Space Syntax Analysis and the Domestic Architecture of the Roman West Sean Alexander Tennant Chesapeake, Virginia B.A., History, George Mason University, 2010 M.A. History of Art and Architecture, University of Virginia, 2013 A Dissertation, presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy McIntire Department of Art University of Virginia September 2019 Prof. Tyler Jo Smith Prof. John J. Dobbins Prof. Fotini Kondyli Prof. Adria LaViolette ©Copyright by Sean Alexander Tennant All Rights Reserved September 2019 i Abstract In the first century AD, following a period of expansion and conquest that stretched the bounds of its territory to the edges of the known world, the Roman Empire had grown to encompass the frontiers of the Roman northwest, a region which would come to be known as three separate provinces: Gaul, Germania, and the island of Britannia. These areas, at the edge of the Roman world, contained their own populations, replete with distinct cultures, architecture, and ways of life distinct from the cosmopolitan Mediterranean world of their Roman conquerors. Over the course of decades and centuries, indigenous ways of life adapted to and incorporated the advances and technological innovations brought by the Latin invaders. The phenomenon of this cultural change, long referred to by scholars as “Romanization,” is manifest in the archaeological record. Nowhere is this truer than in the architectural remains of the domestic spaces occupied by these provincial inhabitants of the Roman Empire, traditionally grouped together under the umbrella term of “Celts.” Employing a methodology grounded in network theory, the present study applies space syntax analysis to the architectural plans of over 350 domestic sites from the Roman northwest. The goal is to search for evidence of consistent patterns to the use and arrangement of space, and to follow those patterns to discern if there is detectable change over time and geographic space. From that data, the Romanization model, now over a century old, is put to the test. The layouts of these domestic structures, which appear outwardly Roman in their architecture, yet distinct from Roman houses elsewhere in the Empire, contain a missing piece of information regarding the nature of how these citizens northerly citizens of the Roman Empire adapted and negotiated their place in the larger Roman world. ii Acknowledgements The undertaking of a doctoral dissertation is never planned or executed in a total vacuum. Over the course of the formulation, research, and writing process of this project, I have found myself grateful and indebted to a number of individuals and organizations, whose absence would have rendered this project impossible to complete. I am, of course, extremely grateful for the advice and counsel of my dissertation committee and my advisor, Tyler Jo Smith, who has shepherded not only this project, but also the most successful years of my scholarly career. For that, I am eternally grateful. I also thank John Dobbins for his sage counsel concerning things Roman and grammatical, Fotini Kondyli for her advice and perspective from the tangential world of the Byzantine, and Adria LaViolette for showing me that anthropological theory is not so scary, and that there is a wider archaeological world than the Mediterranean. To all of my other professors and faculty in the McIntire Department of Art and the wider community at the University of Virginia, I am also deeply grateful for the years of support and motivation. None of this research would have been possible without the hospitality of the institutions where I conducted a majority of my data collection. The staff of Senate House Library at the Institute of Classical Studies in London showed me every courtesy, and the counsel of Greg Woolf was immensely helpful in the early stages of this project’s development. Similarly, Friederike Naumann-Steckner and her colleagues at the Roman-Germanic Museum in Cologne were kind enough to not only provide access to their library, but to also meet with me and field some of my questions, for which I am grateful. Perhaps the most important year of the dissertation project was spent as a Fellow in the University of Virgina’s Scholars’ Lab, where Zoe LeBlanc, Brandon Walsh, and all of the other staff introduced me to the wider world of the digital humanities. iii I was also forever assisted and supported by my fellow graduate students in the McIntire Department of Art, none moreso than my fellow archaeologists, who paved the way, provided role models to follow, and commiserated along the way, so I am most grateful to Ben Gorham, Claire Weiss, Janet Dunkelbarger, Najee Olya, Justin Mann, Dylan Rogers, Carrie Sulosky Weaver, Renee Gondek, Ismini Miliaresis, Dan Weiss, Jared Benton, Alicia