RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION, FRANKFURT A. M.

ÖSTERREICHISCHES ARCHÄOLOGISCHES INSTITUT, WIEN

Bruckneudorf und Gamzigrad

Spätantike Paläste und Großvillen
im Donau-Balkan-Raum

Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Bruckneudorf

vom 15. bis 18. Oktober 2008

herausgegeben von
Gerda v. Bülow und Heinrich Zabehlicky

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH · Bonn 2011

 VIII, 314 Seiten, 241 Abbildungen und 2 Tabellen

Gefördert durch
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Ministerium für Bauen und Verkehr
des Landes Nordrhein-Westfahlen
Landschaftsverband Rheinland

Titelbild
Der unterlebensgroße Marmorkopf des Herkules wurde im Umfeld des Großen Tempels
von Romuliana gefunden. Nationalmuseum Zaječar.
Unterlegt sind die Periodenpläne der Villa von Bruckneudorf.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation
in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische
Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar

© 2011 by Römisch-Germanische Kommission

des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Frankfurt a. M.
© by Österreichisches Arschäologisches Institut Wien
Satz: Maria Scherrer, Wien
Druck: druckhaus köthen GmbH, Köthen
gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier
ISBN 978-3-7749-3748-2
ISBN-13: 978-3-900305-59-8
 Vorwort

Zwischen 1949 und 2004 wurde die „Villa“ bei Bruckneudorf, östlich
von Wien und nur etwa 20 km von Carnuntum, der Hauptstadt der
römischen Provinz Pannonia superior, gelegen, in mehreren Etappen
freigelegt. Dabei konnten allmählich verschiedene Bauperioden heraus-
gearbeitet werden, von denen die letzte, die in die zweite Hälfte des
4. Jh. datiert wird, sich durch besonders aufwändige bauliche Verän-
derungen, den Anbau eines Apsidensaales, und die reiche Ausstattung
mit Mosaikfußböden und Wanddekorationen auszeichnet. Das Bauen-
semble nimmt eine Fläche von ca. 980 m2 ein und bildet das Zentrum
einer eingefriedeten Gesamtfläche von etwa 12,5 ha. Damit gehört die-
ses Landgut zu den größten in der Provinz Pannonien. Diese Befunde
brachten einige Forscher auf die Idee, die repräsentative Ausprägung
der „Villa“ mit der Anwesenheit von Mitgliedern des Kaiserhauses (Kai-
serkonferenz 308 n. Chr., Valentinian 375 n. Chr.) in Zusammenhang zu
bringen. Und folgerichtig schloss sich die Überlegung an, dass es sich
zumindest in dieser Periode um einen „Palast“, einen kaiserlichen Resi-
denzort gehandelt haben könnte.
Nur wenige Jahre später, nämlich im Jahr 1953 begannen in der Nähe
des Dorfes Gamzigrad, Bez. Zaječar, Serbien, noch heute andauernde
systematische Ausgrabungen in einer ummauerten Anlage, die seit dem
19. Jh. als „Römerfeste“ bekannt war. Im Laufe der Untersuchungen ka-
men mehrere archäologische Indizien zu Tage, die zur Umdeutung als
„Palast“ berechtigten und als Bauherrn den Tetrarchenkaiser Galerius
(293–311) ausmachen konnten. Die eigentliche Residenz dieses Kaisers
befindet sich allerdings in Thessaloniki. Daher vermuteten die Ausgrä-
ber, dass der Kaiser in seiner Heimat, der Provinz Dacia ripensis, sich
einen Alterssitz habe errichten lassen. Das sei nach dem Vorbild seines
Vorgängers und Schwiegervaters Diokletian geschehen, der sich nach
seinem Rücktritt aus der aktiven Politik im Jahr 305 in einer eigens dafür
errichteten befestigten Anlage in dem nahe seiner Heimatstadt Salona
gelegenen Spalato, dem heutigen Split in Kroatien, niedergelassen hatte.
Galerius hat allerdings den geplanten Rücktritt nach 20 Regierungsjah-
ren nicht mehr erlebt, sondern starb zwei Jahre vorher. Daher erhebt sich
erst recht die Frage nach den Intentionen des Kaisers bei der Errichtung
des „Palastes“, zumal auch nicht bekannt ist, ob er sich überhaupt jemals
hier längere Zeit aufgehalten und von hier aus regiert hat.
Auf der einen Seite also eine „Villa“, die vielleicht vorübergehend die
Funktion eines Regierungssitzes innehatte, und auf der anderen Seite
ein „Palast“, von dem nicht ganz klar ist, ob hier jemals ein Kaiser sei-
nen Regierungsgeschäften nachgegangen ist.
Das sind Fragen, die allein aus den archäologischen Befunden der bei-
den in den Mittelpunkt des Kolloquiums gestellten Forschungsobjekte
nicht zu lösen sind. Mit dem Treffen in Bruckneudorf sollte daher ver-
sucht werden, mit Hilfe von Vergleichen zu einer genaueren Interpreta-
 VI Vorwort

tion und einer möglichst deutlichen Unterscheidung zwischen „Villa“

und „Palast“ zu gelangen. Dafür boten sich einerseits Untersuchungen
an villen- oder palastartigen Bauensembles in der Umgebung, d.h. in
den römischen Provinzen Pannonien, Moesien, Thrakien und Makedo-
nien an. Andererseits sollten auch Luxusanlagen etwa gleicher Zeitstel-
lung in anderen Regionen des Römischen Reiches zu dieser Problematik
herangezogen werden, speziell die Großvilla von Piazza Armerina auf
Sizilien. Darüber hinaus bot sich der relativ gut bekannte Gesamtbe-
fund an römischen Landgütern verschiedener Größe und unterschied-
licher Funktion auf der Iberischen Halbinsel zum Vergleich an.
Um eine gemeinsame Ausgangsbasis für die von den Veranstaltern
angestrebten Diskussionen zu schaffen, wurden an den Anfang allge-
meine Ausführungen zu „Palast“ und „Villa“ anhand von sorgfältig
ausgewählten Beispielen sowie über historische Berichte zum Thema
gestellt.
Als Ort der Veranstaltung konnte Bruckneudorf gewählt werden,
nicht zuletzt weil hier die Gemeinde, vertreten durch den (Alt-)Bürger­-
meis­ter Franz Schmitzhofer und seine Nachfolgerin Gerlinde Weiss, einen
sehr angenehmen Vortragssaal sowie einen Raum für die Kaffeepausen
kostenlos zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Dank des Einsatzes von Julia
Reuckl und Marcel Tschannerl lief die Veranstaltung reibungslos ab.
Für die Möglichkeit, in Eisenstadt die restaurierten Mosaiken zu
besichtigen und trotz einer unerwarteten anderen Veranstaltung auch
im Schloss Eszterhazy bewirtet zu werden, ist den Kollegen in der
Kultur­abteilung und im Landesmuseum, HR Dr. Josef Tiefenbach,
Dr.  Wolfgang Gürtler und Mag. Hannes Herdits sowie den politisch
Verantwortlichen LH Hans Niessl und LR Helmut Bieler zu danken.
Auf einer Nachexkursion konnten auch in Carnuntum sowohl das
Freigelände des Archäologischen Parks Carnuntum als auch das Muse-
um Carnuntinum unentgeltlich besucht werden, was der Geschäftsfüh-
rer Dr. Markus Wachter und der wissenschaftliche Leiter Mag. Franz
Humer dankenswerterweise ermöglicht haben.
Es ist den Leitern der Institute, Herrn Prof. Dr. Johannes Koder vom
Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut in Wien sowie seiner Nach-
folgerin, Frau PD Dr. Sabine Ladstätter, und Herrn Prof. Dr. Friedrich
Lüth von der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen
Archäo­logischen Instituts in Frankfurt/M. zu danken, dass sie die finan­
ziellen Mittel bereitgestellt haben, um eine solche Veranstaltung und die
vorliegende Publikation zustande zu bringen.
Christoph Rummel hat die redaktionelle Betreuung der englischspra-
chigen Beiträge sowie die Übersetzung der Zusammenfassung über-
nommen und Susanne Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger hat einen großen Teil
der Redaktionsarbeit geleistet, wofür ihnen Autoren und Herausgeber
zu großem Dank verpflichtet sind.
Es versteht sich von selbst, dass all diese Bemühungen ins Leere gin-
gen, wenn nicht die Teilnehmer ihre Kompetenz und ihr Engagement
eingebracht hätten.
Hier ist der Ort einzufügen, dass auch Klára Póczy aus Budapest teil-
nehmen wollte. Sie erlitt wenige Tage vor dem Symposium einen Schlag-
anfall und ist in den Tagen unseres Beisammenseins verstorben. Ihrem
Andenken widmen die Herausgeber im Namen aller Beteiligten diesen
Band.

Frankfurt a. M./Wien, März 2011 Gerda v. Bülow

Heinrich Zabehlicky
 Inhaltsverzeichnis

VORWORT

1 Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt
Die Entwicklung der Residenz der römischen Kaiser auf dem Palatin vom aristokratischen
Wohnhaus zum Palast
19 Hilke Thür
Überlegungen zur Typologie und Funktionsbestimmung der römischen „Villa“
47 Maria R.-Alföldi
Das „Palatium“ des Pescennius Niger. Berichte antiker Autoren über das Zeremoniell bei
Thronantritt
55 Roger J. A. Wilson
The fourth-century villa at Piazza Armerina (Sicily) in its wider imperial context: a review of
some aspects of recent research
89 Heinrich Zabehlicky
Die Villa von Bruckneudorf – Palast oder Großvilla?
101 Maja Živić
Romuliana, a palace for God’s repose
113 Sofija Petković
Gamzigrad–Romuliana in der Zeit nach dem kaiserlichen Palast
129 Mihailo Milinković
Völkerwanderungszeitliche Funde und Befunde im heutigen Serbien unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung von Gamzigrad
143 Georg Breitner
Die Bauornamentik von Felix Romuliana/Gamzigrad und das tetrarchische Bauprogramm
153 Gerda v. Bülow
Romuliana-Gamzigrad – Ort der Erinnerung oder Herrschaftsort?
167 Gordana Milošević
A residential complex at Mediana: the architectural perspective
177 Ivana Popović
A residential complex in the south-eastern part of Late Antique Sirmium: written sources and
archaeological evidence
187 Goran Nikšić
Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction
203 Evangelia Hadjitryphonos
The Palace of Galerius in Thessalonike: its place in the modern city and an account of the state
of research
219 Gergana Kabakchieva
Die antike Villa „Armira” – eine neue Touristenattraktion in Bulgarien
 VIII Inhaltsverzeichnis

233 Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska

Überlegungen zu den „Hauptgebäuden“ der pannonischen Innenbefestigungen im Kontext
spätrömischer Villenarchitektur
247 Sylvia Palágyi
Baláca als repräsentative Großvilla in Pannonien
259 Margit Németh
Änderungen des Statthaltersitzes von Aquincum
275 Endre Tóth
Die spätrömische Palastanlage von Savaria (Pannonia superior)
285 Patrick Marko
Die villa Löffelbach – Polygonale Bauformen in spätantiken Villen und Palästen
293 Felix Teichner
„Nam primum tibi mater Hispania est, terris omnibus terra felicior“.
Spätantike Großvillen und Residenzen auf der Iberischen Halbinsel

