Mediterranean Houses
and Society
A Comparative study between Houses in
Classical Olynthos and Roman Pompeii
Niela Katsi
Cover: aerial photos of Olynthos (above) and Pompeii (below)
(Taken from online source, see list of figures)
Niela Katsi
Middelstegracht 4
2311 TW Leiden
Tel.: 06-49527807
nielakatsi@yahoo.com
1
Mediterranean Houses and Society
A Comparative study between Houses in Classical Olynthos
and Roman Pompeii
Niela Katsi
S1441353
MA Thesis in Classical and Mediterranean Archaeology
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Sojc
University of Leiden, Faculty of Archeology
Monday, 16 June 2014
Leiden
1
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction
7
Chapter 2. Classical Greece
15
2.1 Classical period
17
2.2 City planning
20
2.3 Oikos
22
Chapter 3. Olynthos
27
3.1 Behind the ruins
29
3.2 City Planning
31
3.3 Houses
33
3.4 Criteria for isonomia
38
Chapter 4. Roman Antiquity
41
4.1 Overview of Roman History
43
4.2 Roman Cities
44
4.3 Roman Housing
48
3
Chapter 5. Pompeii
55
5.1 Before the eruption
57
5.2 City planning
61
5.3 Houses
63
5.4 Criteria for isonomia
66
Chapter 6. Comparison between block A vii in Olynthos and
Insula of the Menander in Pompeii
69
6.1 Block A vii
71
6.2 Insula of the Menander
81
6.3 Results
89
Chapter 7. Conclusion
95
Abstract
99
Bibliography
101
List of figures
111
List of tables
118
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Dr. Natascha Sojc for her guidance and useful
commentary during the writing of this thesis. Her advice has been more than
helpful in order for this thesis to be completed. She has been a mentor and
without her support and patience it would have been more than difficult for this
research to have been finalised. In addition, I feel like I am much indebted to my
family for their support during this year. Moreover I would like to express my
sincere gratitude towards my friends in Athens and Leiden, who provided me
the needed support in order to complete this thesis.
Niela Katsi
Leiden, June 2014
5
6
Chapter 1 Introduction
Niela Katsi
s1441353
7
8
The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.
-Confucius, Analects: 8.1
Archaeological research has continually created a link between architecture and
society, even if the architecture of houses remains understudied. The aim of this
thesis is to investigate from an archaeological perspective how houses or clusters
of houses could have been a reflection of the society in antiquity, by re-examining
the paradigms that Greek houses represent the concept of political equality,
isonomia, whereas in Roman houses the concept of luxuria, which is the
representation of personal wealth, is expressed though architecture and
decoration. As exemplary case-studies houses and town planning of two of most
well-preserved cities of antiquity Olynthos and Pompeii will be analysed to
gather architectural characteristics and to investigate what sort of social values
are expressed through them. In a next step, a comparison between the two cities
will be attempted in terms of the differences and/or similarities of the houses, to
test if the long established paradigms isonomia and luxuria can be read from the
architectural remains and if so to what extent. The first question to answer is:
What are the architectural characteristics of the houses of each city that can be
linked with the isonomia and luxuria? Do the houses in the examined blocks of
Olynthos and Pompeii meet these criteria so it can be stated that there was the
concept of isonomia and luxuria behind their design? How did the houses in the
Mediterranean evolve during the antiquity?
The classical period is one of the most pertinent periods in terms of
understanding organised society and the way it is studied today. Democracy,
theatre and philosophy were born in the Hellenic world and then developed in
the Roman. The ideas and the mentality of the society were reflected not only in
temples and sculptures but also in houses of each city. In classical Greece the idea
of polis was very significant. Polis was not only the city for a Greek, but also it
meant the body of the citizens and the citizenship (Aristotle, Politica, 11). The
Greek cities were shaped by the ideals of active citizenship and political equality.
In the fourth century BC the idea of democratic equality was expressed by the
design of the houses too. Olynthos is one of the most important cities of Greece
9
that can show how a Hellenic classical household was, and can therefore be used
as a ‘type-site’ for how other cities were planned. According to Cahill, “shortlived, violently destroyed, extensively excavated, Olynthus is an ideal site at
which to study ancient Greek city planning” (2000, 497). Olynthos was a small
city in the seventh, sixth and much of the fifth century, located on the so called
South Hill. In 432 B.C. the Athenian aggression was banded together and moved
to Olynthos in order to create a single defensible community. This resulted in the
planning of the North Hill as a new sector of the city. This new part of the town
was built and designed according to Hippodamus and his system, meaning the
city had straight streets and regular blocks and contained about 360 houses.
Olynthos became the chief city of the Chalcidic League and it lead to the
expansion of the town. This new part of the town had more luxurious houses and
it was named “The Villa section”. Therefore, due to historical circumstances, a
three part city was created: the older South Hill, the North Hill and the Villa
section. These three regions were planned differently and therefore, they have
differences in their organization (Cahill 2002, 23).
After the fall of the Hellenic world, the Roman power started rising. Though
studies of Roman society and everyday life have progressively featured in
literature over the past few decades, there still remains a concerned lack of
emphasis on understanding how society functioned through investigation of the
household, and hence how the average Roman viewed the world in which he
lived in. Cities in Italy reflect a political structure totally dissimilar from that of
the Greek cities. The people were depending on their patronage, whose numbers
were mirrored by the family’s power and prestige. In the Roman Republican
period, a significant city nowadays to archaeologists, which is particularly well
preserved, is Pompeii that offers a striking contrast with Olynthos. According to
archaeological beliefs Pompeii is the perfect site for households’ congregation
(Augusti 1967, 15; Will 1979, 34). This city is a typical Roman city, which reflects
the ideals of the Republican society. An earthquake in 62 CE did great damage in
both Pompeii and Herculaneum. The cities had not yet recovered from this
catastrophe when final destruction overcame those 17 years later. In 79 CE
Mount Vesuvius erupted and destroyed Pompeii together with Herculaneum,
Torre Annunziata, Stabie and other communities (Beard, 2008). The quality that
10
Pompeii is preserved has been accepted to bestow a basis from which the other
archaeological sites can be bifurcate. This basis was termed by Robert Ascher as
the Pompeii premise (1961, 324). An ordered arrangement is suggested about the
city due to the fact that the streets and public space were laid out along geometric
lines. Pompeian society is reflected in urban space in Pompeii. The layout of
Pompeian insula has a close relationship to the natural topography of the site
(Laurence, 1994, 11).
Prevailing notions and ideals of the operation of a household differ immensely
from that of Greek and Roman. For this reason, it is significant at first to point
out the crucial discrepancy between modern and ancient concepts of the ‘public’
and ‘private’ sphere. In modern terms, house can be interpreted as a hideaway
from the public eye, a place where one detaches themselves from their work
related demands. However, these ideas would be antithetical to a Greek or
Roman 2500 years ago. The house was not considered as a shelter from the
demands of work. Oikos, which in Greek means house, as a meaning included
building that held inside the family, as much as their fortune and the people who
were working for them (Austin, Vidal-Naquet, 1977, 41). On the other hand, for a
Roman their domus, was rather often the core from which one worked and
accommodated his ‘clientele’. The house was depended on its occupant's
profession for the form and the decoration (Gazda 1994).
The strategy that will be adopted here is not just to describe the houses but also
to show how and how far societal concepts are represented. First of all the basic
characteristics of each period will be introduced. This will be followed by an
analysis of the cities layout. After that a specific block of each city will be
examined. According to the results, an attempt to determine the image of what
households show of society and vice versa will be carried out. The two selected
blocks for examination are, in Olynthos block A vii and the insula of the
Menander in Pompeii. Block A vii in Olynthos is dissimilar to the others due to is
difference between the houses along the southern and the northern part. The
southern houses are extremely regular in type, well-built and contain many
interesting architectural features; on the other hand, the houses on the north are
irregular in plan. It appears that there may have been a lapse in time between the
constructions of the two rows (Robinson and Graham 1938, 116). The insula of
11
the Menander is one of the slightly irregular and large blocks in Pompeii that is
lying between the old part of the city (Altstadt) and the regular rectangular grid
which is located in the eastern part of the final walled city. Through excavations,
it was indicated that the eastern quarter was laid out in the early second century
BC, maybe as a result of resettlement after the Hannibalic Wars. Over half of the
insula was occupied by the Casa del Menandro and its dependencies. The
remaining place of the insula contained minor houses: the Casa degli Amanti, the
Casa del Fabbro, a small atrium house, three irregular houses. Between the angles of
Casa del Fabbro and the Casa del Menandro was a small workshop complex. Finally,
except this workshop and others that occupied the front rooms of houses, there
were three independent shops or similar one-room units (Ling 1997, 7).
It can be argued that in both cases the archaeological research was proposed
readily and that a direct link existed. On the basis of deconstruction this direct
link and a comparison of the houses themselves in their urban setting, this thesis
will establish if and how characteristics of the Greek and the Roman houses
respectively can be linked with the general part. Olynthos and Pompeii are the
best candidates for such a comparison. Both cities in question are considered by
archaeologist as archetypes of Greek and Roman urbanism. Moreover, they
provide important evidence for domestic architecture studies, due to the fact that
they were not naturally abandoned, but abruptly destroyed. The result of this is
that the structures of the houses were undamaged. Another reason for this
comparison is that both cities depict significant divides from fourth century BC
until the first century CE in the area of the Mediterranean.
This thesis is divided in five chapters. After the introduction in the second
chapter the general political context in Greece will be provided, focusing on the
characteristics of democracy and more specific the term of isonomia. Afterwards
the general concept around city planning will be displayed along with the
housing in the Classical era. The third chapter is about the case study of
Olynthos. In this chapter the history of the city, city planning and a description of
a ‘typical’ house is presented. At the end of this chapter a general hypothesis
will be drawn: What social features are reflected in the construction of the houses
and which can be linked up with isonomia. In the next chapter a brief history of
the Roman context will be presented, with a focus on the Roman city planning
12
and the housing. In the fifth chapter the case study of Pompeii will be examined.
In this chapter the history of the city, its planning and information about the
different type of houses are exhibited. The last part of this chapter is consisted of
an overall speculation: Which are the qualities of the society that are mirror in the
construction of the houses and which can be connected with luxuria.
Subsequently, the two selected blocks from Olynthos and Pompeii are presented
and examined. The houses of each block will be investigated according the
criteria developed in the previous chapters in order to be establish if isonomia and
luxuria are reflected on those. In the final chapter, an overall of the thesis is
exhibit with a focus on the results of the comparison and if/how the society and
the houses changed through antiquity in the Mediterranean area.
13
14
Chapter 2 Classical Greece
Niela Katsi
s1441353
15
16
In this chapter the characteristics of Classical Greece will be introduced. This will
be managed by providing a brief but nonetheless indispensable description of the
Classical era, by chronology, characteristics and significant personalities.
Afterwards, information on city planning and houses through this period will be
given. There will be a focus on the Hippodamian system and the houses and the
way that they were influenced by the democratic institution.
2.1 CLASSICAL PERIOD
The era between the end of the Persian Wars and the death of Alexander the
Great (480-323 BC) is considered as the classical period. However, this period is
divided in categories according to the social developments and the political
events, as follows (Kokkorou-Alevras 1995, 169,180,197,199):
•
The Early Classical Period (480-450 B.C.)
•
Mature Classical Period (450-420 B.C.)
•
Period of the “Rich Style” (420-390 B.C.)
•
Late Classical Period (390-323 B.C.)
This
era
is
characterised
by
the
prosperity of the city. The two centres
of Greece were the two cities which
dominated all the others: Athens and
Sparta. The fifth century is the century
of
Athens, the golden
century of
Pericles, is when democracy was born
(Fig 2.1).
However,
the
Golden
Century
of
Pericles lasted only some decades and
Figure 2.1 The age of Pericles by Phillip Von
Foltz. The image is a representation of the ideals
of democracy. (From online source see list of
figures)
then the Peloponnesian War started at 431 BC (Mossé and Schnapp-Gourbeillon
17
1990, 233). In this war Athens lost and that had an effect on its power, which
started to decline and other kingdoms like the Macedonian one started to rise. It
was Phillip II that established the power of the Macedonian kingdom and then
his son Alexander the Great who led it to its zenith, and that is why his death in
323 BC is considered to be the end of the classical period (Pomeroy et al 2004,
254).
In ancient Greece, especially during the classical period, being a citizen of a city
came with great responsibility and not everyone was nominated. Politis of a city
was not everyone who lived there. In order for someone to be called citizen of a
city-state he had to be a free
person, this means that slaves
were not considered citizens
(Mossé
1993,
40).
Moreover,
women were not considered able
to be named as the politis of a
Figure 2.2 Arreophoroi (women carrying objects) during
Panathinaia (ceremony for goddess Athena) at Parthenon,
north frieze. ca. 438-432BC. (From online source see list of
figures)
city-state; however they were
able
to
participate
in
the
religious part of the social life
(Fig 2.2) (ibid, 61).
When talking about the classical period, the first thing that comes to someone’s
mind is democracy. That is totally logical, due to the fact that democracy was
established during that time and until now is one of the constitutions that rule in
many countries. Democracy derives from the words demos (δῆμος) and kratos
(κράτος), which in Greek means people and power. The word itself shows an
institution by defining who (what kind of persons and how many) has the
power. Democracy in Greece did not start in one day but it was established
during time. The first steps were made in Athens by Solon in the beginning of the
sixth century and continued by Cleisthenes in the end of the same century and
finally was established during the four first decades of the 5th century (Mossé
1992, 21). Cleisthenes’ system can be characterised by the word isonomia, which
means the equality (isos/ gr: ἴσος) of political rights (nomos/ gr: νόμος) and
which was one of the main rules of democracy (Raaflaub 2007, 112). Isonomia was
the idea on which all the structures of society were depending on afterwards. It
18
was the base in order equality of the political rights to rule over the ancient
World, even in the planning of cities and the architecture of the houses in Greece
and its colonies over the Mediterranean.
Polis was considered a male association because only men were eligible to join
the
community
and
carrying
out
decisions affecting it (Murray 1986,
172).Private life in ancient Greece was
also important as much as public. In his
everyday life an ancient Greek liked to be
entertained. In the classical world the
types
of
entertainment
were
two,
symposium (Fig 2.3), which was private
and the festival, which was public.
Festivals were part of the democratic
Figure 2.3 Cylix (Drinking cup) with a symposium
scene, ca. 500 BC. (From online source see list of
figures)
system, and the people were enjoying
displays which were a combination of a public feast, religious experiences and
great art. Examples of such festivals were Dionysia, in honour of God Dionysus,
and Panathinaia in honour of the goddess Athena. On the other hand, the
symposium was arranged by drinking groups of men and it was an attempt to
portray a more aristocratic status, which was no longer prominent (Hansen
1993). This gathering was private, as it was taking place in the house in the room
called the men’s room, andron, (ανδρών). That room was specially designed for
that operation with the door off-centre to accommodate the couches where the
members were laying, propped on their left arm. The size of the rooms differed
from three to twelve or even more couches (Garland 2009).
19
2.2 CITY PLANNING
Polis
Ἐπειδὴ πᾶσαν πόλιν ὁρῶμεν κοινωνίαν τινὰ οὖσαν καὶ πᾶσαν κοινωνίαν ἀγαθοῦ τινος
ἕνεκεν συνεστηκυῖαν (τοῦ γὰρ εἶναι δοκοῦντος ἀγαθοῦ χάριν πάντα πράττουσι πάντες),
δῆλον ὡς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγαθοῦ τινος στοχάζονται, μάλιστα δὲ καὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου πάντων ἡ
πασῶν κυριωτάτη καὶ πάσας περιέχουσα τὰς ἄλλας. αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ καλουμένη πόλις καὶ ἡ
κοινωνία ἡ πολιτική.
Observation tells us that every state is an association, and that every association is
formed with a view to some good purpose. I say 'good', because in all their actions all
men do in fact aim at what they think good. Clearly then, as all associations aim at some
good, that association which is the most sovereign among them all and embraces all
others will aim highest, i.e. at the most sovereign of all goods. This is the association
which we call the state, the association which is 'political'.
