Living in the Suburbs of Roman Italy: Space and social contact 9781407310534, 9781407340289

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF GRAPHS
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF FIGURES
MAPS
Introduction
Chapter I: Definitions, Theories and Methodologies
Chapter II: Rome and the Suburbs
Chapter III: Urban Residences and Suburban Villas at Pompeii
Chapter IV: Villas in the Outer Suburbs of Pompeii
Chapter V: Suburban Villas and Herculaneum
Chapter VI: Suburban Villas and Stabiae
Discussion
ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TABLES
FIGURES

Citation preview

Living in the Suburbs of Roman Italy Space and social contact

Geoff W. Adams

BAR International Series 2449 2012

ISBN 9781407310534 paperback ISBN 9781407340289 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310534 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My greatest debt is to three scholars who have done so much towards the development of this study: Professor Frank Sear, Associate Professor Iain Spence and Dr Ray Laurence. Whatever is good in this study is due to their example and assistance. Special mention must also be made of my friends and colleagues at the University of Tasmania who have given consistent support and assistance towards the final product. I am grateful not only to all of them for their encouragement, but to all the friends and colleagues who have contributed to the enjoyable and fruitful years at previous universities where I have worked and studied, considering that this work is a culmination of various projects dating back to 1998. Thanks must also go to my family and friends for their help and understanding. However, the main contributor to assisting its development has been my wife, Nicole, who still amazes me with her consistent support. I would also like to dedicate the following pages to my children Callan and Charlotte.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

iii

LIST OF GRAPHS

v

LIST OF MAPS

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

ix

MAPS

xiv

INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER I

Definitions, Theories and Methodologies

6

CHAPTER II

Rome and the Suburbs

14

CHAPTER III

Urban Residences and Suburban Villas at Pompeii

52

CHAPTER IV

Villas in the Outer Suburbs of Pompeii

90

CHAPTER V

Suburban Villas and Herculaneum

131

CHAPTER VI

Suburban Villas and Stabiae

158

CHAPTER VII

Discussion

178

ABBREVIATIONS

185

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

TABLES

209

FIGURES

259

ii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1

List of All Villas under Discussion

Table 2

Syntactical Results for the Villa at Dragoncello

Table 3

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Perseus

Table 4

Syntactical Results for the Villa in Regio IV [Ostia]

Table 5

Syntactical Results for the House of Augustus

Table 6

Syntactical Results for the Domus Tiberiana

Table 7

Syntactical Results for the Domus Flavia

Table 8

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta

Table 9

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Horace

Table 10

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Pliny

Table 11

Syntactical Results for the Villa dell’Auditorium

Table 12

Syntactical Results for the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini

Table 13

Syntactical Results for the San Rocco Villa

Table 14

Syntactical Results for the Posto Villa

Table 15

Syntactical Results for the Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro

Table 16

Syntactical Results for Villa A on the Via Gabina

Table 17

Syntactical Results for Villa B on the Via Gabina

Table 18

Syntactical Results for the Villa of the Quintili

Table 19

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Cicero

Table 20

Syntactical Results for the Villa of the Mosaic Columns

Table 21

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Diomede

Table 22

Syntactical Results for the Villa of the Mysteries (A)

Table 23

Syntactical Results for the Villa of the Mysteries (B)

Table 24

Syntactical Results for the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus

Table 25

Syntactical Results for the Villa Imperiale

Table 26

Syntactical Results for the House of Fabius Rufus

Table 27

Syntactical Results for House VI-17-42

Table 28

Syntactical Results for the House of Umbricius Sciaurus

Table 29

Syntactical Results for the House of the Faun

Table 30

Syntactical Results for the Praedia of Julia Felix

Table 31

Syntactical Results for the House of Octavius Quartio

Table 32

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Lucius Caecilius Iucundus

Table 33

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Popidius Florus

Table 34

Syntactical Results for the Villa at Boscoreale

Table 35

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Fannius Synistor

Table 36

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis

Table 37

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Agrippa Postumus

Table 38

Syntactical Results for the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus

iii

Table 39

Syntactical Results for Villa 30 at Boscoreale

Table 40

Syntactical Results for Villa 31 at Boscoreale

Table 41

Syntactical Results for Villa 32 at Boscoreale

Table 42

Syntactical Results for the Villa at Pompeii

Table 43

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Arellius Successus

Table 44

Syntactical Results for the Villa Regina at Boscoreale

Table 45

Syntactical Results for the Villa at Scafati

Table 46

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Asellius

Table 47

Syntactical Results for Villa 38 at Boscoreale

Table 48

Syntactical Results for Villa 39 at Boscoreale

Table 49

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Domitius Auctus

Table 50

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Crapolla

Table 51

Syntactical Results for the Villa of Crassius Tertius

Table 52

Syntactical Results for the Villa of the Papyri

Table 53

Syntactical Results for the Villa Sora

Table 54

Syntactical Results for the House of Aristides

Table 55

Syntactical Results for the House of Argo

Table 56

Syntactical Results for the House of the Albergo

Table 57

Syntactical Results for the House of the Mosaic Atrium

Table 58

Syntactical Results for the House of the Stags

Table 59

Syntactical Results for the House of the Gemma

Table 60

Syntactical Results for the House of the Relief of Telphus

Table 61

Syntactical Results for the Villa San Marco

Table 62

Syntactical Results for the Villa Arianna

Table 63

Syntactical Results for the Villa Pastore

Table 64

Syntactical Results for the Villa Filosofo

Table 65

Syntactical Results for the Villa Anteros and Heracleo

Table 66

Syntactical Results for the Villa Petraro

Table 67

Syntactical Results for the Villa Carmiano

iv

LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 1

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Dragoncello

Graph 2

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Dragoncello

Graph 3

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Perseus

Graph 4

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Perseus

Graph 5

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa in Regio IV [Ostia]

Graph 6

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa in Regio IV [Ostia]

Graph 7

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Augustus

Graph 8

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Augustus

Graph 9

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Domus Tiberiana

Graph 10

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Domus Tiberiana

Graph 11

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Domus Flavia

Graph 12

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Domus Flavia

Graph 13

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta

Graph 14

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta

Graph 15

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Horace

Graph 16

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Horace

Graph 17

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Pliny

Graph 18

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Pliny

Graph 19

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa dell’Auditorium

Graph 20

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa dell’Auditorium

Graph 21

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini

Graph 22

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini

Graph 23

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the San RoccoVilla

Graph 24

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the San Rocco Villa

Graph 25

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Posto Villa

Graph 26

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Posto Villa

Graph 27

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro

Graph 28

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro

Graph 29

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa A on the Via Gabina v

Graph 30

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa A on the Via Gabina

Graph 31

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa A on the Via Gabina

Graph 32

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa B on the Via Gabina

Graph 33

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Quintili

Graph 34

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Quintili

Graph 35

Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas in the Suburbs of Rome

Graph 36

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Cicero

Graph 37

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Cicero

Graph 38

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mosaic Columns

Graph 39

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mosaic Columns

Graph 40

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Diomede

Graph 41

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Diomede

Graph 42

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (A)

Graph 43

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (A)

Graph 44

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (B)

Graph 45

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (B)

Graph 46

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus

Graph 47

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Siminius Stephanus

Graph 48

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Imperiale

Graph 49

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Imperiale

Graph 50

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Fabius Rufus

Graph 51

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Fabius Rufus

Graph 52

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in House VI-17-42

Graph 53

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in House VI-1742

Graph 54

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Umbricius Sciaurus

Graph 55

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Umbricius Sciaurus

Graph 56

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Faun

Graph 57

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Faun

Graph 58

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Praedia of Julia Felix

vi

Graph 59

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Praedia of Julia Felix

Graph 60

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Octavius Quartio

Graph 61

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Octavius Quartio

Graph 62

Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas and Townhouses Close to Pompeii

Graph 63

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Lucius Caecilius Iucundus

Graph 64

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Caecilius Iucundus

Graph 65

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Popidius Florus

Graph 66

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Popidius Florus

Graph 67

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Boscoreale

Graph 68

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Boscoreale

Graph 69

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Fannius Synistor

Graph 70

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Fannius Synistor

Graph 71

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis

Graph 72

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis

Graph 73

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus

Graph 74

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus

Graph 75

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus

Graph 76

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus

Graph 77

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 30 at Boscoreale

Graph 78

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 30 at Boscoreale

Graph 79

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 31 at Boscoreale

Graph 80

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 31 at Boscoreale

Graph 81

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 32 at Boscoreale

Graph 82

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 32 at Boscoreale

Graph 83

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Pompeii

Graph 84

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Pompeii

Graph 85

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Arellius Successus

Graph 86

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Arellius Successus

Graph 87

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Regina at Boscoreale

vii

Graph 88

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Regina at Boscoreale

Graph 89

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Scafati

Graph 90

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Scafati

Graph 91

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Asellius

Graph 92

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Asellius

Graph 93

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 38 at Boscoreale

Graph 94

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 38 at Boscoreale

Graph 95

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 39 at Boscoreale

Graph 96

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 39 at Boscoreale

Graph 97

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Domitius Auctus

Graph 98

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Domitius Auctus

Graph 99

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crapolla

Graph 100

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crapolla

Graph 101

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crassius Tertius

Graph 102

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crassius Tertius

Graph 103

Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas in the Outer Suburbs of Pompeii

Graph 104

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Papyri

Graph 105

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Papyri

Graph 106

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Sora

Graph 107

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Sora

Graph 108

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Aristide

Graph 109

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Aristide

Graph 110

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Argo

Graph 111

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Argo

Graph 112

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Albergo

Graph 113

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Albergo

Graph 114

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Mosaic Atrium

Graph 115

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Mosaic Atrium

Graph 116

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Stags

Graph 117

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Stags viii

Graph 118

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Gem

Graph 119

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Gem

Graph 120

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Relief of Telphus

Graph 121

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Relief of Telphus

Graph 122

Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Structures at Herculaneum

Graph 123

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa San Marco

Graph 124

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa San Marco

Graph 125

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Arianna

Graph 126

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Arianna

Graph 127

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Pastore

Graph 128

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Pastore

Graph 129

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Filosofo

Graph 130

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Filosofo

Graph 131

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Anteros and Heracleo

Graph 132

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Anteros and Heracleo

Graph 133

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Petraro

Graph 134

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Petraro

Graph 135

Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Carmiano

Graph 136

Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Carmiano

Graph 137

Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas at Stabiae

ix

LIST OF MAPS Map 1

Map of the Roman suburbium (after Talbert 2000)

Map 2

Map of the Region Beyond the Porta Ercolano at Pompeii

Map 3

Map of the Pompeian Suburbium

Map 4

Map showing Herculaneum and the Villa of the Papyri

Map 5

Map showing the placement of Villas in the suburbium of Herculaneum

Map 6

Map showing the Townhouses on the Southern Frontage of Herculaneum

Map 7

Map showing the urban features of Stabiae

Map 8

Map showing the Villas on the Varano Ridge at Stabiae

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1

Relief discovered at Avezzano illustrating the Roman suburbium (after Purcell

1996) Figure 2

Plan of the Villa at Dragoncello (after Pellegrino 1983)

Figure 3

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Dragoncello

Figure 4

Plan of the Villa of Perseus (after Scinari and Ricardi 1996)

Figure 5

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Perseus

Figure 6

Plan of the Villa in Regio IV at Ostia (after Heinzelmann 1998)

Figure 7

Syntactical Map for the Villa in Regio IV at Ostia

Figure 8

Plan of the House of the Griffins (after De Albentiis 1990)

Figure 9

Plan of the Domus of C. Fulvius Plautianus (after Steinby 1995)

Figure 10

Plan of the House of Augustus (after Lanciani 1967)

Figure 11

Syntactical Map for the House of Augustus

Figure 12

Plan of the Domus Tiberiana (after Platner 1911)

Figure 13

Diagram showing the Elevation of the Domus Tiberiana

Figure 14

Syntactical Map for the Domus Tiberiana

Figure 15

Plan of the Domus Gaiana (after Hurst 1995)

Figure 16

Plan of the Domus Transitoria (after Hemsoll 1990)

Figure 17

Plan of the Domus Aurea (after Ward-Perkins 1956)

Figure 18

Plan of the Oppian Wing of the Domus Aurea (after Richardson 1992)

Figure 19

Plan of the Domus Flavia (after Lanciani 1967)

Figure 20

Syntactical Map for the Domus Flavia

Figure 21

Plan of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta (after Klynne 2005a)

Figure 22

The Statue of Augustus from Prima Porta

Figure 23

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta

Figure 24

Plan of the Villa of Domitian at Castel Albano (after Darwall-Smith 1994) x

Figure 25

Plan of the Theatre at the Villa of Domitian (after Crescenzi 1981)

Figure 26

Plan of the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli (after MacDonald and Pinto)

Figure 27

Extra-urban Garden Excavation (after Bird et al. 1993)

Figure 28

Plan of the Villa of Horace at Licenza (after Frischer 2006)

Figure 29

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Horace

Figure 30

Plan of the Villa of Pliny at Palombara (after Ramieri 1995)

Figure 31

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Pliny at Palombara

Figure 32

Plan of the Villa dell’Auditorium (after Carandini et al. 1997)

Figure 33

Syntactical Map for the Villa dell’Auditorium

Figure 34

Plan of the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini (after Boatwright 1982)

Figure 35

Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini

Figure 36

Plan of the San Rocco Villa

Figure 37

Syntactical Map for the San Rocco Villa

Figure 38

Plan of the Posto Villa

Figure 39

Syntactical Map for the Posto Villa

Figure 40

Plan of the Villa Fontana del Piscaro (after Egidi 1981)

Figure 41

Syntactical Map for the Villa Fontana del Piscaro

Figure 42

Plan of the Villa A on the Via Gabina (after Widrig 1987)

Figure 43

Syntactical Map for Villa A on the Via Gabina

Figure 44

Plan of the Villa B on the Via Gabina – Phase 2B/C (after Widrig 1987)

Figure 45

Syntactical Map for Villa B on the Via Gabina

Figure 46

Plan of the Villa of the Quintili (after Paris 2000)

Figure 47

Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Quintili

Figure 48

Villa of Cicero (after Jashemski, 1979)

Figure 49

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Cicero

Figure 50

Villa of Mosaic Columns (after Jashemski, 1979)

Figure 51

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Mosaic Columns

Figure 52

Villa of Diomede (after Jashemski, 1979)

Figure 53

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Diomede

Figure 54

Villa of the Mysteries (Early Phase) (after Richardson, 1988a)

Figure 55

Villa of the Mysteries (Final Phase) (after Richardson, 1988a)

Figure 56

Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Mysteries (Early Phase)

Figure 57

Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Mysteries (Final Phase)

Figure 58

Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus (after Sogliano, 1899b)

Figure 59

Syntactical Map for the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus

Figure 60

Villa Imperiale (after Jashemski, 1979)

Figure 61

Syntactical Map for the Villa Imperiale

Figure 62

Insula Occidentalis (after Nappo, 1998)

Figure 63

Syntactical Map for the House of Fabius Rufus

Figure 64

Syntactical Map for House VI-17-42

xi

Figure 65

Syntactical Map for the House of Umbricius Sciaurus

Figure 66

House of the Faun (after Mau, 1908)

Figure 67

Syntactical Map for the House of the Faun

Figure 68

Praedia of Julia Felix (after Van der Poel, 1986)

Figure 69

Syntactical Map for the Praedia of Julia Felix

Figure 70

House of Octavius Quartio (after Van der Poel, 1986)

Figure 71

Syntactical Map for the House of Octavius Quartio

Figure 72

Villa of Iucundus at Pisanella (after Mau, 1908)

Figure 73

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Iucundus at Pisanella

Figure 74

Villa of Popidius Florus (after Della Corte, 1921)

Figure 75

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Popidius Florus

Figure 76

Villa at Boscoreale (after Della Corte, 1921)

Figure 77

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (25)

Figure 78

Villa of Fannius Synistor (after Richardson, 1988a)

Figure 79

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Fannius Synistor

Figure 80

Villa of Poppaea (after Richardson, 1988a)

Figure 81

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Poppaea

Figure 82

Villa of Agrippa Postumus (after Blanckenhagen, 1990)

Figure 83

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Agrippa Postumus

Figure 84

Villa of M. Livius Marcellus (after Della Corte, 1929)

Figure 85

Syntactical Map for the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus

Figure 86

Villa at Boscoreale (30) (after Della Corte, 1921)

Figure 87

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (30)

Figure 88

Villa at Boscoreale (31) (after Della Corte, 1921)

Figure 89

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (31)

Figure 90

Villa at Boscoreale (32) (after Della Corte, 1921)

Figure 91

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (32)

Figure 92

Villa outside Pompeii (after Paribeni, 1903)

Figure 93

Syntactical Map for the Villa outside Pompeii

Figure 94

Villa of L. Aurelius Successus (after Sogliano, 1899)

Figure 95

Syntactical Map for the Villa of L. Aurelius Successus

Figure 96

Villa Regina at Boscoreale (after Jasemski, 1979)

Figure 97

Syntactical Map for the Villa Regina at Boscoreale

Figure 98

Villa at Scafati (after Della Corte, 1923a)

Figure 99

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Scafati

Figure 100

Villa of Asellius (after Della Corte, 1921)

Figure 101

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Asellius

Figure 102

Villa at Boscoreale (38) (after Sogliano, 1897b)

Figure 103

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (38)

Figure 104

Villa at Boscoreale (39) (after Sogliano, 1898a)

xii

Figure 105

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (39)

Figure 106

Villa of Domitius Auctus (after Sogliano, 1899d)

Figure 107

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Domitius Auctus

Figure 108

Villa of Crapolla at Scafati (after Della Corte, 1923)

Figure 109

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Crapolla

Figure 110

Villa of L. Crassius Tertius (after Morelli, 2000)

Figure 111

Syntactical Map for the Villa of L. Crassius Tertius

Figure 112

Villa of the Papyri (after Parslow, 1978)

Figure 113

Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Papyri

Figure 114

Villa Sora (after Pagano, 1990)

Figure 115

Syntactical Map for the Villa Sora

Figure 116

House of Aristide (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 117

Syntactical Map for the House of Aristide

Figure 118

House of Argo (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 119

Syntactical Map for the House of Argo

Figure 120

House of the Albergo (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 121

Syntactical Map for the House of the Albergo

Figure 122

House of the Mosaic Atrium (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 123

Syntactical Map for the House of the Mosaic Atrium

Figure 124

House of the Stags (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 125

Syntactical Map for the House of the Stags

Figure 126

House of the Gem (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 127

Syntactical Map for the House of the Gem

Figure 128

House of the Relief of Telphus (after Maiuri, 1958)

Figure 129

Syntactical Map for the House of the Relief of Telphus

Figure 130

Villa San Marco (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 131

Syntactical Map for the Villa San Marco

Figure 132

Villa Arianna (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 133

Syntactical Map for the Villa Arianna

Figure 134

Villa Pastore (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 135

Syntactical Map for the Villa Pastore

Figure 136

Villa Filosofo (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 137

Syntactical Map for the Villa Filosofo

Figure 138

Villa of Anteros and Hercules (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 139

Syntactical Map for the Villa of Anteros and Hercules

Figure 140

Villa Petraro (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 141

Syntactical Map for the Villa Petraro

Figure 142

Villa at Carmiano (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

Figure 143

Syntactical Map for the Villa at Carmiano

xiii

MAPS Map 1 Map of the Roman suburbium (after Talbert 2000)

xiv

Map 2 Map of the Region Beyond the Porta Ercolano at Pompeii

Map 3 Map of the Pompeian Suburbium

xv

Map 4 Map showing Herculaneum and the Villa of the Papyri

Map 5 Map showing the placement of Villas in the suburbium of Herculaneum

xvi

Map 6 Map showing the Townhouses on the Southern Frontage of Herculaneum

Map 7 Map showing the urban features of Stabiae

xvii

Map 8 Map showing the Villas on the Varano Ridge at Stabiae

xviii

Introduction other regions in Italy in order to have a broader analysis, but there are several reasons for the choice of these sites in particular. Firstly, the wealth of archaeological and literary evidence that is centred upon this region is highly significant. It allows for detailed analysis of particular suburban villas in this region where the amount of available archaeological remains are greater than in other areas. The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79, which covered a wide area, including Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae, has provided a unique location for analysing the architecture, decoration and lifestyles of Roman residences. Secondly, this region was of great social importance to the political leaders of Rome, allowing an understanding of the domestic residences of many of the highest political leaders during the period. The literary evidence has shown that the regions around Rome and the Bay of Naples had many villas that were owned by the leading Roman citizens, and by examining these structures we may gain a greater understanding of their lifestyles and the social climate within the upper echelons of the community.

The fascination with the culture and society of the Roman Empire has been very popular for many years and the field of study is increasing markedly as new methods of research and analysis in this field of study progress. One of the leading fields of study that has progressed greatly over the past fifty years is the understanding of the Roman domestic environment. One of the areas within this field that has caused a large amount of research is the examination of the lifestyle and residential properties of the Roman nobility. The Roman villa has been a prime subject area in this regard. But there have been limitations to the analysis of some of these villas so far. In particular one type of Roman villa: the suburban villa (villa suburbana). It is the intention of this study to examine both the literary and archaeological evidence in regard to this type of residence in order to understand them better. There are several aspects to be discussed throughout this investigation, but the central focus shall be upon the purpose of these suburban villas and the function they symbolised within Roman society. This, it is believed, will reveal that these buildings served a unique role within the community, portraying an appearance of leisure and culture to the wider community and yet maintaining an intimate connection with the city centre. The advantages of living in the suburban zone is highlighted in the relief from Avezzano (Fig. 1), which illustrates both the connection to the city as well as the greater freedom that existed to create a personal ‘paradise’. There were of course other types of villa erected by the Roman élite in various parts of Europe, from roughly the Second Century BC until as late as the Fourth and Fifth Centuries AD. These were the coastal (villa maritima) and agricultural villas. It is the hypothesis of this study that these villas were designed and built for different purposes. For if we are to understand the way in which Roman society functioned, being guided by the financial, political and public leaders and their motives, we will reach a better understanding of the community as a whole. Naturally, it is impossible to understand any building outside of its social and geographical context (Parslow 1999, 340), which is a fundamental feature of this examination.

Finally, by focusing upon this region, it limits the difficulties with cultural assimilation and Romanisation, which is often prevalent in more distant regions of the Roman Empire. The period that is to be studied extends from the middle of the Second Century BC, with the origins of the construction of villas until the middle or late Second Century AD. This period has been chosen because of the large numbers of suburban villas constructed during this time. It was also a dynamic period for Roman society, with the change from the Roman republic with the introduction of the Principate and the further social, economic and political changes which occurred in the Second Century AD. The suburban villas will also be compared to the local townhouses in their respective locations. Being frequently located so close to the urban centres, but often outside the walls, the comparison between these structures is essential. One of the most important aspects that will be compared are the plans of the structures. The differences between the two are quite obvious. The suburban villas were not as limited with their use of space, allowing for a building with an open demeanour. The townhouses, however, were constrained by other local buildings and the intricate network of roads within the city precincts, which made the focus of their design more insular. Even with some of the largest houses, such as the House of the Faun in Pompeii, which covered an extremely large amount of space within the city, the plan is still quite introspective in its design. The concept in the planning of

For the purpose of this study the region of central Italy has been chosen for a manageable and relevant study area within the Roman social and political climate. This will focus particularly upon two regions; the political capital at Rome and the vicinity around the Bay of Naples, namely the centres of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae. There will be a limited amount of evidence used from

1

agricultural villas maintained a prime focus upon production, not sacrificing the leisurely aspects of rural living necessarily, but financial gain seems to have been the essential purpose for the property. Suburban villas, in many ways, appear to have been a combination of the two. Several examples have archaeological evidence for the manufacture of wine and oil for commercial purposes, but not to the same scale as those in the regional areas. Leisure and luxury were still two of the prime factors for the construction of suburban villas, but this did not preclude a suburban residence from a degree of productive capacity.

many of the largest townhouses was to create a private sanctuary towards the rear of the building by constructing large peristyles and ornate gardens. This was a fundamental difference in the purpose and layout of townhouses and the suburban villas in question. The additional space and the open planning allowed a much more sweeping perspective from suburban villas in comparison to their urban counterparts. The size of these establishments and the social standing of the inhabitants will be another consideration when discussing this aspect of the different residences. A comparison will also be made with other villa sites in these regions, in order to determine the differences between suburban estates and the simple farmsteads, which were so prevalent throughout the Italian countryside.

General Intentions There will be several methods used within this study to attempt to obtain the fullest perspective possible on the significance and development of suburban villas and for the lifestyle of its residents. Each of the different urban centres and the associated suburban villas will be discussed in turn, in order to obtain the clearest representation for the social climate over the period under investigation. It is hoped that by examining each of these separately, the danger of generalisation shall be avoided when making the overall analysis. This is also useful because of the dating of different sites and urban centres. Owing to the archaeological remains at Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae this will not be a problem, but it is a factor to consider when examining the suburban villas around Rome, which cover a greater time period and as well as the larger geographical space.

The hypothesis of this study is that the suburban villas performed a unique role within Roman society. They were domestic residences that were intended to attain the ultimate lifestyle and make use of their position to the fullest extent. One of the most compelling features of suburban villas, in fact often with the majority of villas, was the view. It was a common characteristic for the plan of the building to be orientated towards the best views of the local landscape. It was for this reason that the Bay of Naples region was one of the most popular with the Roman aristocracy. Terraces, sitting rooms and colonnades were frequently constructed for the view over the bay, which added to the idealised leisurely and cultured lifestyle that was commonly the purpose for such villas. However, at many of these complexes there were still elements of agricultural productivity. Judging from some of the sites that will be discussed, agricultural production was quite important at many villae suburbanae, but this was not always the case. It is clear that suburban villas cannot be overly generalised, with different structures having a range of emphasis between luxury and productivity. It is hoped that the balance of these elements will be determined in order to classify the general characteristics of the villae suburbanae.

References in the literary sources to villae suburbanae are quite rare, but there are many allusions towards suburban properties without the expressed classification of there being a villa present. Nevertheless, these references usually make the presence of a villa understood, which is a generally accepted principal within modern scholarship. But the classification of what was deemed to be suburban has also not been fully discussed. Therefore, at the outset this must be the prime focus of the study. All of the primary source references towards suburban properties and where they were located will be discussed in order to arrive at a clear definition. This classification will be of great importance because it is by making this characterisation of what a suburban property was within the Roman consciousness that each site may be able to be considered suburban. In other words, it is the intention of this study to use these villas as a method of understanding the Roman perception of, and use of, suburban space.

But the outward view was not a unique feature for the suburban villa, being commonplace at the coastal villas as well. However, it appears that it was even more essential at suburban residences. Despite the geographical connection between many suburban villas and their associated urban centres, it was commonly the view away from the city which made the suburban villa distinct. The leading residents of these buildings would have had easy access to the centre of town, but while they were at their suburban villas they could escape from the restricted and often oppressive, unhealthy lifestyle in the city. But conversely, they were still not completely isolated from the political, economic and social aspects of everyday life in the urban centre, which was so essential to the Roman élite with their elevated position within the community. It was this factor which distinguished suburban villas from both the coastal and agricultural villas. The coastal villas appear to have been built purely as a place to escape the hectic lifestyle of Roman society. Many Italian

Following from making a clear definition of the terminology to be used, there will be a discussion of the classical literary sources. The primary focus of this analysis will be to gain a clear representation of the ancient assessment of leisure, agricultural production and social activity at suburban villas. There will also be sources used in reference to the coastal and agricultural villas so that a differentiation may be assessed between these structures and the urban residences. By analysing

2

villas will also be discussed. Some of the larger and wealthier townhouses will also be considered in order to determine the distinction between these structures.

these texts it may be possible to ascertain the function that these distinctive buildings served, especially in comparison to townhouses and agricultural buildings. The reliability of the relevant literary sources shall be considered in their historical context to assess the progression of social and architectural fashion and function over time. There are several literary sources that are able to be used for this analysis. Writers such as Cato, Varro, Columella commented upon the correct nature and function of an agricultural villa, but their information is frequently of relevance to suburban villas as well, in relation to such features as position and orientation. Other authors such as Horace, Pliny the Younger, Statius and Martial are also of importance for their description of suburban villas within a different literary context, being of an artistic nature. Each of these sources with their differing opinions and purposes illustrate an image of suburban villas which is necessary for any discussion of the subject matter.

The townhouses to be examined were in many ways on a comparable level with many suburban villas in regard to their facilities and decoration, which is why it is imperative to review them. Some examples of these from Pompeii are the House of the Faun, the Praedia of Julia Felix, and the House of Octavius Quarto. In Herculaneum, the House of the Mosaic Atrium and the House of the Stags will be examined, whereas in Rome there will be some analysis of the Imperial palaces that were built there. Examples of these are the Domus Aurea and the Domus Flavia. There are going to be some further points of consideration when examining the Imperial Palaces because of the vastly differing social status of its residents and the enormous amounts of wealth at their disposal. Some of the Imperial villas will also be considered as a further comparison, such as the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta and the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli.

In view of the numerous literary references to sites around the capital, the next chapter will focus upon some urban and suburban residences at Rome. In view of this city being the definitive urbs, these sites are of great importance. This will entail a general discussion of Roman housing, followed by an overview of the urban Imperial palaces, the Imperial suburban estates and other villae suburbanae around the capital. Only a select number of sites, with a different array of characteristics, will be considered so as to create a good overview of the divergent nature of many suburban villas in the region. The majority of the archaeological information for each site at the various centres discussed will be listed in Appendix A in order to concentrate upon the discussion of each site.

Owing to the vast corpus of material and examination of this area, these suburban villas within the vicinity of Pompeii are of great importance. By the large number of villas in this region it is of vast importance for our understanding of suburban villas. The Pompeian suburban villas allow an invaluable insight into the development of domestic buildings from the late Republic into the early Imperial periods. Pompeii, as will be discussed below, has shown the variation between many of these houses and villas, which is highly valuable for a comprehensive understanding of suburban villas and their residents. This variation can be explained by the different social conditions at different times in the city’s development, the different origins and social standing of the owners and also by the positioning of each residence.

Having discussed the literary sources concerned with suburban villas and the selected sites around Rome, the examination will focus upon the villas in the vicinity of Pompeii. The Bay of Naples region, including Pompeii, was one of the most popular regions for the wealthy Roman villa-owners in the late Republic and early Empire, which has been previously examined in detail, such as by D’Arms (1970). The earliest known Roman villa in this region was owned by P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major in 184 BC on the Campanian coast at Liternum (Livy, 38.52.1; D’Arms 1970, 1). Many villas were built in this region along the coast, and also inland, by wealthy Roman land owners for centuries to come, continuing into the late Roman period and beyond. The character, purpose, function and facilities at these various villa buildings varied over time and also depended upon the intentions of the owner. It is possible to view all of the different types of villa in this region, namely the suburban, coastal and agricultural villas. But for the purpose of this chapter the Pompeian suburban villas will be the prime focus. Nevertheless, one of the most important factors within this study is to determine the distinguishing features that made the suburban villas unique, and hence some of the coastal and agricultural

The divergent types of suburban villas around Pompeii are of great importance because it is by recognising their similarities and differences that these buildings may be understood. The dating for this region is also of great assistance. The eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79 has provided an unusual and indispensable source of information for the archaeologist, providing a dependable dating period, which can be difficult in other regions, where the development of each structure is not as clear. It is hoped that by examining the Pompeian suburban villas and then, in turn the other major regional cities around the Bay of Naples, that a clear and coherent pattern may be deduced which could be used in order to understand suburban residences better. The two ensuing chapters will deal with the archaeological record discovered in and around both Herculaneum and Stabiae. The method of analysis will be exactly the same as that used for examining the suburban villas around Pompeii. The Villa of the Papyri discovered near Herculaneum and the Villas of Arianna and San Marco at Stabiae illustrates the great relevance of these

3

were suburban villas, which may highlight the differences between the two styles of property. There have also been regional studies done on Italian housing, particularly around the Bay of Naples. Owing to the vast amount of archaeological material still extant in this region the focus on this area is understandable, but the need to examine the known villas around Rome is also essential for a complete examination of suburban villas, in view of Rome’s social and political importance. The most notable studies on these suburban villas in the Campanian region are by D’Arms, Wallace-Hadrill and Clarke. Romans on the Bay of Naples (1970) by John D’Arms does focus upon villas in the Bay of Naples and has compiled an impressive corpus of reference material and discussion on these villas, but he has not studied suburban villas specifically, and has not attempted to define the term. According to D’Arms (1970, 49), suburban villas were only used for short visits, which generalises the divergent use of this particular type of residence. His focus upon villas in this region is also a limitation in kind, almost completely disregarding those suburban villas around Rome. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (1994) has produced a thorough social study of the houses from Pompeii and Herculaneum, but the suburban villas are grouped with the townhouses instead of examining them as a distinct type of residence. These buildings should naturally be studied within a broader social context, but their differences to townhouses cannot be ignored. The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250 by John Clarke (1991) examines two Campanian suburban villas in great detail, namely the Villa of the Mysteries and the Villa of Poppea at Oplontis, but the focus is primarily upon the development of decorative styles rather than analysing the type of residences.

centres to this examination. The terraced houses near the coast in Herculaneum will also be considered in order to clearly identify their social significance. It has been deemed best for all of these regional centres to be evaluated separately in order that conclusions for each urban environment can be considered within their social, political and historical context, and then the sites in these regions will then be discussed in relation to each other. The analysis and methods to be used within this study are going to be varied in a couple of ways. Firstly, it is hoped that enough data will be able to be compiled that a good statistical analysis shall be performed. In order to do this, at least forty suburban villa sites will be discussed. This statistical approach will examine the finds and layout of each site, their distance from their respective urban centres, the levels of wealth displayed in the architecture and decoration of the building. Hopefully, this may allow for some further insight into who actually resided in these structures and their social standing (Allison 1992, 248). Prior Research The study of Champlin (1982), has thoroughly focused upon the literary terminology for the suburbs of Rome, but it has not applied this investigation to the archaeological sites around Rome or further afield. Purcell has also written several important articles upon the use and features of the suburbs around Rome (1985; 1987; 1994; 1995; 1996; 2001), but again the focus has been predominantly upon the literary evidence. Percival (1976), however, saw suburban villas as only being distinguishable from townhouses by being on the outskirts of town rather than at its centre. This perspective is also incorrect because it is neglecting the prominent differences in plan, function and lifestyle at both types of residence. The majority of known suburban villas follow the precept outlined by Vitruvius for country-houses. According to Vitruvius (6.5.3), these buildings should be designed with the peristyle following from the entrance rather than the atrium. As already mentioned the definition of a suburban villa, as being strictly rural is fraught with difficulties, as is its definition as being truly urban. But the majority of suburban villas follow a floor plan, which is closer to that of its agricultural counterparts. There are of course exceptions to this rule and yet it is impossible to class these buildings with the townhouses. Both views have their merits, in regard to aspects of suburban villas, but neither have provided a clear definition of the term. Brion (1973, 159) has referred to suburban villas as having the advantage of being close enough to the city so as to be intimately connected with it, while enjoying the privacy and comfort of a rural lifestyle. This reference to suburban villas has its merits, but it falls short of being an accurate description of this type of structure.

There are also many studies that examine several suburban villas individually, but there has been no previous attempt to analyse this group as a whole. These works include the valuable archaeological reports by Amedeo Maiuri, such as La Villa dei Misteri (1948) and La casa di Loreio Tiburtino e la villa di Diomede in Pompei (1947). Both of these reports provide detailed information about two of the most important suburban villas within this study. The writings of Maiuri are going to be of vast importance to this study. His proficient archaeological method and style of describing the material found is also of great importance, especially when compared to the techniques used in some of the previous excavations and their reports. One of the most important sources of information for this study are the yearly archaeological progress reports which appear in Rivista di Studi Pompeiani for the Bay of Naples region and the Journal of Roman Archaeology for the other regions. Despite frequently being quite brief, these reports should be able to bring this study up to date so that the most accurate analysis may be achieved. In this regard, another important source will be the web-sites for the local archaeological institutions in the region, such

J.T Smith (1997) has also written a corpus of many villa floor plans, with an analysis of the household social structure. It is of interest to note that, despite the large number of villas discussed, none of the villas examined

4

as the regular updates by the Soprintendenza Archaeologia di Pompei. The use of such sites will naturally be of a prudent nature, but in order to keep up to date with the latest research this is sometimes the only avenue available. There are also other academic works that shall also be of great importance to this study, but they do not focus upon the topic under discussion directly. One of the most important is Pompeii: public and private life by Zanker (1998). This book focuses upon the urban lifestyle and many of the progressions in architecture and decorative fashions during the development of the city until AD 79. A great deal of the concentration is upon urban structures, but Zanker has also argued that the architecture of the luxurious Roman villa also influenced the construction of the town houses. This book has provided some useful information concerning the development of architectural fashions in Pompeii, but it has also completely ignored many of the most important suburban villas in the region of Pompeii, thus limiting its scope. Another important book is Roman Pompeii: space and society (1994) by Ray Laurence. This book has also focused upon the urban environment in Pompeii, assessing many of the archaeological remains in order to gain some understanding of the public life in ancient Pompeii. Again, this analysis is of great importance to this study because of its valuable insights into the social and political climate in Pompeii, but it also disregards the suburban villas in and around Pompeii, which places restrictions upon its usefulness. It appears that many of the modern scholars doing research at this important site have decided to pay no attention to what lay beyond the walls, probably because it further complicates the possibilities for analysis.

5

Chapter I Definitions, Theories and Methodologies Prior to the analysis of the archaeological material undertaken in the remainder of the study there are a few vital aspects that must be clearly defined. Firstly, the term villa suburbana must be clearly defined in order to establish exactly what type of residence this actually was. Life in the suburbs would have been of a varied and complex nature, but these complexes provide the most reliable archaeological identification. In addition, these residences were in themselves varied. Hence the importance in defining what they were. Secondly, this chapter aims to outline the theoretical underpinning of this study. The way in which ancient complexes are analysed is as varied as the residences themselves: the foci of each analysis are often entirely different which result from the priorities of each respective author. This is not to say that any are entirely wrong – it is personal preference. Therefore, the theoretical basis must be defined in order to establish the aims/views of the present work. I have taken inspiration from two scholars in particular: Henri Lefebvre and Ray Laurence. Both are recognised as being significant figures in the process of analysing space, but they approach their topics with different intents – as does the present work. These authors are discussed further below. Finally, there is the topic of spatial modelling, which is also outlined in the present chapter. The Hillier and Hanson (1984) method has been applied to the villas under question, which has also been used by Grahame (2000), but upon both a different selection of structures and within more of an urban context. This uses a mathematical approach for constructing an outline for distinguishing between public and private space, which is vital for constructing a view of how each space was used – especially when used within the theoretical model of Lefebvre and Laurence.

The Term: Suburbana There are several classical writers who referred to suburban villas, but few of the extant sources have used the term villa suburbana. Despite it not having been frequently used by the ancient writers, it does not mean that they did not exist; the archaeological record is testament to that. It has been illustrated that the term suburbium is quite rare, and it was in many ways more of a subjective perception rather than a definite topographical area (Percival 1987a, 26). With most references to suburban properties or estates, the term villa is frequently discarded in preference for terms such as suburbana or domum. The use of other terms is also shown in the De Divinatione (1.5.8) where the villa is implied by Cicero stating that he and Quintus were in Tusculano. At other times, the term villa is used but not in connection with suburbana, but the context of the reference makes the suburban nature of the property understood. The absence of this particular term in the literature has led to some confusion and difference of opinion when a definition of suburban villas has been attempted. But the literary sources are of great use for a definition when the corpus of references is collectively examined. There are several references in the ancient sources to the term suburbana, covering a broad range of literary genres and periods. Unfortunately, the concept of what is ‘suburban’ and what isn’t ‘suburban’ is quite subjective, depending upon the viewpoint of each author, but it is hoped that if a broad range of literary contexts and authors are consulted there may be an answer to the question. Many of these allusions refer to the suburbs of Rome, which may be a good starting point at this time to try and discover what area was deemed to be suburban during the late Republic and early Empire.

So, before any discussion of the purpose and function of the villa suburbana within Roman society in Central Italy, it is necessary to examine the term itself and its meaning. There are several literary sources that are able to be used for the analysis of suburban villas, but none of them provide a definitive classification of suburban villas on their own. Of the authors who refer to villa estates, the emphasis is usually limited to their particular focus. A good example of this is the discussion of the practical architectural design and construction of a suburban villa, particularly by Vitruvius. Other writers such as Cicero, Pliny the Younger and Statius are also of importance for their description of suburban villas but each focuses upon different aspects of these buildings and their estates. But firstly, the definition of the term villa suburbana must be clarified to allow a clear examination of the archaeological material under discussion.

Cicero mentions the popularity and pleasurable lifestyle attainable at suburban properties (Actio in Verrem, 2.2.3.7): et quoniam quasi quaedam praedia populi Romani sunt vectigalia nostra atque provinciae, quem ad modum vos propinquis vestris praediis maxime delectmini, sic populo Romano iucunda suburbanitas est huiusce provinciae (“Our tributes and our provinces constitute, in a sense, our nation’s landed estates; and thus, just as you, gentlemen, gain most pleasure from such of your estates as are close to Rome, so to the nation there is something pleasant in the nearness of this province (Sicily) to the capital.”). In the Eunuchus (971ff) by Terence, the contrast between the urban and rustic population is contrasted. He exhibits the benefits of having a villa near town, in order to enjoy the advantages of both if the character, Laches, is bored. This not only illustrates the value and utility of a suburban villa, but also the clear distinction that was held between urban

6

This refers to the province of Gaul as a suburb of Rome. The use of the term in this instance is naturally to exhibit Tiberius’ contempt for such a suggestion, but it also highlights how flexible the term was and its subjectivity. Pliny the Younger also uses suburbana in this context (Ep., 8.24.9), which further illustrates its subjectivity and flexibility.

culture and rustic leisure. As an estate owner, the paterfamilias was expected to represent a combination of the two aspects (Saller 1999, 190-1), which should have been achievable at villae suburbanae. The subjective nature of the term is also another important consideration. It was used in relation to the province of Sicily, which naturally cannot be deemed to have been a suburb of Rome, but instead it is meant to suggest that the province was simply close to Rome. Cicero uses this term at two points in the Actio in Verrem (2.3.26.66): populi Romani imperium, praetoriae leges, iudicia in socios fideles, provincia suburban (“Is this the government of Rome? Is this the law that a Roman governor administers? Are these the law-courts that try our loyal allies? Is this Sicily, our nearest (suburban) province?”); (2.5.60.157) ad eamne rem fuit haec suburbana ac fidelis Sicilia, plena optimorum sociorum honestissimorumque civium (“To what end has Sicily our neighbour (suburb) and loyal dependency, the home of our faithful allies and our honoured countrymen.”). The importance of this when trying to understand the term suburbana, is that we cannot simply assume that a suburban property was just outside the city walls, but instead that it was a subjective appraisal and that the suburban villas were commonly located further out.

If the suburban villas were commonly located further out from the city precincts and frequently associated with agriculture, this creates a difficulty when trying to correctly classify some of the villas located extremely close to the city, which were commonly not associated with agriculture. It would seem more appropriate to classify these buildings as villa pseudourbana. In many ways these villas were similar in function to urban townhouses, differing only in the space available for the layout of the structures and the amount of privacy. Vitruvius (6.5.3) refers to this kind of villa as villa pseudourbana: earum autem rerum non solum erunt in urbe aedificiorum rationes, sed etiam ruri, praeterquam quod in urbe atria proxima ianuis solent esse, ruri ab pseudourbanis statim peristylia, deinde tunc atria habentia circum porticus pavimentatas spectantes ad palaestras et ambulationes (“Moreover, we shall take into account of these matters, not only when we build in town, but in the country; except that, in town, the halls adjoin the entrance, in the country the peristyles of the mansions built town-fashion (pseudourbanis) come first, then the atria surrounded by paved colonnades overlooking the palaestra and the promenades.”). The ambiguities in some of Vitruvius’ language have previously been highlighted (Scranton 1974, 495), which is particularly noticeable in relation to the term pseudourbana. It may have been that this concept represented the variation in many of the suburban residences themselves, but the application of this term must be used with caution.

The growth of Rome was complemented by a similar extension of what could be deemed to have been its suburban regions, which blurred the distinction between urban and rural areas in many ways (Homo 1971, 77). The concept of a walled city does draw a clear line between urban and suburban space (Quilici 1994, 411), but the practical distinction may not have been as severe (Purcell 1994, 649). There was no political difference between the urban and rural populations (Jones 1974, 40), which may have allowed for greater freedom in the choice of particular residences in the suburbs. There was a clear pattern of interdependence between the city and its territorium (Corbier 1991, 212), which reflects not only the practicalities of production and administration, but also the social dual tendencies of the élites.

His De Architectura is the most comprehensive extant literary work dealing with the architecture of domestic buildings in Book VI. Vitruvius is also important for the period in which he was writing. The De Architectura was written during the late Republic/early Imperial period (Baldwin 1990, 425-34), which was a period of great change in domestic architecture. It was at this time that the decoration of private houses was affected by the public circumstances, where the nobility expressed their self-image and success (Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 37). It is important to note that Vitruvius’ discussion of housing only focuses upon the very highest levels of status (6.4.12), which is understandable in view of his intended audience. The orientation of different rooms was another important element discussed by Vitruvius.

Cicero was not the only writer to use the term in this context, it also being used by Tacitus (Annals 3.47): solus Dolabella Cornelius, dum antire ceteros parat absurdam in adulationem progressus, censuit ut ovans e Campania urbem intrioret. Igitur secutae Caesaris litterae quibus se non tam vacuum gloria praedicabat ut post ferocissimas gentis perdomitas, tot receptos in iuventa aut spretos triumphos, iam senior peregrinationis suburbanae inane praemium petered (“Cornelius Dolabella alone, intent upon distancing his competitors, carried sycophancy to the absurd point of proposing that he should enter the city from Campania with an ovation. The sequel was a missive from the Caesar, who asserted, with a touch of pride, that “after subduing some of the fiercest of nations, and receiving or rejecting so many triumphs in his youth, he was not so bankrupt in fame as to court in his age a futile honour conferred for an excursion in the suburbs.”).

This passage indicates that the baths and winter diningrooms should face west, libraries, bedrooms, spring/autumn dining-rooms to the east and summer dining-rooms to the north (Noble Howe 1999, 260). However, when trying to establish any sociology of

7

overlooked the Bay at Puteoli (Silvae 2.2). He is even more descriptive about the villa building, referring to the situation, approach, the view of the bay and the art collections in the galleries. The best example is at the beginning of the poem (v. 1-3) : Est inter notos Sirenum nomine muros saxaque Tyrrhenae templis onerata Minervae celsa Dicarchei speculatrix villa profundi (“Between the walls that are known by the Sirens’ name and the cliff is burdened by the shrine of Etruscan Minerva a lofty villa stands and gazes out upon the Dicarchean deep.”). This passage not only highlights the peace and tranquillity at this villa, but also the view from the building is of great importance. The emphasis upon the view is continued by Statius (v. 72-5): quid mille revolvam culmina visendique vices? Sua cuique voluptas atque omni proprium thalamo mare, transque iacentem Nerea diversis servit sua terra fenestris (“Why should I recount the numberless summits and the changing views? Each chamber has its own delight, its own particular sea, and across the expanse of Nereus each window commands a different landscape.”). A view of the water was particularly desirable (Cason 1974, 140-1), which will be a prevalent feature of the suburban villas considered in Campania. Despite his references to the beauty of nature, Statius clearly infers man’s dominance over nature (Bek 1976, 161), which seems to have been an important aspect of the Roman mentality. This representation by Statius was more in keeping with the tradition of acknowledging and praising the patrons of the author, which was a common feature of the literature during the period (Sullivan 1991, 117). Despite the obvious slant of the author within this poem, it is still or great value to note the intentions of the owners and the lifestyles that they desired (Hardie 1983, 179).

Roman culture one must be careful not to over-interpret the architectural style (Kuttner 1993, 342). For this reason the recommendations of Vitruvius must be taken as a guide, but not as the absolute rule (Tamm 1971, 5360). Another good example of a reference to a villa suburbana was made by Martial. The author was probably referring to this type of estate close to the city precincts (4.64). This passage sheds a great deal of light upon not only the existence of pseudo-urban or suburban villas, but also the use of such properties by their owners. The contradiction in the definition of this type of estate is seemingly evident in lines 25-26, with the phrase hoc rus, seu potius domus vocanda est. Martial is stating that this villa complex can be viewed as either a country or urban residence, i.e. having elements of both styles of residences to form a unique type of property. Another central feature of this epigram is the emphasis upon a peaceful pleasant lifestyle rather than the productive importance of most rural agricultural villas, or even suburban villas. Martial had previously resided on the Quirinal, which gave him some dissatisfaction (Ep. 10.58), but it was also viewed as a suburban villa (Carrington 1960, 46-7). However, the Janiculan property, despite its difficulties in classification as either rus or domus (v. 25), clearly included a villa (v. 10), which would have been a villa suburbana. The View and its Importance The distinction between suburban and agricultural villas was, in many ways, a degree of emphasis on the function of the estate: luxury and comfort, or agriculture. In the case of suburban villas the connection with the city centre was clear. These villas were commonly located just outside of the precinct of the city proper. But the close position of a villa to an urban centre does not always determine its classification as a suburban villa. One of the most important features of villa suburbana was the view from the residence (Brion 1973, 161). Both Cicero (Epistulae ad Familiares, 3.1.2) and Pliny the Younger (Epistulae, 2.17) refer to the importance of the view from a residence, highlighting the prominent position it held when villas were constructed. A good example of this at Pompeii was the development of the Villa of the Mysteries. At this complex, the Second Style architecture and decorations were altered around c. 15 BC - AD 15 with Third Style and an increase in the view from the private side of the household (Clarke 1991, 140). A good example of this is shown through the addition of a viewing pavilion to the axis of the tablinum in a semicircular plan to increase the view of the Bay of Naples.

The Suburban Villa Therefore, after considering all of the different conceptions of suburban villas, it is possible to arrive at a clear definition. Suburban villas should be defined as a residence designed with the floor plan of a rural villa that has a clear connection with an urban centre, where the intended lifestyle of the residents is the prime motivation for its inception. The nature of this definition is intended to be flexible and open to the irregularities of applying such a definition to the archaeological record that is naturally going to vary between examples. Many of the suburban villas under discussion in this study will be wealthy and luxurious, but a financial qualification should not be applied because it may exempt buildings that are, for all intensive purposes, suburban villas. The definition of some villas located beyond the walls as villa suburbana results in the need for a specific and yet flexible set of parameters to classify particular sites as either villae suburbanae or agricultural villas.

Statius also emphasises one of the most important features of villa life: the view (Hardie 1983, 179). The desire for an impressive view was one of the most essential aspects of a luxurious villa, which is particularly evident with many of the known suburban villas. In this passage, titled Villa Surrentina Pollii Felicis, Statius describes the villa of his friends Pollius and Polla that

For the purposes of this study, judging from the literary references there have been several essential elements that comprise the classification of a site as a villa suburbana. Firstly, a suburban villa should be located relatively close to an urban centre and the distance from the city should

8

Evidence of agriculture, but not as the dominant feature of the building. The intention to appreciate the view or sea breezes.

be relative to the size of the urban centre. It is clear from the literary sources that suburban villas were located further from the city than has previously been acknowledged. A good example is when comparing the sites around Rome with those near Pompeii. Suburban villas near Rome could have been anywhere between twenty to thirty kilometres from the city, whereas a distance of roughly four to five kilometres seems more appropriate for Pompeian suburban villas. This would be in accordance with the population levels and the comparative levels of social and political importance of these cities.

Judging from the literary sources, these six elements should comprise the essence of suburban villas. Naturally, there are many residences throughout the Roman Empire that may correspond to some of these features, but it is the hope of this study that if all of these features are present, the villa should be classified as suburban. It is clear that having discussed the literary references that the desire to create an idyllic literary image of each residence and its environs may not reflect the reality of the site (Bek 1976, 164-5). In order for this to be deduced, this perception of villae suburbanae must be compared to the archaeological record, thereby applying this conception to what suburban villas were in reality.

Secondly, continual habitation at suburban villas was not a requirement, which has been suggested by the literary sources with important ramifications for this discussion. It appears that suburban villas were not only advantageous for the lifestyle that they offered, but they also seem to have been a good investment for the wealthy classes. The numerous references concerning the productivity of suburban residences also seems to have been an important consideration, with many of the owners trying to make their suburban villas financially viable as well as a pleasant residence. The possibility of leisure and privacy was a common and important feature. This desire to escape the expectations of Roman social and political life was a feature of many references to suburban villas. The benefit for the owners’ health was another feature, providing another advantage of this type of residence.

Theories: Spatial and Archaeological The theoretical modelling for the present study is of vital importance for three reasons. Firstly, it is essential to clarify exactly how each of these structures has been approached in order to have a clearly defined set of concepts and definitions that are being applied. Secondly, the use of spatial theories in particular is of great use to the archaeologist because of the clearer definitions that are obtainable when applying particular conceptual models to a variety of sites. This is best exemplified in the prior works of Grahame (2000), Laurence (1994) and Adams (2009). The aim in this is to minimise the amount of subjectivity that is inherent within any such type of collective analysis. Objectivity is the goal – even though it is unobtainable. Finally, the particular approaches under question have been utilised because of their recognised efficacy for analysing domestic structures both individually and also within their wider historical contexts. The two primary influences for the present work are the studies of Henri Lefebvre and of Ray Laurence.

One of the most significant aspects that is noticeable when examining the literary references on suburban villas is that there are no comments made about entertaining large groups of people at these villas. The majority of the references are concerned with agriculture, privacy, personal discussions or seclusion. There is only one mention of entertaining large groups of visitors by Ovid at Tibur (Fasti, 6.665-84), but the revellers were fluteplayers who had been exiled from the city. This has important ramifications for our understanding of suburban villas. If the majority of suburban villas were not used for entertaining large groups this should be reflected in the facilities of the known suburban villas under discussion around Rome and the Bay of Naples. Pliny the Younger mentions the consistent number of visitors he receives from other nearby villas while residing at his Laurentine villa, but there is no mention of having large numbers of guests to stay there.

Henri Lefebvre has produced two studies (1991; 1996) that have made a significant contribution to the theoretical modelling for this study. Lefebvre argued that it is possible to interpret or ‘read’ particular spaces in a structures, especially in relation to how ‘subjects’ or individuals behave within a particular space (1991, 17). This is principally important for the present study owing to the emphasis being upon social space within a domestic context. As Lefebvre argued: “social space is a social product” (1991, 26), so the interpretation of these areas within a domestic setting can illustrate the socialisation processes that existed within these suburban (and urban) residences in ancient central Italy.

Therefore, when examining the extant archaeological material the specific qualities that are necessary for a site to be classified as a villa suburbana are: Close access to the city, but not directly adjacent. Well appointed facilities. Sizeable domestic features. Entertaining rooms, but in ratio with the rest of the structure.

The primary emphasis used in this study is upon Lefebvre’s ‘Conceptual Triad of Space’, which discusses the differentiation between perceived, conceived and lived conceptions of space (1991, 38-40). The perceived conception, or as has been referred to as Spatial Practice by Lefebvre considers how each individual member

9

urbane and rustic are heightened, and yet the separation between town and country is reduced.

interacts with a particular social space and how the social cohesion required/intended for each space means that the perceived social function is guaranteed (1991, 33). The conceived conception of space, also called the Representations of Space by Lefebvre, focuses upon how respective individuals interact within these social spaces, indicating various levels of production, symbolism, knowledge and direct interaction (1991, 33). Finally, the lived conception of space, also called Representational Spaces by Lefebvre, considers the complexity of social symbolism that are either overt or clandestine, which can also be embodied within a physical/artistic/architectural manifestation for the respective social space (1991, 33).

This is clearly shown in the domestic structures under question in this study. The most pertinent example is the integration of urban, suburban and rural elements at Pompeii, where there are not only examples of urban agriculture, but also shopping precincts located beyond the confines of the city proper, such as at the Villa of Cicero, the Villa of the Mosaic Columns, and the Villa of Septimius Stephanus. Lefebvre accentuates the importance of the town and country relationship (1996, 72), where the urbanitas of a city is taken beyond the confines of the urban centre, which was epitomised by a lifestyle that was reflected by both physical objects and social values. This is exemplified by Lefebvre (1996, 78) where he discusses the complexities in the suburbanising process, which is indicative of how complex the urbansuburban interrelationship actually was even within a preindustrial city.

This theoretical model for the conception of space is of great use for the present study, despite the prevalence of Marxist interpretations throughout much of The Production of Space (1991). It is Lefebvre’s conception of space and its subsequent interpretation that is important for the present study. He not only recognises the heritage of spatial production all the way back to antiquity (1991, 47), but he acknowledges that this ‘code’ for analysing space went beyond this interpretation, and that it also provides a means of understanding and producing social space (1991, 47-8). Lefebvre’s recognition of spatial and functional fluidity is especially important: “…itself the outcome of past actions, social space is what permits fresh actions to occur, while suggesting others and prohibiting yet others” (1991, 73). This highlights how ‘space’ simultaneously creates a precondition and a result (Lefebvre 1991, 85): the design produces a precondition for social interaction, but at the same time it can also produce a subsequent (and different) result owing to a varied interpretation of the same space. This exemplifies the analysis within the present study, despite Lefebvre’s misgivings about applying mathematical models to space (1991, 2) (see below). This theoretical stance provides a conception of space that can be used in conjunction with spatial data analysis in order to not only statistically but also conceptually understand social functioning within the residences under question in central Italy. These fields/methods are not mutually exclusive, but complimentary within the present study.

Another methodological and theoretical model that has influenced the present study is that by Ray Laurence (1994). Roman Pompeii illustrates not only the importance of spatial theory for analysing ancient cities, but it also exemplifies the complexities in the relationship between urban space and social interaction (1994, 19). As one would expect, Laurence’s study is particularly important because of the Pompeian subject matter that is also prominent in the present work, but he also holds a similar appreciation for spatial data analysis. Laurence sees the value in not only the social analysis of Soja (1989, 76-93), but also the syntactical analysis of the Hillier and Hanson method (Laurence 1994, 115-121) that is also an important method within the present study. As Laurence notes (1994, 116) this form of spatial analysis can be used to establish the variation in domestic types at Pompeii, which is also used for suburban residential types in this study. The Hillier and Hanson method has also been previously used in relation to ancient residences in other studies, not only at Pompeii (Grahame 2000), but also in the provinces (Adams 2009). Laurence also correctly advocates the combined use of both archaeological and ancient textual evidence. While this has been argued against (Allison 1992), it is the contention of the present study that both forms of evidence provide varied and invaluable sources of evidence (with both of course having their flaws of subjective interpretation), so both must be used critically and yet fully.

Writings of Cities (1996) by Lefebvre also provides some theoretical support and methodology for the present study as well, despite its primary focus being upon modern questions about urbanisation. For the present purposes of this study, this analysis is important because it highlights the changeable nature of the interrelationship between town and country (Lefebvre 1996, 119). This is shown through the differentiation between Rome and Pompeii for example: Pompeii was small enough that social integration would have been easier than in the larger centre at Rome, where there would have been intentional provisions for social connectivity. Lefebvre also stresses the complexities within the ‘urban’ versus ‘rural’ question (1996, 120), where the distinction between

Laurence provides an excellent platform by which Pompeii can be analysed in relation to its spatial pressures and population density (1994, 121). This is particularly important when comparing urban and extraurban residences, where the amount of space designated for each example was quite variable. Laurence (1994, 127) also notes how the interior of urban residences was used to represent and enhance the presentation of the

10

The division between the social roles of rooms with an entertainment function and those without has been investigated in order to present a view of the differences between areas intended for large-scale public entertainment and those meant for private/intimate occasions. This has been highlighted by the Hillier and Hanson method (1984, 96-140; 148-75), which clearly illustrates the accessibility of particular rooms and in turn their public or private natures. The implications when applying this method to Pompeian residences has been fully discussed by Grahame (2000, 37-42), but it provides a valuable tool to statistically exhibit the informal social divisions that existed within each residence. Even if the criticisms of Clarke and Brown (Clarke 1998, 28-41; Brown 1990, 100-1) that this method can only be used for determining the relationship between inhabitants and strangers are correct, this is precisely the intention for its use within this study. The social features of villae suburbanae are the central theme of the statistical interpretations of potential entertainment space.

owner, which is also argued by Hiller and Hanson (1984, 260). The analyses of Lefebvre and Laurence are very useful for this examination. Both authors have focused upon the ability to use architectural space as a means of interpreting socialisation, which provides an excellent platform for the present study. The argument is made that by ‘reading’ these spaces it is possible to determine how each space was intended to function. Lefebvre’s Conceptual Triad of Space (perceived, conceived and lived conceptions of space) illustrates the many varied ways by which social space can be viewed and examined, whereas Laurence has focused more upon analysing socialisation within an ancient cultural context. Therefore, by using both authors in conjunction they provide not only a theoretical model but also an ancient social setting by which the present analysis can be achieved. So by using this combined theoretical model it is possible to place the present study in an ideal position for an examination of the ancient residences under question.

The analysis and methods used in this study are varied in accordance with the nature of each site. Firstly, the finds and layout of each site are examined where possible, including their distance from the respective urban centres, as well as the levels of wealth displayed in the architecture and decoration of the building. This allows for further insight into the social standing and the activities of the owners of these structures (Allison 1992, 248). The most important aspect is the variation in the percentage of space allocated for potential entertainment within the structures. This assists in determining the variation in relation to a villa’s position from the city centre. In turn these results have been compared with the urban houses to find any further variation. This is significant because it determines whether there was any substantial difference amongst each group of villas and the implications this had for the social function of these suburban complexes.

It is also important to note how both Lefebvre and Laurence not only recognise the legitimacy in analysing social space, but they also recognise the fluidity in its character. One of the most important aspects to note is the changeable nature of the social spaces under question, with the vast majority being able to be used for a variety of social functions. Both Lefebvre and Laurence also recognise the contrast between not only urbanity and rusticity, as well as the town versus country comparison. When considering the suburbium of these Italian cities, this is particularly important. Finally, these studies are also especially significant when being used in conjunction with spatial data analysis, thus providing an additional scope for consideration when approaching the statistical results. Methodology: Spatial Data Analysis Many of the rooms within these structures incorporated a reception function as well as an entertainment role, which indicates more of an official role for these spaces. In the consideration of what was social space only the atrium, which was traditionally used for reception, has been excluded. This is owing to the almost universal inclusion of an atrium, which was also frequently used as an entrance vestibule by the First Century AD after the introduction of peristyla. The social intentions of villa owners were not represented by the inclusion of atria within the group of potential entertainment rooms. Tablina have been included for two reasons. Firstly, because of their frequent representation as an important public space for receiving clients in the ancient sources. Secondly, tablina were used to advertise the social status of many élites, making them a pertinent addition to villae suburbanae when examining room function in a social context.

The nature of the social activity (public/private) has also been taken into consideration for the archaeological sites, using the Hillier and Hanson method. This method of analysis has shown the different roles that existed at each site, but also that there was a continued emphasis upon entertainment in both townhouses and villae suburbanae. The application of the Hillier and Hanson method to these sites has illustrated the presence of entertainment space in both private and public (inaccessible/accessible) regions within villae suburbanae using another statistical method. Allison (2004, 123) has already shown that a formal public/private division did not exist within her survey of thirty Pompeian townhouses. But the use of the Hillier and Hanson method in this instance is intended to illustrate the variation in accessibility and location within the potential entertainment areas as a group, in order to show their differing uses as entertainment rooms. The results of this analysis have been shown in the relevant Appendices for each structure analysed, as well as the Access Map among the plates. Using both methods

11

There is no doubt that the inclusion of Hellenised architectural elements would have heightened the appearance of such an open space (Zanker 1988, 26), but it would not have restricted their role. In most cases, the well-appointed décor within many peristyla is indicative of a less utilitarian role than most unadorned courtyards, but this was not always the case. The courtyards within the Oppian Wing of the Domus Aurea are highly unlikely to have been used for purely utilitarian purposes. Conversely, it is doubtful that the peristyle within the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini was only used purely for reception and entertainment. Hence there is a dilemma with the allocation of specific functions to these areas. So it is evident that some caution must be used when examining the use of these areas and the different roles they may have performed.

together (potential entertainment analysis, Hillier and Hanson spatial analysis) creates a compelling image of the important social function that villae suburbanae possessed, often in a varied capacity for different types of occasion (large-scale/intimate). This spatial data analysis makes references to several statistical calculations that have been used to determine the levels of accessibility for each room within the structures under discussion in the region. These values are titled ‘Control Value’, ‘Depth from Exterior’, ‘Mean Depth’, ‘Relative Asymmetry’ and ‘Real Relative Asymmetry’. Control Values determine the level of control exerted by each room upon its accessibility and that of its neighbouring rooms. If a Control Value is over 1 it is a ‘controlling space’, or in other words it controlled access to at least some of its neighbours. If it was below 1 its access was controlled by at least one of its neighbouring rooms. Depth from Exterior measures the number of spaces between a room and the closest entrance into the building, which also clarifies its accessibility.

The diversity in function of peristyla and courtyards does not present a major challenge to defining the villae suburbanae and their social role because the focus is placed upon the potential entertainment space within each structure, and not on the specific functions they performed. Initially each open space was included within this group of rooms, allowing for statistical analysis. Following this, the open areas that were primarily utilitarian were discounted and then all open areas, including all peristyla and ornamental gardens, have been included within the results. This allows enough flexibility to provide a set of results, both individually and overall, which provide a good source of insight and comparison into the social role of villae suburbanae.

Mean Depth measures the accessibility of a room in relation to the other rooms in the complex. If a space has a high Mean Depth, it means that access to it was more restricted. Relative Asymmetry is used in relation to determining the potential for social interaction. If a room has a low Relative Asymmetry value, it has a high potential for social interaction. Real Relative Asymmetry values are used in the same way, but are more reliable because they take into consideration the number of rooms within each structure. When all of these methods are used in conjunction with each other it is possible to determine the accessibility of each potential entertainment room and, in turn, its public/private role. Following from these calculations, the role of each potential entertainment space, according to their public or private role, has been illustrated on the floor-plan (red regions indicating a public role and blue showing a private function).

Focus In view of the numerous literary references to sites around the capital, it is essential to focus upon some urban and suburban residences at Rome. As Rome was the definitive urbs, these sites are of great importance. This entails a general discussion of Roman housing, an overview of urban Imperial palaces, the Imperial suburban estates and other villae suburbanae around the capital. Only a select number of sites, with a different array of characteristics, are considered so as to create a good overview of the divergent nature of many suburban villas in the region. The majority of the archaeological information for each site discussed is listed in Appendixes in order to concentrate upon the discussion of each site.

The definition of the role of open spaces within these residences can be problematic, owing to the multiple functions that they performed. These areas could have been used for purposes including, but not limited to, entertainment, storage, relaxation or commercial function. Open spaces also provided the benefits of increased ventilation and illumination to the residence. Because peristyla and courtyards were so versatile, one must be careful not to over generalise, as this may distort not only the results of the statistical analysis but also the importance of these areas and the reasons behind their inclusion in many structures.

The Bay of Naples region, including Pompeii, was one of the most popular regions for the wealthy Roman villaowners in the late Republic and early Empire, and has been previously examined in detail by D’Arms (1970). Many villas were built in this region along the coast, and also inland, by wealthy Roman landowners. The character, function and facilities of these buildings varied depending upon the intentions of the owner. Examples of all the different types of villa in this region (suburban, coastal and agricultural) have been included, but only in comparison to villae suburbanae. This allows for a clearer definition of the distinguishing

It also seems inaccurate to draw a significant generalisation about the differing roles performed by peristyla and paved courtyards. There are obvious distinctions suggested by the inclusion or exclusion of a colonnaded section around the perimeter of open spaces, but this should not lead to a differentiation in function.

12

features that made suburban villas unique. For the same reason, some large and wealthy townhouses are also considered for a similar comparison. Being located in the suburbium gave the villae suburbanae a dual role, epitomising both urbanitas and rusticitas, which placed them in the middle of these two ideals. The use of the term villa suburbana in the ancient literature illustrated their status and advantages. When this was not the intention of the author, another term (suburbano, rus, or simply villa) was used instead of villa suburbana. Owing to the vast corpus of material in the Pompeian area, the suburban villas within its vicinity are of great importance. The Pompeian suburban villas allow an invaluable insight into the development of domestic buildings from the late Republic into the early Imperial periods. The houses and villas of Pompeii, as discussed below, show some variation, which is typical of most suburban villas and their residents. This variation can be explained by their location, the different social conditions at different times in the city’s development, and the different origins and social standing of the owners. The different types of suburban villas around Pompeii are of great importance because it is by recognising their similarities and differences that these buildings can be better understood. Following from the chapters on villae suburbanae outside Rome, and in the inner and outer suburbium of Pompeii, the two ensuing chapters deal with the archaeological evidence discovered in and around Herculaneum and Stabiae, using the same method of statistical analysis. These regional centres have been evaluated separately in order that conclusions for each urban environment can be drawn within their social, political and historical context, and the sites in these regions discussed in relation to each other. It is the contention of this study that a villa’s function played as significant a role as its location in its classification as a villa suburbana, which has been illustrated by the method of statistical analysis used. Owing to the diverse nature of many suburban villas, their limited literary presence and their varied survival in the archaeological record, their precise classification has remained elusive. But this was indicative of most suburban villas: each individual owner, emphasising their intentions and priorities, determined their characteristics. However, life in the suburbium did provide certain advantages that all villae suburbanae epitomised: greater privacy without complete isolation from society, a combination of urbanitas and rusticitas, as well as the social status that these buildings clearly represented. The idealised conception of owning a villa suburbana was not always representative of the reality, but it was indicative of why they were appealing to the wider community and how they were intended to provide their residents with the best of both worlds.

13

Chapter II Rome and the Suburbs that it was a common feature of wealthy Roman residences during the period. Cicero (De Legibus, 3.30) freely admitted the presence of social pressures among the senatorial order to possess a magnificent villa. Columella (1.6.2) also advised the addition of an appropriate pars urbana in the early Augustan period for the socially conscious villa owner. It was clearly an essential aspect of Roman public life, with a residence not only being a private sanctuary for the owner, but also a public display of their success, dignity and prestige. There seems to have been a consistent desire to stay abreast of the latest tastes in décor (Gabriel 1952, 60), which is a consistent feature of the renovations that occurred in many residences and explains the consistent outflow of wealth on private buildings (Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 47).

Having considered the literary evidence of villae suburbanae and the theoretical/methodological approaches, the archaeological evidence in and around Rome should be considered. Rome was the definitive urbs and the most important city, so it should provide the most important corpus of evidence for any understanding of villae suburbanae. It was also probably the location for the earliest development of villae suburbanae, but the extant remains are unfortunately inconclusive. But as has been shown in the previous chapter, it did not necessarily mean that suburban villas could not exist beyond other cities. Nevertheless, Rome was the capital, which made it both highly significant and yet distinctive when taking into account its relationship with the suburbium. Owing to the size and importance of Rome, the size of the area that could be considered suburban was appreciably larger than outside other cities. This has crucial ramifications for the study of villae suburbanae because it will allow for a larger area to be taken into account. Unfortunately, especially in comparison with centres such as Pompeii and Herculaneum, the archaeological evidence is reduced for suburban villas, but there are still several buildings of significance to be examined. However, before evaluating the evidence of suburban villas around Rome there should be some general aspects of urban and suburban residences considered, in order to gain the most comprehensive representation of Roman residential characteristics.

Naturally, this is clearly going to be limited by the concept of public and private space within these residences, which has been discussed at length previously, but is important to note within the context of this study. It should also be mentioned that the possession of property, particularly agricultural estates, was of prime importance for determining the social position of a family within the hierarchy of the community (Saller 1994, 3). This has been shown to be of particular significance in regard to those properties located close to the city, especially around Rome. Purcell (1987, 188-9) has suggested a vivid description of the suburban landscape, which illustrates the monumental characteristics of the wealthy residences beyond the city limits. Duncan-Jones (1965, 224-6) has postulated what the average cost of land would cost in both urban and rural contexts, and judging from this it would have been considerable in the suburbium of Rome. There seems to have been a strong sense of urbanism in the surrounding regions of Rome as well, with towns such as Falerii Novi, Orriculum and Forum Novum having clear associations with the capital (Map 1) (Patterson and Millett 1998, 11-14; Potter 1991, 191-209; Gaffney, Patterson and Roberts 2001, 59-79). The importance laid upon the possession of domestic property would have also placed a great deal of importance upon the family unit, with each member finding their place within the fundamental hierarchy of the household. The Roman residence for wealthy members of each community was closely tied in with friendship and patron-client relationships, which made the presentation of each opulent abode even more significant for social advancement and prestige.

Houses and Villas in General When examining Roman villas and houses in general terms there are some pertinent points that should be noted before examining the archaeological evidence from the suburbs of Rome, Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae. Firstly, one of the most important aspects to remember is that the buildings under discussion here are, for the most part, residences of the wealthy. In many ways, the ownership of a suburban villa was a status symbol in itself. These residences were then further enhanced with well-appointed décor and architecture, which was intended to further the social standing of the dominus (George 1997, 16; Bergmann 1997, 225). This has been meticulously analysed by Wallace-Hadrill (1988), which sought to clearly establish the link between the Roman house and the owners’ social standing. This is an important feature to remember within this study because the décor and facilities at a residence should provide a good understanding of the aspirations of an owner and the resources available to them (Laurence 1994, 127). Naturally, the presence of any ostentatious display of wealth in private residences was not always the case. But the need for authors such as Cato and Columella to make remarks concerning lavish décor in their works suggests

Throughout this study there will be discussion of particular rooms and their significance, in order to understand the intended lifestyles at each complex. The

14

patron should not be underestimated (Wiseman 1982, 29), which would have inspired the owner to create an impressive dining area for such occasions. This patron/client system seems to have been based on amicitia rather than a formal relationship (White 1982, 58), hence why dining together would have been of great importance and use.

majority of the rooms focused upon here dealt with the reception of guests and otium of the leading residents. The significance of these rooms for the intended lifestyle was the importance of creating an impressive residence, as being distinct from villas that were constructed almost purely for agricultural production. It is felt that this was a defining aspect for the analysis of villae suburbanae. Naturally, this does not mean that these rooms will be the only areas of discussion, with many of the servile regions being of equal significance. But in certain instances, the atria, triclinia, diaetae, exedrae and peristyles were designed in such an impressive fashion that they provide clear examples of the owners’ social and cultural pretensions.

Diaetae/Exedrae The presence of diaetae and exedrae within suburban villas are particularly significant to this study. These rooms were primarily used by the residents for relaxation and were usually positioned to appreciate the view of either gardens or the landscape beyond (Farrar 1998, 57). Pliny the Younger (Ep. 5.6.38) refers to the beauty of diaetae being emphasised by its location, allowing for an appreciation of the gardens and landscape. However, their function was also quite important because of their privacy. It seems unlikely that diaetae would have been used for reception, except for intimate guests, whereas exedrae could have been used for larger groups. Most of the diaetae were located around the perimeter of the complex with an open demeanour facing outwards, such as at the Villa of the Mysteries. Exedrae commonly faced onto an internal peristyle and were usually larger, but the principle of the function of these rooms was ideally the same: it was a space to relax and enjoy the view, whether it was open towards the landscape or an internal peristyle.

Atria The atrium was one of the most important rooms within the Roman domus. This room predominantly functioned as a place of reception and display. The atrium originally served as the main nucleus of the residence in many small to medium sized townhouses. It was commonly used as a reception vestibule in many villas, with the peristyle serving as the central residential nucleus. However, it should be noted that this was not always the case, in view of the study by Berry (1997, 183-95). It has been shown that the interpretation of domestic space should not be too dogmatic concerning the function of certain rooms within the domus (Saller 1994, 95). Despite atria being used for storage and other uses within the Roman house, it should still be remembered that the adornment of this central area within the building should not completely censure its function as a reception room. It is more appropriate to appreciate the dual function of atria, but it is the intentions of the owner, reflected in the architecture and décor, which will be the prime focus of this study.

Peristyles The peristyle was an introduction to Roman architecture following from the influence of Hellenistic architecture, which typically surrounded a garden on four sides. It could be seen that the peristyle framed the garden and also provided an ideal backdrop for viewing an ornamental garden. The advantage of the peristyle was that it allowed a greater amount of light and ventilation than the traditional atrium house, which would explain their frequent addition to many villae suburbanae.

Triclinia Dining was one of the most important social aspects within Roman culture (Kiernan 1999, 32), being the culmination of daily life at a well-appointed villa (Dunbabin 1996, 66). The same applied to townhouses, but the advantages of space and the opportunities for viewing the surrounding panorama gave villas a distinct advantage. It was at dinner that the urbanitas of an individual was clearly expressed (Fitzgerald 1995, 99), which was mentioned by Catullus (12). There were two types of triclinia, winter and summer dining rooms, but could provide the inhabitants and their guests with wellappointed surroundings to enjoy a convivial meal. Naturally, an excellent example of the lengths to which some villa owners went to create a lavish dining environment has been provided by Petronius, with his character Trimalchio. Despite the satirical nature of this episode, it clearly illustrates the common desire for luxury and the importance placed upon dining and entertaining guests (Martial 2.1.9-10). In view of the focus of this study being predominantly upon the intended lifestyles at villae suburbanae, the use and adornment of triclinia will be of the utmost importance. The meaning of being invited to dinner for salutores by a

One of the most prevalent decorative features within many peristyles was the addition of water features. The inclusion of a long euripus, natatio or fish-pond greatly affected the general disposition of these open regions, adding to the pleasant character of the environment. But there were other implications that needed to be addressed following from the introduction of these ornaments. Firstly, these water features used a large amount of water in addition to the basic needs of the inhabitants, especially with the requirements for efficient agriculture (Bannon 2001, 34). If the local resources were not sufficient to supply enough for the estate, it would have to be supplemented from an external source. One of these sources would have been a local aqueduct. Frontinus (Aq. 9, 104) refers to the need for regulating the offshoots that were restricting the water supply of Rome. This was attributed to the many illegitimate points where owners of suburban villas were draining off a large amount of water, intended for the capital (Morley 1996, 104). A good example of this has been commented upon in the

15

accentuation of the view of the landscape from these reception rooms (Purcell 1996, 128).

Tiburtine region, where there were four aqueducts that supplied not only Rome but also the suburban villas in the area (evans 1993, 447-55). This provides not only a good indication of the water requirements of Rome, but also of the large number of suburban villas and their considerable needs for both irrigation and ornamentation. The importance of the water supply also highlights the importance of agriculture in the region as well. However, the ornamental water features were also a common feature among the decorative gardens associated with many Roman residences.

One of the important aspects for our understanding of these reception rooms, was their use for entertainment and performance. Owing to the references in the literature to the presentation of recitations and other types of entertainment, especially at private villas, it is clear that this would have been an important reason for their design and size. Attendance at these performances would have been closely associated with the amicitia between the guests and their host, particularly if the dominus was performing himself (Starr 1990, 464-72). Throughout this study the term domus will be used, but it will only be used in the context of the physical house itself (Saller 1984, 336-55), and particularly the residential quarters of the complex. As mentioned previously, it is clear that the domus was a central feature of the Roman conception of social standing and hierarchy.

Horti and Gardens The Roman appreciation and importance of domestic gardens has been previously discussed at length by other authors, particularly Jashemski (1981) and Purcell (1996). Columella may have encouraged the use of domestic gardens for production, but this was by no means the general rule. Purcell (1981, 135) rightly notes how the use of ornamental gardens was indicative of the aristocracy’s desire to display their status, as well as the desire to modify or improve nature within this setting. The design of ornamental gardens sought to impose an ordered aspect onto the natural environment, which would have further accentuated the panoramic view from villae suburbanae. As noted previously, this sentiment was not popular with several of the writers already discussed, but it is through their forceful encouragement for productive gardens that we can tell that ornamental gardens were obviously popular within some sections of the community. This is illustrated by the comments of Statius (Silv. 2.2.52-9), who praises Pollius Felix upon the improvements that he has made to the beauty of Nature.

Otium The concept of otium (leisure) will be frequently referred to throughout the course of this study, owing to it being a prominent attraction for the owners of suburban villas. D’Arms (1970, 70-1) has illustrated that there were two types of otium: otium molestum (laziness) (Catullus, 51.13; Cicero Sest., 138), and otium honestum (relaxing, but fruitful labour) (Sallust Hist., 1.55.9; Cicero Att., 1.17.5). Naturally, this difference was a subjective opinion, depending upon the context of each author, but both terms highlight the absence of negotium. This term (otium) will be used in conjunction with the most noteworthy establishments in regard to their facilities where there were well-appointed and extensive facilities for entertaining and relaxation. Of course, this would have only applied to the leading residents of the complex. The concept of otium appears to have been closely associated with a pastoral lifestyle, epitomising an easy life within luxuriant circumstances, especially nature (André 1962, 7). Luxuria was another feature that frequently complemented the concept of otium, serving to not only enhance the pleasant lifestyle of the residents, but also asserting the place of the dominus within society (Wallace-Hadrill 1990, 149). This kind of materialistic luxuria was condemned by Pliny the Elder (NH 9.105; 21.46), arguing that wealth and luxuria should not mark out an individual’s social position. In regard to the opulent suburban villas, the quest for otium was clearly an important feature, which will be highlighted in the facilities provided at each estate. In his Epistulae, Pliny the Younger advocated luxury time, for cultural enhancement, over material luxury, but it is clear that the two were frequently combined (Winsor Leach 2003, 148). It may have been that Pliny was down-playing the well-appointed facilities at his own estates in order to put across his own cultural ideals. The reality of whether genuine leisure was attained by the owners of the various establishments is impossible to determine, but it is the desire or intention to attain this lifestyle that should be conceivably ascertained throughout this investigation.

Gardens were as much a part of the Roman domus as the architecture, frequently providing not only a source of income but also an area of relaxation and respite within the confines of the property (Hoffmann 2001, 81). There were also several plots within cities, such as Pompeii, which were intended purely for agricultural production (Purcell 1996, 122). A good example of this within the confines of Pompeii is Insula II, which is clearly a market garden, producing flowers (Jashemski 1979, 403-11). The significance of this is that the urban regions were not purely intended for residences or for business. But the gardens of many larger townhouses within cities like Rome, Pompeii and Herculaneum were not intended for production, but instead for the luxuria of al fresco dining (Purcell 1996, 123). The gardens were often adorned with paintings of plants, which complemented these horti and further accentuated the pleasant character of the complex, which was especially common in villae suburbanae. On occasion there were productive plants within these ornamental gardens, but they were designed for their aesthetic appeal not purely production. The importance of these gardens to villae suburbanae is highly significant. Gardens were placed in positions whereby they would be visible from the dining rooms, allowing a further

16

light (Thorpe 1995, 75), with the rooms linked by a corridor around three sides of this area (Carrington 1933b, 144-6). The western and southern sides of this house were predominantly commercial quarters on the ground floor, with residential rooms above. The importance of this building is that it reflects the development in housing techniques from the Pompeian style of urban residence. But if the evidence of an apartment residence like the House of Diana can be used as a reflection of the common circumstances in Rome (Packer 1971, 79), it clearly illustrates the difference between the lifestyles that occurred in Insulae and villae suburbanae.

Insulae The majority of the residences within the city of late Republican and early Imperial Rome would have been placed within the Insulae, which had the capacity for housing large numbers of people in a relatively small space. These structures were the most common style of housing within Rome, providing a cheap source of accommodation, which was usually rented and quite simple in its facilities (Homo 1971, 496). Insulae were divided into a series of apartments with several levels, which allowed accommodation for the largest possible number of people (Ramage 1983, 61-92), while using a small surface area (Bourne 1969, 206). This densely packed style of accommodation would have vastly contrasted to the spacious and impressive public buildings, such as the Augustan Forum (Haselberger 2000, 523). The obvious reason for this kind of housing was the growing population pressure within the city, which would have been at least 450,000 people in the Imperial period (Storey 1997, 966-78), or possibly twice as many (Brunt 1971, 376-88). Ownership of these structures was usually a form of investment, allowing the élite to gain revenue, but they were managed by middlemen (Frier 1978, 1-6). A good example of this type of structure is the Insula of Felice, which was located in the Campus Martius in Regio IX, which was designed more like a series of barracks with a considerable number of apartments (Homo 1971, 498). The ground floor frequently housed a series of shopping precincts in these buildings and they could often have at least three or four levels above for accommodation.

Ostia only had a small territory under its jurisdiction (Jones 1974, 54), but there have been several villas discovered in the region. There have been several farm buildings discovered in the outer regions of Ostia as well, some in the region of Dragoncello have been dated to the Third and Fourth Centuries BC (Pavolini 1988, 121). These complexes were quite modest, with walls made of tufa, but provide a good amount of evidence for unassuming structures devoted towards agriculture in the mid Republic. There have also been several later villas discovered in this area, with construction dated to the First Century BC (Pellegrino 1983, 81). Villa 1 – Villa at Dragoncello [Ostia] This complex (Villa 1) was a villa planned around a central courtyard, similar to many villas from the period (Fig. 2) with the main rooms being located on the southern side of the complex. It is located approximately nine kilometres to the north-east of Ostia, which is about eighteen kilometres from Rome (Map 1). The central peristyle (Room 1) was paved with opus incertum and has provided evidence for a period of construction around the beginning of the 1st Century BC. This structure has produced evidence for animal husbandry, but it appears that the majority of this villa rustica was intended for agriculture. Pellegrino (1983, 83) has estimated that it could have serviced a region of approximately 25-40 hectares. The structure was inhabited up until the end of the 2nd Century AD (Pellegrino 1983, 81). Several rooms were paved with black and white mosaic flooring at this early stage of the complex’s habitation, but it is evident that several rooms were used for agriculture during the majority of the site’s occupation (Pellegrino 1983, 81).

The evidence from Ostia of these Insulae appears to have been one of the best sources of information available for understanding the form of this style of residence in the capital (Laurence 1997, 13). In many ways the city of Ostia was simply an extension of the commercial precinct of the capital by the Second Century AD (Calza 1915, 165; Ashby 1912, 157), which in many should confirm both their mutual connection but also their architectural associations (Packer 1971, 74-5), being only twenty-five kilometres apart (Sear 1982, 120). There appears to have been construction work on the harbour between AD 5161, which indicates that the role of Ostia as the capital’s port was significant from this time on (Thornton 1989, 117-19). The majority of the extant Ostian residences have been dated from the Second Century AD, but it is assumed that this type of structure would have occurred earlier in Rome, owing to the greater population density. An example of this can be seen in the House of Diana at Ostia. This house was constructed around the late Second Century AD (Ward-Perkins 1981, 146), out of brickfaced concrete. This building had at least five or six storeys, which would have housed several households, similar in function to a block of apartments. As Ulrich has mentioned (1996, 147), the floor joists used in this complex were 20% larger than most Campanian examples, which is indicative of the greater weight they had to support. The rooms of each residence were grouped around a small cortile, which allowed access to

The main rooms were located on the southern side of the complex (Rooms a-e). These rooms within the establishment have also produced evidence of painted wall plaster, as well as black and white geometric mosaic. This region has produced one of the highest concentrations of agricultural villas near Ostia, which may have been influenced by the close proximity to the river. However, it appears that most complexes in this region were quite modest and were later abandoned by the early Third Century AD. It is important to include these sites within this study because they provide some insight into the agricultural activity within this region. It

17

is also pertinent to realise that even though the majority of the villas under discussion here were quite palatial, not all of the villas located close to Rome were intended for display and leisure. By including these modest and productive dwellings, it should further highlight the lofty social intentions of owners of villae suburbanae.

the residents of the villa rather than the wider community. However, once Lefebvre’s conceived conception of space is considered, it is noteworthy that all three areas (Rooms 3, 9 and 11) are centrally located within the structure, thus leading to a more intensified level of direct interaction. This is complimented by the lived conception of these spaces, which illustrates the complexity of their social symbolism. Each room and its interaction with its various adjoining spaces reveal a clear divergence between them, which is indicative of having such a multifunctional residence.

The perceived conception of the Villa at Dragoncello has focused upon three areas: Rooms 3, 9 and 11. Each room was removed from the entrance to the structure, indicating that they were primarily intended to be used by

Graph 1 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Dragoncello

Graph 2 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Dragoncello spaces is most notable. The wide ranging nature of the space syntax data is also evident in the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 2), which further displays the multiple functions that were considered to be undertaken at this residence from Dragoncello.

The space syntax data for the Villa at Dragoncello (Fig. 3) further displays the wide divergence that existed within this structure (Table 2). Room illustrates its comparatively restricted accessibility through its Mean Depth value (4.63) and high Relative Asymmetry result (0.316). Room 9 produced similar results (Mean Depth 4.08; Relative Asymmetry 0.268), which also indicates a similar restriction in accessibility. It is evident that Room 11 was the most accessible of these rooms within the structure (Mean Depth 2.96; Relative Asymmetry 0.17), which is also exhibited by its high Control Value result (1.67). However, when all of the Control Value results are compared (Graph 1) a wide variation between these

Villa 2 – Villa of Perseus This complex (Fig. 4), known as the Villa of Perseus because of a fine statue being discovered there, was located less than three kilometres to the south-east of Ostia, which was also around twenty-one kilometres from the capital. This residence was constructed in the early 2nd Century AD and was occupied at least into the 4th Century

18

inclusion of such a large bath complex (175.84m2) within a private residence is somewhat unusual (Mattingly 2004, 14) and is also suggestive of the villa’s well-appointed demeanour as an élite residence, but in order to maintain consistency in the statistical results, they have been initially excluded from the identified areas that served a potential entertainment function.

AD, there being several decorative additions having been made to its structure at this time, including a large polychrome mosaic that depicted personifications of the months (Scinari and Ricciardi 1996). While the number of published finds for this site are limited, the well-appointed nature of the evidence and the size of the complex overall (5,379.23m2), clearly suggests that this was an opulent residence in the suburbium of Ostia.

The perceived conception of space within the Villa of Perseus has focused upon four areas in particular: Rooms A, C, E and H. These spaces were located throughout the overall structure, suggesting that each served quite distinct purposes for different individuals – including not only residents, but also visitors from the wider community. When Lefebvre’s conceived conception is taken into account, it is important to note that all four spaces (Rooms A, C, E and H) are positioned on (or directly adjacent to) the central axis of the villa, which would suggest that the northern perimeter was the primary residential region of the complex. This is connected to the lived conception of these rooms, suggesting a general separation between the socialisation and utilitarian regions of this well-appointed structure.

There have been nine regions identified within this complex as having a potential entertainment role: Rooms A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J (Fig. 4). Rooms A, B, F and H have been identified as large open courtyards, whereas Rooms D and J have been judged to have been oecii, largely because of their close connection to these open areas. Owing to its size and position within the residence (just off Room F), Room G has been identified as a diaeta. Room C appears to have been more isolated from these open areas, which suggests that it served as an exedra, whereas Room E served as a large central dining area, or triclinium, and may have been used in conjunction with the large private bathing facilities for an entertaining role (see HA, Commodus 11.5). The

Graph 3 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Perseus

Graph 4 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Perseus

19

When examining the space syntax data for the Villa of Perseus (Fig. 5), it is possible to view the different socialisation functions that existed in these four rooms (Table 3). The results for Room A exhibit how while it was removed from the entrance (Depth from Exterior 5), it remained quite accessible within the insular sections of the residence (Mean Depth 3.455; Relative Asymmetry 0.213), suggesting it was used for the socialising of residents and their invited guests. Room C was even more restricted in its accessibility (Depth from Exterior 7; Mean Depth 4.545; Relative Asymmetry 0.308), which indicates that it would have really only been used by the leading members of the household on a consistent basis. Room E was more accessible by visitors (Depth from Exterior 4) and the general household alike (Mean Depth 2.818; Relative Asymmetry 0.158), which is to be expected in view of its position on the central axis of the structure. This space was complimented by Room H, which was also generally accessible (Depth from Exterior 3; Mean Depth 4.091; Relative Asymmetry 0.269). The regular and generally accessible design of this structure is illustrated by viewing the overall Control Value results (Graph 3), showing that there are only seven controlling spaces. The consistency in the design of the Villa of Perseus is also exhibited in the spread of the Real Relative Asymmetry results (Graph 4). Despite the limitations in analysing this site because of the limited range of published finds (Scinari and Ricciardi 1996), it is evident that it was a large and well-appointed residence in the coastal outskirts to the south of Ostia, and should be classified as a villa suburbana.

the original owner was already heavily involved at Ostia prior to this initially successful addition to Ostia by the Emperor Trajan. All the same, it is evident that the owners benefited from the Portus Traianus in view of the substantial additions to its facilities in the mid-late 2nd Century AD (Heinzelmann 2002). Another important aspect to consider is its location in the southern suburbium of Ostia. Judging from the size and facilities present at both the Villa of Perseus (Villa 2) and this villa in Regio IV it seems evident that this was the preferred area within this southern region to construct well-appointed and sizeable villae suburbanae, especially when these complexes are compared to the predominantly productive site at Dragoncello (Villa 1). This preference for the southern suburbium by the élites at Ostia is also confirmed through the known presence of other large extra-urban residences in this coastal region (Heinzelmann 1998, 189). There have been four regions identified within the Villa in Regio IV at Ostia (Fig. 6) that appear to have served a potential entertainment function, with Room 3 having been designed as an open courtyard. In view of their positions within this complex, Room 4 has been viewed as having served a potential dining function. Owing to its size and more isolated location from the open areas, Room 7 has been viewed as an exedra, which would have been ideal for use in colder or inclement circumstances by the leading residents. Room 5 appears to have potentially been used as a tablinum, largely because of its central position between the corridor (Room 10) and Room 9 (Fig. 6). This place of business would have been essential for any owner involved in commercial activity in Ostia during the peak phase of habitation at this Villa in Regio IV.

Villa 3 – The Villa in Regio IV of Ostia This extra-urban residence (Fig. 6) was recently discovered in 2001 through GIS surveying of the southern suburbium of Ostia, being located just to the east of the Terme di Porta Marina (IV,X,1-2). This villa was seemingly constructed during the Flavian period, but there was a large amount of alteration, including the inclusion of a hypocaust system and various types of marble decoration in the second half of the 2nd Century AD as well (Heinzelmann 2002). It was clearly a very large (10,632.75m2) and well-appointed élite villa that was intended to give its leading residents [and their guests] a pleasing domestic environment that enjoyed a splendid coastal panorama, but also provided convenient access to the commercial activities that were so prominent in Ostia during the 2nd and 3rd Centuries AD (Hermansen 1981, 1012; Meiggs 1973, 196-208).

Lefebvre’s perceived conception of space exhibits the clear focus implemented when designing this structure. The clear progression from Room 2 into the central hub of the complex demonstrates the spatial communication between the internal and external aspects of this villa. Of the four designated socialisation spaces under question (Rooms 3, 4, 5 and 7) each was intended to serve different roles, especially when Laurence’s relationship between space and social interaction model is taken into account. The conceived conception illustrates how all four areas were placed on different axes and contexts that directly interacted with their adjoining spaces, while being separated from each other. This provides a direct correlation with the lived conception whereby the architecture and layout has been designed to enable each space (Rooms 3, 4, 5 and 7) to serve a distinct socialisation role.

However, it is notable that this villa was constructed prior to the construction of the Portus Traianus between c. AD 106-113 (see Meiggs 1973, 162-8), so it would seem that

20

Graph 5 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa in Regio IV [Ostia]

Graph 6 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa in Regio IV [Ostia] region was being used for both residential and productive purposes. Overall, these residences highlight the varied nature of villas located in the hinterland of both Ostia and the capital, some of which can be classified as villae suburbanae.

