95 (1953) 85-105.

60

second gate. A difference is that connecting the court

with the right side of each of the flanking towers are

passages leading to sally ports.

In the northwest part of the castra, streets flanked

by colonnades intersect at a tetracolumnar monument

similar to one at Antinoe commemorating a visit of Severus

Alexander.122 On the bases inscriptions in honour of

Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus can

be reconstructed.123

These were placed on the sides facing

the principal east-west street leading fron the Nile to

the courtyard of Ramses II.

On the east side of the Temple of Ammon the street

arrangement almost duplicates that on the west side.� The

bases are inscribed, on the sides facing the north-south

street, in honour of Gallerius, Licinius, Constantine and

Maximin Daia who ruled together from 308 to 311.124

The Temple of Ammon was reused as a principia for

which the courtyards of Ramses II and Amenophis III acted

as forecourts. Between the courtyard of Amenophis III and

the inner sanctum of the temple is a hypostyle hall. This

hall is divided into nine aisles by rows of columns, and

in the early fourth-century the central aisle was

separated from those flanking it by low walls. The central

aisle of the hypostyle hall led into a rectangular room,

122 M. P. Lacau, op. cit. 20. 123 Ibid. 20-35. 124 Ibid. 20-29.

61

10.5 by 17.45 metres in plan, oriented perpendicular to

the main axis of the temple. In front of a niche in the

wall opposite the entrance four columns supported a

ciborium.125 Frescos covering the walls were destroyed in

the nineteenth century by Egyptologists wishing to uncover

ancient texts beneath. These were recorded by the

watercolourist J. E. Wilkinson in 1859 before they were

destroyed.126 The upper register of the east wall depicted

a procession of dismounted horsemen and pedestrians clad

in white towards the niche in the south wall. The focal

point of the programme showed Diocletian in a chariot127

and suggests that the scene commemorated the adventus of

Diocletian to Luxor. In the niche four figures dressed in

purple probably represent the emperors of the first

college of Tetrarchs.128

The function of the painted hall is disputed.

Monneret de Villard and Deckers consider it to be the

sacellum of the camp129 Maxeiner identifies the room as an

audience chamber which, with the �adventus scene on the

125 U. Monneret de Villard, op. cit. 88-9. 126I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, "The Imperial Chamber at Luxor," DOP 29

(1975) 227-51. 127 This was not recorded by Wilkinson, but page fifty-three of his

sketchbook, the page reserved for this wall, bears the notation "Mr.

Monier told Mr. Harris that the name of Diocletian was on one of the

chariot wheels in this fresco." I. Kalavrezou-Maxiener, op. cit. 238-

9. 128 U. Monneret de Villard, op. cit. 94, 101-2; I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner,

op.

cit. 244-6. 129 U. Monneret de Villard, op. cit. 101-102; J. D. Deckers, "Die

Wandmalereien des tetrarchischen Lagerheiligtums in Ammon-Tempel von

Luxor", Romische Quartalschrift , 68 (1973) 1-34; idem. "Die

Wandmalerei im Kaiserkulten von Luxor", JDAI 94 (1979) 600-652.

62

walls, strongly suggests that Diocletian may have used

Luxor as a base for operations in Middle Egypt in 298.130

The Temple of Ammon could well have been used as the

palatium of Diocletian, and after his visit, as a temple

of the imperial cult.

The planned lay-out of Luxor is unparalleled by Roman

camps of any period, even at Palmyra and Drobeta. Instead

of via principalis and via praetoria meeting in front of

the entrance to the principia as in a regular camp, here

they cross at right angles with the crossing marked by

commemorative columns. Moreover, the plan has been

duplicated with crossing streets either side of the Temple

of Ammon. This duplication of the camp street plan has

been used to suggest the origin of the name Luxor in

Arabic; literally, two castra.131

The temple was not used

to enhance the defences of the camp, but rather as a

central focal element.� The date is well attested by the

monumental tetrastyles which seem to be contemporary with

the construction of the walls and streets.� On the basis

of the inscriptions, the camp was laid out in or soon

before 300/301 and added to in 308/309.

The supposed military origin of the plan of Split has

important repercussions on the interpretation of elements

130 I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, op. cit. 249. 131 U. Monneret de Villard, op. cit. 96.

63

found elsewhere in Late Roman urban forms.� The so-called

"Camp of Diocletian" on the outskirts of Palmyra, with its

arrangement of streets crossing at a central tetrapylon in

front of a "praetorium" has been used to reinforce the

association between Split and a military camp plan. It

should now be apparent that any resemblance between castra

and Split is limited to the fortification wall and to the

cubicles, and that the street plan is unrelated to

military architecture except by accident at Palmyra, and

in an oddity at Luxor.

Conveniently, the "Camp of Diocletian" at Palmyra

points the way to the next avenue of investigation. The

"palatial" nature of Split has been used to argue the case

that the Palmyrene camp was, in fact, a palace of Zenobia

which was reused during the Tetrarchy as a camp and which

provided the inspiration for both Split and the palace at

Antioch.132

The relationship between Split and Roman

palaces will be explored in the next chapter.

132 R. Fellmann "Le `Camp de Diocletien' a Palmyre et l'architcture

militaire du Bas Empire," in Melanges d'histoire anciennes et

d'archeologie offerts a Paul Collart, (Cahiers d'archeologie Romande.

no.5). Lausanne, 1976, pp. 173-91. Fellmann sets out the parallels

between the plans of military camps, the `Camp of Diocletian', and the

palaces at Antioch and Split.� For the theory that the Palmyrene

complex was a palace see D.Schlumberger, "Le pretendu Camp du

Diocletien a Palmyre," MelUSJ 38 (1962) 77-97 and Idem, "Notes sur la

decor architectural des colonnades des rues et du Camp du Diokletien a

Palmyre," Berytus 2 (1935) 163-67.

64

CHAPTER 4. PALACES.

Some modern scholars have sought the origin of the

unusual features of Split among contemporary and later

imperial palaces. A case for comparison with Tetrarchic

palaces was made by Downey who analysed the ancient

descriptions of the palace at Antioch and concluded that

this complex served as the model for Split. As indicated

in the introductory chapter, this approach was followed by

Smith, Swoboda, Dyggve and l'Orange,133

each of whom drew

liberally from the fragments of known and suspected

palaces from a broad geographical and chronological range

to illustrate their argument.

In this chapter, I shall define the function and

development of a Roman palace and before concluding what

the nature of Split's relationship to palaces was, I shall

describe the most completely understood contemporary

palace complex at Thessalonika.

The usage of the term "palace" changed from the early

to late empire. Initially the word referred specifically

to the imperial residence on the Palatine hill in Rome,

between the Forum Romanum and the Circus Maximus (fig.

4.1). This residence originated with Augustus' relatively

133 E.B. Smith, Architectural Symbolism; K.M. Swoboda, Romische und

Romanische Palaste; E. Dyggve, Ravennatum Palatium Sacrum; L'Orange,

Art Forms and Civic Life.

65

modest house near the spot where tradition placed the hut

of Romulus. The Domus Augusti was a private dwelling,

built in a traditional Republican Roman style, purchased

from the family of the Hortensii.134 Tiberius built a much

larger house on the Palatine to the northeast of the Domus

Augusti. This house of Tiberius was subsequently enlarged

by Caligula to include the Temple of Castor which then

acted as a vestibule to the residence.135 Nero foreswore

the Palatine hill and built a complex resembling a

sprawling country residence which covered much of the area

between the Palatine and Esquiline hills.136

Finally in

A.D. 92, after retoring the Domus Tiberiana which had been

damaged by fire in A.D. 80, Domitian started the Domus

Augustiana, commonly called the Palatium, on the Palatine.

This large residence, the eponymous palace, thereafter

remained largely unaltered. It consisted of administrative

and private residential blocks arranged around three large

peristyle courts. It overlooked the Circus Maximus and was

linked by a passage to the imperial box in the circus,

opposite the �meta secunda.137 Essentially, in the course

of some one hundred years, the palace had developed from a

simple residence into a vast, opulent urban villa that

stretched from the civic and religious centre of the city

134 E. Nash, Pictorial Dictionary of Imperial Rome, 2nd ed. vol. 1,

London 1968, 310-15. 135 Ibid, 365-73. 136 Ibid. 339-48; RIA, 57-61. 137 E. Nash, 316-338; RIA 77-84. The passage was built under Trajan.

66

across the Palatine to the Circus Maximus.� In the

process, it acquired certain administrative functions as

authority devolved from the senate to the emperor.

The association between the Palatine residence and

the emperor was strong even though much of the emperor's

time was spent either on campaign, on administrative

trips, at another holding in Rome, or at one of a number

of country villas. Examples of these latter include the

Gardens of Sallust on the Pincius in Rome and, outside

Rome, both Hadrian's extensive villa at Tivoli and

Tiberius' villa on Capri. By the early third century,

anywhere the emperor stayed was referred to as a palatium;

according to Dio Cassius (c. 155 to c. 230) "The royal

residence is called `palatium' not because it was ever

decided that this should be so, but because the emperor

lives on the palatium (sic) and has his headquarters

there. His house also gained to some extent in the

prestige from the hill itself, because Romulus had

previously dwelt there. For this reason, if the emperor

resides anywhere else, his stopping place receives the

name of `Palatium'."138

On tour the emperor stayed in provincial governors'

accommodations or wherever there was a suitable house. For

instance, Marcus Aurelius stayed in the basileia at

Sirmium which he used as a behind-the-front headquarters

138Dio Cassius, Roman History, LIII, 16, 5-6.

67

during the Danubian wars of 169/170 A.C.139 The housing of

the emperor and his retinue occasioned considerable

expense which devolved on the local dignitaries of the

cities in which he stayed. The route of the emperor on

tour was publicised well in advance so that the necessary

accommodations and festivities could be arranged in time.

Sometimes structures had to be specially modified or even

constructed for the occasion; Dio complains about the cost

of Caracalla's tour in 214/215 saying "But apart from all

these burdens we are compelled to build at our own expense

all sorts of houses for him whenever he sets out from

Rome, and costly lodgings in the middle of the very

shortest journeys... Moreover we constructed amphitheatres

and race courses wherever he spent the winter or expected

to spend it, all without receiving any contribution from

him."140

Perhaps it was to minimise this expense that

Antoninus Pius limited his provincial tours.141

The turbulance of the third century required the

emperor's presence near the borders of the empire, and as

a result the emperor infrequently resided at Rome. The

real seat of power, now that the army was the elector and

guarantor of the emperor, was no longer with the senate,

or even in Rome, but moved with the emperor and the army.

139 F.Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977, 4. 140 Dio Cassius, Roman History LXXVII, 9, 5-7. 141 F.Millar, op. cit. 35.

68

Despite this, the Palatine residence continued to be used

on occasion and was even expanded by Septimius Severus.

Diocletian initially continued the former system of

ruling from the provinces. With Maximian he informally

divided their jurisdiction between the eastern and western

parts of the empire, so that Diocletian principally

resided, until 296, at Sirmium and Nikomedeia and Maximian

at Trier, Milan and Aquileia. With the creation of the

Tetrarchy in 293, the empire was loosely divided into four

areas of imperial jurisdiction and strictly into four

prefectures. In the course of his duties the emperor moved

almost constantly within and between prefectures, staying

at one of the principal residences cum administrative

centres.142

Rather than change the system of movable

administration, Diocletian institutionalised it by

establishing palaces that doubled as government and

judicial centres in a select few cites that were served by

good communications and were close to the frontiers. There

was probably a palace already in existence at Milan where

the two Augusti met formally in the winter of 290/291

(fig. 4.2),143 but at Trier (fig. 4.3), Aquileia (fig.

4.4), Sirmium (fig. 4.5), Nikomedeia (fig. 4.6), Antioch

(fig. 4.8) and Thessalonika (fig. 4.10) new palaces were

142 An exhaustive list of imperial journeys taken by the Tetrarchs and

their successors has been compiled by T.Barnes, The New Empire of

Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge 1982, chapter V. 143 S.Williams, op. cit. 56-59.

69

built.144 These had certain characteristics in common, for

instance their peripheral location, their proximity to a

circus and their large size.

Three definitions of the word "palace" emerge from

the above discussion of the development if imperial

residences and administrative centres. The eponymous

palace was the residence of the emperor on the Palatine

hill in Rome; it derived its name from its location and,

even when it had long ceased to be the principal residence

of the emperor, it continued to command a special place in

the literature, tradition and culture of Rome. The

Palatine hill residence, adjacent to the circus and to the

Forum became more than a home, developing into the central

element of a larger complex that embraced cultural,

religious, judicial, administrative, economic and state

functions. With time, anywhere the emperor resided,

whether temporarily or permanently, was called a palace

(alternatively regia or basileion). The palace was so

called not because of its design but because of its

temporary function as the emperor's court. The third

definition of "Palace" describes a provincial

144 A good summary of the circus and associated monuments at Milan can

be found in J. H. Humphrey, op. cit. 613-620; a less complete account

is provided by R. Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals, Berkeley

1983, 69-70 and by N. Duval, "Aquileia e Milano," Antichita

Altoadriatiche 4 (1973) 158ff. For Trier see E.M.Wightman, Roman Trier

and the Treveri, London 1970, 110; W. Reusch, "Trier" AA 77 (1962)

875-888. For Aquileia see N. Duval, op. cit. For Simium see V.Popovic,

"A Survey of the Topography and Urban Organisation of Sirmium in the

Late Empire," Sirmium I Belgrade 1971, 119-133.� N.Duval, "Sirmium

"ville imperiale" ou "capitale"?' Corsi di Cultura 26 (1979) 56-58.

70

administrative centre such as Thessalonica, Antioch or

Nicomedeia. These centres were apparently modelled on the

Roman original and combined a residence with public

buildings and located next to a circus for ceremonial

public appearances: effectively they duplicated the

Palatine original, with its associated buildings, within a

provincial city.

It is clear from this description of palace

development that Split served a different function from

Roman palaces after the early first century. Split was not

the residence of an emperor, and served no administrative

function. It was remote from the centres of imperial

power, far removed from important lines of communication

and strategic cities and lacked a circus.