Aristotle,Politica 11 (translation by J.E. Porter)
Aristotle, one of the most significant philosophers in the classical period, in his
book Politica and especially in the 11th chapter attempts to provide a first
description of the polis (πόλις). According to him polis is a form of a superior
social coexistence, which includes all the other kinds of society and aims at the
superior from all goods. Moreover, it is a society and the main characteristic that
makes it differ from all the others of its kind is the good that it aims. Specifically
the aim of the polis is the well-being of its citizens, with which it seeks for the
total good of all citizens, instead of the personal good that other kinds of society
aim to.
Aristotle seals the definition of Polis by characterising the political
society, the organized constitutional society which has self-sufficiency,
autonomy, freedom, institutions and regime. Therefore, polis in the ancient Greek
world is more a nowadays city-state than just a city.
During the classical era the political institutions and society were two of the main
influences of the city planning. The Persian wars destroyed many Greek cities, so
they had to be rebuilt. However, this time the dynamic way of development,
which was used previously, will be replaced for the new cities and colonies by a
20
grid plan. Greek city planning during the fifth and fourth century was enriched
with the spirit of political community
and more public buildings were built
(Mpouras 1999, 276) (Fig 2.4).
During this era there was a planning that
designed cities with parallel and vertical
streets. The city is divided in blocks that
had the same size. The general concept of
this idea was not only the adjustment of
the streets in horizontal and vertical lines
but also the organisation of the city in
order for the city and its citizens to
function in a more correct way. The
advantages of this system were the speed
of
organisation,
simple
designs
and
Figure 2.4 Plan of Miletus (See Roisman and
Yardley 2011)
protection of the city. This city planning system was called Hippodamian,
because of Hippodamus of Miletus (Pounds 1969, 140).
Hippodamus of Miletus was not just a city planner but also an intellectual of his
era. What he had on mind about the city planning was a more theoretical rather
than practical side. He was more concerned about an ideal society than the
physical layout. Hippodamus ideal city was one with 10.000 citizens, in which
the land, the citizens, the laws and magistrates would be separated in three
sections (Burns 1976, 416) (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 The ideal city organisation according to Hippodamus
City
Land
Laws
Magistrates
Farmers
Religious
Wanton assault
Public matters
Artisans
Public
Damage
Matters relating to
aliens
Soldiers
Private
Homicide
Matters relating to
orphans
21
Hippodamus’s idea of dividing the city in three equal sections by describing the
ideal city for him shows that he was inspired and affected by the concept of
equality and democracy that arose at that time. This city planning by
Hippodamus was adopted by the democratic Athenians when they built their
port Piraeus in Attica and Thourioi in 443 BC in Southern Italy. Also cities in the
fourth century such as Priene and Olynthos were planned this way. Furthermore,
it would not be an exaggeration, if the planning
of cities in southern Italy derived from this Greek
paradigm, such as Pompeii (Pounds 1969, 140).
One of the most significant examples of the
application of the Hippodamian planning was
Miletus (Fig 2.4). This city was located in Asia
Minor (Fig 2.5). However, it was destroyed
Figure 2.5 Location of Miletus (From
online source, see list of figures)
during the Persians Wars in 494 B.C. and rebuilt
again by its citizens according to the planning of Hippodamus. Therefore, the
city was divided in blocks of the same size and shape. Each part of the land was
offered to the citizens in order to build their residences according to a random
selection (Moffett et al 2003). The fact that the land was given to the citizens by
ballot is one of the main reason that proves the existence of the isonomia in the
application of the Hippodamian city planning.
2.3 OIKOS
Oikos (anc. Greek: οἶκος) is the word for house in Greek. However, during the
classical era it meant not only the building that a family was living in but also the
household, which was consisted of the family members (parents and children)
and relatives and slaves that were depended on the family.
22
To begin with, the houses in Greece were rectangular at first with one room and
later with two or more, and as the years passed by the larger they become so they
could show the wealth of the family. However, this changed during the classical
era when all the citizens in the new build cities had houses of equal size. In the
Figure 2.6 Prostas house in Priene (left) and pastas house in Olynthos (right). (From
online source, see list of figures)
end of the fifth century in Greece a new type of house was common, the house
with one single entrance courtyard (Nevett 2009a, 371). While describing a house
in the classical era there will be two main types, the prostas which had been found
in conjunction with a peristyle and were more common in Asia Minor, like the
city of Priene and the pastas that were more common in mainland Greece
(Graham 1966) (Fig 2.6).
Someone could enter the house only through the door on the street, which led
into a central courtyard with rooms around it. The pastas type houses were longer
and gave access to many rooms. Apart from entrance to the individual rooms the
courtyard was operating as a main source for daylight among with the interior
windows. In the street façade there was also a small high opening that was
functioning more as a ventilator rather than light. The upper floors were
accessible through a wooden staircase. In order to keep the rain out of the house
a pitched roof of terracotta tiles with deep eaves was installed (Nevett 2009a,
372). During the fourth century columns were added around the courtyard.
23
Moreover the rooms have decorated walls and floors with mosaics (Schmitz
2007).
Furthermore, in the late 1980s a new house type was found in Kassope in northwestern Greece by W. Hoepfner and E.L. Schwandner. This new type was called
the hedraum house or the hearth room house; due to the fact that there was a room
with hearth in each house (1994).
On the other hand, smaller houses were also being built, and poorer families
lived there and shared accommodation; however due to poor construction their
remains are difficult to be examined archaeologically (Ault 2005). In addition a
percentage of the population was living in farms for part or the whole year. The
excavations have shown that those houses were designed according to the plan
of the single entrance courtyard house, but with a larger courtyard (Nevett 2009a,
372).
Society during the antiquity had a significant role in the domestic architecture.
The Old World was governed by the ideology of the society not only in the
everyday life but also in architecture. One of the fundamental characteristic that
exhibit the influence of the society to the construction of the classical Greek house
was the separation of men’s room, andron or andronitis (Fig 2.7), and the women’s
room, gynaikon or gynaikonitis (Fig 2.8). As mentioned previously in each house
there was a room that the men of the house were using in order to entertain their
guests during the symposium.
Figure 2.7 The andron room Dionysus in Pella. (From online
source, see list of figures)
Figure 2.8 Woman during the day
with her slaves in her room. (From
online source, see list of figures)
In many excavations the presence of an andron room is obvious, however the
gynaikon is not. Men had this specific room for their entertainment, while women
24
were using more rooms for their house-work (washing, food preparation,
storage) which were naturally lit during the day (Fig 2.7). When visitors were
coming to the house in order to attend the symposium, women were probably
leaving the courtyard and moving to the interior rooms that had day light. In
excavations, especially in Olynthos and Athens, there are findings that prove that
there was a door in the andron room, something that shows that housework
stopped only when visitors were coming or leaving. Evidence shows an andron
room definitely existed in a classical house and in the rest of the house were the
rooms that women were able to use during the day (Nevett 2009b, 13). This
means that there was not an actual separation between men and women, but
more a separation between women and men who did not belong to the family
(oikos).
The design of the classical Greek house had not only to do with the right division
between men and women and the entertainment of visitors but also its symbolic
worth. For example, in Athens the houses near the Acropolis or near the
mountains that had a better view were better designed than other ones (Nevett
2009, 12). This was due to the differences of each oiko’s economy. However, there
were also settlements where the houses were all the same size. This plan and idea
was combined with the concept of isonomia (equality of political rights/ equality
under the law), that existed during the classical era in Greece, as mentioned by
Wolfram Hoepfner and Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner in their book “Haus und
Stadt im Klassichen Griehenland” (1994). Isonomia was not only connected with
the citizens’ obligations and rights but also with the division of land both inside
and outside the city (Ault 2000, 483). This will be the goal of this thesis, to show
if and how isonomia was reflected on the houses of Olynthos.
Summary
All in all, during this chapter the main characteristics of Classical Greece were
illustrated with a main focus on democracy and isonomia. As observed during the
antiquity the spatial construction of the city and the residence can be based on
25
ideologies that were leading the society and not just on the geomorphological
scenery as nowadays. It can be noticed through the paradigm of Hippodamus
and Aristotle, who strongly believed that isonomia, is needed for the body of
citizens (polis) to live peacefully, and ‘good’, that affect that politics had town
planning and domestic architecture. Especially Hippodamus adopted that
ideology while planning cities that needed to be rebuilt or Athenian colonies in
the Mediterranean by constructing them according to a grid plan. The striking
similarity between the blocks’ and houses’ size to these new-build cities leads to
the assumption that the concept of democracy and the equality in political rights
were resembled in the city plan and the houses. Apart from the same amount
and size possession of land, the example of Miletus and its land distribution to
the citizens prove that isonomia was ruling all over the Greek world and its
colonies across the Mediterranean sea. The layout of these colonies influenced
later the Romans when building new cities, due to the connection between the
Greek colonies of Italy and the new-born Roman cities. The case study of
Olynthos will follow in order to understand in depth if there are any
architectural criteria that can possibly prove the quality of isonomia in houses’
design.
26
Chapter 3 Olynthos
Niela Katsi
s1441353
27
28
As Michael Jameson stated: ‘domestic space should be studied in the context of
Greek settlement patterns and town planning on the one hand and of Greek
social structure and ideology on the other’ (1990, 109), so at this part of the thesis
Olynthos will be examined in order to see if isonomia existed while creating the
city and the houses. Moreover, the criteria of the isonomia in domestic
architecture will be stated, for the houses later on to be examined if the ideology
played any role in their formation.
3.1 BEHIND THE RUINS
History
Olynthos was an ancient Greek city located on the Chalcidice Peninsula of
northwestern
Greece
(Fig
3.1), it was named after the
figs that grew there (Cahill
2002, 23). A Thracian group
of
people,
Bottiaeans,
Olynthos
called
the
inhabited
until
479
BC.
During the Persian Wars, the
Persian
forces
killed
the
Bottiaeans and delivered the
Figure 3.1 Location of Olynthos. (From online source, see list of
figures)
city to local Greeks from
Chalcidice. Following this,
Olynthos was dominated by the Athenians. In 424 BC the people of Olynthos
revolted against the Athenian League and were able to gain their independence
(Hoepfer and Schwandner 1994, 28). Olynthos gained power over the coming
years and became the chief city west of the Strymon River. In 432BC it founded
and became the leader of the Chalcidian League, a confederation of the Greek
cities of the Chalcidice Peninsula. In 382 BC war with Sparta broke out, this was
during a period whereby the league was particularly powerful. However, despite
29
this power after three years of war Olynthos was defeated by the Spartans and
the league was disbanded in 379 BC. Nevertheless, in 371 BC Sparta was
subsequently defeated in turn by Thebes, as a result Olynthos was re-established
and the league grew to exceed the wealth and power it had previously held. In
357BC, when war broke out between Philip II of Macedon and Athens, Olynthos
initially allied itself with Philip; however this did not last long as Olynthos
changed its allegiance to Athens. Demosthenes was prompted to give three great
speeches, the “Olynthiacs”, urging Athens to aid Olynthos concerning Philip’s
continuous threats against Olynthos that was under siege for some years
(Hammond and Griffith 1979, 315-325). However, the Athenians did not come to
the aid of Olynthos, and Philip destroyed them in 348BC (Cahill 2002). The year
348 BC thus signifies the end of Olynthos as an independent city-state.
Excavations
Excavations in Olynthos were undertaken during a period of four seasons from
1928 until 1938 by David Robinson of Johns Hopkins University. While writing in
1932 that ‘we intend…to follow this broad avenue…in the hope of locating some
of the public buildings’ (Robinson 1932, 119), he was also beginning to
understand the significance of the domestic architecture. In addition, Mylonas
who was collaborating with Robinson, in 1940 wrote that ‘this book…will
become the main source of our evidence for the study of the Greek house’
(Mylonas 1940, 392). The city was divided in two main areas the South Hill and
the North. In the former some work took place, however, very few specific
details were published (Robinson 1942, 272-316). Robinson’s work despite dating
back some seventy years is still the single most informative collection of data
concerning the houses of Olynthos during the Classical period. A new period of
excavation at Olynthos is about to be undertaken under the supervision of Lisa
Nevett, it is intended that work will be carried out until 2019. This was
announced during a public lecture given at Leiden University in April 2014.
30
3.2 CITY PLANNING
The city of Olynthos was built on
two different hills, the southern
where the first settlements were of
the Archaic city of Bottiaians are
situated, and the northern where
the Chalcidians built their city in
432
BC
(Rhodes
2010).
The
building foundations of the city are
preserved and thus the city’s
layout
and
discernible.
plan
is
According
easily
to
the
history of Olynthos, the urban
history can be divided into three
periods. The habitation by the first
Greeks
that
ended
with
the
Peloponnesian War constitutes the
earliest
phase.
At
this
time
Olynthos was a small town that
Figure 3.2 Plan of Olynthos. (From online source, see list
of figures.)
was located on the South Hill. The settlement had outer walls for its protection,
public buildings, and was planned according to an irregular grid. Following this,
in 432BC when some Chalcidic communities, among them Olynthos too, rebelled
against the Athenian Empire, many inhabitants of the neighbouring cities moved
to Olynthos, in order to create a more defensible and larger city, and this led to
‘anoikismos’ or ‘moving inland’. Resultant of this movement a new sector of the
city was created, the North Hill. This new part of the city was created according
to the Hippodamian style, with regular blocks and directly parallel streets (Cahill
2000, 497). By the end of the fifth century BC Olynthos was the capital of the
Chalcidic League, which was becoming the most powerful league in this part of
Greece. This fuelled the expansion of the city further than the original walls onto
the east side, which was called by Robinson the ‘Villa Section’, because its houses
were more luxurious and larger (Robinson 1938). The Macedonians, however, felt
31
threatened by this rapid expansion, and Phillip II of Macedon subsequently
captured Olynthos in 348 BC and sold the inhabitants into slavery. As a relit the
city of Olynthos was abandoned. Nevertheless, some settlers returned to the site
but this very little, or no, archaeological or historical impact on the city (Cahill
2002, 25).
One of the constitutional distinctions in town planning in ancient Greece was
that between the public and private sphere, which is also discernible in Olynthos.
The public buildings in Olynthos are not well preserved due to the fact that they
were robbed for stone after the destruction of the city. An area of comprising
about 3 ½ of the city blocks at the south end of the North Hill were operating as
the agora of the city. A high concentration of coins was recovered from the streets
and surrounding areas of the Agora, which depicts a scene of commercial activity
being present in this area of the city. No official sanctuaries, however, were
found in Olynthos (Cahill 2000, 499). Although, in House A v 8 a courtyard with
two androns was found, which means that either it was operating a clubhouse or
a potential sanctuary. (Robinson 1932). An inscription that was originally set up
“in the sanctuary” (of Artemis at Olynthos) was found almost a mile away from
the site, which implies that the main sanctuary of the Olynthos was outside the
city, however, no traces of the sanctuary were found during excavations
(Robinson 1934).
Olynthos is demonstrative of a city whereby there were blocks consisting of
different measurements. The Pythagorian analogies are obvious in the Olynthian
building block, and this allows for the assumption that the size of the blocks was
around two hundred and fifty and three hundred square meters, which were
necessary to house a typical classical Greek family (Hoepfner and Schwander
1994, 34).
32
3.3 HOUSES
Olynthos’ houses were occupied for a few generations and not extensively
rebuilt, a fact that makes the study of their
architecture more accessible. Like the majority
of the houses from this era, these have been
constructed by mud brick on a stone base or
socle (Nevett 1999, 56). The houses at
Olynthos had a veranda-like space (pastas) at
the back of the courtyard and that is the
reason why they are called ‘pastas houses’.
