sign in sign up
<<
Home , Fidenae, Opus (architecture), Opus latericium, Ponte Salario, Tindari

Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction History, Madrid, 20th-24th January 2003, ed. S. Huerta, Madrid: I. Juan de Herrera, SEdHC, ETSAM, A. E. Benvenuto, COAM, F. Dragados, 2003.

The italian archaeological heritage: a cIassification of types from the point of view. Of protection against earthquakes

D. Liberatore G. Spera A. Claps A. Larotonda

A classi1'ication 01' types 01' the Italian archaeological The classi1'ication 01' types, centred on the heritage is presented. The classi1'ication is centred on structural behaviour, is presented in this study. the structural behaviour and is the basis 1'or Twenty-two types are considered which comprehend subsequent studies on seismic vulnerability and risk. the heritage 01' prehistoric, Etruscan, Greek and Twenty-two types are considered which comprehend Roman Ages. For each type, there are given a the heritage 01' prehistoric, Etruscan, Greek and description 01' the structural elements and a [ist 01' Roman Ages. For each type, there are given a sites -unavoidably non-exhaustive- where description 01' the structural elements and a list 01' specimens 01' the type are present which are clearly sites where specimens 01'the type are present. recognizabJe, in the sense that they are not included in later bui Idings. The list does not include those sites where the presence 01' ancient constructions is INTRODUCTION documented by historical or literary sources only. Some types, like the Doric temple, are subdivided Recent Italian destructive earthquakes (Friuli 1976, into sub-types depending on the different behaviour Irpinia 1980 and Umbria-Marche 1997) had a heavy 01'the remains under earthquake. impact on the historical and monumental heritage. In particular, the archaeoJogical heritage was recognized to exhibit a high degree 01'risk because 01' its state 01' PREHISTORIC AGE decay. In 1998 the Italian National Group 1'or the De1'ence Menhirs against Earthquakes started a research activity on Bari, , Giurdignano. archaeological heritage. The 1'irst phase 01'the activity was aimed at establishing a classification 01'types and Menhirs are megaliths 01'lengthened shape made 01'a studying the response 01' common elements under stone block, generally raw or irregularly hewn out, seismic actions. The vulnerability evaluation 01' the driven into the soil like a coarse obelisk, sometimes types and the design 01' restoration interventions, pierced. lt is conjectured that menhirs precede purposely conceived to respect the original conception dolmens. Menhirs may be 01' di1'ferent shape 01'the works and their historical testimony, will be the (cylindrical. obelisk-like, prismatic, irregular) and subject of subsequent phases of the research. their height is generally below 5 m. 1296 D. Liberatore, G. Spera, A. Claps, A. Larotonda

Dolmens Etruscan town walls Bisceglie, Giovinazzo, Corato, Melendugno, , Roselle, , Fiesole, Chiusi, Arezzo, Minervino di , Mazzarino, Cava dei Servi , Tuscania, Roma, , Veio, , Palestrina, Civita Castellana, Alpino Dolmens are made of one or more horizontal plates supported by rocks driven vertically into the soil. The Etruscan walls and arch gates are always imposing: big surface of the vertical rocks is raw or lightly hewn blocks of calcareous rock, basalt or tutl assembled out, so that only point contacts are present between without interposition of mortar, to fonn a polygona1 them and the horizontal plate. The basic type consists fabric or an quadratum. The stone is local and of four plates, three driven into the soil and the fourth differs from zone to zone of : in Southem Tuscia for roofing, forming a square cella. More complex --comprised between present Tuscany and the - shapes are exhibited by some dolmens found in the stone is always volcanic tuff cut in parallelepiped South-Eastern during recent archaeologica1 blocks with length 1.20 m and height 0.60 m, fonning campaigns; for instance, the dolmen found in Cava a two 1eaves wall filled by rough stones and mortar; in dei Servi (Ragusa) is made of big calcareous plates Volterra the waUs are made of blocks in sandstone forming a cella with circular plan. arranged according to the polygonal fabric or the opus quasi quadratum; in Roselle the walls consist of horizontal courses of irregular blocks 2-3 m long and Megalithic walls 1-2 m high, and smaller stones filling the interstices; in Regione molisana, Beneventano, Frosinone Fieso1e the walls are made of sUmes hewn out in a rough parallelepiped shape and arranged in horizontal The earlier type is the Cyclopean fabric, a continuous courses with stones cut into wedges interposed structure made of big rocks, with size l m or larger, between different blocks; in Arezzo the town waUs are raw or roughly hewn out, forming a dry wall. made of big green c\ay bricks. The later type is the polygonal fabric (Fig. 1), made of b10cks hewn out to form a polygonal shape, with the surfaces at the joints roughly smoothed, resulting Etruscan and Greek arch gates in a facing consisting of an assembly of irregular Volterra, Perugia, polygons. The early Etruscan arch gates have a horizontal monolithic architrave, as those ofthe Mycenaean Age. ETRUSCAN AGE The late gates have a round arch with three patrones s godheads. The Etruscans built round arches since the 6th century B.C., as proved by the Cloaca Maxima in which dates back to Tarquinius . The unique example of arch in the is the Porta Rosa in the town wall of Velia (the early Elea), made of two piers in sandstone supporting a round arch made of radia] sandstone voussoirs, with a discharge arch above.