The notion that Split was a palace is rooted partly

in tendency of scholars to describe large, opulent

buildings in grandiose terms, and partly in Glanville

Downey's assertion that Split was modelled on the palace

at Antioch. Downey examined the literary sources and

concluded that not only was the palace at Antioch built on

the foundations of a Roman camp, but that it also had the

same street plan as Split and had a similar wall-top

71

gallery providing a panoramic view of the Orontes

valley.145

The suggestion that the Antioch palace was built on

the foundations of a castra was a conjecture.� Malalas,

Downey's source, says that Diocletian built at Antioch "a

great palace, finding the foundations already laid by

Gallienus who was called Licinianus".146 Downey thought

that Malalas not only mistook Gallienus for Valerian, as

he occasioally had elsewhere, but also the nature of the

building. He considered it more likely that, so soon after

the Palmyrene occupation of Antioch, Valerian would be

defending the city with a castra rather than embellishing

it with a palace.147

The plan of the "New City" on the island is suggested

by Libanius in an oration written for the Olympic games of

360;

"The form of this new city is round.� It lies in

the level part of the plain, the whole of it in an

exact plan, and an unbroken wall surrounds it like

a crown. From four arches which are joined to each

other in the form of a rectangle, four pairs of

stoas proceed as from an omphalos, stretched

145 G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria, Princeton 1961, 318-23.

It was first suggested by Weilbach, F. Weilbach, "Zur Rekonstruktion

des Diocletians-palastes," Strena Buliciana, Zagreb- Split, 1924, 125. 146 Malalas, 306.21-22. 147 G. Downey, op. cit. 259, n. 126 and 321, n. 16.

72

toward each corner of the heaven, as in a statue

of the four handed Apollo. Three of these pairs,

running as far as the wall, are joined to its

circuit, while the fourth is shorter but is the

more beautiful just in proportion as it is

shorter, since it runs toward the palace which

begins hard by and serves as an approach to it.

This palace occupies so much of the island that it

constitutes the fourth part of the whole. It

reaches to the middle of the island, which we have

called an omphalos, and extends to the outer

branch of the river so that where the wall has

columns instead of battlements, there is a view

worthy of an emperor, with the river flowing below

and the suburbs feasting the eyes on all sides. A

person who wished to describe this part carefully

would have to make it the subject of a discourse,

but it cannot be part of a discourse on another

subject. Nevertheless one should say at least that

to the other palaces which exist in every part of

the world... it is in no way inferior; but is

superior to many, nowhere surpassed in beauty, and

in size surpassing all others, divided into so

many chambers and stoas and halls that even those

73

who are well accustomed to it become lost as they

go from door to door."148

To this description may be added that of Theodoret (c.387-

c.458);

"The palace of the city of Antioch is washed on the

north by the river Orontes: on the south there is a

large portico with two storeys which touch the

walls of the the city, and which have two high

towers. Between the palace and the river is a

public road leading from the city to the suburbs.

One day as Aphraates was passing along the road on

his way to the military gymnasium... he attracted

the attention of the emperor, who was then on the

top of the portico..."149

These suggest that the island was divided by broad emboloi

characteristic of eastern cities, that the city covered a

large portion of the island and that, where the palace

abutted the city wall, there was some kind of gallery

instead of battlements. Downey drew a neat parallel

between the wall-top gallery described in the literature

148 Libanius, Orations, XI, 203-207. The oration is translated in full

by Downey in G.Downey "Libanius' Oration in Praise of Antioch (Oration

XI)", ProcPhilAs 103 (1959) 652-686. 149 Theodoretus, Eccl. Hist., 4,26,1-3.

74

and that in the south wall of Split and between the plan

of the palace, which he supposed to have taken the form of

Valerian's castra, and that of the plan of Diocletian's

residence (fig. 4.9).

As no trace of the palace was found in the course of

excavation in and around the circus or elsewhere on the

island at Antioch, his reconstruction remains

theoretical150 and somewhat implausible. If, as seems

probable from later historical descriptions,151 the palace

complex at Antioch had a general resemblance to other

Tetrarchic palaces, then an impression of its plan will be

gained from a close examination of an example. Only one,

at Thessalonika, is sufficiently well understood to merit

description.

THESSALONIKA

The most completely excavated palace of the period is

that of Galerius at Thessalonika. It was built by Galerius

after his success against the Persians in 298, and he used

it as his principal residence except between 302 and 308/9

when he moved to Serdica for campaigns against the Carpi

150 W. A. Campbell, "Excavations at Antioch on the Orontes", AJA 38

(1934) 201-206; W. A. Campbell, "The Circus" in G. W. Elderkin, ed.

Antioch on the Orontes I. Excavations of 1932, Princeton 1934, pp.34-

41; idem, "The Third Season of Excavations at Antioch on the Orontes",

AJA 40 (1936) 1-9; C. R. Morey, "The Excavation of Antioch on the

Orontes", ProcPhilSoc, 76 (1936) 637-651. 151 Evagrius, Eccl. Hist., 2.22. Malalas, 328,2-4 and 306,22-307,2.

75

and Sarmatians.152 Although after Licinius the city was

never again a principal residence of the emperor, the

imperial palace remained in use as an administrative

centre, as the residence of the prefect and as an

occasional stop for the emperor.153

The town is situated between the sea and a low hill

to the north and was surrounded by a wall, much of which

still stands.154

The Tetrarchic palace complex was located

at the east end of the city adjacent to the walls which

had apparently been rebuilt to accommodate the new

buildings (fig. 4.10).155

The extant complex consists of

the rotunda church of Saint George, an avenue flanked by

colonnades leading south to the four-way Arch of Galerius

over the via Egnatia, the circus and a series of

structures lying to the south of the arch and west of the

152 T.D.Barnes, op. cit. 61-82. After Galerius, the city remained in

use as an Imperial residence; Constantine remained in or near

Thessalonika for two years while warring on Licinius in 323/4 and made

brief visits in 327 and 336. On his abdication in September of 324

Licinius was sent to Thessalonika, where he was executed early the

next year. 153 M. Vickers "Observations on the Octagon at Thessaloniki", JRS 63

(1973) 111-120 attributes the destruction of the palace to an

earthquake in the first quarter of the fifth century. J. M. Spieser,

Thessalonique et ses monuments du IVe au VIe siecle, Boccard: Paris

1984, 97-99 n. 117, 118 is not convinced by Vickers argument and

places the destruction around 625 after years of use as the capital of

the prefecture of Illyricum. 154 Little survives of the Hellenistic city, but the remains of the

Roman city are extensive and much is known about the forum, the circus

and the palace itself. The lines of the orthogonal street plan,

oriented northwest to southeast, can be traced from what is known of

the Roman plan and the medieval plan of the city as it appeared before

the great fire of 1917. M. Vickers, "Hellenistic Thessaloniki", �JHS,

92 (1972) 156-170; J. M. Spieser, op. cit. 82-90. 155 The excavations of different parts of the palace area have been

reported by Moutsopoulos, 187-263.

76

circus. As it is now known, the Arch of Galerius forms the

central focus of the area (fig. 4.11).

The Arch of Galerius (fig. 4.12) was a tetrapylon

marking the intersection of the two major axes of the

palace, the via Egnatia and a north-south street which ran

from the rotunda parallel with the circus. Only the

western half of the arch survives. The complete structure

was a monument with three openings over the east-west road

and pierced by a single passage on the north-south axis.

The central arch, measuring 12.28 metres above ground

level, is larger than the lateral arches. This bay was

covered with a dome or a domical vault. The side bays had

barrel vaults aligned with the long axis of the monument.

The piers were built of reused blocks and covered with

marble panels with relief decoration depicting Galerius'

campaign and triumph over the Persians in 297. The upper

portion is of brick faced concrete.156 The arch is unlike a

triumphal arch in that is a two axis passage, and not only

is the decoration richer than is usual for a triumphal

arch but it is arranged in friezes at a low level.

Furthermore, the most important scenes are on the inner

faces of the piers rather than the exterior faces.157

From the tetrapylon, colonnades flanking the via

Egnatia led west towards the forum and east to the city

156 J. M. Spieser, �op. cit. 99; Moutsopoulos, 212-235, figs. 23-29. 157 J. M. Spieser, op. cit. 100.

77

wall.� In plan the road appears to have been diverted from

its original straight course northwards to accomodate the

tetrapylon. Excavation showed that the porticoes lining

the street were contemporary with the tetrapylon, and

therefore it seems that the realignment was part of the

same programme as the palace construction.158

Leading north from the Arch of Galerius, an avenue,

flanked by porticoes and probably contemporary with the

tetrapylon, runs towards the rotunda. The rotunda, built

on virgin ground, is located in an octagonal temenos with

semicircular exedrae on the east and west sides. The

rotunda in the early 4th century was a freestanding

circular drum, about 38 metres in diameter, and entered

from the south. It had a three storey elevation with a

dome or domical vault roof and was built completely of

brick. The interior is octagonal with deep rectangular

recesses at the level of the ground storey, each measuring

approximately 5 by 7 metres. Between the recesses are

eight aediculae , while above them, at the level of the

first storey, the walls are pierced by deep arched

windows. At the top of the wall was a cat-walk running

around the base of the dome. Access to the cat-walk was by

spiral staircases built into the thickness of the wall on

158 J. M. Spieser, op. cit. 101.

78

either side of the door. The interior was originally

decorated with veneer and marble architectural elements.159

The rotunda has been identified either as a mausoleum

built for Galerius or as a temple.160 If it was a

mausoleum, then Galerius was never buried here, for he

died near Naissus and was buried at his birthplace

Romuliana.161 The prevailing opinion is that the rotunda

was a temple dedicated either to Zeus, the Kabeirioi or to

all the gods.162

The structure seems to be too large for

relatively minor, though locally important, deities such

as the Kabeirioi.

The circus lies just within the eastern wall of the city

to the south of the via Egnatia.163 It seems to have been

comparatively large with an interior length of at

least 420 metres and width of approximately 72 metres. If

the carceres were located near the via Egnatia to

159 J. M. Spieser, op. cit. 113-117; Moutsopoulos, 193-212, figs. 1-22

pl. I-III; RIA, 451-53, figs. 305-07. 160 Moutsopoulos, 194-204 and J. M. Spieser, op. cit., 117 catalogue

the various opinions. Early travellers such as Leake and Texier

identified the structure as a temple, probably dedicated to the

Kaberioi who were widely worshipped in Macedonia. Dyggve and others

described it as the mausoleum of Galerius as the plan and elevation

are reminiscent of mausolea such as the contemporary Tor dei Schiavi

in Rome, the Mausoleum of Romulus on the via Appia and, to a certain

extent, Diocletian's Mausoleum at Split. Dyggve further considered

that the rotunda after its conversion became the palatine church. 161 Aurelius Victor, Epitome XL.16. 162 Moutsopoulos, 194-204; Spieser, op. cit. 117 merely expresses

doubts about the identification as a mausoleum. 163 The location was obvious in the 19th century when substructures of

the west cavea were still standing, while a British Army map of

Salonika, made during World War I, showed the Plateia Hippodromou

which clearly followed the line of the spina, see M. Vickers, "The

Hippodrome at Thessaloniki," JRS 62 (1972) 25-28. In 1971 the

discovery of part of the curved end on Odos Mitropoleos to the south

disproved previous notions of the circus' orientation. Moutsopoulos,

224, n. 110.

79

facilitate access to the public, then the circus may have

had an interior length of about 400 metres.164 The oblique

slant of the carceres may explain the change in direction

of the via Egnatia at the Arch of Galerius. The location

of the south end appears to have been determined by the

line of the Porta Roma and a street running close to and

parallel with the sea wall.

The date of the circus has not been firmly

established, but it probably belongs to the Tetrarchy and

certainly before 350. The circus continued in use for some

centuries; according to Procopius, the father-in-law of

Belisarius was associated with the circus at Thessalonika

in the 6th century, and it is mentioned by Eustathius in

the 7th century.165

The core of the palace lies immediately to the west

of the circus and covers an area extending from the via

Egnatia to at least three quarters the length of the

circus. No southern or western limits have been defined,

164 J.H.Humphrey Roman Circuses, London 1986, 627. 165 J. H. Humphrey, op. cit. 631 is the only one to mention the

relationship between the the street and the carceres, but he does not

comment the implications for the date of the circus. If the carceres

were responsible for the jog in the via Egnatia, then the street and

circus must predate or be contemporary with the arch of Galerius. Most

commentators assume the contemporaneity of palace and circus. He

thinks that the fortification wall was extended to accommodate the

circus, rather than being constructed later. The location of the

imperial box and the finishing line have not been identified. The box

at the Circus Maximus and the circus at Maxentius' Villa is at the

turn of the meta secunda. If this were the case at Thessalonika, it

would be close to the apsidal building on Gounaris street. The

finishing line and official's box tended to be at a point two thirds

of the way along the �spina , and so probably just to the south of the

basilica hall (see below).

80

but to judge from the preserved lines of the Roman and

Hellenistic street plan preserved in the pre 1917 map of

the city, the full extent was to about 200 metres west of

the cavea and perhaps as far as the Porta Roma street.166

The main entrance of the palace is thought to have

been through the southern passage of the tetrapylon on the

via Egnatia. Immediately to the south of the tetrapylon a

rectangular building, 43 by 18 metres and oriented east-

west, may have been the vestibule of the palace. This hall

had two entrances on its central transverse axis. The room

was richly decorated with mosaics.167

166 In other words a 10 hectare (24.7 acre) area measuring 500 by 200

metres. On the pre 1917 map the orthogonal plan could be traced from

near the west wall to about 300 metres west of the east wall where the

pattern degenerated into a maze of smaller streets overlying the

circus, the area immediately around the rotunda and over the known

area of the palace. The known Byzantine buildings are built respecting

the street plan, and it would seem that the 6th century law forbidding

the changing of existing street lines without permission was in effect

in Thessalonika. The maze of streets overlying the palace would then

seem to be a relatively late innovation after the palace complex and

Hippodrome went out of use as late as the 7th century. If the maze

corresponds with the extent of the 4th century palace, then the palace

complex stretched as far as Odos Konstantinou Palaiologou midway

between the circus cavea and the late 8th century church of Agia

Sophia built by Irene and Constantine VI. Substructures of walls

found on the east side of this road may belong to the western

side of the palace. The southern extent of the palace can only

be guessed at, and was either at the east-west Porta Roma

street, or if an overpass was built, then as far as the sea

wall a short distance to the south. For a discussion of the

grid preserved in the pre 1917 plan see M. Vickers,

"Hellenistic Thessaloniki," especially fig. 3. 167 Excavated in the 1930's, this structure was never published.

