Spectators and Spectator Comfort in Roman Entertainment Buildings: A Study in

Functional Design
Author(s): Peter Rose
Source: Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 73 (2005), pp. 99-130
Published by: British School at Rome
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40311093
Accessed: 22-12-2018 17:56 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

British School at Rome is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Papers of the British School at Rome

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT IN ROMAN
ENTERTAINMENT BUILDINGS: A STUDY IN
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN

Roman entertainment buildings have always fascinated people with their impr
structures, complex design and the chilling thought of what took place within
However, previous research has concentrated primarily on individual buildi
architectural types (Humphrey, 1986; Golvin, 1988; Ciancio Rossetto and
Sartorio, 1994) with their specific construction and design features (Cozzo,
Wilson Jones, 1993), or they have tended to focus on their more general natu
functions within Roman society (Balsdon, 1969; Bollinger, 1969; Rawson,
Beacham, 1999). As a result, there are a number of questions regardin
thousands of spectators who actually used the buildings that have not been
addressed previously. For example, what provisions were made to ensure a saf
efficient entry or exit for the massive number of spectators? How comfortab
the seating arrangements, and were the visual and acoustical conditions accep
To what extent did the spectator's social position reflect these conditions, an
affect did social hierarchy have on the buildings themselves?
These are all aspects that would have influenced greatly the functional n
and design of entertainment buildings, just as Roman society, highly divided
in social and political terms, would have affected the spectator's approach t
further circulation within an entertainment building. Although many of t
questions have been touched upon in previous works, these have provide
part of the answers (Scobie, 1988). Traditional approaches have looked at
incomplete or meagre archaeological evidence and ancient sources in attemp
to reconstruct only the buildings themselves and the performances taking
within (Friedlànder, 1965; Fidenzoni, 1970; Hopkins, 1983; Ciancio Ros
1985; De Nuccio, 1986).
The object of this article is therefore to study the functional design of e
tainment buildings from a spectator's point of view: that is, to turn the trad
questions around and ask them again, by following the spectator as he or she e
the building and sought his/her way up to the seating area through a co
network of corridors and staircases. It will attempt to reconstruct the condit
a position high above the arena, where the viewing and hearing situation m
have been far from satisfactory, and to examine how these aspects were all re
in the buildings themselves.
However, due to the nature of the questions the focus will not be on the relati
ship between one specific building type and the spectator. Instead, the paper
with three building types, each providing a different function and therefore requ
a different approach for the spectator. To simplify this I have chosen to conce
on just three monuments, one for each type of entertainment building: the Theatr

99

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 100 ROSE

Marcellus,
set the stan
they are th
Empire.
Before examining the individual buildings themselves, it seems appropriate to
provide a short résumé of the social seating order for Roman entertainment buildings.

SOCIAL SEATING ORDER

Rome was to a great extent a highly political and socially divided society,
each citizen belonged to a separate group or ordo. This can be seen e
during the reign of Augustus, when emphasis was placed upon this d
the form of legislation, which penetrated all levels and aspects of Roma
This is best reflected in the Roman theatre by an extensive set of regulat
Lex Julia Theatralis, which detailed the disposition of its audiences into
sections.1 As it is very likely that the Lex Julia Theatralis not only tighte
seating arrangements for the theatre but also extended to the amphithe
Rawson has suggested (1987: 86), the two will here be addressed together
The cavea was divided into five horizontal sections or maeniana, nam
podium, ima cavea, media cavea, summa cavea and upper gallery, eac
ponding to a horizontal division of Roman society. Starting from the inn
the podium and working our way upwards to the top row of the upper g
descend through the social pyramid of Roman society (Fig. 1).
Centrally placed, whether in the orchestra of a theatre or along one of
sides of an amphitheatre, would have been the emperor himself. Sitting ac
him in the amphitheatre or very close to him in the theatre would have
Vestal Virgins. The Vestals presumably would not have been the only
order to have held such an important place, and we may assume that other
high social status also would have had a seating position very close to th
Apart from these cases, which represented the highest level of status with
society, the prestigious front rows were all reserved for members of the
Behind the section of senators came the fourteen rows of equites, bette
as the ima cavea. A further subdivision within the fourteen rows seems on
considering the high level of hierarchy in Roman society. The first two r
according to Horace (Epode 4.15-16), therefore reserved for the tribuni mi
ex-tribuni; but, as Rawson very correctly pointed out (1987: 104), it
difficult to imagine that enough tribuni militum would actually have bee
at any one time to fill the two rows. We may suggest therefore that oth
would have been allowed to sit here. Another way of dividing the eq
according to their age. Tacitus's mention of a cuneus iuniorum (Ann

1 The best study on this topic is Rawson, 1987; but see also Bollinger, 1969; Edmond

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 101

Fig. 1 . Social seating order in th

theatre.

suggests that those members of the equestrian order too young to hold any offices on
their own, but still qualified to sit with the equites, would have held seats in one
section or cuneus, and the older members in another.
Above these rows came the section for the ordinary Roman citizens, the plebs,
who were situated in the media cavea. The one thing that distinguished both the
equestrian and plebeian order of the ima and media cavea from the sections above
was the wearing of the formal white toga. Those who could not afford this dress
code were seated in the summa cavea (Suetonius, Divus Augustus 44). They might
have been grouped according to tribus, but they might also have chosen their seats
individually, given that they were already in the summa cavea. This may even have
allowed this section to be mixed, to accommodate both men and women, but due to
the poor evidence we simply cannot know.
The same problem arises when we examine the seating situation of slaves, as
most contemporary sources do not mention this social class. Consequently, it is
unclear if slaves could actually be seated within the theatre (Cicero, De Haruspicum
Responso 22-6). It is very unlikely that they would have been able to take seats
reserved for those who were free-born. It can be suggested, therefore, that slaves
may not actually have been seated in the cavea, but instead remained standing near
their master or in corridors. It is known that slaves were not forbidden entrance to
the theatre, since a law of this type seems to have applied only to ex-gladiators
(Suetonius, Divus Augustus 43.3).
The final and uppermost section, the so-called upper gallery, was reserved for
women and children. Through the laws of Augustus, the women's seating
arrangements were moved up to the upper gallery at gladiatorial games, though
men and women had previously been seated together (Suetonius, Divus Augustus
44). We may assume that there would also have been some type of hierarchy within
this section, with the women of higher status having the better seats.
The image we obtain from this description of seating orders in theatres and
amphitheatres is that of a very tightly defined grouping based on the political and
social divisions of Roman society. That this was not only a horizontal division but
could also be a vertical one can be seen from an inscription relating to the seating
of the Arval Brethren within the Colosseum (ILS 5049; Rawson, 1987: 101).

