Various Interrelated Aspects of Domestic Space and Social Issues of Domestic Architecture in Ancient Pompeii

Domestic Architecture in Ancient Pompeii

The ancient city of Pompeii has been investigated for 250 years but still remains one of the least understood ancient cities. Historians have attributed this to the inadequate standard of excavation and publication of finds, however this has greatly changed in the past decade. As a result of new approaches in prehistory, urban geography and the social sciences, writers focusing on Pompeii have turned their attention toward the city of Pompeii as an economic and social entity. The inter-relationship between structure, decor, furnishings and allocation and use of space, is the culmination of the work of many scholars and historians over several years. One of the most important aspects of the research in this area is the manner in which the Romans utilized the space they inhabited and the extent to which archaeological and textual evidence increases our understanding of the Roman domestic environment.

An intense, intricate study of domestic architecture in ancient Pompeii has been used by classical archaeologists and historians to trace aspects of domestic space and social relations in the Roman world. The wealth of the material evidence uncovered at Pompeii offers an almost unparalleled opportunity to explore the domestic life of a past society through archaeological evidence. The archaeological site at Pompeii has been noted by archaeologists and historians working on other ancient civilizations as the site that exemplifies ideals in terms of the manner of its destruction and the exceptional standard of preservation. Many authors have argued that such archaeological evidence aggressively supports an alternative approach to the use of literary sources for activity in the Roman household which can assist researchers in constructing a clearer and more detailed picture of Roman attitudes to spatial organization as well as some of the factors that helped to shape domestic space in different types of dwelling. The material in this area is well-linked, as several different specialists have been writing in response and reaction to each other. This paper will review the links and differences in the approaches and conclusions of Paul Zanker, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Ray Lawrence, and Mark Grahame on this subject.

Archaeological Excavation at Pompeii

Historians present the argument that despite all the advantages offered by archaeological evidence at Pompeii, in many ways it has yet to be exploited to its full potential. It would be virtually impossible for an archaeologist to write a history of Roman cities comprehensive and detailed enough to satisfy modern-day interests and answer the types of questions currently being asked. The bulk of the research contends that Roman houses were a deliberate construct, particularly for wealthy or aristocrats. All four of the authors discussed in this paper agree that Roman houses were used as venues for personal expression representing the owners' perception of social status and standing. Other writers have pointed out that trends of cultural expression were so pervasive in ancient Pompeii that it can become almost impossible to distinguish the social status of an owner based on archaeological evidence alone. This is due to the possibility that either the owner, architect or painter could have exerted the most influence over the design and presentation of a particular house. Additionally, since the Roman houses were constrained by the local community and society at large, it is difficult to determine whether the social factors came first or whether they were adapted later.

Recent research has focused on the manner in which the Roman houses were used, emphasizing that Roman houses were used most often for businesses. Shops were the smallest formal residential unit, and had a bedroom or living quarters attached. The two types of Roman houses examined are the atrium house and the peristyle house. The most common form, as cited by all the authors discussed here is the central peristyle house, which was completely surrounded by many different ranges of rooms, with the main reception room located directly opposite the homes' street entrance. Research indicates that local and individual expression varied; for example, reception rooms could only identified after thorough examination. Further, the authors agree that the omnipresence of the peristyle house indicated a single aristocratic culture. Recent excavation at Pompeii reveals that the Roman house not only consisted of spaces dedicated to particular activities, but also different spaces devoted to display in a social context.

Only in rare cases, however, are we able to analyze the overall organization of space in a city and see it in relation to the society that inhabited it, drawing connections between the use of space and residents' particular lives, habits, and needs (Zanker, at 1). Zanker makes these connections through the study of a townscape, a concept used to describe the outward appearance of a city, meaning not so much the architecture of single house as their function within the total context of public space. According to Zanker, a townscape represents the framework within which urban life takes place; it not only shapes the inhabitants but is also shaped by them, for the buildings and spaces, having been constructed to embody certain messages and values, continue to communicate these same messages to succeeding generations. The other authors have typically used the theory of the townscape in exploring domestic space and social relations in ancient Pompeii.

