his pdf of your paper in Track 2012 belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright. As author you are licenced to make up to 50 ofprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (April 2016), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books (editorial@oxbowbooks.com). TRAC 2012 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual THEORETICAL ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY CONFERENCE which took place at Goethe University in Frankfurt 29 March – 1 April 2012 edited by Annabel Bokern, Marion Bolder-Boos, Stefan Krmnicek Dominik Maschek and Sven Page ISBN 978-1-78297-197-9 © Oxbow Books www.oxbowbooks.com Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................ v TRAC 2012: Programme ..............................................................................................vii Marks of Imitation or Signs of Originality? An Approach to Structural Supports in Roman Marble Statuary Anna Anguissola ............................................................................................................. 1 Equites and Senators as Agents of Change: Urban Culture and Elite Self-Representation in Thamugadi and Lepcis Magna (Second-third Centuries A.D.) Lennart Gilhaus ............................................................................................................ 21 Sacra Volsiniensia. Civic Religion in Volsinii after the Roman Conquest Annalisa Calapà............................................................................................................ 37 The Internal Frontier: An African Model for Culture Change in South Central Italy (Fourth-third Centuries B.C.) Roman Roth................................................................................................................... 49 Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii: A Holistic Study of Neighbourhood Relations Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen ......................................... 61 Understanding Neighbourhood Relations through Shared Structures: Reappraising the Value of Insula-Based Studies Heini Ynnilä .................................................................................................................. 81 Secondary Doors in Entranceways at Pompeii: Reconsidering Access and the ‘View from the Street’ Evan Proudfoot ............................................................................................................. 91 The Perception of Egypt in Networks of Being and Becoming: A Thing Theory Approach to Egyptianising Objects in Roman Domestic Contexts Eva M. Mol.................................................................................................................. 117 Hybrid Bridges: An Exploration into how Traditionally ‘Romanised’ Elements of the Town Interacted with Meaning-Laden Pre-Historic Waterscapes Jay Ingate .................................................................................................................... 133 iv Contents Romanisation in Gaul: New Methodological Approaches for the Study of Gaulish Fine Wares (200 B.C.–A.D. 50) Sylvie Barrier .............................................................................................................. 151 Transgendered Archaeology: The Galli and the Catterick Transvestite Renato Pinto and Luciano C. G. Pinto ....................................................................... 169 Ritual Landscapes of Pre-Roman Britain: The Margins of Practice on the Margins of the Empire Nicky Garland ............................................................................................................. 183 List of contributors...................................................................................................... 199 List of contributors Anna Anguissola Institut für Klassische Archäologie Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich Germany Anna.Anguissola@lmu.de Sylvie Barrier Dorigny, Anthropôle (IASA) Université de Lausanne Switzerland sylvie.barrier@unil.ch Annalisa Calapà Historisches Seminar, Abt. Alte Geschichte Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich Germany Annalisa.Calapa@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Nicky Garland Institute of Archaeology University College London United Kingdom n.garland@ucl.ac.uk Lennart Gilhaus Institut für Geschichtswissenschaft, Abt. Alte Geschichte Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Germany lgilhaus@uni-bonn.de Jay Ingate School of European Culture and Languages Department of Classical and Archaeological Studies University of Kent United Kingdom ji41@kent.ac.uk Eva M. Mol Faculteit der Archeologie Universiteit Leiden The Netherlands e.m.mol@arch.leidenuniv.nl 200 List of contributors Evan Proudfoot Lincoln College University of Oxford United Kingdom evan.proudfoot@arch.ox.ac.uk Roman Roth School of Languages and Literature University of Cape Town South Africa roman.roth@uct.ac.za Renato Pinto and Luciano C. G. Pinto Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, University of São Paulo; History Department Federal University of Pernambuco Linguistics Department, State University of Campinas tdhmuc@gmail.com lucianuscaesar@gmail.com Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Institutum Classicum University of Helsinki Finland eeva-maria.viitanen@helsinki.i laura.nissinen@helsinki.i kalle.korhonen@helsinki.i Heini Ynnilä Institutum Classicum University of Helsinki Finland heini.ynnila@helsinki.i TRAC 2012: Programme TRAC SESSION 1: ROMAN COPIES AND GREEK ORIGINALS. THEORIES, METHODS, PERSPECTIVES Session organiser: Anna Anguissola Gabriella Cirucci ‘Authentic Greek’. Transformations of ancient Greek artworks in the Roman World Angela Palmentieri Roman statuary in marble and bronze from Salerno in Campania Britta Rabe Incorporating Egypt. A case study Anna Anguissola Marks of imitation or signs of originality? Struts in Roman marble sculpture Fiona Mowat The adoption and adaptation of Greek sculptural prototypes in the Roman cinerary monuments dating from the late irst to early second centuries A.D. Marike van Aerde Augustan visual language revisited: from copy criticism to creative emulation TRAC SESSION 2: THE ROMANISATION OF THE ROMAN WORLD. NEW THEORETICAL, PRACTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO AN OLD PARADIGM Session organisers: Michael Sommer and Miguel John Versluys Sergio Gonzales Sanchez Post-colonialism, globalisation and beyond: a comparative approach to national perspectives on ‘Romanisation’ Dragana Mladenovic Romanisation and Anglo-American post-colonial discourse – a case of collateral damage? Blanca Misic ‘Psychoanalysing Romanisation’. The concepts of ‘Romanisation’ and acculturation from a psychological perspective Marleen Termeer The Romanisation of the Roman World: early Roman expansion in central Italy Lennart Gilhaus What comes afterwards? Uniformity and distinctiveness in the Roman Empire of the 2nd and 3rd centuries C.E. Dianne van de Zande Regional and Mediterranean contexts of rural funerary structures in Roman Syria: a theoretical exploration viii TRAC 2012: Programme TRAC SESSION 3: RELIGION IN ROMAN ITALY: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE, CONTINUITY IN CHANGE Session organiser: Annalisa Calapà Andrea Carini The indigenous element in Latin colonisation of Italy and Roman cults: persistence and innovation Marion Boos Venus in the Roman Republic Claudia Widow Samnite sanctuaries. Formation and dissemination of temples in Samnium Annalisa Calapà Sacra Volsiniensia. Civic religion in Volsinii after the Roman conquest Valentino Gasparini The cult of Jupiter in Pompeii TRAC SESSION 4: PHILHELLENISM AND THE ROMANS Session organiser: Kelly Olson Gunnar R. Dumke Dead, yet agile – Hellenistic