George, 'Roman Pompeii: Space and Society', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9510
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9510-george-roman
@@@@95.10.19, Laurence, Roman Pompeii
Ray Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. New
York: Routledge, 1994. Pp. xi, 158; 13 figs., 31 maps, 23 b&w
plates. $45. ISBN 0-415-09502-6.
Reviewed by Michele George -- McMaster University
georgem@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
Although long a cornerstone of Roman archaeology, in the last
fifteen years Pompeii has enjoyed a rejuvenation of sorts. The
detailed publication of individual buildings, the application of
computer technologies, and excavation work on the site by Italian
scholars are among the most significant contributions to this
renaissance. With this book, Ray Laurence continues the shift in
Pompeian studies away from the antiquarianism of the last two
centuries. It is the site of Pompeii as an urban entity which
provides the focus for L.'s book, which formed part of his
doctoral thesis. The "social meaning" of the site (ix),
specifically the reflexive relationship between space and
society, is the aspect which L. primarily addresses. To do so he
combines the traditional historical and archaeological approaches
of classical scholarship with the cross-cultural and theoretical
methods of modern anthropology and sociology. L's interests lead
him to consider broader issues as well, such as the validity of
Finley's consumer city' model for the Pompeian economy and its
potential consequences for public space.
Each chapter explores a different aspect of urban space at
Pompeii. In ch. 1 L. contrasts the modern notion of the planned
city' with the ancient by briefly sketching the evolution of town
planning in 20th century Britain and its influence on perceptions
of classical urbanism. Although Pompeii has a grid plan and a
forum which resembles the so-called Central Business District of
contemporary urban geography, the town's development was more
organic than planned, with no apparent attention paid to the
complex social and economic issues which are the explicit
concerns of modern urban planners. Although there is a
fundamental contrast between the forum and its functions and the
residential blocks of the city, there is no evidence of
socio-economic zoning which organizes citizens of similar means
into designated neighbourhoods. The kind of organization seen at
Pompeii, says L., is the result of underlying social values,
rather than conscious planning. Theorists such as A. Giddens
(The Constitution of Society), H. Lefebvre (The
Production of Space), and B. Hillier and J. Hanson (The
Social Logic of Space) are shown here to be fundamental
influences on L.'s thinking.
In ch. 2 L. examines the effects of colonization on the town,
and the additional facilities which were built to accommodate the
colonists. He recounts the erection of public buildings
throughout the site, but notes in particular the renovations in
the forum, since it is here that the changing civic identity of
Pompeii is most clearly reflected. The construction of new
buildings and repairs to existing ones were undertaken by
prominent citizens eager to contribute to the emerging character
of the new colonia. L. summarizes current scholarship on
the identification and function of these buildings, a subject
still debated, although L. largely follows P. Zanker's view. L.
stresses the participation of the local elite, the evocation of
an imperial presence in their dedications, and the imitation of
models from the capital in their choice of construction projects.
In this way the physical appearance and the urban identity of the
new colony connected it to Rome, and to the Roman emperor. In
ch. 3 it is the identity of neighbourhoods within the city which
concerns L. According to him, residents possessed a
neighbourhood identity formed by both elements of the physical
space and acquaintance with their actual neighbours. Using
epigraphic evidence to prove that Pompeii, like Rome, was
organized into pagi and vici, L. further
distinguishes a local identity within the vici themselves.
He suggests that neglect of altars to the Lares Compitales
reflects the decline of that cult in favour of worship of the
Lares Augusti, a trend which has been noted at Rome. The
former were located at the boundaries of vici, while the
latter had a central location within the vicus; L.
therefore proposes that the shift from one to the other
represents the development of a local identity for each
vicus. L. extends this notion of local identity to
political activity, suggesting that pressure from neighbours may
have influenced voting. The rest of the chapter considers the
organization and placement of public fountains. Since the
majority of the population lived within 80 metres of a fountain,
and probably used the source nearest to their home, public
fountains may have contributed to a sense of neighbourhood.
Ch.4, "Production and Consumption", deals with the economy of
Pompeii and how it shaped the use of urban space. The local
economy can be traced archaeologically in several industries,
notably bread-making, weaving/fulling, and metalworking. These
businesses were more commonly located along through-routes (e.g.
Via dell'Abbondanza, Via di Stabia, Via degli Augustali), and in
the area east of the forum. Bakeries without mills were
concentrated in central areas, and thus specialized in retail
sales, while those with mills tended to be away from the centre,
making the delivery of grain easier. In the textile industry,
officinae lanifricariae were most numerous in region 7,
while fulling and dying establishments were spread throughout the
town, most often near the centre and through-routes.
Metalworking shops also tended to be located on through-routes.
Agricultural production in the form of market-gardens and to a
lesser extent animal husbandry also occurred within the city
walls, and has been traced by W. Jashemski predominantly in the
southeastern part of the town, in the gardens of private
domus and tabernae. Beyond these general
tendencies in location, however, there are no clearly defined
industrial areas; land use was mixed. L. compares a study of
land use in the Adobe city at Mendoza in Argentina, where a
similar pattern of mixed use is in evidence. The homogeneity of
the colonial grid plan, the absence of regulation, and a
low-density land-use pattern meant that privately-owned urban
property was put to a variety of uses within a single city block.
