Ancient History & Civilisation

4

The parameters of socioeconomic display

4.1 Sources of socioeconomic display: What can and cannot be analyzed?

All of the features of a peristyle can be interpreted as signs of wealth or social status if scrutinized enough. However, with archaeological sources this is seldom possible. We cannot ask the Pompeians themselves what they thought about a person’s wealth and position if they had a terracotta puteal in their peristyle garden. Was it a sign that the owner was poorer than an owner who had a marble puteal? Or did it tell something about their values? Perhaps a stoic person preferred terracotta over marble? Or, perhaps it was just a matter of personal preference? These types of questions seldom – if ever – can be answered, meaning that there is plenty of material that tells us very little about its owner.

Certain features were likely simply practical, and did not signal anything particular about the house owner’s status. For example, a gutter was mainly for directing water out of the garden, and reading something about its owner’s status on the basis of it seems risky. Consequently, almost all of the features that had primary purposes other than display can be disregarded from this investigation, as it is often impossible to determine whether they were meant for display purposes – or were more likely acquired for their primary, practical purpose.1

Additionally, there are some elements that, at first glance, could be thought of as a means of socioeconomic display, but further analysis reveals that this was not the case. An example of this is the quality of building. There are also features that most certainly signaled something about the socioeconomic status of the owner, but sources and documentation do not allow a deeper analysis of them. An example of these are plants and plantings. Both of these aspects – quality of building and plants and plantings – are explored in detail later in order to demonstrate this.

This basically leaves us with the following aspects of the peristyle that can be comprehensively compared between all of the peristyles of Pompeii, in order to determine how they were used for socioeconomic display: peristyle area, garden area, the number of columns, piers, half-columns, pilasters, porticoes, and rooms opening onto the peristyle, building materials and techniques, plasters, wall paintings, portico floors and their decoration, fountains, pools, decorative basins, and sculpture. A closer scrutiny of these features reveals that the architectural features are dependent on each other: the peristyle size and the number of porticoes profoundly influence the garden area, number of columns, piers, half-columns, and rooms opening onto the peristyle. Consequently, the study of the architectural means of socioeconomic display can be limited to two factors: the ground area of the peristyle and the number of porticoes, as will be demonstrated in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. In addition to these architectural features, pools and basins, fountains, sculpture, wall paintings, and floor decoration were the main means of socioeconomic display in Pompeii.

The means of display are discussed in descending order, beginning with the most reliable source material, in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. The architectural features – the size and the number of porticoes – are at the top of this list, as the current situation at the site can be relied on to reflect the ancient situation in almost all cases. Next are the pools and decorative basins, which are usually still visible in the peristyle. They are followed by fountains, where the situation changes and the information become more dependent on the excavation reports, although larger structures are still visible in situ. For sculpture and wall paintings the reports are more important, as they were occasionally transported away from the site. Of these seven aspects, floor decoration is the least reliable, as it is poorly documented, and the 79 CE level is rarely visible in the peristyles.

4.1.1 Plants and plantings: too poorly documented for a comprehensive analysis

Pompeii features all kinds of special archaeological data that is rarely available in other Roman archaeological sites. Nonetheless, even in Pompeii, these are often so poorly documented that a truly comprehensive city-wide analysis of these sources – the method selected for this study – is not possible. An excellent example of this is plantings, which certainly were one possible means to demonstrate wealth. Yet, the remains of plantings have been roundly ignored in the excavations and documentation. Even forming a picture of what types of plantings were normal or average in the peristyle gardens is beyond the reach of the existing material,2 leaving us no possibilities to analyze what was extraordinary.

Gardens could be theoretically divided into two groups: ornamental and productive gardens. The peristyle garden could be easily seen to represent the first type.3 In contrast, the Roman hortus is often interpreted as productive – a sort of kitchen garden.4 Despite the fact that every garden is always in some degree both, hypothetically it is possible to assume that if a garden was intentionally built to be ornamental, it would additionally make it a symbol of status and wealth. Contra wise, if it was built for production purposes, its value as a status symbol could be questioned, as it was not necessarily meant to be on display. Nevertheless, even this type of simple distinction between the peristyle gardens is mostly impossible to make in the Pompeian context. In addition, some plants could reflect the socioeconomic status of the owner.5 Flowers, with their seasonal character,6 could have been an exceptionally effective means of conspicuous consumption. However, whether they were used for this purpose is unknown – not to mention that we lack the means of recognizing them, and indeed the plants in general that were grown in the peristyle gardens.

Despite the general situation, a few peristyle gardens have been interpreted as having a productive purpose – at least partly. According to Lawrence Richardson there was one such garden in the northern peristyle of the Casa dei Dioscuri, and in the Casa detta di Trebius Valens (III,2,1) a rectangular planting bed has been identified as a kitchen garden.7 They are identified as such on the basis of the shape of the planting bed: rectangular and long, perhaps including long rows. However, the planting bed shape by itself is not sufficient evidence of a productive function. Additionally, similar straight lines of plantings are present in other peristyles, for example in the Casa di M. Lucretius Fronto (V,4,a) and Casa di Sallustio, and they have not been interpreted as kitchen gardens.8 Moreover, all of these beds could equally well have held ornamental plants or flowers.

There are 48 peristyle gardens with some evidence of possible plantings. Three of these are masonry structures that have been interpreted as planting beds.9 However, these masonry structures are not necessarily planting beds; for example, the masonry construction in the peristyle of house VII,7,16 has been interpreted as a planting bed, but also as an aviary.10 In addition, there are 14 peristyles that had a pluteus with a groove on the top.11 It is often stated that these grooves would have held plantings.12 This interpretation is doubtful, as no other evidence is offered to support the assumption. The grooves are not large: the median width is 0.18 m and the median depth is 0.09 m. This does not leave much space for plantings, but there is a possibility that some small flowers could have been grown in them.

The smallest groove – 0.07 m wide and 0.02 m deep – was on the pluteus of the Casa di Marcus Lucretius.13 It is hard to imagine fitting plants into such a small groove. Edward Falkener suggests that the locus had a wooden partition wall during the winter.14 This is possible: Amedeo Maiuri proposes that the Casa dell’Efebo had glass panes in wooden frames between the columns, but as Jashemski notes, Maiuri does not mention finding any glass, making the idea improbable. Jashemski, however, believes that wooden shutters are possible in this case.15 The current reconstruction of this portico has wooden panes and glass windows, but it also makes it impossible to see whether there were any ancient marks on the columns, and it cannot be determined if there was a partition wall, a wooden fence, or something else between the columns. If this reconstruction was made according to the ancient traces on the columns, then at least this portico contained a wooden partition wall, and perhaps the other grooves – also on the gutters – were for shutters, not for plantings.

Only two peristyles gardens – in the Casa dei pittori al lavoro (IX,12,9) and the Casa di Polibio (IX,13,1–3) – have been excavated with sufficient detail and methodology to distinguish their planting patterns, and some species can be very likely identified from these gardens.16 These two examples represent opposite types of gardens. The Casa dei pittori al lavoro had an ornamental garden with a geometric plan, whereas the Casa di Polibio had a garden with a utilitarian character and irregular plan.17 Nevertheless, the plants in both gardens were both utilitarian and ornamental.18

Ciarallo states that only a few stratigraphically excavated gardens were ornamental – meaning they had elaborately shaped planting beds.19 Seven peristyle gardens had indications of this type of garden plan.20 However, the other types of garden designs are not very numerous either. There are eight gardens where plantings are in straight lines or furrows,21 and some of these gardens have been interpreted as being agricultural, as mentioned before.22 The plantings were irregular in seven peristyles.23 The planting pattern of house VII,6,28 can be interpreted as either regular or irregular. Its root cavities seem to form an irregular shape, but Giuseppe Spano regards them as curving planting beds, and Sampaolo interprets them as three round planting beds.24 As presented, the sparse Pompeian evidence suggests that the peristyle gardens had both irregular and ornamental planting patterns. Both types are equally represented among the known examples, but in total the gardens where the planting pattern can be identified are very few.

There is one more difference between the peristyles of the Casa dei pittori al lavoro and the Casa di Polibio: the first had a pluteus and the second did not.25 It would make sense that the ornamental plantings were protected with a fence or pluteus. Perhaps the presence of a protective structure between the columns can be interpreted as a sign of an ornamental garden? But this hypothesis does not have much support, if we compare the peristyle gardens with the regular and irregular planting patterns and the existence of a pluteus or fence in them. Although almost all of the gardens with regularly shaped planting beds had a pluteus or fence, there is also the southern peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii which did not have any barriers between its regular garden and porticos.26 An examination of the gardens with irregular planting beds is even more unhelpful regarding this assumption, as in addition to the mentioned Casa di Polibio, the peristyle of the Casa della Fontana piccola is the only one without a fence or pluteus.27 Similarly, Jansen has studied whether the formal gardens had a connection with piped water. Although there often was, there are examples where this is not the case, and therefore a connection to a water pipe does not necessarily suggest the type of garden design.28

We should not exclude the possibility of long straight linear planting beds as a garden design, although there are no recently excavated peristyle gardens with this form in Pompeii, but the linear design seems to be common in other Roman sites, such as the nearby Villa Arianna.29 The straight planting beds of Pompeii could be part of this practice.

In the main, there is no information or means to identify the plants and plantings from the majority of the peristyles, and the material is too limited to perform a comprehensive comparative analysis across the whole city. As demonstrated with the evidence from plantings, the available information is too partial to form an image of the average example – in this case the average plantings – which subsequently does not allow us to identify what could be considered particularly impressive plantings. This makes it impossible to perform a whole city-scale comparative analysis, and eliminates some sources from this type of examination.

4.1.2 Quality of building: too similar

The quality of the building efforts, with regard to material and technique, is another possible indicator of economic status.30 Although it is possible to examine the building techniques and materials of Pompeian peristyles, a closer look reveals that they are not very useful for comparing socioeconomic status, as they are very homogeneous in the Pompeian peristyles, indicating that they were not likely utilized for such a purpose.

Considering first the technique: there is literally no Pompeian peristyle where the opus incertum technique is not utilized. It is also the dominant technique in most of the peristyle walls. Figure 4.1 demonstrates that other popular techniques, such as opus vittatum mixtum, opus testaceum, opus vittatum, and opus africanum were used in several examples, but all of these techniques were so common that they do not function well as a sign of status.

Figure 4.1 The number of peristyles with each building technique. The figure excludes opus incertum, which can be found in every peristyle with known wall-building techniques (Total: 251). Information on the walls of the south peristyle of house VI,17,23–26 is not available, as the peristyle is currently not visible.

The rarer building techniques, such as opus quadratum – present in seven peristyles31 – and opus reticulatum (and opus quasi reticulatum) – present in 14 peristyles,32 were distinctive compared to other building techniques, but do not correlate well with the other indicators of higher or lower economic status.33 Consequently, none of the techniques seems to be a clear symbol of economic status.