rulers in Roman material culture Kathryn Lomas Colonising the past: cultural memory and civic memory in the Hellenistic World Karen A. Laurence Roman transformations to the Isthmian games and the creation of new Corinthian identities Roman Roth Double penetration: Greeks, Romans and Apennine tribes in South-Central Italy Constanze Loesch A glimpse of greek ‘savoir vivre’ in remote areas of the Imperium Romanum? A Roman ‘wedding’ ring with ‘homonoia’ inscription and a Dionysos bust from a girl’s tomb from a Roman farmstead in Rheinbach-Flerzheim, North Rhine Westfalia, Germany Kelly Olson Greek dress and Romanitas in Roman antiquity TRAC 2012: Programme ix TRAC SESSION 5: ‘LIVING NEXT DOOR TO ANNIUS’: ROMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD RELATIONS IN URBAN CONTEXTS Session organisers: Anna Kieburg and Renate Storli Eeva Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Hanging out in Pompeii: testing neighbourhood relations? David Grifiths Illuminating Pompeii: ‘after-dark’ activities and the urban consumption of artiicial light at Insula VI.1 Hanna Stöger The ‘collective insula’ – a Severan neighbourhood in Ostia Heini Ynnilä Understanding neighbourhood relations through shared structures: reappraising the value of insula-based studies Evan Proudfoot Next door neighbours: doors as a ‘way in’ to Pompeian neighbourhoods and social rhythms Jeremy Hartnett Overhearing? Soundscapes and society in the Roman neighbourhood TRAC SESSION 6: EMBODYING VALUE? THE TRANSFORMATION OF OBJECTS IN AND FROM THE ROMAN WORLD Session organiser: Clare Rowan Astrid van Oyen The realisation of value in the production of Terra Sigillata William Anderson From manufactured goods to signiicant possessions: theorising the consumption of Late Roman pottery in Central Anatolia Dragana Eremic Coin inds beyond the Danube: functions of fourth century Roman imperial coins within Sarmatian society Gordana Ciric The continuity of objects and landscapes from the Roman period to the Medieval period in Serbia – reasons and meanings Katherine M. Erdman Votives and values: communicating with the supernatural Eva M. Mol The concept of Egypt in networks of being and becoming: a thing theory approach to Egyptianised objects in Roman domestic contexts x TRAC 2012: Programme TRAC SESSION 7: GENERAL SESSION Andreas Murgan Heavy metal in hallowed contexts. Continuity and change in Aes deposits in Central Italy Nick Ray Modelling Roman materialism Stefanie Hoss Recycling all metal? Towards a revised model of refuse dumping patterns Jay Ingate Roman bridges with a native view: an exploration into how traditionally ‘Romanised’ elements of the town interacted with meaning-laden pre-historic waterscapes Sylvie Barrier How to quantify and analyse the Romanisation in internal Gaul by the study of ine wares (200 B.C.–A.D. 50): new methodological approaches and results Jennifer Wehby Agency and intent: production of ancient construction mortar in Ostia (Italy) TRAC SESSION 8: CONCEPTUALISING FRONTIER MARKETS. THE FREE MARKET, IMPERIAL SUPPLY, AND EXPRESSIONS OF LOCAL IDENTITY Session organisers: Tyler Franconi and Meike Weber Tyler Franconi New paths to economic theorisation of the Roman frontier John Creighton Financing the military: the supply of coin to the Roman armies Meike Weber One army, one market, same supplies? Discussing regionality in the organisation of frontier markets and military supply Anthi Kaldeli Trade and exchange in Roman Cyprus: relecting the economy of the eastern frontier regions Victoria Leitch Pottery on the fringe: ceramic approaches for modelling frontier markets Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii: A Holistic Study of Neighbourhood Relations Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Introduction Many ordinary activities in the Roman world required exiting the home and going to the streets. Poor cooking facilities made it often necessary to buy and consume food and drink in cauponae or tabernae. Water was available from public fountains in the street and neighbourhood religion was practiced at the crossroads shrines. Maintaining social relationships was also probably more pleasant outdoors and the many necessary activities connected with the streetscape made meeting neighbours and friends outside a natural occurrence. This is attested by literary evidence particularly for Rome (Toner 1995: 65–88; Holleran 2011), but similar activity can be imagined for most parts of the Roman world. Literary sources place crowds usually to the forum, baths and other places intended for public gatherings and providing public entertainment. Taverns, crossroads and streets in general are also often mentioned. Many Roman literary authors disapproved of hanging around in public places and associated such behaviour with drunkenness, rows and crime. Previous research has suggested that the Roman elite actively avoided places where crowds were likely to gather particularly in their choices of places to live (Laurence 1994; 2007; WallaceHadrill 1995). Archaeological evidence in Pompeii has been used to argue for moral zoning and elite control of deviant behaviour in bars and brothels. However, recent studies have shown that the locations of such deviant establishments can also be explained with economic causes (McGinn 2002; Ellis 2004; 2006). Bars and work places for prostitutes are often found in or close to main streets: the retail business of food, drink and even of sex needed to be where the consumers were. These discussions have concentrated on just a few aspects of Pompeian street life and many questions can be raised concerning both practical and theoretical aspects. What kind of activities can we recognize in the Pompeian streets apart from bars and brothels? ‘Elite’ are central in these discussions, but are usually not physically present. Where did the elite live? Where did the non-elite inhabitants of Pompeii live? Where were the dwellings located in relation to the suggested deviant and other activities? In this paper, we aim irstly to map various street activities and locations of dwellings in Pompeii. The second aim is to study the wall inscriptions, electoral notices and grafiti, and their distribution in the townscape in relation to the street activities and dwellings. By adopting a more holistic approach – that is looking at the whole instead of merely some component elements as well as using varying sources and methods (see e.g. DeMarrais 2005; in classical archaeology used e.g. in Ikäheimo 2003) – we wish to gain a better understanding of how Pompeian neighbourhoods functioned. The holistic 62 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Figure 1: Distribution of elements of street activity in Pompeii: public fountains, crossroad shrines, benches, bars and workplaces of prostitutes view is combined with micro-topography in the analysis of the locations of the wall inscriptions: only a detailed distribution map gives enough information on the contexts of the texts. Contextualization of archaeological and written evidence is used as a tool to understand neighbourhood relations in Roman Pompeii. Street Activities The irst task was to create a topographical map of the activities related to the streetscape. Various elements of the Pompeian cityscape have been recently systematically researched and published. However, these analyses usually concentrate on singular elements and rarely combine their results to other data to verify the hypotheses. We collected data on various activities that are associated with crowds in the streets and plotted them as accurately as possible to a map of Pompeii (based on map published in Dobbins and Foss 2007). The idea is simple and originally successfully used by Ray Laurence in his effort to map and interpret