JOURNAL OF

ROMAN
ARCHAEOLOGY
VOLUME 33 2020
**
REVIEW ARTICLES AND LONG REVIEWS; BOOKS RECEIVED;
AN OBITUARY; AN ENVOI AND A WELCOME

AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Alan K. Bowman, Brasenose College, Oxford
Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, Lynden, Ontario
Pierre Gros, Aix-en-Provence
Eugenio La Rocca, University of Rome 1
Carlo Pavolini, Rome
Jean-Pierre Sodini, Colombes
Eva Margareta Steinby, Helsinki
Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Cambridge
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Amanda Claridge, London
Moshe Fischer, Tel-Aviv University
David L. Kennedy, University of Western Australia
Roger Ling, University of Manchester
Michael Mackensen, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet München
John Matthews, Yale University
Richard Neudecker, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rom
Nicholas Purcell, Brasenose College, Oxford
Isabel Rodà, Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona
Russell T. Scott, Bryn Mawr College
Cinzia Vismara, Roma
Editor: John H. Humphrey, Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Associate Editor: Dirk Booms, Downingtown, PA
InDesign layout: Keith Henry

ISSN 1047-7594 (for the annual journal)

The abbreviation for this journal for purposes of citation is JRA.

Copyright © 2020 Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C. unless otherwise indicated

Permission to copy may be obtained only direct from JRA®, by mail, letter, fax or phone.
E-mail address: jra@JournalofRomanArch.com Phone (USA+) 401 683 1955
Mailing address: 95 Peleg Road, Portsmouth, Rhode Island 02871, USA Fax (USA+) 401 683 1975
The Copyright Clearance Center (USA), the Copyright Licensing Agency (UK), and other national
Reproduction Rights Organizations are not permitted to authorize copying or to collect fees for so
doing.

The opinions expressed in the articles and book reviews published in this journal are those of the authors
and not those of the editor or the editorial committee. Reviews are solicited in good faith.

The Journal of Roman Archaeology® has a home page at:

https://journalofromanarch.com

The home page contains the full table of contents of all published issues of the journal, as well as an in-
dex of all books reviewed arranged alphabetically by author, and indices by topic and by site. The home
page also gives details of titles in the supplementary series (with special offers for individuals).
 Table of contents of fascicule 2
Review articles and long reviews
K. Lockyear Identity in the European Iron Age 502
T. A. J. McGinn The XII Tables, the Decemvirate, and modern scholarship 505
D. F. Maras Fragments of knowledge and memory from Poggio Civitate 508
E. O’Donoghue Caere/Cerveteri and Pyrgi: the first volume of “Cities of the Etruscans” 510
V. Jolivet Sites étrusques, ‘majeurs’ et ‘mineurs’: deux nouvelles séries 514
M. Carroll Sub-adult burials in pre-Roman Italy 521
M. Carroll A conference on the archaeology of death and burial in ancient Italy 524
T. P. Wiseman From Romulus to Tarquin: reconstructing Rome’s expansion 527
A. J. Ammerman On Rome of the Kings 538
T. P. Wiseman Crossing the pomerium 548
I. Bragantini Il soffito in stucco di un ambiente di una casa tardorepubblicana del Palatino 553
L. Shipley A festival and feast of archaeological information flowing along the Tiber 559
S. Bernard Integration, institutions, and the economy of Republican Italy 563
K. R. Bradley Rome of the Late Republic and Early Empire: 568
dignitas in the œuvre of Oxford’s Miriam Griffin
J. Bodel “Religious history in the making” 581
A. Alvar Nuño The power of things: the materiality of magic in the Roman empire 592
A. Gavini Homo isiacus. I culti isiaci attraverso i materiali e gli uomini 599
che li hanno prodotti
K. R. Bradley Nero: suspension of disbelief 605
D. L. Bomgardner Another view of the Colosseum 613
S. Pearson Holding up the mirror to research on the Iseum Campense 618
C. Ando What was the Roman empire? 624
W. V. Harris Defining and disputing environmental change 632
J. Cutright Employing science in Roman archaeology and history 642
P. Komar Is it possible to quantify the ancient economy? 646
C. Vout An exhibition centred on an extraordinary portrait of Antinous 648
F. S. Kleiner The historical reliefs of the Museo Gregoriano Profano 653
M. Beckmann The medallions of Antoninus Pius 656
R. Reece What use was, and is, Roman coinage? 658
B. Emme The social dimensions of tombs of the 1st-2nd c. A.D. 661
and changes in funerary culture
K. Meinecke What can be done with the ubiquitous strigillated sarcophagi 668
V. Dasen In the search for early childhood 675
L. A. Mazurek Looking at the Nile from afar: new ways of seeing imperialism in 679
Roman history and art
S. Zanella La casa a Pompei: revisioni stratigrafiche attraverso la casa del Chirurgo 688
M. T. Lauritsen Residential façades in the Vesuvian cities 701
 Table of contents of fascicule 2 (continued)

