Archaeology provides many answers, but for years it provided no definitive answer about the origins of Roman building. Much of this confusion stems from the difficulties of determining purpose and timeline. Gjerstad’s chronology provided a backdrop which allowed for many credible theories to develop (p. 631).  However, a chronology cannot account for the routine updates which later generations provided to Roman architecture. For example, Trajan’s Column was thought to be simple when it was constructed, but it has been theorized that Hadrian created the spirals encircling the body of the column (Davies, 1997). Nero had haphazardly destroyed the cultural legacy of the Romans in the 1^st century BC. During that time, the importance of the soil was being emphasized, and Nero’s aunt may have owned the lush Gardens of Domitia (Davies, 2000).

It is known that the first paved road was built around 625 BC (Ammerman, 1990). Gjerstad pointed to rudimentary huts of the deepest soil levels at Forum Romanum. These tecas were thought to be either original storehouses for burial goods or reproductions of earlier buildings. Although Gjerstad’s evidence for the huts seemed to be logical, even he admitted that he could find no evidence of structural remains—only the three skeletons buried in the same soil level (Ammerman, 1990). Roman portraiture was also noticeably absent and was used to commemorate civic occurrences during the transition from tribal to republic policies in Rome (Nodelman, 1970). Around 100 BC, grand sculpted columns graced the funereal monuments of Trajan. This grand forum- with its tall, vaunted columns and ornate latticework, stone work, and art work- was typical of the post-Nero movement which embraced the culture which had not been highly valued by Nero (Davies, 1997). Nero’s attention was often occupied by less serious matters, such as parties or the circus. In fact, one of the predominant architectural feats of Nero’s reign was the construction of a bridge (named the Pons Neronianus) which was deemed necessary to allow easier access to the circus. It was widely used (Davies, 2000). Thus, the era of primitive allusion to burial styles was replaced by a revolution of architectural excess.

“Given the broad interest in the study of early Rome, it is remarkable how little archaeologists and topographers knew about the natural relief of the lower parts of the ancient city until the last few years” (Ammerman, 1990, p. 633). This has complicated the matter of dating Roman architecture. Although there may have been simple huts, as Gjerstad claimed, the simple fact remains that there is no evidentiary support for this theory—or at least nothing written in stone. From 300-200 BC it is clear that Roman culture embraced a multi-perspective view which held that emotion, mobility, and dimension were more important than structure and the image, but Roman art frequently consisted of portraiture in mediums which would have been easily degraded with time (Nodelman, 1970).  In addition, Augustus Caesar popularized topiary gardens in the memorial structures of the Roman Republic during the first century AD (Kellum, 1994). These facts present a picture of a period in Roman history which contributed to the evidentiary self-destruction: decadence, cultivation, and political turmoil.