Locus Bonus : The Relationship of the Roman Villa to its Environment in the Vicinity of Rome

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship of the Roman villa to its environment. The villa was an important feature of the countryside intended both for agricultural production and for leisure. Manuals of Roman agriculture give instructions on how to select a location for an estate. The ideal location was a moderate slope facing east or south in a healthy area and good neighborhood, near good water resources and fertile soils. A road or a navigable river or the sea was needed for transportation of produce. A market for selling the produce, a town or a village, should have been nearby. The research area is the surroundings of the city of Rome, a key area for the development of the villa. The materials used consist of archaeological settlement sites, literary and epigraphical evidence as well as environmental data. The sites include all settlement sites from the 7th century BC to 5th century AD to examine changes in the tradition of site selection. Geographical Information Systems were used to analyze the data. Six aspects of location were examined: geology, soils, water resources, terrain, visibility/viewability and relationship to roads and habitation centers. Geology was important for finding building materials and the large villas from the 2nd century BC onwards are close to sources of building stones. Fertile soils were sought even in the period of the densest settlement. The area is rich in water, both rainfall and groundwater, and finding a water supply was fairly easy. A certain kind of terrain was sought over very long periods: a small spur or ridge shoulder facing preferably south with an open area in front of the site. The most popular villa resorts are located on the slopes visible from almost the entire Roman region. A visible villa served the social and political aspirations of the owner, whereas being in the villa created a sense of privacy. The area has a very dense road network ensuring good connectivity from almost anywhere in the region. The best visibility/viewability, dense settlement and most burials by roads coincide, creating a good neighborhood. The locations featuring the most qualities cover nearly a quarter of the area and more than half of the settlement sites are located in them. The ideal location was based on centuries of practical experience and rationalized by the literary tradition.

Evaluation of the Biocompatibility of Poly (ortho ester), Copolymer of ε-caprolactone/D,L-lactide and the Composite of Copolymer of ε-caprolactone/D,L-lactide and Tricalciumphosphate as Bone Filling Material

The purpose of this series of studies was to evaluate the biocompatibility of poly (ortho) ester (POE), copolymer of ε-caprolactone and D,L-lactide [P (ε-CL/DL-LA)] and the composite of P(ε-CL/DL-LA) and tricalciumphosphate (TCP) as bone filling material in bone defects. Tissue reactions and resorption times of two solid POE-implants (POE 140 and POE 46) with different methods of sterilization (gamma- and ethylene oxide sterilization), P(ε-CL/DL-LA)(40/60 w/w) in paste form and 50/50 w/w composite of 40/60 w/w P(ε-CL/DL-LA) and TCP and 27/73 w/w composite of 60/40 w/w P(ε-CL/DL-LA) and TCP were examined in experimental animals. The follow-up times were from one week to 52 weeks. The bone samples were evaluated histologically and the soft tissue samples histologically, immunohistochemically and electronmicroscopically. The results showed that the resorption time of gamma sterilized POE 140 was eight weeks and ethylene oxide sterilized POE 140 13 weeks in bone. The resorption time of POE 46 was more than 24 weeks. The gamma sterilized rods started to erode from the surface faster than ethylene oxide sterilized rods for both POEs. Inflammation in bone was from slight to moderate with POE 140 and moderate with POE 46. No highly fluorescent layer of tenascin or fibronectin was found in the soft tissue. Bone healing at the sites of implantation was slower than at control sites with the copolymer in small bone defects. The resorption time for the copolymer was over one year. Inflammation in bone was mostly moderate. Bone healing at the sites of implantation was also slower than at the control sites with the composite in small and large mandibular bone defects. Bone formation had ceased at both sites by the end of follow-up in large mandibular bone defects. The ultrastructure of the connective tissue was normal during the period of observation. It can be concluded that the method of sterilization influenced the resorption time of both POEs. Gamma sterilized POE 140 could have been suitable material for filling small bone defects, whereas the degradation times of solid EO-sterilized POE 140 and POE 46 were too slow to be considered as bone filling material. Solid material is difficult to contour, which can be considered as a disadvantage. The composites were excellent to handle, but the degradation time of the polymer and the composites were too slow. Therefore, the copolymer and the composite can not be recommended as bone filling material.