C. Bruun Dancing in the street. Or in the kitchen? Slaves, freedmen, magistri vici, 707
and grassroots leaders
M. Lépée Un panorama diachronique du commerce de détail dans le monde romain 723
C. Pavolini Onorare gli dèi a Ostia e a Porto 729
E. Fentress Architecture, agriculture and otium 738
K. Cassibry The discourse on objects in Roman and late-antique studies 746
M. G. Fulford Reviving and re-imagining the forum at Gloucester 750
M. Symonds Putting the wall into Hadrian’s Wall 752
R. Reece The later 3rd-c. A.D. hoard from Bath and the matter of savings or 759
emergency hoarding
K. M. D. Dunbabin The myths of Boxford: questions about the patron and 763
the designer of the mosaic
E. M. Stern A major work on colourless glass in Roman Gaul 769
A. Martin The market for Gaulish Sigillata in the Cisalpine region 775
F. Heimerl Der Obergermanisch-Raetische Limes revisited 778
E. Botte Une synthèse sur l’exploitation de la mer en Maurétanie Tingitane 784
A. H. Walas A 21st-century frontier? Revisiting Rome’s North African borders 788
N. Mugnai Reconstructing the history and architecture of the Curia in the Forum Vetus 795
at Lepcis Magna
J. J. Rossiter Coins, bones and lamps from the Swedish excavations at Carthage 805
C. Sagona A thorough study of the pottery of Roman Malta 809
R. E. Kolarik Corpus of the mosaics of Albania, vol. 1: Butrint and its workshops 811
C. Moser Putting the sacred into space 817
A. Kouremenos A hefty conference volume on Roman Greece 825
J. Lund Lamps found at Isthmia between 1967 and 2004 828
P. Johnson A conference on place and identity on the south and west coasts of 831
the Black Sea
C. P. Jones Sardis: a new look at its history and a new corpus of its inscriptions 836
A. Monterroso-Checa La escena del teatro de Aphrodisias: el eslabón imprescindible para 840
los teatros de Roma y Occidente
E. K. Gazda The sculptor’s workshop at Aphrodisias: the remains of a sculptural practice 846
from the Severan age to late antiquity
E. Öğüş A late-Severan Theatrum aquae at Hierapolis 854
M. Waelkens Still in search of the origin and meaning of the ‘colonnaded street’ 861
W. E. Metcalf A private collection of Cappadocian coinage 870
E. M. Stern The Cesnola collection of ancient glass in The Metropolitan Museum of Art 873
C. S. Lightfoot The Upper Tigris region and the work still to be done 879
J. C. Meyer Cultural diversity on the fringe of empire 882
L. Gregoratti An enjoyable story of a rebel queen 887
S. Fünfschilling A first German publication of glass from the Beirut City Center 889
Archaeological Project
 Table of contents of fascicule 2 (continued)

G. Mazzilli Il settore extra muros di Tiro in età imperiale: per una rilettura 894
di alcuni dei suoi monumenti
J. Magness Hadrian’s Jerusalem 903
D. Rathbone The credit market in Roman Egypt and Campania 913
C. Rossi A small agricultural installation of the 4th c. A.D. near Kellis in the 917
Dakhla Oasis
D. Dixneuf Les céramiques romaines et de l’Antiquité tardive en Égypte d’après les 920
découvertes archéologiques de Syène (Assouan)
N. Bartos Navigating the Indian Ocean and its scholarship 926
S. Fünfschilling Diatreta (cage cups): the debate continues 931
F. Van Haeperen Le culte de Mithra dans les provinces occidentales durant l’Antiquité tardive 937
T. A. J. McGinn Law, extralegal norms and marriage in late antiquity 941
S. T. Stevens Deconstructing the funerary mosaics of Italy 947
D. Fernández The archaeology and history of Christianity in NW Baetica 950
J. G. Keenan The Petra papyri V: the final volume in a monumental undertaking 954
E. Bartman Rediscovering the rediscovery of antiquity in the Renaissance 962
M. L. Stewart & R. Hingley The illustrator of Roman Britain, by his children 966
M. Kajava A commemoration of Silvio Panciera 969