Velenis thinks that the room was a transition between a ramp up to the

tetrapylon and the via Egnatia proper, but there is no evidence to

support this conjecture, see G. Velenis, op. cit. fig. 16. Dyggve sees

it as the palace vestibule. For an axiometric drawing see E. Dyggve,

"La region palatiale de Thessalonique," Acta Congressus Madrigiani

Hafniae 1954, I (Copenhagen 1958) 353-365, fig. 16. For a brief

discussion see J. M. Spieser, op. cit. 101; Moutsopoulos, 216.

81

To the south of the vestibule and 100 metres from it,

an odd rectangular structure with an apse on its north

side was found on Gounaris street.168 The building measures

approximately 24 by 13 metres. It was entered from the

south through a tetrastyle prostyle porch opening into a

small, rectangular vestibule paved with slabs around the

perimeter and with a central diaper pattern of small

square plaques. The inner chamber is oval, divided into

two distinct halves by a step and rebates in the wall

where the apse abuts the rectangular portion of the

building. The south portion is half an octagon with deep

semi-circular niches in the southwest and southeast

angles.� The apse is buttressed on outside by what may be

a blind arcade. The raised floor of the apse is paved with

an opus sectile grid-iron mosaic and the walls were

probably covered with marble revetments. The function of

the structure is uncertain, but the suggestion that it was

a temple of the Kabeirioi has been justified on the

grounds that it has a temple-like appearance and that the

Kabeirioi were associated with horses and racing.

Moutsopoulos reconstructs a long colonnaded courtyard

stretching 100 metres from the entrance of the "temple"

south to the "basilica". This "basilica" is a large

apsidal hall also flanks the circus cavea. It measures

168 For a discussion of the building see Moutsopoulos, 224-235, figs.

42-48, 50-53. Note that the scale of fig. 44 is in error by a factor

of 2.

82

approximately 70 by 28 metres on a north-south axis and

appears to have been entered from the north. Small doors

at the northwest and southwest corners gave access from

the west. The hall was divided into a nave with two side

aisles separated by colonnades. At the ends of the aisles

are apsidal recesses, while the nave, paved with slabs,

terminates in a large apse floored with opus sectile. The

west wall of the hall was originally flanked by a

corridor, and was decorated with a blind arcade. At some

unknown later date a four cell, two storey complex was

inserted into the open corridor.169 The function of the

hall is not known. In scale the structure exceeds that of

even the basilica at Trier. From its form it must have

been some kind of reception hall for official rather than

private use.

To the west of the apsed hall is a rectangular

structure centered on a peristyle court (fig. 4.13). The

perimeter of the complex is a covered corridor paved with

mosaics.� Defining the court on the west, south and east

sides are eleven small square rooms in units of one or two

rooms connecting directly with the court itself. The court

was open to the air and had a covered ambulatory running

around all four sides. Access to the court was through

small doors on the north and south sides, while the

corridor could be entered from a large portal in the south

169 Moutsopoulos, pl. IV and fig. 49.

83

side on axis with the door to the court, from the basilica

in the north east corner, and two small doors in the west

side. South of the complex are a series of small rooms

including a small nymphaium and three cubicles. These

cubicles are in a block oriented east-west; the

rectangular central room is flanked by octagonal rooms

with semi-circular niches alternating with doors in the

north, south, east and west sides.170

The building which includes the octagon lies at the

southwest corner of the courtyard complex, but was entered

only from the south side (fig. 4.14). The main roon has an

octagonal plan, measuring about 37 metres in diameter (c.

30 metres from side to side), while a spacious entrance

vestibule, 35 by 15 metres in plan, was extended beyond

the ends of the facade by apses at either end. The whole

is enclosed within a rectangular temenos which abuts the

apses of the vestibule, but stands free of the octagon

itself. The octagonal exterior of the main room reflects

the interior which is embellished with semicircular niches

in each side. The niches are of uniform size, measuring

5.2 metres, except for the niche opposite the entrance

which has a diameter of 7.05 metres. The walls are of

green schist coursed with brick, and were originally

covered with coloured marble revetment of red and green

170 Moutsopoulos, 235-240 figs. 49, 55-61, 63. J. M. Spieser, op. cit.

111.

84

porphyry and white marble. Two phases of flooring can be

detected; the first was a mosaic which was quickly

replaced by an opus sectile pavement laid in panels. The

later pavement resembled the floors of the `temple' on

Gounaris street, but had in addition four small emblema-

like panels arranged in a square just inside the door. The

octagon had two storeys and was probably roofed with a

dome or a domical vault. The second storey was probably a

catwalk running around the circumference at the base of

the dome, and was approached by spiral staircases set into

the walls to either side of the door. A second phase is

also evident from a modification to the door, which was

narrowed from almost 5 metres to 2.25 metres, and by two

small cruciform chambers roofed with cross vaults that

were added to the exterior of the northeast and northwest

facets. These could be entered from the apses inside by a

door knocked through the wall and from the outside by

doors with small bent-axis porches with a pair of columns

in antis. Access to these chambers from the north was

provided by a door punched through the wall of the

corridor to the north.171

The function of the octagon is undetermined. The

discovery of a Christian motif set in the brick wall in

the north apse in connection with the discovery of the

171 M. Vickers, "Octagon," 111-120; J. M. Spieser, op. cit. 113-123;

Moutsopoulos, 240-250.

85

east apse of the vestibule led to the assertion that it

was a church with a baptistery in front. This suggestion

has since been rejected. The idea that it may have been a

mausoleum was put aside on the grounds that the

semicircular niches were unsuitable for rectangular

sarcophagi. A third possibility, that it was a throne

room, has also been raised but not generally accepted.172

Clues to the function are provided by the shape and form

of the building, which resembles, but is much larger than,

Diocletian's mausoleum at Split, and the discovery of a

rectangular Early Christian tomb in the large niche.173

Despite its later use as a mausoleum and its shape there

is no conclusive evidence for this identification.

Decorative details may also give some indication of use of

the rotunda. Four pilaster capitals, probably originally

flanking the niches of the octagon, and a marble arch were

found in the immediate area.� The capitals are compound

Corinthian and Ionic order and have small relief figures

cut on the face between the volutes. Each of the figures

is different, and represent a Dioskouros, a Kabeirios,

Jupiter and an unidentified female figure. Both the

Dioskouroi and the Kabeirioi were twins and sons of Zeus,

and may in some way be

172 M. Vickers, "Octagon" 119. Actually the apses, despite their shape,

are quite large enough for sarcophagi. 173 Moutsopoulos, fig. 75.

86

representative of the philadelphia of the Tetrarchs and

their association with Jupiter. Jupiter is significant in

that Galerius was a member of the gens Iovi.

The arch was found a short distance to the south of

the octagon. The extrados has two lunettes with portraits,

one perhaps the Tyche of Thessalonika, the other perhaps

of Galerius. The lunettes are held aloft by barbarians and

are flaked on the inside by putti holding either end of a

garland stretched over the intrados.� It is possible that

the arch was set over the door to the octagon's vestibule,

and that the representations shown have some relevance to

the function of the structure as may the four opus sectile

motif panels found inside the door of the octagon. The

likeliest explanations for the function seem to be that it

was either the unused mausoleum of Galerius or a temple of

the imperial cult.174

The palace at Thessalonika was a huge complex which

seems to have been built within a relatively short period,

mainly in the reign of Galerius, though some rare later

additions and changes can be noted. It consisted of

numerous diverse elements built in a typical Late Roman

fashion out of stone coursed at intervals with brick, with

exterior facades decorated with blind arcades and

174 M. Vickers "Octagon", 119-120 lists the various arguments for the

function but remains undecided on the issue. Similarly Spieser, op.

cit. 118 has no definite opinion. Mousopoulos, 250 tentatively

supports the mausoleum argument.

87

interiors faced with marble and mosaic or opus sectile

floors. These elements covered an area stretching from the

rotunda in the north to at least the turn of the circus in

the south and include the basilica and the octagon, as

well as other intricately planned buildings linked by

corridors and colonnaded avenues.� Although the plan

appears regular and orthogonal, there is no logical

coherent intra-palatial network of passages. This lack of

emphatic axes gives the plan a modular, or additive

appearance of self-contained spaces that are joined but

not interlinked.

The large scale of the complex suggests that it was

much more than a residence, but the lack of specific facts

prohibit more than speculation on the various functions it

served.� It should suffice to say that the area was one

devoted to religious and administrative uses as well as

the residence of the emperor Galerius.

Parallels can be found for various elements of the

plan but as no other palace complexes have been excavated

as completely as Thessalonika, as a whole it stands alone.

The basilica resembles a similar structure at Trier, while

the octagon and rotunda are reminiscent of mausolea and

temple forms common in Roman imperial architecture. The

tetrapylon at the apex of the axes of the via Egnatia and

the rotunda street is a monument type found at similar

locations throughout the eastern empire, and as such seems

88

to have had a specific and important significance, far

greater than its function as a triumphal arch. The

location of the palace at the edge of the city, built on

previously undeveloped land, reflects the unity of the

complex; it was developed as a single entity for use in

conjunction with the circus.

The plan of the area is incomplete, but sufficient to

draw broad conclusions. Two main axes divide the site into

four parts along the lines of the via Egnatia and the

street running south from the rotunda. The east-west axis

serves as a throughfare connecting the centre of the city

with the outside, while the north-south axis is purely a

weak internal line of communication. One entrance of the

palace was at the crossing of these two axes, and

consisted of a rectangular hall set perpendicular to the

north-south passage. The area to the south of the hall is

unexplored, but may reasonably be reconstructed as a short

continuation of the rotunda street. A second entrance may

be inferred from the orientation of the octagon and the

court. Within the southern part of the complex the various

buildings are not grouped around one central focus, such

as a courtyard or corridor, but form discrete spaces

almost independant of one another. This disposition of

elements is suggestive of independent functions for each

component part.

89

SUMMARY

In the palaces discussed above there are common elements

that if enough were known, would be seen to be common to

all. The Tetrarchic capitals were stretched along the edge

of the empire from the Middle Rhine to the Middle Danube

to the Bosphoros to the Syrian frontier. Each was chosen

for its strategic location and communications: for its

proximity to potential danger to the empire, thus allowing

appropriate response, and for ease of access to other

similarly situated cities and to a like minded co-ruler to

help or to be helped for the common good of the empire.

Each city was the leading city of the region in which it

was located, and was the seat of political and military

power.� In each of the regional capitals, whether the

emperor was in residence or not, the administration of the

immediate area was carried out as usual; the presence of

the emperor temporarily widened the political `field' of

the city, extending the area administered for as long as

the emperor was in residence.

The Tetrarchic form of government required that the

provincial and diocesan administration be centralised

within the provincial capital for the sake of efficiency.

When the emperor arrived in a provincial capital he added

the diocesan government to the provincial government. This

consisted of not only his sizeable bodyguard, but also

advisors, officials, scribes, slaves all needing board and

90

lodging for themselves and their baggage train. The result

was an extremely large area reserved for housing the

emperor's entourage, for stabling, for storage, for

appropriate working space for judicial courts, for

ceremonial areas, for libraries of documents and for

leisure. A need for close economic control to ensure a

ready availability of coin meant that the mint had to be

close enough to be directly controlled by the central

administration. Finally there was a need for a places that

the emperor could appear to the public. The result was the

provincial Roman palace; a large sprawling complex

including all the necessities for imperial administration

- a Versailles, a Nicomedeia, a city within a city.

In the individual plans of the palaces described some

of these elements are apparent but the whole is not well

understood. Taken together, they give a fairly clear idea

of a `typical' palace. In many of the cities described the

emperor added a mint, a large public baths, an arms

factory and various temples. These are frequently known to

have been close enough to the residence to be considered

part of the city within a city, or "New City" in the case

of Antioch, which together constituted the palace as a

whole. So at Antioch the palace consisted of a maze of

chambers, stoas and halls for private and administrative

use, an imperial baths, and the circus. Later the Octogon

church was added to the palace by Constantine. In some

91

places space was not available, so emperor had to create

room for the administrative and residential block either

by destroying part of the existing city or by adding a new

quarter. At Nicomedeia, Thessalonika, Trier and Sirmium

the emperor added new areas by extending the city wall,

but also seems to have demolished marginal city

structures. At Milan there seems to have been a general

requisitioning of down town space to add to the extant

palace, while at Antioch the area was open and free for

development. The area required for the palace was

considerable, somewhere between 10 and 25 hectares (25-59

acres).175

The palaces probably grew in stages, with each

resident adding to the complex as necessity or whim

dictated. The result would be a curiously episodic

apparently disjointed array of different spaces, halls,

corridors, atria, porticoes, temples and private rooms as

well as monumental buildings for recreation and

administration.

The plan of a palace is also inconsistent with that

of Split, despite Downey's assertions to the contrary.

What is known of Thessalonika and the traces from other

Tetrarchic palaces features such as the gallery, the

175

Split Fig. 1.2 175 x 216 metres = 3.76 ha.

Antioch Fig. 4.8 c.250 x 500 metres = 12.5 ha.

Thessalonika Fig. 4.9 c.200 x 500 metres = 10 ha.

Milan Fig. 4.2 c.400 x 550 ÷ 2 metres = 11 ha.

Sirmium Fig. 4.5 c.200 x 730 metres = 14.6 ha.

Trier Fig. 4.3 c.400 x 600 metres = 24 ha.

92

basilical hall and perhaps the mausoleum are common to

both. However, the gallery is also a feature of fortified

villas,176

the basilical hall can be found in large

villas177 and the mausoleum type standing beside the main

arteries leading out of Rome. The plans of the palaces at

Thessalonika and of Antioch, as inferred by Libanius, are

disjointed, modular and episodic. The plan of Split, on

the other hand, is regular with spaces opening onto the

broad connectiveaxes of the cardo, decumanus, via

sagularis and gallery.

It is impossible to view Split as a palace except in

terms of being an opulent residence. Its plan, size and

function are all at variance with what is known and

understood of Roman palaces of the time. If Split is not

an imperial residence, perhaps it should be examined in

the light of contemporary private villas, both fortified

and undefended such as Mogorjelo, the Piazza Armerina and

Gamzigrad.

176 See Mogorjelo, chapter 5 infra. 177 See the Piazza Armerina, chapter 5 infra.

93

CHAPTER 5. VILLAS.

