sehepunkte 23 (2023), Nr. 10

Michael A. Anderson: Space, Movement, and Visibility in Pompeian Houses

Based on our knowledge of antiquity, private houses are likely the most influential topic with respect to Pompeii. Even still, new publications on Pompeian houses are surprisingly rare, particularly research covering at least some aspect of the entire city. This was one reason why I was eagerly anticipating the book Space, Movement, and Visibility in Pompeian Houses by Michael Anderson. Another reason was that the author's previously published articles on Pompeian houses had made a major contribution to the methodology of the field.

Anderson uses a Space syntax inspired method in the book (58). Space syntax is an approach for explaining the relationships between spaces in a defined system, such as a house. Space syntax can be further utilized to calculate the relationships between spaces, producing numerical values to evaluate spaces that are highly visible and those that are less so, or spaces important for movement and those that are not. The numeric values can be color coded - Anderson's book utilizes a grey scale color scheme - and the colors located on a map or plan to make it easier to see the relationships between them, rather than using long sets of numbers. The method is explained in chapter 3, The analysis of domestic space. This chapter alone would have been a good reason to publish the book in open access format since Space syntax - despite already having existed for a relatively long period of time - has rarely been used by scholars of the ancient world. Perhaps with such a good overview of the method presented here, future works will not have to devote so many pages to explaining it and leave more room for focusing on the results.

The author notes in the Preface and Acknowledgements sections that it took more than ten years to publish this research. Anderson came to the conclusion that it is still relevant, though (xii). I agree. Perhaps ten years ago the methodology would have seemed more innovative, but for the majority of scholars its practical applications might even then have still been too difficult to further utilize, as the computer software to execute such analysis was not so highly developed, providing a reason to dismiss Space syntax analysis when studying Pompeian and Roman archaeology. Today, such reasoning is no longer valid, as the tools are readily available to anyone. For example, dephtmapX software can be freely downloaded online. The current availability of the tools accounts for the gap between the time when research for the book was done and its publication. Anderson utilizes ArcGIS software (62), while dephtmapX has recently become more and more popular. Nonetheless, both function quite well for the purpose.

The book begins with an introductory chapter, The problem of Pompeian houses, and as its name suggests, it focuses on the problems related to the study of Pompeian houses. It is followed by a chapter that examines the activities of the Roman and Pompeian house as it is discussed in ancient literature - highlighting Roman comedy. This type of chapter is typical for classical archaeology due its close connection to classical literature, and quite often such chapters end up being almost useless from the standpoint of archaeological analysis. Nonetheless, that is not the case here. The chapter creates a useful basis for understanding the rest of the book, outlining a typical daily schedule for a Roman household. The chapter will likely be referenced more than any other in the book because readers will find it both quite familiar and relatable. Due to the nature of the source material, the chapter ends up focusing on the Roman elite, although Anderson tries his best to include other types of inhabitants.

The fourth chapter, Visitors, inhabitants, space, and power in Pompeian houses, presents the results of the Space syntax analysis in relation to the traditional names of the rooms and spaces and the activities related to them within a typical Pompeian house. In my opinion, the chapter simultaneously demonstrates the problems with previous interpretations of Pompeian private architecture, for example, that the naming conventions for the rooms do not necessarily correspond to their functions, as well as their strengths - for example, a visual axial line running from the entrance through the largest and most decorated spaces is clearly shown in Anderson's data and its analysis. While it certainly would have been possible to disrupt this line with the addition of doors and curtains, the line could equally have been opened up, and Anderson's analysis demonstrates its importance for the display of the house. Both the problems and strengths of the old interpretations are reinforced in the rest of the book, particularly in the fifth chapter, Case studies, which focuses on five Pompeian houses - all of a slightly different type.

The book is at its strongest in the last two chapters before the conclusion. The first of them deals with ancient restoration materials and their locations in Pompeian houses. The chapter clearly shows the multidimensional nature of the functions - and moreover their interpretations - of a typical Pompeian house. The locations of various items and furnishings represent a compromise between (non)visibility and practicality: they should be easily available for purposes of work but also out of sight of the most visible locations. The second to last chapter of the book discusses the wall paintings and their visibility. Anderson has decided to concentrate on the four Pompeian painting styles. They are interpreted in chronological order, with the first being the oldest and so forth. Consequently, it raises the question of how Pompeians chose certain visible locations to display the older styles. This approach is interesting with respect to the second and third style, but it is perhaps somewhat problematic with respect to the first style, considered the oldest style, which is also seemingly associated with open spaces, such as streets, and thus its selection might relate occasionally to the openness of the space, as it perhaps was more suitable for changing weather conditions than other styles. Additionally, the fourth style, which was predominant when Mount Vesuvius erupted, is difficult to compare with the other styles because so many more examples of it have been preserved. Nonetheless, the chapter on wall paintings reveals a very interesting result: how invisible the wall paintings actually were (208)! Together with the new data on lighting in a typical Pompeian house [1], it forces scholars to seriously reconsider the function of wall paintings in a Pompeian house.

I did notice a few printing errors (e.g., 37, 124), but in general the book is easy to read. Additionally, sometimes Anderson has offered an interpretation that I do not necessarily think beyond dispute, for instance, his discussion of possible agricultural activity occurring in the gardens of the houses (38) [2], but as the data is incomplete, I can see that Anderson's interpretation is also possible. However, Anderson puts a great deal of weight on the salutatio, a Roman cliens' routine morning visit to a patron's house, but the occurrence of the salutatio in Pompeii has been strongly questioned of late. [3] This topic would have required more space and explanation as to why Anderson has taken such a position. Nonetheless, the book is an important contribution to the field, and I believe that henceforth it will be rather fruitless to study Pompeian (or Roman) architecture, urbanism, and decoration (if we know its context) in any meaningful manner without conducting a Space syntax analysis. While the method has its problems, and it might not always produce significant information on the subject, the difficulties in acquiring more detailed information on Pompeian houses will only be resolved by doing more computer analysis of spatial configurations.

Notes:

[1] Danilo Campanaro: Coming to Light. Illuminating the House of the Greek Epigrams in Pompeii, in: American Journal of Archaeology 127:2 (2023), 263-292.

[2] The evidence of small-scale agricultural activity occurring in the Pompeian houses is often very weak, see Samuli Simelius: Pompeian peristyle gardens, Abingdon 2022, 78-80.

[3] See Fabian Goldbeck: Salutationes. Die Morgenbegrüßungen in Rom in der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit, Berlin 2010; and Simon Speksnijder: Beyond 'public' and 'private'. Accessibility and Visibility during salutationes, in: Public and Private in the Roman House and Society, edited by Kaius Tuori / Laura Nissin, Portsmouth 2015, 87-99 (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series; 102).