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 102 ROSE

As a religi
occupied n
zones right
division wi
tribes. We
amphitheat
just as much
For some
designated
games them
As for th
evidence, o
What imm
that men a
children w
sure evidence for this.
The front row of the circus was probably reserved for the senators, as it was in
the theatre, but they would hardly have needed the whole circuit, and we may
assume that other social groups also had their place in the lower rows. However,
there does not seem to have been a designated seating section for the senators until
the time of Claudius, which suggests they may have sat anywhere in the front row
until then (Suetonius, Divus Claudius 21.3). Although we have no knowledge of
where this section was, Humphrey's suggestion of having it near the finishing line
seems both logical and in tune with the senators' social position (1986: 101-2).
The equites received a standardized seating area similar to that of the senators
during the reign of Nero, when a section in front of that for the plebs was set aside
for them (Suetonius, Nero 11.1). This means that there was certainly some form of
division in the circus between the different ordines. There might even have been a
similar one for the tribes, but it is clear that the rules for seating arrangements in the
circus were much more relaxed than those for theatres and amphitheatres.
The remainder of this article will focus on how strongly this social hierarchy
was reflected in the entertainment buildings themselves by means of a sophisticated
network of corridors and staircases. Its aim is to illustrate how the highly political
and socially divided Roman society not only dictated the seating order of the
spectators but also the ways in which their social position affected how they
approached and circulated within entertainment buildings.

APPROACHES AND CIRCULATION

According to modern design theory for entertainment buildings, the two m

objects for the approaches to and circulation within any entertainment buildin

2 There are, however, problems in reconciling this reconstruction of the upper sections of s
with the terms used in ILS 5049 - see Edmondson, 1996: 91 n. 93.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 103

comfort and safety (John and Sheard, 2000: 155

move about with comfort and find their way safel
in overcrowded spaces. They should be able to move
seats fast enough to allow the building to be f
preferably less than two-three hours, and leave in
shorter period of only a few minutes in case of an
fast and safe exit under the most comfortable con
If this is to happen, great care must be taken in the v
at all levels to provide an efficient system of circulati
modern-day guidelines for the construction of en
was also achieved in Roman entertainment buildin
because I believe that the nature and physical condi
to have changed drastically in the last two millenn
Approaching any of the three buildings exam
presumably first notice the large open areas surrou
broad travertine pavement bordered each of the mo
their surrounding areas. Today this can be studied
Colosseum, where a 17.5 m broad section has been
stone blocks originally marked the outer edge of t
survive (Fig. 2).4 Their function has long been
archaeologists, with proposals ranging from a sop
to anchors for the gigantic awnings on top of the
220-1; Sear, 1989: 143; Bomgardner, 2000: 5 n. 5
blocks could not have formed part of the awning
Graefe's interpretation of the upper parts of the C
have taken a different form (Graefe, 1979). If, on the
system' we mean a gangway system similar to tho
modern theatres and cinemas, this would leave ve
or on the blocks themselves. However, simply sep
surrounding area would have been sufficient to jus
blocks. Such a separation would have been needed n
out, as Bomgardner has suggested (2000: 5), but wo

3 Both authors have been involved in the design of stadia, ar

and their guidebook is seen as an essential piece of work fo
developing new stadia.
The distance between each block is 3.70-4.00 m. The block
wide and 0.60 m thick. They are flattened on two sides and ro
these in their size. On each stone, the flat side facing the Colo
two sets of four, one close to the bottom and the other towar
10 x 10 x 10 cm, and many of them still have traces of lead fillin
of another type of metal. There is an additional square hole, s
their lower part the blocks are cut back by roughly 5 cm, which
they rest. The ground underneath has often given way under the
This account is provided because no full description seems t

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
104 ROSE

Fig. 2. Five
encircled th

movement
hadcome t
close to th
modern s
encircle th
A recons
By suspen
seem to in
would be
kind of de
that we se
keeping veh
That sim
(Bomgardn
in large en
also presen
Once with
bay. To h
inscribed a
side and c

5 Scobie (198
for their ins

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 105

Fig. 3. Reconstruction for the stone blocks encirclin

four major and minor axial entrance bays. It is clea

only have helped spectators to their seats but wou
were to be done in a safe and efficient way. Althou
has been found in either the Theatre of Marcel
usefulness and simplicity of the scheme makes it
similar was used there too. However, this need not
ment, as we can see from the entrance bays on th
busts of goddesses were used instead (Bomgardn
Stepping into an entertainment building can be
might easily lose their way in the tangled web of
numerous levels. This would not only cause discom
also be dangerous in an emergency. To prevent this
that should be taken into consideration when constr
Sheard, 2000: 159). 1: Keep choices simple, so that
difficult choice between multiple routes of which o
in haste this would almost guarantee the wrong cho
buffer-zones, so that people can stop or slow down
is in front of them. This prevents panic in situations
top of a staircase or when entering the cavea. 3: Go
their seats, because even the most thoroughly plan
its spectators to their seats by itself. Some form of
both to guide people and to ensure the correct seati
here be focusing on the two former rules, as these
the building's design, leaving us with archaeologic