In putting the local economy within the wider economic setting L.
follows modifications which have been made to the consumer city
model. He argues that items such as Pompeian Red Ware and
garum (likely produced outside the city itself) indicate a
greater complexity in production and consumption than Finley's
model allows. Although agricultural output likely served only a
local market, Pompeian workshops did produce goods for export,
shipped probably, L. suggests, from the nearby port of Puteoli.
Pompeii was therefore not merely a consumer city.
In ch. 5 L. considers "deviant behaviour", a category in which
he puts drinking, gambling and prostitution. In the location of
brothels, fast-food stands (popinae) and bars
(cauponae) L. sees the reflection of male, rather than
female, leisure activities and values. Prostitution was tolerated
and even controlled by the aediles in Rome, and thus its profits
could be taxed and prostitutes identified. L. 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. Roman literature reflects this, as in it the activity of
prostitutes is associated with public entertainment buildings
like the circus, theatres and baths, and marginal areas such as
alleys, tombs, or recognized red-light districts like the Subura.
For Pompeii L. relies on a recent study by A. Wallace-Hadrill
which reduces the traditionally high number of brothels to 9, 7
of which are cellae meretriciae; most were centrally
located in the area east of the forum, but on side streets rather
than main roads. It is interesting to note that they are
routinely near large atrium houses which however have their
primary entrances off main streets; out-of-town-clients would
have to know the precise side street and doorway to locate the
brothels. Thus, they were distanced from wives and children, and
neither corrupted family life nor compromised the proper
reception activities which were so much a part of the elite
house. Popinae and cauponae were often the
workplaces of prostitutes, and as such had a negative moral
penumbra. Cauponae tended to be near city gates
(especially the Stabian and Herculanean gate), in the area east
of the forum, and around the amphitheatre. Popinae were
more evenly distributed, but occur most often on main streets,
where they were easily accessible to the poor who were mostly
likely to frequent them. 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. L. provides a map of "deviant
streets" (map 5.4), and identifies a "deviant street network" in
region 7 east of the forum. These areas existed cheek-by-jowl to
other businesses and houses, but were subordinate to them, and
most significantly were separated from women and children, who
were thereby "zoned into domesticity" (87) by the patriarchal
nature of urban organization.
Ch. 6 and 7 consider the underlying social significance of the
relationship between structures within insulae and the
streets that define them. For both chapters L. employs methods
of analysis adopted from British spatial theorists B. Hillier and
J. Hanson in their book The Social Logic of Space. In
ch.6 L. relates the number and distribution of doorways to the
frequency of activity in a street, i.e. a high number of doors
reflects greatest use of street frontage. L. 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. As might be expected, main
through-streets such as the Via dell'Abbondanza and the area east
of the forum had a higher number of doors and therefore likely
greater levels of social interaction, while other regions were
more residential. The use of graffiti (or "message occurrence")
reinforces this conclusion. Comparison of door occurrence from
Rome and Ostia shows a markedly more even distribution of high
street activity at these sites, which L. attributes to the higher
population density of these cities and the dominance of
multi-family and mixed-use insulae versus the Pompeian
atrium house.
In ch.7, "The Production of Space", L. seeks the "spatial
generators" (104) which lead to the patterns in doorways and
levels of activity he identifies in ch. 6. He examines the
dominant location of doorways in insulae, concentrating on
regions 6 and 7. Both are near the forum, but have quite
different street plans: region 6 is defined by a regular
orthogonal grid, while region 7 has a highly irregular street
arrangement. To find the underlying cause of these patterns, L.
uses Hillier and Hanson's gamma analysis, a method for studying
the interiors of buildings. By way of demonstration, L. offers a
conventional linear plan of the House of the Vetti and a gamma
map (fig.7.1), an alternative form of graphic representation for
structures. A gamma map transforms a traditional linear plan
into a schema of dots and lines, wherein dots represent spaces
within a building, and lines the connections between them. Space
is thus converted into a new morphic language', which shifts the
focus of linear architectural plans on the solids in a structure
(the walls) to the voids (rooms or open spaces such as atria).
These maps can also be reduced to a numeric form which represents
the relationship of spaces within a structure and the street,
what L. refers to as their Relative Asymmetry. This is arrived
at through the measurement of mean depth and the number of spaces
in a building. The numerical results provide a basis for
measuring the degree of integration (or separation) between the
street and a structure in an insula. From this data L.
concludes that the spatial logic which leads to the patterns of
doorway occurrence at Pompeii stems from the amount of activity
and the density of settlement in an area. Thus, region 7 (east
of the forum) is shown to be a unique locus in the town and one
of particularly intense activity, due to the pressure to use
street frontage to maximum effect.