Fourth century references to Split explicitly refer

to the complex as a villa,178 but among modern

commentators, only Duval rejected the palatial and

ceremonial interpretations, and looked at the Split in

terms of villa architecture. His concluded that Split can

be best explained as a rich fortified villa and described

most precisely by the French word Chateau.179 This

appellation invites comparison between Split and fortified

villas such as Mogorjelo in Yugoslavia on the one hand,

and richly appointed villas such as the Piazza Armerina on

the other. Excavation at Gamzigrad in Yugoslavia has

revealed a fortified enceinte now known to have been the

birthplace and final resting place of Galerius. In this

regard it has much in common with Split, in that

Diocletian was born near and buried at Split. Another

contemporary imperial villa, considered by some to be

important to the question, is the Villa of Maxentius on

the Via Appia. In this chapter each of these will be

discussed and the plan and function of the sites compared

with Split.

178 Eutropius Brevicum, IX.28; Jerome Chronicle, p. 230. 179 N. Duval, "Le `Palais'" p. 90; idem, "Palais et forteresses en

Yougoslavie: recherches nouvelles" Bull. Soc. Nat. Antiquaires de

France 1971, pp.99-104; idem, "La place de Split", p.74.

94

The villa of Mogorjelo is located in southern

Yugoslavia near Narona, overlooking the Neretva valley.

The villa (fig. 5.1) is fortified and consists of a long

block of residential buildings enclosed within an enceinte

measuring 92 by 75 metres in plan. The walls are pierced

by gates in the north, east and west sides, each of which

is flanked by projecting square towers. The angle towers

are also square, except for the circular northeast tower.

Arranged around the north, west and north part of the east

walls are 4-metre square magazines opening onto a portico

which supported an upper storey. In the south half of the

site, the residence occupies the area south of a line

between the east and west gates. The residence is

separated from the south wall and the southern parts of

the east and west walls by a corridor. It consists of a

series of rooms arranged in a U-shaped plan and open onto

a portico on the north side. A stair in the north side

indicates the presence of an upper storey. Although there

is no archaeological evidence for this, the excavators

suggested that the floor extended over the corridor as

well, and therefore up to the fortification wall itself.

The villa was originally built in the 1st century and was

rebuilt as a fortified villa at the end of the 3rd

century.180

180 E. Dyggve and H. Vetters, Mogorjelo: Ein spatantike Herrensitz in

Dalmatien, Vienna, 1966.

95

In his reconstruction of the villa, Dyggve proposed

that a gallery ran the length of the south wall at the

second storey level. He used the south facade of Split as

a model, and in comparing the resulting reconstructed plan

and elevation to that of Split, described Mogorjelo as a

palace. Duval objected to this reconstruction citing the

lack of evidence that the second storey extended over the

gallery. He also objected to the circular argument

resulting in the description of the villa as a palace.181

Despite possible objections to the Mogorjelo

reconstruction, fortified villas of the general type are

known from North African mosaics. At Tarbaka, west of

Carthage, a villa of this type is represented in the

central apse of the main room of a fourth century house.

The villa is shown in a rustic setting surrounded by

ducks, pheasants, flowers and trees.� The building has an

arched gate, towers and large square lower windows with an

upper arcuated gallery.182 The villa of Dominus Julius

shown in a late fourth century mosaic at Carthage has a

second storey arcuated gallery running the full length of

the facade between two square corner towers. Below is an

arched central gateway and doors into the towers. Above

181 N. Duval, "Palais et forteresses", p.108 descibes Dyggve's plan as

a result of "pure graphical imagination". 182 K. M. D. Dunbabin, The Mosiacs of Roman North Africa Oxford, 1978,

p.120.

96

the pitched roof of the gallery are shown the upper parts

of internal buildings.183

The North African mosaics demonstrate that this type

of villa was widespread, and to a certain extent, their

gallery facade justifies Dyggve's reconstruction of the

south wall at Mogorjelo. The similarities between Split

and the villas in the mosaics are obvious and general.

They are rustic residences, more or less contemporary with

Split, which are fortified by a wall and towers and have a

gallery in the upper level of one facade.

Mogorjelo can be compared in greater depth as its

plan is known. Although lacking Split's street plan,

Mogorjelo has deeply recessed gates between towers in the

middle of the east, west and north walls which give an

identical pattern of access and, to a certain extent,

similar pattern of internal communications to that of

Split. In both Mogorjelo and Split the fortification wall

acts as the back wall of cubicles designed for storage,

and perhaps for accommodation. These at Mogorjelo also

were fronted by an arcade supported on piers. In both, the

enclosure is divided into public and private space; at

Mogorjelo the public space is a more or less open

courtyard in the north part of the site, while at Split

the public area space is considerably more complex. The

private space in both is located in the south part of the

183 Ibid. pp.120ff. no.32 and pl.XLIII.

97

enclosure. At Mogorjelo as at Split the individual rooms

open directly onto a long corridor, but here it is an open

colonnade rather than a gallery. Whether or not Mogorjelo

should be reconstructed with a wall gallery, its

similarities to Split are significant. Not least of these

is that public and private spaces are two indivisible

parts of the whole complex. A major difference between

them is the scale; Mogorjelo covers less than one fifth

the area of Split (0.69 ha.) and is scarcely palatial by

any definition of the word.

The discovery of a luxurious fortified villa with

rich mosaics at Gamzigrad, about 40 miles north of Naissus

prompted a variety of reconstructions of the plan and

explanations of its function and ownership. The site has

been described variously as a fortified mining center, a

fortified villa, a castra with the residence of the

commanding dux and an imperial palace.184 Soon after its

discovery, the plan was reconstructed along the lines of

Diocletian's palace at Split,185

but further excavations

184 D. Mano-Zisi, "Le castrum de Gamzigrad et ses mosaiques",

Archaeologia Iugoslavica, 2 (1956) 67-84; A. Mocsy, "Aurelianus-Aquae-

Gamzigrad", Studia Balcanica 1 (1970), 49-54; M. Canak-Medic, "Le

Palais de la Basse Antiquite pres de Gamzigrad," Actes du XIVe congres

international des etudes Byzantines III (1971) Bucarest 1976 pp.357-

362; N. Duval, "Palais et forteresses" and D. Srejovic, "An Imperial

Roman Palace in Serbia", ILN 263, (Oct. 1975), 97-99. 185 N. Duval, "Palais et forteresses" p. 119 and fig. 8 based on a plan

by Canak-Medic. This showed the walls as rhomboidal with gates in the

north, west and east sides, and an arcaded cryptoporticus running

around the interior face of the wall. The interior was shown divided

98

have shown this to be totally inaccurate. In 1984 the

discovery of an inscription finally identified the site as

Romuliana, and, because of the associations with the

emperor Galerius, comparisons with Split were renewed.186

Very little is known from the ancient sources about

Romuliana. Lactantius records that Galerius, like

Diocletian, intended to retire after his vicennalia in

March of 312,187

but became fatally ill in Dardania, south

of Naissus, and died in April 311. His body was carried to

Romuliana where he was buried.188

Although Romuliana is

supposed to have been named after Romula, the mother of

Galerius, and was his birth place,189 there is no

historical evidence to show that he intended to retire

there or be buried there.190

into three parts by streets with colonnades and by a large open

courtyard. 186 D. Srejovic, "Two Memorial Monuments," pp.41-49; and idem , "Felix

Romuliana, Galerijeba palata u Gamzigradu", Starinar 36, (1985), 51-

65. 187 D. Srejovic, "Two Memorial Monuments," pp.41-49; and �idem , "Felix

Romuliana, Galerijeba palata u Gamzigradu", Starinar 36, (1985), 51-

65. 188 Ibid. XXXV, 3-4; T. D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and

Constantine , Cambridge Mass. 1982, p. 64. 189 Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus, XL, 16; "(Galerius) ortus

Dacia Ripensi ibique sepultus est; quem locum Romulianum ex vocabulo

Romulae matris appellarat". 190 D. Srejovic, "Two Memorial Monuments" p.49 read Lactantius to say

that Galerius intended to retire to a place where "he would be

surrounded by an impregnable wall behind which he could enjoy a

carefree and calm old age". He takes this to mean that Galerius built

a fortified residence and identifies this residence as Gamzigrad. J.

J. Wilkes op. cit. follows Srejovic and states that Gamzigrad is

therefore comparable to Diocletian's villa at Split. In fact,

Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. XX.4, says that after replacing himself by

making his 9 year old son Caesar, Galerius was going to retire "thus,

with Licinius and Severus in supreme control of the empire, and with

Maximin and Candidianus in the second rank as Caesars, he would be

surrounded by an impregnable wall...". In other words his successors

were the impregnable wall.

99

The fortifications of Gamzigrad (fig. 5.2) consist of

two concentric walls of different dates, built on ground

sloping gently down in three terraces from west to east.

Excavation of the earlier wall revealed a gate flanked by

polygonal towers, a square interval tower to the north and

a cryptoporticus along the inside of the wall which

presumably supported ramparts above. Surface survey shows

that this wall enclosed a roughly trapezoidal area of

about 4.2 ha. measuring about 225 by 195 metres. It had

angle towers at each corner, two interval towers on each

side and a second gate at the re-entrant angle in the

middle of the east wall. Between the two gates a

colonnaded street ran parallel to the south wall.191

The later walls are still substantially preserved.

They were erected outside and parallel to the early

circuit at a distance of about 11 metres from them. The

plan is identical to the early wall except for the use of

massive dodecahedral towers throughout. The walls enclosed

an area of 250 by 225 metres (5.6 ha.). The west gate is

largely intact and consists of a single entrance in the

centre of a curved recess in the wall. The gate is covered

by a plain marble arch with a five fascia moulding. Debris

191 D. Srejovic, A. Lalovic and D. Jankovic, "Gamzigrad," Starinar 31

(1980) 65-80, fig.1. This figure is prepared from a plan by M. Canak-

Medic, an architect and the principal investigator at Gamzigrad. D.

Srejovic, "Two Late Roman Temples at Gamzigrad", Archaeologia

Iugoslavica, 19 (1978), 54-63 fig. 3, prefers a reconstruction of his

own, at odds with the architect's drawing,. There is nothing in the

state plans of the site to support his reconstruction.

100

found outside the gate, including Ionic and Corinthian

capitals, spirally fluted columns, pilasters, architrave

blocks and cornices of green sandstone and limestone

suggest that there were two highly decorated galleries set

above the gate.192 This gate necessitated cutting a passage

through the south gate tower of the earlier circuit.

Because of the dimensions of the new circuit, it is likely

that the east gate required the destruction of the old

east gate tower in a similar fashion. The lower 2.25

metres of the walls consist of limestone ashlars, while

the upper portions, up to a total reconstructed height of

as much as 20 metres, were of single courses of small

blocks of green sandstone alternating with three courses

of brick.

The internal structures are dispersed over a wide

area in three distinct clusters.� In the western half are

found a large villa, a granary and a multi-roomed

structure within a separate temenos. All are aligned

perpendicular to the south wall and parallel to the

central axis of the site. The eastern part contains two

small temples and a second, perhaps later, villa. The

western villa occupies the northwestern quarter of the

interior, covering an area approximately 55 by 50 metres,

and consists of a U-shaped series of long halls, two

192 M. Canak-Medic, op. cit., figs. 11-14; D. Srejovic, "An Imperial

Roman Palace in Serbia", ILN, 263 (1975) 97-99.

101

colonnaded atria, a triclinium, and a small bath complex.

The halls make up the southern half of the villa: two long

rooms oriented east-west are linked at their west end by a

transverse hall. The principal entrance, flanked by

columns, was at the east end of the south hall (41.5 by

7.5 metres), and a visitor would progress westwards to a

transverse hall, 23 by 12 metres in plan. This room in

turn opened onto a room 35 by 11 metres with a raised

platform at its east end, a small elevated apse in the

east wall and a small octagonal chamber, with a hypocaust

heating system, opening off the southeast corner.193 All

the halls were richly decorated. The exterior walls were

articulated by blind arcades supported on marble pilasters

and were covered with serpentine, porphyry veneer. Above a

marble dado the interior walls had frescoes divided from

each other by a stucco moulding. The floors were covered

with mosaics.194

North of the hall complex is a courtyard, 19 by 12

metres in plan, with an ornamental fountain in the middle

and geometric mosaics in the surrounding peristyles. On

the north side, a triclinium 18 metres long by 10 metres

wide opens onto the court; it has a broad 7-metre diameter

apse in its north wall. The floor of the triclinium has a

193 J. J. Wilkes, op. cit. p.69. For parallels to the octagonal chamber

see Desenzano, North Italy in RIA pp. 464-5, fig. 316. 194 D. Srejovic, "An Imperial Roman Palace" pp. 97-99; J. J. Wilkes,

op. cit. p. 69.

102

colourful mosaic of a youthful Dionysos enthroned, holding

a kantharos and a garlanded staff, and accompanied by a

leopard. East of the triclinium is a small court with

geometric mosaics in the peristyle. The peristyle leads to

a small, three-roomed bathing complex. This consists of

two circular spaces, with circular exedrae, linked by a

circular entrance hall.195

To the south of the villa, on the same orientation

and probably closely associated with it, are two large

structures. The larger is opposite the villa on the south

side of the street. This is a long, broad hall measuring

51.2 metres by 19.4 metres and oriented north-south. The

walls of the hall were buttressed on the outside in a

fashion similar to those of the villa. Inside were four

regularly spaced rows of six floor supports giving the

overall impression that the building served as a granary196

The other structure is west and slightly to the south of

the granary. It is a multi-roomed building surrounded by a

temenos 32 metres square. The central structure consists

of three small rectangular rooms on a north-south axis

with smaller rooms flanking each of the two northern

rooms. The floors are covered with geometrically patterned

mosaics similar to those in the west villa. No

195 J. J. Wilkes. op. cit. p.69. 196 This is similar to the horrea at the Constantinian imperial villa

at Fenekpusza, see J. Lander, op. cit. p. 235, fig. 251. and A. Mocsy,

Pannonia and Upper Moesia, London, 1974 p. 302ff. and fig. 50.

103

identification has been suggested for this structure, but

over the door of the southernmost of the central rooms was

a pediment, now fallen, with the FELIX ROMULIANA

inscription.197

To the east of the horrea is a large, 33 by 24 metre,

tetrastyle prostyle temple set on a 4-metre high podium

with steps up on the east side. An altar is located about

7 metres to the east of the temple. Below cella, in the

podium, is a two roomed crypt. Immediately to the south of

the temple is a long rectangular structure oriented east-

west. The north side flanked by a colonnade and access is

provided from the colonnade and though a narrow entrance

hall at the east end. In the area of the temple fragments

of sculpture, including a colossal cuirass figure, two

statues of Hercules and a statue carrying a torch were

found.198

The foundations of a second temple and an associated

altar were found within a compound limited on both sides

by the two villas. This structure was smaller than the

other temple, measuring only 16.5 by 10.5 metres, but was

also a podium temple, tetrastyle prostyle and with a crypt

197 The inscription is contained within a wreath supported by two

crudely drawn peacocks and decorated with modest sprigs of ivy leaves.