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 106 ROSE

However,
brief exam
description
Maximus and the Colosseum.
As mentioned above, a broad travertine pavement originally surrounded the
semicircular fa9ade of the Theatre of Marcellus, thereby allowing easy access to
each of the 41 entrance bays at ground level (Fig. 4). From here a series of radial
passageways led either straight into an ambulatory below the ima cavea or to long
ramps going further up through the building. Between these was a series of three
rooms that could have been used for, for example, shops and latrines. Depending on
their social status, spectators would proceed either to the lower ambulatory, from
where there was access to the ima cavea through a series of six vomitoria, or they
would go up one of the ramps to an upper ambulatory, where flights of steps led into
the media and summa cavea. For the senators there were two separate entrances on
either side of the stage, leading directly into the orchestra.
For the Circus Maximus a fairly accurate description can be given only for the
two lower sections, on the basis of visible remains at the curved end and of fragments
of the Marble Plan (Fig. 5). From this it appears that the curved end in many ways
resembled the Theatre of Marcellus in having a series of radial passageways aligned
with two semicircular ambulatories at both front and back. In between were grouped
'rooms' (often three), consisting usually of a shop, passageway and staircase. In order
to reach the podium one would only have had to pass through one of the bays
next to a staircase to the inner corridor. From here several doorways presumably
connected with the inside of the podium. Each staircase led up to a vaulted corridor,
from where it was possible to enter the ima cavea through one of the vomitoria,
which presumably emerged somewhere near the middle of this seating zone
(Humphrey, 1986: 111). Turning away from the arena one could proceed further,
up a second staircase within the same bay but in the opposite direction. Here our
archaeological evidence ceases, and we are therefore left to speculation for the
upper levels.
In the Colosseum we see the same pattern of concentric corridors and radial
passageways, but on a much more sophisticated scale (Fig. 6). Double ambulatories
on the outside of the building were needed for the massive number of spectators
entering the structure, just as two additional ambulatories helped with the further
distribution between different sections of the cavea. The most distinguished
spectators, of senatorial rank, would reach the podium through the innermost
ambulatory, from which twelve vomitoria gave access. The ima cavea could be
reached either from the middle ambulatory, from where sixteen staircases led up to
the cavea, or by going up one of 36 staircases to the double ambulatories of the first
floor and here enter the upper part of the ima cavea. A similar approach was taken in
order to reach the media cavea, which was also accessed from double ambulatories
either through sixteen vomitoria at this level or up one of twelve staircases to
roughly the middle of the media cavea. A third way would be to climb a series of

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 107

s
"CO

c
o

"o

C
03

C
-

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
108 ROSE

Fig. 5. Plan

staircases f
the first a
ambulatory
one of sixt
and upperm
which 24 T

Fig. 6. Plan and section for the Colosseum.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 109

Fig. 7. Flow diagram of ideal circula

Examining the ground-plans of these three buil

group sections together as a series of passageways,
In both the Theatre of Marcellus and the Circus Ma
tion of the ground level is taken up by secondary
staircases have an equal distribution throughout. F
becomes more complicated, as this monument has
cases, which take up almost every entrance bay at g
staircases tends to be much larger is only natural
and the larger number of spectators that needed
Keeping choices simple, with 'yes' or 'no' decisions
between staying at a given level or proceeding further
and safe method of ensuring an efficient flow fro
Sheard, 2000: 159). A flow diagram (Fig. 7) show
ideal circulation pattern, where choices have been r
However, as we can see from the three examples, th
simply be applied to any entertainment building, e
some adaptation to the physical conditions. A close
level is therefore needed in order to see the effect
system throughout the buildings.
The difficult task of visualizing the complicated
tiered cavea has been attempted in both plan and
times before, with more or less successful results
providing a clear three-dimensional perspective th
they are of less value when analysing the efficienc
cannot visualize more than a slice of the whole stru
compare one building with another.

6 Ward-Perkins, 1 98 1 : fig. 31, is a good example of one

drawings, which has been used in countless books and repre
circulation system of the amphitheatre at Nimes can also be re

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
110 ROSE

A possible
axonometr
amphithea
with visual
traditional
diagram (B
functionne
other build
these buil
remains f
illustrate t
(Figs 8-10
the buildin
The arrow
a choice be
Golvin's m
smooth an
have influe
than others
The diagra
which we
efficient c
a simple ch
at the entr
the buildin

Fig. 8. Grap

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 1 1 1

Fig. 9. Graphical analysis of the circulation system of th

seat in the fastest and most simple way, and we ev

amphitheatres of physical barriers between these gr
the crowd separated and ensured an efficient flow
In order to prevent panic or congestion in the flow
zones would be needed at certain points. We have see
areas were kept clear in order to ensure free movem
type of area, where the crowd naturally slows dow
buildings at all levels, especially around staircases. P
visibility in order to make their decisions as to wher

Fig. 10. Graphical analysis of the circulation system o

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
112 ROSE

the use of
for the lat
between ea
safe area w
a buffer-zo
flight of st
impetus by
spectators
and thus p
cavea serve
situation b
These two
every type
circus. The
when the b
of the bui
Circus Ma
spreading
advantage
capacity he
(Humphre
system, o
podium wa
In the The
the flow f
capacity th
takes into
advantages
and safer t
and Sheard
them from
the low gr
Stairs are s
disadvantag
We theref
spacious pa
all types of
This is par
is a buildin
crowds to
(Fig. 10), th
possible wi
closer we g