Although the account of ch. 6 and 7 given here is somewhat
condensed, L.'s text does not provide a great deal more
explanation of the Hillier and Hanson methodology, but merely
refers the reader to the relevant pages in the Social Logic of
Space. Even those who have had reason to dip into Hillier
and Hanson would likely benefit from a refresher course. For the
true novice, and I suspect this includes many classical
archaeologists and Pompeii scholars of various stripes, L. offers
little clarification. Consequently, despite their brevity, or
indeed because of it, both chapters are rather tough going. Some
readers might also question the value of such seemingly
complicated methods, since L. offers only succinct conclusions,
with little elucidation. For example, in ch. 6 L. states that
the fact that through-routes ran from the city gates indicates
that the "social relationship between inhabitant and stranger was
stronger than that between inhabitant and inhabitant" (103).
Although it is presented without argumentation, such a statement
requires discussion, such as which inhabitants and which
strangers are meant here, and what kind of social relationships.
L. does not explain the assertion, nor place it in the wider
context of Roman social studies. Also problematic are several of
his conclusions, which are at times simplistic, e.g. that the
pattern of doorway occurrence was "related to the amount of
activity and the density of settlement in an area" (121); or that
through-routes from city gates ran toward the town centre
"implies...that there was a high frequency of visitors to
Pompeii" (103). To judge from this exercise, theoretical
analysis of this kind tells us little that is new about Pompeii.
Spatial theory is not well-served here; indeed, the use of both
unfamiliar jargon and unexplained methodology, and the dearth of
adequate argumentation are bound to alienate some readers.
And yet this reviewer is not unsympathetic to L.'s intentions.
An approach like his, which does not eliminate but does
subordinate the traditional historical and literary framework,
and which produces results in unfamiliar forms, challenges our
perceptions and assumptions about life in the ancient world. For
example, the morphic language' of Hillier and Hanson offers an
alternative route to interpreting spatial use. L. is one of the
few among us to brave these particular theoretical waters, filled
as they are with foreign terminology and a rather fearsome use of
numerical formulae, graphs and charts to define space and
interpret its use. To some, the cross-cultural approaches L.
uses will be equally unfamiliar, and need more explanation. A
careful translator is needed, one who both values innovative
approaches but is also proficient in the conventional methods of
classical scholarship. Since L. seems well-equipped to serve as
interpreter between these two worlds, this part of the book
represents something of a lost opportunity. A fuller
investigation of these novel strategies would likely have been
welcomed by many curious classical archaeologists.
The final two chapters return to more familiar ground. In ch.
8 L. deals with the temporal aspect of spatial use, in both
public and private contexts. Drawing on literary sources he
recounts the course of the day for different ranks within Roman
society, and concludes that it was the activities of the male
elite which determined when and how space was used. Thus, in the
morning and evening the house was needed by the male head of the
household for the salutatio and evening entertainment; in
the middle of the day domestic space became female-dominanted, as
Roman men went out to conduct business and visit the baths. L.
suggests that the custom of public displays of status in the form
of processions of the elite and their clients through the streets
led to a distribution of elite houses throughout the city, rather
than wealthy residential enclaves. So, although elite males
frequented public baths, it was not desirable to live near them,
since part of the point of visiting the baths was the public show
of the entourage on the way there. The concluding ch. 9
reiterates the main themes of the book, that urban life was a
product of complex social factors, and that both the nature of
structures within the city and spatial use were the result of
these social factors and were dictated by the needs of the male
elite. Thus, the failure of the consumer city model to give
sufficient weight to social as well as economic issues renders it
inadequate. L. touches on a number of big ideas' in this
chapter, including critiques of the consumer city model,
alternative analyses of urbanism developed by theorists like D.
Harvey, and in the work of Giddens and Lefebvre. However, this
chapter suffers from the same compression as several of the
others; more consideration of these authors and their concepts is
required to demonstrate their applicability to the study of
Pompeii.
Overall, the volume lacks coherence, perhaps due to its
previous existence as part of a greater whole. L. draws on a
wide range of material and approaches and touches on many themes;
a more thorough synthetic chapter is needed to bring together the
diverse strands of his argument. Contrary to Callimachean
wisdom, in this case a bigger book would probably have been a
better book. As it is the volume is slim and (in hardback)
fairly expensive for its size. There is an abundance of maps
which illustrate the distribution of the different establishments
throughout the city, as well as a number of photos, charts and
graphs. Typos in the text are minimal, although several works in
modern languages other than English suffer from errors in
spelling and accentuation in the bibliography. Because of its
concise character, it is hard to recommend this book for use by
undergraduates. Much background knowledge of both Pompeii and
the Roman world is assumed by the author or condensed into the
bracketed references (footnotes are few), and even specialists
who pursue L.'s disparate sources are likely to find themselves
venturing into hitherto unexplored sections of their library.
This in itself however is not a bad thing. The transformation of
classical archaeology from the proverbial handmaiden of history
into a legitimate discipline of its own is still very much in
process. A book like this offers a chance to broaden the
traditional lines of inquiry and to see old material in radically
new ways. Despite the aforementioned criticisms, therefore, L.'s
book presents a valuable new perspective on a well-known subject.