309 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
311 SUMMARY
313 ADRESSEN DER AUTORINNEN UND AUTOREN
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction
Goran Nikšić
Traditionally, Diocletian’s Palace has been de­
scribed as a unique combination of an imperial
palace and a typical Roman fortification, a blend
of a lavish villa and military camp1. It has been
accepted that the Emperor abdicated by his own
will in AD 305, afflicted with old age and illness,
in order to retire to his mansion on the Adriatic
coast, near his birthplace. After his death, the pal­
ace remained in the ownership of the imperial
family and, according to the Notitia Dignitatum,
a document dating from the 5th century, soon be­
came a gynaeceum – a clothes manufacturing cen­
tre for the army.
These assumptions have recently been chal­
lenged from the historic, archaeological and
architectural perspective. This paper seeks to
explain the need for rethinking the original
purpose and design of the palace, as well as the
changes that occurred during the construction,
primarily from an architectural point of view.
Although Diocletian’s Palace has long been a
topic of scientific interest, there has been no full
agreement about some of its basic elements, from
the typological definition to the initial purpose
of the building, from the original appearance of
the whole down to the actual reconstruction of
architectural parts. The original architectural
design has not been fully studied. From Robert
Adam2 to Jerko Marasović3, there have been sev­
eral attempts at idealised reconstructions of the
original aspect, but few thorough analyses and
interpretations of the design as a whole, and of
the ground plan in particular (Fig. 1).
It is obvious that Diocletian’s Palace does not
lend itself to a simple definition; nor can it be eas­
ily classified within the typology of Late Antique
architecture. Any understanding of the build­
ing is made more difficult by the complexity of
the plan which intrigues by its rigid geometry
as well as its emphasised departure from sym­
metry and right angles. The analysis is further
complicated by inconsistencies and mistakes in
the execution both of the whole and of individual
details. On the other hand, it seems that the key
to the architectural interpretation of Diocletian’s
Palace lies in its function.
Recent research has proposed a new under­
standing of the original purpose of the imper­
ial complex in Split: Diocletian’s Palace had first
been conceived as an imperial manufacturing
centre for textiles, and was later, probably during
its construction, adapted to serve as residence of
the retired emperor. Through detailed analysis
of historical evidence, the new proposal puts for­
ward a view completely opposed to that gener­
ally accepted, namely that the gynaeceum was in­
troduced into the imperial villa only after Diocle­
tian’s death4. This new hypothesis has provoked
a fresh interpretation of the design of the palace
as a whole, corroborated by the result of research
carried out in recent years on some of its most
outstanding buildings5. Relying on architectural
analysis, we shall try to show that a great part of
the “illogicalities” and “incongruities” in the de­
sign and execution of the palace can be explained
by the very change of the architectural concept
that probably occurred during the first phase of
construction.
The plan of the palace offers a good start­
ing point (Fig.  1): in recent times, in conformity
with the standards of architectural representa­
1 A  good synthesis of opinions about the relationship
between Diocletian’s Palace and the architecture of
castra and of planned fortified cities in the limitrophe
provinces, as well as the link with the palaces at Philip­
popolis and Antioch is given by Ward-Perkins 1994,
454–459.
2 Adam 1764.
3 The latest ground plan of the Palace with updated re­
search results: Marasović 1997, 31.
4 Belamarić 2003; Belamarić 2003/04; Belamarić 2004.
5 Nikšić 2004.
188 Goran Nikšić

188 VACAT
a b

Fig. 1.
a Rectified plan of Diocletian’s Palace with the basic
proportional scheme. The initial shape is the square,
and the plan of the imperial apartment is composed of
several golden section rectangles.
b The overall plan of Diocletian’s Palace is composed of
two golden section rectangles.
c Each quadrant of the Palace is also composed of two
golden section rectangles.

tion, it has become normal to look at the plan of
Diocletian’s Palace in such a way that the north
façade with the main entrance is on the top, and
the south façade with the imperial apartments
is on the bottom, although both Niemann6 and
Hébrard7 drew their plans with the north façade
as the base. This seemingly irrelevant detail can
help us with the virtual reconstruction of the pal­
ace design.
In talking about design, it is important to rect­
ify the plan prior to the detailed architectural
analysis, because it essentially and obviously de­
parts from the right angle (although not all the
angles are skewed). That departure was noted a
long time ago, but has not received any satisfac­
6 Niemann 1910.
7 Hébrard/Zeiller 1912.
 'LRFOHWLDQ·V3DODFH²GHVLJQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQ
˜›¢ȱ Ž¡™•Š—Š’˜—ȱ ˜ȱ ŠŽǯȱ ‘Žȱ œ’–™•’ęŒŠ’˜—ȱ ˜ȱ
the problem by the assertion that the northeast
corner was moved to the west because of “dif-
ꌞ•ȱ Ž››Š’—Ȅ8 is not convincing in view of the
extraordinary skill of Roman builders in over-
coming natural obstacles, erecting their build-
ings on high platforms, constructing harbours,
bridges, tunnels and similar undertakings9. In
Diocletian’s Palace itself there is clear evidence
of the ingenuity and experience of the builders
who succeeded in erecting such a complex build-
’—ȱ˜—ȱŠȱ’ĜŒž•ȱŽ››Š’—ȱŠȱ‘ŽȱœŽŠœ‘˜›ŽǰȱœŠž›ŠŽȱ
with spring water.
In the beginning of the seventies of the twen-
tieth century, two scholars studied the departure
of the palace plan from the right angle. A sim-
™•’ꮍȱ ’—Ž›™›ŽŠ’˜—ȱ ‹¢ȱ ’—Žȱ
ž›Ž—ǰȱ ™›˜Žœœ˜›ȱ golden section (Fig. 1a). The main rectangle is in
˜ȱ‘Žȱ›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Š•ȱŠŒž•¢ȱ’—ȱ“ž‹•“Š—ŠǰȱžœŽœȱŠȱ
modular scheme to show that on the south side
one module was added, but fails to explain a sig-
—’ęŒŠ—ȱ’쎛Ž—ŒŽȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ›ŽŠ–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ›ŽŠŽ›ȱ
part of the plan, where the alignment of the walls
˜••˜ œȱ‘Šȱ–˜’ꮍȱ–˜ž•Š›ȱœŒ‘Ž–ŽǰȱŠ—ȱ‘Šȱ
of the south quarter of the plan with the imper-
ial apartments, where the departure from the
orthogonal scheme was avoided wherever pos-
sible10. In this part, only the walls of the central
hall follow the general skew of the plan, which