different kinds of activities in Pompeii’s townscape (Laurence 1994; 2007). The series of maps he produced repeat very similar distributions for most kinds of activities from production and retail to those related to local identity and deviant behaviour. For our purposes, the most interesting themes discussed by Laurence are local identity and deviant behaviour (1994: 38–50, 70–87; 2007: 39–61, 82–101). Crossroad shrines and public water fountains used to study local identity are located on the very same streets which are later deemed deviant (Laurence 1994: Maps Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 63 Figure 2: Wide shop doorways, trafic routes, porticoes and open areas in Pompeii 3.1, 3.2 and 5.4 – the deviant street map is not reproduced in the 2007 edition). Bars and brothels represent the activities that were disapproved by some of the Roman authors, but their locations match those of non-deviant activities almost perfectly. The two sets of evidence were treated separately enabling different interpretations, but had they been compared, the inal results might have been different. We plotted the crossroads shrines (47 based on Van Andringa 2000), public water fountains (45 based on Jansen 2002), bars with counters (154 based on Ellis 2004; 2006) and work places of prostitutes (46 based on McGinn 2002; Guzzo and Scarano Ussani 2009) and added street benches (100 based on Hartnett 2008) and probably frequently used trafic routes (Poehler 2006; Kaiser 2011a; Weilguni 2011). We also searched for plazas, wide parts in the streets and porticoes using large scale ground plans of Pompeii (RICA maps published in Vander Poel 1984; Eschebach 1993) and visits at the sites identiied from the maps. Furthermore, the public spaces and buildings related to gathering of people were marked on the maps. Most of the evidence used is relatively reliable: shrines, fountains and benches are in the majority of cases clearly identiiable and easy to spot in the streetscape. The bars are identiied by the presence of masonry counters (but see also McCallum 2011 for evidence of counters being used in other kinds of contexts). The evidence for hospitia and various other kinds of hospitality establishments could be used only cursorily as these are usually dificult to recognize archaeologically and the evidence is often ambiguous (Kleberg 1957; DeFelice 2001). In most cases (93 out of some 125 establishments), these contain a bar with a counter and are thus included in our data. The evidence for prostitution is also somewhat ambiguous, but the two studies used discuss also the criteria for identifying such sites (masonry beds, erotic art, inscriptions) and agree on the interpretation of most of the locations. 64 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen The features related to street activities were plotted on the map as accurately as possible (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Most of the fountains and shrines are found at crossroads or very close to them. The fountains were set at regular intervals (e.g. Eschebach 1979: Abb. 8) and they supplied water to most of Pompeii. Their locations were partly dictated by supply from the mains water and partly probably by perceived demand (see also Ling 2005). Laurence (1994: 38–50; 2007: 39–61) used the fountains as the most important evidence when discussing local identity. The locations of crossroads shrines have also been used to identify neighbourhoods and they would probably have been placed at crossroads signiicant to the people participating in the activities of the cult (Van Andringa 2000: 71–80). Bars with counters are often located in street corners, but they are also found elsewhere in the city block frontages (cf. Ellis 2004). Many of the sites related to prostitution are found in bars in the street corners and even the only certain, purpose-built brothel (VII,12,18–20) opens onto a crossroads. However, most of them are located away from the main streets (Van Nes 2011: 115). The only element used here clearly not connected to the crossroads are the benches which tend to be built along the facades of the city blocks. The crossroads were clearly an important location for the neighbourhoods and the gathering of crowds in Pompeii. It is also important to note that the elements are not evenly distributed in the townscape. Most of them are located along the main streets starting from the gates in the town wall. The secondary streets with many signs of street activity are among the most important trafic routes inside Pompeii (Fig. 2; based on Weilguni 2011: 167–222). Benches are found mostly in the eastern part of town, particularly in Regiones I and II, and they are connected with both domestic and commercial buildings (Hartnett 2008: Fig.1, Table 1). Large squares are usually located close to public buildings: the forum surrounded by religious, administrative and commercial buildings, the Triangular Forum next to temples and theatres and the palaestra adjacent to the amphitheatre. Almost all the porticoes are also related to these areas. The streets feature some wider sections which tend to be along the main streets and in some crossroads possibly indicating a need to separate some activity from the trafic in the street or simply making turning at the crossroads easier. The streets in front of the Stabian Baths and the main entrance to the theatres are wider probably to accommodate crowds. The street section in front of the Stabian Baths is also part of a processional route (Wallace-Hadrill 1995: 49–50) which in part could explain the need for a wider street. There are also some active streets outside the main streets and crossroads, for example the eastern end of Via degli Augustali in Regio IX and the streets south of Insula of the Menander (I,10) in Regio I (for the street names, see e.g. the Pompeii in Pictures web page). One further element of street activity are the wide doorways related to shops and when they are added to the map (Fig. 2; e.g. Gassner 1986; Ellis 2011) the small gaps in the otherwise active main streets disappear. Areas that feature few signs of any kind of street activity can be found inside Regio VI in the north-west, around the forum, the theatre district in the south and the surroundings of the amphitheatre and the palaestra in the south-east. Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 65 Based on this evidence we drew a map of active streets and nodes of activities (Fig. 3). The nodes are places where many different kinds of activities or a large number of one type of activity, for example several bars side by side, can be found. Nodes are usually found in the crossroads – a natural outcome of how many of the elements are located. A quarter of the some 130 intersections found in Pompeii (Weilguni 2011: 182, Fig. 43) can be regarded as activity nodes. Some of the node areas stretch further along the city block frontages, but they tend to be fairly rare. The street activities in Pompeii are located on the main streets and crossroads areas as expected, but somewhat surprisingly, the areas around public buildings and many natural locations for gatherings of large crowds are outside these actives zones. Figure 3: Active streets and activity nodes in Pompeii. The most active streets in black and streets with fewer elements in grey Dwellings The second task was to plot Pompeian dwellings on the map. Identifying dwellings is not as straightforward as one might think – for example some of the large and luxuriously decorated atrium houses, such as the House of Sallust (VI,2,3–5.30; Fiorelli 1875: 83–85; Kleberg 1957: 31–34), could have been used as hospitia. The House of Sallust features a bar with a masonry counter connected with the atrium as well as a masonry triclinium