Obituary
Jennifer Price by Justine Bayley and Sally Cottam 972

Books received; books reviewed in this issue

Books received 975
Books reviewed 982
Envoi and a welcome
J. H., L. G. & L. R. Humphrey Envoi from the editor and a welcome to the new publisher and editor 984
 Residential façades in the Vesuvian cities
M. Taylor Lauritsen
RICCARDO HELG, FRONTES. LE FACCIATE NELL’ARCHITETTURA E NELL’URBANISTICA
DI POMPEI E DI ERCOLANO (Collana DiSCi; Bononia University Press, Bologna 2018). Pp. xv
+ 339, figs. 158, colour pls. 31. ISSN 2284-3523; ISBN 978-88-6923-305-0. EUR 45.
R. Helg’s book on the façades of houses in Pompeii and Herculaneum, the product of a
Ph.D. thesis completed in 2009 as part of a joint doctoral program at the Universities of Padua
and Bologna, is a welcome contribution to an often-overlooked topic. The underlying struc-
ture of the thesis is evident in the monograph’s layout which has 7 chapters with numbered
headings and subheadings, followed by a section of color plates and a lengthy catalogue. The
chief aim is to explore the development of façades in response to two main factors: (1) internal
alterations to the architectural structure of the domus, and (2) external stimuli associated with
the urban setting in which the property was located.
Helg begins with a brief introduction to the topic and his analytical approach, arguing that despite
the fact that façades have rarely been incorporated into studies of Campanian houses, they were an
important architectural feature situated at the center of two ongoing dialogues: one between the public
and private spheres, and another between the dwelling and its urban context. Whereas the latter was
a relatively static relationship, the former was quite dynamic, especially in the decades leading up to
the Vesuvian eruption, when “alternative” housing models came increasingly to the fore. In the years
following the earthquake of A.D. 62, he suggests that there was a move away from the atrium house
towards smaller residential units better suited for occupation by the “classi meno abbienti della socie-
tà” (6).1 This compartmentalization of residential architecture took place through the breaking up of
large dwellings and the addition of upper floors to older properties. For Helg, the latter development
is crucial to understanding the architecture of façades in A.D. 79. He contends that the destruction
of the Vesuvian cities interrupted a process in which the atrium house was being replaced by more
communal forms of housing, such as those found at Ostia. While not supporting R. C. Carrington’s
specious hypothesis that the Ostian insula was a direct descendant of the Pompeian domus,2 he does
imply (28) that multi-storey apartment blocks would have appeared in the Vesuvian cities had fate
not intervened. It is this “final phase” of development, then, that holds the most interest for Helg, and
much of the monograph is dedicated to the effects that the arrival of upper floors had on the appear-
ance of façades.
Helg uses the rest of chapt. 1 to describe his methodological approach. He notes that prior to his
research, only a limited number of studies were dedicated specifically to façade architecture, the most
important of these being V. Spinazzola’s “scavi nuovi”, an excavation campaign conducted along the
eastern Via dell’Abbondanza between 1910 and 1923.3 Unlike previous excavations, which focused
mainly on interior spaces, Spinazzola’s aim was to uncover the street and the façades of properties that
flanked it. Helg is complementary of Spinazzola’s methods, but points out that his analysis of façade
design was fragmented, with various structural elements (doors, canopies, windows, etc.) considered
in isolation rather than in context with one another.4 Helg seeks to move beyond this segregating

1 Although he doesn’t always cite him directly, Helg’s argument here and elsewhere relies heavily
on the (now largely dismissed) ideas of A. Maiuri, particularly those put forth in L’ultima fase
edilizia di Pompei (Rome 1942), in which he postulated that the owners of many atrium houses
abandoned the city following the earthquake and were replaced by a new merchant class (217). For
a thorough dismantling of Maiuri’s theory, see A. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and society in Pompeii and
Herculaneum (Princeton, NJ 1994) 123-31.
2 R. C. Carrington, “The ancient Italian townhouse,” Antiquity 7 (1932) 133-52. For a summary of
Carrington’s position (as well as others), see J. Packer, The insulae of Imperial Ostia,” MAAR 31
(1971) 43-44 and 61-63.
3 V. Spinazzola, Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell’Abbondanza (Rome 1953).
4 Throughout this section of the text there are no citations, which often makes it difficult for the
reader to follow precisely which aspects of Spinazzola’s work he is critiquing.
702 M. T. Lauritsen