For the most recent discussion of the complex see D. Srejovic "Felix

Romuliana". 198 D. Srejovic, "Two Memorial Monuments", pp.22-3; D. Srejovic, A.

Lalovic and D. Jankovic, "Two Late Roman Temples at Gamzigrad"

Archaeologia Iugoslavica 19 (1978) 54-63; D. Srejovic, A. Lalovic and

D. Jankovic, "Gamzigrad" Starinar 31 (1980); D. Srejovic, "An Imperial

Roman Palace" pp.97-99. Srejovic suggests that the temple served both

Olympian and cthonic deities, to Hercules and to Cybele, whom he

linked with Galerius and his mother Romula respectively.

104

located in the podium. The crypt was approached by a pair

of stairways along the west wall of the cella.199

The

temple and altar associated with it are not aligned with

any of the principal axes of the fortifications or

internal buildings.

The Villa in the north-east quarter is built on an

irregular plan on a different alignment to the other

structures and consists of a peristyle courtyard with

rooms arranged around it. On the west side is a

triclinium, 12.5 by 11 metres in plan with an apse in the

west wall and massive side walls that might have supported

a second story. To the south of the second villa is a

long, narrow structure, 51.2 by 11.5 metres in

extent, with seven rooms and a long corridor along the

south side giving access to the various rooms.� Its

function is not known. Finally, buried in the south-east

quarter of the compound is a large, unexcavated

structure.200

The phases of the construction of Gamzigrad are

confused. The excavator, Canak-Medic, dates the older

wall, the villa in the north-east quadrant , the horrea

and the structure to the west of it to the reign of

Galerius. She considers that the small temple and the

later, outer circuit may belong either to the reign of

199 This, Srejovic, ops. cit. associates with a taurobolia ceremony,

again for Cybele. 200 J. J. Wilkes, op. cit. pp.69-70.

105

Constantine or Theodosius.201 Srejovic disagrees on the

grounds that the larger temple appears to be a

more developed form of the smaller temple, both of which

he considers to have the same function.� He dates the

small temple and the early wall to the period when

Galerius was Caesar (293-306) and the larger temple, north

west villa, and outer wall to his Augustate (305-311);

other structures are attributed to Licinius after the

death of Galerius, and before Licinius' loss of the region

to Constantine in 314.202

Phasing on the basis of alignment

is difficult, while the stratigraphy is confused and not

well published. In balance, Canak-Medic's chronology is

preferable to that of Srejovic.

Contained in the plan of Gamzigrad are numerous

elements comparable with Split. Their size is comparable,

the early walls with polygonal towers flanking the gate

are similar to those at Split, as are the galleries over

the later gate, the colonnaded street the curious building

west of the horrea and the temples. As at Split the

buildings are extravagantly decorated with coloured

marbles, decorative facades and mosaics. Furthermore there

is a strong association between the site and the

201 M. Canak-Medic, op. cit. pp.361-2. 202 In suport of his chronology uses the alignments of the various

elements: D. Srejovic, "Two Late Roman Temples" Drawing 3 and D.

Srejovic, A. Lalovic and D. Jankovic, "Gamzigrad" pp.77-80. This

argument is considerably weakened by his misrepresentation of the

alignments. Nevertheless J. J. Wilkes, op. cit. p.70 follows

Srejovic's dating.

106

birthplace and final resting place of the emperor Galerius

although it is not evident from the plan or the literary

sources that he built the complex as a retirement villa

or for his burial. The lay out of Gamzigrad differs

radically from that at Split. The internal buildings are

scattered in a disjointed fashion, each standing

discretely apart from each other whereas at Split the

various parts are integrated in a predetermined plan with

complexes designed for different functions connected to

one another by streets, corridors and linking rooms. The

private quarters at Split are large and extend along the

south wall of the site giving a view over the sea. At

Gamzigrad the older of the two villas is modest in scale

and design in comparison to even modest contemporary

villas, and has no view or elevated gallery. A most

intriguing parallel exists between the multi-roomed

structure in which the inscription was found and a similar

unit in the eastern block of the private apartments at

Split. Despite the obvious similarities in patronage,

eventual use and in certain elements of the plan, it is

difficult to consider Gamzigrad as a close relation of the

complex at Split.

Although the Villa of Maxentius on the via Appia

outside Rome is not a palace in the sense of those

described in Chapter 4, there is reason to believe that

107

Maxentius, who was illegitimately created emperor by the

people of Rome, wished to build a complex that recalled

the residences of legitimate rulers. In view of its date,

patron and possible function, it seems reasonable to seek

parallels to Split in its plan.203

The villa (fig. 5.3) lies between the second and

third milestones from the city of Rome on the Via Appia.

There are three main units making up the villa, namely the

rotunda, the residence and the circus. These were built

over an earlier complex developed during the Republic and

in the first two centuries after Christ. The excavators

suggest that the early villa belonged to Herodes Atticus,

and that the circus was founded on the hippodrome garden

attached to the villa.204

The rotunda has a plan consisting of a circular cella

with an an external diameter of 34 metres, with a

rectangular porch, 18 metres deep, attached to the

southeast side. Six internal buttresses are attached to

the inside wall.205 The whole was set centrally within a

rectangular temenos with an exterior measurement of 120 by

112 metres. An arcaded colonnade formed a portico around

203 This is convincingly argued by A. Frazer, "The Iconography of the

Emperor Maxentius' Villa on the Via Appia", Art Bulletin 48 (1966),

385-392. 204 For the plans of the early villa, see G. Pisani Sartorio and R.

Calza, La villa di Massenzio sulla Via Appia. Il Palazzo. Le Opere

d'arte (I Monumenti Romani 6) Instituto di Studi Romani: Rome 1976,

pp.113-121, pl. 53-55. 205 These presumably supported a wooden peaked or domed roof, as the

walls, only 2 metres thick, could not have supported a dome of 34

metres diameter as Ward Perkins, op. cit. p.424, suggests.

108

the rotunda. Buttresses on the inside walls of the temenos

supported roof beams of a pitched roof. This portico

appears to have been entered only by small doors set in

the northwest corner and east side of the temenos.206 The

rotunda is usually assumed to be a mausoleum.�

Inscriptions in the area of the carceres and triumphal

arch of the circus which commemorate Maxentius and his son

Romulus have led to the assumption that funeral games were

held in the circus for Romulus, who was buried in the

mausoleum.207 Apart from parallels to the shape of other

contemporary circular structures of equally uncertain

identification there is little to suggest a mausoleum.208

The circus, clearly functional, started close by the

temenos of the rotunda. It is well preserved with parts

standing up to 16 metres in height. The carceres still

stand at the south and are flanked at each end by entrance

towers three storeys high. From the carceres the arena

extends for a total internal length of 503 metres and was

up to 79 metres wide. Three-fifths of the distance down

the east cavea are the substantial remains of the judges'

box at the finishing post. Also preserved are the remains

206 Pisani Sartorio and Calza, op. cit. pl.58. 207 J. H. Humphrey, op. cit. p.601. The texts are given by Frazer, op.

cit. p.385, n.4. 208 There are no niches, no inscriptions, sarcophagi or bones to

support the suggestion. In fact only parallels with the Tor dei

Schiavi at Rome (with vault and niches and pronaos), Galerius' so-

called mausoleum at Thessalonika which is also set within a temenos,

but is now thought to be a temple, and Diocletian's mausoleum at Split

(vaulted, with niches and separate porch) support the identification.

For the mausoleum argument see Frazer, op. cit. p. 387.

109

of the imperial box opposite the meta secunda on the west

side. This was approached by a covered corridor stretching

from the villa along an elevated terrace. The corridor

opened onto the box through a circular room, while a

square stair-tower gave access to the box from ground

level.209

The residential complex is composed of a series of

interconnecting rooms joined by corridors and vestibules.

According to the excavators the main entrance was from the

north through a circular chamber with semi-circular niches

let into the wall.210

The focal point of the complex is a

large apsidal audience chamber oriented facing the

southwest. The hall, measuring 32 by 20 metres, has a

broad 12 metre diameter apse in the north wall flanked by

semi-circular niches. Access to the hall is from the south

via a transverse, rectangular vestibule measuring 30 by 10

metres. This in turn connects with the ambulatory leading

to the imperial box.211 West of the apsidal hall is a long

narrow hall or broad corridor leading to a large

rectangular room to the north. This has an apse at the

south end and measures 53 by 11 metres. The room off which

209 J.H.Humphrey, op. cit. pp. 582-602. 210 Pisani Sartorio and Calza, op. cit. p.125-126. Actually too little

of the structure has been uncovered to tell whether it is the apsidal

end of a rectangular hall with a door flanked by niches rather than a

vestibule comparable to that at Split as is argued by the authors. 211 Pisani Sartorio and Calza, op. cit. p.124.

110

it opens has a tranverse vestibule with an apse at one

end.212

In many respects Maxentius' villa resembles

provincial palaces. It possesses three features apparently

typical of them, namely a circus, a rotunda and a

residential complex made up of large rooms with apses,

ambulatories, courts, and vestibules. It differs in a

number of respects.Its location is some distance outside

the city rather than within, and it lacks features

associated with the administrative function of provincial

palaces. Despite this, Frazer suggests that the complex

was built in imitation of the regional palaces, perhaps as

an attempt to legitimise his claim to the purple with an

appropriate monument.213 Such a gesture would seem

unnecessary since he possessed the original palace on the

Palatine with the Circus Maximus, the Curia and the

ancestral centre of Roman worship nearby. It is possible

that the complex was an elaborate rustic villa using an

architectural iconography that Maxentius thought

appropriate to his standing.

Comparison with Split is difficult because of the

incomplete plan of the private apartments. Both have large

basilical halls which with other rooms open onto a long

corridor. Although the possibility is not mentioned by the

212 Ibid.. pp.122-124. 213 A.Frazer, op. cit. p. 392.

111

excavators, this corridor may well have had a colonnade

running the length of its outward facing side, in which

case comparison with the gallery of Split would be almost

irrefutable. Maxentius' villa is planned on three

unrelated major axes and is closely associated with a huge

circus. As at Split, public and private space are strictly

separated, with the mausoleum set within a separate

temenos, and circus set to one side. The complex,

unfettered by defensive walls is permitted to sprawl over

a large area, perhaps in order to take advantage of

different views or to create a series complicated

architectural spaces.

A more profitable source of comparanda may be

provided by large provincial villas of the late empire,

such as the Piazza Armerina.214 The Piazza Armerina,

located in southern Sicily, was thought to have been built

by Maximian as a eetirement villa in the same way that

Diocletian built Split for this purpose. Even though the

date of the complex, circa 310 to 325, precludes this

suggestion, the complex is of interest to the

understanding of Split.

The villa (fig. 5.4) is built on a gentle slope and

covers an area approximately 130 by 100 metres (1.3 ha.).

214 R. J. A. Wilson, Piazza Armerina, Austin, 1983; W. L. MacDonald,

The Architecture of the Roman Empire, II, New Haven, 1986 pp. 274-280.

112

It is planned in three distinct clusters of rooms which

are aligned on different axes centred on the mid-point of

the atrium. The entrance, through a monumental archway at

the southwest corner of the site, gives access into a

trapezoidal entrance court surrounded on three sides by a

colonnade. Off axis on the east side of the court, a

rectangular vestibule connects with the large rectangular

peristyle atrium with a central pool and a door on the

north side connects with the bath complex.

The atrium is the focal point of the villa. Around it

are arranged blocks of rooms including a small shrine on

the south side, a bath complex to the northwest and a

corridor linking three suites of rooms to the east.The

shrine has a fountain set in the middle of the floor

decorated with a mosaic showing Orpheus charming the

animals. On the south side an apse contained a statue of

Apollo.215

Opposite, on the north side of the atrium, a

series of one, two and three roomed units open onto the

peristyle. The east block is unified by a 58 metre long

corridor with apses terminating each end. The floor of the

corridor is decorated with a well preserved hunt scene,

and the apses with unidentified personifications.216 Of the

three suites opening onto the corridor, the southern two

are most interesting. The central suite consists of a

215 Ibid. p. 32. 216 Ibid. p. 24.

113

single room, measuring 30 by 14 metres, with a broad apse

occupying the greater portion of the east end. The hall

was decorated with opus sectile on the walls, floor and

apse. This space probably served as a reception room or

audience hall.217 The southern suite consists of eight

rooms aligned on three parallel axes. From the corridor

two doors open onto a semi-circular fountain court which

in turn gives access to units of three rooms to north and

south and to a larger rectangular room with an apse to the

east.� This block of rooms is thought to be for day to day

family use, and was decorated throughout with mosaics of

childish pursuits, including a hunt and a chariot race,

and mythological scenes.218

The bath complex is oriented on an axis radial to the

centre of the atrium.It is entered from the southwest

corner of the peristyle and consists of three distinct

units including an entrance hall, used perhaps for

changing, an octagon with cold plunges and another,

heated, hall with warm rooms and pools. The entrance hall

has two apses, one at either end, and a scene from the

Circus Maximus in mosaic covering the floor. In the

southern apse a door communicates through another room

with the entrance court. The octagonal frigidarium must

have been domed. In six of the Sides aediculae open onto

217 Ibid. p. 25; RIA p. 461. 218 Ibid. pp. 27-8.

114

semicircular spaces. On the north side is an elongated

pool fed by an aqueduct and on the south side a trefoil

cold plunge. The tepidarium is similar in shape to the

entrance hall and opens onto three caldaria on its west

side.219

On the south side of the site is the oval court

complex. This consists of a series of structures arranged

around a truncated oval peristyle. At the west end is a

nymphaeum and at the other a triconch structure thought to

be a triclinium.220 This building has a maximum extent of

about 25 by 20 metres. It is entered from the peristyle to

the west up a short flight of steps and through a triple

entrance way on the west side. The main room is about 12

metres square. The east, north and south walls press

outward into semi-circular exedrae, and are entered

through broad doors divided into three parts by columns.

The floors are covered with mosaics showing some of the

exploits of Hercules.

The Piazza Armerina is an extremely rich villa with a

complicated multi-axial plan. It is not, however,

extraordinary and compares with both Split and other

contemporary villas in size and in its various elements.

