I was watching a BBC clip about Roman Britain, and the Roman villas in Britain were amazing! Many of them were heated by a "hypocaust"this was a system of hollow floors and walls, where fires were kept burning. The heat from the fires kept the floors warm, and the walls warm-quite a modern system! These were also used in the bath houses-quite a nice feature in the cold British winters! When Roman Brittania fell, these villas were abandoned-and were replaced by smoky, dank halls-which were dirty and cold (because most of the central fires heat went up through the roof vent. It was not until the introduction of fireplaces (in the 13th century) that dwellings could be comfortably heated.
Why was such a useful innovation abandoned?
I imagine that it required a rather large and reliable source of fuel as well as constant tending.
The same basic idea, but applied to a much smaller area, lasted an sawful lot longer in Russia, where the Russian Oven used a fire and a complex series of flues to keep a brick structure heated. People used them as beds:
As I understand it, and I’m getting all of my information from Time Team, some Britons did maintain Roman-style buildings for a while after the Romans left. When the Vikings began to invade, though, social structure broke down and the kind of stability needed to maintain complicated buildings just wasn’t there anymore. The Vikings certainly didn’t bring anything similarly advanced with them, architecture-wise. In fact the Dark Ages are called that not because things were grim, but because there’s almost no information about what went on during it because stone and pottery and other durable materials went out of use. Tools and buildings were bone and leather and other things that rot away.
How much is a sawful, do you think? I don’t think a band saw could carry very much, but I might be surprised.
Wouldn’t it be the Saxons in the 400-600 time frame? The Vikings didn’t invade until late in the 9th century, 500 years after the Romans left in the mid 5th century.
Economics.
The Roman period was a time of great economic success, and the Falll of Rome had as much to do with economics as barbarian tribes.
The hypocaust was for Middle to Upper Class homes & required a certain layout, a certain amount of skill to build.
When Rome fell, European economies crashed. Upper Class people were the warlords, & warlords need a fortress, which a hypocaust isn’t going to be a part of.
And the were no Middle class, not to the degree of wealth as seen in Roman Britain.
Opinions?
I would imagine that Roman-era houses in Londonium (at least) would have been inhabited until AD 1200 or so-so why wouldn’t the knowledge of the hypocaust be lost? It is so much better than a fire pit.
That is totally the word I was searching for and not finding. Sorry, my toddler was yelling at me while I was typing. Not conducive to clear thinking.
That’s totally alright. Our 16 month old has a way of demanding total attention too!
Early fifth century, no later than 408.
London was abandoned in the Sub Roman period, briefly reoccupied by the Saxons and then refounded on a more defensible position by Alfred. Even when the Saxons arrived only the Walls seem to have been standing.
Hypocausts were difficult to build without bricks, so the real question is why brick production was abandoned in post-Roman Britain. And although the cessation of brick production was especially long-lasting in Britain, that was just part of a wider development found throughout what had been the western empire.
This article (pdf), by the Director of Oxford University’s Institute of Archaeology, suggests that Roman brick production had benefitted from significant economies of scale which went into reverse as the economy contracted.
Another (possible) factor is that the typical Roman villa isn’t very defensible. This isn’t a problem as long as the Pax Romana holds sway, but when law&order break down the ability to keep out the rabble takes precedence.
I think the economic explanations most feasible here. A couple years ago I worked on a Roman excavation in northern England. There was a hypocaust there, and as you can see in these pictures, it’s sort of a labor- and material-intensive structure.
My understanding is that, although many Romano-British towns and military sites were still occupied after the Legions left, any building work after that time tended to be in the native British timber-framed style. Which suggests that the infrastructure had broken down to the point that either skilled masons were unavailable, or that they didn’t have access to stone quarries or brick manufacturers (or both).
I tend to imagine isolated pockets of Romano-British civilization, struggling to maintain their way of life (perhaps in competition with each other) against pressure from “uncivilized” tribal Britons and foreign invasion, without the economic or military strength of the empire behind them.
(Incidentally, History Geek, you never got back to us in that thread you started and let us know whether any of the advice we gave you before your expedition to Durham was of any help. I take it that it was a success, in any case.)
I would imagine there must be something in the efficiency of such a system because it occurs to me that although it went out of use in the dark ages it never came back into use when the materials would have been available to make it possible to build such systems again.
I mean why did no-one try and use such systems again in medieval times? Maybe the concept itself was forgotten but I am thinking maybe it’s just not very fuel efficient and a big fire place is actually a better option.
The period between the early fifth century saw the western Roman empire decay, of which the abandonment of Britain was only one component.
To my mind, this had several important ramifications, including that:
- the legions were withdrawn, making the defence of properties the individual owner’s responsibility;
- this meant the owners had to turn their minds to ensuring that their homes were well defended rather than luxurious;
- slaves/serfs were more likely needed for defence, rather than stoking heaters;
- labour mobility and trade were curtailed, meaning that technologies (and building materials) did not flow;
- the absence of a printing system meant that knowledge of construction techniques could not be easily retained, particularly as the focus of construction became defensive.
To my mind, the reason we have light, airy homes today is that we have a well-ordered society that can fund police and soldiers to guard our property collectively. If you removed that, you’d be more focused on making sure you were safe, rather than getting a brilliant new air con unit (because this would be predicated on having a working electricity supply for one); an open fire may well take the place of ducted heating relying on external gas supplies.
Another thing to consider is that the Hypocaust was, after all, a part of Roman culture. When the Anglo-Saxons came over, they were used to doing things their own way. They probably built their new British homes in the same way they had built their old Germanic homes because that’s what they knew.
True, although recent research suggests that the Saxon invasions of England were not as traumatic as originally thought, with the Saxons coming over intending to be mercenaries, but deciding it wasn’t so bad after all and blending in with the locals.
Yes, I think you are right-the Roman lifestyle was a lot better than the Anglo-Saxon-who can argue with hot baths and heated houses? England was 90% forested, so fuel wasn’t a problem. Is there evidence that most of the landowners left with the legions as well? That would explain the coin/treasure hordes being found all over Roman Britain.