Corbelled vaults Volterra, Quinto Fiorentino, MontejÓrtini, Vetulonia, Tivoli

Corbelled vaults are found in monumental tombs, and Figure l consist of squared stone b10cks projecting inwards Wall in polygonal fabric, Alba Fucens c10ser and c\oser to each other until they meet. The italian archaeological heritage 1297

Sometimes, a pillar supports the central block at the and sometimes green bricks, arranged to form dry top (Fig. 2). The equilibrium of the corbelled vault is walls according to the polygonal fabric or the opus provided by the outer dry-stone wall which acts as a quadratum. counterfort. The plan is often circular, but square and The opus quadratum consists of squared blocks. sometimes rectangular plans are present as well. The fabrics are essentially three. The first fabric Corbelled vaults are only present in Northern consists of a sequence of two or more blocks arranged Etruria. Often, they are covered by a soil tumulus in the longitudinal direction -the orthostats- which is enclosed by stoneS or a tambour. alternated with a block arranged in the transverSe direction -the diaton. The second fabric consists of a sequence of two or three courses of orthostats GREEK AGE alternated with a course of orthostats of different size, lower and penetrating into the wall. The third fabric Town walls of the Hellenistic Age consists of all diatons, i.e. blocks arranged in the Pompei, Velia, , Cef'aIÜ, , transverse direction. Siracusa, , Hyblaea, Tindari, The opus quadratum, broadly used by the Greeks , Cela, Eraclea Minoa, Nasso, in the classical age, was laborious because of the necessity to square, transport and position the blocks. The walls of the Hellenistic Age result from the In the Roman world, it was initially adopted to build assembly of large blocks of sandstone, marble, tuff the lea veS for the opus caementicium, and subsequently abandoned. The resistance of the wall is increased by cramps or dogs. Originally, dogs were simple swallow-tailed dowels in oak wood. Subsequently, cramps in bronze or iron were used with Z, 1, e or double swallow- tailed shape. The material is usually stone, but examples are present of green clay bricks as well.

Doric temples: basements , hnera, Agrigento

The colonnade of the Doric temple rests on a basement with three or more steps, the highest of which (stylobate) is the floor of the temple. The basements consists of courses of big parallelepiped block s in local stone (sandstone, alluvial conglomerate, travertine, volcanic tuff), usually porous and cracked.

Doric temples: free standing columns Capo Colonna, Agrigento, Selinunte

The Doric column is made oflocal stone, has no plinth and rests directly on the stylobate. The shaft, channelled during the finishing, is monolithic only in early temples (7th_6'h century E.C.). Since the second Figure 2 haJf of the 6th century E.C., the shaft is formed by Corbel1ed vault with central pil1ar drums, usually 4 to 9, is tapered and has a swelling 1298 D. Liberatore, G. Spera, A. Claps, A. Larotonda