The Hillier and Hanson space syntax data for the Villa in Regio IV at Ostia confirms the theoretical modelling (Table 4) (Fig. 7). The results for Room 3 exhibit a space that was externally accessible (Depth from Exterior 3) and yet it was statistically inaccessible by much of the internal domains (Mean Depth 3.048; Relative Asymmetry 0.195). Room 4 was also quite restricted in its internal accessibility (Mean Depth 3; Relative Asymmetry 0.190), although it was still relatively accessible externally (Depth from Exterior 4). Room 5 was the most restricted of all four spaces (Depth from Exterior 5; Mean Depth 3.429; Relative Asymmetry 0.231), indicating that it would have generally been used only by the leading residents. Room 7 was also similarly restricted (Mean Depth 3; Relative Asymmetry 0.190), although it would have been used by a wider audience than Room 5. The consistency in the overall design of this villa is also shown in the relative consistency of the Control Value results (Graph 5) and the Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 6).

However, there were some other villas in the coastal suburbs of Ostia that may be classified as villae suburbanae (Pellegrino 2000, 47). These complexes were well developed by the First Century AD, located between the city and the channels to the south (Lauro 1984, 224). One of these was monumental complex near Procio di Pianabella, which has evidence of a large bath complex associated with the structure. Unfortunately, little else of the complex remains, but from the existing remains it is evident that it was a well-appointed residence in the coastal suburbs of Ostia. The importance of this complex is that it illustrates that there may have been some complexes that were defined as villae suburbanae in this region near Ostia and the capital, Rome. Several other small complexes, which probably served as simple agricultural establishments have also been discovered within this region of the Ostia (Heinzelmann 1998, 189), but little remains of these structures. Nevertheless, it does appear that the entire region was being both for

The importance of these complexes is that they illustrate that there would have been even more villae suburbanae near Ostia and the capital. Several other large complexes, which probably served a variety of roles, have also been discovered within this region (Heinzelmann 1998, 189), but little is known of them. Nevertheless, it seems that the

21

between the columns along an ambulatory (Fig. 9). Some of the floors were paved with polychrome marble tiles and there have also been well-appointed wall paintings also uncovered. However, it only reached this level of facilities in the late Third Century. It is clear that, especially with the introduction of the principate, the private domus served to publicly exhibit the status of the dominus, illustrating the owners’ position within the community (Eck 1997, 17; Leunissen 1993, 101-20). The senatorial domus served a pivotal role within the daily social and political activity within Rome, having an impressive character in view of the practical limitations of space.

residential and productive purposes, extending a wide distance from the urban centre. The Atrium House This type of structure often served as a single residence for one or more households. These residences were located throughout Rome, but several areas were particularly popular for this type of residence. The construction of a residence for a single household within Rome would have been a prized possession, owing to the population pressure that would have increased the expense for these properties and hence their inherent value. Ownership of a large residence was not only an expression of wealth and prestige, but it was also an essential element for receiving guests, which was a pivotal aspect of Roman society (Wallace-Hadrill 1996, 14). It is for this reason that the reception/entertaining rooms are of such significance. For example, the Quirinal, during the first centuries of the Empire was covered with expensive and luxurious townhouses, being popular with the Roman aristocracy (Homo 1971, 478). These structures had some common characteristics, such as being designed with a level plan, but there were two distinct styles of atrium house: the classic EtruscoRoman atrium house and the atrium/peristyle house. The latter was a development, owing to Hellenistic influences, during the last century of the Republic, which increased the illumination and ventilation within the building, creating a pleasant living environment.

Imperial Palaces Following from the wealthy Roman domus, the next level of luxury and status that evolved during the Imperial period was the Imperial residence or palace. It would seem appropriate to judge that the large urban residences of the Imperial family would have set the benchmark for both the fashions and aspirations for other Roman élites. It is for this reason that the palaces constructed on the Palatine should be considered in order to determine their effect upon the layout and characteristics of villae suburbanae constructed in the hinterland of Rome. The Palatine Hill By the end of the Republic, the Palatine had become one of the most aristocratic regions of Rome because of its intimate connection with the Curia, the Rostra and the Forum (Lanciani 1967, 117). There were several impressive residences built in this region during the Republican era from around 150 BC (Dudley 1967, 1623), such as the Houses of Q. Lutatius Catulus, M. Livius Drusus, Clodius and M. Aemilius Scaurus (Lanciani 1967, 117-18). The house of Cicero on the Palatine was located on the south-west corner of the hill, overlooking the Forum Romanum, which would have been a prime location (Cerutti 1997, 417). It seems clear that by the end of the Republic, the Palatine had become one of the most important centres for Roman political and commercial life, which continued during the Roman Empire. During the Imperial period, the Palatine region was almost entirely occupied by the residences of the Emperors (Cerutti 1997, 424), except for a region of roughly one hundred and seventy metres by one hundred metres (Lanciani 1967, 107). The choice of this area was made by Augustus, who built his residence there: the House of Augustus. The Emperor Tiberius constructed a new wing of this structure, the Domus Tiberiana, which was connected to the House of Augustus by a series of underground corridors.

However, it must be remembered that the size and facilities of these residences varied in their dimensions, from the modest home to the palatial almost villa-like residence. For the purposes of this study the focus shall remain upon the most opulent of these examples because they provide the best comparison to the large villas in the suburbs of Rome. The immense wealth accumulated by many senators has been well documented (Shatzman 1975), which was frequently accompanied by conspicuous consumption, or luxuria (D’Arms 1981, 7). The House of the Griffins is a good example of a domus, located on the Palatine Hill (Fig. 8) (De Albentiis 1990, 113). This residence was discovered under the larario that Domitian constructed on the Palatine. The general demeanour of the complex was quite luxurious, with modifications occurring to the structure during the Augustan period. The layout of the domus had seven residential rooms on the ground floor, of which it is impossible to determine their precise function (De Albentiis 1990, 126). However, on the upper level the atrium has been identified, with a portion of the impluvium still remaining. The existing décor of the structure has been dated to the beginning of the First Century BC, with tessellated mosaic pavement and Pompeian Second Style wall paintings (De Albentiis 1990, 126-8). Another large residence was the Domus of C. Fulvius Plautianus in Region VII. This house was roughly 1,540 square metres in size, divided into three complexes (Lissi Caronna 1995, 105). This residence had ample lighting and ventilation with a series of openings

This building was extended by Gaius in the direction of the Forum, which is now referred to as the Orti Farnesiani or the Domus Gaiana. During the Flavian period, the Palatine was given a more unified disposition, especially with the construction of the Domus Flavia. The original House of Augustus was ruined by fire under Titus and rebuilt by Domitian. The Emperor Hadrian

22

rooms (Room DDD), which were gracefully adorned with images of Cupid and Venus, Jupiter and Antiope as well as other mythological themes (Maiuri 1953, 27-8; Zanker 1988, 281). There were also two bas-reliefs representing the foundation of Rome. The upper terrace of the complex was centred upon a small atrium and the series of terraces were decorated quite simply (Carettoni 1983, 11). There were two small private libraries within the complex, which had small wooden shelves for the storage of the literary works. The surviving décor of the complex was well performed, with a common focus on plants in Hellenistic style (Whittaker 1997, 148), but with a distinct Egyptian influence. The terminus post quem for these wall-paintings has been given at 36 BC, representing a innovative stage for Pompeian Second Style décor (Tybout 2001, 35). The House of Augustus was not as conspicuous as many of the later palaces constructed on the Palatine, but it is evident that it was by no means a modest dwelling (Iacopi 1995, 47).

continued to reside in the Domus Flavia during his time in Rome, simply maintaining the residence, although he did construct the exedra of the Stadium on the Palatine. More changes and alterations to the Palatine occurred in later periods, but for the present study it is most important to concentrate upon these constructions and to note that by the end of the Hadrianic period the Palatine already possessed the most impressive residences in Rome. These residences and their gardens were probably not as extensive as in the villas of suburban Rome because of the available space, but they were clear representations of the status and success of these members of the Roman aristocracy. The House of Augustus This Imperial palace was an impressive residence (Fig. 10), which became the seat of the Roman Empire. The site of this complex was chosen by Augustus after his victory at Actium but previously he resided in a modest domus on the Palatine, which he had acquired from Hortensius in 44 BC (Barton 1996, 92). After the conquest of Egypt in 28 BC, he bought other property, such as the house of Catilina and then rebuilt the area to create the much larger House of Augustus (Richmond 1914, 211-12). The original modest structure was burned, probably in AD 3, and subsequently rebuilt in fine style (Richardson 1992, 118). This complex was divided into three sections. The first of these, on the Velia side, included the Propylaia, Temple of Apollo (Platner and Ashby 1965, 156-7), Portico of the Danaids, as well as the Greek and Latin libraries (Suet. Aug., 29). The middle section comprised the Shrine of Vesta, whereas the last section, on the Circus side, made up the Imperial residence proper (Lanciani 1967, 138).

The perceived conception of space for this complex illustrates how Rooms A, 10 and 13 epitomise the social stratification that was inherent within this structure. The House of Augustus clearly had a close relationship between itself and the urban space surrounding it if Laurence’s spatial theory is considered. When considered in conjunction with Lefebvre’s theory of spatial practice, this generally reflects its importance for social interaction as well. The conceived conception of these spaces within the House of Augustus (Rooms A, 10 and 13) it further illustrates the importance of socialisation as their intended function. Their placement (Fig. 10) was located along the central axes of the structure, which clearly reflects their prominent social intentions for a wide range of respective individuals. The lived conception of space for this palace reflects how Augustus intended to symbolically reflect his social doctrine: the House of Augustus was designed to be widely accessible across the various social strata within the wider Roman community.

Little remains of the original residential precinct of this domus, owing to the complex having been ransacked over the centuries, but the remains illustrate how wellappointed the facilities and décor were. There is only evidence of the wall paintings in three underground

Graph 7 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Augustus

23

Graph 8 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Augustus public nature of this structure is important to note because these palaces were not entirely isolated from the general public, which explans the impressive nature of the Imperial residences on the Palatine. As with the House of Augustus, little remains of the Domus Tiberiana wing of the imperial palace, mostly the underground passages that connected with the residence of Augustus. These substructures are quite irregular in their layout, providing an artificial platform upon which the palace proper was constructed. But these remains have allowed for a reconstruction of the complex, with its impressive height over the Via Nova (Fig. 13) (Krause 1990, 138). The two buildings that comprised this complex covered an area of roughly one hundred and fifty by one hundred and fifteen metres, limited by the Forum Palatinum to the south. It seems that one of the most impressive features of the Domus Tiberiana was the Imperial library. The only remaining portions of this structure that remain are the arched substructures of the southern frontage, a row of cells that were not occupied by members of the Imperial family. There is one area of this residence that has evidence of three distinct phases of construction and alteration, which is one of the narrowest sections of the complex. This region has illustrated that the area was altered in the Flavian and Hadrianic periods, highlighting the continuation of use for this structure, particularly with the enlargement of the north-western terrace by Hadrian (Krause 1990, 124). Although there is little information about this part of the Imperial residence, it is important to take note of the impressive dimensions of this addition (Tomei 1996, 165-200).

The space syntax data (Fig 11) correlates well with Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling for this structure (Table 5). Room A was highly accessible as shown by its low Mean Depth value (2.53) and low Relative Asymmetry value (0.0093). Room 10 was also clearly intended to be widely accessible (Mean Depth 3.35; Relative Asymmetry 0.142), but was more restricted than Room A, which is to be expected in view of their comparative size. Room 13 was the most restricted of these three rooms (Mean Depth 3.97; Relative Asymmetry 0.18), but was still generally accessible when contrasted with the results of other rooms in the complex (Table 5). When considering the structure overall, the respective Control Value results (Graph 7) exhibits how the vast majority of spaces were controlled, showing that their accessibility was dominated by nine controlling areas. When the Real Relative Asymmetry values are considered (Graph 8), the general accessibility of the complex is syntactically illustrated in a consistent fashion. This confirms the theoretical modelling of the House of Augustus and illustrates the wide possibility for social interaction in this complex. Domus Tiberiana Construction of the Domus Tiberiana has been attributed to the Emperors’ Tiberius and Gaius (Fig. 12), who added the Domus Gaiana. This complex was constructed to the north of the Temple of the Magna Mater, which served a public function including its use as an unofficial theatre (Goldberg 1998, 4-9). Despite its name, little of this complex can be credited directly to Tiberius, with more attributed to his successors (Richardson 1992, 136). The

24

Graph 9 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Domus Tiberiana

Graph 10 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Domus Tiberiana would have been inhabited by the slaves, servants and freedmen in the service of the Emperor. It seems that of this group (Rooms A, B, C), none of the rooms had light or air. But it appears that these rooms were originally well lit and ventilated by a court, roughly thirty-two by twenty-six metres, but later alterations reduced the living quality of these rooms. This would also explain the wellappointed décor in some of these rooms, which became almost invisible after these later changes. The atrium of the structure measured roughly 27 by 22.5 metres, including a large impluvium (Hurst 1995, 107). A terminus post quem for this region of the complex has been given at roughly AD 25-30, owing to the pottery and lamps discovered beneath the construction. The axis of this room ran east-west, with the main entrance being to the north in the direction towards the Temple of Castor and Pollux. This region of the complex was later demolished by Domitian, removing much of the evidence for this structure.

Lefebvre’s perceived conception of space illustrates the nature of the extant archaeological remains for the Domus Tiberiana: the remaining substructures exhibit the lack of distinction for interaction within these regions. It is evident that none of the extant substructures were intended for socialisation, they were simply used for a purely utilitarian function. This is not only exhibited by the conceived conception but also by factoring in Lefebvre’s lived conception of space as well. The spatial syntax data (Table 6) also reflects the simplicity of these substructures (Fig. 14), whereby the overall Control Value results (Graph 9) only show three controlling rooms. This is also exhibited through the overall Real Relative Asymmetry results (Graph 10), which also exhibits a limited degree of variation that epitomises the minimal level of élite socialisation intended for these areas. Domus Gaiana The Domus Gaiana (Fig. 15), was another substantial addition to the urban Imperial residence. The front of the complex opened onto the Via Nova at a great height, rising roughly forty-five metres over the road (Lanciani 1967, 150). What remains of the complex is mostly the arched substructures in order to raise the elevation of the building to the level of its summit. These substructures

A piscina has also been discovered in association with this atrium, set in an open area measuring roughly 41 by 23 metres (Platner and Ashby 1965, 192). It appears this was in the centre of a peristyle with rooms located further to the east and south (Hurst 1995, 108). There appear to have been several niches within the walls of this area for

25

The theoretical modelling of Laurence and Lefebvre provides a good insight into the socialisation implications of this largely ‘functional’ addition to the imperial residence. The Domus Transitoria was intended to create an important connection for the palace generally, to aid the social possibilities of the imperial household. All the same, in accordance with Lefebvre’s lived conception of space the decoration and architecture of this wing illustrates a greater implied sensitivity for the physical manifestation by Nero than a purely ‘functional’ disposition for the Domus Transitoria. The wider consideration for the aesthetic became even more pronounced with the subsequent creation of the Domus Aurea.

additional decoration, adding to its impressive character. However, the most important feature of the Domus Gaiana for the subject of this study is the extreme lengths taken by the Emperor Gaius to raise the level of his Imperial palace above street level. The large substructures created an impressive residence, which would have not only been imposing from the outside, but also creating a striking panorama from the residence itself. It should also be noted that in addition to this Imperial palace (Seneca Con. Pol., 17.4), Gaius also possessed a suburban villa at Alba, as well as several luxury villas throughout Campania (Philo 185; Adams 2007). Lefebvre’s perceived conception of the Domus Gaiana illustrates the duality of its symbolism. It was a clear statement to the wider community about the owner’s close connection to the deities Castor and Pollux, and yet its design also made an overt declaration of exclusivity: this was a structure that was almost purely intended for the princeps. This ties in closely with the conceived conception: the symbolism of this structure did not require a grand design for this message to be conveyed – it represented the intimacy between emperor and divinity with no provisions for other individuals expressly. The lived conception of Lefebvre further highlights this interpretation: the complexity of such social symbolism (and its importance to its owner) was absolutely paramount.

Domus Aurea The Domus Aurea (Fig. 17) was the most impressive Imperial residence, covering roughly over one and a half square kilometres. It was so named because, according to Pliny the Elder (NH 36.3), the façade of the main complex was gilded (Boëthius 1960, 103-4). Remains of this complex have been discovered between the Palatine and the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline. There are several literary sources on the evolution of the Domus Aurea, which are of use for understanding this complex. Tacitus (Ann. 15.39, 42) and Suetonius (Nero 31) refer to the damage to the Domus Transitoria in the fires of AD 64, with the ensuing construction of this palace. Suetonius (Otho 7) also referred to the authorisation of 50,000,000 sesterces by the Emperor Otho for the completion of the Domus Aurea. Cassius Dio (65.4.2) mentions that the wife of Vitellius, Galeria, was unsatisfied with the décor of the palace, which is evident of the incomplete state of the complex at this time. Following from this period, the reference by Pliny the Elder (NH 34.84), who mentions that the statues from this residence were removed by Vespasian and dedicated in the Temple of Peace, symbolising the termination of construction upon this structure (Peters and Meyboom 1982, 36). There have been finds of Italian red-gloss pottery discovered in a late First-early Second Century context, which may further the suggestion that occupation was terminated around this period (Toynbee 1957, 18). The Domus Aurea was a representation of the extreme excesses of the Emperor Nero, which was in turn used by later authors, such as Suetonius, to reflect his personality (Blaison 1998, 620).

Domus Transitoria This palace (Fig. 16) was the first palace built by the Emperor Nero (Suet Nero 31.1), which was later incorporated into the Domus Aurea (Hemsoll 1990, 10). There have been wall paintings discovered in the Domus Transitoria attributed to the reign of the Nero, depicting Hercules with references to the divine power of Jupiter (De Vos 1990, 167). The architecture and décor of this residence have similar hemes to those that developed to the optimum level in the Domus Aurea. The most notable surviving feature of this structure was a nymphaeum that was discovered under the Domus Flavia (Barton 1996, 94). Despite the dearth of remains, it is evident that this structure was well-appointed, with careful emphasis placed upon its style and refinement (Ward-Perkins 1981, 57). The nymphaeum was designed as an elongated rectangular structure. It was designed as an open courtyard with large fountains on one wall with a square pavilion placed opposite. There were small rooms placed on either side of this square room, adorned with high ceilings and well-appointed wall décor (Richardson 1992, 138). One of these rooms was adorned with figures representing a Homeric cycle within a splendid framework. The central room was probably an open dining room for close guests of Nero. The focus of the nymphaeum was a deep sunken garden (Richardson 1992, 138), which would have created an impressive effect. The area of the nymphaeum within this building was eventually abandoned after the great fire of AD 64, later incorporated into the Domus Aurea (De Vos 1990, 183).

The existing elements of the structure itself are indicative of the immense proportions of the complex. The façade was very similar to a portico villa, with several rooms opening onto this portico. One of the most distinguished rooms is the Octagonal room (Room 128), which has a circular dome with an opening in the centre (Fig. 18) (Richardson 1992, 120). There was a water feature at the rear of the room, where water poured down a steep channel (Boëthius 1960, 114). The majority of the rooms along this portico were reception rooms, influencing the design of the rooms behind. These rooms served a secondary function, lacking the fine décor of the

26

illustrate his dominance and majesty were epitomised in the colossal statue that he erected of himself in the atrium off the new Via Sacra. This could also be interpreted as not only adding to the honour of the Emperor Nero, but also as an attempt to create a pleasant and more private domus, while maintaining his place within the capital. It appears that Nero tried to separate the Domus Aurea from the city by increasing the size of his estate. The size of the estate has been illustrated, with some exaggeration, by Pliny the Elder (NH 3.3.54; 36.3).

preceding quarters. However, the walls and the vaulted ceilings were still adorned with stucco and painted with skilful images. Excavation has shown that there may have been an upper level in this area of the complex, with an open plan including two symmetrical peristyles. The western wing of the complex may have had as many as three stories, possibly with a view over the Imperial estate, similar to many portico villas from the period. The eastern and western wings would have created a symmetrical harmony (Fabbrini 1995, 56), which would have added to the impressive façade of the complex. There are a few rooms that can be discussed in more detail, which served as the main reception areas. The first of these is the Octagonal room (Room 128), which probably functioned as a reception room, similar to those in townhouses and villas (Hemsoll 1990, 17). This room was monumental in its design and cleverly conceived, being well lit with a series of windows sited slightly above the base of the dome’s upper surface. The rooms surrounding this hall were part of a unified collection, complementing each of the others in the group in their layout and décor.

Domus Flavia The Palace of Domitian was probably one of the most impressive examples of an Imperial residence that remains (Fig. 19). The Imperial estate was reduced by Vespasian upon his accession in AD 69, limiting it to the previous limits of the Palatine. Vespasian began the construction of the Domus Flavia, but it came to its true realisation under Domitian (Richardson 1992, 115). This Imperial residence was located between the Domus Tiberiana and Gaiana on one side, with the House of Augustus on the other. The structure was placed in line with the valley that ran between the Arch of Titus towards the Circus. This valley was occupied by private houses and a couple of shrines at this time, which were not demolished but used to support the platform of the palace. The Domus Flavia was planned along the lines of a traditional Roman domus, but on a grander scale (Giuliani 1977, 91-106). It is unknown as to whether the Emperors actually resided at the Domus Flavia, but instead it may have been used for political and administrative purposes, such as holding assemblies, delivering judgements, presiding over councils of state and for official banquets (Lanciani 1967, 156).

The central feature of the Oppian wing of the complex was a large peristyle, which was complemented by a long façade. It seems that this wing of the complex was originally much longer, divided into three distinct quarters with the Octagonal room (Room 128) in the middle. However, this was only one section of the Domus Aurea, with the complex having been much larger. There were probably upper stories and they seem to have extended into terraces towards the rear of the structure, probably leading onto gardens (Hemsoll 1990, 12-13). Judging from the design of the Domus Aurea it is clear to see the influence of villa architecture, as well as some Hellenistic inspiration in some of the décor, epitomising the ultimate in wealth and luxury.

The layout of the Domus Flavia had impressive dimensions. There were three halls that opened to the front of the palace: the throne room (aula regia) in the centre, a lararium on the left and the basilica on the right (Giuliani 1977, 94). The aula regia was constructed in brick and had impressive dimensions, measuring roughly forty-nine by thirty-seven metres (Lanciani 1967, 158). This room was decorated with sixteen columns with bases and capitals cut in ivory-coloured marble. On either side of this room there were three niches for statues, flanked by small columns of porphyry. The throne itself (Room c), or augustale solium, was placed on the same axis as the entrance in the apse towards the rear. The lararium included a large altar at the far wall from the entrance. Behind this room was a small staircase, which led to an upper level of the residence. This level of rooms included areas for the conducting of state ceremonies for invited guests. Both the staircase (Room d) and the adjacent room (Room e) were adorned with fine frescoes that have not survived. The basilica was located on the other side of the aula regia, still possessing traces of the podium upon which the Emperor would have passed judgement.

When examining the decoration of the Domus Aurea it is interesting to note that the wall paintings of the most palatial rooms, except for the Octagonal room (Room 128), the nymphaeum (Room 45) and the exedra (Room 44), were not the prime focus of the ornamentation, instead being dominated by higher marble facing (Peters and Meyboom 1982, 36). A good example of this is the central room of the western wing (Room 29), which has marble panels up to the point of the vaulting. The Domus Aurea has been described as an exceptional example of the imitation and elaboration of Hellenistic architecture and décor, yet incorporating these influences into the traditional Roman domus. One of the main features of this establishment was the gardens, which was as much a part of this complex as the structure itself. These gardens made it into a rus in urbe (Mart. 12.57.21), which intended to give the emperor more distinction owing to the immense area covered by his estate within the urban precincts (Purcell 2001, 547). The grand proportions of this estate within the city was, in many ways, an attempt to create a new city by Nero, with himself, in the form of his residence, being the prime focus. His desire to

27

It must be noted that below these rooms and the peristyle there were more rooms, including fine apartments, galleries and a cryptoporticus. One of these rooms included a ‘bathroom’, which measured over twenty metres in length, with walls encrusted with Florentine mosaic, a marble basin, porphyry columns and marble bas-reliefs of the highest quality. There is no evidence of rooms of lodging within the Domus Flavia, but it would be unrealistic to accept that none existed, in view of the complex’s long period of use. In all likelihood these rooms would have probably been located on the upper levels of the residence, which have not survived. In this area of the domus there would have been greater opportunity for privacy, whereas the ground floor served a more public role. As with all of the large Imperial residences, the high platform upon which this palace was constructed would have created an impressive panorama, allowing for a dramatic view of the entire city. This would have been of some attraction to the emperors, providing them with a view of what they would have considered their city. It was also desirable because the elevated position added to the prominence of these residences in the eyes of the public, emphasising the importance of the princeps.

Behind these three halls was an open peristyle, measuring roughly 3600 square metres. Suetonius (Dom. 14.4) refers to this area as being a favourite place for Domitian to walk under the colonnades away from the crowds and also danger. Two sides of the peristyle were bordered by a series of nine rooms, all of which served an unknown function, except the central vestibule that served as a reception room. It is probable that the other rooms served as the main residential rooms within the complex (Richardson 1992, 116). There was a triclinium located on the eastern side of the peristyle, which may have been the Iovis Centaio. None of the wall decorations have survived from this room, but the pavement of the apse was produced from pieces of porphyry, serpentine, giallo and pavonazzetto in geometric patterns. The remains of Neronian structures have been discovered under the foundations of this room (Cassatella 1990, 155-66), which is indicative of the rebuilding by the Flavian Emperors to disassociate themselves from this predecessor. There was also a nymphaeum located to the right of the triclinium (Fig. 19), which seems to have several water features and good light and ventilation (Gibson, DeLaine and Claridge 1994, 70). The central fountain was elliptical with niches and recesses, probably for plants and statues.

Graph 11 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Domus Flavia

Graph 12 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Domus Flavia

28

population. The contrast between the House of Augustus and the Domus Flavia provides an excellent comparison, particularly about their levels accessibility for visitors to each respective complex. All the same, this appears to have been the general pattern for all of the structures from this region under question: the general intentions and social contexts for each individual owner produced a wide variation for each complex and how they functioned.

The perceived conception of space for the Domus Flavia illustrates how controlled this residence was, with Room A (Table 7) (Fig. 20) separating visitors from the inner sanctum of the structure (Mean Depth 2; Control Value 5.25) (Graph 11). The separation between the southern and northern section of this wing is also demonstrated by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry results (Graph 12), illustrating how the southern region was used for public reception and the northern side was more restricted, probably only being used by residents and their invited guests. This would have heightened the social symbolism of both sections of the structure, in accordance with both of Lefebvre’s conceived and lived conceptions of space.

Imperial Villas In order to discuss the characteristics of suburban villas, it has been beneficial to analyse the Imperial urban residences because of the substantial influence that these residences would have wielded, epitomising the standard of success and luxuria. But the Imperial family also possessed several suburban villas around Rome, which would have been just as influential. During the Imperial period, the emperors would have been a great source of inspiration for the Roman élite, which makes these villae suburbanae particularly notable. However, these Imperial estates will only be considered here on a comparable basis because of the extensive disposable capital available to their owners, which may otherwise distort the results of any analysis. But they still remain as an essential source of material for the ideal setting for suburban villas around Rome and beyond.

Imperial Palaces – Conclusions The most prominent theme that is evident in the Imperial palaces within Rome is the desire to create not only an impressive residence, but also the attempt to maintain an element of privacy. In many ways this would not have been possible, in view of the dual nature of these palaces, serving both as a domus but also as the seat of Empire. It may have been for this reason that the Emperors also maintained at least one villa in close proximity to the capital. However, the urban residences served an important purpose. The grandeur of their dimensions made them prominent within the community throughout the Imperial period, which was essential for maintaining the Emperors’ social presence. All of the Emperors would have felt a desire to make their social and political dominance clear to the Roman population, especially in light of the precarious nature of their position. But this did not necessarily mean that they would have had a great deal of privacy and hence it would have created a need to possess villas that were not too far away from Rome and its responsibilities. It should be remembered that the Imperial residences and their associated gardens were traversed by a series of streets, which were probably accessible by the public with limited restriction. Having examined the palaces of the Emperors, there is a notable comparison. Claudius was notable for his minimal expenditure on monumental architecture, preferring to fund aqueducts, walls, docks and harbours (Levick 1990, 108). When the limited alterations by Claudius are compared to those of Nero and Domitian, it further emphasises the extravagance outlaid upon these residences. However, the use of villa-style architecture in the design of these palaces and the immense size of several of these residences within the city do draw clear analogies between both types of structure.

Villa 4 – The Villa of Livia at Prima Porta This structure was probably one of the most impressive villa structures located in the suburbs of Rome. In antiquity this villa complex was called ad Gallinas, which was strongly linked with Augustan ideology (Clark Reeder 1997, 89-90). This villa was located on the ancient Via Flaminia along the western slopes roughly twelve kilometres from Rome (Map 1). The complex was constructed in three phases: the first occurred between 50-30 BC, then in the middle of the First Century AD and finally during the Constantinian era (Klynne and Liljenstolpe 1996, 89-100). There have been finds of several columns, mosaics and walls dressed in white plaster, with the general demeanour of the structure appearing to have a grand presence (Calci and Massineo 1984, 24-5). There are three known sectors within this complex, but there are still areas that remain covered. This complex is one of the largest known Imperial villas, covering around 14,000 square metres (Klynne and Liljenstolpe 2000, 221). The general plan of the main residence led from the Via Flaminia through the fauces towards the atrium (Fig. 21). Beyond this there was a small garden and two cubicula with a corridor and the balnea on the right and the garden terrace to the west. The large garden terrace was encircled by a colonnade, which was probably a single aisled structure. There was also a two metre long euripus, which was later converted into a small planting bed, probably during the mid-late First Century AD. The garden terrace was further enhanced by the inclusion of a hanging garden, with apsidal niches for the addition of taller plants. This hanging garden would have added to the pleasant

The theoretical methodologies of both Laurence and Lefebvre have proven to be of great assistance for this analysis. Both have illustrated how these approaches can provide further insight into how one can view such palaces. They have shown how differently each of these imperial structures provided quite distinct venues for socialisation, which would have been indicative of how each respective owner/constructor sought to not only provide a suitable residence for themselves, but also how they wanted to symbolically engage with the wider

29

is quite noteworthy (Pollini and Herz 1992, 207). This was the finest type of white marble for sculpture, which seems appropriate for a statue celebrating the Emperor Augustus (Pollini, Herz, Polikreti and Maniatis 1998, 282-4). A capital has been discovered at this villa complex, which has been dated to the Hadrianic period (Liljenstolpe 1996, 101-5), illustrating the continued habitation at the site into the Second Century. It is evident that this complex would have been an ideal villa in the suburbs of Rome for the Imperial family, allowing for an open lifestyle and a degree of privacy, while still being close the responsibilities of the capital.

character of the ambulatories, creating a secluded vista within this suburban villa. A small garden was located in the south-west corner, roughly in front of the underground complex of this villa with a series of pierced pots, probably being used for planting a garden (Clark Reeder 1997, 92-3), similar to those discovered at the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli. It seems that this horti was established during the initial phase of occupation, but it still experienced alterations (Liljenstolpe and Klynne 1997-1998, 131, 134). This garden may have been a laurel grove, which would connect well with the imagery of the Prima Porta statue of Augustus (Clark Reeder 1997, 91-2), and the nearby wall paintings. This region of the complex had relatively minor rooms, eventually being decorated with Antonine wall painting (Klynne and Liljenstolpe 2000, 221). However, this did not mean that these quarters were without pretensions, clearly having an impressive demeanour.

The perceived conception of space within the Villa of Livia illustrates the high level of control that existed at this structure. This indicates that there was a clear hierarchy of social regulation between various members of the household, which was in keeping with the lofty standing of the leading residents. Lefebvre’s conceived conception also suggests a high level of social/reception productivity, which is consistent with the perceived conception of this residence. The physical and architectural form of the villa also reflects the social symbolism that was inherent within its lived conception of space. Laurence’s conception of the relationship between urban space and social interaction is also important to note here, especially when factoring in the close proximity of this structure to the Via Flaminia. This illustrates how despite its extra-urban location, the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta would have been highly visible among the wider community members.

These decorative features illustrate the subtleties of Augustan decorative schemes (Ling 1991, 149). The landscape décor created a spatial illusion of an open-air garden within a subterranean room (Kellum 1994, 215). The most famous of the artistic pieces was the famous Prima Porta statue of Augustus (Fig. 22), which has been the source of much discussion (Grieco 1979, 147-64). This statue was made predominantly from Parian lychnites marble, being entirely sculpted from one piece apart from the head and the raised right arm, which itself

Graph 13 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta

30

Graph 14 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta towards the sea and the surrounding countryside (Ashby 1970, 191). Owing to the incomplete excavations of the Imperial residential quarters it is impossible to define any specific viewing rooms, but it seems reasonable to judge that the view of this impressive landscape would have been utilised.

The syntactical analysis of the Hillier and Hanson method has focused upon three rooms in particular (Table 8): Rooms 10, 13 and 58 (Fig. 23). Room 10 was clearly used for a high level of socialisation judging from its low Mean Depth (2.67) and Relative Asymmetry values (0.145). While Room 10 was placed on the central axis of the structure, Room 13 had a more restricted level of socialisation, which is reflected in its higher Mean Depth result (3.54) and Relative Asymmetry values (0.221). The same level of social control is exhibited in the results for Room 58 (Mean Depth 3.46; Relative Asymmetry 0.214), showing its lower accessibility. This would suggest that Rooms 13 and 58 were really only used by the leading imperial residents and their invited guests. The high level of social control is exhibited through the elevated proportion of controlling rooms in the structure (eleven rooms in total) (Graph 13). The social hierarchy of space and its implications for accessible/inaccessible areas is also further illustrated by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values for the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta (Graph 14).

One of the most impressive features of this complex was the theatre (Fig. 25). Domitian’s appreciation for drama has been well documented (Suetonius Dom 4.4), which would make the presence of this structure not surprising. This structure was located on the northern side of the middle terrace (Von Hesberg 1981, 176). It appears that the architecture of this impressive structure was of the highest quality, with spaces for statues in the scaenae frons. Another important feature of this villa was the nymphaeum, which was rectangular in form, with at least one wall made of opus reticulatum with niches at different points for statues (Crescenzi 1981, 183-4). There were two other nymphaea within this villa, but this was the most notable. As with the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta, this large villa in the Roman suburbs maintained the advantages of living in the hinterland of the capital, as well as allowing more space for Domitian to construct structures for his personal use, such as the theatre.

Villa 5 – The Villa of Domitian at Castel Gandolfo This complex was roughly twenty kilometres from Rome, placed in the Alban hills on the Via Appia (Map 1) (Barton 1996, 101). This region of Latium was renowned for its wealthy villae suburbanae and prosperous towns (White 1970, 72), being popular in the summer months by providing relief from the city heat (Casson 1974, 145). The layout was based upon three terraces that were created by restructuring a volcanic crater. It was an immense complex, with several buildings, including the residential quarters for the emperor, a nymphaeum, baths and a theatre (Fig. 24) (Barton 1996, 101). Between all of these features there were fine ornamental gardens, which unified the entire complex. The complex was influenced by the Domus Aurea, but owing to its position, there was greater space for enlargement. The literary sources have described it as a luxurious and well-appointed residence (Statius Silv., 3.5.28; Suet. Dom., 19), which would seem appropriate in view of the facilities at the Domus Flavia. The complex was also provided with an impressive landscape, commanding a panorama that stretched out

Villa 6 – The Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli This estate is the most extensive and elaborate complex discovered in the suburbs of Rome, roughly twenty-eight kilometres from the capital (Map 1) (Packer 1998, 583), covering roughly three hundred acres (Fig. 26). The Imperial residence itself, including the Piazza d’Oro, Hall with Doric Pillars, Great Peristyle and the library courtyards still covered an area well over 50,000 square metres (Aurigemma 1964, 48), illustrating its grand dimensions. Originally there was a late Republican villa on the site previous to the construction of Hadrian’s villa, some of its walls being incorporated into the palace peristyle. The general layout appears to have been planned in a coherent style (Adembri 2000, 24), but it is still difficult to understand as a whole. The position of each building was intended to take advantage of the topography, which added to the entire effect. The plan

31

The statues discovered around the end of the Canopus were influenced by Greek culture, but may have symbolised a return to the Augustan Golden Age (Raeder 1983, 304-14). However, it is interesting to note the use of different types of marble and the poor state of visibility for viewing these statues from the grotto-triclinium (Bellingham 1985, 275). But it has generally been accepted that the vast array of statuary discovered at the site is indicative not only of the emperor’s cultural influences during his travels (Jashemski and Salza Prina Ricotti 1992, 580), but also that each piece was carefully considered in order to complement the architecture of its surroundings (Fullerton 1986, 251). The Canopus region had a series of terraced gardens on the western side, with a series of amphorae that were cut in half used as planting pots (Jashemski and Salza Prina Ricotti 1992, 579-97).

was aligned upon a series of different axes, but it suited the undulating nature of its position. Of the structures included within the villa complex, there were several designed for specific purposes, such as the libraries and sculpture galleries. The entire complex was a reflection of the emperor’s tastes and cultural appreciation. Hadrian was initiated into the rites of the Eleusinian mysteries (Clinton 1989, 56-68), reflecting his appreciation for Hellenistic culture. In several of the structures, this understanding was displayed in his architectural tastes. This complex has been the topic of much discussion and for the purposes of this study, owing to its immense size, only certain aspects will be discussed. The particular rooms to be considered are the triclinia, such as the Arcaded and Scenic triclinia with their associated structures. Within the villa, Hadrian had provided enough space for banquets that almost a countless number of people could have been entertained. All of these reception rooms had been intended for summer dining, which appears to have been the time of year when the Emperor anticipated to be staying at this villa suburbana (Birley 1997, 199).

Imperial Villas – Conclusions Judging from the developments at both the Villas of Domitian at Castel Gandolfo and Hadrian at Tivoli, it is clear to see the influence of the Domus Aurea (Barton 1996, 101, 107), as well as the lessons learnt by placing these large and imposing structures further from the capital. Hadrian’s Villa would have served not only as a place of retreat for writing and study, but also as a workplace (MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 186). However, these two functions were allocated specific regions, but the importance of work was clearly a factor, with several buildings for administrative uses being closely associated either within or beside the Imperial residence. The inclusion of such areas would have been necessary, owing to the constant responsibilities of state, which could not be neglected. But conversely this would have made the prospect of being removed from direct contact with the capital just as appealing to the Imperial household. The greater amount of available space for construction of a worthy residence would have also been a benefit, especially for the Emperor Hadrian with his interest in architecture. For those Emperors with a preference for undertaking grandiose constructions, such as Nero and Domitian, the advantage of building a large villa in the suburbs would also have been less obvious, but this was naturally not always the case, as can be seen in the Domus Aurea.

The room called the Imperial triclinium was the first dining room to be constructed at the villa, probably completed by AD 125, but it has been questioned as to whether this room served as a dining room, or possibly as an atrium, which seems more likely. The most significant dining rooms at Hadrian’s villa for this discussion are the Arcaded and Scenic triclinia, which were part of a stibadium under a vaulted canopy that was open to the view (MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 102-3). The Arcaded triclinium was originally designed on a north-south axis with three main quarters: an open columned portico, central hall and a southern semi-circular exedra. This region was later converted into a less conventional layout, eventually having only one solid wall, with an impressive spatial orientation allowing for an unimpeded view on most major axes. A major feature intended for viewing was a pool placed alongside the building. This region of the villa would have served as both dining area and reception room, having a large amount of spatial freedom. The large stibadium of the Scenic triclinium, which has been referred to as a Serapeum, was located beneath the half-dome of the Scenic triclinium, which was roughly thirteen metres in diameter. This was planned to view the Canopus, which served in a similar fashion to a euripus, as at many wealthy villas, but on a monumental scale with strong Egyptian influences (Ortolani 1998, 21). The design was intended to join nature, art and architecture in a dynamic spatial concept (MacDonald and Pinto 1995, 112). There were also small pavilions located on either side, which served as diaetae, being open to the breeze and the Canopus. This Scenic triclinium was used for a relatively small number of people, designed as a two-part grotto with the Canopus serving as its ornamental water feature. The view of the Canopus would have been extremely impressive, especially with its associated sculptures.

Other Villas in the Suburban regions of Rome There have been several explorations in the areas surrounding Rome, with several villas discovered in the region. One of these examples was the study of Lanciani (1918) in the region of the Quirinal Hill just north of the Aurelianic wall. These excavations revealed a series of tombs and villas from the Roman period (Bird, Claridge, Gilkes and Neal 1993, 52). Subsequent excavation has also uncovered evidence of early Second Century gardens just beyond the city walls (Fig. 27). There are villas recorded in this area, on both sides of the city wall, which indicates that these terraced gardens may have been part of their estates. There was a structure constructed of opus reticulatum dated to this period (Gilkes, Passigli and

32

Leach 1993, 292). These passages where Horace laments at being unable to write in Rome (Dilke 1973, 102) may also provide another interpretation. He is reflecting the idealistic image of the country that was held while residing in the city (Fraenkel 1957, 142), but this does not mean that he was against city living (Rudd 1993, 83). This is clearly shown in Satires 2.7.28-9: romae rus optas; absentem rusticus urbem tollis ad astra leuis (“In Rome you long for the country; there, you praise to the skies the city you’ve left behind. What caprice!”). This estate was managed by a vilicus (Ep. 1.14.1-4), having eight rural slaves (Sat. 2.7.117-18), as well as tenants in five plots around his suburban villa. These people would have allowed for Horace’s relaxed lifestyle in the outskirts of Rome, although he does mention participating in the ‘joys’ of a simple agricultural lifestyle.

Schinke 1994, 112), which was probably associated with the gardens. It seems that there were a series of suburban villas with peristyles and gardens outside the Porta Nomentana from the First Century BC. Platner and Ashby (1965, 264-73) have cited several horti identified in the region of Rome, but despite the overlap in the use of the terms horti and villa, it does not necessarily always indicate the presence of a substantial villa (Champlin 1982, 99). Ashby (1906, 3-197) has also listed the location of a large number of structures discovered in the popular region of Tibur, but the exact remains at most sites have only allowed for a limited degree of knowledge about each site. Literary References There were two authors in particular who made references to the lifestyles led on their villa estates: Horace and Pliny the Younger. Both of these authors give a different perspective of villa life in the suburbs of Rome. Horace was the son of a freedman in the First Century BC, whereas Pliny was a wealthy senator of the First and Second Centuries, which outlines the differences in their experience (Ackerman 1990, 35). Yet both authors held a common view of the benefits of living outside of the capital, but also the advantages of still living near Rome. Otium was naturally of extreme importance to both writers, which was a common theme and epitomise the ideals of country life.

The complex which has been identified as Horace’s Sabine Villa is located roughly forty kilometres from Rome (Map 1). The size of the estate is unknown, but it has been estimated to cover roughly 321 iugeras, or eighty hectares (Schmidt 1997, 20). This property was a gift of Maecenas (Hallam 1914, 121), elevating his social and economic position, but it would still have been modest in contrast to those within his social circle. The complex measures roughly forty-three by one hundred and fourteen metres (Fig. 28). The structure included a peristyle, cryptoporticus and a terrace with ambulatories. It also has a large garden around the structure and owing to the elevation of the building, it would have been possible to view the mountains from the domus over the cryptoporticus.

Villa 7 – The Villa of Horace at Sabinum The writings of Horace can further our understanding of suburban villas and the lifestyle that their owners aspired towards. Horace was writing from a different perspective to Cato and Varro. Sections of the Satires, Epistles and Odes provide a different perspective, containing little technical information about villas, but interesting points about the activities at these residences. In Satire 6.16-17, Horace illustrated the desire and benefits of escaping from the city: Ergo ubi me in montes et in arcem ex urbe removi, quid prius illustrem saturis Musaque pedestri? (“So, now that from the city I have taken myself off to my castle in the hills, to what should I sooner give renown in the Satires of my prosaic Muse?”). He described the hectic nature of life in Rome, complaining about the busy streets and the crowds and the weight of his responsibilities (Sat. 6.20-58; McGann 1973, 63-4). He then praises the benefits of escaping Rome to spend time at his property and the enjoyable lifestyle that was possible there (Sat. 6.59-76). This sentiment was also shown in Epistle 10.6-7, where Horace again praised the decision to escape Rome: Tu nidum servas; ego laudo ruris amoeni rivos et musco circumlita saxa nemusque (“You keep the nest; I praise the lovely country’s brooks, its grove and moss-grown rocks.”). It was a common sentiment of his to encourage a relaxing life rather than the chaotic lifestyle within the city (Odes 2.3.11-16). Syme (1989, 396) has illustrated that the individuals addressed in the Epistles were of a lower standing than those in other collections, which has been used to highlight the private nature of these poems (Winsor

The design of the residential quarters of the villa had two stories, with a narrow hall running the length of the structure, dividing it into northern and southern quarters. The cryptoporticus served as a second hallway for the southern portion of the domus. Each of the two sections had a central space, with the atrium in the southern region and a large courtyard with a well in the northern quarters (Fig. 28). The northern quarters also included a large winter triclinium to the east and a smaller summer triclinium. There were also several other rooms of unknown function in the western portion of these quarters. The southern region included a large hall, which bordered the atrium, as well as some cubicula, with the eastern cubiculum probably used by Horace. This room had geometric mosaic paving, with a narrow strip close to the wall covered by his bed. Despite Horace mentioning the agricultural activity that took place on his estate, it did not preclude the residence having the appropriate facilities for the otium of an extraurban lifestyle (Winsor Leach 1993, 277). It appears that the gardens were originally agricultural in intention, but also possessed ornamental characteristics (Frischer, Gleason, Camaiani, Cerri, Lekstutis and Passalacqua 2000, 272). The construction was performed in opus reticulatum, the majority of the floors were covered in mosaic pavement, and the wall decorations were quite humble in mood, but

33

of high quality. The bath facilities were on the northwestern side, belonging to the same phase as the remainder of the building. Despite that it is unlikely for Horace to have constructed this building, there is evidence of some refurbishment and extensions within this complex. It appears that the gardens were expanded during the late Republic/early Empire, which may have been requisitioned by Horace.

conception of space would suggest a low level of social stratification at this site, with a close collection of rooms at the northern perimeter of the complex. The conceived conception of Lefebvre presents a series of spaces where there were numerous possibilities for respective individuals to directly interact with not only each other but also with the productivity of the structure. The lived conception indicates a more intimate setting for social functioning at this complex. The proximity of rooms did not preclude the wider socialisation possibilities of this villa, but they do suggest smaller scale provisions for potential reception.

The theoretical modelling of Lefebvre and Laurence produces interesting results when examining the Villa of Horace at Licenza. It is evident that the perceived

Graph 15 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Horace

Graph 16 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Horace interpretation (Mean Depth 3.17; Relative Asymmetry 0.189), but it is important to note the comparable closeness of these statistics. This becomes even more apparent when the overall results are factored in. The general Control Value statistics (Graph 15) illustrate that there were only three areas having a significant ‘controlling’ function, thus illustrating the limited levels of social restriction at this site. This is complimented by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 16), which exhibit the low level of variation in social stratification at the Villa of Horace at Licenza.

The Hillier and Hanson method has produced results for this complex (Table 9) that indicate a small-scale but well-appointed residence for socialisation (Fig. 29). Three areas have been focused upon in this regard: Rooms A, F and 4. Area A was more removed from many of the other spaces in the residence, owing to its higher Mean Depth score (3.43) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.211). Room F was more accessible than Area A (Mean Depth 2.57; Relative Asymmetry 0.137) and also was more easily reached by visitors (Depth from Exterior 2). The results for Room 4 also suggest a similar

34

Roman nobility to attain their ideal lifestyles. By accentuating the benefits of the countryside, Horace was emphasising the good of a simple life, which he felt others were neglecting (Winsor Leach 1988, 288). Horace would not have resided at his villa continuously (Frank 1965, 187), which has a notable implication for an understanding of how suburban villas were used. Despite the close connection between suburban properties and the capital, they were not necessarily permanent residences, which is evident at some villae suburbanae in Campania.

It seems clear, having examined both the literature and archaeological evidence concerning the Sabine villa of Horace, that the literature was presenting the image of an ideal landscape. This allowed the author to convey a particular message on the benefits of a simple life and hence the modesty in which he lived while in his villa suburbana. However, he never uses this term in relation to his Sabine property, possibly because this phrase symbolised the concepts of otium and luxuria to his audience, which was not his literary intention. Therefore, it is clear that the literary references illustrate the ideal of the author, not necessarily the reality of the site, which is an important consideration. The contrast that Horace frequently drew between the city and country was an important aspect of his poetry (Griffin 1997, 63-4). If the estate at Licenza was the villa owned by Horace, the architectural style and the spacious nature of the complex were certainly not in keeping with his modest descriptions. However, this property would have been the perfect location for his ideal lifestyle, in accordance with his Epicurean views (Murray 1995, 39). This is also of great importance because it reflects the desire of the

Villa 8 – The Villa of Pliny at Palombara The Epistulae of Pliny the Younger were written between AD 100-109 and also contain valuable information. Just as with Statius, Pliny includes information that deals with the ‘villa experience’, but in some of his letters there are also details concerned with the function of villas and the household (Bergmann 1995, 407). Both of these elements are of great importance because of the insight given on the perspective of both the residents and visitors. In his letter to Caninius Rufus, Pliny highlights the dual function of suburban villas (Ep. 1.3):

Quid agit Comum, tuae meaeque deliciae? quid suburbanum amoenissimum? quid illa porticus verna semper? quid platanon opacissimus? quid euripus viridis et gemmeus? quid subiectus et serviens lacus? quid illa mollis et tamen solida gestatio?quid balineum illud, quod plurimus sol implet et circumit? quid triclinia illa popularia, illa paucorum? quid cubicula diurna, nocturna? Possidente te, et per vices partiuntur? an, ut solebas, intentione rei familiaris obeundae crebris excursionibus avocaris? Si te possident, felix beatusque es; si minus, unus ex multis. “How stands Comum, that favourite scene of yours and mine? What becomes of the pleasant villa, the ever vernal Portico, the shady Planetree-grove, the crystal Canal so agreeably winding along its flowery banks, together with the charming Lake below that serves at once the purposes of use and beauty? What have you to tell me of the firm yet springy Allée, the Bath exposed on all sides to full sunshine, the public saloon, the private dining-room, and all the elegant apartments for repose both at noon and night? Do these enjoy my friend, and divide his time with pleasing vicissitude? Or does the attentive management of your property, as usual, call you frequently out from this agreeable retreat? If the scene of your enjoyments lies wholly there, you are thrice happy: if not, you are levelled with the common order of mankind.” Despite the obvious flattery that colours this passage, Pliny provides an idealistic but useful image of the purpose of suburban villas. The initial reference to Como indicates that this villa was closely connected to town, especially when the view of the town is mentioned. This suggests that it was a suburban villa. This letter also mentions Caninius Rufus being called away from this property to maintain other estates, which would further this suggestion. It was not uncommon for a leading Roman to have more than one villa property, which Pliny mentions in his letter to Pompeia Celerina, who possessed properties at Narnia, Oriculum, Carsola and Perusia (Ep. 1.4).

purchased by Suetonius Tranquillus has enough land around the building to amuse but not employ him (Pliny Ep., 1.24). This letter also stresses the importance of being close to Rome: vicinitas urbis, opportunitas viae (Sherwin-White 1966, 140). In another letter, Pliny speaks highly of his Laurentine villa as the most productive because it was simply a house and garden near the coast where he can write, rather than his agricultural villa in Tuscany (Ep., 4.6). He appeared to reside at his Tuscan villa during the summer months and the Laurentine villa in winter (Ep., 9.36; 9.40). In his letter to Romanus, Pliny also mentions that he has several villas in the one region, on the coast near the Larian lake (Ep. 9.7). Of these, he had a preference for two of them, which was because of their aesthetic beauty, rather than productive capacity.

In this letter Pliny is trying to encourage Caninius to further his literary exploits, discouraging his interests in maintaining his property, which is quite different to the views of earlier agricultural writers. It is clear that Pliny held a different view of villas, emphasising their usefulness for reflection and literary composition (Riggsby 1998, 80-2). This is also shown in his letter to Baebius, where he mentions that a piece of land to be

The lifestyle to be had at villas seems to have been the most important aspect to Pliny. While residing in one of his villas he mentions that he was able to devote himself to his studies. In his letter to Fuscus (9.36), he mentions that while residing at the Tuscan villa in summer: Ubi

35

the references by Pliny in his Epistulae concerning this complex are of great use in not only formulating an understanding of how a villa estate functioned, but also about the extent to which the hinterland of Rome was deemed to be its suburbium.

hora quarta vel quinta (neque enim certum dimensumque tempus), ut dies suasit, in xystum me vel cryptoporticum confero, reliqua meditor et dicto (“About ten or eleven of the clock (for I do not observe one fixed hour), according as the weather recommends, I betake myself either to the terrace, or the covered portico, and there I meditate and dictate what remains on the subject in which I am engaged.”). It is clear that this is an agricultural villa, because he mentions: Interveniunt amici ex proximis oppidis partemque diei ad se trahunt interdumque lassato mihi opportuna interpellatione subveniunt (“The visits of my friends from the neighbouring towns claim some part of the day; and sometimes by a seasonable interruption, they relax me, when I am tired.”). This phrase does not suggest a connection with the neighbouring towns (ex proximis oppidis) despite their obvious adjacency. The relief of his solitude indicates that these visits were not frequent, which highlights that this was not a suburban villa. The essence of his lifestyle during the winter months at his Laurentine Villa does not seem to alter greatly, with the emphasis remaining on his literary studies (Ep. 9.40).

The complex itself (Fig. 30) had a panoramic view of the coastline, but it was also enclosed by a defensive wall that ran parallel to the Via Serveriana. The northern peristyle (Room A) has been constructed in opus reticulatum during the early-mid 1st Century AD, with an ornamental pool being placed in the centre (Ramieri 1995). There was a double row of masonry columns that were decorated with stucco, which were intended to further emphasise the luxurious nature of the residence. The impressive décor at this complex has also been exhibited in finds of marble ornamentation and opus sectile pavements (Ramieri 2004). To the west of this large open peristyle were the bath facilities (Rooms F, G, H and J) (Plate 6), which have been dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and included a mosaic representing Neptune. While the excavations of this villa have not been completed, it has produced evidence of occupation at least into the 3rd Century AD (Ramieri 1995).

The villa of Pliny at Laurentum was located roughly twenty-seven kilometres from the capital (Eck 1997, 187). As well as his references to lifestyle, he also provides the precise function of certain rooms in his villa. In a letter to Gallus, Pliny describes at length his Laurentine villa, the layout of the rooms and the magnificent view from the building (Ep. 2.17). According to this passage this villa should be classified as a suburban villa. Firstly, Pliny comments that: Decem et septem milibus passuum ab urbe secessit, ut peractis, quae agenda fuerint, salvo iam et composito die possis ibi manere (“It is but seventeen miles (27.2 kms) distant from Rome; so that having finished your affairs in town, you can spend the night here after completing a full working-day”). The easy access to Rome from this villa would suggest that it was classed as a suburban villa, especially when it could be reached after a full working day in Rome. It should be noted that many of the Roman aristocracy did not begin work until the fourth or fifth hour of the Roman day (Ep. 3.5.9). This illustrates how close and accessible the villa was to Rome. It appears to have also been in close connection with Ostia, being only around eight kilometres away (Meiggs 1960, 69). The productivity of his Laurentine villa focused upon the sea, particularly fish and prawns (Ep. 2.17). In spite of this reference towards milk, fig and mulberry production, Pliny does not refer to large-scale agricultural production at this villa. The absence of any reference to serious agricultural activity would further suggest that this villa was suburban. Discussions of this villa and its attributes have been analysed thoroughly by modern scholars, creating a varied arrangement of interpretations about the physical form of this villa complex in the suburbs of Rome. Unfortunately, the actual location of this building has not been established, but the reconstructions have produced numerous interpretations, which remain as hypotheses (Tanzer 1924; Van Buren 1995). However,

Four areas have been identified at the Villa of Pliny as having served a potential social role, including the northern peristyle (Room A) and the oecus (Room B) that was located on its eastern side. These rooms were clearly intended for such a role in view of their decorative schemes. Judging from the overall layout of the complex, which is quite similar to other Campanian élite villas (Ramieri 2004; Adams 2006), Room C appears to have also been an open courtyard, surrounded by a series of smaller rooms, that possibly included a triclinium (Room D). Judging from its design and its clear similarities to other villae suburbanae in both Latium and Campania, the classification of its role as an élite villa suburbana appears more than likely. This is particularly important to note in relation to the spaces that could have also been used for agricultural production in addition to their social role (Rooms K, L, M, N and P) (Fig. 30), which will make the land-based connection of this site more likely, and suggest that it was not viewed as a villa maritima. Lefebvre’s perceived conception of space for the Villa of Pliny at Palombara exhibits only a small amount of social stratification, with there being three definite reception regions within the overall complex. This conforms with the conceived conception where each group (Rooms F, G, H and J), (Rooms A, B and T) and (Rooms C, D, E, K, L, M, N, P, R and S) were connected (and yet defined) by Rooms Q and U. This in turn represents the lived conception of space whereby the physical and architectural form of the villa was used to clearly indicate the complexity of the social symbolism within its design. This reflects how there was a definite intention lying behind its construction, thus suggesting an overall conception for the layout of the villa.

36

Graph 17 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Pliny

Graph 18 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Pliny The syntactical data for the Villa of Pliny (Table 10) (Fig. 31) illustrates the distinct conception for the roles of the four rooms under question (Rooms A, B, C and D). Area A, as an open peristyle, was clearly accessible in light of the Mean Depth score (2.737), Relative Asymmetry value (0.193) and Depth from Exterior (1). One of the adjoining areas, Room B, was more restricted in its accessibility, having higher Mean Depth (3.474) and Relative Asymmetry values (0.275). Room C was slightly more accessible (Mean Depth 3.211; Relative Asymmetry 0.246), but this was also a ‘controlling’ space within the eastern section of the complex (Control Value 2.5). Room D was controlled by Room C and produced one of the least accessible results for the structure in general (Mean Depth 4.158; Relative Asymmetry 0.351). When considering the overall data, the Control Value results (Graph 17) correlate with the theoretical modelling by showing the high levels of control wielded by a few rooms that defined the distinct sections of the complex. The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 18) conform with this by exhibiting a relatively wide spread of accessibility for the Villa of Pliny.

Villa 9 – The Villa dell’Auditorium This suburban villa was discovered close to Rome, but it seems to have served primarily as an agricultural complex (Fig. 32) (Carandini et al 1997, 117). The plan of the structure was designed as two separate buildings (A and B), but only the northern structure (A) has been investigated. There were a sequence of six phases dating from around the Sixth Century BC throughout the late Republic into the early Imperial age, with the structure undergoing several additions and alterations (Terrenato 2001 7-11). The initial phase was a farm complex based around a central court with rooms on three sides. There was a kiln in one of the rooms on the eastern side (Room 23), with a hortus or animal enclosure to the north (Carandini et al 1997, 121). At this time the complex covered roughly three hundred square metres, not including the hortus. The entrance to the structure was on the western side. There were nine rooms around the courtyard (Room 18), with four rooms on the eastern side (Rooms 22, 23, 10, 9), which included the largest room in the centre (Room 23) (Fig. 32). It has been suggested that the kiln may have been used for the production of domestic pottery or tiles. The general demeanour of the complex at this time was modest, focused predominantly

37

in the Third phase, which made the distinction of function between the regions increasingly marked. During the Third phase there was also the introduction of an atrium, but this was not fully realised until the Third Century BC (Phase Four) (Terrenato 2001, 11). It was during this century that there were clear Hellenistic influences in the layout and décor (Terrenato 2001, 18). Habitation continued at this complex into the Second Century AD, when it seems that the complex was deliberately demolished.

upon production and it has been dated to around the middle of the Sixth Century BC (Adams 2008). The Second phase saw an increase in the surface area of the structure, covering roughly seven hundred square metres. It was at this time that the separation of two districts occurred with each possessing different functions. The northern wing contained the residential precincts, whereas the southern district served a servile function. The changes that occurred during this period saw the realisation of a large structure with high quality construction. The separation of residential and servile areas continued throughout the remainder of its use (Terrenato 2001, 8-9). However, despite the delimiting of the productive and residential areas, there was an exception, with the placement of an oil press under the portico of the northern (residential) wing. Finds in the southern wing of the complex included a large number of dolii. This period lasted from roughly the end of the Sixth to the middle of the Fifth Century BC.

The theoretical modelling of Lefebvre and Laurence illustrates the clearly conceived intentions of the owners. The perceived conception of space reflects the relatively unified layout, while there were slight instances of social stratification, especially in relation to Room 23. The conceived conception illustrates how the layout was generally designed for ease of access between most areas in the Villa dell’Auditorium. This is probably in keeping with its early period of construction during the middle of the Sixth Century BC. The lived conception of space further exemplifies the unified social symbolism of this structure, which is indicative of many early Roman residences.

Over the resulting phases of habitation and alteration, this suburban villa gradually developed its pretensions, which included the creation of a tablinum (Room 2) during the Fourth phase. The oil press was removed from the portico

Graph 19 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa dell’Auditorium

Graph 20 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa dell’Auditorium

38

roughly twenty kilometres to the north-east (Map 1) (Rossiter 1978, 45). From current excavations, this establishment included a large residential complex, constructed in the Republican era, but vastly altered in the Augustan period (Fig. 34). These additions included the introduction of a large colonnaded courtyard, which was bordered by small rooms on at least two of the sides. It has been suggested that these rooms were used for housing the villa’s workforce, but it is impossible to prove conclusively. Within the original complex, Room 4 was a peristyle, although it has also been interpreted as an atrium (Manacorda p. 57). There was an agricultural aspect from the initial phases of habitation, with dealings connected with both Rome and Ostia (D’Arms 1981, 70). One of the rooms has been interpreted as an olive crusher (Room 11A), there being evidence of an area for the placement of a counter-weight. Viticulture was also practiced and was an important aspect of the estate’s economy. There was another courtyard, which was paved, which may have been used for the transportation of produce and animals (Fig. 34). There is evidence of an aviary, which was probably managed by the liberti (Buonocore), in accordance with the recommendations of Varro (3.2.16). But the residential quarters were wellappointed, suggesting that it was a luxurious suburban residence (Rossiter 1978, 45). The décor of this region was quite impressive, including a group of statues, which is a good indication of the cultural inclinations of the owner. Habitation by the Volusii Saturnini continued until at least AD 92, and the villa itself was still in use until the end of the Antonine period. Just as at the Villa dell’Auditorium, it is evident that although a complex was located in the suburbs of Rome, it did not necessarily preclude an owner from undertaking agricultural production. It appears apparent that both of these villae suburbanae combined agriculture with a high level of facilities, which is a common occurrence at many properties in the suburbs.

The Hillier and Hanson data analysis for the Villa dell’Auditorium (Table 11) has focused upon three rooms in particular: Rooms 2, 13 and 23 (Fig. 33). Room 2 was one of the most accessible spaces within this complex, judging from its low Mean Depth result (2.7) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.155). This would suggest that it was both viewed and used by a broad cross-section of residents and visitors alike. Room 13 was more restricted (Mean Depth 3.57; Relative Asymmetry 0.234), despite being located closer to the entrance (Depth from Exterior 3) and in a more central location. Room 23 was the most inaccessible room in the entire complex (Depth from Exterior 7; Mean Depth 5.39; Relative Asymmetry 0.399), which indicates that this would have only been used by the leading residents of the villa and their invited guests. When considering the overall statistics for the Villa dell’Auditorium, the Control Value results (Graph 19) indicate only a few ‘controlling’ rooms that dictated the levels of accessibility throughout the entire complex. The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 20) further this impression by producing a relatively consistent spread of data illustrating that few rooms were markedly inaccessible, such as Room 23 for example. In conclusion, the simple fact that the Villa dell’Auditorium originated in the middle of the Sixth Century BC and continued to be used into the early Imperial period makes this complex rather exceptional. The majority of villas that are to be discussed originated in the Second Century BC. It is also distinctive owing to the high quality of workmanship used from the Second phase onwards, whereas the majority of rural complexes used less sophisticated building techniques. It seems clear that this villa suburbana would have been an aristocratic residence, slightly removed from the urban centre, but not completely isolated. It is also evident that the owners were clearly influenced by the luxurious décor of the Hellenistic period from the Fourth phase onwards, which would not have been acceptable at the time within the urban precincts. However, it is pertinent to note that agricultural production was still obviously of great importance, especially in view of the developments during the late Republic/early Imperial era.

The theoretical modelling for this complex illustrates how the perceived conception of exhibits little social stratification within the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini. The amount of social continuity is exhibited through the dominance of Rooms 2, 11 and 33 as connective areas within the structure. The conceived conception of space illustrates the dualistic combination of lifestyle and production within the overall layout of this complex as well. Nevertheless, the lived conception of Lefebvre shows how this villa was configured. The owner of the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini sought to separate social productivity from agricultural productivity, thus exhibiting the dualistic role/conception of this structure.

Villa 10 – The Villa of the Volusii Saturnini The Volusii Saturnini were a noble family whose wealth was probably established by Q. Volusius, the father of Q. f. Saturninus (cos 12), who was also of an elevated standing (Tacitus Ann. 3.30.1). It was probably Q. Volusius who was responsible for the construction of the palatial villa near Rome (D’Arms 1981, 69). This complex was located in a close position to Rome, being

39

Graph 21 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini

Graph 22 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini parameters for a possible suburban villa. This was an ideal position for communication, having easy access to the Via Appia (Aylwin Cotton and Métraux 1985, xxii). Its position was also ideal to take advantage of the breezes in the summer time and the panorama of the countryside, a frequent feature of many villas. The plan was based upon two hillside platforms, which maintained some separation between the two districts: the pars rustica and the pars urbana (Ackerman 1990, 45), in accordance with the recommendations of Columella (1.6.2). The residential quarters were placed on a higher position than the agricultural quarters, both of which were supplied with large barrel-vaulted cisterns (Ackerman 1990, 45). The original structure was constructed around 100-90 BC, but it was later refurbished around 30 BC (Percival 1996, 70-1). This original structure seems to have been designed in a ‘L’ shape with ten rooms.

The syntactical data for this villa (Table 12) (Fig. 35) corresponds nicely with the theoretical modelling. It is self-evident that the western perimeter of the complex was largely intended for a utilitarian function. There are three rooms that have been focused upon in relation to socialisation: Rooms 3, 4 and 7. Rooms 3 and 4 have produced identical results in relation to accessibility (Mean Depth 3.84; Relative Asymmetry 0.107) owing to their mutually direct connection to Room 11. Room 7 produces different results because of its connection to Room 33, illustrating that it was more accessible internally (Mean Depth 3.15; Relative Asymmetry 0.081), but it is less accessible by visitors (Depth from Exterior 5). The highly controlled (and distinct) nature of the structure is shown by the overall Control Value results (Graph 21), whereby four areas wielded evident ‘controlling’ roles on the various adjoining regions of the complex. This ‘controlling’ role is replicated in the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 22), and yet the consistency in the overall accessibility is also exhibited in the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini.

The alterations of 30 BC significantly altered the general demeanour of the complex, transforming it into a residence that was more akin to urban houses. This provided the complex with axial symmetry that was entered via a columned vestibule that led into a square peristyle, then a tablinum, bordered by a triclinium and an exedra. These additions increased its size from ten to

Villa 11 – The San Rocco Villa The San Rocco Villa at Francolise was roughly forty kilometres from Rome, which was certainly within the

40

suburban villas, this complex combined luxuria with agriculture. One pertinent aspect to note is the prominent reception space from 30 BC onwards. The inclusion of such areas illustrates that business and entertaining would have been undertaken. This is especially noteworthy in view of the villa’s distance from the capital. The inclusion of these rooms suggests that it should be classified as a villa suburbana, especially in view of its panoramic position and facilities.

forty rooms (Aylwin Cotton and Métraux 1985, 35-84). There may have been a view of the countryside along the axis of this complex, but this is impossible to determine for certain. It would have been possible to view the surrounding landscape from the two porticos placed on the southern and western sides of this villa, and perhaps the coastline as well. Smith (1997, 257-61) has interpreted that the rear inside room and the outside courtyard were actually two halls, which has been refuted and disagrees with the extant evidence (Rossiter 2000, 575).

The perceived conception of Lefebvre shows how the San Rocco complex possessed a highly centralised structure, which epitomises the minimal degree of social stratification that existed in this residence. The conceived conception also exhibits the productivity that was intended for this site (and its separation from reception areas), particularly with how Areas B, E, F and J were kept distant from the primary residential quarter. This is consistent with the lived conception within the theoretical modelling that shows the social symbolism of this villa, being an embodiment of both urbanitas and rusticus. There was a clear differentiation between various functions at the San Rocco villa complex, which also exhibits the ultimate clear conception behind its design.

The pars rustica was divided into two courtyards, separated by a long dining and living room. This building seems to have served both residential and productive purposes, including the pressroom, threshing floor and storage rooms, as well as some residential rooms. Owing to the presence of the other building near this complex, this space would have been used by the servile members of the household. It is clear that the developments of this villa reflect the gradual development of many suburban residences throughout the period from the late Republic to the early Second Century (Fig. 36). As with the previous two

Graph 23 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the San RoccoVilla

Graph 24 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the San Rocco Villa

41

The second phase of development at the Posto villa altered the general demeanour of the complex significantly. It saw sweeping alterations to the residential areas of the complex, indicating a more prosperous period (Aylwin Cotton 1979a, 38). This meant that there were more rooms, with a more elevated mood, including an elaborate entrance to the structure. A larger farmyard was also added, subdivided into two halves, in accordance with the recommendations of ancient agricultural authors. It seems that at this time there was olive processing, assisting in the economic improvement at this estate (Aylwin Cotton 1979a, 38). There was a Third phase of development at this site around the middle of the First Century AD, with two important alterations to the site (Fig. 38). The first of these was the inclusion of bath facilities, which was probably indicative of belatedly following the fashions of many villa complexes of the period. This bath complex consisted of a frigidarium, tepidarium and a caldarium. This extension may have also been indicative of an increase in the olive oil production, with several residential rooms in the eastern side sacrificed for increased production. A new olive press was also installed, in accordance with the greater emphasis on industry. It is at this time that the productivity of the estate appears to have been at its height, which continued until the cessation of occupation during the middle of the Second Century AD. In view of the facilities and activities at this complex, despite the close proximity of this site to the San Rocco villa, the Posto villa cannot be classified as a suburban villa, which raises an interesting feature about the nature of villae suburbanae.

The syntactical data for this complex (Table 13(Fig. 37) shows the well-organised nature of its structure, particularly when focusing upon the primary socialisation spaces: Rooms 4, 5, 6 and 12. Room 4 exhibits a comparatively high level of accessibility through its Mean Depth result (2.545) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.097), while being moderately accessible by the external community (Depth from Exterior 4). The results for Rooms 5, 6 and 12 are exactly the same, owing to their mutual connection to the central peristyle (Room C) (Mean Depth 2.97; Relative Asymmetry 0.123; Depth from Exterior 4). All the same, this further exemplifies the consistency in the design of the villa overall. This is also exhibited when viewing the general Control Value results for the San Rocco villa (Graph 23), whereby there are only five significant ‘controlling’ rooms. This is additionally shown by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 24), which exhibit the limited degree of separation within the residential quarter and yet the utilitarian/agricultural sector is clearly removed. Villa 12 – The Posto Villa at Francolise This complex was quite a small establishment, located roughly forty kilometres from Rome. This villa was constructed around the end of the Second Century BC, with the general characteristics of a modest agricultural establishment (Rossiter 1978, 12). This building was planned around a central courtyard, similar to many productive villas from this period, with mostly agricultural rooms bordering onto it on at least three sides. The western wing included a roofed portico with rooms for animal husbandry (Aylwin Cotton 1979a, 1617). Livestock appears to have been one of the most important aspects of the estates’ production, which is highlighted by the size of the courtyard. The northern wing was the residential quarters, with opus signinum flooring, but these rooms were still quite modest in comparison to other villas from this period. This complex epitomises the combination of both residential and agricultural units, which is indicative of a complex predominantly intended for productive purposes. It continued in this form for the next fifty years, but reconstructed and enlarged around the middle of the First Century BC. This may be indicative either of a change in ownership or an increase in productivity, but it is certainly representative of a change in the intentions of the owner.

The simplicity of the Posto villa is exhibited through Lefebvre’s perceived conception of space, whereby the lack of social stratification between the various sectors of the establishment is quite marked. The conceived conception illustrates how the primary function of this complex was primarily upon agricultural production, which would have been self-evident to the vast majority of individuals engaged with its precincts. The lived conception of space also demonstrates how the physical manifestation of this structure represents the basic and utilitarian nature of this residence. But while it is evident that this villa was not intended to provide an environment for élite interaction, this should not preclude the possibility of non-élite interaction within its confines.

42

Graph 25 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Posto Villa

Graph 26 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Posto Villa financial reasons, as well as for the leisure and seclusion that would have been attainable. However, maybe it could be classified as a suburban region of Rome. The distance to the capital was not overly significant and this would have been a high priority in view of the commercial opportunities there. The literary sources have also shown that villae suburbanae were not necessarily placed just outside the walls of a city, but could be located further away. The facilities that were added to the San Rocco villa could easily pace this establishment within the parameters of a suburban villa. However, the Posto Villa was not as well-appointed and its features were not sufficient to refer to it as a villa suburbana. The divergent qualities of these sites illustrates that the conception of what a suburban villa was cannot be purely be judged on geography. The character and facilities of these sites was of far greater importance for an appropriate classification as a villa suburbana.

Within the Posto villa at Francolise, the basic nature of this complex is epitomised by the syntactical data (Table 14) (Fig. 39). There are only two spaces that could conceivably be viewed as having a potential social function (rather than a purely utilitarian role): Rooms A and D. Judging from the overall plan it is evident that the central area (Room K) was the dominant ‘controlling’ precinct, which is shown through its high accessibility in the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 26). The close connection of all spaces is also highlighted by the consistent Mean Depth results (Table 14), which is also exemplified by the scores for Room A (Mean Depth 2.8) and Room D (Mean Depth 3). The consistency of the Control Value results (Graph 25) (except for Room K) also exemplifies the close connectivity (and lack of social separation) within the entire structure. As mentioned by Aylwin Cotton and Métraux, the intriguing aspect of both the San Rocco and Posto villas is the close proximity of these sites which is quite unusual for such an area, being more expected on the Bay of Naples. Therefore, such a placement would usually be expected closer to a large city. In view of the highly productive nature of this region, both agriculturally and commercially, this may have been a popular region for

Villa 13 – The Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro (Frascati) This complex had a monumental demeanour and was located roughly twenty-three kilometres from Rome (Map 1). This location near Tusculum was a preferred region for the suburban villas during the late

43

natatio was discovered to the north of the complex, which may further illustrate the well-appointed facilities of the complex. As with the Villa dell’Auditorium it would also appear pertinent to define this complex as a villa suburbana.

Republic/early Empire (Egidi 1981, 171). This complex (Fig. 40), was one of the most grandiose extant examples of a palatial villa in the region, illustrating the divergence between an agricultural establishment and a fashionable villa of otium (Egidi 1981, 172). The plan was designed in a rectangular form, with a garden terrace projecting on the south-western side. The perimeter wall was adorned with half-columns and the villa itself had two phases of construction. The original structure included a cryptoporticus, with the main structure designed with a couple of corridors that divided each group of rooms (Egidi 1981, 173). The second phase vastly increased the size of the complex towards the south-west. The décor appears to have been well performed with several examples of landscape scenes. The entire complex measures 166.50 metres on the north-western side and 163 metres on the south-west, while the front projection was 123.50 metres (Egidi 1981, 173). This made the complex a large structure, which is shown by the large proportions of the cistern to the south-east. A large

The perceived conception of space illustrates how this complex was clearly segmented into different regions, and yet there seems to have been a low level of social stratification. Lefebvre’s conceived conception is even more revealing, owing to the evident dominance of agricultural productivity within this structure. The lived conception of space corresponds with this nicely, considering that the physical manifestation for the Villa Fontana del Piscaro exhibits not only status but also agricultural productivity at the same time. This clearly demonstrates the duality of many extra-urban residences, being focused upon both socialisation and material productivity.

Graph 27 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro

Graph 28 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro The syntactical analysis of this complex (Table 15) (Fig. 41) also shows the segmented and yet well-defined nature of the structure. In terms of social accessibility, two

spaces have been focused upon in particular: Rooms 8 and 17. Room 8 was comparatively distant from the entrance (Depth from Exterior 4), and yet was relatively

44

There were two further periods of major restructuring at this complex, probably in the Domitianic and Hadrianic periods, such as the inclusion of the bath suite in the northwest quarters during the reign of Domitian and their enhancement in the Hadrianic era. The bath complex was well-appointed, having a mosaic pavement. There was a walled garden in the western region of the complex and a portico on the southern side defined the garden on that perimeter (Fig. 42). Notably, part of the western wall had been kept deliberately low in order to allow a view of the surrounding countryside for its occupants. This would have been an impressive view, including a view of the capital, thereby maintaining a psychological connection between this villa and the city. There has been evidence of grain production discovered at this complex, illustrating some diversification of production by the owner as well. Occupation at this site concluded by around AD 238 when considering the numismatic and pottery evidence.

accessible from within the complex, judging from its low Mean Depth result (3.31) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.185). Room 17, however, was even less accessible owing to its higher Mean Depth score (4) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.24). When viewing the overall syntactical results, the Control Value data (Graph 27) for the Villa Fontana del Piscaro shows how limited the social stratification was, having only three dominant ‘controlling’ spaces. The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 28) again illustrate the relatively consistent form of accessibility throughout this structure. Villa 14 – Villa A on the Ancient Via Gabina This complex was discovered around fourteen kilometres from the centre of Rome (Map 1), placing it well within the proposed suburbium of the capital. It comprised a large building (Fig. 42), which included long parallel rooms and an upper level (Aylwin Cotton 1979b, 85). It appears to have had quite imposing dimensions, with a dual emphasis placed upon lifestyle and productivity. The habitation period extended from the Republican era into the 2nd Century AD, with a Hadrianic brick stamp being discovered (CIL 15.1.578a; Ward-Perkins and Kahane 1972, 110). Unfortunately, owing to the dearth of remains at this complex only the open areas (the colonnaded courtyard and garden) have been included as potential entertainment areas because of the unknown functions of most other rooms.

The analysis of this villa illustrates not only that it was a large structure, but also that it had significant sections of its surface area designed for an open social function. The plan illustrates that the large open areas comprised a significant portion of the complex. These areas could have been used for reception/entertainment in view of the well-appointed nature of the décor in the colonnaded courtyard and the strong emphasis upon the landscape in the porticoes that viewed the garden and the panorama beyond was indicative of most villae suburbanae. The perceived conception of space within Villa A on the Via Gabina also illustrates the limited amount of social stratification within this complex. In general terms there is little separation between the residential and utilitarian areas. The conceived conception correlates well with this, whereby the importance of agricultural production and the clear definition of spatial intention would have been overtly visible to all. The lived conception of Lefebvre also reflects the social symbolism largely through the architectural construction of this suburban complex.

This complex has produced a large quantity of amphorae sherds dated to the 2nd and 1st Centuries BC, but owing to the extant remains little is known about this Republican complex. The Augustan villa has illustrated that this complex was of substantial proportions, including a colonnaded courtyard, but its design was irregular with the northern and southern sections being on a different alignment. Upon entering the villa, preceding this courtyard there was a front hall of unusual design.

Graph 29 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa A on the Via Gabina

45

Graph 30 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa A on the Via Gabina analysis of potential entertainment areas because of the limited available knowledge: the garden and Room C, which was probably a dining area judging from its décor and position.

The Hillier and Hanson syntactical analysis for this complex has a fairly consistent level of accessibility (Table 16) (Fig. 43), although it is evident that some spaces were more dominant than others. There are three rooms that have been focused upon in particular: Rooms 8, 11 and 24. Room 8 was one of the most accessible within the entire structure, judging from its low Mean Depth score (2.76) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.147), which of course is in keeping with its central location. Of these three regions, Room 11 was the least accessible (Mean Depth 3.48; Relative Asymmetry 0.207; Depth from Exterior 7), which suggests that it was intended to be largely used by the leading residents and their invited guests. Room 24 was more accessible than Room 11, having lower Mean Depth (3.2) and Relative Asymmetry results (0.183), but considering its Depth from Exterior score (7) it seems unlikely to have been used for large-scale socialisation. When examining the overall statistical results, the Control Value scores (Graph 29) indicate a high number of ‘controlling’ spaces, which suggests a high level of closely interconnected planning within Villa A on the Via Gabina. This impression is mirrored when viewing the general Real Relative Asymmetry values as well (Graph 30).

This complex was gradually expanded and was altered to have a differentiation between the First Pompeian Style décor in the residential quarters and the rustic precinct within the complex. There is evidence of agriculture from the very outset, located on the western side of the complex. Judging from the wall decorations and the facilities within this early complex, it would seem appropriate to estimate that this was the residence with a small estate, possibly providing a modest profit in Roman commercial life. It also seems likely, judging from the differentiation between residential and productive space within the complex, the wall paintings and the minimal distance to the capital, that the owner probably resided at the complex for sizeable periods of time. The second phase occurred around the early imperial period in which there were major reconstructions. This included the addition of a front hall (Room A), bath facilities and the construction of a well-appointed adjoining room (Room C) on the western side (Fig. 44). The size of the entire complex was increased, thoroughly changing the general demeanour of the residence. A pool was also added to the garden, but there is no indication that the nature of the agricultural activity was altered greatly, despite such significant extensions. One of the most notable features of these alterations was the complete separation of the residential and agricultural regions. It is clear that at this time it had the characteristics of an advanced villa suburbana with the benefits of comfortable amenities without removing the original integrity of the structure.

Villa 15 – Villa B on the Ancient Via Gabina Villa B on the Ancient Via Gabina (Fig. 44) was also approximately fourteen kilometres to the east of Rome (Map 1) (Aylwin Cotton 1979b, 82). This structure was originally a modest residence, but over time its pretensions and function changed dramatically. The first phase of habitation originated during the early 3rd Century BC, with walls constructed of opus quadratum in soft grey tufa (Widrig 1980, 120). There was a period of alteration (Phase 2) in the Augustan era with the garden being enclosed by simple walls, and in the Trajanic period (Phase 2B) a small bath suite and heater rooms in the upper level were constructed (Fig. 44) (Widrig 1987, 252). A concrete pool was also sunk in the middle of the garden, which would have created a pleasant demeanour despite its use as a cold plunge for the baths (Oliver-Smith and Widrig 1980, 57). There have only been two areas from this site included in the

It is evident that this villa had the characteristics of a monumental villa suburbana from the outset, including areas for receiving guests. The extensions to this complex further enhanced its grandeur, but it is apparent that it was a villa suburbana from its inception. The

46

reduction in its facilities in the early 2nd Century was probably indicative of a change in ownership or a decline in the family circumstances, but the conception of this structure was that of a suburban villa. The statistics taken from this site confirm this, illustrating the open aspect of the complex. However, it was certainly not as wellappointed as its neighbour (Villa 14).

the Via Gabina. It is evident that there is a distinction drawn between the primary residential area, the élite rooms and the utilitarian regions. The conceived conception demonstrates how both the social and agricultural elements of productivity were evidently important to the owner (and equally balanced) within this structure as well. This also corresponds well with the lived conception of space, whereby the social symbolism of a combined urban/social-rustic function was to be recommended.

The perceived conception of Lefebvre illustrates the clearly defined separation of function within Villa B on

Graph 31 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa A on the Via Gabina

Graph 32 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa B on the Via Gabina (Mean Depth 3.5; Depth from Exterior 4; Relative Asymmetry 0.172). Graph 31 illustrates how that while most rooms were ‘controlled’, there were definitely four overt ‘controlling’ spaces, which indicates the general continuity within the complex. This is also exhibited by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 32), showing the even spread of accessibility in the statistics, which epitomises the clear conception behind the design of this structure.

The syntactical results for this residence (Table 17) (Fig. 45) have focused upon three areas in particular: Rooms C, 4 and 9. Room C was among the least accessible spaces, judging from its Mean Depth result (4.6), Relative Asymmetry value (0.248) and Depth from Exterior score (6). This would indicate that it would have almost exclusively been used by the leading residents and their invited guests. Room 4 was comparably much more available to a wider clientele, especially when viewing its Mean Depth result (3.43), Depth from Exterior (3) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.168). This is also indicated by its close proximity to the atrium (Room A). Room 9 was less accessible than Room 4, but it was clearly more accessible to a wider group of spaces than Room C

When these two structures are considered (Villas 14 and 15) they provide a useful comparison because of their close proximity and different living conditions. It should be added that the statistics have been of little assistance

47

because of the limited knowledge concerning room function at Villa 14. But it is evident from both the size and known facilities, especially the colonnaded courtyard, that this complex had a higher level of resources, allowing for a more comfortable lifestyle. Both sites had a similar progression of additions and alterations, but it is clear that the owners were of different financial means. However, this should not preclude the classification of both complexes as villae suburbanae. It simply illustrates the diverse and variable living conditions that existed within this group of structures.

and well-appointed cubiculum (Room 19), which also possessed marble pavement. It is likely that this room would have been the master bedroom for the residents. The well-appointed nature of this villa suburbana in the Imperial phase is exhibited in that even the corridor (Room 20) was decorated with marble wall panels, as well as the extremely elaborate décor in the large baths within this section of the residence (Rooms 21-24). Baths were apparently quite important to the Emperor Commodus (HA Commodus 11.5), which may explain the magnificent character of these rooms.

Villa 16 – The Villa of the Quintili This villa (Fig. 46) is the latest structure included within the study, being dated to the late Hadrianic era or early Antonine period (AD 138-140) (Paris 2000, 29). The extant remains and its palatial facilities make it a fine example of a well-appointed aristocratic villa suburbana (Annibaldi 1935, 76-104). It was located 8 kilometres from the city (Map 1), clearly within the inner suburban regions of Rome, with a character that was luxurious enough to cause the demise of its owners, Quintilius Condianus and Quintilius Maximus (Lanciani 1967, 264) at the hands of the Emperor Commodus (Dio 72.5). This in itself highlights how attractive suburban villas were to the Roman elite, especially in view of the emperor’s urban residence that stood on the Palatine until the fire of AD 192 (Hekster 2002, 78-9. Following this the Emperor moved to another villa on the Caelian Hill, the Villa Vectiliana (HA Commodus 16.3), although Dio and Herodian include more suspicious motives (Dio 73.22.2; Herodian 1.15.8). By including the Villa of the Quintili within this study it should allow for a greater perspective on the evolution of villae suburbanae over different time periods.

The public regions of the Villa of the Quintili were located near the entrance. Upon entering the complex, the first area to be encountered was a large courtyard (Room 1), which had white marble steps, marble pavement and a portico on one of the long sides. It is likely that this area was used as a gathering/entertainment space. On one side of this area was a small cult building (Room 12), which included a small nymphaeum fountain (Room 13). In view of the presence of the large nymphaeum (Room H), this smaller example probably served a private role for the household. To the north of the courtyard there was a raised platform, which had three well-appointed rooms (Rooms 2-4). The central room of this group (Room 2) functioned as a vestibule for the large Octagonal Hall (Room 5). This hall has only limited remains of its décor, but owing to its size and location it is more than likely to have been an important reception room. It possessed four entrances and the walls comprised of large pillars with triangular bases. All of these rooms on this level (Rooms 2-5) had hypocaust heating, which would have added to their comfort when being used for entertainment or reception. Behind this hall there was a winter triclinium (Room 10), which would have been used as an entertainment area for viewing the landscape beyond. Further out from this was the so-called Maritime Theatre (Area F), which has been so named because of its similarity to the Theatre at Hadrian’s Villa. The interior of this structure was paved and probably lined with a colonnade. It is more than likely that it also possessed a small ornamental garden in the middle.

This complex was originally constructed in the early-mid second century AD, having several distinct regions, which all served a separate function. For the purposes of this study the most important division was between the public and private areas of the residence, which provides the best indication of how this villa suburbana was used by its owners. They were both closely connected to each other, but there was a clear division in function between each region.

The villa provides another important feature that is unavailable in most suburban villas. The archaeological record illustrates that after the complex became an Imperial residence there were significant additions to its structure and character. Comparing these changes illustrates the different facilities that existed at Imperial suburban villas and other well-appointed villae suburbanae. Judging from the decorative additions, as well as the increased number of large structures for entertainment at this establishment, the difference in expendable capital gave the various princeps a significant advantage in the number of alterations that could be undertaken. In all likelihood it would have also increased the need for such reception/entertainment areas.

The private section of this residence (Fig. 46) was located in the eastern quarters of the main complex. The first stage of the main structure was indicative of the preImperial ownership, which principally included a scenic wing that viewed the countryside towards the Via Latina. This was surrounded by a private garden that would have added to pleasant demeanour of the structure. This was later replaced a series of brick walls and the addition of cubicula, latrines, baths and servile rooms during the early phases of its Imperial ownership. This area was accessed from the large courtyard (Room 1) via a small atrium (Room 16), which led directly into two cubicula (Rooms 17, 18) that also faced onto the courtyard. Both of these rooms were heated, as was another impressive

48

from the capital. In the Imperial phase it was for its residential facilities that Commodus valued this villa suburbana, not its productivity.

The statistical analysis of this villa has produced some compelling results that support this premise. Firstly, even with the exclusion of the Hippodrome garden or Stadium (their dimensions are unknown) the Imperial villa was much larger than the previous structure. Secondly, the large bath complex was clearly an important area, not only because of the reference to it in the Historia Augusta (Commodus, 5.4; 11.6; also see Dio 73.22.5), but also because of its enormous dimensions. The original structure was hardly lacking in status, but the later additions merely emphasised this role. The large amount of reception/entertainment areas in this complex highlights the strong social role of this élite suburban residence. There is no evidence of agricultural productivity at this residence, but the Quintili family probably used other estates such as the property at Tusculum for this, being only eleven kilometres further

The theoretical modelling of Lefebvre and Laurence exhibits a definite impression of its perceived conception: almost all of this structure was intended for élite socialisation. This is also reflected in the conceived conception of space, whereby the overall layout and symbolism of the complex was clearly intended for an aristocratic lifestyle without any provision for agricultural productivity. The lived conception also reflects the highly élite nature of the extant complex, where seemingly all of the focus was upon exhibiting the dignitas of its respective owners rather than making provisions for other members of the Roman social strata.

Graph 33 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Quintili

Graph 34 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Quintili The syntactical analysis of the Villa of the Quintili (Table 18) (Fig. 47) demonstrates the clear differentiation in function among the various regions of the complex. There are three rooms that have been examined for socialisation in particular: Rooms 2, 4 and 5. Room 2 was evidently accessible by a wide range of individuals, as indicated by its Depth from Exterior score (3), Mean Depth result

(3.68) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.134). Room 4 was less accessible, which is in keeping with its less centralised position and this is shown by its mean Depth (4) and Relative Asymmetry values (0.15). Room 5 was located on the same central axis as Room 2, which shows that it was less accessible to visitors (Depth from Exterior 4) and yet it was more available for social interaction by

49

conception of how respective household members and visitors were intended to interact (or not interact) within the various regions of each complex. This is particularly evident when examining those structures that were intended to make provision for a variety of roles, such as the Villas of Perseus (Villa 2), Regio IV at Ostia (Villa 3) and Pliny at Palombara (Villa 8).

the household overall (Mean Depth 3.32; Relative Asymmetry 0.116). This suggests that it would have been used by the leading inhabitants and perhaps some invited guests. In general terms, the Control Value results (Graph 33) exhibit the ‘controlling’ dominance of six rooms in particular. All the same, the unified direction for élite socialisation is more overt in the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 34), which exhibits the generally social function of the Villa of the Quintili.

In general terms the conceived conception of space has further demonstrated the importance of providing areas that facilitated particular functions, whether it was for either socialisation or more utilitarian roles. This made the placement of certain rooms (and their associated function) quite explicit and exhibited their primary intention to all members of the community. This is clearly shown through the design of the Villas of Livia (Villa 4), Auditorium (Villa 9) and Quintili (Villa 16). All the same, the lived conception of space also demonstrates the complexity of these residences in connection with their social symbolism. Each structure physically represented the nature of the social priorities of the owner in relation to their overall intentions of each residence. The variation in available wealth and social positioning would have no doubt played an important role in determining these residential intentions as well. This is shown particularly at the Villas of the Volusii Saturnini (Villa 10), Posto (Villa 12) and Villa A on the Via Gabina (Villa 14).

Overall Conclusions Judging from the analysis of all these sites in and around Rome, there are six distinguishing elements in the villae suburbanae. Firstly, owing to their position these complexes were allowed to create an open disposition, which was only available within the city in the largest complexes, such as the Imperial palaces. The difference in the demeanour that this created was substantial in relation to the character of the structures. Secondly, this would have also held significant health benefits for the owners, being away from the cramped and unhygienic conditions that were so prevalent within Rome. Thirdly, it is also evident that despite the levels of luxury at suburban villas, there was still some emphasis placed upon productivity at most sites. This would have been deemed to make the levels of luxury at suburban estates acceptable in the Roman consciousness. Fourthly, it is also apparent that the elevated facilities were essential to the residents, in order to exhibit their status and success. This is evident when comparing the size and facilities present at Imperial suburban villas with those nonImperial properties around Rome. The fifth point is to note the distribution of sites throughout the Roman suburbs. There was a clear preference for properties in the regions around the Alban and Tiburtine hills, rather than the lowland areas. This is especially pertinent when comparing the known structures in these lofty areas with those sites close to Ostia, such as those near Dragoncello. Finally, there was an understandable need to be close to a major road network as well, such as the Via Gabina or the Via Flaminia. This would have substantially reduced travelling time and assisted in the transportation of produce to urban markets in the capital. Without this kind of road access it would have seriously limited the advantages of life in suburban Rome. These seem to have been the most notable features of the sites examined in this region, which were also common to all of these villae suburbanae, making them distinctive within the Roman suburbium.

Judging from the modelling provided by Lefebvre’s theories, it is evident that while the imperial palaces had different intentions on a socio-political level, they were clearly well-designed and represent a coherent progression of styles and forms. This provides a good representation of the evolution of the principate, particularly when comparing the House of Augustus, the Domus Aurea and the Domus Flavia for example. Their differing sizes, styles and social symbolism overtly demonstrates the priorities of each owner for their representation to the wider community, in accordance with the modelling of Laurence. However, when examining the villas there is still evidently a clearer impression of divergence in their structures, facilities and intended function. All the same, this is more in accordance with the correlation between need and design for most of these structures. Good examples of this can be noted at the Villas of Livia (Villa 4), Hadrian (Villa 6), Horace (Villa 7) and San Rocco (Villa 11). The syntactical analysis of these villa complexes has also highlighted the findings of the theoretical modelling. It is evident that there was a high level of differentiation between the structures under question here, which was primarily owing to the intended function of each complex and the available resources of each respective owner: some structures were anticipated to fulfil a highly social/reception role (Villas 3, 4, 6, and 16 for example), whereas others focused upon more of a dualistic agricultural and social function, such as Villas 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. This provides an excellent

The theoretical modellings of Lefebvre and Laurence have provided a useful approach for the interpretation of these structures in Rome/Latium. This is particularly evident when considering the different facets of viewing socialisation and its impact upon each respective group of individuals and their response to each particular structure (and the various spaces within). This becomes especially apparent when considering the overall nature of the perceived conception of space. This has shown how each individual residence was typically designed with a clear

50

correlation with Lefebvre’s socialisation modelling, whereby different residences have reflected not only a wide range of societal interaction ‘types’ (among individuals of differing o similar social standings), but also a multiplicity of contexts in which this interaction would occur. An excellent comparison to illustrate this can be viewed in the syntactic and theoretical modelling

results for the Villas of Livia (Villa 4) and San Rocco (Villa 11). These two complexes exhibit not only the differing provisions for each complex and how they were in keeping with their intended functions, but how they are also indicative of the respective social standing of their residents and invited guests alike.