in its garden which make it a possible hospitium. It is also dificult to determine which of the smallest one-room houses were used as dwellings and not just as shops and/or workshops. Studies on use of space in Pompeii are often based on varying interpretations of the evidence and consequently result in varying statistics of what constitutes a dwelling, a shop or a workshop (e.g. Schoonhoven 1999). We 66 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen decided to use Astrid Schoonhoven’s (2006: Appendix I) catalogue and classiication as a starting point. Schoonhoven’s list is not complete as for example the houses in Insula Occidentalis (VI,16; VII,17) and on the southern edge of Pompeii (Regio VIII) have not been included, but it is one of the few catalogues where a uniform classiication to most of the housing units found in Pompeii is applied. The classiication is quite detailed with its seven categories based on size and architecture of the units (Table 1). These classes can also fairly easily be combined to match Andrew Wallace-Hadrill’s (1994: 80–82) or Damian Robinson’s (1997) four categories for Pompeian houses (Table 1). Classiication in WallaceHadrill 1994 Groups Unit Type (Schoonhoven 2006) Small Workshop, shop and/or Class 1: size < 50m2, 1–2 dwelling, < 100m2 in size, rooms, no decorative no status architecture elements 535 336 Small Larger workshop/shop and/ Class 2: size 50–170m2, or dwelling, more complex 2–7 rooms, some decorative plan, no status architecture, elements row houses 233 125 Class 3: size 170–350m2, One atrium or peristyle, no 5–13 rooms, atrium and/ Medium commercial area or garden, more decorative elements 94 59 Pompeii Reg. I, VI, VII Medium One atrium or peristyle, with commercial area 40 26 Large One atrium and a decorative garden/peristyle 112 81 Very Large Class 4: size > 350m2, > 13 One atrium and peristyle or rooms, atria and gardens, two atria lavishly decorated 55 35 Very Large More than one atrium and more than one peristyle 39 26 Table 1: Classiications of housing units and their numbers in Pompeii Schoonhoven’s irst two classes feature a shop or a workshop and they are most commonly located along the main streets (Fig. 2). Their locations can be explained with economic reasons: shops are usually located in the areas where most people move (cf. Van Nes 2011). The rest of the houses also feature commercial elements, but not always – they are generally more clearly dwellings. The inhabitants were able to invest in the size, comfort and luxury of their dwelling. These ive classes of dwellings were divided into three groups of roughly equal size (Table 1) as some of them are very similar to one another and studying the distributions of all the original classes afforded no real analytical value. Our inal grouping is also close to Wallace-Hadrill’s house Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 67 types (Table 1). The classiication of the dwellings represents their appearance around the time of Pompeii’s destruction. Most house complexes are results of long building and habitation histories, but there is no evidence of major changes in their distribution (e.g. the distribution of late Hellenistic domus in Dickmann 1999: Abb. 38). Who lived in these houses is a central question for our analysis, but one that is dificult to answer. The identiications of owners are based on epigraphic evidence, such as seal stamps, electoral programmata, grafiti and texts painted on amphorae. Matteo Della Corte’s work (1965) is seminal and still often cited even though his methodology has been deemed faulty and unreliable (Mouritsen 1988: 18–19, 61; Allison 2001). Only in very few cases do we have reliable data to deduce who lived in the house before its destruction in A.D. 79. For example, the banker Caecilius Iucundus very likely owned the house where his archive of wax tablets was found (V,1,22–27; Karivieri and Forsell 2007). This house boasts two atria, a large peristyle garden, wall paintings and loor mosaics and consequently belongs to the group of the largest and most lavishly decorated houses in Pompeii. One of the underlying assumptions in almost all studies concerning the social signiicance of the Roman house is that the larger the house and the more lavishly decorated it was, the higher its owner’s status was in society (e.g. Zanker 1979; Wallace-Hadrill 1994; Dickmann 1999; Hales 2003). This is the assumption that we also have to accept for lack of better or more convincing alternatives: the large houses with multiple elements of status architecture and elaborate decoration are likely to be where the Pompeian social, political and economic elite lived. The distribution of the different types of dwellings consequently should relect where persons of different economic means and social statuses lived. The overall distribution of the dwellings is familiar to what was encountered in the previous section (Fig. 4). They can be found in most parts of Pompeii apart from the Figure 4: Distribution of different types of dwellings in Pompeii 68 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen south-east corner with palaestra and amphitheatre. Also the city blocks surrounding the theatres and the forum feature only few dwellings. Larger and smaller houses are distributed fairly evenly across the townscape. The most solidly residential area is Regio VI in the north-west corner of Pompeii and the most non-residential area is Regio II in the south-east. Wall Inscriptions The third type of evidence used is wall inscriptions, particularly electoral programmata and grafiti. These texts have been studied for many reasons, most often to understand Pompeian prosopography and town administration (Castrén 1975; Franklin 1980; Mouritsen 1988; Chiavia 2002). Particular types of texts have also been studied, for example literary citations (Gigante 1979) or texts and drawings produced by children (Huntley 2011). Recently groundbreaking work has been done in studying grafiti in contexts inside houses (Beneiel 2010; 2011). Previous research on the distribution of wall inscriptions on the house facades has been done by calculating the number of texts per facade or street metre (Mouritsen 1988: Fig. 3; Laurence 1994: 96–100, Maps 6.5–6.8; 2007: 109–113, Maps 6.5–6.8; Sakai 1993 is an exception). The resulting maps give a general impression of where texts can be found in Pompeii and they have been used to recognize the areas where people moved. However, the inscriptions were not evenly distributed on the walls of the city blocks as shown by old photographs and drawings (Varone and Stefani 2009). They were usually clustered and we set out to look at the exact locations and contexts – types of house they were connected with – of the texts. The assumption is that people not only moved regularly in these areas, but also stayed in them for longer periods of time, at least enough for reading and writing messages. They could have formed loitering crowds to the discontent of the elite house owners as suggested by previous research. One of the reasons why this kind of study has not been done before is probably the sheer amount of work. The entries in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum IV and its many appendices are arranged according to types of texts and not topographically requiring going through each volume to ind the relevant texts. The indications of ind locations are often ambiguous and sometimes require further work to place them on the map. Moreover, the sheer number of texts is daunting. We also decided to use samples for the very reasons of work economy and time. Three areas which cover approximately half of the excavated area of Pompeii were selected. Regio I in the south-west and Regio VI in the north-west are mostly