(entasis) at approximately one third of the height. The cornices under the slope of the roof. The tympanum aspect ratio of the shaft -i.e. the ratio between the and the inclined cornices often show large cracks and diameter at the base, or the average diameter, divided partial collapses originated by atmospheric agents, by the height- is equal to 1:4 in early temples, and pollution, wrong interventions and earthquakes. decreases to 1:6, showing the trend to make the column more and more slender. The top of the shaft is a single block with the capital, with truncate conic or Doric temples: double tier of columns basin shape (echinus), surmounted by a parallelepiped Paestum with square base (abacus). Each drum has at its centre a square hole for the insertion of a pino In some temples (e.g. the temple of Poseidon in Presently, Doric columns show significant decay: Paestum) the cella is subdivided into three naves crumbling, more or less superficial crazing and through two rows of columns with double tier macrocracks originated by atmospheric agents. supporting the roof. Damage is also present: thin vertical crack s along the shaft and large fractures at the peri meter of the interface between drums originated by impacts ROMAN AGE induced by earthquakes. Substructiones Otricoli, Tivoli, Roma, Todi, Pierre Taillée. Doric temples: columns with architraves Metaponto, Paestum, Agrigento, Selinunte Substructiones are structures supporting a horizontal plane in a slope through masonry walls, sometimes The architrave (epistyle) consists of elements in local connected each other through orthogonal walls, with stone which join on the axes of the columns. The interposed soiJ. distance between columns is small in early temples proves that the problem of the thrust of (approximately 1.50 m in the 6th century B.C.), and the soil on the substructiones was well known and increases during the maturity of Doric order (2.40 m states the rules for this type of structures: «The in the 5thcentury B.C.). The columns ofthe fa'rade are thickness of the masonry shall correspond to that placed at a larger distance, so as to emphasize the of the soil which is put behind. Then the retaining longitudinal axis of the temple. walls (anterides) and the counterforts (erismae) shall The preservation of intact architraves can be be buílt simultaneously. The distance between the explained by the presence of cramps which induce a counterforts shall be equal to the height of the global motion of the colonnade. substructiones and their thickness to the thickness of Decay phenomena are present in abaci or architraves, those». Vitruvius only deals with «full» substructiones, in a way similar to columns. Typical remedies are where the main element is the soil, more or less confinement or reinforcement through iron bars. restrained by masonry walls, connected on the front and without an autonomous covering. A different type, as much as common, is Doric temples: colonnades, architraves, friezes, represented by «hollow» substructiones, whose frontons resistance is provided by a set of room s vaulted in Agrigento, Paestum, opus caementiciwn.

The temples better preserved have friezes and frontons. The frieze, resting on the architrave, consists of Roma, Albano, Baia, Pompei, Ercolano, Saturnia, triglyphs and metopes and is made of two rows of , blocks, inner and outer, in local stone. The fronton is the triangular wa]] (tympanum) The typical element of thermal is the enclosed by a horizontal cornice and two inclined vault, used to cover different rooms (apodyterium, The ítalían archaeological hcritage 1299 laconicum,frigidarium, tepidarium, caldarium). The Initially, aqueducts were underground for the barrel vault is the type most frequently used. Cross whole course (Aqua Appia, 312 B.C.). However, vaults are frequent as well and are present in grand when the channel had to cross a valley or cover size in the Thermae of Titus, Caracalla, Diocletian, in a plain, it was necessary to support it by arches the hall of the Market of Trajan and in the Basilica of (Anio Vetus, 272 B.C.). The first on Maxentius. Cloister vaults are rather uncommon. arches is the Aqua Ma rcia , 144 B.C.: built in opus The development of the vault coincides with the quadratum, it runs on voussoir arches with span achievement of the opus caementicium. Frequently, 5.10-5.35 m. the vault has brick ribs. Several expedients were used The arches are always round and discharge on piers to lighten the vault: light inerts for the higher part of of large cross section with core in opus caementicium the vault, or empty amphorae purposely made and within masonry leaves. Aqueducts had to be very stiff inserted one into the other to form rows incorporated at the level of the channel, where even small cracks into the casting. Frequently, the heated room s were undermined their functionality. However, unavoidably covered by a double vault: the countervault was they faced inhomogeneities of the soil which made suspended to hooks clamped in the vault forming a necessary structural restorations consisting of arches hollow space for the passage of heated air. and piers. The problem of the thrust was sol ved in several ways. Apart from the simplest remedy to enlarge the piers, counterforts were used for both barrel vault and Triumphal arches cross vaults. Another remedy was to build smaller Roma, Aosta, Susa, Torino, Ravenna, Verona, vaults near the main vault, so that they counterfort Trieste, Rimini, Ancona, Ascoli Piceno, Fano, each other. For the domes, the thrust was usually Malborghetto, Spoleto, Spello. Benevento, Pompei, carried by inner counterforts formed by thick walls Sepino with large niches. Another way to carry the thrust of domes was to surround the impost by an annular The elements of the triumphal arch are: vault, piers barrel vault. and upper block, usually with the shape of an attic, Frequent types of damage are the collapse of the which is the base of the statues. The arch is usually whole vault or a portion of it, and cracking at the round. The fabric is the opus quadratum. For two- intrados along the meridians of domes. Usually, the faced monuments, placed across a road, the type with degree of damage increases from barrel vaults to single barrel vault is the most common. However, for cross vaults and domes. works of major importance, the type with three vaults is used, with the central vault larger and higher than the side vaults. Aqueducts Almost never two-faced arches are free standing: Roma. Acqui , Tortona, Albenga, Minturno, they join other buildings like town walls, stadia or Spello, Napoli, Termini [merese aqueducts. On the contrary, four-faced arches are always free The importance ascribed by the Romans to water standing. They are complex monuments dating back supply is documented by the treatise De acquae ductu to the most developed age of Roman architecture (3"d urbis Romae written by in 98 A.C. which and 41h centuries A.c.). They are located at the contains the experience of four centuries. Aqueducts crossing of two roads which intersect at right angle, usually tapped springs, even at the cost of lengthening and have cross vaults or domes. their course. Water flowed inside a channel (specus) Arches usually have an odd number of voussoirs, with plane or vaulted cover, and size such as to be with the keystone. There are three types of arches: easily accessible for cleaning and repairs. At regular a) extradossed, Le. with the extrados concentric to intervals, air intakes restored the atmospheric pressure. the intrados; b) with pentagonal voussoirs; c) with The channel, in ashlar or brick masonry, was hammer shaped voussoirs. The connection between waterproofed through a thick plaster of opus Signinum, different voussoirs is sometimes improved through a mix of lime, sand, hard stones of small size. cramps. 1300 D. Liberatore, G. Spera, A. Claps, A. Larotonda