Graph 35 – Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas in the Suburbs of Rome imperial palaces and villas fall into this category, but similarly they should not be viewed as ‘typical’ residences either. The vast majority of the non-élite villae suburbanae constituted a range of functions, of which various capacities of socialisation (and productivity) were clearly called for.

When considering the general accessibility of these structures, it is useful to examine the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values for each of the villas from this region under question, but also as a whole (Graph 35). While these results provide a broad range of residential contexts, the advantage of the Real Relative Asymmetry values is that they can be used across the different complexes together because the number of rooms has already been factored in, providing an equitable range of statistics. This set of data exhibits a clear concentration of results between 0.5 – 1.5, indicates that a relatively high level of accessibility existed among most areas within these complexes. The meagre number of highly inaccessible spaces (with results over two) also suggests that social segregation seems to have been less prevalent at most of these extra-urban complexes around Rome. So in general terms, it is evident that when using the theoretical modelling and syntactical data in conjunction it is clear that the Roman suburbium was definitely a socially active region within a domestic context. It has also been exhibited that this social interaction took on a variety of forms within a range of domestic environments. This illustrates that social activity involved not only the residents of these respective complexes, but also included visitors from the wider community. It would appear that while the majority of residences were intended for a dualistic function (agriculture in conjunction with socialisation) there were some truly élite complexes that were almost exclusively directed towards a reception role. Of course it is most fitting that both the

51

Chapter III Urban Residences and Suburban Villas at Pompeii The structures shall be considered using three different methods in order to understand each complex. The first consideration is the origin of each structure; namely, the period in which each villa was built, the ensuing additions and reconstructions and finally, the social climate of the origins for each suburban villa. The implications are to try and understand why the villas were built, altered and the social and domestic implications of these processes. Secondly, the different regions in which these buildings were constructed will be an important consideration, which often reflects the different periods in which they were constructed. The implications of this are the social and political circumstances, such as the potential visits of clients and the display of status. If the road near a villa was a busy thoroughfare, the implications for the display of wealth and status are paramount. Finally, another important aspect to be considered is the layout and communication between the gardens and the residential precincts, which was an integral feature of many Pompeian houses (Jashemski 1975, 48-9).

Having discussed the literary sources concerned with suburban villas and the evidence around Rome, the focus will now be upon the villas near Pompeii. The primary sources have illustrated that villae suburbanae were not limited to Rome, often situated some distance from the city and that they were usually a combination of both agriculture and luxuria. The Bay of Naples region, including Pompeii, was one of the most popular regions for wealthy Roman villa-owners in the late Republic/early Empire, which has been previously examined, such as by D’Arms (1970). The first known Roman villa in this region was owned by P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major in 184 BC on the Campanian coast at Liternum (Livy 38.52.1). Many villas were built along the coast and also inland by wealthy Roman land owners for centuries to come, continuing into the late Roman period. The character, purpose, function and facilities at these estates varied over time, depending upon the intentions of the owner. It is possible to view all of the different types of villa in this region, namely the suburban, coastal and agricultural villas. But the Pompeian suburban villas will be the prime focus. Nevertheless, one of the most important factors is to determine the distinguishing features that made suburban villas unique, and hence the other types of villa will also be discussed. Some large townhouses will also be considered in order to determine the distinction between these residences as well.

There are three different regions near Pompeii to be discussed which have suburban villas: the region outside the Porta Ercolano, residences around the city-walls including Insula Occidentalis and the villas further outside of the city. When considering the latter, these villas are of the most uncertain nature, owing to the limited amount of knowledge on these villas and because of their geographical position, where their connection with Pompeii is not as clear. Each of these regions will be considered independently and then compared to establish the differences between them and their similarities, with the ensuing implications. Naturally within these regions, each villa will also be discussed independently in order to try and understand each example and the intentions of its owners.

Owing to the vast corpus of material, the villas in the vicinity of Pompeii are of great importance. These sites allow a valuable insight into the development of domestic buildings from the late Republic into the early Imperial period. Pompeii has shown the variation between many houses and villas, which is important for a comprehensive understanding of villas and their residents. The variation can be explained by the social conditions during the city’s development, the different origins and social standing of the owners and also by the positioning of each residence.

The villas outside the Porta Ercolano are the most well known at Pompeii, especially the Villa of the Mysteries. In this area there are four substantial suburban residences within four hundred metres of the gate leading to Herculaneum (Map 2). The connection between each of these buildings with the city of Pompeii is clear, owing to the intimate geographical association that bound these villas to the urban centre.

The different types of villas around Pompeii are also of great importance because it is by recognising their similarities and distinctions that the buildings may be understood. The eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79 has provided an unusual and indispensable source of information, providing a dependable period for dating, which can be difficult in other regions. By examining the Pompeian villas and then, in turn other significant regional cities around the Bay of Naples, a coherent pattern can be deduced, which can be used in order to understand the residences better.

Villa 17 – The Villa of Cicero Of this group, the so-called Villa of Cicero has least known about it. It has been excavated, but it has since been back-filled with no recent re-excavation of this site, making this discussion rely on the original reports. The

52

but this was not the most important consideration for the owner when designing the villa. The building is orientated towards the Bay of Naples, which explains the unusual nature of its design (Fig. 48). The view was the prime consideration in the planning of this building.

entrance to this building is not known precisely, but in view of its location, the entrance would have led directly onto the Via dei Sepolcri (Richardson 1988, 244). After leaving Pompeii, via the Porta Ercolano, before reaching this villa, a row of seven or eight shops of roughly uniform dimensions would have been encountered, situated behind a covered arcade. The association between these business precincts and the villa is evident, but this kind of block was common along the Via dei Sepolcri, with similar establishments located upon the other side of the road near the Villa of Mosaic Columns (Fig. 48).

The centre of the building was based around a small peristyle with six columns and a central marble fountain basin, which led to the north via a group of rooms and entered onto another court or atrium which was parallel with another peristyle. To the west, there was a large Tshaped room that contained fine mosaics depicting the Dioscurides. A large square room opened up on the south-west, including an opening in the middle of each wall. These openings provided three large viewing spaces through which the view of the Bay of Naples was clearly visible. A terrace also surrounded each of these three sides, which would have been an optimal viewing platform. This platform was paved with mosaics and colonnaded on three sides, which would have added to the grandeur of the landscape.

The position of these businesses is quite understandable in view of Pompeii being a popular port, where passing travellers would have added a great deal to the local economy, especially on the important road to Herculaneum. These shops were constructed during the last phase of construction at Pompeii (Maiuri 1942, 159), which has important implications for understanding suburban villas beyond the Porta Ercolano. Naturally, when considering the position of these businesses and the implications it held for the residents of the villa there are two points to consider.

To further exemplify the importance of the view in this suburban villa, a suite of two dining rooms were located to the south-east of the terraces. The décor of these suites was finished on a black ground with miniature figures of dancers, satyrs and centaurs, including Silenus (Richardson 2000, 83). The use of these miniature figures is indicative of Third Style decoration (Allroggen-Bedel 1982, 521-2), which suggests that they can be datable from the Augustan period to the mid First Century AD. To the north-west was a large sunken garden at a lower level (Jashemski 1979, 318), surrounded by an arcade consisting of nine by eleven columns. This element of villas was able to be used to great effect owing to the topography of the villa’s locations which sloped steeply away from the Via dei Sepolcri, adding to its vast dimensions and impressive character.

Firstly, one of the most important considerations is privacy. It appears that the service quarters, bedrooms and storage rooms were located on the side of the villa that was closest to the road and these shops, placed around at least one utilitarian courtyard or peristyle (Richardson 1988, 244). The location of these rooms within the building is important to consider because these rooms would not have been used by the dominus or any of the principal members of the household during daylight hours. This would mean that the privacy and seclusion of the building and its inhabitants would not have been affected greatly by the presence of these businesses, even with the nightly noise along this thoroughfare. This was important because it is the privacy attainable at suburban villas, which would have been an important consideration for their creation.

Despite the limited amount of detailed information in the records there are still important observations that can be mentioned. By observing the plan in general, it is clear that there was a large amount of space available to the owner, which was used to the fullest capacity. This meant that building was able to take the optimal use of the view of the local landscape, the sea breezes and also obtained the greatest amount of privacy for the residents. This was a common inclination in the design of suburban villas. It is also significant that even though there would have been an ample amount of privacy, the location of the building was hardly isolated. Its proximity to the centre of Pompeii would have also been a considerable advantage for its residents, an alluring element for its ownership. Owing to the shops being constructed after the original residence, it could be postulated that this residence was originally conceived purely as a suburban villa with strong urban connections, which became more obvious with the introduction of its commercial activities. This complex appears to have been indicative of the villae psueudourbanae referred to by Vitruvius (6.5.3), owing

Secondly, there is the question of the entrance to the villa in relation to these businesses. Owing to the uncertain position of the approach it is difficult to determine, but it appears likely that the entrance would not have been directly adjacent to these businesses again because of the privacy aspect. If the owner of a villa wanted to be in direct contact with the local population, they would have resided in a townhouse. However, the desire for seclusion would have inspired the wealthy owners to live further from the city. One of the most important accepted features of Roman villas is their difference to townhouses, where privacy and the lifestyle were two prime reasons for this type of residence. When examining this structure in order to determine its advantages and purpose, one of the most compelling aspects is its orientation. The entrance cannot have been overly grand, considering the difficulty in identifying it,

53

was included because of its position viewing the terrace (Room D) and its dimensions.

to its clear urban connections, but it was still a villa suburbana in its conception. The perceived conception of space for this structure has shown a degree of social stratification, with the differentiation between the northern commercial precincts and the pars urbana (Col. 1.4; Marzano 2007, 187) that overlooked the coast. This also corresponds well with Laurence’s theories of the close relationship between urbanism and social interaction. Lefebvre’s conceived conception, whereby each space was placed and designed to correspond with its productivity and socialisation role is also quite prominent within this complex. The lived conception for the Villa of Cicero illustrates the necessity of maintaining a separation between the commercial activity of the northern perimeter and the well-appointed regions on the coastal side that were intended for the otium of its leading residents.

There may have been other social areas, but the move towards discretion was deemed best for the accuracy of finding a minimum amount of reception space. This is in accordance with the general division of space within most suburban villas around Pompeii. This allocation of space was also similar to the large townhouses considered within this study, which illustrates that the suburban regions also needed a significant amount of space for entertainment. In comparison to the other villae suburbanae in the inner Pompeian suburbs it is evident that this was a large residence and that a high percentage of its surface area could have been used for social purposes. By observing the plan in general (Fig. 48) it is clear that there was a large amount of space available to the owner, which was used to its fullest capacity. The building was able to make optimal use of the view of the local landscape and the sea breezes while maintaining privacy for the residents. This was a common feature in the design of suburban villas. It is significant that even though there would have been an ample amount of privacy, the location of the building was hardly isolated. Its proximity to the centre of Pompeii would have also been a considerable advantage for its residents, an alluring element for its ownership. Owing to the shops being constructed after the original residence, it could be postulated that this residence was originally conceived purely as a suburban villa with strong urban connections, which became more obvious with the introduction of its commercial activities.

When examining this structure to determine its advantages and purpose, one of the most compelling aspects is its orientation. The entrance cannot have been overly grand, considering the difficulty in identifying it, but this was not the most important consideration for the owner when designing the villa. The building is orientated towards the Bay of Naples, which explains the unusual nature of its design. The view was the prime consideration in the planning of this building. Limitations have been placed on the identification of social areas due to the questionable reliability of the excavation reports. Only three areas were deemed to have been potential entertainment spaces: Rooms A, B and 8. Rooms A and B were selected because of their view towards the coastal landscape and architectural features, whereas Room 8

Graph 36 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Cicero

54

Graph 37 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Cicero not unusual (Hope 1997, 69-88), but it is impossible to ascertain the relationship between the tomb and the later residents. The complex was then followed by a series of shops, which were all constructed with similar dimensions. Behind these shops, there were staircases that led to a cenaculum on the upper floor of the building as well as a couple of shops to the rear. Of these commercial quarters, the only one that has a known function was the last room, which contained a potter’s kiln. All of the shops were alike in their construction, with wooden stairs that led to upper floors, which have not survived (Kockel and Weber 1983, 56).

This complex appears to have been indicative of the villae pseudourbanae referred to by Vitruvius (6.5.3), but it was still a villa suburbana in its non-architectural conception. This is confirmed by the syntactical analysis (Table 19) (Fig. 49). It is evident that Room A was relatively accessible within the residential quarter of the structure (Mean Depth 3.025; Relative Asymmetry 0.106), but that it was removed from the commercial precincts. Room B was even more restricted in its accessibility (Mean Depth 4.675; Relative Asymmetry 0.193), indicating that it was likely to have only been used by the leading inhabitants. While Room B was also restricted (Mean Depth 3.55; Relative Asymmetry 0.134), it is also evident that it would have been more accessible to visitors. The separation between the commercial and residential sectors is exhibited in the overall Control Value results (Graph 36). All the same, the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 37) exhibit the coherency in the design of the Villa of Cicero.

The residential precinct was only accessible from four of shops, divided by the main entrance to the villa. The commercial region of the complex took up most of the ground level, with several of the residential areas being located on upper floors. The area around the atrium produced grain-mills and basins, which highlights the utilitarian nature of the complex. There were several phases of development at this suburban villa, which greatly changed its nature over time. This structure originated as an agricultural villa, with evidence of an enclosed yard during the first period of habitation. There were baths during at least the later periods, but the placement of these rooms was in alignment with the shopping precincts, suggesting that they were constructed during this first phase. The next phase changed this complex into a building of an increasingly residential nature, constructed in opus incertum and included the construction of the large villa building. The most important innovation that occurred during this period, which changed its overall character, was the construction of the upper floors. This clearly separated the residential zone from the commercial regions. Ensuing from this phase of construction was the addition of a large portico, which had mosaic pavement and seems to have been quite impressive. The spacing between the columns were

Villa 18 – The Villa of the Mosaic Columns The Villa of the Mosaic Columns (Fig. 50) was also located on the Via dei Sepolcri, but it is still being excavated, so the amount of available information is limited. This suburban villa was so named because of the large columns at this complex, revetted with polychrome mosaic, which supported the pergula in the garden of the property (Maiuri 1978, 94). The plan was designed as a large porticoed building, with servile quarters to the north-east of the main residential precinct. It has been hypothesised that this area may have been used as a hospitum, but there was certainly a strong emphasis towards financial profit at this residence. The end wall of the garden area was embellished with a fountain, revetted with glass-paste mosaic and shells (Jashemski 1979, 277). Within the garden precinct, the remains of a Samnite Necropolis were discovered, dated to the Third Century BC. The presence of tombs in garden areas was

55

prestige. The use of the mosaic in the decoration of the columns in the pergulae and on the fountain illustrates the airs of the villa owners. As with the Villa of Cicero, this villa also had strong urban connections, but this will be discussed further below. It is interesting to note that the other three suburban villas in this area, the Villas of Cicero, Diomede and the Mysteries, all had alterations to their design in order to conform with the Via dei Sepolcri, whereas the Villa of the Mosaic Columns did not (Zevi 1982, 355). This was probably owing to the differing topography.

accentuated by the use of white tesserae. The décor was performed in Second Style dateable to the late Republic/early Imperial period. There were also several reconstructions to this villa after the earthquake in AD 62, resulting in the collapse of several shops. This phase saw the sealing of the northern door leading from the portico, probably for structural reasons. The upper level of the main residence was also damaged, but it continued in its use after repairs had been completed. Unfortunately, with this region being the main residential area, it is difficult to make any clear observations about its character because of the limited remains. The ground floor had several additions with the inclusion of mosaic pavements and marble statues in the garden area, suggesting that the upper level would have been suitably refurbished. However, the bath facilities were not repaired, which indicates that the lifestyle of the residents had not completely returned to their previous standard.

The theoretical modelling has provided useful insight into the design of this residence, particularly with Laurence’s view of socialisation and urban space: this villa was clearly focused upon interaction within its commercial precincts (Rooms A, B, C and D). The perceived conception of space also illustrates their close connection to the outside world, whereas the residential precinct was more removed. The conceived conception of Lefebvre corresponds with this, showing how the residence was separated into two distinct sectors. The lived conception reflects its social symbolism, whereby potential customers were kept away from the pars urbana, which would have only been accessible to residents and their invited guests. This is not only accentuated by the inclusion of the central corridor as a means of regulating this separation, but also through the use of Area E – the open peristyle.

Despite the limited information, there are at least four points that can be gleaned from the known facts. Firstly, it is clear that owing to its position on the opposite side of the road to all of the other suburban villas, the opportunities to access a view of the Bay of Naples was more limited. Secondly, the position of this building close to the Via dei Sepolcri and on the slope meant that there were constraints upon its design. If the owner had planned on creating the broad porticoes and viewing platforms that were so prevalent with most suburban villas, it would have created a problem with maintaining privacy if they were positioned towards the bay. Instead it is clear that the builder of this complex placed more emphasis upon financial profit, rather than the vast panoramas obtainable at the other villas located outside the Porta Ercolano. Thirdly, the connection between this residence and its commercial district, as well as the presence of the hospitum to the north-east, illustrates the importance of financial viability to the owners, rather than it being a purely luxurious residence. The proximity to the shops was quite similar to the Villa of Cicero, making them quite unique. The other villas beyond the Porta Ercolano would certainly have had a public function, such as the salutatio and other official meetings, but none were obviously associated with commercial activity. Finally, it is also clear from the architecture and décor that the owners did aspire to portray some pretension in this villa to exemplify their success and

Owing to the limited published sources on this villa suburbana, only the peristyle has been included as a prominent social space. It was an open central area (Fig. 50) and seems to be the only clear example. Similar to the Villa of Cicero, roughly a quarter of the ground plan was allocated to socialisation. This entertainment space was in the form of peristyle, but this area also allowed for a utilitarian function. This was in keeping with the general focus of the entire complex, being intended to not only impress but also remain functional. The residence was significantly smaller than other villas outside the Porta Ercolano, but this should not preclude its classification as a villa suburbana. Despite its comparative size and strong emphasis upon commercial activity, its clear link to the urban centre and the attempts to exhibit its urbanity illustrate that it would have been viewed as a suburban villa.

56

Graph 38 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mosaic Columns

Graph 39 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mosaic Columns ‘controlled’) locations, exemplifying the cogent spatial design within the Villa of the Mosaic Columns.

The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated the highly formalised and controlled nature within the Villa of the Mosaic Columns (Fig. 51). In general terms the data has shown a broad range of results for its Depth from Exterior statistics, which exemplifies its controlled design (Table 20). The data has clearly demonstrated the importance of Room E as a socialisation space, judging from its Mean Depth result (4.2) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.278). Even though this area did not control access itself (Control Value 0.83), it did in relation to two ‘controlling’ spaces (the External and Room 3). In general terms, the Control Value results (Graph 38) have exhibited the highly manipulated series of progression into this complex, being clearly dominated by four rooms in particular. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 39) have nonetheless shown the close integration of most spaces within their designated (or

Villa 19 – The Villa of Diomede The so-called Villa of Diomede (Fig. 52) was located roughly two hundred metres to the north-west of the Porta Ercolano, along the Via dei Sepolcri (Map 2) (Maiuri and Pane 1947, 11). The design of this building was also determined by its topography (Carrington 1936, 87). The land slopes down progressively from the east to west and also from the north-east to the south-west along its axis. This setting allowed the creation of impressive views at the rear of the building, presenting the panorama of the Bay of Naples, Sorrentine Peninsula and Island of Capri (Richardson 1988, 348).

57

porticoes. This alteration to the original plan, which had a nucleus around a central atrium, increased the imposing effect of the architecture. The introduction of the peristyle would have significantly improved the lighting and ventilation in this central area of the building. Over the pool in this peristyle was a painting of a well stocked fishpond, intending to extend the impression of the pool beyond its actual space (Jashemski 1981, 42).

However, this building did not originate as one of the most splendid structures at Pompeii. There is clear evidence of substantial additions and alterations to the building. The initial structure has been dated to the Second Century BC, being originally square in plan, symmetrically designed around a central atrium, which is more indicative of townhouses (Maiuri and Pane 1947, 12). The tablinum originally opened onto a loggiato, which was supported by columns. This was later altered, but the bases of these tufa columns were observed within the walls, forming the original portico (Richardson 1988, 350). This opened towards the garden below, originally surrounded by a simple wall and indicative in character and function of the typical hortus (Maiuri and Pane 1947, 12). This portico would certainly have been an open and well-ventilated veranda that allowed sweeping views and sea breezes. The portico was later renovated to become more impressive and larger, taking more advantage of the view. Nevertheless, despite its modest origins, it is clear that its position was chosen for the outlook towards the bay.

The other substantial alteration to this building was the replacement of the columnar portico with a long gallery and the addition of an oecus on the north-eastern side of the peristyle. This oecus had a large number of windows, doors at either end, providing an impressive landscape. This room was used as a large dining hall. There was a large central opening in the outer walls from the peristyle that almost extended from ceiling to floor, as well as two windows for the view to the south-west. However, the axis of this room was not aligned with the peristyle but with the sunken garden (Fig. 52). In order to create this open viewing parlour, the previous columnar portico was enclosed, but this modification accentuated the outlook from the villa. This oecus projected over the garden below, which increased its effect dramatically. The position of the doors suggests that there was enough room for dining couches to be placed in the middle of the room. This area would have only been used with invited guests. Martial (12.29.13) highlighted the importance of being invited to dine with a patron, which was indicative of social advancement (Meyer 1999, 119). On either side of this room there were another two rooms. Richardson has postulated that these smaller rooms were used for smaller dining parties. It seems more likely that these smaller spaces had a private function, their design being more in tune with use by the resident household for quiet contemplation, relaxation or private dining rather than entertaining. Access to these smaller dining areas was probably restricted owing to their intimate disposition. There is a possibility that only certain members of the residents would have had free access to this area of the domus. From these rooms extended a deck that ran around four sides of the porticoes that surrounded the sunken garden. These decks were probably intended as places to walk and enjoy the view into the garden and towards the landscape beyond.

The designer of this suburban villa did not follow the usual conventions in relation to other villas outside the Porta Ercolano. The villa was constructed along the lines of gradually descending terraces, which is unique among these villas but can be observed in buildings in other areas around Pompeii. These terraces allowed for the greatest use of the upper levels as viewing platforms and created a pleasant sanctuary in the gardens beneath (Jashemski 1979, 316). The form of these terraces created a clear distinction between the different function of the divisions within the building. The upper level contained the main area of residence for the household, having direct access to the street level, but it was also raised above this. This level also included the servile rooms which, similarly to the so-called Villa of Cicero, were located on the eastern side near the Via dei Sepolcri. These rooms included the kitchens, latrine and baths (Fig. 52). Other servile rooms were located on the level below the principal quarters, which was a result of the sloping topography. This created a clear distinction between the different regions within the building, which was a common feature of Roman housing (Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 55; Fredrick 1995, 266). Beyond this area was the garden district that extended below the terraces, which were constructed during the final period of occupation. These gardens were easily viewed from the upper terraces and would have complemented the magnificent panorama from these galleries (Mackenzie 1910, 67; Mielsch 1987, 42).

The majority of the décor discovered was executed in Pompeian Fourth Style. The schemes that were depicted were performed in an elegant and sparse fashion. There may have also been some remnants of Second Style still in existence at the time of the eruption. Nevertheless, it is clear that owing to the discovery of Fourth Style décor and the late architectural additions to this villa that the final owner may have preferred to follow the latest developments in domestic ornamentation, which appears to have been common for most suburban villa proprietors.

The building lies on a roughly forty-five degree angle to the line of the façade, which created some unusual features. Owing to this, the entrance vestibule was triangular and there was need to be judicious in the design of those rooms between the peristyle and the façade. In accordance with the recommendations of Vitruvius (6.5.3), the entrance led to the peristyle, which was rectangular with four by five columns and deep

The gardens associated with this building are also significant when interpreting the lifestyle at this suburban villa. Firstly, there was a garden located to the south of

58

The rectangular platform was placed between the tank and the south-western wing of the porticus. It was raised two steps above the garden, paved with white mosaic with black edging and bordered by a pluteus that held six columns in brick on the corners and in the middle of the sides. A wooden frame with vines may have connected these columns to create an arbor for summer dining. Carbonised tree roots have been discovered around this platform, which furthers this possibility. The rooms that bordered onto this garden are roughly of uniform size, suggesting a similar purpose, possibly used for work in summer, rather than entertaining. The date suggests that the sunken garden and its associated rooms were additions from the Augustan period, extending the previous structure. The addition of this garden reflects the desire of the owners to heighten the impressive view and to increase its opulence and comfort. Unlike the smaller example near the bedrooms in the south-western wing, this garden was not intended for private use, but also to be enjoyed by visitors and guests. When combined with the view of the landscape it would have created a stunning impression. This design was intended to create a comfortable living environment and make a statement of success, culture and status.

the main apsidal cubiculum (Fig. 52). It was apsidal in shape and located on the south-western side of the peristyle (Richardson 1988, 350). This room has proven to be the best examples of a cubiculum in hapside curatum (Pliny Ep. 2.17.8). This room is positioned in the centre of this side of the wing bordering onto the peristyle. Its most compelling feature is the three large windows that looked out onto this garden. If desired, these windows could also be closed with shutters in order to maintain an element of privacy. Cubicula were sometimes used for the reception of intimate friends or for the undertaking of business (Riggsby 1997, 41), which may have occurred within this room in view of its open demeanour. There was also another smaller window placed over the central window. These windows allowed a virtually uninterrupted view of the small garden outside. This garden was probably located outside these windows on a platform at street level and was accessible via a narrow corridor at the eastern wing of the peristyle. The garden was also visible from another cubiculum on this wing. This bedroom included a small window in order to view the garden and also had another window that looked onto the peristyle. From the position of this garden it appears that it functioned as a private retreat and provided a tranquil environment for the residents. However, this private garden is an important feature when considering the design of this residence. It reflects the desire to create a pleasing view in the most private spheres of the building. This shows that the need for a pleasing view was not only to impress visitors, but for their own enjoyment. Owing to the position of the garden and the bedroom near the Via dei Sepolcri, the inclusion of the shutters in the apsidal cubiculum also highlights the desire for privacy. But the inclusion of these large windows also exhibits the desire for light and ventilation, suggesting that this room was used for other purposes than just for sleeping.

When examining the purpose and function of the Villa of Diomede, an important area was the cryptoporticus. The inclusion of this feature was popular in the late Republican period, which was useful for storing different products. This cryptoporticus was undecorated, but still rendered in plaster. This basic décor is indicative of this type of region because of its servile function, being unseen by visitors to the villa and rarely frequented by the leading residents of the household. It was accessible from the northern and eastern ends by narrow staircases. The porticoes above were slightly raised on three sides and there was a series of slits cut into the shoulder of the vault, allowing for light to illuminate the area.

The large sunken garden was another important feature of this suburban villa. This area was accessible in a couple of different ways. Firstly, as the villa was entered, there was a staircase in the northern corner of the peristyle beside the doorway. Secondly, there were stairs behind the south-eastern side of the long gallery and thirdly via a corridor from the service quarters at either end of the main wing. This garden was surrounded on all sides by a garden porticus, constructed out of pillars with linking flat arches that created multiple doorways (Maiuri and Pane 1947, 16). The axis of the garden was emphasised by two features: the tank and a large rectangular platform (Fig. 52). The tank was placed near the centre of the garden and was suitable for the breeding of fish. There was a cylindrical column topped with a marble disc in the middle of this tank, which was pierced in order to be used as a fountain and this was complemented by pipes and jets around the perimeter of the tank. The end near the building was rounded into an apse, with a series of five niches in the wall that were alternatively shaped in a curvilinear and rectangular form.

When the cryptoporticus was excavated, large numbers of amphorae were uncovered. It is clear that this area was used for storing and ageing wine. This was not uncommon for many suburban villas. However, it has an interesting implication for the purpose of this villa in regard to its productive capacity. It is possible that the cryptoporticus may have been used to store wine for the personal use of the residents. Some amphorae may have stored imported wine for personal consumption, with many Pompeian households consuming a variety of wines (Tchernia 1984, 91). However, owing to the large numbers of amphorae, it seems more likely that they represent a commercial function associated with the owner (Overbeck 1884, 375). Campania was one of the most fertile regions for the production of wine in Italy (Martial 4.44), and it is no surprise that wealthy villa owners would be involved in this kind of agriculture. It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence for the processing and pressing of wine at the Villa of Diomede. There are two important considerations that can be made when this is considered. Rawson has highlighted that

59

that was evidently a prime factor in the design of this impressive domus. In turn, the Villa of Diomede also conforms to the theoretical modelling of Ray Laurence, which stresses the importance of societal dynamics in the placement and design of domestic structures. The demeanour of the villa (and its intended impression) was vital to the owner of this villa suburbana.

productive land and a favourite residence were not necessarily at the same location (Rawson 1976, 89), which seems to have been the case in this instance. Firstly, if the owner of the villa was involved in producing wine for commercial reasons, the processing of the grapes must have been located elsewhere, with the cryptoporticus being used purely for storage. Therefore, there must have been another estate in the possession of the owner that was solely of an agricultural nature. There are a large number of villa establishments located further out from Pompeii that served a primarily productive role. The possession of more than one piece of property was common for wealthy members of Roman society, so this should be no surprise. The owners’ interest in wine production may be further exhibited by the discovery of several oscilla in the complex (Dwyer 1981, 276-8), commonly associated with Bacchic ritual. However, this point is of interest when trying to understand the function of suburban villas. In this instance, the Villa of Diomede may exhibit a clear separation between a luxurious residence and agricultural production, which is significant for our understanding of the building and its inhabitants.

Six areas have been included among the rooms with clear socialisation roles: Rooms A, 6, 17, 8, 16 and 20. This includes Room A, the large hall (Room 16) and the tablinum (Room 17) for reasons of their open and wellappointed appearance. Rooms 6, 8 and 20 have been classed as oecii due to their décor and viewing positions. These areas were probably not the only rooms within such an opulent complex to have a possible entertainment function, but these were the only rooms included in order that only those that were clearly used for socialisation purposes were considered. The number of spaces itself illustrates the intentions of the owner. This was dramatically larger than the previous two sites and indicates the differing facilities and décor at these residences. The peristyles covered the largest area within this space, but there were also larger areas intended for dining and viewing the coastline. This large amount of space is even more compelling when the greater ability to include the lower floor is taken into consideration. These results illustrate that the prime function of this suburban villa was residential entertainment and recreation, rather than agricultural productivity.

The perceived conception of space exhibits not only the importance of Room A as a socialisation space for a wide range of individuals, but also in its guise as a region that fed into other spaces within the complex. The conceived conception shows the high importance placed upon élite socialisation at this well-appointed residence. Lefebvre’s lived conception further exemplifies the social hierarchy

Graph 40 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Diomede

60

Graph 41 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Diomede many discussions, particularly in relation to its fine wall decoration. This villa was built roughly four hundred metres from the Porta Ercolano (Maiuri 1947, 37). The original plan of the structure was square in design, in a similar scheme with its room distribution to an urban house (Fig. 54). In this period, the Villa of the Mysteries is representative of the transitional period between the use of Sarno stone and tufa. The central feature during this early phase of the buildings’ development was a large Tuscan atrium, the original date of construction was between 250-200 BC and from the outset if reflected the wealth of pre-Roman Campania (Little 1972, 1-2). The structure was founded in part upon a podium substructure or basis with arches, which accentuated the impressive panorama beyond.

The syntactical analysis of this structure has exhibited its high level of socialisation (Table 21) (Fig. 53). The importance of Room A as a highly social and ‘controlling’ space is exhibited by its low Mean Depth (3.84), Relative Asymmetry (0.157) and high Control Value results (5.41). This is contrasted by Rooms 6 and 8 (Mean Depth 6.95; Relative Asymmetry 0.330), which were clearly more restricted and were seemingly almost purely used by the leading residents and their invited guests. Rooms 16 and 17 were more public, having respectively greater accessibility with both Mean Depth values (5.32; 4.61) and Relative Asymmetry results (0.24; 0.200). While Room 20 has also been classified as an oecus, it does appear to have been more public (when compared to Rooms 6 and 8), having slightly lower Mean Depth (6.82) and Relative Asymmetry results (0.323). This is in keeping with their comparative size as well. The well-formulated design of this villa is epitomised by the general Control Value results (Graph 40), showing the dominance of five ‘controlling’ spaces that allowed access to the ‘controlled’ spaces. Graph 41 represents the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values, which further illustrates the consistent nature of accessibility within this domus, which overtly demonstrates the well-designed format and conception of this villa suburbana.

The entrance was from the eastern side via a triangular courtyard, which originally developed from a farmyard surrounded by agricultural buildings. The original entrance was not directed towards the closest major road, which was later changed with the introduction of expanded industrial and agricultural production, altering the rectangular alignment of the building (Maiuri 1947, 38). There were two entrances, the first point of access being onto the Via dei Sepolcri and the other was from the subordinate street which accessed the coastal road between Pompeii and Herculaneum (Map 2). Access to the building from the Via dei Sepolcri was located directly to the transverse of the atrium and the later peristyle, suggesting that this entrance is datable to this phase of construction (Fig. 54). The principal entrance was in close proximity to the public road and in perfect alignment with the peristyle and the large Tuscan atrium. This entrance remained almost unchanged from its original design until the Augustan period. At this time, the eastern entrance was altered significantly. The access hallway was transformed into an unusually wide corridor, which suggests that it was used for vehicle access for delivering merchandise to the agricultural quarters.

The division between agricultural production and this building means that this domus was intended to be purely residential. Therefore, it would seem clear that the primary purpose of the Villa of Diomede was for luxury, entertainment and relaxation. These functions have been clearly exhibited by the priorities of the design being a comfortable lifestyle and the panoramas that were achieved by the viewing rooms. This will be important to consider when the other Pompeian villas have been analysed, including the Villa of the Mysteries. Villa 20 – The Villa of the Mysteries The Villa of the Mysteries is the most well known example of a villa at Pompeii, having been the topic of

61

at the Villa of Diomede were living in the building, despite the alterations and repairs that were being undertaken.

Following from the original construction of the Villa of the Mysteries there were several alterations made to the building, which signify a change in the emphasis of the function of the building, originally designed as an unambiguous suburban villa. Around 90 to 70 BC, there is evidence of the influence of Greek architecture on the villa. Maiuri thought that this was symbolic of a new owner from the newly established Roman colony (Maiuri 1947, 103), but it may simply have been a change in focus by the owners or descendants. The most notable extension was the construction of a peristyle towards the eastern side with columns in Nucerian tufa. There was also added a completely new district of lodgings with rooms and doors that were of smaller dimensions to the previous examples (Fig. 54). A smaller atrium, originally Tuscan in design, was added along with baths including a laconicum, but without suspensurae. It is significant to note that the central focus moved during this period from the central atrium to the peristyle, similarly to the Villa of Diomede.

The original arrangement of the building was similar to the design of urban townhouses from the period. The creation of a building focusing on a central atrium was indicative of urban rather than rural buildings during the Second Century BC, providing insight into the original intentions of the owners. With the implementation of this design, it appears that the fundamental emphasis of the lifestyle intended at this residence was still urban rather than rural. It would seem pertinent that the Villa of the Mysteries was planned as a villa suburbana, owing to its position and intended lifestyle. However, with the addition of the peristyle during the early First Century BC and the change in the focus of the building towards this addition represents an even greater emphasis upon otium by the residents. The construction of a peristyle would have added a great deal to the comfort of this building (Fig. 55). The peristyle not only symbolised an acceptance of Greek architectural designs but also a desire for otium. It is from this point on that the villa became an example of a luxurious suburban villa. With successive periods of alteration and addition the building further exemplified this architectural style, but it was the construction of the peristyle that transformed the building.

The next phase of alteration occurred in the Augustan period, between 30 BC and AD 14. At this time the doors of the large Tuscan atrium were partly closed, reducing the height of the adjoining rooms. In this period, the rooms constructed were smaller and lower in design. The wall decoration of the building was also completely performed in Pompeian Second Style, with most residential rooms being luxurious in their conception with indulgent wall décor and mosaic paving as was fitting for a residence of the local upper class. During the period between AD 14 and the damaging earthquake in 62, there were several other changes made to the building. The most notable of these was the construction of the viewing tablinum on the western side of the villa (Fig. 55).

The most important region in the villa for an understanding of its purpose and development was the western side, containing several rooms for viewing the landscape. The original plan was from the outset designed to utilise the impressive landscape of the Bay of Naples. The most prominent viewing room was the central tablinum. However, with the alterations to the building between AD 14 and 62, the possibilities for appreciating the impressive landscape were further increased. The shape of the room was originally a simple rectangle, but this was altered to allow for a semicircular extension beyond the previous limits. The shape of this terrace allowed for a greater appreciation of the panorama and also provided protection from bad weather. This extension had three large windows that opened onto the view with low windowsills. This type of panoramic viewpoint became the essential element of the luxurious villa, allowing for comfortable living and entertaining. It should be noted that wealthy Romans consistently refurbished and upgraded their properties (Badian 1973, 131), so the numerous additions to this domus are to be expected. However, the alterations to these entertaining rooms are still notable for their position and facilities.

At this time, the clear separation between the different quarters in the building becomes quite striking. There was an unmistakable division between the eastern and western wings, which differentiated the principal residence from the servile and agricultural regions (De Petra 1910, 140). The western side contained elegant rooms that surrounded the large Tuscan atrium, rooms primarily used by the leading residents. Room 15 was quite formal, adjoined by a ‘secretarial’ room (Room 13) and both appear to have been used for the salutatio. At this time, the peristyle served as the central focus of the building. On the eastern side were the servile regions of the villa, which in the final phase of development were converted into a rustic area (Fig. 55). This change was closer in character to that of an agricultural establishment rather than that of a palatial suburban retreat. In this phase one of the noblest rooms was converted from a summer triclinium into a torcularium (Maiuri 1947, 104). It is pertinent that its owners did not inhabit the Villa of the Mysteries at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius. There were still repairs and alterations being made at this time after the earthquake in AD 62, so the only residents were of a servile nature in August AD 79. This is an important consideration because it is clear that the leading residents

There were other rooms that had a viewing function. The most notable of these was Room 5, which has been described as the ‘Mysteries room’ in modern studies owing to the nature of the Second Style wall décor. The style and interpretation of these wall paintings has been the subject of much discussion since their discovery

62

the eruption, with no remains of amphorae. One other use for the cryptoporticus was that it projected almost five metres beyond the perimeter of the upper levels of the building, designed to support a parterre garden that was important for the view from the western rooms. Owing to the absence of amphorae within the cryptoporticus, it does result in a question concerning the productivity of this villa. Firstly, it must be noted that its leading residents did not inhabit the building at this time because of the reconstructions that were occurring. The disruption to the residency may have also disrupted its productive capabilities as well. But the intentions of the owner in the later phases of habitation towards agricultural production cannot be questioned because of the presence of a torcularium.

(Mudie Cooke 1913; Sauron 1998; Hearnshaw 1999; Toynbee 1929), but for the purposes of this study the reading of these motifs shall be minimal. It is enough to comment that the use of red cinnabar for the production of these paintings is a good reflection of the owners’ wealth, this medium requiring accurate application techniques for an impressive long-lasting effect (Allroggen-Bedel 1984, 132). Also that this room was built in Sarno stone during the first period of habitation and was not altered throughout its development (Maiuri 1947, 59). The fact that this room remained unaltered throughout the use of this building is one reason why modern scholars have speculated about a ritual use for the room. The friezes were probably painted between 55-60 BC (Wilburn 2000, 22). This room functioned as a private triclinium and originally overlooked the external terrace on two sides (Bieber 1928, 299). This open aspect provided the room with sunlight and allowed an open view of the surroundings (Bendinelli 1968, 823). This room, at least in the initial phases of the building, would have been an enjoyable room for dining where the view of the external terrace and underlying garden combined with the cool breeze would have epitomised the ideals of otium.

The torcularium was a significant modification to the Villa of the Mysteries during the final phase of development between roughly AD 62 and 79 (Maiuri 1942, 104). The room that later housed the torcularium was originally used as a summer triclinium before its alteration (Maiuri 1947, 96). This summer triclinium would have had a free prospectus of the fields and Mount Vesuvius before the construction of the later surrounding wall. As mentioned by Maiuri, the room was also of sufficient height that it would have maintained its privacy from the passing travellers on the road to Herculaneum. As a torcularium, it appears that the process used would have been that the grapes were transported through the eastern entrance via a ramp, the grapes were then pressed and decanted in the torcularium. Following from this, the amphorae were probably then stored and aged in the cryptoporticus. Despite the lack of amphorae, the presence of this torcularium confirms the intentions of the villa owner towards the villas productivity. This change in focus is indicative of how families differed in responding to their particular and ever changing circumstances (Dixon 1992, 31).

There were another two rooms that would have enjoyed the view of the panorama on the south-western side of the Villa of the Mysteries: Rooms 9 and10 (Fig. 55). These two rooms were constructed during the same period as the hemicycle shaped tablinum, during the Neronian era (Maiuri 1947, 63). The purpose of these rooms was for personal leisure and for viewing the panorama of the Bay of Naples. Maiuri suggested that these rooms might have been used for private pursuits, such as reading and relaxation. If this interpretation is correct, the private nature of these rooms would have been an important aspect to consider in comparison with the previous two rooms discussed. The tablinum would have been used for entertaining guests, whereas Rooms 5, 9 and 10 were for private use. This is also important that because these rooms were created during the same period as the additions to the tablinum. But it is evident that the development of the Villa of the Mysteries was influenced by the consideration of creating an impressive viewing platform on the western side of the structure (Maiuri 1998, 104). There were several rooms created and altered to enhance the visibility of the local landscape, which, despite having this common theme, were frequently intended for different purposes.

Having considered these characteristics and phases at the Villa of the Mysteries, it may be possible to draw three conclusions about the use and changes in emphasis from its initial creation until the eruption in AD 79. Similarly to the Villa of Diomedes, it appears that the choice of this particular location to build a residence had several advantages. Firstly, there was the close connection with the urban centre of Pompeii. Secondly, the choice of that particular position allowed the owner to take the fullest advantage of the available view of the Bay of Naples. The original design of the building was similar to that of a townhouse, but with successive phases of alteration and addition, it adopted the features of a stately villa, culminating in the final impressive structure in the period prior to the earthquake in AD 62. But the most notable alterations occurred in the Neronian period with extensive modification to the western side, creating the viewing rooms that allowed a far-reaching appreciation of the panorama below. Finally, it is important to note the change in emphasis from the successive periods with the addition, or at least expansion, of the agricultural fittings.

Apart from the importance of the view, there was also emphasis placed upon productivity at this establishment, which changed over time. The first region of the villa to be discussed in this regard is the cryptoporticus. It was faced with blind arches but it was not decorated. It was accessible from a set of stairs located in the middle of the peristyle. According to Maiuri, this quarter preserved its traditional function, operating as a wine cellar in a similar fashion to the Villa of Diomede (Maiuri 1947, 90). However, it appears that it was not in use at the time of

63

greater amount of light into the structure than the traditional atrium but the wall would have restricted its use for entertainment and reception. When examining this type of space the consideration of its role is of prime importance. This question has been discussed in the previous chapter, where it was argued that the inclusion of peristyles into the group of potential entertainment rooms was valid for the purposes of this study. The inclusion of the peristyle in the Villa of the Mysteries has been necessary for consistency in the analysis and to ensure the statistical results are as accurate as possible.

The replacement of an elegant triclinium with a torcularium indicates that the priorities of the owner had changed, whether the villa had changed hands or it was simply economic considerations after the damaging earthquake in AD 62. If this change in focus is considered with the fact that the owners were not residing at this complex, it seems to indicate a change in the mind-set of the proprietors. If the advantages in living close to the city were not being utilised, as well as the increased agricultural focus, it would seem that in the final phase of habitation, the Villa of the Mysteries had changed dramatically, but it remained to be a palatial suburban villa.

Four rooms other than the peristyle have been included because of their social function: Rooms 5, 6, 9 and 10. Room 5 and 6 have the characteristics of dining rooms whereas Rooms 9 and 10 seem to have been used as viewing diaetae. With the alterations that occurred to Rooms 48-49, this room has also received special attention because of its prior entertainment function. Having accepted the inclusion of the peristyle within this group of rooms the statistical analysis of space within the Villa of the Mysteries has produced surprising results. Firstly, the amount of space used for entertainment was quite low in its final stage of habitation. This is markedly lower than the other structures in this area, especially in contrast to the Villa of Diomede. This is indicative of the divergent roles that the Villa of the Mysteries played. This complex was clearly used for both entertainment and productivity, whereas the Villa of Diomede appears to have had no agricultural function. Unfortunately, the impressive extant décor at the Villa of the Mysteries has resulted in much discussion about this site, even though it seems that the actual residential facilities at the Villa of Diomede were more impressive in antiquity.

The perceived conception of Lefebvre illustrates the difference between the early villa (A) and the AD 79 complex (B). This exhibits how the villa changed over time, whereby the style of socialisation factors evolved as the internal structure was transformed. This is also reflected in the conceived conception of space, which shows how Period B for the Villa of the Mysteries was significantly different socially in terms of spatial function to Period A, as epitomised by Room 48-49 in particular. The lived conception demonstrates a similarly vital conclusion because the change from Mysteries Villa A to Villa B exhibits the societal complexity of this site, thus exhibiting the domestic development of the complex itself. The nature of the peristyle was quite different to the previous structures studied. The inclusion of the wall surrounding the interior of this feature significantly altered the general demeanour of this typically openplanned space. The peristyle was still able to allow a

Graph 42 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (A)

64

Graph 43 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (A) (Graph 43), thus exhibiting the highly controlled but relatively accessible nature of this complex.

In the study by Longfellow (200, 25-37) it has been illustrated that the famous monumental friezes in Room 5 were located in one of the furthest removed regions of the AD 79 complex, suggesting that it was within one of the most private areas of the domus. This has been shown using the Hillier and Hanson method, illustrating the private nature of the area at this time mathematically. This style of analysis has shown that not only were these rooms restricted to most visitors, but also that the route of access to this space was conceivably well controlled. From this analysis it is clear that residents and visitors with acceptable standing only used the region (Table 22) (Fig. 56). Even the residents would not have passed these rooms frequently in daily life. The ramification that this holds is the similar level of importance placed upon private entertaining at suburban villas and urban townhouses. These rooms would have been used for prearranged occasions and only for the leading residents and invited guests.

If the same method of spatial analysis is used for interpreting the earlier phase of this villae suburbanae, the results are quite different (Fig. 57). At this time, judging from the low Mean Depth (3.09) and the Relative Asymmetry result (0.139), it would seem that Room 5 was more accessible than in the later phase of habitation. Access to this room was still controlled (having a Control Value of 0.67) but it appears to have possessed more of a public role. Room 2 also seems to have served a public function, which would be appropriate if it functioned as a tablinum, having a low Relative Asymmetry (0.133), indicating a high potential for social interaction. This is particularly relevant when these rooms are compared to Room 48-49, which had a higher Relative Asymmetry (0.210), Mean Depth (4.16) and lower Control Value (0.58), indicating that the access to this area (Room 4849) was even more restricted than Room 5 at the time of the creation of the famous wall-paintings.

In regard to Room 5 of the Villa of the Mysteries it seems to further suggest that this room would have only been used for private dining, thereby accentuating the nature of the occasion. For the invited guests, being allowed in this area of the domus would have been a clear expression of hospitium and amicitia on the part of the residents (Nichols 2001, 99-100). After all, dining with another person was one of the greatest expressions of friendship (Peachin 2001, 135-6), which was not only mentioned by Cicero (Fam. 9.24.3), but also reflected in the lengths undertaken with the décor of the dining rooms. The nature of the early phase is epitomised by the general Control Value results (Graph 42), which shows the simplicity of the structure at this point. This is also correlated by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values

In the later phase of habitation Room 5 became more inaccessible and in turn had a more private role. Rooms 9 and 10 also had a low degree of potential social interaction, as shown in the Relative Asymmetry results (0.108, 0.127 respectively). Their high Mean Depths (4.62, 5.3) and low Control Values (0.2, 0.2) also emphasise their private role and make a function, such as that of a diaetae, seem likely. Room 48-49 was still restricted in its access but probably now for its utilitarian function. It is notable to view the developments in social patterns at this villa suburbana with the changing emphasis upon public and private regions as the residence developed over time.

65

Graph 44 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (B)

Graph 45 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries (B) When the final phase of the Villa of the Mysteries is compared to the Villa of Diomede using the Hillier and Hanson method (Fig. 57) the differences between élite social regions and public areas are highlighted, in as much as not all reception rooms were located in public sectors. In the Villa of Diomede this is most notable in Rooms 6 and 8, both of which produced high results for Relative Asymmetry (both 0.330) and Mean Depth (both 6.95), illustrating a low level of social interaction and high restriction from other rooms in the complex. Only the main level of this villa suburbana was taken into consideration in this spatial analysis to serve as a more reliable comparison with the other suburban villas, but even this partial sample illustrates that socialisation space existed in both the public and private domains.

The syntactical analysis for Period B for the Villa of the Mysteries (Table 23) (Fig. 56) provides a clear representation of how this structure changed over time. Not only did the socialisation pattern transform quite dramatically, but the way in which this residence functioned also developed in some regards as well. The general Control Value results (Graph 44) illustrates the wider complexity of the later complex, but it additionally portrays the smaller number of highly ‘controlling’ spaces within the overall villa. All the same, the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 45) exemplifies the wider consistent levels of accessibility within the structure, even though the highly private regions were definitely restricted by the ‘controlling’ regions of the residence.

66

Bay of Naples, with numerous multi-level shops between the residence and the impressive coastal landscape. It is plausible that many wealthy members of the population invested in small commercial precincts (Skydsgaard 1976, 44-8), probably in order to diversify their financial interests.

Rooms A and 16 produced results showing that they controlled access to other areas (Control Values 5.41, 2.49 respectively) and that their Relative Asymmetry results (0.157, 0.24) illustrate the high levels of potential interaction at each room. Room 20, on the other hand, had a high Relative Asymmetry (0.323) and Mean Depth (6.82), illustrating its residential accessibility. The entertainment role of villae suburbanae encompassed both public and private occasions and the rooms that could serve an entertainment role were positioned in accordance with their intended purpose - be it public or private.

The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated that the Villa of Cicero had only one region (Room B) of public entertainment space. It had a low level of restriction from other rooms in the residential complex, as shown by its Mean Depth (4.67). Conversely, Rooms A and B had average Relative Asymmetry values (0.106, 0.193), indicating that they were not readily accessible. The peristyle (Room E) in the Villa of the Mosaic Columns was also clearly a public social region, having a low Depth from Exterior result (2). It was restricted from the more secluded regions of the complex as shown by its high Mean Depth (4.2).

From this analysis it is clear that these regions within the complexes were only used by certain residents and visitors of acceptable standing. Even the residents would not have passed these rooms frequently in daily life. The ramifications that this holds for the present study is the importance placed upon private entertaining at suburban villas as at urban townhouses. These rooms would have probably been used for prearranged occasions and only for the leading residents and invited guests. In regard to Room 5 of the Villa of the Mysteries, it seems to further the suggestion that this room would have only been used for private dining, thereby accentuating the special nature of the occasion.

The Villa of Cicero maintained an impressive view of the Bay of Naples, but it seems clear that commercial activity was an important source of income. It is also placed even closer to the city, only just beyond the walls. The question arises at this point whether the walls would have been a clear demarcation of urban and suburban space. By the time these villas were built, it is clear that the defensive requirements of the city walls were not as significant (Varone 2000, 188), which is evidenced by the large number of buildings appearing during this period built either onto or beyond these fortifications. At least three quarters of the Pompeian defensive circuit followed a natural line of defence (Richardson 1982, 343), but the construction of these fortifications at the end of the Fifth Century BC, with a second phase in the mid Third Century BC did not limit the expansion of the city. Judging from the plan of Pompeii the majority of growth beyond the walls occurred on the coastal side, for the view and intended lifestyle, hence the palatial villas on the Via dei Sepolcri and the terrace villas in Insula Occidentalis.

Summary of the Villas outside the Porta Ercolano Summarising the evidence of these villas, none of these structures were created with the same design they eventually achieved in AD 79. Neither of the best known villas, the Villas of Diomede and Mysteries, originated as palatial structures. It was a process of successive development and alteration. We cannot view these structures in a static fashion, the periods of development, especially the change in facilities and decoration must be appreciated to ascertain the intentions of the owner. As mentioned by Petronius, Trimalchio did not build his entire house, he enlarged the existing structure: ut scritis, cusuc erat, nunc templum est. This would have been indicative of both acquired establishments and also inherited buildings, with the following generation embellishing their residences.

The large number of buildings built in the second half of the Second Century BC was indicative of the growth in wealth of the city after the Second Punic War (Rostovtzeff 1957, 551, n. 25). If the model of 0.1% growth per annum taken by Hopkins is correct (1980, 101-25), this would also explain urban development (Saller 2001, 581-2), which when applied to Pompeii makes the expansion into the suburban areas understandable (Raper 1979, 145). Owing to the discussion of Buck (1983) about the literary terminology of villas, it is untenable to classify a complex as a villa within the city, but the reality of suburban space with highly urban characteristics is clear. It is for this reason that Vitruvius’ reference to villae pseudourbanae is to be expected, even though they were suburban villas. Perring (1991, 282-4) has illustrated the powerful effect of citywalls in shaping social behaviour within a city, but the same could be said for those residents just beyond the urban fortifications. By living outside the city it would

Firstly, it is clear that the Villas of Cicero and Mosaic Columns were quite different in focus to a residence like the Villa of the Mysteries. Their close connection with commercial activity makes this observation clear (Map 2). The first two hundred metres of this road would not have been entirely different to the main commercial roads within the city. Naturally the most significant difference was the presence of the numerous tombs, but this did not prevent the dominance of commercial activity in the area. Owing to the numerous businesses on this road, which were intimately connected with the Villas of Cicero and Mosaic Columns, it highlights the variation in many villae suburbanae, hence Vitruvius’ reference to villae pseudourbanae. The Villa of Mosaic Columns is the prime example in this consideration, having placed itself on the northern side of the road, looking away from the

67

Vesuvius (Map 3) (De Vos 1982, 180), being extremely close to the city, especially for a villa that focused predominantly upon agriculture.

have provided the owners with a greater sense of freedom, despite having such strong urban characteristics in their residences. This greater autonomy is clearly illustrated in the open disposition of many villae suburbanae. There was an evident combination of cultured urbanitas with traditional rural morality (Wallace-Hadrill 1991, 246-7), which was the ideal fusion for any wealthy landowner.

There were two corridors within the complex (Rooms C, D), Room D connecting the southern court to the peristyle (Room H) (Sogliano 1898b, 496). The southern courtyard (Area A), opened onto a room (Room B), which served an agricultural function in view of the finds uncovered, including a bronze horse bit and muzzle. The courtyard opened onto another small room (Room E), which included finds of a bronze rectangular mirror, four oil lamps, two small glass bottles, an iron hoe and axe. Owing to the diversity of finds within this room, it seems to have served as a rustic room, which appears logical in view of its size and position. It seems likely that both Rooms Z and J were also intended for agricultural activity.

The Villa of Diomede should also be classified as a villa suburbana because of its position. This villa also had clear urban connections, especially when considering the original layout, which was more indicative of Pompeian townhouses than villas further out from the city. The large façade facing the Via dei Sepolcri would have also increased its presence within the community. The later additions to the structure were intended to make this domus more impressive, adding to its social prestige. But it remains clear that the connection between this villa and the city means that the complex was a villa suburbana. One other aspect of note was the establishments’ direct connection to the urban water supply. The villa would probably not have solely relied upon this source, especially in view of the regulation of supply in the city (Hodge 1996, 261-76). However, this connection with the urban amenities illustrates that the inner suburban regions were highly urban, or more precisely pseudo-urban, in reality.

Further down Corridor C were two large rooms (Rooms F, G), constructed with opus incertum. Room F was wellappointed, notably with the mosaic of the philosophers (Sogliano 1897a, 337-40). There are seven male figures depicted in Greek dress, with one of them addressing the others (Konrad 1980, 8). It is thought that this was a representation of Plato’s Academy and it may have been a copy of a Greek original. Owing to the well-appointed nature of this pavement and the position of the room, beside the triclinium (Room G), it appears that this room served as an oecus. The implications of this mosaic are important. This production clearly exhibits an attempt by the owner to advertise his cultural pretensions. However, the remainder of the structure was quite modest. This suggests that the mosaic was indicative of the owners’ aspirations, but that the necessary financial means were not available to further adorn the domus.

The Villa of the Mysteries was notable for its wellappointed décor, but also because of its unusual development. The complex developed like many villa sites with its facilities increasing over time, particularly on the southern perimeter where the number of viewing rooms increased dramatically. But the final owner also sacrificed some residential rooms, by transforming the large triclinium (Rooms 48-49) into a torcularium, which would have greatly increased its productivity. The circumstance of this change was because of a changing focus on the part of the owner.

The finds within this room have included a bronze strigil, needle and tweezers, a lead weight and seven terracotta cups. In view of the fine décor and the associated finds it appears that this room served as the principal entertaining room for the inhabitants. Room G served as a triclinium (Fig. 58), which was connected to another triclinium (Room S) that bordered onto the peristyle (Room H) (Sogliano 1898b, 499). Both triclinia were paved with pieces of rectangular coloured marble.

There were several other villas located just beyond the city-walls that should be examined. These complexes should provide further information on Pompeian villas and also give a better perspective of their divergent styles and purposes. Within this group there is the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus, Villa Imperiale and the residences in Insula Occidentalis.

Near these rooms (Rooms G, S) located on the western side there was another room (Room μ), which has produced evidence that it was used for agricultural purposes, which is furthered by the basic style of decoration used within these quarters (Sogliano 1899b, 237). The peristyle (Room H) produced two marmoreal tubs in the south-eastern ambulatory. The northern rooms (Rooms B-E) all bordered onto a covered portico (Room A), which surrounded an open area (Fig. 58), allowing for a view in the direction of Mount Vesuvius from the main residential quarter.

Villa 21 – Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus It has been hypothesised that this complex was not an isolated villa, but instead it could be viewed as being a pagus and in many ways similar to the pagus Augustus Felix suburbanus (Sogliano 1899b, 237). There are some difficulties with this complex (Fig. 58), such as the unknown placement of the principal entrance (Sogliano 1898b, 495), but it is still possible to draw some conclusions concerning its nature and function. This complex was located only 130 metres north of the Porta

68

was not a purely rural occupation, there being many examples of productive horti within the city (Jashemski 1979; Laurence 1994, 67; Nappo 1997, 95). Also if the impressive mosaic in Room F is considered, there appears to have been some desire for notable décor by the residents. So overall, despite the overwhelming prominence of agriculture, it would seem appropriate to define this as a villa suburbana.

The wall paintings have not survived in this region, but all rooms were floored in mosaic pavement. There have been remnants of white plaster recovered from one of these rooms (Room N), but the finds are insufficient to determine its function. Rooms P, Q and R were all covered in rough plaster and had remnants of amphorae and oil lamps, which is common within this residence. There is evidence of an upper level above Room P, by the presence of a staircase (Room O) to the east.

The perceived conception of space exhibits the well organised nature of this complex, whereby the societal functioning was predetermined and sought to maintain the impression of the owners standing within the wider community. Lefebvre’s conceived conception expresses the clear division between commercial and social productivity within this residence, which further epitomises the highly organised nature of this villa suburbana. The lived conception of space provides an excellent correlation with this, exhibiting the social symbolism that had a definite effect upon the layout of the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus.

To the south of this villa was a small bronze workshop, which produced finds of ten small anvils, a small amount of fused bronze and two plaster head models. The discovery of this productive area indicates that the owner may have diversified their productive capabilities. Some of the finds discovered include three oil lamps, two of which had reliefs of sphinxes, whereas the other depicted Eros and Psyche. But the most notable of these finds was the discovery of an inscription near the cistern (No. c) in the eastern side of the peristyle, reading: M. MVNDICIVS MALCHIO M. CLODIVS AGATHO MAG EX.P.C.F.C.

The rooms included as having a highly social role were Rooms F, G, H, V and W. Room F is deemed to have been an important reception room due to the ‘Philosophers’ pavement that would not have been included if it was purely utilitarian. Room G also seems to have served a similar purpose, particularly in view of its size and location within the complex. The peristyle (Room H) has been included, as well as two large rooms that looked onto it (Rooms v, W). The analysis of the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus also illustrates its similarities to the Porta Ercolano complexes. With the inclusion of the peristyle within the entertainment region of the villa, its social space is consistent with these other structures. The total space for socialisation within this complex is lower than those previously discussed, but this is to be expected in view of its comparable size and demeanour.

M(arcus) Mundicius Malchio, M(arcus) Clodius Agatho, mag(istri), ex p(ecunia) c(onlata) f(aciundum) c(urarunt) (Sogliano 1898b, 499). This inscription is important because of the reference to magistri, which has also been referred to in connection with the pagus Augustus Felix suburbanus (CIL X.1, p. 113, n. 924), of which the actual location is uncertain. The importance of this reference to magistri is owing to its location outside of the walls, whereas the other reference was discovered within the urban precincts of Pompeii. If the position of this complex is considered it would be appropriate to classify it as a villa suburbana, with a predominantly agricultural emphasis. Agriculture

69

Graph 46 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus

Graph 47 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Siminius Stephanus In general terms, the Control Value results (Graph 46) show how well-designed this structure was, having eight clear ‘controlling’ spaces. With this data it is also vital to note the consistency within the vast majority of spaces. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 47) similarly expresses the coherency of the general layout of the structure. Most spaces were accessible, but as shown by the wider Control Value results, they were still largely controlled in accordance with the hierarchy of Roman social structures.

Both Rooms F and G have higher Relative Asymmetry (0.145, 0.109 respectively) and Mean Depth results (3.90, 3.19), illustrating their comparatively inaccessible qualities and private roles (Table 24) (Fig. 59). The peristyle was clearly private and had a Control Value of 13.03 that makes its high potential for social interaction, as shown by its low Relative Asymmetry, which is understandable (0.05). Both Rooms V and W were controlled by Room H (Control value 0.06 for both) and were comparatively more accessible from other rooms (Mean Depth 2.98 for both) than Rooms F and G. This assortment of public and private entertainment areas was indicative of an attempt by the owners of this villa suburbana to hold a variety of social functions, despite their residence not being as palatial as some suburban villas outside the Porta Ercolano.

Villa 22 – Villa Imperiale The Villa Imperiale was located just outside the Porta Marina and may have been a public construction in origin. The structure seems to have been constructed between the end of the Augustan and early Tiberian period (Maiuri 1978, 109). One of its most notable features was that its structure incorporates a stretch of the

70

These rooms were framed by corridors that isolated them rather than allow for communication between them (Fig. 60). Of these rooms, the most impressive was a large banquet hall (Room A), which was barrel-vaulted over the dining couches. The décor of this room was also performed in Third Style. The pavement was well appointed and performed in marble slabs of different colours, framed with shale and palombino marble. To the south there was another dining room (Room B), decorated with a cream coloured ground with delicate architectural features and pastel figures. This room had an open disposition with windows to the west and south. To the east there was another finely decorated room (Room C), accessed by a short corridor. The wall décor depicted mythological landscapes in red and black. The room was quite small and possessed a triple window that was unusual in form. Finally, the fourth room that has been excavated was the largest among this group, but owing to the state of disrepair to the structure after AD 62, there are few remains.

city-walls within its establishment. Judging from the finds, it was abandoned after the eruption of AD 62 and subsequently used as a waste disposal site for building material, after being ransacked of its attractive architectural and decorative pieces. The general layout (Fig. 60), was based upon a long colonnade, which lay above a broad paved road that dropped steeply. Owing to this plan and its position it possessed both the benefits of a villa and a townhouse (Maiuri 1978, 110). The columns of this colonnade were constructed of brick and were thickly stuccoed. There were two points of access to the portico, both being a set of narrow stairs placed just outside the Porta Marina. The décor for both of these staircases was purely functional. There were several benefits provided by this long colonnade, including the provision to walk and view the seashore and activity at the mouth of the Sarno River. There are several remaining examples of fine wall painting from this establishment. The use of red cinnabar in the great oecus (Room A) identifies that the décor was dated to before the turn of the century. The wall decorations of this region were performed in Third Style upon a black-ground. The images included black panels that framed landscapes and medallions. In front of the portico it opened up onto a large garden, which partly filled in a suburban road from the Porta Marina (Jashemski 1979, 319). This garden would have added to the view from the vaulted triclinium, which overlooked this peristyle garden.

Judging from the remains of these rooms it seems certain that they were used for entertaining purposes. If the Villa Imperiale served a public function, these rooms would have been used for public dining, with the choice of room determined by the occasion. Unfortunately there is not enough evidence to make a definitive assessment of the Villa Imperiale, but there are two observations that can be made. Firstly, this structure highlights the prominent desire to create porticoes for the fullest appreciation of the impressive panorama. Secondly, the prominent position of the windows within the entertaining rooms clearly exhibits the continuing desire for an open disposition for these dining areas.

From the southern side it opened up onto two wings, which had been placed at right angles. Part of this southern wing had been demolished with the construction of the Temple of Venus, which breaks off the wing at the seventh column (Ling 1993, 333). It has been suggested that when the Villa Imperiale was constructed this wing extended for a considerable distance, thus providing an impressive view of the river valley.

The perceived conception of space illustrates the relationship between this complex and its natural surroundings, especially when considering its long ambulatio along the coast. The conceived conception of Lefebvre also exhibits the monumentality of the overall structure, but further interpretation is limited owing to the dearth of extant archaeological evidence. The lived conception demonstrates the importance of not only lifestyle but also the wider views of this residence, epitomising its intended perception: this was clearly meant to be seen as an élite residence.

Behind the junction of the porticoes lay a group of rooms, of which only four have been identified among a larger group. The known rooms were impressively decorated, with images such as Apollo with his lyre, Bacchus with a cornucopia and the Fall of Icarus (Schefold 1957, 290-1).

71

Graph 48 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Imperiale

Graph 49 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Imperiale suggests many highly ‘controlled’ rooms that were dominated or restricted by the ‘controlling’ spaces. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 49) represent the simplicity of the extant structure, where some inaccessible areas were dominated by these ‘controlling’ spaces.

The spatial data analysis has been limited, but has exhibited the public role of the portico by its low Depth from Exterior (2) and its separation from the remainder of the complex by its Relative Asymmetry (0.410) and Mean Depth (3.67). Rooms A and B served a public role, having a similarly high Relative Asymmetry (0.349 for both), illustrating their inaccessibility from other rooms. Conversely, Room C had a private function, as shown by its lower Relative Asymmetry (0.195) and Mean Depth (2.27). This room controlled access to the inner regions of the complex (Control Value of 1.83). The prominence of the public portico and Rooms A and B clearly illustrate the social intentions of its owner who obviously sought to make a statement of their status to the community through this large villa suburbana. The general Control Value results (Table 25) (Fig. 61) (Graph 48) show a wide variation in the levels of accessibility, which

Another significant group of residences are those houses built in the region of Insulae Occidentalis. The unique layout and position makes the classification of these structures quite difficult: whether they should be classed as townhouses or villas. It is pertinent to compare these structures with the villae suburbanae to see if there is enough of a similarity to justify them being grouped with these residences, or with the townhouses. There are three buildings in this region of Pompeii under question: House VI-17-42, the House of Umbricius Sciaurus (VII-16-15)

72

These reception rooms would have had an ample source of light with the impressive panorama of the Bay of Naples (Hoffmann 1984, 115). Towards the rear of the building there was a peristyle, which included a deep rectangular basin for fish. There were four levels of terraces in the complex (Varone 2000, 201), with the main reception rooms being located on the first lower level from the street with a view of the landscape from every room. The most notable was a large triclinium, which had luxurious décor and an open disposition. Complementing the landscape, the owner included gardens on three sides, including a peristyle garden (Room d). There was a paved courtyard (Room e) to the west, which had a portico on the southern and eastern sides. The wealth and culture of the residents has been illustrated in the discovery of several passages of graffiti on the walls, some of which were quotations of Lucretius and Vergil or small erotic epigrams (Solin 1975, 243-72; Gigante 1979, 155). These epigrams reflect that the anonymous author was well acquainted with Hellenistic poetry. This graffiti reflects the level of literary knowledge of some residents, owing to the discovery of these passages in a residential room. However, the phrase by Lucretius is significant in its view of escaping daily reality. This was a common desire and a frequent source of motivation for wealthy members of society to build luxurious villas, similar to that of M. Fabius Rufus.

and the House of M. Fabius Rufus (VII-16-22). The most interesting aspect of this group of buildings is their location. The advantage of the topography was the view. For example, the House of M. Fabius Rufus was constructed upon four levels above and beyond the city walls. This house has undergone the most research within this group and was also the largest of these structures. These houses altered the appearance of the city on the southern and western sides of Pompeii (Zanker 1998, 71). The House of M. Fabius Rufus The House of M. Fabius Rufus (VII-16-22) was constructed after the Roman conquest into the city walls (Fig. 62) (Varone 2000, 202). The size of this residence was comparable with the House of the Faun (Zanker 1998, 74), illustrating its impressive demeanour. The most significant difference between these two structures was the terracing available in Insula Occidentalis, which had a similar disposition to villae suburbanae. There were a series of terraces leading down towards the bay, including a series of gardens that incorporated the house within the surrounding landscape. There were two atria, the smaller with the domestic apartments being on the left and entered directly from the street (Mau 1904, 298). The main entrance from the city was located on the upper level, which opened onto an imposing Tetrastyle atrium, which led into a large tablinum (Fig. 62). This atrium may have served as an entrance room judging from the layout (Hoffmann 1984, 115), but this has been questioned (Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 219-40). Owing to the immense living quarters towards the rear, the use of the Tetrastyle atrium as an entrance room seems to be the most likely. The entrance to the tablinum was adorned with three-quarter columns and the décor seems to have been renewed in Second style (Mau 1904, 298). There were large windows on either side, opening onto two dining rooms. However, the tablinum was not on the same axis as the entrance, which was unusual.

The theoretical modelling for this structure reflects how it was designed to restrict the accessibility of the different regions to particular individuals, depending upon their social status. This is clearly shown by Lefebvre’s perceived conception of space, but his conceived conception also indicates how these distinct sections were associated with various types of social productivity. The lived conception of space for the House of M. Fabius Rufus also acknowledges the complexity of its social symbolism, displaying the importance of Laurence’s relationship between urban space and social interaction.

Graph 50 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Fabius Rufus

73

Graph 51 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Fabius Rufus towards a spacious Tuscan atrium (De Caro 1988, 75). On this level there were also cubicula on the sides of this atrium, as well as a terrace that overlooked a portico and the landscape of the bay. The middle level was comprised of entertaining and residential rooms, including a large triclinium. One notable feature was a Third Style wall painting depicting a representation of the wedding of Alexander the Great and Roxanne. This painting was located in the triclinium and represents the cultural aspirations of the residents. The lowest level of this residence comprised of rooms intended for relaxation, including a summer triclinium, which had a step fountain and mosaic pavement (De Caro 1988, 75). This room was adorned with garden landscape paintings (Jashemski 1979, 166). There was a small ornamental garden at the rear. This was viewed from a well-appointed and elevated diaeta, decorated with elegant paintings and marble pavement, with an open view to the eastern garden. All of these facilities shows the principal inhabitants were wealthy and possessed a degree of cultural refinement. This building had a similar open disposition to other houses in this region, allowing for a similar perspective as the Porta Ercolano suburban villas.

The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated (Table 26) (Fig. 63) that the accessibility of each room to the entrance of this house was a significant feature in its inclusion as public or private space. At first glance it is evident that this large and complicated residence would have had a clear division for public spaces that were closer to the entrance than the more private rooms that were constructed deeper within the confines of the building. Room 5 had a Depth from Exterior result of 2, which suggests a public role. This is further illustrated by its Relative Asymmetry value (0.16), highlighting that it had a lower potential for interaction for rooms in the complex. Room 6 had similar results with its Depth from Exterior (3) and Relative Asymmetry (0.18) also indicating a public role. This is contrasted by both peristyles (Area A, Room 54), which recorded Depth from Exterior results of 19 and 9 respectively, with low Relative Asymmetry values (0.13, 0.14), indicating a high degree of potential interaction. Particularly in view of the Depth from Exterior it is evident that these regions were largely inaccessible to the public. Room B also had a low Relative Asymmetry value (0.11), indicating a high potential for interaction, but its Control Value (2.47) and Mean Depth (4.39) indicate that it controlled access to the private regions of this residence. The overall Control Value results (Graph 50) present the dominance of eight ‘controlling’ spaces in particular, which highlights how closely planned this residence was in order to regulate its levels of communication and accessibility. The general Real relative Asymmetry values (Graph 51) also reflect this highly controlled layout, exhibiting the various levels of accessibility between each sector of this residence.

The perceived conception of this residence reflects the generally accessible nature of the rooms, with only some level of restriction being implemented towards the rear of the structure. Lefebvre’s conceived conception highlights how the intimacy of social production became closer as the house was entered and progressed through towards its rear. The lived conception of space and Laurence’s views of social interaction reflect how House VI-17-42 was designed to conform to the social mores of the wider community and the residents.

House VI-17-42 House VI-17-42 was similar to the House of Fabius Rufus. The entrance was on the street level, leading

74

Graph 52 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in House VI-17-42

Graph 53 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in House VI-17-42 public. This can be compared to the Relative Asymmetry (0.503) and Mean Depth (3.77) of Room N, which illustrates its private role. The general Control Value results (Graph 52) reflect the wider simplicity of this structure, illustrating that Rooms B and C were clearly the most ‘controlling’ spaces within a generally ‘controlled’ residence. The progression from the entrance to the back of the complex (and its subsequent higher levels of inaccessibility to visitors and residents alike) is clearly shown by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 53) for House VI-17-42.

When examining the statistical results (Table 27) (Fig. 64) of this complex it should be noted that there is no known peristyle. The position of this structure in Insula Occidentalis makes it highly unlikely to have been without this architectural feature. It is more likely that this area is yet to be excavated. This is likely when the entertainment space is compared to the non-peristyle analysis at other complexes and is found to be similar to the other residences in this region. So as with the other structures in Insula Occidentalis, it would seem that despite having a lower degree of emphasis upon entertainment it remained a priority of the owner (particularly in view of the landscape). The spatial data analysis has also shown that the central triclinium (Room D) had a high level of potential social interaction through its Mean Depth and Relative Asymmetry results (2.23, 0.223 respectively), indicating that its role was quite

The House of Umbricius Sciaurus The House of Umbricius Sciaurus (VII-16-12-15) was of palatial dimensions, planned on split-levels. Umbricius Sciaurus had become a duovir and was honoured with a public funeral and an equestrian statue (CIL 10.1024),

75

view beyond the urban limits where the main entertaining rooms were located.

while having a commercial background (Mouritsen 1997, 64). A similar situation has been noted with the career and prestige of L. Caecilius Iucundus. The upper level had three atria with a peristyle and fish pond, whereas the lower level comprised a series of rooms including baths (Curtis 1988, 35). The original building has been dated to the Second Century BC with a main entrance (Room 13) exhibiting characteristics of an elegant structure. Entrance 15 was a later addition, no earlier than the Augustan period. In this atrium, Umbricius Sciaurus installed a personalised white and black opus tessellatum mosaic, which advertised his commercial success in the garum industry.

Judging from the period of construction, the structural layout, and the intended lifestyle at these buildings and the suburban villas beyond the Porta Ercolano, it is clear that there were certainly similarities between them. The main feature was the desire for a view of the coastline, along with the sea breezes that were available on the raised terraces. This desire obviously inspired the owners to extend their properties outside the urban precincts to take advantage of this panoramic position. The definition of these residences is the most difficult because not only were they located upon both sides of the city walls, but they were truly a combination of both urban and suburban qualities. However, the main difference between the houses in this region of Pompeii and the suburban villas beyond the walls was the ability for expansion. The theoretical modelling for this structure exhibits the highly controlled layout that made up its structure, particularly when considering Lefebvre’s perceived and conceived conceptions of space. As has been noted previously for House VI-17-42 and the House of M. Fabius Rufus, the lived conception corresponds well with Laurence’s theories about social interaction as well.

The house was erected on the original Samnite city-wall (Descoeudres 1994, 28), allowing for access to the city but also the terracing that provided its impressive character and view. The 12-14 section of the structure was constructed along elegant lines during the Second Century BC with a monumental entrance at 13 (Curtis 1984, 558). The Augustan phase of construction indicates the enlargement of the residence, forming a symmetrical triple atria complex. It is clear that the complex was owned by a wealthy and probably important family. As with all structures in this region, the focus led towards the

Graph 54 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Umbricius Sciaurus

76

Graph 55 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Umbricius Sciaurus the optimal comparison with suburban villas. In his study, Grahame (2000) illustrated that in these larger townhouses the complexes appear to be divided into two distinct regions. According to Grahame this fragmented the collective identity of the household and clearly established a hierarchical order within the domus (Taylor 2002, 439-44). But the purpose of this evaluation is to determine the differences in the lifestyle at these complexes. The contrast between these sites allows for the distinctive character of suburban villas to be understood within Pompeian society. The first to be discussed is the House of the Faun.

The amount of internal space (Table 28) (Fig. 65) was similar to the other two houses considered in Insula Occidentalis, the clients of Sciaurus probably being received in the atrium where he advertised his financial success on the mosaic pavement. However, the Mean Depth results for Rooms A, B and C (4.5) indicates that these rooms also had a public role despite their accessibility being controlled by the atrium (Control Values of 0.24). The peristyle had a lower Relative Asymmetry result (0.107), suggesting that it was more accessible within the structure, and in conjunction with its Depth from Exterior (3) and Control Value (6.5) indicate an important private role. The general Control Value results (Graph 54) epitomises the highly regulated nature of this townhouse, exhibiting the ‘controlling’ dominance of seven spaces in particular (with results over 2). All the same, there was a clear consistency in the accessibility of these spaces, as shown by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values for the House of Umbricius Sciaurus (Graph 57). Despite the efforts of the residents of Insula Occidentalis, there were still constraints upon how they could extend their houses. This was the prime advantage that the suburban villas of Pompeii possessed and a central feature in their distinctive character.

The House of the Faun The House of the Faun (VI-12-2-5) was one of the most elegant and largest residences in Pompeii (Fig. 66). The date of its original construction was around the late Second Century BC, judging from the mortar used in the atria and peristyles (Carrington 1933, 131). The presence of Oscan graffito and inscriptions dated to the post Colonial period reflect the continuing associations of the inhabitants with their cultural heritage (Gordon 1927, 167). It has been illustrated that despite the changes that occurred within Pompeian society, the influence of certain families continued unabated (Mouritsen 1988, 123). The front of the building comprised of two entrances to the residence and five shops, some with upper floors (pergulae). At least a couple of these commercial areas seem to have been leased out by the owner, which was not uncommon in Pompeian society. Upon entering the building there were two atria that served different social groups within the household. Despite the probable differentiation in function between the atria, they were both of equal architectural importance, with the axiality of their placement enhancing the impressive demeanour of each other (Moormann 2000, 430).

In order to gain the optimum understanding of suburban villas at Pompeii, a comparison should be made to some of the townhouses within the city precincts. The most appropriate buildings to be used for this comparison are the large townhouses that have facilities comparable to suburban villas. There are three notable examples of this type of residence to be considered: the House of the Faun, Praedia of Julia Felix and House of Octavius Quartio. These buildings are notable because of their considerable surface, facilities and architecture. House size was a clear reflection of social position and the largest residences gave the most potential for displaying status (WallaceHadrill 1990, 162-3). All of these townhouses conform to the group of largest Pompeian residences, allowing for

77

was almost square, as with many Second Style peristyles, and had eleven by thirteen columns. These columns had thick terracotta quadrants and were stuccoed with only the capitals being carved in tufa. This peristyle does not seem to have been constructed to increase the accommodation of the residence, but instead included a domestic garden. The reason for this was the presence of a cistern beneath each additional wing of the second peristyle, possibly for irrigation and the presence of a fence between the columns to prevent easy access, thus protecting the plants. A branch from a Laurel Bay tree, which was discovered within the domus (Jashemski 1999, 62), which may have been used for both sacred (Ovid Met. 1.452-567), or culinary purposes. Therefore, with the construction of both peristyles it seems that the first peristyle was used by the leading inhabitants for both otium and negotium, whereas the creation of the second peristyle was for productive reasons.

In the House of the Faun, the most important of these had Tuscan architecture with living rooms on three sides. Included among these living rooms was the tablinum, located behind this atrium on its axis and at right angles to the peristyle behind. The smaller atrium was Tetrastyle with rooms for domestic service bordering on to it, which continued down the right side of the building. Owing to the choice of rooms and the grandeur of the Tuscan atrium, there was a clear demarcation of space between each entrance. The Tuscan atrium was used for the reception of guests, whereas the Tetrastyle atrium served domestic purposes in a private role. The plan of the building instituted a clear demarcation between the public and private domains, as well as the well-appointed and servile regions (Brothers 1996, 47). This existed from the outset with both atria originating in the initial period of the domus. The axis upon which the stately precincts were arranged allowed a clear progression when moving throughout the building, while having separation from the domestic and servile regions. There were two different shrines (Boyce 1942, 17), one located in the kitchen for the slaves, whereas the leading residents would have worshipped the household deities in other regions of the house. This religious demarcation was quite common in the larger houses in Pompeii (Foss 1997, 213-14).

The most notable feature of the House of the Faun is its fine wall décor and mosaics, which exhibited the highest culture and appreciation for Hellenistic civilisation. At the time of the eruption, the House of the Faun still had rooms decorated with First Style wall decoration. This house is indicative of a stately home that maintained the original monumental design and part of the earliest wall decorations into the last phase of architectural development. The mosaics in the dining rooms adjacent to the Tuscan atrium reflect the desire to exhibit culture and status with appropriate iconography for the function of these rooms. In Room E the mosaics depicted seamonsters and fish, whereas the Genius of Autumn was portrayed in Room F. The rectangular exedra (Room H) depicted Egyptian animals between the entrance columns, with the mosaic of Alexander towards the middle. It has been suggested that the reproduction of Greek art may have served as a moralising message in public contexts (Barringer 1994, 166), but it portrayed culture and education in a private setting (Hoffmann 1992, 428). The mosaics reflect the desire of the owners to exhibit their appreciation of Hellenistic art and to accentuate their cultural and intellectual standing. There were also a large number of Second Style wall paintings, which were finely produced and reflect the social status of the residents. When the elegant decoration within the noble district is compared to the basic décor of the servile region, it further exemplifies the clear distinction between each region of the domus.

There were two peristyles located within this townhouse. The first peristyle was designed as a broad rectangle, with the dimensions of seven columns by nine columns. The columns were Pompeian Ionic with Attic bases with a simple architrave and Doric frieze. There was a significant degree of seclusion in this peristyle, when compared to that available in both the Tuscan atrium and tablinum. However, all of the rooms (Rooms D-F) bordering onto this peristyle, including the tablinum (Room D), had large windows facing onto the peristyle, but they were not orientated to take full advantage of the garden view. A row of specialised reception rooms were created, including a large rectangular exedra containing the famous Alexander mosaic (Room H) (Zevi 1996, 424). This mosaic was probably a copy of a Greek original, which was a means of exhibiting the status and culture of the owner (Cohen 1997). It should be noted that exedrae were used primarily for meditation and intellectual pursuits (Dickmann 1997, 122). These exedrae were also positioned with adjoining porticoes, and Cicero (Att. 1.18.1) suggests that the peristyle was also used for such activities. Therefore, the position of this fine mosaic appears completely understandable and provides a clear indication of the owners intellectual and cultural pretensions. This room contained grandiose Corinthian capitals with corkscrew volutes at the entrance to the room. These rooms flanked onto the peristyle and were orientated towards the garden, but they were probably remodelled after the creation of the second peristyle.

Another prominent feature was trade and this was one of the most important pursuits within this residence. The most apparent evidence for the importance of commerce is the presence of the five retail outlets onto the Via di Nola. Not all of these commercial precincts would have been managed by the proprietors. This is shown clearly in Shop 4, where the upper rooms (Rooms g, h and h’) were only accessible from this retail outlet, being independent from other rooms located over the atrium. Despite that this shop was not being managed by the owner it did not preclude the procurement of capital by the proprietor. The

The second peristyle was added to the House of the Faun in the early First Century BC, no earlier than the late Second Century BC, and styled in accordance with the end of the First Style period. The plan of this peristyle

78

types of social interaction. The House of the Faun was overtly intended to represent the elitism of its leading residents and their place within the Pompeian social hierarchy from the outset.

landlord would have leased out this space and this may have been a more reliable method of earning capital (Pirson 1997, 165-81). In view of the increasing value of property in the First Century AD, these upper floors would have created profit, which has also been noted in the Insula of Menander (Ling 1983, 57). There were also a large number of amphorae uncovered. Most of these amphorae were found in a room that was used as a wine cellar (Room L), but there were also large quantities discovered in both peristyles. But it is clear, judging from the layout of this residence, that this house was intended to have a combination of private and social regions throughout its confines with a strong element of ‘view planning’ in its architecture (Grahame 1997, 137-64).

There were also a large number of amphorae uncovered. Most of these amphorae were found in a room that was used as a wine cellar (Room L), but large quantities were also discovered in both peristyles (Mau 1904, 295). But it is clear, judging from the layout of this residence, that this house was intended to have a combination of private and social districts throughout its confines with a strong element of ‘view-planning’ in its architecture (Grahame 1997, 137-64). This is particularly well illustrated when comparing the Relative Asymmetry results for Rooms H, I, J and K with those closer to the entrance (Rooms D, E, F and G). These results show that the rooms towards the rear of the domus had a lower potential for social interaction because of their reduced accessibility. It is also pertinent to note that Rooms H, I and J were more controlled than those behind the first peristyle (Rooms D, E, F).

The perceived conception of Lefebvre highlights how the House of the Faun was intentionally designed as a highly controlled residence from the outset. This is most notably exhibited through the inclusion of two primary entrances that clearly defined the separate sections of the complex (receptive and utilitarian) that both followed the line of axial symmetry. This also corresponds with both the conceived and lived conceptions, as well as emphasising Laurence’s theories about urban space and the intended

Graph 56 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Faun

79

Graph 57 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Faun The second important difference between townhouses and suburban villas was privacy. Owing to the position of a townhouse within the urban precincts, the desire to maintain privacy in the non-public regions of a wellappointed residence was consistent. However, the private areas within a villa suburbana had the capacity for seclusion as well as harbouring an open aspect. Generally, within both types of structure these regions were located towards the rear of the complex, but their perspective of this space was quite different. It was this difference that made many villae suburbanae attractive to their owners, especially in such a scenic location as the Bay of Naples. Many townhouses were able to create an open living environment with the inclusion of such features as peristyla, despite the comparative restriction of an urban location, which is particularly evident at the Praedia of Julia Felix.

The spatial results from the House of the Faun exhibit a similar amount of space used for socialisation as the suburban villas (Table 29) (Fig. 67). When the peristyles are included it shows the lengths that were undertaken to create an open style plan. This would not discount the utilitarian function of these spaces, especially in view of the large number of amphorae discovered in the second peristyle. But the original concept for both peristyles would have been recreational and entertainment focused. When both are included as social space it illustrates just how they dominated the ground plan, with the entertainment space now occupying almost two-thirds of the ground plan. The overall Control Value results (Graph 56) illustrate the controlled nature of the House of the Faun, having seven spaces that regulated the communication between the remaining areas within the complex. The Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 57) exhibit how the accessibility of various spaces was fairly regular, although it should be noted that the designated social spaces within this house are amongst some of the most accessible regions.

The Praedia of Julia Felix The Praedia of Julia Felix (II-4-1-12) occupied the largest area on the Via dell’Abbondanza, roughly 5,800 square metres (Parslow 1988, 37), including an area that was cultivated for a large vegetable garden and fruit orchard (Fig. 68) (Maiuri 1961, 71). The importance of this orchard’s productivity is exemplified by the depiction of peaches in one of the frescoes within the domus (Ciarallo 2001, 18). This property covered the entirety of the fourth insula in Regio II, but the buildings only cover about a third of the area (Maiuri 1978, 84).There were principally three regions within this complex: the main residence, the Bath facilities and a commercial precinct, which included a tavern, shop and domestic quarters (Maiuri 1998, 55-8).

There were two important distinctions between this townhouse and the villae suburbanae. Firstly, the focus of both types (townhouse/suburban villa) was entirely different. Townhouses, owing to their location, were designed as entirely insular residences: the focus was within the residence. Despite attempts by the owner to create an open plan, which did alter the traditional Roman domus significantly, there was little opportunity for a view beyond the confines of the property. Even when there was a view outside the residence (such as towards Mount Vesuvius) the panorama was still separate from the residence. A suburban villa, however, was able to have an external focus, which made the viewer a part of the landscape by removing the boundaries between them.

The main residence of Julia Felix included living rooms with a portico and gardens with an entrance vestibule onto Via dell’Abbondanza. However, the principal entrance was located along a side street to the west. The

80

There were also statues symbolic of wine production, such as a statuette of a satyr child and a marble satyr placed at the northern end of the pool. By including these images of viticulture it seems clear that the owner was attempting to illustrate their connection with this industry (Haselberger 1997, 77). These are complemented by the Bacchic wall paintings in the domus. Scheidel (1992, 207-12) has shown that not only was wine production an important source of income, but that the inter-cultivation of several commodities would have also been important. As commented upon by Purcell (1996, 121), the cultivation of grape products became an identifying feature among those who participated in viticulture.

architecture of these quarters was of great distinction, so much so that Maiuri (1978, 84) felt that it should be classified as a ‘villa’ despite its position well within the city. The plan of this residence was square, with the kitchens placed on the western wing and the wellappointed living rooms located on the eastern wing. These living rooms contained large square windows that faced towards the garden area. The focus of these windows towards the gardens is an important consideration. In the north-western corner of this area there were rooms decorated with images of the nine Muses and of Apollo. The garden associated with this residence was well designed and had a euripus, with marble bridges and niches for fish. A marble spout was located in the middle, adding to its pleasant effect. The atrium was adorned with paintings in Fourth style, representing images of life in the Forum (Nappo 1989, 79-96).

The Bath facilities had been rented out for semi-public use by Julia Felix, which has been shown by the inscription discovered painted on the wall of the Praedia: IN PRAEDIS IVLIAE SP F FELICIS LOCANTUR BALNEUM VENERIVM ET NONGENTVM TABERNAE PERGVLAE CENACULA EX IDIBUS AUG PRIMIS IN IDVS AVG SEXTAS ANNOS CONTINVOS QVINQVE S. Q. D. L. E. N. C (CIL, 4.1136).

The portico was unusual, designed with marble pillars on the western side and small stuccoed pillars painted green along the southern and eastern sides and a series of alternating apsidal and rectangular niches in the wall (Fig. 68). The presence of the western colonnade with sixteen white marble Corinthian pillars is rare for a private building, the only known example in Pompeii. The western portico opened in the centre with an exedra to a triclinium, having marble covered couches and a cascade water feature at one end. The triclinium was decorated with a superb still-life frieze, depicting a Nilotic landscape. This triclinium has been classified as a Grottotriclinium (Kockel 1986, 486).

The most notable feature of this bathing complex was that it was intended to be used by well-regarded members of the community, exhibited by the well-appointed decoration and the additional facilities that accompanied the usual bathing services. The finds in the bath complex have been clearly datable to no later than the last quarter of the First Century BC, suggesting a construction date for this region around the early Augustan era (Parslow 1999, 195). These features included a window that communicated with the adjacent tavern that would have served as an easy means of obtaining refreshments while the clients bathed. The entrance to the baths was raised and decorated with a good quality portal that was adorned with half columns leading towards a small portico and a small cloakroom to one side. The water was supplied from a raised tank against the garden wall and the praefurnium with the furnace and boilers were located in a large room in the service quarters. These rooms had an independent entrance on the Via dell’Abbondanza, allowing for the general running of the baths kept separate from its patrons.

Rakob (1964, 182-93) has shown that the design of this room was as a garden triclinium with the room having a vaulted ceiling being roughly 4.7 metres square with a wide entrance opening onto the western peristyle (Whitehouse 1977, 52). A ledge ran around the perimeter of this room on which food could have been served (Richardson 1988b, 308).In the middle of each side-wall there were sky-blue niches, the effect intended to create an artificial grotto. This triclinium was on the same axis as the pergola on the opposite wall of the portico, overlooking the euripus. This symmetrical design was similar to the Villa of Diomedes, where the layout of the garden was intended to be appreciated from the dining areas. The stand on the southern side was intended to serve as an altar to Isis, located inside a large sacrarium (Room 55) (Fig. 68) (Parslow 1988, 40). This room was decorated with paintings of Isis, Serapis, Anubis and Fortuna. Reverence towards Isis had been popular in Pompeii from a much earlier stage than this, with the Iseum being constructed as early as the late Second Century BC (Zevi 1994, 37-8). There were also a series of marble and terracotta statues decorating the portico and the euripus. These statues depicted quite a broad range of themes and personages, such as a philosopher, possibly Pittacus of Mytilene (D’Ambrosio 1990, 19-20).

The commercial region consisted of three key areas: the taberna, shops and residential apartments. The taberna entailed an internal triclinium and these rooms, as well as the pergulae and cenacula, placed to the east of the baths. The shops, including the pergulae, were placed on the corner of the building and could also be entered by the side street to the west. The apartments were located on the higher level of the building and the rooms can be identified in the rooms facing the western side street. This area was also accessible autonomously via a long narrow passage (Fig. 68).

81

Before reaching any conclusions about this complex it must be stated that recent excavations have shown that this build was initially conceived from a single master plan, incorporating a Bath complex linked to a wellappointed residence and a series of tabernae (Parslow 2000, 238-49). The construction has been dated to the late First Century BC. It is clear that the earthquake of AD 62 affected this residence, with several areas of the complex still undergoing restoration at the time of the eruption. However, as previously mentioned, this was quite

common. But it still remains evident that the proprietor was not short of money in view of the well-appointed architecture of the western portico, dated to after AD 62. Lefebvre’s perceived and conceived conceptions of space both illustrate how different regions of this complex were intended to fulfil quite distinct types of social and commercial productivity. In line with the lived conception, this was also exhibited through the architectural style and its division between the wings surrounding the central peristyle.

Graph 58 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Praedia of Julia Felix

Graph 59 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Praedia of Julia Felix clear non-utilitarian roles. The Hillier and Hanson method (Table 30) (Fig. 69) has illustrated the high potential for public social interaction in the peristyle (Control Value of 1.99; Relative Asymmetry of 0.09) and the restricted access to Room 83, which had a Mean Depth (3.98) and Control Value (0.13) indicating a more

The statistical analysis has illustrated that despite the inclusion of the baths and tavern on the Via dell’Abbondanza, the amount of entertainment space was only slightly lower than the suburban villas. Only two areas were included within the potential entertainment space (the peristyle and Room 83) due to their décor and

82

attempted to recreate a villa within the walls of the city, especially in view of the large ornamental garden and euripus which were so common in many urban villas. Another example of a building being constructed to emulate villas was the House of Octavius Quartio.

private function. These results illustrate the dominance that commercial activity had at this residence. The general Control Value results (Graph 58) show how there was a wide spread of ‘controlled’ and ‘controlling’ spaces within the overall complex. All the same, this is indicative of the division of the various functions between the various regions of the structure. The Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 59) also highlight the distinct functions that existed within this residence, epitomising the diverse range of social hierarchies and contexts that were included at the Praedia of Julia Felix.