residential in character although naturally it is not known what lies under the unexcavated part of Regio I. They are also otherwise similar in location and size: each is situated between main streets starting from the gates and close to centres of public activities – Regio VI next to the forum and Regio I to the theatres. The third area is Regio VII around the forum. That part of Pompeii features a great number of public buildings and less residential units. The most signiicant differences between the selected areas appear in their modern excavation histories. Both Regiones VI and VII were excavated early in Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 69 the research history of Pompeii whereas Regio I was excavated mostly in the twentieth century (e.g. Berry 1998: Map on pp. 4–5). Previously it has been suggested that the areas excavated earlier feature less inscriptions than those excavated later due to poorer documentation and preservation (Mouritsen 1988: 49–50). More than 2100 inscriptions have been found in the facades of houses in our three areas of interest (Table 2). Almost 800 are grafiti and more than 1300 are electoral notices and other painted texts such as advertisements for gladiatorial games. Both main text types can be found in almost equal numbers in all three regions. Most of the texts, roughly 1600, can be located with suficient accuracy. Most of the uncertain locations (440) are in Regiones VI and VII as expected based on their excavation history. It could also be suggested that the inal number of inscriptions from Regio I should be even higher considering that parts of it are unexcavated. However, although there are slightly more electoral programmata in Regio I than in Regiones VI or VII, the numbers of grafiti from each are very similar suggesting that there might not be that much difference in recoding accuracy between the areas. Grafiti can be dificult to observe and disappear quickly when the plaster surface is exposed to weathering. Some of the differences between the areas might also result from different kinds of building materials. Many of the facades particularly in Regio VI are built of Nucerian tuff and the inscriptions were often painted directly on the stone surfaces instead of the wall plaster used to cover the facades in the other two areas. Inscriptions on wall plaster are probably easier to detect, but are preserved poorly compared to those painted directly onto stone. The plaster surfaces in the facades were exposed to the effects of weather and consequently needed to be replaced periodically. Old surfaces could also be repainted if that was needed. Most of the electoral notices have been connected to the elections of Neronian and Flavian periods (e.g. Chiavia 2002: 122–187). Area Grafiti Programmata Other Total Regio I 269 (32) 505 (75) 3 (0) 792 (107) Regio VI 276 (107) 392 (135) 2 (1) 686 (243) Regio VII 258 (60) 436 (127) 20 (10) 693 (193) Total 803 (199) 1343 (337) 25 (11) 2171 (547) Table 2: Grafitti, electoral notices and painted texts in Regiones I, VI and VII of Pompeii. Texts in uncertain locations in brackets The general distribution of the electoral notices in the whole of Pompeii as calculated and mapped by Henrik Mouritsen (1988: Fig. 3; here as Fig. 5) forms a familiar pattern compared to what was seen in previous sections. When the accurately placed inscriptions in the three study areas are mapped (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) it is worth noting that the electoral programmata and grafiti are usually located on the same facades. The electoral notices are usually painted right next to or very close to doorways and consequently, the facades where there are no doorways feature very few electoral programmata. Some side streets 70 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Figure 5: Frequency of electoral programmata on the facades of Pompeii calculated texts per facade metre (after Mouritsen 1988: Fig. 3) particularly in Regio VI feature more grafiti than electoral notices. If a location has been suggested for the uncertain cases, they are almost invariably on the same streets as the certain locations. The distribution pattern also suggests that the number of unrevealed inscriptions in Regio I might not be that high as the unexcavated areas are located away from the active parts of the region. In conclusion it can be stated that despite suspicions that early documentation methods might have affected the distribution of wall inscriptions in Pompeii, what we have is a fairly accurate representation of where they were most frequently encountered in ancient times. Comparing Distributions The results of the locational analysis of the street activities, dwellings and wall inscriptions indicate that they are all most often connected with the main streets starting from the gates and the crossroads. In other words, the elements in the streetscape indicating street activities were related to the areas where there were dwellings and inscriptions were written in the same areas. The zones of public activities such as the forum or the amphitheatre were inactive despite the fact that all these must have attracted crowds. The fountains, crossroad shrines and even bars were intended to be used mainly by the inhabitants of Pompeii rather than by occasional visitors to see for example games in the amphitheatre. Most Pompeians seemed to have chosen to live in the active parts of the city despite possible presence of crowds and possibility of encountering deviant behaviour – many of them probably even participated in it at least by visiting bars which could be found Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 71 Figure 6: Find locations of electoral programmata in Regiones I, VI and VII in Pompeii close to most Pompeian dwellings. What about then the largest houses owned by the presumed Pompeian elite? When the locations of the very large houses are plotted together with the active streets, the correlation is quite clear: the houses are mostly located on the active streets (Fig. 8). Further analysis shows that the very large houses had their main doors usually on the most active streets (55 of 94) and that the smaller the dwelling the more likely it was to open onto a quiet side street. Almost none of the doorways to dwellings are located near the crossroads and consequently nodes of activity and dwellings do not correlate. This is probably related to the architecture of the dwellings – building a symmetrical and consequently usually wide atrium house with an entrance in the corner of a city block is quite dificult. Economic reasons could also be important as the crossroads are clearly prime retail property and having a doorway to a private dwelling there would be a waste of potential income. Possible deviant behaviour in bars and workplaces of prostitutes is usually never too far from the main entrances of the largest houses. Three anomalous locations can be found in the distribution of the very large houses with regard to street activity. Regio VI features fewer active streets in general, but the inactive northern part of Via di Mercurio running north–south through the area and the similarly inactive western part of Via delle Terme between Regiones VI and VII feature many very large houses (ive and eight respectively). Third such street can be found between Regiones VII and VIII: the western part of Via dell’Abbondanza between the forum and Via Stabiana features six very large houses despite its inactive character. However, only the northern part of Via di Mercurio is truly isolated from all sorts of street activity as the two other street sections feature tight rows of shop fronts although other elements of street activity cannot be found along them (cf. Fig. 2). Regio VI has 72 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Figure 7: Find locations of grafiti in Regiones I, VI and VII in Pompeii. been interpreted as a possible elite residential area and it does feature quite a few of the largest houses in Pompeii (e.g. Schoonhoven 1999). But even here the very large houses open onto the central streets, not to the isolated side streets which feature most of the modest dwellings (Fig. 8). The very large houses are distributed similarly to the other dwellings: along the active streets. There does not seem to be a tendency for the Pompeian elite to isolate themselves from the rest of the town population. The general distribution of electoral notices and grafiti in the three study areas is the same as that of the active streets and the reason is fairly obvious: no audience, no messages (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). Painting advertisements and writing grafiti on the walls of isolated side streets is not worth the trouble. Most of the texts faced streets in general instead of the crossroads (Table 3) – although the corners of the city blocks are often narrow piers with little space for writing which makes the number of texts on them perhaps more signiicant. On the other hand, as it was noted above, the texts are Area Crossroads Street Programmata (n = 1020) 269 751 Grafiti (n = 604) 111 493 Regio I (n = 685) 113–42 335–195 Regio VI (n = 443) 47–5 227–164 Regio VII (n = 496) 109–64 189–134 Total (n = 1624) 380 1244 Table 3: Locations of wall inscriptions in the streetscape. In the igures per regio, programmata are mentioned irst and grafiti second Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 73 Figure 8: The main entrances of very large houses (Table 2) compared to the active streets in Pompeii. See Fig. 3 for explanations of the colours. usually connected to doorways without much regard to amount of wall space around the doorway. It is also interesting to note that the activity nodes were not particularly attractive for placing texts – roughly half of the texts at crossroads are in activity nodes. Apparently, location at crossroads was more important than the activities related to it attracting passers-by. Most of the texts, however, were located away from the corners of the city blocks. The association of texts with facades rather than crossroads areas can be explained by analysing the types of houses associated with texts. In the study area, the modest shop-houses outnumber the large and very large dwellings roughly three to one (461 to 142) and feature most of the bars and shops which attracted crowds. Most of the properties in the crossroads were of this kind. The large and very large dwellings have their doorways along the facades of the city blocks and more than half of all the texts that could be located accurately – some 970 of the 1600 – are associated with these houses either exclusively or then between these and more modest units. Almost half of the texts (755) are found associated exclusively with the large and very large dwellings. The presence of texts probably indicates places where passers-by were likely to stop and possible even gather and consequently the doorways of the most prestigious houses were obviously preferred spots along the busy streets. The grafiti are different from the electoral notices as they are not oficial in character. They are private and comparing their locations to the public electoral notices might give a different picture of where people hung out. However, their distribution is very similar to the distribution of the programmata and corresponds also well with the active streets (Fig. 7). Roughly half of the grafiti are connected with bar and shop fronts and the other 74 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Figure 9: Distribution of electoral programmata and grafiti in the street between insulae I,6 and I,10. ‘Cella’ is the possible prostitute’s workplace. Grafiti in grey, programmata in black. Arrows indicate doorways to dwellings half to facades of dwellings. Most of the grafiti related to dwellings were scribbled on the facades of the large and very large houses. Particularly many grafiti were related to dwellings in Regio VI: 127 of the 169 found in the area compared to the 80 (of the 235) in Regio I and 55 (of the 198) in Regio VII. In general the distribution of grafiti suggests that people loitering in the street by the large dwellings scribbling on the facades were not a problem for the house owners. Only relatively few texts are connected with public buildings and electoral notices are particularly rare. Some of the facades of the public buildings in Regio VII attracted writers: the south-east corner of the portico surrounding the temple of Apollo along the Via Marina and the south facade of the Building of Eumachia on the opposite side of the forum. These are the preferred places, but otherwise inscriptions – mostly grafiti – can be found inside the public buildings, for example the Stabian Baths, macellum and the Building of Eumachia. Basilica lanking Regio VII as well as the purpose-built brothel (VII,12,18–20) feature most grafiti in the western part of Pompeii, but all are strictly inside. Outside the study area, the palaestra and the region of the amphitheatre in general as well as the entrance gallery to the theatres in the southern part of Via Stabiana are similar preferred locations (Keegan 2011: Table 9.4). Even in these contexts, grafiti are far more common than electoral notices. The electoral notices were painted usually only on the facades of housing units owned privately and they were apparently intimately connected with the persons who controlled the facades over which they were painted. The grafiti writers were active in two locations differing from the general distribution pattern: the middle of Regio VI as well as in one of the side streets in the eastern part of the region, Vicolo del Labirinto. A group of large houses can be found in the irst location and it could be imagined that the grafiti were scribbled by clients Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 75 and other visitors waiting in front of the house. It has been suggested recently that the ritual of salutatio would have been socially and geographically mostly limited to the city of Rome (Goldbeck 2010). However, patronage relationships were abundant in all parts of the Roman world and could have resulted in similar practices elsewhere. The strong association between the wall inscriptions and doorways of large houses certainly suggests gatherings of people. The other cluster in Regio VI is located on the facades of fairly modest dwellings. Two benches and a possible prostitute’s work place are located in the middle of the cluster. Some grafiti with sexual content have been connected with the latter site. A similar cluster of grafiti in a quiet side street can be found in the south side of insula IX,5 (Keegan 2011: Table 9.4) where two prostitutes’ workplaces have been suggested in previous research (IX,5,14–16 and IX,5,18–21; McGinn 2002: 42 nr. 35 based on presence of a possible tavern and some erotic art and 42 nr. 36 based on erotic grafiti). Some of the active streets which feature few electoral programmata and a large number of grafiti also have connections to prostitution, for example the street in the northwest part of Regio VII between insulae VII,2 and VII,3. Another similar site can be found north-west of the forum between insulae VII,6, VII,7 and VII,15. In each case the grafiti are not directly connected with the prostitute’s workplace but were incised on the facades nearby. Based on these clusters in Pompeii, it could be suggested that abundant grafiti on otherwise quiet streets indicate places where prostitutes worked. The grafiti with