At the time of its destruction in A.D. 79, Pompeii was already an old city and had been inhabited by many generations of people from different origins, each with its own uniquely structured society (Zanker, at 3). Although Pompeii was only a medium sized country town, the structures it contained in its public space are very characteristic of other Italian cities and the western provinces of the late Roman Republic and early empire. One of the most noticeable aspects of urban public space in the Roman Empire was the subdivision by neighborhood and social class. In the townscapes of the second century A.D. this development occurred not only in baths but also in other types of buildings as well. Houses differed in town and country and between the rich, less prosperous, and the poor. Inside a typical home in Pompeii, the main room was called the atrium, a name originally connected with the dark smoke from a fire. Next to the atrium was the dining room, called the triclinium. The triclinium was arranged with three couched around a square table, with the fourth side left open for serving food. The couch on the left was used by the family and the other couches were reserved for guests. An alternative arrangement, often found in later years, was a semicircular couch that seated six to eight people.

Houses at Pompeii

Historians have indicated that Pompeii was a small, rather insignificant town with never more than 20,000 inhabitants, buried in 79 AD by an eruption of Mount Vesuvius which preserved its structure. This preservation has offered scholars one of the most intact examples of an ancient city along with a complete record of the social, domestic and cultural life of its citizens. The form of the Pompeian townhouse was derived from Greek and Hellenistic designs and varied greatly in size and elaboration, from two or three rooms to large buildings with many rooms arranged around courtyards. The houses were entered from a narrow street facade that was plain and windowless. The most common style of house conformed to a standard rectangular plan, organized around a central atrium, or interior court, which held the shrine of the house gods. The atrium is covered by a roof that has an opening in the center, below which a water pool received the rainwater from the gutters. The tablinum, the main living room where the family dined and received guests, occupied the side opposite the entrance. Beyond the tablinum is the garden which lacks the elaborate porticoes and colonnades of the Hellenistic house.

Later on the colonnaded peristyle, derived from the wealthy houses of the Hellenistic cities, was assimilated in the primitive Pompeian house. The peristyle was added onto the central axis beyond the tablinum, but rather than being paved in the Greek manner, it was planned as a colorful garden in the depth of the house. The tablinum ceased to be the general living room and was occupied by the family archives. Its former place was taken by the triclinium, one of the rooms opening off the peristyle. The characteristic dwellings of the fully developed style are generally planned on a narrow rectangular site, extending a long way back from the road, with rooms that are grouped around two main quadrilateral spaces. The atrium at the front served for formal occasions as well as normal domestic use; and the peristyle at the rear was used for more private occasions, and the tablinum was located between them.

The rooms of the typical Pompeian house provided large areas for decoration; and mosaics, marble slabs, stucco and painted decoration covered a large area of the walls, ceilings and floors. The houses of all classes were decorated, because most rooms were extremely small and dark. The blank walls were covered with large mythological subjects, friezes of miniature figures, landscapes, and plain open sky. Additionally, ceiling beams were also painted, gilded, or inlaid with ivory and the floors were paved in stone or fine mosaic. All historians have generally agreed on the ideology on the division of Pompeian mural painting into four styles based on stylistic variations each having its own specific characteristics. All four styles remained in use concurrently with specific styles chosen for specific rooms. Each of these styles can be defined by the architectural function of the wall it decorates.

The wall paintings of the Roman villas are almost as intact as they were when they were created all those centuries ago. Such wall paintings were part of a life-style, important expressions of Roman culture and a reflection of the values of the period. According to all four of the authors, the wall paintings provide an incomparable source of information concerning the culture, the tastes and concerns of its people, and the subjects that most interested the Roman world. These works of art provide a vivid reflection of daily life in ancient times; through them we gain insight into the aesthetic experience of Rome and are able to see which themes were considered important in Roman society. The paintings portray classical myths, elements from the theater, genre scenes, still life's and sacred landscapes. In their range of subjects and styles, these paintings illustrate the evolution of the art form.