The situation is almost the same regarding the materials used. Travertine is the main building stone, and every peristyle used it for their walls. Nevertheless, lapis pompeianus, brick, and cruma were also very popular. Grey tuff – also used in the peristyle walls – is occasionally considered to be an expensive material, but it was commonly used, and therefore is not a very likely sign of economic standing.34 Yellow tuff and reused materials – such as pieces of pottery or cocciopesto and roof tiles – are not as common, but they are also always used as additional building materials for the walls – not as the core material (Fig. 4.2). Their role in the peristyle walls is small, and hence these materials were probably just utilized as an additional option, if they were available when the building process was taking place – as a recycled material. The same conclusion can be made about the type of marble used, as it is often considered to be an expensive material.35 As a building material it occurs rarely in peristyles, but it does not correlate well with other signs of wealth.36

Figure 4.2 The building materials used in peristyle walls. The figure excludes travertine, which can be found in every peristyle where information on the building materials is available (Total number: 251). Information on the walls of the south peristyle of house VI,17,23–26 is not available, as the peristyle is currently not visible.

Additionally, the presence of plaster is an indicator suggesting that the building techniques and materials were not an important means of socioeconomic display.37 There are at least 212 peristyles with remains of plaster on their walls, almost 85 percent of the total. The high number indicates that plastering the peristyle walls was a normal practice in Pompeii. It can be assumed that the peristyle walls without plaster were supposed to be plastered – eventually – or that they might even have had plaster which has been destroyed. The plaster would have covered the wall material and masked the building technique, making them inconvenient for displaying economic status. Consequently, practical solutions probably guided the building process, and were left to the responsibility of the builder, which would explain the homogeneity of the peristyle walls.

4.2 The architecture of display

4.2.1 Size of the peristyle: area

The size of the peristyle is one way to display wealth. The partially unroofed peristyle could not fulfill the basic function of the house – protection – as completely as the roofed rooms. Although the peristyle had an important role in providing air and light inside the house, this function could have been accomplished with spaces that required less area, such as atria and lightwells, and therefore the peristyle was often a demonstration of the consumption of a large amount of valuable city space.

Literary evidence from Rome suggests that city space was expensive, and occasionally even impossible to acquire. Suetonius reports that even the most powerful man in the whole empire – Augustus – could not obtain all the land he wanted for his forum.38 Nevertheless, Rome (and particularly its center) is not directly comparable with Pompeii. There are no means to figure out the land prices in Pompeii, but some features of the urban structure indicate that not everyone could “waste” land inside the city walls.

Although the city wall had lost its defensive function,39 it certainly had a symbolic value as the boundary of the inhabited urban space. The dwellings outside the city wall are mostly limited to some villae – probably mainly owned by the upper class – and the areas just outside the wall were mainly used as a cemetery. The building pattern inside the walls is most dense on the west side, whereas the east end of the city had large gardens. This might indicate that there was no shortage of space, as it was sacrificed to agriculture, but the large quantity of small dwellings and several upper floors suggests the contrary, that city space was actually restricted.40 The contrast indicates that some people had the ability to even cultivate land inside the city walls, while others had to limit their house to a small space. Wallace-Hadrill has connected the size of the house with the wealth and social status of the owner,41 and this connection – at least on an economic level – can also be applied to the peristyle gardens.

Peristyle size correlates with the other indicators of the house owner’s wealth. Figure 4.3 demonstrates the correlation between house size and peristyle size: unsurprisingly, large peristyles are usually in large houses. Yet, the examples in the right lower edge of Figure 4.3 indicate that not all peristyles in the vast houses were particularly large. However, these peristyles were all in houses with large garden areas, which made their living quarters relatively small compared to the ground area of the house.42

Figure 4.3 Correlation of peristyle size with house size, and linear trendline (Total number: 248). The area of the south peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 cannot be estimated, and the entire area of Casa della soffitta (V,3,4), Casa dei pittori al lavoro (IX,12,9), and the Casa del Giardino (V.3.door number unknown) are unknown.

A large peristyle area also correlates with elements of luxury architecture – the presence of private baths, several atria, or several peristyles (Table 2.2). The peristyles in the houses that had these architectural features had an average area of about 255 m2. This is distinctly above the average for the whole of Pompeii (Fig. 2.5). The correlation of large peristyle size and luxury architecture is even more evident if only the largest peristyle of the house – these often had many peristyles – is taken into consideration: the average increases to over 310 m2.

In Figure 4.4, the peristyles are arranged from the smallest to the largest. A glimpse at the graph gives an impression of an exponential growth of the data, but a closer look reveals that the increase of the area is actually mostly linear. Low linear growth continues from the point of origin to somewhere above 150 m2, marked with a dotted line in the figure. Then the increase is steeper, and even slightly curving above the 300 m2 (the dashed line in the figure). The curve steepens and changes to be strongly exponential somewhere before 400 m2, as marked with the black line. At the beginning of the continuum there are a few peristyles that are below the dotted line; these can be approximated to be less than 50 m2. These values, along with the median and average sizes (Fig. 2.5 and 2.6), offer several characteristics with which to construct a size classification for Pompeian peristyles: small are less than 50 m2, lower medium 50–115 m2, upper medium 120–165 m2, large 170–300 m2, and vast 305 or greater m2. The last group reflects remarkable land consummation for a single architectural feature, as its size surpasses the area of an average or standard house in several ancient cities.43

Figure 4.4 The peristyles organized by their size, with lines illustrating how I see the data behavior (Total number: 250).

The relative size of the peristyle is not limited to its ground area – its height must also be taken into account. Wiseman notes that height was a symbol of social status for a Roman house.44 Figure 4.5 demonstrates that higher columns were more common in larger houses. Nevertheless, the dispersion – the low R2-value of the trendline – indicates that there were plenty of exceptions, which makes one question whether it is a good parameter for the task at hand.

Figure 4.5 Correlation of house area and column height, with linear trendline (Total number: 128).

In fact, the peristyle does not seem to be the primary location where effort was expended on displays of height in a Pompeian house. Some houses had impressively high atria. One of these is the Casa di Obellius Firmus, which had columns about 7.00 m in height, when the peristyle had 4.20 m high columns.45 Another example is the Casa delle nozze d’argento (V,2,i), which had about six meter high columns in the atrium, creating an impression of monumental space.46 Again, the peristyle columns falls short of this, being 4.28 m in the north, and 3.10 m in the other porticoes.47

Height is also a difficult and complicated attribute to estimate in Pompeii. The 79 CE level is rarely currently visible: it is either covered by plants or gravel. In addition, the highest point of a peristyle is almost always near the wall, as the roof sloped down towards the center of the space.48 The condition of the walls is extremely variable – in particular the upper parts are often destroyed – and therefore most of the peristyles (178) have no remains that could be interpreted as beam holes for roof supports, and their maximum height cannot be determined.49

It is possible to measure column height, which gives the minimum height of the peristyle. Nevertheless, the same problem as with the beam holes emerges: the destruction of the upper parts of the structure. There are 75 peristyles where the columns have not survived to their total height. In addition, the information about column height is missing from 50 peristyles. Therefore, it does not reflect a comprehensive picture.

A second floor constructed over a peristyle was certainly an impressive sight – at least it still is while visiting the peristyle of the Casa degli amanti (I,10,10/11). But, again, the source situation is incomplete.50 In many cases almost nothing survives to interpret what might have been above the porticoes. The existence of a second floor can occasionally be determined through the remains of stairs, upper floor walls, or even from finds made on upper levels.51 The general appearance of the second floors, however, can only very rarely be defined.

The peristyles with a second floor – those with the actual remains of columns or piers to signal a portico on the upper floor – number only six.52 Even in these cases, the reconstruction is slightly dubious; for example, the loggia of the Casa di Paquius Proculus could easily be interpreted as a second floor portico, but the remains suggest that it was an independent space opening onto the peristyle.53 In addition, there are four peristyles where there were remains of a pluteus above the columns.54 Although this does not mean that the upper floor had a portico – with columns or piers – the visual connection of the space with the peristyle is strong, and it could be considered as a part of the peristyle. There are peristyles where built structures can be traced above the porticoes, but the type of structures are unknown – they might be independent rooms – and how they were connected to the peristyle remains unclear.55

As a result of the above-mentioned factors, the height of a peristyle is excluded as a means of socioeconomic display in this study, and only the area of a peristyle is used for analyzing the size. There is a slight correlation between the peristyle size and the heights of columns (Fig. 4.6), and on a very general level it can be concluded that there was a link between large area and high columns. Nevertheless, the mild slope demonstrates that the area does not increase very much with an increase in height, and the very low R2-value of the trendline reveals that there is a high degree of variation, and any connection between height and area must be viewed very cautiously.

Figure 4.6 The correlation between peristyle area and column height, with a linear trendline (Total number: 128).

4.2.2 Porticoes

Supporting structures – columns and piers – had a dual role in architecture, serving both practical and display purposes. They support upper structures, which is noted by Cicero, but he also comments on their symbolic value, stating that columns and porticoes gave a temple its dignified appearance.56 Vitruvius, instead, links the columns with royal scenery when he writes about theater buildings.57 Columns were associated with public buildings, such as temples and fora, resulting in them echoing the role that the Roman house played in public life, and also reflecting luxury and prestige.58

Columns were not structurally necessary for the construction of most of the peristyles. There are several types of spaces where a roof with an opening is not supported by columns or piers, such as atria, lightwells, and gardens with roofed passageways. One of the largest atria without columns was in the Casa del Fauno – it measured about 170 m2.59 It is larger than the median peristyle, and equal to the average peristyle (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6). There are 163 peristyles that are smaller than this atrium. Although the structure of an atrium and a peristyle – particularly a pseudo-peristyle – is slightly different, and the roofing techniques of an atrium cannot necessarily be applied directly to a peristyle, it can still be assumed that the Pompeians had enough engineering knowledge to construct most of their peristyles without columns and piers if they had wanted to do so. In Pompeian peristyles, the columns and piers had a mostly symbolic value, and they were rather a part of the architectural canon than a necessary part of the structure.

If a column was a socioeconomic symbol, then the use of many columns must have sent a strong signal of status. The number of columns and piers correlates with the number of porticoes, as well as with the size of the peristyle, as is demonstrated by the concentration of the dots in Figure 4.7. The gardens with one portico are the leftmost, followed closely by the peristyles with two colonnades, and then three and four. The distribution of the size of the peristyles, however, shows some irregularities, such as some gardens with one portico, which do not have that many columns or piers. Also, the full peristyles clearly stand out from the rest in their number of columns and size. Additionally, the average number of columns and piers in a full peristyle is 15, in a peristyle with three porticoes seven, with two porticoes four, and in the gardens with one portico two, meaning that the number of porticoes seems to reflect the number of columns rather well, and instead of using the column number, the number of porticoes can be applied.

Figure 4.7 The correlation between the number of porticoes, the peristyle area, and the number of columns (Total number: 250).

Figure 4.8 expresses that the portico number correlates with the area: more colonnades means more area. Nevertheless, the trend of the gardens with one portico varies more than the others, and particularly compared to the pseudo-peristyles they are not clearly smaller. The gardens with one portico rather seem to be clearly larger than the peristyles with two porticoes, according to the averages: four porticoes had an area of about 310 m2, three porticoes 140 m2, two porticoes 100 m2, and one portico 145 m2. The larger size of the gardens with one portico might be explained by a group of large gardens that are connected to agriculture. These gardens often had one portico.60

Figure 4.8 The distribution of full peristyles, the peristyles with two or three porticoes, and gardens with one portico, over the size ranges: less than 50 m2, 50–115 m2, 120–165 m2, 170–300 m2, and greater than 300 m2 (Total number: 250). The southern peristyle of house VIII,2,14–16 and the peristyle of the Casa dei pittori al lavoro (IX,12,9) are excluded, as their entire area cannot be estimated.

In addition, the number of porticoes also strongly reflects other attributes that signal the grandeur of the peristyle, such as the number of rooms opening onto it, which also depends on the peristyle area. However, the number of porticoes is more relevant, as the great majority of the rooms around the peristyle open onto the colonnades. Figure 4.9 shows that the more porticoes a peristyle had, in general the more rooms/spaces opened onto it. Consequently, when the peristyle area and the number of porticoes are both considered, they reflect well the number of opening rooms, and rooms thus do not need to be taken into account separately.

Figure 4.9 The distribution of the number of rooms/spaces opening onto the peristyle, arranged according to the number of peristyle colonnades (Total number: 250). House VII,16,1 and Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII,16,12–15) are severely destroyed, and the original number of rooms opening to the peristyle cannot be calculated.

The other indicators of house wealth support the display value of the porticoes. Wallace-Hadrill notes that the surface area of a house is connected to the number of porticoes, but he continues that it is hard to find differences between the house sizes for gardens with one, two, or three porticoes.61 Indeed, the differences are not very striking. The pattern for all three of these types of peristyles in Figure 4.10 seems very similar, where they all peak at the lower medium houses (250–505 m2). Nevertheless, the graph demonstrates that in the large houses (725–1,200 m2) gardens with three porticoes are more common than those with one or two colonnades. This is reinforced when comparing their average house sizes: three porticoes 672 m2, two 554 m2, and one 532 m2. The difference in the last two is relatively small, but two porticoes are slightly more common in the upper medium (506–724 m2), large (725–1,200 m2), and vast (greater than 1,200 m2) houses than the gardens with a single colonnade.

Figure 4.10 The distribution of the full peristyles, the peristyles with two or three porticoes, and the gardens with one portico in the houses with size ranges of less than 250 m2, 250–505 m2, 506–724 m2, 725–1,200 m2 and over 1,200 m2 (Total number: 250). The area of the Casa dei pittori al lavoro (IX,12,9) and the Casa del Giardino (V.3.door number unknown) are missing.

Additionally, the portico number correlates with luxury architecture (Table 2.2), meaning that the more colonnades a peristyle had the more likely it was to be located in a house that had luxury architecture. The houses with luxury architecture had 26 peristyles with four porticoes, 16 with three porticoes, 15 with two, and nine with one.

The number of colonnades is a handy and reliable factor to reflect the owner’s likely wealth. In addition, as a source material, the number of porticoes is more reliable than the isolated attributes of columns – even the number of columns – as the number of colonnades nearly always corresponds with the current state of preservation and thus can be easily verified. Yet, in the case of the number of porticoes, one factor rises clearly above the others as a status symbol: the full peristyle. The differences between the peristyles with three porticoes and two porticoes are often small, and the same applies to the relationship of the gardens with one portico and two porticoes. Full peristyles represent wealth more visibly than the other types.

4.3 Decorative features

4.3.1 Pools and decorative basins

The mythical garden of Alkinoös was one model for the ideal Roman garden, with its fertility and large quantity of water. Water had an important role as a luxury good, and it could have been utilized as a means of socioeconomic display: having fountains and pools in a garden was a statement of wealth, as the pools, basins, and fountains took most of the household water, excluding the private baths.62 Although the decorated fountains and pools do not echo the traditional and humble Roman values, Hales thinks that they were appropriate symbols of the owner’s success, and probably did not disagree too much with these values.63

There are 82 peristyles with a pool or a basin,64 but not all of these basins had a decorative role. For example, 20 basins do not have any remains of decoration, only plain plaster. They likely had a practical function, for example as work-related features, and cannot be interpreted as decorative structures.65 Instead, the decorative features, such as painted plaster and marble rims, or taking different shapes rather than just a plain rectangular shape, indicate that the pool was intended for display purposes.66 Similarly, there are also basins that had a decorative function. They are often made of marble or stone, and are placed on one or two supports.67 However, it cannot be automatically assumed that all basins on a support had a decorative function; the function must be considered through a careful individual examination of the basins.68

There were altogether 50 houses with a peristyle that also had a pool or basin that can be defined as decorative.69 The presence of the pools and the decorative basins in the peristyles correlates well with the indications of wealth in the architecture. The average size of these houses is greater than 1,100 m2, and the median greater than 990 m2. Both of these measurements belong to the large houses with a peristyle, according to my definition. Almost half, 24, of these peristyles are in the houses defined to have luxury architecture (Table 2.2).

Of all the decorative indicators of socioeconomic status, pools are the most reliable group of source material. Compared to the other decorative elements, they cannot be moved away from the peristyles, which makes verifying their existence easier. Nevertheless, there are also problems. Pools might have sometimes been destroyed or possibly reburied, making it impossible to examine them physically. There are seven peristyles where a pool is no longer visible.70 Decorative basins can be moved, but despite that they often remain in the original peristyles, although occasionally the decorative basins are connected with gardens, even though it is doubtful that they were situated there.71

4.3.2 Fountains

A fountain visualizes conspicuous consumption. It thrusts water into the air, and projects an image of carefree consumption of water. However, in the Pompeian context the water was not necessarily wasted, but was often recollected. Therefore, the fountain usually creates an illusion of larger consumption that actually occurs, which makes it a very useful display method.

There are only a handful of Pompeian peristyles where the fountain water was not collected,72 and usually we have only insufficient data to confirm that the water was just jetted over the garden. By contrast, the water was most often directed to a pool, and Zanker states that a fountain was an equally important part of the luxury peristyle as a pool.73 There are only ten peristyles with a fountain that did not have a pool or a basin.74 Nevertheless, the water could be collected in some other type of container, such as a dolium, or even directed into a gutter, or a cistern.75

A fountain needs pressure and water, and after the aqueduct was built during the time of Augustus fountains became more popular in the gardens of Pompeii.76 The procedure for obtaining a supply of pressurized water for the private houses of Pompeii is unknown to us, but there are examples from other locations, such as the Campanian city of Venafrum. It is possible to conclude that piped water was an expensive article. Furthermore, in the early history of Rome pressurized water was limited to the houses of important persons, supporting the role of piped water as a luxury item.77 The main water system of Pompeii was connected to from 91 to 124 houses, which underlines the rarity of piped water and confirms it as a status symbol in Pompeii.78

The earthquake of 62 CE might have interrupted the service of piped water to some houses during the last phase of the town.79 In the Casa delle Vestali (VI,1,7), the supply of aqueduct water stopped, but a new set of water features was built in the peristyle. In the house, other spaces with water installations such as the bath were demolished, but in the peristyle several attempts were made to have at least still water in the pools, and the former reception room 48 was transformed into an above-ground cistern to provide piped water for the fountain.80 In a few other peristyles, similar innovative attempts were made to secure the required pressure for fountains.81 This highlights the importance of peristyles: it was a place to display running water, even if the means of supply was difficult. According to Rick Jones and Damian Robinson, a non-functional fountain was a symbol of failure.82 It probably had a negative value, but it can also be seen as an attempt to hold onto that status, hoping that in the future the fountain would work again, and that the loss of household prestige would only be temporary.

If an independent water reservoir was used to supply the fountains, it might have been filled only when there was a need for display,83 which emphasizes the temporary nature of the water display. Such a temporary display was also a possibility when using piped water. In several peristyles, there was a key or distribution box which allowed one to open and close the fountains when needed.84 The illusion of carefree consumption of water was consequently often controlled by the house owner.

There are 55 peristyles with at least one fountain. Nearly half of them (24 peristyles) only had one. The median number of fountains is two, and the average is almost three, meaning that if a peristyle had more than two fountains it can be seen as an impressive water display in the Pompeian scale. Some peristyles also featured impressive built surroundings for the fountains, such as a large niche, and consequently they are called fountain niches.85 They were probably highly valued, as for example in the Casa della Fontana piccola the niche is built over the west wall of the garden, and also over a large landscape wall painting.86 The most extravagant water display in a Pompeian peristyle was in the Casa del Toro (V,1,7), where a large nymphaeum with several other water features contributed to a large water exhibition.87

The peristyles with fountains are in houses that are on average 960 m2 in size, and they link with luxury architecture (Table 2.2) in 24 cases (44 percent). These houses clearly belong to the category of houses with a peristyle that can be defined as large, and the connection with luxury architecture is also quite frequent, confirming that the fountains in Pompeian peristyles correlate with considerable wealth.

Fountains are usually stable constructions that cannot be moved away, but there are some problems related to their reliability as a source material. The excavations were rarely continued under the 79 CE garden levels, whereas the fountain pipes run under the garden surface and the information on the function of fountains – those which were actually working – is often unknown. In some cases, we may not have identified all of the fountains of a peristyle, such as in the Casa degli Epigrammi (V,1,18), where the bronze taps are the only indication of the existence of a fountain, or possibly several,88 but their location and other details remain unknown.

Twenty-one peristyles had fountain sculptures, but only 12 of them can be connected with a fountain jet.89 However, often there were some other water features, such as pools, that indicate that water was directed or transported one way or another into these peristyles. Nevertheless, there are a few fountain sculptures that cannot be connected to a pool or a possible water pipe.90 It is possible that they functioned without jetting water, such as in the Casa dei Pittori al lavoro, where a fountain sculpture did not jet water.91 However, the lack of excavation under the garden surfaces and poor documentation is often a factor preventing us from confirming these hypotheses. Of course, one possibility is that there was a plan to build a fountain in these peristyles, but it was not yet executed when the eruption occurred.

4.3.3 Sculpture

Dwyer states that with the increase in the number of fountains the demand for sculpture also grew.92 The fountain sculptures had a double role in socioeconomic display: they represented the consumption of water and were artworks for visitors to admire. Although the sculptures without a fountain jet lacked this first attribute, they still played a significant role in garden decoration and its display. The sculptures in private settings, such as a villa or domus, have been interpreted to reflect wealth, luxury, status, education, and cultural interest.93 Vitruvius even mentions that sculpture is used to create a royal atmosphere.94 However, in this passage he was discussing theaters, and it cannot be directly linked to the private sphere, although it is safe to assume that sculpture imparted Romans and Pompeians with connotations of wealth and high status.

There are 37 peristyles with marble sculpture, 12 peristyles with bronze sculpture, and eight featured both. The marble of the sculptures is almost always white, although traces of paint have been found on several examples.95 In addition, the peristyles could have been decorated with terracotta sculpture, as has been reported in 12 peristyles.96 The terracotta sculptures were evidently not considered very valuable by the early excavators, as they are very rarely reported in the peristyles that were excavated before the 1870s, and it is likely that our knowledge of terracotta decoration is very incomplete.97 Their function and relation to the marble and bronze sculptures is therefore unclear. The themes represented by the terracottas are a little different than those for the marble and bronze sculptures. For example, Dionysus and Venus are rarely depicted in terracotta sculpture, but they are the most common in marble and bronze.98 There are, however, some similar themes shared between these materials, such as animals and Egyptian motifs.99 In general, the subjects of the terracotta sculptures are often singular and cannot be easily linked to other sculpture, unlike the marble sculptures, which are frequently connected to the same overarching subject, such as the thiasos of Dionysus.100 It is possible that the terracotta statues were mainly signaling something other than wealth.101 In fact, the correlation between the terracotta sculptures and other house attributes signaling wealth suggests that they are not a feature of the highest ranking houses. The average and median house sizes – 730 m2 and 500 m2 – of the houses containing terracottas are similar to the values for the entire Pompeii assemblage (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6). The Casa delle nozze d’argento is the only house with luxury architecture where the peristyle was reported to feature terracotta sculpture (Table 2.2). However, the poor documentation makes these figures less reliable.

Bronze and marble sculpture, on the other hand, can be considered as art, which interested the early excavators very much.102 It has been stated that the marble statuary of Pompeii has been relatively ignored when compared to the wall paintings and bronze sculpture, but at least in the early excavation reports the marbles seem to be reported quite often.103 Both sculpture types were also reported several times in the peristyles that were excavated before the middle of the 19th century,104 meaning that our information on the marble and bronze sculptures found in the peristyles is likely quite accurate, although the data might be somewhat incomplete, and some of the sculptures were likely looted and the information about them lost.105 The bronze sculptures in particular might have been removed very early after the eruption, as John Dobbins expects to have happened with the bronze statue in the Forum.106 Yet, compared to many other movable finds, the situation seems to be good, thanks to 18th and 19th century attitudes that valued marble and bronze sculpture as archaeological finds.

The connection between the peristyles and sculpture could have also been corrupted in a contrary manner. Some sculpture found elsewhere might have been connected to a peristyle and its garden simply because sculpture in the research literature is so strongly linked to gardens.107 For example, in the Casa della Fortuna (IX,7,20) all of the marble sculptures found in the house are considered to be peristyle decorations. This assumption was put forth shortly after the excavation of the house, and is still often accepted today.108 A majority of the oscilla, the marble theater masks, and both herms were found in the atrium, and in a room opening onto the peristyle.109 It is possible that the sculptures were intended for the peristyle, or that they were moved away from the peristyle, because the inhabitants wanted to protect them during the eruption.110 Still, it is dubious whether they were peristyle decor. They could have been meant for the rooms where they were found, or they may have been in storage in these rooms and yet never meant to be placed in this particular peristyle.111 One might think that herms are typical garden sculpture, but they are related to atria, and possibly, they could have been used in other rooms as well.112

The oscilla and the hanging marble masks were more likely to be a part of the peristyle decoration, but there is a possibility that they were also planned for an atrium.113 The atrium of the Casa della Fortuna does not have columns, and the oscilla could be imagined as hanging between the columns, and the arches on the east side of the peristyle are reported to have had the remains of iron attachments where the oscilla could have hung.114 Nevertheless, there are six arches in the colonnade, and four oscilla, one hanging marble syrinx, and one hanging theater mask were found in the peristyle.115 Basically every gap already had decoration, leaving no spaces for the oscilla found in the other rooms. Of course, the oscilla found outside the peristyle might have been intended for other sides of the peristyle. Nevertheless, if the oscilla and the theater masks found outside the peristyle were the decoration of the peristyle, one can ask why some of the oscilla and one mask were left in the peristyle when the others were moved away.116 On a general methodological level, it is not possible to connect objects not found in the peristyle to it.

There are several other peristyles where the sculpture found inside the house has been placed in the peristyle without any other explanation than the connection between sculpture and gardens in general.117 Also, it has been speculated that some peristyles contained more sculpture than was found in them, but the information concerning them is lost.118 These are only speculations, and I have decided to include only the sculptures actually found in a peristyle when counting its decoration.

The sculptures found in the upper levels of the lapilli are not included in the peristyle decoration, as they most likely belonged to upper floor decoration and their connection with the peristyle is unclear.119 Nevertheless, there are some exceptions. The marble head on the peristyle of the Casa di Obellius Firmus was very likely a peristyle decoration, although it was not found on the floor level, but a few centimeters above it. It was probably a herm resting on an organic support, which was later destroyed.120 Also, the oscilla and the masks found in the upper strata are considered to be peristyle decorations, as there are iron attachments found on the oscilla and the mask; there are also reported iron attachments on the arches of the Casa della Fortuna, mentioned above. In addition, there are wall paintings depicting oscilla hanging between columns.121 Consequently, the oscilla were likely not the decoration of the upper floors, but the decoration of the upper parts of the peristyle.

The average house size of those with peristyles with marble sculpture is 805 m2 and the median is 585 m2. Luxury architecture was present in 15 of these houses, which is 42 percent (Table 2.2). The correlation with wealth is not the most striking, but still slightly above average. With the bronze sculpture the situation is clearer: the average house area was 1145 m2 and the median 830 m2. Luxury architecture is also present in more than half of the houses (six) with bronze sculpture in the peristyle (Table 2.2).

There are peristyles with both marble and bronze sculpture, but they are rare. Oftentimes the peristyle contained only one sculpture – i.e. almost 40 percent (16) of the peristyles. Two sculptures are found in 15 percent (six) of the cases. Therefore, more than half of the sculpture-decorated peristyles had only one or two pieces. The median number of sculptures is two (counting only the peristyles with sculptures). If it is accepted that the smallest number of sculptures necessary to form a group or a collection is three, then only a minority of sculpture-decorated peristyles contained a sculpture collection, and almost half of these peristyles only had a relatively small number of sculptures – from three to five (Fig. 4.11). Five is the average number of sculptures (counting only the peristyles with sculpture). To sum up, the presence of only one sculpture was still enough to count as a display item in a peristyle, but to stand out at least three sculptures were needed.

Figure 4.11 The number of sculptures in the peristyle gardens (Total number of peristyles: 41, total number of sculpture: 194).

4.3.4 Wall paintings

The covering plaster – often adorned with paintings – was the visible part of the walls, and therefore it could be utilized for display purposes. There are 26 peristyles where the plaster seems to have been simply red, or white, or the lower part was red and the upper part white.122 Because of the current condition and poor documentation, the actual number might be significantly different. The red part is occasionally cocciopesto plaster, as in the peristyle of house IX,6,4–7. Sampaolo relates the use of cocciopesto to the possible commercial or industrial use of this peristyle.123 The simple red and white wall coloring is also connected to the utilitarian or functional uses of rooms.124 However, this does not correlate very well with the industrial or commercial use of the peristyles, as only four of 26 peristyles can be connected to that type of function.125 In addition, simple white plaster with red stripes or red-lined panels occurs in perhaps three peristyles.126 Bragantini relates this type of wall decoration to spaces where production activity occurred, but none of the three can be connected to any production-related activity, commerce, or industry.127

Consequently, the wall decoration does not signify the production or utilitarian use of the peristyle. Perhaps the red and white plaster combination can be associated with the streets of Pompeii, which were sometimes decorated in a similar manner.128 It creates a certain atmosphere of a public space in the peristyle, but likely the reason for the choice was practical: peristyles – despite the porticoes – were exposed to weather just like the streets.

Some remains of proper wall paintings were found in at least 159 peristyles, which is 63 percent of the total. Pompeian wall paintings are divided into four styles which are each linked to a certain period of time.129 The distribution of the painting styles in the peristyles mostly supports this chronology. The fourth is clearly the largest group, and the number of known wall paintings declines towards the oldest type, except for a slight rise again when comparing the first style to the second. However, the first style appears on the walls most often in conjunction with other styles, but it is still slightly more frequent than the second, even if the peristyles with several painting styles are excluded. The difference, however, is very small (Fig. 4.12).

Figure 4.12 The distribution of identified painting styles used in the peristyles. Several painting styles have been identified in the following peristyles: nn. 21, 33, 66, 126, 136, 165, 166, 194, 205.

The use of the first style during the last phase of the city is sometimes explained by its association with noble values.130 This interpretation, that the earlier style was somehow regarded as more noble and worthy of conserving, is problematic. For example, in the Casa del Chirurgo (VI,1,10) the first style paintings of the cubiculum 21 were replaced with red and white plaster.131 If the first style was particularly appreciated in Pompeii, why change it to a simple two-colored plaster? Even if the old decoration was partially destroyed, why change the whole plaster and not repair the old one?132 The explanation for the relative popularity of the first style in the peristyles may be the same that applies to the use of red and white plaster: it was one of the decoration styles of the streets.133 It had a connotation with public space, but more importantly with an outdoor space, and this type of decoration was probably also practical for the spaces that were exposed to weather.

The Pompeian painting styles have also been associated with the social functions of the house. It has been proposed that the first and second styles were suitable for primary reception spaces.134 Nothing in the peristyles with first style decoration indicates that they were made particularly for visitors, or were more important reception spaces than the other peristyles. None of them contained an outdoor triclinium, only one had a table, six had decorative water features, and four had marble sculpture.135 In the case of the second style, one peristyle had an outdoor triclinium, five had a table, and seven contained water installations or sculpture.136 Although these features of sojourn and display also occur with the second style paintings, there are a further six peristyles without any indications of this type of use, and therefore the correlation is not strong, and creating a connection between the function and the style would be hasty.137

Roger Ling and Lesley Ling mention the atrium as a primary reception room where the first and second styles were used, again connecting these styles with the process of reception and a more public role.138 What this actually means is open to many interpretations, but if it is taken literally and it is thought that these paintings appear in spaces near the main entrance, being then more visible and public, the peristyles with the first and second painting styles do not conform to this conclusion. Most (11) of the second style peristyles are located after a tablinum (or some other room following an atrium).139 There are 15 peristyles with first style paintings at least an equal distance (three spaces) from the main entrance.140

The third style is said by some scholars to reflect the senatorial aristocratic mentality, and the fourth style is seen as a bourgeois style of the liberti and homines novi.141 The styles might reflect these attitudes, but these attributes cannot be connected to the spaces where these decorations were used. Eleanor Leach, for example, states that the third style was adaptable for several types of spaces, and therefore it was utilized by several social classes.142 Ling links the third and fourth style with more private spaces in the Pompeian domestic sphere. They were decorated with rich colors and striking perspectives or mythological themes. Yet, he does not necessarily mean that every space decorated with these two last Pompeian styles was private.143 The significance of the private realm in the contexts of these two styles remains ambiguous, but there are clear features indicating that the peristyles with third and fourth style decoration were not automatically more private than others. Signs referring to visitors can be found in the peristyles painted with these styles. Three peristyles with fourth style paintings had an outdoor triclinium and two were used for business purposes.144 In four peristyles with third style paintings there was an outdoor triclinium.145 There are, in addition, eight peristyles with fourth style paintings and two with third style that were located directly after the main entrance or a fauces.146 These were not necessarily visited by very many people, but their location near the entrance did not offer that much privacy.

There are 118 peristyles where the wall painting style can be identified, which leaves 41 peristyles with remains of paintings which cannot be classified according to this typology. This is a problem when trying to analyze whether the painting styles were indicators of the social or economic status of the house owner.147 As in so many peristyles this information is missing – not to mention all the peristyles where the traces of paintings have possibly vanished – so it is impossible to make a city-wide comparison, or even nearly so. Although the ratio of the painting styles might be relatively correct, connecting a painting style to a function or socioeconomic status is risky based on this evidence, as the correlations are not clear even with the surviving sample.

The survival rate of wall paintings causes problems when researching wall paintings as an indicator of socioeconomic status, but their role as decoration is too important to disregard them.148 First, it must be specified how they can be used in this study. Ling sets up a rule related to the house functions: rich decoration separates important reception areas from lesser decorated, humbler rooms.149 Allison shares this basic idea, as she states that the coarse plaster in the peristyle of the Casa degli amanti is a sign of downgrading.150 In the scholarship, oftentimes the simplicity of decoration in ancient contexts is not seen as referring to display or elite use.151

What is meant by rich or simple paintings is consequently another question. One possible means to address this would be listing all the decorative elements featured in the wall paintings, and then performing a statistical analysis of which peristyles had the most figurative paintings. This approach, however, would have severe problems relating to the relative reporting and preservation of the paintings. Those in a better state and with better reports would stand out in the results.

Another problem is the diversity of the painted decorations. It cannot be assumed that all of the paintings were valued equally, and probably the cost to execute different types of paintings varied quite a lot. For example, there are several motifs that appear regularly in the wall paintings of Pompeii: garlands, plants, candelabra, small figurines, architecture, and marble imitations.152 These are repeated over and over again. In general, repetition can be seen as stereotypical, and it suppresses individual choices as Ernst Gombrich suggests.153 In Pompeii, these repetitive themes were likely not valued as much as the individual central panel pictures – at the very least, they were not an effective means of standing out due to their common occurrence.

One good example of the contrast between the repetitive and the individualistic are two different types of paintings that can be seen to reflect a garden: the plants on the lower part of the walls and the large so-called garden paintings filling almost the entire wall. Although garden-related painted themes are relatively common in peristyles – about 26 percent (66) include them – they are not characteristically a motif tied to garden spaces, as they occur in other rooms and spaces.154 Both types of painting basically represent the same theme, but they are still distinctively different, differentiated by their size and their repetitiveness.155 Although all plant paintings are somewhat different – they are hand-painted after all – and even all large garden paintings have similar characteristics, they are much more diverse, detailed, and individualistic than the plant themes, which often repeat a similar plant again and again.156

Returning to an overall perspective on the wall paintings, they also have parts that repeat the same or similar figures, and parts that have very individualistic paintings. The latter are often in the center of the wall decoration, and are separated from the other wall decoration by a painted frame. These central panel paintings with their mythological themes, still lifes, and landscape paintings offered a space where the artist and the house owner could more freely express themes they wanted.157 They occur on third and fourth style walls, and Leach has concluded that with the third style the house owners received more freedom to choose subjects and myths according to their own taste.158 Therefore, the central panel paintings were best suited for display purposes.

The central panel paintings and their themes have interested excavators from the beginning of field work at the site, and they are mentioned already in the first reports.159 Although some pictures were cut off the walls and transported elsewhere, the removal leaves a mark that can be recognized as a place for a painting.160 This makes them good material for a city-wide comparison.

Ling and Ling particularly regard the mythological paintings and other figurative scenes as a means of displaying wealth. They also think that mythological themes were the most prestigious of all the painting types.161 Richardson already valued the “subject paintings” – by which he must have meant the mythological themes – above the landscapes and still lifes.162 The mythological pictures have thus been ascribed the highest rank among the various types of painted decoration in the houses.163 This position, however, is hard to confirm, as there are no Pompeian sources that indicate what type of paintings were valued the most. For example, considering the occurrences of the mythological, landscape, and still life paintings in the peristyles, the first appear in 22 peristyles, the second in 20, and the third in 21,164 indicating that there was no preferred theme for peristyle painting decoration. If we compare them with the indicators of the wealth of the house owners, such as house area and luxury architecture (Table 4.1), this demonstrates that mythological and still life paintings correlate more-or-less equally with wealth, whereas the landscapes seem to be linked with a higher level of wealth. However, the landscape paintings belong to a house size group that is more-or-less the same as the two other types of paintings (see e.g. Fig. 2.7).

Table 4.1 Comparison of average and median house size and luxury architecture (Table 2.2) between peristyles that had mythological, landscape, or still life paintings.

Average house area

Median house area

Number of houses with luxury architecture

Peristyles with mythological paintings

830

735

6

Peristyles with landscape paintings

1085

1000

10

Peristyles with still life paintings

845

725

9

The connection of wealth indicators with the number of mythological, landscape, and still life paintings are very vague estimations. There are several problems relating to these calculations: for instance, our record of the paintings in the peristyle is incomplete, and dividing the paintings into categories is always somewhat subjective – for example, we can only recognize the myths that we know. Sometimes it is difficult to separate the themes from each other, and occasionally a painting can belong to several of these categories.165 In addition, 13 peristyles contained at least two of the themes, which further highlights their connection with each other.166

Literary themes – including mythological – are often connected with the education or cultural interests of the house owner, and therefore the display of those attributes.167 However, still life and landscape paintings also had social display value, although perhaps they reflected it in another form. For example, the still life paintings with xenia evoke the idea of hospitality and dining.168 The landscape paintings can be associated with an exotic character: either geographically distant places or even fantasy worlds. Landscape paintings might even feature mythological themes, and thus they are occasionally intertwined with mythological paintings.169 As all of these themes represent luxury, and they are often spatially well connected with each other, there is no reason to expect that one of these was somehow regarded as any better than the others.

The repetitive themes are associated with spaces for movement, and are regarded as suitable for these spaces as they do not catch a passerby’s attention too intensively.170 Instead, the mythological paintings are connected with rooms where people spent time, and had time to look at the pictures.171 The paintings with individualistic characters and themes were meant for guests to look at and marvel over. As the landscape and the still life pictures include several details and characters that greatly vary between each other, they can equally be assumed to be meant for careful viewing. Consequently, the peristyles with these types of central panel paintings were planned for visitors to enter and stay, in order to admire these paintings.

Richardson suggests that the small size of the still life paintings is considered a sign that they were not as highly valued as the mythological paintings.172 If the size was the defining parameter of the value of the painting then the large – almost covering the whole wall – animal, garden, and landscape paintings173 should be the most valued in Pompeii. Spano, however, disagrees, stating that the garden paintings never had the value of the central panel paintings,174 but there is no evidence to support this assumption. Zanker has stated that for Pompeians size counted the most.175 Size was surely a means to display wealth, and the large garden and animal paintings should be counted among the pictures that had a great display value. They are also exotic, full of details and symbols of luxury. All of these characteristics suggest an important display use for these paintings.

Nevertheless, size is a challenging value to measure. The central panel paintings – as well as the garden and animal paintings – were part of the decoration of the entire painted wall: so how does one quantify their size? Should the whole painted area be counted? Or only the painted area with detailed subjects, or the combined area of all the central panel paintings? This leads again to the problem of survival rates and documentation, and again those peristyles where the situation is best would stand out. Even within a single peristyle, the preservation of paintings can vary a lot between the various walls, so that a comparison of all the peristyles would be even more biased towards the well-preserved peristyles.

The display of paintings had its parallels in public architecture,176 and it is not odd that paintings were adopted as a part of the appointment of the private sphere. The mythological, still life, and landscape paintings were individual features of wall paintings that certainly drew attention and attracted people to visit these peristyles and spend time in them. The same conclusion applies to the large garden and the large animal paintings. All of these features were exceptionally good for displaying one’s socioeconomic status.

4.3.5 Floor decoration

The last element among the status symbols of a Pompeian house to be discussed is the floor decoration.177 Marble and mosaic floors are considered expensive, and are usually ranked higher than other floor decorations.178 Ling and Ling place mortar floors with stone decoration in second place, and particularly exotic stones are worth a higher place in this classification. Mortar floors decorated with tesserae patterns are third, and the last position is held by the mortar floors with scattered tesserae.179 The Lings’ emphasis, where the rare and non-local stones are placed above the geometric patterns, can be questioned. First, laying the tesserae in the desired form was more time-consuming than simply scattering the stones. Second, it is difficult to believe that most of the visitors could recognize the stone materials, particularly if the stone pieces and tesserae were small and the viewer was walking or standing. Third, the expense of the imported stones might not be much higher than locally cut tesserae, if reusable material for the purpose were available.

One would imagine that the peristyles could have been decorated with valuable opus sectile or mosaic floors, but this is rare in Pompeii. The most common are the mortar floors: 48 without decoration, and 62 with decoration.180 Only ten peristyles had a mosaic floor,181 and there are no opus sectile floors in the Pompeian peristyles. As exposed by the numbers, there is no information about the floors for most of the peristyles, and a relevant question is: what type of floor was in these peristyles? One possibility is a beaten earth floor, which is possibly reported in one peristyle.182 They might not have been considered worth recording in most cases. Another possibility is wooden floors; however, no signs of such, such as imprints on the ground, have been recorded in Pompeii. One possibility is the use of other organic materials which did not leave much traces for the excavators, or even mortar without decoration is possible, as several mortar floors without decoration were not reported.183 The excavation of the Casa del Giardino might introduce new data for these questions, as it seems possible – according to some of the published pictures – that it has a beaten earth floor in the portico,but it might be a cocciopesto floor. We just have to wait for the publication to confirm the floor type. As most of the peristyle floors are currently covered with gravel or earth, their nature remains speculative until they are properly cleaned and documented.

The number of mosaic floors is probably approximately correct, as they have been valued highly and consequently more thoroughly reported.184 Similarly, the situation with the lack of marble floors – which are not found in the peristyles – can be assumed to be right, as they would very likely have been documented. The decorated mortar floors, on the other hand, are problematic. They are mentioned often, particularly in the Pompeii: pitture e mosaici, but I have still found several examples of this type of floor that have not been mentioned before.185 Occasionally only a small stretch with one or two tesserae is visible,186 which makes it impossible to estimate whether the tesserae originally formed a pattern. The preservation and uncertain information regarding the floor decoration makes it the most inconsistent parameter for measuring wealth, as the existence of decoration can be verified only occasionally, and sometimes it is impossible to distinguish what type of decoration was present – scattered tesserae or patterns.

The peristyle floors did not have the same display function as, for example, central panel paintings, sculpture, and decorative water features, which likely would have attracted more attention than the simple patterns of the floor decoration. There is perhaps only one peristyle where a floor had a decorative emblem – a hunting scene and fighting cocks. However, even the provenance of this mosaic is slightly dubious.187 Mosaic emblems are considered suitable for places where people spent time and had the opportunity to look at them.188 In contrast, the geometrical patterns used for decorating the peristyle floors were suitable for places of movement, as they did not tempt the passer-by to stop and look at the floor.189 The mosaic floors were likely more expensive than the other floor types in the peristyles, but they featured a simple decoration pattern of geometrical shapes – with the exception of the above-mentioned emblem.190 Consequently, not even these most expensive peristyle floors required people to stop and marvel at them. The floor decoration was not a feature that attracted people into the peristyle by itself, but was rather something that the visitor saw while moving through the space.

The average house size with decorated portico floors is 970 m2, median 735 m2, and 35 percent had luxury architecture (Table 2.2). Floor decoration is connected with houses that are clearly larger than the average and median values for Pompeii (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6). This indicates their value as a status symbol, but it was likely not very essential for display purposes.

Notes

1. See the discussion about sundials in Chapter 2.3.

2. On the poor status of our information about plantings in Pompeii, see Jashemski 1981, 31.

3. See Ciarallo 2012, 22.

4. See e.g. Sodo 1992, 19, Zarmakoupi 2014, 111. See also, Morvillez 2017, 18–19, although he uses the word heredium.

5. Zarmakoupi 2014, 111–112.

6. Zarmakoupi 2014, 115.

7. Spano 1916, 233. Richardson 1955, 45. Jashemski 1993, 99 n. 156. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 469–470 n. 169.

8. Nn. 52, 56, 78, 84, 113, 224.

9. Nn. 4, 69, 162.

10. Jashemski 1993, 188 n. 366. Ciarallo and Giordano 2012, 594 n. 371.

11. Nn. 40, 67, 70, 87, 92, 95, 100, 109, 118, 123, 142, 155, 172, 235.

12. E.g. Fiorelli 1860, III, 13. Jashemski 1993, 50 n. 69, 108 n. 168, 123 n. 211. Farrar 1998, 19. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 406 n. 69, 478 n. 172, Morvillez 2017, 34.

13. N. 235.

14. Falkener 1853, 72.

15. Maiuri 1927, 49. Jashemski 1993, 38 n. 14. On the wood and glass used as shutter or openings in Pompeii, see Boman 2011, 95–96.

16. See nn. 249, 250, Meyer 1980, 417, 421, 431, Jashemski 1993, 249 n. 517, Ciarallo & Mariotti Lippi 1993, 114-115, Mariotti Lippi 2001, 74, Pappalardo 2004, 64.

17. Jashemski 1981, 32–37, 44, 48. Ciarallo & Mariotti Lippi 1993, 115. Mariotti Lippi 2001, 74. Ciarallo 2007, 173. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 668–669 n. 520.

18. Ciarallo & Mariotti Lippi 1993, 115–116. Mariotti Lippi 2001, 74. Ciarallo 2007, 173–174. Ciarallo & Giordano 2012, 668–669 n. 520.

19. Ciarallo 2007, 173.

20. Nn. 47, 57, 134, 162, 213, 245, 249.

21. Nn. 24, 25, 39, 52, 56, 98, 113, 224.

22. See Chapter 5.8.

23. Nn. 46, 51, 55, 107, 170, 172, 248, 250.

24. Spano 1910, 465. Sampaolo 1997, 183.

25. Nn. 249, 250.

26. N. 134.

27. Nn. 107, 250.

28. Jansen 2017, 416–417.

29. See Gleason & Palmer 2017, 372–375, 392, 394. On the planting beds, see also Tally-Schumacher & Niemeier 2016, 66 Figure 6.

30. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 3. Wiseman 1987, 393–394.

31. Nn. 54, 105, 118, 165, 190, 193, 207.

32. Nn. 72, 88, 89, 90, 94, 114, 122, 143, 163, 173, 174, 197, 213, 246.

33. Five houses (Casa dei Dioscuri VI,9,6/7, Casa del Fauno VI,12,2, house VI,17,23–26, Casa di Trittolemo VII,7,2, house VIII,2,14–16) where opus reticulatum (or opus quasi reticulatum) was used in the peristyle are defined as large, and they also feature luxury architecture (Table 4.2). In addition, the Casa del Gallo (VIII,5,2/5) is large, but it does not have luxury architecture. Contrary to these, the remaining seven houses are smaller than the median house with a peristyle. The houses where the peristyle had opus quadratum walls are all larger than the median house with a peristyle (Fig. 2.6), but only two are vast houses: Casa di A. Umbricius Scaurus (VII,16,12–15), and house I,16,5. The first and house VII,14,9 both had a private bath. These are the only two with luxury architecture.

34. On the grey (Nocera) tuff as expensive material, see Peterse 2007, 375.

35. De Haan 2010, 133.

36. There are four houses that are classified as large or vast (see nn. 56, 67, 112, 162) where marble was used as the building material for the peristyle walls. The houses with luxury architecture (Table 2.2), where marble is used on the peristyle walls include: Panificio di Terentius Neo (n. 150), Casa del Centauro (n. 112), Casa dei Capitelli colorati (n. 162), and Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (n. 67).

37. Peterse 2007, 374–375.

38. Suet. Aug. 56.2. The passage can be interpreted as the propaganda of Augustus. On the negotiations of the land purchase for Caesar’s forum, see also Cic. Att. 4.17.7.

39. Tybout 2007, 407–408. Chiaramonte (2007, 143) states that after the 62 CE earthquake, the Porta Vesuvio was never rebuilt.

40. The domination of small houses is visible, e.g. in Robinson’s (1997, 137) Fig. 11.1. On the upper floors, see e.g. Spinazzola 1953, 83–109. There are even buildings on the city wall on the west side of the city. Pesando (1997, 263) states that these were among the most luxurious houses of Pompeii.

41. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 17, 72, 75. See also Robinson 1997, 137–138.

42. N. 52 in the Casa delle colonne cilindriche (I,16,2-a) with a large garden (Jashemski 1993, 64 n. 109), n. 54 in house I,16,5 with a large garden (Jashemski 1993, 65 n. 114), n. 57 in the Casa di D. Octavius Quartio (II,2,2) with a large garden (Jashemski 1993, 82–83 n. 136), n. 61 in house II,9,6 with a large garden (Jashemski 1993, 97 n. 154), n. 194 in the Casa di Ma. Castricius (VII,16,17) with a large garden (Jashemski 1993, 204 n. 406).

43. On the size of the average or standard houses, see Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 76, Nevett 2010, 74.

44. Wiseman 1987, 398. See also Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 17.

45. N. 251. Spinazzola (1953, 337) reports 6.80 m as the atrium column height and Sampaolo (2003, 361) 7.20 m.

46. Spinazzola 1953, 337. Pappalardo 2004, 41. Ehrhardt 2004, 39.

47. N. 73.

48. N. 32: the beam holes at 3.20 m, the columns 2,60 m. N. 43: the beam holes at 3.27 m, the columns 2.80 m. N. 95: the beam holes at 3.40 m, the columns 3.20 m.

49. See Landeschi & al. 2015 about the possibility of reconstructing the upper levels with 3D-models. However, it will take plenty of time before there are enough models available to make a comprehensive comparison.

50. See Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 74–75, Zanker 1998, 12.

51. On upper floors being identified on the basis of stairs and finds, see e.g. Spinazzola 1953, 282–283.

52. Nn. 40, 105, 109, 163, 208, 245.

53. On the loggia, see Spinazzola 1953, 299, 302.

54. Nn. 23, 170, 232, 240.

55. E.g. nn. 10, 235. The northern peristyle of the Casa di Sirico (VII,1,25/47) had fragments of cocciopesto floor at 2.10 and 2.60 m above the floor level (Finati 1856, Relazione degli Scavi di Pompei, 2), which indicates that there were structures above the porticoes.

56. Cic. De 0r. 3.180.

57. Vitr. 5.6.9. Leach 1982, 144

58. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 21–22.

59. Speksnijder 2015, 89 n. 21. The area is measured on the PBMP map: http://digitalhumanities.umass.edu/pbmp/?page_id=1258. (Last visited 17.2.2017). Other large atria without columns: Casa di Sallustio (VI,2,4): 135 m2, Casa di Pansa (VI,6,1): 135 m2, Casa dei Capitelli colorati (VII,4,31/51): 135 m2, house VIII,2,14–16: 130 m2, house VIII,2,26: 125 m2.

60. See Sections 4.1.1 and 6.8.

61. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 86. On the comparison of full peristyles and peristyles with less than four porticoes, see also Trentin 2014, 261–264.

62. Jashemski 1979, 53. Richardson 1988, 62–63. Farrar 1998, 14, 22–23. Jones & Robinson 2005, 695–696, 702, 707. Von Stackelberg 2009, 40. Mithen 2012, 126. Jones and Robinson (2005, 702, 707) conclude that in the Augustan era the Casa delle Vestali used piped water for display, whereas domestic water came from the cistern that collected the rain water.

63. Hales 2003, 116. See also Morvillez 2017, 45.

64. In this study, I use the word pool for the water features that are mostly under the ground level. A basin is, instead, a water holding structure that is mostly above the ground level.

65. Nn. 29, 37, 43, 45, 46, 51, 54, 60, 84, 98, 105, 150, 176, 178, 181, 208, 214, 215, 225.

66. Marble facing: nn. 22, 64, 84, 101, 110, 133, 134, 152, 160, 162, 166, 180, 185, 187, 202, 208, 210, 225, 235, 245. Not rectangular shape: nn. 22, 82, 108, 133, 139, 166, 225, 235, 245, 251. Colored plaster: nn. 139, 152, 174, 189, 193, 245. It is stated that Roman pools often had a blue plaster (Von Stackelberg 2009, 39), but in the case of the peristyle pools, this does not seem to occur very often.

67. Nn. 15, 67, 105, 121, 131, 187, 209, 243, 244.

68. There are several basins that have not been interpreted as decorative, see Fiorelli 1875, 182, Allison 2006, 362. The basins in the following peristyles were probably not decorative: nn. 40, 45, 130, 151, 248. Also, the information on the basins in the Casa di Pinarius Cerialis (III,4,4) and Tintoria VII,2,11–12 (see Avellino 1844, 84 and Jashemski 1993, 102 n. 160) is insufficient, and their function cannot be deduced.

69. Nn. 14, 15, 22, 38, 62 64, 67, 82, 84, 97, 101, 103, 105, 108, 110, 114, 121, 131, 133, 134, 139, 152, 153, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 174, 180, 185, 187, 189, 193, 197, 202, 208, 210, 213, 225, 235, 241, 243, 244, 245, 251.

70. Nn. 1, 85, 111, 144, 146, 178, 199.

71. The peristyles where the basin is mentioned only in the reports are nn. 105 and 243. E.g. Serpe (2008, 149, 151–152) locates a marble basin in the portico of the Casa di Acceptus e Euhodia (VIII,5,39), but it was actually found in another room of the house, and it was likely located on the second floor (see, Mau 1884, 131).

72. See, e.g. Jashemski 1979, 35–36, 38, 53; 1993, 153–154 and Richardson 1988, 326. Both think that the southern peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1) had fountains spurting water onto the garden.

73. Zanker 1998, 188–189.

74. Nn. 3, 6, 25, 33, 66, 73, 123, 136, 219, 249.

75. Jansen 1997, 130.

76. Jashemski 1979, 32–33; 1981, 39, 48. Dwyer 1982, 113. Richardson 1988, 51, 55, 62. Zanker 1998, 118. Jones & Robinson 2005, 697, 699. Von Stackelberg 2009, 39. Jansen 2011, 72. However, there had possibly been a water pipe leading from the mountains to Pompeii already in 80 BCE (Jansen 2017, 407)

77. Jones & Robinson 2005, 698–699. For the edict of Venafrum (CIL X, 4842) that deals with the water distribution of the city, see Taylor 2000, 124–127. For the limited water distribution in Rome, see Frontinius Aq. 94.6.

78. Jones & Robinson 2005, 699. See also Olsson 2015, 71–74.

79. Jones & Robinson 2005, 702. See also Leander Touati 2010, 121–122.

80. Jones & Robinson 2005, 702–707.

81. See Chapter 5.4.

82. Jones & Robinson 2005, 703, 706.

83. Von Stackelberg 2009, 40.

84. Peristyles with a key of distribution box: nn. 64, 67, 73, 84, 107, 134, 164, 187, 196, 208, 235, 245, 251.

85. Nn. 24, 106, 107, 133, 164, 235.

86. Jashemski papers Box 7, Acc. 2013-36, WH29: A: 120a, Notebook 1957, July 6.

87. N. 64.

88. On the taps, see M. De Vos 1991, 541.

89. The peristyles where the fountain statues can be linked with fountain jets: nn. 14, 24, 107, 134, 139, 164, 187, 208, 209, 235, 244, 245.

90. Nn. 3, 123, 249.

91. N. 249

92. Dwyer 1982, 113.

93. De Vos 1976, 38. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 149. Pesando 1997, 7–8. Allison 2004, 86. Loccardi 2009, 31, 69. Zarmakoupi 2014, 118.

94. Vitr. 5.6.9. Leach 1982, 144.

95. The only peristyles with colorful marble sculptures: nn. 24, 251.

96. Nn. 2, 4, 7, 40, 57, 73, 126, 136, 169, 219, 244, 248.

97. The oldest known excavated terracotta statue comes from a peristyle that was excavated in 1762 (Fiorelli 1860, II, 144), and it is the only one reported from a peristyle before the 1870s. Some other terracotta statues are also mentioned in the very early reports; see e.g. Fiorelli 1860, I, 16. Allison (2004, 119) mentions that excavators were often looking for complete objects, and consequently the pieces of terracotta sculpture were not likely reported very well. Terracotta was not valued as highly as marble and bronze, and terracotta decoration is often connected with practical use and may not have been considered as art. E.g. the clay vases found in the peristyle of the Casa di M. Pupius Rufus (VI,15,5) were shaped as terracotta figurines (Sogliano 1895, 438; 1897, 24–27, Jashemski 1993, 156–157 n. 297, Sampaolo 1994, 581). Also, the terracotta antefixes of the peristyles might have been sculpted (see e.g. Bonucci 1827, 118, Gell 1832, I, 169, Fiorelli 1861, 393–394, 1864, 94, Dwyer 1982, 89, Bragantini 1996, 329). This might have confused the line between terracotta sculpture and practical terracotta objects, and therefore they were rarely reported. See, also Monteix 2017, 215 and Pietilä-Castrén 2019, 117.

98. On Venus as a common peristyle decoration, see Loccardi 2009, 67. Only peristyle n. 126 had terracotta statues that can be connected to Venus (Zanier 2009, 267). The Dionysiac themes are not present in the peristyle as terracotta sculpture. See also Section 3.2.2.

99. The peristyles with animal terracotta sculptures: nn. 40, 73, 248. The peristyles with Egypt themed terracotta statues: nn. 57, 73, 219.

100. E.g. the probable philosopher in peristyle n. 2, the bearded man (identified occasionally as Vulcan) in peristyle n. 7, a family group in peristyle n. 136, a muse in peristyle n. 169, a Phoenician monster in peristyle n. 219, and a pillar with a female face in peristyle n. 244.

101. Dwyer (1982, 122) sees some of the terracotta statues as a personal taste for bric-a-brac. See also Pietilä-Castrén 2019, 132.

102. On the early excavators’ interest in sculpture, see Nevett 2010, 90 and Milnor 2014, 13. On the early excavators’ interest in art, and particularly bronze objects, see Allison 2004, 31–32.

103. Carrella et al. (2008, 13) write that marble statues were ignored by the 19th century researchers, and not even published in some of the early publications. However, the marble statues were present already in the earliest reports, e.g. Fiorelli 1860, I, 8–9, 29, 34, 50, 125, II, 137, 139, 152.

104. Peristyles excavated before 1850 with marble sculpture: nn. 87, 89, 94, 103, 104, 107, 112, 113, 122, 133, 164, 166, 168, 178, 235, and with bronze sculpture: nn. 87, 97, 107. The low number of bronze sculptures is probably due to the low number of bronze sculptures in general in the peristyles.

105. On the diggings for sculpture and valuable objects after the 79 CE eruption, see Pesando 1997, 8. On the possibilities of misplacing the sculpture in Pompeian houses, see Allison 2006, 403.

106. Dobbins 1994, 634–635. Adam 2007, 101.

107. See Dwyer 1982, 121. On the connection of Pompeian gardens and sculpture, see Allison 2004, 90, 184.

108. Sogliano 1880, 488–489. Mau 1882, 221. Niccolini & Niccolini 1890, Casa nell’Isola VII. della Regione IX, 2; 1896, Nuovi scavi dal 1874 a tutto il 1882, 18. Dwyer 1982, 71–78. Jashemski 1993, 240–242 n. 501. D’Acunto 2008, 186–196.

109. Sogliano 1880, 399–400, 452. Mau 1882, 221.

110. Allison (2006, 66, 302, 403) proposes the possibility that some of the sculpture of the Casa del Menandro (I,10,4/14–17) might have been removed to a safer place during the last turmoil.

111. Although sculpture has been connected with gardens, there are several cases where there has not been any problem in connecting them with other rooms. In the atria: Allison 2004, 184, Inserra 2008, 22, 35, 52, Carrella 2008, 75, 77, 93, Serpe 2008, 115, 139, D’Acunto 2008, 171, in the tablina: Schulz 1841, 114, Fiorelli 1864, 152, Inserra 2008, 23, Serpe 2008, 116, in the fauces: Carrella 2008, 67, D’Acunto 2008, 168, in other rooms: Inserra 2008, 30, 52, Carrella 2008, 69, D’Acunto 2008, 171.

112. On herms as garden sculpture, see Inserra 2008, 19, Serpe 2008, 144, D’Acunto 2008, 196, Loccardi 2009, 68. On the herms connected to the atria, see Inserra 2008, 28, Serpe 2008, 118, 144, D’Acunto 2008, 164. On the herms found in houses without a garden, see Carrella 2008, 74. On herms not connected to a garden or a peristyle, see Pesando 1997, 245, Allison 2006, 66, 302, Carrella 2008, 93, 98, Serpe 2008, 139.

113. On the connection of oscilla and Pompeian gardens, see Carrella 2008, 81, Serpe 2008, 117.

114. On the oscilla in the peristyles see, e.g. Falkener 1853, 73, Fiorelli 1861, 388, Sogliano 1907, 592, Dwyer 1982, 81, 92, Jashemski 1993, 159, 162 n. 302, Seiler 1994, 741–743, 746. On the attachment of the oscilla in the arches, see Mau 1882, 221, Jashemski 1993, 241 n. 501, D’Acunto 2008, 187.

115. Sogliano 1880, 398–399, 488–489, 492.

116. N. 244.

117. See, e.g. Jashemski 1993, 28 n. 17 (house I,3,25), 145 n. 276 (the southern peristyle of the Casa del Fauno VI,12,2), 165 n. 311 (house VI,17,23–26,) 200 n. 398 (the Casa di A. Octavius Primus VII,15,12–13). Carrella 2008, 101-102 (house VI,17,23–26), Serpe 2008, 141 (the Casa di A. Octavius Primus VII,15,12–13). Jashemski (1993, 197 n. 387) states that the marble masks found in the Casa di Ganimede (VII,13,4/17–18) may have been garden decorations. Serpe (2008, 138) thinks, instead, that they were found in the peristyle of the house. The report (Fiorelli 1862, 381–384), however, does not specify that they were found in the peristyle. It mentions a cortile (Italian: cortile), which can also mean the atrium.

118. E.g. Dexter (1975, 247) thinks that some decoration of the peristyle of the Casa di L. Caecilius Iucundus (V,1,26) was taken away after the eruption. Breton (1870, 470) speculates that the column of the pool in house VIII,4,12–13 may have supported a statue. Ten fountain statues have been connected to the peristyle of the Casa dei Vettii (VI,15,1, Mau 1896, 36, Jashemski 1993, 153 n. 294, Sampaolo 1994, 523), probably due to the ten podia for the fountain statues in the peristyle, but only seven actual fountain statues were reported from the peristyle (n. 134). Ciarallo and Giordano (2012, 376 n. 20) speculate that the niche in the peristyle of house I,4,2 had a statue. Spinazzola (1953, 344) thinks that there was going to be a statue in the pool in the Casa di Obellius Firmus (IX,14,4). Hartswick (2017b, 341) thinks that the sculptures found in the rooms associated with gardens should also be considered as garden statuary. This is a possible point of view, however, as we rarely know the furniture, doors, curtains, and other obstacles, identifying which rooms can be defined as associated is very speculative. Some rooms quite far away from a garden could have belonged to the same visual design as the garden, and on the contrary some rooms near it may not have.