naturally connects the central points of the two
main façades – the north and south fronts – of
’쎛Ž—ȱ•Ž—‘œǯ
A proportional analysis of the plan should
help us to solve the dilemma: was the plan of the
palace designed with the imperial apartments as
starting point, or the other way around?
ȱ  Žȱ ™žȱ ‘Žȱ ›ŽŒ’ꮍȱ ™•Š—ȱ  ’‘ȱ ‘Žȱ —˜›‘ȱ
façade at the base and consider the proportions
of the whole and of its parts, we can immediately
see that the three-fourths of the plan (without
the imperial apartment) are inscribed within a
square and that the whole of the plan (excluding
the towers which do not enter into the basic pro-
portional scheme12) is contained within a rectan-
gle with the sides proportioned according to the
fact composed of two golden section rectangles
(Fig. 1b). The same proportion (a double golden
section rectangle) is found in the subdivision of
the plan into four “quadrants” (Fig. 1c). The gold-
en section rectangle and the square are also the
8
юџюѠќѣіѴȦюџюѠќѣіѴȱŗşŜŞǰȱŠǯȱęǯȱřŚǯ
9
ȱ—ȱŠ“žœ–Ž—ȱ˜ȱŽœ’—ȱ˜ȱŒ˜—œ›Š’—œȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ‹ž’•’—ȱ
could not have been avoided, as it was impor-
ѢџђћѡȱŗşŝŖŠDzȱ
ѢџђћѡȱŗşŝŖ‹Dzȱ
Ѣџђћѡȱ1971.
tant to keep the axis of the imperial apartment
aligned exactly with the axis of the whole palace.
‘Žȱ ’쎛Ž—ŒŽȱ ‹Ž ŽŽ—ȱ ‘Žȱ œ”Ž Žȱ ŒŽ—›Š•ȱ ‘Š••ȱ
and the rest of the chambers of the Emperor’s
site see: іљѠќћȱќћђѠ 2003, 62–63.
10
11
A similar method can be found at imperial fora in
˜–ŽȱŠ—ȱ‘Žȱ‹Šœ’•’ŒŠȱŠȱŽ™’œȱŠ—Šǰȱ ‘Ž›Žȱ‘Žȱ™›’-
mary spaces are symmetrical and orthogonal, while
the less important rooms have a deformed plan. See
dwelling, which are strictly orthogonal, was re-
11a
solved through distorted narrow corridors to the
12
Ѣџђћѡ 1970b, 168 includes the towers of the Palace in
east and west of the hall that served for ventila-
tion. Similarly, the slanted east wall of the palace
did not cause the geometry around the triclinium
ž›Ž—ȱŠœ
to be lost, and only the plan of the less important
rooms at the east end was skewed11.
Guglielmo De Angelis d’Ossat put forward a
more subtle explanation of the departure from
the orthogonal scheme, linking Diocletian’s
Palace with the architecture of Early Christian
churches. He speaks about skewed façades (an-
damento obliquo), or in other words about skewed
Š¡Žœǰȱ Š—ȱ ›Ž•ŠŽœȱ ‘’œȱ ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜—ȱ ˜ȱ ‘Žȱ ’—Ěž-
Ž—ŒŽȱ ˜ȱ •˜’—žœȂȱ ŠŽœ‘Ž’Œœȱ Šœȱ ›ŽĚŽŒŽȱ ’—ȱ ŠŽȱ
Antique portraits.11a Without entering into subtle
Š—Š•¢œŽœȱ ˜ȱ ’—ĚžŽ—ŒŽœȱ ‹Ž ŽŽ—ȱ ™‘’•˜œ˜™‘¢ǰȱ Š›ȱ
ž›Ž—ȱ ’œȱ ‘Žȱ quadriagon [ ], which is approxi-
and architecture of that period, we can only re-
˜ ŽŸŽ›ǰȱ ‘Žȱ ™›˜™˜›’˜—Š•ȱ
mark that in the case of Diocletian’s Palace it is
not the main façade that is skewed, but the lat-
eral – the east wall. This, in turn, resulted in the
oblique main axis of the whole building, which
іљѠќћȱќћђѠȱŘŖŖřǰȱŘŘDzȱŜŘȮŜřǯ
ђȱћєђљіѠȱёȂѠѠюѡ 1975, 78–81.
his modular scheme, which is not accurate, and follows
the lines of the walls quite loosely. Relying on theoretic-
Š•ȱ›ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ’ŸŽ—ȱ‹¢ȱ’›žŸ’žœǰȱ
1 passus (1,479 m) to each side of the walls in order
to compensate for the presumed extra thickness of the
foundations. Aside from the fact that three centuries
had passed between Vitruvius and Diocletian’s build-
Ž›œǰȱ Š—ȱ ‘Šȱ •ŠŽȱ Š—’šžŽȱ Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Žȱ ’œȱ ŸŽ›¢ȱ ’쎛-
ent from the classical art of the early imperial period,
hard archaeological evidence shows that the perimeter
walls of the Palace lie directly on the bedrock, without
substantial thickening of the foundations (not more
than a few centimetres). As the modular scheme does
not lie over most of the walls, it can serve only to de-
termine the rough proportions of the plan. The basic
proportion of the expanded modular scheme given
‹¢ȱ
–ŠŽ•¢ȱ ŘşȹDZȹŘŚǯȱ
™ œŒ‘Ž–Žȱ
based on the golden section [ ] is much more pre-
cisely adapted to the real plan of the Palace, and does
not require a margin for the non-existent broadening
of foundations.
190 Goran Nikšić
190 VACAT
Fig. 2. Sewage channel in the north section of the Palace.
The stone walls have no plaster, and the ceiling is made of
concrete poured over lagging boards.
basic proportions of the individual buildings and
their parts.
Although it is difficult to make far-fetched con­
clusions founded only on the proportional analy­
sis, it seems that such a study corroborates the
hypothesis of the original building as a fortified
imperial factory, and of the imperial apartment
as a later idea. It does not mean that the palace
acquired its final shape by simple addition of the
Emperor’s dwelling to the existing building with
a square plan, but it is possible that the complex
was modified during an early stage of construc­
tion. Some significant details strengthen this as­
sumption:
A series of small rooms, attached to the bound­
ary walls in the northern half of the palace, con­
tinue partly into the southern half, although ac­
cording to the functional logic they should not
be there as the area between the decumanus and
the imperial apartment was reserved for stately
functions: the central square (the so-called Peri­
style), and the two precincts with sacred build­
ings.
The north and south façades of Diocletian’s
Palace are monumental and symmetrical, while
the side façades are less prominent in their de­
sign. There, the gates are off-centre, and the inter­
vals between the towers are unequal.
The most important difference between the
northern three quarters of the palace and the
southern one is the existence of the great sub­
structures of the Emperor’s apartments. With the
exception of the crypts of the temples, there is
nothing comparable in the area north of the wall
that divides the imperial apartment from the
rest of the palace. That wall is almost completely
blank. Although some physical and functional
links exist between parts of the palace to the
north and to the south of the decumanus, the north
wall of the imperial apartment presents a com­
plete barrier, except, of course, at the point of the
monumental Prothyron and the Vestibule (Fig. 1a).
Equally important is the sewage system with
channels matching the channel of the 9 kilometre
long aqueduct in size, constructed simultaneous­
ly to bring large quantities of water, needed for
the production of textiles within the palace. The
fact that the sewage system was found almost ex­
clusively in the northern half of the palace is one
of the strongest arguments for the hypothesis of
the gynaeceum as the primary use of the build­
ing (Fig. 2). It is remarkable that the main sewer
along the cardo does not continue straight on un­
derneath the Peristyle and through the substruc­
tures of the imperial apartment, taking the short­
est route to the sea, but turns into the decumanus
and exits the palace through the West Gate. One
would expect that the sewer collected the waste
water from the Emperor’s apartment, but no sub­
stantial channels have been found there13.
The following suggestion would explain this
observation: at the time when the sewage net­
work was laid down and the channels were bur­
ied in the ground, surrounded by walls and cov­
ered with vaults, there was as yet no concept of
an imperial apartment within the same complex.
The reason why the sewage did not follow the
axis of the building straight into the sea in the
first phase can perhaps be found in the fact that
13 Gabričević 1963; Marasović et al. 1999. There is only
one mention of a smaller channel which comes into the
main sewer under the decumanus from the south. That
channel could have conducted the waste water from
the so-called Western Thermae.
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction 191
an earlier building or complex of monumental
buildings, whose foundations were excavated
during recent archaeological research of the
eastern substructures, stood on this site during the
first phase14. It has been noted that the imper­
ial palace obliterated this monumental building
without using its walls, and the stone from the
earlier building was reused only as raw material
for infill and levelling of terrain. Nevertheless, it
is worth noting that the east-west walls of the pal­
ace are parallel to the walls of the older building
(or buildings). As such, it is possible to conclude
that according to the original design this complex
could have been spared, and was destroyed only
following the change in construction plan, when
the imperial residence could not tolerate a neigh­
bour on the most important south side.
The idyllic image of a country villa surround­
ed by beautiful scenery which often comes to
mind when we imagine the original aspect of
Diocletian’s refuge, and which was so spectacu­
larly rendered by the famous bird’s eye view by
Hébrard, is probably very far from reality15.
The recent archaeological investigations on the
promenade in front of the south façade of Dio­
cletian’s Palace identified the remains of a sub­
stantial stone wall. Two meters thick, the wall
runs parallel to the façade of the palace. Attached
to that wall lies a wide concrete platform which
served a purpose in the old harbour. From the
level of that platform it is obvious that the south
front of the palace was built on dry ground, and
not in the sea. It has also become clear that Dio­
cletian’s Palace was not an isolated building even
on the south side.
The imperial palace was squeezed into a pre-
existing, probably quite dense settlement fabric
which developed around a trivium Salona – Epe­
tion – Ad Dianam and at the back of the bay
beneath the hill of Marjan. That would make it
similar to other imperial palaces of the period,
which were typically built within cities. Such an
urban situation could perhaps explain the need
to depart from the strict geometrical regularity of
the original building16.
A direct comparison with another, almost con­
temporary, imperial palace may help to resolve
some of the dilemmas about the interpretation of
the architecture of Diocletian’s Palace. Romuliana,
the palace of Diocletian’s successor on the throne
and son-in-law Galerius, was also built in an earl­
ier settlement17. Perhaps the most intriguing fact
about the palace of Gamzigrad is the presence of
two fortification systems. The earlier of the two
is strikingly similar to the walls of Diocletian’s
Palace, and the second, much larger, system was
built soon after or even before the first one was
completed18.
This tells something about the change of con­
cept of the whole complex, but also about the
spirit of the owner. The degree of arrogance and
ostentation that led to the abandonment of the
first defensive walls and towers, without any at­
tempt in the new design to reuse older parts or
at least adjust the new spatial axes and entrances
with the old ones, is incredible19. The extra space
obtained by the enlargement of fortifications was
not even used to build new structures, as the
complexes of buildings from both construction
phases found their place within the perimeter of
the old defensive walls20.
Although it is difficult to understand all the
construction phases of the palace in Gamzigrad,
it seems – with some simplification – that the
first fortification system was built for the palace
of Galerius’ mother Romula, and the second sys­
tem, with excessively large and densely spaced
polygonal towers, erected following Galerius’ de­
cision to retire to his provincial residence, follow­
ing the model of Diocletian.
A symbolic function connected with the cult
of the dead was important for both construction
phases. The two temples in the palace have their
longitudinal axes directed towards the sepul­
chral mounds and mausolea on top of a nearby
hill21. It is in a sense an echo of a similar situation
in Diocletian’s Palace in Split, where the Temple
is turned with its entrance towards the Mauso­
leum; but here everything takes place within the
fortification walls. The symbolic duality of the
complex in Gamzigrad where the left (north) side
symbolizes the female, lunar, or the evil prin­
ciple, and the right (south) side mirrors the male,
solar, or the good principle22 is repeated in the
palace in Split, only here the duality is expressed
through the east-west opposition. The Mauso­
leum on the east side (facing west) represents
14 Marasović 1996, 11–12; Marasović 1997, 38.
15 Hébrard/Zeiller 1912.
16 Wilson Jones 2003, 49 explains the irregularity of the
plan of Augustus’ Forum in Rome by the emperor’s
reluctance to expropriate all the necessary land, and
consequently be seen as a despot.
17 v. Bülow 2007, 56–57; Sommer v. Bülow/Wulf-Rheidt
2008, 15.
18 Čanak-Medić 1978, 163–169; Čanak-Medić 1995, 53.
19 Srejović/Lalović 1995, 23–27.
20 Vasić 1995, 315–319.
21 Vasić 1997.
22 Vasić 1997, 445.
192 Goran Nikšić
192 VACAT
Fig. 3. Plan of the Peristyle. Blue line: geometrical transversal
axis of the square. Red line: optical axis of the Peristyle in
the middle of the four pairs of red granite columns.
Death, and on the opposite side (facing the rising
sun) the Temple symbolizes Success, Strength,
Fire and Health – making its multiple dedication
to Jupiter, Hercules, Sol and Aesculapius logic­
al and quite probable. In this way, the symbolic
meaning of the architecture of Diocletian’s Palace
is made more complex with the east-west trans­
versal axis23.
It is interesting to see how important this east-
west axis was in the composition of the central
square of Peristyle. It seems that during the con­
struction of Diocletian’s Palace some changes
were made in the design, resulting in an awk­
ward position of the square, squeezed between
the two sacred enclosures (the temenoi) to the east
and west, and the great mass of the vestibule to
the south with its Prothyron protruding into the
remaining restricted space. That situation gener­
ated the problem of coordination of the east-west
axis of the temenoi on the one hand, and the axis
of the Peristyle on the other. This was resolved
by an ad hoc solution using different colours of
columns: red granite columns were positioned in
front of the Vestibule (the entrance to the imperial
apartment) and in front of the Mausoleum and
the Temple. The remaining two pairs of columns
at the north end of the square are in grey marble
(Fig. 3).
We can say that both Galerius’ and Diocle­
tian’s palaces were built as ever-lasting memor­
ials of their earthly and divine majesty after their
deaths24. The palace in Split, however, is more
complex because we find in it, apart from the
buildings dedicated to the imperial – the earthly
and the heavenly – cult, the utterly profane func­
tion of the textile manufacturing centre25.
On a formal level there are many similarities
between the two palaces. It might even be pos­
sible to speculate that the architect of the Split
palace also worked at Romuliana, or that the em­
perors hired their builders from the same centre.
Apart from the virtually identical dimensions of
the floor plan of the fortification in Split and the
older fortification in Gamzigrad, the identical de­
signs of the towers (those flanking the gates are
polygonal, and the remaining ones are square) are
highly conspicuous26. There is also a great simi­
larity in terms of architectural detail such as the
composition of the entrance façades with niches
and cantilevered arcades, or the capitals carved
in Proconnesian marble from the same imperial
workshop found both in Split and Gamzigrad27.
The drastic, even declarative change of concept
in Galerius’ palace can help us understand how
Diocletian, although in a much more restrained
and sober way, could have transformed the use
of the building in Split, already in the course of
construction, and adapted it to the new function.
We do not know if the crucial Egyptian and
Syrian components of this eclectic architecture
were included only during the later phase of con­
23 Norberg-Schulz 1975, 108–109.
24 Srejović 1993.
25 The only building within the walls of Romuliana with
a “non-palatial” functional role is the 5-aisle edifice
which is commonly been described as horreum (gran­
ary). See Srejović/Lalović 1995, 32.
26 Vasić 1993.
27 Marasović/Marasović 1968, 26; Čanak-Medić 1978,
118.
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction 193