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 113

This is very steep, especially when compared to mo

of only 33 degrees (John and Sheard, 2000: 166-7)
the designer's desire to increase the capacity of the
Having examined how the circulation systems w
interesting to see how efficient it actually was in p
time it would have taken the average spectator to e
any certainty only for the Colosseum, because o
Theatre of Marcellus and Circus Maximus. Table 1 i
analysis. First the distance is calculated from the n
vomitorium, leaving staircases to be measured sep
163-4). The journey from vomitorium to seat is ig
calculation. By assuming the average spectator to b
100 m per minute (6 km/h), and down staircases at
is possible to calculate the time they will take to ge
to the nearest entrance bay at ground level.
In order to verify the results, a series of tests w
on the movement of tourists within the building
group would simulate the real audience's movem
the experiment. When compared with the previous fig
results differed by less than five percent and the
accepted.
That the Roman entertainment buildings were not just simple containers for
the massive crowds of spectators, but highly sophisticated structures with a careful
use of long corridors, staircases and numerous levels, is clearly shown by these
examples. A great deal of attention was paid to the creation of relatively simple

Table 1 . Timed exit analysis for seating sections of the Colosseum.

Formula for calculating the T . . ,
average time a person would Level T surface + stai
use to exit a building (metre x °-6 sec«) +
Level surface Staircases Time

Podium (50 m x 0.6 sec.) = 30 sec.

(40 m x 0.6 sec.) + (10mx2sec.) = 45 sec.

Ima cavea (40 m x 0.6 sec.) + (10m x 2 sec.) = 45 sec.

(50 m x 0.6 sec.) + (30m x 2 sec.) = 90 sec.

Media cavea (70 m x 0.6 sec.) + (40m x 2 sec.) = 120 sec.

(80 m x 0.6 sec.) + (46 mx 2 sec.) = 140 sec.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 114 ROSE

segregation
with the c

SPECTATOR COMFORT

The arrangement of seats in an entertainment building is a matter of re

three fundamental factors for the maximum output, whether the building is a
amphitheatre or circus. These factors are comfort, safety and capacity. In
terms, the degree of comfort depends partly on the seating time for the p
event and partly on the price that the occupants are willing to pay (John and S
2000: 121 and table 8.1). The longer the event and the higher the price, t
comfortable the seating arrangements must be. For the Romans, however,
would to a larger degree have depended on the spectator's social status. Th
comfort is influenced by the relationship between the depth and width
individual seat, and by the safety and capacity of the buildings. In order t
safety, the seating arrangements in a modern stadium must enable suffic
for people to move about when entering or leaving the cavea (John and
2000: 121, 128-9). There must also be room in front of the seats for other
pass by while spectators are seated. This may not necessarily ensure m
comfort, but it provides a safety aspect that cannot be neglected. The safe
thereby determines the depth of the individual seating tread, while capa
determined by the physical limits of the building itself and what society a
time sees as sufficiently comfortable. As well as it being possible to mov
around the cavea while spectators are seated, there should also be suffici
for individuals to sit comfortably without getting crushed by the neigh
occupants. Capacity therefore determines the width of the individual
vice versa. Of course there has always been an attempt to accommodate a
spectators as physically possible within an entertainment building. Howe
the Romans were concerned with both comfort and safety aspects to a mu
degree than previously thought can be illustrated clearly by compari
structures with modern facilities.
For a modern stadium the recommended dimensions of the individual seat
based upon comfort, safety and capacity is 0.5 m wide, 0.8 m deep and 0.4 m high
(John and Sheard, 2000: 123-9). This gives an average of 0.4 m2 per spectator.
Turning to the ancient sources, Vitruvius recommends an average depth of
0.6-0.7 m and a height of 0.3 m, but he does not comment on the width {De Arch.
5.6.3-4). To obtain this we need to look at archaeological evidence, such as the
amphitheatre at Aries, where incisions for every fifth spectator (at 2 m intervals) in
the seating blocks provide an average width of 0.4 m per spectator (Formigé, 1965:
1-5). Similar incisions have been found in the second phase of the amphitheatre at
Pola, where Golvin argued for both an average width of 0.4 m and a depth of 0.7 m
(1988: 173). Interestingly, these figures correspond very well with the minimum
dimension of 0.4 x 0.7 m for modern seating arrangements as recommended by

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 115

the British Association of Spectator Equipment Sup

123, 128), which provides an average area of 0.28 m
would seem that the Romans were both closer to our
able seating arrangements and more concerned with
realized. However, Golvin also argued for dimension
are smaller than both Vitruvius's and minimum
(Golvin, 1988: 354-7, table 44).
It therefore seems reasonable to argue for three
trying to estimate the seating capacity of the three mo
a small reduction of just 10 cm would have a signifi
per spectator, and thereby his comfort, and the to
building. The three standard dimensions that will be
minimum of 0.3 x 0.5 m, providing 0.15 m2 per spec
at 0.28 m2 per spectator, and a maximum of 0.5 x
However, that these could have been used at the same ti
cavea is not unthinkable. Given references to the s
podium, we may assume that this section at lea
0.5 x 0.8 m, if not larger. We may assume also that s
social classes in the summa cavea would have been s
so that a figure of 0.3 x 0.5 m is not unthinkable h
seating depth would have occurred, therefore, as on
However, taking both figures into consideratio
0.4 x 0.7 m. This can presumably be used as a r
(Bomgardner, 1991: 285), but as I am here also in
situations in order to illustrate the influence these d
the seating capacity of each building, I have chosen
my estimations.
In order to show the effect of the dimensions, we
surface of the individual building, which can then b
for each spectator. However, not all surface areas w
as areas such as staircases and circulation aisles were
of deduction must therefore be made for them. Thi
from building to building, but by assuming the same fi
may more easily compare them. Golvin suggeste
surface of any cavea would have been taken up by
this is now generally agreed upon by most sc
Bomgardner, 2000: table 1.2, n. 40).
To calculate the surface area of the cavea (abbrev
follow) for the Theatre of Marcellus we must subtract t
the semicircle formed by the orchestra and cavea (
done with a simple formula (Table 2).7

