Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 7 – uploaded by Kelly Gillikin Schoueri

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 7: Camera 2 perspective when standing inside the east-west corridor facing the lararium to the east in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 2 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 2 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 2 in Condition C lighting.

Figure 7 Camera 2 perspective when standing inside the east-west corridor facing the lararium to the east in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 2 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 2 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 2 in Condition C lighting.

Related Figures (9)

Figure 1; Rooster and bull reliefs from lamp sherds found near the lararium at Apollonia-Arsuf (Teixeira-Bastos, 2011, Plate 64 p. 287, Figure e and g). In addition to architectural manipulations, light itself was generally considered to be a medium t commune with the divine as well as the best way to represent it (Dieleman, 2012; Zografou, 2010). Moreove1 votive light was used as an amulet of protection against darkness and the evil that lurks within (Lapp, 2017) It is likely for these reasons and more that many lamps are found in close proximity to lararia (Boyce, 1937 This happens to be the case for the lararium at Apollonia-Arsuf whereby excavations unearthed oil lamp with zoomorphic reliefs, i.e., a rooster and a bull (Figure 1), which suggest that the syncretic Greek-Egyptia deity Serapis (a fusion of Apis and Osiris) and possibly Helios/Apollo were worshipped at some time durin the building’s occupational periods (Teixeira-Bastos, 2011). In a related archaeological context, this ime sery was also discovered on lamp fragments excavated at the Shrine of Apollo in Tyre (Bikai, Fulco, | Marchand, 1996). The representation of Serapis on oil lamps is well-documented, including its correlatio with Helios and sun worship (Budde, 1972, pp. 630-642; Derksen, 1978, pp. 296-304; Kiss, 1995, pp. 137-13
Figure 1; Rooster and bull reliefs from lamp sherds found near the lararium at Apollonia-Arsuf (Teixeira-Bastos, 2011, Plate 64 p. 287, Figure e and g). In addition to architectural manipulations, light itself was generally considered to be a medium t commune with the divine as well as the best way to represent it (Dieleman, 2012; Zografou, 2010). Moreove1 votive light was used as an amulet of protection against darkness and the evil that lurks within (Lapp, 2017) It is likely for these reasons and more that many lamps are found in close proximity to lararia (Boyce, 1937 This happens to be the case for the lararium at Apollonia-Arsuf whereby excavations unearthed oil lamp with zoomorphic reliefs, i.e., a rooster and a bull (Figure 1), which suggest that the syncretic Greek-Egyptia deity Serapis (a fusion of Apis and Osiris) and possibly Helios/Apollo were worshipped at some time durin the building’s occupational periods (Teixeira-Bastos, 2011). In a related archaeological context, this ime sery was also discovered on lamp fragments excavated at the Shrine of Apollo in Tyre (Bikai, Fulco, | Marchand, 1996). The representation of Serapis on oil lamps is well-documented, including its correlatio with Helios and sun worship (Budde, 1972, pp. 630-642; Derksen, 1978, pp. 296-304; Kiss, 1995, pp. 137-13
Figure 2: Site plan of Apollonia-Arsuf (provided by O. Tal).
Figure 2: Site plan of Apollonia-Arsuf (provided by O. Tal).
Figure 3: Building plan of Area E at Apollonia-Arsuf (Roll & Tal, 2008, p. 136). The general layout is that of a classic Roman peristyle building with an open, central inner courtyard with a water channel for diverting rainwater to the west (Roll & Tal, 2008, p. 140). While the central courtyard was open, the interior corridors of the courtyard must have been roofed because there is evidence for 10 piers resting on a stylobate constructed of sandstone headers. Of the four interior corridors, the east-west one stretched the entire 24m length of the building. The lower sections of the southern and eastern walls were carved directly out of the bedrock and plastered; robust kurkar headers of 0.60 m in length were then placed on top of this bedrock surface. Due to these solidly constructed walls, it is suggested that there was possibly a second story, at least on the east and south sections of the building (Roll & Tal, 2008, p. 140). Although the west side of the structure has collapsed into the ravine below, it is assumed by the principal archaeologists that the main visitor’s entrance lay at the western end of the
Figure 3: Building plan of Area E at Apollonia-Arsuf (Roll & Tal, 2008, p. 136). The general layout is that of a classic Roman peristyle building with an open, central inner courtyard with a water channel for diverting rainwater to the west (Roll & Tal, 2008, p. 140). While the central courtyard was open, the interior corridors of the courtyard must have been roofed because there is evidence for 10 piers resting on a stylobate constructed of sandstone headers. Of the four interior corridors, the east-west one stretched the entire 24m length of the building. The lower sections of the southern and eastern walls were carved directly out of the bedrock and plastered; robust kurkar headers of 0.60 m in length were then placed on top of this bedrock surface. Due to these solidly constructed walls, it is suggested that there was possibly a second story, at least on the east and south sections of the building (Roll & Tal, 2008, p. 140). Although the west side of the structure has collapsed into the ravine below, it is assumed by the principal archaeologists that the main visitor’s entrance lay at the western end of the