struction, or they were, at least partially, present

from the beginning. The characteristics of that
style are best shown in the Peristyle. The architec­
ture of the Peristyle has an ambiguous character,
between the solid, massive structure of the Vesti­
bule and the light, free-standing colonnades with
the lattice-work of the transparent stone screens
in the intercolumniations. The interpretation of
the Peristyle has long been a source of discussion
regarding the essential meaning of Diocletian’s
Palace, and these controversies have not been
resolved28. From the beginning the Peristyle had
some inherent serious weaknesses and mistakes
built into its very structure.
The link between the longitudinal free-stand­
ing arcaded colonnades and the transversal
porch of the Prothyron at the south end of the
square was not resolved very successfully, either
at a conceptual level or in its execution, with the
blank wall at the end of the colonnades, and the
corners of the Prothyron pediment “eaten away”.
The Prothyron was presumably first conceived as
a classical porch, free on three sides, and then
transformed into a scenographic decoration
squeezed between two massive walls. Evidence
of this situation was found by Niemann who
pointed out the difference between the mould­
ings of the trabeations of the Prothyron pediment
Fig.  4.  The connection between the trabeation of the Pro­
and of the lateral colonnades29. The ends of the
thyron and of the east colonnade of the Peristyle.
pediment are covered by the walls at the south
end of the colonnades which were obviously
added, putting the piece of the trabeation which of overwhelming time pressure and deadlines,
is visible on top of the wall on the east side of the and with the design brief that probably changed
Prothyron out of context (Fig. 4)30. several times in the course of construction, we
The “arcuated lintel” of the Prothyron exerted can only admire their skill in masking the imper­
a horizontal thrust that continues to cause struc­ fect details and diverting the onlooker’s attention
tural damage even today. At their northern ends, from them.
long arcades push the arches of the decumanus Apart from the numerous incomplete details,
porticoes, and consequently the house and the above all in terms of architectural decoration31,
church attached to them, leading to structural
damage. The low terminal arches of the porti­
coes buttress the tall colonnades without success,
anticipating medieval structural ideas in an awk­
28 Strzygowski 1908; Dyggve 1961/62; Duval 1961/62.
ward way. 29 Niemann 1910, 47.
All this contributes to the overall impression 30 The area of the peristyle and two adjoining sacral pre­
of an eclectic, heterogeneous, ad hoc solution of cincts could initially have been planned as a large free
the difficult problem, reflecting in a nutshell the space in front of the praetorium, according to the typ­
complexities of the palace as a whole. Diocletian’s ical scheme of a castrum. See Crema 1960, 44.
Palace is full of examples where instant solutions 31 Cambi 1997, 72; Cambi 2005, 163–164; Belamarić 2003,
to serious mistakes were found by the highly 175; Belamarić 2004, 156. The fact that the palace re­
mained unfinished is used by Cambi and Belamarić as
skillful Roman builders. It is fair to say that, con­
an argument for opposite conclusions about his abdi­
sidering the circumstances, the end result is suc­ cation. Cambi sees in it the Emperor’s determination to
cessful in a way. Once we understand that the resign from the throne within a previously fixed dead­
builders did not look for perfection, because it line, while Belamarić believes that the incompleteness
would have been an improbable task in the face is the consequence of the unexpected abdication.
 *RUDQ1LNäLý

 VACAT
a E

)LJ  D &URVVVHFWLRQ RI 'LRFOHWLDQ·V PDXVROHXP ZLWK SURSRUWLRQDO VFKHPH EDVHG RQ WKH JROGHQ VHFWLRQ ƕ   
7KHGRWWHGOLQHPDUNVWKHFRQWRXURIWKHGRPHDQGWKHURRIDFFRUGLQJWRWKHK\SRWKHWLFDODEDQGRQHGRULJLQDO
YHUVLRQRIWKHGHVLJQ²E5HFRQVWUXFWLRQGUDZLQJRIWKHHDVWHOHYDWLRQRI'LRFOHWLDQ·VPDXVROHXPZLWKSURSRUWLRQDOVFKHPH
7KHGRWWHGOLQHPDUNVWKHFRQWRXURIWKHURRIDFFRUGLQJWRWKHK\SRWKHWLFDODEDQGRQHGRULJLQDOYHUVLRQRIWKHGHVLJQ
some substantial mistakes were made because
˜ȱ ‹Šȱ Œ˜˜›’—Š’˜—ȱ ˜ȱ ’쎛Ž—ȱ ™Š›œȱ ˜ȱ ‹ž’•-
ings during the elaboration of the basic design,
Šœȱ’Ž—’ꮍȱ‹Ž•˜ ǯ
One of the main features of Diocletian’s Mau-
soleum is its dome. The interior shell of the dome
was constructed of bricks arranged in a com-
™•’ŒŠŽȱ Š—Ȭœ‘Š™Žȱ ™ŠĴŽ›—ǯȱ ‘Žȱ Š›Œ‘Žœȱ ‘žœȱ
created were self-supportive, and required no
heavy, costly and time-consuming timber cen-
tring. Only the top of the dome, where the curva-
ture becomes close to the horizontal, was con-
structed with a light centring. The interior brick
shell served to support the outer shell of equal
thickness, so the complete dome could be erected
without any substantial timberwork.
The dome of Diocletian’s mausoleum is an
exception from the usual Roman building prac-
tice, which usually embeds the lower part of a
dome in the thick mass of the supporting wall
that counters the horizontal thrust of the dome.
In Split, the height of this secured lower part
of the dome is only about one third of the total
height, if the springing of the dome is taken ap-
proximately 1 m above the top cornice. Although
the brick shell starts immediately above the stone
cornice, its lower part (three feet high) is cylindric-
al, and the curvature of the dome begins only
at the springing of the fan-shaped arches. This
heightening of the springing of the dome was
probably made for aesthetical reasons, to achieve
a perfect proportion (the golden section) between
the diameter of the cella of the Mausoleum and
‘Žȱ˜Š•ȱ‘Ž’‘ȱ›˜–ȱ‘Žȱ̘˜›ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŸŽ›Ž¡ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ
dome (Fig. 5a)ǯȱ—˜‘Ž›ȱŠŽœ‘Ž’Œȱ˜‹“ŽŒ’ŸŽȱŒ˜ž•ȱ
have been to avoid the visual shortening of the
dome by the deeply protruding cornice, which
covers its springing.
Although the exterior of the Mausoleum was
designed in the same proportional system as the
interior, with the use of the square and the gold-
en section rectangle, it seems that the exterior
and interior elevations were drawn separately.
That is probably the reason why the extrados of
the dome was made unusually (and perhaps un-
expectedly) high in relation to the exterior cor-
nice (Fig. 5b).
The pitch of the roof was too pronounced
(about 40° instead of the usual 23°). Over the cen-
turies tiles slid down the slope, and in the 13th
century the decision to alter the outline of the
ŒŠ‘Ž›Š•ȱ›˜˜ȱ Šœȱꗊ••¢ȱŠ”Ž—DZȱ‘ŽȱŽŠŸŽœȱ Ž›Žȱ
elevated, part of the extrados of the dome was
Œ‘’œŽ••Žȱ˜ěȱ˜ȱŠ••˜ ȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ•˜ Ž›’—ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŠ™Ž¡ǰȱ
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction 195