Piers are massive, according to Vitruvius: «When in opus caementicium. Sometimes, the piers are arches are made 01' wedge shaped voussoirs, piers skewed to follow the current. as in the 01' shall have a larger width so as to be strong and resist Rimini and in Rome, and provided with when the voussoirs, pressed downward by the weight breakwater. Typical spans are: 01' masonry, because 01'their connections, tend to fall at the centre, while at the imposts they thrust outward. - Ponte Salario, 3 arches, spans: 4.12, 22.76, Therefore, piers 01' large size will be able to restrain 4.12 m; the thrust and pro vide stability to the building». - Ponte Elio, 5 arches, spans: 7.00, 18.33, 18.33, 18.33,7.00 m; - Ponte Fabricio, 2 arches, spans: 24.25, 24.50 m; Roman temples - Ponte Cestio, 3 arches, spans: 5.80, 23.65, Roma, Tivoli, Terracina, Palestrina, Cori, Pompei, 5.80m. Baia, Assisi, Brescia The width of is not greater than 7-8 m. The From the typological point 01' view, Roman temples ratio between the thickness of the arch at the key and are derived from the Etruscan-Italic models; they are the span does not follow a precise rule: according to «frontal» buildings, resting on a basement and Leger, it ranges from 0.045 (bridge 01'Narni) to 0.133 surrounded by columns on three sides. (Ponte Fabricio) with average 0.086, calculated on 20 The characteristic e]ement 01' the , cases studied. which distinguishes it from the Greek temple, is the Since the beginning 01' the 3,d century B.C., the platband, assimilable to the architrave from the point achievement 01' concrete posed problems 01' 01' view 01' shape, and to the arch from the point 01' detachment between the leaves and the inner coreo view of structure. However, the platband cannot be Therefore, the voussoirs at the intrados were used for long spans because its considerable thrust. connected each other by cramps, and the concrete fill Platbands may have wedge, hammer or bayonet was subdivided by inner walls forming several cells shaped voussoirs. (Fig. 3). A developed version of the platband is reinforced: slots were made in the pulvinos to fit two or three iron bars which carried the tensions at the intrados. The walls of the cella are made of opus quadratum or , the vaults of opus caementicium. The drums 01' the columns and the elements of the trabeation are made of travertine or marble and are usually connected each other through dogs or cramps inserted in slots purposely made and filled with cast lead.