approach, focusing instead on the external factors that influenced the overall appearance of the façade
in its final form. To achieve this, he examines a group of residential façades in detail. Each of the
60 properties in his sample is selected for its “representative character” and ability to answer the
“questions being asked” (8). Since he believes that a dwelling’s location is one of the two factors that
influences the design of its façade, Helg chooses properties on streets that exhibit different spatial
characteristics:5
(1) wide streets in central districts: Via di Mercurio and the eastern Via dell’Abbondanza at Pompeii; the
decumanus at Herculaneum;
(2) areas of “secondary importance”: Via del Menandro at Pompeii; cardo IV at Herculaneum;
(3) narrow alleys in internal quarters: Vicolo del Lupanare and Vicolo del Balcone Pensile, both at
Pompeii;
(4) “peripheral areas”: Via di Nocera at Pompeii.
He also includes a seemingly random group of dwellings from other parts of the two cities. These
13 properties comprise 22% of his sample, thereby calling into question the purpose of the location-
specific guidelines outlined above. Throughout, Helg’s discussion of the casa vesuviano is based almost
exclusively on the properties in his sample, a targeted approach that is problematic particularly when
he utilises single examples as evidence for broader trends, as other properties (ones not included in the
sample) sometimes contradict his conclusions (see below).
In the second chapter, Helg provides an historical overview of the study of façades, beginning
with the late 19th c. and proceeding with a summary of the debate surrounding the structural relation-
ships between atrium houses and Ostian insulae that dominated much of the 1930s. This discussion is
followed by a short review of research conducted towards the end of the 20th c., including books by
H. Lauter, A. Hoffmann and B. Gesemann.6 Helg’s survey is quite general, however, and rarely offers
insight into how these contributions relate to his main arguments. He then explores the recent renewal
of interest in façade architecture, but multiple referencing blunders7 and limited discussion hamper
this review of the literature. The chapter concludes with a short summary of J. Hartnett’s 2017 book The
Roman street, which according to Helg adopts a “complex approach”, but lacks the space to permit an
in-depth analysis of façades (30).8 But Hartnett’s chapter on façades, in particular, raised some impor-
tant questions about the contrast between the lavishly decorated interiors and comparatively staid
exteriors of Campanian domus, a topic that seemingly would be of great interest to Helg.
Chapter 3 turns to literary sources for information on the architectural composition of domestic
façades. Helg’s discussion begins in the same place as most studies of Roman houses, with Book 6 of
De Architectura. Vitruvius’ failure to describe the exterior of the domus has led some scholars to sug-
gest that the appearance of the façade was secondary to that of the interior. Helg, on the other hand,
believes that Vitruvius does offer a depiction of the domestic exterior — not in Book 6, but in Book 5. At
5.6.9, Vitruvius describes the three types of scenery (tragic, comic, satyric) used to decorate the scaena
of a theater. Helg contends that tragic decoration (columns, fastigia, statues, reliquisque regalibus rebus)
aims to replicate the façades of élite residences, whereas comic scenery, characterized by the windows
and balconies found on “private structures” (aedificiorum privatorum), portrays multi-storey tenements.

5 Rather than examining all the properties on these streets, however, Helg considers only those that
fit “tutte le linee programmatiche dello studio” (8).
6 H. Lauter, “Zur Siedlungsstruktur Pompejis in samnitischer Zeit,” in B. Andreae and H. Kyrieleis
(edd.), Neue Forschungen in Pompeji (Recklinghausen 1975) 147-54; A. Hoffmann, “Elemente bürger-
licher Repräsentation. Eine späthellenistische Haus-fassade in Pompeji,” in Akten XIII. int. Kongress
für Klassische Archäologie (Mainz 1990) 490-95; B. Gesemann, Die Strassen der antiken Stadt Pompeji.
Entwicklung und Gestaltung (Frankfurt 1996).
7 For example, on 30 Helg cites a 2013 passage in which . Laurence laments the lack of meaningful
research focusing on domestic façades. He fails to provide a footnote, however, and Laurence’s
text is not included in the bibliography. The passage in question seems to come from a 2014 book
chapter, in which Laurence cited R. Ling’s monograph, The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii, vol. I,
to support his position: R. Laurence, “Streets and facades,” in R. Ulrich and C. Quenemoen (edd.),
A companion to Roman architecture (Oxford 2014) 405.
8 J. Hartnett, The Roman street: urban life and society in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome (Cambridge
2017).
 Residential façades in the Vesuvian cities 703