Excavations in Olynthos are significant for the
history of the Greek house due to the fact that
they reveal there was also another type of
houses: the peristyle (Fig 3.3). This type of
houses is a modification of the pastas, due to
the fact that they have a courtyard that was
Figure 3.3 Courtyard with peristyle in
Olynthos, ca 430-350 BC. (From online source,
see list of figures)
lined with colonnades. However, the pastas
were still the fundamental feature in the plan of the house. Apart from the
interesting architecture that the houses exhibit they were also built in a way that
was efficient for the everyday life of the inhabitants. In Olynthos the houses were
mainly two-storeys high and the main living rooms were facing south across a
patio, however, the southern wing was always one storey so the sun was not
blocked from the living rooms. Moreover, the adobe walls were keeping the
house cool in the day and radiating heat at night. In addition, windows had
eaves that were facing the south and creating a shadow in the summer, while
were permitting unimpeded entry of the sun in the winter (Butti and Perlin
1980).
33
The houses were designed in blocks of ten and were divided into two rows with
a drainage alley separating them. Moreover, these drains were hidden from the
street and the public eye by an enclosure wall (Gates 2003, 268). Most of the
houses had two storeys and this can be verified by the presence of stair bases,
traces of staircases and pillar foundations that were found in the remains of the
houses (Robinson and Graham 1938, 214-218; 267-280). The majority of the
houses had the following structure (Fig 3.4): on the north side of the courtyard a
pastas opening that was providing a place well-lit and sheltered in order to
socialise or work. Moreover, on to the north side of the pastas a series of rooms
were developed. The majority of the rooms in the house opened either onto a
portico or the pastas except from which were restricted from these common areas
(Cahill 2000, 500). These rooms were usually unpaved and had a lack on drainage
facilities. Moreover, they had only one, of at the most two, entrances, which were
distant from the main entrance of the house (Nevett 1999, 65). As noticed in the
plans andron is more frequently found among these rooms. However, the main
difference between them is the plaster or mosaic floor what was used as a
decoration (ibid, 65). Another room located in the Olynthian houses is the
34
anteroom which lies between the court and the andron and named by Robinson
and Graham (Robinson and Graham 1938). The anteroom operated as an extra
space and obstacle between the court and the andron. In the houses bathrooms
can be recognised by the plaster on the walls and the floor and the fragments of
terracotta hip-baths or spaces in the cement where there were tubs were located.
The majority of the houses have only a single entrance; however some of them
have an entrance that leads directly to the medium sized room. Those rooms are
regularly connected with a low openness value, implying that these rooms had to
be separated by the rest of the house (Nevett 1999, 66). Those types of rooms are
identified by Robinson and Graham as workshops or shops or stables (1938).
The variety of the objects that
were found in many individual
rooms led to the belief that they
were
multifunctional
either
because during the day there
were different tasks taking place,
or alternatively because different
activities
were
simultaneously.
happening
For
example
Nevett (1999) mentions that the
Figure 3.5 Pithoi found in Olynthos (See Robinson 1930)
use of the court yard may differ,
as it may have been used either as an entrance lobby or as storage because pithoi
(Fig 3.5) were sometimes found there. Pithoi were huge vessels that were used for
the storage of products such as oil, cereals, grains (Cavendish 2010, 18).
Court was also an interesting part of the house. It was the part that was
separating the house with the outside world. It is another noticeable feature of
the Olynthian houses the way of controlling both the inside world as much as the
outside. Someone sitting in the pastas could control and see what was happening
to the house and who was coming in or going outside.
Apart from the architecture of the houses, there are also inscriptions about their
prices. The dates of these inscriptions approximate to the last five years of the
city’s life, between 355/4 and 350/49 BC. There appears to have been a variety of
35
the prices between the houses, ranging from 230 to 5300 drachmas (Robinson
1934). This difference in the price, according to Cahill is probably caused because
of the changing in the political conditions (2000).
According to previous studies the houses in Olynthos and the city planning was
not a coincidence but a manifestation of the Greek idea of isonomia (equality in
the eyes of the law). The city can be understood not only as a uniform
advancement, but as a distinct and vital community, which has a reflection of
democracy and isonomia on its organisation. Moreover, according to Hoepfer and
Schwandner there was also a Typenhaus in Olynthos, which also proves the
isonomia (1994).
House A vii 4 (Fig 3.6), located in
block A vii, is considered by the
first excavators, Robinson and
Graham (1932) and by Nicholas
Cahill
(2002),
characteristically
to
be
the
and
architecturally the epitome of the
Olynthian house. According to
the plans, the entrance from the
street guides the visitor into an
Figure 3.6 Plan of the house A vii 4. (From online source,
see list of figures)
open court that provides access to
a series of different rooms. The
building may also had an upper store, however, the absence of timber and mud
brick remnants, maintain that a definite understanding of the plan cannot fully
be established. On the other hand, the rooms in the ground floor reveal a lot
about the lives of the house’s residents (Robinson and Graham 1938, 118-121;
Cahill 2002, 103-108). The fragments of table vessels and loom weights from the
courtyard reveal that everyday life activities were taking place in the open air or
they were moved there for disposal because they were rubbish (Nevett 2012,
218). On the north side of the court was located the pastas, a covered portico, that
was operating as a shelter for the entrances of the largest rooms. The objects that
were found here are fragments of terracotta and bronze table vessels, weights
from scales, storage jars implying that this space was used for a variety of residue
36
activities. The north east corner contained a complex of three rooms that were
operating for a simplex of functions. The remains, such as traces of ash and burnt
material show that in a narrow space like room D the use of fire was allowed and
is possible that that room was used as a kitchen. One of the characteristics of room
C was the water-resistant, hard floor made of cement. The existence of a
terracotta hip-bath is showed depicted by the floor marks. However, there is no
evidence of plumbing which means that the water was brought to the room and
perhaps previously heated in the fire place. Another room was E that maybe
have been one of the predominant domestic areas. This room was containing a
stone mortarium for assisting the production of flour and there were also some
table-wares that are connecting the room with the procedure of the food service.
This type of house was not only for the family to live there, but was also a centre
that the elements, on which the households were depending on, were being
produced and manufactured. The other functionality of the house was as a shop
or workshop. Operating under this theory, the example of room H, which had his
own separate entrance from the street, suggests this could have been the case.
Last but not least in room G fragments of storage jars were found, these suggest
that the agricultural products were stored there. Moreover, the detection of
terracotta loom weights indicates the production of textiles for furnishing and
clothes within the household (ibid 220).
The analyses of the artefacts and the architecture in Olynthos presented here,
shows a more complicated system than it may look from the first sight. There is
no proof that the houses were separated into distinct areas for male and female,
nevertheless, there are restrictions for accessing different rooms within some of
the houses, something that implies that gender relationships were influencing the
household organisation. Moreover, the accessibility of the rooms also depicts the
relationships between members of the households and the outsiders. Some may
argue that the houses in Olynthos are the most representative given that the
South Hill, thus far, is lacking in attention. However, the sheer quality of regular
houses understood so far would suggest that preliminary conclusions can be
made in terms of representative houses in Olynthos. Furthermore, the smallest
structures that seem to have a lack of features, are most likely demonstrate the
37
households pertaining to groups of people that depict different behavioural
patterns (Nevett 1999, 79).
3.4 CRITERIA FOR ISONOMIA
As mentioned previously the classical era for Greece and its colonies is
characterised by the equality of the political rights.
Living in a city in the
Mediterranean under the Greek law meant that all the citizens were equal and
had the same rights. However, can this ideology be represented in the way the
cities and the houses were built? What are the criteria that exhibit the influence of
the society in the domestic architecture? Democracy was established by the law
and was depending on that and not on the personal needs. Therefore, what are
the characteristics of the houses in Olynthos that can be linked with the concept
of isonomia?
First of all the main criterion that defines the equality of the citizen could be that
the size and the shape of the houses. If there is a similarity in the way that the
houses are designed it means that all citizens have the same possession of land in
order to construct their dwellings. As we have seen most of the houses were
divided by a boundary wall and oriented to the south; as they were residences
only for the free citizens of each city. Each house was a two-storey building with
a kitchen, courtyard and all the necessary rooms in the fifth century BC.
Moreover, these houses and especially the pastas houses that had a courtyard, do
not display at first glance which houses belongs to the most powerful in
hierarchy and everyone appear to be equal with each other and the gap between
poor and rich was closing.
In addition, another principle that gives away that isonomia was the ground on
which the city and the society were built is the application of the Hippodamian
town plan. Olynthus was not the exception, but also other cities designed during
the classical period, according to this plan, have as a core the politis , i.e the
political active citizen, and its needs. Isonomia means symmetry in the town plan,
the aesthetic code that was ruling. The centre of the Hippodamian, democratic
city is the Agora, the temples were located scattered the city or in the Agora.
38
The next criterion that seems to be an adaption of the isonomia into houses’
structures can be witnessed in the inside of the dwellings. When houses are built
in accordance with the democratic constitution and the equality that it
represented, the main focus of the houses will be on the inside part and the
harmonic way of living. While turning the concern into the inside area of the
house, it is as if there is no need to show any wealth and status in the front of the
residence. In this way, all the houses look the same without being able to
distinguish which house belonged to the richer and which to the poorer.
Furthermore, it seems befitting the society that is governed by the spirit of
democracy is underlined by the existence of an andron room in each house. These
were earlier associated with the privileged aristocrats. Although it the andron
room was previously connected with aristocracy, at this era it developed with the
concept of democracy and isonomia. In those rooms men were gathering in order
to entertain themselves and their visitors and discuss with them. Through this
room the chance is given to the citizens to discuss about the public life and to
create a dialogue for the issues even in their private homes; thus the andron itself
becomes a criterion for isonomia.
Lastly, equality in housing seems to be also visible in the fact that every house in
Olynthos seems to have had its own producing line, so the owner could be
independent; regardless how poor it was as long as it was free, should not be
depending on other richer families. This leads to the assumption that the concept
of independence is important in the overall concept of equality and isonomia for
the reason that if a household is dependent on someone else, it provides the basis
for inequalities and stratified societies to develop.
Summary
All in all, in this chapter the case study of Olynthos was presented and some
assumptions about the isonomia being the concept on which the city was based
39
can be done. One of the main reasons that can lead to that theory is the town
planning of the city that is based on the Hippodamian system, a system that has
its roots to the theory of equality. Moreover after describing the Typenhaus of
Olynthos some matching criteria can be seen. However, in the sixth chapter A vii
block from Olynthos will be examined according to the stated criteria in order to
question the influence of isonomia on the design of the houses in the
Mediterranean World during the classical period.
40
Chapter 4 Roman antiquity
Niela Katsi
s1441353
41
42
This chapter will introduce the Roman antiquity its history and society. After
illustrating the significance of this civilisation in this Mediterranean World the
focus will be shifted to city planning and the domestic architecture during the
Roman period.
4.1 OVERVIEW OF ROMAN HISTORY
Roman history falls into three distinct periods designated by the form of
government in use during each era
 the monarchy
 the republic
 the empire
It was during the Late Republic (133-31 BC), when a sequence of bloody civil
wars wrecked the Roman world and a succession of ever-more-daring strong
men made bids to dominate the state (Aldrete 2004). In even as early as the
eighth century BC Italic speakers — Latins, Sabines, Umbrians, Samnites, Oscans
and others — shared the headland with two other major ethnic groups, the
Etruscans in the North, and the Greeks in the south. As for Rome, the Eternal
City, became a republic in 509 BC; however, it took a few centuries for Rome to
become the great city of the popular imagination, by the 3rd century BC, Rome
had become the pre-eminent city of the Italian headland.
The leaders of the Republican and Imperial periods knew very well the
possibilities that art could offer for the satisfaction of the public and the pleasure
of the common -or not- spectator (Ramage and Ramage 1995, 22). The Roman
society, the public, was primarily its men, on active service and in the gatherings
that assembled to hear strategy speeches, elect leaders or pass and reject bills,
cast their verdict in major trials; henceforth, lecturers and historians treat the
citizens who assembled on any given occasion as the autonomous Roman people
(Fantham 2005, 210)
On the face of things the Roman republic although would seem to have highly
democratic institutions direct popular election of virtually all officials, legislation
43
strictly by direct popular vote, judicial power, and a directive to pursue the
popular interest, still it is quite difficult to contemplate the Roman republic as a
democracy (Millar 1998). Art and spectacle especially in the Imperial period was
a way to distract the public from the expansion strategies, poverty in the
province and the fact that it the public opinion was guided rather than being free
to express itself; a disguised monarchy that nonetheless set the foundations for
justice, prosperity and political freedom.
With the increase of wealth and population, the ancient Romans found
architectural solutions to deal with these escalations Romans and used the
influences of Greeks in their architectural works. Architects now use vaults and
arches in their works, concrete, marble and bricks were used to construct the
arches. Temples, Basilicas, bridges and canals within played significant roles in
the empire unification while eased communication around the large empire. A
specific scheme was used for city planning that was centred on military defence
and civil suitability. The streets were laid out in right angles, in the form of a
square grid. All roads were equal in breadth and length, except for two diagonal
ones that intersected in the middle to form the centre of the network. (Ramage &
Ramage 1995). The collapse of the Roman civilization saw the end of the Roman
urban planning yet, the city planning style is still very clear in modern Rome and
it has influenced many capitals across Europe and the world.
4.2 ROMAN CITIES
Roman civilisation was an intensely urban culture. Wherever the Romans went,
they established new cities, which became focal points of Roman administrative
control and centres from which Roman culture was disseminated. In addition,
Roman cities demonstrated a remarkable uniformity of architectural design and
cultural focus all across the empire. It would not matter if a Roman was walking
into a Roman city in Egypt or Britain as the same city layout was found: a forum,
colonnaded temples, public baths and a theatre.
44
Figure 4.1 A model recreation of the center of Rome, the two forums with a temple can be noticed.
(From online source, see list of figures)
Chief among these was a general-purpose open space in the centre of town
known as the forum, around which usually clustered important government
buildings and temples. Most Roman cities of any size or pretension also
constructed baths, gymnasiums, a theatre, an amphitheatre, and perhaps a circus
(Fig 4.1). Local aristocrats in the provinces who wished to rise in status would
sometimes pay for the construction of such cultural centres in their hometowns
(Aldrete 2004). Romans cities were divided in three categories:
 Colonies (coloniae): established on virgin sites by government order and
the first population were time-expired legionaries and their families.
 Urban settlements: growing up around the legionary dormitories for the
use or the development of some specific source. Some paradigms are the
frontier towns along the Danube and the Rhine, the bathing establishment
of Bath (Aquae Sulis) and ports like Boulogne.
 Oppida: cities of the native Celtics or Iberians that were transferred to
Roman ones.
(Pounds 1969, 148 -150)
45
The first to introduce the concept of the planned Roman city in an academic
sense was a historian, Haverfield in 1913. The impact of town planning in the
ancient Roman civilization on the functioning and the layouts of the already
existing towns has been debatable. However, it is acceptable nowadays that the
chequerboard and orthogonal layout of many Roman cities was the outcome of
Roman contact with the Greek colonies in southern Italy (Fig 4.2). The
topography of each place was playing a significant role in the design of the cities.
Greeks, as mentioned before, were using rectangular street pattern with two
main streets of sometimes four. Besides the residential blocks, separate from
them there were also areas for administration and market space (agora), for
theatres, temples and exercise spaces (stadia or gymnasia). These were the
fundamental Greek elements of a city that became part of the Roman ones. The
Romans adapted a system of city-forms (Fig 4.3) that were at that time in the
Greek kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean. The cities of Italy, non-Roman
and Roman became during the second century B.C. thoroughly Hellenistic
(Purcell 2012, 199).
The layout of the Roman cities was most of the times based on the crossroads of
two basic axial routes, the decumanus maximus which was running west to east
and the cardo maximus that was running from south to north. Apart from those
two main streets there were also secondary streets that were creating blocks that
were named insulae (Allison 2003, 202).
46
Figure 4.2 Town plan of Neapolis (Naples), Greek colony in South Italy.