Bridges Roma, Rimini, Verona, Padova, Nami, Ascoli Piceno, Spoleto, Vulci, Ferento, Blera, Benevento

The original contribution of the Romans is the with multiple spans. The arches are made of voussoirs or masonry. The most frequent shape is tbe A ~"¡~" tI Cotl[(¡MHl-JfO ,t,I. 4R.(\.(\...Ol!¡ round arch, followed by the flat arch. The spandrels ~r CUN'fI

Roman theatres retaining walls (analemmata) paraJlel to the stage and Pompei, Roma, Aosta, Torino, Trieste, Verona, separated from this by en trance aisles vaulted in opus Vicenza, Brescia, Luni, Ventimiglia, Fiesole, caementicium. Therefore, the Roman theatre is a Volterra, Pietrahhondante, Alha Fucens, S. closed building which only lacks the roof: it could be Vittorino, Chieti, Sepino, Ferento, Falerone, Todi, temporarily sheltered by large sheets (velaria). Spoleto, Guhhio, Urhisaglia, Villa Potenza, The elements 01' the theatres are now in different Minturno, Cassino, Napoli, Ercolano, Teano, states: in Roman theatres, the substructiones below Benevento, Literno, Scolacium, the cavea are preserved, but the latter lacks the gradin; in the Greek theatres 01' Southem and The elements 01'the Roman theatre derive from those Sicily, the cavea is deprived 01' the steps, but the 01'the Greek theatre, but with significant innovations: shape is clearly preserved. The scene is generally in the theatre becomes a building, free from soil bad state. morphology. Before reaching a complete independence from orographic conditions, since the second half 01' the 2"d century B.e. up to the first half 01' the Amphitheatres q 1 century B.e., the theatre goes through the so caJled Pompei, Roma, S. Maria Capua Vetere, Pozzuoli, Greek-Roman phase (Fig. 4). Cuma, Nola, Verona, Padova, Rimini, Arezzo, Luni, The Roman theatre has its origin in 55 B.e. with Albenga, Sutri, Ancona, Ascoli Piceno, Urbisaglia, the erection 01'the theatre 01' . The gradin for Falerone, S. Vittorino, Alba Fucens, Teramo, Vasto, the audience (cavea), has semicircular shape, consists Tivoli, Tuscolo, Albano, Spello, Spoleto, Otricoli, 01' ima, media and summa cavea, is subdivided in Terni, Paestum, Grumentum, Venosa, Lecce, several areas (maeniana) and is supported by two or Catania, Termini ¡merese, Siracusa three tiers 01'arches and pillars. The audience entered through stairs flowing into the centre 01'each block 01' Amphitheatres are typicaJly Roman buildings, born to seats through purposely made vomitoria. Often the lodge gladiatorial performances. cavea is surrounded by a sheltered gaJlery (porticus in There are two types 01' amphitheatres. The former summa cavea). The orchestra 01' the Greek theatre, type, on embankment (Pompeii), similarly to the which lodged the chorus, reduces ¡tseU to a Greek theatre, fits itself to soil morphology, and the semicircular area. The stage (pulpitum) is raised gradins rest on the soil retained by walls. An aisle, 1.0-1.5 m above the level 01'the orchestra. The scene vaulted in masonry, runs below the first row 01'seats. (scenae frons) is a structure with two or more storeys, The latter type is more strictly architectural and has as much high as the cavea, with which it forms a radial waJls with facings in opus quadratum or opus single building. The cavea is closed at both sides by latericium and concrete fill, connected each other through inclined barrel vaults supporting the cavea (Fig. 5). Generally, amphitheatres have two tiers 01' arcades, sometimes surmounted by an attic with rectangular or arched windows. Few amphitheatres have three tiers 01' arcades, as the Amphitheatre 01' Capua and the Flavian Amphitheatre (Coliseum) in Rome. 01'ten, amphitheatres had to be restored. Restorations were carried out under the Emperors Julius, Claudius, Trajan and Hadrian. Regulations were issued by in consequence 01' the coJlapse 01' the amphitheatre near Fidenae. Sometimes, the reason 01' strengthening was the increase 01' the audience. TypicaJly, interventions Figure 4 consist 01' jacketing the annular wall supporting the Greek-Roman theatre.Amiternum media cavea. ------