thus reducing the slope of the roof. It is interest­

ing to note that at the time of the medieval restor­
ation the entire roof was covered with Roman
tegulae and imbrices; only in the following period
were they gradually replaced by valley tiles. To­
day some 500-odd tegulae can still be found on
the roof, but during the restoration in 1996 we
discovered imprints of tegulae all the way up to
the top of the roof32.
The stone vault of the Temple of Jupiter was
built as a series of eight semicircular arches, each
consisting of five stone blocks. Every one of the
40 blocks is richly decorated with two square cof­
fers. The geometry of the vault is very accurate,
and the stone blocks were assembled without
metal fixtures.
Here, the Roman builders made a similar mis­
take as in the design and construction of the Mau­
soleum. Again, the exterior cornice was made
too low in respect to the vault, so there was not
enough space between the extrados of the vault
and the contour of the pediment for a normal Fig.  6.  Jupiter’s temple. The extrados of the vault meets
timber roof structure. Therefore, only the pronaos the outline of the west gable. As a preparation for the base
was roofed (although this roof has not survived), of a makeshift timber roof structure recesses were made
in the upper surface of the first three blocks of the south
as there was enough room above the flat ceiling.
cornice. The roof was never completed. Photograph before
Above the vault, preparations were made to con­ the recent restoration works.
struct a makeshift roof structure: instead of fix­
ing the timber wall plates in grooves on the up­
per side of the cornice blocks of the pronaos, the 32 Nikšić 1995; Nikšić 2004.
builders cut shallow recesses into the blocks of 33 The fine decoration of the stone vault with coffered in­
the south cornice abutting the vault (Fig. 6). How­ trados, on the other hand, was finished before being
ever, the roof above the vault was never com­ assembled. Nikšić 1998; Nikšić 1995, 110; 114; Nikšić
2004, 165–166.
pleted, very probably because the Emperor came
34 Most of the decorated stone in the Palace was carved
to live in his new palace earlier than had been on site from the scaffolding. Aside from a short dead­
planned. Not only the roof, but also a great part line given to the builders to complete the construction,
of the architectural decoration of the Temple was this may be a result of the simple fact that it is easier to
left unfinished for the same reason33. move the stone cutter than the huge stone blocks. On
Haste and bad coordination of design led to the other hand, finished elements of stone decoration
serious errors in the construction of the main are lighter than coarsely hewn blocks. Consequently,
entrance to the palace, the so-called Porta Aurea, their movement is easier, but fine sculptural details
can be damaged in the process. Cf. Taylor 2003, 238;
and these mistakes resulted in both aesthetic and
Rockwell 1993, 98.
structural problems. It is perhaps more evident
35 Cambi 2005, 166–167 assumes that the niches of the
at the Golden Gate than in other parts of Diocle­ Golden Gate must have contained greater-than-life-
tian’s palace that the building was never finished sized statues, probably representing the gods-protect­
(Fig. 7)34. Apart from the unfinished lower niches, ors of the tetrarchy. He supposes free-standing sculp­
the decoration of the brackets carrying the colon­ tures within the deep niches, while “the shallow niche
nade was not completed. It is therefore question­ could have contained a fixed sculpture without a full
able whether the statues that had probably been depth”. We have inspected in detail the niche from the
intended for the niches on both levels and on top scaffolding, erected during the restoration work on the
façade. There are no traces of fixing a sculpture or a
of the wall were ever executed35. There are no
relief. In view of the fact that architectural decorations
traces of fixtures in the niches, and we hope to be were generally not finished, it is possible that the shal­
able to check the presence of such traces on the low central niche was planned to contain a stone slab
stone pedestals on top of the wall. with a relief or inscription, but this was never installed,
Furthermore, the original design of the façade just like the sculptures in other niches and on top of
did not take into account the slot in the wall where the wall.
196 Goran Nikšić
196 VACAT
the portcullis had to be accommodated. For that
reason one of the niches was made too shallow to
receive a statue. This weakened the central part of
the wall, and the cantilevered colonnade added a
substantial eccentric load. The stability of the wall
was further diminished when a medieval vault
was constructed over the guard’s passage, which
was converted into a church. Following the dis­
mantling of the columns, the arches on the upper
part of the façade became cantilevered; the whole
upper half of the wall is now precariously lean­
ing outward, and the ashlars of the upper half
of the façade are being crushed and cracked36.
It seems that the original design was modified
in view of the inconsistency between the interior
and exterior levels of the ground and those of the
lateral towers, which were finished before the
Gate itself37. The design of the façade of the Gold­
en Gate was certainly conceived in relation to the
flanking towers, because the levels and mould­
ings of the stringcourse and cornice above the
Gate respect those on the towers. On the other
hand, the whole architectural composition of the
Porta Aurea seems awkwardly cramped, which
can best be appreciated if compared to the very
Fig.  7. Façade of the Porta
Aurea with the original level
of the thres­hold.
similar elevation of the main gate of the palace at
Romuliana (Fig. 8)38. The arch of the Golden Gate
and the two lateral niches were made too high
in respect to the stringcourse, and the brackets
of the colonnade on the upper level were placed
too low. The stringcourse is interrupted, and the
niches could not receive a usual arched or pedi­
mented termination39.
36 Nikšić 2004, 167.
37 In terms of the organization of the building site, it
seems logical that the construction of the gates of the
Palace, i.e. the parts of the façade between the polygon­
al towers, were left for the very end of the building
process, in order not to hamper the transport of large
quantities of building material. Physical evidence for
this can be found in the decoration of the stringcourse
which was finished on the towers, and left unfinished
on the façade between them and above the gates.
38 Čanak-Medić 1978, 78 fig. 60.
39 The same situation is repeated at the eastern so-called
Silver Gate, but with fewer consequences due to much
simpler design and decoration. At the western so-
called Iron Gate there were no problems in coordinat­
ing the levels of the flanking towers and the gate itself,
because the ground level there is substantially lower.
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction 197
Fig. 8. Gamzigrad, Romuliana.
Re­construction drawing of the
west gate façade.
During the final phase of construction of Diocle­
tian’s Palace the builders obviously had to deal
with both the changed ground level and a strong
limitation of the total height of the façade, i.e.
the fixed level of the upper cornice. Why was the
ground level heightened, and the architectural
design of the elevation of the main entrance to
the palace spoilt as a result? Why could the de­
sign not have been changed and the height of the
façade increased on a building with so much evi­
dence for major improvisations and alterations of
the original design? We believe that the answers
to both questions lie in the importance of the pri­
mary function of the building.
In the first design of the building as a textile
manufacture, there was probably no plan to pave
the streets on a monumental scale, just as they
were never paved in the industrial northern
quarters40. Because the sewage system had to be
laid down first41, the ground could not be low­
40 Unfortunately, that area, being less monumental than
the rest, has received very little attention by archae­
ologists. Between 1985 and 1988 excavations in the
Papalić palace (the actual City Museum) discovered
architectural remains that could easily be interpreted
as part of an industrial complex. The shallow pool,
simple white mosaic floor and a barrel-shaped liquid
container sunk in the ground and lined with brick and
hydraulic plaster all suggest textile treatment. Because
of the lack of symmetry, the finds were interpreted by
the authors as “a late antique intervention”, i.e. belong­
ing to a period later than Diocletian. See Perojević et
al. 2009, 81. In 2005 an archaeological sounding was
made to the north-east of this location, near a sew­
age channel which remains partially operational. We
found no trace of monumental pavement such as in the
cardo and decumanus, but only a modest floor with a
few tegulae and several stone blocks, as well as a small
channel, possibly serving an industrial purpose. These
finds fit very well with the suggestion that the two
large blocks of buildings with a “dirty” function in the
northern part of the Palace were screened off by the
monumental porticoes flanking the two main streets
of the Palace.
41 An overview of the Roman sewage system is given by
Adam 1989, 283–286. Problems of computation of the
required capacity and the process of designing a sew­
age network are described by Taylor 2003, 81. On the
sewage in planned cities of the Empire see Malissard
2002, 230–232.
198 Goran Nikšić

198 VACAT
The reason for the limitation of the total height
of the building is much more complex. Here, we
shall turn back to the aqueduct and the question
of its terminus, i.e. the location of the castellum
aquae and the distribution of water from it into
the palace. Previous researchers have sought the
location of the water tank to the north-west of the
palace43. In view of the well-known gradient of
the 9 kilometres long water channel and the char­
acteristics of the terrain, however, it is possible
to reconstruct the missing last section of the line
of the aqueduct and locate the castellum aquae on
the slope of the Gripe hill to the north-east of the
palace (Fig. 9). From the reservoir in the castellum
aquae, water was brought into the palace through
pipes (probably made of stone [Fig. 10]44). Unlike
the sewage network, which has largely been ex­
plored, the system of water distribution within
the palace has never been researched, apart from
the small find of a lead pipe in the area of the so-

42 The intrados of the vault of the sewer passing under

Fig.  9.  Split, plan of the city centre. Water supply and
sewage systems of Diocletian’s Palace. 1 existing aqueduct
channel. – 2 hypothetical line of the last section of the
aqueduct. – 3 hypothetical location of the castellum
aquae. – 4 hypothetical line of the underground pressurized
water pipes. – 5 hypothetical water distribution on top of
the perimeter walls. – 6 sewage channels. – 7 end of the
sewer. – 8 areas of great water consumption (gynaeceum
and baths).
43 Bulić/Karaman 1927, 112; Perojević et al. 2009, 84–85.
44 A number of cubic stone blocks, the biggest of which
Fig. 10. Stone pipes stored in the substructures of Diocle­
tian’s Palace.
ered subsequently in the area of the cardo and de­
cumanus; the pavement with all underlying layers
had to be fixed above the vault of the sewer42.
the Porta Aurea is approximately 1 m lower than the
original level of the threshold of the Gate, as described
by Niemann 1910, 26. He reports that a monolith block,
made from an architrave originally belonging to one
of the porticoes of the cardo or decumanus, was laid on
the concrete surface as a threshold. However, from the
letter sent to Niemann on the 7th August 1904 by his
assistant architect Otto Kuntschik (kept in the archives
of the Kupferstichkabinett in Vienna), we gather that
the stone block had been found four days earlier, 12
metres north of the Gate. The sketch in that letter en­
ables us to identify it with the great stone block which
used to be seen attached to the wall immediately east
of the Gate, and which was moved onto the green sur­
face to the west of the Gate during the recent works of
repaving the area. It is interesting to note that the ratio
between the width and the height of the Gate’s open­
ing (according to Niemann’s data) has the proportion
of a double golden section rectangle (see Fig. 7).
measure 55 cm with holes of 35 cm diameter, are be­
ing kept in the substructures of the Palace. Their prov­
enance is not known, but it is possible that they were
part of the system that carried water from the castellum
aquae into the Palace or, more probably, part of the wa­
ter distribution system on top of the perimeter walls.
It is probably the same stone pipes that Niemann 1910,
112 describes as having a diameter of 33 cm, and be­
longing to a water supply system. Perojević et al. 2009,
88 put these stone pipes in the context of the Roman
sewage system, rather than the water supply, although
most have a thick deposit of calcite equally distributed
along the perimeter, a clear indication of water run­
ning under pressure and filling the whole profile of the
pipes.
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction 199