Dissinger, and Veronica Ikeshoji-Orlati. My life would not be the same without the bunch of you. My family, always steadfast and supportive, though maybe not always comprehensive of the doctoral student experience, deserves more credit than I can give. My facility with computers is owed entirely to my father, Dennis. My skill with words to my mother, Diane. My perseverance through adversity and trying circumstances to my sister, Erin. For certain the most credit and thanks of all go to my wife, Ashley, who has traveled this journey with me from the beginning, from high to low and now beyond. I thank you all. iv Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iv Figures vii Tables ix Dedication x Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Opening Remarks 1 1.2 Roman Domestic Architecture in Northwestern Europe 3 1.3 Romanization and Domestic Archaeology 5 1.4 A New Approach 7 1.5 The Insular/Continental Divide 9 1.6 Research Questions 11 1.7 Chapter Layout 12 1.8 Preliminary Conclusions 14 Chapter 2: Approaching Roman-Style Houses 16 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 The Past and Current Study of Roman Domestic Architecture 17 2.2.1 Fishbourne 19 2.2.2 Abermagwr 21 2.3 The “Roman House” Defined 23 2.4 Network Analysis: A New Approach 32 2.4.1 Theoretical Methodology and Background 33 2.4.2 Analytical Processes 45 v 2.4.3 Limitations of the Approach 58 2.5 Conclusion 60 Chapter 3: Heated Floors at Home: 62 The Architectural Data from Roman Britain 3.1 Introduction 62 3.2 Roman Archaeology in Britain 63 3.3 The Study of Domestic Architecture in Britain 68 3.4 Houses in Roman Britain: Sources, Typology, and Function 72 3.5 Space Syntax Analysis 84 3.5.1 Data Sources and Data Set 86 3.6 Data Analysis 94 3.7 Cluster Patterns and Interpretation 101 3.8 Conclusion 104 Chapter 4: Living on the Frontier of Empire 108 The Architectural Data from Continental Europe 4.1 Introduction 108 4.2 Roman Archaeology in Northwest Europe 109 4.3 Domestic Architecture in Northwest Europe 114 4.4 The Roman Domestic Structures of Northwestern Europe 119 4.5 Space Syntax Analysis 129 4.5.1 Data Sources and Data Set 134 4.6 Data Analysis 142 4.7 Cluster Patterns and Interpretation 151 4.8 Conclusion 154 vi Chapter 5: Housing in the Roman Northwest: Data Comparison 157 5.1 Introduction 157 5.2 The Combined Data Set 158 5.3 Spatial Configurations 175 5.4 Architectural Types 182 5.5 Temporal Patterns, or a Lack Thereof 192 5.6 Archaeological Variations 193 5.7 Conclusion 201 Chapter 6: Conclusion: People, Houses, and the Syntax of Space 204 6.1 The Time and Space of Roman Domestic Architecture 204 6.2 People, Houses, and the Syntax of Space 206 6.3 Houses in the Built Environment and Rural Landscape 210 6.4 Future Directions 213 6.5 Summation 217 Bibliography 221 Appendix A - Insular Data 254 Appendix B - Continental Data 265 Appendix C – Insular Data Sources 275 Appendix D – Continental Data Sources 283 vii Figures Chapter 2 Figure 2.1 Fishbourne, Flavian Period 20 Figure 2.2 Abermagwr 22 Figure 2.3 The House of Menander, Pompeii 27 Figure 2.4 Domus des Epars, Chartes, France 29 Figure 2.5 Thomas Jefferson’s Poplar Forest 46 Figure 2.6 Newport 50 Figure 2.7 Newport Space Syntax Analysis 51 Figure 2.8 Newport Justified Graph 52 Chapter 3 Figure 3.1 Clanvilla, Phase 1 75 Figure 3.2 Clanville, Phase 2 76 Figure 3.3 Boxmoor 78 Figure 3.4 Witcombe Roman Villa 80 Figure 3.5 Caerwent, Insula I 82 Figure 3.6 Sparsholt 83 Figure 3.7 Building Types by Percentage of the Data Set 90 Figure 3.8 Correlation Analysis Visualization 97 Figure 3.9 Comparison of RRA Value Histograms 99 Chapter 4 Figure 4.1 Grémecey 122 Figure 4.2 Bollendorf 123 Figure 4.3 Hambach 512, Phase I 125 Figure 4.4 Hambach 512, Phase II 125 viii Figure 4.5 Presles 126 Figure 4.6 Palatiolum, Pfalzel 127 Figure 4.7 Archaeological Regions of France 131 Figure 4.8 Villa de Kéradennec 136 Figure 4.9 Building Types by Percentage of the Data Set 138 Figure 4.10 Correlation Analysis Visualization 147 Figure 4.11 Comparison of RRA Value Histograms 149 Chapter 5 Figure 5.1 Caerwent, Insula I, Phase III 172 Figure 5.2 Correlation Analysis Visualization 174 Figure 5.3 Woodchester 177 Figure 5.4 Woodchester, Detail 178 Figure 5.5 Cotterstock Roman Villa 181 Figure 5.6 Building Types by Percentage of the Total Data Set 183 Figure 5.7 Bucknowle Farm 185 Figure 5.8 Villars, France 189 Figure 5.9 Grosses Terres, France 195 Figure 5.10 Hambach 512, Phase I 199 Figure 5.11 Hambach 512, Phase II 199 Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Presles 208 Figure 6.2 North Leigh 209 Figure 6.3 Caerwent, Insula I 211 ix Tables Chapter 3 Table 3.1 Regional Distribution of Archaeological Sites 88 and Contexts Table 3.2 Insular Data Subsets 94 Table 3.3 Space Syntax Results for