(See Haverfield 1913)
Figure 4.3 Town plan of Timgad (Roman colony) in
Algeria. (From online source, see list of figures)
47
4.3 ROMAN HOUSING
Roman building retained its Etruscan character and after the establishment of the
Republic in 509 BC, however after the third century BC there was an influence
from Greek sources. The Greek trabeated and columnar style was adopted by
Romans. The house for the Romans was not just a place to live, but it was
strongly related with the society, the bigger the house the higher the status of the
owner. In the Roman antiquity individuals were most of the times connected and
dependent to others in a patron-client relationship, where a better-educated and
wealthier patronus was protecting the interest of at least one client. Another
proof of status was also the number of the clients of the patronus. All the clients
had the obligation to support their patronus and salute him at this house (Kleiner
2013, 190). Roman dwellings were of three different types:
 The domus or private house
 The insula or may-storeyed tenement
 The villa or country house
(Banster 1961, 267,331).
Domus
Domus in Latin means house, and it was not just the residence but also the
household or the family unit. This unit was consisted by a wide network of
connections including distant and in-law relatives, slaves and ex-slaves (Gardner
& Wiedermann 1991; Nevett 1997; Rawson 2011). In the Roman world, the
preserved writings of the Roman architect of the first century B.C. Vitruvius, can
guide someone to a homogenous
interpretation of house organization and
composition (Alcock 2012, 207). During the third and second century BC the
power of Rome was a growing power and there was an eagerness for a domus
with grater porticoes with columns that would exhibit in a better way and
elaborate with the garden, hortus (Clarke 1991). A description of a Roman house
is provided by Vitruvius (Fig 4.4), who in his text describes a town dwelling by
emphasizing in the major areas of it:
48
•
atrium: the entrance hall of a Roman house between the tablinum and the
entrance passage (fauces)
•
tablinum: the central room at the end of atrium first was the master
bedroom and later was used as record depository and reception room
•
alae: the passages on the side of the atrium, probably in the beginning were
operating as waiting rooms
•
exedrae: rectangular or semi rectangular recess or seldom
•
oeci: dining halls that were tetrastyle in Corinthian, Cizicenian or
Egyptian style.
•
peristyles: the inner garden with columns in the Pompeian and Hellenistic
type houses
•
pinacotheca: the picture gallery
(McKay 1975, 269-271). Vitruvius’ basic floor plan of a house in combination with
archaeological findings can characterise even the most conservative houses with
symmetry and axiality. Between the street and the front doors the houses was
located a vestibulum where someone
was able to find cover with one step
away from the street. Inside the front
entrance the passage, the fauces, a
narrow foyer, led into the atrium.
The doors in the Roman house were
located into pivots, the cardines,
which were embedded and revolving
in the floors, they were sometimes
fastened with iron locks or blocks for
the security of the house at night. The
atrium court sometimes had roof and
Figure 4.4 Representation of the Roman domus
according to Vitruvius (See Allison 2004)
other times was equipped with a
skylight and terracotta drainpipes or
49
gutters that stopped the water from going inside the house with catch-basin
below, the impluvium. Another room in the Roman house was the tabilum that
was located on the main axis from the front door and the fauces. At first it was
operating as the main bedroom and afterwards it was the record room for the
family’s history. In this room privacy was succeeded by folding doors, wooden
screens and hangings. This was the place where patronus was saluted by its
clients. The alae at the teblinum had probably two operations, one was to lighten
the atrium and the other was the waiting room for the clients. Moreover, on the
atrium were opened some rooms, the cubicula, and one or two of those were the
dining rooms (ibid, 32-34). However, the basic floor plan has and different
versions with more courtyards, peristyle, gardens (hortus) and oeci.
Insulae or multiple dwellings
Figure 4.5 Insulae in Ostia (See McKay 1975)
This type of house was more common than domus in Rome, its port Ostia (Fig
4.5), Pompeii and Herculaneum. The same time that the poorest in Rome slept in
the streets or whenever that were provided shelter, a high amount of the society
was occupying areas in larger complexes (Hermansen 1981) As its name reveals
(insula in Latin means island) this dwelling was larger than domus, but divided in
apartments. Those flat blocks were raising four or even more storeys high with
brick-faced concrete and their architectural decorations were painted in a deeper
colour. In addition they had wooden or concrete balconies. The ground floor of
50
the insulae was operating as a tabernae or shops and it was named after the owner
of the building (Brouwer 1989, 26-27).
Villae
This category of residence was at first a Roman countryside house (Fig 4.6).
Letters from Pliny and Cicero show the goal of the wealthy and noble citizens of
the Roman Empire was the possession of a villa with views, preferably. There
were two types of villae, the villa urbana that was located in the countryside near
Rome and the villa rustica that was a farm house occupied by the servants (Clarke
1991). Wealthy Romans were going to their villas in order to escape for the
summer. The size of villa was quite palatial as the owners wanted to show their
status.
Figure 4.6 Country Villa in Boscoreale (From online source, see list of figures)
The decoration, the quality and the architecture of a Roman’s house were
connected with his social standing, and this is obvious from the literature of the
later Republic and early Empire. For the Romans the house was a symbol of
power and status, a sign of the social rank of the man. Educated Romans were
51
training their memories by constructing mentally the interiors of a house (Bodel
1997). However, there was no single house; ‘the’ Roman house is constructed in
accordance with the few buildings in the Republic Italy and the passages of the
Latin writers. The evolution of the Italic house is parallel with the expansion of
the Roman territory in the area of the Mediterranean. At first it started as a small
and introspective small building, and as the Roman power develops, it changes
into a building that includes a colonnaded and spacious courtyard at the back.
This can be noticed in Rome, on the Palatine Hill, where the dwellings of the Iron
Age exist next to luxurious aristocratic mansions and the terraces of imperial
palaces (Bergmann 2012, 228).
The relative transparency and ease of access to the household meant the owner
was under continuous burden to ensure his residence was adequately furnished
and displayed to his satisfaction. The house owner, or paterfamilias, was therefore
indebted to ensuring the house’s presentation matched that of his status, sending
a clear message to both his clients and guests that he was of a high station in
society. This desire within Roman society to reflect ones status through the
household provides us with a clear illustration into the Roman ‘way of life’. Not
only was there a fierce competitive edge to both achieve and exhibit a family’s
high status through use of the house as a medium, but this aspect was arguably
of equal importance to the households primary function; providing shelter. There
is also the argument that this secondary function, of using the house as a status
symbol, often took precedence, ‘it was the house’s main function to shelter its
family. However, its secondary function of promoting the identity of that family
appears to have dominated’ (Hales 2003, 133). The household illustrates the
extent to which the Romans perceived their place of residence as a barometer for
social standing. It is unquestionably clear that ‘the Roman house displayed the
social status of its owner, the paterfamilias’ (George 1997, 299).
‘Luxuria was not a senseless waste; it was a social necessity in a highly
competitive society’ (Wallace-Hadrill 1994). The patron of the house, whether he
resided within Rome or outside of it, wanted to align himself to an impression of
being as close to the idyllic Roman as possible.
52
Moreover, one of the most popularised means of displaying status and
representing a high rank was through domestic forms of art. The ambition and
wealth of the owner would often be reflected in the domestic art he invested in.
A wide spectrum of artistic representation was available to the patron, all of
which depended on his wealth and the message he wanted to achieve. One such
example which proved highly popular was the artistic representation of public
spectacles and entertainment. Public spectacles were often paid for by powerful
patrons who used such events as ‘vehicles of self-representation’ (Bergmann and
Kondoleon 1999, 321). These popular forms of entertainment would have been
translated into artistic impressions through forms of visual imagery such as
paintings and sculpture but most commonly mosaics. Kondoleon writing on this
issue states, ‘The biographies of Roman houses continue to be elusive and
prevent us from making precise connections between actual events and works of
art’ (ibid 322).
Closely linked to ideas of status and authority was the role of the domus as a
place to entertain guests. Although this perhaps represents a similarity between
current practices where guests are often entertained within the house, the
functional purpose of entertaining guests in the Roman Empire was almost solely
linked to wealth and status. In continuation of this theme of perpetuating ones
status, certain rooms would be side-lined for the entertaining of guests. In fact
the rooms in which individuals were taken into would often be a self-indicator of
status. Here the flexibility that the household offered, that not only were different
rooms used for different purposes, but individual rooms also served as indicators
for status, is obvious. Hence from this it is able to determine Roman flexibility in
domestic furnishing as well as a willingness to entertain guests for the purpose of
enhancing ones political career.
53
Summary
In this chapter the importance that the Roman Empire had on the Old World is
shown. The Roman civilisation was one of the most powerful that influenced the
Mediterranean World. As mention the connection with the Greek world had an
impact on the planning of their towns, however the concept democracy and
equality do not exist in the Roman World. This contact can be based to the Greek
colonies in Southern Italy. However, the houses during the Roman period had a
different architecture from the Greek ones. Few can deny the importance and
significance the household ascertained over the lifestyle of the majority of
Romans. The role of the house was undeniably central to the Roman way of life.
Nowadays, the main written sources of the Roman history and especially
housing are Vitruvius and Pliny. It is obvious that during this era the houses are
larger and trying to show the status and the luxury of its owner. This luxuria will
be the main focus on the Pompeian households’ chapter that is following. The
criteria that would be exhibit afterwards will be the base to examine if luxury is
the concept behind the domestic architecture of the Romans. Perhaps the
meaning of the Roman housing is best summarised in the following statement,
‘The disappearance of the Roman house can in some ways be seen as a more
important transformation than the loss of territory to Barbarian kings, for the
essence of the ancient world was its way of life... when people stopped living in
the Roman way, then finally the ancient world disappeared’ (Ellis 1988, 565-567).
54
Chapter 5 Pompeii
Niela Katsi
s1441353
55
56
Pompeii nowadays is the most popular and visited archaeological sites in
Europe. This city is one of the well preserved cities of the ancient world and this
allows its studies to be developed in a more thorough way. In this chapter the
study case of Pompeii will be introduced in order to understand if the concept of
luxuria that was the main characteristic of society is also represented in the
houses. As mentioned in the previous chapter, during the Roman period people
were trying to show their status and their luxury. Here, an attempt to find luxury
in the houses will be done. First of all a brief history of Pompeii, with a focus on
its planning and houses in general will be provided. Afterwards the criteria that
according to the general information about the houses that in some extend show
luxuria will be stated.
5.1 BEFORE THE ERUPTION
The visit nowadays to an ancient Roman city (Fig 5.1) became possible because of
the eruption of the Vesuvius volcano
in A.D 79, which destroyed but in the
same time maintain Pompeii in good
condition. The name ‘Pompeii’ has
uncertain origins. According to the
Indo-European root pes that means
five, is suggesting that it was the city
of five cities. On the other hand others
Figure 5.1 Pompeii and Mount Vesuvius nowadays
(From online source, see list of figures)
think that the name comes from the
Greek verb pempo (send away) and so
it is the city that was founded by following the sacred animal in procession
(Mazzoleni 2004, 15-16). The sources about the history of Pompeii are two, the
written and the unwritten. The former are the ancient writers and the latter the
geomorphological, topographical, geographical and archaeological evidences.
57
In accordance with the archaeological
evidence, there were artefacts from the
Bronze Age, but the first settlements are
placed during the seventh century BC
(Ellis 2013, 5043). The population of
Pompeii is estimated around twenty
thousand people, based on the analogies
of the city’s demographic with its size in
the later periods without taking into
consideration the agricultural area of the
city. This means that it was never one of
the great cities of the Empire (Allison
2003). This wall that was at first around
Figure 5.2 Location of Pompeii on map. (From online
source see list of figures)
the city does not seem to have a military function; it was operating more to
enclose the pastures, vineyards and fields. The temple of the Apollo on the west
side of the later forum and the temples dedicated to Hercules and the Goddess
Athena show the presence of both Pelasgians and Etriuscians. Around 470 BC
this first era comes to an end, possibly after the Etruscan’s defeat in 474 BC, and
the first town seems to be destroyed then (Descoeudres 2007, 15). After the first
fifty years of the fifth century, Pompeii was under the Samnite’s control. The city
was used as a port by Acerra, Nucera and Nola cities from central-southern of
Campania. After the Samnites lost in the second Samnite war, Pompeii was
enclosed in Rome’s orbit and started a procedure of Romanization (Coarelli 2002,
19). Entering the second century BC, which is known as Pompeii’s “Golden Age”,
the history is better revealed. It is this period that the shape of Pompeii,
structurally and culturally, is characterised with a dynamic explosion. New
administrative building and temples were built. Moreover, this chronological
period the streets were paved and combined with a new structure, the economy
was developed and many huge homes were constructed. Nevertheless during its
uprising, the Pompeians went against the Rome during the Social War (90-88 BC)
and this had as an outcome a non-violent take over by Sulla. In 80 BC Pompeii
was established as a colony (Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeiarum), Roman
traditions and institutions were more obvious than ever. The following event in
Pompeii’s history was ruled by a single person, the emperor Augustus. His
58
acceptance from the public led to new monumental buildings, and Pompeii was
the new filter of the economic changes in the Mediterranean area. However,
neither the earthquake nor its after-shocks made the inhabitants of the city
suspicious for the eruption of the volcano (Ellis 2013).
Excavations
The first excavations in Pompeii started in 1738 and lasted until 1815 and are
called the Bourbons after Carlo di Borbone, who was funding them (Harris
2007).The significant change in the excavations came in 1860, when Giuseppe
Fiorelli was appointed director of the excavation, who introduced the systematic
recording of the excavation and the artefacts found, which a new concept in
archaeology was in a global sphere (Ellis 2013, 5401). In addition, Vittorio
Spinalozza, had a compelling contribution in the Pompeian archaeology as he
was the first that did a plan of the city in the second decay of the twentieth
century (Lazer 2009, 284). Moreover, and other significant contributor to the
excavations of the city was Amedeo Mauri, who operated the most extensive
excavations, beneath the final levels of the city of Pompeii, and discovered the
city before the final era (Conticello 1992). Furthermore, since the 1990s there is a
focus on the early Pompeii that has caused a revolution in Pompeian archaeology
by activating a fire of analyses beyond the city that is frozen in time and
expanding the awareness of the different events in the evolution of Pompeii from
settlement to city and how these changes can be linked to extended Roman and
Mediterranean histories (Guzzo and Guidobaldi 2008; Ellis 2011). Pompeii
remains the most completely excavated residential area. The main characteristics
of its town planning are obvious nowadays and the public buildings were
excavated along with the shops and houses.
The Pompeian Styles
In order for the decorations and the Pompeian houses to be dated August Mau
developed a system of four categories of the style on the paintings. These styles
are not only found in Pompeii but through the Roman world in total. The First
Pompeian Style or Masonry Style (Fig 5.3) is dated from the second century BC or
earlier until the first century BC. The main characteristic of this era was the
59
imitation of the expensive marble panels by using painted stucco relief. Apart
from Pompeii, this style is found in the fourth century BC reliefs in the Greek
world, an additional proof of the Republican architecture was Hellenized
(Kleiner 2013, 191). The Second Pompeian Style (Fig 5.4) existed from 80 BC until
20-15 BC. At this period the artists were creating an illusion to the viewer’s space
that was going beyond the walls and opening to the other sides of the room. The
following years until AD 50 were characterised by flat painting, the expanding of
the paintings that was used during the Second Style now is disappeared.
Moreover, the Third Style (Fig 5.5) is subdivided in coloured rectangles and
squares. Last but not least was the Fourth Style (Fig 5.6) that was something new
and invented in order to decorate Nero’s Domus Aurea. Although Pompeii was
destroyed in AD 79 this style continued to develop in the Roman World and it
was linked with the lively paintings (Mazzoleni 2004, 43).