The authors classify the Roman wall paintings according to four consecutive styles, usually based on form and technique. The First, or Incrustion Style is the oldest and simplest found at Pompeii. It dates from the beginning of the second century BC and consists of plain, painted stucco panels that imitate the facing of real marble walls and reflect its structural divisions. The panels are modeled in relief, with color applied to suggest the use of different types of stone. The Second Style emerged in Rome early in the first century BC., creating the illusion of space by introducing purely pictorial imitations or architectonic forms. In the Second Style large panels depict architecture, landscapes, and figures, with the upper part of the painted panel opened to suggest a glimpse of an outside world and create an illusion of depth.

The Third Style provides purely an ornamental effect, rejecting illusionism, instead employing fanciful architecture with slender columns and candelabra that divide the space of the wall. The designs are now characterized by a minute attention to detail and a more accentuated use of color. The grand-scale panels, elaborately ornamented are painted on white and vivid red backgrounds, containing motifs from the figurative and ornamental world. Finally, the Fourth Style reached Pompeii before the earthquake of 62 AD and continued outside the city until the end of the first century. This style takes up the architectural and perspective models of the Second Style, now enlivened with fantastic motifs of an elective and baroque nature. Narrow openings full of air and light appear between the various wide ornamental panels and floating figures, and are painted in an impressionistic technique emphasizing the play of light and shadow.

Homes inside Pompeii did not contain very much furniture; dining room tables were wooden and usually square. Chairs and beds were also mostly wooden, sometimes with fine ornamentation and leather webbing. Couches had ends but no backs, and rugs instead of carpets were laid on the floors. Kitchen furniture included tables, stools, tripods, and braziers. Among cooking utensils were bowls, pots, ladles, meat-hooks, knives, spoons and sieves. These homes had no cabinets or shelves, and as a result the rooms themselves became effective as spaces and could be decorated from the floor to the ceiling. Pictures dominated Roman interiors in a way familiar to present-day Europeans only from baroque churches and palaces (Zanker at 11). According to Zanker, the area open to visitors in a Roman house offered no privacy, and there were no separate rooms for the children and women of the household, or for guests. Inside the central access spaces, any of the people in the house might encounter one another. Their awareness of these comings and goings, the large number of adjacent rooms, and the varied tasks performed throughout the day inevitably turned the house of a large family into a site of intense social activity (Zanker at 12).

Although the excavation site at Pompeii appears to be well preserved in comparison to other sites, the knowledge of patterns of activity within individual dwellings remains surprisingly poor to historians, even for the atrium house, which has been the subject of the most extensive research. Historians have attempted to use archaeological evidence, especially architecture, to try to reconstruct patterns of domestic activity. Zanker's work builds on the work of Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, who warns against populating the Roman house with twentieth-century people and activities. Zanker supports the work of Wallace-Hadrill, whom he states offers a convincing description of the social structure of the Roman house. In his writings, Wallace-Hadrill demonstrates the extent to which the entire space inside a Roman house was arranged to present the identity and status of the owner to the surrounding community. Although Zanker's work builds and supports that of Wallace-Hadrill, the latter writer has noted that ancient historians and literary critics are rather cavalier in their treatment of each others' textual data.

Wallace-Hadrill proposes two intersecting axes of space defined in a Roman house defined according to access to the male head of the household through a main entrance. According to Wallace-Hadrill, the main entrance was either the private-public axis or the grand-humble axis. In this model, architecture and decor regulate circulation within the house (Wallace-Hadrill at 38-61). Wallace-Hadrill maintains that men of status had grand rooms, structured and decorated accordingly, commensurate with that status in which to receive common callers. According to Wallace-Hadrill, the grandness of such rooms was defined simultaneously by their commonness, and at the same time, men of rank needed degrees of privacy and grandness for the entertainment of invited guests. He explains this in his theory regarding the two counterpoising axes; private-public, and grand-humble. Wallace-Hadrill states that it is possible to move in either direction along either of the two, at the same time (Wallace-Hadrill at 11).