The House of Octavius Quartio The House of Octavius Quartio (II-2-2), also referred to as the House of Loreius Tiburtinus was designed with architecture that imitated villa construction during the First Century BC (Fig. 70). This complex traverses almost an entire insula, with roughly two thirds of the property used as a hortus. The residential area appears to have been built upon a raised platform, allowing for an enhanced view of the garden. This building was not originally planned in this style, but it was initially a typical medium-sized house centred around an atrium, but the complex was drastically altered after the earthquake in AD 62. The atrium included a planted impluvium that was marked on three sides with pedestals, which may have supported statues and a fourth base at the head that held a fistula (George 1998, 93). There was also a pedestal in the centre of the impluvium, which probably had another fountain statue. The décor of this atrium created a strong parallel with the decorations towards the rear of the domus and illustrates the desire of the inhabitants to create a pleasant and impressive environment in which to both reside and entertain. There were two cubicula placed on either side of the atrium (Spinazzola 1953, 375), which were decorated in Fourth style with elegant landscapes and mythological representations.

Most of the entertainment space comprised the peristyle, which was particularly notable because of its architecture. But as with the House of the Faun, there was one important difference. Owing to the position of the property within the walls and the desire to maintain a degree of privacy, the focus of the view in the noble residence had to be upon the ornamental garden, constructing an insular perspective. This was quite different to the majority of suburban villas, which were designed primarily to focus on the landscape beyond their property. The owner may have been trying to recreate a villa within the walls of the city (Zanker 1998, 145-6), especially in view of the inclusion of a large ornamental garden and euripus that were so common in suburban villas. This emulation is significant because it is clear that the possession of such a property was desirable. Suburban villas were probably attractive for their intended lifestyle, outlook and privacy. Another example of a building being constructed to emulate villas was the House of Octavius Quartio. The size and design of the complex indicates that it was originally the residence of a wealthy family, but it was later partly rented probably owing to the worsening economic factors. However, this probably occurred just before the eruption. The final phase of occupation quite clearly consisted of the baths and commercial quarters being sublet by Julia Felix, who still resided in the nobler section. The different styles of decoration and ornamentation in the portico on the western side, when compared to the southern and eastern sides, illustrates that the porticoes were divided between the public domain of the commercial regions and the private residence of Julia Felix. When this property is compared to complexes located outside the walls there seems to be two striking similarities. Owing to the large amount of space available to the owner, the structure was able to expand further than regular townhouses. The large area devoted to the hortus and ornamental garden is also indicative of many luxurious villas. However, there is one important difference. Owing to the position of the property within the walls and the desire to maintain a degree of privacy, the focus of the view in the noble residence had to be upon the ornamental garden, constructing an insular perspective. This was quite different to the majority of suburban villas, which were designed primarily to focus on the landscape beyond their property. The design could be seen as an owner who

The alae of the original structure were changed to serve other purposes by the time of the final phase of habitation with the eastern side serving as a vestibule to the kitchen and the western side being made into a cubiculum. All of the cubicula bordering onto the atrium were painted in Fourth style décor, but were not of great opulence (Maiuri and Pane 1947, 8). One notable feature of this structure is the absence of a tablinum, with the atrium leading directly onto a small peristyle garden. The rooms that were transformed throughout this time were located around the garden area. One of the most important alterations, which completely changed the general impression of the domus, was the replacement of the tablinum with a truncated peristyle behind the atrium (Zanker 1998, 146). This led to a large triclinium, being almost square in shape, containing three couches on the left hand side and entrances to two smaller rooms, including a shrine room with a sacellum, on the opposite side (Fig. 70). This triclinium was the most wellappointed room in the complex and viewed the garden through the southern door (Spinazzola 1953, 973-1008). It was decorated with wall paintings in Fourth style, representing scenes from the Iliad (Gigante 1979, 60-2). Zanker (1998, 147) has previously noted that there were five notable elements of villa architecture located within

83

living space. Therefore, it appears that the introduction of this garden complex, and the alterations to adjoining rooms, was a clear statement by the owners concerning their level of culture and status, despite the relatively modest means of the house.

this terrace, roughly 6.7 metres wide. These elements are the truncated peristyle with the triclinium and diaetae, the shrine, an aedicula to Artemis located behind a fountain and above a nymphaeum, a watercourse associated with a pergola, and a biclinium with a fountain aedicula. This biclinium was placed on the eastern end of the upper euripus, with the room framing the niche that housed a small statue. The wall paintings of the nymphaeum were connected to the general decorative theme of the garden (Schefold 1962, 33). Zanker (1998, 147-8) rightly illustrated how all of these elements of villa architecture had been crowded into this small space, illustrating the intention of the owners to create a certain effect. But the intention of the owner was slightly different to the objectives of suburban landowners. The purpose of this architectural style was to create a viewing platform with an open demeanour. Owing to the limited space and its position within the city, the owner of the House of Octavius Quartio could only focus upon the garden within the precincts of his property. This emphasis was quite different to villa estates, which could focus upon the landscape beyond the limits of the property. However, it must be noted that the desire to create a pleasant living environment was consistent in all of these luxurious residences, it was simply the difference in position that allowed greater freedom at residences beyond the citywalls.

The House of Octavius Quartio provides good insight into the intensions and desired impressions created by the architectural layout and design of the house. The extensive alterations and additions to this house after the earthquake in AD 62 reflect the owner’s aspirations to create a luxurious and impressive space for entertaining, where guests would be impressed by the grand perspective created by the gardens. The visual effect of the euripus on the axis of the triclinium was effective, despite the limited space. But the facilities within the general living space remained modest, which was inconsistent with the alterations towards the rear of the complex. It is also important to note that in the final phase of habitation, the entrance was converted into a tavern (Bergmann 2001, 57), further emphasising the disparate character of the private and public regions within this complex. The perceived conception of space by Lefebvre illustrates a division between the different regions of the complex, which is especially epitomised by its changing focus after the eruption of AD 62. The conceived conception is illustrated by the distinct regions allocated for lifestyle and commercial productivity, which also exhibits the social symbolism of its lived conception.

The gardens in the House of Octavius Quartio are one of the most notable features (Jashemski 1984, 122-3). When viewing these gardens, a prominent aspect was the euripus that divides the region. The entire area of the garden covers roughly 55 by 29 metres, with pergolas and rows of shrubs running parallel to the euripus. The euripus was roughly 49 metres in length and had a sequence of pools that varied in size and connected by overflow troughs. It is important to observe that the placement of this euripus was not in the centre of the garden, but instead it was located on the same axis as the large dining room. This meant that the establishment of this series of pools was intended to enhance the view from the dining room. Along the euripus were sculptures, which recalled Greek, and Egyptian imagery, possibly in relation to the worship of Isis (Della Corte 1965, 374). Room f has also been classed as a diaeta of Isis/Diana, illustrating the owner’s interest in Egyptian culture. The Fourth Style décor was probably painted by the same artist who decorated the Ecclesiasterion in the Temple of Isis. It is also important to note that the garden space was surrounded by a high wall, which would have limited the view outside. However, Plane trees were positioned to flank this enclosure wall, which would have opened up the perspective of the property a great deal. The rows of fruit trees were also used in an ornamental fashion and appear to have added to this effect. The presence of the wall highlights the importance of the garden as a viewing space for the inhabitants, rather than the panorama beyond. Zanker (1998, 156) has commented that the elaborate nature of this estate appears to have been disproportionate to the modest means of the proprietors’

Three areas in the House of Octavius Quartio have been classified as social spaces (Table 31): the peristyle and Rooms A and 26. Room A was used for dining, judging from its design and décor, whereas Room 26, owing to its size and position has been classified as a diaeta. The spatial data analysis of the building (Fig. 71) has shown that due to the high Relative Asymmetry of the peristyle (Area 24) and Rooms A and 26 (0.25, 0.256, 0.304 respectively), all three would have had very low accessibility and should be viewed as the private domain of this domus. The extensive alterations and additions to this house after the earthquake in AD 62 reflect the owner’s aspirations to create a luxurious and impressive space for entertaining where the grand perspective of the gardens could impress guests. The visual effect of the euripus on the axis of the triclinium was effective despite the limited space. The layout was designed to allow the guest of honour an unimpeded view of the euripus (Clarke 2003, 277), emphasising its desired impression. But the facilities within the general living space remained modest, which was inconsistent with the alterations towards the rear of the complex. It is important to note that in the final phase of habitation, the entrance was converted into a tavern (Bergmann 2001, 57), further emphasising the disparate character between the private and public regions.

84

Graph 60 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Octavius Quartio

Graph 61 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Octavius Quartio Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 61) is also consistent with these findings. This exhibits a highly controlled structure, but one that made each region accessible for its leading residents and their invited guests.

As with the previously examined structures, this residence has also produced similar results in the social analysis. It highlights the consistent allocation of space within both urban and suburban residences for entertainment and reception. One of the most notable features exhibited in this townhouse is the clear division between public and private space, having almost no view of the private space from the entrance region of the domus. This may have been because of the conversion of this entrance area into a commercial precinct, but it still emphasises the importance of the region further within the residence. The overall Control Value results (Graph 60) represents the dominance of six rooms in particular as controlling the communication between each distinct space. This illustrates the well organised and socially stratified nature of the House of Octavius Quartio. The

Overall Conclusions Therefore, when comparing both the villas and townhouses there are several similarities and differences that can be noted. Firstly, the intentions of all the owners are clear: to create a pleasant living environment where a pleasing view from dining and entertaining rooms was of great consequence. The importance of this has been illustrated by the axial symmetry between dining rooms and the ornamental gardens at many complexes, such as the Villa of Diomede and the Houses of the Faun,

85

1974, 8), which further assisted in the Romanising of the community. The Villa of the Mysteries included a peristyle, which created a more open and well-lit dimension to the domus. At this time, owing probably to both the reducing defensive requirements of the citywalls and the influx of Roman colonists, the Houses in Insula Occidentalis were constructed, intended to not only maintain an urban connection but allow for a pleasant lifestyle. The use of terracing to allow for a wider perspective from these houses was also used by the Villa of Diomede, creating its impressive sunken garden.

Octavius Quartio and Julia Felix. It may be of significance to note that the Fourth style decoration in the cubiculum of the House of Octavius Quartio and an upper storey room of the Villa of Diomede were performed by the same artist (Richardson 2000, 140-2). This not only illustrates the common link in the décor of each building, but also that both of these paintings have been dated to the same phase, suggesting a temporal link as well. However, the ability to include the surrounding landscape at villas was an important distinction living on either side of the city-walls. This seems to have been the only significant difference. The importance of the coastal views probably also had other implications: the question of health. Columella (1.5.5) recommended the benefits of sea breezes for the inhabitant’s health, which would have also been a significant consideration, especially in comparison with the town houses. All of these properties were extremely large and took full advantage of their position.

Following from this, over time these larger villas expanded in not only space but also in their facilities, leading up to the end of the First Century BC. It is notable that there were few alterations that occurred in the stately regions of the House of the Faun at this time, which provides an interesting comparison with these inner suburban villas. It was at this point that townhouses like the Praedia of Julia Felix and the House of Octavius Quartio were constructed, both of which made significant efforts to incorporate noteworthy aspects of villa architecture. During the Augustan period there are further developments in the suburban villas, with further extensions in the villas beyond the Porta Ercolano, creating more distinction and luxury to be enjoyed by their leading residents.

However, there was certainly a chronology of development. The majority of the villas beyond the walls, especially past the Porta Ercolano, were originally constructed in the mid-late Second Century BC. The House of the Faun was also built during this period, exemplifying the epitome of Pompeian townhouses at this time. From the information available it seems clear that the layout of these villas were planned in a similar fashion to the houses within the city-walls, reflecting a clear association between the two regions. At this time Pompeii was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, with an increase in the wealth and elegance of building materials and the design of these buildings (Carrington 1936, 68-9). This included the introduction of the peristyle house, which considerably altered the demeanour of many wealthy residences. From this early phase in Pompeian villa construction, it is clear that a connection with the city was quite important. The desire for cultural and social connections with Rome during the Second Century BC was driven mostly by the Italian upper classes, seeking to maintain their social/political position (Gabba 1989, 210-11; Dobbins 1994, 688-9). Pompeii, as with many Italian towns, epitomised a combination of cultural influences, while continuing their ancient local traditions.

In the final phase of development, after the earthquake in AD 62, there were even greater changes in the luxurious residences (Berry 1997, 103-25). It is noticeable that the urban environment has expanded more dramatically with the construction of shops along the Via dei Sepolcri. This may have been to increase revenue owing to the devastating effects of the seismic and ensuing economic uncertainty during this final phase. It is also notable that the House of Octavius Quartio was transformed into a taberna and possibly the residence of Julia Felix began to be rented out. The focus of the residents of the Villa of the Mysteries resulted in a significant change in their perspective, thus greatly changing the function of the northern quarters of the complex. One of the most compelling comparisons that can be made between the suburban complexes and the townhouses is the surface area of each residence. Firstly, by examining the villas themselves it is quite notable that only two of these complexes are under three thousand square metres: the Villas of the Mosaic Columns (18) and T. Siminius Stephanus (21). Neither of these residences was as opulent as their larger counterparts, and significantly smaller. It is also important to observe that neither was in a position to take advantage of the coastal landscape to a similar level as the others, owing to their location. However, it seems quite evident that these residences were still suburban villas. It may simply have been that the positions either precluded further expansion or it was deemed unnecessary by the owners. What is more significant is the immense size of the other establishments (17, 19, 20, 22). The large amounts of

The advantage in living beyond the walls was the ability to enhance the perspective from the domus to encompass the landscape beyond. It was this factor that would have influenced the choice of position. Those villas that did not emphasise a view of the bay, namely the Villas of T. Siminius Stephanus and Mosaic Columns, were noticeably constructed on a lesser scale and clearly had other purposes in mind than purely otium. But as time progressed there was a change in the development at many residences. During the early First Century BC, after the Pompeian defeat and colonisation by Sulla, there was a significant change in these residences. After the social War, the separatist movement of the Italian leaders was minimised by extending the Roman franchise (Gruen

86

ultimately they exhibit a high level of consistency in their design and intent. While the type of commercial activity took on different forms, such as by comparing the Villas of Cicero and Mosaic Columns with the Villa of the Mysteries, it is evident that most sought a dualistic function: combining commercial and social productivity. In this regard, the Villa of Diomede is the most remarkable, seemingly being almost wholly devoted to performing a socially significant role. In addition to this it is also evident that the urban townhouses under question similarly sought a dualistic function, but with a similar divergence in the modes of commercial productivity, as exhibited by the House of the Faun and the Praedia of Julia Felix. Both were commercially viable, and yet seemingly prioritised different sources of revenue from their precincts for their respective owners.

space covered at these complexes dedicated to viewing the coastal landscape must be significant in order to understand the intensions behind their design. The construction of viewing platforms added greatly to the surface area of these suburban villas, which increased the effect and impression of these complexes. The change in focus at the Villa of the Mysteries from the eastern summer triclinium in preference to the western coastline highlights this desire perfectly. This also explains the development of the residences in Insula Occidentalis that also sought to take advantage of the panorama and the sea breezes. However, these houses were constrained more in their development than the suburban villas, but the owners attempted to compensate for this by constructing a series of terraces. When comparing the size of this group of suburban villas with the three large townhouses, the dimensions of the urban houses are quite comparable. The property size of all three are larger than the two smaller suburban villas, but the limitations of the urban environment are quite obvious, especially at the House of Octavius Quartio. The insular perspective of these townhouses was also significantly different to the open demeanour of the largest suburban villas, which severely added to the perspective available at these panoramic residences. The similarity in the percentage of reception space is a significant finding because it highlights that the connection of these villas with the social life of Pompeii was still of major importance to the owners and it illustrates that there would have been even greater freedom to create large entertaining spaces. So having examined these villae suburbanae, it is clear that the connection with the urban centre was still of paramount importance for the development of these structures. But the advantages of the view and independence of a condensed urban environment allowed for several of these suburban villas to develop and expand in an unfettered fashion, which was a rare occurrence within Pompeii itself.

The spatial data analysis has illustrated a distinction between areas that potentially served a public or private entertainment role. The most well-appointed villae suburbanae possessed rooms for both public and private entertainment occasions, which was determined by their accessibility from within the residence and from the exterior. The Villa of Diomede had a large number of social areas that could have been used for large-scale public occasions or smaller intimate gatherings. The provision of rooms for these occasions is represented by the various kinds of rooms evident in several complexes and the strong emphasis on potential entertainment space that existed at villae suburbanae. When comparing the size of this group of suburban villas with the three large townhouses, the dimensions of the urban houses are quite comparable. The property sizes of all three are larger than the two smaller suburban villas, but the limitations of the urban environment are quite obvious, especially at the House of Octavius Quartio (Zanker 1998, 147-9). The insular perspective of these townhouses was different to the open aspect of the largest suburban villas, which severely added to the perspective available at these panoramic residences. The similarity in the percentage of reception space is a significant find because it highlights that the connection of these villas with the social life of Pompeii was still of major importance to the owners, and that there would have been greater freedom to create large entertaining spaces. When the statistical analysis is expanded to incorporate a further seven townhouses of varying sizes, it highlights the similar emphasis of owners upon entertainment in their residences. Several of these urban complexes had more space devoted to entertainment than the smaller suburban villas, but this simply highlights the greater emphasis upon reception and their total size. When compared to the largest villas only the House of the Faun had a larger space devoted to entertainment than most villae suburbanae, which is indicative of its early establishment and esteemed position among Pompeian urban residences.

Lefebvre’s social conception of these structures has provided a great deal of insight into the overall consistency in the interaction within these residential complexes. The perceived conception of space has shown the general importance of instituting the forms of social stratification within these residences that reflect the hierarchical nature of the Pompeian community. The pattern of conceived conception of space likewise is also quite regular, illustrating a clear delineation between social productivity and commercial activity within these complexes. The lived conception also reflects how these social and commercial functions were represented in the communicative, artistic and architectural forms of each residence, regardless of whether it was placed either in an urban or suburban context. When considering the evidence of the villas in particular, it is clear that the inner suburbium of Pompeii included a range of structures with a wide range of foci, but that

87

When considering the general results from the Hillier and Hanson analysis of these structures, it is evident that while there was an evident variation in the intentions and fiscal circumstances of each respective owner over time, there is some consistency in the dualistic priorities of each structure in the suburbium of Pompeii. While the design and décor of the Villas of the Mysteries and M. Siminius Stephanus were quite dissimilar, it is still evident that both owners in AD 79 sought to be both socially significant and commercially viable – just through different avenues. All the same, these structures have also provided an excellent correlation between the

theoretical modelling of Lefebvre and the spatial analysis method of Hillier and Hanson. The social/theoretical modelling of Lefebvre illustrates the consistency in a clearly delineated interactive type of residence, as exhibited by both the Villa of Diomede, the House of the Faun, and the House of Octavius Quartio for example. The central finding from this examination is most importantly the consistency in social activity and layout between both the urbs and the suburbium. This makes socialisation a key element to factor in when examining the extra-urban regions of Pompeii.

Graph 62 - Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas and Townhouses Close to Pompeii unfettered fashion, which was a rare occurrence within Pompeii itself. It is the divergence in function and emphasis between most villae suburbanae that appears to be the most significant feature of these structures. This has been previously illustrated with the townhouses in Pompeii (Wallace-Hadrill 1994), but such a variation within a small group of villae suburbanae is particularly notable. It is for this reason that a strict definition of this type of residence is ineffectual, it being necessary to allow a broader classification in order to properly understand these structures.

In general terms, the Real Relative Asymmetry values for all of the structures under consideration provide some fascinating results (Graph 62). This graph exhibits that while the vast majority of spaces were relatively accessible within these structures, that there are structures that produce a much higher level of social control than in others. There are five residences that provide the clearest examples of this: the Villas of Diomede, Mysteries, Imperiale, and the Houses of the Faun and Octavius Quartio. All of these buildings epitomise the highest levels of the social hierarchy within Roman Pompeii, regardless of whether they were urban or suburban. This further represents the importance of the inner suburbium within the social dynamic of Pompeii in general terms.

In the examination of the literary concept of villae suburbanae, it has been illustrated that it was a subjective concept with these structures servicing a wide range of uses. This study of Pompeian villae suburbanae has shown that the physical evidence of these suburban villas has confirmed both the literary evidence and Roman examples of villae suburbanae. The statistical analysis of these sites has exhibited the continued prominence of areas potentially used for entertainment functions, which

Having examined these villae suburbanae it is clear that the connection with the urban centre was of importance for the development of these structures. But the advantages of the view and independence from a condensed urban environment allowed for several of these suburban villas to develop and expand in an

88

had various roles and served for various occasions, but were fundamental features of villae suburbanae.

89

Chapter IV Villas in the Outer Suburbs of Pompeii earthquake of AD 62. There were many villas throughout the region by 80 BC, with varying levels of facilities. There would have been a zone of communication in the suburbs of Pompeii, linking small villages and the suburban villas with the city (Raper 1997, 197). But catalogues of archaeological material, such as by Giordano (1979, 27-55), illustrate that the suburban regions had a high concentration of settlement.

There are other villas in the Pompeian region that should also be discussed to determine whether they ought to be classified as suburban villas. Of this group there are several examples because of the large number of villas discovered in the Ager Pompeianus. All of these examples are in close proximity with the urban centre at Pompeii, and when they are viewed in comparison with the previous examples they can provide further insight into our understanding of suburban villas. There have been several regions around the city that have been identified as suburbs of Pompeii, including the pagus Felix suburbanus, which has been dated to the Sullan period but its precise location is unknown (Carrington 1936, 80).

Villa 23 – Villa of Lucius Cecilius Giocondus alla Pisanella at Boscoreale This villa (Fig. 72) is located roughly three kilometres to the north of Pompeii, having been previously interpreted to both a rustic villa (Sogliano 1895a, 207-14), and a suburban villa (Della Corte 1965, 433), which seems more appropriate in view of its position, size and level of facilities. Owing to the discovery of an inscription at this complex, ownership has been attributed to the merchant L. Caecilius Iucundus, who also owned an elegant house inside Pompeii. He was a businessman, involved in trade, active in Pompeian domestic politics (Andreau 1973, 244), and was duovir. With this in mind, Carrington’s designation (1931, 119) of this as being a residence used only occasionally by the owner appears appropriate. This residence was maintained by a libertus, L. Caecilius Aphrodisius (Della Corte 1965, 436), who was responsible for the smooth running of the estate. The main entrance appears to have been located to the northwest, being preceded by an open space. This area has produced a large number of tile and mortar deposits (Sogliano 1896, 232), which may suggest that this region was being repaired or renovated at the time of the eruption. Room I (Fig. 72), appears to have been a triclinium with brick pavement and white plaster (Sogliano 1899a, 15). The remains of three couches have also been found in this space, furthering this attribution. The northern position of this room would have produced a pleasant dining environment with a view of the bay and the surrounding countryside, but also taking advantage of the winter sunshine (Potter 1987, 96).

Carrington classifies villas directly outside the city-walls as villae suburbanae, with the proviso that they were not farmhouses (Carrington 1934, 263). It seems that after the pacification of the surrounding regions from brigandage as late as the Second Century BC that estates for both agriculture and residency developed outside of the city (Van der Poel 1986, 207). It was only when the countryside was secured that the complexes further out from the city began to develop on a similar scale to the wealthy townhouses and those villas just outside the town-walls. Some of these estates were ideal investments for owners who were frequently absent, but as noted with the literary references, this does not preclude them from being defined as villae suburbanae. Most sites originated as modest farmhouses, but some gradually changed in function, becoming increasingly residential rather than productive. The reason for this was the transition of several properties into the ownership of wealthy Romans and the Imperial family. Many senators owned several properties throughout the Italian peninsula, some in the neighbourhood of the capital (Bruun 2000, 500), but frequently in Campania. But most of the known complexes were owned by the local élites, who dominated the region’s economy (Brizzi 1979, 83). A large percentage of the wealth acquired by primarily urban residents was accrued in rural properties (MacMullen 1974, 48), including suburban holdings. Senators and other wealthy individuals also invested in industrial production (Rostovtzeff 1957, 18), with economic diversification being a secure method of investment. At this time, some of these residences became progressively more spacious with the inclusion of large peristyles and dining areas for increased luxuria and otium. This did not preclude the presence of agricultural precincts, with many complexes in the suburbs having both (D’Arms 1984, 65). The peak of prosperity occurred during the Augustan era (Day 1932, 187), which continued at the majority of sites at least until the

The plan was rectangular, measuring approximately 25.3 by 39.6 metres. There was a second floor, which seems to have contained the cubicula, whereas the kitchen, bakery, baths, triclinia, stabulum, cella vinaria, apotheca and slaves quarters were on the ground floor. This villa has produced evidence of a torcularium, which is confirmed by the large number of agricultural implements uncovered. A channel ran directly from the presses to the cella vinaria, where a series of dolii were sunken into the ground. Pliny the Elder (15.136) mentioned that sinking the dolii into the ground was good for weak and thin wines to maintain an even temperature. The olive press

90

is more evidence of the owner’s wealth. It is clear that the owner was trying to create a balance between a productive and pleasant living environment. This is exhibited by the large amount of space dedicated to agriculture, but also the views of the bay and surrounding countryside that could be appreciated from Room 1. The arrangement of this building has been compared to several houses of Olynthus, with the portico functioning in a comparable manner to the Greek form (Rossiter 1978, 22).

was similar to the wine torcularium, and the oil was mostly stored in dolii in the corridor outside the cella vinaria. There was also an olive crusher, discovered near the olive press. Diversification of production was practised at this estate, shown by the presence of a threshing floor (Fig. 72) (Scheidel 1994, 159-66). The discovery of pig skeletons also exhibits that animal husbandry was undertaken. Day has illustrated the large profits that would have been obtainable at this villa purely through the production of wine and oil, highlighting the benefits of such an estate. It has been shown that intensive mixed production was a standard method for managing properties throughout the region, combining livestock and agriculture (Kron 2000, 277-87).

When the spatial analysis of this establishment was performed in a similar fashion to the previous chapters it produced an analogous result compared to those suburban complexes in the inner suburbs of Pompeii. However, if this is the only method used it creates an inappropriate perception of the role of this complex. When the courtyard is removed from the entertainment space it makes a substantial difference to the results, which is more in keeping with the general demeanour of this villa. The amount of entertainment space is quite low in comparison with most villae suburbanae in the inner suburbs, but this seems to be understandable. This is also highlighted by Lefebvre’s perceived and conceived conceptions of space, whereby the levels of social stratification and productivity were clearly demonstrated by the general format of the structure. This also overtly corresponds with the lived conception as well.

One of the most interesting discoveries made at this complex was of a water heating system, which served both the kitchen and the bath facilities. The baths included a tepidarium (Room N), apoditerium (Room M), a latrine (Room III), and praefurnium (Room B). The kitchen was located in the eastern region (Room A), with a large wooden bench for food preparation (Sogliano 1896, 205-6). This kitchen included a small niche (No. b) in the western wall, which may have served a ritual purpose. But the most famous finds were the cache of silverware in the wine cellar (Kunzl 1984, 220-3). These pieces seem to have been an accumulation of family pieces collected from the late First Century BC to early First Century AD (Kleiner 1997, 377). There was also a hoard of over one thousand gold coins uncovered, which

Graph 63 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Lucius Caecilius Iucundus

91

Graph 64 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of L.ucius Caecilius Iucundus

The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated (Fig. 73) (Table 32) that the accessibility to this room was controlled (Control Value of 0.33) and that its relatively high Mean Depth (3.77) and Relative Asymmetry (0.197) indicate that it was restricted. It is clear that this room was located in the private domain of this suburban villa. Large-scale public entertainment was not intended for this residence. It served more of a restricted/intimate entertainment role, perhaps for gatherings of the owners’ household or his close amici. The classification of this complex as a villa suburbana seems appropriate, especially in view of valuable finds discovered at this complex. The difference to the often varied public/private division in villae suburbanae located closer to Pompeii was not present in this complex, but it is indicative of the lower numbers that were intended to be entertained at this particular villa suburbana. The overall Control Value results (Graph 63) indicate that four spaces were particularly important for controlling the accessibility to other sectors of this complex. All the same, the simplicity of this structure is also exemplified by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 64), thus demonstrating the definitive intentions of its owner surrounding its productivity on both a social and an agricultural level.

urban and rural sources of revenue was quite common, with prominent Pompeian families maintaining modest townhouses as well as rural and suburban productive properties (Franklin 2001, 200).

The ownership of this complex by Iucundus reflects the diversification of his business interests, being involved in both agriculture and commercial trade. Owing to the facilities and open demeanour, it seems appropriate to classify this residence as a villa suburbana. The position of this estate would have allowed Iucundus to easily commute to Pompeii and it would have also provided for a convenient location to escape from his commercial responsibilities when necessary. The combination of both

The main entrance (A) was from the north, which had a cella ostiaria (Room 1) on the left and led directly towards an open courtyard (Della Corte 1921, 444), which was originally surrounded by an ambulatory (Fig. 74), but this was later altered. This entrance was secured with two large doors. The eastern ambulatory (Room B) was supported by three columns that were simply decorated, as was the southern portico (Room C). This area surrounded a cella vinaria (Room D), which was

Villa 24 – Villa of Popidius Florus at Boscoreale The villa of Popidius Florus at Boscoreale was roughly one and a half kilometres from Pompeii (Fig. 74). The complex measured approximately 25 by 31 metres, which included a cella vinaria that could have held around fifty medium sized dolii (Day 1932, 200). The complex had several alterations, including the transformation of the northern ambulatory into Rooms 2 and 5 (Della Corte 1921, 442). Room 5 has produced evidence of Second Style wall paintings, whereas the majority of the décor was executed in Fourth Style. Many walls remained quite rustic (Rooms 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16), some having simple beaten earth flooring as well (Rooms 6, 8, 16). Other rooms were floored with concrete (Rooms 2, 3 and the southern portico), or paved with opus signinium (Rooms 5, 18-20), with mosaic pavement used in several of the remainder (Rooms 9, 10, 12, 13, 21). The outstanding rooms were floored with cocciopesto. The upper floor was used for housing the estate’s slaves (White 1970, 428).

92

eastern corner, which shows that there would have been an upper level. To the north of the entrance hall was a cubiculum (Room 12), which had a window looking onto the eastern portico of the courtyard. This window suggests that despite the division of the doors leading into Room 11, the separation between the two quarters was not complete. This room was simply decorated in Fourth Style, depicting small floral motifs with Arpia, Pegasus and Silenus and had mosaic pavement. There was another cubiculum (Room 13), which was also decorated with Fourth style painting and it was also paved with mosaic. However, this room was slightly larger than Room 12 and the window looked towards the countryside.

surrounded by a viridarium. There were remnants of several large dolii within this area. Jashemski (1979, 31920) has postulated that the viridarium was probably an ornamental garden, owing to its general demeanour. There was an upper level, shown by a staircase (Room 3), but the purpose of this area cannot be deduced. The kitchen (Room 6) was located in the northern region, which also accommodated the praefurnium (Della Corte 1921, 444). At the opposite end of the eastern ambulatory was the torcularium (Room 17), paved with cocciopesto. Judging from its décor it appears that Room 2 was originally a triclinium, but after the alterations to the structure it was used as for food preparation and as a workshop. Three large dolii were uncovered, accentuating the emphasis upon agriculture. There was also a niche in the eastern wall, possibly a lararium, which are quite common in the kitchens of houses in and around Pompeii (Orr 1988, 295).

Room 14 served an unknown function, but it was simply decorated and had an unknown function. Judging from its position, it could have been a tablinum or reception room, but the décor would suggest otherwise. It may be that this room was being renovated at the time of the eruption. The purpose of Room 15 is also unknown, but it was decorated with Fourth Style wall paintings on a yellow background. The triclinium (Room 16) was very large and well lit, located in the south-eastern corner (Fig. 74) (Della Corte 1921, 457). Similarly with Room 14, this room was not finely decorated, which furthers the suggestion that this region was undergoing renovation or alteration at the time of the eruption, especially for two such prominent rooms. However, the triclinium (Room 16) would have had an open and well-ventilated disposition, with the inclusion of two large windows.

In the north-western corner there was a large open cubiculum (Room 4), with two large windows providing a well lit and pleasant disposition (Fig. 74) (Della Corte 1921, 448). Owing to its size and elegant Third Style décor, it is probable that this was the quarters of the dominus. There was a corridor to the south of this room that led outside of the villa towards a latrine, which has not been excavated. On the other side of this corridor, there was an oecus (Room 5), which seems to have had an internal focus, having a large window onto the open courtyard. It is of interest to note the external view of the cubiculum contrasted to the internal focus of the oecus, which nevertheless still exhibits the importance of having a well lit and open demeanour for rooms of relaxation. The decoration was finely executed in Second Style in red cinnabar, complemented by marble friezes representing a Maenad and a satyr.

The importance of wine production to the owner is exemplified by the discovery of a dedication to three deities: Bacchus, Venus and Hercules. Haec iuga quam Nysae colles plus Bacchus amaiut, Hoc nuper Satyri monte dedere choros. Haec Veneris sedes, Lacedaemone gratior illi, Hic locus Herculeo nomine clarus erat (Della Corte 1921, 449).

There were four other cubicula located in the southern region (Rooms 18-21), most of these were large with windows to allow greater light and ventilation. All of these bedrooms looked directly onto the southern portico and only Room 20 did not have a window towards the countryside (Fig. 74). All of these rooms were decorated in Fourth Style. The bath facilities were located in the north-eastern region, including a frigidarium (Room 7), laconicum (Room 9) and caldarium (Room 10). All were well decorated with fine wall paintings as well as the laconicum and caldarium being paved with geometric mosaic. The mosaic in the caldarium represented a loose grouping of sea creatures, intended to represent a marine emblemata (Clarke 1982, 672).

Not only does this dedication reflect the importance of grape production but it also clearly refers to the three most important Pompeian deities, suggesting a clear association with the city and its popular cults. Judging from the size, facilities and some of the décor it is clear that originally this villa was intended primarily to be a comfortable residence, but this later changed with subsequent residents focusing primarily upon agriculture. This has been shown in the alterations that occurred in the northern ambulatory, changing from a triclinium to a room for servile purposes. This change in emphasis meant there must have been a change in either the priorities or circumstances of the residents. This is not an unusual occurrence, having been noted at the Villa of the Mysteries. The division of different regions within this complex may be indicative of two separate households residing at this villa. The use of one building for housing two families has been noted at several complexes throughout the western Roman Empire. After considering

The rooms on the eastern side formed a separate group of apartments from this residential region (Rooms 11-16) (Della Corte 1921, 454). This group of rooms was separated from the other rooms by wooden doors, which led into Room 11 that had basic décor. Owing to its position, it is likely that it was an entrance hall for this group. There was also another staircase in the south-

93

impression. It appears that the peristyle at this complex did serve an entertainment role, which emphasises the well-appointed nature of this residence. The complex is smaller than other structures classified as villae suburbanae, but it is evident that the intentions of its owners were to give it a somewhat elevated role and standing. This is also exhibited by the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre, illustrating how this complex was designed to correspond with the general intentions of the social productivity of the owner. The conceived and lived conceptions of space particularly epitomise both the social necessities and aspirations that led to the development of this residence.

all of the evidence, it could have been used as guest accommodation, which may explain the differing levels of décor. However, it does seem clear that the facilities, characteristics and position of this complex justify its classification as a villa suburbana. There were four regions within this villa suburbana that had a social function: the eastern ambulatory (Room B) and central courtyard (Room 23), Room 5, which had the position and décor to suggest an entertainment role, and Room 16 that had the dimensions and finds to suggest that it was a dining room. This room was not highly decorated, but at the time of the eruption it was undergoing a series of alterations to improve its

Graph 65 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Popidius Florus

Graph 66 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Popidius Florus

94

using multicoloured marbles. This is contrasted to the agricultural rooms that had either cocciopesto (Rooms 2, 7) or beaten earth (Room 3). This difference in the flooring would have demarcated the function of each room.

The Hillier and Hanson method (Fig. 75) (Table 33) has illustrated the clear division between accessible and inaccessible space within the potential entertainment regions of this complex. Both Rooms B and 23 have low Relative Asymmetry (0.105, 0.0878 respectively) and Mean Depths (2.47, 2.23), illustrating their highly accessible/public roles. This contrasts both Rooms 5 and 16, which have higher Relative Asymmetry (0.1764, 0.2192 respectively) and Mean Depths (3.47, 4.07), which shows that they were less accessible. This is further emphasised by the Depths from Exterior (3, 4), establishing their positions deep within the private sphere of this suburban villa. It is notable that there seems to have been a similar division of public/private entertainment space as some of the villas in the inner suburbs of Pompeii. This emphasis upon entertainment confirms that the Villa of Popidius Florus was a villa suburbana. The general Control Value results (Graph 65) exhibits the importance of three rooms in particular as ‘controlling’ spaces within the structure. This shows how vital the restriction of accessibility was to its respective owner/s. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 66) also indicate a high level of control existing within this residence and the social importance of particular sectors.

The northern elegant region was clearly the principal residential quarters, including the exedra (Room 11), triclinium (Room 10) and the cubiculum (Room 9). All appear to have been decorated in Third Style upon a black background. The consistent execution of wall décor and pavement within this region of the house suggests that they were envisaged as a group. Room 8 served as a hallway through which both cubiculum and triclinium were accessed (Fig. 76). This triclinium was decorated with images of birds and fruit, whereas the exedra and cubiculum were adorned with representations of swans. The triclinium was adorned with a geometric pattern, on the northern wall, complementing the décor in the other rooms. It appears that the focus of the residents was upon agriculture, but there was some attempt to give the complex some pretensions. The incomplete floor plan severely reduces the capacity to draw clear statistical conclusions. However, judging from their position, décor and finds, two rooms (Rooms 10, 11) have been determined as having a potential entertainment function. Room 10 was larger and was probably primarily used as a dining room, whereas Room 11 was smaller and may have been an exedra. The perceived conception of space exhibits how this complex possessed a very limited level of social stratification, indicating the overall simplicity of the residence. All the same, there does appear to have been a degree of separation between different modes of production (be they social or agricultural), thus illustrating a sense of a more developed delineation of space, as indicated by the conceived and lived conceptions of space.

Villa 25 – Boscoreale This villa was constructed roughly ninety metres to the south of the previous villa in Boscoreale, roughly one and a half kilometres from the walls of Pompeii (Map 3) (Della Corte 1921, 461). This structure was quite noble in its design with elegantly painted walls and pavement in opus signinium and opus sectile, measuring roughly 17.5 by 21 metres (Day 1932, 200). The general layout was planned as a square, but the entire complex has not been excavated (Della Corte 1921, 461). There was an upper level to the complex, shown by the staircase in Room 4. Two doorways entered this villa (A, A’), placed on the same axis. It is likely that one of these accessed the main road, whereas the other led directly towards the countryside. The central focus of the complex was a portico on the eastern side (Room B), which was decorated with white plaster.

It appears that the focus of the residents was upon agriculture, but there was some attempt to give the complex cultural pretensions. Because of the extant evidence analysis is limited for this complex, but it is possible to draw some conclusions. When the space potentially used for social activity at this site is compared to the non-peristyle space at other complexes it appears quite high. This is especially pertinent in view of the importance placed upon production at this residence. When compared to the villas in the inner Pompeian suburbium, it is also among the highest in the internal category.

Upon entering the portico, the torcularium (Room 7) was the first room to be encountered. However, despite its obvious productive nature, it was flanked by rooms with elegant décor, painted in Third Style. The torcularium produced evidence of several large dolii, but it was also decorated with a painting of Bacchus. The pavement in the portico, as well as some elegant rooms (Rooms 8-11) was executed in opus signinium in a geometric pattern. Room 5 was paved in white tesserae, whereas Room 4 and the caldarium (Room 6) were paved with opus sectile

95

Graph 67 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Boscoreale

Graph 68 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Boscoreale ‘controlling’ space. It is impossible to make any further analysis about the evidence from this site, but in view of its entertainment space and the attempt to give this building some decorative pretensions, a classification of villa suburbana does not seem out of the question. The only way to make a more definite assessment would be by further exploration of this site.

The Hillier and Hanson method (Fig. 77) (Table 34) has shown that Room 11 had a high degree of accessibility by its Mean Depth (2.4) and Relative Asymmetry (0.215). It also controlled access to Room 10 (Control Value of 1.03), which indicates a public role for Room 11. Room 10 was more private, having a higher Mean Depth (3.07) and Relative Asymmetry (0.318), illustrating that it was less accessible. This is understandable in view of its location beside a cubiculum (Room 9), which was also quite inaccessible. In general terms, the Control Value results (Graph 67) exhibit the social dominance of three rooms in particular as ‘controlling’ spaces. All the same, there seems to have been a relatively even balance throughout the remaining sectors. This correlates with the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 68), which exhibits a broad spectrum of accessibility, regardless of whether each room was a ‘controlled’ or a

Villa 26 – The Villa of Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale The Villa of Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale (Map 3) was located roughly one and a half kilometres from Pompeii. Ownership of this villa has been attributed to P. Fannius Synistor, but it seems that L. Herennius Florus was a more likely candidate (Rostovtzeff 1957, 552, n. 26, no. 16). The plan was that of a large villa built with elegant architecture and a row of staterooms, with fine Second Style wall paintings (Richardson 1988, 176). The villa

96

triclinium in Room 5 at the Villa of the Mysteries (Andreae 1975, 71-92). The room measures 8.30 by 7.30 metres and was 3.8 metres high (Müller 1994, 2). It has been conjectured that the figures in the large hall were symbolic representations of Macedonia and Persia/Asia at a wedding (Fittschen 1975, 93-100) (Robertson 1955, 5867). Life-sized figures such as these were very rare in Roman wall-paintings and these examples have a monumental quality (Müller 1994, 13; Smith 1999, 111). What is certain is that this was an impressive dining room. It is of interest to note the use of such Macedonian imagery has also been discovered in the House of the Faun and House VI, 17, 42 in Pompeii. From this hall there was a small corridor leading into a well decorated small room (Room G) which had a large window to the exterior (Fig. 78).

was built around the middle of the First Century BC (Beyen 1987/8, 17). The themes of the wall paintings are in harmony with each other, all in an identical Second Style design, indicating that they are datable to the same phase (Fig. 78). They have been dated to the period between 43-33 BC. The plan was centred on a square peristyle (Room E), which had banks of rooms along three sides. The entrance was placed to the south, along-side a series of living apartments, working rooms and storerooms. The peristyle had six columns on each side, surrounded by deep porticoes. This peristyle was splendidly decorated and contained fountains in the centre, exhibiting that its purpose was primarily for leisure. The architecture of the surrounding porticoes were richly decorated with coffered and gilded ceilings and an ornamental carved architrave. The purpose for the design of the villa in this manner is clear. Visitors and guests would have entered the villa on the south-western side, directly accessing the well-appointed central peristyle, which progressed towards the noble apartments on the northern side. Another important points about this peristyle was that it had no direct access to the servile regions of the villa. All rooms associated with this peristyle were used by the principal household, rather than by the servile inhabitants. There were practical rooms located on the eastern side, including a well-appointed bath complex, storerooms and offices and another smaller peristyle, but the rustic facilities were almost completely separated from this central peristyle (Richardson 1988, 178).

Owing to the size of this room, its position and the presence of such a large window it is likely that it had a similar function to Rooms 9 and 10 in the Villa of the Mysteries, being used for leisure and for viewing the panorama, as well as private pursuits, such as reading and relaxation. It is pertinent to observe the different viewing focus in both rooms, the banquet hall drawing attention to the central garden in the peristyle as a controlled environment, whereas Room G focused upon the natural landscape. The peristyle was decorated in Second Style décor and contained a lararium in the north-west corner. To the side there was an andron on the same axis, which was also decorated in Second Style. This andron had a very wide entrance, but the purpose for this room is unable to be determined. From this portico there were also other colonnades that connected pars urbana with pars rustica.

The northern side of the peristyle contained splendid rooms intended for the leading residents. The noble quarters on the northern side contained a fine rectangular triclinium at the western end (Room N), which was connected to another small room (Room M) via a small lobby. It has been suggested that this small room was a ladies dining room or a bedroom. This room was decorated with tholoi and landscape designs in the couch alcove, there being cityscapes in the rest of the room. The rectangular triclinium was decorated with columnar architecture, creating a series of vistas (Williams Lehmann 1953, 82-131; Ling 1997, 365). There was a large square banquet hall (Room H), followed by an exedra (Room G). Symmetrical windows that viewed onto the peristyle bordered the hall, but there were no windows on the external side. This is of interest because the owners were not concerned with acquiring a peripheral view, preferring an internal emphasis onto the peristyle. Throughout the rest of this complex the majority of the rooms had large windows to the exterior of the building, but it is of interest to note the absence of this feature within this room in particular. Between the wide doorway and the large internal windows were painted two winged genii, seemingly to overlook the entrance (Sauron 1993, 90).

Owing to the incomplete nature of the excavations, the precise nature of the agricultural activity is uncertain, but there has been enough material discovered to draw some conclusions. The pars rustica, was connected to the residential building by a colonnade that ran to the south of the pars urbana. Within this area, to the east lay a bakery and there were a torcularium with places for two wine presses on the western side. From this evidence, it is clear that the production of wine was an important element of the estates’ economy. This was not unusual in the Campanian region, but it is pertinent to note its continued importance within the economy of this villa. A trapetum for processing olives was also discovered (De Vos 1982, 256), illustrating that the productive activity was based upon grape and olive cultivation. It appears that the Villa of Fannius Synistor has similar features to many villas in the region. The plan was laid out in such a fashion that there was a clear demarcation between the differing regions. The areas used by the principal residents were clearly separated from the servile districts. Müller (1994, 48) has continued to classify this complex as a villa rustica and yet mentions that the largest part of the complex was residential. This would

The hall was also decorated with life-sized figures against panels of cinabar, which is a similar megalography to the

97

suggest that the term villa suburbana would be more appropriate.

designed to reflect the complexity of this social symbolism at the same time.

The statistical analysis of this suburban villa has been fruitful as it has a large amount of documentation and extant remains. Five areas are identified to have potentially served an entertainment purpose: Rooms E, G, H, N and 15. Area E was a large open colonnaded peristyle, whereas Room 15 was a smaller square peristyle. Room G has been classified as an exedra, owing to its well-appointed décor and view towards the landscape. Room N seems to have served as a dining room, which also had a view towards the outside of the structure. Room H was a large banquet hall and its paintings are quite remarkable. This corresponds well with Lefebvre’s social conception of space. It is evident that there were clear considerations surrounding the levels of social stratification and how the villa was

The spatial analysis further substantiates the classification of this complex among the villae suburbanae. With the inclusion of the central peristyle this residence had a level of entertainment space comparable to the villas in the inner suburbs of Pompeii. When the peristyle is ignored the results continue to indicate that entertainment was an important role for this complex to fulfil. This is particularly evident in the size and décor of Room H, which was clearly designed for entertaining a large number of people. The presence of such a room within a villa suburbana located in the outer suburbs of Pompeii provides a good indication that the social activities within this area were only limited by the intentions, and probably connections, of the owners.

Graph 69 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Fannius Synistor

Graph 70 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Fannius Synistor

98

There was no focus upon agriculture at the time of the eruption, and it does not resemble the plan of a typical villa. This complex should be classified as a suburban villa.

Longfellow (2000, 26) has argued that Room H was used by a specific clientele, being located in a restricted region of the complex. Spatial data analysis (Fig. 79) (Table 35) has illustrated the high degree of accessibility for potential social interaction in Room E through its low Mean Depth (1.88) and Relative Asymmetry (0.057). It also has the smallest Depth from Exterior (3) of the potential entertainment rooms. Room A can also be determined as public due to its position at the entrance. The remaining rooms (Rooms 15, G, H, N) had higher Relative Asymmetry (0.105, 0.173, 0.134, 0.119 respectively) and Mean Depths (2.63, 3.69, 3.08, 2.84), illustrating their greater inaccessibility and private roles. Room 15 was the most accessible of these, but it should still be viewed as private space in comparison to the rest of the structure. This combination of public and private potential entertainment space is indicative of the social activity at villae suburbanae, which allowed for more control in the nature and status of the guests with greater privacy. But there were rooms intended for a public entertainment role with a combination of these being common in most villae suburbanae. This is also represented through the general results shown by the Control Value (Graph 69) and Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 70).

The elegant precincts within the Villa of Poppea at Oplontis exhibit splendid facilities, architecture and wall decoration from this period. The focal point of this region was a large Tuscan atrium with Second Style wall decoration. All the rooms placed around this atrium were also painted in this style, creating a consistent impression. There were three doors leading from the atrium to the northern (landward) side, but beyond the impluvium, there were no doors on the sides of this room, creating a symmetrical design. The rooms proceeded along short corridors towards a colonnade of porticoes (Fig. 80), which have been partially excavated (De Franciscis 1982, 911). The columns of these porticoes were all painted Second Style with a scale pattern, which is in harmony with the rest of this precinct (De Franciscis 1973, 460-2). Such a colonnade would have created an agreeable walkway, allowing for an appreciation of the view. However, it has also been pointed out that there may have also been some viewing rooms placed within this region, which would also have been in accordance with the general tendency of most suburban villas.

However, it was the viewing rooms that make this villa interesting. In the majority of the rooms there were large windows towards the exterior. But in the large banquet hall (Room H), which was used for entertaining guests, the viewing focus was to the interior rather than the external landscape. This exhibits a preference to arrange an outlook towards an environment entirely under the control of the proprietor rather than an external view, which was not controllable. This is shown explicitly when compared with the small exedra (Room G). It is clear that the villa owner made deliberate decisions about the view from each room and that it was an important consideration in their design and intended effect.

Within this region, there were several other rooms of note. Room 23, located on the eastern side of the atrium, was decorated in Second Style décor, with Dionysiac imagery (Turcan 1999, 94). This room was square and opened onto the colonnade on the eastern side. This was also embellished with Second Style wall paintings (Yerkes 2000, 239). There was also a biclinium towards the end of the portico (Room 41), with space for two couches at right angles. On the western side of the atrium, opposite Room 23, was another room decorated with Second Style wall paintings (Room 11), which were subtle when compared to the décor in some other rooms, and it may have been used as a cubiculum (Clarke 1996, 86-95). Room 12 was a small oecus for Room 11, painted with late Second/early Third Style paintings (Clarke 1987, 279-80). Some of the most notable frescoes in this complex portrayed clipeatae imagines, representing ancestral portraiture and traditional Roman values (Winkes 1979, 481-4). Room 41 opened towards both the south and the west, which allowed for the view from both of the couches placed within this biclinium. Room 14, located to the west of the colonnade, was a long rectangular triclinium and also painted in Second Style (Guzzo and Fergola 2000, 22). The positioning of the couches have been shown by the markings in the mosaic pavement.

Villa 27 – The Villa of Poppea at Oplontis The Villa of Poppea at Oplontis (Fig. 80), was roughly four and a half kilometres from the city-walls of Pompeii (Malandrino 1978, 29), being accessible along the road to Herculaneum (Sauron 1995, 92). The region around Oplontis was probably a coastal suburb of Pompeii, having a strong connection with the urban centre. The majority of this complex has been excavated, but the southern (coastal) side and the western frontage have not been uncovered. The initial phase of construction was of ample proportions, constructed in the mid First Century BC (De Franciscis 1975, 9-10). During the Augustan period, the baths and large northern saloon were widened and lengthened towards the viridarium. This building, similarly with the Villa of the Mysteries, was also undertaking a considerable amount of rebuilding and refurbishment following from the earthquake in AD 62. These alterations included the addition of a large summer triclinium. However, this was no typical villa estate.

Room 15, also located on the western side of this colonnade, is notable because it was a large banquet hall. It too was decorated in Second Style and the architectural dimensions would have been very impressive. The viewing platform of this hall was especially compelling.

99

The layout was designed more as an urban residence rather than a rural villa, with the sequence of atrium, tablinum and peristyle, but it was also adapted with the inclusion of the northern saloon. This residence had only minimal habitation at the time of the eruption (De Franciscis 1979, 231), similarly to the Villa of the Mysteries. The complex was probably undergoing repairs at this time, which was common throughout the region. The gardens areas were of great importance to the layout, being closely integrated with the architecture. These gardens would have been enhanced by the view towards the coast and the mountains, thus creating the ideal landscape. In view of the palatial facilities, location and open character of this complex, the classification of this site as a villa suburbana seems appropriate.

Between this hall and the viridarium there was a large central propylon (Fig. 80), further enhancing the viewing platform of the hall. There were two openings from this room: onto the colonnaded portico to the front and behind this room was an ornate water garden. This was on the same axis as Room 15, which suggests that the prime reason for its inclusion was to be appreciated from this hall. The majority of these rooms were designed in order to appreciate the view from the rooms. It is of interest to note that there was an attempt to maintain some consistency in the subject matter of the décor with images of peacocks being represented in Second, Third and Fourth Style paintings (Andreae 1982, 531-3). The water garden (Fig. 80), was square in shape with a light-roofed portico supported by slim columns at each corner. In the centre was a deep square tank that enclosed a large circular trough. This consisted of two rings that surrounded a water-jet in the middle. All of these elements were constructed in masonry and painted with plain stucco. It appears that this was not an original feature of the complex. The introduction of this water feature is indicative of this period in the Pompeian region, with several other complexes including water features, such as at the Villa of Diomede, Praedia of Julia Felix and House of Octavius Quarto. There were also several pieces of sculpture uncovered in the garden, such as representations of Aphrodite and a child with a goose (De Caro 1976, 184-225).

Ten areas have been included among those with potential entertainment space, although the size and versatility of this villa suburbana meant that there could have been many more that may have served such a purpose. However, these regions (Rooms 1, 6, 15, 20, 31, 44, 48, 49, 57, 58) have the clearest evidence for such a role. Rooms 20, 31, 44 and 49 were all open spaces that were primarily used for non-utilitarian purposes (unlike the utilitarian peristyle – Area 29). The remainder were used for entertainment, either in a public or private sphere. The perceived conception of space for this structure is unusual owing to the large preponderance of élite social regions, but this seems to be in keeping with the imperial connections of its owner. This in turn of course effects its conceived and lived conceptions. All the same, the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis presents a fine example of the differentiation between imperial and non-imperial villae suburbanae outside Pompeii.

The servile region of this villa, was almost completely separate from the well-appointed regions of the complex. These quarters were large and positioned around a courtyard. A noteworthy discovery was a graffito found in this region of the complex, which was written in Greek, exhibiting the existence of the Magna Mater cult (De Caro 1988, 89-96). As mentioned previously, the division between the well-appointed and servile districts was not unusual, becoming increasingly apparent at many suburban villas. It is at these complexes, where each of the quarters were placed in separate wings, that the division of rank and society are really apparent within the aristocratic domus. There was a torcularium (Rooms 82, 84) at this complex but it does not appear to have been functional at the time of the eruption. This may suggest that the focus of the owner was purely to possess a villa for otium, which had changed since its original construction.

The spatial analysis of this complex further substantiates its classification as a villa suburbana. The surface area of this complex was significantly larger than all other establishments in the region and it possessed at least six peristyles/gardens. This leads to two significant conclusions. Firstly, it would have created a pleasant open-living residence for the enjoyment of its owners. Secondly, it has produced a dramatic result in the analysis, with the entertainment space dominating the known precincts of the villa. These findings are indicative of the design of this complex. They illustrate just how much emphasis was placed upon open-planned living by the designer, and in turn the luxuria and otium that resulted for the residents.

100

Graph 71 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis

Graph 72 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis (5.31, 5.04, 5.04, 5.04, 5.04 respectively) and were more isolated from the remainder of the complex (Relative Asymmetry of 0.172, 0.161, 0.161, 0.161, 0.161). The Depth from Exterior results were also among the highest (7, 7, 5, 7, 7). The overall Control Value results (Graph 71) exhibit how most rooms were ‘controlled’ in their accessibility (thus showing a high level of social restriction in this instance), but simultaneously there were a broad range of ‘controlling’ space results that also represent the wider complexity of this residence. The diversity in room function and its highly controlled nature is also shown in the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 72).

The Hillier and Hanson method has exhibited the complex nature of this suburban villa, having numerous rooms that were placed in an intricate series (Fig. 81) (Table 36). The results have shown that Depth from Exterior values provided the best differentiation in public/private space at this complex. Rooms 1, 6, 15, 20 and 31 all had low values in this regard (5, 4, 4, 4, 6 respectively) and the high potential for social interaction was exhibited by the Relative Asymmetry values (0.15, 0.144, 0.187, 0.12, 0.144). It is notable that all of these rooms were placed either on or close to the main axis of the structure, which indicates the public aspect to this region. This is particularly notable when compared to the private regions (Rooms 44, 48, 49, 57, 58), which were located on the eastern side of the complex. These areas had a higher degree of restriction in their Mean depths

This exhibits the public/private division (Plate 96), which is pertinent because half of the gardens would have been

101

south. The known sections of this villa complex can be divided into three distinct parts: the servile quarter, terraces and peristyle.

used for private entertainment, whereas it was only Rooms 1, 6 and 15 that had clear internal public entertainment roles. The entertainment space that was not so open was by no means lacking, covering 302.86m2, which was larger than the entire floor plan of some villas. These results highlight how the plan of this villa suburbana was focused upon otium and entertainment with an open plan. It is evident that this complex was the most opulent of the villae suburbanae in the region, dwarfing all others in both size and luxurious facilities.

The servile region was almost completely functional in its architectural constitution, having few pretensions. It was based around a courtyard with deep porticoes on two sides and part of another side. This region contained the kitchen, latrine, animal housing and a row of uniform rooms along one side (Della Corte 1922, 459-78). It is clear that this region would not have been used by the leading residents, instead being a servile district for the daily operation of the estate. It is significant that, just as with the Villa of Fannius Synistor, there was a clear demarcation between the noble and servile regions.

Villa 28 – The Villa of Agrippa Postumus in Boscotrecase The Villa of Agrippa Postumus at Boscotrecase is another good example of a villa in the Ager Pompeianus. This was an Imperial estate after the death of Agrippa Postumus and was probably constructed by his father. The Imperial connections may be shown further by the presence of two portrait medallions in a cubiculum (Room 15), representing Julia and Livia (Anderson 1987, 127-35). It seems clear that there was a relationship between the Imperial family and Pompeii during the Augustan and Julio-Claudian periods as well. It is possible that this complex was part of the Pagus Augustus Felix Suburbanus (CIL X.924), owing to the first name of the ministri being Dama pup(i) Agrippae. This pagus was originally the Sullan Pagus Felix Suburbanus, but it was renamed because of the reorganisation of the fourteen new regions in Rome under Augustus. In view of this, the pagus would have extended from the town-walls to the north as far as the modern regions of Boscoreale and Boscotrecase. This is important because it is a clear illustration that the region was considered to be a suburb of Pompeii. It is also important to observe that the term suburbanus was also used to directly refer to a suburban region outside another city than the capital.

The second explored region was a series of terraces. These were set apart from the servile region of the villa, only being accessible from the south-eastern corner of the courtyard. The terraces consisted of a series of rooms of uniform depth and almost standardised size (Fig. 82), looking onto a long raised terrace and beyond on the southern side. Some rooms were decorated in Third Style and also had black and white mosaic pavements (Erhardt 1987, 4-5). Two rooms (Rooms 15-16) on the eastern side possessed refined décor, with large doorways. The following room (Room 17) was similar in size but had been converted into a corridor to connect the terrace with the peristyle located behind this row of rooms (Fig. 82). There were two small decorated rooms further along the terrace (Rooms 19-20), which flanked a corridor that led to the north towards another small group of rooms. It seems that these two small rooms, owing to their size and position, were also used for private leisure, perhaps reading and relaxing. The peristyle was square in shape with five columns on each side. Unfortunately, the nature of the rooms surrounding this region is unclear. This portion of the building was still decorated in Second Style. This complex represents features of portico villas with rooms arranged in banks on terraces, intended to take advantage of the view. Despite the Imperial ownership of this complex, its designation as a suburban villa is certain. This is owing to the large amount of space devoted to entertaining and reception, which is indicative of most villae suburbanae. The frequency of occupation should not preclude this definition, with the ownership of several properties being quite common with a divergent amount of time actually living at each residence (Ward-Perkins 1981, 193). The perceived conception of space illustrates a definitive level of social hierarchy within its confines. Lefebvre’s conceived conception also epitomises the duality of its social and agricultural productivity. This also epitomises its lived conception as well.

The plan (Fig. 82) represents a combination of various architectural and design elements from different types of villas. The basic elements are based around a central peristyle with a domestic district and a series of decorated rooms opening onto a long terrace. The wall decorations in this building were completed in Third Style, including some of the earliest examples of this genre (von Blanckenhagen and Alexander 1962, 10-11). Only part of the complex has been excavated and none of the known portions represent the most important regions. The eastern wing has provided evidence that it was the servants’ quarters and the agricultural precinct (von Blanckenhagen and Alexander 1990, 1). The more distinguished part was located to the west of the atrium and other well-appointed rooms further to the north on higher ground. The western precinct was a summer residence with a superb view of the Bay of Naples to the

102

Graph 73 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus

Graph 74 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Agrippa Postumus of the building. It had a Control Value of 3.25 and a Relative Asymmetry of 0.166, which had a clear public role. Without a greater amount of information on the function of the adjoining rooms it is not possible to draw further conclusions on entertainment function by using this method. The overall Control Value results (Graph 73) exhibit the ‘controlling’ dominance of three spaces in particular, showing the consistency in its design. The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 74) illustrate how particular regions of this complex were intended to serve certain functions, which determined whether they were widely accessible or more private.

The complex has features similar to those of portico villas with rooms arranged in banks on terraces, intended to take advantage of the view (Richardson 1988, 24). Despite the Imperial ownership of this complex and its infrequent occupation, its designation as a suburban villa is certain. The frequency of occupation should not preclude this definition. Ownership of several properties was quite common and the owners spent a different amount of time living at each residence. With the extant remains being limited to the utilitarian region of this villa suburbana, the amount of space in social areas is difficult to determine. In order to clarify the minimum area of what has been excavated, only the peristyle (Room B) has been judged as possibly being used for entertainment purposes. The spatial analysis (Fig. 83) (Table 37) has clearly shown that it was a central and controlling feature

The spatial analysis of this villa confirms this classification as a villa suburbana. When the peristyle is included, which would not have served a major entertainment role, its results are comparable to most

103

room to produce evidence of paving, and this was cocciopesto. This room, as well as the apotheca, have also produced evidence of wall plaster. A piscina was constructed between two exterior columns with a puteal, decorated in water proof plaster and measuring 2.5 by 11 by 2.5 metres. Judging from the strength of the walls and the associated expense, it has been hypothesised that the size of the estate would have been substantial.

other villae suburbanae. However, in view of the unconfirmed presence of other entertainment rooms, owing to the structures’ incomplete excavation, it is not possible to determine the non-peristyle percentage of entertainment space. In view of the open-plan design used for the utilitarian region of the complex, it would seem likely that the residential quarters were more opulent and impressive. It would also suggest that the percentage of entertainment space was probably higher throughout these areas as well. The Villa of Agrippa Postumus was not only a villa suburbana but also an impressive Imperial establishment designed for the enjoyment of its owners and guests.

The torcularium, located on the southern side of the complex (Fig. 84), had an open disposition towards the south and was decorated with smooth plaster (Della Corte 1929, 179). The torcularium was placed in this position in order to precede the enclosed space of the residential quarters to the north, including the main inner cubiculum. Within this cubiculum a fine ivory relief was discovered, representing Eros with two winged cupids and a bearded Silenus. It is clear from the extant remains that this villa was predominantly focused upon agriculture, having little pretension in its layout or décor. The perceived conception of space has exhibited limited evidence of social stratification. This also corresponds well with Lefebvre’s conceived and lived conceptions of space for this complex, exhibiting its quite modest structure and primary focus upon agricultural productivity.

Villa 29 – Villa of M. Livius Marcellus at Boscoreale The excavations of this villa have primarily unearthed the agricultural region of this complex (Fig. 84), which were located to the north (Della Corte 1929, 178). The plan was designed with almost perfect regularity, with a large agricultural plant and no indications of an upper level. Yet it is likely that there was a more elegant section to this residence to the south. Within the region that has been excavated, there are only a few walls with evidence of plaster, but this would be appropriate in view of the function of the rooms. The cubiculum has been the only

Graph 75 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus

104

Graph 76 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus Rooms C and D. Beneath the niche in the wall for this shrine was an altar for the dedication of libations, probably to the genius familiaris. The placement of this shrine may be significant for the function of both Rooms C and D, it being placed in a prominent and central position within the domus. Room C was paved in opus signinium, with white plaster covering the upper regions of the walls, whereas the finds included a lead vessel and six amphorae. Room D was linked with the oven (E), and with Rooms F and G. In the north-west corner of this room there was a small plastered grindstone.

It is clear from the extant remains that this villa focused upon agriculture, having little pretension in its layout or décor. The limited remains have provided no evidence of entertainment areas, particularly with the utilitarian character of the courtyard (Fig. 85) (Table 38). This limits the analysis but also reflects the modest nature of the structure, making any classification as a villa suburbana highly unlikely without further excavation. This residence is more indicative of a small farmyard, especially in view of its size. Its simplicity and limited restriction has been clearly illustrated by the Hillier and Hanson method, which has shown that there was little differentiation in the accessibility of the rooms as shown in the Relative Asymmetry values. The general Control Value results (Graph 75) exhibits how in what a regular fashion this structure was constructed, which was also a very simplistic design. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 78) also exhibit the largely utilitarian nature of its intended function. If more of this farmstead was known there would be greater scope for analysis, but it seems unlikely that this would change the view of the structure dramatically.

A room that was used for agricultural purposes (Room L) adjoined the eastern wing of the portico, producing many fragments of amphorae. The finds from this villa are consistent with the meagre level of décor at this site. Most of the finds comprise of terracotta cups, pots and amphorae. When examining this building it seem that there was a clear demarcation of space and function within the complex. The northern wing served a predominantly residential function, whereas the eastern was used for productive purposes. The meagre evidence of wall paintings and paving also suggest that there was either little desire for exhibiting status or that the means of the owners were not sufficient to do so. This complex cannot be classified as a suburban villa. This is also exhibited by considering the various forms of Lefebvre’s conceptions of space.

Villa 30 – Boscoreale This villa is located in the region of Boscoreale (Fig. 86), roughly two and a half kilometres from the walls of Pompeii. The décor was simple, with no evidence of grand paintings, indicating that this was primarily an agricultural establishment (Sogliano 1898a, 419). Another example illustrating this is shown by the presence of a torcularium (Room H). The plan was similar to several other villas in the region, centred on an open courtyard. This uncovered space bordered on the northern and eastern sides, including a portico (Room B) supported by pillars, adorned with white plaster on the eastern side.

When examining this building it seems that there was a clear demarcation of space and function within the complex. The northern wing served a predominantly residential function, whereas the eastern wing was used for productive purposes. The meagre evidence of wall paintings and paving also suggest that there was either little desire for exhibiting status or that the means of the owners were not sufficient to do so. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis of this site is highly problematic, owing to the poor quality of plans that are available: even

Within the northern side of the portico, a small painted lararium was uncovered (No. a), between the entrances to

105

the approximate surface area is unable to be determined. When the amount of entertainment space is calculated including the courtyard/peristyle, it suggests that a large

amount could have been used for this purpose. Clearly these results are misleading and are not indicative of the modest nature of the complex.

Graph 77 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 30 at Boscoreale

Graph 78 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 30 at Boscoreale that until further excavation is undertaken, this complex should not be classified as a suburban villa. This is the most appropriate decision in view of the limited extant evidence and the modest quality of the current remains.

Spatial analysis has added little to the understanding of this structure (Fig. 87) (Table 39), simply showing the limited differentiation in accessibility between the areas within this complex. It highlights that there was little scope for a public/private distinction, which further illustrates the modest nature of this complex. The only room that may have served an entertainment role (Room C) was clearly public, judging from the low Relative Asymmetry value (0.284), which is in keeping with the general theme of this structure. This is also shown by the overall Control Value results (Graph 77) and the Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 78). It would appear

Villa 31 – Boscoreale This villa was located in the Boscoreale region around five hundred metres from Pompeii (Fig. 88). The layout was modest and constructed from opus incertum, the most common building material in the region (Della Corte 1921, 415). The dimensions were roughly 33 by 27 metres, allowing for a capacity storage space for 36-48

106

rooms were placed to the south. However, this was by no means a great division between the two regions. But the placement of each space may be significant for understanding this building and its inhabitants. Other agricultural rooms were located on the southern side (Rooms 7-9). These rooms were floored with concrete and remained unpainted, which is customary for such rooms. There were several agricultural tools discovered, as well as three large dolii, found in Room 7. Owing to the line of walls g and h, there was probably a cella vinaria placed on the south-western side of the courtyard, but this region has not been fully excavated. Outside there has also been a funerary monument (No. D) discovered to the north, decorated with white stucco and containing two busts, accompanied by a marble plate, probably representing two deceased family members.

average sized dolii. There were two entrances (Nos. A and A’). Entrance A was probably the main entrance, with doors constructed from wood on a stone threshold, including pillars on each side, making the entrance more impressive. These pillars were adorned with representations of sphinxes in Noceran tufa and this entrance was also covered with a small roof. The other entrance supported an upper mezzanine, which was full of amphorae and other terracotta vessels. On the right of this entrance were the kitchen (Room 12) and baths. The kitchen was simple in design, with rustic walls, beaten earth flooring and an oven in the north-western corner. The baths were modest, comprised of a frigidarium (Room 10), and caldarium (Room 11). The frigidarium was paved in cocciopesto with walls in rough plaster, whereas the caldarium was decorated with dark green paint and paved with black and white mosaic. A storage room (Room 13) was placed on the other side in which there were several finds, including five large dolii. The position of this room would have provided easy access to both entrances to the villa.

It is clear that there was a clear separation of function within the complex. There seems to have been a distinction drawn along the axis of the central corridor separating Rooms 2 and 3. To the north of this corridor there are the residential facilities, including the main entrance, through which guests and visitors would have entered this domus. This region included the cubicula, triclinium, baths and all of these rooms were at least moderately decorated, except for the kitchen that would have not been viewed by the public.

The central region of the complex had simple flooring of beaten earth leading into the courtyard (Room B) and hallway (Room C). This hall had a simple roof and the entrance from the open courtyard was adorned with two simple Doric columns (Nos. b and b’), covered in white plaster. There was an upper level, which was common at most sites under discussion, with a staircase in the hallway. On the northern side of this hall was a cella ostiaria (Room 1). In the western wall of this room was an armarium, containing fragments of a bronze mirror, scales, and four oil lamps. Room 2 was a torcularium, which opened onto the hall, having cocciopesto pavement and white wall plaster. A pool opened up in the floor for processing grapes, with the pavement being altered for this purpose.

On the southern side were the majority of storage rooms, as well as the torcularium. The majority of these remained unadorned, except for the torcularium, which was placed too closely to the residential quarters to be left in such a basic state. The exception to this separation of space was Room 13, but this large room seems to have been placed in this position out of necessity, owing to its proximity to the entrance for the transportation of goods. This complex was located only five hundred metres from the city, but the character of the villa was focused almost purely upon agriculture with a limited degree of decorative pretension. This seems to suggest that it was not a suburban villa, being more indicative of a simple farmhouse located close to Pompeii. This is important because more than just location must be considered to classify a building as a suburban villa. Judging from the extant evidence, this would not have been seen as a villa suburbana.

Two cubicula were placed on the opposite side of a cental corridor (Rooms 3, 4), both of which had cocciopesto pavement and wall decoration. Room 3 included a relief of Diana and a glass vial in its finds. Both of these rooms had reasonable décor to make them comfortable, but not the level of décor that was produced at larger estates. The triclinium (Room 5) was located to the east, having direct access to the hallway via the central corridor (Fig. 88). The remains of several pieces of furniture and many pieces of broken terracotta vessels were recovered from this room. It seems that this room would have had only limited access to sunlight, there being no evidence of any windows, which suggests that there was no great desire to appreciate the view from this dining room by the owner.

This complex was located only five hundred metres from the city, but the character of the villa was focused almost purely upon agriculture with a limited degree of decorative pretension. This seems to suggest that it was not a suburban villa, being more indicative of a simple farmhouse located close to Pompeii. This is important because more than just location must be considered to classify a building as a suburban villa. Judging from the extant evidence, this would not have been seen as a villa suburbana. This is in keeping with Lefebvre’s perceived, conceived and lived conceptions of space for such a modest complex.

To the south was another room (Room 6), which served an agricultural purpose. This room communicated with the torcularium and had direct access to the outside to the east. Judging from the layout and function of this villa, it seems that there was a clear separation of space, divided by the central corridor. The residential rooms were located on the northern side, whereas the productive

107

Graph 79 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 31 at Boscoreale

Graph 80 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 31 at Boscoreale between ‘controlled’ and ‘controlling’ spaces, as shown by the overall Control Value results (Graph 79). This is also exhibited in the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 80).

Only one room has been classified as a potential entertainment space (Room 5). This room appears to have served as a modest dining room, judging from the finds of furniture remains. The spatial analysis (Fig. 89) (Table 40) has illustrated that it was relatively inaccessible, owing to its high Relative Asymmetry value (0.294) and Mean Depth (3.65). Despite the inaccessible nature of this room it is unlikely to have served a significant private entertainment role beyond servicing the residents of this complex. The analysis of social space appears to confirm the conclusion that it was not a suburban villa when the utilitarian nature of the courtyard is taken into consideration, which makes its social space appear appropriate for this complex. As with the previous structures, it is evident that there was a clear delineation

Villa 32 – Boscoreale This villa at Boscoreale was roughly two kilometres from Pompeii (Map 3), and its design suggests that it was a simple complex resided in by a family of farmers (Della Corte 1921, 436), measuring approximately 23 metres square. The plan (Fig. 90) had two regions separated by a corridor. There was an obvious consideration in the design of the entrances to allow easy access for wagons. There were two entrances (A , A’), which were on the same axis. Entrance A was the main entrance with better

108

throughout the region around Vesuvius that were still undergoing repairs following from either the earthquake in AD 62 or the subsequent smaller earthquakes that ensued over the following years. The kitchen (Room 8) was quite large and well facilitated with a large bread oven (p) and two stoves (q) for cooking.

road access, whereas Entrance A’ opened towards the countryside. There are rooms on the northern perimeter that have not been excavated. Around Entrance A there was a caupona, with large red inscriptions painted on the walls, suggesting that the owner sold wine directly to travelers on the main road to the east. There were also a large number of names, memoirs and bookkeeping notes on the walls. At this entrance there was no door present, whereas the other entrance (A’) had a strong door, which was closed at the time of the eruption. This doorway led directly to an open courtyard (Room C) and the central region of the complex.

Room 11 served an agricultural function with several animal skeletons uncovered, including sheep, pigs and chicken. Room 12 bordered onto the kitchen and produced a group of seven bronze idols. The central figure was Jupiter sitting on a throne, with two images of Isis-Fortuna on the extreme left, two Genius Familiaris on the extreme right, as well as Helios on the left of Jupiter and a faun on his right (Della Corte 1921, 440-1). It is obvious from the discovery of these statues that they held some ritual significance, but the remaining evidence from Room 12 does not clearly indicate the precise function of this room. The stabulum (Room 13) was placed on the southern side, having a drinking trough in the north-east corner and barn facilities.

In the south-western corner of the courtyard was a large viridarium (D), which held a large number of terracotta vessels at the time of the eruption. It is clear from its agricultural nature, that the viridarium was used for practical purposes than for absolute otium and relaxation. There was a torcularium (Room 2) on the western side (Fig. 90), confirming the agricultural nature of this property. There was a small niche near the entrance of this room (n), which probably served as a lararium. Room 3 served as a storeroom, with large numbers of fragments of dolii uncovered. Room 4 operated as a hallway for the adjoining rooms, including two cubicula (Rooms 5, 6). Neither of these rooms had any wall decoration of note, which is in keeping with the general disposition of the entire complex.

It is clear that this was also focused primarily upon agriculture, judging from the décor, layout and limited number of finds indicating any desire for otium. Therefore it appears that this complex should be considered as an agricultural villa. It has been postulated that this complex was a country inn, but it seems just as likely that the owners were involved in selling the estate’s produce at the roadside. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study, the paucity of finds indicating social aspirations suggests that this complex could not be classified as a suburban villa. This is also indicated by Lefebvre’s various conceptions of space, suggesting a simplistic and largely utilitarian structure.

There was a horreum (Room 7), which bordered onto this hallway and this room has evidence that the building was undergoing renovation at the time of the eruption. As mentioned previously, there were quite a few villas

Graph 81 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 32 at Boscoreale

109

Graph 82 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 32 at Boscoreale rich epistilo and bands of ivy leaves between the columns, similar to the House of the Labyrinth in Pompeii.

This complex was the only example within this group that possessed an open area that could have served an entertainment function and is not considered to have been a villa suburbana (Fig. 91) (Table 41). This open area consisted of a courtyard (Room C) and viridarium (Room D), which were both unrestricted in their access from other rooms (Mean Depths of 2.24, 3.18 respectively) and located close to the entrances (Depth from Exterior of 2 for both). Owing to the low Relative Asymmetry value of Room C (0.165) it would seem that this area was more inclined towards high interaction, but it illustrates that both were public regions. The general Control Value results (Graph 81) illustrate the dominance of five ‘controlling’ spaces in particular, with the remainder being clearly controlled. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 82) also exhibit the simplicity of this complex, having an even distribution between accessible and inaccessible sectors of the residence. The overall appearance of this structure cannot justify its classification as a suburban villa, but the presence of this potential entertainment area may give more weight to its use as a country-inn. However, owing to the limited amount of information on this site, any classification in this regard is also too speculative.

There was a set of baths (Room 1), which had modest dimensions, including a caldarium with a tub dressed in white marble, but no frigidarium. The wall paintings in the baths included depictions of two dolphins as well as a representation of a palestra in another room. Within the tub there was also a small herm, which was a representation of Hercules, as well as two statues of gladiators and a naked athlete pouring oil. The technique used for these herms was modest, with the athlete having a rough complexion. There have only been a few finds uncovered within the complex, and none display any great degree of affluence. Most finds were agricultural equipment, kitchen utensils and terracotta vessels. A bronze candelabra placed upon three lions legs was discovered, as well as five terracotta oil lamps. The paucity of luxurious finds suggests that the principal inhabitants were either of modest means or preferred to limit their display of wealth. It is clear that the dominus was not poverty stricken, but it is also clear that there was either not enough funds or a limited desire to display the latest decorative fashions within this complex. As with Villa 31, this complex is located very close to Pompeii but the dearth of fine décor and luxurious facilities illustrates that this residence was a simple farmhouse and should not be considered as a villa suburbana. Lefebvre’s perceived conception presents a structure with limited social stratification within its confines, suggesting almost no provisions for social interaction in accordance with Laurence’s theories. The conceived and lived conceptions of space exhibit a complex that was largely utilitarian rather than highly social.

Villa 33 – Pompeii This villa (Map 3) was discovered roughly 250 metres from the walls of Pompeii. Although this building lacked the most extravagant facilities found on some estates, it is clear that there were still amenities to create a comfortable residence (Paribeni 1903, 64-5). The plan consisted of numerous rooms, decorated in either First or Second Style décor (Fig. 92). However, most of the rooms had plain wall decoration, without painted plaster. Room 2 was a cubiculum, decorated in First Style with red and yellow paintings. Room 3 served as an internal triclinium with Second Style décor, large columns and

110

Graph 83 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Pompeii

Graph 84 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Pompeii spaces. This corresponds well with the Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 84), suggesting a structure that possessed a combination of public and private spaces that were intended for quite distinct roles. A classification as a villa suburbana is not appropriate, making its role as a basic farmstead more likely.

The paucity of luxurious finds suggests that the principal inhabitants were either of modest means or preferred to limit their display of wealth. It is clear that the dominus was not poverty stricken, but it is also clear that there were either not enough funds or a limited desire to display the latest decorative fashions within this complex. This complex is located very close to Pompeii but the dearth of fine décor and luxurious facilities illustrates that it was a simple farmhouse and should not be considered a villa suburbana. The analysis exhibits a low result, which is similar to some other complexes in the region (Fig. 93) (Table 42). This complex was among the smallest sites considered, which also gives a good indication of its modest character, especially in view of its close connection with Pompeii. The overall Control Value results (Graph 83) exhibits a residence that possessed an even balance between ‘controlling’ and ‘controlled’

Villa 34 – Villa of L. Arellius Successus at Boscotrecase This villa in Boscotrecase was of relatively modest means, with the majority of the rooms, intended for agricultural purposes (Fig. 94) (Sogliano 1899c, 297). This is shown by the presence of a pistrinum (Room B), including an oven in the centre of the building. There was a torcularium (Room O), accentuating the productive nature of this residence. A grindstone and iron shovel was also uncovered from the pistrinum. The ownership of this

111

complex has been attributed to L. Arellius Successes by the discovery of a seal within the building (Della Corte 1965, 450). The perceived conception of this modest structure illustrates the limited amount of social stratification within its confines. Lefebvre’s conceived conception of space shows how each room had a primary

function, with the majority being focused upon agriculture. The prominent focus upon rustic elements in such a simple complex also represents its lived conception and its limited provisions for social interaction, as defined by Laurence.

Graph 85 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Arellius Successus

Graph 86 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Arellius Successus Both the pistrinum and the torcularium were paved in brick without any pretensions in their presentation. There was only one room (Room N) that had any notable decorative embellishment, adorned with first style décor (Sogliano 1899c, 298). This room probably served as a dining room and appears to have been the only potential entertainment space within the complex. Its access was controlled (Control Value of 0.25) and the high Mean Depth (3.62) and Relative Asymmetry (0.476) indicate that it was quite inaccessible and probably a private

space. Little else is known about this complex, which limits the number of conclusions that can be drawn about its character and facilities. Nevertheless, it seems clear that this residence should not be classified as a suburban villa. With the incomplete nature of its plan even the total surface area of the complex is difficult to determine. The statistical analysis of this site has therefore proven to be inconclusive as well (Fig. 95) (Table 43), limiting any

112

better than the majority of the complex, but not as sumptuous as several of the well-appointed villas discussed previously. The paintings of this triclinium have been well preserved, representing plants and animals in Third Style in a frame of multi-coloured lotus flowers. This room was in good condition at the time of the eruption, but there is evidence of reconstruction. There have been no furnishings discovered within this room, but owing to the level of décor and its separation from the productive region and its dominant alignment opposite the entrance to the portico, its function as a triclinium appears likely.

opportunity for discussion. In general terms, the Control Value results (Graph 85) exhibits the dominance of four spaces as ‘controlling’ rooms, which would have regulated the accessibility of the remaining sections. This correlates with the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 86), which shows a relatively even spread of results, but with the majority of spaces being in inaccessible regions. This suggests that there was little emphasis upon large scale reception at this complex. So owing to its modest character, it is highly unlikely to have been considered a villa suburbana. Villa 35 – The Villa Regina at Boscoreale This site has had extensive excavation work in recent years, allowing for some of the most detailed results of a villa within the region. The complex occupies an area of roughly four hundred and fifty square metres, including precincts for agriculture (Varone 2000, 215), which was one of the most important quarters within the structure (De Caro 1994, 27). The productive quarters included a torcularium (Room IX), a threshing floor (Room XVII) and a cella vinaria (Room XVI) (Fig. 96). It has been suggested that this villa may have been an estate owned by a military veteran (De Caro 1996, 11), but this is impossible to prove conclusively.

At least three cubicula have been identified, Rooms V, X and XVI (Fig. 96). Room V was located to the south of the portico, which maintained its privacy by the inclusion of a wooden entrance door. The room was decorated with several pictorial representations, but it was the only room with such images in this region. The wall-paintings were in Third Style on a black background divided by white lines. The flooring was cocciopesto, which is a recurring feature within this villa. In the upper level above this room there seems to have been another storeroom, with the discovery of eight vessels and three terracotta lamps above the collapsed upper floor.

The main entrance was on the southern side of the complex, on the same axis as the length of the portico. The doorway was roughly 2.28 metres wide, being necessary for the transportation of agricultural goods. The ground of this entrance was simply beaten earth, with evidence of furrows left by the wagon wheels. There was an upper floor over this room, exhibited by the holes for the support joists. Following from the entrance there was a small hallway roughly 4.35 metres long, with had cocciopesto flooring (Room XIV). Another room bordering onto this hallway (Room XII), had plain white plaster, but there was little decoration of distinction. Owing to the finds recovered, such as a table, shelves and several culinary items this room would have served as a storeroom. As with many complexes in the Pompeian region, the focus was upon a central courtyard (Fig. 96), allowing accessibility throughout the building (Fegola 1996, 129). This area was supported by a series of nine columns and a semi-column, which were without a stilobate of masonry, but a base of tiles dressed in cocciopesto. The columns were covered in smooth plaster and painted in red and white. The floor of the portico was beaten earth, with evidence of furrows made by wagon wheels. However, the region of the courtyard between the cella vinaria and the portico was paved with cocciopesto at a slight incline, running towards a low canal on the south-east.

Room X was accessed via the entrance hall (Room XIV), and has evidence of some minor restoration. The flooring was cocciopesto and the décor was performed in simple plaster. This room (Room X) is different in its position and demeanor to Room V, suggesting that it was a cubiculum for a servile member of the household, perhaps the vilicus. Room XVI also served as a cubiculum, located on the southern wing of the portico. This room appears to have undergone some reconstruction, which was not completed by the time of the eruption. The walls of this room were devoid of plaster and the flooring was cocciopesto. The difference between the well decorated cubiculum (Room V) and the other two cubicula (Rooms X, XVI) illustrates that Room V was intended for leading members of the household, hence the importance to maintain its décor prior to the restoration of the other rooms. When the rooms that had their decorative characteristics (Rooms V, IV) are considered in comparison to the remaining rooms of this complex, it is clear that these rooms needed to be well decorated for the principal inhabitants, whereas the other more function rooms did not necessarily require the outlay for their decorative schemes. The kitchen (Room II) opened onto the portico, but it was also illuminated by a rectangular window in the northern wall. This room was not plastered, with a large amount of traces of smoke damage on the northern and western walls. The flooring was beaten earth, with a simple hearth in the middle of the room, which were quite prevalent in many unpretentious residences in the Pompeian region. The finds within this room include an iron tripod, a bread oven and a couple of amphorae, confirming the function

The residential region was located upon the northern side of the central portico, including a well decorated triclinium (Room IV) (Fegola 1996, 131). The dimensions were roughly 5.90 by 4.40 metres, but the flooring was still cocciopesto, which was frequently used throughout the residence. The décor of this room was

113

were two entrances to this area, one from inside the villa onto the northern portico and the other was from outside the building, near the threshing floor (Room XVII). The outside entrance was larger, which is understandable in view of its function. The flooring was cocciopesto, which is interesting in view of there being no division in the use of this material between the different regions of the complex. There was an upper floor, which had similar décor to the triclinium (Room IV). This area seems to have been used for residential purposes, but owing to the limited remains this is still conjecture. The threshing floor (Room XVII) was roughly seven by six and a half metres, positioned outside the villa proper without any roof. It was essentially a quadrangular platform, paved in cocciopesto and raised roughly two hundred millimetres above the natural level of the surroundings. There have been traces of carbonised vegetables discovered in this area, as well as an amphorae and a heap of mixed ceramic fragments, in keeping with its general function.

of this room. This room was located close to the torcularium, separated by a narrow passage. The torcularium (Room IX) was just under fifty-five metres square, consisting of two fundamental areas: the calcatorium or basin for premitura, and the main operation area. The later was rectangular and was entered from the central portico, floored in cocciopesto and crowded with wooden tables. The walls were covered in a simple white plaster, which is common in many villas in the region. However, there were some wall-paintings near the line of dolii, representing relevant religious images, such as Dionysos. The anchoring apparatus of the winepresses were also located in this room. The premitura basin was position in the other section of the torcularium, which had two windows that allowed for the fast emptying of baskets of grapes in to the basin, similar to the layout of the torcularium at the Villa of the Mysteries.

The discovery of a millstone and bread oven within the kitchen indicates that food for the inhabitants was produced locally, even if not all of the wheat was produced on the owner’s land. The perceived conception of space for this structure illustrates its low level of social stratification. This was a very simple complex that had clearly intended functions for the majority of spaces. The conceived conception further recognises this, showing a close interaction between agricultural production and its quite modest living areas. Lefebvre’s lived conception exhibits how intimately connected was its productive role and its design – most space was devoted to agriculture. This conforms with Laurence’s views of socialisation, demonstrating its limited reception role.

There was also a cella vinaria (Room I) (Fergola 1996, 132), located on the western side of the villa near the courtyard. This room had simple white plaster and the flooring was beaten earth. Within this room there were eighteen dolii, buried in the ground up to the neck, but not with the spacing recommended by the ancient literary sources. Instead they were arranged in three lines of six dolii, running north to south, occupying the western side of the room (De Caro 1994, 66-7). The size of the dolii varied, from a minimum of 216 litres, but the average size was roughly 500 litres. A Barn (Room VIII) has also been identified, which also would have been a principal area of production. There

Graph 87 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Regina at Boscoreale

114

Graph 88 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Regina at Boscoreale between the northern and southern regions. The northern section was used for residential purposes, whereas the rustic quarter was to the south. However, there was not a great deal of luxury in the residential quarters, with many servile rooms still located in this northern region. The southern side was predominantly agricultural in comparison, such as Room B that served as a wine cellar, with a great number of storage vessels for wine.

After analysing the basic elements of the Villa Regina at Boscoreale, it is clear that there was a demarcation of space, the principal residential area being on the southern side of the portico, the productive and servile regions to the west and the rooms of representation such as the triclinium (Room IV) to the north (De Caro 1994, 77). This was the only room with a potential entertainment role, which was located within a public region. This is shown by its low Mean Depth value (2.75), illustrating its unrestricted position within the complex and its average Depth from Exterior (3). However, the dearth of luxurious pretension at this complex illustrates that the focus was primarily upon production and that this is more indicative of a farmhouse than a suburban villa.

The residential rooms were located around a central atrium (Room C), but these rooms were serviceable, including the kitchen (Room f), praefurnium and a pistrinum (Room g). There was a bath complex within this region, including an apodyterium (Room 5) and caldarium (Room 6). The triclinium (Room 4) included a small lararium, a semicircular niche in the middle of the eastern wall. There were two bronze figurines found with this shrine, representing a lion and a horse. The position of this room would have allowed a view of the open portico but it would have still been quite dark. This design is consistent with the plan of this complex, intended for utility rather than otium. Four rooms (Rooms 1-3, 9) served as cubicula (Fig. 98), with Rooms 1 and 2 probably being more important because of their larger size.

The overall results from the site confirm this classification, illustrating that only a small area was social space (Fig. 97) (Table 44). The utilitarian role of the courtyard makes its inclusion within this type of space inappropriate and provides an unrealistic perception of the structure’s intended function. The general Control Value results (Graph 87) exhibit an intentionally constructed complex that maintained its levels of accessibility. This is indicative of its largely agricultural focus. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 88) also represents this, having an even balance of accessibility and inaccessibility. All the same, this illustrates how the structure was designed with a clear resolve to provide areas with either a distinct public or private role within the villa.

The courtyard (No. A) was surrounded by a portico to the north and east, but originally this also continued around the southern side, attested by the walled columns in the sides of the northern pluteus of Room 11. The columns were adorned in white plaster, with Doric capitals including engraved palmettes, and red and blue paint. Most wall paintings discovered throughout this residence were Fourth Style, but the workmanship was performed in a simplistic fashion, which is in accordance with the general demeanour of the complex. The perceived conception of space for this structure shows its low level of social stratification. This was a very simple villa that had clearly intended roles for most spaces. The conceived

Villa 36 – Scafati This villa was located in the Scafati region outside of Pompeii, roughly fifteen hundred metres from the city (Map 3) (Della Corte 1923a, 281). From the remains of this villa (Fig. 98), it is clear that it was predominantly devoted to agricultural production. As with many other villas, the centre of the complex was focused upon an open courtyard, but there was a separation of function

115

conception further exemplifies this, showing an intimate interaction between agricultural production and its simple living areas. Lefebvre’s lived conception shows how closely connected was its productive role and its design –

most space was utilitarian. This conforms to Laurence’s views of socialisation, demonstrating its limited social function.

Graph 89 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa at Scafati

Graph 90 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa at Scafati The focus upon agriculture at this complex is also illustrated by the statistical analysis; if the central courtyard is not included (Fig. 99) (Table 45) almost no space is devoted to entertainment. In fact the only room used for anything even remotely like entertainment was the small dining room (Room 4), which would not have been large enough to entertain guests (5.55m2). Within this group of villas this is the smallest example of an identified room of this type. This room was also highly accessible, with a low Relative Asymmetry (0.153) and Mean Depth (3), illustrating its public role. The general Control Value results (Graph 89) show an intentionally

constructed villa that maintained its levels of accessibility. This is indicative of its largely utilitarian role. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 90) also show this, having an even spread of accessibility and inaccessibility. All the same, this exhibits how the structure was planned with a definitive intention to provide regions with either a clear public or private role within the complex. It is evident from both the archaeological material and the statistical analysis that this residence could not have been classed as a villa suburbana.

116

as a kitchen, owing to the discovery of a bench (No. b) for food preparation in the corner. There was also a semicircular niche for a household shrine in the northern wall (No. d). Owing to its position in this kitchen area, this was probably used by the servile members of the household. A lead boiler (No. g) suspended upon three iron rods was discovered in the middle of this room (Della Corte 1921, 429). Two iron hoes were also uncovered, emphasising the utilitarian function of this atrium.

Villa 37 – Villa of Asellius at Boscoreale This villa was intended for otium, positioned with a spectacular view of the Bay of Naples and facilities to create a comfortable residence for its inhabitants (Della Corte 1921, 426). As with many other villas, being roughly 1200 metres from Pompeii (Map 3), the general plan was centred upon an open courtyard, with a covered portico and rooms flanking three sides (Fig. 100). The complex had dimensions of approximately 36 by 33 metres, including space for housing 10-12 slaves. The structure was almost square with a plan allowing for the greatest amount of light and ventilation. There was a central viridarium within the courtyard, accentuating its otium and pleasant demeanour. The main entrance (A’) was located on the same axis as the rear door (A), with security being entrusted to servants housed in Rooms 17 and 21. Its ownership has been provided by the discovery of a bronze seal in the cella ostiaria (Room 17), naming both the owner Asellius and its procurator, Thallus (Della Corte 1965, 449). It would seem that this complex was only resided in occasionally by the dominus.

There were also bath facilities (Rooms 5-7), but only the frigidarium (Room 5) was accessible at the time of the eruption, with the entrances to the tepidarium (Room 6) and caldarium (Room 7) being blocked. The exedra Veneris Pompeianae (Room 8) was well decorated, with the image of Veneris Pompeianae represented in the central panel of the northern wall. The finds within this room included busts of Jupiter with an eagle and Diana. Room 9 was adorned with fine Second Style décor and served as an entrance room for both the ground floor rooms to the north (Rooms 10-12) and the upper storey. To the right of this entrance there appears to have been a semi-closed window, which looked onto the northern ambulatory.