He sees tragic and comic scenery as representing two types of urban neighborhoods: one home to the
elegant “palazzi dell’aristocrazia”, the other to the architectural disorder of the “caseggiati popolari”
(33). This seems to me a false dichotomy. The features listed in the “tragic” category are typically
associated with public buildings, and they are set in direct opposition to those that appear on aedifi-
cia privata. If a “social” distinction is being made by Vitruvius here — and it need not be — it is more
likely to be between public and private than between élite and common. In any event, this discussion
sets the stage for Helg’s interpretation in chapt. 6 of the urban layout of Pompeii, which he views as
fragmented along similar lines.
Following a useful lexicographical survey of the Latin terms employed to describe the composi-
tional elements of the façade, Helg concludes with an overview of Roman housing types, focusing on
the period between the 2nd c. B.C. and 1st c. A.D. He utilises a handful of literary sources to support
his central thesis, arguing that the impenetrable façade of the Republican domus — seen in tropes such
as the paraclausithyron — was eventually replaced by multi-storey forms of domestic architecture. This
process reached maturity by the time of Martial, who mentions (1.108.1-3) the pleasant view from the
window of his upper-floor cenaculum on the Quirinal. Helg then considers the development of insulae
in greater detail by examining the juridical sources concerning the construction of multiple occupancy
dwellings (43-48), moving through the legal regulations regarding the addition of floors to existing
properties as well as the general height restrictions enacted in the 1st-2nd c. A.D.
In chapt. 4, Helg proceeds to analyze individually each of the constituent elements of the façade,
dividing them into 8 categories: entrance doorways, benches, shops, windows, canopies, maeniana
and overhanging rooms, porticoes and columns, and decoration. Nearly half the chapter, however, is
dedicated solely to entrances. His examination of these doorways proceeds diachronically via three
phases: “the Late Samnite period”, “from the Sullan conquest to the Proto-Imperial period”, and “the
final decades before the eruption”. For the Samnite period, he argues that the size of the entrance,
often over 4 m in height, indicated to passers-by the internal scale of the atrium and its dependen-
cies.9 On the other hand, he notes that large doorways could also be employed as a ruse: the imposing
entrance to the Casa dei Ceii, for example, concealed the meagre dimensions of the property’s interior,
and a similar situation can be found in VIII.4.26-2710 where the lintel and capitals were situated at a
height that “non trova giustificazione nell’articolazione interna”(52). One could also read Helg’s data
in another way, however: perhaps the entrances of atrium houses were simply built to a greater height
during the pre-Roman period, regardless of the interior scale. Certainly this pattern repeats inside the
domus, where the average height of doorways positioned around the atrium dropped by more than 50
cm between the 2nd c. B.C. and the mid-1st c. A.D.11
Following the Sullan conquest, the new social order present in Pompeii was reflected by changes
in domestic architecture. Helg notes that during this period the peristyle replaced the atrium as the
primary reception space. With respect to façades, the “nuova classe dirigente” created innovative ways
of self-representation that included the addition of upper floors (62-63). Two of Helg’s houses built
during this phase (the Casa dell’Augustale in Pompeii and the Casa del Gran Portale in Herculaneum)
were provided with decorated entrances. In both cases he claims that the owners were seeking to
engage with an ancient custom (the decoration of the house door) using new materials and techniques,

9 To support this conclusion, he provides a table comparing the scale of the doorway with the area of
the “cruciform” atrium (fauces, atrium, alae, tablinum) in each house, as well as the percentage occu-
pied by the atrium within the entire plot. No units of measurement are provided but presumably
the doorways are given in meters and the area of the atrium in square meters.
10 This property appears under a different appellation (“Casa e pistrinum di Felix”) in Table 1 and the
catalogue.
11 M. T. Lauritsen, Ante ostium: contextualizing boundaries in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum
(Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Edinburgh 2014) 143-52. If we consider some sample data from Helg’s houses,
it is possible to see this process in action. In four of the houses dated to his first phase (Casa dei Ceii,
Casa del Salone Nero, Casa della Caccia Antica, Casa Sannitica), doorways opening off the atrium
averaged 279.3 cm in height. By the second phase (Casa dell’Efebo, Casa del Gran Portale), the
average height was 229.4 cm, and in houses of the “final phase” (Casa dell’Alcova, Casa di Fabius
Amandio, Casa di Nettuno e Anfitrite) it remained roughly the same, with an average of 231.7 cm.
704 M. T. Lauritsen

“per conferire a queste abitazioni di ‘seconda generazione’ piena dignità architettonica” (65). Yet the
inclusion of the Casa del Gran Portale in Helg’s second phase is odd, because although the core of
the property was probably constructed in the early decades of the 1st c. A.D., the elaborate brickwork
entrance (from which the house takes its name) certainly dates to the post-earthquake period.12
By and large, Helg’s descriptions of the other architectural elements follow the same line of argu-
ment. Between the 2nd c. B.C. and A.D. 79 he sees a progression away from the reserved designs of
Samnite dwellings towards a more disorganized, ad hoc approach to façade architecture, the appearance
of upper floors being the driving force behind the change. As second storeys became more common, so
too did canopies, overhanging rooms, porticoes, and other elements that altered the appearance of the
façade. Generally speaking, the more creative arrangements were initiated in Herculaneum, he says,
where multi-storey construction was more advanced. For example, porticoes lining either side of cardo
IV were connected to the covered sidewalk on the W side of the decumanus, creating shady paths that
extended around insulae V and VI. The uniform design of the columns suggests to Helg (81-82) that
the porticoes were erected at public expense. This is an interesting point, but regrettably little else is
said about it.
Chapter 5 begins by analyzing the developments of the “final period” in greater detail. Helg adopts
a traditional reading of the atrium house for this period, suggesting that self-representation and dis-
play were the main organizational concepts of the domus. Naturally, the façade played a rôle in this
regard, offering the first opportunity to express the status of the dwelling and its residents. He argues
that this expression could be achieved to varying intensities depending upon the quality (and quan-
tity) of the structural components employed. In general, “high-status” dwellings were denoted by the
height of the façade, the use of ashlar masonry or plasterwork mimicking it, and decorative elements
positioned around the house door (91). It is worth noting, however, that these criteria generally refer
to an architectural style associated with a comparatively small number of dwellings dating mostly to
the pre-Roman period. The examples that he employs to support his argument, including the Casa del
Fauno, Casa della Fontana Grande and Casa del Tramezzo di Legno (all built during the 2nd c. B.C.)
illustrate the problem.
Helg then proceeds to revisit some of the ideas laid out in chapt. 1, particularly Maiuri’s notion
that the system of single-family housing was breaking down. This disruption of the traditional house-
hold model had a major impact on the external appearance of atrium houses, which were modified
when new occupants moved in (96). In response to the “request for humbler housing”, upper-floor
apartments were added to many domus, increasing the overall height and necessitating further addi-
tions such as balconies and porticoes. In properties that were converted to workshops, Helg suggests
that façade elements were conditioned by the new activities taking place on the ground floor (e.g.,
doorways widened to permit cart access), with residential facilities shifted to the storey above. He
overstates the frequency of these developments, however, particularly with regard to workshops: only
26 Pompeian atrium houses present material evidence (e.g., mills, treading vats, cauldrons) for pro-
duction or manufacturing, and in more than half of these the production area was accessible via a
secondary entrance, having little impact on the dwelling’s exterior appearance.13 In fact, only a hand-
ful of converted domus present definitive evidence for modifications to the façade or the displacement
of residential quarters.14 But because Helg makes reference only to those properties included in his
catalogue and does not cite literature offering a more comprehensive view, the reader is left with the