The research by all authors assumes that the rooms in a Roman house are thus arranged, and can to be understood as a product of this axial movement. Wallace-Hadrill found little or no evidence for gender and age divisions, concluding that these could not have been the primary axes of the Roman house's organization. Wallace-Hadrill agrees with Zanker's concept that architecture and decoration, rather than size alone, were responsible for articulating the social status of the Roman house owner. Wallace-Hadrill explores the language of public and private, and the manner in which it was employed to establish gradations of status around the house. He argues that the most important technique was that of allusion to the public life. Wallace-Hadrill argues the theoretical notion of the successful Roman citizen as described through the use of a variety of architectural features and wall decoration. According to Wallace-Hadrill, the use of columns alludes to the public or civic buildings, such as basilicas or temples. Such buildings were commonly associated with the life of the man of rank.

All of the authors contend that a variety of artistic devices in wall-painting contributed to the distinguishment of public and private buildings in different ways over time. Wallace-Hadrill makes special reference to the use of color, motifs, and frameworks in illustrating how this was achieved. Wallace-Hadrill also describes the manner in which different social groups were guided around the house, expressed in degrees of access permitted to outsiders. He writes that spaces reserved for members of the household differed from those of the slaves, through the subtle use of architectural and decorative technique. This differs from the ideology of Zanker, who theorized that household members did not have any privacy from other members and guests, and would frequently encounter each other, often unexpected. Wallace-Hadrill focuses on the use of architecture and decor to track changes in the use of space, and in how that space was articulated. He interprets this change as being the expression of a greater desire by the elite to protect and retreat into their private life of luxury, and an attempt to impose greater control on the exposure of the master to the public (Wallace-Hadrill at 52).

Unlike Zanker and Wallace-Hadrill, Lawrence gives equal weight to both the architectural and historical evidence for Pompeii, and offers a complete review of the city's history in addition to the architectural evidence that has been uncovered. Similar to Zanker, he studies the town planning scheme and public buildings, offering the theory that Pompeii was a planned city. Lawrence supports many of Zanker's writings on the topographical aspects that influenced the development of Pompeii. Lawrence also focused on the use of urban space and its social implications, establishing that the existence of neighborhoods were based on the distribution of public fountains and altars at street junctions. Lawrence depicts the distribution of bakeries, textile and metal workshops mainly on through-streets and in an area distantly located from the northern and eastern residential areas.

Lawrence describes Pompeii as a city of small scale commercial and manufacturing activities, a theory that is supported by the fact that ten percent of the walled areas of Pompeii seem to have been devoted to agricultural production. Similar to Lawrence, Wallace-Hadrill studied the urban texture of the sites, of houses and their sizes, and of the relationship of this data to the prevalence of atria and peristyles. Unlike Zanker and Lawrence, Wallace-Hadrill states that he did not include or incorporate small finds into his analysis, because such finds can be attributed to careless past excavations or lack of publication, although he does suggest that small finds have the potential to add to the history of Pompeii. Wallace-Hadrill uses the varying sizes of houses to establish an estimate of Pompeii's population, at around 10,000 people. This estimate has been anywhere from around the range of 6,000 to 20,000, as given by different authors. Historians support the estimate given by Wallace-Hadrill, stating that his estimate is closer than that of others. Wallace-Hadrill's estimate is based on data obtained from his samplings taken together with a variety of comparative evidence from other periods about household sizes, house sizes, and numbers of inhabitants and rooms.

All four of the authors discussed here agree that domestic space in Pompeii was characterized by large households that consisted of family members, slaves, tenants, and other dependants. Historians have also studied the reasons behind the fact that a large number of grand houses incorporated commercial establishments, some linked directly via a doorway to the main part of the house. Wallace-Hadrill attempts to reconstruct a world in which the rich lived in close contiguity with their dependents, slaves and freedmen, clients and tenants, the sources of their social and economic power (Wallace-Hadrill at 141). Lawrence studied the available literary resources and relates urban time to urban space in relation to wealthy property owners, their clients, shopkeepers, artisans and domestic women. According to Lawrence, the wealthy and their dependents have emerged as the most dominant figures, thus making the strongest visual impact on the urban area of Pompeii. However, Lawrence has been criticized by other authors as having exclusively applied to members of the Roman elite in general, not just the city of Pompeii.

Lawrence and Wallace-Hadrill both focus on recent anthropological and sociological studies of consumption employed to portray the diffusion of luxury through the ranks of Roman society. Both writers acknowledge that the Roman elite expressed and maintained their social status through consumption. However, Wallace-Hadrill reveals by way of Pompeian domestic architecture and wall decoration, how consumption illustrates every aspect of domestic Roman society. Wallace-Hadrill differentiates between the elite and lower social groups through the greater number of better quality components employed in the wall-paintings that decorated their houses. He has been described as having broken down long-held assumptions about social use of space within and outside the house to expose flawed assumptions about social organization. Lawrence does not account for many of the concepts accounted for by Wallace-Hadrill and Zanker, for example, house slaves and agricultural land.

Grahame builds on the work of Wallace-Hadrill and others by introducing an extra dimension of privacy that separated members of the same household, to the basic public-private distinction. According to Wallace-Hadrill, comparable caution is not witnessed when using others' texts such to gain an insight into the use of space in Roman houses. In his writings he notes that less caution has been taken when using these names for excavated spaces, or employing anecdotal information from various other ancient authors to elucidate the activities which might have taken place in such spaces. According to Wallace-Hadrill, it is this very combination of architectural and textual remains, in a loose and unproblematic association with modern analogy, that is presenting the impression that we are very familiar with Roman domestic life (Wallace-Hadrill at 47-48). Zanker agrees with Wallace-Hadrill's conclusion that the space inside a Roman House was arranged to present the identity and status of the owner to the surrounding community. According to Zanker, Wallace-Hadrill's observation was correct because the social function of a house determined both the layout of the rooms and the choice of decorative elements. Two aspects of this social function are especially characteristic, namely, the different use of space made of space depending on the type of visitor, and the significance of extravagant dimensions (Zanker at 12).

The writings of Wallace-Hadrill appear to be more critical of other historians and authors views. According to Wallace-Hadrill, the Roman world, perhaps more so than any other ancient culture, is very rich in its textual and architectural remains. Wallace-Hadrill believes that it is this very richness, both qualitatively and quantitatively, that provides more data than can be effectively dealt with. Grahame theorizes that this data is instrumental in the production of the historical view of Roman domestic life. In his writings, Grahame applies theories developed by other historians and researchers in order to determine the degree of privacy existing between friends or visitors on one hand and inhabitants of the home on the other. According to Zanker, confidential discussions were conducted in private, even more secluded chambers that might even serve as bedrooms. In the Roman house of Pompeii, friends came to dinner in dining areas that were often located at the rear of the garden. Thus, a social pecking order was created, corresponding in spatial terms to ever-increasing access to the interior parts of the house (Zanker at 13). According to Wallace-Hadrill, architects labored when designing the peristyles of homes in Pompeii to ensure that a guest would receive the most comprehensive impression of the dwelling's size and expensive decor on his way to meet the host (Lawrence and Wallace-Hadrill at 121-25). One way of achieving this was to place the most impressive reception rooms around the peristyle courts so that the visitor would see them (Lawrence and Wallace-Hadrill at 129-34).