There were two rooms (Rooms 8, 24) that were used for sacred purposes (Della Corte 1921, 446). It is significant that both were located in the centre of the northern and western porticoes (Fig. 100), accentuating their importance. Room 8 has been identified as an exedra Veneris Pompeianae, whereas Room 24 was a household lararium. The focal position of the shrine to Venus, as well as its greater size seems to suggest that this shrine was intended to be noticeable to visitors, whereas the lararium was smaller and intended for private use.

On the ground level behind this entrance room were two cubicula (Rooms 11, 12) and an apotheca (Room 10) (Fig. 100). Both cubicula had yellow décor in Fourth Style, with images of swans depicted in Room 11 and Bacchus and Fortuna in Room 12. To the east of these bedrooms, there was a large saloon (Room 13), which had entrances into Room 9 and onto the northern ambulatory. The wall decorations within Room 13 were in Second Style. This room was an oecus corinthiacus, in view of its size and position. There was a large window facing the north, which viewed the counrtyside and created a pleasant environment for its patrons. It is of interest that this room did not overlook the peristyle, instead overlooking the landscape beyond the building. It is also important to note that this room was floored with cocciopesto, which must have lessened the overall effect of the rooms’ décor.

The water supply was supplied via three puteali (Nos. c, n, p), as well as the addition of two bronze faucets (Nos. e, o), allowing access to the municipal water supply. As with the Villa of Diomede, this connection illustrates that there was some association between the owners and the urban centre, suggesting that this villa was seen as a suburban villa. The flooring varied in the different regions of the complex. There were several rooms that had black and white mosaic (Rooms 16, 18-20), other rooms and the ambulatories of the portico had cocciopesto flooring (Rooms 5, 8, 9-15, 21-3, 25-8), whereas some were simply beaten earth, including the lararium and the atrium (Rooms B, 1-4, 24). It is of interest to note the basic flooring within rooms such as the atrium (Room B) and the lararium (Room 24). There was greater effort taken in Rooms 18-20, which served as viewing spaces, owing to the placement of windows on both sides of each room. Many rooms were plastered simply (Rooms 1, 7, 12, 14, 17, 21-3, 25, 27, 28), which is indicative of their function. There was an upper floor, at least over Rooms 10-12, accessed by a staircase (No. k) in Room 9.

The triclinium (Room 18) was decorated in Fourth Style, but also floored with black and white mosaic, which made it more impressive than the oecus to the north. The adjoining room (Room 19) has remnants of Fourth Style décor on the northern and eastern walls, but the other walls are unadorned. This room may have served as an exedra, judging from the topics depicted upon the walls and its position in relation to the peristyle. Both rooms looked onto the peristyle through their entrances and also had an outlook towards the panorama beyond via a window on the same axis. There was another large saloon (Room 20), which would have commanded both an internal and external view.

The atrium (Room B) was used by the servile members of the household, explaining its unpretentious décor. This is supported by three storerooms (Rooms 1-3) and latrine (Room 4) on the western side. This atrium was also used

On the other side of the peristyle there were other rooms that were used for residential purposes. There were two

117

cubicula (Rooms 25, 26), located behind the lararium. Room 25 was without painting, which may indicate that it was being renovated at the time of the eruption. Room 26 possessed Fourth Style wall paintings on a yellow background, similar to many of the other rooms. Room 22 was well decorated but its function is difficult to determine. Owing to its position, size and décor, as well as the discovery of a small lararium, it is clear that it did not have a servile use and was used by the residents as a

quiet room for relaxation. Rooms 27 and 28 appear to have been used as storerooms. In conclusion, owing to the level of décor at this complex and its facilities is seems appropriate to classify it as a suburban villa. This is also exhibited in the perceived, conceived and lived conceptions of Lefebvre, illustrating how this wellappointed residence was intended to not only function but represent the social aspirations of its owner.

Graph 91 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Asellius

Graph 92 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Asellius 46). The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated the division between accessible and inaccessible regions in this suburban villa. Both the peristyle (P1-P4) and Room 8 had clear public roles with lower Relative Asymmetry (0.070, 0.112, 0.098, 0.143, 0.126 respectively) and Mean Depth values (2.17, 2.86, 2.63, 3.09) than the private potential entertainment rooms. The general Control Value

Owing to the level of décor at this complex and its facilities it seems appropriate to classify it as a suburban villa, and the statistical results further substantiate this assessment. Judging from the character of the peristyle within the structure it is appropriate to include it in the entertainment data. This gives analogous results to most other villae suburbanae around Pompeii (Fig. 101) (Table

118

results (Graph 91) illustrates the dominance of nine ‘controlling’ spaces over a much larger number of ‘controlled’ rooms. This corresponds with the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 92), exhibiting a structure that was intentionally designed with an even balance between accessible and inaccessible regions.

which was the common entrance to the surrounding rooms. This area included a small semicircular lararium (No. b) in a niche in the western wall. To the north of this room was the latrine (Room d). Several of the rooms on the eastern side (Rooms 1, 2, 4) were storage rooms, whereas Room 3 seems to have been a triclinium.

The private rooms (Rooms 13, 18, 19, 20), particularly Rooms 18-20 with their higher Depth from Exterior (4), had higher Relative Asymmetry (0.147, 0.171 respectively) and Mean Depths (3.43, 3.83), illustrating the greater inaccessibility (privacy) attainable in this region. The presence of both public and private entertainment regions also highlights that the role this residence performed was similar to other suburban villas in the Pompeian region. Even if the peristyle was excluded from the group of entertainment areas, the complex still produced a large amount of social space, which is among the highest in the group of villas considered in this region. When this is taken into consideration with the level of décor and facilities at this complex, the classification of this structure as a villa suburbana is appropriate.

The western side of the courtyard included another large storage room (Room 10), in which were fragments of wine amphorae. There was a staircase leading to an upper level in the southern side of the building (Room 5). Room 6 was the only decorated room within the complex, suggesting that it was a principal residential room. This is also supported by its central location in the complex (Fig. 102). A trapetum (Room 7), for crushing olives was also within this complex, furthering the agricultural nature of this villa. The precise purpose of Room 9 is unknown, but owing to its position and size it would have served a residential function. There was a barn (Room 12) on the north-western edge, accessed from the courtyard by a narrow corridor (Room f). This room produced finds of large piles of straw, also found in Room 13, which served as a large shed.

Villa 38 – Boscoreale This villa was located around a kilometre from the walls of Pompeii (Map 3). The demeanour of this complex is of a rustic and unadorned villa, with the complete absence of luxury (Della Corte 1921, 423). The plan was rectangular (Fig. 102), with several rooms of various functions that were generally quite modest. The flooring was uniformly of beaten earth and the walls are almost completely devoid of wall decoration. The purpose of the villa was almost completely devoted towards grape and olive production, reflected in the limited décor and facilities devoted to otium.

The dearth of décor or efforts towards creating a pleasant living environment suggests that this was not a suburban villa. The only room with a potential entertainment role was Room 4, owing to its position and the presence of a household shrine in the eastern wall. This room was easily accessible from Room B and had an average Mean Depth (2.9) and Relative Asymmetry value (0.211) (Fig. 103) (Table 47). This not only suggests that it was located in a public region, but that there was little differentiation in accessibility throughout this small complex. The perceived conception of space for this villa illustrates the limited amount of social stratification within its structure, suggesting that it was not intended for a large amount of social interaction. The conceived conception shows how each room was placed in order to undertake its primary function: agriculture. This is also reflected in Lefebvre’s lived conception of space.

The principal entrance (No. A) was simple but also very wide for the transportation of produce to and from the villa. There was the discovery of three large dolii on the western side and also numerous fragments of large amphorae uncovered within a courtyard (Room B),

119

Graph 93 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 38 at Boscoreale

Graph 94 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 38 at Boscoreale This is supported by the spatial results – even including the purely utilitarian courtyard within the data only produces a small amount of entertainment space. When this area is removed from the analysis, it produces a small socialisation result, well below that of most suburban villas. It is clear that this complex could not have been classified as a villa suburbana. The overall Control Value results (Graph 93) presents a structure that was clearly dominated by six ‘controlling’ spaces. These rooms provided an even spread between accessible and inaccessible regions, as shown by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 94). This demonstrates an intentional design whereby the public and private sectors facilitated specific functions for the primarily agricultural purpose of this villa.

Villa 39 – Boscoreale This villa was discovered just under a kilometre from Pompeii (Map 3). The complex was planned with two distinct regions (Fig. 104), covering roughly 16.5 by 27.5 metres. Rooms A-D were used as the residence of the owner, whereas Rooms E-V were used predominantly for agriculture (Sogliano 1897b, 392). This exhibits the predominance of agricultural production rather than the display of otium or status. There were two entrances (No. a, b), located on the southern and northern sides of the complex. Owing to the size and their position it appears that the northern door was used for the transportation of goods. This is supported by the close position of the barn (Room S), threshing room (Room T) and storage room for hay (Room V). However, it is possible that the principal

120

discovered in the north-western corner. There was a torcularium (Room H) within this complex, exhibiting that the main source of revenue for the villa was probably wine production. This suggestion is furthered by the inclusion of a wall painting to the right of the entrance of this room, depicting Bacchus and Silenus. There was a corridor (Room L) from the kitchen (Room K) to the latrine (Room M), an apotheca (Room P) and two other rooms (Rooms N, O). Room Q may have been used as another cubiculum, especially in view of its entrance opening onto the peristyle. There was also a threshing floor, illustrating some diversification of production. Another room also seems to have been used as a granary. A graffito recorded the amount of barley and beans stored at the complex at a particular time.

entrance may have been via the south-eastern portico (Room D), which led into the residential quarters. The residential districts of this domus were located in Rooms A-D. Room A was entered from Portico D, placed at a lower position to this room. Portico D has only been partially excavated, but it is clear that it was supported by rectangular columns of tufa near the entrances to both Rooms A and C. Room A had a small painted niche in the eastern wall, possibly being a lararium, but the extant evidence is limited. This room was decorated with a series of wall paintings, of which a couple of the images depicted were a gold candelabrum and a swan. The function of this room is unclear, but owing to its position and décor it is clear that it would have had general residential purposes.

One of the most notable finds was a small lararium, built outside the kitchen (Room K) (Sogliano 1895b, 214-15). This altar included a small bronze oil lamp placed within the niche. It appears that it was dedicated to the Genius Familiares, but a small memorial tablet that was also discovered, could classify it among the inscriptiones ministrorum Mercury, Maiae, postea Augusti in Pompeii (Sogliano 1895b, 215). It could be hypothesised that this villa was a permanent residence for its owners, which agrees with the level of facilities at this agricultural establishment. The perceived conception of space for this structure illustrates its low level of social stratification. This was a very simple complex that had clearly intended functions for the majority of spaces. The conceived conception further recognises this, showing a close interaction between agricultural production and its quite modest living areas. Lefebvre’s lived conception exhibits how intimately connected was its productive role and its design – most space was devoted to agriculture. This conforms with Laurence’s views of socialisation, demonstrating its limited reception role.

Room B was slightly raised from Room A and of a greater size (Fig. 104), its entrance communicating with the central peristyle. It seems likely that it served as a triclinium. It was well decorated with a panel of red between two sections of yellow, combining with two fine landscapes depicting a maritime scenes and a river panorama, creating a pleasant dining environment. The view to the west of the open peristyle and a window to the east, complementing these landscape paintings. Room C was a cubiculum, which had good lighting and ventilation, as well as access to the triclinium. There was a window between this room and the torcularium (Room H). This created a pleasant environment, complemented by the well appointed décor. As with many villas, the central feature of the complex was an open peristyle, which connected the residential and rustic quarters. This portico extended around the southern and eastern sides of the courtyard, with the eastern section being constructed from opus reticulatum, whereas the southern portico was constructed from a combination of brick, tile, tufa and sarno stone. The eastern portico was decorated in a similar style to the residential quarters, suggesting a clear demarcation of use and function between the eastern and western sections.

There has only been one room identified with a potential entertainment role (Room B), which seems to have been a dining room, owing to its comparatively well-performed décor and its position. This room was a public space, owing to its low Relative Asymmetry (0.227) and Mean Depth (3.27), illustrating its easy accessibility.

The agricultural quarters were located in Rooms E-V, dominating the remainder of the complex. Room G was used as a wine cellar, with four large amphorae

121

Graph 95 - Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in Villa 39 at Boscoreale

Graph 96 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in Villa 39 at Boscoreale structure was designed with a clear resolve to provide areas with either a distinct public or private role within the villa.

Carrington (1931, 121) hypothesised that this villa was a permanent residence for its owners, which agrees with the level of facilities at the establishment. The modest décor suggests that this residence was not a villa suburbana, instead being a small farmstead with permanent residents. This accords well with the spatial analysis (Fig. 105) (Table 48), which illustrates that the provision of areas for entertainment were clearly a low priority, especially in view of the utilitarian nature of the courtyard. It is evident that this establishment cannot be classified as a villa suburbana. The general Control Value results (Graph 95) exhibit an intentionally constructed complex that maintained its levels of accessibility. This is indicative of its largely agricultural focus. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 96) also represents this, having an even balance of accessibility and inaccessibility. All the same, this illustrates how the

Villa 40 – Villa of Domitius Auctus at Scafati This villa (Fig. 106) was located roughly two kilometres from the walls of Pompeii and has been identified as an agricultural villa (Sogliano 1899d, 392). Ownership of this villa by Domitius Auctus has been shown by the discovery of a seal at this complex. The plan was centred around a peristyle (Room A), with a series of open rooms to the west. The portico (Room B) has produced evidence of an agricultural nature, including animal skeletons, bronze bridals and an iron hoe. Room C was a wine cellar with six dolii discovered in situ. Rooms D and H were the only rooms decorated, with the remainder being rustic in

122

their décor with cocciopesto flooring (Sogliano 1899d, 393).

finds in Room H included an iron grid, basin and small grindstone. Room G was decorated in a simplistic fashion and produced various pieces of domestic evidence, such as a basin, a small pot, three coins and three amphorae. The perceived conception of space for this villa illustrates the limited amount of social stratification within its structure, suggesting that it was not intended for a large amount of social interaction. The conceived conception shows how each room was placed in order to undertake its primary function: agriculture. This is also reflected in Lefebvre’s lived conception of space.

Room D was entered by a doorway to the north from portico B and adorned with yellow paintwork on white pillars, depicting candelabras with foliage. This room contained several silver figurines, depicting figures including Isis as Fortuna, Venus and a serpent. Room H was painted with yellow décor and also has produced evidence of paving. Rooms G and H were accessed by a fauce (Room F) and probably served as cubicula. The

Graph 97 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Domitius Auctus

Graph 98 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Domitius Auctus It seems likely that Room D served as a dining room. It was the only area that could have been used appropriately for entertainment. The designation of function for this room arises from its decorative theme and elevated nature

in comparison to the quite modest character of the other areas within the complex. This room was located in a comparatively inaccessible region, but it was not completely isolated (Fig. 107). Both the Mean Depth

123

Room 3 appears to have been a displuviate atrium and food preparation seems to have occurred in the centre of this room on a platform (No. c), upon which was considerable amounts of coal and ash. There was also a large volcanic mortarium discovered in this room (No. d) and a staircase in the southern corner that led to an upper level (No. e). The large kitchen area was of some importance within the living quarters of this establishment, which is evident at several other villas in the region (Rossiter 1978, 22). The bath facilities were located behind this room, including an apodyterium (Room 6), caldarium (Room 7) and a praefurnium (Room 8, m).

(2.93) and Relative Asymmetry (0.296) were roughly average, but this is more indicative of the reduced public/private distinction in this residence. It would probably have been quite public in its use. Judging by the size and overall demeanour of the structure it would seem unlikely that this was a suburban villa, instead probably being a small farmhouse. The overall Control Value results (Graph 97) presents a structure that was clearly dominated by five ‘controlling’ spaces. These rooms provided an even spread between accessible and inaccessible regions, as shown by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 98). This demonstrates an intentional design whereby the public and private sectors facilitated specific functions for the primarily agricultural purpose of this villa.

Room 2 was a stabulum, which highlights the agricultural function of this complex by its central position. Room 9 also seems to have served an agricultural function, whereas Rooms 10 and 11 were probably bedrooms. Room 1 had a small niche in the western wall, which was probably a lararium (No. a), which is a common occurrence in many villas. Room 12 seems to have been used as an apotheca. The perceived conception of space for this structure illustrates its low level of social stratification. This was a very simple complex that had clearly intended functions for the majority of spaces. The conceived conception further recognises this, showing a close interaction between agricultural production and its quite modest living areas. Lefebvre’s lived conception exhibits how intimately connected was its productive role and its design – most space was devoted to agriculture. This conforms to Laurence’s views of socialisation, demonstrating its limited reception role.

Villa 41 – Villa of Crapolla at Scafati This villa was located roughly a kilometre from the eastern walls of Pompeii (Map 3), and the layout was based on a regular rectangular plan (Fig. 108), with a central courtyard on the western side (Della Corte 1923b, 284). Several rooms have produced remains of wall painting, suggesting that were some aspirations to create a well appointed domus, but the facilities of this villa, indicate that it was essentially an agricultural villa. The central courtyard was surrounded by a portico supported by columns constructed from opera laterizia and surrounded a pluteus that was made from opus incertum and roughly 1.5 metres long. The discovery of four large terracotta dolii (No. n), affirms the predominance of agriculture at this establishment.

Graph 99 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crapolla

124

Graph 100 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crapolla complex, illustrating the pretensions of the owner. The décor of these rooms has been dated to the Republican period, whereas two other rooms were decorated in Fourth style.

The only room with a potential entertainment role was Room 1, largely owing to its size and position (due to the limited remains at this site). This room was easily accessible (Fig. 109) (Table 50), having a low Depth from Exterior (2), Mean Depth (2.29) and Relative Asymmetry (0.172). This would suggest that it was located in a public region of the complex. However, the limited remains at this site make the statistical analysis quite problematic, especially with the uncertain dimensions of the central courtyard. If the amount of known space used for socialisation is considered it would be analogous with the majority of small farmsteads in the region, and is unlikely to have been viewed as a villa suburbana. The general Control Value results (Graph 99) exhibit an intentionally constructed complex that maintained its levels of accessibility. This is indicative of its largely agricultural focus. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 100) also represents this, having an even balance of accessibility and inaccessibility. All the same, this illustrates how the structure was designed with a clear resolve to provide areas with either a distinct public or private role within the villa.

In the agricultural region, there have been hundreds of amphorae recovered, exhibiting the production that occurred on this estate. However, there was evidence of several amphorae from other regions of the Mediterranean, such as Lesbos, indicating the tastes of the last occupants. The architecture and décor of this villa is clearly reminiscent of the Hellenistic influences of the owner. But this does not preclude the inclusion of local produce either. In fact, there have been numerous pieces of pruned grapevine leaves, tendrils and small branches discovered in one of the rooms, illustrating the owners’ activity in viticulture. One of the vessels had an inscription referring to a local producer of wine from Pompeii. The wealth of the owners has also been shown by the discovery of two collections of coins and objects, discovered in Rooms 10 and 15 (Morelli 2000, 187). The gold pieces found in Room 15 were discovered in a wooden box, probably stored in the upper levels of the building. The coins discovered in Room 10 consisted of a hoard of 409 coins: 2 gold, 189 silver and 218 bronze issues. The discovery of both collections illustrate not only the wealth of the inhabitants, but also the distinction in function between the use of gold coins and other issues by the household.

Villa 42 – Villa of L. Crassius Tertius at Torre Annunziata The villa of Crassius Tertius was located only a short distance from the Villa of Poppea at Oplontis, being only roughly two hundred and fifty metres apart (Map 3). As with many villas in the region, the plan was based around two distinct regions: residential quarters and an agricultural plant for the production of wine (Fig. 110) (Malandrino 1978, 81). The complex was also designed with a series of terraces. The lower levels of the complex have been better preserved, with at least twenty rooms already excavated. As with many villas in the region, it was based around a central courtyard, with a large number of rooms around the perimeter. There were two elegantly painted rooms in the upper level of this

Despite the lack of information from this site, the discoveries and layout of the structure make it clear that the owners had some pretensions towards the display of their status. The size of the complex, as well as the presence of imported wine and a large collection of gold piece illustrates their wealth, and probably that the owners resided at this property frequently. Agricultural production was clearly an important source of revenue, but it does not appear to have dominated the residence.

125

Judging from the layout of the complex, there may have been a view of the surrounding landscape from the upper levels of the complex, but this is impossible to determine owing to the extant material. But owing to the level of décor, the size of the complex and the discovery of finds indicating a high level of affluence, it seems probable that this residence should be viewed as a suburban villa. This

is also exhibited by the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre, illustrating how this complex was designed to correspond with the general intentions of the social productivity of the owner. The conceived and lived conceptions of space particularly epitomise both the social necessities and aspirations that led to the development of this residence.

Graph 101 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crassius Tertius

Graph 102 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of Crassius Tertius Owing to the incomplete state of knowledge about this establishment, it has limited the amount of statistical analysis that can be undertaken. This has made any nonperistyle analysis untenable. However, some statistical results are still possible. The extant material has made it evident that the central peristyle (Room 2) was included as an entertainment area (Fig. 111) (Table 51), which should justify its inclusion within the data group. This area did not include a garden, being paved instead

(Jashemski 1987, 33-4), but this should not prevent its inclusion as a potential entertainment area. The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated the highly accessible nature of this peristyle, particularly in regard to its low Relative Asymmetry (0.046) and high Control Value (16.83). The general Control Value results (Graph 101) exhibits the importance of two rooms in particular as ‘controlling’ spaces within the structure. This shows how vital the restriction of accessibility was to its respective

126

rough plaster and the floors were of simple beaten ground, except in Room C, which was paved with cocciopesto. A circular puteal was discovered in Room D, covered in plaster and tile, providing a source of water for the inhabitants. The epigraphic evidence from this residence appears to suggest a liberti may have owned this humble residence, which seems likely in view of the modest facilities within the building. This appears to have been another basic farmhouse, which cannot be considered to be a suburban villa.

owner/s. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 102) also indicate a high level of control existing within this residence and the social importance of particular sectors. Villa 43 – Villa in the region of Barbatelli This villa is located in the northern suburbs of Pompeii, in the region of Barbatelli. The remnants of the wall paintings found within this complex include a representation of Fortune, executed upon a red background with a cornucopia (Sogliano 1899f, 494). Some of the finds at this complex include the remains of small herms shaped out of tufa, as well as a tile inscribed L – EVMCHI (Sogliano 1900a, 30). There was also a silver saucepan, discovered beside a human skeleton around twenty metres to the east from the centre of this villa, decorated with a number of maritime images (Sogliano 1900b, 500). There were also five goblets, two iron keys and many coins dated from Agrippa to Domitian. There were 187 coins in all, which may have been the savings of this individual. It appears that these artefacts were probably taken by this resident while they tried to escape the eruption in AD 79. There have also been several pieces of furniture and bronze pieces discovered in this villa (Sogliano 1899e, 439-48), suggesting that this complex was finely adorned, which may provide some indication of the owners wealth and desire for status. This complex was also located quite close to the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus and also Pompeii. However, the paucity of finds and the limited current information upon this villa makes it almost impossible to draw conclusive or reliable deductions about this complex.

General Conclusions The view seems to have been an important factor in the creation of a suburban residence. As has been seen when discussing the villas that were closer to Pompeii, the design of many residences was focused towards the outlook from the building. But judging from the evidence of villas located further out from the city, this is not always the case. Of the villas discussed in this chapter only seven have produced evidence of any significant attempt to take advantage of the surrounding landscape: Villas 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 37 and 42. In the Villa alla Pisanella (23) there were windows located in the triclinium (Room 1), which would have allowed for views of both the Bay of Naples and the countryside to the north. It may be significant that the larger of the two faced towards the city to the south. The Villa of Popidius Florus (24) had several rooms allowing for the view, including a view of Pompeii from two cubicula (Rooms 18, 19) and a triclinium (Room 16), whereas another two cubicula (Rooms 4, 21) overlooked the Bay of Naples. The Villa of Fannius Synistor (26) seems to have allowed for a view of both the bay and the city from the southern portico. The Villa of Poppea (27) had a very open disposition that would have certainly given an impressive panorama towards the coast, but also seems to have allowed for a view of Pompeii as well. Despite the partial excavations of the Villa of Agrippa Postumus (28) and the limited evidence pertaining to the entertaining rooms, the elevated position of this complex would have surely taken advantage of the panorama to the south. The Villa of Asellius (37) was provided with several rooms (Rooms 17-20) on the western side to allow for a view of the Bay of Naples, with all of these rooms being finely decorated. Finally, the Villa of Crassius Tertius (42) has also been classified as a suburban villa, owing to the wealth of some finds and the efforts made towards pretension in its décor by the owners. It has only limited evidence of viewing rooms, but there is the possibility that these were located on the upper floors.

The complex was located close to the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus and Pompeii. However, the paucity of finds and the limited current information available about this villa make it difficult to draw conclusive or reliable deductions. The unavailability of even a plan for this villa almost makes the inclusion of this complex superfluous. However, it does have some intrinsic value for this study. Not only does it highlight the variable nature of the remaining source material that can be so limiting for this study, but also the deficiencies in some previous archaeological processes. The residence should be noted in order to allow for a regional collation of the location of sites, and to determine a trend in the location of villae suburbanae. The presence of this complex close to another villa suburbana should be some indication of its potential classification, but it will not be included as a suburban villa within this study because of its meagre remains.

It is also significant to note that most of these villas were also some of the most extensive complexes within this group, particularly the Villas of Poppea (27) and Asellius (37). However, it is also pertinent to note the large number of these villas that were designed to have quite insular plans, focusing upon a central courtyard. Of this group there is one notable example, the Villa of Agrippa Postumus (28), which was one of the most impressive villas in this region. But the majority of these insular

Villa 44 – Scafati This villa was discovered in the region of Scafati, roughly three and a half kilometres from the walls of Pompeii. The known quarters of this building are mostly comprised of small rustic environments (Della Corte 1928, 375), there being little evidence of architectural or decorative pretension. The walls appear to have been dressed in

127

at this complex justify its inclusion. Of the villas considered in this chapter, only Villa 36 at Scafati was larger than the Villa of Popidius Florus, but the majority of its space was devoted purely to agriculture. It is also of interest to observe that both villas considered from Torre Annunziata (Villas 27, 42) were the largest complexes, possibly suggesting that this region was particularly favourable for the wealthiest members of the region. This would not be surprising in view of its coastal environs. It is also of interest to note that it was only these two villas that are of comparable size to the largest villas analysed in the previous chapter. This is an important consideration because it illustrates that the distance from the city walls did not necessarily alter the size of a complex dramatically. From the opposite perspective, both Villas 31 and 34 were found to be simple farmsteads and yet they were both located exceedingly close to Pompeii. Both of these points illustrate that while location did play a natural role in the creation of a suburban villa, it was not the only consideration. The remainder of the suburban villas were constructed on similar proportions to the smaller suburban villas built in the inner suburbs of Pompeii. But in order to fully appreciate the significance of this, the amount of reception space must be considered.

villas seem to have functioned predominantly as agricultural villas, having a lower level of décor and residential facilities. These central courtyards were in accordance with the recommendations of Varro that a farmhouse should have such a yard. Varro mentions that large farmyards should have two courtyards, one for the kitchen and tool-sheds, the other for livestock. The Villa of Agrippa Postumus seems to have been the exception rather than the rule in this case, especially when the wellappointed facilities, décor and elevated position of the owner is taken into consideration. At this point it must be observed that the evidence that is being used is only from the ground floors, leaving open the possibility for second storey cubicula and triclinia that may have been in a better position to appreciate the panorama of the Bay of Naples or the city of Pompeii. There are other villas within this group that may have had rooms that were facilitated with a view (Villas 17, 34, 39, 41), but the known evidence is insufficient to include them within the group with any certainty. But there were viewing rooms within six of the original seven villas (23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 37) does suggest that there was more inclination towards creating a pleasant living environment. The inclusion of a window to take advantage of the local panorama would not have been limited by the wealth of the residents. It seems that these viewing rooms reflect the aspirations and intentions of the owner, rather than their financial position. Therefore, it may be possible to classify these complexes as suburban villas, owing to the intensions of the residents in including a pleasant outlook from their properties, rather than focusing purely upon agricultural production. It would also appear reasonable that the Villa of Agrippa Postumus should be added to this group of suburban villas, owing to its high level of facilities and wellappointed décor. It is unlikely that members of the imperial household would have resided at the complex for long periods of time, but this should not preclude its classification among the villae suburbanae.

Where possible the area of social space within these villas has been considered and then compared in order to determine the percentage of each structure dedicated for reception and entertainment in the outer suburban villas. This is important because it will enable an interesting comparison not only between potential suburban villas in the outer suburbs, but also with those villas located closer to Pompeii. When considering Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling in general terms it is possible to view some consistencies in this corpus overall. The general perceived conception of space has reflected a pronounced level of social stratification within some structures (Villas 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 37 and 42), which suggests the provision of at least a moderate level of space for large scale reception at these structures. This is contrasted by the smaller and more modest complexes within this group of complexes, indicating that they possessed a stronger focus upon agricultural and utilitarian functioning.

Having examined the evidence, it is clear that the majority of these villas should still be viewed as essentially agricultural complexes. The limited evidence of luxury, eminent residential facilities and wellappointed décor within many of these buildings supports this premise. However, it would have been imprudent to consider that all of these villas were deemed to be villa suburbana, in view of the distinctive combination of qualities that seem to have been attributable to suburban properties. Naturally the desire for otium was one of the most important aspects of villae suburbanae, which seems to have been complemented by a pleasant view of the surrounding landscape.

The conceived conception of Lefebvre has provided a similar contrast between the larger, more well-appointed residences and the basic, agricultural farmsteads in the outer suburbs of Pompeii. However, the lived conception of space is most notable in drawing this distinction, whereby the physical manifestation of these residences provides a clear reflection of their social symbolism. This can be largely viewed as the contrast between urbanitas and rusticus. The difference between these priorities can be easily viewed by comparing the facilities, size, décor and primary functions of the Villas of Poppaea (27) and Regina (35) in this region. This comparison readily exhibits their divergence in ‘need’, priorities and the expendable capital of their respective owners. The ‘need’ (or specific requirements) of their owners is reflected in

When examining the dimensions of the proposed suburban villas, they are all within the group of the largest complexes, with the exception of the Villa of Popidius Florus (24). This is the smallest residence considered to be a suburban villa so far, but the facilities

128

there were several suburban villas located further out from the city-walls than has previously been expected. These properties were quite different in their character to the smaller agricultural complexes located throughout the region, possessing the combined aspects of productivity and primarily urbanism. This combination in many ways represents the duality in function that embodied villae suburbanae.

the design of each respective structure in this region, which illustrates the assorted range of sizes, facilities and priorities at each complex. Having performed a similar type of spatial analysis upon the amount of reception space within these structures to the previous chapter, it has produced some interesting results. It is notable that the amount of space designated for reception was roughly similar in all of those structures that have been classified as villae suburbanae, except for one complex (Villa 23). All of the other suburban villas have produced evidence that the importance of entertaining and receiving guests/clients was just as essential in the outer suburbs as in the urban centre itself. It may be that owing to his ownership of a townhouse within Pompeii itself L. Caecilius Iucundus may have not deemed it necessary to entertain guests at this property, preferring to use this suburban residence for productivity and privacy, but it is impossible to know for certain. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the amount of space allocated for purely social purposes remains the same even in the more distant suburban villas around Pompeii. This illustrates that the social activity within the community was by no means purely limited to the urban centre and that the outer suburban regions were still closely linked to the life of the urban community.

All the same, when considering the spatial analysis of the Hillier and Hanson method it has exhibited a wide range of variation between the majority of structures. This further demonstrates the difficulty in having a general conception of a stereotypical ‘villa’ – each complex needs to be examined on its own merits. This is simply a reflection upon the various needs and resources of their respective owners. All the same, while this provides a clear presentation of the individuality of these villas, it must also be noted that there were definite trends that can be viewed in general terms as well – particularly when considering the villae suburbanae and the agricultural complexes in opposition. This again exhibits how the Hillier and Hanson method has provided an excellent correlation with the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre in these outer suburbs of Pompeii. When used in conjunction, these theories and methods have exhibited the levels of social stratification both between and within these complexes, all as a representation of the social symbolism that each villa embodied.

Naturally, the difficulty with this method of investigation is the sometimes questionable designation of room function within each complex and the limited information at many of the villas. Nevertheless, if this is understood and unreasonable assumptions avoided, the results have illustrated that there was a consistent amount of space allocated for reception, which seems to have only varied according to the size of the structure as a whole. It is also important to note that the percentage of reception space did not differ greatly with those villas located in the inner suburbs of Pompeii. As Jongman has illustrated (1988, 119-20), there was a clear concentration of wellappointed residences in the northern suburbs of Pompeii. This was probably influenced by the topography of the location with the associated views, as well as the road network nearby. Naturally, the larger sites are more likely to be discovered (Millett 1991, 171), which may further substantiate this distribution of larger villas in this region. But it is evident that, as with the Roman evidence, that

The Hillier and Hanson method has also accentuated the distinction between villae suburbanae and the small agricultural establishments. Suburban villas that have produced a large amount of data have exhibited a variation in public and private potential entertainment space. Only those villae suburbanae with partial plans (Villas 28, 42) have produced only public social space in the form of peristyles. All of the other villas had only one type of entertainment space, usually in the form of an easily accessible dining room. Villas 31 and 34 were the only residences that had this room located in the private sphere of the residence. But it was the provision of more than one entertainment space that typically epitomised these suburban villas, with only one exception (Villa 23), which has already been discussed at length.

129

Graph 103 – Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas in the Outer Suburbs of Pompeii Those villae suburbanae located in the outer suburbs were predominantly conceived in a similar fashion to the Villas of Cicero, Diomede and Imperiale (17, 19, 22), focusing upon lifestyle rather than productivity. The examples noted in this chapter of more productive suburban villas (24, 25, 28) seem to have been akin with the Villas of the Mysteries and T. Siminius Stephanus (20, 21) in their combined use as a well-appointed residence and productive setting. However, these structures were quite different in their emphasis to the utilitarian non-villae suburbanae that were much more common in the suburbs of Pompeii. When examining the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values for these villa complexes (Graph 103) it is evident that there was a definite cluster of results between 0.5 – 1.5, showing a well balanced spread between ‘controlling’ and ‘controlled’ spaces at the vast majority of residences. This provides a good indication of their socialisation. While the primary focus of this study has been upon the provision of large-scale (or perhaps élite) social activity, it is still evident that each complex would have possessed some provision for this role. However, it was clearly more of a priority at the seven villae suburbanae (Villas 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 37 and 42), judging from their design and remains (or perhaps their lived conception). In general terms, this furthers the suggestion that the extra-urban regions surrounding Pompeii were indeed socially active, even when complexes were further removed from the urban centre. The importance of the provision for appropriate social space was simply seemingly consistent with the needs and intentions of their owners, which is also noticeable elsewhere in Roman Campania, such as at Herculaneum.

130

Chapter V Suburban Villas and Herculaneum agricultural and maritime production and the exchange of products along the important trade routes throughout Campania, especially with Rome (Susini 1979, 6-7). But it is evident that Herculaneum was not as industrious as Pompeii, which may have allowed a more pleasant lifestyle (Guadagno 1979, 21).

Having discussed the villas around Pompeii, there are other urban centres that should be examined in the Bay of Naples region. One of the most important of these for the present study is Herculaneum. This city suffered a similar fate to Pompeii in AD 79, providing a great amount of archaeological material to be analysed. Herculaneum was a relatively minor city in Campania during the late Republic and early Empire, located roughly seven kilometres east of Neapolis, on the lower slopes of Mount Vesuvius (Maiuri 1977, 5). When discussing this urban centre, a similar method shall be used to that used to analyse the Pompeian examples. This will entail a discussion of those villas in relatively close proximity to Herculaneum, particularly the well-known Villa of the Papyri, followed by an examination of the larger townhouses that were designed for an appreciation of the view of the Bay of Naples. These buildings will then be compared to each other and residences from other areas in order to make some secure conclusions concerning the purpose and nature of these domestic structures in and around Herculaneum.

The archaeological evidence uncovered in Herculaneum is quite different to the material from Pompeii and Stabiae. This disparity is indicative of the levels of importance, topography and nature of each centre. The buildings discovered in and around Pompeii have revealed a wide range of housing, with many villas constructed not only just outside the city walls, but also further out in the ager Pompeiana. One reason for this was the accessibility of the view, with the majority of these buildings being built on the north-western extremities of the city. Another reason was the relative importance of Pompeii in comparison with Herculaneum. There were not as many suburban villas built outside of Herculaneum for both of these reasons. The view of the Bay of Naples was easily accessible from the city, owing to its position on the promontory. For this reason both the villas and the large residences on the southern boundary of Herculaneum will be examined. In fact, there is only one known villa built directly beyond the city precincts, the Villa of the Papyri. However, this residence could not be described as typical, owing to its size and palatial features. This villa dominated the northern landscape across the channel from the city, positioned at this location for one reason: the vast panorama. The size of this structure and its surrounding property meant that the opportunity for the creation of other residences in this prime location was restricted and hence there are no other known residences in such a close position to Herculaneum. There are a few examples of other villas within the ager Ercolano, but it is important to observe the pre-eminence of the Villa of the Papyri in its prime viewing position beyond the precincts of Herculaneum.

The city was located upon a promontory, with two deep channels on either side (ward-Perkins 1984, 27). This location had a profound effect upon the design of the houses in and around Herculaneum, especially those along the southern limits of the city. The principal reason why this had an effect upon the houses was the importance of the view for many of these residences, such as has been shown in Insula Occidentalis in Pompeii. The original inhabited area measured roughly 370 by 320 metres, but this was expanded with the construction of the southern terraces with their townhouses and the suburban structures (De Franciscis 1978, 13). As mentioned previously, the health benefits of sea breezes would have been an important reason for the creation of viewing rooms towards the coast (Columella 1.5.5). When comparing Herculaneum and Pompeii it is easy to recognise the different social environments within these urban centres. For example, the political environment was quite dissimilar; there being numerous finds of political programmata and grafitti at Pompeii, whereas there has been comparatively little discovered in Herculaneum. This has been attributed to a different social environment at Herculaneum, there being a dearth of local aristocracy, the city instead being dominated by wealthy Romans who resided more elsewhere (Solin 1973, 97-103). Whether or not this was actually the case, it is important to note that the social conditions in both cities were likely to have been quite different. However, there was one important similarity: the economy. Both had economies based upon

Villa 45 – The Villa of the Papyri The Villa of the Papyri was located less than four hundred metres to the west of Herculaneum (Map 4). The layout complemented its placement parallel to the coastline (Fig. 112), creating a limitless viewing platform (Wojcik 1986, 13). It was built halfway up the slopes of the lowest flank of Mount Vesuvius, allowing the residents to enjoy not only the benefits of the view but also the sea breezes (Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 115). The building also had a garden, enclosed by a colonnade with substantial vineyards and vegetable gardens, as well as a small access port (Deiss 1985, 60). It is likely that this

131

atrium had generally ceased to serve an occupational function.

villa was built in either the Second or First Centuries BC as a residence for a wealthy and influential family (Winsor Leach 1988, 146).

The region around the square peristyle was used for entertaining and dining by the leading residents, replacing the original function of the atrium. This peristyle was square, with ten columns on either side with a long, narrow euripus in the centre. In each corner of this pool was a conch shell fountain with a bronze herma, including representations of Doryphorus and the Amazon. The statue of Doryphorus was signed by Apollonius of Athens, a First Century BC copyist, with the original being made by Polyclitus in the Fifth Century BC. The inclusion of these statues is consistent with the general theme of the décor, representing the culture and education of its patronus. At the end of the ambulatory was another room, which served either as an oecus or a triclinium. This room was square, appearing to be in the appropriate position for entertaining or dining. Also connected to this peristyle was another small apsidal room, which may have been a lararium. Therefore, it appears evident that this peristyle had taken over the traditional function of the atrium and was used as a dwelling and entertaining region for the leading residents of this villa, as is also the case for the majority of First Century townhouses.

The villa also had good road access with Neapolis, Herculaneum and other cities on the Bay of Naples. This thoroughfare meant that, despite its seclusion, there were good means of communication between these centres and this residence. As Maiuri commented (1977, 75), the Villa of the Papyri would have been the ideal home for the most eminent and sophisticated patrician. It appears that the owner was at one time L. Calpurnius Piso Censonius, owing to the large collection of Philodemus in the villa library, but it may have been owned by Piso Pontifex (Winsor Leach 1988, 146). The entire complex was over two hundred and fifty metres in length, which is significant when compared to other villas. The plan was designed in a balanced and consistent fashion, divided into four primary regions: the entrance and atrium quarter, first peristyle, living quarters and Great peristyle. Judging from recent discoveries and the layout it is possible that it possessed at least two levels (Conticello 1987, 11). A large amount of carbonised wheat was discovered in a room, but at a level roughly two metres from the ground floor, suggesting the presence of a loft. Upon crossing the threshold, the atrium area was the first region to be encountered, as with the majority of Roman houses. It is important to note that with many suburban villas the building commonly led directly towards a peristyle, such as the Villas of Diomede and the Mysteries, in accordance with the recommendations of Vitruvius (6.5.3). The initial entrance onto an atrium was more indicative of townhouses, which is interesting to note considering its palatial facilities (Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 115).

The general living quarters were located to the east of the square peristyle (Fig. 112), but these two regions remained independent of each other, which is indicative of their separate purposes. This area of the villa was exposed to the external northern side and towards an internal court, which would have been well illuminated. Columella argues against northern exposures (1.5.5), but owing to the incomplete excavation of the north-eastern domestic and bathing quarters, it is impossible to be entirely certain of its nature. Within this region there were the baths, which were quite small, but that was quite common in late Republican and early Imperial villas. However, these baths would have been ample enough to service the residents.

This entrance faced towards the coast with a columnar porch similar to several townhouses in Herculaneum, such as the Houses of Aristides, Argos and the Genius. The atrium was floored with black and white mosaic pavement and had an impluvium tank surrounded by eleven fountain statues. There were also spouts for spraying water into the impluvium around its perimeter, which would have made it more of a water feature rather than purely functional (Deiss 1985, 61). There were also other statues placed in niches in the walls of the atrium. The whole effect would have been impressive upon visitors, making a clear statement about the tastes and culture of the principal inhabitants. The decorative layout provides an interesting correlation with the décor commonly found in peristyles, notably in the Great peristyle in this villa (George 1998, 84-5). However, the atrium had lost its intended original function as the central living space, instead serving as an elaborate entrance vestibule, as well as providing a connection between the other regions of the residence. This is in accordance with the general trend in most residences throughout Campania, where by around 100 BC the

The second room in this precinct was the library, which has produced the most substantial collection of carbonised papyrus rolls from a private residence in the Roman world. This room was just as small as the bath facilities, but it produced over sixteen hundred rolls of papyri, which included many philosophical works, most notably written by Philodemus and Epicurus for example (Deiss 1985, 71). The majority of the works were in Greek, including a testimony on Alexander the Great and the Annals of Ennius (Capasso 1988, 127-8). The few extant Latin works include an epic poem on the war between Octavian and Mark Antony, and fragments of Lucretius (Nunlist 1997, 19-20). The library also contained a scientific work by Demetrius Lacon on geometry (Dorandi 1995, 174), illustrating that the owner was not limited in their interests (Burket 2000, 76-80). Some rolls were arranged on shelves around the room, whereas others were placed upon a central bookstand. The discovery of this library is significant not only

132

an intellectual and literary connoisseur, who exhibited the varied nature of his interests throughout his spacious suburban residence. However, there are several unusual and rare examples within the collection, containing several portraits of unknown philosophers and rulers, which reveals his eclectic tastes (Trillmich 1973, 256). It has been suggested that the placement of these statues throughout the complex recognises the different function of the distinct regions, but this is uncertain.

because of the literary information that has been obtained, but it also has highlighted the importance of intellectual and literary culture (Gigante 1995, 2-3). The library also complements the general portrayal of the dominus, reflecting his tastes in Hellenistic culture, which is also evident in the subjects exhibited in the numerous sculptures throughout the villa. In view of the traditional use of libraries, which were commonly connected to the tablinum, this position is quite unusual. There were also papyrus scrolls discovered within the tablinum, a good number of which were written in Latin (Longo Auricchio and Capasso 1987, 38). The may be indicative of the different function of the two areas, with the library serving a purely private purpose as a place for intellectual reflection, whereas the tablinum was more public and associated with business. The presence of an identifiable private library within a domus in this region is quite rare, with only two known examples in Pompeii. This suggests that the ownership of a private library was in itself prestigious, which is understandable in view of the value of each work (Cicero Ad Fam. 5.9.2).

It is important to note that this Great peristyle ran parallel to the coastline of the Bay of Naples, providing a lengthy and pleasant ambulatory for the residents. There was no view of the coast within this peristyle, but this was because it was intended as a large private area. The leading residents would have sought seclusion within this region of the complex. However, their efforts to take advantage of the view are reflected in the series of terraces that lead down towards the coast, as well as the construction of the round belvedere beyond this peristyle. The numerous artistic works in the Great Peristyle that surrounded the observer complemented the private nature of this peristyle. The importance of the view was emphasised at the open belvedere located further to the west of the Great peristyle. This rotunda was raised roughly four metres from the surrounding ground and was adorned with a circular pavement in marble intarsia. This impressive viewing platform was the ultimate viewing platform for the residents and their guests (Mustilli 1983, 10).

On the south-eastern side of this library was another group of rooms within this region. These quarters served as reception rooms. Little has survived from these rooms, except the marble intarsia pavement, exhibiting the wellappointed nature of their décor. Owing to the size and position of these rooms, it appears likely that they served more of a private nature than those around the square peristyle. This is in keeping with the general layout and division of the complex into public and private space. These reception rooms were used for private entertaining and reflection by the dominus, whereas the entertaining rooms around the both the square and Great peristyles would have functioned as reception rooms for larger groups.

The theoretical modelling for this complex agrees with the well-appointed demeanour of this residence. The perceived conception of space suggests a high degree of social stratification, whereby there was a clear distinction between the regions for the leading residents and their invited guests when compared to the more public internal regions. This corresponds with Lefebvre’s conceived conception that highlights how these different areas were placed in such a fashion to overtly demonstrate not only the élitism of the owner within the Herculaneum community, but also the hierarchy of being admitted into the open regions to the rear of the structure. The lived conception of space clearly reflects the social symbolism that was intrinsically connected to the overall design of the Villa of the Papyri.

The Great peristyle was added to the original structure in the second phase of development, which occurred before the end of the First Century BC (Wojcik 1986, 36). It was located to the west of the square peristyle, accessed via a large tablinum. The tablinum was delimited partially with a double threshold of marble (De Simone 1987, 23), and the room itself was of an impressive demeanour. Within this tablinum was an archaistic statue of Athena prómachos beneath a propylaeum (Sauron 1980, 279), which not only maintained the general decorative theme of the villa but also appeared to be an appropriate statue for a place of business for a patronus, being the goddess of wisdom. The Great peristyle was roughly one hundred metres in length and thirty-seven metres wide. In the centre was a large central pond, measuring sixty-six by seven metres (Maiuri 1977, 78). Between the columns of the portico and along the borders of the tank was an impressive gallery of statues, with a broad range of representations, such as Hellenistic monarchs, various orators, philosophers and deities. There have been several important studies on these sculptures, but there will only be minimal discussion of them in relation to this study. The diverse range of topics exhibited reflects the tastes of

The emphasis upon luxuria and otium is also further supported by one of the most notable features of this villa, the aqueduct. This aqueduct was subterranean and was used with a hydraulic system that supplied the domus, fountains and pools with water (Deiss 1985, 64). The presence of this system not only reflects the wealth and luxuriousness of the owners, but it also represents the lengths gone to by them to create an impressive villa suburbana for luxuria and otium. For the statistical analysis of potential entertainment space, four regions have been included: both of the peristyles (Rooms b, c), the belvedere (Room E) and the tablinum (Room D). Other regions in this villa suburbana could have served

133

an entertainment function, but these are the clearest examples of areas that were intended for such a role.

Judging from the size and décor of this residence it is clear that the owners of this estate were wealthy, with a large amount of expendable capital to use on the development of this villa. Owing to the prominent position in association with Herculaneum it seems appropriate to classify this as a villa suburbana. This appears fitting in view of its size, which is comparable more with Imperial palaces than the majority of suburban villas. This residence was almost purely devoted to otium, there being little evidence of any serious agricultural activity whatsoever. This is further supported by one of the most notable features of this villa was the aqueduct. This aquaduct was subterranean and was used with a hydraulic system that supplied the domus, fountains and pools with water. The presence of this system not only reflects the wealth and importance of the owners, but it may also be representative of the villa’s close connection with the city of Herculaneum, possibly strengthening its definition as a pseudo-urban villa in the suburbs.

The spatial analysis of this complex illustrates that the Villa of the Papyri was one of the largest establishments examined in this study so far, being well over 9,000m2. Firstly, the data exhibits the open aspect of this suburban villa, having over two-thirds of its surface area devoted to peristyles. The dominance of open-styled living is epitomised in the presence of only one known internal reception room, the tablinum, and this would have been well illuminated. It was a large example of such a room, which would have not only served as a place of business but also as an ala for the peristyle (Dwyer 1982, 116). When the results for internal social space are compared to the internal entertainment areas at the Villa Sora (Villa 48), it is interesting that the latter had more than the Villa of the Papyri, illustrating that the focus of the owner was almost entirely devoted to open-planned entertainment. This is probably indicative of the times when the owners resided at the villa suburbana: it being a summer residence when business at Rome had been concluded.

Graph 104 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Papyri

134

Graph 105 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa of the Papyri 143), owing to their topography and connection with the coast. However, the categorisation of each complex is not as elementary as that because of the intimate connection that some of the estates had with the centre of Herculaneum. For example, would it seem appropriate to identify the Villa of the Papyri as a villa maritima owing to its position near the coast, or a villa suburbana with its connection with Herculaneum. For the purposes of this study, a survey of several complexes in this region will be discussed, so that each villa can be classified appropriately. Strabo (5.4.8) mentions that the coast of the Bay of Naples was lined with opulent houses and villas of wealthy Romans. The villas in this region seem to have sought a combination of the pleasurable amoenitas and fructus, maintaining a combination of the conventional elements of both villae maritimae and villae suburbanae. There are several sites on the coastline, such as the Villa Breglia a Calastro and Villa Sora, whereas others were not as close, such as the Villa del Real Boschetto and Villa dell’Epitaffio (Map 5) (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 145).

The Hillier and Hanson method has exhibited the division between public and private domains in the Villa of the Papyri (Fig. 113) (Table 52). The lower Relative Asymmetry values for Room B (0.155) and Room D (0.160) and lower Mean Depths (3.10, 3.17 respectively) epitomise their more public roles. The rooms also have lower Depth from Exterior results (1, 2), which represent the accessibility that both regions possessed. This contrasts the results of Rooms C and E, which had Relative Asymmetry values (0.24, 0.311 respectively), indicating their reduced accessibility and private functions. They were also located furthest from the entrance (Depth from Exterior results of 5, 6), which also exhibits their inaccessibility and privacy. The overall Control Value results (Graph 104) demonstrate the presence of five dominant ‘controlling’ spaces. This reflects the highly ‘constructed’ design of the complex, thus demonstrating the overt desire of its owner/s to regulate the progression throughout this opulent residence. The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 105) also exhibit an extremely controlled structure where there was an even balance between public and private sectors, but this was done in order to intentionally draw a distinction in the levels of accessibility throughout this well-appointed domus. The Villa of the Papyri is one of the most impressive known examples of a villa suburbana. The entertainment role of this villa suburbana seems to have been primarily for public occasions. The belvedere is also a notable example of a private viewing area, to which only the most intimate of guests would have been allowed access. This was also the prime location for viewing the coastline from this villa suburbana.

Owing to the study of D’Arms (1970), it would appear that many villae maritimae did not have productive facilities, which seems to have been a distinguishing feature of this type of villa. It seems likely that not only wealthy Romans but also the local nobility, families such as the Anii, Calatorii, Claudii, Nonii, and Remmii, would also have owned villas further out from the city centre (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 144). Unfortunately, only a few excavations have been undertaken at the majority of these sites, which limits the amount of available information, but these sites must still be considered in order to gain the most extensive appreciation of villas in this area possible. Villa 46 – The Villa del Real Boschetto The Villa del Real Boschetto was roughly 240 metres from Herculaneum (Map 5). This complex had a central

Other Villas close to Herculaneum The majority of the villas along the coast could be classified as villae maritimae (Scatozza Höricht 1985,

135

that the plan was rectangular with a large opening towards the bay. This would have allowed the residents to appreciate the panorama and enjoy the sea breezes, which was a common feature of many villas in the region.

peristyle, quite similar to the Villa of the Papyri (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 146), with a large number of rooms that communicated with the gardens. The wall paintings were in early Third Style and there were also a large number of black and white pavements uncovered. The quality of this décor suggests that it was well appointed, but there has only been limited excavation. Owing to the quality of the décor and the plan it would seem appropriate to suggest that this complex was wellappointed and probably served as a suburban villa. Villa 47 – The Baths of the Villa dell’Epitaffio The Villa dell’Epitaffio was roughly 650 metres from Herculaneum (Map 5). Little is known about this complex apart from the well-appointed baths. These facilities suggest a degree of pretension, being decorated with images of nymphs (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 152). There have been large numbers of columns uncovered and their dimensions suggest a complex of some dimensions. It seems that this was designed to serve as a large sumptuous suburban villa, but the limited amount of investigation at this site has severely limited any further analysis of this complex.

There was a central group of rooms, including an atrium and a nymphaeum with a water-staircase, of which other examples have been discovered in and around Pompeii (Kockel 1988, 205). There was also a large exedra or oecus and at least two large triclinia, one of which would have served as a winter dining room. The presence of large entertaining rooms confirms the opulent nature of the complex. There were also bath facilities discovered, including a caldarium that was decorated with plaster reliefs. There have also been several other finds, including a statuette of Hercules and a Stag, Silenus and a Satyr with a pantera. The statuettes of the Silenus and the Satyr were discovered in the garden area, which also included a fountain in this region. This complex appears to have been a substantial residence in the suburbs of Herculaneum, taking advantage of its position close to coast to create an impressive panorama and pleasant living environment.

Villa 48 – The Villa Sora The Villa Sora (Fig. 114) was located roughly four and a half kilometres from Herculaneum (Map 5), in the region of Torre del Greco. This complex was very close to the coastline, which has resulted in the limited number of remains from this establishment (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 152). However, it is possible to determine that this was a substantial complex, covering roughly three hundred square metres, with some pretension in its architecture and décor. Its layout was a series of terraces that led down towards the Bay of Naples, with evidence of coloured marbles, white plaster and mosaic fragments. There are some remains of the foundations, roughly one hundred and fifty metres from these terraces, indicating

It seems that this complex was similar to the villas around Stabiae, such as the Villa Arianna (Kockel 1988, 205). Unfortunately, with much of the complex currently submerged, it only allows for a hypothetical reconstruction (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 161). All the same, the theories of Lefebvre do provide some further insight into this structure. The perceived conception of this complex illustrates a fair degree of social hierarchy within its confines, suggesting the importance of the owners’ social aspirations in its design. The conceived conception indicates that social productivity was deemed to have been of higher importance at this structure, which is also in keeping with the lived conception of the Villa Sora.

Graph 106 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Sora

136

Graph 107 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Sora Three areas had a social role: the peristyle, Room 5 and Room 2. Judging from its placement, location and décor it seems that Room 5 served as an exedra, whereas Room 2 has been classified as a triclinium. The Hillier and Hanson method has only limited use for this establishment due to its incomplete floor plan, but it has shown that both the peristyle (Room 1) and Room 5 were relatively accessible and seem to have served a public function. Both rooms had a Mean Depth of 3.2 and Relative Asymmetry values of 0.244, which suggest a fair degree of accessibility and potential social interaction. Room 2 was more inaccessible, having the highest Relative Asymmetry (0.35) and Mean Depth values (4.15), illustrating that it was more private in its use (Fig. 115) (Table 53). The general Control Value results (Graph 106) reflects the highly regulated nature of the complex, presenting an even balance of ‘controlling’ and ‘controlled’ spaces. There is also an even dispersal of overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 107), which also indicates a residence that intentionally possessed a combination of accessible and inaccessible regions.

In addition to these open areas, the Villa Sora also had at least a couple of large internal areas that could have been used for reception as well, having a relatively high amount of enclosed entertainment space. This complex would have been an impressive residence in the coastal suburbs of Herculaneum, providing a comparable lifestyle to that available at the Villa of the Papyri. However, the difference between the sizes of these two complexes must be noted, illustrating the exceptional nature of the Villa of the Papyri (Villa 45). The Villa Sora was closer in size to the larger townhouses at Herculaneum (such as the Houses of the Albergo and Relief of Telphus), but it had a much larger amount of space dedicated to open entertainment than both townhouses, illustrating the benefits of villae suburbanae. Having only limited available evidence from the other sites in the Herculaneum area, these are the only two examples that can provide spatial data for this region of Campania. This has probably affected the results (both structures being large and palatial with immense open areas), but it does not preclude their inclusion in this study. A broader corpus of material would be preferable for this analysis, but the results from the Villas of the Papyri and Sora do allow for three conclusions. Firstly, it is evident that both complexes had similar traits to those that have been noted at villae suburbanae around Rome and Pompeii. With few exceptions, all of these have exhibited the important social role that they were intended to fulfil, mostly in an open context. The Villa of the Papyri (Villa 45) is particularly notable, having roughly twice the amount of space for peristyles as the Villa of Poppaea (Villa 27), which was itself an immense establishment. The amount of space dedicated towards this is on a comparable level to the Villa of Livia at Prima

The Villa Sora appears to have been a substantial residence in the suburbs of Herculaneum, taking advantage of its location close to the coast to create an impressive view and pleasant living environment. It seems that this complex was similar to the villas around Stabiae, such as the Villa Arianna (Kockel 1988, 267-9). The spatial analysis of the Villa Sora has confirmed its classification as a villa suburbana, located in the coastal suburbs. As with the Villa of the Papyri (Villa 45), this residence had a large amount of space dedicated for openstyled reception. The use of terraces would have further increased the visual impact of the coastline on the residents and their guests. This conforms to the general characteristics of many villae suburbanae.

137

Höricht 1985, 164). Several rooms were plastered and decorated and there were also discoveries of a bronze statue of a lar, a candelabra and several agricultural implements, such as sickles, hoes, axes and picks. There were also animal bells, suggesting that both agriculture and husbandry were used as a source of production. A hoard of coins, mostly silver denominations of Vespasian and Domitian, were also discovered. It would appear that this residence was primarily an agricultural complex and yet judging from the facilities there was some desire for otium. However, this is quite different to the previous villas discussed around Herculaneum because none of those complexes have produced significant evidence of agricultural production.

Porta (Villa 4), which indicates the impressive nature of this villa suburbana. Secondly, it is also noticeable that neither of these complexes had an obvious focus upon agriculture. It is evident that both establishments were predisposed to a social role, focusing upon luxuria and otium rather than an agricultural role. This was similar to large suburban villas around Pompeii, such as the Villas of Diomede (Villa 19) and Poppaea (Villa 27), and the Villas of Livia (Villa 4) and the Quintili (Villa 16) at Rome. Finally, judging from their comparative distances of the Villas of the Papyri and Sora from Herculaneum (400m, 4.5 kms) (Map 5), there appears to have been little difference in their general design, except for the opulence of the Villa of the Papyri. The only notable contrast was the presence of a tablinum at the Villa of the Papyri, yet this seems to reflect an official role rather than a social difference. Both villas had a significant social role and this does not seem to have been greatly affected by their distance from Herculaneum, thus reflecting the broader scope of its suburbium. None of the remaining villas in this region have published floor plans, making them impossible to analyse spatially, but it is still important to make note of their locations and reported features.

Villa 51 – The Villa Scappe and Villa 52 – Villa ai Camaldoli There are another two villas that have produced evidence of agriculture in the surrounding regions of Herculaneum: the Villa Scappe and Villa ai Camaldoli (Map 5) (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 164-5). The Villa Scappe was quite similar in its design and function to the Villa of Lucius Cecilius Jucundus at Pisanella, with its provisions of both wine and oil presses. However, little else has been referred to in the excavation reports, with no mention of the wall paintings, which could suggest either that the survival level was reduced at this site, or that there was no evidence of well appointed décor at this site. The Villa ai Camaldoli also produced evidence of agriculture, with walls constructed in opus reticulatum, but there is little known of the facilities of this complex either.

Villa 49 – Villa di Calastro This complex was situated approximately three kilometres from the city, being west of Torre del Greco (Map 5). The majority of the surviving regions of this villa do not appear to have been as opulent as the previous villas, with walls of opus reticulatum and floors made of cocciopesto (Scatozza Höricht 1985, 161). However, there was an upper level above this landing, which had flooring in white tessellatum. This higher level had a colonnade with grooved columns that were covered in stucco in a grand style. Therefore, it may simply be that the lower floor was the servile region, which was separated from the main residential domus. This colonnade was connected to several rooms to form a sizeable peristyle, which may further indicate the standing of the structure. At this site there were also bath facilities, mosaic pavements and painted walls. Judging from the extant evidence, it would appear that this was another villa dated to the late Republic/early Empire located in the suburbs of Herculaneum on the coast. The different masonry used suggests that there were different terraces, similar to the Villa Sora, which led down towards the coastline. Owing to its size and pretensions this complex should be viewed as a villa suburbana.

Conclusions for these Villas The importance of the final three structures for this study is their comparison to the previous villas, such as the Villa Sora and the Villa Real Boschetto. Despite the dearth of remains and infrequent excavation at these complexes, it is clear that they were villas of ample proportions, possessing a desire for a pleasant lifestyle with generous facilities for the principal inhabitants. Those villas in the suburbs around Herculaneum that have produced evidence of agriculture are quite different, with only limited evidence of well-appointed décor or fine facilities. From this observation, there can be two conclusions: either the owner of these properties did not reside at the villa frequently (perhaps at all) and had no need for such comforts, or the owner could not afford these kind of facilities, instead concentrating upon the productive aspects of villa life. But it is quite evident that these complexes were more indicative of simple farmhouses, rather than suburban villas. The larger complexes are probably villae suburbanae, but it is difficult to determine conclusively with the known evidence. But owing to the evidence of their size and pretensions it does seem likely that all of the villas apart from the Villa Scappe (Villa 51) and Villa ai Camaldoli (Villa 52) were suburban. The clearly urban characteristics of some complexes, particularly the Villa of the Papyri, illustrate how these palatial residences were

Villa 50 – Villa alle Novelle (Cava Montone) The Villa alle Novelle was another villa in the suburbs of Herculaneum, roughly three and a half kilometres from the city (Map 5). However, this complex was quite different to the previous complexes, owing to its agricultural function. Seals have been recovered from this structure, indicating ownership by G. Ovius Secundus and Titus Munatius Primus (CIL X 2, n. 8058, 63; 8059, 267), but they may have been two procurators (Scatozza

138

(Maiuri 1958, 374). The second door led into a corridor that connected to four small rustic rooms (Rooms 1-4). The third doorway accessed a large room (Room 9), which served an unknown function. The final door joined a large hall (Room B) with two small rooms paved in mosaic, the apotheca (Room 7) and the large triclinium (Room 8). Beyond this was a sizeable external loggiato, which had a grand oecus (Room 10) on the western side. This room was illuminated by an ample window and would have presented a pleasant living space for the residents.

designed to impress, despite being located beyond the city precincts of Herculaneum. Townhouses on the Southern Frontage of Herculaneum The houses on the southern frontage were built upon a terrace from the ‘Sacred Area’ down to the House of the Albergo (Map 6). The external façade of the terrace was covered with opus reticulatum and dressed with white plaster, while the inside that faced the portico was painted red (Budetta 1990, 220). The terrace in front of the ‘Sacred Area’ appears to have been constructed in two phases. The first used large river stone that had a height of five metres and was on average six hundred millimetres thick, increasing towards the base. The second phase saw the construction of two symmetrical terraces, one facing the Suburban Baths and the other towards the ‘Sacred Area.’ These terraces were supported by arcades projecting into the suburban region. In the vicinity of Insula IV and Insula Orientalis the renewal of the city walls in opus reticulatum ‘type B’ has been attributed to M. Nonius Balbus (CIL X.1425), during the Augustan period (Ling 1992, 332). The prominence of this position allowed the residents to enjoy the seabreezes and the view of the Bay of Naples. This meant that this region was highly prized, hence the large number of wealthy residences constructed in this area, affecting the design of these buildings. This location provided similar advantages to those houses in Insula Occidentalis in Pompeii (Ling 1978, 153). It is for this reason that these houses provide the best comparison to villae suburbanae close to Herculaneum, owing to the similar facilities, décor and intended lifestyle.

The rear of the building would have been in the perfect position for viewing the Bay of Naples. This part of the building projected over the lowest and steepest slope of the promontory, supported upon a vaulted construction, which formed a sturdy foundation made of concrete walls, three metres thick in some places. These walls were faced with brick on the exterior and with opus reticulatum internally. These subterranean areas were quite imposing, leading down to the lower floor, which contained storerooms that looked out upon the coastal landscape beyond. Lefebvre’s perceived conception of space has exhibited a residence that possessed a reasonable amount of social stratification within its confines. This clearly delineated the function of specific regions within this house, thus also conforming to its conceived conception of space. The lived conception also reflects how this structure sought to represent the social aspirations of its owner to the wider community. It is interesting to note that the location of these storerooms was in a place conventionally assigned for entertaining rooms. But these are located on the lower floor, which has partially survived in the archaeological record, whereas the upper rooms have not endured. It would have been these upper rooms that would have been used for the entertaining of guests and for a quiet respite place for the leading inhabitants of the building. The location of storerooms, hidden beneath these reception rooms, towards the rear of the building should be of no great surprise. There was also a ramp at the rear of this building that was paved with river stone, dated to the first phase of construction, which led directly from the harbour through a door onto Cardo III (Budetta 1990, 221). It seems quite evident that the House of Aristide would have been a generous and distinguished residence, owing to its size, position and décor.

The House of Aristide The House of Aristide (Ins. II, 1) was located on the III cardo (Fig. 116), with the rear quarters being constructed upon the extreme brow of the hill, overlooking the Bay of Naples. Unfortunately, little of this building has been excavated to date so much of the plan and its decoration remains unknown. The atrium of the house opened directly onto the street. Instead of fauces, there was an open porch located outside the building, which served as a vestibule. However, with the introduction of the peristyle into Roman housing, the atrium became the receiving vestibule for guests and clients in many large residences. Leading from the atrium were four doorways, one heading towards a steep staircase to the lower floors

139

Graph 108 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Aristide

Graph 109 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Aristide the low Relative Asymmetry (0.11, 0.12 respectively), Mean Depth (2, 2.05) and Depth from Exterior values (2 for both). Conversely, Rooms 10 and 12 had a lower degree of accessibility, indicating a more private sphere of interaction. Both were located further from the entrance (Depth from Exteriors of 3, 4 respectively) and had higher Relative Asymmetry (0.17, 0.28) and Mean Depth values (2.55, 3.6), illustrating their higher inaccessibility. The general Control Value results (Graph 108) represents a highly structured residence that possessed an evenly balanced combination of ‘controlling’ and ‘controlled’ spaces. This well-regulated design is also shown in the wider Real Relative Asymmetry values for this complex (Graph 109). It is evident that the owner sought to provide specific areas that necessitated the provision of both public and private sectors, which demonstrates the existence of a clear social hierarchy. It is notable that both of the private regions

It seems quite evident that the House of Aristide would have been a generous and distinguished residence, owing to its size, position and décor. The spatial analysis has illustrated that this residence had a significant amount of space dedicated as social areas. The large exedra (Room 9) and oecus (Room 10) exhibit the owners’ focus upon a pleasant lifestyle, especially when the size of the residence is taken into consideration (Fig. 117) (Table 54). In fact, this house had the smallest surface area of all townhouses under consideration, but had the third highest amount of reception space. This space was primarily internal in its disposition, unlike most townhouses in its vicinity. The internal perspective at this residence severely contrasts with the villae suburbanae and illustrates its urban and modest character. The House of Aristide had Rooms B and 9 in the public domain, having a high degree of accessibility as shown in

140

were significantly smaller than the public areas, which further illustrate this differentiation in types of entertainment space.

To the west of this peristyle was another smaller peristyle, which was constructed and decorated in a similar fashion. There were several other small rooms (Rooms 18-20) that bordered onto it, which were quite elegant, but have not been completely excavated and were probably cubicula (Maiuri 1958, 368). Room 16 also seems to have been a cubiculum, whereas Room 17 was a small oecus with a large window. There was also a tablinum (Room 21) that led to a balcony (Room 22), which also included a large saloon (Room 23). The pavement was white mosaic and the walls were adorned with grandiose Fourth Style décor. The balcony (Room 22) led down a staircase onto a lower terrace (Room 24), which extended the length of the building on the southern side and would have had a pleasant region for viewing the coast. A small room (Room 25) was connected to this terrace and had a large square window, occupying a good portion of the south-western wall and allowed both for the view and sea-breezes. This room was finely decorated and was used for relaxation and leisure, either a diaeta or cubiculum diurnum.

The House of Argo The House of Argo (Ins. II, 2) was so named by the discovery of a wall-painting of Argos guarding Io located in a large room opening onto the peristyle (Maiuri 1977, 23). This house was a well-appointed patrician residence (Fig. 118), but only the eastern areas have been excavated, with a secondary entrance onto III cardo, the ground floor and some cellar rooms on the southern front. The rest of the building has remained buried, but the remnants of old tunnels leading towards the Villa of the Papyri are still visible. But from the known evidence there are still some conclusions that can be drawn about this noble residence (Maiuri 1958, 364). The entrance was a prostilo with two rectangular pillars and 2 half-columns in tile and tufa, similar to those in the peristyle. The prostilo led into a covered hall (Room 1) without an atrium, which opened onto the peristyle as well as a couple of other rooms. One of these (Room 2) was modestly decorated, with flooring in rough cocciopesto, whereas the other room (Room 3) was a small but elegant oecus. This room had a sizeable square window allowing for a view of the garden, but it remained separate from the larger triclinium (Room 4). The décor of the oecus was based on a red monochrome background in Fourth Style with a landscape scene. The triclinium was placed on one of the shorter sides of the portico, on the same axis as the garden, which allowed for the most dominant view of the garden. The rooms in this region (Rooms 4-7) comprised the noblest quarters for reception in this domus. The oecus (Room 4) was paved with multicoloured marbles. There was a corridor that led to another adjoining oecus (Room 6), which also had a large window, and the apotheca (Room 7). The eastern rooms (Rooms 8-12) were added at the same time as the peristyle. In the centre of this group was an exedra (Room 10), which had mosaic pavement and wellappointed décor with storage rooms on either side.

The well-appointed nature of this building has also been exhibited by the discovery of opus reticulatum decorating the long wall facing onto the street of this complex. The known living rooms of this house were located around the portico on the upper floor. On this level there were also storerooms discovered, for the accommodation of large amounts of cereals and comestibles. In conclusion, it is clear that the House of Argos was a well-appointed residence and that the owners sought to create not only a pleasant living environment but also an impressive domus that incorporated the panorama of the coast. The large number of entertaining rooms clearly exhibits the importance that this held to the leading residents. This is accentuated by the location of most servile rooms on the upper floors, away from the public regions of the building (Maiuri 1958, 372). The House of Argo was a well-appointed residence and that the owners sought to create not only a pleasant living environment but also an impressive domus that incorporated the panorama of the coast. The entertaining rooms (Rooms E, 4, 6, 10) exhibit the importance that this held to the leading residents. This is accentuated by the location of most servile rooms on the upper floors, away from the public regions of the building (Maiuri 1958, 372). The residence has produced similar spatial results to the majority of residences in this region of Herculaneum (Fig. 119) (Table 55). It had a large amount of space taken up by the peristyle, which constituted the majority of its social space.

The peristyle was constructed around three sides of a garden, there being an entrance porch on the other side. This peristyle consisted of columns and half-columns set against pilasters of tufa and brick with fine stucco (Jashemski 1979, 257). The area was designed having eight columns and pilasters on the long side, with four columns and pilasters on the shorter side. A large triclinium was located on the northern side of this peristyle, in association with a few smaller rooms of unknown function. To the east of this peristyle, there was placed another smaller peristyle with stuccoed brick columns, but only the south-eastern corner has been uncovered. This peristyle was followed by the atrium quarter that led towards the principal entrance on the western cardo of the insula.

This residence had among the largest amounts of entertainment space among the townhouses, most of which had an open demeanour. However, its size illustrates that it was a small but well-appointed residence, epitomising the ideals of luxuria and otium within a small domestic context. The intentions of its owner were similar to the owners of villae suburbanae,

141

but its position in the city limited its growth. Judging from its perceived conception, it is clear that there was only a limited amount of social stratification at this residence, which also corresponds with the importance of socialisation as mentioned in the theories of Laurence.

Lefebvre’s conceived and lived conceptions of space also indicate that while this may have been a modestly sized structure, but it was evidently designed to reflect the aspirations of its owner and their social priorities.

Graph 110 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of Argo

Graph 111 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of Argo The House of Argo also exhibited a similar differentiation between public and private space. Of its four potential entertainment areas (Rooms E, 4, 6, 10) it is evident that both the peristyle and Room 4 were more accessible, owing to their lower Relative Asymmetry (0.07, 0.16) and Mean Depth values (1.89, 3.11). Rooms 6 and 10 were not drastically higher (Relative Asymmetry 0.23, 0.17; Mean Depths of 3.96, 3.22 respectively), but when these results are used in conjunction with their relative sizes and locations, it would seem appropriate to view these areas as being

more private. The division in public/private space was not as obvious at this residence for entertainment areas, but it was still quite evident. This perspective is also reflected in the overall Control Value results (Graph 110) and Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 111). So while this domus was not the largest structure placed on the southern frontage of Herculaneum, this did not prevent the owner from constructing a well-appointed residence that conveyed their position within the hierarchy of the local community.

142

these alterations seem to suggest that there was either a change in ownership or the primary focus of the residents had changed. It is clear that its function had changed from being a patrician domicile into a house of an increasingly functional and mercantile nature. This transformation may also be indicative of the increasing prominence of the mercantile classes in the area during this period, but this is impossible to know for certain.

The House of the Albergo The House of the Albergo (Ins. III, 19) was one of the largest and wealthiest residences in the southern region, covering at least sixty percent of Insula III (Maiuri 1977, 25). The layout (Fig. 120) was quite intricate, but this was so that the residents could enjoy both the view of the Bay of Naples as well as the large garden with colonnades towards the interior of the house. Similarly to several other houses in this region of Herculaneum, the complex included a large terrace. There were other living rooms located below this terrace, which were probably used as well-ventilated relaxing rooms and belvederes.

Similarly to several other houses in this region of Herculaneum, the complex included a large terrace (Room E). There were other living rooms (Rooms 23-26) located below this terrace, which were probably used as well-ventilated relaxing rooms and belvederes. The open areas of this residence constituted a very large amount of its surface area, dominating the main focus of the structure. When this is considered in conjunction with Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling (the perceived conception particularly), it is evident that there was a high level of stratification at this structure. While this still conforms with Laurence’s views of social interaction and its importance, it is clear that this was highly controlled by the owner. Judging from the conceived conception of space, this regulation of social interaction simply sought to enforce the intended function of each respective space. The lived conception epitomises not only the social aspirations of its owner, but also the general differences in size and reception foci between this complex and the preceding two houses (Aristide and Argo).

The layout was based upon several corridors to connect the different regions. These corridors created a distinct division between the separate quarters of the house (Maiuri 1958, 324). There were four different sections: the atrium quarter, peristyle quarter, terrace portico and the lower levels. The atrium quarter was centred on the atrium (Room 12), placed near the entrance with several rooms surrounding it. There were bath facilities on the right hand side (Rooms 12-14), decorated with Second Style décor and mosaic pavements. This was constructed during the Augustan period and had been neglected at the time of the eruption. On the left hand side there were numerous rooms, some of which still have evidence of opus signinum and finely executed wall decoration in white tesserae. The peristyle included a large sunken garden below the level of the portico, including a fossilised trunk of a pear tree (Jashemski 1979, 261). The terrace portico region of the building included a large oecus (Room 23) for receiving guests and a smaller cubicula. The lower level portion of the House of the Albergo contained subterranean rooms, but only the staircase and a long corridor have been excavated.

Several other smaller entertainment areas of note have been identified within the House of the Albergo, suggesting that the owners had a similar attitude to owners of the villae suburbanae around Herculaneum, holding their social activities in an open environment. The other reception rooms included Rooms 23, 25, 26 and 32, which would have had pleasing views. When these areas are included within the statistical results for potential entertainment space, it illustrates the large amount of space that could have served such a function. In surface area, this townhouse was comparable to the Villa Sora (Villa 48), but its entertainment area was not as extensive. There was only a comparatively small amount of space devoted to internal entertainment areas, but they were still viewing Rooms (Rooms 23, 25, 26, 32), highlighting the importance of possessing a pleasing coastal view.

One of the most notable features was the commercial activity within this residence, which significantly altered the character of the residence during the final phase of occupation. The owners at this time were in the middle of large-scale modifications at the time of the eruption (Maiuri 1977, 26). These amendments to the house included the complete detachment and conversion of the southern wing into a self-contained residence (Ins. III, 18) (Fig. 120). One of the large portico rooms (Rooms 32-33) was also converted into a shop (De Kind 1998, 91). There was also a courtyard, including its surrounding rooms, which appears to have been used as a workshop rather than as servants quarters (Maiuri 1977, 26). All of

143

Graph 112 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Albergo

Graph 113 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Albergo Asymmetry values (Graph 113), whereby it is evident that there was a definite division between public and private sectors of this residence. Most areas were quite inaccessible, which further highlights the highly structured/regulated nature of the complex.

The House of the Albergo also had a large number of potential social spaces, which were located in both accessible and inaccessible regions. This is most notable in the differing degrees of accessibility in the hortus (Room B) and the peristyle (Room E). It is evident by comparing their Mean Depths (3.17, 4.38 respectively) and Relative Asymmetry values (0.06, 0.10) that the hortus was a public area, whereas Room E was more of a private region (Fig. 121). The same difference can also be viewed in Rooms 25 and 26, which despite being neighbours illustrate the differences in accessibility that determined the different roles of various regions. The overall Control Value results (Graph 112) illustrate the complexity of this house. There were eight rooms with a Control Value result over 2, which clearly dominated the vast majority of the other more ‘controlled’ spaces. This is further established by the general Real Relative

It seems apparent that the House of the Albergo was designed to take full advantage of its position, in view of the numerous rooms focused upon the coastline. In view of this, it would seem unlikely that it was originally intended to be a hospitum owing to the value of the property, instead being a large and impressive private residence. It also is evident that its original use changed over time, which is shown in the transformation of Rooms 32-3 into a commercial precinct. The poor state of maintenance at the time of the eruption (Maiuri 1958,

144

(Jashemski 1979, 262). This was an attempt to expand the impression of the garden, making it seem even larger. The eastern side tapered into a narrow corridor that was protected by glass and included a number of small rooms. There were five rooms, comprising four cubicula and a central exedra. The cubicula were all decorated with red wall paintings and ceilings, whereas the exedra was designed with slender architecture and little landscape paintings. The themes of these landscapes were mythological and depicted the Punishment of Dirce and Diana bathing. This exedra enjoyed an open view of the garden and was well ventilated. This setting was accentuated by the presence of a small waterspout within a marble basin. To the south of the peristyle there was a staircase that led to an upper floor, indicating that the main domestic wing of this complex had two storeys.

324) would also suggest that the owners were not as affluent as in previous periods. It is notable that all three of these residences (Aristide, Argo, Albergo) have exhibited a similar emphasis upon the provision of potential entertainment areas as villae suburbanae, and also that the same distribution of such areas throughout the various regions of these complexes existed. Not only does this highlight the importance of socialisation in both urban and suburban contexts, but it also shows that the importance of such interaction was not limited to the urban centre (be it in a social or political context). All the same, the variation in the spatial and theoretical analyses reflects the inherent individual interpretation in how to provide for social activity: each house is different in its provision for reception, and yet they all reflect the importance of socialisation within the context of their interaction with the wider community.

However, the true living quarters of the House of the Mosaic Atrium were accessible from the southern wing. The most notable was the triclinium (Room 12), which was in the centre of a series of rooms (Rooms 13-14, 1718). This triclinium was large and well appointed, producing fine marble paving and wall paintings (De Kind 1998, 133). The elegant décor is understandable in view of its function within such a noble residence. The smaller room to the left of the triclinium has also produced evidence of particularly fine wall paintings executed on a white ground base. The presence of such fine décor in this smaller room suggests that it served more of a private purpose for the residents than the triclinium, which would have also been used for entertaining guests. Nevertheless, all of these rooms enjoyed the view of a covered colonnade and an underlying narrow terrace, towards the panorama beyond. On either side of this colonnade there were two diaetae (Rooms 23-24), being used for private relaxation by the inhabitants and particularly as living rooms to enjoy the landscape and sea-breezes. These rooms appear to be identified with the cubicula diurna in Roman villas (Maiuri 1961, 112). All of the rooms within this region enjoyed the view of the Bay of Naples, which was the reason for their creation. This portion of the domus has been dated to a later period than the northern region, probably to post AD 62 (Kockel 1986, 528). The ability to use this section of the city walls to extend the house was possible because their defensive requirements were severely reduced at this time.

The House of the Mosaic Atrium The House of the Mosaic Atrium (Ins. IV, 1-2) was planned to appreciate the panorama beyond (Fig. 122), with two distinct regions: the entrance area and peristyle quarter. These separate areas were constructed on two levels, owing to the natural slope of the ground, further accentuating the differing function of each region. As previously noted, it is quite common for these complexes to be designed with a clear demarcation between different regions within these houses. The entrance area consisted of the atrium and tablinum, whereas the peristyle quarter comprised the reception and living rooms, positioned upon terraces which enjoyed the view of the panorama (De Kind 1998, 131-6). Despite the orientation of the entrance being from west to east towards the tablinum, the orientation of the impluvium in the atrium and the pool in the peristyle was south-south east towards Room 12 and the coast. The entrance led directly from the fauces to the atrium, but it was unusual because the impluvium was out of line with the axis of the room, owing to the irregular roof (Maiuri 1977, 27). The atrium was paved with a chessboard styled mosaic. The atrium led directly into the tablinum, but the form of this room was closed towards the end with partitions of pilasters, holding windows above them, and decorated in Fourth Style (Barbet 1981, 924). This unusual design resulted in the creation of three aisles, with a wider and higher corridor in the middle, flanked by two smaller aisles (Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 244).

It is evident that with the well-appointed facilities and its open disposition that it should be no surprise that Maiuri (1958, 302) has compared this domus to a villa suburbana. His reasoning for this was the detachment of the residential areas and open view towards the coast and countryside, which is indicative of many villae suburbanae. It is for this reason that the southern urban residences in Herculaneum should be compared to the villas in the suburbs of the city: they shared similar desires in their intended lifestyles and yet a different type of location. Owing to their prominent location on the promontory at Herculaneum they could easily appreciate

The entrance area was connected to the peristyle quarter by a windowed portico. The inter-columnar spaces in this portico were walled in and windows were cut into the spaces, thus sheltering the residents from inclement weather. Within this portico was a garden area, which had two entrances, and also produced a large amount of carbonised wood. On the northern wall there were paintings of plants, grapevines, ivy and branches of oleander under the windows, columns and door-posts

145

residence was for the owners’ place within the wider community.

the space beyond the city precincts, only being comparable to the terrace villas in Insula Occidentalis in Pompeii.

The statistical data from this residence illustrates its intended function and the important social role that it possessed. The amount of space for reception was comprised of several different areas, such as the peristyle, terraces, triclinium, exedra and tablinum. The diversity of types of room and their number within this residence highlight that it frequently served a public role. It is also evident that the designer focused the layout towards the landscape, and yet there was also a relatively high amount of internal reception space (Fig. 123) (Table 57). This would have provided the owners with a large number of options for choosing areas for social occasions, which would have largely depended upon each particular circumstance.

There were six rooms with socialisation roles: the peristyle, as well as Rooms 5, 9, 12, 23 and 24. Room 5 served primarily as a tablinum, whereas the décor and position of Room 12 suggests that it was a triclinium. Room 9 has been classified as an exedra, but Rooms 23 and 24 have been deemed to be diaetae. Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling, through its perceived conception, reflects the high level of social stratification within the House of the Mosaic Atrium. This is largely epitomised by the segregation of specific regions from the general (or uninvited) public. This is also shown through the conceived conception, whereby each space seems to have served quite a distinct function. The lived conception of space clearly represents how socially symbolic this

Graph 114 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Mosaic Atrium

146

Graph 115 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Mosaic Atrium has been dated to the Claudian/Neronian period (Maiuri 1977, 61).

The open aspect is illustrated by the numerous viewing rooms (Rooms 12, 22-24), allowing for both internal and external perspectives. The number of viewing rooms may have been even larger, owing to the questionable circumstances surrounding the use of glass around the viridarium. If the glass panels were not as extensive as previously thought then Rooms 7, 9 and 10 would have had a pleasing view of this garden area. The inclusion of two diaetae (Rooms 23, 24) also highlight the inclusion of entertainment space within the private domain of this domus, in a similar fashion to the Villas of Diomede (Villa 19) and Mysteries (Villa 20) outside Pompeii. This has been exhibited in their high Relative Asymmetry (both 0.21) and Mean Depth values (both 3.44). These private areas contrast the other four public potential entertainment rooms (Rooms P, 5, 9, 12), all of which possessed lower Relative Asymmetry (0.08, 0.18, 0.16, 0.10 respectively) and Mean Depths (1.92, 3.16, 2.88, 2.16). This clearly illustrates the public/private division in the accessibility of these regions. The general Control Value results (Graph 114) exhibits the highly dominant role of the two rooms in particular, reflecting the highly regulated nature of this residence. The social hierarchy within this domus is also shown by the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 115), whereby the varying (but evenly spread) results of accessibility readily represent the definite public and private roles of each reception space.

The entrance was impressive, having a corridor of marble pavement leading to a small testudinate atrium (Brothers 1996, 40). This served as a vestibule that opened onto other rooms within this region. This secondary role of the atrium, as mentioned previously, had become quite common with the addition of peristyles. The atrium was connected with a large triclinium and the quadriporticus on one side, and on the other side there was a corridor that led to the internal section of the house, including the servile region, incorporating the kitchen and larder. The servant’s quarters were located in the upper level and reached via a small staircase and wooden gallery. The triclinium and large drawing room were soberly decorated with ornamental motifs on a black ground broken by wide bands of red from the dado to the cornice. The architecture of the room was similarly subdued. However, the main decorative feature was the pavement, which had been embellished with an intricate pattern of marble intarsia. This flooring had no specific design, but was made up of many separate tiles of varying shapes and types of marble (Maiuri 1958, 307). The original layout would have allowed for an impressive panorama of the garden and the pergola on the terrace towards the sea from a large open portal. On the same side of the atrium there was another small room, which led to the kitchen, apotheca and latrine. There was also a small well-appointed cubiculum, decorated with fine red wall paintings and marble sectile pavement. To the rear was an elegant oecus, used for receiving guests and clients. The walls and vault were delicately painted with red ground complementing the polychrome marble flooring. The décor of this room also included a statuette

The House of the Stags Adjacent to the House of the Mosaic Atrium was the House of the Stags (Ins. IV, 21) (Fig. 124), which would have been very impressive, stretching roughly forty-three metres in length. This building had two distinct regions: the northern entrance quarter and southern terrace area. These two parts were connected by a quadriporticus that was illuminated by windows. The period of these features

147

pergula placed in the middle of a loggia, which was designed with four pilasters. On either side of this pergola there were two diaetae (Rooms 22-23), which would have been used for private relaxation and provided a good position to enjoy the view of the landscape.

of a Satyr drinking from a wineskin, which was placed in the centre of the room. The quadriporticus was sizeable, but at the time of the eruption the architectonic element of its columns had gone, which has been noted in the House of the Mosaic Atrium, and it had taken the form of a corridor with windows. Despite this alteration, the wall paintings and pavement were still preserved, with the divisions of the mosaic matching the windows in the walls. The wall paintings consisted of small pictures that were placed on the panels between the windows, including scenes of Cupid playing. These images were originally part of a longer series of pictures, and may represent the presence of the goddess Venus in everyday life (Tam Tinh 1984, 59). The quadriporticus overlooked a garden, which was enclosed between its walls. This garden was decorated with marble sculptures and tables, including two groups of statues illustrating deer being attacked by hounds (Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 241). The external side of the portal from the triclinium was adorned with a pediment, which was originally revetted with glass mosaic and displayed the head of Oceanus in the middle of a frieze of Cupids on hippocampi. This garden area would have provided a pleasant internal scene to be enjoyed while dining or relaxing in all of the rooms surrounding it.

Not much has survived of these rooms, but one of them has produced evidence of opus sectile pavement (Maiuri 1977, 63). Beyond these rooms, there was a solarium, which obviously would have only been used when the weather was agreeable, but it would have permitted for one of the most impressive views of the seaside from the southern edge of Herculaneum. It is clear from the large number of rooms intended to appreciate the view within the House of the Stags that each was planned to serve a different purpose for the leading residents of the household. The triclinium/oecus would have been used as an entertaining place for guests, whereas the two diaetae would have served more of a private function, reserved almost entirely for the principal residents. The solarium could only have been used when the weather was pleasant, but the inclusion of the other more enclosed rooms would not have precluded the enjoyment of the view to these times. The potential social areas comprised of a peristyle (Room P), Room 5 (which seems to have been a dining room), the tablinum (Room 15), Room 18 (which was a viewing room) and Rooms 22 and 23, which were diaetae. This was over a quarter of the total surface area, which was a consistent result with other houses in the region. The perceived conception of space for the House of the Stags shows a large amount of social hierarchy within its confines. This is highlighted by the large amount of social control between various sections of the complex. Lefebvre’s conceived conception also reflects this, where the designated role of each room appears to be quite clear. The lived conception also epitomises the importance of social hierarchies for the design and decoration of this domus.

The southern quarter of the House of the Stags was located beyond the quadriporticus and the garden, comprised of a terrace from which the panorama of the Bay of Naples could be fully appreciated. Unfortunately this region of the complex has been poorly preserved, but the extant evidence indicates that this region was even more luxurious than the northern entrance quarter. In the centre of this terrace there was a room that served as a summer triclinium and an oecus paved in opus sectile. This well appointed room was flanked on either side by two smaller rooms, which were also luxurious in their décor, being floored with marble pavements, and had sizeable windows which looked onto the garden within the building (Tam Tinh 1988, 17-18). There was also a

148

Graph 116 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Stags

Graph 117 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Stags values (Graph 117), where it is clear that there was an evident division between the public and private sectors of this domus.

Owing to the lower Relative Asymmetry values, it appears that Room P (0.112), Room 5 (0.116) and Room 15 (0.153) served a public role, owing to their easier accessibility (Fig. 125) (Table 58). This is also exhibited in their Mean Depths (2.86, 3.74, 3.51 respectively) and Depth from Exterior (5, 5, 6) when compared to the other potential entertainment rooms. Rooms 18, 22 and 23 all had much higher Relative Asymmetry (0.216, 0.272, 0.216 respectively), Mean Depths (4.57, 5.49, 4.57) and Depth from Exterior (8, 9, 8), indicating their inaccessible or private entertainment roles. The overall Control Value results (Graph 116) exhibits the presence of nine spaces that were dominant ‘controlling’ areas, thus indicating a highly regulated residence where access was restricted to the wider (or uninvited) community in some regions. This is further shown by the general Real Relative Asymmetry

The significance of the Houses of the Mosaic Atrium and Stags is that they both represent houses where the layout was specifically adapted to orientate the dining and open regions of each complex towards the coast, thus taking full advantage of the impressive view and beneficial sea breezes. These townhouses could quite rightly be compared to suburban villas in their function and lifestyle, but the one discerning feature is the question of privacy. The owners of both houses would have evidently been of some social, or at least financial standing, which would suggest that there would have been numerous visits from clients and it would have been quite busy at

149

At the end of the atrium there was a vestibule, which was probably used for receiving guests, and a corridor that was paved with black mosaic with white bands. This corridor led towards a large room and other well bright and well-ventilated rooms that comprised the terrace region of the residence. The triclinium and drawing-room (Room 6) was paved with a large mosaic square with fine geometric patterning that was intended to imitate textile carpet art. This room had a large window, which would have made this dining room well ventilated but would have also provided a good view over the loggia towards the harbour. To the left of the corridor there was an alcove (Room 8) and an anteroom (Room 7), which were also finely decorated. This alcove was well-appointed, but had décor that suggested great luxury not quality (Maiuri 1958, 340). This room was ventilated by a window onto the porch, but this was not large enough for any significant view. The loggia was placed in a large, external position towards the rear of the building. The purpose of these two rooms was to enjoy the panorama of the Bay beyond while entertaining or relaxing, but unfortunately the wall decoration of this room has not survived.

these residences at certain times, especially for the morning salutatio. Naturally, this would have severely reduced the capacity for the owner to appreciate any escape from their daily responsibilities, which does not appear to have been the case in several of the villae suburbanae. But this was decided only by the position of the residence, whereas the intentions to create an impressive residence, incorporating the view of the landscape and the ensuing health benefits were evidently the prime sources of motivation for constructing both suburban villas and these large townhouses (Tam Tinh 1988, 27-8). Hoffmann (1980, 1-14) has argued that the terrace houses outside both Pompeii and Herculaneum represent and attempt by the middle classes for suitably pleasant accommodation, but the grand nature of some residences seem to suggest otherwise. Insula Orientalis is a region within the ancient Herculaneum that consisted of two houses (Map 6), the House of the Gemma and the House of the Relief of Telphus (Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 246). Both of these residences opened with their atria to the west onto V cardo, but the longest axis for both complexes extended from north to south. This feature of these buildings was similar to the Houses of the Albergo, Mosaic Atrium and Stags. The importance of this element of the layout of these houses was that it was introduced in order to attain the best possible viewing platforms of the Bay of Naples from terraces (Maiuri 1958, 336). The House of the Relief of Telphus is especially notable in the Insula Orientalis region because it almost completely surrounds the House of the Gemma, which was placed in a higher position. The House of the Relief of Telphus then extended with elegant apartments that overlooked the Bay of Naples. Both of these complexes were placed on the extreme brow of the hill, utilising the topography of the location to the fullest extent to create loggias, storerooms and other rooms below street-level. Unfortunately the House of the Relief of Telphus has not been completely excavated on the extreme eastern side, which may present some limitations.

There was a garden (Room a) located towards the rear of this domus, which was partially on the earthen bank and also supported upon sturdy vaults. This garden was actually shared with the larger House of the Relief of Telphus. However, neither of these residences had an entrance into this area, which highlights that it was intended to be viewed, allowing light and ventilation into both houses. The House of the Gem was a well-appointed residence and that the owners sought to create not only a pleasant living environment but also an impressive domus that incorporated the panorama of the coast. The entertaining rooms (Rooms P, 4, 10, 11, 12) exhibit the importance that this held to the leading residents. This is accentuated by the location of most servile rooms on the upper floors, away from the public regions of the building. The residence has produced similar spatial results to the majority of residences in this region of Herculaneum (Fig. 127) (Table 59). It had a large amount of space taken up by the peristyle, which constituted the majority of its social space.

