Post on 30-Dec-2015
description
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