called Eastern Thermae45. Without thorough arch­

aeological research it is unclear how water was
brought into the palace and further distributed,
mainly to the northern half of the building with
the gynaeceum, the textile manufacture, but it is
possible to suggest the following:
Rather than bringing piped water into the pal­
ace in several places, it would have been easier
to do so at one point near the north-eastern cor­
ner, closest to the presumed location of the ca­
stellum aquae, where the ground is highest. The
easiest way to supply different buildings within
the gynaeceum with water would have been from
the surrounding walls. One or more water tanks
could have been mounted on the walls or in the
upper parts of towers46. From there, water could
have been distributed through smaller pipes on
top of the perimeter walls, branching off down
to the gynaeceum. It would have been important
to keep the level of the water reservoir(s) within
the palace as high as possible in order to achieve
enough pressure for distribution on the ground.
The level of the reservoir(s), however, was limit­
ed by the height of the castellum aquae, which ex­
plains why the gradient of the aqueduct was kept
to a minimum (between 0.10 and 0.26 %).
According to the calculations carried out to
date, the height of the perimeter walls of the pal­ Fig.  11. Two sections of the eastern perimeter wall of the
ace corresponds to the water level at the end of Palace. The light shaded part of the section CD could be the
the aqueduct. This explains the reason why the location of the stone water pipes.
façade of the Porta aurea could not have been
heightened: behind and on a level with the cor­
nice on top of the wall, there are stone slabs cov­ In fact, the upper level of the perimeter walls of
ering the guards’ corridor. The water pipes could the palace looks more like a thin membrane (only
only have been positioned above the cornice, and 43 centimetres thick), strengthened on the inner
behind the stone pedestals of statues (Fig. 11)47. side by rectangular pilasters (73 × 120 cm) set be-
It has become clear that in the beginning both tween the openings. To further simplify the
architecture and choice of location of Diocletian’s
building were determined primarily by require­
ments of water supply. The building had to be 45 Marasović et al. 1972, 30.
located at a low level, but close to the hill which 46 According to Niemann, the octagonal towers flanking
could have received a water tank. the gates had masonry vaults above the first and sec­
Finally, if we take a fresh look on the walls of ond floors.
47 Between the Golden Gate and the north-east tower the
Diocletian’s Palace, it becomes clear that their
cornice is positioned on a slightly higher level (about
appearance as a fortification is completely mis­ 40 cm), and the water pipes could have been placed be­
leading. Apart from the facts that the towers had hind it. To the west of the Gate, all the way to the north-
external entrances, in itself contradicting any de­ west corner tower, the top of the wall is approximately
fensive purpose, and that there are no towers on 30 cm lower than above the Porta Aurea. The slope con­
the south side (now that we know it was not de­ tinues over the west wall, and the height of the cornice
fended by water, but built on dry land), it is obvi­ above the West Gate is another 35 cm lower. The east
wall of the Palace also slopes, but to a lesser degree.
ous that the arched openings in the upper part of
Although water could have been distributed on top of
the east, north and west walls are too low and too the walls of the northern part of Diocletian’s Palace by
wide to be of defensive use. On the level of the ar­ means of pressured pipes, it seems that they were put
cade, the wall is much thinner than on the lower on a sloping line in order to facilitate the flow, espe­
level, where it is blank and over two metres thick. cially during low water levels in the reservoir.
200 Goran Nikšić
200 VACAT
image, if we disregard the towers, the palace enclo-
sure can be reduced to the low, thick wall with
almost no openings, and the upper slender struc­
ture with the appearance (and probably function)
of an aqueduct. This impression is even more
striking as this scheme is applied to the whole
of the north wall, while on the east and probably
the west façades, now mostly destroyed, it cov­
ers only three quarters of the length. The south
quarter – with the imperial apartments – follows
a different design. In this area, the series of arch­
es on the upper level do not continue, and there
is evidence that part of the façade was built in
opus mixtum, rather than in opus quadratum as the
rest of the perimeter walls. This is another detail
in support of our hypothesis of the change of the
original plan of the palace.
The ground floor of the towers could origin­
ally have served as service entrances to the pro­
duction area of the palace, while the upper lev­
els may have been used for controlling activity
inside the walls, for offices of the administration
etc. Only later, when the textile production was
reduced or completely abandoned, did the tow­
ers take on a defensive role: the arcades on the
curtain walls were walled up and the defence
organised behind a new parapet, built above the
cornice.48 In this way the palace finally became
a true fortification, a function originally present
only in symbolic terms49.
The imperial builders proved themselves cap­
able of carrying out the improbable task of erect­
ing a huge building in apparently less than a dec­
ade, using the most advanced techniques of the
time50. It is hard to imagine how they managed
to organise the crowded building site with thou­
sands of craftsmen, each of them attached to one
of the highly specialized groups of stone cutters,
masons, carpenters, blacksmiths, and many others.
The remains of the palace clearly show that the
work of each craft is of the highest quality.
On the other hand, it is clear that the short
deadline for construction of the palace (probably
further shortened by Diocletian’s early retire­
ment) caused major problems in the planning
and execution phases of the work. Mistakes in
the design of both the Mausoleum and the Tem­
ple were probably caused by the requirement that
construction had to begin before all details of the
plan were defined51. Changes were introduced in
the course of construction, sometimes causing
major problems in the final phases of the work.
However, the Roman builders were highly
pragmatic and capable of finding instant solu­
tions, most often resulting in compromises in
which aesthetics were usually not of primary
concern.
It is sometimes difficult to make the important
distinction between simple mistakes made be­
cause of the extremely short deadline, the gen­
eral “decline” of art in the Late Antiquity, the
Kunstwollen and the subtle departures from the
orthogonal scheme, symbolic deviations of the
building’s axes etc. Future detailed analysis of
the architectural design, together with a thor­
ough reinterpretation of the meaning of Diocle­
tian’s palace should shed more light on this out­
standing, yet still enigmatic, monument of the
Late Roman architecture.
48 On the original “anti-fortification” aspect of Diocle­
tian’s Palace, the early walling-up of its north and
east gates, and the Late Antique “castrification” of
the building (probably before the Byzantine-Gothic
wars in the 530s) in general see Belamarić 1991, 8 and
Belamarić 2009.
49 A similar situation is found at Gamzigrad, where the
perimeter walls primarily symbolized the imperial
power, and only later became a true fortification. See
v. Bülow 2007, 58.
50 Belamarić 2003, 175; Belamarić 2003/04, 31; Belamarić
2004, 156 gives autumn or winter 298, following Dio­
cletian’s Egyptian military campaign as a probable
date for the beginning of construction of the Palace.
This argument is based on the great quantity of ma­
terial (columns, sphinxes) of Egyptian origin. How­
ever, this material was used for the decoration of the
imper­ial palace; the textile manufacture may well have
lacked such decoration. Consequently, its construction
could have begun earlier. In the first phase of construc­
tion, the emphasis was probably given to the aqueduct
as a prerequisite for the production and dying of
textiles.
51 On planning and designing in Roman architecture see
Wilson Jones 2003, 49–68; Taylor 2003, 21–58. Accord­
ing to Taylor, the basic tool of Roman architects were
not detailed drawings, but a series of pictorial repre­
sentations through which key ideas were expressed;
the details were worked out on site through everyday
dialogue and improvisation. See Taylor 2003, 29.
 Diocletian’s Palace – design and construction 201
Bibliography
Adam 1764
R. Adam, Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Dio­
cletian at Spalatro in Dalmatia (London 1764).
Adam 1989
J.-P. Adam, La construction romaine. Matériaux et
techniques2 (Paris 1989).
Belamarić 1991
J. Belamarić, Gospe od Zvonika u Splitu (Zagreb
1991).
Belamarić 2003
J. Belamarić, The date of foundation and original
function of Diocletian’s Palace at Split. Hortus Ar­
tium Medievalium 9, 2003, 173–185.
Belamarić 2003/04
J. Belamarić, Gynaeceum Iovense Dalmatiae – As­
palatho. Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 40,
2003/04, 5–42.
Belamarić 2004
J. Belamarić, Gynaeceum Iovense Dalmatiae –
Aspalatho. In: A. Demandt/A. Goltz/H. Schlange-
Schöningen (eds.), Diokletian und die Tetrarchie.
Aspekte einer Zeitenwende. Millenium-Stud. Kul­
tur u. Gesch. Ersten Jts. n.Chr. 1 (Berlin, New York
2004) 141–162.
Belamarić 2009
J. Belamarić, Diocletian’s Palace. PhD dissertation
Univ. Zagreb 2009 (manuscript; publication forth­
coming).
Bulić/Karaman 1927
F. Bulić/Lj. Karaman, Palača cara Dioklecijana u
Splitu (Zagreb 1927).
v. Bülow 2007
G. v. Bülow, Neue Untersuchungen im Palast des
Kaisers Galerius – Felix Romuliana (Gamzigrad).
In: U. Brandl/M. Vasić (eds.), Roms Erbe auf dem
Balkan. Spätantike Kaiservillen und Stadtanlagen
in Serbien (Mainz 2007) 54–58.
Cambi 1997
N. Cambi, Diocletian (the Person and the Personal­
ity) and his Palace (Zagreb, Split 1997).
Cambi 2005
N. Cambi, Kiparstvo rimske Dalmacije (Split
2005).
Čanak-Medić 1978
М. Čanak-Medić, Гамзиград, касноантичка палата.
Архитектура и просторни склоп (résumé: Gamzi­
grad, palais bas-antique. Architecture et sa structu­
ration). Saopštenja 11 (Belgrade 1978).
Čanak Medić 1995
M. Čanak Medić, Spatial Development of Rom­
uliana within the Late Roman Court Architecture.
In: D. Srejović (ed.), The Age of Tetrarchs. A sym­
posium held from the 4th to the 9th October 1993.
Scientific Meetings 25. The Section for Historical
Sciences 24 (Belgrade 1995) 51–63.
Crema 1960
L. Crema, Il palazzo di Diocleziano a Spalato. In:
Corso di Cultura sull’Arte Ravennata e Bizantina
1960.2 (Ravenna 1960) 41–51.
De Angelis d’Ossat 1975
G. De Angelis d’Ossat, Origine e diffusione dei
prospetti ad andamento obliquo nelle chiese saloni­
tane. In: Disputationes salonitanae 1970 (Split 1975)
75–82.
Duval 1961/62
N. Duval, La place de Split dans l’architecture
aulique du Bas-Empire. Urbs 4, 1961/62, 67–95.
Dyggve 1961/62
E. Dyggve, O izvornom izgledu antičkog Peristila.
Urbs 4, 1961/62, 55–60.
Gabričević 1963
B. Gabričević, Novija istraživanja o antičkoj kanal­
izaciji u Dioklecijanovoj palači u Splitu. Acta
historica medicinae, pharmaciae, veterinae 3.1–2,
1963, 45–49.
Hébrard/Zeiller 1912
E. Hébrard/J. Zeiller, Spalato. Le Palais de Dio­
clétien (Paris 1912).
Kurent 1970a
T. Kurent, The modular analogy of the Roman pal­
aces in Split and Fishbourne. Archaeometry 12.1,
1970, 105–107.
Kurent 1970b
T. Kurent, The modular composition of Diocletian
Palace in Split. Živa Ant. 20, 1970, 167–170.
Kurent 1971
T. Kurent, Proportio and commodulatio after Vitru­
vius compared to proportion and modules of Dio­
cletian Palace in Split. Živa Ant. 21, 1971, 217–230.
Malissard 2002
A. Malissard, Les Romains et l’eau. Fontaines, salles
de bains, thermes, égouts, aqueducs, … (Paris 2002).
Marasović 1996
D. Marasović, Planning and implementation of
the rehabilitation of the south-eastern part of the
historic core of Split. In: Rehabilitation of the His­
toric Core of Split 1 (Split 1996) 3–15.
Marasović 1997
J. Marasović, Project Split built heritage. In: Rehabil­
itation of the Historic Core of Split 2 (Split 1997) 6–69.
Marasović/Marasović 1968
J. Marasović/T. Marasović, Der Diokletians­
palast (Zagreb 1968).
Marasović et al. 1972
J. Marasović/T. Marasović/Sh. McNally/J.
Wilkes, Diocletian’s Palace. Report on Joint Excav­
ations in Southeast Quarter, 1 (Split 1972).
Marasović et al. 1999
J. Marasović /K. Marasović /S. Perojević/T.
Rismondo, Kanalizacija i vodovod Diokleci­
janove palače. In: J. Belamarić (ed.), Dioklecijanov
akvedukt (Split 1999) 64–75.
Niemann 1910
G. Niemann, Der Palast Diokletians in Spalato
(Wien 1910).
Nikšić 1995
G. Nikšić, Prilog o arhitekturi Dioklecijanovog
mauzoleja i rekonstrukciji splitske katedrale u 13.
stoljeću. Prilozi Povijesti Umjetnosti Dalmacija 35,
1995, 105–122.
Nikšić 1998
G. Nikšić, Krstionica sv. Ivana – Jupiterov hram.
Projekt obnove. Exhibition catalogue (Split 1998).
Nikšić 2004
G. Nikšić, The Restoration of Diocletian’s Palace –
Mausoleum, Temple, and Porta Aurea (with the
analysis of the original architectural design). In:
A. Demandt/A. Goltz/H. Schlange-Schöningen
(eds.), Diokletian und die Tetrarchie. Aspekte einer
202 Goran Nikšić
202 VACAT
Zeitenwende. Millenium-Stud. Kultur u. Gesch.
Ersten Jts. n.Chr. 1 (Berlin, New York 2004) 163–171.
Norberg-Schulz 1975
Ch. Norberg-Schulz, Meaning in Western Archi­
tecture (London 1975).
Perojević et al. 2009
S. Perojević/K. Marasović/J. Marasović, Istra­ži­
van­ja Dioklecijanove palače od 1985. do 2005. god­
ine (The Research of Diocletian’s Palace from 1985 to
2005). In: N. Cambi/J. Belamarić/T. Marasović (eds.),
Dioklecijan, tetrarhija i Dioklecijanova pala­ča o 1700.
obljetnici postojanja. Zbornik radova (Diocletian,
Tetrarchy and Diocletian’s Palace on the 1700th anni­
versary of Existence. Proceedings) (Split 2009) 51–94.
Rockwell 1993
P. Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking: A Reference
Guide (Cambridge, New York 1993).
Sommer v. Bülow/Wulf Rheidt 2008
G. Sommer v. Bülow/U. Wulf Rheidt, Felix Rom­
uliana. Der Palast des Kaisers Galerius und sein Um­
feld. Eine serbisch-deutsche Kooperation [guide­-
book] (Berlin, Frankfurt 2008).
Srejović 1993
D. Srejović, Felix Romuliana. The ideological tes­
tament of emperor Galerius. In: D. Srejović (ed.),
Roman imperial towns and palaces in Serbia (Bel­
grade 1993) 28–53.
Srejović/Lalović 1995
D. Srejović/A. Lalović, Felix Romuliana [guide­
book] (Belgrade 1995).
Strzygowski 1908
J. Strzygowski, Spalato, una tappa dell’arte romani­
ca nel suo passaggio dall’Oriente nell’Occidente.
Suppl. al Bull. Arch. e Stor. Dalmata 31.1–2, 1908,
1–17.
Taylor 2003
R. Taylor, Roman Builders: a Study in Architec­
tural Process (Cambridge 2003).
Vasić 1993
Č. Vasić, Felix Romuliana. Galerius’s palace at
Gamzigrad. In: D. Srejović (ed.), Roman imperial
towns and palaces in Serbia (Belgrade 1993) 118–147.
Vasić 1995
Č. Vasić, Chronological Relations of Palace and
Fortification System of Gamzigrad. In: D. Srejović
(ed.), The Age of Tetrarchs. A symposium held from
the 4th to the 9th October 1993. Scientific Meetings
25. The Section for Historical Sciences 24 (Belgrade
1995) 313–323.
Vasić 1997
Č. Vasić, Symbolics of the sacral complex at Rom­
uliana (Gamzigrad). In: M. Lazić (ed.), Αντιδωρον
Dragoslavo Srejović / Уздарје Драгославу Срејовићу
(Belgrade 1997) 443–460.
Ward-Perkins 1994
J. B. Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture
(New Haven, London 1994).
Wilson Jones 2003
M. Wilson Jones, Principles of Roman Architec­
ture2 (New Haven, London 2003).
Sources of the illustrations
1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 9, 10: author.
7, 11: Niemann 1910.
8: Čanak-Medić 1978.
 Zusammenfassung
Palast versus Villa – das war der Ausgangspunkt
für unser Kolloquium. Es sollte darum gehen
herauszuarbeiten, welche architektonischen Ele-
mente einen Palast im Sinne eines kaiserlichen
Herrschafts- und Repräsentationsortes ausma-
chen und was dessen Erscheinungsbild von dem
einer Luxusvilla unterscheidet. Ausgehend von