The entrance vestibule is square at the Piazza Armerina,

but at Split, and at the early fourth century villa of

219 Ibid. pp. 20-23. 220 Ibid. p. 29.

115

Valentine in Gaul it is circular in plan with semi-

circular exedrae.221

The basilical hall is to be found both

at Split but is otherwise widely spread appearing at

Gamzigrad, the Villa of Maxentius222 and Loffelbach

223 and

is a common element found generally in Late Roman

architecture.224

The transverse corridor is also widespread

in villa plans, and is found not only at Split, the Villa

of Maxentius and Gamzigrad but also in villas not

sponsored by imperial patrons such as Woodchester and

Valentine.225 One unit at the Piazza Armerina that may help

interpret a suite of rooms at Split is the triconch

triclinium. In the same form it appears at Desenzano, at

Rioseco de Soria, and Patti Marina,226 but may possibly be

related to the block of rooms with rectilinear rooms in

the east part of the private appartments at Split. Another

possibility is that the southern suite opening off the

corridor at Piazza Armerina, and and southwest part of

221 At Valentine the entrance to the villa opens onto a long peristyle

court with a transverse corridor at one end. From the corridor access

to the main block, which is arranged around an interior courtyard, is

through a D-spaped space with a central pool and through the circular

vestibule, Ibid. pp. 80-1, fig. 51b. 222 cf. supra. 223 Loffelbach in Austia was laid out in the early second century, but

modified in the late third century. Here an entrance hall leads to a

peristyle court with an apsed audience hall (18 by 9 metres) on its

north side. To the east of the triclinium is a second, smaller court

with a peristyle on three sides leading to a small complex of baths.

The plan, orientation, date and scale of the villa at Loffelbach are

all very similar to that at Gamzigrad. R. J. A. Wilson, op. cit. p.107

n.36, fig.50c. A fuller account can be

found in W.Modrijan, Der romische Landsitz von Loffelbach, Graz. 1971. 224 For instance in the palace at Thessalonica (fig. 4.11) and at

Trier, RIA, fig.299. 225 R. J. A. Wilson, op. cit. fig. 51c, d. 226 Ibid. figs. 48, 50; RIA fig. 316.

116

Gamzigrad is a better parallel, and that this element is a

day room rather than a triclinium.

Both the Piazza Armerina and the Villa of Maxentius

are unfortified, and so are not constrained by rigid

boundaries. As a result they sprawl across their

respective sites with groups of structures aligned on

different axes. Yet in these, and in contemporary villas

there are numerous elements in common with Split.

Mogorjelo and Gamzigrad are villas of a different type,

with axes strictly defined by walls and streets. At

Gamgigrad the enclosed area is so large that the internal

structures lack cohesion giving the impression that the

site developed slowly over a number of years. At Mogorjelo

the plan is regular and cohesive and appears to have been

the product of a single building campaign. The

similarities between fortified and unfortified villas of

the late third and early fourth century to Split argues

the case that Split is a rich villa of the same general

type as the Piazza Armerina that has been regularised and

constrained by its fortification walls. Split has the

transverse galleries, the day rooms, the triclinia, the

vestibules and colonnades of unfortified villas and the

gallery, walls and strict separation of public and private

space of Mogorjelo.

117

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION.

Conclusions about the plan of Split have to take

Diocletian's political and private circumstances into

account. Split was Diocletian's retirement villa, so much

is given by fourth century authors. After resigning his

office he retreated to a place of outstanding natural

beauty near to the place of his birth, but remote from the

centres of imperial government. He rarely made any effort

to intervene in politics thereafter except to discuss the

problem of imperial succession with Maximian and Galerius

in 308, at which time Diocletian declined Galerius'

suggestion that he return to office, and to request of

Maximin Daia a guarantee for his daughter's safety after

the death of Galerius.227

It seems that Diocletian had no

active interest in politics after his resignation and

willingly returned to the station of a private citizen. He

therefore had no need or desire for the pomp and

paraphernalia of imperial office, let alone the buildings

associated with it. If Diocletian really returned to

private life, it is unacceptable to attempt an

interpretation of Split in terms of imperial iconography

without more solid evidence than that hitherto presented.

Descriptions of Split as a palatium sacrum or castrum

palatium, the `peristyle' as a basilica discoperta and the

vestibule as a throne room should be avoided unless

227 Aurelius Victor, �Epitome de Caesaribus 39,5-6.

118

substantiated by convincing and irrefutable arguments as

they suggest that Diocletian maintained his rank and

position after abdication.228

The villa seems to have been started well before his

retirement. Diocletian's personal interest in urban design

is well documented by his intervention in the construction

of the palace and associated structures at Nicomedeia.229

The villa, therefore, was presumably laid out on a plan

designed in close consultation with Diocletian and

contained elements that he specifically desired. The villa

was surrounded by a defensive wall and had a simple

orthogonal street plan dividing the interior into four

parts. Different parts of the villa were separated into

discrete areas linked by transitional elements. The

228 Such suggestions fall into Boethius' category of `Rash Conclusions'

in vogue in the 1940's and 50's. A. Boethius, "The Reception Halls of

the Roman Emperors," Annual of the British School at Athens 46 (1951)

25-31. He particularly targets the iconographers' interpretation of

Split, saying that they confuse architectural tradition, use and

meaning. The description of Split by these architectural iconographers

as a palatium sacrum and castrum palatium presumes that Diocletian had

a godlike status during life which he maintained after abdication.

This ignores the statements of ancient authors that he retired to

become a private citizen once more. While emperor, Diocletian's status

was not dissimilar to that of his immediate predecessors. In

associating himself with a divine personage, Jove, Diocletian followed

Gallienus and Aurelian who both assumed an identity with Sol; see N.

Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy, Jutland Archaeological

Society: Aarhus 1986, pp. 295-297, 300-301. In adopting a Caesar he

did no more than ensure that the succession was settled, a practice

(including the title) begun under Hadrian. In wearing fabulous

clothing such as jewelled slippers, he followed the fashion of third

century imperial dress. Depictions of the emperor in art and on coins

do not justify the assumption that he was an incarnation of god any

more than earlier emperors were; rather such representations show god-

like aspects of his nature, his ancestry and his right to rule. In two

respects Diocletian was unusual: he intentionally distanced himself

from the public by raising imperial appearances to ceremonial

occasions and took the extraordinary step of putting aside his purple

robe in favour of more youthful and energetic rulers. 229 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 7.8-10.

119

private apartments were located in the southern part of

the site and elevated so as to give a panoramic view of

the coast from a second storey gallery. A religous and

mortuary complex stood in front of the monumental entrance

to these apartments, and were screened from the street by

an arcuated colonnade. Bathing establishments were tucked

between the periboloi of the enclosures and the

apartments.The northern part of the site were public

spaces perhaps reserved for external pleasures; in the

northwest quadrant was a large peristyle court, and in the

northeast a series of large rooms of which at least one

had a sumptuous mosaic pavement. The villa seems to have

been professionally planned. A module of measurement

approximately 55 Roman feet long can be recognised, and

the measurement of the site seems to have originated at

the crossing point of the streets. This crossing has

traces of a square monument below the present street level

which appear to be the foundations of a tetrapylon.

Whether this structure was ever completed or not is not

known for none of its superstructure is standing.

The apparent similarity between Split and castra is

compelling. The fortification wall, the gates, the towers

and the street plan are all closely paralleled in

contemporary military camps. On the other hand, these same

120

features are found on a larger scale in city plans230 and

on a smaller scale in fortified villas. Given the military

conditions of the third century fortified villas and towns

became the norm within the provinces bordering the limes,

and it is not surprising that Diocletian resolved to have

an enclosed residence rather than a sprawling villa of a

type preferred in more stable eras, such as Hadrian's

villa at Tivoli. The decision to fortify the villa meant

that military architectural vocabulary was resorted to for

the walls and that the exterior would have a military

appearance from outside, and to a certain extent, in plan.

The magazines along the fortification wall in the north

part of Split were probably adopted for the same reasons

that they were in forts, namely because the space

available within the enclosure was limited. It is not

reasonable to assume that they were a military innovation

and the certainly did not serve a military function

everywhere they were used. The only direct evidence for

their use is at Split where finds of amphoras suggest that

at least some of the units were for storage. The existance

of similar units at Mogorjelo reinforces a non-military

explanation of their function.

On closer examination, crucial differences between

the plan of Split and the traditional castrum emerge. The

230 For instance, the Aurelian walls of Rome, RIA, fig. 22; the Porta

Appia gate in these walls, RIA, fig. 279; and the street plans of

Philippopolis, Brunnow and Domaszewski fig. 1039.

121

comparison with Split was based on the misconception that

the principia in a camp was the commander's residence.

However, the commander of a garrison usually lived in

another part of the camp often close to the principia. At

Dura, for example, the commander lived in apartments to

the northwest of the principia while the dux had a

"palace" on the edge of the encampment overlooking the

Euphrates.231 What at Split is usually thought of as the

residence in the south part is actually the private

apartments consisting of interior domestic spaces.The

remainder of the internal area of Split was devoted to

other different aspects of the residence, such as the

temenoi for religious use, the baths, and the structures

in the north part reserved for outside activities.

Furthermore, the principia is always located adjacent to

the centre of the camp and surrounded by streets, stores

and barracks on all sides, while at Split what was thought

to be the residence abuts the fortification wall at the

extreme south end of the site.

The street plan at Split is not as simple as first

appears. What is called The Peristyle is, in plan, the

231 M.T.Rostovtzeff, Excavations at Dura Europos. Preliminary Report of

the Ninth Season of Work, 1935-1936, New Haven, 1952, pp. 206-7, figs.

5a,b. The principia at Dura is wrongly described as the praetorium in

the literature, and the commander's house, properly the praetorium, is

located one block west and one block north of the principia. The house

of the dux closely resembles Split in that the living apartments are

arranged along a gallery overlooking the Euphrates with their

entrances

facing away from the principal entrance of the complex.

122

extension of the main north-south avenue beyond the

crossing at the centre of the complex. The street plan is

thus cruciform not T-shaped. Only in two contemporary

camps, Luxor and Palmyra, are the principal streets

cruciform, and in both these instances there are vital

abnormalities of function. Luxor was built during the

Tetrarchy around the pre-existing temple of Ammon which

seems to have been converted to a monument commemorating

the imperial cult. The camp of Diocletian at Palmyra was

constructed within the city using pre-existing streets,

and possibly reusing buildings laid out as much as a

generation before for a civil rather than military

function. In both cases there is reason to believe that

Diocletian himself visited and stayed at the camps, indeed

that they were built in expectation of his visit.

Consequently it is possible that the nature of the plan is

more closely related to Diocletian's requirements than to

a new, short lived, design of a military camp.

A further important argument against conscious

imitation of the traditional castrum design at Split is

that by the time of the Tetrarchy the form of camps had

radically changed. During the third century the defence of

the empire was modified and the traditional Polybian camp

was no longer the standard fortification form. The limes

were defended by small forts intended to resist invasion,

123

while the full scale legionary camps, set back from the

border, were simplified. In the castra of the

period, the number of and emphasis on the gates was

reduced so that the principal lines of communication no

longer necessarily remained the same as in the Polybian

camp scheme. Either the via principalis or via praetoria

became the principal axis and often, for instance in the

second phase of Drobeta and at Portchester, the other

disappeared from the plan. Where they co-existed, one was

noticeably broader than the other. Because of the change

in castra design, direct comparison between Split and the

Polybian plan is anachronistic.

The perceived similarities between Split and palaces

have been confused by the misunderstanding of Diocletian's

status after retirement and Downey's reconstruction of the

palace at Antioch. If it is accepted that the ancient

sources are unanimous in referring to Split as a villa,

that Diocletian actually retired from office and that

Libanius described the New City at Antioch not the palace,

then the relationship between the plans of Split and

palaces becomes clear. This can be best summarised by a

rapid reiteration of what a Tetrarchic palace was. Palaces

were administrative and residential complexes located

within a major city generally close to the limes. They

covered a huge area adjacent to a circus, and were

occupied, on occasion, by the emperor, by officials and

124

their retinue. The palace at Thessalonika was composed of

numerous discrete blocks of rooms which, although they

were placed together in a cohesive unit, appeared modular

in plan because the plan lacked connective passages and

strong horizontal axes. From the palace plan it is

difficult to separate public from private space. From

Libanius's description, Antioch seems to have had a

similarly modular plan. By contrast, Split was purely a

rustic residence remote from the seat of government, with

no administrative function, and occupied by a private

citizen, formerly an emperor. The plan has strong

horizontal axes which connect the various parts of the

site, but public and private space is clearly defined.

Finally, Split, although relatively large, is tiny

compared to a palace.

The considerable similarities between villas and

Split confirm the statements of the ancient sources that

it was originally designed as a luxurious rustic villa.

Its plan was, to a large extent predetermined by the form

of the walls and the positioning of the gates. Into this

frame the various elements desired by the patron were

fitted. These include the standard vocabulary of the

private apartments of villas: the tricinium, the reception

hall, the sleeping quarters arranged along a transverse

corridor and bath structures. At Split these are confined

to the southern portion of the site separate from public

125

spaces such as the streets, courtyards and storage spaces.

In their arrangement they recall the disposition at

Mogorjelo and the fortified villas portrayed in the

African mosaics; the transverse corridor is at second

storey elevation with an arcade offering a panoramic view,

the cubicles are arranged around the fortification wall

and public and private space are kept separate and the

overall plan is controlled by the axes of walls and gates.

In addition to regular villa forms, Split has

elements not usually found in villa architecture for which

external parallels may have to be sought. The mausoleum

and the temple, both within temenoi, and the broad streets

flanked by colonnades seem to draw from a different

medium. The mausoleum is a structure that was to be found

outside the city at Rome, for instance the Tor dei

Schiavi, perhaps as part of the palace complex at

Thessalonika, at the Villa of Maxentius on the Via Appia

and incorporated into the city plan of the of

Philippopolis (fig. 1.4).232

These latter three projects

were products of direct imperial patronage, and the

conclusion that at Split this element is related to

Diocletian's former status as Augustus is inescapable.233

232 Butler, H.C. Publicartions of the American Archaeological

Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900. London 1902, fig.135. 233 A. Fraser, "The Iconography of the Emperor Maxentius' Buildings on

the Via Appia," Art Bulletin 48 (1966), p. 387-8 and A. Grabar,

Martyrium: Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l'art chretien

antique, Paris 1946, Vol. I, pp. 220-232, see these mausolea as a

dynastic tomb cum founder heroa cum temple of the imperial cult.