The House of the Gem The House of the Gem (Ins. Or. I, 1) was planned in an elegant fashion (Fig. 126), with the entrance leading to an Etruscan atrium. This room was decorated with walls paintings executed in red and black, being finished in a fine manner. This room was designed with an unusual assembly of walls that were reinforced by pilasters to support the roof and a prostylon near the adjoining tablinum. The atrium also opened onto a cubiculum towards the rear and also onto a terrace that was enclosed by a pilasters and windows. To the right of the atrium led a curved passage towards the domestic region, which consisted of a kitchen and a latrine (Maiuri 1958, 339). This kitchen was planned to take full use of the available natural light and ventilation by opening onto a small terrace.

This residence had among the largest amounts of entertainment space among the townhouses, most of which had an open demeanour. However, its size illustrates that it was a small but well-appointed residence, epitomising the ideals of luxuria and otium within a small domestic context. The intentions of its owner were similar to the owners of villae suburbanae, but its position in the city limited its growth. Judging from its perceived conception, it is clear that there was only a limited amount of social stratification at this residence, which also corresponds with the importance of socialisation as mentioned in the theories of Laurence. Lefebvre’s conceived and lived conceptions of space also indicate that while this may have been a modestly sized

150

structure, but it was evidently designed to reflect the aspirations of its owner and their social priorities.

reading: Apollinaris medicus Titi imperatoris hic cacavit bene (“Apollinaris, physician of the Emperor Titus, shat well here”). It is evident that the owners’ of the House of the Gem had social aspirations, owing to the loggia at the rear of the structure, but they were not as elevated as at the Houses of the Mosaic Atrium, Stags or Relief of Telphus. The latter dominated the House of the Gemma, it being almost impossible to separate the two houses. But the aspirations of the owner of the House of the Gem for a pleasant lifestyle are still manifest in their residence.

The design of this building was clearly influenced by the limitation of space available at this place on the terrace. Therefore, the plan was quite irregular in shape, but the proprietor still advertised their social position and pretensions with the notable production of the wall paintings in this coastal domus. The elevated social position of the leading residents has been illustrated by the discovery of a graffito on the walls of the latrine

Graph 118 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Gem

Graph 119 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Gem The House of the Gem also exhibited a similar differentiation between public and private space. Of its five potential entertainment areas (Rooms P, 4, 10, 11, 12) it is evident that both the peristyle and Room 4 were

more accessible, owing to their lower Relative Asymmetry (0.186, 0.139, 0.277, 0.234, 0.234 respectively) and Mean Depth values (2.955, 2.455, 3.909, 3.455, 3.455). Rooms P and 4 were not drastically

151

some of which depicting Satyrs and Sileni being discovered with a necklace of amulets, several lamps and various comestibles, such as bread, cakes and eggs. On the northern side of the atrium led two small doors from the living quarters to a stabulum or equile, which had independent street access via a ramp for small carts and animals (Ins. Or. I, 3). There was a steep sloping corridor leading from this region of the building down to the peristyle quarter below, which predominantly consisted of the well-appointed part of the peristyle and terraces.

higher (Relative Asymmetry 0.186, 0.139; Mean Depths of 2.955, 2.455 respectively), but when these results are used in conjunction with their relative sizes and locations, it would seem appropriate to view these areas as being more private. The division in public/private space was not as obvious at this residence for entertainment areas, but it was still quite evident. This perspective is also reflected in the overall Control Value results (Graph 118) and Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 119). So while this domus was not the largest structure placed on the southern frontage of Herculaneum, this did not prevent the owner from constructing a well-appointed residence that conveyed their position within the hierarchy of the local community.

The peristyle of the House of the Relief of Telphus was constructed out of brick columns and it enclosed a garden that was enclosed by low walls of a pluteus. Within this garden there was also a rectangular tank in the middle of the garden, which was decorated with blue plaster. The peristyle was a later construction than the atrium quarter of this house, owing to the discovery of older constructions below the peristyle level. The garden was located above several subterranean rooms that have not been excavated, but the remaining portion of the garden was paved by a stratum of bipedales so that the cellars below were protected from the penetration of rain and soil. The most impressive rooms of the entire complex were located on the south side of the peristyle. These rooms were richly decorated, having the remains of wall paintings, marble dados and opus sectile pavements and mosaic. The ambulacrum of the peristyle continued beyond these rooms and opened onto a terrace which had several rooms opening onto it (Maiuri 1958, 355).

The House of the Relief of Telphus The House of the Relief of Telphus (Ins. Or. I, 2-3) was, as mentioned previously, an enormous residence and it is one of the most notable examples of a complex designed to take the most advantage of the topography to get the best viewing panorama from the house (Guadagno 1979, 22). The steep slope of the ground, as well as the presence of the House of the Gemma, meant that the layout of this residence was quite unusual (Fig. 128), having a significant oblique deviation from the main axis of the insula. The house was built upon two levels, connected by a ramp, which constitute the two primary regions of the building: the atrium and peristyle quarters. The ownership of this house has been attributed to one of Herculaneum’s leading inhabitants, Marcus Nonius Balbus (Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 133). This is owing to the interconnecting passages between this residence and the Suburban Baths, above the embankment and below against the marina walls. Balbus had been Proconsul of Crete and Cyrenaica, he had supported Vespasian during the civil wars in 68-69 AD and he paid for the construction of the Suburban Baths, hence this interpretation. It is impossible to attribute the House of the Relief of Telphus to Balbus with any certainty, but owing to the position of this domus, its size and the fine décor, it does appear plausible.

The largest of these rooms was positioned on the extreme southern edge of the complex. This room was embellished with elegant décor, which included an impressive marble features. The dimensions of this room measured 9.20 by 6.60 metres and it had its chief entrance on the side of the loggia. It was floored with an imposing polychrome marble pavement and it also contained a sumptuous dado with large horizontal and vertical panels of cipollino, pavonazzetto and African marble. These panels were framed by bands and broken up by spiral-fluted half-columns with Corinthian capitals. The dating of these features has been given to the Flavian period and it appears that this room was used as an elegant drawing room. Within the smaller preceding room there was discovered a neo-Attic relief representing the story of Telphus, from which this building has been named. This relief was executed in an eclectic manner and is representative of the late Hellenistic school, dated to around the first Century BC. There was a garden placed to the north of this room, which appears to have been a late addition to the complex, owing to the remains of the preceding construction still surviving.

The atrium quarter of the building was constructed on the same level as the street, with the entrance of the residence leading directly to the atrium without any fauces. There were colonnades located on the sides of the atrium, forming two minor aisles, which Maiuri (1977, 65) noted, were reminiscent of oeci corinthii. The atrium had an Etruscan roof, which was on the same level as the upper floor. This room was decorated with marble oscilla with satyric figures and theatrical masks suspended between the columns with a glossy red painted background on the walls and column (Maiuri 1958, 350-1). The room was paved with black and white mosaic, including a square fountain in the centre. This atrium has also been described as a columned court, owing to its peristyle-like décor, but the intended function of the room means that it should still be classed as an atrium colomnatum. The rooms located above the atrium continued this style of decoration, with other minor marble panels and oscilla,

The rooms which were located beneath this level of the complex are similar to those discovered in the House of the Albergo by taking advantage of the naturally steep sloping topography. Both the upper and lower levels of this region of the house have preserved well-appointed décor, which is indicative of their function. Beneath the

152

décor and aspect. The spatial analysis highlights the large number of rooms for entertainment and relaxation, having both open and enclosed perspectives (Fig. 129) (Table 60). These regions comprised a large area of the complex and are indicative of the owners’ aspirations. The arrangement of this structure is clearly the result of gradual expansion and highlights the aspirations of its residents. These priorities also represent the social role that this residence performed with a wide selection of areas for the appropriate occasion. Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling, through its perceived conception, reflects an extremely high level of social stratification within the House of the Relief of Telphus. This is largely epitomised by the segregation of specific regions from the general (or uninvited) public. This is also shown through the conceived conception, whereby each space seems to have served quite a distinct function. The lived conception of space clearly represents how socially symbolic this residence was for the owners’ place within the wider community.

large drawing room was another room that was adorned with finer marble pavement and wall paintings, being one of the most elaborate decorative assemblages of paintings discovered in Herculaneum. To the east of this room there was also a gallery, planned with half-columns and windows, which leads towards more rooms that have not yet been excavated. But it is clear from the inclusion of so many well-appointed rooms that this region of the house would have been utilised for both entertain and for relaxation. The position of these rooms towards the rear of the complex, overlooking the vast panorama beyond is significant for both of these purposes. The adornment of these rooms accentuates the efforts by which the owners of the residence sought to not only create a pleasing environment for their own appreciation, but also to impress those guests invited into this region of the domus. There were seven rooms with a potential entertainment role: the peristyle (Room 9), the tablinum (Room 2), Rooms 10, 12, 16, 17 and 18. All of these rooms have been allocated this function because of their position,

Graph 120 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the House of the Relief of Telphus

153

Graph 121 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the House of the Relief of Telphus As with the previous two townhouses, this residence also made provisions for both an internal and external view. However, only one room looked towards the coastline (Room 18), whereas the others viewed the peristyle (Room B) and the viridarium (Room 15). The Hillier and Hanson method has also illustrated a major division between the public and private regions. The tablinum (Room 2) was the only public entertainment room, having a lower Relative Asymmetry (0.283), Mean Depth (5.39) and Depth from Exterior (3). All of the other rooms were located within the private sphere of this domus, with Rooms 16-18 having particularly higher Relative Asymmetry values (0.336, 0.434, 0.434 respectively), illustrating their greater inaccessibility. This indicates that the owner wanted to control the viewing perspective from the public sphere, whereas the more private Room 18 allowed for a coastal panorama and sea breezes. The overall Control Value results (Graph 120) have illustrated the dominance of eight ‘controlling’ spaces in particular, exhibiting the highly structured nature of the élite residence. While it is evident that this house developed over time (probably as space became available), the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 121) show that most of its precincts were quite private and that their accessibility was highly regulated. This is similar to the Villa of the Papyri (Villa 45), in that it was in the extremely private areas of the residence that the coastal landscape was viewed, whereas the public region viewed the peristyla and viridaria.

of wealth, with there being several references to the use of coastal properties by ancient authors, such as Cato, Varro and Columella.

Overall Conclusions It has been suggested that the residents along the southern frontage of Herculaneum were probably involved in fishing as a major source of income. This has been thought because of not only the position of these houses, but also because of the discovery of equipment for this purpose. Maritime activity was not an uncommon source

However, it is also of interest to note the smaller number of known villas in the suburbs of Herculaneum than around Pompeii. This may be indicative of either more modern investigative attention being paid towards Pompeii or that the smaller number of villas is indicative of the comparable size and importance difference between the two towns. If it is taken to be the later, there

Owing to the limited publication of evidence for several of the complexes that could be considered villae suburbanae, it is quite difficult to draw any significant conclusions. But it does seem appropriate to hypothesise that Villas 45-49 should be viewed as suburban, in view of their position and the evidence of fine décor. The notable, informative and yet exceptional example of these is the Villa of the Papyri (45). The remaining three villas (Villas 50-52) appear to have been simple farmsteads and quite different to the previous examples in their facilities and character. When comparing the dimensions of the southern townhouses it is of interest to observe that the most opulent of the (Mosaic Atrium, Stags and Relief of Telphus) were of comparable size to many Campanian suburban villas. However, they were clearly constrained in their expansion by their urban location. The attempts to break free of this by the owners is evident in the expansion and construction onto the terraces of the citywalls, as well as the acquisition of smaller houses in order to spread out, particularly at the House of the Relief of Telphus. Unfortunately, owing to the limited available information on the villas in the region, it is impossible to compare the expansion of these residences.

154

One architectural feature of particular note was the presence of tablina in these residences. It is significant that these complexes were among the most opulent in this region, which would explain the inclusion of such a room. The role that the tablinum played within a residence has produced some discussion, owing to the conflicting comments of several ancient sources (Winsor Leach 1997, 52-3; Ruggiu 1995, 383-96). Regardless of the disagreements that have occurred about the official or unofficial role of the tablinum, it is evident that it was a room of some consequence, commonly being placed on the same axis as the atrium and peristyle in an elevated position (Ruggiu 1995, 383). In this location it was not only well-illuminated by the peristyle (Dwyer 1982, 116), but it was a focal point bridging the internal and external spaces of the domus.

are some important considerations. Firstly, if the greater number of villas around Pompeii is indicative of its greater importance and commercial significance, then it must have been that the position of many villas close to a city of consequence was a serious consideration. The placement of large villa establishments could not have been a haphazard choice, but a considered decision and it seems evident that the distance to an urban centre was an important factor. This would have been of even greater importance if a suburban estate was expected to be financially viable, as many suburban villas seemingly were. One of the most notable features within this group of townhouses was the wide variety of designated rooms that could have been used for reception. This may simply be a result of the interpretations of authors such as Maiuri (1958), but it may also represent the importance of this function to the owners. This is particularly notable at the Houses of Aristide, the Mosaic Atrium, Stags and the Relief of Telphus. The latter specifically was the only example to have instances of every different kind of room, being indicative of its size and expansion over time. In relation to the finding of Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling, it is evident that the analysis of the perceived conception illustrates that the social stratification of regions within these villas and townhouses was of some importance. The conceived conception of space illustrates how each of these residences was designed with a particular intended function for the vast majority of spaces. While it must be acknowledged that the use of space within these residences was much more flexible than in modern houses (Allison 2004), judging from these structures it is evident that their design still encouraged a primary intended function. The lived conception further exemplifies this through the physical representation of these structures.

So it was evidently an important room that served an obvious social role. The presence of large tablina in both the Houses of the Mosaic Atrium and the Stags made clear statements of the public function these residences possessed. So the large tablinum within the Villa of the Papyri (Villa 45) illustrates the official role that this structure performed within the local community. Despite its seclusion and desire for privacy, this villa suburbana also made a statement about the owner’s social standing as well as taking a prominent place within the suburbium of the city. It is unknown how involved the owners were within the affairs of the local community, but it would seem that they did participate to a certain degree and this villa suburbana was a consistent representation of the owners’ success, even when they did not reside there. The statistical data taken from Villas 45 and 48 as well as the townhouses illustrates two important points for this study. Firstly, the townhouses had a large amount of entertainment space; not as high as the villae suburbanae, but they still performed an important social function. They also produced similar statistics to the townhouses in Pompeii. However, owing to their position they also possessed impressive views of the coastal panorama, similar to the residences in Insula Occidentalis. But secondly, the difference between villae suburbanae and the townhouses was also quite marked. Owing to their position outside the city, which allowed for further expansion in their surface area, Villas 45 and 48 had a much higher percentage of entertainment space than the townhouses. However, it is also interesting to note that the three most notable townhouses in Herculaneum (Mosaic Atrium, Stags and the Relief of Telphus) had a larger amount of internal reception space, which may be indicative of a more consistent social role. This may be owing to the differing designation of room function between the urban and suburban sites as well, but it is an interesting detail to observe.

When considering Laurence’s theories of socialisation it is clear that the connection between urban space and social activity was of great importance for the élite townhouses under question. The pre-eminence of these residences on the southern frontage of Herculaneum has been previously noted (Wallace-Hadrill 2011), but they also provide the optimal comparison for the élite residences in the suburbium of the city. When viewing the villae suburbanae in this region it is evident that there was a strong predilection towards social productivity for the structures directly on the coast. Both the Villas of the Papyri (Villa 45) and Sora (Villa 48) clearly substantiate this. All the same, this ties in well with the comparison of villas and townhouses in this region: the coastal viewing aspect was a connecting feature regardless of them being either urban or extra-urban residences. However, this was not the only unifying feature between them.

All the same, in general terms it must be acknowledged that there was clearly a recognisable difference between all of these structures: the needs, circumstances and

155

available opportunities were different for all of the respective owners. But while there are variations between each individual residence, there was still a unifying trend as shown by the Hillier and Hanson method. This form of

spatial analysis has exhibited a degree of continuity within this group of complexes. This also provides an excellent correlation with the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre and Laurence.

Graph 122 – Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Structures at Herculaneum Herculaneum suburbium were higher than all of the data taken from villas outside Pompeii. This is indicative of the reduced agricultural emphasis at both structures that were almost solely dedicated to lifestyle. It is notable that the next three highest results were from Villas 19, 22 and 27, all of which possessed limited agricultural productivity. But all of these results highlight the diverse nature of villae suburbanae and just how the intentions and priorities of their owners affected their facilities.

The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 122) have provided some interesting results. The clustering of levels of accessibility for the vast majority of structures illustrates the overall consistency of results. The one exception to this within this corpus is the House of the Relief of Telphus, which had a much greater provision of highly inaccessible areas within its confines. This seems to correspond with the highly elevated social position of Marcus Nonius Balbus within the Herculaneum community and illustrates the highly regulated nature of this residence. All the same, these results still provide an excellent indication of the high levels of socialisation that existed within these structures, regardless of whether they were placed either in the suburbium or on the southern frontage of the city.

Finally, it is also of interest to note the smaller number of known villas in the suburbs of Herculaneum than around Pompeii. This may be indicative of either more modern investigative attention being paid towards Pompeii or that the smaller number of villas is indicative of the comparable size and importance difference between the two towns. If it is taken to be the latter, there are two important considerations. Firstly, if the greater number of villas around Pompeii is indicative of its greater importance and commercial significance, then it must have been that the position of many villas close to a city of consequence was a serious consideration. The placement of large villa establishments could not have been a haphazard choice, but a considered decision and it seems evident that the distance to an urban centre was an important factor.

When Villas 45 and 48 are compared to the villae suburbanae at Pompeii the first impression is the size of the Villa of the Papyri. This complex dwarfed large and impressive structures such as the Villas of Poppaea (Villa 27) and Mysteries (Villa 20), further accentuating its impressive character. The Villa Sora (Villa 48) had a surface area that was around the average of these suburban structures, exemplifying its place within this group. The percentage of entertainment space at Villas 45 and 48 is even more striking. Both examples from the

156

Secondly, the position of both cities and their suburbium clearly had a marked effect on the roles that the villas were intended for in either region. There is a great variation in function and facilities in the Pompeian region, whereas the difference at those residences around Herculaneum was more defined: otium or rusticitas. This reflects the intentions of their owners, epitomising the desire to construct either a well-appointed villa of otium in the coastal suburbs of Herculaneum, or to build a smaller productive complex in a fertile region close to an urban centre. The intentions of the owners determined a villa’s character and role, which in turn defined whether it could be deemed to have been a villa suburbana, located in the coastal suburbium of Herculaneum.

157

Chapter VI Suburban Villas and Stabiae There was the discovery of a large rectangular space (Map 7), which appears to have served as a public piazza. There have been several statues of deities and a line of pillars along the southern and western sides uncovered, suggesting that it served as a religious building for the local community. There is also epigraphic evidence referring to the cult of the Genius Stabiarum and to a Venus Stabia, dated to after 89 BC, which illustrate the continuation of a Stabian identity within the community. It is possible that the real punishment for Stabiae in 89 BC was the loss of political autonomy to Nocera (Ferrara 1999, 167-8), with the surrounding regions becoming part of the ager publicus. There is also evidence of some connection between a necropolis from the Tiberian period with a liberti, or one of their descendants, of the gens Poppea (Margalhaes 1999, 224-35), which may suggest a link with the Villa of Poppea at Oplontis. The local ager Stabianus has produced a large number of agricultural villas, numbering to at least forty-six either recently uncovered or referred to on file (Miniero 1990, 218).

Having discussed the villas in the vicinity of Pompeii and Herculaneum, there is another urban centre that should be examined around the Bay of Naples region: Stabiae. This setting was different to those at Pompeii and Herculaneum, which highlights the flexible character of suburban villas, not only in the region of the Bay of Naples, but throughout central Italy. The early phases of development at Stabiae seem to indicate that it originated as a commercial port in the Etruscan period (Senatore 2001, 24). During the Second Century BC it appears that the economy of the region was based upon agricultural villas, specialised in the cultivation of olives and grapes. Determining its precise nature of urban development has been difficult owing to the limitations in previous excavations, but it is clear that there was an urban centre based around four paved roads by the end of the Second Century BC. There has also been material produced illustrating the existence of houses and shops, roughly three hundred metres from the Villa of San Marco, with First Style décor, suggesting a period dated before the destruction of Stabiae by Sulla in 89 BC. The plan of the Villa San Marco (Fig. 130), also suggests that it was adjusted to conform to the position of the road.

One attractive aspect of Stabiae was the mineral springs in the region (Columella 10.133), known for their curative faculty (Pappalardo 2001, 47). This centre, with its thermal baths and palatial villas, appears to have been ideal as a place for relaxation and respite (Camardo 1989a, 10), away from the hectic lifestyle in Rome, or even an active commercial city such as Pompeii. Therefore, if there was some continuation of urban elements at Stabiae, it would seem appropriate that those villas constructed close to the centre of town should be classified as villae suburbanae. Many of these villas were built on a series of terraces, which have already been seen in Insula Occidentalis at Pompeii, the Villa of Agrippa Postumus and the southern townhouses at Herculaneum. The development of this style of villa architecture may be indicative of the desire to create an architectural landscape, where the built element was deemed to be in close harmony with the landscape and the natural environment. But the most important aspect was the desire to create an impressive panorama from each residence, taking advantage of the elevated position.

It is of interest to note that it was a common feature of Roman imperialistic policy to destroy civic centres in the most fruitful areas when they encountered resistance and to strengthen secondary positions, as with the creation of the colonia at Pompeii (Guadagno 1979, 17). For this reason, it allowed settlement at highly productive centres for Roman citizens, which may explain the construction of such palatial villas following the Social War. Therefore it appears likely that the owners of these villas were wealthy Roman citizens (Ferrara 2001a, 103). But this did not preclude Stabiae for maintaining some urban qualities. There have been discoveries of small shops, such as tabernae and thermopolia along the road (Map 7). There is no evidence that these commercial buildings also served as private residences, but there have been two atrium houses discovered to the north of this area. After the destruction of Stabiae, the city developed on the western side rather than the east, with several businesses erected towards the street of Nocera, with the most panoramic positions occupied by wealthy villas (Ferraro 1979, 100). This region would have been an attractive location for private villas to the wealthy Roman classes, which is shown by the reference of Cicero to his friend M. Marius owning a villa there (Cicero Ad Fam., 7.1.1; Böhm 1982, 241-53).

Villa 53 – The Villa San Marco The Villa San Marco was one of the most impressive suburban residences in the region, covering an area of around 11,000 square metres (Ferrara 1989a, 41) (Map 8). This complex incorporated many finely painted rooms, bath facilities and an enormous garden peristyle (Fig. 130) (Croisille 1966, 245-57; Eristov 1978, 625-33). This villa, as with all of the villas discovered in Stabiae, was a clear demonstration of the housing tastes preferred by wealthy Romans in the late Republic and early Empire

158

(Elia 1957, 19). The original construction has been dated to the early Augustan period, with the initial dimensions being small in comparison to the later structure. This villa was placed upon the hill of Varano, just to the north of the urban centre, with the principal entrance placed just behind a large building with thermal heating. As with Vitruvius’ recommendations for pseudo-urban villas (6.5.3), the entrance led into a peristyle. From this led a small corridor led directly to an atrium (Room 44), but they also passed eight rooms of a servile nature (Fig. 130).

number of surgical instruments found. Some interesting finds within this villa are tile-stamps that refer to Narcissus, the minister of Claudius (Ling 1978, 155). The region around the Great Peristyle was one of the most significant quarters, having several notable aspects. This peristyle was adorned with early Fourth Style décor (Ling 2002, 445), and the architecture created the form of a double-tiered pavilion (Archer 1999, 147). The wall decoration used oblique lines in the constructions with additional figures, creating a greater illusion. These paintings were produced a few years before the earthquake in AD 62 (Ling 1984, 156). Access to this region was by a ramp, overcoming the five metre gradient between both peristyles. One important room adjoining this peristyle was an oecus (Room 16), which had impressive dimensions, having the capacity to accommodate a large number of people. The position of this entertaining room would have allowed an agreeable view of the peristyle, including its viridarium and natatio.

The atrium (Room 44) was constructed as a Tetrastyle atrium, with a tufa impluvium and mosaic paving. The pavements of this room and the surrounding areas have been dated to the Augustan period (Barbet 1983, 216). There were a series of cubicula bordering onto this atrium, as well as a staircase leading to an upper level. The combination of the peristyle with the atrium was the initial nucleus of the early villa, organised around the garden area (Room 9) to the south-west and the baths. The complex had many alterations and additions in the Claudian era, evidently because of the increased demands for exhibition by the owners. Despite these later additions there seems to have been a conscious decision to maintain a unified appearance in the décor of the complex, which is epitomised in the pavements (Pisapia 1983, 924). It was at this time that the large natatio (No. 15) was constructed in the garden area. The villa was still in the process of restoration at the time of the eruption, which is a common finding throughout the region (Ferrara 2001a, 104). The atrium contained a small bronze statue of Mercury, a candelabrum decorated with silver and a small bronze fountain spout in the shape of a raven. This room had several fine examples of wall-painting, such as Oedipus and the Sphinx and a mystical landscape, which are good examples of the high quality of work produced by Stabian artists (Pane Ferraro 1979, 116).

Within this peristyle was a garden area (Room 9), which was enlarged during the Claudian era, in accordance with the inclusion of the natatio (No. 15). The viridarium was enlarged by removing the eastern wall, covering around twenty-eight by forty-five metres. This extra space allowed for the inclusion of the thirty-eight metre long natatio (Jashemski 1979, 330). There was a fountain in the middle, which was placed on the same axis as the oecus. The presence of this fountain would have added to the pleasant view from the oecus (Room 16). The amplification of the viridarium also allowed for the creation of two diaetae, each being composed of three small rooms (Rooms 30, 50, 53 and 8, 12 14) on either side. On the south-eastern side, the visitor entered via a staircase into the first room (Room 30), which functioned as a clearing, placed in front of a larger room (Room 53), which was adorned with lavish frescoes and obviously the dominant room within the group.

The atrium was originally connected to the baths by a small corridor (Room 31), but this was closed in a later period. The baths had large dimensions and could almost have been deemed to be public space rather than private, especially if the dominus was entertaining guests. The caldarium of these baths included heating by a hypocaust system and a deep pool, lined with marble. The atrium also proceeded onto a tablinum, in which was discovered a lead weight inscribed ‘EME HABEBIS’ (CIL 10.8067,5). This discovery clearly exhibits the commercial practices that would have been performed in this room. Beyond the atrium there were also a series of structures constructed, which appear to have been used as servile quarters (Parslow 1995, 190), including the kitchen (Room 26). These rooms faced a triportico and were decorated in a simplistic fashion. This triportico has been dated to the Claudian period and despite the straightforward décor, it was executed in the highest quality (Ferrara 2001a, 104). A lead pipe was uncovered within these rooms, leading to a pool that was surrounded by a series of rooms. Inside these rooms there were a

The function of this room was for otium. This room appears to have been used in both summer and winter, with the discovery of a metal brazier, which would have been used for heating during the colder months. The room behind (Room 50) was more protected, bordering onto the external perimeter of the complex. It is clear that these rooms were intended for private use by the residents, taking advantage of the internal view of the garden and natatio. It seems plausible that the small open room (Room 30) preceding the principal space (Room 53) would have increased the available privacy, which was more pronounced in the rear room. The south-eastern wall of the Great Peristyle formed a shallow hemicycle, adorned with apsidal niches that concealed a narrow corridor that led towards a nymphaeum. This corridor included a place for the storage of a white marble crater. The decorations upon this piece included a relief of Pan and eight Maenads dancing around the vessel. This is a particularly fine piece and was probably exhibited within the nymphaeum.

159

ceiling was ornately adorned with a well-executed image of Minerva on the shoulders of Victory. Owing to the paucity of finds representing common use, it seems clear that this complex did not have the highest level of habitation at the time of the eruption (Miniero 1983, 9304), which is common throughout the region. Interestingly there is no evidence of wine production, which is uncommon. There have been twenty-four Dressel 2-4 and one Dressel 43 amphorae discovered, but these pieces appear to have been used for domestic consumption rather than for storing agricultural produce. It is evident that this complex was well-appointed and should be classified as a villa suburbana. Its décor and outlook towards the coastline would have created a pleasant lifestyle for its residents with an impressive view of the surrounding panorama and the benefits of healthy sea breezes.

This nymphaeum was a fine example of a private household shrine, including well-appointed wall decor and architecture (Blanc 1983, 924). The focus point of this room was the water feature (Parslow 1995, 178), comprising a water-stair fountain sunken behind the rear wall. Water was supplied by the central euripus in the garden, via the lead pipes previously mentioned. This water feature was flanked by apsidal niches fitted with water pipes and decorated with small wall mosaics. One of these depicted the myth of Phryxis and Helle, whereas the other showed Europa and the bull (Lavagne and Wattel-de Croizant 1984, 742). Above this image, there was also a small portion of a still-life scene portraying a hen and two pomegranates. The other niches around this nymphaeum were also decorated with stuccoed reliefs, including one depicting a naked gymnast with a hoop, which had preserved remnants of orange-brown paint to possibly imitate bronze statues (Ling 1984, 158). In the opening between these niches there was also a marble table discovered. This piece was white marble and the bases of the legs were carved into the shape of lions’ paws. Owing to the similarity in the materials used for both the crater and this table, it appears that this table was used to display such a fine marble vessel. In his study of furniture in Herculaneum, Stephan Mols (1999) has suggested that marble furniture was used in the public sphere of the Roman domus. However, it is not certain just how public this region would have been in view of its location. The crater was obviously not exhibited continually, so that when it was not used it would have been stored away.

The analysis of this complex shows that it was a large and palatial villa suburbana. The intentions of the owners to create a well-appointed villa for otium and luxuria can be noted not only in its immense size, but also in the large number of entertainment rooms, including diaetae, oecii and several peristyles (Bergmann 2004, 81). The layout had a very open aspect directed into the peristyles, and beyond the residence towards the vast panorama of the Campanian coastline. If the layout is taken into consideration, particularly the large western wing of this residence, it is clear that the view was the prime reason behind the design. However, the inclusion of the tablinum (Room 16) suggests that there may have also been an official element to the Villa San Marco. This is impossible to determine for certain, but in any case it was only a small section of this vast, open establishment.

There was another small garden area (No. 19), which seems to have had an external disposition. This garden was placed between the residential areas, intended to create a quiet vista while taking advantage of the view of the Bay of Naples from the oecus (Ferrara 2001a, 104). There seems to have been four large windows that allowed this small garden to be well lit and ventilated. A tree-root cavity has also been discovered, illustrating that it would have been a pleasant shady spot for the inhabitants. The theoretical modelling for this complex agrees with the well-appointed demeanour of this residence. The perceived conception of space suggests a high degree of social stratification, whereby there was a clear distinction between the regions for the leading residents and their invited guests when compared to the more public internal regions. This corresponds with Lefebvre’s conceived conception that highlights how these different areas were placed in such a fashion to overtly demonstrate not only the élitism of the owner within the Stabian community, but also the hierarchy of being admitted into the open regions to the rear of the structure. The lived conception of space clearly reflects the social symbolism that was intrinsically connected to the overall design of the Villa San Marco.

The spatial data from the Villa San Marco complements its classification as a villa suburbana. At this complex the open areas, which were mostly adorned with columnar architecture, were used for entertainment purposes. This has been determined because of their size and the additional viewing rooms. Room H was adorned with Fourth Style décor and was bordered by two diaetae (Rooms 12, 53) and a large well-appointed oecus (Room 16). Room 16 was located on the same axis as a fountain in Room H, which added to the visual effect. Room 59a has been judged to have been a tablinum due to its position, as well as the discovery of a lead weight reading ‘EME HABEBIS’ in its confines. Room 20 has been classified as a summer triclinium because of its position and décor, being isolated from the more utilitarian rooms on the opposite side of Room C. The amount of space devoted to peristyles and open terraces emphasises the unrestricted layout that evolved at this complex. The majority of these areas would have been ideal settings for social occasions, clearly exhibiting the urbanitas of its owners within a suburban setting. The dominance of open areas within this structure is also

The loggiato was decorated with fine wall paintings including representations of Jupiter and Dionysus. The

160

highlighted in the minimal emphasis upon internal entertainment regions in this complex. However, this does not mean that there was no provision for socialisation within the internal areas, with several regions dedicated for the otium of both residents and

guests. In particular the diaetae (Rooms 12, 53), that overlooked an ornamental peristyle area and provided a brazier for cooler occasions, would have been used for internal entertainment (Ferrara 2001a, 104).

Graph 123 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa San Marco

Graph 124 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa San Marco The Hillier and Hanson method (Fig. 131) (Table 61) has illustrated the clear division between public and private space at this suburban villa. This is demonstrated by Room G, given its high Control Value (9.7). All of the public rooms (Rooms G, H, 12, 16, 53, 59a) have produced a low result in relation to the entrance but are quite isolated according to their Mean Depths. This illustrates that despite their easy accessibility to the entrance, they were quite isolated from the main residential, or private, precincts. Conversely, the low

Relative Asymmetry values for Rooms B, C, E and F have shown the high potential interaction that these open regions had within this domus. This result statistically proves the emphasis upon the open regions at this residence and is especially notable when the higher Control Value score for Room C is taken into consideration (3.8). It is evident that the majority of the entertainment areas were intended for private occasions, particularly within the inner regions of the complex.

161

residents’ cultural aspirations, as well as the wealth which was expended upon such décor.

The overall Control Value results (Graph 123) demonstrate the presence of seven dominant ‘controlling’ spaces. This reflects the highly ‘constructed’ design of the complex, thus demonstrating the overt desire of its owner/s to regulate the progression throughout this opulent residence. The general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 124) also exhibit an extremely controlled structure where there was an even balance between public and private sectors, but this was done in order to intentionally draw a distinction in the levels of accessibility throughout this well-appointed domus. Overall, the Villa San Marco provided a luxurious lifestyle for the owners of this villa suburbana, in a similar fashion to the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum (Sodo 2004a, 51), epitomising the ideal lifestyle in the suburbium.

Directly to the north via the fauces (Room 46) was the atrium, and on either side of the fauces were another two cubicula (Rooms 44-45), decorated in Second Style. The mosaic flooring in these bedrooms have been dated to between the late Second and early First Centuries BC, belonging to the earliest phase of construction. The Tuscan atrium (Room 24) was decorated with early Fourth Style paintings with sizeable filigree bands, similar in their broad and intricate conception, to those found in the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento in Pompeii. They appear to have been created at a similar time to those early Fourth Style wall paintings around the Great peristyle of the Villa San Marco and the triclinium (Room 8) at the Villa Carmiano. In the northern side of the atrium a small lararium was uncovered with an altar (Camardo 2001a, 77). It appears likely that Rooms 44-45 originally opened onto the atrium, but these entrances were closed after the inclusion of the central peristyle. To the west there was a winter triclinium (Room 27), opening onto the peristyle and enclosed enough for protection from inclement weather. The tablinum (Room 18) was behind the atrium, and was probably included during the initial phase of construction.

Villa 54 – The Villa Arianna The Villa Arianna, located on the hill of Varano (Map 8), was another well-known villa in Stabiae. Its architecture and décor was quite similar to that of the Villa San Marco, indicating a comparable period and the use of the same craftsmen. In fact, this villa was only 550 metres to the west of the Villa San Marco (Miniero 1988, 236). The plan was designed with several rooms opening onto a central peristyle. The complex was massive, covering over 14,000 square metres (Fig. 132), ideally located on the panoramic hill of Varano (Camardo 2001a, 75). The structure was very complex, reflecting a long period of alterations and additions following the topography of the location (Camardo 1989b, 17). The earliest phase has been dated to the late Republican period, which included the principal entrance (Room W13), square peristyle (Room 22) and Tuscan atrium (Room 24).

To the east of the tablinum, there was a room intended to take advantage of the panorama of the Bay of Naples (Room 43). This exedra had an open plan with the central focus being the view. It was decorated in Third Style, depicting a masculine figure beside a female, whose characteristics are indicative of Julio-Claudian style. The placement of this room suggests that it was not intended for public use, being separate from the central axis of the residence. It appears that only the residents and their invited guests would have used this room to enjoy the landscape beyond. This room had small rectangular sunken gardens on two sides that probably connected at the rear (Jashemski 1979, 333), accentuating its pleasant demeanour.

Upon entering this villa, the passage led directly to the central peristyle, in accordance with the recommendations of Vitruvius (6.5.3). This peristyle had eight columns on the northern and southern sides and six on the other sides. These columns were constructed in brick and covered with plaster. The uneven proportion of columns was intended to allow an unimpeded view along the axis of this peristyle and Tuscan atrium. Between these columns were four herms: three representing Bacchus with Ariadne (W 18, W19, W20), whereas the fourth (W16) was removed in antiquity.

Among the finds were several bronze female portrait busts, as well as a bronze water heater and cooking utensils (Parslow 1995, 181). The décor of this suburban villa was executed with several rooms having mosaic pavements, complemented by many small wall paintings. One of the most notable depicts Dionysus and Ariadne in the summer triclinium (Room 3). These paintings corresponded with the theme of the herms placed within the central peristyle. There have also been three lines of a Greek graffito dated to the First Century AD uncovered, which appears to be a form of iambic trimester (Jordan 1996, 124). This discovery may indicate the education of the residents, despite its misquotation.

On the western side there were a series of rooms (Rooms 23-26) connected by a narrow corridor (Fig. 132). All of these were paved with mosaic flooring and produced impressive examples of wall décor. One room appears to have been a cubiculum (Room 25), depicting a representation of Venditrice di amori. Room 23 was decorated with a comic scene, which has badly deteriorated, but appears to have been a replica of a mosaic from the Villa of Cicero at Pompeii (AllroggenBedel 2001a, 55). Another cubiculum (Room 26) depicted Leda with a swan, Medea, Diana and Persephone in Third Style (Richardson 2000, 85-6). These fine examples of wall painting highlight the

The summer triclinium (Room 3) had an open disposition in comparison to the winter triclinium (Room 27). Similarly to Room 42, this position allowed for a view of the panorama, especially in comparison to the other

162

originally belonged to another structure, being added during the Flavian era.

triclinium. The presence of more than one triclinia was common in villas, especially those located on the Bay of Naples with the desire to appreciate the natural landscape. In fact, there was another large summer triclinium within the villa (Room 12), which also took advantage of the view towards the bay and the mountains. The wall décor exhibited human figures with thin plants, birds, butterflies and grasshoppers depicted. This room also looked out over the terraces that were built with a similar purpose by the owner.

The servile region (Rooms 32, 36, 43, 52,53) was on the northern extremity, being plainly decorated with corridors of cocciopesto and slender dividing walls. The kitchen (Room 4) produced several finds of terracotta pots, metal knives and other culinary pieces. The water supply was in a nearby courtyard (Room 21) as was the praefurnium (Room 29). Owing to this, the kitchen was placed close to the baths, including the caldarium (Room 6). The productivity has been confirmed by the discovery of an access road for delivery wagons to the rustic district, which was highlighted by the remains of two carts. It has been suggested that these vehicles would have been used to transport wine, especially with the discovery of an animal wineskin within one of them. In view of this and the prevalence of wine production in the region, viticulture at this villa appears quite likely.

There were several other well-appointed rooms, suggesting that they were used by the principal residents (Rooms 5, 7, 9, 10). One of these was a cubiculum (Room 5), with flooring in black and square mosaic with cross shields (Camardo 2001a, 79). Room 7 was used as a room for study or reading. The wall décor had representations of Perseus and Andromeda that were badly damaged during the Bourbon excavations. Its position, as with the room beside it (Room 9), would have allowed for a full appreciation of the view. The décor of Room 10 was performed entirely in yellow with a figure of Ganymede accompanied by an eagle, cupid and satyrs (Allroggen-Bedel 1977, 58). This room may have also been a cubiculum.

One of the most impressive regions was the Grand Peristyle (Fig. 132), which covered an immense area to the west of the residence. This region comprised an area roughly 104 by 81 metres (Camardo 2001a, 82), surrounded by brick columns with white plaster (Sodo 2001a, 85). The walkway on the eastern side produced several tiles showing the central access to an exedra (Room T). Rooms O and N border onto the eastern side of the Grand Peristyle, painted in Third Style and had a high degree of craftsmanship. Both rooms had access to the Grand Peristyle via another room (Room M), but both had large windows that looked onto it.

It has been suggested that owing to the masculine characteristics of Room 10 and feminine features of Room 5 that these cubicula were designated for the dominus and domina (Camardo 2001a, 79). However, their position would have increased the privacy in both areas, which may further substantiate this theory. If the décor is taken into consideration with their position, it is clear that these rooms were used by the principal inhabitants. Both Rooms 5 and 10 allowed for greater privacy, while Rooms 7 and 9 permitted a commanding view of the panorama from the hill of Varano and was used for private purposes.

Another room in this series (Room R) located to the south was decorated in Fourth Style and paved with opus sectile mosaic. But this room has also provided evidence of previous Third Style wall paintings, suggesting that it had undergone renovation in the last phase of habitation. The common occurrence of renovation and redecoration at many suburban villas should not make this surprising, especially considering the effects of the earthquake in AD 62 at many residences. The incomplete state of the redecoration at the time of the eruption is clearly visible in the eastern portico (Room U) with the southern wall being unfinished. The use of opus reticulatum in Rooms M and N suggest that these rooms can be dated to the beginning of the First Century AD, whereas the use of opus mixtum in Rooms E, F,G and L suggest a date during the Tiberian era. This has shown that these rooms were constructed around the atrium quarter, and that there was a great deal of growth during the final decades of habitation. Similarly with the Villa of San Marco, this well-appointed complex clearly exhibits the attributes of a villa suburbana.

The terraces (Rooms B-C) were some of the most impressive structures at this complex. They were constructed upon six levels, continuing for eight metres below the current level. The western rooms were created to communicate with the original nucleus of the villa and the peristyle that originally belonged to another structure (Camardo 1989b, 23). These rooms were decorated in Fourth Style and designed to have the best view of the panorama with large windows towards the sea. In this region, the first room encountered (Room 11) was paved with white and black mosaic. Room 12 was adorned in an elegant manner with small figurines and plant shoots painted on the walls. A similar style of décor was used in Room E, which was also intended to appreciate the view. In the centre was a large summer triclinium (Room A), which had ample windows and lighting on all sides. At the entrance, it opened towards a stairway that led to the terraces (Rooms B, C). This region then opened up towards an enormous peristyle (Fig. 132), which was around 104 by 81 metres. It is thought that this peristyle

As with the previous example, this villa suburbana had a large number of areas comprising both open and enclosed spaces (Fig. 133) (Table 62). In addition it would have commanded an impressive view of the panorama from the Varano ridge. If the location of this complex is taken

163

impressive ambulatory allowing not only a view towards the interior, but also an unimpeded perspective towards the landscape beyond. The open and largely unrestricted design of this structure is clearly represented in the difference between the amounts of entertainment space that include the peristyles and exclude them.

into consideration (Plate 18), it is clear that the view was the prime motivation for the layout of the residence. So owing to the level of décor, the size of the complex and the discovery of finds indicating a high level of affluence, it seems probable that this residence should be viewed as a suburban villa. This is also exhibited by the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre, illustrating how this complex was designed to correspond with the general intentions of the social productivity of the owner. The conceived and lived conceptions of space particularly epitomise both the social necessities and aspirations that led to the development of this residence.

As with the Villa San Marco (53), this residence also included a tablinum (Room 18) within its confines. This internal area may also indicate an official use for the Villa Arianna but as with the Villa San Marco it represented only a small section of space. There have also been four triclinia identified (Rooms 3, 12, 27, A), but only one of these (Room 27) has been classified as a winter triclinium. The preponderance of summer triclinia confirms the open and private nature of this suburban residence, and the owner’s desire for a healthy and luxurious lifestyle, particularly the enjoyment of al fresco dining. This was indicative of most well-appointed villae suburbanae at Stabiae of which the Villa Arianna is a notable example.

Similarly to the Villa San Marco the spatial data illustrates how open the plan was, having a large amount of its surface area being used for peristyles. This is not including the utilitarian peristyle located in the smaller western complex, but this structure has been included in the overall analysis. Whereas the Villa San Marco had several peristyles throughout its layout, the Villa Arianna only had two, with the main focus upon the Great Peristyle. This large colonnade would have provided an

Graph 125 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Arianna

164

Graph 126 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Arianna considerable size, with an enormous porticoed terrace along the crest of the hill (Fig. 134) (Parslow 1995, 180). It was close to the Villa Arianna, being built just to the east of this other suburban villa. It is clear that the position of both complexes was for the impressive view of the coastline.

The Hillier and Hanson method has illustrated the high scale of public accessibility to both Rooms 18 and 22 in both their Mean Depth (4.06, 4.31) and Relative Asymmetry values (0.088, 0.095). These results show that the rooms were unrestricted in their access from both other rooms in the complex and also from the exterior, which is also shown by their Control Values, indicating that they controlled access to other regions of the complex. The Relative Asymmetry of all other rooms deemed to have been potential entertainment space (Rooms A, B, C, T, 3, 9, 12, 19, 27, 43) show their relatively low potential for social interaction, which further indicates their private character (Fig. 133) (Table 62).

In comparison to these viewing regions, the remainder of the complex was only several small rooms and a modest arrangement of baths. The plan of the general residential region of this complex was designed around a central courtyard, which in essence divided it into two regions: the northern and southern wings. The southern wing consisted of a long series of rooms, with varying functions, whereas the northern wing contained areas such as the baths, kitchen and the atrium. The atrium (Room 31) was Tetrastyle, with the columns adorned in white plaster and the walls preserving some remnants of paintings (Camardo 2001b, 95). As to be expected the atrium had access to several other regions of the complex.

This is particularly notable for Room T, which produced one of the highest results for its Mean Depth (7.32), clearly showing its restricted access. Notably the Control Value of the large peristyle also indicates its controlling function (5.11), but its depth from Exterior (5) and higher Mean Depth illustrates its withdrawn character. These statistics, in addition to the percentages produced for potential entertainment space, illustrate that the majority of this villa suburbana was restricted in its accessibility and epitomises the desired privacy obtainable by owning such a palatial residence. The general Control Value results (Graph 125) exhibits the importance of six rooms in particular as ‘controlling’ spaces within the structure. This shows how vital the restriction of accessibility was to its respective owner/s. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 126) also indicate a high level of control existing within this residence and the social importance of particular sectors.

The atrium had direct access to a small room (Room 28), which contained a small painted altar, which was probably the household lar. This room was paved with a white mosaic with black bands, and the altar was within a niche with plastered steps. The wall paintings depicted images of bacchantes and nymphs, with two large central figures, a semi-naked female seated beside a male. To the south-east there was another small room (Room 12), which produced four pots containing painting colours (red, yellow, white and blue), suggesting that the villa was undergoing redecoration at the time of the eruption. There was a small peristyle (Room 33) connected to the atrium, which had five columns on the western and eastern sides by seven columns on the southern edge, with a small niche in a semicircular wall on the northern side with two columns. This was paved with marble in

Villa 55 – The Villa Pastore The Villa Pastore was another terraced portico villa in the Varano region (Map 8). This complex was of

165

centre of an open area, bordered on the north by a cryptoporticus and a long wall in multi-coloured opus reticulatum. In the centre of this wall there was a large semicircular exedra (Fig. 134), framing the euripus. The cryptoporticus (Room 5) had thirty-two windows with marble sills, viewing the euripus with a colonnade (Parslow 1995, 182). These windows had shutters, protecting the occupants from inclement weather, but with agreeable conditions these windows would have allowed lighting for this region. Nine fragments of painted plaster frames were discovered in various colours near some of the windows, suggesting that this area may have been decorated. This appears likely in view of the efforts that were made to create a pleasant landscape beyond this region.

the middle, whereas the semicircular niche had black mosaic with white bands. A small portico entered onto a caldarium or tepidarium (Room 39). From the atrium, there was also a small portico with cocciopesto pavement and two columns, which accessed the kitchen (Room 27) (Camardo 2001b, 95), which had a masonry bench, an oven, as well as the praefurnium for the caldarium. Near the kitchen were the baths, which consisted of an apodyterium (Room 22) and a caldarium (Room 23) (De Vos 1982, 322). The caldarium was floored with a mosaic depicting sea animals in black upon a white background. The eastern wall had a tub, dressed in plaster and borne by marble supports in the form of lion legs. Room 39, located on the other side of the atrium quarter (Fig. 134), appears to have either been another caldarium or a tepidarium. This appears quite unusual, but there was a connecting passageway between Rooms 23 and 39 (Sodo 2001b, 97-8), that served both rooms.

The portico (Room 4) behind this cryptoporticus extended for around 145 metres that opened towards the coast. The structure included columns adorned in plaster, with walls mostly constructed in opus reticulatum. This portico had access independent of the complex, via a set of seven stairs (Room 3), which were also adorned with plastered columns. On the opposite south-western side of the portico there was another small portico (Room 51), paved in a striking mosaic of white bands. This opened up onto a small room to the south-west (Room 53), which was also decorated and paved in marble. On the southern side of this room was a small triangular household shrine (Room 52), which was probably another family lar. It was not uncommon for households to possess more than one shrine, particularly in larger residences. The connection between this shrine and a dining area is also quite normal in view of the traditional customs that associated household ritual with the hearth and dining.

The most palatial room within the residential region, although being slightly separate, was a panoramic triclinium (Room 19), located roughly forty metres west of the main complex. This room was paved in opus sectile with multicoloured marble, and the prime focus of the room was towards the Bay of Naples (Camardo 2001b, 95). The placement of this room was intended to take advantage of its position on the hill of Varano. The particular location is interesting when compared to the other triclinium (Room 50), which is discussed below. But the placement of this room highlights the desire of the owners to create enjoyable dining spaces where the occupants would be able to appreciate the pleasant view beyond.

There also appears to have been a triclinium nearby (Room 50) (Camardo 2001b, 94), paved in opus sectile with multi-coloured pieces of marble. This had a pleasant view of the euripus and the courtyard with the northern portico, creating a pleasing dining environment. This would have been accentuated by a fountain on the same axis, framed by two columns. The position of this room, in comparison to Room 19, would have allowed a greater versatility in use, owing to the increased connection with the natural environment. This would have determined the use of each room, allowing the residents to choose which room to use, depending upon the circumstances. Surrounding this triclinium was a narrow corridor (Room 55), paved in cocciopesto and constructed on a slightly lower level to the triclinium.

There have also been several interesting finds uncovered, including some acquired in Room 35, which was a simply decorated room, but contained two tripods adorned with the legs of a lion, a silver jug, a strigile and surgical tools (Camardo 2001b, 94). Room 40 contained a figurine of a bronze Priapus, at least fifteen bronze vessels, two strigils, two tripods, as well as numerous terracotta and glass pots. Room 43 produced a small silver figurine of a youth with a dish and cornucopia, a bronze ring with the seal M.P.C. Room 46 contained numerous vessels in bronze, terracotta and glass and remnants of furniture, and it may have been a latrine. Similar finds were in Rooms 47-8, on the southern side of the courtyard and 36-7 in the northern region. Room 20 has been described as a shop with a sales bench, also producing five bronze coins. This may have been used for market-days, whereby local trade benefited of not only the owner, but also the neighbouring producers (MacMullen 1970, 3334).

The large scale of the villa, with the inclusion of the inner courtyard and its surrounding rooms, the shop and the presence of the surgical tools has led some scholars to speculate that this may have been a hospital. This appears unlikely in view of the richly appointed rooms, such as Rooms 24, 26, and 29. The panoramic triclinium (Room 19) would suggest that this was a well-appointed residence of a wealthy owner. The inclusion of a spacious external courtyard with a large euripus (No. 6) is also

One of the most notable aspects was the large euripus (No. 6), being over twenty metres in length (De Vos 1982, 321). The edges were dressed in marble and included steps on the north-western side. It was in the

166

triclinium (Room 19) is a clear example of this, particularly in view of its position away from the main residence. However, the inclusion of areas for al fresco dining was not limited to this room, there being another open triclinium (Room 50) overlooking the large peristyle. The intention behind the inclusion of this room was similar to that of Room 19, but there was a subtle difference. The distinction between internal and external perspectives illustrates the motivation behind the construction of this triclinium (Room 50). Not only was this room large and more private than the panoramic dining room but it also provided the owner with a more controlled environment that would have suited some social occasions more than the exposed Room 19 (Plate 170).

common for large suburban residences, which may accentuate this point. It is also important to note that the Villa Arianna had also been constructed with many rooms upon an inner courtyard. The Villa Pastore is another example of a fine suburban villa, intended to create a pleasant living environment for its leading inhabitants. This corresponds well with Lefebvre’s social conception of space. It is evident that there were clear considerations surrounding the levels of social stratification and how the villa was designed to reflect the complexity of this social symbolism at the same time. The statistical data (Fig. 135) (Table 63) confirms the classification of the Villa Pastore as a villa suburbana, illustrating its open layout and the importance of the view to the owners. The construction of the panoramic

Graph 127 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Pastore

Graph 128 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Pastore

167

position of Rooms 15-18 indicates that these cubicula were deviated to the east away from the main road, indicating that the road predated its construction. Room 16 contained an intaglio carved with the image of a bearded man, which has been judged to represent Socrates. To the south of the corridor was a courtyard with a portico on two sides, floored in brick pavement and with columns constructed from brick and stone. The plan is similar to the Villa Petraro, which was also centred upon a portico. Similarly to this villa there were thermal rooms on the eastern side, including a caldarium (Room 4), with rooms bordering three sides of the courtyard (Fig. 136). The mosaic pavement of the caldarium was adorned with a dolphin wound around a trident and a representation of Medusa on the ceiling with a relief of Venus in a niche.

The results from the Hillier and Hanson method have illustrated the condensed collection of rooms around Room I, illustrated by its large Control Value (26.75). However, the circular exedra and the panoramic triclinium both showed their inaccessibility in their Relative Asymmetry results (0.172, 0.211). They also illustrate their separation in the Mean Depth statistics (4.44, 5.23), exemplifying their private character. Room 33 produced a high interaction potential among the group of entertainment rooms, according to its Relative Asymmetry score (0.103), which seems indicative of its central position. This combination of public and private potential entertainment space is indicative of the social activity at villae suburbanae, which allowed for more control in the nature and status of the guests with greater privacy. But there were rooms intended for a public entertainment role with a combination of these being common in most villae suburbanae. This is also represented through the general results shown by the Control Value (Graph 127) and Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 128).

There have been several rooms identified used for agricultural purposes, but it seems that the building was still intended to be a residential villa. The kitchen (Room 12) has also been identified, judging from the ceramic finds with blackened bases. The garden (No. 2) included a well that served the household. There have been several objects uncovered, such as amphorae, metal locks and nails, oil lamps, agricultural utensils, mirrors, game dice, glasses, a steelyard, as well as bronze and silver coinage. These finds support the architectural evidence that suggest the Villa Filosofo was not as wealthy as some other residences in Stabiae, but should still be classified as a suburban villa. This is also exhibited by the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre, illustrating how this complex was designed to correspond with the general intentions of the social productivity of the owner. The conceived and lived conceptions of space particularly epitomise both the social necessities and aspirations that led to the development of this residence.

As with the Villa Arianna (Villa 51), this establishment was built along the Varano ridge in order to take advantage of the panorama below. It had two peristyles (Plate 169), with the largest covering over 10,000m2. As with Villas 53 and 54, it is evident that the Villa Pastore (Villa 55) was a villa suburbana that had an open aspect almost solely designed to appreciate the view. The large cluster of rooms around Room I may have been used for productive purposes rather than a hospital in view of the results from this villa as a whole. However, this does not preclude its classification as a villa suburbana. There was still some provision for internal entertainment space, but it was minimal compared to the two previous villae suburbanae. However, the Villa Pastore is a fine example of a large and luxurious residence in the suburbium of Stabiae.

The inclusion of the central courtyard within the statistical data (Fig. 137) (Table 64) evidences that this residence had a large amount of social space. Despite the modest demeanour of this area, it was left open towards the view of the panorama and would have allowed for an open perspective from the triclinium via the doorway (Room 9). Regardless of its more modest character, the Villa Filosofo (Villa 56) should be classified as a villa suburbana. The difference in the resources available to the owners of this complex and the other larger examples, as well as their differing levels of influence throughout the Stabian community, should not be used to determine whether this residence should be classified as a villa suburbana.

Villa 56 – The Villa Filosofo The Villa Filosofo (Fig. 136) was another villa constructed in Stabiae, which was a villa of otium that maintained clear connections with the urban centre (Ferrara 2001, 61). This is clear when comparing the size of this complex with other Stabian villas, such as the Villas San Marco, Arianna and Pastore. This building was roughly ninety metres to the east of the urban centre, having qualities of an agricultural villa, but characteristic of an suburban villa in general terms. The entrance was via a corridor, onto which bordered six cubicula (Rooms 13-18) on the northern side. The

168

Graph 129 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Filosofo

Graph 130 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Filosofo values (Graph 130) also indicate a high level of control existing within this residence and the social importance of particular sectors. It is evident that the majority of potential entertainment space at this villa was used for public purposes. This corresponds well with the general demeanour of this villa suburbana, illustrating the distinct characteristics that occurred within this classification of residence.

The Hillier and Hanson method has produced results that illustrate the limited divisions between accessible and inaccessible space at this complex. Both Rooms A and 9 were unrestricted with Mean Depth results of 2.30 and 3.26 respectively. Room A had one of the highest Control Value results (3.89), which is indicative of such central courtyards. It also produced the lowest Relative Asymmetry score (0.123), indicating that it had the highest potential for social interaction. Room 9 was not among the most restricted areas with a Relative Asymmetry value of 0.215, and its accessibility was also shown by its low Depth from Exterior (2) and average Control Value. The general Control Value results (Graph 129) exhibits the importance of four rooms in particular as ‘controlling’ spaces within the structure. This shows how vital the restriction of accessibility was to its respective owner/s. The overall Real Relative Asymmetry

Villa 57 – The Villa of Anteros and Heracleo The Villa of Anteros and Heracleo (or the Villa of the Faun) was another suburban villa in Stabiae designed to appreciate the panorama of the Bay of Naples. It was located on the hill of Varano, almost immediately after the Villa San Marco (Magalhaes 2001, 105). This building has been partially excavated, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn, but some important

169

south with a large portico including a panoramic terrace towards the Bay of Naples. A good example is a room (Room 12) near the large portico (Fig. 138), which was paved with opus sectile, whereas Room 17 possessed white mosaic surrounded by black bands and Room 18 had a polychrome mosaic. The tablinum (Room 15) was quite sizeable, positioned close to the large portico in order to create a pleasant setting.

observations can still be noted. The original complex has been dated to the mid Second Century BC, but there were several additions during the First Century BC, corresponding to several other complexes in the region. The layout (Fig. 138) was a series of rooms decorated with mosaics that opened onto separate peristyles (Parslow 1995, 64). The larger peristyle was surrounded by a covered ambulatio, allowing the residents to enjoy the landscape beyond.

The large portico had twenty large and forty smaller columns placed in a double line on the longer side, and at least half this number along the shorter edge. This progressed towards the north, continuing to a terraced area. The external masonry was painted with white plaster and both the small and large columns were made of brick, with white plaster décor, including grooves to accentuate the form. This is also highlighted by Lefebvre’s perceived and conceived conceptions of space, whereby the levels of social stratification and productivity were clearly demonstrated by the general format of the structure. This also overtly corresponds with the lived conception as well.

The servile regions have been the most thoroughly excavated, including a long corridor with brick paving, including two masonry seats at the entrance (Magalhaes 2001, 105). The finds in this corridor included a bronze stilus, a small hoe, a piece of ivory and two terracotta oil lamps. This corridor led to the smaller peristyle, which had four columns along the shorter edge. The rooms surrounding this peristyle were organised symmetrically (Fig. 138), including a staircase to an upper level. A lararium was discovered in the north-east corner of the smaller peristyle, which contained a bust that probably represented ‘Livia Minor’ (Parslow 1995, 64-66). This bust had the dedicatory inscription: Anteros l Heracleo summar / Mag Larib et Famil D D (CIL 10.773). This has been dated to the Augustan/Tiberian period and led to the hypothesis that this property was owned by the Imperial family and managed by a liberti (Magalhaes 2001, 1078). The small peristyle was floored in a pavement of crushed bricks and the walls were decorated with white plaster and the presence of a catillus indicates that this region was probably servile. Despite the nature of this region, it appears likely that it was close to the main residential quarters.

The plan was based upon a series of rectangular spaces, designed for an open perspective, thereby taking advantage of the panorama of the gulf. This was a common feature for the villas in Stabiae, with the proprietors taking advantage of the topography. This complex does not appear to have been as extensive as some other villas in the region, but it was certainly a substantial residence in its own right. However, it is important to note that some of the main residence, including the atrium quarter and the main residential precincts are yet to be excavated fully, which may distort our image of this complex. It seems that if the Imperial family owned this complex, it would have had impressive dimensions, but this remains unknown. However, judging from the available evidence it should be viewed as another villa suburbana.

The residential quarters may have been centred on the atrium, to the north-west of the excavated areas. In the known sections of this region, there was a clear change in the style of pavement. If this villa was of similar to the other villas in Stabiae, this area probably extended to the

Graph 131 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Anteros and Heracleo

170

Graph 132 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Anteros and Heracleo through small windows. As exhibited in the Villas San Marco and Arianna, the presence of a tablinum may indicate a reception role performed by the owners, but it was not as prominent as the luxuria and otium of such a large and palatial villa suburbana.

The statistical analysis of this site confirms its classification as a villa suburbana (Fig. 139) (Table 65). As with Villas 53, 54 and 55, the layout of this structure had an open aspect with the main residential region overlooking a large peristyle of similar fashion to the Villas Arianna (Villa 54) and Pastore (Villa 55). With the inclusion of this peristyle, the amount of social space produced is indicative of most villae suburbanae in the region. The potential reception areas under consideration (Rooms A, B) have also produced indications to agree with this view. Room B has illustrated its high potential for social interaction and unrestricted access from other rooms in its low Relative Asymmetry (0.15), low Mean Depth (1.6) and intimate connection with the exterior (Depth from Exterior of 1). It also has one of the highest Control Values (2.4), exhibiting its control over neighbouring areas. The overall Control Value results (Graph 131) indicate that four spaces were particularly important for controlling the accessibility to other sectors of this complex. All the same, the simplicity of this structure is also exemplified by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 132), thus demonstrating the definitive intentions of its owner surrounding its productivity on both a social and an agricultural level.

Villa 58 – The Villa Petraro The villa Petraro was discovered in 1957 and then backfilled, limiting the available knowledge about this structure. The nature of this complex was that of an agricultural establishment, but the residential precincts were clearly well treated. This complex was roughly nine hundred metres from the Villa of San Marco, located slightly away from the central settlement of Stabiae after the events of 89 BC. The layout covered roughly eight hundred square metres, around a central courtyard (Fig. 140) (Ferrara 1989b, 83). The residential region was located on the north-eastern side of the structure in a group of five rooms. The entrance was a small vestibule (Room 13), which led directly towards two cubicula and two entertainment rooms (Ferrara 1989b, 83). The rooms on this side of the courtyard communicated with each other by a cryptoporticus (Room 14), lit by five openings, which were in perfect alignment with the entrances to four rustic rooms (Rooms 1-4) on the other side of the courtyard. The eastern side incorporated several servile rooms, including the kitchen (Room 15) and baths, such as the apodyterium (Room 16), frigidarium (Room 17), tepidarium (Room 11) and caldarium (Room 12) (Fig. 140). The rustic region communicated with the residence and cryptoporticus by a corridor (Room 9), but there was a clear separation between the two areas, making them quite distinct.

Room A had a higher Real Relative Asymmetry (1.355) and was placed furthest from the entrance, which illustrates its more private function. Its higher Mean Depth (2.6) also shows a comparative isolation from the other rooms in this complex. As with Villas 53-55, there was a low degree of emphasis placed upon internal entertainment space, with the only notable example being the tablinum (Room 6). There was also a high degree of emphasis placed upon private entertainment regions at this villa suburbana, but Room B seems to have served a public role. This room was of large proportions (86.35m2), bordering the peristyle that was visible

Of the remaining rooms, it would appear that both Rooms 10 and 19 would have functioned as triclinia, owing to

171

their dimensions, in accordance with the recommendations of Vitruvius (6.3.8). It seems that the baths were undergoing repairs or restoration at the time of the eruption, indicated by amphorae containing plaster and twenty-five detached panels (Ferrara 1989b, 83). The perceived conception of space for this villa illustrates the

limited amount of social stratification within its structure, suggesting that it was not intended for a large amount of social interaction. The conceived conception shows how each room was placed in order to undertake its primary function: agriculture. This is also reflected in Lefebvre’s lived conception of space.

Graph 133 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Petraro

Graph 134 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Petraro have exhibited that the areas potentially used for entertainment had a lower Control Value (0.13 for both), but the Mean Depth and Relative Asymmetry results indicate that there was little differentiation in the accessibility of all rooms. It is clear that this complex could not have been classified as a villa suburbana. The overall Control Value results (Graph 133) presents a structure that was clearly dominated by seven ‘controlling’ spaces. These rooms provided an even spread between accessible and inaccessible regions, as

In other areas of Campania such as the inner suburbs of Pompeii, this would be a consistent result with many villae suburbanae. However, in this instance it is clear that the role of the central courtyard was primarily utilitarian, indicating that it should be removed from this group of areas. If this is taken into account then the percentage of potential spaces for social activity is reduced to Rooms 10 and 19, both being triclinia, and exhibiting a small degree of social emphasis. The results from the Hillier and Hanson method (Fig. 141) (Table 66)

172

residence and also provide some indication of how often the owners dwelt there. The triclinium wall-paintings were probably done by the same painter who decorated the Fourth Style atrium at the Villa Arianna and the triclinium (Room 16) at the House of M. Lucretius (IX,3,5) in Pompeii (Richardson 2000, 89). These Fourth style paintings in the Villa Carmiano represented Neptune abducting Amymone and Acis with Galatea.

shown by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 134). This demonstrates an intentional design whereby the public and private sectors facilitated specific functions for the primarily agricultural purpose of this villa. It is clear that at the Villa Petraro there was only limited emphasis upon social endeavours, with the residence being primarily intended for productive ends. The only two entertainment rooms are internal in their disposition, which is vastly different to the Villas on the Varano ridge. Its location made this residence unable to access such an impressive view as the other villas that would have reduced the appeal of an open-styled residence significantly. As with many similar structures in the outer suburbs of Pompeii, it seems that this complex would have been viewed as a modest agricultural complex, not a suburban villa. It is significant to note that this farmstead was much larger than Villa 53, but it was the residential facilities that distinguished a villa suburbana from a primarily agricultural complex, such as the Villa Petraro.

In this complex, there were two rooms that were used as cubicula (Rooms 8, 11). Room 8 was decorated with black wall painting and included an erotic scene (Camardo 1989c, 72). Following from this room there was a wine cellar, containing twelve dolii. This was in keeping with the consideration that this building would have served a property of modest dimensions, especially when compared to some larger establishments in the region. Among the finds discovered at Villa Carmiano, there were several fine bronze vases and numerous pieces of terracotta. The perceived conception of space for this villa illustrates the limited amount of social stratification within its structure, suggesting that it was not intended for a large amount of social interaction. The conceived conception shows how each room was placed in order to undertake its primary function: agriculture. This is also reflected in Lefebvre’s lived conception of space.

Villa 59 – The Villa Carmiano The Villa Carmiano was roughly six hundred metres from the Villa San Marco in Stabiae (Fig. 142). This complex has produced evidence of both viticulture and the sale of wine at a small shop (Camardo 1989c, 69). The wine production occurred in a torcularium (Miniero 1988, 247). There was another complex located close to this building, which also had a torcularium within its precincts (Camardo 1989c, 69). The close proximity of these buildings suggest that they were small productive firms, devoted to the cultivation of grapevines and wine production.

When this property is compared to the previously discussed villas in Stabiae, it is evident that it served a different purpose to the larger complexes. Having examined both the Villas Petraro and Carmiano, it is clear that they were agricultural villas in the ager Stabianus. Most agricultural villas in the region had production on properties of small to intermediate size and the buildings themselves only cover an area between four to eight hundred square metres (Ferrara 1989c, 89). It is thought that the majority were inhabited by their owners for the most part, in view of their modest facilities and size. The most intriguing aspect is the minimal distance from the extravagant complexes of Stabiae, such as the Villas San Marco and Arianna. However, it is evident that both smaller villas were not closely connected to the larger villas in the final period (Ferraro 1980, 7). Despite the relatively minimal distance between the Villa Petraro (58) and Villa Carmiano (59) with the larger suburban villas, the difference is more attributable to the facilities and general character of these smaller complexes. It would appear more appropriate to classify these as farmhouses, especially in view of their emphasis upon agriculture.

The layout was planned as a complex of small dimension, roughly four hundred square metres, which was approximately half the size of the Villa Petraro and significantly smaller than the Varano villas. The entrance was on the northern side with a room for the doorkeeper. The portico of the southern wing was almost completely decorated. On one side of the torcularium was a large triclinium, which was splendidly decorated and placed on the same axis as the main entrance (Fig. 142). This would have allowed, in conjunction with the inter-columnar spaces in the southern portico, for a clear view from this room towards the courtyard. The décor in this region was performed in Fourth Style with a high level of workmanship. The presence of these rooms is indicative of the owners’ desire to raise the character of the

173

Graph 135 – Graph of Respective Control Values for Rooms in the Villa Carmiano

Graph 136 – Graph of Respective Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Rooms in the Villa Carmiano access to the entrance (3, 2 respectively) as well as among the lowest Relative Asymmetry values, thus showing their accessibility. These statistical results confirm that large-scale social activity was not a priority to its owners. The overall Control Value results (Graph 135) presents a structure that was clearly dominated by five ‘controlling’ spaces. These rooms provided an even spread between accessible and inaccessible regions, as shown by the general Real Relative Asymmetry values (Graph 136). This demonstrates an intentional design whereby the public and private sectors facilitated specific functions for the primarily agricultural purpose of this villa.

The spatial evidence (Fig. 143) (Table 67) taken from Villa Carmiano exhibits the agricultural and modest nature of this complex. This was the smallest structure discussed in the region, being significantly smaller than most villas located on the ridge of Varano. The central courtyard was small, as was the sole triclinium (Room 1), illustrating that social activity was not an important consideration when the residence was constructed. As with the Villa Petraro, the focus of the structure was internal rather than external. This highlights that a lifestyle of otium and luxuria was not intended for its residents who would have focused upon rusticitas. Therefore, this complex should not be viewed as a villa suburbana. The limited differentiation between spaces has been confirmed by the Hillier and Hanson method, illustrating that both Rooms 1 and 6 had a high level of

174

When considering Laurence’s theories of socialisation it is clear that the connection between urban space and social activity was of great importance for the élite townhouses under question. The pre-eminence of these residences on the southern frontage of Herculaneum has been previously noted (Wallace-Hadrill 2011), but they also provide the optimal comparison for the élite residences in the suburbium of the city. When viewing the villae suburbanae in this region it is evident that there was a strong predilection towards social productivity for the structures directly on the coast. Both the Villas San Marco (Villa 53) and Arianna (Villa 54) clearly substantiate this. All the same, this ties in well with the comparison of villas and townhouses in this region: the coastal viewing aspect was a connecting feature regardless of them being either urban or extra-urban residences. However, this was not the only unifying feature between them.

When this property is compared to the previously discussed villas in Stabiae, it is evident that it served a different purpose to the larger complexes. Having examined both the Villas Petraro and Carmiano, it is clear that they were agricultural villas in the ager Stabianus (Mastroroberto 2004, 85). Most agricultural villas in the region had production on properties of small to intermediate size and the buildings themselves only covered an area between 400 and 800m2 (Ferrara 1989c, 89). In view of their modest facilities and size it is thought that most of them had owner-occupiers. The most intriguing aspect is the minimal distance from the extravagant complexes of Stabiae, such as the Villas of San Marco and Arianna. It is evident that both smaller villas were not closely connected to the larger villas in the final period (Ferraro 1980, 7). Despite the relatively minimal distance between the Villa Petraro and the Villa Carmiano, and the larger suburban villas, the difference is more attributable to the facilities and general character of these smaller complexes. It is more appropriate to classify these as farmhouses, especially in view of their emphasis upon agriculture. Bonifacio (2004b, 75) has highlighted that the owners had made some attempts to improve the demeanour of this residence, but the spatial evaluation of social space has highlighted the difference between this complex and the Stabian suburban villas.

Having considered the suburban villas at Stabiae, it is evident that there were three extremely large complexes (Villas 53-55), which dominated the Varano ridge. The Villas San Marco, Arianna and Pastore were all over ten thousand square metres in their dimensions, whereas the other complexes were significantly smaller. However, only two of those complexes analysed in detail have been shown to not classify as suburban villas (Villas 58-59). This is significant because the Villa Petraro (58) is more than twice as large as the well-appointed Villa Filosofo (56), which is the smallest complex deemed as a suburban villa throughout this study. It is evident that this complex was clearly dominated by its immense neighbour, the Villa San Marco, which makes it seem less significant by comparison. But the characteristics of the Villa Filosofo seem to suggest that it was a suburban villa, but simply constructed on a smaller scale to its neighbours. When examining all of the suburban villas at Stabiae, it is obvious that the coastal panorama and its sea breezes were the main attraction for this location, similarly to those suburban villas constructed around Pompeii and Herculaneum.

General Conclusions Owing to the investigations at many of the villas located in the ager Stabianus, it is evident that the palatial villas in the vicinity of the Varano ridge were the exception rather than the rule. Many of the other complexes lacked the lavish décor during the final phase of habitation, probably indicating that the owners were frequently absent (Miniero 1988, 262). Of forty-five agricultural villas in the hinterland of the region, twelve have evidence of a cella vinaria and a torcularium, and five had an olive press, which seems to suggest that wine and oil were their principal products. Such finds and the dearth of decoration at many of these complexes highlight the difference between them and the luxurious villas on the Varano ridge. In relation to the finding of Lefebvre’s theoretical modelling, it is evident that the analysis of the perceived conception illustrates that the social stratification of regions within these villas and townhouses was of some importance. The conceived conception of space illustrates how each of these residences was designed with a particular intended function for the vast majority of spaces. While it must be acknowledged that the use of space within these residences was much more flexible than in modern houses (Allison 2004), judging from these structures it is evident that their design still encouraged a primary intended function. The lived conception further exemplifies this through the physical representation of these structures.

But the comparatively limited degree of urban infrastructure at Stabiae made the nature of these complexes quite different to the other centres considered. Judging from the comparative size of the complexes in all of these regions, the majority of the residences on the Varano ridge were significantly larger, only being comparable to the Villas of Poppea and Papyri. The expansion of these villas may have been because of the almost non-existent limitation upon space by the absence of a prominent urban centre. It is for this reason that the villas at Stabiae are more comparable with villas located further out in the suburbs, such as those examined in Chapter Four, rather than those in the inner suburbs. The difference was the space available for extensive terraces and porticoes, as well as the reduced social judgement that would have been placed upon excessive ornamentation by some members of the community.

175

The Hillier and Hanson method has clearly illustrated the differing social roles that were present in villae suburbanae and smaller agricultural complexes. Particularly the large establishments (Villas 53-55) have exhibited a differentiation in accessible/inaccessible (public/private) space. Villas 56 and 57 have both exhibited some distinction in public and private areas, but at a reduced level in comparison to the Villas San Marco, Arianna and Pastore (owing to their smaller layouts). All

of these villae suburbanae markedly contrast the agricultural complexes that had limited (if any) differentiation between public and private areas, which is indicative of their comparatively modest characters and reduced social roles. This style of analysis has further highlighted the distinction that existed between small productive establishments and the larger, more socially orientated, villae suburbana.

Graph 137 – Overall Real Relative Asymmetry Values for Villas at Stabiae respective owners. All the same, while this provides a clear presentation of the individuality of these villas, it must also be noted that there were definite trends that can be viewed in general terms as well – particularly when considering the villae suburbanae and the agricultural complexes in opposition. This again exhibits how the Hillier and Hanson method has provided an excellent correlation with the theoretical modelling of Lefebvre in these structures. When used in conjunction, these theories and methods have exhibited the levels of social stratification both between and within these complexes, all as a representation of the social symbolism that each villa embodied.

The limited degree of urban infrastructure at Stabiae made the nature of these complexes quite different to the other centres considered. Judging from the comparative size of the complexes in all of these regions, the majority of the residences on the Varano ridge were significantly larger, only being comparable to the Villas of Poppea and Papyri in Campania. The expansion of these villas may have been due to the lack of restrictions on space by the absence of a prominent urban centre. It is for this reason that the villas at Stabiae are more comparable with villas located further out in the suburbs, such as those examined in Chapter Four. The difference was the space available for extensive terraces and porticoes, as well as the increased social freedom for large-scale architectural ornamentation.

The Hillier and Hanson method has also accentuated the distinction between villae suburbanae and the small agricultural establishments. Suburban villas that have produced a large amount of data have exhibited a variation in public and private potential entertainment space. All of the suburban villas had several types of entertainment space, usually in a variety of forms. So it was the provision of more than one entertainment space

All the same, when considering the spatial analysis of the Hillier and Hanson method it has exhibited a wide range of variation between most structures. Of course, each complex needs to be examined on its own merits, but this simply reflects the various needs and resources of their

176

of the local élite was a natural progression in this instance. This is what Cicero referred to in the postSocial War period in his De Legibus (2.1-5) as the concept of two fatherlands, being alteram loci, alteram iuris. With the loss of official processes the local influential members of society needed to maintain their position in a less formal format. This would also explain the presence of tablina within three of the largest villae suburbanae at Stabiae (53, 54, 56), which were not notable features of most suburban residences throughout Campania. These large residences on the Varano ridge (53-55) would have become the places for the unofficial organisation of the local population. Instead of using administrative procedure the owners were likely to have wielded social pressure and financial domination. The resulting situation meant that the sphere of influence exerted by Stabiae was reduced, which is reflected in the size of its suburbium. This is exhibited in the concentration of large villae suburbanae close to the urban centre, and its hinterland, being made up of modest agricultural establishments that were clearly not villae suburbanae.

that typically epitomised these suburban villas. Those villae suburbanae located in the outer suburbs were predominantly conceived in a similar fashion to the Villas of Poppaea, Diomede and Papyri (27, 19, 45), focusing upon lifestyle rather than productivity. These structures were quite different in their emphasis to the utilitarian non-villae suburbanae that were much more common in the suburbs of Pompeii. When examining the overall Real Relative Asymmetry values for these villa complexes (Graph 137) it is evident that there was a definite cluster of results between 0.5 – 2, showing a well balanced spread between ‘controlling’ and ‘controlled’ spaces at the vast majority of residences. This provides a good indication of their socialisation. While the primary focus of this study has been upon the provision of élite social activity, it is still evident that each complex would have possessed some provision for this role. However, it was clearly more of a priority at the lagest villae suburbanae (Villas 53-55), judging from their design and remains (or perhaps their lived conception). In general terms, this furthers the suggestion that the extra-urban regions were indeed socially active. It becomes evident that the location of the villae suburbanae at Stabiae influenced their character and layout, primarily owing to the available view. As is to be expected, the larger establishments had a significantly higher number of social areas, which were usually designed with an open disposition. It is the consistent combination of provisions for a panoramic setting and a close position to the urban facilities of Stabiae that are the main features of these villae suburbanae. For this reason the Stabian examples are quite similar to the residences situated in the suburbium of Herculaneum. Despite the similarities to villae suburbanae outside Herculaneum, Stabian suburban villas also possess a unique feature. The evidence from all the examples from the ager Stabianus demonstrates that the suburbium of Stabiae was significantly smaller than those near Pompeii and Herculaneum. Stabiae has a major concentration of palatial villae suburbanae close to the remaining urban facilities, but no distinctive suburban villas further from the ridge of Varano. This was probably partially because of the panoramic advantages that this area provided in preference to not-so scenic locations in the area, but this would not entirely explain the dearth of well-appointed residences elsewhere. It appears more likely that this was a reflection of the limited size and importance of Stabiae itself. The attraction of this centre would have been significantly reduced after the loss of its political and legal rights/independence in 89 BC, which severely impacted upon the size of its perceived suburbium. This would have also diminished the influence of the centre dramatically and made the construction of well-appointed villae suburbanae less attractive. Another result of the events of 89 BC would have been the rise in the influence of the local wealthy members of the community. The replacement of the regular official function of a centre’s jurisdiction by the unofficial sway

177

Discussion evident when considering the different facets of viewing socialisation and its impact upon each respective group of individuals and their response to each particular structure (and the various spaces within). This becomes especially apparent when considering the overall nature of the perceived conception of space. This has shown how each individual residence was typically designed with a clear conception of how respective household members and visitors were intended to interact (or not interact) within the various regions of each complex. This is particularly evident when examining those structures that were intended to make provision for a variety of roles, such as the Villas of Perseus (Villa 2), Regio IV at Ostia (Villa 3) and Pliny at Palombara (Villa 8).

Having discussed the literary and archaeological evidence throughout the course of this study, there have been several conclusions drawn that allow for a clearer understanding of life in the suburbs, especially in the villas. The region beyond the urban precincts is, by nature, difficult to define purely because of its subjective nature, but the evidence appears to have allowed for a more distinct group of residences to fall into the category of villae suburbanae. The literary sources have illustrated that the villas that could be deemed to be in the suburbs of Rome were located as far as twenty to thirty kilometres from the urbs. They have also provided for a clearer understanding of their function and their advantages. The most significant benefit was the proximity to the capital, which allowed for easy communication and transportation to and from the city, thus reducing the time and costs involved. A suburban villa provided the owner with a greater amount of privacy and freedom from the social pressures of the capital, which was unmistakably described by Horace. However, there seems to have been another role played by suburban properties: agriculture. The numerous references made concerning the need for effective productivity at suburban estates has illustrated this point. By having some elements of productivity it meant that a well-appointed residence designed for the enjoyment of its owners was deemed to be more socially acceptable in the Roman consciousness.

In relation to the inner suburbs of Pompeii, Lefebvre’s social conception of these structures has provided a great deal of insight into the overall consistency in the interaction within these residential complexes. The perceived conception of space has shown the general importance of instituting the forms of social stratification within these residences that reflect the hierarchical nature of the Pompeian community. The pattern of conceived conception of space likewise is also quite regular, illustrating a clear delineation between social productivity and commercial activity within these complexes. The lived conception also reflects how these social and commercial functions were represented in the communicative, artistic and architectural forms of each residence, regardless of whether it was placed either in an urban or suburban context.

But the luxurious facilities mentioned in the sources and discovered at many Roman suburban villas illustrates that productivity was only one concern for such a property. Frequently, agricultural productivity was completely ignored and a villa suburbana was purely residential, designed for the enjoyment of the owner and their guests. This was another crucial feature: entertaining and reception. There seems to have been a fair degree of social motivation towards acquiring a suburban villa, which has been illustrated by Martial. The need to advertise the success and social standing of the owner in turn influenced the creation of lavish suburban residences, mentioned by Horace and Statius, lamented by more austere writers such as Cato and Columella. But a well-appointed residence does seem to have been an essential feature of suburban villas, distinguishing them and their owners from the simple farmsteads that were so common throughout the Italian countryside. A villa suburbana was a subjective definition, determined by the perception of the owner, or society in general.

The conceived conception of Lefebvre has provided a similar contrast between the larger, more well-appointed residences and the basic, agricultural farmsteads in the outer suburbs of Pompeii. However, the lived conception of space is most notable in drawing this distinction, whereby the physical manifestation of these residences provides a clear reflection of their social symbolism. This can be largely viewed as the contrast between urbanitas and rusticus. The difference between these priorities can be easily viewed by comparing the facilities, size, décor and primary functions of the Villas of Poppaea (27) and Regina (35) in this region. This comparison readily exhibits their divergence in ‘need’, priorities and the expendable capital of their respective owners. The ‘need’ (or specific requirements) of their owners is reflected in the design of each respective structure in this region, which illustrates the assorted range of sizes, facilities and priorities at each complex.

The theoretical modellings of Lefebvre and Laurence have provided a useful approach for the interpretation of these structures in Rome/Latium. This is particularly

When considering Laurence’s theories of socialisation it is clear that the connection between urban space and social activity was of great importance for the élite

178

this. Productivity, otium, luxuria, urbanitas and rusticitas were all elements of villae suburbanae, all occurring at varying levels within different suburban villas. It was this multi-faceted role that villae suburbanae performed that made them unique and desirable, as well as being varied in their character according to the intentions and priorities of their owners.

townhouses under question. The pre-eminence of these residences on the southern frontage of Herculaneum has been previously noted (Wallace-Hadrill 2011), but they also provide the optimal comparison for the élite residences in the suburbium of the city. When viewing the villae suburbanae in this region it is evident that there was a strong predilection towards social productivity for the structures directly on the coast. Both the Villas of the Papyri (Villa 45) and Sora (Villa 48) clearly substantiate this. All the same, this ties in well with the comparison of villas and townhouses in this region: the coastal viewing aspect was a connecting feature regardless of them being either urban or extra-urban residences. However, this was not the only unifying feature between them.

When the literary perspective has been applied to the archaeological material discussed around Rome, it has confirmed this view. It is evident that the suburban villas in this region were constructed upon such impressive lines that they could only be comparable in size and character to the Imperial palaces on the Palatine hill. The lofty Imperial residences commanded a dominant position within the city and were lucid examples of the emperor’s position. The suburban villas served a similar role, except they were located within the hinterland of the capital. Suburban villas around Rome were frequently constructed in the Tiburtine, Sabine and Alban regions, which would have been advantageous for their panoramic views and healthy breezes. These areas, especially the Tiburtine and Alban hills, were highly desirable to wealthy landowners as fashionable areas that provided an escape from the daily responsibilities in the city, which is further exemplified in the construction of several suburban Imperial villas in addition to the large urban palaces. Property prices would have been high in these areas, which may further the suggestion that the prime locations were seen not only as an ideal living environment, but also as a secure investment.

It is also evident that the view from a suburban villa was of the utmost importance, accentuating the otium of its facilities and the owners urbanitas. Statius made clear just how important this was to the aspiring villa owner. By creating rooms within a suburban villa for their panoramic position, it psychologically extended the domain of the property beyond its actual limits to the viewers and accentuated the impressive character of the residence. Martial highlighted the effect the view had upon his villa on the Janiculan hill and also the combined urban and rural characteristics of his suburban property. These elevated locations would have also presented health benefits with their high levels of ventilation, especially in comparison with the condensed and unsanitary living conditions in Rome itself. The features of villae suburbanae highlight the variation between each suburban residence. They were often a combination of both rusticitas and urbanitas, symbolising the synthesis of the suburbium in general. It was this duality of function and character that made them unique and desirable. The use of the term villa suburbana has illustrated their status and advantages. When this was not the intention of the author, another term (suburbano, rus, villa) was used instead of villae suburbanae.

Several of these estates have also produced evidence of agricultural productivity, but it is of interest to compare this between the two regions of Tibur and Dragoncello near Ostia. The productivity in the lowland regions was significantly more prominent by comparison, as well as the levels of luxuria being much lower. It seems likely that these properties were not as fashionable, being owner by less affluent residing agriculturists. The larger and more lavish suburban villas in the fashionable areas had a degree of productivity, but the intended lifestyle was significantly more important to these wealthier owners. The differing levels of available funds would have allowed for those affluent owners to have the freedom to construct spacious ornamental gardens and immense entertaining areas because of the reduced financial pressures.

The status acquired by owning a suburban villa can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, the value of most villae suburbanae was quite high. Because of their residential facilities and their intimate connection with the city, they were attractive residences, which added to their value. Villae suburbanae were valuable investments and the productivity at some estates was an additional advantage. But land value is only one factor that made suburban villas desirable. The term villa suburbana was only used in connection to the residence itself, not the estate. To be a villa suburbana, a residence had to symbolise otium on at least a basic level. It must have been a pleasant place to live, and not used purely for productivity.

The spatial evidence from both the Imperial palaces and the villae suburbanae illustrate the important social role that these residences played. The social function of the Imperial palaces is to be expected in view of their owners’ position and responsibilities, and in the Imperial villae suburbanae it does not appear to have been too dissimilar, especially at the Villas of Domitian (Villa 5) and Hadrian (Villa 6). These Imperial suburban villas had high percentages of entertainment space and were provided with large entertainment structures, such as theatres. This is also shown at the

Continual occupation was not a requirement to classify a residence as a villa suburbana. A villa suburbana was to be used at the owners’ discretion, which was the main reason behind their variety. Different proprietors would have envisaged different roles for their villae suburbanae, and many residences are frequently different because of

179

Of the Roman villae suburbanae, the only example with entertainment space less than twenty percent of the residence was the Villa dell’Auditorium (Villa 9). However, this was also the earliest example and contrasts greatly with the two latest examples (Villas 6, 16). The difference between these residences is likely to be indicative of differing levels of wealth between the Republican villa and the two Imperial villae suburbanae, but it is also representative of a progression in architectural styles and the changing attitudes towards the display of wealth. This is particularly evident when the percentage of internal entertainment space is considered at the Villa dell’Auditorium (Villa 9).

Villa of the Quintili (Villa 16) after it was acquired by the Emperor Commodus. The Villa of the Quintili provides important information for this study. Despite the additions of Commodus, this senatorial villa suburbana already had a significant degree of reception space, illustrating that its social role was not purely the prerogative of the Imperial family, but the wealthy members of Roman society in general. These rich members of the community, regardless of their socio-political position, frequently adorned their villae suburbanae with large-scale entertainment areas in the Roman suburbium. This is indicative of how the social activity of Rome was not limited to the capital itself, but continued into its hinterland.

It is significant to note the presence of agriculture at seven of these villae suburbanae. This is particularly relevant when it is remembered that those villae suburbanae with no evidence of agricultural activity were Imperial suburban villas, which makes them exceptional structures, particularly the Villa of Hadrian (Villa 6). Leaving aside the Villa dell’Auditorium (Villa 9) because of its early construction, the presence of agriculture had little effect upon the percentage of entertainment space provided at these residences. Complexes such as the Villas of the Volusii Saturnini (Villa 10), Fontana Piscaro (Villa 13) and those on the Via Gabina (Villas 14-15) illustrate how potential entertainment areas were combined with a utilitarian function, embodying the duality of villae suburbanae. These examples taken from the Roman suburbium have complemented the literary conception of villae suburbanae, showing that the ideal of villae suburbanae was reflected in reality.

The immense size and facilities of suburban villas outside the capital was significant because of their effect upon other residents in the Roman suburbium. The Imperial palaces upon the Palatine were clearly visible within the busy urbs, but the circumstances were different in the suburbs. Some of the larger villae suburbanae were intended to advertise the owners’ success and status to the smaller local communities in the Roman hinterland and to the other members of the wealthy classes who also possessed villae suburbanae. The high level of social activity in the suburbium, particularly in the Tiburtine and Alban regions, meant that these large suburban villas were quite visible. However, they were also far enough from the capital to avoid serious censure. In the Republican period, the ostentatious display of wealth was seen as unbecoming to the political élite, so villae suburbanae would have been quite attractive as they were far enough away from the capital to avoid being blatantly obvious. In the Imperial period suburban villas would have been particularly attractive to both the Emperors and the senatorial class. The suburbium allowed the Emperors to construct large palatial suburban villas without the restriction of neighbouring properties, although this was not always such a problem, as seen in the Domus Aurea. Senators would have grasped the opportunity to display their social position and success in the suburbium, where the danger of insulting the Emperor was lower than in the urbs. However, this was not always the case, as shown in the acquisition of the Villa of the Quintili (Villa 16). The additional space would have also allowed for greater freedom in social activities, which would have been of some importance at villae suburbanae.

When applying this understanding of villae suburbanae to those structures in the immediate outskirts of Pompeii there are several similarities with the Roman structures. Villas, such as the Villas of Diomede and the Mysteries, are prime examples of opulent and spacious residences that were intended to create a pleasant living environment with prominent panoramic views of the surrounding coastal landscape. The villas in this region have also produced evidence of agriculture, especially viticulture, which was so prevalent in the fertile region of Campania. This combination of otium and productivity is indicative of most villae suburbanae, as shown in both literary and archaeological evidence. These villa complexes were also compared with the large urban structures within the city, which has produced some significant results. This has shown that the entertaining space allocated within both types of structure were quite similar. However, there was a greater freedom for the development of large impressive residences beyond the city precincts, as would be expected. The suburban regions even outside a relatively minor city such as Pompeii were also highly desirable if the environment was attractive enough, especially during the Imperial period. This desire for suburban living with their associated views and seabreezes also explains the development of housing in Insula Occidentalis during the post 80 BC period.

The importance of social activity in the Roman suburbium can be seen in the percentage of potential entertainment space provided within the villae suburbanae considered, and also in the literary evidence from the period. Entertainment areas in suburban villas usually had an open disposition in order to enjoy light and ventilation, but the primary motivation was the view. These viewing rooms were constructed for either an internal or external perspective, depending upon the position of the residence and each room under question.

180

suburbanae. Judging from the Roman evidence, suburban villas were not necessarily located directly outside the city limits. But the significant distances travelled within the suburbium of Rome could not be applied directly to a smaller and comparatively less imposing city such as Pompeii. Therefore, by analysing the complexes further out from the city it appears that several of these complexes are able to be classified as villae suburbanae. These villas had large amounts of space within the structure devoted to entertaining and reception, indicating that the social aspects of these residences were just as important as in those located closer to the city. This is important to note because it represents the extension of the urban social activity beyond the city limits, and thus exhibits that within these residences the distinction between urban and rural lifestyles was not present. It has also been shown that these villae suburbanae also took advantage of the coastal landscape with the inclusion of exedrae and diaetae, as well as large openings towards the bat in the triclinia. These suburban villas contrasted significantly to the other smaller villas, which were more indicative of purely productive farmsteads. As with Rome there seems to have been a preference towards specific regions for the construction of villae suburbanae, particularly Boscoreale and Torre Annunziata for these well-appointed residences, which was probably because of the road network, topography and panoramic settings.

The statistical data has shown the importance of openplanned entertainment in Pompeian villae suburbanae, with particular emphasis upon views of the coastline. The Villas of the Mosaic Columns (Villa 18) and T. Siminius Stephanus (Villa 21) were not in a position to view this coastal landscape, but both structures exhibited a prominent utilitarian role within their precincts. The alterations at the Villa of the Mysteries (Villa 20) also severely limited its provision of social space in accordance with the priorities of its owner during its final phase of habitation. The emphasis upon production at these villae suburbanae contrasted with the dominant focus on luxuria and otium at both the Villas of Diomede (Villa 19) and Imperiale (Villa 22). The amount of reception space at these villae suburbanae were comparable to the large townhouses in Pompeii, with the main difference being their surface areas. Villae suburbanae were provided with more social space within their confines, allowing for various viewing rooms with both an internal and external perspective. This view of the landscape was where the villae suburbanae differed from the urban townhouses. The provision of entertainment space in the House of the Faun was the highest among all of the Pompeian precincts in the city or inner suburbs, but its early period of construction and impressive demeanour at its inception make it unusual and hardly typical. It is significant that the largest urban property in Pompeii was the Praedia of Julia Felix, and yet the advertisement of luxury and relaxation was not its only focus; it maintained a clear emphasis upon financial gain. This is indicative of the financial circumstances of its owners, which were comparatively reduced at the time of the eruption.

The spatial data from the villas in the ager Pompeiana illustrates the difference between villae suburbanae and the agricultural complexes in these areas. Of the complexes analysed in the outer suburbium of Pompeii, few villae suburbanae have been identified. Of these villae suburbanae, only one has produced no significant evidence of agriculture: the Villa of Poppaea (Villa 27). The Villa of Poppaea was the largest and most palatial residence in the outer suburbium of Pompeii. It is notable that the remaining Pompeian outer suburban villas served dual roles of entertainment and productivity. The Villa of Iucundus (Villa 23) was predominantly focused upon private entertainment and its classification as a villa suburbana is evident owing to its finds and the occupation of its owner, Iucundus. When these villae suburbanae are compared to the agricultural complexes in the area there is a clear difference in their focus and facilities.