7 See the Appendix for the overall dimensions of all three m

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 116 ROSE

Table 2. Form

Area of sem

Radius of orchestra = 18.5 m

Radius of orchestra + cavea = 64.9 m

SC = ((71 x 64.92) + 2) - ((ti x 18.52) + 2) « 6079 m2

By deducting the non-seating areas we arrive at an estimated surface of 5500 m2

In order to calculate the surface area of the cavea for the Colosseum it is
necessary to use a slightly different formula because of its oval shape, but the
principal of subtracting the arena from the total surface is the same (Table 3).
The surface area of the cavea for the Circus Maximus is somewhat more
difficult to estimate because of its combined elongated and semicircular format.
I have therefore found it necessary to combine the formula for the area of a semi-
circle with that of a rectangular surface (Table 4). This has resulted in a simplifi-
cation of the building's layout but in the interest of my examination this is
acceptable, partly because the focus here is on estimating the total surface area and
partly because of the need for a comparison with the Theatre of Marcellus and
Colosseum.
Table 5 summarizes the figures of all three buildings, with a percentage of the
arena/ 'orchestra and cavea in relation to the total surface. It is interesting here to
notice how the proportion of surface assigned to the cavea changes from less than

Table 3. Formula for calculating the surface area of the Colosseum.

SC = ((A+ 2) x (B + 2) x 7C) - ((a + 2) x (b + 2) x n)

SC = ((187.8 + 2) x (155.6 + 2) x n) - ((79 .4 + 2) x (47.2 + 2) x n)

SC « 20007 m2

A = length of arena + cavea = 187.8 m

B = width of arena + cavea = 155.6 m

a = length of arena = 79.4 m

b = width of arena = 47.2 m

Deducting non-seating area places us at an estimated surface of 18000 m2

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 117

Table 4. Combined formula for the calculating the surface

Area of semicircle = ((71 x 66.52) + 2) - ((ti x 39

Area of long sides = (553.5 x 133) - (540.5 x

SC = 35412 m2

After deducting the n

50% for the Circus Maximus to more than 90% in the Theatre of Marcellus. This
can be explained, of course, by the different uses of the two structures. In the Circus
Maximus all attention is on the arena (and the races), which naturally takes up a
considerable amount of space so that the spectators are forced to move fiirther out.
This creates a much larger percentage for the arena surface than for the orchestra
in the Theatre of Marcellus, where the focus is on the area behind the orchestra
and thereby outside the semicircle that is under examination here. What these
figures also show is how circular or semicircular seating arrangements are much

Table 5. Linear and surface dimensions for the Theatre of Marcellus, Colosseum and Circus
Maximus. The measurements have not been adjusted to take account of non-seating areas.

Linear dimensions Estimated surfaces Percentage of total

Theatre of Marcellus

Overall 130 m 6616 m2

Orchestra 37 m 537 m2 8%

Cavea 46 m 6079 m2 92%

Colosseum

Overall 188 x 156 m 22950 m2

Arena 79 x 47 m 2943 m2 13%

Cavea 54 m 20007 m2 87%

Circus Maximus

Overall 620 x 140 m 80562 m2

Arena 580 x 80 m 45150 m2 56%

Cavea 30 m 35412 m2 44%

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 118 ROSE

more effi
area than
circulation
which is cr
the buildin
relation to
sticated cir
With the
table for t
dimension
effect eve
total capac
Having es
calculate t
However,
the Colosseum and the Theatre of Marcellus. This is because a more accurate
estimation of the surface area for each maenianum is needed, and not enough
evidence can be found for the Circus Maximus to support this. However, before we
start we must first estimate the surface of each maenianum in both buildings. This is
done by using the same formula as was used for calculating the total surface of the
cavea. The only difference here is that we have to subtract the surrounding seating
sections. Tables 7-8 show the estimates for the two buildings.
In order to calculate the number of spectators per maenianum we thereafter
divide the figures with our standard seating dimension. This is shown in Tables
9-10. We here discover a very even distribution for the levels above the ima cavea
in the Colosseum, while the Theatre of Marcellus seems to have consisted of two
larger groups formed by the ima and media cavea, and two smaller groups formed
by the summa cavea and upper gallery. By indicating the relative percentage of
seating capacity allocated to each section a new image is revealed. Only 15-20%
of the buildings would have been reserved for men of the lower social classes.
The 'middle classes' would have taken up 30-40% with the higher classes of
senators and knights at 30-35%, leaving only 15-20% for the women and children

Table 6. Estimated number of spectators given by use of different standard dimensions for seating
area per spectator. Approximately 10% of the cavea area has been deducted for non-seating areas,
such as staircases and walkways.

Theatre of Marcellus Colosseum Circus Maximus

0.3 x 0.5 m 42,000 122,000 220,000

0.4 x 0.7 m 22,000 65,000 115,000

0.5 x 0.8 m 16,000 46,000 80,000

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 119

Table 7. Estimated surface area for each maenianum of the Theatre of Marcellus.

Theatre of Marcellus
Accumulated Surface J of Surface of r - r 7
,. . f , J . . . Surface r - for r each 7
radius ,. with . f each , exterior . interior . . .
. . . . . . maenianum
maenianum I semicircle . . . \ semicircle . . . \

18

- 4 537 - 330 = 207 m2 Podium

14

18

+ 20 2328 - 537 = 1791m2 Ima cavea

38

38

+ 14 4329 - 2328 = 2001m2 Media cavea

52

52

59

59

+ 5 6535 - 5561 = 974 m2 Upper gallery

64

in the upper gallery. This indicates that the primary focus was not on entertaining
the Roman mob but on spectators of a higher social level, for which the values
connected with the buildings and their seating order had great importance.
This follows the earlier examination of seating order, which revealed the Roman
entertainment building as a highly political institution.
That this division is reflected not only in the accessibility and seating dimen-
sions for the individual spectator but also in the visual and acoustical potential
of their seating position can also be proven. However, a distinction must be made
between the viewing potential and the acoustical potential, because of the different
ways in which they affect an entertainment building. Although to a certain degree
both act in the same way under similar conditions, the function of a building would
have required that a different emphasis be placed upon each of them. This again

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 120 ROSE

Table 8. Estimated surface area for each maenianum of the Colosseum.