Figure 5.3 First style painting at the House of Sallust in
Pompeii (From online source, see list of figures)
Figure 5.4 Second style
painting at the Villa of the
Mysteries in Pompeii (From
online source, see list of
figures)
60
Figure 5.5 Third style at the House of Marcus Lucretius
Fronto in Pompeii (From online source, see list of figures)
Figure 5.6 Fourth style painting at the
House of Fabius Rufus in Pompeii
(From online source, see list of
figures)
5.2 CITY PLANNING
Pompeii was built on a promontory and its original form changed in A.D. 79 by
Vesuvius’s eruption. The history of each settlement is reflected in its plan. In
Pompeii’s case the five different phases of history can be identified with no
difficulty. This city is one of the most significant examples that is proving the use
of a careful planning. Pompeii can be considered a city since the sixth century
while it had its first walls. However, there is no certain proof that the whole
walled area was built over with public amenities and houses in this period
(Allison 2003, 205). The first settlement has been located in the south-western
side of the city that nowadays is called Alstadt. The wall that was enclosing the
Altstadt is considered as a commercial and religious region within the city.
Nonetheless it is obvious that the expansion of the walled area did not happen in
one fell swoop but serves a series of following phases during the time that the
city existed. During the third century BC, the majority of the public spaces in the
61
city, such as the street grid and forum, had taken shape. The Samnites fell under
Roman domination in 290 BC, but the prosperity and evolution of the city
continued, while the Samnite identity still existed. The invasion of the Romans
and the creation of new settlers lead to a wave of new constructions in Pompeii,
among them updated bath facilities and an amphitheatre (ibid, 221).
Figure 5.7 Town plan of Pompeii. Altstadt is with brown color (From online source, see list of
figures)
The layout of the Pompeian city was, like many Romans, a general grid pattern
that the streets were intersected at regular hiatuses and at right angles to one
another. An insula-block is a quadrilateral shape, which is delimited by the street
grid. In Pompeii, these insulae vary in shape from rhomboid to square and
rectilinear (Laurence 1994, 88). The streets around the Forum, as seen in the plan,
were however less grid-like, although various major avenues were designed
straight from one side of the city to the other. The most significant phase of the
layout of city happened during the early third century BC, in the city’s most
dominant streets: Via dell’ Abbondanza, the princepal Cardo and Via delle
Terme/ di Nola/ Della Fortuna (Ling 1997). While near the forum there is a
concentration of public buildings, especially in the southwest corner of the city,
Pompeii is a typical Roman city in that commercial and residential and regions
are interweaved and not separated zones into different areas. In Pompeii the core
that the city was arranged around was the Forum. The Forum was the place in
which the religious, administrative, symbolic, political, social, and economic
operations of the city were organised around. Despite those facts, Pompeii does
62
not appear to have been designed according to an economic zone that the elite
were divided from the rest of society (Laurence 1994).
5.3 HOUSES
The most common type of residence in Pompeii was influenced by the domestic
architecture of the Greek colonies that were nearby. All the dwelling had an
entrance from the street and also an independent one, only for the inhabitants’
use (Laurence 1994).
The basic residence (Fig 5.8) design was revolved around an open courtyard (the
atrium), which was connected to the street entrance by a passageway.
Figure 5.8 Plan of a Pompeian house. (From online source, see list of figures)
The atrium was surrounded by rooms, such as a kind of multipurpose reception
hall (tablinum), small bedrooms (cubicula) and a dining room (triclinium). Behind
these there were located the kitchen, additional cubicula and slave or servant
quarters. More extravagant and luxurious houses featured a second courtyard
lined with columns (peristyle) that sometimes was enclosing a garden (Aldrete
2004, 225). However in many houses the peristyle and atrium complexes were
built at distinct periods. The latter was constructed most of the times during the
Samnite period and the installation of the peristyle was located one century later
in some cases (Lauritsen in press). Perhaps one of the best suited examples of the
63
extent to which some went to personify and embody status through the
household is the house of Faun in Pompeii
(Fig 5.9). The house or domus is presented in
the peristyle form of layout where guests
would enter through the atrium, a spacious
rectangular room through the doorway from
which the majority of rooms, most of which
were identically shaped, came out from
(Clarke 1991, 321-322). Towards the end of
the house would be situated the peristilum,
which was an open air garden. The house
represents the idealistic design of what a
Roman house should be. Indeed it is often
thought by many ‘to reflect Roman houses
better than those of... Rome itself’ (Dwyer
Figure 5.9 House of Faun in Pompeii
(From Clarke 1991,82)
2001, 387-390). Granted, this undoubtedly is an extreme example of the highest
elite spending lavishly on their household but it does go to show the lengths to
which the house was given due importance. Often in the current era individuals
sacrifice their expenditure on the household to move to a better location or move
closer to where they work. For the Roman, the house was the place of work and
as such there was no alternative but to build as impressive a house as possible.
Another type of house that was found in Pompeii was the small terraces houses
located in the south-east corner of the city. They were narrow one-floor
residences with an open court in the centre, but no atrium. All these dwellings
were built in a row, same scale and design and at the same time at the end of the
third century BC. These new apartments were designed probably in order to
house new inhabitants coming to the city. Those houses still existed until the
time of the eruption but with some alterations such as a second storey and an
atrium (Beard 2008, 114).
The city blocks (insulae) in Pompeii were not just a simple accumulation of
individual houses, even inside a single house the self-contained suits, the
separate entries and the exterior stairs were a proof that they were operating as
rental units, specially the upper floors (John and Robinson 2004; Ling 1997). In
64
Pompeii, apart from the described type of houses there is also evidence for a
systematic and large scale rental market. This means, that there was a mixture of
atrium apartments and flats that was occupying the three upper floors of a multistorey building that was located in the south side of the city with a view to the
river. The lower levels of the block were operating as bathhouses in the city
(Beard 2008, 108).
Besides the residences there were also tabernae that were the workshops or shops
and were characterized by wide-open front and mezzanine floors, where the
living quarters of the owner and his family were. The intrusion with the area of
residence was immense in smaller houses or even if the shop was the main access
to the dwelling and its centre. The area of the costumers was separated from the
back of the house that was reached by a side entrance and had residential
purposes. (Calabrò in press)
However in Pompeii, as all in cities, not all citizens were rich, there were also
people that had difficulties in acquiring wealth. So the question is where did the
poor live? Most of the houses in Pompeii had their own shop or apartment, to
which were attached sleeping quarters. These locations were concerned as living
units and were as many as the atrium houses due to
the fact that could house fewer people. Furthermore,
other places that the poor may have lived were the
tombs like the family mausolea and the arches of the
Amphitheatre. Besides that there were also tiny
rooms that could only fit a masonry bed among the
houses and the shops, which are identified as
prostitutes’ booths and had sometimes a phallus
above the entrance (Beard 2008, 105-110). It is
accepted in general that the last era of the city’s
advancement a significant amount of private houses
Figure 5.10 The façade of a brothel
in Pompeii. (From online source,
see list of figures)
were reformed to brothels (Fig 5.10) and restaurants
(Calabrò in press).
65
5.4 CRITERIA FOR LUXURIA
As mentioned previously the goal of this research is to show if while designing
the houses in the Mediterranean area during the Roman period, the ideology of
showing the wealth, the luxury, existed. However, in order to prove that, it is
necessary to provide the criteria which define the concept of luxuria and how it
should be reflected in society. After describing the characteristics of the
Pompeian houses, which are the elements that can be linked with the concept of
luxuria? How did the Romans show their status inside their houses?
To start with, a fundamental clue of the Pompeian houses that can be linked with
the luxury is the size of the house. In the previous chapters it was mentioned that
the houses during the classical Greek period were all at the same size showing
the equality, however, in the Roman world, when talking about luxury means
differentiation between houses. During this time, for a society to be characterised
as luxurious the houses should be in different sizes. According to this criterion a
house should be larger than the others for the owner to show his wealth.
Apart from the external view of the house, there are also some elements in the
house that can be connected with the luxuria. While entering a house in order for
the visitor to be impressed and understand the status of the patronus the interior
area was imposing. The lavish decoration with mosaic floor and vivid painting is
one of the reasons that a house can be named luxurious. In a society that wants to
display the opulence the prosperous citizens would have a sufficient amount of
money spent on the decoration of the house with paintings and mosaics.
In addition, the existence of a portico in the Pompeian houses can prove its
luxuria. Considering the fact that the houses are located in the Mediterranean, the
sun is an element that never misses. This means that the shadows of the portico
that would have been created was providing a more prestigious character to the
façade of the house.
Furthermore, the other element of interior design that can be linked with the idea
of luxury is the peristyle. Peristyle is an architectural addition and not necessary in
the everyday operation of the house. However, houses that are large and belong
to rich citizens of the society the peristyle is located there to prove it. In addition
66
the peristyle was adding more status to the houses due to the fact that in its area
different discussion with prestigious guest of the house was taking place,
because of its location next to the other gathering rooms.
In the Pompeian houses there were found rooms called triclinum. These rooms
were mostly rooms that the owner of the house was entertaining this guest.
Triclina in the houses are a proof of luxuria, due to the fact that the owner wanted
to show his prestige by inviting visitors to entertain them.
Lastly, the hortus (garden) can be connected status of the paterfamilias. In the
garden the owner was locating sculptures, pools of water of vessels in order to
show its luxury and status.
Summary
After describing the history of Pompeii and analysing its housing the
characteristics of the Roman World are obvious. The main result of this
describing is that ‘the built environment of Pompeii was a product of Pompeian
society’ (Harvey 1973, 196). Apart from the clearly architectural interesting on
the domestic design in Pompeii, there is also a connection between the domestic
architecture and the society. The status designations (for example free vs slave)
(Riggsby 1997, 44-45), human barriers (Clarke 1991, 13; Wallace-Hadrill 1988, 7881) and decorative programs (Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 39-44) served as
administrative mechanisms in the houses. Scholars have traditionally enunciated
the semi-public character of the atrium in the Pompeian houses, considering it as
a place where visitors were allowed a definite degree of unrestricted access
(Lauritsen 2011). In Pompeii the majority of the houses were extravagant and
impressive decorations. However, as mention there were also houses of a minor
size that were inhabited by poorer citizens, or prostitutes. In addition a group of
67
houses of the same size, characteristics and chronology was located in the south
east part of the city. These houses probably were created so they can host people
after the Hannibal Wars. The type house reminds the one of the blocks in
Olynthos that were created according to isonomia (equality in law), however here
they must be just an influence by the Greek colonies nearby and not having a
deeper social meaning, as the main element in the Pompeian society during that
time was luxuria.
68
Chapter 6 Comparison between
Block A vii in Olynthos and
Insula of the Menander in
Pompeii
Niela Katsi
s1441353
69
70
Two blocks from each of the investigated towns will be examined according to
the already provided criteria in order that the relation between society and house
architecture be demonstrated more accurately. For this purpose, block A vii from
Olynthos and the insula of the Menander from Pompeii were chosen, for the fact
that they both share similarities and differences with each other and they differ
from the other blocks in each town. Firstly a brief description of the block will be
provided, followed by a detailed description of the houses and in the end, the
results of this comparison will be illustrated.
6.1 Block Avii in Olynthos
Block A vii contains ten houses like all blocks in Olynthos. However, it is one of
the most characteristic blocks due to the difference between the houses along its
southern and northern sides. In listing the houses, numbers from one to ten,
rather than names, were used. The houses in the north differ from the other
houses, because they are irregular in plan, whereas, the southern houses are
regular and more impressively built from the architectural perspective. While
examining these differences the idea that the southern and northern rows in this
block the idea that there could have been a lapse in time is reinforced.
Figure 6.1 Plan of block A vii in Olynthos. (From Robinson 1938)
71
In the plans of the architect I. Travlos (Fig 6.1), the characteristics of the A vii
block are more emphasized. As it can be noticed, the northern houses are
sometimes separated from an alley and occasionally border on it. When building
the block they had foreseen some vital needs for the houses’ functionality. First, a
small gap was created in the foundations at the east end in order to allow
drainage water to be released into the street. Besides, from a point against Room b
to the east end was built an extra rubble wall opposite the foundations of A vii 10
to avoid the leakage of water into the house, because its floors were lower than
the alley. Another way to prevent the drainage was a series of flat stones that
formed a division wall between houses A vii 3 and 5 and next less regularly laid
stones on both sides led the water into the channel. In addition, at the two
foundations near the west end of A vii 3 house, there were rested walls that were
designed so that access from the alley into the court could be avoided. The exit
into Avenue A was through the alley west of A vii 3 house which was paved
with cobblestones (Robinson 1938, 117).
Houses of Block A vii
For a more efficient description, houses are named from one to ten, whereas for
the rooms letters are used.
House A vii 1 (Fig 6.2)
This house was divided into ten parts. The entrance to the house was room c,
which was surrounded by two rooms, b and d, whereas the court of the house
was room h. In addition, in room d was found a tile of the Laconian type
(Robinson 1938, 117), which could be an influence from the war with Sparta,
though it is difficult to judge from just one tile. Next, room a, located in the
northern part of the house was identified as a shop (Robinson 1938, 117).
Moreover, in room i, were found some fragments and the rim of a large pithos,
whose size (0,81cm) clearly indicates it was not mobile and would have been
used for storage.
72
House A vii 2 (Fig 6.3)
To begin with, this house consisted of eight rooms. Firstly, in room a, a hearth
was found and in its southwest corner there was a rubble foundation, both of
which characteristics of Olynthian kitchens, which is why it would be correct to
name this room as that. Second, in room b was found a pithos, which suggests
that this room was used for storage. Room c had a white board baseboard and
red stucco walls. Room d, was the pastas, and on its north side opened three
rooms e, f and h, while g was the courtyard. More specifically, rooms e and f were
the andron rooms because of their unplastered walls, the size of e, the position of f
and the connected doorways of the two rooms.
House A vii 3 (Fig 6.4)
In house A vii 3 the court was located in f, on the north were rooms a and b, but
there was no pastas. Area e was the room connecting to the court and was also the
entrance to room d. This room with its immense analogies, location, door width
(2,20 m) and the fact that it was not subdivided by walls reveals that it was used
as unroofed pen for animals or more possibly, for storage.
House A vii 4 (Fig 6.5)
This house can be considered a typical Olynthian house. This is because of its
prothyron entrance, its court, the series of rooms in the north and the andron
rooms. The entrance was on the south, the prothyron, or porch, whose four bases
of its pillars remain in situ. In room k was found a staircase, escalating along the
court’s wall to the gallery above the pastas f. According to the plan, in location g
was found a large pithos which indicates that the room was used for storage.
Room c which had cement floor was used as a bathroom. In this room was also
found a gap in the cement floor and a round, cement line basin. Room e was the
kitchen, in which a mortar was found. Room h had two entrances instead of one,
one from the house and the other from the street, which indicates that it was
used as a shop. Rooms a and b were square, had cement floor and stucco walls.
These rooms were used as the andron because of their decoration.
73
House A vii 5 (Fig 6.6)
On the north side of this house rooms a, b and c were located, location e was a
pastas and i the court, however there is no evidence where the entrance was. The
plan in room c indicates that there was a bathtub, which is also proved by the
terracotta fragments that were found in situ. At the south of both houses, A vii 3
and 5, rooms h and i were located, whose walls ran at the other foundations,
maybe to represent what is left from an irregular building created later that the
southern houses and earlier than the northern. Moreover, the opening in room i
reveals a doorway which could have belonged to house A vii 5, because it was
accessible from the alley. During the excavations in the house, a cement basin
was found within the opening (Robinson 1938, 121), which could mean that there
was a door leading to rooms d and f from house A vii 3. Although there are two
different possibilities it seems more appealing to affirm that room i belonged to
the A vii 3 house.
House A vii 6 (Fig 6.7)
House six of the A vii block is a more regular house. The entrance was from the
court i. Against the west wall of the court a block of limestone was found, which
formed the base of a stairway for the upper gallery. Location f was the pastas,
room j consisted of a hearth which means that that was the kitchen. In addition,
room l was a flue base and rooms d and c were decorated with red stucco, which
implies that they were used as andron and andronitis.
House A vii 7 (Fig 6.8)
The entrance to this house was passage c, which led from the street into the court,
rooms d and f were accessible only through j, and probably they were the
storerooms as they were not actually connected with the rest of the house. In
room b a pithos was located. It is obvious from the plan of the house that the
main living rooms were restricted in the northern side of passage c.