historischen und archäologischen Untersuchun-
gen mehrerer ausgewählter Beispiele sollten
Kriterien gefunden werden, nach denen ein Bau­
ensemble als das eine oder das andere bezeichnet
werden kann. Entsprechend diesem Vorhaben
stand am Anfang der Versuch der Definition von
„Palast“ und „Villa“.
Palast (U. Wulf-Rheidt): Das Urbild des Kaiser-
palastes schlechthin bildet das Bauensemble auf
dem Palatin in Rom. Hier befand sich das abso-
lute Zentrum des Reiches, das sich sowohl in den
monumentalen Repräsentationsbauten wie der
Aula Regia und der Cenatio Iovis widerspiegelt,
wo aber zugleich mit den drei wichtigen Tem-
peln die göttliche Legitimation der kaiserlichen
Macht demonstriert wurde. Die Errichtung von
Schaufassaden und die Einbeziehung des Circus
Maximus stellen zwar demonstrativ eine Bezie-
hung des Palastes zur umgebenden Stadt her,
entziehen den Kaiser aber zugleich dem unmit-
telbaren Kontakt zum Volk.
Villa (H. Thür): Am Anfang der Entwicklung die-
ses Bautyps stand der rein funktionale Bauern­-
hof. Erst allmählich kristallisiert sich eine funk-
tionale und gestalterische Differenzierung her-
aus: villa rustica, villa urbana, villa suburbana,
villa otium, villa maritima etc. Etwa im Laufe des
3.–4.  Jh. entstehen speziell in den Provinzialge-
bieten zunehmend luxuriös bis „palastartig“
gestaltete Bauensembles mit repräsentativen
Fassaden, zahlreichen Räumen – darunter auch
Apsidensäle –, mit einem oder mehreren Peristyl-
höfen, Wasserbecken, Gärten, Statuenschmuck,
Wandmalereien, Mosaiken. Der künstlerischen
Phantasie des Bauherrn sind dabei keine Gren-
zen gesetzt. Meistens gehört dazu aber auch ein
Wirtschaftstrakt, nicht allein zur Versorgung des
Besitzers und aller zum Anwesen gehörenden
Personen, sondern auch zur Gewinn bringenden
Produktion. Diese Anwesen erfüllen im Allge-
meinen Macht erhaltende oder Macht repräsen-
tierende Aufgaben nur in einem lokalen, allenfalls
regionalen Bereich, und ihre „öffentliche“ Funk-
tion beschränkte sich auf den quasi-privaten Be-
reich der familia und der abhängigen Bauern und
Landarbeiter. In einzelnen Fällen können sie aber
vorübergehend auch die Funktion eines kaiser­
lichen Amtssitzes erfüllen.
Die lebhaften und anregenden Diskussionen ha-
ben jedoch gezeigt, dass die vorangestellte Frage
nach einer archäologischen oder architektoni-
schen Unterscheidung von Palast und Villa nicht
nur nicht eindeutig beantwortet werden kann,
sondern dass die besprochenen Einzel­objekte, die
zum überwiegenden Teil in das 3.–4.  Jh. n.Chr.,
d.h. in tetrarchische oder spätantike Zeit zu da-
tieren sind, in drei oder sogar vier Hauptgrup-
pen unterteilt werden müssen, wobei es auch da
noch zahlreiche Übergangsformen gibt:
1. Da sind einmal die Paläste im städtischen
Kontext wie diejenigen in Thessaloniki und
Sirmium, die als eigentlicher Regierungs- und
Wohnsitz des Herrschers gelten.
2. Zum Zweiten gibt es luxuriös gestaltete Vil-
len ohne direkte räumliche Anbindung an
eine Stadt wie die von Bruckneudorf, Baláca,
Löffelbach, Armira u.a., die ausschließlich als
private Anwesen reicher Landeigentümer ge-
dient haben, aber auch Verwaltungszentren
kaiserlicher Domänen gewesen sein können.
3. Ferner gibt es speziell in tetrarchischer Zeit
eine Misch- oder Zwischenform, hier präsen-
tiert durch den Diokletianpalast in Split. Auch
die Anlagen von Gamzigrad und Mediana ge-
hören dazu.
4. Und da sind schließlich Villen inmitten von
Städten wie in Aquincum oder Savaria, die als
Amtssitze für Provinzstatthalter, Prokuratoren
oder andere kaiserliche Beamte errichtet wor-
den sind und gegebenenfalls dem durchrei-
senden Kaiser angemessene Unterkunft bieten
konnten.
310 Zusammenfassung
310 VACAT
Eine Sonderrolle kommt in diesem Zusammen-
hang auch weiterhin den villen- oder palastarti-
gen Innengebäuden der Binnenfestungen in der
Provinz Pannonien zu, deren Funktionsbestim-
mung noch weiterer Untersuchungen bedarf.
Der Überblick über die Entwicklung des Bautyps
villa auf der Iberischen Halbinsel bestätigt dar-
über hinaus die Erkenntnis, dass speziell in der
hier vorrangig betrachteten Spätantike die Gren-
zen zwischen dem Erscheinungsbild „Palast“
und „Villa“ sich immer mehr verwischen und
dass allein aus dem archäologischen Befund eine
klare Unterscheidung zwischen Residenz und
Amtssitz einerseits und reichem Privatanwesen
andererseits nicht möglich ist.
Selbst wenn, wie im Falle von Romuliana, spezi­
fische archäologische Evidenzen in Form von In-
schriften, interpretierbarer Bauornamentik oder
eines sicher benennbaren Porträts den Kaiser
Galerius als Bauherrn der monumentalen Anla-
ge ausweisen können, bleibt trotzdem die Frage
noch offen, welche Funktion diesem Residenzort
tatsächlich zukam. Da dieser abgelegene Ort aber
nur während der kurzen Regierungszeit des Kai-
sers als Palast gedient haben kann, stellt nicht
nur die archäologisch nachweisbare Nachnut-
zung und Umfunktionierung der Gesamtanlage
ein bisher nur teilweise erklärtes Phänomen dar,
sondern ist im Besonderen die Frage interes-
sant, wie dieser Platz genutzt und bewohnt war,
bevor der kaiserliche Palast errichtet wurde. Es
scheint derzeit so, als ob sich hier ein zentraler
Verwaltungsort für die Bewirtschaftung der in
der Umgebung befindlichen Erzvorkommen und
die Überwachung der dazugehörigen Transport­
wege befunden hat, an dem der Kaiser seinen Be-
sitzanspruch an den (kriegs-)wichtigen Rohstof-
fen demonstrieren wollte.
Wenn heute solche Überlegungen für eine Anla-
ge wie Romuliana angestellt werden, erscheint es
nur legitim, auch für die Interpretation von Villen
nach anderen Zeugnissen zu suchen, um z.B. für
die Villa von Bruckneudorf den im spätantiken
Pannonien fast einmalig-luxuriösen Ausbau der
Anlage zu erklären. Die hier aus chronologischen
Überlegungen vorgeschlagene Deutung als „Er-
satz“ für den in Carnuntum möglicherweise
durch ein Erdbeben zerstörten Statthalterpalast
ist besser begründet als die frühere Annahme der
Anwesenheit der kaiserlichen Familie.
Der Eigentümer der Großvilla von Armira ist
wahrscheinlich in der städtischen Oberschicht
des nahe gelegenen Plotinopolis zu suchen. Die
größte Ausbauperiode dieser Villa fällt bereits
in severische Zeit und liegt damit weit früher
als in den anderen hier behandelten Villen, die
vornehmlich der tetrarchischen Zeit oder dem
4. Jahrhundert angehören.
Die große Villa von Piazza Armerina ist neben
den spanischen Villen ein weiterer Fall, bei dem
sich die Entscheidung zwischen Palast und Villa
verwischt. Die Entdeckung weiterer reicher
Villen in Sizilien stützt die derzeitige Über-
einstimmung, dass sie ebenso gut einem sehr
reichen Privatmann der konstantinischen Zeit
gehört haben könnte.
Als Ansätze für weitere Forschung ergeben sich
beispielsweise folgende Fragen:
Gibt es ein Netz von kaiserlichen Residenzen,
die vorbereitet waren, einen Kaiser samt seinem
umfangreichen Gefolge aufzunehmen und stan-
desgemäß zu unterhalten, wie das E. Tóth für Sa-
varia vorschlägt? Könnten städtische Paläste die-
se Funktion vielleicht ebenso erfüllt haben wie
die Zentren kaiserlicher Besitzungen? Eine syste-
matische Analyse der kaiserlichen Itinerarien in
ihrer Beziehung zu bekannten palastartigen An-
lagen würde zu neuen Erkenntnissen führen.
Kann der Versuch, die Flächen der Aulae in
eine „Hierarchie“ zu bringen, den H. Zabehlicky
hier angesprochen hat, noch weiter ausgeführt
und schlüssig zu sichereren Aussagen gebracht
werden?
Sind die Raumkonzepte mit mehreren Kon-
chen oder Alkoven, die sowohl in Palästen, wie
in Thessaloniki, als auch in eher kleineren Villen,
wie Löffelbach, anzutreffen sind, eine spezielle
Ausdrucksform für herrschaftliche Repräsen-
tation oder sind sie nur als Zeiterscheinung der
tetrarchischen und konstantinischen Epoche zu
verstehen?
Wenn am Ende dieser Zusammenfassung auch
kaum endgültige Antworten auf die eingangs
gestellten Fragen stehen können, so boten die
hier publizierten Arbeiten jedoch nicht nur inter-
essante Beiträge dazu, sondern sie vermittelten
darüber hinaus auch anregende Ideen zur Wei-
terführung der begonnenen Diskussion.
Gerda v. Bülow
Heinrich Zabehlicky
 Summary
Palace or villa – that was the starting point for this
colloquium. Originally, the idea had been to try
and identify what architectural elements make
a palace in the sense of a place of imperial rule
and representation, and what identifiable elem-
ents distinguish such a site from a luxury villa.
On the basis of the historical and archaeological
data from various selected examples, we aimed
to define criteria that would enable the classifica-
tion of a structural complex as one or the other.
In the spirit of this approach, the first step was
to attempt to define the terms ‘palace’ and ‘villa’.
Palace (U. Wulf-Rheidt): The numerous struc-
tures on the Palatine Hill in Rome form the
original model of an imperial palace per se. This
was the centre of the Empire, represented both
through monumental representative buildings
such as the Aula Regia and the Cenatio Iovis, as
well as three key temples that demonstrated the
divine legitimisation of imperial power. Decora­
tive façades and the association of the Circus
Maximus with the complex present a clear link
between the palace and the surrounding city; at
the same time, they actually remove the emperor
from any direct contact with the people.
Villa (H. Thür): Originally, villas were simply
functional farmsteads. Only gradually did they
develop into complexes that can be differentiated
in terms of function and design, i.e. a villa rustica,
villa urbana, villa suburbana, villa otium, villa mari­
tima etc. During the 3rd and 4th centuries AD,
luxuriously if not palatially laid out structural
complexes with one or more peristyle courtyards,
pools, gardens, statuary, frescoes and mosaics
emerge – particularly in the provinces. The archi-
tecture of these complexes reflects the limitless
imagination of their owners. Usually, however,
even these luxury villas have an economic part
that would not only have supplied the owner
and all those associated with the site, but would
also have produced a profitable surplus. Gener-
ally, such complexes could have served to sus-
tain or represent power only on a local or at most
a regional level and their ‘public’ function was
limited to the quasi-private sphere of the familia
and dependent farmers and labourers. There are
some isolated examples, however, where such
sites could have served as temporary imperial
residences for a limited period of time.
The numerous lively and stimulating discussions
at the colloquium clearly showed that an archaeo­
logical and architectural differentiation between
a palace and a villa is not a straightforward mat-
ter. Indeed, the individual examples that were
presented and discussed – most of which date to
the 3rd and 4th century AD and particularly the
Tetrarchic period, i.e. late Antiquity, must be div­
ided into three or four main groups.
1. On the one hand there are palaces in urban
contexts such as those at Thessaloniki and
Sirmium. These served as actual administra-
tive centres and residences of individual em-
perors.
2. A  second group are luxuriously designed
villas with no direct relation to any urban
centre. These include Bruckneudorf, Baláca,
Löffelbach, Armira and others that served
solely as private estates of rich landowners
but could have been used as administrative
centres of imperial estates.
3. During the Tetrarchic period we can identify
an intermediate type – represented by Diocle-
tian’s palace at Split in particular. The com-
plexes at Mediana and Gamzigrad also fall
into this category.
4. The final group are residences in cities such as
Aquincum or Savaria that were set up as seats
of office for provincial governors, procurators
or other imperial officers. These could provide
appropriate accommodation for emperors on
their travels.
The villa- or palace-like buildings inside the forti-
fied enclosures in the interior of the province of
Pannonia must be seen as a special case, particu-
larly so as their precise function remains unclear
and needs to be studied further.
312 Summary
312 VACAT
An overview of villa complexes on the Iberian
Peninsula further confirmed the conclusion that
any possible distinctions between the idea of a
‘palace’ and that of a ‘villa’ became more and
more blurred in late Antiquity, the period mainly
under discussion at this colloquium. It is clear,
therefore, that the archaeological record alone
cannot allow for a clear differentiation between
a residence or administrative seat and the private
estate of a wealthy individual.
Even if specific archaeological data such as dec­
orative elements or clearly identifiable portraits
of an emperor identify an individual as owner of a
site, as in the case of Romuliana and Galerius, this
does not clarify what the precise function of such
a residence may have been. In the case of Romu­
liana, the site can only have served as an imper­
ial palace during the short reign of Galerius. The
archaeological record, however, clearly shows
that it continued to be occupied after his death.
As such, the complex must have seen a change
in function that has only been partially explained
to date. A further interesting question is how the
site was used and occupied before the imperial
palace was established. At present it appears that
it was an administrative centre for the exploit­
ation of ore-deposits in the surrounding area and
the safeguarding of associated transport routes.
The emperor appears to have used the site to
demonstrate his claim to these key natural re-
sources.
If such considerations are valid for a site such
as Romuliana today, it seems opportune to treat
other sites similarly. In the case of the villa at
Bruckneudorf, for example, this would require
a new explanation for its luxurious redevelop-
ment – unique in Pannonia – in late Antiquity. In
this context, the chronologically motivated inter-
pretation that it served as a ‘replacement’ for the
governor’s residence at Carnuntum which may
have been destroyed in an earthquake is more
convincing than the earlier suggestion of the
presence of the imperial familia.
The owner of the large villa at Armira is likely
to have belonged to the urban élite of the nearby
city of Plotinopolis. The greatest redevelopment of
this villa occurred as early as the Severan period,
making it significantly earlier than the other vil-
las presented at this colloquium, most of which
date to the Tetrarchic period or the 4th century.
The great villa at Piazza Armerina is another
example, like the Spanish ones, where the dis-
tinction between palace and villa is blurred. Dis-
coveries of other rich villas in Sicily strengthen
the current consensus that the villa might well
have belonged to a very wealthy private indi-
vidual in the Constantine period.
Such considerations led to the identification of
several key research approaches for the future,
including the following questions:
Was there a network of imperial residences,
prepared to accommodate an emperor and his
entire retinue according to their social status? E.
Tóth suggested such a model for Savaria. Could
urban palaces have served such a purpose, just
as those at the centre of imperial estates did?
A systematic analysis of imperial itineraries,
with parallel investigations of their relation to
known palace-like compounds could lead to new
insights in this respect.
Could an attempt to sort the sizes of the various
aulae into a sort of ‘hierarchy’ in terms of area
of ground plan, as proposed by H. Zabehlicky,
be extended in order to produce reliable and clear
conclusions?
Are concepts of interior layout including
apses and rectangular recesses as found both in
palaces such as Thessaloniki and smaller villas
such as Löffelbach a special form of expressing
and representing power, or should they be seen
only as a temporary fashion of the Tetrarchic and
Constantinian periods?
Even if there are virtually no concrete answers
to the questions posed at the outset of the collo-
quium, the meeting was still a success. After all,
the papers that were presented not only provided
interesting contributions to the existing debate,
they also led to the development of various ideas
for the continuation of what promises to be fur-
ther stimulating discourse.
Gerda v. Bülow
Heinrich Zabehlicky
 Adressen der Autorinnen und Autoren

