Space, Imagination and Vitruvius in Archaeological [Re]Construction; Reconsidering a Modus Operandi

Space, Imagination and Vitruvius in Archaeological [Re]construction; Reconsidering a Modus Operandi Daniel M. Millette B.A. (Hons), The University of Ottawa, 1993 M.A. (Geog), The University of British Columbia, 1995 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Architecture) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1997 ® 1997, by Daniel M. Millette In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes" may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of 5t^oau -ft.-fw The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2788) Abstract This thesis challenges the way hypothetical Vitruvius-based classical theatre [reconstructions are readily undertaken and accepted in conventional architectural and archaeological research. The cultural matrix born out of the settling of the Roman provinces—in this case, Gaul—was one which evolved out of the adaptation and adoption of mores, crafts, techniques and meanings of meeting cultures; cultural and geographical context were inextricably linked to a region-specific architecture. In Gaul, there remain enough examples to state that the theatre probably deviated substantially from the design tenets elucidated by Vitruvius. Analysis of a hypothetical architecturally [reconstructed theatre—that of Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges—reveals that the [reconstruction is based on sparse archaeological evidence and, for the most part, is grounded within an imaginative interpretation of Vitruvius' broad Roman theatre design tenets. The [reconstruction recalls Vitruvius' Book V section on theatres but neglects archaeologically revealed architectonic details that highlight the monument as one which deviates from Vitruvius' Roman model. Thus, from the historical and cultural evidence, including an overview of Gaul's extant theatre remains, and from an analysis of one such [reconstruction, it is unlikely that Vitruvius can be relied upon with any certainty to [reconstruct Gaul's theatres. The epistemology of the interpretation of the De architectura libri decern suggests that the tradition of [reconstructing monuments—in this case, theatres—is mired within a set of "tendencies" that exist within the architectural and archaeological professions: The tendency to borrow Vitruvius as a means to render authority to one's work, the tendency to use the treatise within a didactic framework, the tendency to position the text vis-a-vis the study of classical monuments and vice versa, and the tendency to use "imagined" illustrations within translations of Vitruvius' work and similar treatises, have all been part of a process through which a canonization of Vitruvius' writings has taken place. It is through this process that [reconstruction by means of the text has become accepted and condoned within the architectural and archaeological professions. ii Contents Abstract ii List of Figures iv Acknowledgements vi Chapter 1 - Beginnings 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Argument 3 1.3 Context 3 1.4 The Classical Theatre 10 1.4.1 The Vitruvius Theatre Design Tenets 13 1.4.1a The Roman Design 14 1.4.1b The Greek Design 17 1.5 Conclusion 18 Chapter 2 - Society and Culture in Constructing Gaul's Theatre 20 2.1 Introduction 20 2.2 Historical Background 20 2.3 Gallo-Roman Society and Building 22 2.3.1 On the Use of Wood 24 2.3.2 On the Use of Earth 26 2.3.3 On the Use of Stone 27 2.3.4 On the Use of Quarries and Marble 29 2.4 Theatre Design in Gaul 31 2.5 Conclusion 39 Chapter 3 - {Reconstructing the Theatre 42 3.1 Introduction 42 3.2 The 1920's Explorations 44 3.3 The 1990's Excavations 53 3.4 The [Reconstruction 62 3.5 [De]constructing the [Reconstruction 66 3.6 Conclusion 75 Chapter 4 - Tradition, Imagination and Theatre Constructions 79 4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 Authority and Authentication 80 4.3 Didactics 83 4.4 Interpretations and Imaginations 86 4.5 Conclusion; Filling in the Gaps 108 Chapter 5 - Conclusions 114 Bibliography 119 iii List of Figures Figure 1.1 - The Theatre of Marcellus 13 Figure 1.2 - The Roman Theatre According to Vitruvius 15 Figure 1.3 - The Greek Theatre According to Vitruvius 18 Figure 2.1 - Quarry Surface at Saint-Beat 30 Figure 2.2 - Theatrical Mask - Eglise Saint-Just 33 Figure 2.3 - Theatre Typologies - Comparative Schematics 38 Figure 3.1 - Roman Town Plan; Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges 43 Figure 3.2 - Upper Cavea Excavations; 1929-30 45 Figure 3.3 - Theatre Excavations; 1920's 46 Figure 3.4 - Theatre Exploration areas; 1920's 47 Figure 3.5 - Post-Hole Detail; Upper Cavea Trench 50 Figure 3.6 - The "Grande Arche" 51 Figure 3.7 - Sapene's Theatre and Porticus Postscaenam Siting Plan 53 Figure 3.8 - Theatre Excavation Areas; 1990's 54 Figure 3.9 - Possible Construction