12 T. Ganschow, Untersuchungen zur Baugeschichte in Herculaneum (Bonn 1989) 301-2; A. Mauri, Erco-
lano. I nuovi scavi (1927-1958) (Rome 1958) 78. Helg seems to date the doorway correctly in the
catalogue (323), noting that a major rebuilding occurred in the years following the earthquake, as
indicated by the Fourth-Style decoration found on the interior and the “caratteristiche del portale
di accesso, confrontabile con esempi analoghi di età flavia”.
13 M. Flohr, “Nec quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina? Spatial context of urban production at
Pompeii, AD 79,” BABesch 82 (2007), especially 135-37.
14 These are: I.5.2 (tannery: entrance widened); I.6.7 (fullery: entrance widened, residential facilities
probably moved); VI.3.8 (bakery: façade rebuilt, residential facilities probably moved); VII.1.36-37
(bakery: façade rebuilt); VII.2.11 (dyeing establishment: façade rebuilt); VIII.4.26-27 (bakery: façade
rebuilt); and VIII.6.1 (bakery: residential facilities probably moved).
 Residential façades in the Vesuvian cities 705

impression that the subdivision and repurposing of atrium houses was a widespread phenomenon,
when the opposite was the case.
The final chapter looks at the effects of the “new façade architecture” on the urban landscape of
the Vesuvian cities, utilising the spatial contexts outlined in chapt. 1: main streets, secondary roads
and alleys/peripheral areas. The survey of main streets begins with the neighborhood surrounding
the junction of the Via di Mercurio and Via della Fortuna, which he views as characterized by highly
refined and uniform examples of domestic architecture that confirm a “conscious conservative attitude”
amongst the residents (120). He notes that on the Via di Mercurio the properties took on a particularly
“aristocratic” appearance due to the absence of commercial activity along the thoroughfare.15 It is
true that there are comparatively few commercial properties on the upper Via di Mercurio,16 but to
the south of the junction with the Vicolo di Mercurio there were at least 7 tabernae and a fullery on the
W side of the street, as well as three tabernae (including two bars) on the E side. Nonetheless, Helg
suggests that the genteel appearance of the road was intentional, as residents sought to preserve the
character of the neighborhood by perpetuating traditional decorative forms. The homogenous nature
of the Via di Mercurio contrasts dramatically with the eastern Via dell’Abbondanza, he says, where
residential, commercial and industrial properties sit next to one another, with canopies and maeniana
projecting into the street. Here, amidst domus converted to shops and workshops, the upper floors
played an important rôle in the appearance of the streetscape. Helg contends that in the Via di Mer-
curio and Via dell’Abbondanza we see the two hypothetical urban scenarios (“élite” and “common”)
proposed in Vitruvius 5.6.9 (see above).17
With respect to secondary roads, he perceives a situation in which the “i contorni appaiono meno
netti e uniformi” than on main streets (here he refers presumably to the various architectural features
that projected from upper floors) (126). This distinction is supported by an analysis of the Vicolo del
Menandro and cardines IV and V at Herculaneum. At the E end of the former, the “elegant” façades
of the Casa dei Ceii and Casa del Menandro contrast with the Taberna di Niraemius (I.7.18), a small
dwelling to which an upper floor with a large panoramic window was added after the Augustan
period. In Herculaneum, Helg repeats the earlier discussion regarding the porticoes and maeniana
along the upper section of cardo IV, arguing that their presence indicates that “il processo di rinnova-
mento del paesaggio urbano era giunto qui ad uno stadio avanzato” (130).
He closes with a brief description of the circumstances in alleys and peripheral areas, suggest-
ing that the former have the poorest architectural arrangements because the limited space prohibited
passers-by from viewing an entire façade at a single glance. As a consequence, he argues that even the