1302 D. Liberatore, G. Spera, A. Claps, A. Larotonda

brick mixed with lime, sand and water; therefore, caementicium means: «made of caementum». This component of the mix had not the modero meaning of binder -taken by the word cement only at the end of the 18th century- but the meaning of «scraps of stones», since the word caementum derives fram the verb caedo, that is «to cut into pieces». In hydraulic works, sand was replaced, all or partly, by voJcanic pozzolan from Baia or Cuma: the property of concrete made of lime and pozzo]an to harden under water was well-known, as testified by Vitruvius who provides the instructions for the correct choice of the components and their proportion in the mix. and Vitruvius himself recommend to tamp the cast. was similar to modero concrete; the major differences, besides the obvious differences of mix, transport and tamping, regard the type of inerts and binder. In the opus caementicium, the roJe of binder, played in modero concrete by cement, was committed to lime, alone or with pozzolan; the inerts are sand and scraps of stone or bricks, not larger than a hand, as suggested by Vitruvius. The earliest type of leaf is the opus incertum, Figure 5 Radial walls with vaults, Amphitheatre, Amiternum consisting of stones embedded into the core, with an irregular surface in sight. Alignments on the vertical were avoided, with the aim to prevent cracking. When Dwelling types the leaf was made of cobblestones, it was necessary to Roma, Tívolí, Albano, Viterbo, S. María Capua insert frequent Jevellings aimed at smearing the loads Vetere, Pompei, Ercolano, Baia, Pozzuoli, , on the section. Therefore, since the Augustan Age, Piazza Armerína horizontal brick belts were inserted into the walJ. At the beginning of the 1" century B.C., the The casa ínsula is a block of dweJling houses up to stones become more and more regular (opus quasi three storeys in brick masonry or other cheap reticulatum). The subsequent opus retículatum is technique. lt has arches and vaults at ground floor and made of small truncated pyramid-shaped elements cantilever balconies. (cubilia) with square base (side 5-7 cm) made of The domus and villa are houses with rich and wide different materials, forming a net inclined at an angJe illustration of curvilinear architecture. of 45°. The advantage of the opus reticulatum was the The masonry types used in dwelling houses, as standardization of the material. However, Vitruvius well as pubJic buildings, can be organized into trusted the opus incertum more than the opus different classes, based on the characteristics of the reticulatum because the latter required more mortar in stone, initially used for the whole thickness of the the core and was in consequence more compressible, walls, and subsequently only for the leaves. making easier the detachment of the leaves. The earliest type is the opus quadratum, made of The opus míxtum, lasting since 50 B.e. up to the parallelepiped stones. This technique was supplanted end of the 2nd century A.e., is an opus reticulatum, by the opus caementícium: since the end of the with levellings made of horizontal courses of bricks. Republic masonry consists of two leaves (crustae) The subsequent scheme, the opus vittatum, initially and an inner core (structura caementicia). The opus used in the peripheral regions of ltaly, replaces the caementicium was made of scraps of stone or opus reticulatum in Central Italy since the )'d century The italian archaeo1ogical heritage 1303

A.C., becomes the most common type during the late Empire, and continues to be used in the early . The leaves are made of square stone tiles arranged in horizontal courses ~like bandages, «vittae» in Latin~ or, in the opus vittatum mixtum, alternating stone tiles with courses of bricks. Brick masonry may be of two types: the opus latericium, wholly made of baked bricks, and the opus testaceum, with only the leaves in baked bricks. The bricks baked in kiln are the great innovation of Roman building technique. They were made of clay mixed with water and sometimes with sand, straw or fine pozzolan in small amount: the mix was Figure 6 compressed in a square wooden mould with side Wall in opus Africanum, Pompeii 20 cm (2/3 of Roman foot or «bessal»), 30 cm (Roman foot or «peda!»), 45 cm (1.5 Roman feet or «sesquipedal») or 60 cm (2 Roman feet or «bipedal»). A technique employed for popular houses is the The thickness ranges from 4 to 2.8 cm, decreasing opus craticium. It consists of a frame in timber beams from the Flavian Age to the Severian Age. The bricks with square cross section with side 10-12 cm, filled were initially put to dry in the sun, then in a sheltered with masonry in opus incertum (Fig. 7). Vitruvius and ventilated place, and finally baked in a kiln at 800°C. The porous and lightly rough surface improved the bond with the mortar in bed joints; sometimes, furrows of different shape were made on their surface. The opus latericium was employed for the whole thickness of the wall when high compressive strength was required. A small amount of mortar was used in both bed joints and head joints. In the opus testaceum bricks are cut diagonally to form two triangles, and placed with the diagonal face in sight and the right angle embedded into the inner opus caementicium with the aim to improve the connection between leaves and coreo A further improvement of the connection was provided by the insertion of bipedals. Bricks were employed in arches, vaults and discharge arches. The latter are structural, i.e. have the same thickness of the wall, up to two Roman feet. When the wall is thicker, they are limited to the lea ves and do not penetrate into the coreo The first example of opus testaceum is the House of Tiberius on the Palatine. Since then, it gradually replaces the opus reticulatum in urban houses. Another type of masonry is the opus Africanum, employed in Southern Italy and Sicily. It consists of big stone blocks, arranged in the horizontal and vertical directions, with the empty spaces filled by Figure 7 material of small size (Fig. 6). Wall in opus craticium, Pompeii 1304 D. Liberatore, G. Spera, A. Claps, A. Larotonda