Colosseum

Accumulated Surface of Surface of Surface for each

radius with each exterior interior maenianum
maenianum semicircle semicircle

32

+ 7 4778 - 3147 = 1631m2 Podium

39

39

+ 13 8495 - 4778 = 3717 m2 Ima cavea

52

52

+ 17 14957 - 8495 = 6462 m2 Media cavea

~69~

69

+ 7 18145 - 14957 = 3189 m2 Summa cavea

76

76

+ 6 21382 - 18145 = 3237 m2 Upper gallery

~82~

would set certain physical standards upon the layout of the building, and prevent
some qualities, such as the good acoustical conditions of a theatre, from being
transferred to other building types like the amphitheatre or circus. I will therefore
examine them separately.
When dealing only with viewing abilities, a further distinction can be made
between horizontal and vertical viewing. These may seem inseparable to us, as
we tend to perceive both directions at the same time in order to create a visual
picture of what is in front of us. The distinction here should not be understood as

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 121

Table 9. Estimated number of spectators per maenianum as g

for the Theatre of Marcellus.

Theatre of Marcellus Podium Ima cavea Media Summa Upper

Surface of maenianum 207 m2 1791m2 2001m2 1232 m2 974 m2

0.3 x 0.5 m

0.4 x 0.7m

0.5 x 0.8 m

Percentage of total
capacity

such, but instead as a way of distinguishin

perceive the surrounding area, or horizont
platform, or vertical abilities. The horizont
maximum viewing distance, will in this w
itself, while the vertical will set the minim
In order to provide a good understand
necessary to provide some essential inform
works. The human eye can cover a total ho
turning the head, but only 120 degrees wi
that enables us to perceive distances, and ou
be said to lie within 120 degrees. As for th
according to the object that is to be seen. I
similar size, the preferred distance would b

Table 1 0. Estimated number of spectators per maen

for the Colosseum.

Colosseum Podium Ima Media Media Summa Upper

cavea cavea cavea cavea gallery
inferior superior

Surface 0/maenianum 1631 m2 3717 m2 3231m2 3231m2 3189 m

0.3 x 0.5 m nooo 25000 21500 21500 21300 21500

0.4 x 0.7m 5900 13250 11500 11500 11400 11500

0.5 x 0.8 m 41Oo 9300 8100 8100 8000 8100

Percentage of total g% 2Q% lg% lg% n% lg%

capacity I I I I I I

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 122 ROSE

increase to
the size of
viewing ab
cavea and f
angle, an op
that the lon
layout of th
when looki
However, b
been able t
The object
action as p
possible wi
seems to h
Both the Circus Maximus and Colosseum thus can be said to combine the absolute
maximum in number of spectators with an acceptable viewing ability, and the
largest possible structure without violating either. This is shown most clearly by
their status as the largest entertainment buildings in the ancient world.
Establishing good visual conditions for spectators on a vertical axis is equally
important, but not as simple as it seems. Not only would spectators block each
other's vision unless they were raised on a slope or tiered platform, but their
visibility would also rapidly diminish the further up, and therefore away from, the
arena they were. Determining how high each tread should be in order for the
spectator to have optimal viewing abilities above the head of the person in front of
them is therefore necessary. Vitruvius recommended raising each tread by 0.3 m, as
we previously saw (De Arch. 5.6.3-4). Together with his recommended seating
depth of about 0.7 m this would result in a seating rake of 24 degrees. However, this
presumably would not have been sufficiently steep to provide good visual conditions
for a lower lying arena, and a steeper seating rake must therefore be sought.
This can be done either by shortening the seating depth or by extending the
tread height (Table 11). With a constant rake throughout the cavea of 30 degrees
a tread height of 0.4 m and a seating depth of 0.7 m would seem reasonable.
However, in order to compensate for the decline in good visual abilities obtained
by moving farther away from the arena, a constant seating rake should be avoided
(John and Sheard, 2000: 115-19). On the contrary, the rake should gradually
increase the further up the cavea one goes. An estimated tread height of 0.4-0.5 m
therefore seems reasonable.
Comparing these figures with the evidence we have from the Circus Maximus,
confirms Bigot's estimation of a seating rake of 32-40 degrees (quoted in Humphrey,
1986: 107). This may seem to be a very wide figure, but with a building of such

8 Although these figures are taken from modern events, such as football and motor sports, the size
relationship between the spectator and the performer is similar enough to justify their use here.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 123

Fig. 11. Optimal viewing

distance for the Colosseum.

width, and a presumed seating depth of 0.5-0.7 m, this is reasonable. If we also

examine Golvin's figures of a 30-40 degree seating rake for the Colosseum, a similar
estimate of a 0.4-0.5 m tread height would fit in here (Golvin, 1988: 293, table 32).
This could lead us to assume that Vitruvius was wrong in his recommendation of a
0.3 m tread height, but a closer examination of both Golvin's or Humphrey's data
show that 0.3 m really does seem to have been the average tread height for both
amphitheatres and circuses throughout the Roman Empire. The only explanation
for this must be a desire to fit as many people into the smallest area as physically
possible without decreasing the visual conditions more than was reasonable. We can
therefore conclude that good viewing conditions would have influenced greatly not
only the building itself but also the number of spectators it could facilitate.
That an equal concern existed for the acoustic aspects of theatres can be seen
from Vitruvius's emphasis on this subject (De Arch. 5.3-6,8). However, conditions
here were somewhat different from those of the circus and amphitheatre. Although
good visual abilities are also important, it is the acoustic conditions that are of