15 Helg supports this conclusion with only circumstantial evidence, however, suggesting that the
street was unattractive for commercial interests because it terminates at Tower XI in the north (93).
While the lower Via di Mercurio was probably not as busy as other arterial streets in Pompeii,
there is considerable evidence to suggest that it saw as much (and perhaps even more) traffic
than the section of the Via della Fortuna that was home to the Casa del Fauno: see R. Laurence,
Roman Pompeii: space and society (London 1994) Chapter 6 and maps 6.1 and 6.5, in particular; E.-M.
Viitanen, L. Nissinen and K. Korhonen, “Street activity, dwellings and wall inscriptions in ancient
Pompeii: a holistic study of neighbourhood relations,” Theoretical Roman Arch. J. 2012 (2013) 61-80;
E. Poehler, “Measuring the movement economy: a network analysis of Pompeii,” in M. Flohr and
A. Wilson (edd.), The economy of Pompeii (Oxford 2016) 163-207.
16 The only definitive examples are located in the SE corner of insula VI.7, including the carpenter’s
workshop attached to the Casa di Tullius at VI.7.8-11 and the taberna at VI.7.13.
17 This is a brave proposition, given his less-than-convincing reading of the Vitruvian passage and
restrictive catalogue. Leaving aside the fact that many of the properties on the Via di Mercurio were
also subject to dramatic structural interventions (including the addition of upper floors, tabernae
and even a fullonica) after the Samnite period, this position contradicts the conventional view of
urban life in Pompeii (and the Roman world writ large), in which rich and poor are generally
thought to have lived cheek-by-jowl. For a summary of recent research on this topic, see L. M.
Mignone, “Living in Republican Rome: ‘shanty metropolis’,” in R. Evans (ed.), Mass and elite in the
Greek and Roman worlds: from Sparta to Late Antiquity (New York 2017) 100-17. On the exaggeration
of Regio VI’s aristocratic character, see Wallace-Hadrill (supra n.1) 68.
706 M. T. Lauritsen

exteriors of “high-status” buildings were adorned with comparatively simple decorations, citing the
Casa delle Nozze d’Argento and Casa del Marinaio as examples. This position can be contradicted,
however, by façades in other parts of Pompeii: the narrow, winding Via degli Augustali, for example,
was home to the Casa dell’Orso Ferito and Casa di Suettii, Potitus e Elainus. The façades of both houses
were adorned with elaborate programs of stuccowork (the second quite similar to the mock-ashlar
designs found on dwellings of the “aristocratic” Via di Mercurio), while a few blocks away, along the
Vicolo di Tesmo, the entrance to the Casa di A. Virnius Modestus was outfitted with cubic capitals and
a panelled architrave in the Samnite fashion, even though the door-jambs rendered in opus testaceum
suggest a much later construction date.
Four pages are reserved for concluding thoughts. The primary aims of the book, he suggests (133
ff.), were to explore the rôle that the façade played in the architectural arrangement of the domus as
well as its effect on “urban physiognomy”, with a particular focus on the changes that this complicated
equation underwent during the final decades of the Vesuvian cities. In the 2nd c. B.C., the materials,
decorative elements and overall organization of the façade served to indicate the homeowner’s upper-
class status. Helg remarks that this revelation contrasts with previous attempts to analyze Samnite-era
façades, which focused on the house door as the primary locus of valorization. Texts support this read-
ing of the archaeological evidence, he claims, and confirm that signs of distinction were employed to
mark out élite dwellings and neighborhoods. Indeed, he sees a close connection between the structural
and decorative design of the façade and the urban context in which it was located: the width of the
road and conditions of visibility in front of a property had a direct bearing on the complexity of the
decorative apparatus employed, to the point that high-status residences sometimes eschewed architec-
tural and decorative elaboration on account of their location.
Over the course of the 1st c. B.C. Helg identifies a reduction in complex decorative systems. The
“great achievements” of the Samnite period gave way to simpler arrangements, connected to the
changing social order following the installation of the Sullan colony — the reduction in the height
of entrance doorways being the best example of this phenomenon (134). The “final period”, he sug-
gests, was marked by considerable change, which included the addition of upper floors with canopies,
maeniana and large windows. These alterations often occurred in conjunction with functional adapta-
tions made to the dwelling’s interior. But the urban context and economic characteristics of particular
neighborhoods continued to influence the external appearance of residential properties (e.g., the Via
di Mercurio neighborhood retained its traditional appearance), a point that is supported by the ancient
literary sources. In the Vesuvian cities, however, this was an ongoing process, visible in the ad hoc
nature of some developments. Helg concludes by noting again that in Herculaneum the process had
reached a fairly advanced stage.