The disparity between the financial resources of owners of villae suburbanae is evident, especially when the facilities at the Villas of Diomede (Villa 19) and T. Siminius Stephanus (Villa 21) are compared. It should be reiterated that these villae suburbanae were residences of the wealthy classes and even though the finances of some owners were lower than others, the high status of these structures remained. The villae suburbanae in the inner suburbium of Pompeii have illustrated a duality in function, and their facilities differ from the suburban villas outside Rome. Large well-appointed villae suburbanae were constructed outside both cities, and epitomised status and the priorities of their owners. It would be unrealistic to expect Pompeian villae suburbanae to be constructed on a similar scale to those suburban villas built for Emperors and senators outside the capital where social pressures and expectations were significantly greater. However, the general character shown by all of these villae suburbanae is the same: they provided status and privacy for their owners, being frequently exhibited in a combination of urbanitas and rusticitas.

Regardless of their position from the city, there was a similar emphasis on, and variation between, the entertainment roles for these residences. It is not surprising that the Villas of Diomede (Villa 19), Imperiale (Villa 22) and Poppaea (Villa 27) produced the largest focus upon socialisation. These villae suburbanae were primarily residential villas for luxuria and otium, with a focus upon viewing the landscape. The rest of the villae suburbanae outside Pompeii had dual roles of lifestyle and production. It is pertinent that of the identified villae suburbanae (in both the inner and outer suburbium of Pompeii), only three were purely focused

The villas located further out from Pompeii were more questionable as to whether they could be defined as villae

181

features, owing to the actions of Sulla. This allowed for even greater expansion by the wealthiest of these landowners in Stabiae, resulting in such enormous complexes. This reflects how if the limitations of an urban environment and the necessary finances were removed just how large these complexes could become. Another good example of this is visible in the Villa of Poppea at Oplontis. But the examination of Stabiae has also illustrated the difference between these large establishments and much smaller farmsteads located in the ager Stabianus. These smaller villas were evidently not villae suburbanae, but their comparison with suburban villas highlights how different the two types of complex were in reality.

upon otium, whereas the remainder served as productive estates as well. This corresponds with the literary conception and the villae suburbanae outside Rome and further exemplifies that the essence of suburban villas was consistent despite the variation between each owners’ priorities and resources. The evidence from Herculaneum and its hinterland has reconfirmed the evidence of Rome and Pompeii. Of the several villas known in the region, only a few possessed the facilities and general well-appointed demeanour to justify a definition as a villa suburbana. The most obvious example of this type of complex was the Villa of the Papyri, but the grandeur of this establishment was far from that of a normal residence. A similar combination of suburban villas and simple farmsteads in the hinterland of Herculaneum is also noticeable, but with fewer complexes around this smaller urban centre. The desire for a viewing platform within the city precincts was also clearly present in the large townhouses on the southern frontage of the Bay of Naples. These houses reflect a similar tendency to the complexes in Insula Occidentalis in Pompeii, where the reduced defensive requirements of the city allowed for wealthy residents to expand their houses in order to gain a more open disposition for their residences. There was a similar motivation in this growth to the development of large suburban villas though on a lesser scale when compared to the number of suburban properties around Pompeii.

The spatial data from Stabiae has produced the clearest division between villae suburbanae and agricultural complexes. This area included five impressive suburban villas (Villas 53-55), all possessing high degrees of entertainment space. For the most part, these results are indicative of their large surface areas and their entertainment facilities. This is further exemplified when they are compared to the agricultural complexes that have been considered (Villas 58-59). The surface area of these structures was larger than some of the villae suburbanae, but the differences in provision of entertainment space clearly illustrate the difference in their character. These examples have exhibited the difference between villae suburbanae and agricultural complexes so clearly because of the socio-political climate at this centre. The three largest villae suburbanae (Villas 53-55) are a group of closely neighbouring residences that took advantage of the panorama from the Varano ridge, and served to advertise the position of their owners to the local community. These large residences had little agricultural productivity, but this was not their main purpose. They provided pleasant and spacious residences for their owners and were used to exemplify their dominance over the local Stabian society. The presence of tablina at these villae suburbanae illustrates their official (if not pseudourban) role. These suburban villas were not secluded; they were expressions of status, power and success set in an idyllic landscape.

The spatial data from the suburban villas outside Herculaneum has continued the general theme exhibited in the suburbs of Rome and Pompeii. Despite having fewer examples to use, the size and facilities of the Villa of the Papyri (Villa 45) and the emphasis upon social space in the Villa Sora (Villa 46) have illustrated that they were two well-appointed villae suburbanae in the coastal suburbium of Herculaneum. Both complexes possessed large amounts of entertainment space that were among the highest of all examined villae suburbanae. Both villae suburbanae from the ager Ercolano have exhibited a high level of facilities and reception space, particularly the space providing an open aspect. There was only limited emphasis upon agricultural productivity at these residences, with the main focus being upon otium and the view of the coast. This corresponded to the townhouses on the southern limits of the city. When these townhouses are compared to those in Pompeii, it is evident that there was a large variation in surface area, but a strong correlation in social space.

The Hillier and Hanson method has shown the variation in the accessibility of different social areas in villae suburbanae. This illustrates the divergent uses that these areas had, as well as the different occasions that a suburban villa could be used for. The majority of establishments classified as villae suburbanae had several rooms for a potential entertainment function, which were often located in both easily accessible and inaccessible areas of the complex, indicating both public and private roles. All the same, the majority of these residences also possessed some similar characteristics with both the agricultural complexes and the well-appointed townhouses that they have been

Stabiae has also exhibited similar tendencies towards life in the suburbs with a series of grand, opulent residences along the Varano ridge. The majority of these complexes have little evidence of agriculture with the prime focus being upon luxuria and otium for the enjoyment of the owners. However, Stabiae has provided a different scenario to the other centres of Pompeii and Hercualneum in Campania because of the limited amount of urban

182

(Villas 28, 42) have produced only public social space in the form of peristyles. All of the other villas had only one type of entertainment space, usually in the form of an easily accessible dining room. Villas 31 and 34 were the only residences that had this room located in the private sphere of the residence. But it was the provision of more than one entertainment space that typically epitomised these suburban villas, with only one exception (Villa 23), which has already been discussed at length.

compared to in this study. There are differences and yet similarities that in many ways epitomises not only these structures, but also the spatial analysis results. When examining the evidence from Rome, the syntactical analysis of these villa complexes has also highlighted the findings of the theoretical modeling. It is evident that there was a high level of differentiation between the structures under question here, which was primarily owing to the intended function of each complex and the available resources of each respective owner: some structures were anticipated to fulfill a highly social/reception role (Villas 3, 4, 6, and 16 for example), whereas others focused upon more of a dualistic agricultural and social function, such as Villas 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. This provides an excellent correlation with Lefebvre’s socialisation modeling, whereby different residences have reflected not only a wide range of societal interaction ‘types’ (among individuals of differing o similar social standings), but also a multiplicity of contexts in which this interaction would occur. An excellent comparison to illustrate this can be viewed in the syntactic and theoretical modeling results for the Villas of Livia (Villa 4) and San Rocco (Villa 11). These two complexes exhibit not only the differing provisions for each complex and how they were in keeping with their intended functions, but how they are also indicative of the respective social standing of their residents and invited guests alike.

Those villae suburbanae located in the outer suburbs were predominantly conceived in a similar fashion to the Villas of Cicero, Diomede and Imperiale (17, 19, 22), focusing upon lifestyle rather than productivity. The examples noted in this chapter of more productive suburban villas (24, 25, 28) seem to have been akin with the Villas of the Mysteries and T. Siminius Stephanus (20, 21) in their combined use as a wellappointed residence and productive setting. However, these structures were quite different in their emphasis to the utilitarian non-villae suburbanae that were much more common in the suburbs of Pompeii. For Stabiae the analysis has clearly illustrated the differing social roles that were present in villae suburbanae and smaller agricultural complexes. Particularly the large establishments (Villas 53-55) have exhibited a differentiation in accessible/inaccessible (public/private) space. Villas 56 and 57 have both exhibited some distinction in public and private areas, but at a reduced level in comparison to the Villas San Marco, Arianna and Pastore (owing to their smaller layouts). All of these villae suburbanae markedly contrast the agricultural complexes that had limited (if any) differentiation between public and private areas, which is indicative of their comparatively modest characters and reduced social roles. This style of analysis has further highlighted the distinction that existed between small productive establishments and the larger, more socially orientated, villae suburbana.

When considering the general results from the Hillier and Hanson analysis of the Pompeian structures, it is evident that while there was an evident variation in the intentions and fiscal circumstances of each respective owner over time, there is some consistency in the dualistic priorities of each structure in the suburbium of Pompeii. While the design and décor of the Villas of the Mysteries and M. Siminius Stephanus were quite dissimilar, it is still evident that both owners in AD 79 sought to be both socially significant and commercially viable – just through different avenues. All the same, these structures have also provided an excellent correlation between the theoretical modeling of Lefebvre and the spatial analysis method of Hillier and Hanson. The social/theoretical modeling of Lefebvre illustrates the consistency in a clearly delineated interactive type of residence, as exhibited by both the Villa of Diomede, the House of the Faun, and the House of Octavius Quartio for example. The central finding from this examination is most importantly the consistency in social activity and layout between both the urbs and the suburbium. This makes socialisation a key element to factor in when examining the extraurban regions of Pompeii.

So in conclusion, it is evident that an understanding of villae suburbanae, not only in theory but also in the reality of the community during this period in central Italy is possible. Suburban villas were a combination of several often divergent qualities. They epitomised the ideal lifestyle for the owner, a combination of urban sophistication and rural respectability. The position in the suburbs of a city allowed for this dual nature. Martial highlighted this fusion in his indecision to classify his property as either an urban or rural residence. Vitruvius (6.5.3) also expressed the increasing urban nature of many non-urban residences by using the term pseudourbana. But it is evident that a villa suburbana was a well-appointed residence with an open demanour for the pleasure of both resident and visitor. This desire for otium and luxuria was a core feature, but it did not preclude agricultural productivity, which allowed for some kind of social acceptability even at the most opulent of residences. It is in this way that the suburban villas

The Hillier and Hanson method has also accentuated the distinction between villae suburbanae and the small agricultural establishments. Suburban villas that have produced a large amount of data have exhibited a variation in public and private potential entertainment space. Only those villae suburbanae with partial plans

183

maintained a dual role within both the rural and urban spheres of the community. In fact, these villae suburbanae became the embodiment of the entwined nature of these two region, representing both town and country.

184

ABBREVIATIONS AJA AJAH AJPh ANRW ArchLaz BAR CAH CronErc CronPomp ILS JRA JRS LCL MDAIR(A) MEFRA NSc OpRom PBSR PP REL RSP ZPE

American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Ancient History American Journal of Philology Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt Archeologia Laziale British Archaeological Reports Cambridge Ancient History Cronache Ercolanesi Cronache Pompeiane Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Loeb Classical Library Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Römische Abteilung Mélanges de L’École Française de Rome Notizie degli Scavi Opuscula Romana Papers of the British School at Rome Parola del Passato Revue des Etudes Latines Rivista di Studi Pompeiana Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, J.S., 1990, The Villa: form and ideology of country houses, Thames and Hudson: London.

status, sentiment and space, Humanities Research Centre: Canberra, pp. 321-54.

Acquaro, E, 1979. (ed.), Pompei 79, Antiqua Supp. 15, Buffetti Editore: Rome.

Allison, P.M., 2001a, “Using the Material and Written Sources: turn of the Millennium Approaches to Roman domestic Space”, AJA 105.2, pp. 181-208.

Adembri, B., 2000, Hadrian’s Villa, Electa: Milan. Allison, P.M., 2001b, “Placing Individuals: Pompeian Epigraphy in Context”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14.1, pp. 53-74.

Albore Livadie, C. (ed.), 1986, Tremblements de terre, a eruptions volcaniques et vie des hommes dans la Campanie antique, Centre Jean Bérard: Naples.

Allison, P.M., 2004, Pompeian Households: an analysis of the material culture, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 42: Los Angeles.

Albore Livadie, C. and Wiedermann, F. (eds.), 1990, Volcanology and Archaeology: Proceedings of the European Workshops of Ravello, November 19-27 1987 and March 30-31 1989, Conseil de l’Europe: Strasbourg.

Allroggen-Bedel, A., 1977, “Die Wandmalerein aus der Villa in Campo Varano (Castellammare di Stabia)”, MDAIR(A) 84, pp. 27-89.

Allison, P.M., 1992, “The relationship between walldecoration and room-type in Pompeian houses: a case study of the Casa della Caccia Antica”, JRA 5, pp. 235-49.

Allroggen-Bedel, A., 1982, “Die Wanddekorationen der Villen am Golf von Neapel”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 519-30.

Allison, P.M., 1997, “Artefact Distribution and Spatial Function in Pompeian Houses”, in Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy:

Allroggen-Bedel, A., 1984, “La Pittura”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 130-144.

185

Astin, A.E., 1978, Cato the Censor, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Allroggen-Bedel, A., 2001, “Gli affreschi delle ville di Stabiae”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 51-57.

Aurigemma, S., 1964, Villa Adriana near Tivoli, trans. A. Von Buren, Arti Grafiche A. Chicca: Tivoli.

Anderson, M.L., 1987, “The Portrait Medallions of the Imperial Villa at Boscotrecase”, AJA 91, pp. 12735.

Aylwin Cotton, M., 1979a, The Late Republican Villa at Posto, Francolise, British School at Rome Press: Rome.

André, J.M., 1962, Recherches sur L’Otium Romain, Les Belles Lettres: Paris.

Aylwin Cotton, M., 1979b, “Una villa ed un Grande Edificio Romani lungo la Via Gabina”, ArchLaz 2, 1979, pp. 82-5.

Andreae, B., 1975, “Rekostruktion des Grossen Oecus der Villa des P. Fannius Synistor in Boscoreale” in Andreae, B. and Kyrieleis, H., (eds.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Verlad Aurel Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1975, pp. 71-92.

Aylwin Cotton, M. and Métraux, G.P.R., 1985, The San Rocco Villa at Francolise, British School at Rome Press: Rome.

Andreae, B., 1982, “I pavoni della Villa di Oplontis”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 531-36.

Badian, E., 1973, “Marius’ Villas: the testimony of the slave and the knave”, JRS 63, pp. 121-132. Bagnani, G., 1954, “The House of Trimalchio”, AJP 75, pp. 16-39.

Andreae, B. and Kyrieleis, H., 1975, (eds.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Verlag Aurel Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1975.

Baker, R.J., 1996, “Martial ‘sells’ a Villa: IV 64”, PP 287, pp. 33-45.

Andreau, J., 1973, “Remarques sur la société pompéienne”, Dialoghi di Archeologia 7, pp. 213-54.

Baldwin, B., 1983, Suetonius, Adolf M. Hakkert: Amsterdam.

Andreau, J., 1974, Les Affaires de Monsieur Jucundus, École Francaise de Rome: Rome.

Baldwin, B., 1990, “The Date, Identity and Career of Vitruvius”, Latomus 49, pp. 425-34.

Andrén, A., 1965, “Classical Antiquities of the Villa San Michele”, OpRom 4, pp. 119-41.

Ball, L.F., 2003, The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Annibaldi, G., 1935, “Scoperta di ruderi di edificio rustico e rinvenimento di sculture al VII chilometro dell’Appia Nuova”, NSc 13, pp. 76-104.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D., 1969, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, Phoenix Press: London.

Archer, W.C., 1999, “The maturing of the Fourth Style: the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento at Pompeii”, JRA 4, pp. 129-150.

Bannon, C.J., 2001, “Servitudes for Water use in the Roman suburbium”, Historia 50, pp. 34-52. Barbet, A., 1981, “Les Bordures ajourées dans le IV Style de Pompéi”, MEFRA 93, pp. 917-98.

Arthur, P., 1986, “Problems of the urbanization of Pompeii: Excavations 1980-1981”, Antiquaries Journal 66, pp. 29-44.

Barbet, A., 1983, “Premier rapport sur l’étude de la Villa San Marco à Stabies: le programme de mise en valeur de la villa”, MEFRA 95, pp. 912-22.

Ascani, K. (ed.), 1976, Studia Romana in honorem Petri Krarup septuagenarii, Odense University Press: Odense.

Barbet, A., 2004, “Villa San Marco”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 55-57.

Ashby, T., 1906, “The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna: Part 2”, PBSR 3, pp. 3-197.

Barrett, A.A., 1989, Caligula: the corruption of power, Yale University Press: New Haven.

Ashby, T., 1912, “Recent discoveries at Ostia”, JRS 2, pp. 153-94.

Barrett, A.A., 2002, Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, Yale University Press: New Haven.

Ashby, T., 1970, The Roman Campagna in Classical Times, Ernest Benn: London.

186

Bergmann, B., 2004, “The Art of Frescoes at Stabiae”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 7781.

Barringer, J.M., 1994, “The Mythological Paintings in the Macellum at Pompeii,” Classical Antiquity 13.2, pp. 149-171. Bartman, E., 1994, “Sculptural Collecting and Display in the Private Realm”, in Gazda, E.K. (ed.), Roman Art in the Private Sphere: new perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa and Insula, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, pp. 71-88.

Berry, J., 1997, “Household artefacts: towards a reinterpretation of Roman domestic space”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 183-95. Berry, J., 1997, “The Conditions of Domestic Life in Pompeii in AD 79: a case-study of Houses 11 and 12, Insula 9, Region I”, PBSR 65, pp. 103-25.

Bartoloni, R., 2000, “Roman Villa under Vatican Parking Lot”, Archaeology 53.2, p. 22. Barton, I.M., 1996, “Palaces”, in Barton, I.M. (ed.), Roman Domestic Buildings, University of Exeter Press: Exeter, pp. 91-120.

Beyen, H., 1988, “The Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale”, Monographs on Mediterranean Antiquity, pp. 17-34.

Barton, I.M., 1996, (ed.), Roman Domestic Buildings, University of Exeter Press: Exeter.

Bieber, M., 1928, “Der Mysteriensaal der Villa Item”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 43, pp. 298-330.

Beard, M., 1999, “What Might have happened Upstairs”, London Review of Books 21, www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n18/print/bear01_.html

Bird, J., Claridge, A., Gilkes, O. and Neal, D., 1993, “Porta Pia: excavations and survey in an area of suburban Rome”, PBSR 61, pp. 51-113.

Bek, L., 1976, “Antithesis: a Roman attitude and its changes as reflected in the concept of Architecture from Vitruvius to Pliny the Younger”, in Ascani, K. (ed.), Studia Romana in honorem Petri Krarup septuagenarii, Odense University Press: Odense, pp. 154-66.

Birley, A.R., 1997, Hadrian: the restless emperor, Routledge: London. Blaison, M., 1998, “Suétone et l’ekphrasis de la Domus Aurea (Suét., Ner. 31)”, Latomus 57.3, pp. 617-24.

Bellingham, D.C., 1985, “Die Statuarische ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei Tivoli (review)”, JRS 75, p. 274-5.

Blanc, N., 1983, “Premier rapport sur l’étude de la Villa San Marco à Stabies: les Stucs”, MEFRA 95, pp. 922-4.

Bellwald, U., 1985, Domus Tiberiana: nuove ricerche, studi di restauro, L’erma di Bretschneider: Rome.

Boatwright, M.T. (ed.), 1982, I Volusii Saturnini: una famiglia romana della prima età imperiale, De Donato: Bari.

Bendinelli, G., 1968, “Ultime considerazioni intorno alla villa pompeiana detta dei misteri”, Latomus 27, pp. 823-831.

Bodel, J., 1997, “Monumental villas and villa monuments”, JRA 10, pp. 5-35.

Bergmann, B., 1994, “Painted Perspectives of a Villa visit: landscape as status and metaphor”, in Gazda, E.K. (ed.), Roman Art in the Private Sphere: new perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa and Insula, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, pp. 49-70.

Boëthius, A., 1960, The Golden House of Nero: some aspects of Roman Architecture, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Böhm, R.G., 1982, “Cicero über die Marius-villa bei Stabiae”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 241-53.

Bergmann, B., 1995, “Visualizing Pliny’s villas”, JRA 8, pp. 406-20. Bergmann, B., 1997, “The Roman House as Memory Theatre: the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii”, Art Bulletin 79, pp. 225-56.

Bon S.E. and Jones, R. (eds.), 1997, Sequence and Space in Pompeii, Oxbow: Oxford. Bon, S.E., Jones, R., Kurchin, B. and Robinson, D.J., 1997, “The Context of the House of the Surgeon: investigations in Insula VI, 1 at Pompeii”, in Bon

Bergmann, B., 2001, “House of cards”, JRA 14.1, pp. 56-8.

187

S.E. and Jones, R. (eds.), Sequence and Space in Pompeii, Oxbow: Oxford, pp. 32-49.

Bruno, V.J., 1969, “Antecedents of the Pompeian First Style”, AJA 73, pp. 305-17.

Bonifacio, G., 2004a, “Villa Arianna”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 59-61.

Brunt, P.A., 1966, “The ‘Fiscus’ Development”, JRS 56, pp. 75-91.

and

its

Brunt, P.A., 1971, Italian Manpower: 225BC to AD 14, Oxford University Press: New York.

Bonifacio, G., 2004b, “Villa Carmiano”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 71-75.

Brunt, P.A., 1980, “Patronage and politics in the Verrines”, Chiron 10, pp. 273-89.

Borriello, M., D’Ambrosio, A., De Caro, S. and Guzzo, P.G. (eds.), 1996, Pompei: abitare sotto il Vesuvio, Ferrara Arte: Rome.

Bruun, C., 2000, “Senatorial owners of what?”, JRA 31.2, pp. 498-506.

Bouet, A., 1997, “De la Villa des Laurentes (Région D’Ostie) á la Villa du Griffon (Vitrolles, Bouches-du Rhône, France): un système original de chauffage domestique”, MEFRA 109, pp. 111-26.

Buck, R.J., 1983, “Agriculture and Agricultural Practice in Roman Law”, Historia 45. Budetta, T., 1990, “Ercolano: Attività dell’Ufficio Scavi: 1990”, RSP 4, pp. 218-221.

Bourne, F.C., “Reflections on Rome’s Urban Problems”, Classical World 62, pp. 205-9. Boyce, G.K., 1937, Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14.

Buonocore, M., 1982, “Materiali per lo studio Colombario dei Liberti e schiavi dei Volusii sulla Via Appia”, in Boatwright, M.T. (ed.), I Volusii Saturnini: una famiglia romana della prima età imperiale, De Donato: Bari, pp. 17-35.

Boyce, G.K., 1942, “Significance of the Serpents on Pompeian House Shrines”, AJA 46, pp. 13-22.

Burkert, W., 2000, “Neanthes von Kyzikos über Platon”, Museum Helveticum 57.2, pp. 76-80.

Boyle, A.J. and Dominik, W.J. (eds.), 2003, Flavian Rome: culture, image, text, Brill: Leiden.

Burnham, B.C. and Kingsbury, J. (eds.), 1979, Space, Hierarchy and Society: interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis, BAR: Oxford.

Braund, S.H., 1989, “City and Country in Roman Satire”, in Braund, S.H. (ed.) Satire and Society in Ancient Rome, University of Exeter Press: Exeter, pp. 23-47.

Calci, C. and Messineo, G., 1984, La Villa di Livia a Prima Porta, De Luce Editore: Rome. Calza, G., 1915, “Expressions of Art in a Roman Commercial City: Ostia”, JRS 5, pp. 165-72.

Braund, D. and Gill, C. (eds.), 2003, Myth, history and culture in Republican Rome: studies in honour of T.P. Wiseman, University of Exeter Press: Exeter.

Camardo, D., 1989a, “Stabiae: storia del sito”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 9-11.

Brion, M., 1973, Pompeii and Herculaneum: the Glory and the Grief, Sphere Books: London. Brizzi, G., 1979, “Suggestioni di storia socioeconomica vesuviana”, in E. Acquaro (ed.), Antiqua 79, Supp 15: Rome, pp. 82-94.

Camardo, D., 1989b, “Villa Arianna”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della Chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 17-23.

Brothers, A.J., 1996, “Urban Housing”, in Barton, I.M. (ed.), Roman Domestic Buildings, University of Exeter Press: Exeter, pp. 33-63.

Camardo, D., 1989c, “Villa di Carmiano”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della Chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 69-72.

Brown, F.E., 1990, “Comment on Chapman: some cautionary notes on the application of spatial measures to prehistoric settlements”, in Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, pp. 93-109.

Camardo, D., 2001a, “La Villa di Arianna a Stabiae”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 75-84.

188

Carrington, R.C., 1934, “Some Ancient Italian Country-Houses”, Antiquity 8, pp. 261-80.

Camardo, D., 2001b, “La Villa del Pastore a Stabiae”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 93-96.

Carrington, R.C., 1936, Pompeii, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Camardo, D., 2004, “Mt. Vesuvius and Human Settlement in the Gulf of Naples in the First Century AD”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 2533.

Carroll, M., 2003, Earthly Paradises: ancient gardens in history and archaeology, British Museum Press: London. Casale, A. and Bianco, A., 1979, “Primo contributo alla topografia del suburbio pompeiano”, in Acquaro, E. (ed.), Pompei 79, Antiqua Supp. 15: Rome, pp. 27-55.

Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), 1989, Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della Chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia. Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A., 2001, (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia.

Cassatella, A., 1990, “Un disegno di pirro Ligorio ed I resti sotto il Triclinio della Domus Flavia”, in Gli Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino, Ècole Francaise de Rome: Rome, pp. 155-66.

Capasso, M., 1988, “Appunti sui papiri ercolanesi”, RSP 2, pp. 127-36.

Casson, L., 1974, Travel in the Ancient World, George Allen and Unwin: London.

Capogrossi Colognesi, L., “The limits of the ancient city and the evolution of the medieval city in the thought of Max Webber”, in Cornell, T.J. and Lomas, K. (eds.), Urban Society in Roman Italy, University College London Press: London, pp. 27-37.

Castrén, P., 1984, “L’administrazione municipale”, in Zevi, F., (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 45-55. Cerutti, S.M., 1997, “The location of the Houses of Cicero and Clodius and the Porticus Catuli on the Palatine Hill in Rome”, AJPh 118, pp. 417-26.

Carandini, A., 1990, “Il Gardino nell’età tardo Republicana e Giulio-Claudia”, in Gli Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino, Ècole Francaise de Rome: Rome, pp. 9-15.

Champlin, E., 1982, “The Suburbium of Rome”, AJAH 7, pp. 97-117.

Carandini, A., Ricci, G., D’Alessio, M.T., De Davide, C. and Terrenato, N., 1997, “La Villa dell’Auditorium dall’età Arcaica all’età Imperiale”, MDAIR(A) 104, pp. 117-48.

Champlin, E., 2001, “Pliny’s other country”, in Peachin, M. (ed.), Aspects of Friendship in the Greco-Roman World, JRA Supp. 43: Portsmouth, pp. 121-8.

Carettoni, G., 1983, Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin, Philipp von Zabern: Mainz.

Ciarallo, A., 2001, Gardens of Pompeii, J. Paul Getty Museum: Los Angeles.

Carlsen, J. (ed.), 1994, Landuse in the Roman Empire, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome.

Ciarallo, A., 2001-2, “Colture e habitat del territorio vesuviano nel 79 d.C.”, RSP 12-13, pp. 167-76.

Carlsen, J., 1995, Vilici and Roman Estate Managers until AD 284, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome.

Clarke, D.L. (ed.), 1997, Spatial Archaeology, Academic Press: London.

Carrington, A.G., 1960, Aspects of Martial’s Epigrams, University College of the West Indies: Eton.

Clarke, G., 2002, “Vitruvian Paradigms”, PBSR 70, pp. 319-46.

Carrington, R.C., 1931, “Studies in the Campanian ‘Villae Rusticae’”, JRS 21, pp. 110-30.

Clarke, J.R., 1982, “The Origins of Black-and-White Figural Mosaics”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli Studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 661-87.

Carrington, R.C., 1933a, “Notes on the Building Materials of Pompeii”, JRS 23, pp. 125-138.

Clarke, J.R., 1987, “The Early Third Style at the Villa of Oplontis”, MDAIR(A) 94, pp. 267-94.

Carrington, R.C., 1933b, “The Ancient Italian TownHouse”, Antiquity 7, pp. 133-52.

189

Crook, J.A., 1967, Law and Life of Rome, Thames and Hudson: London.

Clarke, J.R., 1991, The Houses of Roman Italy, 100BC – AD250: ritual, space and decoration, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Curtis, R.I., 1984, “A Personalized Floor mosaic from Pompeii”, AJA 88, pp. 557-66.

Clarke, J.R., 1996, “Landscape paintings in the Villa of Oplontis”, JRA 9, pp. 81-107.

Curtis, R.I., 1988a (ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1 and 2, Orpheus Publishing: New York.

Clarke, J.R., 2003, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: visual representation and non-elite viewers in Italy, 100BC – AD 315, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Curtis, R.I., 1988b, “A. Umbricius Scaurus of Pompeii”, in Curtis, R.I. (ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 19-50.

Clarke, S., 1998, “Social Change and architectural diversity in Roman Period Britain”, in Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J., Lembke, C. and Witcher, R. (eds.), TRAC 97, Proceedings of the Seventh Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham 1997, Oxbow: Oxford, pp. 28-41.

D’Ambrosio, A., 1990, Le terrecotte figurate di Pompei, L’Erma Bretschneider: Rome. D’Arms, J.H., 1970, Romans on the Bay of Naples, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Clark Reeder, J., 1997, “The Statue of Augustus from Prima Porta, the underground complex, and the omen of the Gallina Alba”, AJPh 118, pp. 89-118.

D’Arms, J.H., 1974, “Puteoli in the Second Century of the Roman Empire”, JRS 64, pp. 104-24.

Clark Reeder, J., 2001, The Villa of Livia Ad Gallinas Albas, Brown University: Providence.

D’Arms, J.H., 1981, Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Clinton, K., 1989, “Hadrian’s contribution to the Renaissance of Elusis”, in Walker, S. and Cameron, A. (eds.), The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, Institute of Classical Studies: London, pp. 56-68.

D’Arms, J.H., 1984, “Ville rustiche e ville di otium”, in Zevi, F., (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 65-86.

Cohen, A., 1997, The Alexander Mosaic – stories of victory and defeat, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Day, J., 1932, “Agriculture in the life of Pompeii”, Yale Classical Studies 4, pp. 165-208. Darwall-Smith, D., 1994, “Albanum and the Villas of Domitian”, Pallas 40, pp. 145-65.

Conticello, B., 1987, “Dopo 221 anni si Rientra nella Villa dei Papiri”, CronErc 17, pp. 9-13.

De Albentiis, E., 1990, La casa dei Romani, Longanesi: Milan.

Corbier, M., 1991, “City, territory and taxation”, in Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World, Routledge: London, pp. 211-37. Cornell, T.J. and Lomas, K. (eds.), 1995, Urban Society in Roman Italy, University College London Press: London.

De Caro, A.L., 1988, “Alessandro e Rossane come Ares ed Afrodite in un dipinto della casa Regio VI, Insula Occidentalis, n. 42”, in Curtis, R.I. (ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 75-88.

Costa, C.D.N., 1973 (ed.), Horace, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

De Caro, S., 1976, “Sculture della Villa di Poppea in Oplontis”, CronPomp 2, pp. 184-225.

Cowell, F.R., 1948, Cicero and the Roman Republic, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons: London.

De Caro, S., 1977, “Pagus Augustus Suburbanus”, CronPomp 3, pp. 217-18.

Crescenzi, L., 1981, “La Villa di Domiziano a Castel Gandolfo: nuove prospettive”, ArchLaz 4, pp. 181-4.

De Caro, S., 1987, “The Sculptures of the Villa of Poppaea at Oplontis”, in MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington, pp. 77-134.

Croisille, J.M., 1966, “Les fouilles archéologiques de Castellammare di Stabia: découvertes récentes”, Latomus 25, pp. 245-57.

190

Felix

a Sud del portellone n. 27 del R. Canale del Sarno”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 20, pp. 280-4.

De Caro, S., 1988, “Un graffito ed altre testimonianze del culto della Magna Mater nella villa romana di Oplontis”, in Curtis, R.I. (ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 89-96.

Della Corte, M., 1923b, “Villa rustica parzialmente esplorata dall’on. sig. Vincenzo De Prisco in un fondo di sua proprietà alla Contrada Crapolla (Commune di Scafati)”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 20, pp. 284-7.

De Caro, S., 1994, La Villa Regina in Località Regina a Boscoreale, George Bretschneider: Rome.

Della Corte, M., 1928, “Scafati – Contrada Acquavitrara – Villa Rustica”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 53, pp. 375-7.

De Caro, S., 1996, “L’occupazione del territorio”, in Borriello, M., D’Ambrosio, A., De Caro, S. and Guzzo, P.G. (eds.), Pompei: abitare sotto il Vesuvio, Ferrara Arte: Rome, pp. 6-11.

Della Corte, M., 1929, “Boscoreale – Parziale scavo della Villa rustica ‘M. Livi Marcelli’”, NSc Series 6, Vol. 54, pp. 178-89.

De Franciscis, A., 1967, “Underwater Discoveries around the Bay of Naples”, Archaeology 20, pp. 20916.

De Petra, G., 1910, “Pompei – villa romana presso Pompei”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 139-45.

De Franciscis, A., 1973, “La Villa Romana di Oplontis”, PP 28 (153), pp. 453-66.

Descoeudres, J-P., 1994, Pompeii revisited: the life and death of a Roman town, Meditarch: Sydney.

De Franciscis, A., 1975, “La Villa Romana di Oplontis”, in Andreae, B. and Kyrieleis, H., (eds.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Verlad Aurel Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1975, pp. 9-38.

De Simone, A., 1987, “La Villa dei papiri rapporto preliminare: Gennaio 1986-Marzo 1987”, CronErc 17, pp. 15-47.

De Franciscis, A., 1978, The Buried Cities Pompeii and Herculaneum, Istituto Geografico de Agostini: Novara.

De Vos, M., 1990, “Nerone, Sececa, Fabullo et la Domus Transitoria al Palatino”, in Gli Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino, Ècole Francaise de Rome: Rome, pp. 167-86.

De Franciscis, A., 1979, “Beryllos e la Villa “Di Poppea” ad Oplontis”, in Kopcke, G. and Moore, M.G. (eds.), Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: a tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen, J.J. Augustin: Locust Valley, NY, pp. 231-3.

De Vos, A. and M., 1982, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, G. Laterza: Rome. Dickmann J., 1997, “The peristyle and the transformation of domestic space in Hellenistic Pompeii”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 121-136.

De Franciscis, A., 1982, “Oplontis”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 907-25.

Di Giuseppe, H., Sansoni, M., Williams, J. and Witcher, R., 2002, “The Sabrinensis Ager revisited: a field survey in the Sabina Tiberina”, PBSR 70, pp. 99-149

Deiss, J.J., 1985, Herculaneum: Italy’s Buried Treasure, Thames and Hudson: London. De Kind, R.E.L.B., 1998, Houses in Herculaneum: a new view on the town planning and the building of Insulae III and IV, J.C. Gieben: Amsterdam.

Dilke, O.A.W., 1973, “Horace and the Verse Letter”, in C.D.N. Costa (ed.), Horace, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Della Corte, M., 1921, “Pompei – Scavi eseguiti da privati nel territorio Pompeiano”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 18, pp. 415-67.

Dillon, S., 2000, “Subject selection and viewer reception of Greek portraits from Herculaneum and Tivoli”, JRA 13, pp. 21-40.

Della Corte, M., 1922, “Pompei – Scavi eseguiti da privati nel territorio di Pompei (secondo rapporto)”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 19, pp. 459-85.

Dixon, S., 1992, The Roman Family, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Della Corte, M., 1923a, “Villa rustica scavata dal sig. ing. Gennaro Matrone in un fondo di sua proprietà situato nella contrada Spinelli (Communi di Scafati),

Dixon, S., 1997, “Conflict in the Roman Family”, in Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. (eds.), The Roman

191

Family in Italy: status, sentiment and space, Humanities Research Centre: Canberra, pp. 149-68.

der späten Republik bis zur Zeit Neros, Philipp von Zabern: Mainz.

Dobbins, J.J., 1994, “Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design in the Forum at Pompeii”, AJA 98, pp. 629-94.

Eisner, M., 1986, Zur Typologie der Grabbauten im Suburbium Roms, Philipp von Zabern: Mainz. Elia, O., 1957, Pitture di Stabia, Banco di Napoli: Naples.

Dohl, H. and Zanker, P., 1984, “La Scultura”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 177-210.

Engels, D., 1990, Roman Corinth: an alternative model for the classical city, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Dorandi, T., 1995, “La ‘Villa dei Papiri’ a Ercolano e la sua Biblioteca”, Classical Philology 90.2, pp. 168182.

Erdkamp, P.P.M., 2001, “Beyond the limits of the ‘Consumer City’”, Historia 50, pp. 332-56.

Drinkwater, J.F., 1987, “Urbanization in Italy and the Western Empire”, in Wacher, J. (ed.), The Roman World, Vol. 1, Routledge: London, pp. 345-79.

Erhardt, W., 1987, Stilgeschichtliche untersuchungen an Römischen Wandmalereien, Philip Zabern: Mainz.

Dudley, D.R., 1967, Urbs Roma, Phaidon Press: London.

Eristov, H., 1978, “A propos d’une peinture de Carmino à l’Antiquarium de Castellamare di Stabia”, Latomus 37, pp. 625-33.

Dunbabin, K.M.D., 1995, “Houses and households of Pompeii”, JRA 8, pp. 387-90.

Étienne, R., 1966, La Vie Quotidienne a Pompéi, Hachette: Paris.

Dunbabin, K.M.D., 1996, “Convivial spaces: dining and entertainment in the Roman villa”, JRA 9, pp. 66-80.

Étienne, R., 1982, “Villas du Vésuve et structure agraire”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 183-91.

Dunbabin, R.L., 1933, “Horace’s Villa at Tivoli”, Classical Review 47, pp. 55-61.

Evans, H.B., 1993, “In Tiburtium usum: special arrangements in the Roman water system (Frontinus, Aq. 6.5)”, AJA 97, pp. 447-55.

Duncan-Jones, R., 1965, “An Epigraphic Survey of Costs in Roman Italy”, PBSR 33, pp. 189-306. Dwyer. E.J., 1981, “Pompeian Oscilla Collections”, MDAIR(A) 88, pp. 247-306.

Eyre, J.J., 1963, “Roman Education in the late Republic and early Empire”, Greece and Rome 10, pp. 47-59.

Dwyer, E.J., 1982, Pompeian Domestic Sculpture: a study of five Pompeian Houses and their contexts, Giorgio Bretschneider: Rome.

Fabbrini, L., 1995, “Domus Aurea: il palazzo sull’Esquilino”, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. 2, Edizioni Quasar: Rome, pp. 56-63.

Dyson, S.L., 1992, Community and Society in Roman Italy, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Fantham, E., 1996, Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Eck, W., 1997a, “Cum dignitate otium Senatorial domus in Imperial Rome”, Scripta Classica Israelica 16, pp. 162-90.

Farrar, L., 1998, Ancient Roman Gardens, Sutton: Stroud.

Eck W., 1997b, “Rome and the Outside world: Senatorial Families and the World they Lived in”, in Rawson B., and Weaver, P. (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy: status, sentiment and space, Humanities Research Centre: Canberra, pp. 73-100.

Favro, D., 1996, The Urban Image of Augustan Rome, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Fergola, L., 1996, “La “Villa Regina” a Boscoreale”, in Borriello, M., D’Ambrosio, A., De Caro, S. and Guzzo, P.G. (eds.), Pompei: abitare sotto il Vesuvio, Ferrara Arte: Rome, pp. 129-33.

Egidi, R., 1981, “Villa Romana alla Fontana del Piscaro (Frascati)”, ArchLaz 4, pp. 171-5. Ehrhardt, W., 1987, Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an römischen Wandmalerein: von

192

Fern, L., 1981, (ed.), Ancient Roman Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks: Washington, 1981.

Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Verlad Aurel Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1975, pp. 93-100.

Ferrara, A., 1989a, “Villa San Marco”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della Chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 41-7.

Fitzgerald, W., 1995, Catullan Provocations, University of California Press: Berkeley. Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J., Lembke, C. and Witcher, R. (eds.), 1998, TRAC 97, Proceedings of the Seventh Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham 1997, Oxbow: Oxford.

Ferrara, A., 1989b, “Villa Petraro”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della Chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 83-4.

Fordyce, C.J., 1961, Catullus, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Ferrara, A., 1989c, “Ville rustiche e ville di lusso nell’Ager Stabianus”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae: le ville, Biblioteca del clero della Chiesa del Gesù: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 89-90.

Formicola, F., Pappalardo, U., Rolandi, G. and Russo, F., 1990, “Archeologia, geologia e vulcanologia nel territorio di Torre del Greco: tre discipline a confronto”, in Albore Livadie, C. and Wiedermann, F. (eds.), Volcanology and Archaeology: Proceedings of the European Workshops of Ravello, November 19-27 1987 and March 30-31 1989, Conseil de l’Europe: Strasbourg, pp. 125-81.

Ferrara, A., 1999, “La Sosandra da Stabia: una testimonianza pre 79 d.C. dal centro urbano di Castellammare”, RSP 10, pp. 167-75. Ferrara, A., 2001a, “La Villa San Marco a Stabiae”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 99-104.

Foss, P.W., 1997, “Watchful Lares: Roman household organization and the rituals of cooking and eating”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 197-218.

Ferrara, A., 2001b, “Nuovi elementi dagli scavi borbonici a Stabiae: la Villa del Filosofo e la sua integrazione con l’impianto urbano”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 59-68.

Fraenkel, E., 1957, Horace, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Frank, T., 1927-33, An Economic History of Rome, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Ferrara, A., 2004, “History of the Stabiae Settlement”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 3543.

Frank, T., 1965, Catullus and Horace, Russell and Russell: New York.

Ferraro, S., 1979, “Le ville di Stabiae”, in Acquaro, E. (ed.), Pompei 79, Antiqua Supp. 15, Buffetti Editore: Rome, pp. 95-109.

Franklin jnr., J.L., 2001, Pompeis Difficile Est: studies in the political life of Imperial Pompeii, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

Ferraro, S., 1980, Stabiae: le ville e l’antiquarium, Azienda Autonoma di Cura Soggiorono e turismo Castellammare: Castellammare di Stabia.

Frazer, A. (ed.), 1998, The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia.

Finley, M.I., 1976 (ed.), Studies in Roman Property, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Frederiksen, M., 1984, Campania, British School at Rome: Rome.

Finley, M.I., 1976, “Private Farm Tenancy in Italy before Diocletian”, in Finley, M.I. (ed.), Studies in Roman Property, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 103-21.

Fredrick, D., 1995, “Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: erotic painting and visual pleasure in the Roman House”, Classical Antiquity 14, pp. 266-87. Fredrick, D., 2003, “Architecture and Surveillance in Flavian Rome”, in Boyle, A.J. and Dominik, W.J. (eds.), Flavian Rome: culture, image, text, Brill: Leiden, pp. 199-227.

Finsen, H., 1962, Domus Flavia sur le Palatin; Aula Regia-Basilica, Einar: Munksgaard. Fittschen, K., 1975, “Zam Figurenfries der Villa von Boscoreale”, in Andreae, B. and Kyrieleis, H., (eds.),

193

Gialanella, C., 2003, “Puteoli: a villa to the southeast of the city”, in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea, Electa: Naples, pp. 51-5.

Frier, B.W., 1978, “Cicero’s Management of his Urban Properties”, Classical Journal 74, pp. 1-6. Frischer, B., Gleason, K., Camaiani, S., Cerri, L., Lekstutis, I. And Passalacqua, L., 2000, “A Preliminary Report on New Studies and Excavations at Horace’s Villa: the campaigns of 1997 and 1998”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 45, pp. 247-76.

Gianfrotta, P.A., 1979, "Villa sulla Via Tiberina", ArchLaz 2, pp. 86-90 Gibson, S., DeLaine, J. and Claridge, A., 1994, “The Triclinium of the Domus Flavia: a new reconstruction”, PBSR 62, pp. 67-100.

Frischer, B. and Brown, I.G. (eds.), 2001, Allan Ramsay and the Search for Horace’s Villa, Ashgate: Aldershot.

Gigante, M., 1979, Civiltà delle forme letterarie nell’antica Pompei, Bibliopolis: Naples. Gigante, M., 1995, trans. D. Obbink, Philodemus in Italy: the books from Herculaneum, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

Fulford, M. and Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1998, “Unpeeling Pompeii”, Antiquity 72, pp. 128-45. Fullerton, M.D., 1986, “Die Statuarische Ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei Tivoli (review)”, AJA 90, pp. 249-51.

Gilkes, O.J., Passigli, S. and Schinke, R., 1994, “Porta Pia: excavation and survey in an area of suburban Rome: Part 2”, PBSR 62, pp. 101-37.

Gabba, E., 1989, “Rome and Italy in the Second Century BC”, CAH 8, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 197-243.

Giuliani, C.F., 1977, “Domus Flavia: una nuova lettura”, MDAIR(A) 84, pp. 91-106.

Gabriel, M.M., 1952, Masters of Campanian Painting, H. Bittner: New York.

Godwin, J., 1999, Catullus: the shorter poems, Aris and Phillips: Warminster.

Gaffney, V., Patterson, H. and Roberts, P., 2001, “Forum Novum-Vescovio: studying urbanism in the Tiber valley”, JRA 14, pp. 59-79.

Gold, B.K. (ed.), 1982, Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, University of Texas Press: Austin.

Garthwaite, J., 1998, “Patronage and Poetic Immortality in Martial, Book 9”, Mnemosyne 51, pp. 161-75.

Goldberg, S.M., 1998, “Plautus on the Palatine”, JRS 88, pp. 1-20. Gordon, M.L., 1927, “The Ordo of Pompeii”, JRS 17, pp. 165-183.

Gazda, E.K. (ed.), 1994, Roman Art in the Private Sphere: new perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa and Insula, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

Grahame, M., 1997, “Public and private in the Roman house: the spatial order of the Casa del Fauno”, in R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp. 22: Portsmouth, pp. 137-64.

Gazda, E.K. (ed.), 2000, The Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii – ancient ritual, modern muse, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology: Ann Arbor.

Grahame, M., 2000, Reading space: social interaction and identity in the houses of Roman Pompeii: a syntactical approach to the analysis and interpretation of built space, BAR Publishing: Oxford.

George, M., 1997a, “Repopulating the Roman House”, in Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy: status, sentiment and space, Humanities Research Centre: Canberra, pp. 299-319.

Green, C.M.C., 1997, “Free as a Bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3”, AJPh 118, pp. 427-48.

George, M., 1997b, “Servus and domus: the slave in the Roman house”, in Laurence, R. and WallaceHadrill, A. (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 15-24.

Grieco, G., 1979, “A propos de la statue d’Auguste de Prima Porta”, Latomus 38, pp. 147-64. Griffin, J., 1997, “Cult and Personality in Horace”, JRS 87, pp. 54-69.

George, M., 1998, “Elements of the peristyle in Campanian atria”, JRA 11, pp. 82-100.

Gros, P., 1988, Storia dell urbanistica: il mondo romano, Laterza: Rome.

194

Gruen, E.S., 1974, The last Generation of the Roman Republic, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: Oxford, pp. 10-38.

Gruen, E.S., 1984, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Vol. 1, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Henig, M. (ed.), 1990, Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology: Oxford.

Guadagno, G., 1979, “Contributo alla rilettura di Pompei ed Ercolano”, in Acquaro, E. (ed.), Pompei 79, Antiqua Supp. 15, Buffetti Editore: Rome, pp. 11-26.

Higginbotham, J., 1997, Piscinae: artificial fishponds in Roman Italy, University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J., 1984, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Guzzo, P.G. and Fergola, L., 2000, Oplontis: la villa di Poppea, Federico Motta: Milan.

Hodge, A.T., 1996, “In Vitruvium Pompeianum: Urban Water Distribution Reappraised”, AJA 100.2, pp. 261-76.

Hales, S., 2003, The Roman house and Social Identity, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Hallam, G.H., 1914, “Horace’s Villa at Tivoli”, JRS 4, pp. 121-38.

Hoffmann, A., 1984, “La Architectura”, in Zevi, F., (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 97-118.

Hardie, A., 1983, Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Greco-Roman World, Francis Cairns: Liverpool.

Hoffmann, A., 1980, “Ein Beitrag zum Wohnen im vorrömischen Pompeji”, Architectura 10, pp. 1-14.

Harrison, S., Hilton, J. and Hunink, V., 2001, Apuleius: Rhetorical Works, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Hoffmann, A., 1992, “Pompeji (review article)”, Gnomon 64, pp. 426-33. Hoffmann, A., 1998, “Villa Hadriana: raum, licht und konstruktion”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 65-75.

Hartswick, K.J., 2004, The Gardens of Sallust: a changing landscape, University of Texas Press: Austin. Haselberger, L., 1997, “Architectural likenesses: models and plans of architecture in classical antiquity”, JRA 10, pp. 77-94.

Hoffmann, P., 2001, Le ville di Roma e dei dintorni, Newton and Compton: Rome. Homo, L., 1971, Rome Impériale et l’urbanisme dans l’Antiquite, Albin Michel: Paris.

Haselberger, L., 2000, “Imaging Augustan Rome”, JRA 13.2, pp. 515-28.

Hope, V., 1997, “A roof over the dead: communal tombs and family structure”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A., (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 69-88.

Häuber, C., “The Esquiline Horti: new research”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 55-64. Hearnshaw, V., 1999, “The Dionysiac Cycle in the Villa of the Mysteries: a Re-reading”, Meditarch 12, pp. 43-50.

Hopkins, K., 1980, “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire”, JRS 70, p. 101-25. Hunink, V., 1997, Apuleius of Madauros: Pro se de Magia, J.C. Gieben: Amsterdam.

Heinzelmann, M., 1998, “Beobachtungen zur Suburbanen topographie Ostias. Ein Orthogonales strassensystem im Bereich der Pianabella”, MDAIR(A) 105, pp. 175-225.

Hurst, H., 1995, “Domus Gai”, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. 2, Edizioni Quasar: Rome, pp. 106-8.

Hekster, O., 2002, Commodus: an emperor at the crossroads, J.C. Gieben: Amsterdam.

Iacopi, I., 1995, “Domus Augustus (Palatium)”, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. 2, Edizioni Quasar: Rome, pp. 46-8.

Hemsoll, D., 1990, “The Architecture of Nero’s Golden House”, in Henig, M. (ed.) Architecture and

195

Iammarco, R., 2003, “Puteoli: a villa in the western suburbs”, in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea, Electa: Naples, pp. 56-9.

Jones, A.H.M., 1974, The Roman Economy: studies in ancient economic and administrative history, Blackwell: Oxford.

Jashemski, W.F., 1975, “The Gardens of Pompeii: an interim report”, CronPomp 1, pp. 48-81.

Jones, B.W., 1992, Routledge: London.

Jashemski, W.F., 1979, The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas destroyed by Vesuvius, Vol. 1 and 2, Aristide D. Caratzas: New Rochelle.

Jones, B.W., 1996, Suetonius: Domitian, Bristol Classical Press: Bristol.

The

Emperor

Domitian,

Jones, R., 2003, “Pompeii’s Block of Time”, Archaeology 56.4, pp. 22-27.

Jashemski, W.F., 1979, “The Garden of Hercules at Pompeii (II.viii.6): the discovery of a commercial flower garden”, AJA 83, pp. 403-11.

Jongman, W., 1988, The Economy and Society of Pompeii, J.C. Gieben: Amsterdam.

Jashemski, W.F., 1981, “The Campanian Peristyle Garden”, in L. Fern (ed.), Ancient Roman Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks: Washington, pp. 29-48.

Jordan, D.R., 1996, “Greek Verses from Stabiae”, ZPE 111, p. 124.

Jashemski, W.F., 1984, “Giardini e Vigneti in Città”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 119-129.

Kehoe, D.P., 1988, “Allocation of Risk and Investment on the Estates of Pliny the Younger”, Chiron 18, pp. 15-42.

Jashemski, W.F., 1987, “Recently Excavated Gardens and Cultivated Land of the Villas at Boscoreale and Oplontis”, in MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington, pp. 31-76.

Kehoe, D.P., 1994, “Approaches to profit and Management in Roman Agriculture: the evidence of the Digest”, in Carlsen, J. (ed.), Landuse in the Roman Empire, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome, pp. 46-58. Kehoe, D.P., 1996, “The sources for Roman farm tenancy”, JRA 9, pp. 389-94.

Jashemski, W.F., 1999, A Pompeian Herbal: ancient and modern medicinal plants, University of Texas Press: Austin.

Kellum, B.A., 1994, “The Construction of Landscape in Augustan Rome: the Garden Room at the Villa ad Gallinas”, Art Bulletin 76, pp. 211-24.

Jashemski, W.F., 2002, “The Vesuvian Sites before AD 79: the Archaeological, Literary, and Epigraphical Evidence”, in Jashemski, W.F. and Meyer, F.G. (eds.), The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 6-28.

Kiernan, V.G., 1999, Horace: poetics and politics, St Martins Press: New York. Kleiner, F.S., 1997, “The Boscoreale cups: cups of a lost monument?”, JRA 10, pp. 377-80.

Jashemski, W.F. and Meyer, F.G. (eds.), 2002, The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Klynne, A. and Liljenstolpe, P., 1996, “The Villa of Livia at Prima Porta: a report on the excavation of Room 45”, OpRom 21, pp. 89-100.

Jashemski, W.F., Meyer, F.G. and Ricciardi, M., 2002, “Plants: Evidence from Wall Paintings, Mosaics, Sculpture, Plant Remains, Graffiti, Inscriptions, and Ancient Authors”, in Jashemski, W.F. and Meyer, F.G. (eds.), The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 80-180.

Klynne, A. and Liljenstolpe, P., 2000, “Investigating the gardens of the Villa of Livia”, JRA 13.1, pp. 22033. Kockel, V., 1986, “Archäologische funde und Forschungen in den Vesuvstädten II”, Archäologischer Anzeiger 143, pp. 443-569.

Jashemski, W.F. and Salza Prina Ricotti, E., 1992, “Preliminary Excavations in the Gardens of Hadrian’s Villa: the Canopus Area and the Piazza d’Oro”, AJA 96, pp. 579-97.

Kockel, V., 1988, “Ein unpublizierter plan der Villa Sora von Carlo Bonucci”, CronErc 18, pp. 205-8.

Johnston, D., 1999, Roman Law in Context, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Kockel, V. and Weber, B.F., 1983, “Die Villa delle Colonne a Mosaico in Pompeji”, MDAIR(A) 90, pp. 51-89.

196

Laurence, R., 1994, Roman Pompeii: space and society, Routledge: London.

Kolendo, J., 1994, “Praedia suburbana e loro redditività”, in Carlsen, J. (ed.), Landuse in the Roman Empire, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome, pp. 60-71.

Laurence, R., 1997, “Writing the Roman metropolis”, in Parkins, H.M. (ed.), Roman Urbanism: beyond the consumer city, Routledge: London, pp. 1-20.

Konrad, G., 1980, Das Philosophenmosaik in Neapel: eine Darstellung der platonischen Akademie, C. Winter: Heidelberg.

Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1997 (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth.

Kopcke, G. and Moore, M.G. (eds.), 1979, Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: a tribute to peter heinrich von Blanckenhagen, J.J. Augustin: Locust Valley, NY.

Lauro, M.G., 1984, “Ville Suburbane ad Ostia”, ArchLaz 6, pp. 224-8. Lauter, H., “Hellenistiche vorläufer der Römischen Villa”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 21-7.

Krause, C., 1990, “Topografia antica nell’area della Domus Tiberiana”, in Gli Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino, Ècole Francaise de Rome: Rome, pp. 12142.

Lavagne, H. and Wattel-de Croizant, O., 1984, “De la Villa de San Marco (Stabies) au Musée Condé (Chantilly)”, MEFRA 96, pp. 739-88.

Kron, G., 2000, “Roman ley-farming”, JRA 13.1, pp. 277-87. Kunzl, E., 1984, “Le Argenterie”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 211-28.

Leach, E.W., 1988, The Rhetoric of Space, Princeton University Press: Princeton. Leach, E.W., 1988, “La Villa dei Papiri ad Ercolano: Contributo alla ricostruzione dell’ideologia della Nobilitas Tardorepubblicana (review)”, AJA 92, pp. 145-146.

Kuttner, A., 1993, “Vitruvius and the Second style”, JRA 6, pp. 341-7. Kuttner, A., 1998, “Prospects of Patronage: realism and romanitas in the Architectural vistas of the Second style”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 93-107.

Leach, E.W., 1989, “Ancient Roman Villa Gardens (review)”, AJA 93, pp. 304-6. Leach, E.W., 1992, “Reading signs of status: recent books on Roman Art in the Domestic Sphere”, AJA 96, pp. 551-7.

Lafon, X., 1991, “A propos des villas maritimes: cadre réel et cadre rêvé d’après les représentations figurées”, Ktema 16, pp. 131-45.

Leach, E.W., 1993, “Horace’s Sabine Topography in Lyric and Hexameter Verse”, AJPh 114, pp. 271-302.

Lafon, X., 2001, Villa Maritima: recherches sur les villas litorales de l’Italie Romaine, École Française de Rome: Rome. Lanciani, R., 1918, “Delle avvenute nelle fondazioni Ferroviedi stato nelle già Nomentana”, Revista tecnica 14, pp. 3-36.

Leach, E.W., 1997, “Oecus on Ibycus: investigating the vocabulary of the Roman House”, in Bon S.E. and Jones, R. (eds.), Sequence and Space in Pompeii, Oxbow: Oxford, pp. 50-72.

scoperte di antichità degli edifici per le Villa Patrizi in Via delle Ferrovie Italiane

Leach, E.W., 2003, “Otium as luxuria: economy of status in the Younger Pliny’s letters”, Arethusa 36, pp. 147-65.

Lanciani, R., 1967a, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, Benjamin Blom: New York.

Leach, E.W., 2004, The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Lanciani, R., 1967b, Ancient Rome in the light of Recent Discoveries, Benjamin Blom: New York.

Leunissen, P.M.M., 1993, “Conventions of Patronage in Senatorial Careers under the Principate”, Chiron 23, pp. 101-20.

Lanciani, R. and Sperduti, L., 1993, Domus Aurea Neronis, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Rome.

Levick, B., 1990, Claudius, Yale University Press: New haven.

197

Little, A.M.G., 1972, A Roman Bridal Drama at the Villa of the Mysteries, Star Press: Kennebunk.

Levick, B., 1999, Tiberius the politician, Routledge: London.

Littlewood, A.R., 1987, “Ancient Literary Evidence for the Pleasure Gardens of Roman Country Villas”, in MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington, pp. 7-30.

Lewis, C.T. and Short, C., 1958, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Liljenstolpe, P., 1996, “An Ionic Capital from the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta”, OpRom 21, pp. 101-5.

Liversidge, J. (ed.), 1982, Roman Provincial Wall Painting of the Western Empire, BAR: Oxford.

Liljenstolpe, P. and Klynne, A., 1997-98, “The Imperial Gardens of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta: a preliminary report on the 1997 campaign”, OpRom 22-23, pp. 127-47.

Lobell, J.A., 2003, “Lover’s Memorial”, Archaeology 56.1, p. 15.

Linderski, J., 1989, “Garden Parlours: Nobles and Birds”, in Curtis, R.I. (ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 2, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 104-27.

Lomas, K., 1997, “The idea of a city: élite ideology and the evolution of the urban farm in Italy, 200 BC – AD 100”, in Parkins, H.M. (ed.), Roman Urbanism: beyond the consumer city, Routledge: London, pp. 21-41.

Lindsay, H., 1995, Suetonius: Tiberius, Bristol Classical Press: Bristol.

Longfellow, B., 2000, “A Gendered Space? Location and Function of Rooms in the Villa of the Mysteries”, in Gazda, E.K. (ed.), The Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii – ancient ritual, modern muse, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology: Ann Arbor, pp. 2537.

Ling, R., 1978, “Pompeii and Herculaneum: recent research and future prospects”, in H. McK. Blake, T.W. Potter and D.B. Whitehouse (eds.), Papers in Italian Archaeology I: the Lancaster Seminar, BAR Supp 41(i), pp. 153-173. Ling, R., 1983, “The British Project at Pompeii”, Current Archaeology 85, pp. 55-61.

Longo Auricchio, F. and Capasso, M., 1987, “I Rotoli della Villa Ercolanese: dislocazione e ritrovamento”, CronErc 17, p. 38.

Ling, R., 1984, “Gli Stucchi”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 145-160.

MacDonald, W.L. and Pinto, J.A., 1995, Hadrian’s Villa, Yale University Press: New Haven.

Ling, R., 1991, Roman Painting, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Ling, R., 1992, “The study of Herculaneum”, JRA 5, pp. 331-337.

houses

MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), 1987, Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington.

in MacIsaac, J.D., 1987, “Corinth: Coins, 1925-1926: the theatre district and the Roman villa”, Hesperia 56.2, pp. 97-157.

Ling, R., 1993, “German approaches to Pompeii”, JRA 6, pp. 331-40.

Mackenzie, W.M., 1910, Pompeii, A. and C. Black: London.

Ling, R., 1996, “Villae rusticae at Boscoreale”, JRA 9, pp. 344-50.

MacMullen, R., 1970, “Market-Days in the Roman Empire”, Phoenix 24, pp. 333-47.

Ling, R., 1997, “Vitruvius on interior decoration”, JRA 10, pp. 363-5.

MacMullen, R., 1974, Roman Social Relations: 50 BC to AD 284, Yale University Press: New Haven.

Ling, R., 2002, “The Villa San Marco at Stabiae and other work on paintings buried by Vesuvius”, JRA 15, pp. 445-9.

Magalhaes, M.M., 1999, “Le iscrizioni e l’area funeraria dei Q. e C. Poppaei a Stabiae (loc. Calcarella di Privati)”, RSP 10, pp. 224-35.

Lissi Caronna, E., 1995, “Domus C. Fulvius Plautianus”, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. 2, Edizioni Quasar: Rome, pp. 105-6.

Magalhaes, M.M., 2001, “La cd. Villa del Fauno: un possedimento imperiale a Stabiae?”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle

198

ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 105-8.

McCracken, G., 1942, “The Villa and Tomb of Lucullus at Tusculum”, AJA 46, pp. 325-40.

Maiuri, A., 1942, L’ultime Pase Edilizia de Pompei, Istituto di Studi Romani: Rome.

McGann, J.C., 1973, “The Three Worlds of Horace’s satires”, in C.D.N. Costa (ed.), Horace, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Maiuri, A., 1948, Villa dei Misteri, La Libreria dello Stato: Rome.

McKay, A.G., 1975, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World, Cornell University Press: Ithaca.

Maiuri, A., 1953, Roman Painting, Skira: New York. Meiggs, R., 1960, Roman Ostia, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Maiuri, A., 1958, Ercolano, i nuovi scavi (19271958), Vol. 1, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato: Rome. Maiuri, A., 1961, Pompei Ercolano e Stabia: le città sepolte dal vesuvio, Istituto Geografico de Agostini: Novara.

Métraux, G.P., 1998, “Villa Rustica Alimentaria et Annonaria”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 1-19.

Maiuri, A., 1977, Herculaneum, 7th ed., Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato: Roma.

Meyer, K.E., 1999, “Axial Peristyle Houses in the Western Empire”, JRA 12.1, pp. 101-21.

Maiuri, A., 1978, Pompeii, Istituto Poliografico dello Stato: Rome.

Mielsch, H., 1987, Die Römische Villa: architektur und lebensform, Verlag C.H. Beck: Munich.

Maiuri, A., 1998, Pompei ed Ercolano – fra case e abitanti, Giunti Gruppo Editoriale: Florence.

Millar, F., 1963, “The Fiscus in the First Two Centuries”, JRS 53, pp. 29-42.

Maiuri, A. and Pane, R., 1947, La Casa di Loreio Tiburtino e la Villa di Diomede in Pompei, I Monumenti Italiani Series 2, Fasc. I, La Libreria dello Stato: Rome.

Millett, M., 1991, “Roman towns and their territories: an archaeological perspective”, in Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World, Routledge: London, pp. 169-87.

Malandrino, C., 1978, Oplontis, Loffredo Editore: Naples.

Miniero, P., 1983, “Premier rapport sur l’étude de la Villa San Marco à Stabies: I materiali dell’arredo della villa”, MEFRA 95, pp. 929-35.

Manacorda, D., 1982, “Il Frantoio della Villa dei Volusii a Lucus Feroniae”, in Boatwright, M.T. (ed.), I Volusii Saturnini: una famiglia romana della prima età imperiale, De Donato: Bari, pp. 55-82.

Miniero, P., 1988, “Ricerche sull’Ager Stabianus”, in Curtis, R.I. (ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 231-92.

Marchese, R.T. (ed.), 1983, Aspects of GraecoRoman Urbanism, BAR: Oxford.

Miniero, P., 1990, “Stabiae: Attività dell’Ufficio Scavi: 1990”, RSP 4, pp. 216-218.

Marzano, A., 2007, Roman Villas in Central Italy: a social and economic history, Brill: Leiden.

Miniero, P., 2000, “The origins: the Roman villa”, in The Archaeological Museum of Phlegrean Fields in the Castle of Baia, Electa: Naples, pp. 15-22.

Mastroroberto, M., 2004, “The Decoration”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 83-85.

Miniero, P., 2003, “The archaeological area of the Monumental Park”, in Nova Antiqua Phlegraea, Electa: Naples, pp. 109-113.

Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), 1997, Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, JRA Supp. 23: Portsmouth.

Miniero Forte, P., 1989, Stabiae: pitture e stucchi delle ville romane, Electa: Naples. Mols, S.T.A.M., 1999, Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum: form, technique and function, J.C. Gieben: Amsterdam.

Mau, A., 1882, Geschichte der dekorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji, Reimer: Berlin. Mau, A., 1904, Pompeii: its life and art, trans. F.W. Kelsey, 2nd ed., Macmillan: London.

199

Neudecker, R., 1988, Die Skulpturen: Ausstattung römischer Villen in Italien, Verlag Philipp von Zabern: Mainz.

Moormann, E.M., 2002, “Pompeii’s proprietors and tenants under one roof”, JRA 15, pp. 429-36. Morel, J-P., “The Transformation of Italy, 300-133 B.C.: the evidence of archaeology”, CAH VIII, 2nd ed., pp. 477-516.

Neudecker, R., 1998, “The Roman Villa as a Locus of Art Collections”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 77-91.

Morelli, V.C., 2000, “Un gruzzolo dalla stanza degli “Ori di Oplontis”, RSP 11, pp. 187-231.

Neudling, C.L., 1955, A Prosopography to Catullus, Stephen Austin and Sons: Oxford.

Morley, N., 1996, Metrolpolis and hinterland: the city of Rome and the Italian economy, 200 BC – AD 200, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Nevett, L., 1997, “Perceptions of domestic Space in Roman Italy”, in Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy: status, sentiment and space, Humanities Research Centre: Canberra, pp. 281-98.

Morley, N., 1997, “Cities in context: urban systems in Roman Italy”, in Parkins, H.M. (ed.), Roman Urbanism: beyond the consumer city, Routledge: London, pp. 42-58.

Newbold, R.F., 1974, “Some Social and Economic Consequences of the AD 64 Fire at Rome”, Latomus 33, pp. 858-69.

Mouritsen, H., 1988, Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Élite: studies in Pompeian epigraphy, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome.

Nichols, J., 2001, “Hospitium and political friendship in the late Republic”, in Peachin, M. (ed.), Aspects of Friendship in the Greco-Roman World, JRA Supp. 43: Portsmouth, pp. 99-108.

Mouritsen, H., 1997, “Mobility and social change in Italian towns during the principate”, in Parkins, H.M. (ed.), Roman Urbanism: beyond the consumer city, Routledge: London, pp. 59-82.

Nielsen, I., 1994, Hellenistic Palaces: tradition and renewal, Aarhus University Press: Aarhus.

Mudie Cooke, P.B., 1913, “The Paintings of the Villa Item at Pompeii”, JRS 3, pp. 157-174.

Nobel Howe, T., 1999, Vitruvius – ten books on Architecture, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Müller, F.G.J.M., 1994, The Wall Paintings from the Oecus of the Villa of Publius Fannius Synistor in Boscoreale, J.C. Gieben: Amsterdam. Mumford, M., 2002, The Roman Philosophers: from the time of Cato the Censor to the death of Marcus Aurelius, Routledge: London.

Noble Howe, T., 2004, “Powerhouses: the seaside villas of Campania in the power culture of Rome”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 15-23.

Murray, O., 1985, “Symposium and genre in the poetry of Horace”, JRS 75, pp. 39-50.

Nünlist, R., 1997, “Zu den Lukrez-Buchrollen aus Herculaneum”, ZPE 116, pp. 19-20.

Mustilli, D., 1983, “La villa pseudourbana ercolanese”, in Mustilli, D. (ed.), La Villa dei Papiri, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 7-18.

Oliensis, E., 1998, Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Oliver-Smith, P. and Widrig, W.M., 1980, "Excavations on the via Gabina, Italy", Archaeology 33, pp. 56-8.

Nappo, S.C., 1989, “Fregio dipinto dal di Giulia Felice con rappresentazione del foro di Pompei”, RSP 3, 1989, pp. 79-96.

Orr, D.G., 1978, “Roman Domestic Religion: the evidence of the Household Shrines”, ANRW 2.16.2, Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, pp. 1557-91.

Nappo, S.C., 1997, “Urban transformation at Pompeii in the late 3rd and early 2nd C. B.C.”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 41-120.

Orr, D.G., 1983, “The Roman City: a philosophical and cultural summa”, in Marchese, R.T. (ed.), Aspects of Graeco-Roman Urbanism, BAR: Oxford, pp. 93-109.

Nappo, S.C., 1998, Pompeii, Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.

Orr, D.G., 1988, “Learning from Lararia: notes on the Household Shrines of Pompeii”, in Curtis, R.I.

200

(ed.), Studia Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 293-304.

Pane Ferraro, R., 1979, “L’antiquarium di Stabiae”, in Acquaro, E. (ed.), Pompei 79, Antiqua Supp. 15, Buffetti Editore: Rome, pp. 116-121.

Ortolani, G., 1998, Il Padiglione di Afrodite Cnida a Villa Adriana: progetto e significato, Librerie Maze: Rome.

Panicera, S., 2001, “Onorare l’amico nella sua casa. Amicitia e topografia a Roma e nel suo suburbio”, in Peachin, M. (ed.), Aspects of Friendship in the Graeco-Roman World, JRA Supp. 43: Portsmouth, pp. 11-19.

Overbeck, J.A., 1884, Pompeji in seinen Gebauden, Alterthumern und Kunstwerken, W. Engelmann: Leipzig.

Pappalardo, U., 2001, “Vivere in villa nel Golfo di Napoli”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 39-50.

Owen Lee, M., 1969, Word, Sound and Image in the Odes of Horace, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

Packer, J.E., 1971, “The Insulae of Imperial Ostia”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 31.

Pappalardo, U., De Caro, A.L. and Sigurdsson, H., 1986, “Ercolano, Cava Montone: Villa Rustica Romana distrutta dal Vesuvio”, in Albore Livadie, C. (ed.), Tremblements de terre, a eruptions volcaniques et vie des hommes dans la Campanie antique, Centre Jean Bérard: Naples, pp. 95-106.

Packer, J.E., 1998, “Mire exaedificavit: three recent books on Hadrian’s Tiburtine villa”, JRA 11, pp. 58396.

Paribeni, R., 1903, “Boscoreale – Villa rustica rinvenuta nella contrada Centopiedi, al Tirone”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 11, pp. 64-7.

Packer, J.E., 2003, “Plurima et Amplissima Opera: Parsing Flavian Rome”, in Boyle, A.J. and Dominik, W.J. (eds.), Flavian Rome: culture, image, text, Brill: Leiden, pp. 167-98.

Paris, R. (ed.), 2000, Via Appia: the Villa of the Quintili, Electa: Milan.

Pacifici, V., 1920, “Notes on some recent discoveries at Tivoli”, JRS 10, pp. 90-5.

Parkins, H.M. (ed.), 1997, Roman Urbanism: beyond the consumer city, Routledge: London.

Pagano, M., 1988a, “Torre del Greco. Scavo di una villa rustica”, RSP 2, pp. 240-3.

Parkins, H.M., 1997, “The ‘consumer city’ domesticated? The Roman city in élite economic strategies”, in Parkins, H.M. (ed.), Roman Urbanism: beyond the consumer city, Routledge: London, pp. 83-111.

Pagano, M., 1988b, “Torre del Greco. Località Ponte Rivieccio, contrada Villa Sora, prop. Montella”, RSP 2, p. 244. Pagano, M., 1989a, “Torre del Greco. Località Cupa Falanga”, RSP 3, pp. 285-6.

Parslow, C., 1988, “Documents illustrating the excavations of the Praedia of Julia Felix in Pompeii”, RSP 2, pp. 37-48.

Pagano, M., 1989b, “Torre del Greco. Località Ponte Rivieccio, contrada Villa Sora, prop. Montella”, RSP 3, pp. 287-94.

Parslow, C., 1999, “Preliminary report of the 1998 fieldwork project in the Praedia Iuliae Felicis (Regio II.4), Pompeii”, RSP 10, pp. 190-196.

Pagano, M., 1990, “Torre del Greco. Regione Sora. Villa Marittima”, RSP 4, pp. 227-9.

Parslow, C., 1999, “Beyond Domestic Architecture at Pompeii”, AJA 103.2, pp. 340-3.

Pagano, M., 1991, “La Villa Romana di Contrada Sora a Torre del Greco”, CronErc 21, pp. 149-86.

Parslow, C., 2000, “Preliminary report of the 1999 fieldwork project in the Praedia Iuliae Felicis (Regio II.4)”, RSP 11, pp. 238-49.

Pagano, M., 1993-4, “Torre del Greco. Scavi e restauri in località Ponte di Rivieccio (villa marittima romana detta Terma-Ginnasio)”, RSP 6, pp. 256-68.

Patterson, H. and Millett, M., 1998, “The Tiber Valley Project”, PBSR 66, pp. 1-20.

Painter, K. (ed.), 1980, Roman Villas in Italy: recent excavations and research, British Museum: London.

Pavolini, C., “Ostia”, Dialoghi di Archeologia 6, 1988, pp. 117-123.

201

Plommer, H., 1973, Vitruvius and Later Roman Building Manuals, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Peachin, M. (ed.), 2001, Aspects of Friendship in the Greco-Roman World, JRA Supp. 43: Portsmouth. Peachin, M., 2001, “Friendship and abuse at the dinner table”, in Peachin, M. (ed.), Aspects of Friendship in the Greco-Roman World, JRA Supp. 43: Portsmouth, pp. 135-44.

Pollini, J. and Herz, N., “The marble type of the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta: an isotopic analysis”, JRA 5, 1992, pp. 203-8. Pollini, J., Herz, N., Polikreti, K. and Maniatis, Y., 1998, “Parian lychnites and the Prima Porta statue: new scientific tests and the symbolic value of the marble”, JRA 11, pp. 275-84.

Pellegrino, A., 1983, “Ville Rustiche a Dragoncello (Acilia)”, ArchLaz 5, pp. 76-83. Pellegrino, A., 2000, Ostia Antica, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia: Rome.

Potter, T.W., 1987, Roman Italy, University of California Press: Berkeley.

Percival, J., 1976, The Roman Villa, Book Club Associates: London.

Potter, T.W., 1991, “Towns and territories in southern Etruria”, in Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World, Routledge: London, pp. 191-209.

Percival, J., 1996, “Houses in the Country”, in Barton, I.M., (ed.), Roman Domestic Buildings, University of Exeter Press: Exeter, pp. 65-90.

Purcell, N., 1985, “Wine and Wealth in Ancient Italy”, JRS 75, pp. 1-19.

Perring, D., 1991, “Spatial organisation and social change in Roman towns”, in Rich, J. and WallaceHadrill, A. (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World, Routledge: London, pp. 273-91. Pesce, A. (ed.), 2004, In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia.

Purcell, N., 1987a, “Tomb and Suburb”, in Von Hesberg, H. and Zanker, P. (eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen, Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Munich, pp. 25-41.

Peters, W.J.Th. and Meyboom, P.G.P., 1982, “The Roots of Provincial Roman Painting: results of current research in Nero’s Domus Aurea”, in Liversidge, J. (ed.), Roman Provincial Wall Painting of the Western Empire, BAR: Oxford, pp. 33-74.

Purcell, N., 1987b, “Town in Country and Country in Town”, in MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington, pp. 187-203.

Picard, G., 1969, Rome, trans. H.S.B. Harrison, Nagel Publishers: Geneva.

Purcell, N., 1994, “The City of Rome and the Plebs Urbana in the Late Republic”, CAH 9, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 644-88.

Pinto-Giullaume, E.M., 2002, “Mollusks from the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta, Rome: the Swedish garden Archaeological Project, 1996-1999”, AJA 106, pp. 37-58.

Purcell, N., 1995, “The Roman villa and the landscape of production”, in Cornell, T.J. and Lomas, K. (eds.), Urban Society in Roman Italy, University College London Press: London, pp. 151-79.

Pirson, F., 1997, “Rented accommodation at Pompeii: the evidence of the Insula Arriana Polliana VI.6”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 165-81.

Purcell, N., 1996, “The Roman Garden as a Domestic Building”, in I.M. Barton (ed.), Roman Domestic Buildings, University of Exeter Press: Exeter, pp. 121-51.

Pisapia, M.S., 1983, “Premier rapport sur l’étude de la Villa San Marco à Stabies: la Decorazione dei Pavimenti”, MEFRA 95, pp. 924-8.

Purcell, N., 2001, “Dialectical gardening”, JRA 14.2, pp. 546-56. Quilici, L., 1974, “La Campagna Romana come suburbio di Roma Antica”, PP 29, pp. 410-38.

Platner, S.B., 1911, The Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome, 2nd ed., Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Quilici Gigli, S., 1994, “Lo sfruttamento del territorio in età imperiale”, in Carlsen, J. (ed.), Landuse in the Roman Empire, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome, pp. 135-43

Platner, S.B. and Ashby, T., 1965, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome.

202

Pompeiana and Classica – in honour of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, Vol. 1, Orpheus Publishing: New York, pp. 305-16.

Quinn, K., 1980, Horace: the Odes, Bristol Classical Press: Bristol. Raeder, J., 1983, Die Statuarische ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei Tivoli, P. Lang: Frankfurt.

Richardson jnr, L., 1992, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Rakob, F., 1964, “Ein Grottentriklinium in Pompeji”, MDAIR(A) 71, pp. 182-93.

Richardson jnr, L., 2000, A Catalog of Identifiable Figure Painters of Ancient Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabiae, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Ramage, E.S., 1983, “Urban Problems in Ancient Rome”, in Marchese, R.T. (ed.), Aspects of GraecoRoman Urbanism, BAR: Oxford, pp. 61-92.

Richmond, O.L., 1914, “The Augustan Palatium”, JRS 4, pp. 193-226.

Ramage, E.S., 1973, Urbanitas: Ancient Sophistocation and Refinement, University of Oklahoma Press: Oklahoma.

Ridley, R.T., 1992, The eagle and the spade: archaeology in Rome during the Napoleonic era, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Ramsay, A., 2001, “An Enquiry into the Situation and Circumstances of Horace’s Sabine Villa”, in Frischer, B. and Brown, I.G. (eds.), Allan Ramsay and the Search for Horace’s Villa, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 109-56.

Riggsby, A.M., 1997, “’Public’ and ‘private’ in Roman culture: the case of the cubiculum”, JRA 10, pp. 36-56.

Raper, R., 1979, “Pompeii: planning and social implications”, in Burnham, B.C. and Kingsbury, J. (eds.), Space, Hierarchy and Society: interdisciplinary studies in social area analysis, BAR: Oxford, pp. 137-48.

Riggsby, A.M., 1998, “Self and Community in the Younger Pliny”, Arethusa 31, pp. 75-97. Robertson, M., 1955, “The Boscoreale FigurePaintings”, JRS 45, pp. 58-67.

Raper, R., 1997, “The Analysis of the Urban Structure of Pompeii: a sociological examination of Land use”, in Clarke, D.L. (ed.), Spatial Archaeology, Academic Press: London, pp. 189-221.

Robinson, O.F., 1992, Ancient Rome: city planning and administration, Routledge: London. Rosafio, P., 1994, “Slaves and Coloni in the Villa System”, in Carlsen, J. (ed.), Landuse in the Roman Empire, L’erma di Bretschneider: Rome, pp. 145-58.

Rawson, B., 1971, “The Family in Roman Society”, Teaching History 5.2, pp. 34-47. Rawson, B. and Weaver, P. (eds.), 1997, The Roman Family in Italy: status, sentiment and space, Humanities Research Centre: Canberra.

Ross Holloway, R., 1994, The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium, Routledge: London. Rossiter, J.J., 1978, Roman Farm Buildings in Italy, BAR: Oxford.

Rawson, E., 1976, “The Ciceronian Aristocracy and its Properties”, in Finley, M.I. (ed.), Studies in Roman Property, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 85-102.

Rossiter, J.J., 1993, “Some recent books on Roman villas”, JRA 6, pp. 449-54.

Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), 1991, City and Country in the Ancient World, Routledge: London.

Rossiter, J.J., 2000, “Interpreting Roman villas”, JRA 13.2, pp. 572-7. Rostovtzeff, M., 1957, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Vols. 1 and 2, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Richardson jnr, L., 1982, “The city-Plan of Pompeii”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli Studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 341-51.

Rostovtzeff, M., 1960, Rome, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Richardson jnr, L., 1988a, Pompeii: an architectural history, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Royo, M., 1999, Domus Imperatore: topographie, formation et imaginaire des Palais Impériaux du Palatin, École Française de Rome: Rome.

Richardson jnr, L., 1988b, “Water Triclinia and Biclinia in Pompeii”, in Curtis, R.I. (ed.), Studia

203

Rudd, N., 1993, “Horace as a Moralist”, in N. Rudd (ed.), Horace 2000: a celebration, Duckworth: London, pp. 64-88.

Schefold, K., 1957, Die Wände Pompejis: topographisches ver zeichnis der bildmotive, Walter de Gruyter: Berlin.

Ruggiu, A.Z., 1995, Spazio Privato e Spazio Pubblico nella Città Romana, École Française de Rome Palais Farnèse: Rome.

Schefold, K., 1962, Vergessenes Pompeji: unveröffentlichte bilder Römischer Wanddekorationen in Geschichtlicher folge Herausgegeben, Francke Verlag: Munich.

Rykwert, J., 1988, The Idea of a Town, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Scheidel, W., 1992, “Neuen wein in Leere Schläuche: Jongman’s Pompeii, modelle und die Kampanische Landwirtschaft”, Athenaeum 80.1, pp. 207-212.

Saller, R.P., 1984, “Familia, Domus, and the Roman Conception of the Family”, Phoenix 83, pp. 336-55. Saller, R.P., 1994, Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman Family, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Scheidel, W., 1994, “Grain Cultivation in the Villa Economy of Roman Italy”, in Carlsen, J. (ed.), Landuse in the Roman Empire, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome, pp. 159-66.

Saller, R.P., 1999, “Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household”, Classical Philology 94, pp. 182-97.

Schmidt, E.A., 1997, Sabinum: Horaz und sein Landgut im Licenzatal, Universitatsverlag C. Winters: Heidelberg.

Saller, R.P., 2001, “The non-agricultural economy: superseding Finley and Hopkins?”, JRA 14.2, pp. 580-4.

Schumacher, L., 1976, “Das Ehrendekret für M. Nonius Balbus aus Herculaneum (AE 1947, 53)”, Chiron 6, pp. 165-84.

Salza Prina Ricotti, E., 1987, “The Importance of Water in Roman Garden Triclinia”, in MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington, pp. 135-84.

Scobie, A., 1986, “Slums, sanitation, and mortality in the Roman World”, Klio 68, pp. 399-433. Scranton, R.L., 1974, “Vitruvius’ Architecture”, Hesperia 43, pp. 494-9.

Salza Prina Ricotti, E., 2001, Villa Adriana: il sogno di un imperatore, L’Erma di Bretschneider: Rome.

Arts

of

Sear, F., 1982, Roman Architecture, Batsford: London.

Samson, R. (ed.), 1990, The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.

Sedgwick, H.D., 1947, Horace: a biography, Russell and Russell: New York.

Sauron, G., 1980, “A Propos de la ‘Villa des Papyri’ d’Herculaneum: contribution a l’étude des comportements aristocratiques romains a la fin de la république”, L’ecole Francaise de Rome Melange Antiquite 92, pp. 277-299.

Senatore, F., 2001, “Stabiae: storia dell’insediamento”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 23-38.

Sauron, G., 1993, “Nature et Signifiaction de la Mégalographie Énigmatique de Boscoreale”, REL 71, pp. 81-117.

Shatzman, I., 1975, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics, Collections Latomus 142: Brussels. Sherwin-White, A.N., 1966, The Letters of Pliny, a historical and social commentary, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Sauron, G., 1995, “Un Interlocuteur du De Finibus à Oplontis (Torre Annunziata): M. Pupius Piso”, REL 73, pp. 92-114.

Skydsgaard, J.E., 1976, “The Disintegration of the Roman Labour Market and the Clientela Theory”, in Ascani, K. (ed.), Studia Romana in honorem Petri Krarup septuagenarii, Odense University Press: Odense, pp. 44-8.

Sauron, G., 1998, La Grande Fresque de la Villa des Mystères à Pompéi: mémoires d’une dévoté de Dionysos, Collection Antiqua, Picard: Paris. Scatozza Höricht, L.A., “Ville nel territorio Ercolanesi”, CromErc 15, 1985, pp. 131-65.

Slater, D.A., 1908, The Silvae of Statius, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

204

Sogliano, A., 1899a, “Boscoreale – Nuove esplorazioni nella villa romana della Pisanella”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 14-16.

Smith, J.T., 1998, Roman Villas: a study in social structure, Routledge: London. Smith, R.R.R., 1999, “Spear-won land at Boscoreale: on the royal paintings of a Roman villa”, JRA 4, pp. 100-28.

Sogliano, A., 1899b, “Fabbriche antiche scoperte in contrada ‘Civita’ presso le mura di Pompei”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 236-9.

Sodo, A.M., 2001a, “I rinvenimenti recenti: nuovi ambienti in luce a Villa Arianna”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 85-8.

Sogliano, A., 1899c, “Boscotrecase – Fabbriche antiche scoperte in contrada ‘Setari’”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 297-9. Sogliano, A., 1899d, “Scafati – Avanzi di antica villa dell’agro pompeiano”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 3928.

Sodo, A.M., 2001b, “I rinvenimenti recenti: le sostruzioni della Villa del Pastore”, in Camardo, D. and Ferrara, A. (eds.), Stabiae, dai Borbone alle ultime scoperte, Longobardi: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 97-98.

Sogliano, A., 1899e, “Pompei – Relazione degli scavi fatti durante il mese di novembre 1899”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 439-48.

Sodo, A.M., 2004a, “The Villas of the Hill of Varano”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 513.

Sogliano, A., 1899f, “Pompei – Relazione degli scavi fatti durante il mese di dicembre 1899”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 7, pp. 493-7.

Sodo, A.M., 2004b, “Villa del Pastore”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 63-65.

Sogliano, A., 1900a, “Pompei – Relazione degli scavi fatti durante il mese di genaio 1900”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 8, pp. 27-31.

Sodo, A.M., 2004c, “Villa Petraro”, in Pesce, A. (ed.), In Stabiano, Nicola Longobardi Editore: Castellammare di Stabia, pp. 67-69.

Sogliano, A., 1900b, “Pompei – Relazione degli scavi fatti durante il mese di ottobre 1900”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 8, pp. 500-2.

Sogliano, A., 1895a, “Boscoreale – Scoperta di una villa rustica”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 3, pp. 207-214.

Solin, H., 1973, Wandinschriften. Ein CronErc 3, pp. 97-103.

Sogliano, A., 1895b, “Antichità scoperte in contrada detta ‘Giuliana’”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 3, pp. 214-215.

“Die herkulanensischen soziologischer Versuch”,

Solin, H., 1975, “Die Wandinschriften im sog. Haus des M. Fabius Rufus”, in Andreae, B. and Kyrieleis, H., (eds.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Verlad Aurel Recklinghausen: Bongers, 1975, pp. 243-72.

Sogliano, A., 1896, “Boscoreale – Nuove ricerche nell’area della villa rustica in contrada Pisanella. Giornale redatto dalle Guardie degli scavi”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 4, pp. 204-36.

Spera, L., 2003, “The Chistianization of Space along the Via Appia: changing landscape in the Suburbs of Rome”, AJA 107, pp. 23-43.

Sogliano, A., 1897a, “Torre Annunziata – Di un musaico scoperto in contrada ‘Civita’”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 5, pp. 337-40.

Spinazzola, V., 1953, Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell’ Abbondanza (anni 1910-1923), Vols. 1 and 2, La Libreria dello Stato: Rome.

Sogliano, A., 1897b, “Boscoreale – Villa romana in contrada detta Giuliana”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 5, pp. 391-402.

Stambaugh, J.E., 1988, The Ancient Roman City, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Sogliano, A., 1898a, “Boscoreale – Avanzi si una villa romana in piazza Mercato”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 6, pp. 419-22.

Starr, R.J., 1990, “Pliny the Younger on Private Recitations and C. Titus on Irresponsible Judges”, Latomus 49, pp. 464-72.

Sogliano, A., 1898b, “Torre Annunziata – Fabricche antiche scoperte in contrada ‘Civita’ presso le mura di Pompei”, NSc Series 5, Vol. 6, pp. 494-503.

Stefani, G., 1998, “Boscoreale: la Villa di Asellius le sue pitture”, RSP 9, pp. 41-62.

205

Steinby, E.M. (ed.), 1995, Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Vol. 2, Edizioni Quasar: Rome.

Thorpe, M., 1995, Roman Architecture, Bristol Classical Press: Bristol.

Storey, G.R., 1997, “The population of Ancient Rome”, Antiquity 71, pp. 966-78.

Treggiari, S., 1999, “The upper-class house as symbol and focus of emotion in Cicero”, JRA 12.1, pp. 33-56.

Strocka, V.M., 1993, “Pompeji VI 17,41: ein haus mit Privatbibliothek”, MDAIR(A) 100, pp. 321-51. Sullivan, J.P., 1991, Martial: the unexpected classic, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Trillmich, W., 1973, “Bemerkungen zur Erforschung der Römischen Idealplastik”, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 88, pp. 247-82.

Superbaum, W., 1995, “Der Pyrrhos-Krieg in Ennius’ Annales VI im Lichte der Ersten EnniusPapyri aus Herculaneum”, ZPE 106, pp. 31-52.

Tomei, M.A., 1996, “La Domus Tiberiana dagli scavi Ottocenteschi alle indagini recenti”, MDAIR(A) 103, 1996, pp. 165-200.

Susini G., 1979, “Pompei (e dintorni) 1979”, in Acquaro, E. (ed.), Pompei 79, Antiqua Supp. 15, Buffetti Editore: Rome, pp. 3-9.

Torelli, M., 1982, “Una ‘Galleria’ della villa”, in Boatwright, M.T., (ed.), I Volusii Saturnini: una famiglia romana della prima età imperiale, De Donato: Bari, pp. 97-104.

Svarlien, J., 1994, “Lucilianus Character”, AJPh 115, pp. 253-67.

Torelli, M., 2003, “The frescoes of the Great Hall of the Villa at Boscoreale” in Braund, D. and Gill, C. (eds.), Myth, history and culture in Republican Rome: studies in honour of T.P. Wiseman, University of Exeter Press: Exeter, pp. 217-56.

Svennung, J., 1928, “De Columella per Palladium emendato”, Eranos 26, pp. 145-208. Syme, R., 1960, “Pliny’s Less Successful Friends”, Historia 9, pp. 362-79.

Toynbee, J., 1929, “The Villa Item and a Bride’s Ordeal”, JRS 19, pp. 67-113.

Syme, R., 1982-3, “Spaniards at Tivoli”, Ancient Society 13/14, pp. 241-63.

Toynbee, J., 1957, “Fragments of Italian Red-Gloss Ware from the Domus Aurea, Rome”, Latomus 16, pp. 18-22.

Syme, R., 1989, The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Turcan, R., 1999, “Petites Frises Dionysiaques d’Oplontis (Torre Annunziata)”, Revue Archaeologique 1999.1, pp. 89-102.

Tam Tinh, T., 1984, “La Vita Religiosa”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 56-64.

Tybout, R.A., 2001, “Roman wall-painting and social significance”, JRA 14.1, pp. 33-56.

Tam Tinh, T., 1988, La Casa dei Cervi a Herculaneum, Giorgio Bretschneider: Rome.

Ulrich, R.B., 1996, “Contignatio, Vitruvius, and the Campanian Builder”, AJA 100, pp. 137-51.

Tamm, B., 1971, “Some notes on Roman Houses”, OpRom 9, pp. 53-60.

Van Buren, A.W., 1948, “Pliny’s Laurentine Villa”, JRS 38, pp. 35-6.

Tanzer, H.H., 1924, The Villas of Pliny the Younger, Columbia University Press: New York.

Van der Poel, H.B., 1986, Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum, Pts 2, 3a, University of Texas Press: Austin.

Taylor, R., 2002, “’Reading’ space in the houses of Pompeii’s Regio VI”, JRA 15, pp. 439-444. Tchernia, A., 1984, “Il vino: produzione e commercio”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 87-96.

Varone, A., 2000, Pompei, i misteri di una città sepolta, Newton and Compton: Rome. Verga, F., 2002, “L’assetto rurale in età arcaica ed in età Romana del territorio di Poggio Sommavilla (Sabina Tiberina)”, PBSR 70, pp. 79-98.

Terrenato, N., 2001, “The Auditorium site in Rome and the origins of the villa”, JRA 14.1, pp. 5-32. Thornton, M.K., 1989, “Nero’s Quinquennium: the Ostian connection”, Historia 38, pp. 117-9.

206

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 2011, Herculaneum: past and future, Frances Lincoln: London.

Von Blanckenhagen, P.H. and Alexander, C., 1962, The Paintings from Boscotrecase, F.H. Kerle: Heidelberg.

Ward-Perkins, J.B., 1956, “Nero’s Golden House”, Antiquity 30, pp. 209-19.

Von Blanckenhagen, P.H. and Alexander, C., 1990, The Augustan Villa at Boscotrecase, Philip von Zabern: Mainz.

Ward-Perkins, J.B., 1981, Roman Architecture, Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Von Hesberg, H., 1981, “La Scaenae Frons del Teatro nella Villa di Domiziano a Castel Gandolfo”, ArchLaz 4, pp. 176-80.

Imperial

Ward-Perkins, J.B., 1984, “Nota di Topografia e Urbanistica”, in Zevi, F. (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples, pp. 25-39.

Von Hesberg, H. and Zanker, P., 1987, (eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen, Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Munich.

Ward-Perkins, J.B. and Kahane, A., 1972, “The Via Gabina”, PBSR 40, pp. 91-126.

Wacher, J. (ed.), 1987, The Roman World, Vol. 1, Routledge: London.

Warmington, B.H., 1977, Suetonius: Nero, Bristol Classical Press: Bristol.