House A vii 8 (Fig 6.9)
This house had a similar plan with house number two. Room f was probably the
andron because it was divided from the rest of the house by the court and the
entrance was only from room e. Room d was the pastas, c was the kitchen and b
74
the flue. With huge undivided walls, room h was probably in this case as in the
previous ones a large storeroom or a pen for animals.
House A vii 9 (Fig 6.10)
The plan of this house can be characterized as irregular and there is no sufficient
evidence of pastas or court, so it was probably used as a place for selling or
manufacturing products and not as a residence. Room a served as a pen for
animals or a storeroom as it had the same qualities as the other rooms of the
same function. On the northeast side of the house rooms d and h were located
whose access was only available from avenue B. These were used as shops. Room
j also operated as a shop, as its entrance was only from avenue B too. The
foundations of this room are distinct from the rest of the houses, detail that leads
to dating the construction of this room before the construction of the rest of the
house.
House A vii 10 (Fig 6.11)
The last house of the examined block is a typical one with a normal arrangement.
There were two possible ways to enter this house, one from Avenue B, a
prothyron entrance and another one from the doorway into the court. Location f
was the pastas and the rooms were located on the north side (a-d). Rooms b and c
were the kitchen and the flue, while room k was a shop as it had two possible
entrances.
75
Figure 6.2 House A vii 1. (From Robinson 1938)
Figure 6.3 House A vii 2. (From Robinson 1938)
76
Figure 6.4 House A vii 3 in Olynthos.(From Robinson 1938)
Figure 6.5 House A vii 4 in Olynthos. (From Robinson 1938)
77
Figure 6.6 House A vii 5 in Olynthos. (From Robinson 1938)
Figure 6.7 House A vii 6 in Olynthos. (From Robinson 1938)
78
Figure 6.8 House A vii 7 in Olynthos. (From Robinson
1938)
Figure 6.9 House A vii 8 in Olynthos. (From Robinson
1938)
79
Figure 6.10 House A vii 9 in Olynthos (From Robinson 1938)
Figure 6.11 House A vii 10 in Olynthos. (From Robinson
1938)
80
6.2 Insula of the Menander
The insula of the Menander (Fig 6.12) is a large and irregular block which is
located between the regular rectangular grid in the eastern part and the old part
of the city (the Altstadt). According to the plans of the insula, the west and north
sides meet in a triangle, this is narrower from west to east than from south to
north. When the volcano erupted, the Casa del Menandro (House of the Menander)
occupied over half of the insula with its dependencies. The other three corners
that are left were occupied by much smaller houses, such as Casa degli Amanti
(House of the Lovers I 10, 11) on the southwest side, three irregular houses (I
10,1; I 10,3; I 10,18) in the northeast, an atrium house (I 10,8) in the northwest and
the Casa del Fabbro (House of Craftsman I 10,7). Between the Casa del Menandro
and Casa del Fabbro was a minor workshop complex (I 10,6), and an individual
entrance (I 10,5) led to an upstairs flat. Lastly, there were also three independent
shops or three one-room units (I 10,9; I 10,12; I 10,13). All the houses at the insula
were two floors high, although a description only for the first floor will be
provided since it is obvious from the plans that the second floor is not preserved
in many cases.
House I 10, 1 (Fig 6.13)
House I 10, 1 is a small house located in the northeastern side of the block. The
entrance to the house opened into the central hall (room 1). On its north end the
eastern wall had an opening in a recess. Outside this recess there was a lalarium, a
shrine that was part of a painting in the north wall depicting the Lares (guardian
deities in ancient Roman religion) and a Genius. A shallow tablinum, room 3, was
located at the back of room 1. On the east side of the house were two rooms, room
2 was larger and room 4 was smaller with decorations from the fourth Pompeian
style (Ling 1997, 29). The last room, 5, on the ground floor, was the kitchen yard.
For the second floor of this house it is impossible to determine the detailed
arrangements due to the fact that only the external walls were preserved.
According to Elia’s description, this house was part residence and part workshop
(1934, 270) but Della Corte thinks that this was a complete domus (1965, 504).
81
House I 10, 2-3 (Fig 6.13)
The plan of this house was broad and symmetrical in the north but it attenuated
progressively and its axis was misplaced westwards. The entrance from the
street to the atrium (room 4) was through a central fauces. On the left of the fauces,
there was a room that in the final years was operating as a shop and had a wide
opening to the street and a counter, L-shaped in the front part. The access to this
counter was made possible either from a doorway into the east part of the atrium
or from the independent room 8 that was separated from the atrium by a wooden
partition. Room 5 that was located on the right of the fauces was square and was
accessible from the atrium by a door on the southeast part. According to Elia’s
description, the eastern end was operating as a different, room 7, which was a
part of the ‘retrobottegga’ of the shop. Furthermore she suggests that that room
was separated from the atrium by a short party wall (1934, 274). Room 6 was the
tablinum behind the atrium. In addition, room 9 was a corridor and there was
placed a passage for three rooms: latrine (12), yard, the kitchen (10) and the
stairway for the upper floors (Ling 1997, 40). The main part of the dwelling
suggests that it was operating as a domus, however the rooms to the left of the
atrium suggest that it was a commercial enterprise that had to do with the selling
of drinks and foods (De Vos and De Vos 1982, 97; La Rocca et al 1976).
House I,10 4 Casa del Menandro (6.14)
This house known as the Casa del Menandro occupied more than half of the insula
when Pompeii was covered by the lava. The plan of the house is complicated
owing to the process of development that took place while there were residents.
The core of the residence was the atrium and the peristyle. From the peristyle,
service areas such as the kitchen to the west and the stableyard to the southeast
could be accessed, although there was a corridor separating those areas. A
dichotomy is noticeable in the central part of the house between the peristyle and
the atrium. This is due to chronological reasons, the atrium was the core of the
first house and in the final phase it was extended to the peristyle and the other
rooms. A division of the house into four parts would be more convenient for the
description of the house at the atrium complex, the peristyle, the kitchen quarter
82
and the stable yard. The atrium complex was located in the center of the house
and it was the only one from all the other examined houses that had rooms from
both its sides. Room 2, on the west side of the atrium had a stairway, room 4 was
an ala, and room 9 operated as a passage or triclinum (Ling 1997, 50). In addition,
rooms 11 and 12 were dining rooms or oeci, both of them had an entrance to the
peristyle, but no access to the atrium. Another part of the house was the peristyle
complex. The colonnades of the peristyle created a rectangular shape. Along rooms
8 (tablinum), 15 and 18, the columns had more space between them for a better
view of the garden. The widened columns also appeared opposite room 23, which
was the central exedra in the south, to provide a better view from the garden and
vice versa. Room 13 was a recess, while room 14 was used as a storeroom, 15 was
simply a room and 16 was a passage that led to a cubiculum (room 17). Room 18
operated as an oecus and had the largest reception rooms in a private house in the
city. The rooms behind room 19 were part of the house but were only accessible
from the southeast part of the insula, the service quarter. Room 21 originally
operated as a cubiculum with two beds, but later it was a library (Ling 1997, 61).
The remaining four spaces were recesses, apsidal or rectangular respectively
repeatedly. Passage M was leading to the service quarter to the west and opening
to a domestic bath-suite. Furthermore, there was another atrium in space 46 that
had on its west side a circular laconicum (bath) (49). Room 47 was an apodyterion
(changing rooms) and 48 was an caldarium (bath). The kitchen quarter of the
residence was accessible from the peristyle from an L-shaped corridor (M). The
small part of the corridor, the M1, was leading to room 26 that was a latrine, while
the longer M2, had an opening to room 28, which served as a store for kitchen,
judging from the stove that was found there (ibid, 93). Space R was the kitchen
garden that provided the house with fruit and vegetables, and area S accessed
the cellars. The last part of the house was the staff quarters and the stable yard,
located in the southeastern corner of the insula. There were storerooms that were
associated with the agricultural production developing outside the city.
According to Maiuri I 10, 12 was a bottega or a taberna(1942, 198), whereas Elia
identified it as a workshop (1934, 339). Moreover, area I 10, 13 contained two
dolias (jars) and a stove, so it was probably a food and drink shop (Ling 1997,
106). In this area rooms were stables or storerooms, whereas in area 41 there was
an atrium.
83
House I, 10 5 and 6 (Fig 6.15)
This complex located in the northeast of the Casa del Fabbro and north-west of the
Casa del Menandro had two different elements. The first was a shop and a
workshop whose entrance was room 6 and on the east side was a living room and
the second was a staircase which led to the street doorway between the two
ground floors rooms from an apartment above, rooms 5-7 of Casa del Menandro.
However, there is no connection between the ground floor and the upstairs
apartments (Ling 1997, 145). House I,10 6 was apparently a workshop and shop
and apartment I,10 5 according to Della Cotre was a lunapar (brothel) (1965, 299).
House I,10 7 Casa del Fabbro (Fig 6.15)
This house had a latrine (room 1) after the entrance, followed by a cubiculum (2),
and then the atrium (3), which was visible to all the visitors. On the west side of
the atrium there were also two more rooms that were used as cubicula (4 and 5).
The narrow room (6) next to cubicula 5 operated as a storeroom, while room 7 was
a tablinum. In addition, room 8 was also a cubiculum with an opening to the portico
(room 10), room 9 was a dining room and 11 the kitchen.
House I,10 8 and 9 (Fig 6.15)
Τhis complex was located in the northwest corner of the insula and consisted of
an atrium-house (8) and a workshop (9). Before building I 10, 9 became a shop
whose entrance was a room opening from the atrium. The two rooms in the north
were an exedra (room 2) and a cubiculum (room 3). On the east side of the atrium
was room 4 that operated as a workshop or a service room. South of the atrium
there were two rooms (6 and 8) that operated as cubicula, a passage (7) that led to
the kitchen (9) and then to the hortus (11). Room 9 was identified as a kitchen
because of a hearth that was found there. Room 10, located next to the kitchen
was a dining room or a reception. Room 12 was at first a cubiculum and later was
converted into a storeroom judging from the equipment that was found there
(Elia 1934, 319). From the atrium area there was access to another room, 5 from
which opened the other rooms, a storeroom (13) and a latrine (14).
84
House I,10 10-11 Casa degli Amanti (Fig 6.16)
Casa degli Amanti or House of Lovers was located in the southwest corner of the
insula and was divided into the atrium and the peristyle complex. In the former
complex apart from the atrium (1) there were also two rooms in the north, of
which one was a workshop or shop (I 10, 10) and the other an oecus or a dining
room (room 8). A cubiculum was on the west side of the house (room 4), along
with a storeroom or workshop (room 2). In addition, room 3 could have been an
opening to a stairway, room 5 a storeroom as holes for shelves were found (Ling
1997, 199). Next to this room, was an ala or exedra (6) and after that a cubiculum
(7). On the northeastern side of the atrium, a peristyle (9) was created. On the east
of the peristyle there opened three rooms, two of which were small and square (11
and 12) and the other was larger (10). According to Elia, those rooms were oeci
(1934, 313-4), however, Della Corte thought that they were used as cubicula (1933,
314-315). The rooms on the south side, due to their simple decoration, were
identified as storerooms, slave rooms and service rooms. Specifically, room 16
was a kitchen, 17 and 18 storerooms and room 19 was a cubiculum. Room 15 was a
chamber next to 16, 14 was a latrine and 13 was a corridor.
House I, 10 18 (Fig 6.13)
The plan of this house was broader at the front part than at the back. In the front
part the design was one of the classical types with central fauces surrounded by
rooms opening into an atrium. Room 2 located in the north of the fauces was
identified as a cubiculum and room 3 was probably an oecus. On the north side, the
two rooms located there operated as an ala (4) and room 5 as a cubiculum or a
storeroom. On the back side of the atrium there were two rooms, 6 and 7. From
room 6 there was access to passage 8.
85
Figure 6.12 Plan of the insula of the Menander. (From Ling 1997)
86
Figure 6.13 Houses 1, 2-3 and 18 on the Insula of the Menander.
(From Ling 1997, 346)
Figure 6.14 House of the Menander in Pompeii. (From online source,
see list of figures)
87
Figure 6.15 Houses I 5-6, 7 and 8-9 on the insula of the Menander in Pompeii (From
Ling 1997, 346)
Figure 6.16 Casa degli Amanti in Pompeii. (From Ling 1997, 346)
88
6.3 Results
Were the characteristics of society reflected on the houses in antiquity? Is
isonomia, the equality of the political rights, the reason that domestic architecture
was developed in that way during the classical period in Greece and its colonies
in the Mediterranean? Is luxuria, the luxury, which diffused in the Roman period,
mirrored into the houses of the Old World? How did houses in the
Mediterranean evolve?
After describing the examined blocks and especially the houses located there, the
differences in the evolving society in the Mediterranean World are more
apparent. On the one hand, there is a block whose houses are equal and on the
other, houses which are different in size. Equality and inequality are mirrored in
society too. The changing of the constitutions in the last four centuries BC can be
noticed in the architectural design, especially the domestic. The ideas that were
dominating the world of the two most significant civilisations of the
Mediterranean area are reflected on the designs of their dwellings. First was the
example of Greece, specifically Olynthos that had blocks and houses of equal
sizes with the same rooms and operations. During the next centuries there was
an evolution of this type of house in Italy, as the Roman Empire was gaining
greater power. The influence of the society on the Greek and the Roman houses
and vice versa can be observed through the paradigms of Olynthos and Pompeii.
Olynthos, the first example, was a city located in northern Greece, and when it
was designed the idea of isonomia was one of the main characteristics of the
society and causing a revolution against previous political modules. Isonomia, the
equality of political rights, was one of the main characteristics of a democratic
institution that was reluctantly making its first steps by the end of the sixth
century BC and was established during the fifth century. It was the idea of
equality and political rights in front of the law; however, this did not mean
wealth equality as well. The first evidence for the idea of equality in classical
Olynthos is the city plan. A Greek city during the classical era was designed
according to the Hippodamian plan and the ideas of political equality (isonomia)
and active citizenship that it represented. As perceived from the Greek town
planning system and the context in which it was created, there are no proofs of a
89
hierarchical structure as in Roman cities. In Olynthos there was only one public
space, the agora, where the citizens gathered in order to vote and discuss on
political subjects or to meet each other in an everyday context.
Apart from the Hippodamian city planning, the concept of isonomia was
extended to the domestic architecture too. The Olynthian houses of the fifth
century BC were all of the same size and shape. During the construction of
Olynthos citizens were given appointed plots of equal size and there were built
houses of the same design. However, that did not mean that there was equality in
wealth too, but it was rather a symbolic use of space. This means that the private
area was designed in order to mirror the public area, and therefore there was a
political idea behind the design. In my opinion, the residences were designed in
that way for the citizens to remember that they had equal political rights and
they were equal in front of the law, even when the political leaders forgot that. In
Greece the concept of equality played a significant role and so they started to
design cities and houses according to that idea so that people would be reminded
of democracy and its characteristics.
Moreover, the isonomia in the Olynthian houses can be inferred from the andron
room that could be discerned in four out of nine houses in the block. The fact that
there was no andron room discernable in the other houses does not mean that it
did not exist. However, four of these houses had a special room for the men to
gather, talk about politics and drink.
In addition, another criterion that can probably reveal the existence of equality in
society in houses was the storage room. In a democratic city where everybody
was equal it was possible for an oikos to have its own production of everyday
goods, such as wheat and barley, which were stored in pithoi. In block A vii, six
out of nine houses had their own storeroom or even a shop and one of the
buildings in the block was used as a shop or a pen for animals.
Furthermore, there would be no exaggeration to state that all the houses in the
block had almost the same layout of the interior space. They were pastas type
houses with the same number of rooms and no other extravagant decoration.
Only some residues of paintings were found in some rooms that were probably
90
andrones. Furthermore, the simple, if any, decoration of the façade was making
the houses indistinguishable and there was no proof of hierarchical separation.