Figure 4: Present day state of preservation of the /ararium within the eastern corridor of the building (photo by M. Teixeira- Bastos). Initially, the peristyle building at Apollonia-Arsuf was interpreted as a Roman villa maritima due to domestic-related artifacts from the second phase of occupation, architectural elements, and its overall dramatic cliffside perch overlooking the sea, thereby projecting typical Roman elite qualities of “tranquility, privacy and leisure” (Galor et al., 2009, p. 9). As a means of explanation for the presence of such a unique structure to the area, Roll and Tal (2008) suggested that this was the result of an isolated Romanization process in which a wealthy merchant and his family had commissioned a Roman-style construction. Either the elite family was from the Italian peninsula, or they were locals who desired to emulate and adopt Roman conventions. While this hypothesis is plausible, the excavators’ revised interpretation takes a more nuanced perspective of the site (Tal & Teixeira-Bastos, 2012; Tal & Roll, 2018).
Figure 4: Present day state of preservation of the /ararium within the eastern corridor of the building (photo by M. Teixeira- Bastos). Initially, the peristyle building at Apollonia-Arsuf was interpreted as a Roman villa maritima due to domestic-related artifacts from the second phase of occupation, architectural elements, and its overall dramatic cliffside perch overlooking the sea, thereby projecting typical Roman elite qualities of “tranquility, privacy and leisure” (Galor et al., 2009, p. 9). As a means of explanation for the presence of such a unique structure to the area, Roll and Tal (2008) suggested that this was the result of an isolated Romanization process in which a wealthy merchant and his family had commissioned a Roman-style construction. Either the elite family was from the Italian peninsula, or they were locals who desired to emulate and adopt Roman conventions. While this hypothesis is plausible, the excavators’ revised interpretation takes a more nuanced perspective of the site (Tal & Teixeira-Bastos, 2012; Tal & Roll, 2018).
Figure 5: Graphic representation of the locations of each observer/camera within the building (adapted after Roll & Tal’s, 2008 site plan). The locations of each observer/camera were chosen in order to attain a range of perspectives fron lifferent positions within the four public corridors. The first four camera views are directed towards th lararium, while the final camera (5) offers a perspective from the lararium itself. Camera 1 is from th perspective of one entering the building from the western end of the main corridor (Figure 6); Camera | s from that same east-west corridor but from a closer observer perspective, as if one was standing in fron of the room of Locus 1830 (Figure 7); Camera 3 is from the perspective of one entering from the north of th uilding at Locus 1761 (Figure 8); Camera 4 is from a Locus 1859 perspective, as if one was leaving Locu: 1937 and walking south (Figure 9). The Camera 5 perspective was rendered using only Condition B ligh settings and has a west-facing perspective, as if one was standing in front of the lararium (Figure 10).
Figure 5: Graphic representation of the locations of each observer/camera within the building (adapted after Roll & Tal’s, 2008 site plan). The locations of each observer/camera were chosen in order to attain a range of perspectives fron lifferent positions within the four public corridors. The first four camera views are directed towards th lararium, while the final camera (5) offers a perspective from the lararium itself. Camera 1 is from th perspective of one entering the building from the western end of the main corridor (Figure 6); Camera | s from that same east-west corridor but from a closer observer perspective, as if one was standing in fron of the room of Locus 1830 (Figure 7); Camera 3 is from the perspective of one entering from the north of th uilding at Locus 1761 (Figure 8); Camera 4 is from a Locus 1859 perspective, as if one was leaving Locu: 1937 and walking south (Figure 9). The Camera 5 perspective was rendered using only Condition B ligh settings and has a west-facing perspective, as if one was standing in front of the lararium (Figure 10).
Figure 6: Camera 1 perspective as one enters the building from the west in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 1 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 1 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 1 in Condition C lighting.
Figure 6: Camera 1 perspective as one enters the building from the west in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 1 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 1 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 1 in Condition C lighting.
Figure 8: Camera 3 perspective when standing in the northern half of the building along the east-west peristyle corridor at Locus 1761 and facing southeast in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 3 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 3 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 3 in Condition C lighting.
Figure 8: Camera 3 perspective when standing in the northern half of the building along the east-west peristyle corridor at Locus 1761 and facing southeast in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 3 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 3 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 3 in Condition C lighting.
Figure 9: Camera 4 perspective when standing in the northern half of the building along the north-south peristyle corridor at Locus 1937 and facing south in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 4 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 4 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 4 in Condition C lighting.
Figure 9: Camera 4 perspective when standing in the northern half of the building along the north-south peristyle corridor at Locus 1937 and facing south in lighting Conditions A, B, and C. (a) Camera 4 in Condition A lighting. (b) Camera 4 in Condition B lighting. (c) Camera 4 in Condition C lighting.
Figure 10: Camera 5 perspective as they stand in the east-west corridor facing west towards the main entrance and the Mediterranean Sea in lighting Condition B.
Figure 10: Camera 5 perspective as they stand in the east-west corridor facing west towards the main entrance and the Mediterranean Sea in lighting Condition B.
Related topics:
ArchaeologyDigital HumanitiesVirtual ArchaeologyRoman military archaeologyDigital HeritageSensory archaeologyPhysically based renderingRoman ArchitectureAncient lightingRoman Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved