608. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill- Summary

608.  Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum by Andrew Wallace-Hadrill.
I enjoyed this book so much.  The author gives so much needed insight on how to interpret house a person may see in Pompeii or Herculaneum.  But he goes so much further.  The author makes one realize that the often repeated comments about housing amongst the Romans are false and at best misleading.  It is false that Roman elite had nothing to do with commerce.  It is false that there was any form of zoning in an ancient Roman city.  Then at the end uses this to inform us that we have much of value to learn from the Romans.  It is not inconceivable that some aspects of Roman town design should be incorporated into our own.
In Roman houses there was only a vague distinction between that part of the house which was public and what was private.  There was no specific area for children.  Columns had a functional purpose but also set off area in a grand way for public use.  Seats were provided outside for clients who were waiting.  Doors of a Roman house were only closed during a period of mourning.  He makes it clear that social and business activity was intense, open to all and that people of various classes passed on the streets.  Romans routinely conducted business from their bedrooms.  Evidence for this comes from literature.
Houses in Rome reflect patterns present in Pompeii but not necessarily universal.  (This makes sense to me for various climates would dictate certain changes dictated by climate.
The sacred rooms in temples and the grand public rooms in reception areas for government use were adapted to private houses to highlight the importance of the person living there and highlight the importance of the room itself.  The elite used these to distinguish themselves fro the commoner.
Pinocotheca are/were public painting galleries located in sacred architecture.  Private houses imitated these and consequently these were meant to connect the owner with political power because it bestowed status.  Since the houses of the nobles were public in many ways, it makes sense that the two were mingled.  This also explains why doors were open as this allowed someone walking by to see the interior of the house and gaze at the gardens and rich decorations.  It displayed the importance of the owner but also allowed the commoner to be part of the total package.
Greek houses were exclusive and very private.  In fact privacy even extended to members of the house hold.  There special rooms for men and for women.  Such things were unheard of in a Roman house. Roman houses were open and inclusive.  Romans did not distinguish between work space from leisure space.  In the morning there was negotium, afternoon was otium.  The time of day determined private and public activity.
The atrium was later reduced in size and the reception room was around the peristylium.  This made the houses of the elite and anyone who received guests more accessible.

Houses were often subdivided and rented out.  This habit may not always be obvious now in the excavations, since wooden walls were used to divide the areas.  Vesuvius burnt these up. 
Population figures range now from 6,700 to 6,900 people in Pompeii.  The commonly quoted figure of 20,000 is almost assuredly incorrect.  Part of this is due to new methods used to understand how space in houses was used.  In addition it now known that a fair part of Pompeii had gardens, vineyards  within the city; for the most part evenly distributed. 
Where did Romans sleep?  Beds?  Mattresses?  No one knows for sure.  Niches suvive in rooms which indicate that a bed was located there.
Much diversity in shape and size of Roman houses.
A mistake that has been made in the past is to use the modern western house as a means to understand the patterns found at Pompeii.  This had led to misunderstandings concerning Roman use.  The presence of multiple doors indicates multiple uses.  Insulae on the scale of those at Ostia are not what are found in Pompeii.  There are insulae at Pompeii but much different from those at Ostia.
Large houses meant the possibility of a wide range of use.  Even exterior stairs are not a conclusive indication of how the house was used at that time.
Men and women slept together but there is little physical evidence for it.  The beds which have been found are twin size.  It may be that two beds were simply pushed together to form one large bed.  This is done by the hotel I stay in in Rome.
It is not known where children slept.  It may be that various seasons determined where the bedroom was.
It is interesting to note that the entrance to a house possesses an official nature but that to a shop is very open. 
Roman elite may have had large villas in the country but they also maintained a house in town.  The source of their power required this.  Patterns of Roman culture required that the elite in order to maintain their position had to connect with commoners on a consistent and intense basis.  Their connection with traders, rental of property, farms and their political ambitions formed a nexus.
Large houses with shops on the periphery goes back for centuries.  Scipio’s house which was behind the temple of Castor and Pollux in the Roman Forum had a butcher’s shop beside it.  There apparently no zoning in Roman towns/cities.  In fact the elite liked these house near political activity, commerce.  The bustle of city life was all about them.
An atrium with a narrow fauces goes back to the archaic period.  It helps to accentuate the grandeur of entrance.
Houses on the Sacra Via in the Roman Forum had shops in the front.  Part of the reason Wallace-Hadrill points this out is to show that just because a large house had shops in front doe not mean that the house has been sold to someone of lower status or that it has been debased as was once assumed.
Insula and domus are legal terms used to describe ownership, these are not architectural terms.

Roman elite did not distance themselves from commerce as used to be thought.
Shops three broad types:
1.  Shops with a wide opening:  retail and retail/production
2.  Horticulture: viticulture, floriculture and truck gardens
3.  ‘Industrial’:  bakers, fullers, dyers, metalworkers, lamp makers
The average size for a horticulture spot is 138 square meters.
At what point is a materfamilas spinning and weaving not domestic but manufacturing?  This is due to the fact that so little distinction existed between public and private as far as space is concerned.  Remember that private/ public was determined by time of day.
Sometimes house were adapted for other uses.  For example the impluvium could be and was converted into a basin for a fuller’s shop.
Economic activity was combined with reception activity.
The closer a house is to the main road, the more likely it is to have shops and commercial space.
We have much to learn from this system:  it avoids our pitfall of a gap between the rich and poor.  In antiquity these groups crossed paths frequently.
Luxury is difficult to define.  It is to a degree relative.  A society which has rapid diffusion of luxury items is highly mobile.  The spread of luxury from the late Republic on was astonishing. 
Some houses achieved elegance via floors, others from the murals and paints used to create them.  Some paint are very, very expensive.  Some paints are much cheaper.  Elegance and quality of art could be achieved with either BUT more expensive pigments allowed an elite to be separate from a commoner.
Some room are not painted because of the use they had.  Consequently it is a mistake to make assumptions about a room just because there are no decorations.  Some rooms he identifies as collegium- meeting areas.
The progressive spread of decoration reveals the rapid spread to the lower classes.  It may be that lower classes borrowing decorations from the upper classes forced the upper classes to increase the richness in their decorations, using more and more rare colors, greater elaboration of the art work itself and more and more rare marbles.
Houses in town borrowed themes and design from fabulous villas in the countryside.  This indicates that the common citizen visited these places too as they would that aristocrat’s house in town.  The openness of aristocrat’s houses promoted this.  Based on the decorations found in housing of the masses, it appears that these too received visitors, not just the rich.
From the late republic on and increasing thereafter, prosperity grew.  The Pax Roman was not a sham!  Everyone benefited.
All of the above generated a social and cultural revolution which apparently spread throughout the Empire.  Much more work needs to be done in this area.
This whole book makes me wonder how much Augustus and later emperors realized that the revolution was caused by their own actions.
The luxury evident in Pompeii is the language which ordinary people used to lay claim to being Roman. 
One of the surest signs of Romanization is the presence of hellenistic style in art.  It reveals the desire on the part of commoners to display portraits of themselves in a style similar to the elite.  Also the acquisition of art which reflect this style would set them off as sophisticated.  I am also reminded of that Roman inclination to combine different styles of art in order to make the piece be more expressive.  This too would have appealed to commoners.
Massive social contrasts are apparent in the gulf between the most magnificent mansion and the humblest tabernae or cenacula.  Yet the gulf is constantly bridged by contiguity and mutual dependence.  The Romans would have found Gated Communities a contradiction, incongruent and counterproductive.  Food for thought.
Classes were separated by social rituals not by physical environment.
The above is based on the Tabelae Herculanenses found in three houses in Herculaneum.  These houses faced the forum of Herculaneum, yet to be excavated.  These involve the legal affairs of:
L. Cominus Primus
Petronia Justa
L. Venidius Ennychus
These are documents which used wax tablets to record the information.  Petronia’s case involved her status, Cominus involved a property dispute and Venidius also involved a dispute about status.  These cases are complex but the most important aspect is that these people and those who were on the opposing sides lined up support from a wide range of social status.  To such a degree that it was clear that it was difficult to know who was someone of status and who was not.  This in document form reflects which is found in situ in archeological evidence- society was mobile, fluctuating and intermingled.