After providing all the architectural elements of the houses in the block that can
be connected with isonomia in the Olynthian houses and describing a certain
block of the city, it can be stated that there was an impact of society on domestic
architecture and houses in Olynthos represented the isonomia of the society.
On the other hand, there is Pompeii, a city famous for the architecture and
decoration of its houses. To start with, a look at the city planning of Pompeii
reveals a totally different political resemblance and structure than the one
noticed in Olynthos. The wealthy families of Pompeii were occupying houses
even next to the Forum Romanorum. In the Pompeiian family, and Roman in
general, there was a dependence on their pater familias, whose status was
imposed through the extensive atrium. So, in Pompeii there is an influence of the
private sphere on the public and not the opposite as in the Olynthos case.
In the description of this block, diversity of houses can be noticed. Different
elements of the houses that can be linked with the ideology of luxury were found
in the houses of the insula of the Menander.
First of all, in Pompeii, and especially in the Insula of the Menander the houses
were all of different sizes. The largest of the houses, the Casa del Menandro,
occupied more than the three quarters of the insula. The Casa degliAmanti and
delFabbro can also be distinguished from the others due to the fact that they were
larger. It can be mentioned that these houses belonged to more powerful and
wealthier owners given their size. However, size did not stand by itself in order
to exhibit luxuria. In these houses other elements were also found that reveal the
tendency to show their owners’ social status.
The Casa del Menandro apart from being the largest house of the insula had also a
triclinum room and two dining rooms. This means that the owner often invited
guests in order to drink and eat all together. The peristyle and the garden that
were located in the house were also a kind of luxury. Furthermore, the oecus was
the largest reception room in a private house in Pompeii. All these in
combination with the lavish decoration found in some rooms can lead to the
91
conclusion that the Casa del Menandro belonged to one of the wealthiest citizens of
Pompeii, which could be best illustrated from the luxury in his house.
The other large house of the insula, the Casa del Fabbro, had a latrine with
decorated walls, an atrium visible to all visitors and a portico that made the
entrance to the house more impressive. These elements can also lead to the
assumption that the person living there was trying to show his status by having
luxurious architectural details.
The other house of the insula that stands out for its size is the Casa degli Amanti.
Divided into two parts, the workshop and the living area, it had a peristyle,
symbol of luxury, and oeci. Moreover the storerooms, the slave and the service
rooms were also simply decorated despite the fact that they were meant for the
slaves.
In the other houses that had a smaller size but were equally significant, it is
noticed a decoration of the third and the fourth style, gardens, latrine rooms and
workshops. None of these houses had the same size or shape. Interesting is also
the existence of a brothel among these houses. Someone would expect brothels
and bottegas (shops) to be in a different area and not among the houses, however,
the case study proves the opposite.
The variety of housing at Pompeii, in type, size and magnificence, points to the
tremendous inequalities in wealth in the city. This is in contradistinction to the
relatively homogeneous housing in Olynthos, where the antithesis between the
poor and the rich was disguised by the residences that were all more or less of
the same type and size. There was a very distinctive gap in Pompeii between the
largest and smallest atrium house. As it is obvious in the case of the House of the
Menander, the boundaries of the house were expanded, so maybe its owners
bought other properties too. I believe that it would not be wrong to say that the
more power the Roman Empire was gaining, the larger the houses.
92
Table 6.1 Comparison between Olynthos and Pompeii
Olynthos
Pompeii
Greek
Roman
Hippodamian city plan
Different layouts of the city
Same size and shape
All house dissimilar to each other
Andron
Triclinum
Production of goods in every house
Not
every
house
had
its
own
production of goods
Simple decoration
Lavish and impressive decoration
Similarity in the type of rooms in every Some rooms in the houses had same
house
operation, however no connection at all
Private
Public
Isonomia
Luxuria
All in all, the two cities that I examined and especially their structure can be
related to and reflect the society of its respective period. It is mentioned that the
cities were not built in the same chronological period, however, there are
considered as evolution of the society. From the fifth century BC until the end of
the third century BC there is in the Mediterranean area the domination of the
Greek cities followed by the growth of the Roman power and its control over the
place. Both cities were designed on grid plan but for every society it had a
different meaning. There is Olynthos with the Hippodamian plan and its isonomia
and equality of political rights, and on the other side, Pompeii whose grid
planning does not imply the same ideas but the luxuria of the city. This is obvious
in the houses too. In the examined block in Olynthos, Avii, the houses were of a
similar size and shape despite the fact that there was a gap during its
construction. Nevertheless, the insula del Menandro in Pompeii, was a block
with houses of very dissimilar sizes and shapes. At this time status and luxury
were the main characteristics. So, this had as a consequence for the houses, as
that of the Menander or of the Fabbro, to become greater and larger than the other
93
simple ones. Therefore, it is obvious that during the Greek influence in the
Mediterranean the domestic architecture was a reflection of the democratic
institution. However, in the Roman era the large houses influenced the society by
creating the theory that inequality on wealth meant inequality among citizens
and the more luxurious the building, the more important the person living there.
94
Conclusion
Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended…
Houses live and die: there is a time for building
And a time for living and for generation
And a time for the wind to break the loosened pane…
T.S Eliot, East Coker
While writing this thesis the use of historical texts and archaeological evidence
was fundamental in order to accurately depict the society and the impacts it had
to domestic archaeology in the Old World. In contrast with previous studies and
researches, the archaeological material and especially the architecture of houses
was the focus of this thesis. This was to ensure that the evolution of the societies
and the different ideas that both cultures embodied whilst dominating the
Mediterranean World were represented.
This thesis was based on the ideas, expressed by archaeologists during the 1980s
that the houses in ancient Greece and Rome were designed according to isonomia
and luxuria retrospectively, two concepts that were ruling the society of each
world.
Firstly, in the case study of Olynthos, the first archaeologists to talk about the
existence isonomia in the houses were Hoepfer and Schwandner. They stated that
there was a ‘Typenhaus’ in Olynthos that was used in all houses due to the
democratic institution and equality ruling at that time in Greece. However, in
this thesis further criteria was examined in order to prove the existence of
isonomia in the domestic architecture. The criteria examined were:

Hippodamian town planning

Same size and shape of houses
95

Andron room

Storerooms

Harmonic interior design of the rooms, no extravagant exterior
decoration
Those criteria were used to examine block A vii in the city of Olynthos. A block
that is characteristic due to the differences between the southern and northern
sides. As it was shown despite the fact that there was not exactly the same size of
the houses due to different periods of building, there were no extreme
differences. Moreover, all the residences had their own storerooms according to
the archaeological material found, so every household had its own production.
Furthermore, there were no extravagant decorations inside the house, and the
‘public’ area that visitors could see was the same for every house. Finally, the
existence of andron, the room where the owner of the house was gathering with
other men to discuss about politics, drink and eat, is one of the main reasons to
conclude that there was isonomia in the houses in Olynthos.
According to these results it can be stated that the concept of isonomia, the
equality of the political rights, that was ruling the society of the Classical era, was
to some extent reflected in the domestic architecture of this period.
On the other hand, there is Pompeii, a city developed through the Roman period
with an interesting architecture and decoration of the houses. During this era the
concept that was ruling the society was luxuria. People were trying to establish
their status and wealth and the society was structured within and upon a
hierarchy. One of the first scholars to connect the houses in Pompeii with the
luxury of this period was Wallace-Hadrill. His assumption was mainly based on
the luxurious items found in the houses. I set out to add to these criteria and to
show clearly that at this period of time, the competition for status was very
important. This luxuria can be linked in the houses if the following exist

The size of the house

Lavish decoration of floors and walls

Existence of portico

Peristyle

Triclinum
96

The garden
These are the main architectural elements that can be connected with the
existence of luxuria in the houses of Pompeii. More specifically the houses of the
insula of the Menander were examined under those criteria to prove the extent of
the influence of the hierarchical society into the domestic architecture. It was
evident that there was a tremendous difference in the size of the houses and
while some of them had an impressive decoration others had nothing. Moreover,
in some of the houses there was either a portico or peristyle. This indicates that
whoever had enough wealth was showing it in order to confirm his social status.
Certain conclusions arise from the examination of the ancient Classical city. The
city in both Roman and Greek civilization was an agglomerated area, enclosed by
defensive walls and most of the times magnified with a public square, forum or
agora, theatres, temples and other public buildings. Roman and Greek civic
centres were neither identical to each other nor were they enduring. A variety of
unique building types were adapted (like Greek stoa) or developed (like Roman
basilica) for civic activities.
The aim of this thesis was to establish the link that connects society with
domestic architecture and how the Mediterranean houses evolved throughout
antiquity. This was accomplished through a comparison between Olynthos and
Pompeii. The comparison between these cities shows the development of the
houses and the society in the Mediterranean from the end of the Greek Classical
period to the rise of the Roman Empire. Houses in Olynthos and Pompeii have
distinctive differences in their size and shape. On the one hand is Olynthos with
the same size houses and on the other Pompeii with larger and smaller houses. In
Olynthos there was no hierarchical distinction between the houses, they were all
almost the same outside and inside, as it was proved in the examination of block
Avii. This creates a contrast with the houses in the insula of the Menander
whereby there are striking differences with the houses inside the insula. After
examining these two blocks the final conclusions can be stated. The houses in
Olynthos can be linked with the concept of isonomia due to the fact that they have
the same size and shape, the same rooms, the existence of an andron room and
had their own producing line. In contrast the houses in Pompeii have elements
97
that can be connected with the ideology of luxuria, such as the peristyle, the
triclina, the differences in size and shapes of the houses and the hortus. So, from
the Classical and democratic Greek world, the society and the houses in the
Mediterranean were affected by the Roman Empire and its tendency to show
luxury and status.
By looking at the reflection of the respective concepts in a long term evolution
perspective of Mediterranean houses emerged. At first, in the fourth century
there was a democracy in Greece and its colonies that affected domestic
architecture. The cities that consisted of less stratified societies to more strongly
diversified societies were built according to the Hippodamian planning and the
houses met the criteria in order to be characterised by the isonomia. It can be
stated that society, and especially the equality in the political rights, was reflected
in the houses in Greece and its cities. Conversely, in Pompeii, a city that was
blooming after the third century BC in the Southern Italy, its planning was
influenced by the Greek colonies nearby, however the houses were matching the
criteria of luxury. In the Roman world the more power someone had the larger
the house was. Conclusively, the ideas representing societal life were found
appropriate to be used in theoretical base of the domestic architecture of
Olynthos and Pompeii in order to reflect those values and moreover, for the
practical functioning of the buildings.
98
Abstract
Domesticity, its definition and its patterning have continually evolved and
changed, to the extent that our modern perception of what constitutes a home,
and our perceptions of ‘public’ and ‘private’ are drastically different from what
existed in ancient society. This is even more applicable for Ancient Greece and
Rome, two civilizations which had a significant impact on the majority of the Old
World. Despite this, few studies have undertaken an effective comparison of
houses in these two civilizations, and what similarities and contrasts would have
existed. This thesis will focus on this issue, specifically targeting two of the best
known cities in the Hellenic and Roman periods; namely that of Pompeii and
Olynthos. Architecture should, as archaeological research has shown for Greece
and Rome retrospectively, reflect the values upheld in society and transmit the
ethos of the wider community. For Olynthos, the idea of ‘Isonomia’ should be
visible within households, the notion that all members of Greek society were of
similar status and of equal importance. Conversely at Pompeii, the concept of
‘Luxuria’ – or rather social status and wealth – was important, thus a stratified
system of housing disparity should be witnessed to reflect this. I will target block
A vii for Olynthos and Insula of the Menander for Pompeii, two representative
and well preserved areas with multiple phases of building history, to carry out
this study; in this way a clusters of habitation can be compared. In doing so, this
thesis will attempt to investigate the relationship between social contemporary
concepts and one specific physical representation of this societies, i.e. domestic
architecture.
99
100
Bibliography
 Alcock S.E. and R. Osborne, 2012. Classical Archaeology. Chichester:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Aldrete, G.S., 2004. Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia.
Westport: Greenwood Press.
 Allison, P., 2003. An Empire of cities. In: Woolf G. (ed), Cambridge
Illustrated History of the Roman World. Cambrigde: Cambrigde University
Press, 200-231.
 Allison, P., 2004. Pompeian Households: An Analysis of Material Culture. Los
Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
 Ascher, R., 1996. Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology, 17, 317-325.
 Augusti S., 1967. I colori Pompeiani. Rome: De Luca.
 Ault, B.A., 2000. Living in the Classical polis: the greek house as
microcosm. The Classical World, Vol. 93, No. 5, 483-496.
 Ault, B.A., and L. C. Nevett, 2005. Ancient Greek Houses and Households:
Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity. Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
 Austin, M.M. and P. Vidal-Naquet, 1977. Economic and Social History of
Ancient Greece, an Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
101
 Banster F., 1961, revised by Palmes J.C., 1975. A History of Architecture.
London: The Athlone Press University of London.
 Beard, M., 2008. Pompeii: the Life of a Roman Town. London: Profile.
 Bergmann, B., 2012. Housing and Households. The Roman World. In: S.E.
Alcock and R. Osborne (ed), Classical Archaeology. Chichester: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 228-248.
 Bergmann, B. and C. Kondoleon, 1999. The Art of Ancient Spectacle.
Washington: The National Gallery of Art.
 Bodel, J., 1997. Monumental Villas and Villa Monuments. Journal of the
Roman Archaeology, Vol.10, 1-35.
 Brouwer, H.H.J., 1989. Bona Dea, The Sources and a Description of the Cult.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
 Burns, A., 1976. Hippodamus and the Planned City. Historia: Zeitschrift für
Alte Geschichte, Bd. 25, H. 4, pp. 414-428.
 Butti, K. and J. Perlin, 1980. A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar
Architecture and Technology. New York: Chashire/ Van Nostrand Reinhold
Books.
 Cahill, N., 2000. Olynthus and Greek Town Planning. The Classical World,
Vol. 93, No. 5. 497-515.
 Cahill, N., 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
 Calabrò, A., in press, Combining Life and Work. The Social Structure of
Pompeian Cauponae.
102
 Cavendish, M., 2010. Ancient Greece: An Illustrated History. New York:
Marshall Cavendish Corporation.
 Clarke, J., 1991. The Houses of the Roman Italy, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250, Ritual,
Space, and Decoration. London: University of California Press, Ltd.
 Coarelli F., 2002. History of the City, Excavations, and Studies. In: F.
Coarelli, A. Foglia and P. Fogilia. Pompeii. New York: Riverside Book
Company, 13-26.
 Conticello, B., 1992. Rediscovering Pompeii. Rome: “L’ERMA” di
Bretschneider.
 De Kind, R., 1998. Houses in Herculaneum: A New View on the Town
Planning and Building of Insulae III and IV. Amsterdam: Gieben.
 Della Corte, M., 1933. Pompei: Iscrizioni dell’isola X della Regione I.
Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, Series 5, No. 8, 277-331.
 Della Corte, M., 1965. Case ed Abitanti di Pompei. Naples: Faustino
Fiorentino.
 Descoeunders, J.P., 2007. History and Historical Sources. In: J.J. Dobbins
and P.W. Foss, The world of Pompeii. New York: Routledge, 9-27.
 De Vos, A and M. De Vos, 1982. Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia. Rome: Guide
archeologica Laterza.
 Dwyer, E., 2001. Unified Plan of the House of the Faun. Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians, Vol.60, No.3, 328-343.
 Elia, O., 1934. I cubicoli nelle case di Pompei. Historia, 6, 394-421.
 Eliot, T.S., 1943. Four Quartets. Orlando: Harcourt Inc.
103
 Ellis, S.J. R. (ed), 2011. The Making of Pompeii: Studies in the History and
Urban Development of an Ancient City. Portsmouth: RI.
 Ellis, S.P., 2013. Pompeii. In: R.S. Bangall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion,
A. Erskine, S.R. Huebner (eds), The Encyclopedia of the Ancient World.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Pp. 5043-5048.
 Fantham, E., 2005. Liberty and the People in Republican Rome.
Transactions of the American Philological Association, Vol. 135, No.2. pp. 210.