disliked this technique because of its vulnerability to assembled. The decision to make the column fire, moisture, and cracking at the interface between accessible through the inner staircase was probably timber and masonry, but justified it for reasons of taken after the completion. The connection between rapidity or small carrying capacity of the soil. the drums is provided, besides the large contact surface, by pins driven into holes purposely made. On the model of the Column of Trajan, the Column Columns with winding staircase of was erected by 193 A.c.. It is one Roma hundred Roman feet high as well, has diameter at the base 3.80 m and at the top 3.66 m, without entasis. The Column of Trajan, completed in 113 A.C., The shaft consists of 19 drums. The third column of inaugurates the monumental type of the free standing the Roman is the Column of Foca, rebuilt in column, decorated with a spiral frieze, with an inner 608 A.C. with earlier materials, probably dating back winding staircase (Fig. 8). The column is one hundred to the 2ndcentury A.c. Roman feet high (29.78 m). The shaft consists of 17 Columns with winding staircase are different fram huge drums in Carrara marble, with diameter 3.83 m Doric columns with regard to material (marb1e and height 1.56 m. At approximately one third of instead of porous rock) and size (columns with the height, the column presents the traditional winding staircase have both larger base and larger entasis aimed at improving the optical effect. The slenderness). Presently, they show damage originated spiral frieze was made after the column had been by earthquakes, as shown by slidings of the friezes.

CONCLUSIONS

A classification of types of the Italian archaeological heritage is presented. The classification is centred on the structural behaviour and is the basis for subsequent studies on seismic vulnerability and risk. The study only deals with the types located in earthquake prone regions of Italy, and therefore excludes some types (stone huts and terraced buildings in Lecce area, vault structures in the Salento peninsula, prehistoric nuraghi and holy wells of ). Seismic vulnerability is strongly dependent -besides the obvious factors of shape, material and boundaries- on the decay of the materials, hydrogeologic instability, meteorological and climatic conditions, damage induced by earthquakes, work of mano This study is the summary of the extensive literature on the subject and represents a synthetic reference for further studies aimed at a systematic evaluation of vulnerability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Study funded by GNDT (Gruppo Nazionale Difesa Figure 8 dai Terremoti-Italian National Group for the Defence Column of Trajan, Rome (from an engraving by Piranesi) against Earthquakes) under grant 98.03206.PF54. The italian archaeological heritage 1305