126

In view of the diverse settings in which the this

particular mausoleum form has been found: outside Rome, in

a palace complex, as part of a rustic villa and as part of

a city plan, the significance of its presence at Split

cannot be ascribed to the influence of any one particular

architectural prototype. Rather its presence reflects the

special needs of a rich important individual who wished to

lie in a structure of a particular type, suitable to his

status, within the confines of his villa built near his

birthplace.

The temple set within its own temenos is a feature

more likely to be found in a city or a sanctuary than in a

private villa. Modest religious edifices were found at the

Piazza Armerina, including a shrine with a statue of

Apollo set in a niche and a shrine of the household gods234

in the atrium opposite the entrance. These too were

provided for the use of the owner and his family. At

Gamzigrad two podium temples were found. These were both

richly decorated and one was even furnished with

sculptures of Cybele and Hercules. The interpretation of

the site suggests that it was an imperial villa rather

than a sanctuary or settlement, so presumably the temples

were built for the private devotions of the owner, his

234 R. J. A. Wilson, op. cit. p. 17. The Penates and Lares were

worshipped in lararia of private houses. Little is known about either,

but the Lares seem to be revered ancestors, the Penates were brought

by Aeneas from Troy. M. Grant, Roman Myths, New York, 1971 pp.79-83.

127

immediate family and his retinue. One authority has

suggested that the temples were dedicated to Hercules and

Cybele who he links with Galerius and his mother

respectively, as divinities especially favoured by them.235

If shrines to divinities and ancestral spirits were

standard in private houses and villas as at the Piazza

Armerina, and temples to what may have been ancestral

divinities were found at the imperial villa at Gamzigrad,

then the temple complex at Split may, with reservations,

be interpreted as a glorified lararium in honour of his

ancestor Jove.236 In any case, temples in private villas

are not unprecedented.

The street plan of is more difficult to place in its

true perspective. Villas by nature have a system of

interior communication that is designed for small amounts

of traffic. The main arteries of villas are through

corridors and passages that skirt open areas such as atria

and are channeled at certain places through doorways. At

Split the interior of the villa is crowded with structures

each of which require at least one point of access. The

starting points of the main arteries were determined as

235 D. Srejovic, "Two Memorial Monuments", pp.22-3; D. Srejovic, A.

Lalovic and D. Jankovic, "Two Late Roman Temples at Gamzigrad"

Archaeologia Iugoslavica 19 (1978) 54-63; D. Srejovic, A. Lalovic and

D. Jankovic, "Gamzigrad" Starinar 31 (1980); D. Srejovic, "An Imperial

Roman Palace" pp.97-99. Srejovic is mistaken, however, in linking

Galerius to the gens Herculii; his adoption by Diocletian made him a

member of the gens Jovii. 236 For Diocletian and Maximian as "sons of gods and the creator of

gods" see S. S. McCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity,

Berkeley, 1971, p. 170.

128

soon as the location of the gates was decided. One

passage, the decumanus ran between two gates, another, the

cardo ran from one gate to the vestibule of the private

apartments, a third connected all three gates and gave

access to the cubicles, towers, ramparts and baths.

Conceivably the architects could have chosen a meandering

path for the streets and a random or multi-axial

arrangement of internal structures to produce a maze of

passages with constantly changing architectural spaces.

Constrained by limited space, by the alignment of the

walls and the location of gates, the architects decided on

a strictly orthogonal plan. The result was a pattern of

long, straight vistas on the main axes of the site which

provided direct access between points of departure and

destinations. This plan is most readily compared with the

street plan of cities, especially those of the eastern

empire, where long streets, flanked by colonnades,

dissected the built up areas.

At Split, as in many Roman cities, the plan was laid

out from a central point.237

The resulting street plan in

237 See Chapter 2, note 5; In laying out of a Roman city a prescribed

ceremony was employed. This ceremony, borrowed from Etruscan practice,

was first used by Romulus in the founding of Rome and is described in

Plutarch, Vita Romuli, 11. The centre of the city was marked and

streets laid out at right angles from this point of origin. The city

limits were defined by a ploughed trench called the sulcus primigenius

or pomerium and the gates marked by raising the plough and lifting it

over the designated place. At the centre a pit was excavated and the

first fruits of various crops thrown in along with earth brought from

the country of origin of the various citizens and closed. This pit was

the mundus and at Rome the pit was unsealed thrice yearly to allow the

ghosts contained to roam the city. Roman towns and camps were also

129

cities was an othogonal lay-out parallel to the two major

axes of the plan, the cardo and decumanus respectively. In

eastern cities these two main streets, at least, were

broad avenues flanked by colonnades. A notable feature of

the major crossings of such foundations is that they are

frequently marked by monuments. These monuments take two

forms; the tetrapylon or quadrifons found from Spain to

Syria and the tetrakionion limited in distribution to the

eastern part of the empire only.238 At Split the crossing

streets and colonnades are both suggestive of eastern city

street types. It is also known that the site was laid out

using a fixed unit of measurement239 originating at the

intersection of the streets and that at this point four

massive foundations possibly for a tetrakionion, which may

never have been used, marked the four corners of the

intersection. It seems then that Diocletian set about the

laid out in a similar fashion, the surveyor placed his groma and

marked out the lines of the principal axes of the settlement.

Subsidiary streets were ultimately derived from these base lines. A

mundus was found at Cosa under the Capitolium see F.E.Brown,

E.H.Richardson and L.Richardson, Cosa II. The Temples of the Arx, MAAR

26 (1962) pp. 9-15. 238 W. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire Vol.II, New

Haven 1986 pp. 87-91. MacDonald suggests that these monuments were

perhaps influenced by Greek tetrastyle altars and the Ianus Geminus

quadrifons passage shrine at Rome. To MacDonald it seems natural that

the intersection of streets should be embellished and monumentalised,

but he also sees a greater significance in the monumentalisation; "A

four square structure stands where a surveyor drove his stake or set

up his sighting instrument, a place highly charged with meaning, a

place holding a whole town or city quarter in fealty. From it a

governing order was laid upon the earth roundabout through the agency

of two intersecting, controlling lines. Four square structures

celebrate the location and significance of these spots, giving them

spatial definition and visual character." The spot marked is

essentially the mundus of the new foundation and the monument set up a

portal. 239 See Chapter 2, supra note 34.

130

construction of his villa at Split with the correct

formulae for the act of foundation of a city. This is

particularly enlightening in the light of MacDonald's

ideas that much of villa architecture contains much of the

building typology of urban planning. For instance, at the

Piazza Armerina he ennumerates aqueducts, arches, a

basilica, baths, a circus, exedrae, fountains, latrines,

peristyle courts, shops and shrines among the urban

features either existing, implied in the plan or in mosaic

and sees tha same kind of features embodied in Hadrian's

Villa at Tivoli.240 At Split the a similar array of urban

forms can also be found including evidence of the act of

foundation.

In the light of the evidence, it seems that the plan

of Split, except for its walls, was not modelled on

military prototypes and that palace planning had no role

in its design. The complex was a fortified villa, or

rather, a chateau, as Duval envisioned it. Besides the

obvious influence of villa architecture, strong influence

of Roman city planning can be detected.

240 W. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire Vol.II, pp. 274-

283.

131

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Sources.

Aurelius Victor. Epitome de Caesaribus.

Dio Cassius. Historiarum Romanarum.

Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica.

Eutropius. Breviarum historiae Romanae.

Evagrius (Scholasticus). Historia ecclesiastica.

Hygenus Gromaticus. De munitionibus castorum.

Jerome. Chronicon.

Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum.

Libanius, Orationes.

Malalas, John. Chronographia.

Nicetas Choniates. Historia.

P. Beatty Panop. T.C.Skeat, trans. Papyrii from

Panopolis , Hodges, Figgis:Dublin 1964.

Pausanias, Periegeta.

Plutarch, Vita Romuli.

Polybius, Historiae.

Procopius, De aedificiis.

Prosper Tiro, Chronica minora.

Scriptores historiae Augustae.

Socrates Scholasticus Historia ecclesiastica.

Strabo, Geographus.

Theodoretus, Historia ecclesiastica.

Zonaras, Epitome historiarum.

132

Modern Sources.

Adam,R. Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at

Spalatro in Dalmatia. London, 1764.

Arix, R.O. AA 54 (1939) 156-171.

Beckwith, J. Early Christian and Byzantine Art.

Harmondsworth, 1970.

Barnes, T. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine.

Cambridge, MA, 1982.

Bissing, F.W. von "Altchristliche Wandmalereien aus

Agypten," Festschrift zum Sechsigsten Geburtstag von

Paul Clemen. Dusseldorf, 1926, pp. 181-88.

Boethius, A. "The Reception Halls of the Roman Emperors."

BSA 46 (1951) 25-31.

Bouchier, E. A Short History of Antioch. Oxford, 1921.

Boskovic, O., Duval, N., Popovic, V. and Vallet, G.

Sirmium: recherches archeologiques franco-yogoslaves

a Sirmium. Ecole Francaise de Rome, Institute

Archeologique de Belgrade, 1977.

Brown, F.E., Richardson, E.H., and Richardson, L. Cosa

II. The Temples of the Arx. Memoirs of the American

Academy in Rome 26 (1962) 9-15.

Browning, I. Palmyra. New Jersey, 1976.

Brunnow, R.E. and Domaszewski, A. v. Die provincial

Arabia. vol. 2, Strassburg, 1905.

Bulic, F. Kaiser Diokletians Palast in Split. Translated

by L. Karaman. Zagreb, 1929.

Bury, J.B. "The Great Palace". BZ 21 (1912) 210-25.

Butler, H.C. Publications of the American Archaeological

Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900. Part II:

Architecture and Other Arts. London, 1904.

Calderini, A. Storia di Milano. Milan, 1965.

Campbell, W.A. "The Circus," in Antioch on the Orontes,

I. The excavations of 1932, pp.31-34. Edited by

G.W. Elderkin. Princeton, 1934.

133

________. "A Byzantine Stadium," in Antioch on the

Orontes, I. The excavations of 1932. p.32. Edited by

G.W. Elderkin. Princeton, 1934.

________. "Excavations at Antioch on the Orontes." AJA 38

(1934) 201-6.

________. "The Third Season of Excavation at Antioch on

the Orontes," AJA 40 (1936) 1-9.

________. "The Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavations at

Antioch on the Orontes: 1936-1936," AJA 42 (1938)

205-8.

________. "The Sixth Season of Excavation at Antioch on

the Orontes: 1937," AJA 44 (1940) 417-27.

Canak Medic, M. "Le palais de l'epoque de la Basse

Antiquite pres de Gamzigrad," in Actes de XIVe

congres internationale des etudes Byzantines vol.

III, Bucarest, 1976, pp. 357-62.

Carrie, J-M. "Les Castra Dionysiados et l'evolution de

l'architecture militaire romaine tardive," MelRome

86 (1974) 819-50.

Cassas, L.F. Voyage pittoresque et historique de

l'Istrie et Dalmatie. Paris, 1802.

Castagnoli, F. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity.

Cambridge, 1971.

________. "Roma Quadrata." in Studies Presented to David

Moore Robinson. vol. I, pp. 389-99. Edited by G.E.

Mylonas. St. Louis, 1951.

Colledge, M.A.R. The Art of Palmyra. London, 1976.

Collingwood, R.E. and Richmond, I. The Archaeology of

Roman Britain. London, 1969.

Crouch, D. "The Ramparts of Palmyra," Studia

Palmyrenskie 6 (1975) 6-44.

Cunliffe, B. "Excavations at Portchester Castle, Hants.

1961-3," ArchJ 49 (1969) 62-74.

________. "Excavations at Portchester Castle, Hants.

1966-68," ArchJ 49 (1969) 62-74.

134

________. "Excavations at Portchester Castle, Hants.

1969-71," ArchJ 52 (1972) 70-84.

Dagron, C. Naissence d'une capitale: Constantinople et

ses institutions de 330 a 451. Paris, 1974.

Daressy, C. "Notes sur Luxor de la periode romaine,"

Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte 19

(1920) 166ff.

Dawkins, R.M. and Wace, A.J.B. "Greek Island

Embroideries," Burlington Magazine 26 (1915) 99-107.

Deckers, J.D. "Die Wandmalereien des tetrarchischen

Lagerheiligtums in Ammon-Tempel von Luxor". RomQ 68

(1973) 1-34.

_________. "Die Wandmalerei im Kaiserkulten von Luxor".

JdI 94 (1979) 600-652.

Delvoye, C. "Sur quelques aspectes des relations entre

l'architecture palaeobyantine de l'Anatolie, de

Constantinople et de la Grece," RA (1976) 143-152.

Dilke, O.A.W. The Roman Land Surveyors. New York, 1971.

Dinsmoor, W.B. "The Literary Remains of Sebastiano

Serlio," ArtB 24 (1942) 55-91.

Dorner, F.K. "Inschriften und Denkmaler aus Bithynien,"

Istanbuler Forschungen 14 (1941) 44-51.

Downey, G. "The Palace of Diocletian at Antioch," Les

annales archeologiques de Syrie 3 (1953) 106-16.

________. A History of Antioch in Syria. Princeton,

1961.

________. "Libanius' Oration in Praise of Antioch

(Oration XI)," ProcPhilAs 103 (1959) 652-86.

Dunbabin, K.M.D. The Mosiacs of Roman North Africa.

Oxford, 1978.

Duval, N. "Sirmium `ville imperiale' ou `capitale'?"

Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina 26

(1979) 56-8.

________. "Aquileia e Milano," Antichita Altoadriatiche 4

(1973) 158ff.

135

________. "La place de Split dans l'architecture aulique

du bas-empire," Urbs 4 (1961-62) 67-95.

________. "Le `palais' de Diocletien a Spalato a la

lumiere des recentes decouvertes," Bulletin de la

Societe nationale des antiquaires de France (1961) 71-

117.

________. "Palais et forteresses en Yougoslavie: recherches

nouvelles," �Bulletin de la Societe nationale des

antiquaires de France (1971) 99-129.

Dyggve, E. �Ravennatum Palatium Sacrum. Det Kgl. Danske

Videnskabem Selskab, Archaeologisk-Kunsthistorische

Meddelelser III, 2 (1941).

_______. "La region palatiale de Thessalonique," �Acta

Congressus Madrigiani Hafniae 1954. Copenhagen, 1958,

pp. 353-65.