Walker, S. and Cameron, A. (eds.), 1989, The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, Institute of Classical Studies: London.

Wassink, A., 1991, “Inflation and Financial Policy under the Roman Empire to the Price Edict of 301 AD”, Historia 40, pp. 465-93.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1988, “The Social Structure of the Roman House”, PBSR 56, pp. 43-97.

Watson, A., 1968, The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1990, “The Social Spread of Roman Luxury: sampling Pompeii and Herculaneum”, PBSR 58, pp. 145-92.

Watson, A., 1975, Rome of the XII Tables: persons and property, Princeton University Press: New Jersey.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1990, “Pliny the Elder and Man’s Unnatural History”, Greece and Rome 37, pp. 80-96.

Westgate, R., 2000, “Pavimenta atque emblemata vermiculata: Regional Styles in Hellenistic Mosaic and the First Mosaics at Pompeii”, AJA 104, pp. 255275.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1991, “Elites and trade in the Roman town”, in Rich, J. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World, Routledge: London, pp. 241-71.

White, K.D., 1970, Roman Farming, Thames and Hudson: London. White, P., 1982, “Positions for Poets in early Imperial Rome”, in Gold, B.K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, University of Texas Press: Austin, pp. 50-66.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1994, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum, Princeton University Press: Princeton. Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1996, “Le abitazioni urbane”, in Borriello, M., D’Ambrosio, A., De Caro, S. and Guzzo, P.G. (eds.), Pompei: abitare sotto il Vesuvio, Ferrara Arte: Rome, pp. 13-19.

Whitehouse, H., 1977, “In Praedis Iuliae Felicis: The Provenance of some fragments of Wall-painting in the Muzeo Nazionale, Naples”, PBSR 45, pp. 52-68. Whittaker, C.R., 1997, “Imperialism and culture: the Roman initiative”, in Mattingly, D.J. (ed.), Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: power, discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, JRA Supp. 23: Portsmouth, pp. 143-63.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1997, “Rethinking the Roman atrium house”, in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A., (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, JRA Supp 22: Portsmouth, pp. 219-40.

Widrig, W.M., 1980, “Two Sites on the Ancient Via Gabina”, in Painter, K. (ed.), Roman Villas in Italy: recent excavations and research, British Museum: London, pp. 119-40.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1998, “The Villa as Cultural Symbol”, in Frazer, A. (ed.), The Roman Villa: villa urbana, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, pp. 43-53.

207

Zanker, P., 1998, Pompeii: public and private life, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Widrig, W.M., 1981, “Two Villas and a Late Antique Horreum on the Via Gabina in Latium”, AJA 85, p. 224.

Zevi, F., 1982, “Urbanistica di Pompei”, in La Regione Sotterrata dal Vesuvio: studi e prospettive, Universita degli studi di Napoli: Naples, pp. 353-65.

Widrig, W.M., 1983, “Twelve Centuries of Occupation along the Via Gabina in Latium”, AJA 87, p. 269.

Zevi, F., 1984 (ed.), Pompei 79, Gaetano Macchiaroli Editore: Naples.

Widrig, W.M., 1987, “Land Use at the Via Gabina Villas”, in MacDougall, E.B. (ed.), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 10: Washington, pp. 233-60.

Zevi, F., 1994, “Sul Tempio di Iside a Pompei”, PP 49, pp. 37-56. Zevi, F., 1996, “Casa del Fauno”, in Borriello, M., D’Ambrosio, A., De Caro, S. and Guzzo, P.G. (eds.), Pompei: abitare sotto il Vesuvio, Ferrara Arte: Rome, pp. 38-47.

Wilburn, D., 2000, “The Geography and History of Campania and Pompeii”, in Gazda, E.K. (ed.), The Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii – ancient ritual, modern muse, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology: Ann Arbor, pp. 17-23. Williams, C., 1963, “Excavations at Corinth”, Archaiologikon Deltion 18, p. 79. Williams, G., 1958, “Some Aspects of Roman Marriage Ceremonies and Ideals”, JRS 48, pp. 16-29. Williams Lehmann, P., 1953, Roman Wall Paintings from Boscoreale in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Archaeological Institute of America: Cambridge, Mass. Wilson, R.J.A., 1988, “Die Römische Villa: Architektur und Lebensform (review)”, JRS 78, pp. 244-5. Winkes, R., 1979, “Pliny’s Chapter on Roman Funeral Customs in the light of Clipeatae Imagines”, AJA 83, pp. 481-4. Wiseman, T.P., 1982, “Poets and Patrons in late Republican Rome”, in Gold, B.K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, University of Texas Press: Austin, pp. 28-49. Wojcik, M.R., 1986, La Villa dei Papiri ad Ercolano, Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei: Roma. Wood, N., 1988, Cicero’s Social and Political Thought, University of California Press: Berkeley. Yegul, F., “Hadrian’s Villa and its Legacy (Book Review)”, Art Bulletin 79, 1997, pp. 457-60. Yerkes, S.R., 2000, “Vitruvius’ monstra”, JRA 13.1, pp. 234-51. Zanker, P., 1988, The power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. A. Shapiro, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

208

Table 1: All Villas under Discussion Villa Number Name/Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Dragoncello Perseus Regio IV at Ostia Livia at Prima Porta Domitian at Castel Gandolfo Hadrian at Tivoli Horace at Licenza Pliny at Palombara Auditorium Volusii Saturnini San Rocco Posto at Francolise Fontana del Piscaro Via Gabina A Via Gabina B Quintili

17 18 19 20 21 22

Cicero Mosaic Columns Diomede Mysteries T. Siminius Stephanus Imperiale

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Lucius Caecilius Iucundus Popidius Florus Boscoreale Fannius Synistor Poppaea at Oplontis Agrippa Postumus M. Livius Marcellus Boscoreale Boscoreale Boscoreale Pompeii L. Arellius Successus Regina at Boscoreale Scafati Asellius at Boscoreale Boscoreale Boscoreale Domitius Auctus Crapolla at Scafati L. Crassius Tertius Barbatelli 209

44

Scafati

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Papyri Real Boschetto Villa dell'Epitaffio Sora Calastro Novelle (Cave Montone) Scappe Camaldoli

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

San Marco Arianna Pastore Filosofo Anteros and Heracleo Petraro Carmiano

Table 2: The Villa at Dragoncello Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5.5 4.63 3.63 4.63 3.13 4.86 4.71 5.67 6 4.08 5.58 2.96 3.42 3.67 3 3.83 4.79 4.54 5.5 4.13 4.04 4.92 4.92 5.88 5.88

Relative Asymmetry 0.391 0.316 0.229 0.316 0.185 0.336 0.323 0.406 0.435 0.268 0.398 0.17 0.21 0.232 0.174 0.246 0.33 0.308 0.391 0.272 0.264 0.341 0.341 0.424 0.424

Control Value 0.5 1.33 1.25 1.33 2.16 1.75 0.83 0.5 0.33 0.25 0.5 1.67 1.08 1.25 0.45 1.25 0.5 1.33 0.5 0.67 1 1.33 1.33 0.5 0.5

210

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.957 1.578 1.143 1.578 0.926 1.678 1.613 2.03 2.174 1.339 1.991 0.852 1.052 1.161 0.87 1.23 1.648 1.539 1.957 1.361 1.322 1.704 1.704 2.122 2.122

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 4 6 7 7 8 7 7 8 8 9 9

Table 3: The Villa of Perseus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

5 3.455 3.364 4.545 3.455 2.818 3.182 4.182 4.091 5.273 4 3.091 4.091 4.091 3.545 3.818 4.545 4.818 3.727 3.545 4.545 4.545 4.545

Relative Asymmetry 0.348 0.213 0.206 0.308 0.213 0.158 0.19 0.277 0.269 0.372 0.261 0.182 0.269 0.269 0.221 0.245 0.308 0.332 0.237 0.221 0.308 0.308 0.308

Control Value 0.5 0.58 0.667 0.25 0.2 1.83 1.497 0.33 0.167 0.5 1.5 4.33 0.167 0.167 2.83 1.75 0.25 0.33 0.53 4 0.2 0.2 0.2

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.697 1.041 1.003 1.504 1.041 0.771 0.926 1.35 1.311 1.813 1.273 0.887 1.311 1.311 1.08 1.195 1.504 1.62 1.157 1.08 1.504 1.504 1.504

Depth from Exterior 0 5 3 7 4 4 3 4 3 6 1 2 3 3 6 7 7 8 6 5 6 6 6

Table 4: The Villa in Region IV at Ostia Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

3.762 2 2.762 3.048 3 3.429 3.048 3 3.762 4.429 2.524 2.048 3.762 3.048 3.048 3.048 3.048 3 3 3.524 3.429 4.429 3

Relative Asymmetry 0.263 0.095 0.168 0.195 0.190 0.231 0.195 0.190 0.263 0.327 0.145 0.1 0.263 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.190 0.190 0.240 0.231 0.327 0.190

Control Value 0.25 5.375 3.125 0.125 0.143 1.25 0.125 0.143 0.25 0.5 2.143 6.393 0.25 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.143 0.143 0.25 1.25 0.5 0.143

211

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.259 0.456 0.803 0.933 0.911 1.107 0.933 0.911 1.259 1.563 0.694 0.478 1.259 0.933 0.933 0.933 0.933 0.911 0.911 1.150 1.107 1.563 0.911

Depth from Exterior 0 3 1 3 4 5 3 4 2 6 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 4

Table 5: The House of Augustus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

3.5 2.53 3 2.88 3.56 4.15 4.56 3.94 4.12 4.47 4.15 3.35 4.82 4.55 3.97 4.76 4.24 3.79 4.76 4.29 4.5 4.29 4.18 3.32 4.62 4.62 2.97 3.5 3.97 3.97 3.97 3.97 3 3.65 3.85

Relative Asymmetry 0.152 0.093 0.121 0.114 0.155 0.191 0.216 0.178 0.189 0.21 0.191 0.142 0.232 0.215 0.18 0.228 0.196 0.169 0.228 0.199 0.212 0.199 0.193 0.141 0.219 0.219 0.119 0.152 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.121 0.161 0.173

Control Value 0.167 3.173 0.367 0.697 1.83 0.2 0.7 0.25 0.75 1 0.25 3.33 0.33 0.83 0.143 0.25 0.75 2.7 0.25 0.2 0.33 0.2 0.53 3.08 0.25 0.25 2.747 0.167 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 5.417 2.75 1.7

212

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.913 0.559 0.73 0.686 0.935 1.15 1.3 1.073 1.139 1.267 1.15 0.858 1.395 1.296 1.084 1.373 1.183 1.019 1.373 1.201 1.278 1.201 1.161 0.847 1.322 1.322 0.719 0.913 1.084 1.084 1.084 1.084 0.731 0.968 1.041

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 2 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 4

Table 6: The Domus Tiberiana Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J K

3.3 2.1 2.5 3 2.3 2 2.5 2.4 2.4 3.2 4.1

Relative Asymmetry 0.511 0.244 0.333 0.444 0.289 0.222 0.333 0.311 0.311 0.489 0.689

Control Value 0.33 1 1 0.33 1 1.16 0.83 0.67 1.83 1.5 0.5

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.612 0.77 1.05 1.4 0.912 0.7 1.05 0.981 0.981 1.543 2.174

Depth from Exterior 0 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 1 5 6

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.2 0.624 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.528 0.72 1.104 1.104 1.777 1.2 1.2 1.777 1.2

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 4 4 5 2

Table 7: The Domus Flavia Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D F G H J 1 2 3 4 5

2.923 2 2.923 2.923 2.923 1.846 2.154 2.769 2.769 3.846 2.923 2.923 3.846 2.923

Relative Asymmetry 0.321 0.167 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.141 0.192 0.295 0.295 0.474 0.321 0.321 0.474 0.321

Control Value 0.2 5.25 0.167 0.167 0.167 2.497 1.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.167

213

Table 8: The Villa of Livia at Prima Porta Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 43 50 52 58

4.75 2.5 3.71 3.79 2.92 3.88 3.88 2.92 2.5 3.25 3.25 2.92 2.67 3.5 2.92 3.54 3.25 2.92 3.46 3.5 3.92 3.63 3.42 3.29 3.46

Relative Asymmetry 0.326 0.13 0.236 0.243 0.167 0.25 0.25 0.167 0.13 0.196 0.196 0.167 0.145 0.217 0.167 0.221 0.196 0.167 0.214 0.217 0.254 0.229 0.21 0.199 0.214

Control Value 0.5 1.53 0.83 1.2 3.5 0.2 0.2 1.2 3 0.75 0.53 0.95 1.23 0.45 1.92 0.53 1.03 0.83 0.2 1 1.08 0.91 1.33 0.91 0.2

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.63 0.652 1.178 1.213 0.835 1.252 1.252 0.835 0.652 0.978 0.978 0.835 0.726 1.087 0.835 1.104 0.978 0.835 1.07 1.087 1.27 1.143 1.052 0.996 1.07

Depth from Exterior 0 4 6 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 5 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 6 6 5

Table 9: The Villa of Horace at Licenza Room

Mean Depth

Ext A E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3.43 3.43 2.48 2.57 3.09 4.04 2.57 3.17 3.87 4.83 4.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.35 4.83 3.39 3.39 3.09 3.96 4.91 3.96 4.91

Relative Asymmetry 0.211 0.211 0.129 0.137 0.182 0.264 0.137 0.189 0.25 0.333 0.333 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.117 0.333 0.208 0.208 0.182 0.257 0.34 0.257 0.34

Control Value 0.125 0.143 2.5 0.598 0.8 0.33 0.96 0.58 3.5 0.25 0.25 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 3.67 0.25 0.5 0.5 1.143 1.33 0.5 1.33 0.5

214

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.986 0.986 0.603 0.64 0.85 1.234 0.64 0.883 1.168 1.556 1.556 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.547 1.556 0.972 0.972 0.85 1.201 1.589 1.201 1.589

Depth from Exterior 0 4 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 3 5 3 3 4 5 6 5 6

Table 10: The Villa of Pliny Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U

3.474 2.737 3.474 3.211 4.158 3.211 4.842 5.789 4 4.211 3.684 3 4.895 4.947 3 2.632 4.632 4.632 3.474 3.263

Relative Asymmetry 0.275 0.193 0.275 0.246 0.351 0.246 0.427 0.532 0.333 0.357 0.298 0.222 0.433 0.439 0.222 0.181 0.404 0.404 0.275 0.251

Control Value 0.2 3.67 0.2 2.5 0.25 1.25 1.5 0.5 0.83 0.33 2.83 0.58 0.5 0.58 0.67 1.2 0.25 0.25 0.2 1.7

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.222 0.858 1.222 1.092 1.56 1.092 1.897 2.365 1.481 1.586 1.325 0.988 1.923 1.949 0.988 0.806 1.794 1.794 1.222 1.118

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 3 2 6 6 2 2

Table 11: Villa dell’Auditorium Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

3.83 4.52 2.7 4.52 2.87 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 2.35 3.13 4.09 4.09 3.57 2.52 4.09 3.13 4.09 2.78 3.74 3.74 3.57 4.43 5.39

Relative Asymmetry 0.257 0.32 0.155 0.32 0.17 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.257 0.123 0.194 0.281 0.281 0.234 0.138 0.281 0.194 0.281 0.162 0.249 0.249 0.234 0.312 0.399

Control Value 0.167 0.33 2.2 0.33 5.2 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 2.327 2.2 0.33 0.33 0.2 0.4 0.33 2.2 0.33 1.73 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.5

215

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.255 1.561 0.754 1.561 0.829 1.255 1.255 1.255 1.255 0.599 0.945 1.37 1.37 1.14 0.674 1.37 0.945 1.37 0.789 1.215 1.215 1.14 1.521 1.947

Depth from Exterior 0 6 5 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 7

Table 12: The Villa Volusii Saturnini Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

4.76 3.84 3.25 3.84 3.84 3.76 2.47 3.15 3.42 3.02 3.15 3.87 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.8 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.84 3.15 3.84 3.15 3.11 4.44 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.18 3.15 3.15 2.75 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 4.22 3.84 3.84 4.75 4.47 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25

Relative Asymmetry 0.142 0.107 0.085 0.107 0.107 0.104 0.055 0.081 0.091 0.076 0.081 0.108 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.106 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.107 0.081 0.107 0.081 0.08 0.13 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.045 0.081 0.081 0.066 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.107 0.107 0.142 0.131 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

Control Value 0.5 0.091 10.5 0.091 0.091 0.591 0.133 0.042 1 0.542 0.042 9 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 1.091 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.091 0.042 0.091 0.042 1.042 0.5 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 22 0.042 0.042 0.133 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.291 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 216

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.126 0.851 0.674 0.851 0.851 0.827 0.44 0.644 0.725 0.605 0.644 0.86 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.839 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.851 0.644 0.851 0.644 0.632 1.03 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.644 0.353 0.644 0.644 0.524 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.851 0.851 1.123 1.039 1.273 1.273 1.273 1.273

Depth from Exterior 0 3 6 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5

Table 13: The Villa San Rocco Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 29 35 37 39

3.7 2.76 3.7 2.03 3.39 3.58 4.515 3.91 3.515 4.515 2.424 2.97 2.545 2.97 2.97 4.667 3.727 2.848 2.97 2.97 2.97 3.7 2.848 3.788 3.788 2.97 2.97 2.97 3.485 3.485 3.182 3.818 4.394

Relative Asymmetry 0.169 0.11 0.169 0.064 0.149 0.161 0.22 0.182 0.157 0.22 0.089 0.123 0.097 0.123 0.123 0.229 0.17 0.116 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.169 0.116 0.174 0.174 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.155 0.155 0.136 0.176 0.212125

Control Value 0.167 4.33 0.167 10.58 0.667 2.167 0.33 0.83 1.83 0.33 0.244 0.077 2.407 0.077 0.077 0.5 1.5 0.577 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.167 2.077 1 1 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.25 0.25 1.58 0.33 0.33

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.004 0.655 1.004 0.383 0.889 0.96 1.308 1.083 0.936 1.308 0.53 0.733 0.575 0.733 0.733 1.364 1.015 0.688 0.733 0.733 0.733 1.004 0.688 1.037 1.037 0.733 0.733 0.733 0.924 0.924 0.812 1.048 1.263

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 6 5 4 4 4 4 2 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 5

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.979 1.356 1.356 0.829 1.507 0.979 0.979 0.829 1.507 0.678 0.301

Depth from Exterior 0 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 1

Table 14: The Posto Villa Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J K

2.3 2.8 2.8 2.1 3 2.3 2.3 2.1 3 1.9 1.4

Relative Asymmetry 0.289 0.4 0.4 0.244 0.444 0.289 0.289 0.244 0.444 0.2 0.089

Control Value 0.167 0.33 0.33 1.167 0.5 0.167 0.167 1.167 0.5 2.167 4.33

217

Table 15: The Villa alla Fontana del Piscaro Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3.08 2.5 2.69 3.08 2.15 2.35 3.12 3.08 3.31 3.08 3.31 4.19 4.19 4.19 3.04 2.96 3.23 4 3.35 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.54 2.88

Relative Asymmetry 0.166 0.12 0.135 0.166 0.092 0.108 0.17 0.166 0.185 0.166 0.185 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.163 0.157 0.178 0.24 0.188 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.123 0.15

Control Value 0.2 2.893 0.7 0.2 3.53 1.254 0.143 0.643 0.33 0.643 0.95 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.143 0.643 1 0.5 0.611 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 7.5 0.611

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.867 0.625 0.704 0.867 0.479 0.563 0.883 0.867 0.963 0.867 0.963 1.329 1.329 1.329 0.85 0.817 0.929 1.25 0.979 1.042 1.042 1.042 1.042 1.042 1.042 0.642 0.783

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3

Table 16: The Villa on Via Gabina A Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

6.36 5.08 4.52 3.72 3 2.68 3.04 2.6 2.76 2.52 3.48 3.48 3.32 2.96 3.32 4.2 4.2 3.92 2.72 3.32 4.28

Relative Asymmetry 0.447 0.34 0.293 0.227 0.167 0.14 0.17 0.133 0.147 0.127 0.207 0.207 0.193 0.163 0.193 0.267 0.267 0.243 0.143 0.193 0.273

Control Value 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 1.125 0.625 0.92 6.257 1.539 0.167 0.167 0.625 1.292 0.625 1.5 1.5 0.33 0.705 1.83 0.33 218

Real Relative Asymmetry 2.279 1.735 1.497 1.156 0.85 0.714 0.867 0.68 0.748 0.646 1.054 1.054 0.986 0.833 0.986 1.361 1.361 1.241 0.731 0.986 1.395

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 7 8

21 22 23 24 25

3.96 4.36 4.68 3.2 3.72

0.247 0.28 0.307 0.183 0.227

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

4.07 2.47 2.53 4.6 3.57 3.1 3.93 4.07 3.43 3.07 3.2 3.43 3.43 3.5 3.27 3.6 4.5 5.47 2.73 3.63 3.7 3.7 3.43 3.27 4.23 3.27 4 4.6 5.47 4.07 4.53

Room

Mean Depth

Ext B C F 1 2 3 4 5 10

5.05 4.24 2.71 2.71 3.15 3.68 3.12 4 3.32 4

0.83 0.83 0.33 0.497 2

1.259 1.429 1.565 0.935 1.156

8 9 9 7 8

Table 17: The Villa on Via Gabina B Relative Asymmetry 0.212 0.101 0.106 0.248 0.177 0.145 0.202 0.212 0.168 0.143 0.152 0.168 0.168 0.172 0.157 0.179 0.241 0.308 0.119 0.181 0.186 0.186 0.168 0.157 0.223 0.157 0.207 0.248 0.308 0.212 0.243

Control Value 0.25 4.5 1.14 0.5 2.58 2.643 0.75 0.25 0.143 0.473 0.576 0.143 0.143 0.81 0.583 1.5 1.33 0.5 3.33 1.167 0.167 0.167 1.417 1.197 0.33 1.2 0.53 1.5 0.5 0.45 0.2

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.189 0.57 0.593 1.395 0.996 0.814 1.135 1.189 0.941 0.802 0.852 0.941 0.941 0.969 0.88 1.007 1.356 1.732 0.67 1.019 1.046 1.046 0.941 0.88 1.251 0.88 1.162 1.395 1.732 1.189 1.368

Depth from Exterior 0 2 3 6 5 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 4 5 3 4 6 6

Table 18: The Villa of the Quintili Relative Asymmetry 0.203 0.162 0.086 0.086 0.108 0.134 0.106 0.15 0.116 0.15

Control Value 0.5 0.83 2.143 0.268 5.58 0.625 2.292 0.25 0.667 0.25 219

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.368 1.095 0.578 0.578 0.726 0.905 0.716 1.014 0.784 1.014

Depth from Exterior 0 7 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

4.07 4.15 4.15 4.27 4.24 3.39 4.15 4.15 4.24 3.59 4.44 5.24 6.29 5.34 4.39 3.02 4.22 3.63 2.9

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

3.73 3.17 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.41 4.56 4.83 4.83 4.83 4.83 4.83 4.83

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4.2 3.025 4.675 2.6 3.1 2.575 1.225 4.175 3.725 3.9 3.6 3.625 3.375 3.55 2.7 3.875 4.85 3.875 2.95

0.154 0.158 0.158 0.164 0.162 0.12 0.158 0.158 0.162 0.13 0.172 0.212 0.265 0.217 0.17 0.101 0.161 0.132

1.125 0.125 0.125 0.83 0.167 0.792 0.125 0.125 0.167 1 0.83 1.5 0.5 0.33 1.83 2.91 1 0.75 1.334

0.095 0.137 0.109 0.149 0.149 0.149 0.121 0.178 0.192 0.192 0.192 0.192 0.192 0.192

1.037 1.064 1.064 1.105 1.095 0.807 1.064 1.064 1.095 0.875 1.162 1.432 1.787 1.466 1.145 0.682 1.088 0.889

1 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 6 7 8 7 6 4 5 6 5

0.642 0.922 0.733 1.007 1.007 1.007 0.814 1.203 1.294 1.294 1.294 1.294 1.294 1.294

6 5 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.115 0.705 1.280 0.557 0.731 0.548 0.078 1.106 0.949 1.010 0.906 0.914 0.827 0.888 0.592 1.002 1.341 1.002 0.679

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 5 4 3 3 3 5 6 6 5

0.75 4.31 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.31 6.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143

Table 19: The Villa of Cicero Relative Asymmetry 0.168 0.106 0.193 0.084 0.110 0.082 0.011 0.167 0.143 0.152 0.136 0.138 0.125 0.134 0.089 0.151 0.202 0.151 0.102

Control Value 1.2 2.617 0.5 2.47 1.584 2.257 0.417 0.167 0.417 1.75 0.375 1.917 0.417 0.167 0.637 0.625 1 0.625 3.41 220

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

3.35 3.1 3.1 3.625 3.6 3.325 4.3 4.1 5.025 4.125 5.1 4.15 4.225 3.825 3.9 3.45 4.05 5.225 3.3 4.075 4.6 2.975

Room

Mean Depth

Ext E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5.04 4.2 4.2 5.04 3.36 2.72 4.64 3.76 2.8 3.76 3.12 3.68 4.64 4.56 4.56 5.44 4.08 5.6 5.6 4.08 3.12 4.04 4.04 4.08 3.84 4.8

0.123 0.110 0.110 0.138 0.136 0.122 0.173 0.163 0.211 0.164 0.215 0.165 0.169 0.148 0.152 0.128 0.160 0.222 0.121 0.161 0.189 0.103

0.705 0.595 0.265 0.455 0.14 0.24 0.25 1.83 0.33 1.66 0.33 1.23 1.25 0.47 0.14 0.39 0.14 0.5 1.7 0.5 0.25 3.72

0.819 0.731 0.731 0.914 0.906 0.810 1.150 1.080 1.402 1.089 1.429 1.097 1.124 0.984 1.010 0.853 1.063 1.472 0.801 1.071 1.254 0.688

4 4 4 6 4 4 4 7 8 8 8 7 3 5 5 3 5 4 2 3 4 4

Table 20: The Villa of the Mosaic Columns Relative Asymmetry 0.351 0.278 0.278 0.351 0.205 0.149 0.316 0.24 0.156 0.24 0.184 0.233 0.316 0.309 0.309 0.386 0.267 0.4 0.4 0.267 0.184 0.264 0.264 0.267 0.246 0.330

Control Value 1 0.83 0.83 1 1.33 0.91 0.2 0.25 2.5 0.25 1.52 3.33 0.2 0.7 0.83 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.17 3.75 0.67 0.67 0.17 0.5 2.5

221

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.792 1.419 1.419 1.792 1.047 0.763 1.614 1.224 0.798 1.224 0.940 1.188 1.614 1.579 1.579 1.969 1.366 2.040 2.040 1.366 0.940 1.348 1.348 1.366 1.259 1.685

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 4 5 6 6 6 7 5 8 8 6 5 6 6 6 6 7

Table 21: The Villa of Diomede Room

Mean Depth

Ext A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

4.82 3.84 6.92 6.03 6.13 5.11 6.08 6.95 3.34 6.95 4.76 4.47 4.39 4.05 3.92 4.61 5.45 5.32 4.61 5.45 6.24 6.82 5.89 6.82 6.82 5.92 5.39 4.68 4.76 5.74 4.82 4.76 5.74 4.68 5.45 6.37 7.39 5.55 4.58

Relative Asymmetry 0.212 0.157 0.328 0.279 0.285 0.228 0.282 0.330 0.13 0.330 0.208 0.192 0.188 0.169 0.162 0.200 0.247 0.24 0.200 0.247 0.291 0.323 0.271 0.323 0.323 0.273 0.243 0.204 0.208 0.263 0.212 0.208 0.263 0.204 0.247 0.298 0.355 0.252 0.198

Control Value 0.1 5.41 0.83 0.97 0.64 3.19 0.14 0.33 2.14 0.33 0.64 1 1 1 0.6 0.76 0.49 2.49 0.86 0.49 0.49 0.2 3.47 0.2 0.2 0.67 1.16 0.58 1.2 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.45 0.75 1.5 0.5 0.25 1.2

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.369 1.017 2.121 1.802 1.838 1.473 1.820 2.132 0.838 2.132 1.347 1.243 1.215 1.093 1.046 1.293 1.594 1.548 1.293 1.594 1.878 2.086 1.752 2.086 2.086 1.763 1.573 1.318 1.347 1.698 1.369 1.347 1.698 1.318 1.594 1.924 2.290 1.630 1.283

Depth from Exterior 0 1 9 8 8 7 8 9 8 9 6 5 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 9 8 9 9 8 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 5 3 2

Table 22: The Villa of the Mysteries (A) Room

Mean Depth

Ext A P 1 2 3 4 5 6

4.41 2.22 2.56 3.44 3 3.53 3.47 3.09 3.09

Relative Asymmetry 0.227 0.081 0.104 0.162 0.133 0.168 0.164 0.139 0.139

Control Value 0.5 3.43 4.51 0.36 0.24 0.11 1.11 0.67 0.78 222

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.329 0.475 0.608 0.951 0.779 0.986 0.962 0.814 0.814

Depth from Exterior 0 3 2 3 4 3 1 5 4

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 48-49

5.28 5.28 4.31 3.63 3.97 4.34 5.31 2.91 2.91 3.28 3.25 3.13 2.81 2.78 2.97 2.91 3.25 2.94 2.84 2.97 2.84 2.78 3.53 4.16

0.285 0.285 0.220 0.175 0.198 0.222 0.287 0.127 0.127 0.152 0.15 0.142 0.120 0.118 0.131 0.127 0.15 0.129 0.122 0.131 0.122 0.118 0.168 0.210

0.25 0.25 2.83 0.75 0.58 1.75 0.33 1.53 0.21 1.44 0.75 0.61 1.8 0.54 0.27 1.02 0.81 0.74 2.03 0.57 1.38 0.63 0.11 0.58

1.668 1.668 1.290 1.025 1.157 1.302 1.680 0.744 0.744 0.888 0.877 0.830 0.705 0.693 0.768 0.744 0.877 0.756 0.717 0.768 0.717 0.693 0.986 1.231

8 8 7 6 6 7 7 5 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 4

Table 23: The Villa of the Mysteries (B) Room

Mean Depth

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4.39 3.67 3.53 4.54 5.35 3.82 3.43 4.14 4.62 5.3 6.19 5.28 5.07 6.03 6.64 4.58 3.97 4.64 3.54 3.54 5.3 N/A N/A 4.49 3.51 3.48 3.54 3.54

Relative Asymmetry 0.1 0.078 0.075 0.104 0.13 0.084 0.072 0.092 0.108 0.127 0.153 0.125 0.122 0.148 0.107 0.105 0.087 0.107 0.075 0.075 0.069 0.127 N/A N/A 0.104 0.074 0.073 0.075 223

Control Value 0.86 1.08 0.75 1.49 0.58 1.15 0.39 0.125 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 1.45 0.33 0.2 0.78 1.25 0.2 0.063 0.063 0.39 0.25 N/A 0.11 0.5 1.063 0.063 0.063

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.961 0.75 0.721 1 1.25 0.807 0.692 0.884 1.038 1.221 1.471 1.201 1.173 1.423 1.028 1.009 0.836 1.028 0.721 0.721 0.663 1.221 N/A N/A 1 0.711 0.701 0.721

Depth from Exterior 5 4 4 5 6 4 3 4 5 6 7 6 6 7 5 5 4 5 3 3 3 6 2 2 4 3 3 3

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 F(1) F(2) F(3) F(5) P(1) P(2) P(3) P(4) P(5) P(6) Atrium Peristyle Small Peristyle Ext Kitchen Courtyard Cryptoporticus P R Large Portico

3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 5.42 3.91 3.91 3.86 4.84 4.84 3.54 4.14 4.12 5.1 5.03 4.07 4.14 4.43 5.41 N/A 4.68 5.65 5.51 5.49 6.46 3.53 3.65 3.64 3.84 3.37 5.203 4.319 4.35 N/A 4.58 2.91 2.55 3.16 3.7 3.28

0.075 0.133 0.133 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.13 0.086 0.086 0.084 0.113 0.113 0.075 0.092 0.092 0.121 0.118 0.09 0.092 0.101 0.13 N/A 0.108 0.137 0.133 0.132 0.161 0.075 0.078 0.078 0.084 0.077 0.124 0.098 0.098 N/A 0.105 0.056 0.046 0.064 0.079 0.067

0.063 0.2 0.2 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.5 0.2 0.2 2.2 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.125 1.125 0.5 0.66 0.95 0.125 0.5 1.11 0.22 1.2 0.5 0.83 1.7 0.33 1.31 3 0.53 0.53 2.205 1.08 2.66 1.86 0.11 0.66 1.173 11.475 4.59 1.435 2.89

N/A 4.53 4.36 4.9

N/A 0.104 0.099 0.115

1 3.03 1.11 1.53

224

0.721 1.278 1.278 0.721 0.721 0.721 1.25 0.826 0.826 0.807 1.086 1.086 0.721 0.884 0.884 1.163 1.134 0.865 0.884 0.971 1.25 N/A 1.038 1.317 1.278 1.269 1.548 0.721 0.75 0.75 0.807 0.740 1.192 0.942 0.942 N/A 1.009 0.538 0.442 0.615 0.759 0.644 N/A 1 0.951 1.105

3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 1 4 3 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 6

Table 24: The Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J N O P Q R S V W Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

3.98 2.93 3.76 2.93 2.76 3.76 3.90 3.19 2 3.52 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.98 2.90 2.98 2.98 3.52 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 2.79 2.98 5.10 5.10 4.12 5.10 3.29 2.60 4.26 4.26 3.98 3.57 2.79 3.90 3.90 2.62 2.48 2.98 2.98 3.90

Relative Asymmetry 0.149 0.096 0.138 0.096 0.088 0.138 0.145 0.109 0.05 0.126 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.095 0.099 0.099 0.126 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.089 0.099 0.205 0.205 0.156 0.205 0.114 0.08 0.163 0.163 0.149 0.128 0.089 0.145 0.145 0.081 0.074 0.099 0.099 0.145

Control Value 0.17 3.36 0.28 5.17 2.23 0.28 0.11 0.44 13.03 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.39 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.06 0.06 0.25 0.25 3.25 0.25 2.5 1.81 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.31 0.11 0.11 1.06 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.11

225

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.020 0.660 0.945 0.660 0.602 0.945 0.993 0.75 0.342 0.863 0.678 0.678 0.678 0.678 0.678 0.650 0.678 0.678 0.863 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.613 0.678 1.404 1.404 1.068 1.404 0.784 0.547 1.116 1.116 1.020 0.880 0.613 0.993 0.993 0.554 0.506 0.678 0.678 0.993

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 7 7 6 7 5 4 6 6 2 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3

Table 25: The Villa Imperiale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.73 3.27 3.27 2.27 4.47 3.67 3.67 4.4 3.8 2.87 3.07 3.07 3.07 2.6 3 3.67

Relative Asymmetry 0.573 0.349 0.349 0.195 0.533 0.410 0.410 0.523 0.430 0.287 0.318 0.318 0.318 0.246 0.307 0.410

Control Value 0.5 0.83 0.83 1.83 1.33 1.5 0.45 0.5 0.2 2.58 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.7 1.53 1.2

Real Relative Asymmetry 2.286 1.391 1.391 0.778 2.126 1.636 1.636 2.083 1.716 1.146 1.268 1.268 1.268 0.980 1.225 1.636

Depth from Exterior 0 3 3 4 1 2 7 8 7 6 4 3 5 5 6 7

Table 26: The House of Fabius Rufus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7.16 5.10 4.39 5.84 6.81 6.79 7.77 5.82 6.65 7.34 9.37 8.39 9.37 9.37 5.16 4.53 4.48 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.02 5.31 6.15 5.53 4.44 5.39 5.35 6.24 4.55 4.61 5.56

Relative Asymmetry 0.20 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.15

Control Value 0.67 3.53 2.47 0.14 2.66 0.67 1.17 0.5 1 0.83 0.75 0.25 3.5 0.25 0.25 0.31 4.36 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.64 0.83 0.33 1 0.73 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.45 2.25 1.25 226

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.78 1.18 0.98 1.51 1.40 1.68 1.67 1.96 1.39 1.63 1.83 2.42 2.14 2.42 2.42 1.20 1.02 1.00 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.16 1.24 1.49 1.31 0.99 1.27 1.26 1.51 1.02 1.04 1.32

Depth from Exterior 0 10 5 11 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 6 5 6 6 2 3 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 7 8

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

6.55 5.60 5.29 6.42 6.42 6.42 6.42 4.5 4.58 4.68 5.63 5.61 8.63 6.68 7.15 7.60 8.55 9.53 5.85 6.84 4.90 5.89 5.44 5.44 4.81 5.48 5.92 6.23 6.02 7.94 6.97

0.18 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.23 0.19

0.5 0.25 4.33 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.91 1.11 0.83 0.83 1.08 0.5 1.33 1.33 0.83 1.5 0.5 1.47 0.33 1.67 0.25 0.2 0.2 2.64 1.3 0.39 0.14 1.08 0.5 1.33

1.60 1.33 1.24 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.34 1.33 2.21 1.64 1.78 1.91 2.18 2.47 1.40 1.69 1.13 1.41 1.28 1.28 1.10 1.29 1.42 1.51 1.45 2.01 1.73

9 8 7 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 8 14 12 13 13 14 15 11 12 9 10 10 10 9 9 10 11 9 11 10

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.150 1.259 0.524 1.675 0.837 1.048 0.783 0.939 1.259 1.150 1.886 1.886 1.307 1.886

Depth from Exterior 0 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 4 3 4

Table 27: House VI-17-42 Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J K L M N

2.69 2.85 1.77 3.46 2.23 2.54 2.15 2.38 2.85 2.69 3.77 3.77 2.92 3.77

Relative Asymmetry 0.307 0.336 0.14 0.447 0.223 0.28 0.209 0.250 0.336 0.307 0.503 0.503 0.349 0.503

Control Value 0.17 2.5 3.75 0.5 0.5 1.17 1.5 0.42 1.75 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.33

227

Table 28: The House of Umbricius Sciaurus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

3.35 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.59 4.70 4.70 4.70 3.80 3.33 2.72 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.43 4.41 3.83 3.52 3.17 3.56 4.43 5.33 6.28 7.26 3.89 3.83 4.81 4.81 4.81 3.93 5.07 3.96 4.31 5.24 5.19 7.07 6.09 7.07 4.39 5.33 6.30 6.31 4.06 5.04 5.04 4.52 5.24 4.59 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.78

Relative Asymmetry 0.090 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.099 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.107 0.089 0.066 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.093 0.131 0.108 0.096 0.083 0.098 0.131 0.166 0.203 0.240 0.111 0.108 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.112 0.156 0.113 0.127 0.163 0.161 0.233 0.195 0.233 0.130 0.166 0.203 0.204 0.117 0.155 0.155 0.135 0.163 0.138 0.145 0.145 0.145 0.145

Control Value 0.47 0.24 0.24 0.24 4.83 0.13 0.13 0.13 6.5 0.2 7.83 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.59 0.33 0.58 1.33 2.54 0.59 1 1 1.5 0.5 0.37 3.67 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.17 0.5 0.17 1.75 0.33 0.66 0.33 2.5 0.33 1.25 0.83 1.5 0.5 2.66 0.25 0.25 0.88 0.83 0.61 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 228

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.717 1.068 1.068 1.068 0.790 1.129 1.129 1.129 0.854 0.711 0.525 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.741 1.040 0.863 0.769 0.662 0.781 1.047 1.321 1.611 1.910 0.882 0.863 1.163 1.163 1.163 0.894 1.242 0.903 1.010 1.294 1.278 1.852 1.553 1.852 1.034 1.321 1.617 1.620 0.934 1.233 1.233 1.074 1.294 1.095 1.153 1.153 1.153 1.153

Depth from Exterior 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 7 6 7 4 5 5 6 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4

Table 29: The House of the Faun Room

Mean Depth

Ext B D E F G H I J K L b g h h' 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 45 48 49 50 51

3.24 2.84 3.82 3 3.82 2.65 3.63 4.31 4.31 3.33 3.25 2.67 3.82 4.59 3.80 3.10 3.57 3.37 3.82 3.82 2.94 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.06 3.10 3.10 3.33 3.61 3.75 3.31 3.59 3.82 3.61 3.61 3.82 3.82 3.63 2.76 3.73 3.73 3.69 4.67 3.73 3.73 3.55 3.25 3.22 3.78 3.24 4.25 4.31

Relative Asymmetry 0.084 0.075 0.114 0.079 0.114 0.066 0.105 0.133 0.133 0.093 0.091 0.067 0.106 0.104 0.144 0.084 0.104 0.096 0.106 0.106 0.0745 0.114 0.114 0.114 0.083 0.085 0.085 0.094 0.104 0.111 0.093 0.104 0.114 0.113 0.113 0.114 0.114 0.105 0.070 0.109 0.109 0.108 0.147 0.109 0.109 0.100 0.109 0.089 0.133 0.092 0.131 0.133

Control Value 2.417 9.333 0.875 0.238 0.875 3.611 0.167 0.125 0.125 5.500 0.569 5.950 0.100 1.100 0.500 1.267 0.417 0.350 0.100 0.100 3.211 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.267 0.171 0.171 0.238 0.571 0.667 0.738 0.405 0.071 0.571 0.571 0.071 0.071 0.167 5.700 0.111 0.111 1.111 0.500 0.111 0.111 0.444 0.958 0.292 0.125 1.292 0.333 0.125

229

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.656 0.573 0.072 0.609 0.072 0.507 0.808 1.020 1.020 0.718 0.699 0.513 0.815 0.802 1.104 0.646 0.796 0.736 0.815 0.815 0.573 0.875 0.875 0.875 0.634 0.652 0.652 0.724 0.796 0.851 0.718 0.802 0.875 0.869 0.869 0.875 0.875 0.808 0.537 0.839 0.839 0.827 1.128 0.839 0.839 0.772 0.845 0.682 1.020 0.706 1.008 1.020

Depth from Exterior 0 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 4 3 3 2 1 2 3

Table 30: The Praedia of Julia Felix Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 83 93

2.75 5.40 6.43 4.32 5.49 5.38 4.51 5.49 6.43 3.85 4.40 3.45 3.81 2.96 3.80 3.80 5.45 3.58 4.19 3.47 3.47 3.43 3.62 3.62 2.94 4.68 3.68 3.77 3.25 4 4.55 3.77 3.58 3.68 2.98 3.72 3.72 4.91 4.02 3.81 3.06 4.02 4.02 4.75 6.08 4.89 4.68 4.11 3.85 3.87 3.77 3.91 3.98 3.04

Relative Asymmetry 0.06 0.17 0.21 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.08

Control Value 3.36 1.25 0.5 2 0.25 0.5 2 0.25 0.5 1 1.33 0.94 0.75 1.85 1 0.5 1.25 1 0.5 1.99 0.92 0.28 0.44 1.11 0.9 0.5 0.44 0.69 0.44 0.96 0.13 0.26 3.82 0.26 3.19 0.59 0.59 0.33 1.63 0.44 0.22 0.11 0.11 1.33 0.5 0.33 0.53 1.83 0.81 0.31 0.48 1.61 0.13 4.62

230

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.54 1.35 1.67 1.02 1.38 1.35 1.08 1.38 1.67 0.88 1.04 0.75 0.86 0.60 0.86 0.86 1.37 0.79 0.98 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.59 1.13 0.82 0.85 0.69 0.92 1.09 0.85 0.79 0.82 0.61 0.83 0.83 1.20 0.93 0.86 0.63 0.93 0.93 1.15 1.56 1.20 1.13 0.96 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.89 0.92 0.62

Depth from Exterior 0 4 5 3 4 3 3 4 5 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2

Table 31: The House of Octavius Quartio Room

Mean Depth

Ext A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

3.26 5.23 3.17 2.91 2.91 3.66 3.63 3.8 3.66 4.06 3.09 4.06 4.06 4.03 4.06 4 4.8 5.46 5.34 6.31 6.31 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.46 5.14 3.6 6.03 4.51 5.4 5.14 4.29 4.37 3.97 4.49 3.86

Relative Asymmetry 0.136 0.256 0.131 0.115 0.115 0.161 0.159 0.169 0.161 0.185 0.126 0.185 0.185 0.183 0.185 0.181 0.230 0.270 0.263 0.321 0.321 0.270 0.270 0.270 0.270 0.250 0.157 0.304 0.212 0.266 0.250 0.199 0.204 0.18 0.211 0.173

Control Value 3.33 0.58 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.89 0.47 0.39 0.09 7.25 0.09 0.09 0.59 0.09 1.09 0.5 0.14 2.14 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 2.33 1.12 0.25 0.45 0.2 0.45 2.5 1 1.47 6.25 0.59

231

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.840 1.572 0.806 0.710 0.710 0.989 0.977 1.041 0.989 1.137 0.777 1.137 1.137 1.126 1.137 1.115 1.412 1.658 1.613 1.974 1.974 1.658 1.658 1.658 1.658 1.539 0.966 1.870 1.305 1.635 1.539 1.223 1.253 1.104 1.297 1.063

Depth from Exterior 0 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 6 4 5 5 4 4 2 3 3

Table 32: The Villa of Lucius Caecilius Iucundus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 2 3 4

3.1 3.07 2.9 2.97 2.97 2.8 2 2.97 3.6 3.77 3.47 3.6 2.87 4.37 3.47 2.93 2.67 2.8 3.03 3.87 4.67 2.93 3.87 3.93 2.9 3.7 3.87 2.13 3.03 3.03

Relative Asymmetry 0.15 0.147 0.135 0.140 0.140 0.128 0.071 0.140 0.185 0.197 0.176 0.185 0.133 0.240 0.176 0.137 0.119 0.128 0.145 0.205 0.262 0.137 0.205 0.209 0.135 0.192 0.205 0.080 0.145 0.145

Control Value 0.58 1.11 1.11 0.11 0.11 1.36 5.52 0.11 0.33 0.33 2.5 0.33 0.11 0.5 1.33 0.36 1.05 1.11 0.11 0.33 0.5 0.11 0.33 0.5 2.11 0.33 0.5 6.44 0.11 0.11

232

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.842 0.830 0.762 0.790 0.790 0.722 0.401 0.790 1.043 1.111 0.991 1.043 0.750 1.352 0.991 0.774 0.670 0.722 0.814 1.151 1.472 0.774 1.151 1.175 0.762 1.083 1.151 0.453 0.814 0.814

Depth from Exterior 0 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 2 1 1 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 4 2 3 3

Table 33: The Villa of Popidius Florus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B D 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

3.47 3.23 2.47 2.9 2.87 3.83 3.83 3.47 3.1 4 3.9 3.93 2.73 2.97 3.7 3.7 4.07 4.07 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 3.07 2.23 3.13 3 3.33 2.67 4.2 3.03

Relative Asymmetry 0.1764 0.1592 0.105 0.1357 0.1335 0.2021 0.2021 0.1764 0.15 0.2142 0.2071 0.2092 0.1235 0.1407 0.1928 0.1928 0.2192 0.2192 0.2164 0.2164 0.2164 0.2164 0.2164 0.1478 0.0878 0.1521 0.1428 0.1664 0.1192 0.2285 0.145

Control Value 0.91 1 0.89 1.28 2.91 0.2 0.2 0.58 0.667 0.33 0.83 1 2.917 0.367 0.2 0.2 0.75 0.75 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 5.58 2.11 1.53 0.643 1.03 0.697 0.33 1.667

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.9747 0.8800 0.5801 0.7498 0.7379 1.1168 1.1168 0.9747 0.8287 1.1838 1.1444 1.1562 0.6827 0.7774 1.0655 1.0655 1.2115 1.2115 1.1957 1.1957 1.1957 1.1957 1.1957 0.8168 0.4853 0.8405 0.7892 0.9194 0.6590 1.2628 0.8011

Depth from Exterior 0 1 4 3 2 3 3 2 4 5 5 5 2 3 3 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 5 3 1 4 1 2 2 4

Table 34: The Villa at Boscoreale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A A’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

2.73 2.8 2.47 2 2.53 3.47 2.73 2.73 3.47 2.47 2.53 3.4 3.07 2.4 2.33 1.8

Relative Asymmetry 0.266 0.276 0.226 0.153 0.235 0.38 0.266 0.266 0.38 0.226 0.235 0.369 0.318 0.215 0.204 0.123

Control Value 1.16 0.99 1.16 1.7 0.58 1 0.75 0.75 1 0.53 1.7 0.33 0.66 1.03 0.86 1.74

233

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.060 1.103 0.901 0.612 0.937 1.513 1.060 1.060 1.513 0.901 0.937 1.471 1.268 0.858 0.815 0.490

Depth from Exterior 0 1 1 3 2 5 4 4 5 1 2 3 3 2 2 3

Table 35: The Villa of Fannius Synistor Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 B C D E F G H I L M N O

N/A 2.44 3.28 2.31 2.85 3.43 3.41 3.41 3.43 3.43 3.56 4.53 3.75 2.63 2.84 3.81 4.28 3.28 2.84 3.81 2.94 2.68 N/A 2.82 2.53 2.59 1.88 3.69 3.69 3.08 3.91 2.94 3.78 2.84 2.81

Relative Asymmetry N/A 0.092 0.147 0.085 0.119 0.157 0.155 0.155 0.157 0.157 0.165 0.227 0.177 0.105 0.119 0.181 0.212 0.147 0.119 0.181 0.125 0.108 N/A 0.12 0.099 0.103 0.057 0.173 0.173 0.134 0.188 0.125 0.179 0.119 0.117

Control Value 0.75 4.83 0.33 0.7 2.46 0.125 0.625 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.827 1.08 0.5 0.5 1.33 1.077 0.5 0.077 2.41 0.33 2.625 0.78 0.28 6.57 0.25 0.25 1.33 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.41 0.58

Real Relative Asymmetry N/A 0.575 0.918 0.531 0.743 0.981 0.968 0.968 0.981 0.981 1.031 1.418 1.106 0.656 0.743 1.131 1.325 0.918 0.743 1.131 0.781 0.675 N/A 0.75 0.618 0.643 0.356 1.081 1.081 0.837 1.175 0.781 1.118 0.743 0.731

Depth from Exterior 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 2 4 4 5 6 5 4 5 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4

Table 36: The Villa of Poppaea Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.69 4.75 7.54 7.54 7.54 6.79 4.62 3.88 4.35 6.58 5.60 4.77 5.88

Relative Asymmetry 0.147 0.15 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.231 0.144 0.115 0.134 0.223 0.184 0.150 0.195

Control Value 0.25 1 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.49 0.75 1.66 0.5 0.5 1.33 0.45 0.2 234

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.23 1.25 2.18 2.18 2.18 1.93 1.206 0.96 1.116 1.86 1.533 1.256 1.626

Depth from Exterior 0 5 6 6 6 5 4 3 2 6 5 3 3

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 57 58

5.52 4.90 5.69 5.54 4.54 4.40 3.52 4 5.10 3.88 3.77 5.17 3.96 3.88 3.88 4.38 3.38 5.60 4.62 4.60 5.60 5.60 3.94 4.44 5.06 4.04 4.54 3.73 4.38 5.33 5.17 5.31 4.42 4.33 4.37 5.04 5.04 5.06 5.04 5.04

0.180 0.156 0.187 0.181 0.141 0.136 0.100 0.12 0.164 0.115 0.110 0.166 0.118 0.115 0.115 0.135 0.095 0.184 0.144 0.144 0.184 0.184 0.117 0.137 0.162 0.121 0.141 0.109 0.135 0.173 0.166 0.172 0.136 0.133 0.134 0.161 0.161 0.162 0.161 0.161

0.83 0.33 0.83 0.5 0.83 2.58 1.91 0.92 1.2 1.95 0.67 0.33 1.58 1.4 1.42 1.17 2.7 0.25 0.64 3.2 0.25 0.25 1.08 0.4 0.17 0.37 1.25 0.94 1.17 1 0.63 0.13 0.72 2.03 3.03 0.77 0.83 0.52 0.77 0.77

1.506 1.3 1.563 1.513 1.18 1.133 0.84 1 1.366 0.96 0.923 1.39 0.986 0.96 0.96 1.126 0.793 1.533 1.206 1.2 1.533 1.533 0.98 1.146 1.353 1.013 1.18 0.91 1.126 1.443 1.39 1.436 1.14 1.11 1.123 1.346 1.346 1.353 1.346 1.346

3 6 4 6 3 2 3 4 3 1 3 5 4 5 3 5 4 7 6 6 7 7 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 6 7 7 6 6 6 7 5 7 7 7

Table 37: The Villa of Agrippa Postumus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2.45 2.71 3.42 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68

Relative Asymmetry 0.1 0.117 0.166 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.184

Control Value 1.44 11.03 3.25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 235

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.575 0.672 0.954 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.058

Depth from Exterior 0 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

3.68 4.32 3.35 3 3.13 4.03 3.13 3.03 3.26 2.97 4.39 5 2.45 4.84 4.39 4.39 4.06 3.42 4.39 4.06

0.184 0.228 0.162 0.137 0.146 0.208 0.146 0.14 0.155 0.135 0.233 0.275 0.1 0.264 0.233 0.233 0.211 0.166 0.233 0.211

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H I J

3.0 1.9 2.4 2.9 2.5 2 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.3 4

0.08 0.33 1.53 0.61 0.28 1.33 0.95 1.23 0.45 0.34 0.14 0.5 1.78 0.2 0.14 0.14 0.34 5.5 0.14 0.34

1.058 1.310 0.931 0.787 0.839 1.195 0.839 0.805 0.891 0.776 1.339 1.580 0.575 1.517 1.339 1.339 1.213 0.954 1.339 1.213

2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

Table 38: The Villa of M. Livius Marcellus Relative Asymmetry 0.5 0.225 0.35 0.475 0.375 0.25 0.6 0.6 0.475 0.575 0.75

Control Value 1.66 0.91 1.66 0.25 2.25 2.66 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.33

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.694 0.762 1.186 1.610 1.271 0.847 2.033 2.033 1.610 1.949 2.542

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 4 4 3 5 5 4 2 1

Table 39: Villa 30 at Boscoreale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G

1.87 1.87 1.87 1.71 1.71 1.87 1 1.87

Relative Asymmetry 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.284 0.284 0.348 0 0.348

Control Value 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.64 0.64 0.14 6 0.14

236

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.060 1.060 1.060 0.865 0.865 1.060 0 1.060

Depth from Exterior 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

Table 40: Villa 31 at Boscoreale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A A’ B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4.1 3.25 3.25 1.35 2.1 2.85 2.55 2.35 2.4 2.9 3.8 3.1 3.65 3.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.45 4.4 2.8 3.35

Relative Asymmetry 0.344 0.25 0.25 0.038 0.122 0.205 0.172 0.15 0.155 0.211 0.311 0.233 0.294 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.272 0.377 0.2 0.261

Control Value 1 1 1 5.42 3.46 1.67 0.63 2.13 0.3 0.67 0.33 0.17 0.83 1 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.5 0.5 0.13 0.25

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.565 1.136 1.136 0.176 0.555 0.934 0.782 0.681 0.707 0.959 1.414 1.060 1.338 1.363 0.909 0.909 0.909 1.237 1.717 0.909 1.186

Depth from Exterior 0 1 1 3 4 5 4 2 4 5 6 5 6 6 4 4 4 5 6 4 3

Table 41: Villa 32 at Boscoreale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A A’ B C D E G H J 2 3 4 7 8 11 12 13

2.06 2.53 2.71 2.06 2.24 3.18 2.06 3.18 3 2.47 3.18 2.35 3 3 2.65 3.59 3.59 3.18

Relative Asymmetry 0.141 0.204 0.228 0.141 0.165 0.290 0.141 0.290 0.266 0.196 0.290 0.18 0.266 0.266 0.22 0.345 0.345 0.290

Control Value 3.17 0.45 0.4 1.92 3.17 0.2 3.65 0.2 0.25 0.42 0.2 0.37 0.17 0.17 2.75 0.25 0.25 0.2

237

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.596 0.860 0.962 0.596 0.697 1.226 0.596 1.226 1.125 0.827 1.226 0.759 1.125 1.125 0.928 1.457 1.457 1.226

Depth from Exterior 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 1

Table 42: The Villa at Pompeii Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

2.59 4.18 3.45 3.23 5.18 3.18 3.45 3.45 3.64 2.32 3.95 3.41 2.77 3.09 2.59 3 2.95 3 3.36 3.82 4.82 3.77 5.77

Relative Asymmetry 0.16 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.42 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.13 0.30 0.24 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.2 0.19 0.2 0.23 0.28 0.38 0.27 0.47

Control Value 2 0.33 0.13 0.63 0.5 1.13 0.13 0.13 0.25 4.92 1 0.67 2.04 0.3 1.71 1.91 0.83 0.73 1.3 0.25 0.33 2.25 0.33

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.76 1.52 1.17 1.07 2 1.04 1.17 1.17 1.26 0.63 1.41 1.15 0.85 1 0.76 0.96 0.93 0.96 1.12 1.35 1.83 1.33 2.28

Depth from Exterior 0 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 4 3 4

Table 43: The Villa of Arellius Successus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J K L M N

2.23 3.92 2.23 3 3.15 3.15 1.92 2.85 2.85 2.85 3.62 3.62 2.69 3.62

Relative Asymmetry 0.223 0.530 0.223 0.363 0.390 0.390 0.167 0.336 0.336 0.336 0.476 0.476 0.307 0.476

Control Value 0.45 0.5 2.7 1.25 0.25 0.25 3.75 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 3.5 0.25

238

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.837 1.988 0.837 1.361 1.464 1.464 0.626 1.259 1.259 1.259 1.784 1.784 1.150 1.784

Depth from Exterior 0 4 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2

Table 44: The Villa Regina Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D I II IV V VII VIII IX X XII XIII XVI XVII

3.13 2.38 3.19 2.31 3.06 1.81 2.75 2.75 3.25 2.38 3.81 2.63 2.31 3.38 3.56 4.06 4.75

Relative Asymmetry 0.304 0.197 0.312 0.187 0.294 0.115 0.25 0.25 0.321 0.197 0.401 0.232 0.187 0.34 0.365 0.437 0.535

Control Value 0.25 1.64 1.33 2.47 1 3.91 0.14 0.14 0.33 0.64 1.5 1.14 0.72 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.247 0.807 1.282 0.766 1.206 0.474 1.024 1.024 1.317 0.807 1.645 0.954 0.766 1.393 1.498 1.791 2.195

Depth from Exterior 0 3 4 1 4 1 3 3 3 3 5 3 2 2 4 5 6

Table 45: The Villa at Scafati Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T f g 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 11

2.71 2.32 3.11 2.79 3.14 3.54 2.71 2.04 4.57 2.71 3.68 3.68 3.21 3.14 4 3.71 3.36 3.11 4.07 4.57 3.61 3 3 3.68 3 4.43 5.39 3.68 4.18

Relative Asymmetry 0.131 0.101 0.162 0.137 0.164 0.195 0.131 0.08 0.274 0.131 0.206 0.206 0.17 0.164 0.230 0.208 0.181 0.162 0.236 0.274 0.200 0.153 0.153 0.206 0.153 0.263 0.337 0.206 0.244

Control Value 1.13 2.21 2.17 0.46 0.5 0.83 1.63 3.58 0.33 3.13 0.25 0.25 1.17 0.42 0.25 0.38 0.66 1.67 0.33 0.33 2.5 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.13 1.5 0.5 0.25 0.5

239

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.714 0.551 0.882 0.748 0.894 1.061 0.714 0.434 1.492 0.714 1.120 1.120 0.923 0.894 1.254 1.132 0.986 0.882 1.283 1.492 1.091 0.836 0.836 1.120 0.836 1.433 1.835 1.120 1.329

Depth from Exterior 0 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 3 2 5 4 3 4

Table 46: The Villa of Asellius Room

Mean Depth

Ext A A’ B C P1 P2 P3 P4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.2 2.63 2.69 3.31 3.49 2.17 2.86 2.63 3.37 4.29 4.29 4.29 3.09 4.29 4.29 3.09 2.86 4.74 3.77 3.83 3.43 4.46 4.46 4.46 3.6 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.6 3.6 4.46 3.49 3.6 4.46 3.6 3.6

Relative Asymmetry 0.133 0.098 0.102 0.14 0.150 0.070 0.112 0.098 0.143 0.199 0.199 0.199 0.126 0.199 0.199 0.126 0.112 0.226 0.167 0.171 0.147 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.157 0.171 0.171 0.171 0.157 0.157 0.209 0.150 0.157 0.209 0.157 0.157

Control Value 0.7 1.81 2.39 5.25 3.2 3.04 3.64 4.97 0.34 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.14 2.14 0.5 1.25 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.14 0.33 2.14 0.14 0.33 0.14 0.14

240

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.817 0.606 0.628 0.858 0.925 0.435 0.691 0.606 0.881 1.223 1.223 1.223 0.777 1.223 1.223 0.777 0.691 1.390 1.029 1.052 0.903 1.286 1.286 1.286 0.966 1.052 1.052 1.052 0.966 0.966 1.286 0.925 0.966 1.286 0.966 0.966

Depth from Exterior 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 5 4 4

Table 47: Villa 38 at Boscoreale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C d f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

3.6 2.5 1.9 3.75 2.9 2.7 3.45 2.9 2.9 2.9 3 3 2.7 3.65 3.65 2.75 3.65 4.5 4.7 3.55 2.05

Relative Asymmetry 0.288 0.166 0.1 0.305 0.211 0.188 0.272 0.211 0.211 0.211 0.222 0.222 0.188 0.294 0.294 0.194 0.294 0.388 0.411 0.283 0.116

Control Value 0.83 1.61 6.53 1.5 0.11 0.61 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.1 0.2 3.2 0.25 0.25 0.61 0.25 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.69

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.313 0.757 0.454 1.388 0.959 0.858 1.237 0.959 0.959 0.959 1.010 1.010 0.858 1.338 1.338 0.883 1.338 1.767 1.868 1.287 0.530

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 5 2 4 3

Table 48: Villa 39 at Boscoreale Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F H K M N O P Q S T V 1 2 3 4 5 6

3.36 4.14 3.27 3.59 4.05 3.55 3.27 3.36 2.95 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.41 3.18 4.05 5 2.68 2.45 2.45 2.68 3.77 3.41

Relative Asymmetry 0.236 0.314 0.227 0.259 0.305 0.255 0.227 0.236 0.195 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.241 0.218 0.305 0.4 0.168 0.145 0.145 0.168 0.277 0.241

Control Value 0.91 0.33 0.91 1.16 1.66 4.5 0.53 0.58 0.45 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 1.2 1.33 0.5 1.33 1.95 2.33 1.78 0.25 0.2

241

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.129 1.502 1.086 1.239 1.459 1.220 1.086 1.129 0.933 1.674 1.674 1.674 1.674 1.153 1.042 1.459 1.913 0.803 0.693 0.693 0.803 1.325 1.153

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 2 1 5 3 3 4 6 6 6 6 4 3 4 5 2 3 2 1 2 3

Table 49: The Villa of Domitius Auctus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H I L M N P Q R

2.87 1.73 2.53 2.67 2.93 2.8 2.67 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.47 2.53 2.27 2.13

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2.53 1.71 3.06 2.29 2.65 2.24 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.94 2.65 2.59 4.76 3 3.47 2.65 2.53 2.65

Relative Asymmetry 0.287 0.112 0.235 0.256 0.296 0.276 0.256 0.4 0.4 0.338 0.338 0.338 0.38 0.235 0.195 0.173

Control Value 0.17 3.5 0.67 0.17 0.5 0.75 2.5 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.17 3.17 2

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.146 0.447 0.937 1.023 1.182 1.103 1.023 1.593 1.593 1.348 1.348 1.348 1.513 0.937 0.778 0.692

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 2

Table 50: The Villa of Crapolla Relative Asymmetry 0.204 0.094 0.274 0.172 0.22 0.165 0.282 0.282 0.282 0.392 0.22 0.212 0.501 0.266 0.329 0.22 0.204 0.22

Control Value 1 6.25 1.5 0.61 0.11 2.61 0.25 0.25 1.25 0.5 0.11 0.61 0.5 1 0.5 0.11 1.11 0.11

242

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.860 0.399 1.158 0.725 0.928 0.697 1.192 1.192 1.192 1.654 0.928 0.894 2.115 1.125 1.389 0.928 0.860 0.928

Depth from Exterior 0 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 4 4 3 2 2 2

Table 51: The Villa of Cassius Tertius Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

2.29 1.74 3.29 3.29 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 3.65 2.65 2.71 2.71 2 2.97 2.71 3.59 3.29 3.29 2.65 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.59 2.91 3.29 3.18 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29

Relative Asymmetry 0.080 0.046 0.143 0.143 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.165 0.103 0.106 0.106 0.062 0.123 0.106 0.161 0.143 0.143 0.103 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.099 0.119 0.143 0.136 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143

Control Value 10.33 16.83 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.5 1.05 0.05 0.05 1.14 0.33 0.05 0.5 0.09 0.09 1.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.55 1 0.09 0.59 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

243

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.485 0.278 0.862 0.862 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.997 0.621 0.643 0.643 0.376 0.741 0.643 0.975 0.862 0.862 0.621 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.643 0.598 0.719 0.862 0.820 0.862 0.862 0.862 0.862

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 52: The Villa of the Papyri Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

3.14 3.34 3.10 4.24 3.17 5.21 3.83 3.93 4.34 3.34 3.55 4.07 3.97 3.38 4.14 4.03 4.03 4 2.93 3.69 3.76 3.03 3.69 4.62 3.97 3 3.24 3.24 3.76 2.76

Relative Asymmetry 0.158 0.173 0.155 0.24 0.160 0.311 0.209 0.217 0.247 0.173 0.188 0.227 0.22 0.176 0.232 0.224 0.224 0.222 0.142 0.199 0.204 0.150 0.199 0.268 0.22 0.148 0.165 0.165 0.204 0.130

Control Value 0.14 0.64 4.5 1.2 0.34 0.5 3 0.75 0.7 0.7 2.5 0.7 0.4 3.03 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.39 1.14 0.5 0.14 1.2 0.5 0.2 2.2 0.53 1.03 1.03 0.47

244

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.875 0.957 0.859 1.325 0.888 1.722 1.158 1.199 1.366 0.957 1.043 1.256 1.215 0.974 1.285 1.240 1.240 1.227 0.789 1.100 1.129 0.830 1.100 1.481 1.215 0.818 0.916 0.916 1.129 0.720

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 4 2 5 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 5 4 3 4 3 2 2

Table 53: The Villa Sora Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3.7 3.2 4.15 2.35 3.2 3.2 3.35 2.75 2.25 3.15 3.6 2.2 3.55 2.1 3.9 3.9 3.2 2.75 2.7 3.05 2.65

Relative Asymmetry 0.3 0.244 0.35 0.15 0.244 0.244 0.261 0.194 0.138 0.238 0.288 0.133 0.283 0.122 0.322 0.322 0.244 0.194 0.188 0.227 0.183

Control Value 0.33 1.53 0.33 2.58 0.53 1.53 0.2 1.7 2.33 0.2 0.25 1.23 0.33 1.58 0.83 0.83 1.08 2.03 0.5 1.16 0.4

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.363 1.111 1.590 0.681 1.111 1.111 1.186 0.883 0.631 1.085 1.313 0.606 1.287 0.555 1.464 1.464 1.111 0.883 0.858 1.035 0.833

Depth from Exterior 0 4 5 3 2 4 4 1 2 3 4 3 5 4 6 5 4 3 4 5 3

Table 54: The House of Aristides Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

3 2.05 2 4 3.05 3.8 3.05 3.05 3.35 1.8 3.45 2.95 2.05 2.55 2.85 3.6 2.5 2.3 3.35 4.3 3.4

Relative Asymmetry 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.22 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.08 0.27 0.21 0.11 0.17 0.20 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.26 0.36 0.26

Control Value 0.2 1.9 2.3 0.33 1.7 0.66 0.95 0.95 0.58 1.44 0.25 0.58 1.48 1.2 0.7 1 1.15 1.11 1.25 0.5 0.83

245

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.01 0.53 0.50 1.51 1.03 1.41 1.03 1.03 1.18 0.40 1.23 0.98 0.53 0.78 0.93 1.31 0.75 0.65 1.18 1.66 1.21

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 4 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4

Table 55: The House of Argo Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4.74 4 2.33 2.70 3.26 1.89 3.22 3.22 2.96 5.22 3.07 3.11 3.04 3.96 3.96 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.33 3.33 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.37 4.15 4.22 6 5.04

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P Q 1 2

7.05 3.47 3.17 3.80 4.55 4.38 4.58 4.03 3.83 4.47 5.42 4.2 5.32 4.95 4.36 6.27 6.17 7.05 7

Relative Asymmetry 0.29 0.24 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.33 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.32

Control Value 0.33 2.33 3.3 3.53 0.2 6.78 0.1 0.1 1.43 0.33 0.43 0.35 1.6 0.75 0.75 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.03 1.33 0.66 0.5 1.33

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.59 1.27 0.56 0.72 0.96 0.37 0.94 0.94 0.83 1.79 0.88 0.89 0.86 1.25 1.25 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.99 0.99 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.34 1.37 2.12 1.71

Depth from Exterior 0 1 4 5 5 3 3 4 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 9 8

Table 56: The House of the Albergo Relative Asymmetry 0.18 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.1 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18

Control Value 0.25 0.95 5.16 2.41 0.86 4.03 0.61 0.42 0.2 1.2 1.33 1.08 0.66 1 0.83 0.31 4 0.25 0.75 246

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.70 0.69 0.61 0.78 0.99 0.95 1.01 0.85 0.79 0.97 1.24 0.90 1.21 1.11 0.94 1.48 1.45 1.70 1.68

Depth from Exterior 0 6 5 7 8 7 7 6 6 8 9 6 7 9 3 8 8 2 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

6.11 6.11 5.18 5.20 6.18 3.59 5.30 5.30 4.59 4.3 7.18 6.14 6.36 5.18 4.14 5.03 4.03 4.73 5.74 4.79 3.98 3.83 3.83 4.24 5.68 6.45 6.45 5.35 6.44 4 5.08 5.65 4.70 7.35 6.36 6.36 7.35 4.18 5.08 4.18 4.56 5.55 5.35 6.33 6.97 6.23 6.23 6.23

0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16

2.83 0.75 0.83 2.16 0.25 1.67 0.25 0.25 0.25 2.58 0.33 2 0.83 0.33 1.75 0.83 1.58 0.33 0.5 0.2 0.59 0.2 0.2 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.33 0.5 1.09 0.5 1.33 1.7 0.5 1.33 1.33 0.5 0.92 0.66 0.92 1.61 0.33 1.09 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2

247

1.43 1.43 1.17 1.18 1.45 0.72 1.21 1.21 1.01 0.92 1.73 1.447 1.50 1.17 0.88 1.13 0.85 1.05 1.33 1.06 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.91 1.31 1.53 1.53 1.22 1.53 0.84 1.14 1.30 1.04 1.78 1.50 1.50 1.78 0.89 1.14 0.89 1.00 1.28 1.22 1.50 1.68 1.47 1.47 1.47

1 3 2 3 4 4 6 6 5 5 9 8 9 8 7 8 7 8 9 8 6 6 6 6 9 10 10 9 10 6 7 9 8 11 10 10 11 6 7 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9

Table 57: The House of the Mosaic Atrium Room

Mean Depth

Ext A P 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

4.16 2.48 1.92 4.16 3.2 4.16 3.16 2.72 2.72 3.68 2.88 2.84 2.36 2.16 2.52 2.56 2.72 2.84 2.76 3.4 2.88 3.4 2.52 3.4 3.44 3.44

Relative Asymmetry 0.27 0.12 0.08 0.27 0.19 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.20 0.21 0.21

Control Value 0.25 0.85 4.94 0.25 1.33 0.58 0.66 0.93 1.43 0.33 0.1 0.6 1.05 0.96 0.35 1.31 0.36 0.6 1.06 0.36 0.1 0.36 3.53 1.11 0.44 0.44

248

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.40 0.65 0.40 1.40 0.97 1.40 0.95 0.76 0.76 1.18 0.83 0.81 0.60 0.51 0.67 0.69 0.76 0.81 0.78 1.06 0.83 1.06 0.67 1.06 1.08 1.08

Depth from Exterior 0 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 6 4 6 5 6 6 6

Table 58: The House of the Stags Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F G H P L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5.51 3.31 4.34 3.54 3.03 2.74 3.6 3.43 3.26 2.86 5.89 5.49 3.74 5.57 3.86 3.74 4.54 4.69 4.2 4.23 5.11 4.29 4.23 4.23 4.23 3.51 3.51 3.51 4.57 4.57 4.51 3.66 5.49 4.57 5.31 5.31

Relative Asymmetry 0.273 0.14 0.202 0.153 0.123 0.105 0.157 0.147 0.136 0.112 0.296 0.272 0.166 0.276 0.173 0.166 0.214 0.223 0.193 0.195 0.249 0.199 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.152 0.152 0.152 0.216 0.216 0.212 0.161 0.272 0.216 0.261 0.261

Control Value 0.33 2.53 3.25 0.78 1.44 2.07 0.65 0.28 3.28 2.4 1.83 0.25 0.78 0.33 1.7 0.2 1.83 0.66 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.36 0.36 1.36 4.03 0.33 0.36 0.25 0.25

249

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.676 0.858 1.241 0.944 0.754 0.646 0.966 0.903 0.840 0.691 1.818 1.669 1.018 1.699 1.063 1.018 1.316 1.372 1.189 1.200 1.528 1.223 1.200 1.200 1.200 0.933 0.933 0.933 1.327 1.327 1.305 0.989 1.669 1.327 1.602 1.602

Depth from Exterior 0 5 4 3 3 4 4 6 6 5 9 5 2 4 3 5 1 2 6 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 8 8 8 7 9 8 5 5

Table 59: The House of the Gem Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E G H L P T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3.773 1.864 2.818 2.5 1.955 2.909 3.318 2.364 3.318 2.955 2.773 2.455 2.455 2.455 2.455 2.773 2.909 3.227 3.636 2.955 3.909 3.455 3.455

Relative Asymmetry 0.264 0.082 0.173 0.143 0.091 0.182 0.221 0.13 0.221 0.186 0.169 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.169 0.182 0.212 0.251 0.186 0.277 0.234 0.234

Control Value 0.5 5.45 1.125 2.533 2.375 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.7 0.917 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.625 0.917 1.667 0.333 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.2

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.264 0.394 0.828 0.684 0.435 0.87 1.056 0.622 1.056 0.891 0.808 0.663 0.663 0.663 0.663 0.808 0.87 1.015 1.201 0.891 1.326 1.119 1.119

Depth from Exterior 0 2 1 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 6 4 5 5 5

Table 60: The House of the Relief of Telphus Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

5.21 4.24 4.79 4.24 5.39 6.73 5.97 4.79 5.39 5.27 5.39 5.39 4.30 4.49 5.03 5.82 5.58 6.85 8.45 6.85 6.73 6.06 6.21 7.73 7.73

Relative Asymmetry 0.27 0.209 0.244 0.209 0.283 0.369 0.320 0.244 0.283 0.275 0.283 0.283 0.212 0.225 0.26 0.310 0.295 0.377 0.480 0.377 0.369 0.326 0.336 0.434 0.434

Control Value 0.66 3.83 2.66 1.5 0.9 3.03 1.69 1.2 0.2 0.66 0.2 0.2 0.53 0.53 0.66 2.5 0.7 0.33 0.73 0.33 0.33 0.73 0.53 0.2 0.2 250

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.616 1.244 1.455 1.244 1.685 2.200 1.908 1.455 1.685 1.639 1.685 1.685 1.267 1.340 1.547 1.850 1.758 2.246 2.860 2.246 2.200 1.943 2.000 2.584 2.584

Depth from Exterior 0 2 6 4 7 8 8 1 3 2 3 3 3 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 2 9 8 9 9

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

5.76 6.73 7.15 8.91 7.91 8.85 9.82 5.76 6.85

0.307 0.369 0.396 0.510 0.445 0.506 0.569 0.307 0.377

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C E F G H J N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

6.35 6.63 5.75 4.86 4.47 4.54 4.78 7.01 8.13 7.11 7.29 5.89 6.48 5.41 6.48 6.48 5.49 6.23 7.98 7.98 8.96 7.98 7.97 7.97 8.96 7.98 8.13 5.41 5.41 5.40 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.10 4.11 4.90 3.90 4.89 4.89 4.89

2 0.83 1 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.7

1.827 2.200 2.361 3.037 2.653 3.014 3.387 1.827 2.246

1 2 3 5 4 5 6 7 8

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.350 1.421 1.199 0.974 0.876 0.893 0.954 1.517 1.800 1.542 1.588 1.234 1.383 1.113 1.383 1.383 1.133 1.320 1.762 1.762 2.009 1.762 1.759 1.759 2.009 1.762 1.800 1.113 1.113 1.110 1.113 1.113 1.113 1.113 1.113 1.113 1.035 0.785 0.984 0.732 0.982 0.982 0.982

Depth from Exterior 0 10 9 7 6 5 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 6 6 6

Table 61: The Villa San Marco Relative Asymmetry 0.120 0.126 0.106 0.086 0.077 0.079 0.084 0.135 0.160 0.137 0.141 0.109 0.123 0.099 0.123 0.123 0.100 0.117 0.156 0.156 0.178 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.178 0.156 0.160 0.099 0.099 0.098 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.092 0.069 0.087 0.065 0.087 0.087 0.087

Control Value 0.64 1 0.83 3.8 0.53 1.2 9.7 5.66 0.33 0.61 2.5 0.47 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.14 5.5 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 2.11 2.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.2 2.05 0.53 5.73 0.13 0.13 0.13 251

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59a 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

4.89 4.89 3.95 4.16 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.04 4.22 4.30 5.14 7.22 6.24 5.34 6.19 5.25 6.09 6.96 7.98 7.68 7.42 5.40 5.09 5.84 4.95 4.63 4.85 5.81 5.81 6.80 6.80 5.81 6.80 4.23 5.40 4.93 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.65 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.97 5.49 5.34 5.62

0.087 0.087 0.066 0.071 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.090 0.072 0.074 0.093 0.139 0.117 0.097 0.116 0.095 0.114 0.133 0.156 0.150 0.144 0.098 0.091 0.108 0.088 0.081 0.086 0.108 0.108 0.130 0.130 0.108 0.130 0.072 0.098 0.088 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.104 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.100 0.097 0.103

0.13 0.13 1.24 0.47 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 1.45 5.95 0.11 0.33 2 0.47 0.66 1.14 0.66 2 0.11 0.33 0.83 0.14 1.67 0.33 0.23 2.81 2.14 1.17 1.17 0.5 0.5 1.17 0.5 0.17 0.14 11.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.58 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.64 0.22 0.14

252

0.982 0.982 0.744 0.797 1.103 1.103 1.103 1.103 1.020 0.813 0.833 1.045 1.570 1.323 1.095 1.310 1.073 1.285 1.504 1.762 1.686 1.621 1.110 1.032 1.222 0.997 0.916 0.972 1.214 1.214 1.464 1.464 1.214 1.464 0.815 1.110 0.992 1.254 1.254 1.254 1.254 1.174 1.254 1.254 1.254 1.254 1.133 1.095 1.166

6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 10 9 8 9 8 9 10 3 11 11 8 8 9 2 8 8 9 9 10 10 9 10 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Table 62: The Villa Arianna Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

4.59 5.75 5.66 6.59 5.25 7.32 5.83 4.85 5.18 4.32 5.03 7.48 5.24 4.76 5.69 4.96 5.99 5.75 5.99 5.66 7.39 8.54 4.90 4.06 5.61 6.65 6.65 4.31 6.65 4.27 7.56 6.65 5.30 6.65 4.24 4.65 4.89 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.87 5.31 5.31 5.31 5.31 6.06 5.89 4.66 4.77 4.92 4.85 5.82

Relative Asymmetry 0.104 0.137 0.135 0.162 0.123 0.183 0.14 0.111 0.121 0.096 0.116 0.187 0.122 0.108 0.135 0.114 0.144 0.137 0.144 0.135 0.185 0.218 0.113 0.088 0.133 0.163 0.163 0.095 0.163 0.094 0.190 0.163 0.124 0.163 0.093 0.105 0.112 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.146 0.141 0.106 0.109 0.113 0.111 0.139

Control Value 0.53 0.11 0.61 1 1.6 0.83 0.33 1.51 0.14 2.94 0.42 0.5 1.5 4.31 0.61 3.08 0.17 0.11 0.17 0.44 1.5 0.5 0.97 1.5 5.11 0.17 0.17 7.16 0.17 0.43 0.83 0.17 0.1 0.17 0.47 0.19 8.36 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.53 0.33 0.43 1.1 0.66 1.83 0.33 253

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.991 1.311 1.286 1.543 1.173 1.744 1.333 1.062 1.153 0.916 1.112 1.788 1.170 1.037 1.294 1.093 1.377 1.311 1.377 1.286 1.763 2.081 1.076 0.844 1.272 1.559 1.559 0.913 1.559 0.902 1.810 1.559 1.187 1.559 0.894 1.007 1.073 1.344 1.344 1.344 1.344 1.344 1.344 1.344 1.189 1.189 1.189 1.189 1.396 1.349 1.010 1.040 1.082 1.062 1.330

Depth from Exterior 0 5 5 6 4 7 5 4 4 3 4 6 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 7 8 6 1 5 6 6 3 6 2 7 6 4 6 2 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 6

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

4.73 5.37 6.35 5.23 4.62 4.49 4.59 5.04 5.62 5.82 5.63 5.38 6.59 5.63 6.72 5.70 7.31

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4.23 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 2.14 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.30 3.84 4.86 3.60 4.44 2.53 2.67 5.33

0.108 0.126 0.155 0.122 0.104 0.101 0.104 0.117 0.133 0.139 0.134 0.126 0.162 0.134 0.165 0.136 0.182

1.75 1.59 0.33 0.66 0.9 2.49 0.86 0.86 1.53 0.99 0.2 1.53 0.33 0.53 1.33 1.09 0.5

1.029 1.206 1.476 1.167 0.999 0.963 0.991 1.115 1.275 1.330 1.278 1.209 1.543 1.278 1.579 1.297 1.741

3 4 5 3 2 1 2 3 4 3 2 2 5 4 6 5 7

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.106 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.390 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.702 0.787 0.972 1.321 0.890 1.178 0.523 0.571 1.482

Depth from Exterior 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 1 1 5 3 5 3

Table 63: The Villa Pastore Relative Asymmetry 0.161 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.057 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.115 0.142 0.193 0.13 0.172 0.076 0.083 0.216

Control Value 2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 26.75 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1 0.83 2.16 2.33 1 1.54 0.54 1.33 254

10 19 24 26 29 31 33 39 50

3.49 5.23 4.37 5.86 4.28 6.33 3.07 4.60 3.49

Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

3.26 2.30 2.39 2.74 3.70 3.70 2.91 3.35 3.26 3.26 5.52 3.26 4.65 3.70 4.57 3 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 5 5.96 4.13

0.124 0.211 0.168 0.243 0.164 0.266 0.103 0.18 0.124

0.75 0.33 1.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.75

0.852 1.448 1.154 1.664 1.123 1.825 0.708 1.232 0.852

4 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.049 0.603 0.645 0.808 1.254 1.254 0.887 1.091 1.049 1.049 2.099 1.049 1.695 1.254 1.658 0.929 1.091 1.091 1.091 1.091 1.091 1.858 2.304 1.454

Depth from Exterior 0 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 6 2 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 4

Table 64: The Villa Filosofo Relative Asymmetry 0.215 0.123 0.132 0.165 0.257 0.257 0.181 0.223 0.215 0.215 0.430 0.215 0.347 0.257 0.34 0.190 0.223 0.223 0.223 0.223 0.223 0.380 0.472 0.298

Control Value 0.14 3.89 5.64 2.47 0.25 0.25 0.47 1.25 0.14 0.14 0.5 0.14 0.33 2 1.33 0.47 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.5 0.5 0.83

Table 65: The Villa Anteros and Heracleo Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2.2 2.6 1.6 3 2.1 3 2.1 2.1 1.7 3.3 2.4

Relative Asymmetry 0.3 0.4 0.15 0.5 0.275 0.5 0.275 0.275 0.175 0.575 0.35

Control Value 0.2 0.2 2.4 0.33 2.2 0.33 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.5 1.2

255

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.016 1.355 0.508 1.694 0.932 1.694 0.932 0.932 0.593 1.949 1.186

Depth from Exterior 0 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

Table 66: The Villa Petraro Room

Mean Depth

Ext A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

3.62 2.65 4.15 4.74 4.12 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.97 3.97 3.97 3 3.62 5.24 3.41 4.26 4.56 3.79 2.44 5.65 3.12 3.76 5.12 3.41 3.21 4.03 3.06 3.79 5.15 5.62 5.09 4.18 4.18 3 3.21

Relative Asymmetry 0.163 0.103 0.196 0.237 0.195 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.125 0.163 0.265 0.150 0.203 0.222 0.174 0.09 0.290 0.132 0.172 0.257 0.150 0.138 0.189 0.128 0.174 0.259 0.288 0.255 0.198 0.198 0.125 0.138

Control Value 0.14 3.8 2.16 2.33 1.33 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 3.97 0.92 0.25 0.13 0.83 1.25 0.5 4.05 0.33 0.63 1 2 0.13 2.46 0.33 1.46 1.66 0.33 0.33 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.88

256

Real Relative Asymmetry 0.986 0.621 1.185 1.408 1.174 0.963 0.963 0.963 1.118 1.118 1.118 0.753 0.986 1.596 0.907 1.227 1.340 1.050 0.542 1.750 0.798 1.039 1.551 0.907 0.832 1.140 0.775 1.050 1.562 1.739 1.539 1.197 1.197 0.753 0.832

Depth from Exterior 0 1 4 5 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 5 3 5 5 4 2 6 3 4 5 3 3 4 3 4 6 6 5 4 4 2 3

Table 67: The Villa Carmiano Room

Mean Depth

Ext 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

3.07 2 2.07 3.21 2.29 3.07 1.64 2.14 3 2.5 1.93 3 2.86 2.86 2.86

Relative Asymmetry 0.345 0.166 0.178 0.368 0.215 0.345 0.106 0.19 0.333 0.25 0.155 0.333 0.31 0.31 0.31

Control Value 0.25 0.37 3.7 0.2 0.4 0.25 1.62 2.7 0.2 0.42 4.2 0.2 0.17 0.17 0.17

257

Real Relative Asymmetry 1.332 0.643 0.688 1.422 0.830 1.332 0.411 0.733 1.287 0.965 0.598 1.287 1.196 1.196 1.196

Depth from Exterior 0 3 3 4 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 4 4 4 4

258

FIGURES Figure 1 Relief discovered at Avezzano illustrating the Roman suburbium (after Purcell 1996)

Figure 2 Plan of the Villa at Dragoncello (after Pellegrino 1983)

259

Figure 3 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Dragoncello

Figure 4 Plan of the Villa of Perseus (after Scinari and Ricardi 1996)

260

Figure 5 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Perseus

Figure 6 Plan of the Villa in Regio IV at Ostia (after Heinzelmann 1998)

261

Figure 7 Syntactical Map for the Villa in Regio IV at Ostia

Figure 8 Plan of the House of the Griffins (after De Albentiis 1990)

262

Figure 9 Plan of the Domus of C. Fulvius Plautianus (after Steinby 1995)

Figure 10 Plan of the House of Augustus (after Lanciani 1967)

263

Figure 11 Syntactical Map for the House of Augustus

Figure 12 Plan of the Domus Tiberiana (after Platner 1911)

264

Figure 13 Diagram showing the Elevation of the Domus Tiberiana

Figure 14 Syntactical Map for the Domus Tiberiana

265

Figure 15 Plan of the Domus Gaiana (after Hurst 1995)

Figure 16 Plan of the Domus Transitoria (after Hemsoll 1990)

266

Figure 17 Plan of the Domus Aurea (after Ward-Perkins 1956)

Figure 18 Plan of the Oppian Wing of the Domus Aurea (after Richardson 1992)

267

Figure 19 Plan of the Domus Flavia (after Lanciani 1967)

Figure 20 Syntactical Map for the Domus Flavia

268

Figure 21 Plan of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta (after Klynne 2005a)

Figure 22 The Statue of Augustus from Prima Porta

269

Figure 23 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta

Figure 24 Plan of the Villa of Domitian at Castel Albano (after Darwall-Smith 1994)

270

Figure 25 Plan of the Theatre at the Villa of Domitian (after Crescenzi 1981)

Figure 26 Plan of the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli (after MacDonald and Pinto)

271

Figure 27 Extra-urban Garden Excavation (after Bird et al. 1993)

Figure 28 Plan of the Villa of Horace at Licenza (after Frischer 2006)

272

Figure 29 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Horace

Figure 30 Plan of the Villa of Pliny at Palombara (after Ramieri 1995)

273

Figure 31 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Pliny at Palombara

Figure 32 Plan of the Villa dell’Auditorium (after Carandini et al. 1997)

274

Figure 33 Syntactical Map for the Villa dell’Auditorium

Figure 34 Plan of the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini (after Boatwright 1982)

275

Figure 35 Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Volusii Saturnini

Figure 36 Plan for the San Rocco Villa

276

Figure 37 Syntactical Map for the San Rocco Villa

Figure 38 Plan for the Posto Villa

277

Figure 39 Syntactical Map for the Posto Villa

Figure 40 Plan of the Villa Fontana del Piscaro (after Egidi 1981)

278

Figure 41 Syntactical Map for the Villa Fontana del Piscaro

Figure 42 Plan of the Villa A on the Via Gabina (after Widrig 1987)

279

Figure 43 Syntactical Map for Villa A on the Via Gabina

Figure 44 Plan of the Villa B on the Via Gabina – Phase 2B/C (after Widrig 1987)

280

Figure 45 Syntactical Map for Villa B on the Via Gabina

Figure 46 Plan of the Villa of the Quintili (after Paris 2000)

281

Figure 47 Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Quintili

Figure 48 Villa of Cicero (after Jashemski, 1979)

282

Figure 49 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Cicero

Figure 50 Villa of Mosaic Columns (after Jashemski, 1979)

283

Figure 51 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Mosaic Columns

Figure 52 Villa of Diomede (after Jashemski, 1979)

284

Figure 53 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Diomede

Figure 54 Villa of the Mysteries (Early Phase) (after Richardson, 1988a)

285

Figure 55 Villa of the Mysteries (Final Phase) (after Richardson, 1988a)

Figure 56 Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Mysteries (Early Phase)

286

Figure 57 Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Mysteries (Final Phase)

Figure 58 Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus (after Sogliano, 1899b)

287

Figure 59 Syntactical Map for the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus

Figure 60 Villa Imperiale (after Jashemski, 1979)

288

Figure 61 Syntactical Map for the Villa Imperiale

Figure 62 Insula Occidentalis (after Nappo, 1998)

289

Figure 63 Syntactical Map for the House of Fabius Rufus

Figure 64 Syntactical Map for House VI-17-42

290

Figure 65 Syntactical Map for the House of Umbricius Sciaurus

Figure 66 House of the Faun (after Mau, 1908)

291

Figure 67 Syntactical Map for the House of the Faun

Figure 68 Praedia of Julia Felix (after Van der Poel, 1986)

292

Figure 69 Syntactical Map for the Praedia of Julia Felix

Figure 70 House of Octavius Quartio (after Van der Poel, 1986)

293

Figure 71 Syntactical Map for the House of Octavius Quartio

Figure 72 Villa of Iucundus at Pisanella (after Mau, 1908)

294

Figure 73 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Iucundus at Pisanella

Figure 74 Villa of Popidius Florus (after Della Corte, 1921)

295

Figure 75 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Popidius Florus

Figure 76 Villa at Boscoreale (after Della Corte, 1921)

296

Figure 77 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (25)

Figure 78 Villa of Fannius Synistor (after Richardson, 1988a)

297

Figure 79 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Fannius Synistor

Figure 80 Villa of Poppaea (after Richardson, 1988a)

298

Figure 81 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Poppaea

Figure 82 Villa of Agrippa Postumus (after Blanckenhagen, 1990)

299

Figure 83 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Agrippa Postumus

Figure 84 Villa of M. Livius Marcellus (after Della Corte, 1929)

300

Figure 85 Syntactical Map for the Villa of M. Livius Marcellus

Figure 86 Villa at Boscoreale (after Della Corte, 1921)

301

Figure 87 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (30)

Figure 88 Villa at Boscoreale (31) (after Della Corte, 1921)

302

Figure 89 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (31)

Figure 90 Villa at Boscoreale (32) (after Della Corte, 1921)

303

Figure 91 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (32)

Figure 92 Villa outside Pompeii (after Paribeni, 1903)

304

Figure 93 Syntactical Map for the Villa outside Pompeii

Figure 94 Villa of L. Aurelius Successus (after Sogliano, 1899)

305

Figure 95 Syntactical Map for the Villa of L. Aurelius Successus

Figure 96 Villa Regina at Boscoreale (after Jasemski, 1979)

306

Figure 97 Syntactical Map for the Villa Regina at Boscoreale

Figure 98 Villa at Scafati (after Della Corte, 1923a)

307

Figure 99 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Scafati

Figure 100 Villa of Asellius (after Della Corte, 1921)

308

Figure 101 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Asellius

Figure 102 Villa at Boscoreale (after Sogliano, 1897b)

309

Figure 103 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (38)

Figure 104 Villa at Boscoreale (after Sogliano, 1898a)

310

Figure 105 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Boscoreale (39)

Figure 106 Villa of Domitius Auctus (after Sogliano, 1899d)

311

Figure 107 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Domitius Auctus

Figure 108 Villa of Crapolla at Scafati (after Della Corte, 1923)

312

Figure 109 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Crapolla

Figure 110 Villa of L. Crassius Tertius (after Morelli, 2000)

313

Figure 111 Syntactical Map for the Villa of L. Crassius Tertius

Figure 112 Villa of the Papyri (after Parslow, 1978)

314

Figure 113 Syntactical Map for the Villa of the Papyri

Figure 114 Villa Sora (after Pagano, 1990)

315

Figure 115 Syntactical Map for the Villa Sora

Figure 116 House of Aristide (after Maiuri, 1958)

316

Figure 117 Syntactical Map for the House of Aristide

Figure 118 House of Argo (after Maiuri, 1958)

317

Figure 119 Syntactical Map for the House of Argo

Figure 120 House of the Albergo (after Maiuri, 1958)

318

Figure 121 Syntactical Map for the House of the Albergo

Figure 122 House of the Mosaic Atrium (after Maiuri, 1958)

319

Figure 123 Syntactical Map for the House of the Mosaic Atrium

Figure 124 House of the Stags (after Maiuri, 1958)

320

Figure 125 Syntactical Map for the House of the Stags

Figure 126 House of the Gem (after Maiuri 1958)

321

Figure 127 Syntactical Map for the House of the Gem

Figure 128 House of the Relief of Telphus (after Maiuri, 1958)

322

Figure 129 Syntactical Map for the House of the Relief of Telphus

Figure 130 Villa San Marco (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

323

Figure 131 Syntactical Map for the Villa San Marco

Figure 132 Villa Arianna (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

324

Figure 133 Syntactical Map for the Villa Arianna

Figure 134 Villa Pastore (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

325

Figure 135 Syntactical Map for the Villa Pastore

Figure 136 Villa Filosofo (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

326

Figure 137 Syntactical Map for the Villa Filosofo

Figure 138 Villa of Anteros and Hercules (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

327

Figure 139 Syntactical Map for the Villa of Anteros and Hercules

Figure 140 Villa Petraro (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

328

Figure 141 Syntactical Map for the Villa Petraro

Figure 142 Villa at Carmiano (after Camardo and Ferrara, 1989)

329

Figure 143 Syntactical Map for the Villa at Carmiano

330