ROMA ATRİUM EVİ İÇİN ELEŞTİREL BİR DEĞERLENDİRME: FİZİKSEL KANITLARIN “ATRIUM” ÜZERİNDEN OKUNMASI

For a long time the historiography of Roman atrium house (2) has been based upon textual descriptions derived from Vitruvius (Mau, 1982, 25- 30). The texts of Vitruvius (1960), which reflect the theoretical and practical issues of architecture from the viewpoint of the ancients, give prescriptions about the ideal dimensions and construction methods for the houses. Studies on Roman atrium houses uncritically recognized the validity of these prescriptions and interpreted archaeological evidence from this viewpoint (Mauiri, 1953). It has been thought that spatial configurations of the atrium houses were physical reflections of the Vitruvian principles (Boëthius and Ward-Perkins, 1970). This deductive approach imposed preconceived typological features into archaeological material. Contemporary developments in architectural historiography and archaeology, however, indicate that domestic architecture of the ancients was guided by environmental parameters and practical requirements rather than textual prescriptions (Jansen, 1991; Allison, 2001). Since the last decades of the 20th century, spatial information has gradually been more valuable for understanding the determinants of spatial configuration (3). Many scholars working on the Roman domestic space have begun to give more reference to spatial analysis (Allison, 2001; Wallace-Hadrill, 1997). The incorporation of new material evidence through more careful archaeological analysis has challenged the conventional framework. As a result the accuracy of Vitruvius’ text in reflecting the historical reality has been questioned. The critical review of the atrium house is marked by the rise of empiric inductive method (4) which derives the general principles through scrutinized analyses of cases. This new approach replaces the idealist deductive method which forged the implications of material evidence for rendering them compatible with Vitruvian texts. In this framework the roof structure of the atrium is an issue where contemporary interpretations of material evidence are at odds with Vitruvius’ textual definitions. Material evidence yields the acquisition of three dimensional architectural forms in the context of environmental problems and practical solutions while Vitruvian text is based upon two dimensional typological preconceptions. Relying on the Vitruvian text, established deductive historiography argued that atrium house was a type reflecting the “Italic” rather than the “Greek” characteristics of architecture (Vitruvius, 1960). It was assumed that the original atrium-house was roofed and open atria emerged later due to “Hellenistic” influence. This argument was uncritically adapted to the three dimensional conceptions of the atrium’s roof structure. Established architectural historiography concerning the roof structure of the atrium-house requires a critical review. Material evidence indicates that alternative spatial configurations where atria are “open” and “closed” are possible. It is clear that, in contrast to conventional typology, these schemes are not stages of a chronological evolution. They coexist in certain historical periods as results of functional requirements (Wallace-Hadrill, 1997, 229 - 236). In addition, the terms “open” and “closed” oversimplify the spatial richness of the atrium houses. For a more comprehensive understanding of atrium house, these terms should be reconsidered in depth and from architectural perspectives. The degrees of “open” and “closed” should be rediscovered in order to determine functions of spaces, light and shadow values, structural system and the relations between all these architectural variables. This study explores the contemporary knowledge on the atrium houses in terms of the relations between the roof configuration and functional layout by proposing an alternative reading of the atrium house from architectural perspectives.