Discussion
Frontes is a laudable attempt to examine a subject that has been largely ignored by students
of Campanian houses, and there are significant parts of the book that will prove useful to both
specialists and generalists. Helg’s review of the secondary literature, discussion of façade mor-
phology and overview of the ancient sources will be important resources for those unfamiliar
with these topics, and the catalogue, which includes an architectural analysis and excavation
history of each property, will also come in handy for many readers. Yet I cannot help but view
this work as something of a missed opportunity, given the lack of recent research on the topic.
Helg’s central argument revolves around two related points:
(1) the architectonic structure of residential units in the Vesuvian cities changed over time, and
(2) the concurrent structural alterations to façades can be connected both to these internal
changes and to external forces (i.e., the “urban setting”).
The first of these points is not particularly innovative: Maiuri’s research of the 1940-50s relied
upon a diachronic reading of the domus, and many scholars since have emphasized the chang-
ing nature of Campanian residential architecture, particularly in the 1st c. A.D.18

18 E.g., J.-A. Dickmann, Domus frequentata: anspruchsvolles Wohnen im pompejanischen Stadthaus (Munich
1999); Pirson (supra n.1); A. Wallace-Hadrill, “The development of the Campanian house,” in J. J.
Dobbins and P. Foss (edd.), The world of Pompeii (New York 2007) 279-91.
 Residential façades in the Vesuvian cities 707

As for the second point, it is natural that internal structural modifications — particularly sub-
stantial changes such as the addition of a second storey — made an impact on a dwelling’s
external appearance. Helg is right to point out that the frontages of residential properties
evolved between the Late Samnite and Early Imperial periods, but once again it feels as if he is
telling us something that we already know. The matter of the “urban setting” is also problem-
atic. Helg’s entire catalogue is constructed with this aspect of the argument in mind, it being
the reason he selects houses from the four spatial categories outlined in chapt. 1. Utilising this
limited group of properties, he puts forward evidence supporting the notion that a dwelling’s
external appearance was determined by its immediate urban environment. While the façades
presented in his catalogue sometimes support this position, there are many others in the Vesu-
vian cities that are incongruous with it. What the reader is presented with, then, is an argument
based not upon the existing archaeological record but rather Helg’s narrow reading of it. If the
catalogue had been created with the intent to generate quantitative data from which broad-
scale conclusions could be drawn, then its purpose would be clear.19 Instead it acts as a form
of governor, limiting the author’s ability to present a faithful assessment of residential façade
architecture. This problem, combined with significant referencing mistakes, redundant argu-
ments, and the uncritical presentation of certain controversial positions (e.g., Maiuri’s reading
of the post-earthquake period), make it difficult to recommend the work as a general introduc-
tion to the subject. Informed readers will no doubt gain much from consulting the book, but
it should be read with the understanding that the contents have been colored by the author’s
methodological approach.
lauritsen@klassarch.uni-kiel.de Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

19 Helg presents these types of data only in Tables 1-3, which reveal basic information regarding the
dimensions of entrance doorways.

Dancing in the street. Or in the kitchen? Slaves,

freedmen, magistri vici, and grassroots leaders
Christer Bruun
HARRIET I. FLOWER, THE DANCING LARES & THE SERPENT IN THE GARDEN: RELIGION
AT THE ROMAN STREET CORNER (Princeton University Press, NJ 2017). Pp. xiii + 394, figs.
74, pls. 24. ISBN 978-0-691-17500-3. $45.
The dancing Lares is an interesting, prize-winning1 and quite complicated work, which brings
a contribution to Roman social and cultural history. The title contains the word “religion”, and
indeed the Lares2 belong to that realm, but Flower’s study essentially engages with a specific
aspect of Roman society and government: the grassroots organization of the population.
For a very obvious reason the book is dedicated to R. E. A. Palmer, Professor of Roman his-
tory at the University of Pennsylvania (1961-96). At the beginning of the Foreword, the author,
student turned friend of Palmer, reveals that she was fortunate enough to inherit “the rich
archive of material he collected” (on topics discussed in this book) and to benefit from stimulat-
ing discussions with a scholar who is known to have “worked consistently and with singular
passion on the neighbourhoods (vici) of ancient Rome, starting in 1959” (ix). That Flower was
bequeathed a treasure trove will be believed by anyone who has read, for instance, Palmer’s
5-page contribution in JRA 9 (1996).3 He passed away in 2006 but Flower’s bibliography is

1 It was awarded the Goodwin Award by the Society for Classical Studies in January 2018.
2 A note on spelling: Flower writes “lar” and “lares augusti” (augusti is an adjective and not the geni-
tive of Augustus), except in chapter headings, where all nouns and adjectives have an initial
uppercase letter, regardless of whether they are Latin or English words. In this review, I capitalize
Lar, since it is the name of a deity, and I do the same for Genius.
3 R. E. A. Palmer, “‘Private’ religion and compita at Ostia,” JRA 9 (1996) 381-85 (a review of J. T. Bakker,