_______ and Vetters, H. �Mogorjelo: Ein spatantike

Herrensitz in Dalmatien. Vienna, 1966.

Ebersolt, J. Le grande palais de Constantinople et le livre

de ceremonies. Paris, 1910.

Elderkin, G.W. ed. Antioch on the Orontes I. Excavations of

1932. Princeton, 1934.

Fabricius, E. "Some Notes on Polybius's Description of

Roman Camps," JRS 22 (1932) 78-87.

Farlati, D. Illyricum Sacrum. Venice, 1751.

Fellmann, R. Die Principia des Legionslagers Vindonissa und

das Zentralgebaude der romischen Lager und Kastelle.

Vindonissamuseum, 1958, 75-92.

________. "Le `Camp de Diocletien' a Palmyre et

l'architcture militaire du Bas Empire," in Melanges

d'histoire anciennes et d'archeologie offerts a Paul

Collart. (Cahiers d'archeologie romande. no.5).

Lausanne, 1976 173-91.

________. "Der Diokletianspalast von Split im rahmen der

spatromischen Militararchitektur," Antike Welt 10

(1979) 47-55.

Firlati, N. Izmit Sehri ue Eski Eserleri Rehberi.

Istanbul, 1971.

136

Fisher, C.S. "Bath B, House A and the Roman Villa," in

Antioch on the Orontes I. Excavations of 1932.

Edited by G.W. Elderkin. Princeton, 1934, 7-13,

________. "Bath A," in Antioch on the Orontes I.

Excavations of 1932. Edited by G.W.Elderkin.

Princeton, 1934, 5-6.

________. "Bath C," in Antioch on the Orontes I.

Excavations of 1932. Edited by G.W. Elderkin.

Princeton, 1934, 19-31.

Fleming, J. "The Journey to Spalatro," Architectural

Review 123 (1958) 103-107.

Frazer, A. "The Iconography of Maxentius' Villa on via

Appia," ArtB 48 (1966) 385-92.

French, D. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. vol.

1: �The Pilgrims' Road. Oxford, 1981

Frothingham, A.L. "Circular Templum and Mundus. Was the

Templum only Rectangular?" AJA 18 (1914) 302-20.

Gabricevic, B. "Decussis Dioklecijanove Palace u Splitu,"

Vjesnik za Archeologiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku 53-54

(1961-62) 113-24.

Galikowski, M. "Les Principia de Diokletien, `Temple des

Enseignes'," in M.Galikowski, ed. Palmyre VIII.

Warsaw, 1984, 10-48.

Gichon, M. "Three years Excavation at Masad Tamar,"

Saalburger Jahrbuch 33 (1976)

________. "Tamara," in Avi-Yonah, M. and Stern, E. eds.

Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land. Jerusalem, English edition, 1978, 1148-52.

Guilland, R. Etudes de topographie de Constantinople

Byzantine. Amsterdam, 1969.

Hanfmann, G. From Croesus to Constantine. Ann Arbor, 1976.

Hannestad, N. Roman Art and Imperial Policy. Aarhus 1986.

Hebrard, E. and Zeiller, F. Spalato, le palais de

Diocletien. Paris, 1912.

Humphrey, J.H. Roman Circuses. London, 1986.

137

Janin, R. Constantinople Byzantin. Paris, 1964.

Johnstone, A. Roman Forts. London, 1983.

Jullien, M. "Le Culte chretien dans les Temples de

l'antique Egypte," BSA Copt 6 (1940) 163-4.

Kahler, H. Das Funfsaulendenkmal fur die Tetrarchenauf dem

Forum Romanum. Cologne, 1964.

Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, I. "The Imperial Chamber at Luxor,"

DOP 29 (1975) 227-51.

Kennedy, D.L. Archaeological Explorations on the Roman

Frontier in North East Jordan. Oxford, 1982.

Kinch, K.F. L'arc de triomphe de Salonique. Paris, 1890.

Kraeling, C.H. Gerasa. New Haven, 1938.

Krautheimer, R. Three Christian Capitals. Berkeley, 1983.

________. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture.

Harmondsworth (4th. rev. ed.), 1981.

Krekemet, D. "Louis Francois Cassas i njegove slike Istra i

Damacije 1782," RAD. Jugoslavenskie Akademije

Znanosti i Umjetnosti. 379 (1979) 7-200.

Krogulska, M. "Les principia," in M. Gaalikowski, ed.

Palmyre VIII. Warsaw, 1984, 70-90.

Lacau, M.P. "Inscriptions latines du temple de Luxour,"

Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte, 34

(1934) 17-46.

Lander, J. Roman Stone Fortifications. Oxford, 1984.

Lang, S. "A Few Suggestions towards a New Solution of the

Origin of the Early Christian Basilica," RACrist 30

(1954) 200-204.

Lanza, F. Dell' antico palazzo di Diocleziano in Spalato.

Triest, 1855.

Lassus, J. "Antioch" in PECS, 62.

Legrain, G. "Rapport sur les travaux executes a Luxor a

l'ouest de Temple d'Amman," Annales du Service des

Antiqites de l'Egypte 17 (1917) 49-75.

138

Lehmann, K. "The Dome of Heaven," ArtB 27 (1945) 1-27.

Levi, D. Antioch Mosaic Pavements. New Haven, 1947.

L'Orange, H.P.L. Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late

Roman Empire. Princeton, 1965.

________. Studies on the Iconography of Cosmic Kingship in

the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA, 1953.

Lugli, G. "Studi topografici intorno alle antiche ville

suburbane." BullComm 52 (1924) 120ff.

MacCormack, S. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity.

Berkeley, 1981.

MacDonald, W.A. The Architecture of the Roman World, I.

New Haven, 1982.

________. The Architecture of the Roman World, II. New

Haven, 1986.

MacMullen, R. Soldier and Civilian in the Late Roman

Empire. Cambridge, MA, 1963.

McNally, S. "Der Diokletianspalast in Split," Antike Welt

10 (1979) 35-46.

Marasovic, J., Marasovic, T. and McNally, S. Diocletians

Palace. Report on Joint Excavations. Part 2.

Split, 1976.

Mango, C. The Brazen House. Copenhagen, 1959.

________. Byzantine Architecture. London, 1986.

Mano-Zisi, D. "Le castrum de Gamzigrad et ses mosaiques,"

Archaeologia Iugoslavica 2 (1956) 67-84.

Marasovic, J., Marasovic, T., MacNally, S. and Wilkes, J.J.

Diocletians Palace: Report on Joint Excavations in

Southeast quarter. Part 1. Split, 1972.

Michalowski, K. Palmyre I. Fouilles Polonaises, 1959.

La Haye-Paris, 1960.

________. Palmyre II. Fouilles Polonaises, 1960. Warsaw,

1962.

________. Palmyre III. Fouilles Polonaises, 1961 , Warsaw,

1963.

139

Millar, F. The Emperor in the Roman World. London, 1977.

Miller, K. Itineraria Romana. Stuttgart, 1916.

Mocsy, A. "Aurelianus-Aquae-Gamzigrad," Studia Balcanica

1 (1970) 49-54.

________. Pannonia and Upper Moesia. London, 1974.

Modrijan, W. Der romische Landsitz von Loffelbach. Graz,

1971.

Monneret de Villard, V. "The Imperial Cult at Luxor,"

Archaeologia 95 (1953) 85-105.

Morey, C.R. "The Excavations of Antioch on the Orontes,"

ProcPhilSoc 76 (1936) 637-51.

________. The Mosaics of Antioch. London, 1938.

Mouterde, R. and Poidebard, A. Les Limes de Chalkis.

Paris, 1945.

Moutsopoulos, N.C. "Contribution a l'etude du plan de ville

de Thessalonique a l'epoque romaine," Atti del XVI

Congresso di Storia dell Architettura, Athens 1969.

Rome, 1977, 187-263.

Muller-Wiener, W. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls.

Tubingen, 1977.

Nash, E. A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome. New York,

1961.

Naval Intelligence Division Geographical Handbook, Turkey.

vol. 1

Niemann, G. Der Palast Diokletians in Spalato. Vienna,

1910.

________. "Zur Porta Aurea in Spalato." OJh 12 (1909)

340-42.

Ozture, A. Izmit Tarihi. Istanbul, 1981.

Parker, S. Thomas. "Central Limes Arabicus Project," ASOR

Newsletter December issue (1982) 6-14.

Palmer, R.E.A. Roman Religion and Roman Empire.

Philadelphia, 1974.

140

Petrikowits, H. von. "Fortifications in the North Western

Roman Empire from the Third to the Fifth Centuries

A.D.," JRS 61 (1971) 178-218.

Pisani Sartorio, G. and Calza, R. La villa di Massenzio

sulla Via Appia. Il Palazzo. Le Opere d'arte. Rome,

1976.

Reusch, W. "Die Spatantike Kaiserresidenz Trier im Lichte

neuer Ausgrabungen," AA 77 (1962) 875-88.

Popovic, V. "A Survey of the Topography and Urban

Organisation of Sirmium in the Late Empire," Sirmium

I. Belgrade, 1971, 119-33.

Rey Cocqais, J.P. "Palmyra". PECS, 669.

Richmond, I.A. "Palmyra Under Rome". JRS 53 (1963) 43-54.

Rostovtzeff, M.T. Excavations at Dura Europos. Preliminary

Report of the Ninth Season of Work, 1935-1936. New

Haven, 1952.

Schlumberger, D. "Notes sur la decoration architectural des

collandes des rues et du Camp du Diocletien a

Palmyre," Berytus 2 (1935) 163-67.

________. "Le pretendu Camp du Diocletien a Palmyre,"

MelUSJ 38 (1962) 77-97.

Schwartz, J. et al. Qasr Qarun/Dionysias II, 1950.

L'Institut francais d'Archeologie orientale du Caire.

Cairo, 1969.

Sear, F. Roman Architecture. Ithaca, 1982.

Seston, W. Diocletien et la Tetrarchie. Paris, 1946.

Smith, E.B. Architectural Symbolism of Imperial Rome and

the Middle Ages. Princeton, 1956.

Spieser, J.M. Thessalonique et ses monuments du IVe au VIe

siecle. Paris, 1984.

Srejovic, D. "Two Memorial Monuments of Roman Palatial

Architecture," Archaeologia Iugoslavica 22-23

(1982-83).

________. "Two Late Roman Temples at Gamzigrad,"

Archaeologia Iugoslavica 19 (1978) 54-63.

141

________. "An Imperial Roman Palace in Serbia". ILN 263

(Oct. 1975) 97-9.

Srejovic, D., Lalovic, A. and Jankovic, D. "Gamzigrad,"

Starinar , 31 (1980) 65-80.

________. "Two Late Roman Temples at Gamzigrad,"

Archaeologia Iugoslavica 19 (1978) 54-63.

Starcky, J. Palmyre. Paris, 1959.

Stillwell, R. Antioch on the Orontes, II. The Excavations

of 1933-1936. Princeton, 1938.

Strzygowski, J. "Spalato, ein Markstein der romanischen

Kunst bei ihrem Ubergange vom Orient nach dem

Abendlande," Studien aus Kunst und Geschichte Fr.

Scneider gewidmet. Fiebourg-en-Brisgau, 1906.

Swift, E.H. Roman Sources of Christian Art. New York,

1951.

Swoboda, K.M. Romische und Romanische Palaste. Vienna,

1919.

________. "The Problem of the Iconography of Late Antique

and Early Medieval Palaces," JSAH 20 (1961) 78-9.

Texier, C. Description de l'Asie Mineure. Paris, 1839.

Velenis, G. "Architektonische Probleme des Galeriusbogen in

Thessaloniki," AA (1979) 249-63.

Vickers, M. "Hellenistic Thessaloniki," JHS 92 (1972)

156-70.

________. "The Hippodrome at Thessaloniki," JRS 62 (1972)

25-32.

________. "Observations on the Octogon at Thessaloniki,"

JRS 63 (1973) 111-20.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. Roman Imperial Architecture.

Harmondsworth, 1981.

________. "Constantine and the Christian Basilica," PBSR

9 (1954) 69-90.

Warde Fowler, W. "Mundus patet," JRS 2 (1912) 25-33.

142

________. The Roman Festivals of the Period of the

Republic. London, 1933.

Wheeler, M. "Roman Cardiff: Supplementary Notes," ArchJ

2 (1922) 392.

________. Roman Art and Architecture. Oxford, 1964.

Weilbach, F. "Zur Rekonstruktion des Diocletians Palast,"

in Strena Buliciana pp. 123-25. Edited by E. Wiegand.

Zagreb-Split, 1924.

Wheler, G. Voyage de Dalmatie, de Grece et du Levant.

vol. I. La Haye, 1723.

Wiegand, E. "Die Stellung Dalmatiens in der romischen

Reichskunst," in Strena Buliciana. Edited by E.

Wiegand. Zagreb-Split, 1924, 77-104.

Wightman, E.M. Roman Trier and the Treveri. London, 1970.

Wilkes, J.J. Diocletian's Palace, Split. Sheffield, 1986.

Williams, S. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. London,

1985.

Wilson, R.J.A. Piazza Amerina. Austin, 1983.

Wood, R. The Ruins of Palmyra Otherwise Known as Tedmor in

the Desert. London, 1753.

Zeiller, J. "Sur la place du palais de Diocletien a Spalato

dans l'histoire de l'art," Byzantion 6 (1931) 565-69.

A

Plates 1.1 and 1.2

B

Plate 1.3

C

Plate 2.1

D

Plate 2.2

E

Plate 2.3

F

Plate 2.4

G

Plate 2.5

H

Plate 2.6

I

Plate 2.7

J

Plate 2.8

K

Plate 2.9

L

Plate 2.10

M

Plate 2.11

N

Plate 2.12

O

Plate 3.1

P

Plate 3.2

Q

Plate 3.3

R

Plate 3.4

S

Plate 3.5

T

Plate 3.6

U

Plate 3.7

V

Plate 3.8

W

Plate 3.9

X

Plate 3.10

Y

Plate 3.11

Z

Plate 4.1

AA

Plate 4.2

BB

Plate 4.3

CC

Plate 4.4

DD

Plate 4.5

EE

Plate 4.6

FF

Plate 4.7

GG

Plate 4.8

HH

Plate 4.9

II

Plate 4.10

JJ

Plate 4.11

KK

Plate 4.12

LL

Plate 4.13

MM

Plate 5.1

NN

Plate 5.2

OO

Plate 5.3

PP

Plate 5.4