sexual content have been used to identify these locations in previous research (McGinn 2002: passim; Guzzo and Scarano Ussani 2009: passim), but the results of the analysis of all the grafiti in the adjacent areas and elements of street activity can be used to strengthen the hypotheses. In Regio I, the wall inscriptions occur mostly on the busy trafic routes, but in its western part there is one anomalous area. A narrow street, Vicolo del Conciapelle, starts from Via Stabiana and wounds its way between city blocks (I,1; I,2; I,5; I,10; I,19) towards north-west (Vicolo del Citarista and an unnamed street). All the sections are among the active streets. Only two medium sized dwellings opened to the irst part which also makes the high number of inscriptions anomalous. Several bars and possible brothels, on the other hand, can be found along the route. The connection to Via Stabiana is blocked from vehicular trafic (Kaiser 2011a: Map 3.6) and it seems likely that the route was frequently used by pedestrians who would have been either passing through towards the eastern part of town or were headed for the bars and/or brothels on the streets. The eastern part of Vicolo del Menandro in Regio I located between city blocks 6 and 10 illustrates the results of these locational analyses well (Fig. 9). It is an active street based on three elements: fountain, benches and a possible prostitute’s work place. The fountain is located in the crossroads in the north-eastern corner of insula I,10. Two doors west there is a bar (I,10,2–3 caupona–popina), followed by main entrances to ive large dwellings on both sides of the street (south: I,10,4.14–17 Casa del Menandro, 1,10,7 Casa del Fabbro and I,10,8 unnamed house; north: I,6,15 Casa dei Ceii and I,6,13–14 Casa di Stallius Eros). There are several benches along the facades of the large houses 76 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen on both sides of the street. A prostitute’s workplace (I,10,5) has been proposed to have existed in the south side of the street next to the entrance to the House of the Menander, the largest of the dwellings (McGinn 2002: 38 nr. 5 based on erotic grafiti CIL IV 8357–61 found both inside and to the east of the doorway). The electoral notices and the grafiti are mostly located next to the main entrances of the dwellings – only a few of the texts are connected to the bar or the crossroads area. The doorway to the prestigious Casa del Menandro was lanked by a bar and a possible cella meretricia which was also almost opposite to the entrance to the Casa dei Ceii. The owners of these two large and lavishly decorated houses displayed their support to electoral candidates on their street fronts and their visitors and clients probably scribbled the grafiti on the facades. Part of the grafiti could have been written by the clients to the prostitute working right next to the main entrance to the prestigious house. Conclusions Studying the micro-topography of the elements in the cityscape holistically gives a more complete and different perspective to neighbourhood relationships in Pompeii. Only by combining many types of data and studying their distributions at both micro and macrolevel can we gain insights into what happened in the streets and how the neighbourhoods were constructed. Street activity and residential areas were intimately connected in Pompeian topography. The regions with major public buildings were dedicated to the public activities and attracted but few dwellings. Consequently the amenities and services intended for the residents were also missing from these public areas. The large houses probably owned by the Pompeian elite were not placed far away from the active streets with their locations of deviant behaviour as has previously been suggested. Bars were more often located just a few doors away from the entrances of the large houses and their doors could not be reached without passing bars. The presence of wall inscriptions suggests that groups of people were common by their main entrances. Practices similar to the morning salutatio are one way of explaining the presence of texts by the doorways. The distribution of the large houses in Pompeii does not relect isolation of the elite, but rather reminds of another quality that was required of elite housing: visibility and openness to their clients and other contacts (e.g. Wallace-Hadrill 1994: 10–16, 38–61). A different reading of the ancient sources also produces evidence for elite wishing to place their houses on the busy viae instead of quiet side streets (Kaiser 2011b: 117–118). The better integrated, active streets afforded more visibility and consequently were a natural choice for an elite house. The only large houses isolated from all kinds of street activity can be found in the central part of Regio VI. Despite this they feature many grafiti indicating that people loitering in the street were not a problem for their owners. The owners of the houses apparently had an active role in promoting electoral candidates and the activity of the street was probably an important factor here (cf. Mouritsen 1988: 44–52). The facades of the large houses in the northern part of Regio Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 77 VI feature few electoral notices whereas there are many on the facades of the houses on the busier thoroughfares in Regio I. This suggests that the houses on the active streets were better integrated into the social networks of Pompeii. The close connection of the wall inscriptions with the large dwellings could also suggest differences in rates of literacy among the inhabitants of Pompeii – the clients of the individuals living in the houses could have been more literate than others. The social and political activity of a rich and inluential patron brought crowds to his door, but also beneited the shops and bars in his street by bringing them customers. If the owners of large houses somehow controlled their city blocks (e.g. Ynnilä 2012: 142–178 for an analysis of ownership relationships in insula IX,3), it seems more likely that they encouraged all kinds of activity on their home streets rather than tried to stile it. Department of World Cultures, University of Helsinki Acknowledgements This paper is part of a project studying the spatial and contextual relationships of inscribed texts in Roman Central Italy: ‘Inscribed Texts in their Spatial Contexts’ is funded by the University of Helsinki and directed by Dr. Kalle Korhonen. The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for useful suggestions of how to improve the paper. Jackie and Bob Dunn are also gratefully acknowledged for creating and maintaining the website ‘Pompeii in Pictures’ (http://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/index. htm) which was an invaluable help in checking details of doorways and facades while writing the text in Finland. Bibliography Allison, P.M. 2001. Placing Individuals: Pompeian Epigraphy in Context. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14: 53–74. Beneiel, R.R. 2010. Dialogues of Ancient Grafiti in the House of Castricius Maius in Pompeii. American Journal of Archaeology 114: 59–101. Beneiel, R.R. 2011. Dialogues of Grafiti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii (Casa Dei Quattro Stili, 1.8.17, 11). In J.A. Baird and J. Taylor (eds.) Ancient Grafiti in Context. New York/London: Routledge: 20–48. Berry, J. (ed.) 1998. Sotto i lapilli. Studi nella Regio I di Pompei. Milan: Electa. Castrén, P. 1975. Ordo populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 8. Rome: Bardi. Chiavia, C. 2002. Programmata. Manifesti elettorali nella colonia romana di Pompei. Turin: Silvio Zamorani Editore. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Vol. IV. Inscriptiones parietariae Pompeianae Herculanenses Stabianae. 