Other research suggests that men's and women's quarters were normally separate except for husband and wife; only a few houses have been found with sleeping accommodations designed for slaves, and evidence reveals that attic dormitories were the commonest for them. Other features were a kitchen, a bathroom, a water-closet, and a library in the wealthier homes. According to Zanker, the number of available reception rooms played a major role in determining the rank of a house in the social hierarchy. A wealthy homeowner could choose among several settings to receive visitors, depending on their type and number as well as on the time of day or season of the year (Zanker at 13). Zanker concludes that both architecture and interior design were employed in the competition for social status, and naturally this had an effect on stylist developments in the various arts and crafts employed in interior decor, especially in painting.

Paintings in houses were usually in the form of morals. According to historians, the frescoes of Pompeii portray many mythological subjects, and during the latest period of Pompeii, a favorite theme of murals was great architecture and landscaping, with buildings seemingly rising in one tier behind another. Statutory art was found in private homes and gardens, in forums and public buildings. This often consisted of fill sized to colossal figures, busts or statuettes. Most of the homes containing such statues belonged to the socially prominent or wealthy members of society. These were the only ones that needed large atria to receive clients and large dining rooms for entertaining friends (Zanker at 13). Zanker writes that although creating and decorating a special part of one's home for purposes of social display was not specifically a Roman phenomenon, as in the Greek cities the houses of the rich were more elaborately constructed and better furnished than those of the less affluent.

All of the authors reveal the manner in which the layout and decoration of rooms in Roman houses were used to communicate the owners' status and identity. Beginning in the middle of the second century B.C., the Roman aristocracy developed a new concept of domestic environment, called the villa. In the villa, the main rooms functioned to express a single idea in different ways. According to Zanker, every element was intended to symbolize the presence of Greek culture, as a kind of higher sphere, within the house. The aristocrats' new style in domestic architecture gradually became a model for all of Roman society (Zanker at 19). The new taste in domestic settings became both a symbol and a concept of culture and a statement that the owner identified himself with a particular way of life (Zanker at 20). According to Wallace-Hadrill, the presence and quality of wall paintings in the Pompeii villa homes were directly related to the size and number of rooms. Zanker offers support for Wallace-Hadrill's observation that the most rudimentary paintings, frequently of inferior quality, were intended more as demonstrations that the owners possess a certain level of culture than as displays of luxury and wealth. In conclusion, the process by which the new style spread and was altered to fit modest dwellings was a process by those who could not afford luxury or an expensive education.

Wallace-Hadrill's studies are based on a sample of three groups of adjacent blocks, two in Pompeii, and one in Herculaneum. Within this sampling Wallace-Hadrill compares plans of housing blocks at Olynthus, where individual house units are extremely regular with those of Pompeii and Herculaneum where the enormous disparity in house sizes suggests a society with very unequal distribution of wealth. He classifies Pompeian houses in four groups: small shops or workshops of one or two rooms and an average area of 10-45 square meters; houses or shops with 2-7 rooms and an area of 50-170 square meters; average-sized Pompeian houses with an area of 175-345 square meters; and larger houses with an area of anything between 350-3000 square meters. Wallace-Hadrill appears to go into much more detail in describing such houses than either of the other three authors. Scholars have also written that Wallace-Hadrill's approach is more scientific than some methods that have been tried, such as relating a town's population to the seating capacity of its theatre or amphitheater, which have resulted in very high population figures for some ancient towns.

Wallace-Hadrill goes on to examine the questions of house ownership and the use made of houses at different times. He also examined luxury and status, stating that the rich had to innovate to keep ahead in terms of luxury. According to Wallace-Hadrill, by the time fashion had filtered down to the poorest social strata it was time for the wealthy to adopt new fashions. Unlike the other authors, he also points out that there is yet another dimension of Pompeii and Herculaneum which has not yet begun to be explored. This is the excavation of Pompeii that consists of dismantling the walls and examining material found beneath floor levels.