Maria R.-Alföldi Patrick Marko

Hans-Sachs-Str. 1 Institut f. alttestamentliche
D-60487 Frankfurt/M. Bibelwissenschaft
Deutschland Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Heinrichstr. 78B/EG
Georg Breitner A-8010 Graz
Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe Österreich
Rheinland-Pfalz E-Mail: patrick.marko@uni-graz.at
Direktion Landesarchäologie
Außenstelle Trier Mihailo Milinković
im Rheinischen Landesmuseum Trier Philosoph. Fak. Univ. Belgrad
Weimarer Allee 1 Lehrstuhl f. Archäologie
D-54290 Trier Čika Ljubina 18–20
Deutschland 11000 Belgrad
E-Mail: georg.breitner@gdke.rlp.de Serbien
E-Mail: mihailo@yubc.net
Gerda v. Bülow
Römisch-Germanische Kommission Gordana Milošević
Palmengartenstr. 10–12 Archäologisches Institut
D-60325 Frankfurt/M. Knez Mihailova 35/IV
Deutschland 11000 Belgrad
E-Mail: vonbuelow@rgk.dainst.de Serbien
E-Mail: mgoga@eunet.rs
Evangelia Hadjitryphonos
Karakassi 27 Margit Németh
GR-54248 Thessalonike Aquincumi Múzeum
Griechenland Záhony u. 2.
E-Mail: evangeliali@gmail.com H-1031 Budapest
Ungarn
Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska E-Mail: h7412nem@mail.iif.hu
Geisteswiss. Zentrum f. Geschichte u.
Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e.V. an der Goran Nikšić
Universität Leipzig City of Split
Reichsstraße 4–6, Specks Hof Service for the Old City Core
D-04198 Leipzig Obala kneza Branimira 17
Deutschland HR-21000 Split
E-Mail: heintama@rz.uni-leipzig.de Kroatien
E-Mail: Goran.Niksic@split.hr
Gergana Kabakchieva
Archäologisches Institut und Museum der BAN Sylvia Palágyi
Ul. Saborna 2 Zrínyi u. 15/D
BG-1000 Sofia H-8200 Veszprém
Bulgarien Ungarn
E-Mail: gkabakchieva@yahoo.com E-Mail: drpalagyi.szilvia@chello.hu
314 Adressen der Autorinnen und Autoren

314 VACAT
Sofija Petković Roger J. A. Wilson
Archäologisches Institut Dept. of Classical, Near Eastern and
Knez Mihailova 35/IV Religious Studies
11000 Belgrad University of British Columbia
Serbien BUCH C 227
E-Mail: spetkovi@ai.sanu.ac.rs 1866 Main Hall
Vancouver V6T 1Z1
Ivana Popović Canada
Archäologisches Institut E-Mail: roger.wilson@ubc.ca
Knez Mihailova 35/IV
11000 Belgrad
Serbien Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt
E-Mail: ivpop@eunet.rs Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
Architekturreferat
Podbielskiallee 69–71
Felix Teichner
D-14195 Berlin
Am Grossen Berge 51 Deutschland
D-60431 Frankfurt am Main E-Mail: uwr@dainst.de
Deutschland
E-Mail: felix.teichner@zaw.uni-heidelberg.de
Heinrich Zabehlicky
Hilke Thür Michelbeuerngasse 3/8
Gölsdorfgasse 4/3 A-1090 Wien
A-1010 Wien Österreich
Österreich E-Mail: heinrich.zabehlicky@gmail.com
E-Mail: Hilke.Thuer@oeaw.ac.at

Endre Tóth Maja Živić

Ungarisches Nationalmuseum Nationalmuseum
Muzeum krt. 14–16 Mosche Pijade 2
H-1088 Budapest 19000 Zaječar
Ungarn Serbien
E-Mail: teutanus@gmail.com E-Mail: majazivicnika@yahoo.com