Fig. 12. Optimal viewing distance for the Circus Maximus. Vision is partly blocked
by the barrier in the shaded areas.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 ROSE

Table 1 1 . Se
the profile

primary im
division in
would hav
would hav
As with t
human he
heard satis
and only
To extend
background
orchestra
the actor o

Fig. 1

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 125

added only little to this. However, in the Roman

would have been somewhat reduced by its us
would therefore have been dominated by the dire
degree. This situation could be compensated for
relatively low stage height, which would also m
those seated in the orchestra, or by having a sm
theatres (Barron, 1993: 246).
When rising vertically, acoustical aspects fun
abilities. We can therefore use the same princip
Marcellus as for the Colosseum and Circus Maximus. Acoustical conditions
decrease the further up the cavea we go, as with visual conditions, but this can again
be compensated for by increasing the seating rake as one moves further away from
the stage. There is, however, a limit to this, with a maximum permissible rake of
35 degrees (Barron, 1993: 13-15). The Romans tended to have a relatively high
seating rake of 30-34 degrees when compared to the Greeks, who built them as low
as 20 degrees (Barron, 1993: 244-6). Were a gradient of 30-35 degrees to be
maintained throughout the Theatre of Marcellus, a tread height of 0.5 m would seem
to be ideal (Table 11). This corresponds very well with the estimation of an average
seating depth of 0.7-0.8 m for the whole theatre. It therefore seems reasonable t
conclude that the acoustical aspects of the Theatre of Marcellus would have affected
the building itself to just as great an extent as the visual conditions would have for
the Colosseum and the Circus Maximus.

On the basis of these examinations a series of figures can be drawn for each
monument in which an evaluation of the individual seating section can be deter-
mined (Figs 14-16). They are all based on Golvin's evaluation of an elliptical cavea
(1988: 344, plate LVIII.2), but have here been adapted to include both the Circus
Maximus and the Theatre of Marcellus. For the Theatre of Marcellus the grading
is based on hearing rather than viewing abilities, although they would have been
very much the same. The lowest number indicates the seating areas with the best
viewing or hearing abilities, and the highest the more poorly situated seating areas.
As we move further away from the central areas around the arena the numbers
increase, just as they also increase the further up the cavea, and therefore away from
the arena, one goes. Not surprisingly these figures closely follow the pattern of social
seating order examined earlier. The section with best viewing or hearing abilities,

Fig. 14. Evaluation of seating

sections for the Colosseum
based on visual conditions.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 126 ROSE

Fig. 15. Eval

Fig. 16
the Theatre of Marcellus based on acoustical
conditions.

which is closest to the arena or orchestra, is also the one that is reserved for the most
distinguished spectators, while the more poorly situated seating areas around the top
of the cavea were kept for spectators with lower status. It thereby becomes clear
that, just as the visual and acoustical conditions influenced the layout of the building
itself, they also influenced the seating order within.

CONCLUSIONS

Roman entertainment buildings formed an integral part of Roman soci

way of expressing a social hierarchy. However, that this was also
throughout the structures themselves, and to such a degree as has been s
has not been demonstrated previously. Not only were the spectator's se
tions determined by an extensive set of legal regulations, but their appr
circulation within the buildings were controlled by their social position.
this, there were a number of methods that the Roman designer cou
The most recognizable of these was the tendency to group sections of ent
buildings together as series of passageways, staircases and secondary ro
brought an otherwise complicated circulation system down to a leve
choices. The spectator's social status would determine his final destinatio
first choice of entrance bay affecting all his further movements within the
by segregating him from the rest of it. To ensure the safety and efficie
system, so-called 'safety zones' were created around places of natural co
such as staircases, vomitoria or the entrances to the monuments, thereb
the spectator to stop and take notice of the situation without causing pa

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 127

proceeding further on. Both of these methods are

tainment buildings for their efficiency and safety
in Roman entertainment buildings we can suggest
more aware of these issues than has been thought p
It has also been shown how the spectator's s
influenced the comfort and capacity of an entertain
set of standard seating dimensions an estimate of t
made, not only for the total number of seats avail
in each section. This has revealed a different proportio
social classes, which should lead us to change our p
tainment building as an institution for the Roman
emerged where the focus is more on satisfying tho
thereby reinforcing the division of society within the
This is especially reflected in the spectator's vis
when seated. Members of the higher social orders
visual and acoustical conditions by being seated clo
while the lower classes at the back would have bee
It is, however, clear that none of the buildings exa
the physical limitations of the human eye or ear, altho
set the standard by being the largest in the Roman
Together this clearly indicates that the Roman e
much closer to their modern equivalents than
However, it is only through the study of their fun
point of view that this picture is revealed.
Peter Rose

Acknowledgements
This paper was first presented as a dissertation for the MA course in the City of Rome at the University
of Reading 2000-1. I would like to thank Janet DeLaine, who suggested I turn it into a publishab
paper and gave her generous help and guidance in the process. I am most grateful to Ray Laurenc
Alastair Small, Robert Coates-Stephens and Heinz-Jürgen Beste for their numerous importan
comments and suggestions in the paper's early form. I am also most grateful to J.R. Patterson and th
anonymous readers for useful suggestions and relevant criticisms. Any errors within the finished wor
are my responsibility alone.

References

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. (1969) Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. London, Bodley Head.
Barron, M. (1993) Auditorium Acoustics and Architectural Design. London, Spon.
Beacham, R.C. (1999) Spectacle Entertainment oj Early Imperial Rome. London, Yale University
Press.