Furthermore, all four of the authors agree that Roman public buildings were solidly built. By means of a mush greater use of the arch and the vault and by facing brick with marble and incorporating concrete, they were able to construct larger and more permanent buildings than anyone succeeded in doing for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. In Rome and nearer parts of the Empire, there were so many large and monumental public buildings that instead of being destroyed, many were used for other purposes. For example, those best preserved included a number of basilicas, or public halls, adapted for use later as Christian churches. Private houses, less solidly constructed, no longer exist of the surface of Rome, although many later buildings used their foundations.

A prominent feature of many Roman cities, according to all four of the authors, is the amphitheater, and an number of these are in a good state of preservation. The services of Roman towns can also be studied from their remains. Among the most solid buildings are the great imperial baths, symmetrical in design, with enormous rooms vaulted in concrete. The best-preserved specimens are the Baths of Garacalla and of Diocletian in Rome, which has since been used as a museum. The remains of military camps are not as striking as those of civilian buildings, due to the fact that many were designed as temporary structures only. Other military camps merged into the towns into which they grew. According to all of the authors, the remains of Roman villas may be studied in the country-side of Italy and in most of the provinces.

The Study of Urban Space as a Reflection of Society

Historians and archaeologists have studied urban space as a reflection of society. The research in this area reveals that there exists a wealth of textual and architectural material, which can be continuously reworked by different scholars from different perspectives. However, the material on archaeological sites which is excavated out of its architectural contexts and used for specialist studies of pottery, glass, and metal has largely been ignored. Psychologists note that this is because experiences of present-day inhospitable cities have raised awareness of the appearance of urban environments and their effect on their inhabitants. The city as living space has revealed how close the connections are between a given community's economy, social conditions, health, culture and the appearance of its cities on the other. Roman city buildings were built solidly, and by means of a much greater use of the arch and the vault and by facing brick with marble and concrete, they were able to construct larger and more permanent buildings.

Lawrence discusses the concept of the percentage of doorways on each side of blocks as a means of determining which ones were the dominant facades. In this manner Lawrence finds varying levels of activity in different parts of Pompeii, with an emphasis on thorough-streets and other streets in the vicinity of theatres and forums. Lawrence additionally emphasizes the social and spatial aspects of ancient Pompeii, including the relations between town and country and the ways in which the layout of urban theatres reflects distinctions of status within the community. Historians have written that private houses, less solidly constructed, have disappeared from the surface of Rome, although some archaeological studies reveal that later buildings used the foundations of private houses. A prominent feature of many Roman cities is the amphitheatre, a number of which are still in good condition. Researchers have reported that Pompeii is the best preserved Greco-Roman city, however the majority of its structures, especially the public buildings, had been devastated by earthquakes.

According to Zanker, most published studies of Pompeii treat Pompeii topographically, and as a result, no attempts have been made to acquire an overview of the whole city and to distinguish its various historical layers. The services of such Roman towns can be studied from their remains. Among the most solid buildings are the great imperial baths, symmetrical in design, with huge rooms vaulted in concrete. Also symbolizing the role of space and society in Pompeii are the graves of the dead that once were ancient bath tubs that were later turned into coffins. Apostles, martyrs, saints, spiritual and worldly leaders have found their graves and memorials in Rome. Additionally, according to a very early law, all burials within the walls of Rome were prohibited. Memorials of the dead were interred on both sides of the roads that from the gates led into Rome, and the busiest traffic passed them by.

Zanker also discusses the period between of time between the earthquake of 62 AD and the final destruction in 79 AD. In his writings, Zanker concludes that the places that the inhabitants chose to rebuild were the places with the greatest meaning for them. During this time private houses were restored in large numbers, complete with shrines and small altars. Zanker offers insights into the members of Pompeii's society that help portray a comprehensive perception of the period derived largely from material evidence. Zanker also discusses the concept of the Roman villa, tracing its origin in part back to the time of Rome's expansion into the eastern Mediterranean, to the impact on the old Roman aristocracy of the opulent life-style of the Hellenistic world. According to Zanker, gardens and structured landscape vistas came to be incorporated into the inhabited space, and architectural forms as well as interior decoration changed correspondingly in the late Republican period to include porticoes and imposing facades, real or painted. He describes how diverse elements of villa architecture and decor were increasingly introduced into the town-houses of Pompeii in the last decades before the destruction.