119. E.g. in the peristyle of the Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3/7) as noted by Sogliano (1880, 101, 151).

120. For the marble head and its finding place, see Della Corte 1911, 48–49. Jashemski (1993, 252 n. 518) thinks that it may have been a garden herm. Della Corte (1954, 211–212) proposes the possibility of wooden supports for herms.

121. Fiorelli 1862, 288. Mau 1882, 221. Sogliano 1907, 592. Dwyer 1982, 40. Jashemski 1993, 163 n. 302, 241 n. 501. D’Acunto 2008, 187.

122. Nn. 5, 17, 19, 29, 27, 31, 32, 34, 42, 45, 56, 72, 83, 105, 150, 157, 162, 182, 204, 212, 214, 232, 242, 249, 251. In addition, the peristyle of house V,4,b might be added to the list, but it is reported to have had some sketches on the plaster (Sogliano 1901, 331), which might be graffiti or indications of planned paintings.

123. Sampaolo 1999, 748.

124. Spinazzola 1953, 130. M. De Vos, 1990, 58. Bragantini 1999, 339.

125. Nn. 17, 19, 105, 150. See Table 2.3.

126. Nn. 2, 13, 227.

127. Bragantini 1996, 832. The peristyle of house I,2,16 is interpreted as a possible teaching location, on the basis of a terracotta statue of a philosopher (Pesando 1997, 216, Inserra 2008, 20), but the statue does not necessary indicate that the peristyle was a teaching place.

128. On this type of plaster on outside walls, see Spinazzola 1953, 130.

129. For the Pompeian painting styles, their periodical nature, and a critique of the styles, see Leach 1982, 158, Barbet 1985, 12, 36–37, 89–90, 96, 104, 139, 182 tab. V, 214, 273. See also Peters & Moormann 1993, 367–368.

130. E.g. Bragantini 2003, 184.

131. Sampaolo 1993, 52–53, 81.

132. In the peristyle of the Casa del Principe di Napoli (VI,15,7/8), the repaired parts of the walls were left undecorated (Strocka 1994, 656) – perhaps to be finished later. This could also have been done also in the Casa del Chirurgo (VI,1,10), if wanted.

133. Spinazzola 1953, 130–135. Richardson 1955, 3.

134. Barbet 1985, 66–72. Ling & Ling 2005, 94, 169.

135. The peristyle with a table: n. 122. The peristyles with decorative water features: nn. 66, 111, 121, 133, 166, 244. The peristyles with marble statue: 122, 133, 166, 244.

136. The peristyle with an outdoor triclinium: n. 70. The peristyles with a table: nn. 33, 70, 125, 136, 149. The peristyles with a decorative water feature: nn. 33, 136, 152, 243. The peristyles with sculpture: nn. 33, 125, 136, 149, 168.

137. Nn. 12, 21, 126, 140, 148, 154.

138. Ling & Ling 2005, 94

139. Nn. 21, 33, 70, 125, 126, 136, 148, 149, 154, 168, 243.

140. Nn. 21, 66, 111, 117, 120, 121, 122, 126, 132, 133, 165, 166, 226, 247, 250.

141. Peters & Moormann 1993, 369. Cfr. Leach 1982, 166.

142. Leach 1982, 166.

143. Ling & Ling 2005, 94. Ling and Ling regard that the reception spaces were decorated with the first and second style, and therefore it can be assumed that he means the third and fourth style.

144. The peristyles with an outdoor triclinium: nn. 38, 219, 239. The peristyles with an industrial or commercial activity: nn. 124, 141.

145. The peristyles with an outdoor triclinium: nn. 22, 28, 62, 84.

146. Fourth style: nn. 55, 74, 76, 138, 186, 202, 205, 219. Third style: nn. 48, 110.

147. On the problematic situation of the survival of wall paintings and an entire city-wide comparison, see Robinson 1997, 138–139.

148. On the paintings and their role in the functions of Roman social life, see Barbet 1985, 273. See also Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 8.

149. Ling & Ling 2005, 93–94.

150. Allison 2006, 362.

151. See, e.g. Green 2015, 143.

152. Barbet 1985, 75. Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 167–168. Ling & Ling 2005, 90. Ciarallo 2012, 23. These decorative themes are often listed as secondary decoration, or as decoration of secondary spaces of a house (see Bragantini 1997, 386; 2003, 184, Ling & Ling 2005, 167).

153. Gombrich 1979, 151, 165.

154. See, e.g. Jashemski 1993, 317–322 n. 12, 13, Ling & Ling 2005, 90, 94, 108.

155. On the size, see Zanker 1998, 189.

156. Occasionally the plant paintings might have more details, such as in the Casa dei Vettii (see Jashemski 1993, 346 n. 57). Jashemski (1993, 313–369) does not usually list the plant paintings in her catalogue of garden paintings, but this is an exception. Perhaps this is due the extraordinary detail of this painting compared to the other plant paintings. However, even in this painting, the amount of detail does not compare with the large garden paintings.

157. The central panel paintings are often referred to as quodro in Italian texts, which can be differentiated from the medaglie and vignette. However, the descriptions are not always so detailed that a classification of the painting can be certainly established, if the painting itself does not survive. Occasionally, such as in the Casa dei Dioscuri (n. 114), the painted Dioscuri does not fit clearly in any of these categories. In these unclear cases I have listed them as equal with central panel paintings. See also, Esposito 2017, 271. Esposito thinks that mythological panels and architectural features in the middle zone could each have been executed in a single day, meaning that their cost could have been equal, but this obviously depends on size, cost, and the skills of the crew painting them.

158. Leach 1982, 141, 166.

159. See e.g., Fiorelli 1860, I, 2–4, 6–7, 17, 19, 20–21; II, 134–146. Nevett (2010, 90) comments that the wall paintings in general were favored by the early excavators.

160. See e.g. Sampaolo 1993, 280–281.

161. Ling & Ling 2005, 101, 167.

162. Richardson 1955, 42.

163. E.g. Bragantini (1999, 824) uses the number of mythological paintings to evaluate the ranking of the decoration of the Casa della Fortuna (IX,7,20).

164. Mythological: nn. 1, 15, 59, 66, 76, 85, 101, 104, 105, 108, 113, 114, 128, 139, 147, 163, 169, 175, 202, 216, 240, 245. Landscape: nn. 14, 15, 28, 37, 57, 59, 67, 78, 85, 107, 111, 113, 147, 156, 163, 194, 202, 208, 216, 245. Still life: nn. 1, 40, 44, 55, 59, 66, 73, 82, 84, 101, 114, 134, 137, 139, 148, 156, 166, 208, 235, 245, 250. This list and calculation includes the paintings on all surfaces (plutei, etc.), not just walls. The list includes central panel paintings and large paintings, however, vignettes and medallions are not included.

165. For example, the painting of a warrior (Sampaolo 1997, 270) in the peristyle of the Casa di Romolo e Remo (n. 175) could be interpreted also as mythological or historical event. Elements of mythological, landscape and still life paintings can be mixed in a same picture, e.g. in the peristyle of the Casa della Regina Carolina (see Bragantini 1998, 398–399) and Casa del Centenario (see Sampaolo 1999, 971–974). Additionally, one could consider all the animal and garden paintings as landscapes, but they are usually categorized as own painting type. They also often include mythological characters, such the famous paintings in the Casa della Venere in conchiglia (n. 59), Casa di Adone ferito (n. 101) and Casa di Vesonius Primus (n. 128).

166. Nn. 15, 59, 66, 85, 101, 113, 114, 139, 147, 156, 163, 202, 208, 216, 245.

167. See e.g. Leach 1982, 166–167, Peters & Moormann 1993b, 409, Pappalardo 2004, 338, Ling & Ling 2005, 146.

168. Leach 1982, 153–154. Zarmakoupi 2014, 125–126.

169. See e.g. Sampaolo 1999, 970–974, Allison, 2002, 75–77.

170. Sampaolo 1996, 641. Bragantini 2003, 211. Ling & Ling 2005, 94, 100, 129.

171. Ling & Ling 2005, 94.

172. Richardson 1955, 42.

173. Richardson (1955, 42) lists the large sacral landscapes to the Casa della Fontana piccola (VI,8,23/24), Casa di Apollo (VI,7,23), Casa dei Dioscuri (VI,9,6/7), Casa della Caccia antica (VII,4,48) and Casa di Fabia.

174. Spano 1910, 474.

175. Zanker 1998, 189.

176. Leach 1982, 162.

177. On decorative floors as a means of display, see Zanker 1998, 11–12.

178. Peters & Moormann 1993b, 409. Pesando 1997, 221–222. Bragantini 2003, 184. Ling & Ling 2005, 95. De Haan 2010, 133.

179. Ling & Ling 2005, 96, 166.

180. Peristyle n. 135 has a mortar floor decorated with black plaster, which is highly unusual, and it is difficult to know what this means. In this study it is counted as a decorated floor.

181. Nn. 78, 82, 95, 114, 136, 146, 174, 180, 198, 201.

182. N. 156.

183. E.g. the following mortar floors of peristyles have not been documented: nn. 2, 19, 28, 41, 43, 47, 51, 54, 55, 88, 92, 97, 107, 128, 141.

184. On the early excavators’ interest in mosaics, see Nevett 2010, 90.

185. On the problematic situation of the documentation of the floors, see Pesando 1997, 7. Nn. 14, 15, 24, 25, 64, 102, 106, 108, 110, 145, 162, 163, 181, 182, 196, 210, 237.

186. E.g. nn. 14, 64, 102, 106, 110, 182, 210.

187. N. 95. It can also be from the entrance to VI,5,19, but Fiorelli states that it was found near the west side entrance, which would most likely indicate the peristyle opening to VI,5,10 as VI,5,19 does not have an entrance on the west side (Fiorelli 1860, III, 12–14. Niccolini & Niccolini 1862, Descrizione generale 28–29. Fiorelli 1875, 101).

188. Ling & Ling 2005, 94.

189. On the connection of spaces meant for movement and geometrical patterns, see Ling & Ling 2005, 94.

190. See e.g. Bragantini 1997, 237. Bragantini states that the white mosaic floor with black stripes and lines of dots in the peristyle of the Casa di Trittolemo (VII,7,5) is typical for peristyles. She probably refers to the patterns, as the mosaic floors are not very typical in Pompeian peristyles.

If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at admin@erenow.org. Thank you!