REFERENCE LIST Roma: Istituto del1a Enciclopedia Italiana G. Treccani, Maiuri, A. 1960, Arte e civiltá nell'ltalia antica, Milano: Adam, J. P. 1984. L'arte di costruire presso i Romani. Touring Club Italiano. Materiali e tecniche. Milano: Longanesi. Maiuri, A. 1961. Pompei. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico deIlo Adam, J. P. 1989. L'edilizia romana privata: Pompei e il suo Stato. agro, In I terrem.oti prima del Mille in Italia e nell'area MansueIli, G,A, 1966. ViIla. Enciclopedia dell 'Arte Antica, mediterranea, 224-243. Bologna. Vol. 7. Roma: Istituto del1a Enciclopedia Italiana Adam, J. P. 1989. Osservazioni tecniche sugli effetti del G. Treccani. terremoto di Pompei del 62 d,C.. [n I terremoti prima del Mark, R. 1989. Terremoti e architetture antiche: le cupole Mille in Italia e nell'area mediterranea, 460~474. del Pantheon e di Santa Sofia, In I terremoti prima del Bologna. Mille in Italia e nell'area mediterranea, 260-263. Balsamo, E. 1960. L' acquedotto Corne[io di Termini Bologna. Imerese. In La ricerca archeologica nell' Italia Martin, R. 1980. Architettura greca. Milano: Electa. meridionale. Suoi riflessi culturali e turistici, V Matthiae, G.; Nicolosi, G. 1958. Arco. Enciclopedia Congresso del 1900 Distretto del Rotary Internazionale, dell'Arte Antica. 1: 582-588. Roma: Istituto del1a 209~227. Napo[i. Enciclopedia Italiana G, Treccani. Becatti, G. 1959. Co[onna di Marco Aurelio. Enciclopedia Moretti, A. 1963. Muraria, arte -Materiali litoidi da dell'Arte Antica. 2: 760-761. Roma: Istituto del1a costruzione. Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica, 5: 272-275. Enciclopedia Italiana G. Treccani. Roma: Istituto deIla Enciclopedia Italiana G. Treccani. Biancofiore, F. 1964. Architettura megalitica. Arte antica e Moscati, S. 1973, Italia Archeologica, Novara, moderna, Vol. 12. Motti, G. 1960. Monumenti megalitici pugliesi. La ricerca Briegleb, J. 1965. Ponti romani. Enciclopedia dell'Arte archeologica nell' Italia meridionale. Suoi riflessi Antica, 6: 372-373. Roma: Istituto deIla Enciclopedia culturali e turistici, V Congresso del 1900 Distretto del Italiana G. Treccani. Rotary Internaziona[e, 143- [51. Napoli. Cairoli, F. G. [990. L'edilizia nell'antichitá. Roma: La PaIlottino, M. 1958, Arco onorario e trionfale. Enciclopedia Nuova Italia Scientifica. dell'Arte Antica. 1: 588-598. Roma: Istituto del1a Castagno[i, F. 1963. Mura e fortificazione. Enciclopedia Encic[opedia Italiana G, Treccani. dell'Arte Antica. 6: 259-264. Roma: [stituto del1a Piccolo, S. 1998, La tavola e la pietra. Archeo, 12: 42-46. Enciclopedia Italiana G. Treccani. Rivoira, G, T. 1921. Architettura romana. Costruzione e Choisy, A. 1873. L'art de bátir chez les Romains. Parigi. statica nell'etá imperiale. Milano. Choisy, A. 1899, Histoire de l'architecture. Parigi. Rocchetti, L 1959. Colonna di Traiano. Enciclopedia Ciancio Rossetto, p,; Pisani Sartorio, G. 1994. Alle origini dell'Arte Antica, 2: 756-760. Roma: Istituto del1a del linguaggio rappresentato. Censimento analitico dei Enciclopedia Italiana G. Treccani. teatri greci e romani. Roma: Edizioni Seat. Rohlfs, G, 1963, Primitive costruzioni a cupola in Europa, Cianfarani, V, 1958. Alba Fucente. Enciclopedia dell'Arte 11-14, Firenze: Leo S. 01schki Editore. Antica. 1: 192- [94. Salvatori, M, 1983. Le «opere» parietali, la voIta, [a cupo[a, Coarel1i, F. 1980-1984. Guide archeologiche. Bari: Laterza. Strutture, elementi e tipi edilizi. Enciclopedia Universale Cozzo, G. 1928. lngegneria romana, Roma: Selecta. dell'Arte, 13: 111-118, 121-130. Novara: Istituto De Angelis d'Ossat, G, 1943, Tecnica costruttiva e impianti Geografico De Agostini. delle terme. Roma. Sestieri, P. e 1968, Paestwn. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico Giovannoni, G. 1928, La tecnica della costruzione presso i dello Stato. Romani. Soc, edil. d'arte iIlustrata, Staccioli, A. R. 1990. Le terme dei Romani. Archeo, 11: Greco, E.; Pontrandolfo, A. 1991. Guida Archeologica 76-85. d'ltalia. Mi[ano. Terenzio, A. 1965. Pantheon. Roma. Enciclopedia dell'Arte Kahler, H. 1958. Anfiteatro. Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica, Antica, 6: 855-856. Roma: Istituto deIla Enciclopedia 1: 374-380. Roma: Istituto deIla Enciclopedia Italiana Italiana G. Treccani. G. Treccani. Vitruvii Pollionis, M, De generibus structurae. De Lug[i, G. 1957. La tecnica edilizia romana con particolare Architectura, Voll. 2, 8. riguardo a Roma e al Lazio. Roma: G. Bardi. Ward Perkins, J. B. 1979. Architettura Romana, 59-62, Lugli, G. 1963. Muraria, arte -Tecniche e tipi di 80-90. Milano: Electa. costruzione. Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica. 5: 267-272.