In addition, Zanker discusses the collections of statuary found in many Pompeian gardens, and then turns to the frescoes, explaining how the wall- paintings reflect the same desires and ambitions that motivated the architectural and design features. He describes the garden as a sanctuary, noting a case in which the owner's goal was to re-create the atmosphere of a grand and sprawling villa in a very confined space (Zanker at 160). The foundations of the House of the Black Anchor date back to the first century BC. At the time of the eruption the owner was in the process of constructing a very grand two-story peristyle to replace the former garden or courtyard at the bottom of the property; work on it was not quite complete (Zanker at 160). According to Zanker, the owner had found a very clever way to compensate for the sloping terrain. The garden, only about 1,000 square feet in size, lay off a small atrium and down a staircase; originally it was enclosed by a vaulted arcade (Zanker at 160). Later the arched openings of the arcade were bricked up, and lined with a series of pillars, two stories high (Zanker at 160). According to Zanker, these two phases of construction appear to have followed one another in quick succession.

Zanker also makes a close connection between the forms of the houses and their various decorative elements. He states that although the different owners found diverse ways of expressing their ideas of a suitable backdrop for their lifestyles, their intention was the same, in striving for the illusion of a villa and suggesting a far more luxurious manner of living. Portions of Lawrence's writings focus on the economy of Pompeii and how it shaped the use of urban space. According to Lawrence and the other authors, the local economy can be traced archaeologically in several industries, such as bread-making, weaving and metalworking. All four authors mention that these businesses were more commonly located along through-routes and in the area east of the forum. Lawrence states that bakeries without mills were concentrated in central areas, and thus specialized in retail sales, while those with mills tended to be away from the center, making the delivery of grain easier. Metalworking shops also tended to be located on through-routes, and agricultural production and animal husbandry occurred within the city walls.

Unlike Zanker, Lawrence also writes about drinking, gambling and prostitution. In the location of brothels, fast-food stands and bars, Lawrence reports on a reflection of male, rather than female, leisure activities and values. According to Lawrence, prostitution was tolerated and even controlled in Rome, and thus its profits could be taxed and prostitutes identified. He suggests that this monitoring could have also ensured that brothels were located in those parts of the city which were separate from regular domestic life. Although Zanker's writings do not touch this area, Roman literature reflects this concept, as well as the research of Wallace-Hadrill. Research by Wallace-Hadrill reduces the traditionally high number of brothels, most of which were centrally located in the area east of the forum, but on side streets rather than main roads. Wallace-Hadrill notes that since the brothels are routinely near large atrium houses which have their primary entrances off main streets, foreign clients would have to know the precise side street and doorway to locate the brothels. He concludes that the brothels were located far away from families, wives and children.

Both Wallace-Hadrill and Lawrence describe popinae and cauponae as the workplaces of prostitutes; cauponae tended to be near city gates in the area east of the forum, and around the amphitheater. Both authors agree that popinae were more evenly distributed, but occurred most often on main streets, where they were easily accessible to the poor who were mostly likely to frequent them. According to Lawrence, this economic distinction in clientele is also reflected in the tendency for popinae to be segregated from the wealthier houses, which generally had their own cooking facilities and where hospitality was an important aspect of social standing. Lawrence discusses the manner by which these locations were separated from the wives and children, and considers the underlying social significance of the relationship between structures. Lawrence relates the number and distribution of doorways to the frequency of activity in a street. He applies a formula to the streets and doors of Pompeii, comparing the length of streets with the number of doorways to obtain the occurrence of doors throughout the urban grid.