1871–1970. DeFelice, J. 2001. Roman Hospitality: The Professional Women of Pompeii. Marco Polo Monographs 6. Warren Center: Shangri-La Publications. Della Corte, M. 1965. Case ed abitanti di Pompei. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 78 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen DeMarrais, E. 2005. Holistic/Contextual Archaeology. In C. Renfrew and P. Bahn (eds.) Archaeology. They Key Concepts. New York/London: Routledge: 141–146. Dickmann, J.-A. 1999. Domus frequentata. Anspruchsvolles Wohnen im pompejanischen Stadthaus. Studien zur antiken Stadt 4. Munich: Pfeil. Dobbins, J.J. and Foss, P. (eds.) 2007. The World of Pompeii. New York/London: Routledge. Ellis, S.J.R. 2004. The Distribution of Bars at Pompeii: Archaeological, Spatial and Viewshed Analyses. Journal of Roman Archaeology 17: 371–384. Ellis, S.J.R. 2006. The Use and Misuse of ‘Legacy Data’ in Identifying a Typology of Retail Outlets at Pompeii. Internet Archaeology 24. Available at: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue24/ ellis_index.thml [Accessed June 21, 2012]. Ellis, S.J.R. 2011. Pes dexter: Superstition and state in the shaping of shop-fronts and street activity in the Roman world. In D. Newsome and R. Laurence (eds.) Rome, Ostia, Pompeii: Movement and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 160–173. Eschebach, H. 1979. Probleme der Wasserversorgung Pompejis. Cronache pompeiane 5: 24–60. Eschebach, L. (ed.) 1993. Gebäudeverzeichnis und Stadtplan der antiken Stadt Pompeji. Stadtplan von Jürgen Müller-Trollius. Unter Verwendung des Nachlasses von Hans Eschebach. Cologne: Bohlau. Fiorelli, G. 1875. Descrizione di Pompeii. Naples: Tipograia Italiana. Franklin, J.L., Jr. 1980. Pompeii: The Electoral programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A.D. 71–79. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 28. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Gassner, V. 1986. Die Kauläden in Pompeii. Dissertationen der Universität Wien 178. Vienna: Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs. Gigante, M. 1979. Civiltà delle forme letterarie nell’antica Pompei. Naples: Bibliopolis. Goldbeck, F. 2010. Salutationes. Die Morgenbegrüßungen in Rom in der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit. Klio Beihefte 16. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Guzzo, P.G. and Scarano Ussani, V. 2009. Ex corpore lucrum facere: la prostituzione nell’antica Pompei. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 27. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Hales, S. 2003. The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartnett, J. 2008. Si quis hic sederit: Streetside Benches and Urban Society in Pompeii. American Journal of Archaeology 112: 91–119. Holleran, C. 2011. The Street Life of Ancient Rome. In R. Laurence and D.J. Newsome (eds.) Rome, Ostia, Pompeii. Movement and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 246–261. Huntley, K.V. 2011. Identifying Children’s Grafiti in Roman Campania: A Developmental Psychological Approach. In J.A. Baird and J. Taylor (eds.) Ancient Grafiti in Context. New York/London: Routledge: 69–89. Ikäheimo, J.P. 2003. Late Roman African Cookware of the Palatine East Excavations, Rome: A Holistic Approach. BAR International Series 1143. Oxford: Archaeopress. Jansen, G.C.M. 2002. Water in de Romeinse stad: Pompeji, Herculaneum, Ostia. Leuven: Peeters. Kaiser, A. 2011a. Roman Urban Street Networks. Routledge Studies in Archaeology 2. New York/ London: Routledge. Kaiser, A. 2011b. What Was a via? An Integrated Archaeological and Textual Approach. In E. Poehler, M. Flohr and K. Cole (eds.) Pompeii. Art, Industry and Infrastructure. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 115–130. Street Activity, Dwellings and Wall Inscriptions in Ancient Pompeii 79 Karivieri, A. and Forsell, R. 2007. The House of Caecilius Iucundus, V 1,22–27: A Preliminary Report. Opuscula Romana 31–32: 119–134. Keegan, P. 2011. Blogging Pompeii: Grafiti as Speech Act and Cultural Discourse. In J.A. Baird and J. Taylor (eds.) Ancient Grafiti in Context. New York/London: Routledge: 165–190. Kleberg, T. 1957. Hôtels, restaurants et cabarets dans l’antiquité Romaine. Études historiques et philologiques. Bibliotheca Ekmaniana 61. Laurence, R. 1994. Roman Pompeii, Space and Society. New York/London: Routledge. Second edition 2007. Ling, R. 2005. Street fountains and house fronts at Pompeii. In S.T.A.M. Mols and E.M. Moormann (eds.) Omni pede stare. Saggi architettonici e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 9. Naples: Electa: 271–276. McCallum, M. 2011. Pottery Production in Pompeii: an Overview. In E. Poehler, M. Flohr and K. Cole (eds.) Pompeii. Art, Industry and Infrastructure. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 103–114. McGinn T.A.J. 2002. Pompeian Brothels and Social History. In T. McGinn, P. Carafa, N. de Grummond, B. Bergmann and T. Najbjerg (eds.) Pompeian Brothels, Pompeii’s Ancient History, Mirrors and Mysteries, Art and Nature at Oplontis, & the Herculanelum ‘Basilica’. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 47. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology: 7–46. Mouritsen, H. 1988. Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Élite: Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy. Analecta romana Instituti Danici. Supplementum 15. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Poehler, E.E. 2006. The Circulation of Trafic in Pompeii’s Regio VI. Journal of Roman Archaeology 19: 53–74. Robinson, D. 1997. The Social Texture of Pompeii. In S.E. Bon and R. Jones (eds.) Sequence and Space in Pompeii. Oxbow Monograph 77. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 135–144. Sakai, S. 1993. Topographical Distribution of the so-called programmata antiquissima. Opuscula Pompeiana 3: 89–104. Schoonhoven, A. 1999. Residences for the Rich? Some Observations on the Alleged Residential and Elitist Character of Regio VI of Pompeii. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 74: 219–246. Schoonhoven, A. 2006. Metrology and Meaning in Pompeii: The Urban Arrangement of Regio 6. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 20. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Toner, J.P. 1995. Leisure and Ancient Rome. Oxford: Polity Press. Van Andringa, W. 2000. Autels de carrefour, organisation vicinale et rapports de voisinage à Pompéi. Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 11: 47–86. Vander Poel, H.B. (ed.) 1984. The RICA Maps of Pompeii. Corpus topographicum pompeianum Pars III. Rome: Aziende Tipolitograiche Eredi Dott. G. Bardi. Van Nes, A. 2011. Measuring Spatial Visibility, Adjacency, Permeability and Degrees of Street Life in Pompeii. In R. Laurence and D.J. Newsome (eds.) Rome, Ostia, Pompeii. Movement and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 100–117. Varone, A. and Stefani, G. 2009. Titulorum pictorum Pompeianorum qui in CIL vol. IV collecti sunt. Studi della Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei 29. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1995. Public Honour and Private Shame: The Urban Texture of Pompeii. In T.J. Cornell and K. Lomas (eds.) Urban Society in Roman Italy. London: UCL Press: 39–62. Weilguni, M. 2011. Streets, Spaces and Places. Three Pompeian Movement Axes Analysed. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Boreas 33. 80 Eeva-Maria Viitanen, Laura Nissinen and Kalle Korhonen Ynnilä, H. 2012: Pompeii, Insula IX,3: A Case Study of Urban Infrastructure. D.Phil. Thesis. Oxford University. Zanker, P. 1979. Die Villa als Vorbild des späten pompejanischen Wohngeschmacks. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 94: 460–523.