 Gardner, J.F. and T. Wiedermanm (ed), 1991. The Roman Household.
London: Routledge.
 Garland, R., 2009. Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks. Westport: Greenwood
Press.
 Gates, C., 2003. Ancient Cities. The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient
Near East and Egypt, Greece and Rome. New York: Routledge.
 Gazda, E.K., 1994. Roman Art in the Private Sphere. Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press.
 George, M., 1997. Repopulating the Roman House. In: B. Rawson (ed), The
Roman Family in Italy - Status, Sentiment, Space. Oxford: Claredon Press,
299-319.
 Graham, J.W., 1966. Origins and Interrelations of the Greek House and
the Roman House. Phoenis, Vol. 20, No. 1. 3-31.
 Guzzo, P. G. and M.P Guidobaldi (eds), 2008. Nuove ricerche archeologiche
nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006). Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma
1-3 febbraio 2007. Rome.
104
 Hales, S., 2003. The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Hammond, N. and G.T. Griffith, 1979. A History of Macedonia. 2: 550-336
B.C.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Hansen, M.H. (ed), 1993. The Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium on the
Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and
Letters July, 1-4 1992. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of
Sciences and Letters.
 Harris, J., 2007. Pompeii Awakened: A Story of Rediscovery. New York: I.B.
Tauris & Co Ltd.
 Harvey, D., 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
 Haverfield, F., 1913. Ancient Town Planning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Hoepfner, W. and E-L. Schwandner, 1994. Haus und Stadt im Klassischen
Griechenland. Wohnen in der Klassischen Polis, 1. München: Deutscher
Kunstverlag.
 Jameson, M., 1990. Private Space and the Greek City. In: O. Murray (ed),
The Greek City from Homer to Alexander. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Jones, R.J. and D. Robinson, 2004. The Making of an Εlite Ηouse at
Pompeii. Journal of Roman Archaeology 17, 107-130.
 Kleiner F., 2013. Gardner’s Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective.
Boston: Clark Baxter.
 Kokkorou- Alevras, G., 1995. Η Τέχνη της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας. Σύντομη Ιστορία
(1050-50 π.Χ). Athens: Καρδαμίτσας.
105
 La Rocca, E., M. De Vos, and A. De Vos, 1976. Guida Archeologica di
Pompei. Verona: Arnoldo Mondadori.
 Laurence, R., 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London: Routledge.
 Lauritsen, M.T., 2011. Doors in Domestic Space at Pompeii and
Herculaneum: A Preliminary Study. In: D. Mladenovic and B. Rusell
(eds), TRAC 2010: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Theoretical Roman
Archaeology Conference. Oxford: Oxbow 59-75.
 Lauritsen, T., in press. Doors and the Use of Space in Pompeian Cubicula.
 Lazer, E., 2009. Resurrecting Pompeii. New York: Routledge.
 Ling, R., 1997. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii I: The Structures.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Mazzoleni, D., 2004. Domus, Wall Painting in the Roman House. Los
Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.
 Mauri, A., 1942. L’Ultima Fase Edilizia di Pompei. Rome: Istituto di studi
romani.
 McKay, A.G., 1975. Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World.
Southampton: Thames and Hudson.
 Millar, F., 1998. The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic. Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press.
 Moffett, M., M.W. Fazio and L. Wodehouse, 2003. A World History of
Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing.
106
 Mossé, C., 1992.
Les Institutions Grecques à l'Epoque Classique. Paris:
Armand Colin.
 Mossé, C., 1993. Le Citoyen dans la Grèce Antique. Paris: Nathan.
 Mossé, C. and A. Schnapp – Gourbeillon, 1990. Précis d'Histoire Grecque.
Du Début du Deuxième Millénaire à la Bataille d'Actium. Paris: Armand
Colin.
 Mpouras, C.T., 1999. Μαθήματα Ιστορίας της Αρχιτεκτονικής Ι. Athens:
Συμμετρία.
 Murray, O., 1986, Life and Society in Classical Greece. In: J. Boardman, J.
Griffin, O. Murray (eds), The Oxford History of The Classical World. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Mylonas, G.E., 1940. The Olynthian House of the Classical Period.
Classical Journal. (Apr., 1940), pp. 389-402.
 Nevett, L., 1997. Perceptions of Domestic Space in Italy. In: B. Rawson and
P. Weaver (eds), The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space.
Oxford: Claredon Press, 281-298.
 Nevett, L., 1999. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Nevett, L., 2009a. Housing. In: A. Erskine (ed), Blackwell Guide to Classical
Antiquity. Oxford: Blackwell, 368-380.
107
 Nevett, L., 2009. Πέρα από την Aρχιτεκτονική. Οι Aρχαιοελληνικές
Oικίες ως Kοινωνικοί Xώροι. Περιοδικό Αρχαιολογία, Τεύχος 113, 8-18.
 Nevett, L., 2012. Housing and Households: The Greek World. In: S.E.
Alcock and R. Osborne, Classical Archaeology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
209-227.
 Pomeroy, S.B., W. Burstein, W. Donlan and J.T. Roberts, 2004. A Brief
History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture. New York: Oxford
University Press.
 Porter, J.E., 1998. Rhetorical Ethics and Internetworked Writing. Westport:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
 Pounds, N.J.G., 1969. The Urbanization of the Classical World. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 59, 135-157.
 Purcell, N., 2012. Urban Spaces and Central Places: Roman. In: S.E. Alcock
and R. Osborn. Classical archaeology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 187-206.
 Rawnson, B. (ed), 2011. A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman
Worlds. Oxford and Madlen, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
 Raaflaub, K., 2007.
The Breakthrough of Democratia in Mid-Fifth-
Century Athens. In: K. Raaflaub, J. Ober, R.W. Wallace, P. Cartledge and
C. Farrar, Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
 Ramage H. N. and A. Ramage, 1995. Roman Art: Romulus to Constantine.
Ithaca College & Cornell University: Lawrence King Publishing.
108
 Rhodes, P.J., 2010. A History of the Classical Greek World 478-323 BC.
Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Riggsby, A.M., 1997. ‘Public’ and ‘Private” in Roman Culture: the case of
the cubiculum. Journal of Roman Archaeology 10, 36-56.
 Robinson, D.M., 1930. Excavations at Olynthus Part II. Architecture and
sculpture: houses and other buildings. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press
(= The Johns Hopkins University Studies in archaeology No. 9).
 Robinson, D.M., 1932. The Residential Districts and the Cemeteries at
Olynthos. AJA 36I. 118-138.
 Robinson, D.M., 1934.
Inscriptions from Olynthus. Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.65, 103-137.
 Robinson, D.M., 1942. Excavations at Olynthus Part XII Domestic and Public
Architecture. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press (= The Johns Hopkins
University Studies in Archaeology No. 36).
 Robinson, D.M. and J.W. Graham, 1938. Excavations at Olynthus Part VIII.
The Hellenic House, a Study of the Houses found at Olynthus with a Detailed
Account of those Excavated in 1931 and 1934. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press (= The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology No. 25).
 Roisman, J. and J.C. Yardley, 2011. Ancient Greece from Homer to Alexander:
The Evidence. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
 Ruvoldt, M., 2004. The Italian Renaissance Imagery of Inspiration: Metaphors
of Sex, Sleep and Dreams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
109
 Schmitz, W., 2007. Haus und Familie im Antiken Griechenland. Munich:
Oldenbourg.
 Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1988. The Social Structure of the Roman House.
Papers of the British School at Rome 10, 43-97.
 Wallace - Hadrill, A., 1994. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
 Will, E.L., 1979. Women in Pompeii. Archaeology Vol. 32.5, 34-43.
Ancient Authors
 Aristotle, Πολιτικά Book IV. Transl. J.E Porter, 1998. Rhetorical Ethics and
Internetworked Writing. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
 Confucius, Analects Book VII. Transl. W.E. Soothill, 1910. The Analects.
Edinburgh: Oliophant, Anderson, & Ferrier.
 Strabo, Geography V. Transl. H.L. Jones, J. Robert and S. Sterrett, 1960.
The geography of Strabo, with an English translation by Horace Leonard Jones:
Based in part upon the unfinished version of John Robert Sitlington Sterrett.
Harvard: Harvard University Press.
110
List of figures
Cover photo (Above)
Aerial
photo
of
Olynthos.
Source:
http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/965/flashcards/84596
5/png/11354197132963.png [accessed on 11/06/14]
(Below)
Aerial
photo
of
Pompeii.
Source:
http://www.romanhomes.com/your_roman_vacation/quarters/
pompeii-photos/Pompeii-aerial-m-7.jpg
Figure 0.1
[accessed on 11/06/14]
Map of the Mediterranean Sea.
7
Source:http://one-europe.info/user/files/Andre/MediterraneanSea.jpg
Figure 0.2
[accessed on 11/06/14]
“The School of Athens” by Raphael, ca. 1510.
15
Source: Ruvoldt 2004, 55
Figure 2.1
“The age of Pericles” by Phillip Von Foltz, 1853.
17
Source:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/publications/dpla/philipp-vonfoltz_tla%20epoca-pericles.jpg [accessed on 04/06/14]
111
Figure 2.2
Arreophoroi during Panathinaia.
18
North frieze of Parthenon, ca. 438-432BC.
Source: http://erroso.blogspot.nl/2013/03/blog-post_8.html
[accessed on 04/06/14]
Figure 2.3
Cylix (Drinking cup) with a symposium scene, ca. 500 BC.
Source:
19
http://www.toledomuseum.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/Greek-Symposia-Kylix-Berlin2.jpg [accessed on
04/06/14]
Figure 2.4
Plan of Miletus.
21
Source: Roisman 2001, Figure 20.1
Figure 2.5
Location of Miletus on the map.
22
Source:
http://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/dictionary/Dict/image/MiletosM
ap.jpg
Figure 2.6
[accessed on 04/06/14]
Prostas house in Priene (left)./ Pastas house in Olynthos (right). 23
Source:
http://sites.davidson.edu/csa/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-22-at-3.41.33PM.png
[accessed on 04/06/14]
112
Figure 2.7
The andron room Dionysus in Pella.
24
Source: http://pella.virtualreality.gr/images/andron1-s.jpg
[accessed on 04/06/14]
Figure 2.8
Woman during the day with her slaves in her room.
24
Source: http://www.i-diadromi.gr/2013/12/blog-post_6578.html
[accessed 04/06/14]
Figure 0.3
Aerial photo of Olynthos.
Source:
27
http://files.scholynthou.webnode.com/200000003-
6d66f6e61a/olynthos.jpg [ accessed on 15/05/14]
Figure 3.1
Location of Olynthos.
29
Source: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/fallofgreece/maps.html
[accessed on 15/05/14]
Figure 3.2
Plan of Olynthos.
31
Source:
http://www.museumofthecity.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/olyntownplan.jpg
[accessed on 15/05/14]
Figure 3.3
Courtyard with peristyle in Olynthos, ca 430-350 BC.
33
Source:
http://depts.washington.edu/arch350/Assets/Slides/Lecture19.
gallery/source/delos_courtyard_house.htm
[accessed on 15/05/2014]
113
Figure 3.4
Reconstruction of a Olynthian house in the fourth century
Source:
34
http://historum.com/ancient-history/40863-house-
sizes-classical-greece-vs-usa-2.html [accessed on 15/05/2014]
Figure 3.5
Pithoi in Olynthos
35
Source: Robinson 1930, Figure 53
Figure 3.6
Plan of the house A vii 4.
36
Source: http://web.mit.edu/21H.405/www/olynthos/vii4.html
[accessed on 15/05/2014]
Figure 0.4
Modern Rome by Giovanni Paolo Panini, 1757.
Source:
41
http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-
online/search/437245?rpp=30&pg=1&ft=panini&pos=1
[accessed on 19/04/2014]
Figure 4.1
A model recreation of the center of Rome.
45
Source:
http://www.internationalschooltoulouse.net/ibhistory/student_
work/ia2002/matt_rob/images/forums_in_rome_center.jpg
[accessed on 19/04/2014]
Figure 4.2
City plan of Neapolis (Naples), Greek colony in South Italy. 47
Source: Haverfield 1913, Figure 20
Figure 4.3
City plan of Timgad (Roman colony) in Algeria.
47
Source:
http://quadralectics.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/596.jpg?w=64
0&h=719 [accessed on 19/04/2014]
114
Figure 4.4
Representation of the Roman domus according to Vitruvius.
49
Source: Allison 2004, Figure 2.2
Figure 4.5
Insulae in Ostia.
50
Source: McKay 1975, 45
Figure 4.6
Country Villa in Boscoreale.
Source:
51
http://www.the-romans.co.uk/g6/21.country_villa.jpg
[accessed on 19/04/2014]
Figure 0.5
The last days of Pompeii by Karl Brullov, ca. 1830-1833.
55
Source:
http://www.russianartgallery.org/famous/images/brullov_pom
peii.jpg [accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.1
Pompeii and Mount Vesuvius nowadays.
57
Source: http://impressive.net/people/gerald/2002/10/08/11-5205-sm.jpg [accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.2
Location of Pompeii on map.
Source:
58
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2010/04/170_feature_popham_map.jpg
[accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.3
First style painting at the House of Sallust in Pompeii
60
Source:
http://www.pompeii.org.uk/public/foto/1_stile_grande.jpg
[accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.4
Second style painting at the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii
60
Source:
http://www.pompeii.org.uk/public/foto/fresco_II_stile_grande.j
pg [accessed on 10/05/14]
115
Figure 5.5
Third style at House of Marcus Lucretius Fronto in Pompeii
61
Source:
http://www.pompeii.org.uk/public/foto/3_stile_grande.jpg
[accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.6
Fourth style painting at the House of Fabius Rufus in Pompeii
61
Source:
http://www.pompeii.org.uk/public/foto/4_stile_grande.jpg
[accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.7
Town plan of Pompeii. Altstadt is with brown color.
Source:
62
http://www.kenney-
mencher.com/pic_old/classic_early_christian_byzantine/pompeii
_map.jpg [accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.8
Plan of a Pompeian house.
63
Source:
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/pompeii/HousePlan2.jpg
[accessed on 10/05/14]
Figure 5.9
House of Faun.
64
Source: Clarke, 1991, 82
Figure 5.10
The façade of a brothel in Pompeii.
65
Source:
http://www.pompeii.org.uk/public/foto/foto_medie/Lupanare
_media.jpg [accessed on 10/05/14].
116
Figure 0.6
(Above) Block A vii in Olynthos.
69
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
(Below) Insula of the Menander in Pompeii
Source: Ling 1997, 346
Figure 6.1
Plan of block A vii in Olynthos.
71
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.2
House A vii 1 in Olynthos.
76
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.3
House A vii 2 in Olynthos.
76
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.4
House A vii 3 in Olynthos.
77
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.5
House A vii 4 in Olynthos.
77
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 100
Figure 6.6
House A vii 5 in Olynthos.
78
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.7
House A vii 6 in Olynthos.
78
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 101
Figure 6.8
House A vii 7 in Olynthos.
79
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.9
House A vii 8 in Olynthos.
79
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
117
Figure 6.10
House A vii 9 in Olynthos.
80
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.11
House A vii 10 in Olynthos.
80
Source: Robinson 1938, Plate 99
Figure 6.12
Plan of the insula of the Menander
86
Source: Ling 1997, 346
Figure 6.13
Houses 1, 2-3 and 18 on Insula of the Menander.
87
Source: Ling 1997, 346
Figure 6.14
House of the Menander in Pompeii.
87
Source: http://www.stoa.org/projects/ph/house?id=9
[accessed on 19/05/14]
Figure 6.15
Houses I 5-6, 7 and 8-9in insula of the Menander.
88
Source: Ling 1997, 346
Figure 6.16
Casa degli Amanti in Pompeii.
88
Source: Ling 1997, 346
List of Tables
Table 2.1:
The ideal city organisation according to Hippodamus
Table 6.1:
Comparison between Olynthos and Pompeii
21
93
118