Phases of the "Grande Arche" 56 Figure 3.10 - Hill profile Through the Cavea 58 Figure 3.11 - Drain Detail; Porticus Postscaenam 60 Figure 3.12 - Detail Plan of the Theatre's Eastern Extremity 61 Figure 3.13 - [Reconstructed Theatre; Plan 63 Figure 3.14 - [Reconstructed Theatre; Axonometric 63 Figure 3.15 - [Reconstructed Theatre; Plan Study 65 Figure 3.16 - [Reconstructed Theatre; Sectional Study 65 Figure 3.17 - [Reconstructed Theatre; Preliminary [Reconstruction Plan 68 Figure 3.18 - [Reconstructed Theatre; Section 72 Figure 3.19 - The "Grande Arche"; Part Elevation 74 Figure 3.20 - Preliminary and [Reconstruction Plans; Superimposed 77 Figure 4.1 - Alberti's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 90 Figure 4.2 - Filarete's Schematic Version of the Theatre 93 Figure 4.3 - Cesariano's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 96 Figure 4.4 - Fra Giocondo's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 97 Figure 4.5 - Serlio's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 99 Figure 4.6 - Perrault's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 104 Figure 4.7 - Palladio's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 105 Figure 4.8 - Palladio's Drawing of the Theatre at Berga 106 Figure 4.9 - Palladio's Teatro Olimpico 108 Figure 4.10 - Choisy's Version of the Vitruvius Cavea 110 Figure 4.11 - Morgan's Version of the Vitruvius Theatre 111 Figure 4.12 - The Theatre at Aspendus as Used by Morgan 111 Acknowledgements This thesis was written in relatively short time: nine months. Its themes, however, developed over a much longer period: nine years. It was through undergraduate studies in Classics and numerous seasons of archaeological investigations at Saint-Bertrand-de- Comminges in southern France that I began thinking about Vitruvius' writings and the role of imagination in architecture and archaeology. There are many people who have helped me along the way. At the University of Ottawa, Professor Michel Janon's willingness to accept me as a member of his archaeological research team was instrumental in sparking my interest in classical architecture. Even now, from his office at the Institut de Recherche sur l'Architecture Antique in Aix, he continues to be an inspiration for my academic undertakings and theoretical meanderings. Professor Barry Bell at Carleton University's School of Architecture has provided me with intellectual support throughout my graduate studies in architecture; my critique of his theatre [reconstruction is in the spirit of academic debate and in no way deflects my respect and admiration for his work. Professor Anthony Barrett, Head of the Classics Department at the University of British Columbia gave me sound advice with the final draft; his comments have greatly enabled the final outcome. Here at the School of Architecture, I am indebted to Professor Deborah Weiner, Chair of the MASA program, who has allowed me to think freely and pursue my own ideas. I remain especially thankful to Professor Sherry McKay who read, discussed, re-read, listened, and most of all, motivated. Finally, there are two people without whose moral support I could not have successfully undertaken this study: Mai, who was there in the beginning. And Joanne, who was, is, and will be. vi Space, Imagination and Vitruvius in Archaeological [Reconstruction; Reconsidering a Modus Operandi "Le philologue cherchera d'abord a reconstruire la realite, le monde, a partir du texte, en retrouvant I'intention de I'auteur et en iinterpretant en fonction des modes de penser du lecteur contemporain. Cependant, le mot «reconstruire» presuppose deja une relation souple, voire une certaine mouvance interpretative." Georg Germann, 1991, 4. "...I'etude des ruines de theatres romains n'en constitue pas moins une tache indispensable, qui incombe precisement a I 'histoire de I'architecture..." Edmond Frezouls, 1982, 348. Chapter 1 - Beginnings 1.1 Introduction In the late 1920's, the local schoolmaster of the French town of Saint-Bertrand-de- Comminges was busily undertaking archaeological excavations throughout the local terrain. The name of the original settlement is not clear, although scholars have come to refer to it as Lugdunum Convenae. Certainly, the fact that the area was rich in Roman vestiges was not a new discovery; as early as 1555, Jan Gardet and Dominique Bertin had included it in their regional architectural and archaeological studies (Graillot, 1919, 294). And by 1913, Raymond Lizop, among others, had undertaken brief archaeological explorations throughout the area (Lizop, 1931; 1935, 123). Situated in a somewhat remote region of the French Pyrenees, the schoolteacher aimed to highlight the importance of the town and its origins; his goal was to confirm that the settlement had been a key regional centre established by Pompey on his return from Spain in 72 BC (Sapene, 1954).

Load more