Bollinger, T. (1969) Theatralis Licentia, die Publikums Demonstration an Òffentlichen Spielen im Rom
der Früheren Kaiserzeit und ihre Bedeutung im Politischen Leben. Winterthur, Hans Schellenberg.
Bomgardner, D.L. (1991) Amphitheatres on the fringe. Journal of Roman Archaeology 4: 282-94.
Bomgardner, D.L. (1993) A new era for amphitheatre studies. Journal of Roman Archaeology
6: 375-90.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 128 ROSE

Bomgardner
Ciancio Ross
Roma, archeologia nel centro 1; l'area archeologica centrale: 213-23. Rome. De Luca.
Ciancio Rossetto, P. and Pisani Sartorio, G. (1994) (eds) Teatri greci e romani: alle origini del
linguaggio rappresentato I and III. Turin, Edizioni SEAT.
Cozzo, G. (1928) Ingegneria romana. Rome, Libreria Editrice Mantegazza di P. Cremonese.
De Nuccio, M. (1986) Teatro di Marcello. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale
di Roma 91: 390-2.
Edmondson, J. (1996) Dynamic arenas: gladiatoral presentations in the city of Rome and the
construction of Roman society during the Early Empire. In W. J. Slater (ed.), Roman Theater and
Society. E. Togo Salmon Papers: 69-112. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Fidenzoni, P. (1970) // Teatro di Marcello. Rome, Liber.
Finker, M. (1981) L' amphitheatre de Nìmes et le problème des circulations dans les edifices de
spectacle d'époque romain. Dossiers Archeologie 55: 44-50.
Formigé, J. (1965) L' amphitheatre d'Arles. Révue Archéologique 1: 1-47.
Friedlánder, L. (1965) Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire III (authorized translation
of the seventh edition). London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Golvin, J.-C. (1988) L 'amphitéàtre romain. Essai sur la theorisation de sa forme et de ses functions.
Paris, Diffusion de Boccard.
Graefe, R. (1979) Vela Erunt. Die Zeltdàcher der Romischen Theater und Àhnlicher Anlagen. Mainz
am Rhein, Philip von Zabern.
Hopkins, K. (1983) Death and Renewal. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Humphrey, J. (1986) Roman Circuses. London, Batsford.
John, G. and Sheard, R. (2000) Stadia: a Design and Development Guide (third edition). Oxford,
Architectural Press.

Rawson, E. (1987) Discrimina ordinum: the lex Julia theatralis. Papers of the British School at Rome
55: 83-114.
Scobie, A. (1988) Spectator security and comfort at gladiatorial games. Nikephoros 1: 191-243.
Sear, F. (1989) Roman Architecture. London, Batsford.
Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1981) Roman Imperial Architecture (second edition). London, Penguin.
Wilson Jones, M.W. (1993) Designing amphitheatres. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archàologischen
Instituís, Ròmische Abteilung 100: 391-442.

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECTATORS AND SPECTATOR COMFORT 129

APPENDIX. OVERALL DIMENSIONS FOR THE COLOSSEUM,

THEATRE OF MARCELLUS AND CIRCUS MAXIMUS.

Table A. Overall figures. N/A = not applicable.

Monument Colosseum? Theatre of Circus Maximusc

Overall length 187.8 m N/A 620 m

Overall width 155.6 m 129.8 m 133 m

Arena length 19 Am N/A 580 m

Arena width 47.2 m 37 m 79 m

Cavea width 54.2 m 46.4 m 27 m

Estimated total surface 22950 m2 66 1 6 m2 80562 m2

Estimated arena surface 2943 m2 537 m2 45 1 50 m2
Estimated cavea surface 20007 m2 6079 m2 35412 m2

a All measurements are taken from Golvin, 1988: 287, table 30, unless otherwise stated.
b All measurements are taken from Fidenzoni, 1970: 43, 56, unless otherwise stated.
c All measurements are taken from Humphrey, 1986: 121, 124, unless otherwise stated.

Table B. Overall figures.

rr • 7 r AT 1 £ Width Of
Height rr • 7 of r TI7. , , ri Number
Monument *a(*a f d Width TI7. , , of r
Colosseum 48 m 5.92 ma 80 17.5 m

Theatre of Marcellus 32.6 m 4.94 mb 41 unknown

Circus Maximus unknown unknown unknown llm

a Jones, 1993: 442. b Jones, 1993: 409.

Table C. Estimated number of seating treads for each maenianu

_ ,. Ima Media Summa Upper

Monument
Colosseum 7 12 19 7 7 62

Theatre of Marcellus 4 15 14 8 6 47
Circus Maximus 10 8 13 11 N/A 42

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 130 ROSE

Table D. Es
Monument Podium Ima Media Summa Upper
cavea cavea cavea gallery
Colosseum 7m 13 m 17 m 7m 6m

Theatre ofMarcellus 4m 20 m 14 m 7m 5m
Circus Maximus 7m 8m 8m 4m N/A

Table E. Estimated height of each maen

Monument Podium Ima Media Summa Upper

„ seating
cavea cavea cavea gallery „ f

Colosseum 4m 7m llm 3m unknown unknown

Theatre of {5m ?m Jm 35m 5m g6m

Marcellus

Circus Maximus 4 m 3 m 5 m 4.5 m N/A 2 m

Table F. Estimated surface for each maenianum.

Monument Podium Ima Media Summa Upper

Colosseum 1631m2 3717 m2 6462 m2 3189 m2 3237 m2

Theatre of Marcellus 207 m2 1791m2 2001m2 1232 m2 974 m2

Circus Maximus unknown N/A

Table G. Estimated gradient of e

Monument Podium Ima Media Summa Upper

Colosseum unknown 30° 30° 40° unknown

Theatre ofMarcellus 30-35° unknown

Circus Maximus 32^0° N/A

Table H. Estimated number of cunei for each maenianum.

Monument Podium Ima Media Summa Upper

Colosseum 14 16 16 16 80

Theatre of Marcellus 6 6 14 unknown

Circus Maximus unknown N/A

This content downloaded from 89.201.163.130 on Sat, 22 Dec 2018 17:56:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms