The Archaeological and Social Analysis of Insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1St to the Mid-4Th Century CE

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2017 Rental housing and urban property: The archaeological and social analysis of insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1st to the mid-4th century CE.

Tipton, Katherine

Tipton, K. (2017). Rental housing and urban property: The archaeological and social analysis of insulae in Roman Ostia from the 1st to the mid-4th century CE. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27629 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3680 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Rental housing and urban property: The archaeological and social analysis of insulae in Roman Ostia from

the 1st to the mid-4th century CE.

Katherine S Tipton

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES

CALGARY, ALBERTA

MARCH, 2017

© Katherine S Tipton 2017 Abstract Rental housing was abundant in the Roman city. Evidence for this form of housing is found in almost every structural type: horrea, terme, balnea, insulae, etc. It stands to reason that the evidence for the relationship between the owners or operators of the buildings and the tenants would be visible in the archaeological record. The insulae of Ostia Antica confirm this suggestion through the amenity of upper floor toilets. Repairs to these features and their late addition to structures substantiate how important they were to the buildings’ function. Furthermore, they establish that there was a binding contractual relationship between those who owned/operated the buildings and their tenants. The legal texts, mainly found in the Digest of Justinian, provide very little corroborating evidence regarding these features. However, they do clarify that the contracts were reciprocal, under obligatio, and unique to each tenant, most likely because the agreement was verbal. The jurists were often circuitous when considering the rental housing contract, most likely embracing the fact that the dominus dictated the terms. Within the ambiguity of the contracts, the physical evidence of the upper floor toilets and their maintenance is situated, demonstrating not all rentals were a run-down derelict mess and that the tenants had some ability to enforce their right to use and enjoy their home. The reaction from those who owned and operated the buildings was to place the upper floor toilets in a stairway or corridor, a space outside of the living quarters, but still accessible for tenants and maintenance. There were many purposes for owning and participating in the urban housing market. Many times this property would have been mortgaged to raise funds for further investments or to secure a political position and even as housing for clientele, which suggests that these buildings were kept in good working order for more reasons than for the tenant’s use, but for property value and assessment. The image of rental housing and

ii urban property in Ostia Antica is one of integration among a diverse collection of structures, which demonstrates coordination, progress and a genuine interest from those who participated in it.

iii

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the committee members: Dr. Kelly Olson, Dr. Gerald Oetelaar, Dr. Lindsay

Driediger-Murphy and Dr. John Humphrey for their time and effort. I would especially like to thank my supervisor Dr. Lisa A. Hughes for her endless support and encouragement. Also, Dr.

Hanna Stöger for her kindness and generous advice. Finally, I would like to thank Christine Mains for her advice and for providing editorial clarity to the project.

I would like to express my gratitude to the Soprintendenza Speciale per il Colosseo, il Museo

Nazionale Romano e l’Area archeologica di Roma for providing the opportunity to survey and research in Ostia Antica. Thank you to Dott.ssa Paola Germoni, Dott.ssa Mariarosaria Barbera,

Arch. Francesco Prosperetii, and Marco Sangriorgio. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Soprintendenza Speciale per Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia, Il Soprintendente Prof. Massimo

Osanna and Direttrice Grete Stefani for the opportunity to survey in Herculaneum.

It was only with the generosity of the Wigham Family Travel Scholarship and the Humphrey-

McLeod Travel Scholarship that I was able to travel in order to fulfill my research requirement.

iv Dedication

My mother—she makes everything possible.

v Table of Contents Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iv Table of Contents ...... vi List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures and Illustrations ...... x Abbreviations ...... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction to Insulae ...... 1 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Summary of Chapters ...... 3 Chapter 2: Literary Review ...... 10 1.0 Introduction to Past Scholarship on Insulae and Housing...... 10 1.1 Architectural and Archaeological Approaches ...... 10 1.2 Art History ...... 21 1.3 Roman Textual Approach to Insulae ...... 25 1.3.1 Legal Texts...... 29 1.3.2 Epigraphic Evidence ...... 34 1.4 Economics and Demographics ...... 37 2.0 Archaeological Surveys in 2014 and 2015 ...... 41 2.1 Purpose ...... 42 2.2 Methods...... 44 2.3 Evidence ...... 46 2.4 Results: Interpreting the Evidence ...... 47 Chapter 3: The Context of Urban Rental Property ...... 49 1.0 Introduction ...... 49 2.0 The Rental Market ...... 55 2.1 The Contract and the Tenant ...... 59 2.2 Conductor and the Market ...... 66 2.3 Abandonment, Legal Recourse and Ostia ...... 71 2.3.1 Damages to Tenant’s Property ...... 74 2.4 Height and Insulae: Things Thrown from Upper Floors ...... 76

vi 2.5 Summary of Legal Perspective ...... 79 3.0 Servitudes, Usufruct and Utility: How to control the urban environment...... 81 3.1 Usufruct...... 85 3.2 Utility: Census (recensus) and insulae ...... 89 4.0 Urban Property and Politics: praedes praediaque ...... 92 5.0 Habitatio and Clientele ...... 96 6.0 Summary ...... 98 Chapter 4: The Archaeological Evidence of Ostia Antica...... 102 1.0 Introduction ...... 102 2.0 Evidence Collected from Field Surveys of 2014 and 2015...... 103 2.1 Preservation and Limitations of the Archaeological Remains...... 104 3.0 Construction Typology ...... 109 3.1 Recessed Shafts: Type I, II, and III...... 109 3.2 Tile Covers -tegulae hamatae and mammatae- for Type RS I-III ...... 112 3.3 Iron Nails ...... 116 3.3.1 Nail Patterns ...... 118 3.4 Function of Types RS I, II and III...... 124 3.5 Terracotta Pipes and Terracotta Pipe Impressions ...... 128 3.6 Grooved Walls and Seams ...... 131 3.7 Centre-Placed Iron Nails and a Water Tower ...... 133 3.8 Pipe Braces...... 134 4.0 Repairs and Maintenance ...... 135 4.1 Blocked Shafts ...... 138 4.2 Late Additions ...... 140 5.0 Location and Spatial Distribution ...... 142 5.1 Local Distribution ...... 143 5.2 City-wide Distribution ...... 146 6.0 Summary ...... 149 Chapter 5: The Distribution of Housing and Upper Floor Toilets...... 151 1.0 Introduction ...... 151 2.0 Horrea, Markets and Retail ...... 155

vii 3.0 Terme di Nettuno and the Bath Complexes ...... 163 4.0 Habitation and Repairs ...... 167 5.0 Medianum and Insulae ...... 178 6.0 Water and its association with insulae...... 183 7.0 Shared walls, paries communis and Type RS II shafts ...... 188 8.0 Residential Elements in Collegia ...... 191 8.1 Employment and Religion ...... 193 9.0 Summary ...... 196 Chapter 6. Conclusion ...... 200 1.0 Chapter Summary ...... 200 2.0 Contributions to the field ...... 201 3.0 Future Studies ...... 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 202 APPENDIX I: INSCRIPTIONS ...... 228 APPENDIX II: SURVEY RESULTS ...... 246 APPENDIX III: MODELS AND MEASURMENTS ...... 271 APPENDIX IV: MAPS...... 279 APPENDIX V: PERMISSION ...... 305

viii List of Tables Table 1. Ostia Antica: Survey Results ...... 246 Key for Table 1 and Maps in Appendix V 1-23...... 263 Table 2. Total of Repairs, Blocked Shafts and Late Additions. The row identification corresponds to Table 1...... 264 Table 3. Total of Features ...... 266 Table 4. Feature Attributes ...... 267 Table 5. Features according to location ...... 268 Table 6. Shaft Type according to Visible Location (values must be >5) ...... 268 Table 7. City Distribution of Features by Region and their Location...... 269

ix List of Figures and Illustrations Figure 1. Caseggiato di Diane (I. 3.3-4) Wall painting in the linear style with wall painting underneath applied directly to the wall...... 22 Figure 2. CIL 6. 07291 Found in the columbarium of the Volusianii located along the Via Appia. It is possibly linked to the known insula listed on a cippus under the Emperor of Claudius 48 CE. See CIL 6. 40887...... 34 Figure 3. IV.2.2-4_3. Type RS I shaft...... 41 Figure 4. First floor toilet in the façade of VII.1 in Herculaneum...... 42 Figure 5. II. 3.4_2. Type RS II...... 43 Figure 6. Agisoft Photoscan image and measurements of IV.2.2-4_3...... 44 Figure 7. V.6.1_1. Type RS III with late repair work...... 45 Figure 8. Water Tower located in IV.2.2-4_6 ...... 103 Figure 9. Calcification in III.14.4_1. Notice the overspray of calcification and human waste wrapping around the edge ending uniformly along the edge where the tile cap was held in place with iron nails...... 104 Figure 10. Plate covering shaft that went out of use in III.17.5_3...... 105 Figure 11. Iron nails found in I.16.2_2...... 106 Figure 12. Upper floor toilet in Pompeii, V.I.30-31. Notice the construction style with a large niche with a relief arch...... 107 Figure 13. Type RS 1 in IV.2.2-4_3 ...... 108 Figure 14. RS II located in III.17.5_3. Image from above looking down with terracotta tile lining the back and figure 10 displays a tile in the front of the same shaft...... 109 Figure 15. RS III located in III.10.2-3_2. Notice the aligned brick in the back of shaft...... 110 Figure 16. RS III located in III.10.2-3_2. Notice the aligned brick in the back of shaft...... 111 Figure 17. Box-flute located in the Terme di Nettuno. Note the iron nail with flanges holding in the two tiles simultaneously...... 111 Figure 18. II.6.3-4_1. Hanging tile coming through the vault...... 112 Figure 19. Located on the façade IV.10.9 along the Via del Mercurio, Pompeii. Red arrows point to iron nails...... 112 Figure 20. II.9.13_3. Notice the sinter and the large nail in blue projecting from the wall...... 113 Figure 21. Notice the depth of the nail and the broken edge of the masonry...... 113 Figure 22. Aligned iron nails found in III. 10.1_4 ...... 114 Figure 23. III. 10.1_4 right side of shaft from the viewer’s perspective...... 115 Figure 24. IV.4.6_5 note the nails side by side. This not the only example of this found, but the current study did not find many samples of this type of pattern. The blue line indicates the calcification build-up on the outside of the wall...... 115 Figure 25...... 123 Figure 26. I.13.4_1 Tile revetment installed in a late wall...... 123 Figure 27. II.8.5_1. Notice the changes in masonry style. The shaft was still in use and tile revetment was reinstalled...... 124

x Figure 28. Tile lined back I.12.9_2...... 125 Figure 29. Ground floor toilet found in Herculaneum: Casa due Atri VI.29...... 126 Figure 30. III.14.4_1 ...... 127 Figure 31. TP found in V.2.13_1. Notice the calcification...... 127 Figure 32. TP located in V.2.13_2 ...... 128 Figure 33. Grooved line for holding in the tile against the wall in II.5.1-3_4...... 129 Figure 34. Vertical seam in III.3.1-2...... 130 Figure 35. Iron nail found center of Type RS I in III. 9.17_3...... 131 Figure 36. Two iron nails to help hold the pipe vertical and align to the wall in IV. 4. 6 _1. .... 132 Figure 37. Travertine Pipe Brace in I.12.6_3 with the pipe impression located in the plaster behind...... 132 Figure 38. Travertine Pipe Brace in I.2.5_1, notice the heavy calcification on the wall, outlined with red...... 133 Figure 39. Caseggiato delle Trifore III.3.1-2_1...... 134 Figure 40. Caseggiato del Portico del Mosaico I.14.2_2...... 135 Figure 41. Image of III.10.2-3_2 from the interior...... 136 Figure 42. III. 10.2-3_2 Repair work on the outside of building directly behind shaft 2...... 136 Figure 43. Either repair, change of type or blocking of RS in I. 3.3-2_3...... 137 Figure 44. Caseggiato di Bacco e Ariana III.17.5_2 ...... 138 Figure 45. Late addition and/or possible repair to pre-existing pipe, in I.9.2_1...... 139 Figure 46. I.9.2_1 calcification buildup along the wall and outside of the masonry construction of the terracotta pipe...... 141 Figure 47. Caseggiato del Larario with a large terracotta pipe from the upper floor...... 141 Figure 48. Condensed table of shaft dispersion throughout the city’s regions...... 142 Figure 49. Caseggiato degli Trapazoidal III.4.1_1...... 143 Figure 50. I.12.9_1 ...... 144 Figure 51. I.8.3, the red arrow points to the first floor apartments. They were accessed from directly below...... 156 Figure 52. Forma Urbis: Slab piece VII.20 near the Tiber River. http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/plate.php?plateindex=24 ...... 157 Figure 53. Image of the ground floor architecture. It does not demonstrate the upper floor habitation that can been seen in figure 52...... 158 Figure 54. Shaft located in Horrea Epagathiana I.8.3_1 ...... 161 Figure 55. II.4.2_10 Shaft type RS III...... 164 Figure 56. Terme Nettuno II.4.2_9 Holes in the back of the shaft possible for a plate. Much higher in the shaft there could be an iron nail. This shaft was not labelled with others that had very clear evidence of iron nails placed in the center...... 165 Figure 57. I.12.7_1. The terracotta pipe is concealed in masonry that dates to the early-mid 4th century...... 168

xi Figure 58. III. 10.1_2. First floor toilet located in its terminal location. The wall around it suggests privacy, but they are late additions with modern reconstruction. Photo taken 2006. .. 169 Figure 59. Directly under the toilet in figure 58. The masonry covering the terracotta pipe and wall painting is still preserved...... 169 Figure 60. III.10. 1_9. Terracotta pipe running through the first floor from the floors above. Photo taken from Via della Aurighi with a telephoto lens. Notice the alterations to the masonry most likely from the late addition of the pipe and the damage done to the corner of the vault where the pipe was added...... 170 Figure 61. III.10.1_11...... 171 Figure 62. III.10. 1_6. Scale on left-hand side is 2 meters. Notice the heavy calcification on the bottom and the rounding of the terracotta pipe impression left through the vault and deposits. Image on the left is a close-up of the area in the green box...... 172 Figure 63. IV.2.2-4_2. Green arrows indicate nail holes...... 173 Figure 64. IV.2.2-4_2. Green arrow indicates nail holes. Notice the calcification build up on the edges of the shaft...... 173 Figure 65. V.6.1_1...... 174 Figure 66. Insula Arriana Polliana VI.6.22. Terracotta pipe added later to the wall and runs through the relief vault...... 175 Figure 67. Insula Arrian Polliana, Pompeii VI.6.1. Red dots indicate the location of down-pipes. After Peterse 1985. Room 35 in this image corresponds to Room 22 in Figure 66...... 176 Figure 68. I.4.2_1 ...... 177 Figure 69. Pompeii. IV.13. Shafts construction is similar to the one in Caseggiato del Portico dell’Ercole in figure 70...... 184 Figure 70. Water tower found in IV.2.2-4_6. The red arrow points to an iron nail placed in the center of the shaft. The image on the right show the area in detail...... 185 Figure 71. Detailed map of shaft of the water tower and shaft in IV.2.2-4. The proximity of the tower and the shaft suggests they could be working together...... 186 Figure 72. IV.2.2-4_3...... 187

xii Abbreviations

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

LTUR Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae

TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae

TPSulp Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum

xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction to Insulae ‘…deversitor cum parte cenulae intervenit…inquit, ‘Vos mehercules ne mercedem cellae daretis, fugere nocte in publicum voluistis. Sed non impune. Iam enim faxo sciatis non viduae hanc insulam esse sed M. Mannicii.’1

1.0 Introduction The scene of urban housing provided, cited from Petronius’ Satyricon, is an edifying beginning to the tangled mess of Roman housing. The overlapping nature of terminology and the subtleties of architecture make it nearly impossible to discern between the functional differences and the vocabulary used to describe housing. Even the innkeeper, the deversitor2 needed to explain that there was a difference and that this insula was not neglected or to be taken advantage of.

Petronius wove and overlapped the terms for housing throughout his text, creating an image of housing that was diverse physically and functionally, which consequently required a broad range of vocabulary to define it (or to explain it). This thesis seeks to unfold some of these complicated layers by addressing two concurrent themes. First, it demonstrates the variety and complexity of insulae in the urban landscape. This includes the social, economic, and political role that these buildings played in Roman cities. Second, it pursues the current conversation regarding the relationship between the dominus, the conductor (a person who subleases for profit), and the tenant to answer a single question: does the archaeological record provide evidence of the contractual relationship between the dominus and tenant?3 In order to substantiate this relationship, supporting evidence can be found in the provision and the repairs of the upper floor toilet/water features

1 Petron. Sat. 95 “...an innkeeper came in with part of our little dinner…he said… ‘I declare you meant to run off in the night into the public street rather than pay for your room. But it will not be unpunished. I will teach you that this insula does not belong to a poor widow, but to Marcus Mannicius.’” 2 The term deversitor derives from deversorium, which is typically describes as short-term housing, much like a hotel or an inn for travelers, but it could have had long-term residents as well. TLL 5.1. 947. 3 Working definitions will be placed in footnotes and they will begin in section 2.1. 1

located throughout the city of Ostia Antica. These features were located and catalogued through the summers of 2014 and 2015. Analysis of the repairs found in the toilet and water features associated only with the upper floors demonstrates three key points: one, they unambiguously reveal habitation; two, they were an element that the owner/operator was contractually required to maintain; and three, their location is frequently found in public (or commonly accessed) areas within the building, such as stairways and corridors. Combined, this evidence establishes that these features were actually located in anticipation of maintenance, revealing that many of these buildings were designed to facilitate the contractual nature of the tenant’s, conductor’s and owner’s relationship.

Further exploration of this relationship confirms that there was a general desire to keep the buildings in functional order contrary to the criticism from ancient Roman authors in their discussion of insulae. Supporting evidence for this is found in legal discussion mainly in the Digest of Justinian.4 It provides much of the secondary evidence for the conclusion that the residential element of insulae was the most important for three reasons: one, it was likely the most lucrative element; two, the residential area of the insulae was spatially the most significant. This possibly indicates that it was the largest portion of the investment made in the construction of the building; and three, it bound the dominus, conductor(s), and tenants in an economic, social, and political relationship.5 This reciprocal and obligatory relationship is demonstrated by the fact that there is no direct legal evidence for upper floor toilet features to exist; there would be little purpose in adding these features if they were only going to be neglected. In addition, there are many buildings without any evidence for upper floor amenities, which suggests either that there could be functional

4 The version of the Digest used is the edited and translated four volume set by Watson, Mommsen and Krueger 1985. 5 See Chapter 2 for the reciprocal social practice of obligation. 2

differences in the habitation patterns or that the landlords had no interest in providing these features.6 Overall, it appears that the landlords and operators were not only providing, but also repairing the toilets, which suggests a greater investment in their building, their tenants, and their city.

Due to the economic nature of insulae, some have labelled their function a commercial structure.7 However, calling this building commercial in no way unpacks the complexity and the variety of structures, which researchers and the Romans identified as insulae.8 Keeping this in mind, the intent and interpretation of insulae within this thesis is to explore the nuances and to understand the Roman texts, inscriptions, and the archaeological evidence.9 This method addresses the scale of rental housing that existed in the Roman city of Ostia Antica and in some aspects beyond, since we find the terminology applied to many Roman cities both fictional, as in Petronius’ work, and real as they appear in the inscriptions from Pompeii and Rome.10 In order to proceed, an overview of the relevant scholarship on insulae is required.

2.0 Summary of Chapters In summary, this thesis seeks to provide the archaeological evidence of the relationship between the dominus and the tenant. The archaeological evidence substantiates that some of the structures within Ostia Antica, those that contained upper floor features of toilets or water, had been repaired and maintained and, if needed, additions of extra downpipes were placed in the

6 There could have been many reasons to not include upper floor toilets, such as the expense for connecting to the main sewer lines under the streets. There also could have been attendants for removal of the matella and there was no need for upper floor toilets. 7 Holleran 2012, Lo Cascio 1997, Wallace-Hadrill 2008, Garnsey 1976. 8 Terminology will be dealt with in order as it appears in text throughout the thesis in footnotes. 9 Lo Cascio 1997 is the best and most reasonable discussion regarding the term insulae. Coarelli 1997 provides good analysis as well. 10 For example, in Petronius’ Satyricon the term insulae, 95-96, and cenaculum, 38, appear in his fictional cities. It is equally possible that the author was imposing known terminology into a fictional environment with the intent of creating a relatable urban image. 3

buildings. Therefore, the contractual relationship between tenants and dominus was demonstrated in the most physical sense. Each chapter provides a layer of evidence to support this argument, ending with Chapter 4, which provides the concluding evidence and discussion for this topic.

Chapter 1 has provided an over-view of the subject to be presented in the following chapters.

Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the past scholarship regarding insulae and a literary review. There is no method for discussing housing that is without its problems. As demonstrated in the previous sections, housing is extraordinarily complicated. The structures in Ostia are no exception, and the features that functioned on upper floors are even more complex to interpret.

The main arguments for the nature of insulae were presented by addressing the issues of how scholarship has approached the topic architecturally, decoratively, legally, and demographically.

The results of these studies have led to the conclusion that insulae were complex structures intended to serve a multitude of purposes. All levels of society can be associated with insulae depending upon their relationship to the building. The Romans were more ambiguous about these structures and seemed to prefer a wide range of terminology to address housing and to describe sections of insulae such as tabernae or deversorium instead of the entire structure. Legally, these structures were more complicated than some scholars have wished to address. The wide range of architectural differences demonstrates that insulae were very diverse structures whose components required an equally diverse set of vocabulary to describe their inclusive purpose. The housing market in the ancient Roman city had many options because it existed on a massive spectrum. The colloquial nature of architectural vocabulary and its social identity is not one dimensional in its definition but can be elusive. There was purpose in the language and the differences between the jurists’ writing and that of the average Roman author discussing the city of Rome.

Chapter 3 is an exploration of the current conversation of Roman rental housing regarding its social, economic, and political significance to the city. Much of this evidence is supported by the Digest of Justinian. The main question is simple: how did urban property actually work and where does obligatio fit in the context of rental housing? There seems to be a general understanding of urban property, but there is more to consider regarding the popularity of insulae. There are three main factors to consider in the growth of insulae and housing in general: one, their architectural variation; two, the wide descriptive vocabulary for housing; and three, an open and verbal contract.

The evidence for these components can be observed in the urban landscape of cities like Ostia

Antica. It took a slow process of urban development and maturity to develop Ostia, which makes these three elements equally ambiguous. They rest upon developing an appreciation for the urban housing market and establishing the broad reasons why one might invest in it. There were many reasons, such as for financial investment, for employment as one who sublet insulae (typically known as a conductor), for raising future loans, for dowry property, for clients, or for securing political office. All of this further supports the argument about why these structures become prolific and why legal conversation regarding them had to evolve to keep up with their economic significance. All of the evidence presented in Chapter 3 suggests that the economic value of insulae was part of the relationship between the landlord and tenant, which was reflected in the discussions of the jurists. There was nothing egalitarian about it, but upholding the contract and using the structure to further one’s own political and economic opportunities created more opportunity for the tenants. It would have been in the owner’s interest to keep up with the repairs within his insulae.

Chapter 4 provides the archaeological evidence collected in the surveys broken down into essential components that are provided in the catalogue in Appendix II. The goal of this chapter is to describe each component of the shafts located in the survey and their significance. The methods

and description of the features are essential in qualifying the argument that the archaeological remains demonstrate the relationship between the landlords and tenants. It also establishes the quantity of evidence. The analysis and discussion is specific to the archaeological material. Images and maps are provided in the text in order to help clarify the construction style of the shafts. Further images and maps are located in appendices III and IV. Discussion of the significance of the finds will be handled in Chapter 5 because it provides the overall significance of the evidence found in the survey.

Chapter 5 discusses the evidence presented in Chapters 1 through 4 in the form of case studies that will bring together the archaeological evidence for the upper floor toilets in rental housing. Each section is intended to highlight a specific element of housing found in the survey.

There are several unique trends through the city, and some of this can be compared to similar evidence in Pompeii and Herculaneum. The small amount of evidence for insulae in Rome is included, as well. The significance of the case studies will address the diversity of housing found in Ostia. The housing market was far more inclusive than expected, and this is a reflection of building diversification. There were no building types — balnea, horrea, etc.— found that excluded upper floor toilets. The diversity generated a broad descriptive set of terms to utilize architectural significance of the building. This suggests that overall, the housing pattern in Ostia was more advantageous for the tenant because it existed on a spectrum and it was abundant, which implies that there was housing for a broad range of social and economic classes. Furthermore, this attests to the awareness of those who worked and built the structures to capitalize on the various groups who resided in Ostia on a permanent and temporary basis.

Habitation and alterations seem to exist codependently. As buildings began to change, perhaps becoming more crowded, additional downpipes and shafts were added to accommodate 6

these changes while other shafts were abandoned. Evidence of this activity can be found throughout the city. It ties together the unique structural development each building had over its life span. This section also sets up the following discussion points on social status, which includes the medianum-style apartments (cenacula). Examples of this type of apartment are relatively common in Ostia and in Case a Giardino they are prolific. Other distinctive finds from the survey are the shafts that seem to be operating much like a water tower. These shafts are all type RS I (see

Chapter 4 section 3.1) and have an iron nail in the back of the shaft. The inclusion of water within insulae is not uncommon in Ostia, but that it is contained within the walls and running to the upper floor suggests more structural diversity, especially considering how rarely it was included. Another rare feature was the type RS II shaft (Chapter 4, section 3.1). This shaft had tile revetment in the back and it was not as common as type RS I. The initial conclusion is that this shaft was designed to prevent any leakage from the waste on opposite side of the shared wall (or party wall) from entering the neighbouring property or from ruining their wall paintings. There is no distinct timeframe for this type of shaft. They can be found dating from the Hadrianic period to at least the mid-fourth century CE.

The final sections included in Chapter 5 address the socio-economic nature of the evidence for housing in structures associated with collegia. The evidence for the collegia in Ostia is well known, but placing housing within it is more complicated. Stöger’s work in Ostia has concentrated on the spatial analysis of the insulae in Ostia with a focus on many of the known collegia.11

Structurally, there are many similarities found among buildings designated as insulae and those labelled collegium or that are thought to contain collegia. There were clearly overlapping functions

11 Stöger 2015 and 2011a. 7

within these structures. One important architectural feature is the distyle columns found in many of the buildings known as collegia, where an area is off-set by two columns (typically this space is aligned with the entrance and the courtyard). This arrangement of columns is also found in structures thought to be medianum apartments. The combined element of housing indicated by the upper floor toilets and this unique architectural feature suggests a broad range of activities taking place. Within these buildings, there is also considerable evidence for a type of horizontal zoning because they contain upper floor toilets for the tenants but also, on occasion, a large ground floor toilet. Distinguishing between the many reasons why this was necessary further suggests a degree of functional integration between the architecture and the socio-economic significance as competing elements. Overall, the political, social, and economic role of insulae in the development of collegia and urban property has its transparent qualities. Owning and being associated with property was a powerful political and economic weapon for those who wished to wield it. This links together much of the discussion in Chapter 3, which considers the many reasons for investing in urban property. The inclusive and public nature of collegia parallels that of insulae while simultaneously sharing exclusive and private characteristics as well. This is followed by Chapter

6, which provides the conclusion for the entire thesis.

The appendices are the final component of the study. They provide additional information to accompany the chapters. Appendix I providesthe collection of inscriptions used throughout the thesis. Appendix II is the collection of evidence found during the survey listed in table 1 followed by several tables that identify the quantity of the shafts and their distribution throughout Ostia.

These tables will be referred to throughout the thesis. Appendix III provides images of seven shafts that have been rendered though Agisoft PhotoScan, which is designed to provide models to extract measurements through photogrammetry. The images provide visual evidence of the nails and

construction style of the shafts. The measurements display the nuances in the repair work and provide evidence for the unique approach that each dominus and/or architect used for their building. Finally, Appendix IV provides all of the maps of Ostia. The regions are colour coded and all the upper floor toilet features listed in Appendix II table 1 are found on the maps. The first figure in Appendix IV is a distribution map of the city highlighting the density of the shafts in buildings that have evidence for two or more shafts.

Chapter 2: Literary Review

1.0 Introduction to Past Scholarship on Insulae and Housing. One of the more common features found in modern scholarship is the comparison of Ostia to Rome and the desire to use the remains of one city to fill in the gaps of the other. For example,

Calza labelled Ostia a miniature Rome.12 Meiggs characterized Ostia as an idealized vision of

Rome, but both comments are broad statements that were intended to cover only generalities.13

There are great differences between these cities, yet modern scholarship many times allows for ancient authors of Rome to speak for Ostia as well, and for any other Roman city for that matter.

Comparative methods are commonly used in studies of the ancient world with the intent of exposing the differences. This back and forth between Rome and Ostia has led to the unfortunate conclusion of symmetry between the cities, which blurs their unique elements and generalizes their similarities. In the following section, modern scholarship is examined regarding the ability to address the holes in the archaeological and textual archive in order to create a consistent picture of the ancient Roman city. Discussion will include a variety of approaches (e.g., architectural, archaeological, textual, economic, and demographic) that deal with insulae.

1.1 Architectural and Archaeological Approaches The discussion begins with how scholars have dealt with housing (domus14 and insulae15) along with its associated material culture and water/sewer features. Domus have been interpreted

12 Calza 1933: 408, Garnsey 1976: 129. 13 Meiggs 1973: 13. He suggests that if you want to know Rome, go to Ostia, but further stresses that Ostia had its own identity separate from Rome. Some of the comparison is easy to understand. Ostia’s location means that it was the last vision of Rome as one left and the first image of the city as they returned. The role of Ostia as a visual reminder of Rome has some bearing; however, the development of Ostia exemplifies the complex layering of urban environment with a superficial layer of shared ideology with Rome, which is found throughout the entire Empire, but underneath there is something entirely organic and unique to Ostia. 14 Domus: A house typically interpreted as the residence of the paterfamilia and his family. TLL: 5.1.1949. See also Berger 1953: 442. 15 Insula: A structure intended for lease as a whole as well as individual spaces. TLL 7.1.2033. See also Berger 1953: 505. 10

to represent everything that is desirable both socially and economically. Multiple ancient sources discuss that a domus was entirely intended to captivate those who entered and passed by.16 This implies that the domus was intended to display the owners’ origins and, more importantly, their personal economic, social, and political statuses.17 Insulae are offered in opposition to domus as they have no pedigree and possibly originated as slave housing.18 They tend to be treated as an anonymous collection of buildings and inhabitants who would be largely submissive and bound to a hierarchical relationship with a patron. This unfortunate paradigm of domus and the patron versus insula and the client or inquilinus19 has been corrosive to modern scholarship because it assumes that a strict social and economic division can be found by assigning groups to a specific type of status. This observation has many components, largely based on interpretation of ancient commentary with very little attempt to free it from the rhetorical devices used by some Roman authors to cloak their conversation. Jansen, for example, has noted a particular desire for researchers to focus on derogatory Roman writing and ignore archaeological evidence, but notes that the inverse can be equally true.20 While Jansen’s argument is based upon scholarly interpretation of hygiene, the same arguments are found in housing, but there are complementary roles between domus and insulae. These two forms of housing need not be on either end of the spectrum.

16 Vitr. De arch. VI.5.2; Tac. Ann. 3.55; Vell.Pat 2.14.3; Plin. HN 36.1.10. Wiseman 1985: 393-396. Mauri 1958, Wallace-Hadrill 1994, Hales 2003. 17 Dig. 1.9.11. 18 Dig. 50. 16.166; 50.16.203. See also Lex Julia Municipalis CIL 1.2.593; see also Hardy 1975: 154 section 82. Discusses habitation for public slaves in public buildings. Insulae are legally considered public. See chapter 2 section 3. 19 Inquilinus: A person who is either a traveler or possibly foreigner living in a leased space. TLL 7.1.1807. See also Berger 1953: 503. 20 Jansen 2000: 276. 11

The most common way in which researchers have dealt with insulae and architecture in general is to create a typology similar to those created for domus. Wallace-Hadrill developed his quartile system in order to address social and economic development of the Pompeian domus. It is possibly one of the better-rounded typologies for housing. His approach was based on size and number of rooms in the structure, the atrium, its decorative elements, its accessibility, and its location.21 This assessment allows for observations and the inclusion of structures that do not conform to the large domus typically associated with wealth, which many of the structures in Pompeii demonstrate.22

Yet the subtleties of architecture and decoration still do not identify the category or the functional terms that Romans would have used to define or describe these structures.23 Decorative elements, moreover, can be broadly interpreted as to their social value or economic significance.24

For Ostian insulae, it is difficult to create a typology due to the fact that researchers are largely bound to the evidence on the existing ground floor of buildings, even though the function and form of the structure was intended to rise up many stories.25 The most frequently referenced sources for insulae and their architecture are the works of Packer and Calza. Packer devised three main groups, which could be further broken down; ultimately there were twelve different types and there could be combinations of the subgroups as well.26 He included decorative elements, but the level of preservation in Ostia does not provide as broad a picture of these features as does that in other cities, such as Pompeii. Their observations are steeped in the social and economic value of these

21 Wallace-Hadrill 1994: 80-82. 22 Packer1975: 133-46. Schoohoven 2006: 71. 23 Robinson 2005:91. Domus di Pansa (VI.6.1-23) is a prime example. Initially, identified by scholars as domus, yet a dipinti advertisement describes it as an insulae with components for lease. 24 Wallace-Hadrill 1994: 164-67. 25 For a study on insulae located in Rome see Priester 2002, Brandt 2012, Quilici 1986-87. Packer 1968-69. 26 Packer 1971:5-10; Calza 1958: 237. Calza’s is a simplified version of Packer’s. Calza and Gismondi 1923. 12

buildings; Packer’s language exemplifies the distance between domus and insulae, phrasing insulae as “multiple dwellings” compared to a domus as “private mansions.”27

Boethius and Meiggs also created their own structural typology, but theirs breaks down into four groups as opposed to the more elaborate categories of Calza and Packer.28 There are many overlapping similarities among all the typological groups as well as differences, with each author attempting to find the singular defining feature to separate their categories. Two main points can be taken from these studies: one, that interpretation can vary among scholars, which can have an effect upon the suggested function of the structures; two, and more importantly, that their studies demonstrate the wide variation among these structures. Some suggest that this is related to the origin of insulae. For example, Boethius based the evidence for his typology on his interpretation of the origin of insulae. He thought that they developed out of the tabernae, making them unique and indigenous to Italy.29 Both Van Aken and Harsh work to place Greek influences on the insulae of Ostia and suggest that they stem from the Hellenistic palace.30 Ulrich suggests that some of the comparison to a Greek antecedent comes from the use of courtyard architecture, which was a common feature in Hellenistic architecture and can also be found in Caseggiato del Graticcio located in Herculaneum.31 Overall, there is little evidence to substantiate a comparative method for insulae developing from any specific type of structure, nor is there much effort to find a relation to any other building type than the domus.32 Allison’s work suggests that creating typologies only hinders the capability of the architecture to be understood because labels are imposed upon them.

27 Packer 1971: 71. 28 Boethius 1960: 158-61; Meiggs 1973: 242-43. 29 Boethius 1960: 157 and 1934: 167. Carrington 1933. 30 Harsh 1935: 31-32, Van Aken 1950:116. 31 Ulrich 2014: 335-340. 32 Boyle 1972: 253-60, remarks that insulae must be fashioned out of horrea. Ulrich 2014, Packer 1971: suggests there is influence from at least four differing (or competing) types of structures. 13

The courtyard is a particularly susceptible architectural space for this to happen because the term atrium, which is assumed to be an omnipresent feature in a domus or any type of Roman housing, is further compounded with idealized concepts of Vitruvius.33 The only thing that all of these discussions clarify is how much modern scholars have romanticized the domus in order to emphasize the social and economic distance between the two housing types, domus and insulae.

Traditionally, it would seem that for anyone to understand the significance of insulae, one would need to establish their evolution. Yet nearly every attempt to explain their origin begins with a comparison to the domus and the atrium. None of these studies has demonstrated the origin of insulae, nor has any illuminated the logical evidence for the development of the insulae from the domus or from Hellenistic antecedents. Furthermore, Wilson’s work on the origins of classical architecture warns against a dogmatic theory of progressive evolution in structural typology. There can be leaps and times of stasis.34 Given the closely bound nature of insulae to the social and economic environment, it would appear more logical to understand its development as having highs and lows, which could be more closely reflected in political stability or lack of stability in the last two hundred years of the Republic. This lack of stability can be countered with the stability of the first and second centuries CE, in which insulae flourish.

Interpreting the origin of a structure as complex as an insula to simply evolve from a building type (domus) that was the pinnacle of social, economic, and political expression is a limiting observation of the architectural nuances that both domus and insulae display. This is especially true when in cities such as Pompeii it is difficult to tell what owners would have labeled their own buildings or how the buildings functioned. Packer looked to Pompeii and Herculaneum to

33 Allison 2001: 189-92. 34 Wilson-Jones 2014: 76. 14

substantiate the complexity and diversity he found in the remains of Ostia, but he worked from the interpretation that almost everything was a domus.35 The evidence found in these cities that does align with our understanding of insulae does not substantiate origin or influence. The difficult part is that researchers do not know what the majority of structures in cities, such as Pompeii, were ever designated. For example, the House of Pansa (VI.6.1-23) in Pompeii, which initially looks like a typical domus, was actually labelled by its owner an insula with various components for lease.36 There is evidence for hospitium, insula, praedia, tabernae, cenaculum, domus, pergula in

Pompeii, but others like cauponae, popinae, thermoplium, stablum, deversorium are all known from Roman authors and are considered to have existed in Roman cities simultaneously.37 What is the difference between them all when there is so much functional overlap, all of them being associated with residential, commercial, entertainment, and food/drink activities?38 The challenging element is that insulae seem to have been designed to include elements of shops or factories as well as residences from their beginning. This hybrid type of structure is then further blurred by the seamless architecture of Pompeii or Herculaneum where it is very difficult for modern scholars to locate property boundaries and therefore the properties’ function.39 It is not known whether the tabernae along the streets were rented out or not, or how the dominus identified them. The addition of tabernae to a domus was thought to increase profit.40 The idea of diversifying one’s property portfolio seems logical. But the desire to create a structure that included the ability

35 Packer 1971 and Packer 1975: Harsh 1935 does as well. He considers them to be transitional and linked to Greek antecedents. 36 de Albentiis 1989: 44. 37 CIL: Hospitium 4.0087, 4.03779: Insula 4. 00138, 4. 04429, 4. 07766: Taberna 4. 00138, 4. 01136, 4. 02324, 4.00064: Cenaculum 4. 01136, 4. 00138: Domus 4.00138, 4. 04853, 4. 04855, 4. 05065, 4.06885, 4. 08339: Praedia 4.01136: Pergula 4.01136, 4.00138. See Appendix I for the collection of select inscriptions. 38 Mac Mahon 2006: 290-91. DeFelice 2008: 474-86. Robinson 2005:91. 39 Craver 2010a, Pirson 1997 and 1999, Schoonhoven 2006: 71. 40 Dig.25.1.6. 15

to spatially articulate its profit potential and to maximize the horizontal and vertical capacity of

Roman architecture separates insulae from domus even more. It is within the inclusive elements of insulae that the complications arise. All of the vocabulary previously listed was or could be a component within an insula and leased independently.41 This was their main function, to be a structure that was composed of various, and to some degree competing, commercialized sections.

The diversity found among insulae expresses the exploitative capacity of the structure both physically and legally.

If we look in Herculaneum for Ostia’s predecessors, there is evidence for buildings that scholars might call insulae, for example Casa del Tramezzo di Legno (III. 4-12), Casa a Graticcio

(III. 13-15), Casa Del Bicentenario (V. 13-18), or in Occ. II. 1-18. What Herculaneum displays is the degree of integration of rental housing within traditional urban domus architecture. This may have been a driving factor in creating insulae as an independent structural form, possibly because of the complicated relationship between domus and insulae when their boundaries are blurred by preexisting architecture. Certainly in legal discussion, insulae and urban rental property were not a new subject in the early to mid-first century CE when these types of structures were being added to the urban landscape in great quantity. In this period, legal discussion was in the process of being refined and extended, especially by Labeo and Alfenus under Augustus.42 The structures that are preserved today, in Pompeii, Herculaneum, Ostia, and Rome, represent many decades of architectural transition, growth, and experimentation, which might have been encouraged by newly developing legal thought.43 Most likely, the archaeological remains found today of structures that

41 Dig. 5.3.27.1. Brothels should also be considered in this context. 42 Examples are found in the Digest: Alfenus 19.2. 29. pr., Labeo 19.2.28.2. See also Frier1980: 58-59. 43 Possibly imperial influence as well. The Senatus Consultum Hosidianum CIL 10.1401 found in Herculaneum dates to Claudius. Under this legislation, it was illegal to demolish property without living in it, nor could one neglect their property in order that the city’s image not be left in ruin. Most likely, there was an exchange of influences between the jurists and the building that they witnessed. 16

are identified as insulae have evolved significantly from the original design. The broad range of structures is possibly the best indication of just how far they had advanced. The origin of insulae cannot be found in a single linear process, nor can a singular topic of architecture or law represent all of the different examples of these buildings or the external pressures (social, economic, etc.) that required them to evolve. Their origin is not a mystery, but bound by urban needs, which were unique to the region and the individuals who desired to invest in this form of structural type.

In Ostia, where there was space to build, great effort and expense was used to reconstruct the city in the early second century CE. Architectural experimentation and purpose are found equally in the city. Case Giardino is the foremost example with Caseggiato degli Aurighi and many others providing samples of variety and inclusivity, which has led to the conclusion that they must be insulae. How these structures relate to the earliest samples of insulae most likely were, architecturally, very distant. For one, the building material was far superior,44 which allowed for greater height and mass in ways not previously possible. Also, legal discussion concerning locatio conductio had continued to progress, which possibly relates to the popularity, economic, and architectural success that an insula could provide.45

Well-documented key features of insulae are shops (tabernae)46 especially those that sell food.47 They are also known to include residential spaces for lease to the public or habitation for those who worked there.48 In a popular scene from Petronius’ Satyricon, food and drink are

44 Ulrich 1996 and 2000. Meiggs 1973: 241, “Romans built more stoutly than necessary.” 45 du Plessis 2007:141-43, suggests that locatio conductio might have begun in the later part of the second century BCE. The development of the modern apartment building in Europe and in North America went through many decades of legal and architectural phases. Future studies comparing the evidence of the insulae and the growth of the modern apartment might reveal a more critical timeline for the Roman insulae. 46 Tabernae: A smaller commercial subdivision of a building, often associated with domus and insulae. 47 See page 7. 48 Holleran 2012:152-57, Holleran 2011: 252, Girri 1956, Flor 2013, Mac Mahon 2006. 17

included for travelers lodging in deversorium located in an insula.49 In fact, the delivery of their small dinner to their room prompts a fight, where empty drinking jars and hot meat are used to abuse the character Eumolpus. The combination of food and residential elements is far too fundamental to overlook for two reasons: one, there is little evidence to suggest that residents living in the upper floors were cooking for themselves; and two, the subdivision of space to perform a specific task such as preparing food and possibly communal eating suggests an awareness of the general audience who will be residing there. Exactly how necessary the diverse types of eating and drinking venues found in ancient Roman texts were in a city like Ostia is difficult to assess. One of the main problems with Ostia is locating the kitchens or cooking areas within insulae.50 I would suggest that because insulae were so common in Ostia there was less need for all the various types of public eateries, but this is impossible to substantiate given the lack of defining architectural distinction between them. Girri’s work on the tabernae of Ostia suggests there are 806 in total with slight variations in their physical appearance.51 Girri’s and Kleberg’s research emphasized some of the very subtle variances in the shops, but overall the differences do not define the terminology that we know from Roman authors or inscriptions. Typically, it requires direct evidence like the Praedia Julia Felix with its graffito painted across the front of it, which specifies tabernae, but this type of evidence has temporal limitations.52 The great variety of terminology of spaces that sold food and their lack of architectural distinction emphasize the importance of the integration that existed in these buildings. Possibly the greatest factor in the development of insulae architecture was the ability to integrate and/or exchange occupation and

49 Petron. Sat. 95-96. Many different terms for housing and for those residing in them are used in these sections. The author seems to have a hierarchy in their word choice. Mart. 1.3. 50 Riva 1999, Gering 1999, Hermansen 1981:185-89. This statement can be equally applied to structures that have been labeled domus. 51 Girri 1956: 43, Kleberg 1957: 46-48. 52 CIL 6. 00138. 18

habitation. Furthermore, the versatility of an insula expresses the limitations Romans saw in domus both physically and legally (see Chapter 2).

To be included in the discussion of architecture and archaeology is the study of water and sewage. It is a core piece of urban infrastructure that has affected how scholarship interprets the housing. Typically, the inclusion of water in a domus is interpreted as a sign of luxury and wealth, a display of power.53 There is a tendency for scholars to idealize the use of water in the house and overemphasize the effort and wealth it took to acquire. Many structures in Pompeii demonstrate their own manufactured means to capture water from a gutter around the peristyle or the atrium.54

Sear found lead piping that ran through the wall from Casa dei Capitelii Colorati into Casa del

Granduca.55 Diverse interpretations of whether or not water was public or private typically begin with Frontinus, who established that there were public and private legal responsibilities.56 In this study, it will be recognized that access to water in Ostia was prolific and accessible within insulae.

In fact, water is so prolific in Ostia that it makes finding specific trends difficult to substantiate.57

It is the evidence of water on the upper floor that testifies to the fundamental nature of making water accessible, as will be demonstrated in Chapters 3 and 4.

A discussion of sewage tends to lend itself to the conversation of water, because good drainage is a requirement of both. Ostia had an extensive drainage system. Jansen’s work has

53 For example, in the House of the Vestals, see Jones and Robinson 2005. The frequency of water towers in the city stresses its public visibility. Borghi 1997. 54 Jones and Robinson 2005. See Heres 1992: 42-61 for an introduction. 55 Sear 2006: 175. See also Sear 2004. See also Keenan-Jones 2015 for an updated discussion on the water supply in Pompeii. 56 Frontin. Aq. 75.2, for example, discusses the theft of water. He was equally concerned with providing consistent access to water by ensuring that new public fountains were fitted with two pipes from separated water sources, see section 87.5. And two people were appointed from each vicus to ensure that the water sources did not become contaminated, see section 97.8. See Peachin 2005 for a translation. 57 For water in Ostia: Brun 1991, Jansen 2006 and 2002, Riccardi and Scrinari 1996. The prolific inclusion of baths among the urban architecture suggests that Ostia’s drainages system was extensive. 19

revealed the highly organized and consistent underground system.58 It is no surprise that many of the buildings are supplied with their own upper floor toilet shafts and pipes, which tie into local sewer drains. The comparative evidence for drains/sewage between Ostia, Rome, Herculaneum, and Pompeii provides a helpful study because each city demonstrates its own unique approach, with individual identifiable preferences. The architecture of the buildings’ underground drainage and toilets located on the ground and upper floor supports a sincere desire to project an urban image as clean and orderly. Chapters 3 and 4 will discuss this component and will integrate the archaeological evidence of upper floor toilets with textual and legal evidence, which demonstrates the thought process behind and purpose of upper floor toilets.

The final section for discussion under architecture and archaeology is the relationship between the architectural remains and the material culture found within these buildings, which is always a difficult topic. Traditionally for archaeology it is one of the most important elements in attempting to define room function or identity and overall structural function.59 For Ostia Antica, this topic is rarely assessed because the site was abandoned and reinhabited many times. From early-twentieth-century excavations there is some discussion provided regarding these remains.

For example, Caseggiato del Molini burned down toward the end of the third century CE. Among the evidence Calza discusses are the surviving pieces from the upper floor apartments.60 Beccati briefly notes what he found in the small residential area on the upper floor of the Horrea

Epagathiana.61 Unfortunately, material culture tends not to have a large role in early excavation reports. More recently, studies of amphorae have become increasingly helpful in assessing

58 Jansen 2000, 2002 and 2006. Koloski-Ostrow 2015, Boersma 1996. 59 For methods on material culture: Allison 1999: 57-77. Berry 1997a: 103-125. Berry 1997: 183-195. Grahame 1998: 156-78. Leach 1997: 50-72. 60 Calza 1915b: 242-58. Bakker 1994: 253. 61 Beccati 1940: 43-44. 20

habitation patterns, such as Boersma’s studies in Region V.2. The details of the finds suggest a high level of trade among a population that continued using Punic amphora through the Augustan period, when it was thought to have ceased. This study provides an important addition to understanding the early occupation and economic composition of Ostia.62 But given the overall state of habitation in Ostia, which lasted hundreds of years and went through devastating fires63 and earthquakes, locating objects associated with the upper floors is extraordinarily rare, which is why the finds in Caseggiato della Molini are so important.

1.2 Art History The art historical treatment of Ostia has focused on the wall paintings and tends to be compared to those found in Rome and especially in Campania.64 In many early discussions, the scholarship takes a negative turn, depreciating the craftsmanship of the work as well as the content, which was thought to be homogenous, given the supposed general lack of interest from the tenants.

However, there has been a greater interest in this topic over the years with a more sensitive and inclusive approach. For example, the insulae and bath complex found in Rome in Piazza

Cinquecento focuses closely on the wall paintings and their quality.65 Also in Ostia the excavation and restoration of Caseggiato degli Ierodule has thoroughly challenged the status quo regarding past interpretations of wall painting in Ostia and insulae in general.66 It is a difficult burden to evaluate a property typology based purely upon decorative elements that deteriorated over time.

Ostia faces this issue not only for the interior of the buildings, but also for the exterior as well

62 Boersma 1986: 109-11. 63 The Fasti of Ostia CIL 14.4531 lists a major fire in 115 CE. It is possible this partially prompted the rebuilding of Ostia. See Vidman 1982 48.5, section Kb. for an edited volume with notes. 64 Clarke 1991: 268. Packer 1971: 71, “paintings and mosaics which do appear in apartments are second rate in comparison with those of private houses in Pompeii and Herculaneum.” Calza 1917: 323-27 and 1920. See also Falzone 2004: 13-26 for an overview of the scholarship regarding wall paintings in Ostia. 65 Paris and Barber 1996: In this edited volume, the entire complex demonstrates wall paintings and mosaic flooring. For the insulae specifically, see section by Pettinau 1996: 178-90. 66 Falzone, Montali and Treviso 2014. Falzone 2010. 21

because of the suggestion that Ostians did not

paint or plaster the outside of their structures.

Calza suggests that the lack of evidence for

plaster on the outside of the structures is due to

the preference for using polychrome brick.67

Herculaneum also has little external evidence for

plaster, but what is visible displays signs of the Figure 1. Caseggiato di Diane (I. 3.3-4) Wall painting in the linear style with wall painting underneath applied directly to the wall. local shops, an essential indicator for commercial activity. The façade of places of business were considered an extension of the business they represented, so much so that in the Digest, under a discussion regarding negotium, the jurists explicitly debate signs and how they should be applied permanently to the wall along with dipinti signage.68 It is hard to imagine that there were no signs, graffiti, or electoral notices painted on the wall outside the shops in Ostia. In fact, Calza’s excavation of Caseggiato degli Thermopolio strongly suggests that they were common.69 Most likely the long history of abandonment and reoccupation in Ostia is the culprit, and caution should be used when considering using this as a means to denigrate the social standing of a building or the city.70

Decorative design on the interior walls and the flooring provides another layer to the complicated nature of housing in Ostia. It is subject to many of the same social and economic stereotypes associated with wall paintings in Pompeii in an attempt to create hierarchical division, as well as being treated as a homogenous feature representative of lower classes, who did not

67 Calza 1914: 577. 68 Dig. 14.3.11.3-5, on the placement of notices. 69 Calza 1915a, Paribeni 1916. 70 Packer 1971:41. See also Stöger 2007: 347-63 for treatment of the building’s façade. 22

demand or need their housing to express their status. The main point to keep in mind is that this specific topic is largely bound to the evidence located on the ground floor. It is exceptionally rare for there to be discussion of the decorative features on the upper floors in the residential areas.71

Clarke suggests that there was a broad spectrum and a long-term interest by the occupants and owners to keep up the decorative elements.72 This kind of attention to wall treatment shows an awareness and a sensitivity to the guests, the tenants, and the owners (Fig. 1). The wall paintings in some cases were originally applied directly to the brick, but after later structural alterations were made, plaster was applied with a new fresco.73 Most recently, an article discusses the nature of visibility and movement of the viewer around the images, citing several examples in Ostia and

Rome.74 There could also be elements of entertainment or an attempt either to distinguish specific parts of the structure for certain groups of people or to associate specific behaviour within an area.75 Raff’s work suggests that there was an attempt to use a type of colour coding for certain rooms and their function.76

While identifying a room’s decorative motif is a valuable addition to scholarship, exactly what this means in a living arrangement that was accessible through stairways and corridors (i.e., on upper floors) is speculative at best. The greatest value in decorative studies is that they distinguish the differences between the buildings. For example, Falzone provides a survey of past

71 Mols 1999: 165-74 and 247-88, on the Caseggiato degli Aurighi. Falzone 2010:113. 72 Clarke 1991: 268 and 322. Falzone 2010, Carrive 2016. 73 For more on Caseggiato della Diana see Falzone 2004: 33-50. 74 Carrive 2016, See also Clarke 2010: 89-104. Perhaps, these images address an awareness of their audience and their entertainment. 75 Clarke 1991: 273-78, Carrive 2016. Mayer 2012:165-212 esp. 170. He suggests that there is basic standardized imagery found in housing. However, images can have a multitude of interpretations. Images in a cenaculum where the tenant had no control over the images does not necessarily represent a class distinction and cannot represent an attempt to imitate an upper-class. 76 Raff 2011: 188-89. 23

scholarships on wall treatments, which is followed by a sampling of the archaeological remains. 77

The inclusion of a variety of structures, while they date to slightly different times, answers an important question in the social and economic interest of those who resided and built in Ostia: that there is evidence of unique expression. This further corroborates Delaine’s theory that there are many different competing individuals or groups building and living in Ostia.78 The variation of the wall treatments corresponds well with the architectural development in Ostia and the variation found within insulae. While there is enough similarity to see progression and changes in tastes, there is equally found a desire to distinguish one property from the next.79 For example in Insula di Ercole Bambino (II.6.3) the wall paintings portray mythological scenes while the neighbouring

Insula del Soffitto Dipinto (II.6.6) has varied scenes with architectural motifs.80 Separate apartments within the same building displaying different types of wall paintings is a reflection of social awareness by those who commissioned them, which is anything but homogenous.

The notion that lower classes attempted to reproduce upper class housing and its attributes, but in a substandard way that demonstrates their class, has not proven a satisfactory argument. As discussed earlier in section 2.1, insulae did not originate from the domus and were not representative of social classes attempting to emulate elites. Neither were the decorative elements an attempt to reproduce elite ideals, whatever they may be. The physical and decorative nature of insulae were a collection of the dominus and the inhabitants’ needs. There had to be an overlapping acceptance of the building’s physical attributes, the decorative elements, and the building’s ground

77 Falzone 2004. 78 Delaine 1996 and 2004. 79 Falzone 2004: 169-200. Bauers 2001. Clarke 2003: 272. Self-representation in a domestic setting particularly a rented accommodation, cenaculum, would be a valuable study for insulae. 80 Falzone 2004: 87-101. This same type of arrangement can be found in Casa dei Dipinti (I.4.4) and Casa di Bacco Fanciullo (I.4.3). 24

floor function (if it had shops or a fullery, etc.), especially for long-term leases. Therefore, the tenants’ and dominus’ interests briefly align in order for both to begin the negotiation process for lease of the rental unit. Given the wide variety of insulae and housing in general found in Ostia, there seems to have been a healthy and diverse market.

1.3 Roman Textual Approach to Insulae Many different terms appear in our ancient texts regarding housing.81 Scholars tend to generalize them all under the label of insulae. In practice, these terms appear to be colloquial, meaning that they serve a purpose familiar to a local population.82 Many times they can be used interchangeably, mostly because they inherently contain similar features, which is to be expected given the unavoidable architectural overlapping of housing and eating. But as this thesis will demonstrate, through the maturation processes of the Roman city there arose a need to differentiate the legal, social, economic, and architectural differences in order to represent the many different types of habitation that there were in a city. There was also a need for Roman authors to ensure that their audience could understand and relate to urban scenes that they were trying to depict.

Certainly from the legal perspective, represented in the Digest, this was the case, where the term insulae is used repeatedly83 and the other terms (popinae, cauponae, tabernae, ect.) appear rarely or not at all, as opposed to Petronius’ Satyricon where he used many of them repeatedly.84

Another reason why many different terms were necessary was that some aspects of rental housing could be very inconspicuous, and descriptive terminology was necessary to identify the architectural feature. With potential housing placed in many different types of structures, (balnea,

81 See section 2.1, also the terms cella, locus, habitatio. Santamato 2010. 82 The colloquial is understood as a familiar or common way of speaking and writing. 83 This is due to the legality of the term insulae, which absorbed other property types and functions into its own identity and function and all of its features were legally under locatio conductio rei. 84 See Petron. Sat. 95-96 for a collection of terminology all used to discuss the same structure. 25

horrea, collegia) the terms insulae and cenaculum simply would not and could not suffice in a colloquial descriptive sense. For example, the term tabulatum is not a building typology, but refers to a generic floor or a flat.85 It is found in ancient Roman discussion without social prejudice just as much as it is found within socially biased rhetoric. Cicero uses it in conjunction with cenacula to describe habitation built floor after floor.86 Another use is in an episode described by Aulus

Gellius when a woman supposedly threw something out of her tabulatum window and injured an

Aedile below. In this case, tabulatum was used in reference to a floor or a flat possibly in an insula, but the building that the tabulatum was located in was never mentioned.87 The use of the word tabulatum provided for the Roman audience place, description, and social setting. As generic as modern scholarship might interpret this term to be, there was a purpose for it. Cicero and Aulus

Gellius were, in fact, very specific in their word choice for their audience; if they used the term insulae it would have been ambiguous, because insulae were understood by the audience as nebulous structures physically, socially, and economically outside the legal discussion. This example serves as a reminder of the differences between Roman legal discussion and the commentary of Roman authors, as well as the methodological problems of assuming that the word choices of the jurists and Roman authors of the general corpus were used for the same purpose

(see section 2.3). An example of this might be found in Cicero, who purchased a deversorium in

Capua that was originally priced at HS 50,000 for a reduced price of HS 30,000.88 Was it actually a deversorium or was it an insula? Was one term chosen over the other because of functional differences or was it purely social? In the introduction of this chapter, the lines from Petronius

85 Tabulatum: Refers to a wooden floor, but becomes synonymous with housing. Juv. 3.199 and Mart. 9.59. Aul. Gell. 4.14.3. 86 Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.96. This term is found Juvenal 3. 199 and 10. 106. 87 Aul. Gell. 4.14, 16.5. 88 Cic. Att. 10.5. 26

suggest that the deversorium was either actually an insula (most likely not) or that it was one of the commercial parts of an insula, which is the most likely scenario. It seems, vaguely, that Cicero rarely chose to use the term insulae in his letters, using it only when referring generally to his urban property in Rome. He seems to use the term without prejudice. In his writings outside of his letters, the term insulae is used as a derogatory term and as a rhetorical device implying a degree of immorality.89 This brings to mind the opening lines from Petronius. The broad use of terminology is simultaneously descriptive, inclusive, and vague.

Much of the misunderstanding begins with modern scholarship’s indifference to this select set of terms that were previously listed.90 It is common for scholarship to run them together and use them in opposition to domus when in truth it is not entirely known what type of architecture they represent.91 For example, Livy tells of a cow jumping from the third story of a habitatio or in another example two cows walked to the tegula aedificium.92 Boethius and Patterson have suggested that these buildings were insulae.93 While these structures could have been insulae, it is important to note that Livy chose not to label them as such. Again, the same issue is applied to

Juvenal who never used the word insulae, but at times scholars accept that he was describing insulae.94 It is important to remember that ancient authors were not without their own agenda. In the case of Juvenal, he needed to perform for his patron and sell his scripts; as Rimell points out, his “satiric persona is a performer.”95 Morely clearly demonstrates that the nature of Juvenal’s

89 Cic.Cael. 17-18 90 See section 2.1. 91 This set of terms is typically associated with hospitality: hospitium, insulae, praedia, tabernae, cenaculum, pergola, cauponae, popinae, thermoplium, stablum, deversorium. Studies from Robinson 2005: 88-105 suggest that there was an attempt in Pompeii to organize the city in a way where disreputable activities (hospitality) were kept at a distance from the main entrances to the domus. 92 Livy 36.37.2; 21.62.3. 93 Boethius 1978: 134. Many times this happens simply through association. This is due to the lack of understanding what an insula really was and how it functioned. Patterson 2006:353, Ulrich 2014: 333. 94 Yavetz 1958: 506, cf. Purcell 1994: 667. 95 Rimell 2005: 89. 27

third satire is based on sensationalizing the miserable experiences of the lower economic groups and contrasting them with the entitlement of the upper classes.96 Juvenal claims that even being around the poor could kill you, with broken and leaking pots being thrown out the windows.97 He was as equally filled with his own bias against the poor as are any of his fictitious characters, like

Umbricius, his fictional complainant in the third satire. His condemnation of Rome and its inhabitants addresses the inequality and polarization of the socio/economic groups. His commentary was intended to oversimplify a complex system for the sake of humour, but more importantly, because sensationalism sells. Yet this is the model chosen by many scholars to apply to Rome and any ancient Roman city.98

The depth of the problem exists not because of the method by which ancient authors handled the terminology or how they chose to describe the ancient Roman city, but because of the desire for modern scholarship to interpret it all in a rather routine manner. For example, Yavetz claims that Cicero’s friend Caelius, living in an insula and paying HS 10,000 a year for rent, was somehow unusual, not only for the cost (which may or may not be accurate) but that he and those like him were not the typical resident of an insula; that is, the majority must have all been of a much lower social and economic standing. But there are other examples.99 For instance, Sulla lived while in

Rome in a σύνοικια, which is understood to be an insula,100 Vitellius rented out his house and moved his family into a cenacula,101 Martial resided on the third floor in a cenacula.102 The Insulae

96 Morely 2006: 26. 97 Juv. 3.199. 98 Patterson 2010: footnote 195. Cites Scobie’s 1986 article for insulae, which was based largely on Juvenal’s third satire. 99 Cic. Cael. VII.17. Yavetz 1958: 515. His rental of an insulae requires much more exploration, see Chapter 2 section 2.1. 100 Plu. Sulla 1.2, For other examples referring to insulae Petron. Sat. 93.3; Herodian 7.12.6 101 Suet. Vit.7. 102 Mart. 1.117.6-7. 28

Felicles listed in the Notitia Regionum was located by well-known markets for luxury goods near the Saepta Julia. None of these passages are using insulae and cenacula in a pejorative manner but are descriptive of the type of housing or a living arrangement that could not be categorized as domus and were not necessarily less than a domus by any means. This is substantiated by the fact that even Vitruvius has nothing derogatory to say concerning cenacula or insulae, though this should be understood with caution.103 Vitruvius was not going to call Augustus’ city anything other than a manifestation of Augustus himself. We also must consider the political aspect of popular political figures residing in or using popular housing. Yavetz has rightly pointed out the political implications of living among one’s voters and social/political allies.104 Augustus was known to use his freedman’s or friend’s cenaculum for watching the games in the Circus.105 These samples of ancient Roman authors discussing insulae and cenacula without prejudice suggest that the derogatory interpretation is largely ours. In reality, the terms insulae and cenacula are used very sparingly by Roman authors who composed the general corpus that we use today. Where these terms are found with greater frequency is in the legal texts, especially the Digest of Justinian.

1.3.1 Legal Texts It has become well established to use ancient legal discussion106 in conjunction with the archaeological record. Ling107 and Boersma108 firmly recognized its relevance and demonstrate it with their excavations reports, each with a dedicated section for interpreting their finds within the context of legal evidence. Both produced volumes of the highest standard and provided a thorough

103 Vitr. De arch. II.8.17. 104 Yavetz 1958: 508. 105 Suet. Aug. 45. 106 It is very difficult to call the Digest of Justinian a legal text. It is a collection of texts possibly for educational purposes. Robinson 1997: 102-112. 107 Ling 1997: 247-53. Wallace-Hadrill 1994: 72-74. See Meyer 2004: for the use of legal tabulae and the physical nature of them in practice. See Dubouloz 2011: for a collection of legal texts relating to urban property. 108 Boersma 1985: 234-37, see also Delaine 2004: 149, Hermansen 1970: 342-47, Hermansen 1981: 91-95. 29

discussion of archaeological evidence balanced by legal thought. They have been followed by

Pirson109, Carver110, as well as Schoohoven111 and Newsome.112 These discussions have further demonstrated that this is a viable and underrated technique in architectural discussion.

Methodologically, it is common for archaeologists to use ancient texts in discussions; indeed, adding the legal text was a logical step. The most important consideration is whether or not legal texts represent the archaeological environment that they claim to substantiate. It is difficult to prove actual legal practices, but methods using the epigraphic record, which can be difficult to interpret, to substantiate architectural evidence have become very common and successful. It is another layer of inquiry that should be considered when discussing archaeological remains.113

Despite the glossing and editorial changes in the Digest or Institutes, the jurists did attempt to maintain some classical legal aspects.114 In comparison, we study architecture with modern restorations, which takes away from the original product, but in most cases, there is still viable evidence to be found, and the same can be said of the Digest. Because the feasibility of Roman law has been the subject of many discussions, it has opened more lines of inquiry for using the legal texts to understand Roman culture. It is generally accepted that there is distance between compiled sources such as the Digest of Justinian and the primary texts that were used to compose them (and their purpose). Watson suggests that scholars do not know how to accurately use the

109 Pirson 1999. 110 Carver 2010a. He cites C. Saliou 1999. The author provides some explanation of the legal application as it originally functioned. 111 Schoohoven 1999:227. 112 Newsome 2009: 132-39. 113 Robinson 1992. This study is entirely based upon a survey of the legal and epigraphic sources to create an image of Rome. Assessments of the urban living conditions in Roman cities are too frequently based entirely on Juvenal or other authors like him. Legal discussion provides a more rational approach to the urban environment. This text provides a good introduction to the process of legal discussion and architectural remains. 114 Translation for the Digest of Justinian is the 1985 version by Mommsen, Krueger and Watson. For the Institutes of Justinian see Sandars 2007. 30

Digest for this specific reason. Furthermore, how can law that is not entirely understood be used to suggest social significance or be substantiated by the archaeological remains?115 Robinson offers a more diplomatic approach, suggesting that in combining legal texts with other sources, such as the epigraphic record, a great depth of information can be revealed, but still warns against overemphasizing the jurist’s discussion. This is suggested because the texts are missing elements due to the fact that they were extracted from their original context.116

The jurists use the terms insulae and cenacula relatively without bias, because they were charged with representing the legal Latin that would appear in court or influence legal decisions.117

The fact that the term insulae is most prolific in the Digest of Justinian and is rarely found in other legal collections clearly suggests that jurists were maintaining classical legal vocabulary and its meaning despite some of their editing. It could be possible to find some correlation between legal discussion and the archaeological remains in Ostia that date to the second century CE and later, which corresponds to a large portion of the Digest. It might also be a reflection of the prolific problems with insulae, but Johnston warns that the frequency of a term or a problem in legal discussion does not equally correspond to how commonly it was an actual valid issue.118

A good example of how to work with the pitfalls of the Digest of Justinian is found in

Frier’s Landlords and Tenants. In his examination of Roman rental housing from the perspective of the Roman jurists, he provides examples of legal texts that include late classical or early

Medieval editing, which possibly alters or at the least glosses over the original classical jurists’

115 Watson 2008: 13-19. 116 Robinson 1997: 117-20. 117 Powell 2001: 464-84, Johnston 1999:20. 118 Johnston 1999: 27. 31

discussions on the point of lease and hire, locatio conductio.119 For example, using Dig. 19.2.27.pr, he offers the advice of being wary of the additions to and subtractions from the text, but states that despite the alterations there is still viable discussion to be had.120 The methods employed to review the text suggest that it is more complete than not, and that it represents the classical jurists’ thoughts accurately enough to see that tenants and the dominus were bound in an obligated relationship.

He does take aim briefly at the archaeological remains in Ostia to support his theory but provides a difficult interpretation of the evidence, claiming that Casa di Diana (I.3.3-4) is the

“archetypal example of lower class housing” and Caseggiato de Temistocle (V.11.2) is a slum.121

Yet both of these structures have elements of medianum and cenacula design (the two physical characteristics that he claims represent upper class insulae) and Casa di Diana is well known for its decorative display.122 The lack of architectural discrepancy results in simultaneously using buildings that could be for the poor and for the upper classes. Largely, his conclusion of the remains is that 90-95 percent of Ostia’s population resided in slum type buildings.123 This is not an uncommon sentiment regarding insulae from modern scholars. However, the value of the discussion is in the collection of legal texts and the methods for uncovering the complicated language and scenarios that we find in the Digest of Justinian.

119 Berger 1953: 568. Locatio conductio rei: “A lease of a thing, movable or immovable, to be used by the conductor (lessor) according to its economic and social utility. Full or partial sublease is generally admitted unless prohibited by agreement. The leasee has no possession of the thing let; he, therefore, has no possessory protection through interdicts.” 120 Frier 1980: 150-154. 121 Frier 1980: 5. 122 Frier 1980:28, Packer 1971: 127-33 plan 94 and193-94 plan 110. Hermansen 1980: 47. 123 Frier 1980: 5. He grants that there were some who lived in nice apartments. 32

Following Frier’s work on locatio conductio is du Plessis.124 His work has added a unique and accessible means to address lease contracts and rental housing. His approach is without social bias toward the property and the inhabitants, which provides the reader greater options for interpreting his work and the legal sources as well. His work is complemented by scholarship on superficies,125 servitudes,126 and water, which have all provided invaluable evidence for the financial significance of urban property.127 They also provide good evidence for the emerging forms of urban property and their popularity among investors. Superficies, for example, were a fast and initially negligible way of placing a structure on someone else’s land typically for the intent of leasing it.128 It would have been a gamble for it to pay off and would have been turned over to the landowner if payment for the use of land was not made. But this type of investment became popular enough that superficies developed into a property that could be heritable, even though the owner of building did not own the land it occupied.129 The evidence of locatio conductio and superficies demonstrates that there was a close connection to the physical environment of

Rome and the legal discussion because it endorses the development of structures from a humble or perhaps even horrifically dangerous beginning into a legitimate property designation that could be taken in a census and given in a legacy. Mostly this was due to their economic capacity, which encouraged their growth. This extends the argument for the importance of the economic potential

124 du Plessis 2005, 2006a, 2006b and 2012. Frier 1980: 58-59 the development of Locatio conductio rei around the time of Augustus. 125 Berger 1953 724-25. Superficies: “All that is connected with the soil whether it comes out of it or is built upon it. A right over another person’s land to use the surface area, to build an immovable.” See Dig. 43.18. 126 Berger 1953: 702. Servitudes: “Rights over another’s property. To make certain use of another’s land.” 127 Stoop 2006, Suarez Blazquez 2011a and 2011b, Bannon 2009: 194-233 on how servitudes worked in the case of sale. Watson 1968: 176-202, Borkowski and du Plessis 2005: 169-81. 128 Stoop 2006: 266. Kaiser 1980: 152-53. 129 Stoop 2006. 33

for insulae, which meant that there were legal

precautions put in place, some of them behavioural

for the tenant, conductores, and landlords.130

1.3.2 Epigraphic Evidence Graffiti and inscriptions provide first-hand

Figure 2. CIL 6. 07291 Found in the columbarium of evidence of people associated with insulae (see the Volusianii located along the Via Appia. It is possibly linked to the known insula listed on a cippus under the Emperor of Claudius 48 CE. See CIL 6. Appendix II section 1.0-1.5). There are several social 40887 and economic aspects from which we find supporting evidence in the epigraphic record. One is the job title known as insularius (Fig. 2). Frier recognized the importance of the insularii named in Imperial columbarium and has successfully tied the investment of the upper classes to the urban rental market through this form of employment (for a list see Appendix I section 1.0).131 An example of this is found in figure 2 where the deceased is identified as an insularius. There is no reason for anyone’s name to be listed with his occupation as an insularius without there being some positive objective.132 Joshel suggests that this is related to belonging. Nomenclature uniquely can simultaneously bond while providing some element of individuality, especially in a household with slaves and/or freed slaves.133

Another important aspect of the epigraphic record is the political and social links of property to its owner and how owners use their investment to further their political and social agenda. One of the ways to ensure this relationship was clear was to include the individuals who

130 Throwing things out the windows, for example, see Dig. 9.3.5. 131 Frier 1977 and 1980, Garnsey 1976 and Carver 2010. 132 Image found at: http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder.php?bild=$CIL_06_07291.jpg. 133 Joshel 1992: 35-36 and 49-50. 34

were involved by their name.134 All the examples of insulae are known by name listed in the inscription or graffiti. In CIL 6. 10248 (Appendix I) we have an example of an insula where part of the usufruct was intended to be used for honouring the legatee and it names the parties involved.

The Insula Volusiani belonged to a family that seems to be associated with the Emperor Claudius who turned over an insula to them (see Appendix I, CIL 6.40887). While the evidence is not overwhelming, it plays a complementary role to the archaeological evidence and Roman texts; the examples mentioned above are a vital window into the manner of expression for daily life.135 While the inscriptional evidence for insulae and cenacula is by no means prolific, it is not to be overlooked or diminished. The expression of the relationships among those associated with the structure demonstrates the link that the building had between the individuals and the community it served. There are forty-six inscriptions listing insulae; many are due to the job title of insularius.136 Scholars have noted the relationship of life and death by representing death with similar identifiable architecture and terminology. Joshel has suggested that “death as mirror of life” therefore in death the insularius represents how they interpreted their own life.137

Additional aspects of the political and social nature of insulae can be found through collegia or other associations (socii).138 They provide another link between those who lived and worked in insulae. Furthermore, the epigraphic nature among competing collegia demonstrate the connection to their patron and their insulae, which was used to provide identity and belonging for the members and their patron in life and in death.139 Borbonus in his discussion of collegia and

134 Dig. 14.3.11.3-5. All businesses had to be named with the sign placed in a location that was accessible to the public. Ling 1990: 204-14, suggests that labels on shops and streets were essential to the cities’ infrastructure. 135 Sigismund-Nielsen 1996: 35-60. 136 All of the known samples of insulae are provided in Appendix I. 137 Keppie 1991: 131, Joshel 1992: 9. 138 Dig. 17.2.52.10. An insula was restored or partially restored by one of the socii. 139 Liu 2008. Example CIL 6.10248, See Appendix I section 1.4. Diosono 2007. Borbonus 2014: 139-42. 35

columbaria reflects upon the nature of collective identity and the shared experience of those in similar social and economic groups, which governed those without independent means but who could achieve stability through patronage in their association.140 Purcell’s suggestion that “taberna and insula were the physical representation of a range of essentially economic relationships”, which further enforces the use of the job title as a descriptor between the individual and the building type that appears with their name. 141 This is demonstrated in figure 2; Eutychus Insularius etched on a marble plaque identifies the person in life and death. While helping the living relate to the dead it emphasizes, in this case, the structure of the columbarium to insulae.142

The context of insulae found in inscriptions that specifically discuss burial property is difficult to assess.143 This occurrence is rare, but epigraphic evidence does suggest it happened.

(Appendix I, section 6.0 CIL 6.0851). It is possible that the exploitation of the burial area encouraged the inclusion of insulae as revenue-producing property. Another reason that insulae can appear in the burial context is the contractual obligations of a collegium to their patron, who would have displayed the contract so it was visible. The contract listed the responsibilities of the collegia to observe their patron’s wishes, and it would have also included the gifts given by the patron to the collegium, as can be found in CIL 6. 10248 (see Appendix I, section 1.4). Liu has thoroughly established the endowment of rental property to collegia through burial property and their notices.144 If this can be combined with Holleran’s work on tabernae, which can also be found in a burial context (Appendix I section 3.0 for a select collection of inscriptions that include tabernae, especially CIL 10. 06069), the inclusive nature of this property type can be further

140 Borbonus 2014. 141 Purcell 2008: 667. 142 Hope 1997: 69. 143 Storey 2004: 78-79. Appendix I section 1.4. 144 Liu 2008: 231-56. 36

explored.145 It seems that burial grounds and their collective architecture created their own socio- economic opportunities. Insulae were placed in a physical location that provided the most economic possibilities. Burial grounds provided a specialized investment to display familial piety, but also to capitalize upon activities associated with burial procession or ritual by producing and selling items. The land itself might have required attendants for its safety and upkeep. Combining the inscriptional evidence for collegia, insulae, and tabernae opens a line of enquiry to access the nature of the tenants, employees, and the owners by breaking down the social and economic relationship among them.

1.4 Economics and Demographics The review concludes with a brief discussion of economic and demographic studies and how these fields affect the interpretation of housing and insulae. These approaches are used to explain the social and economic standing of the structures, their owners, and their inhabitants. Due to the potential exploitation of insulae, legal conversation has a great effect upon the interpretation in the specific field of economics and demographics. As was noted in the section above on legal texts, it has been suggested by Frier that laws regarding insulae developed to provide protection for the owner against conductores (a person who sub-let the building) or tenants who might abuse the property.146 This immediately sets up a hierarchical argument of an upper class, which takes advantage of those who were without the ability to protect themselves. This assumption is based upon a lower class that was both unaware of their legal rights and without the financial ability to afford a lawyer (yet another assumption that one was needed).147 Legally, this is not entirely true

145 Holleran 2012:119. 146 Frier 1980: 39-47. 147 Frier 1980: 51-52. There was an awareness concerning the price of legal representation. See Suet. Nero 17 and editorial footnote ‘e’ on pages 106-107. Petron. Sat. 14 The concern for litigation was not over cost, but the fact that they were strangers. 37

and it still leaves these groups undefined because what actually constitutes poverty or wealth is not well defined or understood, especially among a culture that practiced benefaction.

Paine and Storey point out that much of our interpretation (of urban economics and demographics) is based on how the ancient Roman city is thought of: is it a slum or not so bad?148

What did ancient Romans eat, or how much water was available and was it clean? Demographics ask questions that are extraordinarily difficult to answer. In Ostia, for example, this is reflected in its social status because it is used as a comparison to Rome. Rarely are Ostia and its inhabitants thought of as independent from Rome. Residents in Ostia are typically discussed as “middle-class” or not of the elite in comparison to Rome, effectively describing Ostia as only a suburb.149

However, there is evidence to suggest that Ostia had an identity of its own with its own social and economic elite.150 After all, this same social status/stratum was also applied to Pompeii, and scholarship has thoroughly disassembled this interpretation by demonstrating the degree of complexity in the city’s many layers.151 Ostia, like many other cities, was successful because it included strata of each social and economic group, which the archaeological evidence displays.152

The assumption that elites should reside only in what is commonly thought of as a domus places an unnecessary limitation on our understanding of housing. Previously, in section 2.3, it was established that even in Rome, those classified as elites chose to live in cenacula. Claiming that elites did not reside in Ostia due to a lack of structures considered to be domus does not conform to our evidence. Even some private domus in Ostia are reconstructed from insulae and

148 Paine and Storey 2006: 80-81. 149 Garnsey 1976. 150 For more on this subject see Meiggs 1973: 15, who discusses Ostia as independent from Rome with their own cultural practices, especially their own religion. Delaine 2012: 334. Some of the structures found in Ostia share more commonality with housing found in North Africa. 151 Craver 2010: 49-54 discusses the effect of studies that are typologically based. Robinson 2005:88-105. 152 Pavolini 1986, Meiggs 1973: 214-34 and 493-510. 38

their design was heavily dictated by the previous structure.153 This indicates that there was an intended desire to maintain certain physical elements of insulae, such as the downpipes that serviced the upper floor, and, where they connected to the underground sewer system, possibly water features as well.154 Delaine’s work suggests that there were more private domus in Ostia in the second century CE than is typically discussed, which offers a more diverse interpretation of housing and domus in Ostia.155 The most important element is to consider housing and domus as broadly defined. This provides further evidence of a more diverse social and economic population in Ostia. In the later part of the third century CE (after the earthquake of 275 CE), there were more insulae being modified into domus-type structures, which suggests a demographic shift perhaps in the volume of inhabitants but not necessarily in wealth.

There is in the scholarship a less than satisfactory definition for the term insulae because it is clearly a complex type of property. Therefore, scholars have tried reproducing insulae in a physical sense. Evidence to substantiate how the Romans thought of insulae is largely based on the Notitia Regionum, a document of the fourth century CE that lists all the main structures in each region of Rome and ends by listing the size of the region, the water supply, housing, bakeries, baths, and those who were in charge of the vici for each region. There has been a tremendous interest in attempts to accommodate the 46,602 insulae spatially in Rome and to justify theories of an overcrowded population as an indication of the economic/social status associated with insulae.156 There are several problems with some of the attempts to use the numbers from the

153 Delaine 2012: 344 and 348. There were more domus-type structures that coincide with insulae than has been suggested. Many structures built in the second century CE are covering earlier structures. Delaine suggests a higher degree of continuity among the samples of housing in the city, and there was a much less dramatic shift in housing from the second and third centuries CE to late antiquity. Heres 1986. Boersma 1985. 154 Meiggs 1973: 260. 155 Delaine 2012. 156 Lo Cascio 1997, Storey 2001 and 2002, Coarelli 1997, Lugli 1965: 92-96. Guilhembet 1996, Cuq 1916, Hermasen 1978. 39

Regionaries. In some cases, the numbers are generalized and dispersed throughout the city instead of representing their specific region. But the Regionaries specify that certain areas in Rome were more densely inhabited than others. For example, in Region II (the Caelian) there are 3,600 insulae listed in an area of 12,200 pedes circumference, but in region IX the Circus Flaminus, which included the Field of Mars, there are 2,777 insulae listed in an area of 32,500 pedes circumference.

Therefore, the regional population density can be extremely different. Another problem is the use of the Aurelian Wall, 271-274 CE, as the external boundary for Rome, which is entirely inaccurate.

For example, Storey attempts with regression analysis to make the number from the Regionaries fit inside the Aurelian Wall.157 He therefore has to subscribe to specific sizes of building plots, which does not allow for the unique characteristics of each region to be understood.158 While these studies are helpful and interesting, they do not provide a definition of the term insulae better than or beyond what our legal texts and ancient Roman authors have already proposed.

There also have been a few attempts to assess the population density using the archaeological remains in Ostia. Calza and Packer have concluded that many of the buildings were overcrowded and therefore they created models that fit their desired assessment.159 There is no evidence to substantiate how many people were living in a room or in each structure. Packer’s estimates can vary greatly. For example, in Caseggiato della Trifore (III.3.1) there is estimated

152 potential residents while in Terme di Nettuno (II.4.1,3-5) there is an estimated 328 people.160

These estimates provide little more than speculation. There are multiple interpretations of these

157 The Romans clearly saw the city of Rome extending beyond the wall. Dig. 50.16.198 and 50.16. 87 explains that the urban area and the designation of Roma extended beyond the walls. The Aurelian was also built through preexisting property and incorporated buildings’ walls in order to complete it more quickly. 158 Storey 2002: 421-24. 159 Calza 1941, Packer 1967 and 1971. 160 Packer 1971: 83, 89. 40

structures. Caseggiato degli Aurighi is

suggested by Packer to have eighty

potential residents, but Gering

demonstrates that the building has

evidence for early medianum-style

apartments, which were supposedly

associated with a more affluent

tenant.161 These numbers also do not

include the changes that occurred over

a building’s lifespan. Caseggiato degli

Aurighi has gone through many

architectural and possibly functional

changes. Delaine suggests the structure

was a market for at least part of its life, Figure 3. IV.2.2-4_3. Type RS I shaft. and these activities could have happened on multiple floor levels.162 Attempting to match population density and social status to structures that were designed to be flexible (and nebulous) has not yet yielded any viable evidence.

2.0 Archaeological Surveys in 2014 and 2015 The archaeological evidence presented in the forthcoming Chapters 3 and 4 was collected over the summers of 2014 and 2015 through the processes of field survey, which has been an established means for collecting a sample datum set.163 It was the goal of this survey to examine

161 Packer 1971: 89, Gering 1999: 110-12. 162 Delaine 2005: 36. 163 Pirson 1999, Craver 2010a, Delaine 2004, Packer 1971. 41

and record the evidence for upper floor

toilets and water amenities with the intent

of demonstrating the relationship between

the landlord/operator and the tenants.

Many examples of the upper floor toilets

have evidence of repair, which

demonstrates that there was an obligation

Figure 4. First floor toilet in the façade of VII.1 in Herculaneum. of the owners to repair this amenity. There are also late additions of the upper floor toilets, which further establishes the correlation of habitation with these features and their necessity. The manner of building construction encourages the argument for the need of this amenity because the physical locations of these features are in areas that are highly accessible, such as stairs and corridors (Fig. 3). All of the surveys were carried out with the permission of the Sopertindenza Speciale per il Colosseo, il Museo Nazionale Romano e l’Area archeologica di Roma. Further studies took place in Herculaneum with the permission of the Sopertindenza Speciale per I Beni Archeologici de Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia in 2014 and

2015 as well as in Pompeii unofficially. The data collected in the surveys in Campania provide supporting evidence and comparative examples to those found in Ostia (Fig. 4).

2.1 Purpose The intent of this survey was to count how many toilet or water features actually existed within each structure, as well as their location, construction style, and their association with the upper floors. The second element was to understand their construction and observe whether repair work had ever taken place. The final consideration was the functionality: did they serve a purpose significant enough to warrant their existence? This evidence can be compared to and contrasted

with evidence collected and analyzed in Pompeii and

Herculaneum for the purpose of exposing similar trends

but more importantly defining the unique ways in which

people in Ostia met the expectation of upper floor

amenities.

The reason for choosing to work with a sample

collection from Ostia Antica was based on the quality

of the preservation and the fact that there is no

outstanding work on this topic for this area. Use of the

survey provided a comprehensive study of the city. Figure 5. II. 3.4_2. Type RS II. Immediate social and economic preferences of the inhabitants can be suggested by the differing examples of shafts found. Another reason for a city- wide survey was to demonstrate the frequency of these features. Modern authors are aware of them, but few have offered any discussion on their importance for housing and the urban environment.164 There have only been short discussions concerning this topic in Ostia, and none has thoroughly engaged in the topic of rental housing and the significance of this amenity.165

Research in Ostia has demonstrated the organic process of urbanization from conception to abandonment. This study supplies a unique piece of the criteria for understanding the inhabitants and how they interpreted their city.

Creating maps of the area surveyed provides a visual description with a spatial display of the evidence found. This is an important element for addressing the frequency of these features. Maps

164 Packer 1971: 73. 165 Koloski-Ostrow 2015: 10–12.Harsh 1935: 25. Boersma 1996 and his 1985 study in V.2. 43

Figure 6. Agisoft Photoscan image and measurements of IV.2.2-4_3. of Ostia will demonstrate overall city trends and even local influences (see Appendix IV). The photos are entirely my own and any misrepresentation is my own. The recording process required that each downpipe or toilet shaft be given its own number. Each toilet is associated with the building’s unique numerical identity and will be acknowledged with an underscore following the building’s numerical identity. For example, in Caseggiato del Larario (I.9.3) there were ten downpipes located within the building number; each one will be listed in the catalogue as I.9.3_1 or I.9.3_5.

2.2 Methods The survey methods began with a city-wide survey, photographing and mapping each sample in order to establish the catalogue. Notes were taken and in 2015, additional photos were taken in order to map the unique features of select samples, such as the iron nails that were located or the construction style (Fig. 5). This was also necessary to render these samples as 3D models to which photogrammetry can be applied to extract measurements using Agisoft PhotoScan (Fig. 6. See

Appendix III). Processing the photos through this software provides the reader images with greater

detail. It also provided measurements between the iron

nails, which offers evidence of the construction style and

evidence for repair work. Visual representation allows for

a better appreciation of the construction and purpose for

this thesis. Appendix II contains the catalogue and Chapter

3 provides the full explanation of the importance of using

Agisoft PhotoScan on this project.

Photographing the shafts in order to use them in Agisoft

PhotoScan was of some concern because the images must

Figure 7. V.6.1_1. Type RS III with late repair vertically align for the software to reproduce the image of work. the entire shaft that was photographed as complete. This can be seen in figure 7. The photos were taken with an Olympus E-520 camera with a compact flash memory card. The procedure included taking as many photos as possible in a span of less than five to ten seconds as the camera moved vertically along the architecture. The exposure and aperture did not change between photos, nor did the distance of the camera from the object, giving the photos a consistent focal point. This method ensured greater accuracy when rendering the images in Agisoft PhotoScan, especially when applying photogrammetry because the measurements that were reproduced were more consistent. The software requires enough overlap of the images to align the photos and create a cloud point, which was then created into a mesh and overlaid with a texture. The model was then run through Photoshop. Unfortunately, only up to the lower 2.20 metres in height was accessible, as that was as high as I could reach with my camera.

Nevertheless, it provides ample evidence for analyzing the construction of the toilet features and equally provide evidence for their repair work.

2.3 Evidence The collection consists of 121 separate buildings, as identified from Scavi di Ostia, by Calza, with 343 independent features located within these specific structures. The evidence collected was so diverse that it required separate categories of shafts, which are identified as types RS I, RS II,

RS III, TP and PB. Tables 3 through 7 in Appendix II break down the evidence collected among the different shaft typologies and the shaft location (Fig. 7 for a sample of a type RS III). The numbers generated demonstrate trends and consistency in the nature of the toilets’ locations within the buildings and in their construction. After the collection of evidence for the upper floor toilets was established, the next step became locating the sections of repair work and latter additions of shafts within the buildings. The evidence for repair work of the shafts is provided in tables 2 and

3 of Appendix II.

There were five to seven buildings to which I did not have access. These buildings would not have altered the information dramatically and should be included in future studies because they are all well preserved. The process of collection did not neglect any type of structure, including baths and the theatre. One important exception is the Terme di Nettuno (I.4.2). The features included in the survey for this structure consist of those found in the exterior of the building.

Necessary consideration was given to this building because it has several flues for the praefurnia and they are very visible in Scavi di Ostia I, but they were not included as their function was only to provide air circulation for the furnace.

The evidence presented from the field survey represents the initial results from studies in

2014 and 2015. One of the greatest contributions of the study is found in the fact that there is much more to explore and to consider in field methods when recording this information. Due to the accessibility of software like Agisoft PhotoScan, the recreation of these features and mapping of their unique features is far easier than ever before and at less time and money spent in the field,

which has both advantages and disadvantages. Future studies will yield greater results with more clarification of the significance of this feature and this form of housing.

2.4 Results: Interpreting the Evidence The result of the survey identifies the prolific nature of upper floor toilets in Ostia. It equally demonstrates that there were many buildings that did not possess these features. There could be many reasons for this, but the initial consideration is the function of the buildings that do contain this feature and how it demonstrates the relationship of the tenants and the dominus.

Overall, the immediate conclusion is the architect’s preference in construction type, with type RS

I being the most common. Among the evidence catalogued, there was an overwhelming preference for placing the shafts in stairways and corridors, with 200 shafts, out of the 343 catalogued, located in these areas. The evidence suggests that architects placed the toilet shafts in these areas out of anticipation of the maintenance of these features, which thoroughly emphasizes the main question of this thesis. There is archaeological evidence for the contractual relationship between the landlord and the tenants.

The significance of the study demonstrates a unique structural design based on the building’s intended function, how the owners interpreted traffic flow within and around their building, where access points for the main sewer lines were, and what type of tenant they were expecting. Clearly, buildings demonstrate specific attributes for a reason. One of these reasons might have been based upon the potential for subleasing the property, an important consideration that will be addressed in Chapter 2. In many cases, the explanations are not always clear or understandable, but they testify to the nature of creating something similar enough for the tenants and building operators to understand while unique enough to provide a rental market that included a broad spectrum of owners and tenants. The social and political implication of a diverse market

in rental housing suggests a competitive environment. Building for tenants and for those who would wish to sublease demonstrates an awareness of the clientele. Therefore, the urban property market in Ostia suggests a rather comprehensive image of rental housing.

Chapter 3: The Context of Urban Rental Property ‘Iura quoque nota habeat oportet, ea quae necessaria sunt aedificiis communibus parietum ad ambitum stillicidiorum et cloacarum, luminum.’166

1.0 Introduction The development of housing in the ancient Roman city was not a simple process of growth followed by decline. A brief reading of the archaeological record in Ostia demonstrates that the city had many phases of abandonment and renewal.167 The element of urban renewal did not need to be on a large scale but can be found on a smaller scale in the response of landlords repairing and adding upper floor toilets to their building. While this seems small and unique to each structure, it was part of the development process and had an impact upon the city’s image and development. Urban growth has context bound by many layers that govern society, and the history of insulae is exceptionally vulnerable to criticism because every element is linked to the social stigma of those who inhabited them as discussed in Chapter 1. The citation above from Vitruvius, who wrote his treatise on architecture under Augustus, demonstrates that legal interest in the built environment was more than just a discursive exercise for the jurists. He summarizes the complicated overlapping environment of urban construction and the responsibility for recognizing legal boundaries, which are known as servitudes.168 These were the mechanisms created by jurists and other legally influential magistrates to guide and control the abuses of urban construction.

Exactly how effective they were is difficult to assess, but this thesis will demonstrate that the success of insulae can be linked to legal influence (in this chapter) and it can be found archaeologically (Chapters 3 and 4). This chapter is an exploration from the legal perspective of

166 Vitr. De arch. I.1.10 “He must be familiar with the rights or easements which necessarily belong to buildings with party walls, as regards the range of eavesdrops, drains and lighting.” 167 Gerring 2012, Boin 2013, Pavolini 1986. 168 Servitude: Considered, iura in re aliena (rights over another’s property). Berger 1959: 702. Nicholas 1962: 140- 44. 49

housing. It is intended to reveal some of the social, economic, and political significance of insulae.

It is not enough to say that urban property could generate economic opportunities. Urban property facilitated the social and economic relationships between patron and client. Therefore, when an element such as housing is studied, its existence has parallel and competing purposes, especially in the case of rental housing because of the potential to abuse the contract, the property, and the relationship of all the parties involved.

There are several components to address. Section 2.0–2.4 explores four facets of the rental housing market. The purpose is to reexamine past scholarship and to add a new perspective to these topics that will be carried through the rest of the thesis. They are the main legal elements of rental housing (insulae). The first section, 2.1, deals with the nature of the contract, which helps the reader understand the pitfalls of rental housing from the perspective of all three parties involved: the owner (dominus), the subleaser (conductor), and the tenant (many times referred to as inquilinus). This is followed in section 2.2 by an exploration of a rental market that was intended for the conductor. Typically, scholarship addresses insulae as designed for the tenants only, but the building variation and legal discussion, as suggested from Frier, reveals a market built for the second tier of the market, the conductor. The third section, 2.3, addresses some of the problems for the tenants living in an insula and their options for dealing with them. The final section addresses the physical presence of insulae, which challenged urban magistrates and jurists to confront a structure that was unlike anything else. Much like the citation from Vitruvius above, architecture expresses the legal obligation to be aware of property boundaries and rights, regardless of one’s position on the economic or social scale.

The following sections, 3 through 5, address the broader mechanisms of legal influence in the built environment. They aid in the discussion concerning the development of housing as a key 50

part in the maturing process of the Roman city, and explore reasons why people desired to own urban property that served more purpose than to simply make money. They needed to develop legal means to control building practices through servitudes while not hindering building or reducing financial opportunities, such as usufruct.169 The political role played by housing is something not really understood outside of the significance of the domus. The use of property to raise revenue for other investments or to use as security or surety while in political office substantiates why someone would wish to partake in urban property and perhaps why it was maintained. This section concludes with housing clientele and the use of housing as gift through a legal device called habitatio.170 These final sections address the significant role that insulae played in the maturation process of the Roman city. It is not enough to say that the Romans built and maintained their buildings to make more money because there is little evidence to suggest that anyone actually did.

The development of insulae was explicitly bound to the urban development of Rome and the influence of a growing population. It is not entirely clear when this process began because there was resistance to have a city with a large population. Many inhabitants were removed from

Rome through proscription, expulsion, and colonization.171 However, slowly it became recognized that a large population was part of a city’s adornment. It was not only about visual symbols of wealth and power, but about people, both citizens and noncitizens. Suetonius, for example, discusses how Julius Caesar gave citizenship to physicians and teachers in Rome in order to encourage them to live in the city and to attract others.172 This was not the singular event that made

169 Usufruct: The right to use another’s property and to take produce (or in the case of this thesis rent) without impairing its substance. This is a type of personal servitude. Berger 1953: 755. 170 Habitatio: The right to use another’s house for dwelling. A personal servitude. Berger 1953: 484. 171 Suet. Jul. 42, for example. 172 Suet. Jul. 42. 51

people come to the city, but the recognition for an outside source of people to continue flowing into the city was essential for growth, regardless of political, social, or economic status.173 Even more than a hundred years after Caesar, this is represented by Juvenal’s Syrian, who with the income from six tabernae will move up into the equestrian class. This must have been a rather common scenario but does not implicitly mean that the owner of the tabernae, whom Juvenal labelled a freedman, was a citizen or even desired or needed to become one.174

What observers are witnessing from Roman authors is that the city of Rome was changing and so was its architecture in order to meet the needs of the increasing migrating population and their potential exploitation. This is possibly represented with the Praetor Peregrinus, a magisterial position that was created specifically to handle those coming into the city. It is probable that around the Augustan era, this office started to handle specific jurisdiction over those with a foreign status.175 Frier suggests that around this timeframe, jurists created the legal classification of inquilinus with the intent to reflect an urban tenant, much the same as a colonus was a rural tenant.176 While these suggestions seem to make for a consistent picture of population growth coinciding with a legal reaction to the population growth, there need be nothing linear or egalitarian about this process, and in fact it was not. Equally, the office of Praetor Peregrinus is rarely

173 Sen. Helv. 6.2-3, on urban growth from a foreign population. 174 Juv. I.105-110 demonstrates the mobility of those who were able to capitalize on economic opportunities. 175 Daube 1951: 66-70. Schiller 1973: 403 strongly disagrees with Daube and suggests their role as a judge much earlier. There is much more to consider on this topic. If the growth of insulae is due to an increase in a foreign population, assuming they did not have citizenship, how could a tenant be protected by legal intervention? Civil law was not available to those without citizenship. In the case of insulae this points to the development of the praetor peregrinus at a much earlier date than Daube suggests. Borkowski and du Plessis 2005: 111 on peregrini, and 90 for ius gentium (law of nations) under ius gentium non-citizens could acquire property and exercise some legal rights. See also Berger 1953: 528. 176 Frier 1980: 59. He further suggests that within legal texts the term is not derogatory. Van Den Bergh 2003: 447. 52

mentioned in the sources, making it difficult to pinpoint when it developed into its own entity.177

There is also no direct evidence of Praetor Peregrinus directly dealing with locatio conductio.

They most likely enforced what was already established in the Edict of the Urban Praetor.178

The accessibility of insulae played a large role in Rome maturing into a metropolis because they were the focal point of economic enterprise and the majority of the population lived and worked in them.179 Because much of the modern scholarship discusses insulae as one dimensional,180 it neglects the evidence of these buildings partaking in the evolving nature of Rome and its increasing population.181 The progressing nature of rental housing and urban property can be found in the Digest as the jurists found inventive ways to expand the heritability of locatio conductio rei and superficies, two important developments in the growth of urban property.182 It is inevitable that urban property, which yields a profit, be also used as part of the political and social sphere. Accordingly, legal discourse, such as municipal charters, thoroughly demonstrates how urban property was bound to economic, political, and social service as well (see section 4.0).

Samples of urban development and the importance of insulae can be exemplified in two events concerning Tiberius’ reaction to natural disaster when he focused specifically on the rebuilding of insulae. Both Tacitus and Suetonius record devastating fires in 27 CE, and in 36 CE

Tacitus records another fire. In both events, Tiberius’ response was to pay for the rebuilding of

177 Frontin. Aq. 129.6 discusses that if there were no available water commissioners that the praetor peregrinus is to step into the role. See also Dig. 4.3.9.4a.2 Ulpian cites a passage written by Labeo in his book entitled On the Peregrine Praetor. 178 Dig. 1.2.2.28, 2 1.14. Frier 1985: 42-92 for the role of the Urban Praetor. Schiller 1978: 402-41. du Plessis 2007: 141-142. 179 Wallace-Hadrill 2008:276-300. Rome is broken up among many independent investors/entrepreneurial people and groups. Delaine 1998 and 2006, Aside from the large investment by emperors there is substantial evidence from many smaller investors building in Ostia, demographics and economics Chapter 1. 180 See Chapter 1 sections 2.0-2.4. 181 Holleran 2011: 167. Employment was found in many tabernae, which are part of the economic prosperity associated with insulae. 182 Frier 1980: 56-70, du Plessis 2007, 2006a and 2006, Stoop 2006: Borkowski 1994: 183, Kaiser 1980:153. 53

insulae.183 The loss of insulae was an economic disaster not only for the dominus but also for those who might have been using the building under a servitude of usus, usufruct, or habitatio. The potential losses for the conductores who were subletting implies that they could have fallen into considerable debt. They would have lost everything they invested and hoped to gain. Even those who found employment in the buildings would have lost their jobs, as well as the tenants who lost their housing and for whom there were no means to sue for loss of property. The complexity of those who lost their property, whether corporeal or incorporeal, was potentially devastating.

The majority of economic devastation was due to the destruction of the physical property they used for security or surety either to raise a new loan or to secure their housing. For example, the tenant lost his personal property (supellex) that was used as hypotheca184 to secure his apartment and his future housing; the conductor lost all of his investments; and the owners lost their property along with the ability to mortgage it in order to raise further funds for investments.

Furthermore, anyone who held a servitude such as habitatio or usufruct permanently lost it. It would seem that focusing on the reconstruction of insulae could have allowed the vici to return to their original function and for the dominus to begin again with limited loss to their finances and their potential clientele system.185 Tiberius’ interest in the reconstruction of insulae provides substantial evidence of their role economically and socially because the area returned to its previous function and therefore each vicus did not lose an important part of its physical identity or function.

183 Suet. Tib. 48, Tac. Ann.4.64 and 6.45. 184 Hypotheca: A form of real security. The object pledged as hypotheca was not handed over to the creditor but remained with the debtor who may or may not use it, but could not alienate it. Berger 1953: 490. 185 Dig. 7.4.5. and 7.1.36.pr. 54

It was insulae that communities were invested in because these buildings were their home and their place of employment. Legally, they are posed as a complicated structure that was bound to a strict hierarchy of dominus, conductor, and tenant. While the archaeological remains provide clear evidence of this relationship that will be presented in Chapter 3, the environment that governed the success of insulae and their popularity needs to be addressed first. There are many questions to consider, such as what would have happened when a toilet failed or if its lack of repair damaged a tenant’s property? How could a tenant protect his property? While the bigger picture of rental housing can be outlined in more general terms, the evidence from Ostia allows for a more nuanced approach, which requires looking at the rental market and some of the legal discussion regarding its process. This leads to the first discussion of the rental market as it demonstrates the jurists’ attempt to develop legal means to deal with the increase of housing in the Roman city and especially with insulae.

2.0 The Rental Market The rental market was composed of every level of society. This is shown both archaeologically and from the Roman authors themselves.186 Some scholars have suggested that there was some kind of housing crisis and that a housing market was by no means intended to apply to anyone but those who had the ability to afford legal representation.187 There is no evidence of a housing crisis nor has anyone demonstrated that there was a problem with the quantity of housing. At times of natural disaster, it is easier to understand that there would be a shortage, but in general there is no evidence that population thoroughly outpaced housing. Philips has suggested

186 See Chapter 1. See Nevett 2000 for an exploration in the rental market in Olynthos. See Rawson 1976 for a discussion of the house market for the upper-classes dealing with domus. 187 Philips 1973, Stoop 2006. Frier 1980 seems to be suggesting there was always a need to go to court and that affording a lawyer was some kind of benchmark for wealth. None of this can be substantiated. The only time this becomes apparent is in the contracts between conductor and dominus where the money exchanged would have been a considerable sum and most likely upfront. 55

that buildings were not demolished despite how rundown they were because they provided housing for the poor and therefore met the housing needs for Rome.188 Stoop has suggested that the development of superficies into an inheritable form of property was driven by a lack of housing, which is possible but not likely.189 These arguments suggest an immaturity in the development of the Roman legal process when in fact the jurists were aware of their jurisdiction on private property and the rights of private individuals on public property.190 Restraint is shown by the jurists in their understanding of how far the law should impinge upon individuals, and none of their efforts suggests a housing shortage or an awareness of it.

Most likely population growth encouraged the diversity of insulae. This was probably dealt with slowly and in a fragmentary response from the legal side.191 Ostia might pose a rare contradiction to this rule. This is reflected in the Praetorian Edict, which was rewritten under

Hadrian by the jurist Julian. Ostia was systematically rebuilt under Hadrian. The elevation of the city in some areas was raised due to the high water table. Also, in 115 CE there was a large fire in the city, important enough to be listed in the Fasti.192 This might be a rare example of law and urban construction sharing some chronological impact upon one another. However, the manner in which the edict is provided in legal sources makes this impossible to substantiate.193

Insulae were one of the main means for entering into the economic possibilities of urban real estate and it could be as simple as subleasing a cenaculum or even a cubiculum within a cenaculum. Ultimately, they were a simple architectural expression, basically storage for the

188 Philips 1973, cf. Garnsey 1976: 133-36. 189 Stoop 2006: 266. 190 Praetorian Edict found in Dig. 1.1.7.1. See Frier 1985: 50-52. 191 Watson 2008: 13-16, law does not always (or never) reflect society, because it is always behind. du Plessis 2007: 153. 192 CIL 14. 4531. 193 Frier 1985:43. Schiller 1978. 56

excess population, but the lure of profit and its development into what would become a highly advantageous legal device (discussion forthcoming) made this form of structure a popular investment. Insulae soon surpassed the impractical domus with something far more accessible, inclusive, and innovative. Eventually, and most likely unintentionally, insulae ended up binding much of society to a degree that domus never did or even could: patrons and clients, landlords, conductores, tenants, employees, and collegia. This is reflected in the market for housing and the manipulation of a structural type (insula) to serve the needs of urban spatial constraint and test the bounds of legal and social control. It is possible that one of the factors in its development is found in the legal texts expressed by the jurists as obligatio.

The significance of this term is very broad reaching. Initially it is not explicitly found in the context of lease and hire, but by the time of Gaius writing in the third century CE it is very clearly a binding agreement. Consensu fiunt obligationes in emptionibus venditionibus, locationibus conductionibus, societatibus, mandatis.194 It seems also that these contracts for the most part were spoken with implied elements of agreement in the role that each member fulfilled.195 Zimmerman’s work on obligation seems to clarify how much this cultural understanding permeated through all relationships.196 It simply established that there was a behavioural response to do or to perform something specific for another.197 It seems that jurists equally regard the nature of obligation as contractual. Omnem obligationem pro contractu

194 Dig. 44.7.2.pr. “Obligations by consent occur in purchase and sale, letting and hiring, partnership and mandate.” Borkowski and du Plessis 2005: 251-53. Berger 1953: 603. Obligatio: refers to both legal obligations and moral duties. It is suggested that it began or was already developing by the first century CE. 195 Dig. 44.7.3. 196 Zimmerman 1996: Locatio Conductio begins on 338-83. Birks 1983: 18-38, Evans-Jones and MacCormack 12- 207, esp 159-62. 197 Dig. 44.7.3 pr. and Inst. 3.13.pr “An obligation is a legal tie which binds us to the necessity of making some performance in accordance with the laws of our state.” Translation from Borkowski and du Plessis 2005: 251, on obligations. 57

habendam existimandum est, ut ubicumque aliquis obligetur, et contrahi uideatur, quamius non ex crediti causa debeatur.198 Therefore, whether entering into the rental market as a dominus, as a conductor, or as a tenant, the reciprocal nature of contract and obligation appear inseparable.

Breaking one’s obligation would break the contract. Exactly how explicit the understanding or practice of this was between landlord and tenant is difficult to substantiate.

Its practice can be found in the Sulpicii Archive in the contracts listed as TPSulp. 51, 52,

45. In these contracts, Eunus borrows money from Hychesus. In order to ensure that Eunus pays him back, Hychesus physically takes over a stall in the public warehouse run by Eunus’ former master, Cypaerus. Eunus signs a new contract giving Hychesus control over the space and the goods as security (pignus) for the money he lent. Eunus was able to make arrangements for

Hychesus to lease this space in the warehouse for only HS 1 per month, which establishes the close relationship (obligation) held by Eunus’ former master in his role of business partner with his former slave.199 This instance expresses a moral obligation between Eunus and his former master.

Jones suggests that their financial relationship was common and most likely it was an advantageous relationship to maintain and encourage. This type of relationship can also be found in rental housing between dominus, conductor, and tenants (or clientele). While it is never as explicit as in the Sulpicii Archive, there are some hints of the role that obligation played in rental housing. The majority of the argument made for obligatio and its presence in rental housing centres on repairs within the building's upper floor toilets. There is no thorough legal evidence for the

198 Dig. Paulus 5.1.20 “We should consider that every obligation ought to be regarded as a contract, so that whenever anyone incurs an obligation, it is held that a contract is also formed, even if the debt is not the result of a loan.” 199 Jones 2006: 93-97. Camodeca 1998. Verhagne 2011. See Dig. 19.2.46. According to Ulpian, this constitutes a gift and therefore the lease contract is void. The result is that Hyschesus cannot sue Eunus’ former master on account that there was no monetary exchange. The only exception would have been if the grain was damaged, but more than likely Eunus would have been held accountable. See Chapter 4 section 2.0 for horrearius. 58

landlords to repair the toilets. While there are some basic considerations, such as a deductio ex mercede (forthcoming), the deduction of money from the rent owed on account of the landlord not making repairs, they do not explicitly provide evidence that repairs had to be done (evidence for the repairs will be presented in Chapter 3). It is possible that the element of obligatio was one of the factors encouraging repairs in insulae. Further supporting samples of obligatio are found in the jurists’ discussion of objects and liquids that are thrown out the windows from the upper floor

(section 2.4), which was under delict200and in the action of justified abandonment (section 2.3).

The current chapter focuses on urban property law and the urban housing environment that regulated insulae and the relationship between landlord, building operator, and tenant.

2.1 The Contract and the Tenant The rental process first begins with advertisement of a space for lease. There is little evidence for rental advertisements, but what is preserved is rather consistent (Appendix I). They provide the most essential information: the date when the space is available, the name of the space for lease, (i.e., cenaculum or tabernae, etc.), and whom to contact. The next step would have been agreement on the price and the duration of time leased, the stipulatio.201 From this point on, there is little evidence to substantiate exactly how the process played out. It is possible that in many cases the tenants dealt only with the conductor, the second tier of the rental market, who could be a slave as is known from the advertisements from Pompeii and possibly from Cicero. He used a freedman, Eros, to collect the payments due from his rentals.202 Unfortunately, this element of the rental contract is difficult to corroborate because the jurists were very clear that the nature of a

200 Berger 1953: 430. Delictum: A wrongdoing prosecuted through a private action of the injured individuals and punished by a pecuniary penalty paid to the plaintiff. Delictum: is the source of one group of obligations (obligatio ex delicto). 201 Dig. 19.2.2.pr: Watson 1984: 1-5. Berger 1953: 716. Stipulatio: An oral solemn contract. It was used for any kind of obligation. 202 Cic. Att. 15.17, 15.20. 59

contract is binding regardless of whether it is spoken or written.203 We therefore have very little evidence on the nature of Roman contracts for rental housing. Presumably, verbal agreement allowed for negotiation and for closer inspection of the tenant and the property that they were bringing into the rented space, as well as the tenant’s opportunity to inspect his future living quarters. It was the tenant’s personal property and/or furniture known as suppellex or invecta et illata that would, on most occasions, stand for surety of payment as hypotheca/pignus.204 There is little available legal help for the tenant to reclaim or attempt to sue on damages of his property if his hypothecated goods were stolen or damaged. What was available was the right to deduct from rent still owing or attempting to sue in hope to recover what was lost (see section 2.3 especially

2.3.1). This was one of the differences between hospitality and rental of an apartment (of some kind). The example of a deversorium in an insula for short-term lodgers is found in Petronius.

Here, the guest Eumpolus is beaten because it is assumed he is trying to leave without paying. If he had left a deposit or paid beforehand, they could have simply taken it instead of trying to hold him there to extract payment.205

According to Frier, the jurists of the Digest were largely concerned with the contractual relationship between the dominus or locator (the person or persons who were leasing the building) and the conductor.206 The conductor was initially a tenant, but conventionally he would become known for subleasing a structure to those labelled inquilinus. The suggestion seems to be that there

203 Dig. 19.2.13 contract established in writing. 204 Phillipson 1968: 1237. Supellex typically understood as household furniture. Dig. 33.10. Berger 1953: 509. Under interdictum de migrando, which was granted to a tenant whose invecta et illata, household objects, were held under the pretext that he had not paid rent. Dig.20.2.2-4, Dig. 20.4.13 seem to imply that the security was money or something that could be used. See also du Plessis 2013 and Frier 1980: 105-135 for more on the interdict. It is beyond the scope of the current research. For Hypotheca/Pignus see ft 179. Dig.13.7.11.5. Goebel 1961: 37. The only difference between pignus and hypotheca was how it was defined in the contract. 205 Petron. Sat. 95 206 Frier 1980: 59, see ft. 8. This is actually more complicated because the conductor who leases out the building then becomes the locator. 60

was, or could have been, considerable distance between the tenant, the conductor (building operator), and the owner. Cicero, for example, seems to have no idea what is going on with his insulae on the Aventine or Argiletum districts.207 While scholarship tends to focus on the representation of rental housing in Juvenal or Seneca, the lower classes were not the only ones who were taken advantage of by their landlord. Anyone who entered into a binding contract by providing hypotheca as well as owing on a lease could have found themselves in a precarious position.

One popular known court case, in which a tenant was possibly targeted by a dominus in order to exploit their position, was documented by Cicero in his Pro Caelio. This trial was in 56

BCE when Caelius was accused of being in debt due to licentiousness and sumptuary expenses on his housing. He has been charged with several other more serious offences, one being murder and attempted murder. But what if the trial was more than just an attempt to convict a minor on erroneous charges? If Cicero’s defence is a suggestion of how serious the charges actually were, it could be suggested that there were other motives than politics. If the political turmoil could be set aside, the trial can be observed as a contractual relationship between a tenant and his landlord.

The location of where Caelius lived is suggested to be an insula on the Palatine next to

Clodia Pulcher, but the actual specifics of his housing was glossed over by the terms habitatio

(habitation, not the gift) and aedicula in Cicero’s defence.208 It could be that the intent of Cicero’s word choice was a rhetorical device against Clodius to degrade his property, because in section 18

Cicero uses the term domus three times and claims that Caelius actually lives in a domus in order that he might receive guests and quickly access the Forum and Cicero’s house. The question is,

207 Cic. Att. 12.32 208 Cic. Cael. 7.17 61

what did Clodius want from Caelius that he could achieve through a trial and not through any other means? And what property did Caelius use as hypotheca for his rented accommodation from

Clodius? The main interest is in section 7.17 where Cicero addresses the charge of debt. This charge is directed at Caelius’ expenditure on his housing. The prosecution claims that he spends

HS 30,000, but Cicero says this number is inflated and he spends closer to HS 10,000; no evidence suggests the timeframe of the contract or when he was to pay rent, so the numbers actually make little sense. The prosecution must have specifically referenced accessing, or wanting to access,

Caelius’ personal accounts because in Cicero’s defence of Caelius he states that he was under his father’s authority, patria potestas, and he therefore has no records to account for his spending.

Whether true or not, Cicero’s defence was possibly an attempt to prevent a Praetorian action known as bonorum venditio, the sale of the assets.209 This action allowed the creditor, in this case Clodius, to seize the property of the debtor, Caelius. With this too came the possibility of imprisonment.

Also, on the off chance that Caelius was convicted and imprisoned (or exiled), his assets in his rented accommodations, or whatever was hypothecated, would have gone to Clodius mainly because of the breach of his rental contract.

The second question regarding hypotheca is related to Cicero’s comment on the age of

Caelius. If he was still under the control of his father, what did he provide to Clodius as hypotheca?

Did his father enter into a contract with Clodius as well, in order to support the ambitions of his son? An example of a father providing rental housing for his son through his own property investments comes in a letter from Cicero to Atticus. He discusses that if his son had stayed in

Rome and rented a house, he (his son) would have had access to the money collected from Cicero’s

209 Borkowski 1994: 77-78. Berger 1953: 377 62

(his father’s) rental property on the Aventine and Argiletum.210 It is possible that this would have also been part of the hypothecated property to ensure that Cicero’s son paid his rent. In the case of

Caelius, it is impossible to say what his arrangement was with his father, but the business of his father was extensive, with holdings in North Africa, Rome, and Praetuttia at the least.211 It seems possible that the desire to assess the accounts of Caelius may have been part of the reason for the charges against Caelius and as a tenant of Clodius’ he was in a vulnerable position.

Eviction was not a suitable option for Clodius. If Clodius desired Caelius’ property and possibly his father’s, as well as the remainder of the rental payments, he needed a conviction on at least one of the charges. The scholarly consensus is clear that at any time a tenant can be expelled with very little reason even if the intent was to repair the structure, or if the building was sold and the next owner simply did not want tenants.212 However, eviction meant that they only needed to pay rent until they left the building. Their own personal property brought into the apartment that was under hypotheca could not be seized as long as the tenant’s rent was up to date. Unlawful eviction had the potential for a lawsuit against the dominus.213 While the argument presented above is speculation, there could have been more to the charges brought against Caelius than a personal vendetta. It also seems that the boundaries of the contract itself were exploited. The average tenant probably did not have to deal with someone like Clodius, but this court case does demonstrate that the rental contract was legally crucial and binding.

210 Cic. Att. 12.32. 211 Cic. Cael. 5, 18, 73. 212 Frier 1980: 70-86. 213 Frier 1980: 73-83. 63

One final consideration for rental contracts deals with the remission of rent from Caesar found in Suetonius.214 It was aimed at the class of people who rented their housing, not necessarily just the poor. They would have been helped only if they paid an annual lease of HS 2,000 within the city of Rome or HS 500 outside of the city. Its effect was widespread and it appears on the

Fasti of Ostia.215 What did this mean for the contract? For one, it is not entirely known at what time of the year this went into effect, sometime in 48 BCE. If it was after the majority of new contracts began, it must have been devastating for those to whom rent was owed.216 But if it was before new contracts were made, all the locators needed to do was raise the rent to avoid falling into the new rent-free bracket. It must have created a tremendous amount of frustration on either side of the contract. If someone had a five-year contract, what did missing a year of rent do for them, since they still would have owed the price that was agreed upon in the original contract? It only meant that for one year they did not have to pay rent, if the contract was designed for the tenant to make a yearly payment. The manner of rental remission suggests a different type of rental contract and environment than what is typically found in the Digest. It would seem that as the legal discussion matured, especially under Augustus, the later jurists’ commentary suggests that this would not have been practical, especially since the subletting of insulae was prevalent. It would have been very difficult to collect enough rental fees to make money on top of paying back any loans used to secure the buildings for lease. The evidence in this thesis suggests that the economic diversity regarding rentals would have devastated the market because those who were subletting for profit would not have been able to recover a year’s rent. Therefore, it would have created more

214 Suet. Jul. 38, Cic. Off. 2.83. Hypothetically, it is possible, if we consider Caelius’ HS10,000 rent over a five-year contract, he too would have been included in Caesar’s remission of rent. 215 CIL 14. 4531. Vidman 1982: 54 section 48, 5. 216 Frier 1978: 2-3. 64

debt. For those who leased their housing for long periods of time, a single year of remission would be pointless.

The remission of rent makes more sense as a political tactic on the part of Caesar. It would have initially appealed to those who had shorter rental contracts, but those who owned insulae, such as Cicero, were forced to provide habitatio, free housing for one year, which would have been devastating to their finances. Caesar might have been targeting specific political competitors and their clientele base (maybe those like Cicero). The provision of free housing as a gift is known from the legal sources (see section 5.0), but as part of widespread policy it makes little economic sense.217 Furthermore, in the case of repairs and general upkeep on the building, it is possible that the buildings were abandoned and fell into disrepair, although contractually both tenant and landlord were still bound.218 There was little economic sense in maintaining a structure and one’s obligation to the tenants if there was going to be no reciprocal compensation.

In the contract itself, it is difficult to see where the element of obligation existed. But under the stipulatio, obligation is inherent to the contract and action of lease and hire. This makes understanding the actual process in negotiating a contract difficult to access because it is not entirely tangible. The advertisements painted on the walls list the most basic elements. Anything beyond these factors was entirely up for negotiation. Metzger discusses obligation and stipulation as a means for the Praetor to encourage people to perform in a specific manner and make legal alterations.219 It is possible that this was to boost more litigation before going to court or to uphold community relations.220 Clearly, this was not part of Clodius’ scheme against Caelius, but their

217 Frier 1980: 163 and ft 239. 218 Dig. 19.2.5. 219 Metzger 2013: 170. 220 Metzger 2013: 171-172. He cites MacCormack 1971: 225-50. 65

case was not normal. The average occupant could have expected their landlord or conductor to uphold their part of the contract under obligatio; otherwise they could have either sued or abandoned their lease, which will be explored in section 2.3.

2.2 Conductor and the Market There is a tendency to interpret the rental market as housing designed for the tenant, but this section questions the viability of this statement and reconsiders who might have been attracted to this type of financial investment. If the purpose of insulae was to make money, they needed to be built to ensure that profits were attained quickly and easily. It is here that the role of the conductor becomes visible, as an investor, perhaps even entrepreneurial in the development of insulae. Because of the social stigma attached to insulae, it is presumed that they were simply built for the poor and therefore they physically reflect this social/economic stratum. The logic of this argument is flawed even from the most basic interpretation of urban property. Foremost, urban property needed to do something for the investors, either for profits or for mortgaging it for loans or for a dowry, etc. And because it needed to perform first for the dominus as an investment, the element of housing was not necessarily its entire reason for construction. It was simply one of the ways of creating an opportunity to make money, as the jurists say, negotiatio pro incremento facultatium excerenda est.221 There are, of course, nuances to this argument such as collegia, which resided in insulae and possibly built them, which will be discussed more in Chapter 4.222 For the most part, urban property needed to generate some kind of income. It would seem that leasing the structure to someone else was a good way to secure revenue and left the responsibility of running the structure (to varying degrees) to someone else and at their own risk.

221 Dig. 50.6.8, “Business activity is necessarily designed to increase a man’s wealth.” 222 CIL 10.10248. 66

Frier’s interpretation of the rental market, from the jurists’ perspective, is that it was designed for the dominus and the conductor because they had the financial ability to hire legal representation.223 Subsequently, the role of money plays a specific part, but this is undermined by some of the comments of slum-like conditions for the majority of insulae.224 From the scenarios presented in Digest, it seems that, given the large sums of money hypothetically applied to the contractual exchange between dominus and conductors, there could have been the potential need to sue upon breach of contract, which does substantiate some of Frier’s suggestions. And there are examples of this happening in the Digest.225 But if the sole intent of the dominus was to lease the structure enbloc to a second party known primarily as a conductor,226 then it would be more lucrative for the structures to be built with them in mind. Physically, insulae then must appeal and have some ability to not only meet their costs on the lease but also to make enough money to be considered worth investing in (for the conductor). There had to be great flexibility in how the dominus ran and organized his buildings and for the conductors who leased from them. This implies that there had to be something appealing about the structure for the conductor to be willing to invest in it and the contract needed to include mutually beneficial elements for both the dominus and the conductor.227

The standard example for how insulae worked comes from Cicero, who does illuminate this with a couple of references to profits coming in from urban property, but he is a rare example.228 He does not specify Eros as a conductor, but he is the person responsible for travelling

223 Frier 1980: 5. 224 Frier 1977: 30-33. 225 Dig.19.2.30.pr; 19.2.7; 19.2.8. 226 Frier 1980:30, du Plessis 2005a. See ft 3. du Plessis 2006. 227 Frier 1980: 62, “It should be remembered in Rome, the sublease was not only very frequent, but often constituted the primary reason for making a lease.” 228 Frier 1978, and Craver 2010. 67

to Cicero’s assortment of property to collect the money owed and then deliver it to either Cicero or his accountant Tiro.229 Eros seems to be performing as an institor. This was someone who was a manager but dealt with collecting money;230 he could have also been acting as conductor and part procurator.231 The broad overlapping terminology for those who ran housing as a business further suggests that insulae were complex structures. It also alludes to the specialty of running rental property as employment.

Cicero’s approach to his property seems to be more direct, although he gives the impression that he is completely unaware of his properties in Rome232 and asks Atticus to check his buildings.233 He does travel to witness his inheritance and in one example, just before he leaves his estate with a villa and a garden as well as urban shops in Puteoli, he appoints someone to take care of it and he uses the term procurator for the job title.234 Most likely it refers to a caretaker. It is possible that this represents an early form of business model for rental housing because the later sources seem to indicate a preference for the use of a conductor.235 However, this evidence must be taken in context of the limited discussion the sources have provided.

The distance of the dominus from the property could be varied and might have been one of the factors in leasing it through a conductor. In one example found in the Digest, the dominus had the right to expel a specific tenant living in his building even though the building was operated

229 Frier discuses Eros as a conductor of sorts, see Frier 1978. 230 Dig. 14.3.5.1. 231 Procurator: One who was in charge of the structures. It is incredibly vague. Petron. 96. See Appendix I CIL 06, 08855 one was a praepositus of an insula, and CIL 6. 09383 for one who was ad exactor of an insula. Their role is difficult to assess. It would have been dependent upon their relationship with the dominus and how they organized their business. 232 Cic. Att. 15.20, 15.17. 233 Cic. Att. 12.37. 234 Cic. Att.14.16. 235 Frier 1980: 59. Initially, the conductor was a tenant, but the jurists developed the term inquilinus to separate the two positions, therefore creating a hierarchy. 68

under a conductor.236 In other examples, the dominus is not mentioned at all. The different attitudes or approaches to rental housing was reflected in a market that was inclusive of the different types of housing that was available, located in a variety of structures, such as horrea or balnea.237

Discussed in Chapter 1, the variation of insulae typology and the broad list of terminology imply a rental housing market that was composed of many different types of structures, each with their own unique architectural features. This might have encouraged a more competitive and inclusive rental market for the tenants and for anyone looking to sublease. Furthermore, this suggests that housing was a mixture of social and economic groups, but obligatio bound them in a relationship that required them to perform in accordance with their contract. The degree of complexity that rental property could present might have been one of the reasons for a dominus to lease to a conductor.

Most likely, it would have been very difficult to count on a continued form of income from property where payment of rent was day to day. It would have been easier for the tenants to leave because there was no security (hypotheca) for their lease provided. Frier has argued that Cicero’s properties were for the lower classes and therefore they paid their rent day to day.238 However,

Cicero invested in a broad range of rental property; most likely his buildings were diversified enough to provide long-term and short-term leases depending upon the building. In doing so, it provided a more consistent form of income because it was coming in at different times from

236 Dig. 19.2.7. 237 See Chapter 4 regarding the dispersion of housing and the evidence for upper floor toilets in a variety of structure types. 238 Frier 1978. 69

different sources. And this is why he can leave some rental income to his son; he can have the money as it comes in while Cicero can take larger portions for himself.239

Under closer scrutiny, using Cicero as a typical example of how the rental market worked seems outdated by the mid-first century CE. The commentary from the Digest regarding the use of a conductor to sublease implies that this was more common after Cicero.240 Frier suggests that this was advantageous for both the owner and the subleasee because it maximized the potential financial capacity of the structure, although it was not beneficial for tenants themselves because this inflated the price.241 It could have been that subletting property was a relatively popular form of specialized employment in urban real estate. Employment within the urban environment depended upon specialization, and Erdkamp has suggested this can be demonstrated by observing the construction industry in Rome.242 Conductores and employment as one who sublets property should be considered specialized as well. Once someone had established either capital or some means to secure the lease from the dominus, the potential for profit was high. This seems accurate especially after the evidence from Sulpicii Archive and the evidence from Cicero presented earlier.243 At least from the late Republic, the use of slaves or former slaves was a convenient way to run one’s property and business. Their training, expertise, and access to loans gave them a large advantage.244 For this type of investment to grow into an actual occupation seems like a logical progression. Therefore, the job titles of institor, procurator, and conductor were possibly one of the ways to distinguish one property type from another and encouraged the development of

239 Cic. Att. 15.20. 240 The impact of jurists from the second century CE and the early third century CE must have had a large impact on this subject. It could also be that those who compiled the Digest of Justinian did not include much evidence from the Late Republic. 241 Frier 1980: 35-36. 242 Erdkamp 2012: 248. 243 Aul. Gell. 15.1 discusses great profit from urban property. 244 Jones 2006. 70

subleasing urban property into its own form of specialized employment. The evidence also suggests that private socius and collegium leased insulae with the intent of creating their own income.245 An inscription (Appendix I, section 1.4, CIL 6.10248) discusses a collegium that received part of an insula in a legacy under the right of usufruct. It is possible that they could have leased out their section of the insulae for profit. An example in the Digest does discuss that one member of a socius repaired a portion of an insula.246 Clearly, the purpose of insulae was intended for financial investment and profit, and it had the ability to serve a wide range of financial needs.

It might have been that those who sublet were the major culprits in exorbitant rent prices and possibly the deterioration of the buildings. If the dominus sublet for maximum gain and then the conductor did the same the tenants were left having to pay a large fee. If this was the case, then paying in increments or ensuring that the contract allowed for some leeway would have been essential. If not, the tenant’s hypothecated goods become the next best thing to fulfil their obligation in the lease owed. Overall, the mechanism of subletting insulae to a conductor had great rewards for the dominus and conductor, if their contract was secure. The tenants had to be aware of their environment and the changing conditions. Otherwise, they could be caught paying rent in a collapsing building.247

2.3 Abandonment, Legal Recourse and Ostia Legal recourse for tenants and for conductores was limited to the specifics of their contract.

The picture painted by modern scholarship concerning the protection of the tenant and their property is grim, but this discussion will demonstrate that there were some legal and social mechanisms to help the tenants. One was paying rent in arrears, which seems to be a rather

245 Dig. 17.2.52.10. 246 Dig. 17.2.52.10. 247 Dig. 39.2.13.6, 39.2.28. 71

common scenario. In Petronius, a tenant is accused of trying to leave without paying;248 another example is in Martial who accuses tenants of abandoning without paying any rent after living there for years.249 The desire to pay rent after the fact might have appealed to those who had some wealth and could provide a large amount of security in order to ensure that they would pay.250 It is possible that this arrangement was also dependent upon who was leasing the structure, whether it was a conductor or directly through the owner, because this might have affected the contract. The disadvantage for the tenant in paying rent after the fact was that they could not sue for breach of contract. They had to be even in their payments for the time spent in the building before they could initiate proceedings.251 The payment of rent after the fact must have been a risk, but one that was relatively common. It does imply that the provision of housing may have been far more inclusive because the contracts were more flexible. The ability to pay rent late or negotiate for a later due date and the use of one’s property for missed payment lends itself to consider several factors: one, housing was more available to a broad range of social and economic groups; two, the contracts were more negotiable in extraction of payment, if money was not available; and three, for those who were without the means to supply security, there was the option for negotiation.

Another action that the tenants had was a form of self-help252 that allowed the tenants to abandon their rented space on the grounds of fear or for a structure that fell into disrepair during their tenancy. This can be broadly understood, and the jurists seem to waver in their interpretation of this device, as well. Mostly, abandonment could happen from either the building falling into

248 Petron. Sat. 95-96. 249 Mart. 12.32. 250 Frier 1977: 34-39 discusses rental contracts could be for many years. 251 Dig. 43.32.1.4. 252 Frier 1980: 83, considers self-help as a method for expulsion to aid the dominus; however, this action favours the tenant in the case of justified abandonment. 72

disrepair and the tenants fearing for their safety,253 or the building becoming dysfunctional and the responsible party for repairs was negligent. The final means for a tenant to protect his interests was through deductio ex mercedes. This was a legal device to deduct from one’s rent to be paid. It also allowed for a tenant to sue for rent already paid. The amount to be deducted would have needed to be negotiated.254 In the forthcoming chapters, deductio ex mercedes is the most important legal consideration because it includes key evidence for repairs to the buildings. Most especially, it helps explain how repairs to the upper floor toilets represent the contractual relationship between the landlord and tenant.

The most important section of the Digest concerning repairs is 19.27.9. This text has some interpolation, but the general consensus is that it still reflects the classical jurist’s comments.255

The jurist Alfenus wrote: Habitatores non, si paulo minus commode aliqua parte caenaculi uterentur, statim deductionem ex mercede facere oportet: ea enim condicione habitatorem esse, ut, si quid transuersarium incidisset, quamobrem dominum aliquid demoliri oporteret, aliquam partem paruulam incommode sustineret: non ita tamen ut eam partem cenacula dominus aperuisset, in quam magnam partem usus habitator haberet.256 In this passage, the physical environment is laid out to distinguish the areas of the apartment from least to the most important.

If an area that was affected was the most important, the option for suing was a possibility. The evidence for repair work discussed in the Digest is rather limited, but it does say that those who

253 Frier 1980: 92-105. For fear see Dig 39.2.28, 39.2.15.14, 39.2.13.5-8, 39.2.18.3-5, 39.2.9.4. and 3.5.9.1 for the right to abandon. 254 Frier 1908: 150-64. du Plessis 2005:69-80. 255 Frier 1980:51-154. 256 Dig. 19.27.2. “The occupants, if their use of some portion of an apartment is a bit less comfortable, must not immediately make a deduction from the rent: for the occupant is subject to the condition that he bear a small part of the discomfort if something unforeseen occurred on account of which the owner had to raze something; but not to the extent that the owner had laid bare a portion of the apartment in which the occupant’s main use lay.” 73

do extract profit should see to the repairs.257 And jurists did interpret the concept of repair as restoring something to its original condition.258 The forthcoming chapters will further substantiate the archaeological evidence for repairs. More importantly, they will demonstrate that the location of the toilets on the upper floors, in stairways and corridors, was essential because it places these features outside the living area and therefore minimized the liability of the building owner or operator. The statement from the jurists discussed above identifies that location was significant in the process of repair work and liability; if this is combined with the archaeological evidence, there is a strong association of legal influence in archaeological remains. The final question to deal with is what happened when a tenant’s property was damaged, especially when the damage could have been prevented.

2.3.1 Damages to Tenant’s Property What if the pipe ruptured and occupants’ property was damaged due to the owners’ neglect? Could they sue? What if the property that was damaged was used as hypotheca/pignus?

Granted there is not substantial evidence for this, but this is a key argument for the use of and the need for obligatio in the contract for rental housing. Legally this is difficult to assess because first, there is no direct evidence for this in urban housing, and second, the main response from the jurists was simply to defer deductio ex mercede, the elimination of rent or part of it.259 Considering the elements of obligation by the second century CE and the late classical jurists’ editing of the legal text,260 there is room to argue that the tenant could sue. For example, if someone had used his property (supellex) as security (pignus), as discussed above, and then by accident or lack of repair

257 Dig. 7.8.18. 258 Dig. 43.21.1.6. 259 Frier 1980: 150-64 and 186-188. du Plessis 2005 for a review of Frier’s interpretation. He suggests this legal device is unclear as it appears in the Digest, but the jurists must have found some value in it for it to remain as part of the text. 260 Frier 1980: 150. 74

on the part of the owner or conductor the tenant’s property was damaged, it would seem logical that the tenant had a legitimate case for either abandonment, remission of rent, or to sue. The problem is that the property the tenant brought in has diminished in value because it was damaged; therefore, it is now no longer appropriate security (hypotheca) for the tenant’s current lease.

Equally, if they moved they still might not have enough material property to use as hypotheca for their new cenaculum because the objects brought into their previous cenaculum were ruined, lost their value, and therefore will no longer meet the required financial burden for replacing the lease.

If the tenant should retaliate by not paying their rent, how could the landlord or conductor recover the rent they were owed? In this scenario, the advantage of paying rent in arrears could have been a legal bargaining tactic for the tenant, if they had this option as part of their contract. As discussed before, obligations can arise from damages.261 Therefore, the option for a lawsuit in this case of a tenant’s property being impaired must have been part of the negotiation process.

This example tests the legal interpretation of insulae and the evidence found in the

Praetorian Edict regarding damages to a private individual living in an insula. Julian states that ne quid in loco public fiat, quo damnum private detur.262 This statement is resolved several sections earlier in the Digest 43.8.2.3 where insulae are referred to as public.263 The significance of this seems to clarify why insulae were so difficult to legislate because they were, for legal purposes, public, but owned, operated, and inhabited by private person(s). Obligation most likely was the main argument that provided the tenants the ability to sue to recover their damaged property.

261 Dig. 44.7.4. 262 Dig. 43.8.6 Julian is citing the Praetor Edict. “Anyone who avails himself of the interdict, ‘that nothing should be done in a public place to cause damage to a private person,’ even though the interdict applies to public place, nevertheless, may employ a procurator.” Julian was employed under Hadrian to reassess the Praetor’s Edict. His writing is considered to be highly influential. 263 For more discussion on this point see the introduction in section 3.0. 75

Therefore, damages to tenants’ property within their apartment allowed them to sue in accordance with the Praetorian Edict. This is also tacitly implied when a building is destroyed by a collapsing neighbouring structure and the landlord could have moved the objects that were held as pignus within the structure to a safer location.264 It therefore allowed for opportunity for the tenant to sue because the landlord is liable.

2.4 Height and Insulae: Things Thrown from Upper Floors The urban housing environment was a complicated place. There are two features regarding the height of buildings that the jurists were concerned with: the blocking of light, lumen, and view, prospectum, and things thrown out the windows from the upper floors. Both topics were a concern regarding insulae, and the jurists seem genuinely interested in discussing these two types of servitudes (for more on servitudes see section 3.0). The jurists considered the right to light and view as a reason for the abandonment of one’s apartment because it could adversely affect one’s enjoyment.265 The need to build higher was advantageous for those who were trying to maximize the profit potential of their building as well as trying to compete with public architecture. The result was that Rome’s ancient city skyline was actually a competitive place. The height of the

Flavian Amphitheatre is about 162 Roman feet, the Pantheon is 145 Roman feet,266 the Arch of

Titus is 52 Roman feet, and the Arch of Constantine is 71 Roman feet.267 Insulae were regulated to seventy Roman feet and later under Trajan to sixty Roman feet.268 The jurists are oddly silent regarding the actual height of buildings. Presumably, regulations were more complicated than placing a restriction on the number of feet of height. The topography of Rome was very

264 Dig. 39.2.34. 265 Dig. 19.2.25.2. 266 Sear 1992: 135 and 168. 267 Richardson 1992: 30 and 24. 268 Strabo 5.3.7 on the regulation by Augustus, Tac. Ann. 15.43 for regulations by Nero and Sext. Aur. Vict. Epit.13.13 for regulations by Trajan. 76

complicated with hills and valleys, which would have made it quite difficult to have a singular maximum building height. Because of the potential inconsistencies, the need to place a servitude on a neighbouring property must have seemed like a good mechanism to protect urban property investment. While Vitruvius describes building height as a great advantage to provide cenacula with a good view, he does not discuss how complex and competitive it would have been for a dominus to maintain his tenants’ right to light and view.269

What options did the tenant have for lumen and prospectus? The answer is complicated and depended upon the interests of the landlord. The servitude that was intended to provide prospectus had to be secured by the landlord. If they did not, there was nothing that a tenant could do about it.270 Presumably, the tenant would be aware of this and could not break their lease because they were getting what they had paid for.271 Frier does discuss this feature, and it does appear that if someone’s enjoyment was challenged, they could have left, but this seems to be more theoretical than a reality. Breaking the lease over something that could have been out of the control of the conductor or the dominus is not likely.

The one good example for how serious this was comes from Pompeii. An inscription located in the Sanctuary of Apollo discusses that the right to block the neighbouring property’s light was purchased for HS 3,000 (see Appendix I section 9.0). Presumably, this action occurred because whoever wished to build the western wall of the sanctuary higher needed to first place a servitude upon the neighbour’s domus. Servitudes had the potential to be lucrative. It is easy to speculate that some properties may have been built entirely to take advantage of the fact that, as

269 Vitr. De arch. II.8.17. 270 Dig. 8.2.9. 271 Dig. 39.2.13.6. 77

the owner of the servient building, one could receive payment for a variety of servitudes being placed on the structure. It is possible some insulae were subjected to having many servitudes placed on them in order for the landlord to collect payment. If this was the case, it is easy to see how an insula could become derelict. Vigilance was a constant necessity in the ancient Roman city. It was for the neighbours to impose control upon those who would abuse property rights.272

The jurists categorized objects thrown out of the windows from the upper floors under delict, because of the potential damages that could be caused to property and pedestrians.273 It is easy to see why this would be the case. Damage could be done to the structures that had human waste running down the side if someone threw liquids out a window; if someone threw an object out the window, the potential for injury was inevitable. This is another part of the obligation shared between landlord and tenant because, as discussed previously, obligation can arise from delict.274

Liability was intended to target the specific individual who threw the liquids or object out the window. However, the action could be against everyone who inhabited or used the space.275 Even if someone rented a space to another within their own living quarters, they too had an action against the person who threw something out the window.276 Keeping this behaviour in mind, the repair of toilets (forthcoming in Chapters 3 and 4) suggests a reciprocal need for the upper floor toilets to be in working order to prevent waste from being thrown out the window. If this was a feature that the tenants were paying for and the dominus or building operator neglected these features, the tenants clearly (as discussed above) had the right to deduct from their rent. The dominus in response to repairs taking place in the toilets opted to place them in an area outside of the main

272 Dig.8.2.11.pr-1. 273 Dig. 8.3.1.pr.-2. 274 Dig. 44.7.4.pr; 44.7.5.5. 275 Dig. 9.3.5.2. 276 Dig. 9.3.5.4. 78

living area in a stairway or corridor (see Appendix II, tables 5 and 6). The evidence from Ostia shows that 200 of the 343 upper floor toilets found were placed in stairways and corridors. This minimized the severity of the shafts’ damage to the tenant’s property and did not allow for the tenants to deduct from their rent because it was outside of their main living quarters as was already discussed regarding passage 19.27.2 from the Digest. It seems that legally and archaeologically, the evidence presented argues for a greater understanding in the obligations shared by the dominus and tenant. It is possible that the development of toilet shafts placed in the upper floor of insulae became important as a result of problems with waste being thrown out the windows. The evidence in this study suggests that the location of the shafts in stairways and corridors strongly addresses an association with objects thrown out of windows and the legal obligation of the landlord to provide a means to prevent it. Equally, the tenants were required to use the toilet shafts to dump their waste. If they did not, the penalty could have been a large fine, property seizure, and possibly eviction.

2.5 Summary of Legal Perspective In summary, this section has demonstrated the basic mechanisms of lease law. This is not a new discussion, but the interpretations of the sources have addressed some of the issues in the complexity of urban property. Application of the archaeological evidence forthcoming in Chapter

3 will provide a greater context and allow for greater exploration of the urban housing environment. The discussion presented will be combined with Chapter 3 and will compose part of the discussion in Chapter 4. While the arguments presented are nuanced, the industry of locatio conductio was a system that held the interests of the jurists enough to deliberate over and encourage new and innovative responses.277 The four main features presented in sections 2.0–2.4 are

277 Frier 1980: 192-95. 79

complicated and have many gaps because the sources that are available regarding lease and hire are incomplete and there is no evidence to suggest that there was ever created a thorough set of legal guidelines for it. There is no doubt that the system was created with the intent to protect the landowner; however, their authority was enforced by the contract. The contract could do nothing against those who had no material wealth to secure it. Therefore, there must have been a wide range of rental housing with much of it based on a simple verbal contract, needing only to state the section of the building for lease, the timeframe, and the price. The use of abandonment to escape payment of lease was interpreted as a viable tactic for the tenant, if the situation warranted it. It was upon the tenants to enforce the contractual obligation for repairs or to initiate deducting from their lease. Mostly, this process suggests a close relationship between the building operators and the tenants, which was true in the example from Petronius but possibly not for Cicero where he sends Atticus or Eros to take an inventory of who was living in his buildings and what they owed. Eros might have had a closer relationship with the tenants.

Different types of living arrangements probably had a role in this as well. The difference between short- and long-term leases must have had an effect upon the expectations of the landlord and tenant, which explains some of the difference between living in a deversorium or a cenaculum.

Within the contract, there appears to be some ambiguity, which allowed for a degree of flexibility; mostly this favoured the landlord, but in some cases, the tenants had the upper hand to abandon their lease legally. It was obligatio that provided tenants more flexibility to exercise their basic rights. Because the jurists did not explicitly define, in our available sources, tenants’ rights, much of their legal action could have been addressed under obligatio. It is possible because the tenants had the least invested in the insula (or housing in general) that there was a resistance to creating elaborate legal discussion concerning them, but Frier does suggest that there is more balance in

the jurists’ discussion creating opportunities for both the landlord and tenant.278 In this interpretation obligatio functioned as a type of safety net for those who had the means to enforce it regardless of whether they were the tenant, conductor, or dominus.

3.0 Servitudes, Usufruct and Utility: How to control the urban environment. In Chapter 1, discussion regarding the use of the legal discussion in its application to the archaeological remains was noted from several leading archaeological publications. One of the main purposes for using the legal texts in this manner is to aid in understanding the multitude of nuances contained within the archaeological remains. By using this method, not only are researchers trying to provide an explanation for the physical remains, but, incidentally, they are suggesting how the jurists or local magistrates might have guided some of the urban development processes. It is difficult to say how much the existing problems in urban development influenced the jurists’ discussions or whether they had a sincere impact upon the built environment.

Nevertheless, what is available in the legal texts places a premium on urban real estate and the boundaries to which it could be exploited. Urban property must have a purpose; there had to be a reason for investing time and money. Insulae emerge as a structural type that provided the most utility. This building type was the best way to use the land, the structure, and people to the greatest extent. It was the most versatile and effective form of structure they could devise to address the fact that domus did not suffice in a densely built urban environment. Attempting to isolate the nuances of this argument is not without peril, but there are threads of evidence in the use and development of legal devices that encouraged investment in insulae, which may account for the number of insulae, 46,602, found in the Notitia Regionum.

278 Frier 1980:194. 81

The main area of influence on urban property from the jurists can be found in servitudes.

These were a means to control or prevent a neighbour’s property from either damaging one’s own and restricting a neighbour’s ability to use their property. A servitude could provide a legal right to deny a neighbour something that legally they were otherwise entitled to, such as light or prospect.279 For the tenant, only the act of suing their landlord for not ensuring access to light and view was an option, which placed the tenant at a severe disadvantage. For the dominus, there was an element of vigilance that was needed to protect his property. In two brief discussions, Ulpian states, Cum eo, qui tollendo obscurat vicini aedes, quibus non serviat, nulla competit actio.280 It appears that even with a servitude there had to be a negotiation regarding the height because, Si inter te et vicinum tuum non convenit, ad quam altitudinem extolli aedificia, quae facere instituisti, oporteat, arbitrum accipere poteris.281

In a rare example from Pompeii, a servitude was placed on the neighbouring property of the Sanctuary of Apollo for the right to block their light. The construction of the western wall to a great height was mostly likely what initiated the legal action. The blocking of light was an offence, and individuals could find themselves being sued because the Praetorian Edict (Appendix I, section

9.0) granted the right to prospectus and lumen.282 In this example, the duoviri of Pompeii paid HS

3,000 for the right to block the neighbouring property’s light. For the most part, servitudes are physical and as discussed before, building height was many times subject to control through a servitude.283 The servitudes gave some control over both horizontal and vertical space, which is

279 Berger 1953: 702. 280 Dig. 8.2.9. “There is no right of action against a man who raises the height of his buildings so as to obstruct the access of light to a neighbour’s house, if there is no servitude to prevent him so doing.” 281 Dig. 8.2.11.1. “If you and your neighbour are not agreed on the height to which you may raise buildings, which you have undertaken to build, you can have an arbitrator appointed.” 282 Dig.8.2.2, this is right, but it can be lost or granted by a servitude. 283 See section 2.4. 82

implied in an inscription from Ostia that states that the wall is only shared to a specific height.284

It was for the neighbours to remain vigilant and to pursue construction that had the potential to deny them their rights. Authors such as Aulus Gellius discuss insulae spreading for miles285 and

Tertullian provides evidence for their pervading vertical identity when he discusses the Insulae of

Felicles “almost reaching heaven”.286 In Roman cities with dense construction and a large population, servitudes identified and addressed some of the problems with urban growth. They provided property owners and their neighbour a means to enter into a contractual relationship in order to safeguard their own interests.

One important development in servitudes that appears in the legal discussion is known as superficies.287 This legal classification allowed for the distinction between separate ownership between the ground and the object that was above it. Roman law allowed someone to build upon land that they did not own for a payment of lease for the land; these structures became known as superficies.288 If the building was of no obstruction to anyone, they could leave the building because tearing it down would have disfigured the city.289 Therefore, the building remained for the person(s) who built it to use it and take profit, but the land belonged to the city or whoever owned it. If they should default on their lease payment that was required to occupy someone else’s land; in most cases, the building would then be turned over to whomever owned the land (in theory).

284 Appendix I see section 8.0 Paries Communis, Ostia Antica: NSA-1953-302. 285 Aul.Gell. 15.1. 286 Tert. Adv. Valent. 7.4. 287 See Appendix I section for superficies in the burial context, especially CIL 6.08511 for a superficies insulae. Superficies may refer to any type of structure that was not owned by the same person who owned the ground that it was built upon. Modern scholarship tends to consider much of intent for superficies for housing. Essentially, there were a nuanced category of insulae, Phillips 1973 and Stoop 2006. 288 Berger 1953:725, Stoop 2006.esp. 263 for two contracts of those who build structures on public land. He cites CIL 6. 1585a, CIL 6.1585b, and CIL 10. 1783. Suarez Balquez 2011a and 2011b. These structures are largely only known through the legal texts. It is not commonly found outside of the jurists’ discussion. See also Appendix I section 6.0 for select examples of superficies in the burial context. 289 Dig. 43.8.2.17-18. 83

Stoop suggests that legislation regarding superficies was developed into an inheritable form of property to help curb a housing problem, but this seems unlikely.290 Most likely their popularity and the legal interest was due to the superficies becoming abandoned or derelict, causing the neighbouring property to take action on the dilapidated structures. They were operated under locatio conductio and possibly benefitted from the jurists’ legal development of insulae.291 Several superficies insulae are known from inscriptions and the legal sources. Given the prevalent nature of fires in Rome and the encouragement to build and develop the city, these types of structures could have been very popular and dangerous.292

The legal sources were more interested in protecting neighbouring property of the superficies because they were either falling down or had been abandoned and become derelict. In many cases, this would have been among structures with a shared wall. If one structure is falling down, it threatens the neighbouring property as well. While the neighbour could serve notice or ask for a cautio against impending damages or damages already done,293 there was the option of purchasing the building (but not the ground) with the intent to repair it; at least then the building did not threaten their own property. If they could not compel the neighbour (of the derelict building) to fix the building, they could then sue for their money back if they had fixed the structure, or the structure could have been turned over to them in lieu of the fees while the ground itself most likely did not change ownership.294 (There is no evidence for the owner of the land to share any obligation for the superficies.) In this scenario, a single owner’s building then extended

290 Stoop 2006. This is possibly more complicated. It might have more to do with the requirement of an heir to take responsibility for and maintain the property. 291 Dig. 39.2.18.3-4. 292 CIL 6.08511. Dig. 39.2.9.4, 39.2.39.2, 6.2.12.3 purchase of an insulae that was legally a superficiariam insula. 293 See for the regulating of boundaries, Dig. 10.3.12, 10.4.6. See Dig. 39.2.19.1 for anticipated injury to one’s self or property. See Dig. 39.2.13.2 for the concern of a derelict structure damaging another. 294 Dig. 39.2.39, 39.2.15.34-35. 84

beyond his own property boundary and onto his neighbour’s land because it now incorporated the neighbouring structure. The new owner of the building could then sell the structure but not the land because it was owned by someone other than the owner of the superficies. An example of this can be found in the Digest where superfices of a building was for sale.295

To take over another’s building through repairing it could have been a form of self-help that instead turned into a legal device to help resolve the problems of derelict and abandoned structures in the city.296 This might have been such a big problem in Rome that there was no choice but to create legal mechanisms regarding it. Therefore, the legal discussion of superficies became more mainstream. In fact, the person who owned the superficies had a right to request a cautio against a neighbouring property.297 Cicero notes that he is surprised that the derelict structure around his own building did not affect its price.298 He might have been reflecting upon the fact that there was an awareness for the dominus to ensure that his property was secure. However, this does not mean that there was concern for tenants, only that the owners were aware of their potential loss if their neighbours’ property could damage their own. Surely, for property owners being aware of what their neighbours were or were not doing was in their best interests, especially in the case of superficies.

3.1 Usufruct It has been suggested that insulae developed legally and architecturally into the best way to exploit urban property. One of the elements that enabled investors to capitalize on insulae was the structure’s assigned civil status, which for urban property dictated its basic functional capacity.

295 Dig. 23.3.32. See also Dig. 39.2.15.12, Stoop 2006: 261 suggests this text references to a section of a building identified as a superficies. 296 See also missio in possessionem. Dig. 39.2.15.35-36. Berger 1953: 584-85. 297 Dig. 39.2.20. 298 Cic. Att. 14.10-11. 85

Its status could help or hinder its utility. An example of this can be found by comparing how functional insulae and domus were when under a popular servitude known as usufruct. This was the right to collect the profit or fruits from property they did not own.299 It was given in a legacy.

The advantages of usufruct were largely for the owner of the building and it was a good way to utilize urban property to its greatest potential because it gave the person who received usufruct a means to collect a small profit. While it could have been lucrative for the person(s) who received the right to usufruct, they were severely hindered by the fact that they could not make the necessary changes to increase their profit. They were also responsible for paying the taxes on a structure that they did not own.300 They were not legally required to keep up the building, but logically they would if they wanted to maintain their income. The dominus of the building then had a profitable and functional structure that he could use as security for political and financial purposes. This was a common scenario, and it was a requirement for elected officials to provide security in the form of property in order to help curb corrupt behaviour.301 If the building became a financial burden, it is easy to see why the usufructus might neglect it. The Digest spends a considerable amount of time on this subject, suggesting that a servitude of usufruct may have been a relatively common way to set up a family member, client, freedman, or collegium302 in the urban real estate market.303

An example of a collegium receiving usus fructus from an insula is known from an epitaph CIL

6.10248.

For the development of the Roman city, the concept of usufruct was an opportunity to exploit urban property, but for the individual who operated under a servitude of usufruct it could

299 Berger 1953: 755. Also known as usus fructus. 300 Dig. 7.1.7.2. 301 Lex Municipalis Malacitana See Hardy 1975: 106-112. 302 See Appendix I, CIL 6.10248. 303 See Dig. 7.1.19.pr the usufruct of insulae in a legacy for example. 86

have turned into a burden. An example found in the Digest makes this clear. The person granted usufruct wished to make separate spaces, cenaculum, within a domus with the intent to lease them for profit. This was judged to be illegal due to the property’s function as a domus: Item si domus usus fructus legatus sit, mertoria illic facere fructuarius non debet nec per cenacula diuidere domum: atquin locare potest, sed oportebit quasi domum locare.304 The domus could only be leased as a domus in its entirety. No further exploitation could have been created and therefore no increased profit. Receiving the right of usufruct of an urban domus must have become a frustrating servitude to work under. How many people would have wanted to lease a domus?305 The cost for the person operating under usufruct on the building’s upkeep, taxes, and water rights if it had both clean and sewer306 makes it clear that usufruct of an urban domus was a difficult form of property to yield a profit. It might be one of the reasons why domus became more infrequent under the

Principate and why they were dominated by the need for more practical structures in Rome. If the numbers from the Notitia Regionum are any indication, the 46,602 insulae as compared to 1,790 domus means that domus were outpaced nearly 26 to 1. There must have been many factors for this, but there was greater need for a building to be diverse in its function, and jurists seem to separate domus from insulae on this point. For example, for the person who wished to alter the domus to include cenaculum, this was not possible because the jurists interpreted this as a functional change to the structure. And when a building’s function changed it was reflected in its civil status, which effectively erased all previous servitudes placed on the structure.307 Thus, the

304 Dig.7.1.13.8 Ulpian citing both Nerva and Labeo in the passages. “Again, if there is a legacy of the usufruct of a dwelling house, the usufructary must not let our rooms in it, or divide the building up into separate apartments; he may, however, let it out hire, but he must let it as a house.” See also Dig. 7.1.13.7. 305 This seems to have appealed to some of the upper classes, see Chapter 1 section 2.3. 306 Dig. 7.1.27.2-3. 307 Dig. 7.1.53, See also 7.4.pr. “Accordingly, if a usufruct has been delivered or contrary to strict law, exists over public land held on a long lease or a superficies, it is lost on a change of civil status.” Dig. 7.4.10.1, 7.4.12 especially 7.4.5.2. It is logical in some cases that the servitude of a specific building type is lost by changing the architecture. 87

restriction on an urban domus rendered them extraordinarily difficult to use, unless someone was extremely wealthy. Insulae could have a small urban footprint, but floors repeated vertically many times created a breadth of economic diversity. There are no examples in the Digest of someone receiving usufruct of an insula and wishing to change it in order to increase the structure’s capacity for profit. The structure was already diverse in its function.

This suggests that property under the title of insulae, which was its status in the census,308 was the legal civil status that the city officials would have used. Property identified as insulae would have been the most lucrative to invest in because it provided the best way to exploit the limited urban space, the architectural design, and the financial capacity. Property identification and its associated function were of concern to city officials. The Notitia Regionum provides a brief catalogue of private and public property for each region. Each one carried with it a civil status that was associated with the core of urban function: housing (domus and insulae), storage (horrea), neighbourhoods (vici), baths (balnea), mills/bakeries (pistrina), and public water (lacus). Some of the emphasis of civil status might be due to the jurists’ concern with property to not be used contrary to its intended function. Therefore, they needed to develop a way to legally deal with the variety of building types and the limitations of their exploitation. It appears that usufruct was a common culprit for abusing property. 309 For example, Ulpian discussed that …si id locare coeperit, ut publice lauet, non magis quam si domum ad stationem iumentorum locauerit, aut si stabulum quod erat domus iumentis et carruchis vacans, pistrino locauerit, licet multo minus ex

For example, in Dig. 7.4.12 usufruct of a bath is lost because the testator changed the building into a house or living area. Logically the usufruct is extinguished because the bath no longer exists. 308 Suet. Jul. 41 and Aug. 40: recensus was taken and specified domus and insulae. Under Augustus it was by the neighborhoods, vicatim. Dig. 10.1.11. This sample provides explicit directions to follow the boundaries of the property listed as provided by the last census taken, if the current information regarding the property was lost. In the Digest book 50.15.4.pr, lists the element that were included in the census. Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 293-301. Cic. Pro Archia Poeta 5. 11. A court case where the defendant’s name does not appear on the census registry. 309 Dig. 7.1.13.8 and 7.1.15.1. 88

ea re fructum percipiat.310 The emphasis is to use the building as it was intended to function.

Insulae as opposed to domus were legally considered public, which provided a broad reaching interpretation in the building’s function (see section 2.3.1).311 The financial capacity and utility was far greater than a domus. The use of insulae as a means to provide gifts in a will, such as usufruct or habitatio, must have been a common scenario.312 While this argument is speculative, the variety of lucrative enterprises that insulae could contain and the large population living in them means that there must have been many problems with people taking advantage of the situation. This encouraged the jurists to create new and inclusive legal mechanisms to deal with a competitive and dynamic urban environment. As for insulae, its legal status and functionality seems to have encouraged its development into the most prolific architectural form in Rome.

3.2 Utility: Census (recensus) and insulae The legal utility of the term insulae and its potential for exploitation was a key component to their popularity. An example of this comes from the dramatic architectural changes that the

Insula Arriana Polliana in Pompeii (IV.6) underwent to develop from a structure that was most likely considered a domus into an insula. The legal part of this process was known as recensus. In many cases, the term recensus was associated with a reduction of size, such as the recensus of

Caesar and Augustus for reducing the number of recipients for the grain dole, which took place after the original census for the year had taken place.313 It could be that recensus also included a

310 Dig. 7.1.13.8 including 7.1.14: This text is a hybrid of Ulpian from Nerva and Labeo. The section in 7.1.14 is added to the text and is from Paul. “(My opinion is that the usufructary would not be acting properly or in accordance with the standards of a careful man) if he were to start to let it for hire for public use, any more than if he were to let the house as a place to keep beasts of burden or if he let as a bakery a building which served the house as a stable and coach house, even although he would derive considerably less profit from the property.” 311 Dig. 43.8.2.3. Lo Cascio 1997: 61-62. 312 Parkins 1997: 93-101. 313 Suet. Jul 41 and Aug. 40. Hardy 1924: 298-302. Wallace-Hadrill 2008: 307-308. Elmore 1918. Lo Cascio 1997: 3-76. An excellent discussion on census, but it is largely concerned with the grain dole. While this is true there must have been many reasons for a census of people, their property and the designation of property types. See also Hardy 1975, for the Lex Julia Muncipalis also known as the Tabula Heracleensis. 89

narrowing of the categories or definition of the objects or people they were recording, essentially breaking larger groups down into smaller identifiable classes. Moatti suggests something rather similar. This may have been part of the recensus by Nero when he was looking to raise funds for his campaign against Vindex.314 He was possibly targeting those who had the financial means to support his needs. Essentially, recensus suggests that there had already been a census and that a new legal evaluation of people and property was required.

An example of how the recensus might have applied to the Insula Arriana Polliana comes from an inscription from Dacia (CIL 3. 944.8 See Appendix I section 10.0) where a domus was modified into two separate domus. The domus that composed the right half was sold. The discussion in the inscription conforms to the known guidelines of the census and lists its neighbouring property on either side.315 It also lists that the original owner of the property was to pay tax until a recensus could take place. The two new domus needed to be reassigned a tax value in accordance with their new boundaries.316 And the new owner of the domus on the right side needed to be listed as the dominus of the new domus. The suggestion is that the architectural alterations required there be a new census of the buildings and the owners; thus a recensus had to take place. The involvement of legal documentation through a census of the two new domus seems essential for urban property, otherwise there would have been no reason of the original owner of the domus, Valens, to pay tax on part of a structure he no longer owned.

Archaeologically, a recensus for a building can be suggested by the architectural alterations that changed a building’s function and possibly its civil status. Most likely this process was applied

314 Moatti 2013: 82. 315 Dig. 50.15.4.pr. 316 Dig. 39.2.47 for architectural alteration and subdivisions of a house and a double house. 90

to the domus that was redesigned into the Insula Arriana Polliana. This structure, which was given the name Domus di Pansa (VI.6.1-23), was found with a rental graffiti written on it stating that this structure was the Insula Arriana Polliana and it was for lease by Cnaeus Alleius Nigidius

Maius, who most likely owned the building (see Appendix I, section 1.1 CIL 4. 00138). He was a popular magistrate and appears on many inscriptions. He had organized several athletic competitions and gladiatorial fights, and he was politically active.317 But how does a domus, if indeed it originally was, become an insula in its legal title, and why does the name Arriana

Polliana appear on it? She was not his daughter. His daughter is testified as bearing his name on a burial marker.318 Daughters were required to have the name of their father. An inscription with

Alleia Mai filia was located and she was possibly buried at public expense, further indicating her status as a daughter of a popular magistrate. The name Pollianus or Pollio is not prolific in the inscriptional record for the region and is testified for in the Pompeiian region in two inscriptions relating to the business contracts in Capua under the consuls Titus Axius and Titus Mussidius

Pollianus.319 Without the actual advertisement it is very difficult to say where the name comes from and their association with the building.

The remodeling of the domus, especially of the exterior, was extensive and thoroughly changed the structure’s function, which would have warranted a recensus of the property not only because the owner most likely changed but also because it was no longer going to function as a domus.320 The exterior shops and housing of the building had six terracotta pipes built within the

317 Franklin 2001: 91-96, Franklin 1997 on the political and financial influence of Nigidius Maius. 318 Franklin 2001:92. See also de Albentiis 1989: 78 for possible interpretation of the name in the rental graffiti. 319 TPSulp 12 and TPSulp 26: They date to 40 or 44 CE, which works well with the alterations for the insula. de Albentiis 1989: 81-82. See Camodeca 1991: 56-57 and 69. The name Arrii may be associated with Narbonesis, which is where T.M. Pollianus served as a governor. These are very tenuous threads. The Arrii are located in Capua from epigraphic evidence dating to 180 BCE. There is also one inscription with Fauste Pollianum (CIL 4. 04788). 320 Pirson 1997: 166-178. Peterse 1985, de Albentiis 1989. Survey on the architecture of Domus di Pansa (Insula Arriana Polliana). The structural process of this building is very difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, the added 91

alterations and added to the original walls in order to drain the upper floor toilets (see also Chapter

4 section 4.0).321 Much like the discussion in sections 3.0-3.1, legal property designation, or civil status, determined (in part) a building’s functional capacity. Its architecture was the means for extracting the building’s financial potential. The jurists were clear that property was to be used for its intended purposes. In this case, the building was redeveloped into an insula with a variety of components for lease and was no longer a domus. Most likely, it then went through a recensus in order to be legally registered as the Insula Arriana Polliana.

There had to be utility in urban property; otherwise, there was little point in owning it.

Creating rental property was an excellent way to exploit urban property and under the legal status of insulae there were few boundaries. This is a key example of the term insula legally applied to a building, ensuring its functional capacity. The owner most likely kept its original name Arriana

Polliana, which gave prestige and memory to the building. Investment in remodeling this building gave the owner a diverse structure that was appealing to a variety of tenants or conductores. It would have made for a dynamic addition to the vicus. The importance of legally designating a building as an insula is further substantiated in the following section, which addresses urban property and its role in the political sphere.

4.0 Urban Property and Politics: praedes praediaque A further reason for investing into urban property was to use it as security, which could be personal, praedes, or for property, praedia.322 The uses of urban property as political and financial leverage were key factors for investment. The security, pignus, was necessary to hold a contract

downpipes for the upper floor toilets demonstrate that the owner Nigidius Maius, altered the structure to include the elements that were for lease. 321 Pirson 1999: 30-31. 322 Berger 1953: 641-642. 92

for a job, a loan, or political office, and in some cases the property was transferred over to the creditor or to the city if it was for political office. This did not diminish the value of the property and it had the added benefit, if it was leased at the time, to continue bringing in a profit while it was under pignus.323 The municipal charters from the late Republic to the Flavian era all use similar version of the expression praedes praediaque to reference this type of activity.324 This term appears rarely outside of municipal charters and legal texts and in part it is difficult to piece it all together because it is so infrequently discussed. Nevertheless, the significance is found in those who would have used or invested in property with the intent of using it as security. The Lex

Irnitana, from the municipium of Flavium Irnitanum in Spain, specifically address the use of property to security public contracts and for political office. Section 60, specifically addresses the need for the duoviri and quaestor to provide praedes praediaque to be held in common with the municipium, before they were elected, otherwise they were not availale for election.325 This practice seems to have been loosely applied in some cities. A bronze tablet found in Pamplona,

Spain, that dates to Hadrian warns the magistrates to take property as security, and that if fraudulent activities occur, it is their fault.326

Two examples worth exploring on this specific topic of urban property come from two separate inscriptions that designate the property as praedia (Appendix I CIL 4.01136 and 6.29791).

The explanation for using the term praedia could be simply that this was how the owners

323 Dig. 20.1.20: In this example, the creditor is being repaid out of the rents paid. The debt had occurred due to the need to repair the structure. Mommsen 1887, Mayer-Maly 1956: 101, 105. Hardy 1975: 77-81. Signing property over to the city required the property to be evaluated and posted publicly. Johnston 1999: 90-94. 324 Lex Municipalis Malacitana CIL 2.1964; Lex Flavia Irnitana CIL-A-2-4.01201; Lex Iulia Municipalis CIL 1.2.593 Lex Municipii Tarentini CIL I. (2) 590; Verro L.L. V.40, Tac. Ann. 6.17, Livy 22.60. 325 See Gonzalez and Crawford 1986: 147-243 for an edited and translated copy with discussion. See also section 63-65 for the procedure regariding preades praediaque. See also Hardy 1975: for the Lex Municipalis Malacitana section 60-64 for a similar requirement. 326 CIL 2.02959. 93

interpreted their property and it was the property’s civil status. It might have been that it was difficult to distinguish the boundaries of the leased elements from other sections of the property that were not for lease. It could have also been that these properties were in the process of being used as pignus or pignus subsignare.327 Pignus is typically a contractual agreement where property is signed over (in a pledge) and held as real security against a loan or the fulfillment of a contract, much like was discussed above concerning the Sulpicii Archive.328 An inscription CIL 10.01781

(see Appendix I section 11.0) provides evidence for an individual who had contracted to build a wall. This contract was leased out by the municipality of Puteoli, who required the contractor to provide security and to register his property with the duoviri. In this case, the praes was the contractor himself.329 This broadly corresponds to examples found in the Sulpicii Archive and the tablets from C. Iucundus in Pompeii.330

Two rental advertisements, one from Rome (see Appendix I, CIL 6.29791, In his praediis

Insula Sertoriana) and the other from Pompeii (CIL 4.01136, the Praedia of Julia Felix), identify the property as praedia with various components for lease. The question is why it was necessary to use the term praedia. The first suggestion is that both praedia are part of a dowry for the daughter named in the rental advertisement. She is not married yet, which is why her father is still listed; it is advertising that displays that the daughters will come with property of their own. It also implies that the property is already under pignus (or obligation) for her dowry.331 This action secures the property to the daughter first, and all other mortgages or other financial uses of the

327 Berger 1953:721, 642. 328 Berger 1953: 630. 329 Rainer 2013: 174-87, Martin 1989: 131-36. Thomas 1971. Crook 1967:244. 330 Sulpicii Archive sections 19-22: Auctions are held to sell off the property that was used as pignus, of those who were not able to pay back their loan. For C. Iucundus see See Crook 1978: 229-39. Andreau 1999: 44. On building contracts see Martin 1989, Rainer 2013. 331 Dig. 20.1.5.pr. For scholarship on dowry see Gardner 1995: 97-116. Parkins 1997:97-102. 94

property in debt, pignus, fudiciary, or hypotheca, will come second. It seems from the Digest and the municipal charters that using the same property for different types of security was rather common.332 Therefore, regardless of the loans or mortgages placed by the fathers against the praedia, it would still go to their daughters. Placing their daughters in the written advertisements ensured that there would be no doubt over who was the legal possessor of the property.

The second option is that the property was under pignus and not associated with a dowry.

It could have been used to raise a loan or to cover another debt until it could be paid off. Using property that was for lease did not hinder its ability to be used for a loan, and in the case of an insula, as in CIL 6.29791, even if it should be sold at auction because the owner could not pay back their debt, the tenants were still under contract and could not abandon their leases. Most likely, there would have needed to be a new negotiation with the tenants, but the nature of the contract determined the options for the tenants in this scenario. In the case of the Praedia of Julia

Felix in Pompeii, there is also the suggestion that the word choice of praedia was due to its function as the grounds of a collegium.333 There was recorded extensive electoral graffiti on the façade of the building; this, however, does not necessarily mean that the structure was for a collegium, but given the physical nature of the property with baths, gardens, and separate cenacula, tabernae, pergulae for lease it seems likely that there were many functions to this complicated structure. The possibility of it being designed for lease either by or for social or religious functions is a strong possiblity.

Urban property had numerous applications more than simply being leased out for financial gain but also to establish political ties. Using urban property for establishing one’s political agenda

332 Dig. 20.4.12. See Phillipson 1968:1244-47, esp. ft 126. 333 See Parslow 1989: 367-78. 95

or for raising a loan was essential in the development of the Roman city. Whether someone was a career politician like Nigidius Maius, or using their property for dowry there was always the potential for exploitation beyond finances. Insulae by their nature as public and multifaceted served in this capacity to the greatest extent, which might have been part of the development of urban property and their dominance as the preferred structural type. Their number in the Notitia

Regionum is impossible to substantiate without correlating the purpose of insulae to urban developmental needs. With the popularity of insulae, the legal discussion had to evolve as well to ensure protection for the landowner, the tenants, and the neighbouring property.

5.0 Habitatio and Clientele The provision of housing for a friend, family, or client must have been relatively frequent in the Roman city.334 This was a type of gift giving, which had many degrees of significance. This cultural trait is exemplified in Seneca’s De Beneficiis.335 The jurists discuss the provision of housing as habitatio. It was a type of servitude which the client, friend, or family (to be occupant) received. They could not rent out the space to anyone else and similar to usufruct it was lost when the building’s function changed.336 The complexity of this social mechanism was another reason for owning urban property. It also addresses some of the evidence for collegia or socii living in insulae as part of the benevolence from a patron, which will be discussed in Chapter 4.

The provision of habitatio naturally fell within the parameters of obligatio, but in this case because the housing was provided as a gift the tenant did not have the right to sue on account that they did not pay rent and they did not provide security, making it a complex gift to receive.337

334 Dig. 33.1.10. 335 Sen. Ben. 2.11.2, 2.17.6. Saller 2002:118. 336 Dig. 7.1.32 , 39.5.27, Berger 1953: 484. Amirante 1965. 337 Dig. 39.5.9.’To live free of charge in someone else’s house is considered to be a gift, since a person in this position is held to gain in that he does not pay rent for his right to habitation.’ 96

Examples from Martial imply that gifts represent the social class of the giver and not the recipient,338 meaning that the desire to give was expressed in the act and not entirely in the object received; therefore, the act was mutually beneficial because it recognized the participation of both parties involved. But what did it mean to receive habitatio? The first example comes from an obscure line from Vellius Paterculus. He discusses Augustus purchasing houses that surrounded his own in order to create open space and also for the public to have access to them.339 The meaning of these lines is not entirely clear, but we do know that Augustus did stay in friends’ and in freedmen’s cenacula.340 He therefore maintained a close relationship with freedmen and friends.

It is possible he provided habitatio through purchasing these houses and was then able to surround himself with his own clientele and others who were loyal to him. It was not uncommon, particularly in times of civil unrest, for political rivals to live in areas of Rome among a population of people that were loyal to them.341 Providing housing in this example suggests a political agenda, which most likely came with further responsibilities from the clients or tenants in these buildings.

Other examples found in the Digest suggest that it would have been a complex gift to give.

Those who received the gift held it for life and it was not to interfere with other functions of the structure.342 For example, it could not hinder someone who held usufruct or an heir who had access to the structure, and likewise the usufructus or heir could not prevent or hinder the person with habitatio.343 However, in two specific examples, the heirs of the building contested the right of the person who received habitatio.344 The stipulations of the contract providing the right to habitatio

338 Mart. 11.29, 10.11, 8.33. 339 Vell. Pat. 2.81.3. Most likely the intent was to expand his own domus. 340 Suet. Aug. 45. 341 See Chapter 1 section 2.3. Yavetz 1958. 342 Dig. 7.8.1-3. 343 Dig. 8.2.41. 344 Dig. 39.5.27, 39.5.32. 97

needed to be explicit and defendable in court. In both scenarios, the right to habitation is questioned after the death of the person who had given the gift of habitatio. Clearly, the heirs’ desire to access the property was driven by the impact that habitatio had on the financial capacity of the building and possibly their personal use of it.

Equally, a landlord could remit the rent due or rent that was owed, thus giving free habitation.345 It makes the statement by Cicero regarding the remittance of rent by Caesar even more relevant as he exclaimed that his tenants will now receive habitatio (see section 2.1). Clearly, this was a violation to him not only financially, but it also suggests that he was entering into a relationship with his tenants that he did not desire.346 While the evidence for habitatio is not a plentiful as locatio conductio, it was a simple gift and in some cases logical, such as the provision of housing for freedmen and freedwomen.347 The use of urban property to support a wide range of relationships illustrates the importance of investing in urban real estate.

6.0 Summary In summary, this chapter has presented various arguments concerning the purpose for owning and participating in the urban property market. It has been discussed that the housing market was a nuanced system; by no means was it entirely consistent. The purpose for investment could vary from purely monetary interests to using property for political purposes and loans or as a means to provide housing for clients, friends, and family. The development of Roman law encouraged and guided much of this process. Using property as pignus or hypotheca was the main way to compel someone to fulfill their contract and obligation. If one party to the contract was left without access to another’s pignus, they were at a severe disadvantage. In rental housing, this was

345 Frier 1980: 163. Dig.19.2.5. 346 Cic. De Off. 2.83. 347 Dig. 33.2.34. 98

part of the problem for the tenant. They relied upon the obligation of the locator to fulfil their end of the contract. The dominus or conductor for the most part provided nothing but access and the amenities that went with the accommodation.

The significance of studying the urban housing environment as investment suggests a different urban image. The vici were more unique and vibrant than just rundown insulae. Given the nature of recensus, there was far more interest and concern for the registry of property. Most likely, one of the many reasons for this was to specify property function as either insulae or domus.

Addressed in the introductory discussion, the reconstruction of insulae by Tiberius was necessary for several reasons, one of them being to maintain the function of the neighbourhood, the vicus.

Clearly, the restoration of the property ties the financial, social and political elements together.

There were many overlapping purposes for urban property investment. Roman authors used a broad range of terms to address housing and commercial businesses. These terms represent the competing components of insulae, which caused a maze of possible activities that operated under the same roof. Therefore, the best way that the jurists could provide access to the Praetorian Edict to those who resided in these buildings was to assign insulae a civil status of “public.” Given the potentially complicated physical arrangement of these buildings, it would seem that legally defining them as public would have been the logical assessment (see section 3.0-3.2). The ability to control the tenants’ behaviour and impose upon the dominus under obligatio made for a more stable market. While natural disaster had a huge impact on the housing market, it seems that there was great interest in keeping their investment functional by developing and maintaining a structure typology that had the greatest capacity to maximize the economic, social, and political benefit.

None of the commentary here suggests that the jurists were aware of or concerned with the hardships faced by the lower economic classes. The system that is represented in the Digest 99

provided little comfort for those without the means to initiate court proceedings or the ability to negotiate the terms of their contract in a successful manner. However, the use of obligatio allowed anyone to use the Praetorian Edict. Even the lack of enjoyment could have initiated legal conversation. For those who did not give security or establish a strict contract, there was nothing that the landlord could do and neither could the tenant. There must have been a broad range of housing available to capitalize upon the lower classes who paid their rent either daily or bartered for housing with material goods.

What seems clear is the diversity of insulae and urban property in general. In the forthcoming chapters, this will be explored in greater detail. Survey work in Ostia by Delaine suggests that the local population could afford to build, and the city reflects a building industry that was composed of many different investors and contractors.348 Furthermore, the physical remains provide a testing ground for the legal discussion. Conclusions can be drawn from the studies made here about the community, vicus, and how they interpreted their city, which will be part of the concluding discussion in Chapter 4. While the studies made above are speculative because it is hard to imagine what the living environment was really like, by interpreting the arguments made within the context of the archaeological remains, a greater understanding and appreciation can be found. The endless scenarios that the jurists sampled to create the Digest provided some illuminating evidence for the complexity of urban property. It is of no surprise that the rise of locatio conductio coincides with obligatio and insulae. While this seems an argument too convenient not to criticize, they both correspond to the growing and demanding urban environment. Most likely, they developed inconsistently; how the jurists assembled and sampled

348 Delaine 1996: 182-83 and 2002. 100

legal discussion provides a false assumption that everything came together under Augustus, but the growth, the reconstruction, and the organization of the city of Rome under the Emperor had an undeniable effect upon the legal mechanisms that were needed to control the built environment.

Likewise, this encouraged the use of urban property to express one’s wealth and position beyond their own domus.

101

Chapter 4: The Archaeological Evidence of Ostia Antica.

1.0 Introduction This chapter analyzes the visible components of upper floor sewer and water amenities found in the field surveys of 2014 and 2015 in Ostia Antica (see Appendix II and Appendix IV maps 1-23). More specifically, it focuses on the quantity of the evidence found, the construction of each feature, a description of its function, the possible interpretations of the archaeological remains, and the feature’s location throughout the city. This will be followed by a more detailed presentation of the findings in the form of case studies in the final chapter. This chapter will bring together the social and legal significance presented earlier in the context of the archaeological finds of Ostia Antica.

The forthcoming discussion provides the archaeological evidence for demonstrating that landlords practiced maintenance and repair on upper floor toilets and/or water systems. The repairs and the features’ location within the buildings suggest that the landlords and building operators were mindful of the legal and social ramifications if they did not uphold their contractual duty, and that the tenants themselves were equally aware of their own legal position and the owner’s obligation to them. The toilet and water amenities in these buildings served the community that resided and worked within the structures. The broader implication of this study questions former interpretations of insulae as neglected, tottering towers on the verge of collapse and suggests that scholars reassess the visual cues that they provided in the city’s urban visual identity.

The following sections cover each element of the shafts and terracotta pipes recorded in the survey, including repair work. It ends with an introduction to the distribution of these features both within individual structures and throughout the city. The purpose in discussing each element

102

of the shafts is to demonstrate their unique features and

their similarities in a comprehensive manner. Providing

an overview of the evidence will allow for a more

nuanced study in the following chapter, as well as provide

the opportunity for a comparative study of select samples

from Pompeii.

2.0 Evidence Collected from Field Surveys of 2014 and 2015. Provided in Appendix II are 121 individual structures

found to contain evidence for toilet/water features.349

There are 343 individually identifiable features within the

Figure 8. Water Tower located in IV.2.2-4_6 121 buildings. They represent a range of construction styles and date from the early second to the fifth centuries CE, and possibly much later.350 The importance of a city-wide survey provides three components of evidence: one, the breadth of the physical evidence; two, the longevity of habitation in Ostia; and three, that these features were still in use and needed on the upper floors, as the additions of terracotta pipes and the shafts’ repairs suggest.

In order to identify each shaft individually, they were all assigned their own number.

Within the text and the image caption, each shaft and/or pipe will be identified with its own unique number. This corresponds to the number assigned in the catalogue in Appendix II and those found

349 The building’s numerical identity is based on those listed in Calza’s Ostia di Scavi volume 1. 350 The abandonment process of Ostia is complex and slow. More interest in this area has been discussed, Gering 2012, Pavolini 1986. 103

in Appendix IV on maps 1-23. For example,

recessed shaft number four in the building IV.4.6

will be discussed as IV.4.6_4.

2.1 Preservation and Limitations of the Archaeological Remains. There are several elements integral to the

interpretation of the information collected in the

survey. Some of the issues of preservation do

impact the methods of the survey and the

interpretation of the evidence. For one, the timing

of the repair work can only be loosely dated.351

Figure 9. Calcification in III.14.4_1. Notice the None of the terracotta pipes are stamped with any overspray of calcification and human waste wrapping around the edge ending uniformly along the edge where the tile cap was held in place with iron nails. type of insignia, so the pipes themselves provide no chronological evidence. There could have been a large gap in time before the initial problem was made known and the repairs begun. Or, quite the opposite holds true: in an example from III.1.1_1, it appears there could be two separate times of repair work happening in close succession.

The state of preservation plays an important role in this study and will reappear from time to time in this chapter. The conclusions presented here are based on piecing together the remains of buildings in varying states of preservation, which includes modern and ancient restoration. Modern reconstruction is prevalent in many of the buildings especially in Case Giardino, which has been

351 Heres 1982. For a monumental study on architecture and its dating. Lugli: 1965 and 1957. Blake 1973, Calza 1953, Boersma 1985. The discussion of the repair work in the V.2 demonstrates the complexity of upper floor toilets and drainage. The repairs date to different times according to the masonry style that was used to fill in the shafts after they went out of use. 104

taken into account especially for the measurements of

the recessed shafts. Many of the measurements provided

are generalized in their location taken and are used to

demonstrate an average size of the feature. At no point

in time do they remain consistent throughout the feature

itself. Over time, the buildings have shifted, which

creates inconsistencies, especially in these features,

Figure 10. Plate covering shaft that went out of which are narrow and were dependent upon the stability use in III.17.5_3. of the walls. Also, it appears that these buildings were robbed of their lead pipes, and many of the recessed shafts display severe damage, especially in the lower sections. I can find no direct evidence of lead vertical pipes with the exception of the iron nails placed in the centre of the shafts, similar to the water towers found in Herculaneum,

Pompeii, and the tower located in IV.2.2-4_6 in Ostia (Fig. 8). This does not negate the theory that they could have contained lead pipes or even small terracotta pipes that could have been used to transport clean water.352 It has more to do with the level of preservation and little evidence to identify whether or not the shafts actually contained lead pipes.353 It could be suggested, due to the extensive damage to some of the shafts, that they were intentionally damaged by those looking for lead pipes.

352 Stevens: 2005. 353 Brun 1991, Riccardi and Scrinari 1996, Jansen 2006, Boersma 1985: especially pages 375-76. Ostia Antica has a long history of occupation. Ashby 1912, provides a summary of brick, marble, and travertine taken for Pisa and in the theatre forty bodies found in one of the shops along the backside of the cavea, thought to be from the 1600s. In II.6.5-6_2 there is a terracotta pipe which possibly dates to the Medieval period. This pipe has a brown shiny glaze with concentric ribbing; only a small part of the pipe and flange are visible and the shaft itself is covered with masonry. This pipe looks as though it attaches to the ancient terracotta pipe. Originally, the shaft appears to be a type RS I and the original terracotta pipe comes in at an angle and dumps into the shaft. 105

The calcification found in the

vertical terracotta pipes and recessed

shafts suggests that there was ground

water and/or human waste moving

through the feature (Fig. 9).354

Surveys in Pompeii and

Herculaneum have, through chemical

analyses, proven that there was waste Figure 11. Iron nails found in I.16.2_2. and ground water that was disposed of from the upper floors through vertical terracotta pipes.355 The evidence for this is based upon the level of preservation. Calcification not found in a recessed shaft or a terracotta pipe does not prove that there was previously no evidence for its existence or that it was never in use. It simply means that it is not visible or that there needs to be further consideration for the function of the shaft or pipe. The recessed shafts are especially problematic on this topic because they are exposed to the seasonal elements, which will cause them to decay. While I know of no chemical analyses done on the pipes in Ostia, it would be hard to imagine that they would not contain similar types of deposits as those found in Pompeii and Herculaneum.

The terracotta plates that covered these features are also challenging. In Ostia only two plates were found in situ: III.17.5_3 (Fig. 10) and II.6.3-4_1. Both are preserved because they are still attached to the vault that the shaft is running through. It must be understood that this is not the same as a plate held in place only by iron nails that sealed the shaft, which is part of the main

354 For Ostia: Stevens 2005, Boersma 1985 and 1996 Pompeii and Herculaneum: Jansen 1997:121-34, Andrews 2006: 52-62, Camardo, Martelli Castaldi and Thompson 2006: 183-91. 355 Hobson 2009 and 2010, Andrews 2006: 52-62, Jansen 1997 and 2000. 106

argument for how the shafts functioned (forthcoming).

Again, it must be considered that preservation is the main

issue. It appears that these tile covers were removed while

looking for lead pipes to rob. This may, in fact, provide

the strongest piece of evidence for the use of lead pipes in

these recesses. It would seem that tile covers looked very

much like any other type of tile for the roof or in vaults,

and the covers were disposed of or harvested along with

them. There is little to substantiate these claims of looting

or harvesting of the building material at Ostia. The lack

of evidence does provide the most convenient argument

for the lack of tile covers in situ, but it is methodologically Figure 12. Upper floor toilet in Pompeii, V.I.30- 31. Notice the construction style with a large unsound to place the entire burden of evidence on it. It is niche with a relief arch. only one possible explanation. There are bricks that date to Hadrian in the Medieval Borgo built in 1490 located just east of the ancient city and in the city of Pisa.356 But this evidence requires further substantiation and clarity.

Evidence for the iron nails is rather inconsistent. Most likely, many were pulled out for reuse

(melted down)357 when the tiles were lifted, or they could have fallen out naturally as the wall eroded. There are many holes left in the walls, which align with the few nails that are in situ, and on occasion there is iron residue left in place (Fig.11). The placement of the nails in the wall that

356 Ashby 1912: 160. 357 Cleere 1981: 74. Research on the Iron Industry of Roman Britain suggests that nails were difficult to work with once removed from their original application and corroded very easily. This might explain why there were left in situ (the nails on the outside of the shafts) because they could not be reused. 107

held the covering tiles in place was done in a

manner to ensure that the nails would remain in

place and not damage the tile or brick around it.

There are very few examples of nails ever hitting a

brick that composed the wall. This ensured that the

removal of the tiles and nails for the purpose of

repair did not damage the wall or the shaft more

than was necessary. Many of the recessed shafts

and terracotta pipes are blown out or so badly

preserved it is difficult to say much about them or

their construction other than that at one point in

time there was a vertical drainage feature.

Figure 13. Type RS 1 in IV.2.2-4_3 Where these features are visible within the building also plays an important role in their interpretation. Given that they were intended for upper floor use, studying their remains from the ground floor places a limitation on our understanding. Exactly which floor they terminated on is not clear, and their accessibility on the floor they serviced is hard to see in many scenarios. For the most part, many of the samples identified are missing the floors they serviced. It is not known if they had some type of covering over the hole on the floor they serviced or if they remained open. They could have had a seat or any type of architectural niche design for them much like we see in Pompeii V.I.30-31 or VII.2.

18-19 (Fig.12), but at this point in time, it is not clear.

108

3.0 Construction Typology The construction of upper

floor drainage in Ostia can be

broken into two main categories.

The first and largest group is the

recessed shaft. These shafts are

further broken into three main

groups and identified as types RS I,

Figure 14. RS II located in III.17.5_3. Image from above looking down with RS II, and RS III. They were the terracotta tile lining the back and figure 10 displays a tile in the front of the same shaft. preferred form of vertical waste- removal system with 229 located throughout the city. The construction style of the shafts tends to be relatively uniform in shape and size, which ranges from 20-30 cm wide and 19-30 cm in depth.

The second main construction style is the terracotta pipe. They tend to be consistent in their size range and compare well with the surveys taken in Pompeii and Herculaneum.358 They will be discussed in detail following the evidence of recessed shafts, types RS I-RS III, in the following sections.

3.1 Recessed Shafts: Type I, II, and III. The first type of shaft noted in this study is type RS I, with 184 samples. It is simply a recessed shaft built into the wall, ranging from 20-30 cm wide to 19-30 cm deep. The masonry has exposed brick that matches the rest of the wall. There is no tile revetment in the back, and they were on many occasions covered with terracotta tile plate held in by iron nails (Fig. 13). There is

358 Hobson 2010 and Andrews 2006: 52-62. 109

also evidence that the shaft was covered with brick

masonry, leaving only a short vertical seam (section

3.4). It is also possible that they were simply covered

with a heavy mortar, especially if there was repair work.

The second variation of recessed shafts is

labelled type RS II; there were thirty-eight located in

Ostia. This type of shaft has tile revetment along the

back and its dimensions are similar to type RS I. This

tile in the back is held in place by the masonry of the

wall and suggests either a functional difference of the

shaft or a technological deviation from the original (RS

I). It could have been a slightly later development but is

Figure 15. RS III located in III.10.2-3_2. Notice not consistent on this point (Fig.14). It is then covered the aligned brick in the back of shaft. with a terracotta tile and held in place with iron nails or covered by masonry, leaving only a short vertical seam in the wall. This type is also documented in Rome in the insula under San Lorenza in Lucina.359

The third type is type RS III and there were seven found. This type of recessed shaft had a terracotta pipe placed in it (Fig. 15).360 The shaft was either covered by a tile or was mortared in place as found in III.3.1-2_1, or it could have been covered by brick. The three identified shaft types are very similar in the manner of how they were sealed off. Type RS III is the most difficult

359 Brandt 2012: 90-91. 360 Middelton1892: 313 discusses a kitchen flue in the Atrium Vestae as a vertical channel with a socketed terracotta pipe, 10 cm in diameter, placed within it and then covered over with stucco. 110

to assess because they seem to be associated

with repair work (section 4.0). In some cases, the

terracotta pipe does not fit in the original shaft,

which can be seen in figure 15. They are also

difficult to work with because there are so few

of them. Given the level of preservation of some

Figure 16. RS III located in III.10.2-3_2. Notice the aligned of the shafts, it would suggest that there is brick in the back of shaft. potential for others to be placed into this category in the future.

The existence of type RS III could also be based upon the evidence suggesting that type

RS I was not structurally suited for running through a vault. The result is that a recessed shaft that intersects a vault had to be fitted with a terracotta pipe to run through the vault. For example, in the Horrea Piccolo Mercato (visible in figure 16) a recessed shaft RS I intersects a vault and the rounding impression of the terracotta pipe is visible entering and exiting through the vault. The

pipe would have intersected a pipe brace (section 3.8) on

the floor and continued into the drainage located under

Via della Fortuna.

Another important consideration to add to type RS

III are the shafts, which empty into large ground floor

toilets. For example, in Caseggiato del Balcone a

Mensole (I.6.2_1, Appendix IV map 3) a shaft that is a

Figure 17. Box-flute located in the Terme di type RS I is visible running behind the stairs down toward Nettuno. Note the iron nail with flanges holding in the two tiles simultaneously. the forica. However, the shaft ends at the vault. It would 111

have then required a terracotta pipe to finish the

distance between where the type RS I entered the

vault for the stairs to the drain in the ground floor

toilet. This means that either there was a pipe

running the entire distance within the shaft or that

the pipe was added for the last remaining metres and

Figure 18. II.6.3-4_1. Hanging tile coming through the was possibly held in place with a pipe brace (section vault. 3.8) as it intersected the toilet on the ground floor.

It appears that most likely the pipe was added to complete the shaft from the vault, and it ran the distance between the vault of the stairway and forica.

3.2 Tile Covers -tegulae hamatae and mammatae- for Type RS I-III The technique of using terracotta tiles to cover a wall is not without precedent. In many cases, iron nails will hold the tiles in place. It is commonly found in Roman baths with tegulae mammatae.361 In Ostia, this technique is also found with box-flutes, held in place with iron nails

to allow warm air to circulate behind the tiles to

prevent condensation (Fig. 17). This technique is

also found in several domus where the walls are

lined with tile in order to prevent seepage or

humidity coming through and harming the wall

painting.362 Commonly, the tiles are held in place

with T-shaped iron nails placed in each corner or

Figure 19. Located on the façade IV.10.9 along the Via del Mercurio, Pompeii. Red arrows point to iron nails.

361 For further reading on Roman tiles: Warry 2006, Bodribb 1987, McComish 2015: 22. 362 Adams 1994:219-23, Lugli 1957: 578-82. 112

through the tiles themselves. This type of

nail can be seen in figure 17. The advantage

is that a nail with this shape allows for the

flanges of the T to overlap and hold in two

tiles or, in this case two box-flutes,

simultaneously (nail patterns will be

discussed in section 3.3). Comparative

evidence is found in several places. For Figure 20. II.9.13_3. Notice the sinter and the large nail in blue projecting from the wall. example, in the House of the Faun in

Pompeii, they are found placed on the wall with nails through the tiles.363 This is also used to prevent humidity from seeping through the walls in crypts. A similar use is found in the House of

Livia, which exhibits tile-lined walls to protect the frescoes in a triclinium located in an underground crypt.364

The archaeological remains are further confirmed by Vitruvius who encouraged this

practice and discusses the processes of adding tiles

(tegulae hamatae) to walls to prevent seepage

and/or condensation from ruining wall

paintings.365 In VII.4.2, he describes an option for

preventing condensation from seeping through the

paintings by extending from the wall outwards at

Figure 21. Notice the depth of the nail and the broken a perpendicular angle narrow columns or piers, edge of the masonry.

363 Adams 1994: 219. 364 Calci and Messineo 1984:29. 365 Vitr. De arch. VII.4.1-2, V.10.3: See also Middleton 1892: 180-81. 113

which stretched out the width of a hand. These piers

were to be wide enough for the sides of two tiles

simultaneously. These were covered with tiles from

the bottom to the top.366 In addition, the back of the

original wall from where the columns extend was

covered with tegulae hamatae, which is reminiscent

of the shafts identified in the survey as type RS II.

Figure 22. Aligned iron nails found in III. 10.1_4 He suggests that the tiles covering the openings between the piers are also of the hamata style (with a flange).367 This technique created a double wall to trap the moisture in between the two tiled walls. It does not say to use nails to hold the tiles, but it would seem logical to conclude they were used given the weight that the lower tiles would have had to carry. The humidity caught in the narrow gap between the two walls would then drain into a channel below.

Unfortunately, in Ostia the evidence for tile covers in situ is exceedingly rare; only two were found, one in II.17.5_3 in figure 11 and another in II.6.3-4_1 in figure 18. Both of these display hanging tiles, which were held in place from a vault (the tile size is small, closer to bessales in their dimensions). This is not the same as held in place by nails. As discussed in section 2.1, preservation plays a large role in this piece of the shaft. The tiles seem to be the more sensitive and complex of three components (shaft, nails, and tile cover), because it appears that their shape

366 Vitruvius suggested covering the interior of the tiles with pitch to resist the moisture. A similar technique is known from testing amphorae contents, which demonstrated that pitch was applied in the wall of the vessel to prevent the contents from seeping. 367 Vitr. De arch. VII.4.2: Sin autem locus non patietur structuram fieri, canales fiant et nares exeant ad locum patentem. Deinde tegulae bipedales ex una parte supra marginem canalis inponantur, ex altera parte besalibus pilae substruantur, in quibus duarum tegularum anguli sedere possint, et ita a pariete eae distent, ut ne plus pateant palmum. Deinde insuper erectae hamatae tegulae ab imo ad summum ad parietem figantur, quarum interiores partes curiosius picentur, ut ab se respuant liquorem; item in imo et insummo supra camaram habeant spiramenta. 114

and size could have great variation. It was initially assumed

that there would be evidence for bessales bipedales or

sesquipedales,368 but the evidence demonstrates that the tiles

for covering the shaft could have been more inconsistent. This

may indicate the preference of those who constructed the

building or simply be a regional difference. A better

understanding for the function of the tile covers can be

demonstrated after a discussion of the iron nails, because the

Figure 23. III. 10.1_4 right side of shaft two features are dependent upon each other (see section 3.3- from the viewer’s perspective. 3.4).

There is from Pompeii an extremely rare example of a terracotta tile cover on the façade of

IV.10.9. The shaft still has its plaster lining

and three nails that held the tile in place

(Fig. 19).369 Its preservation was possible

because it was cut out of Tuff. The small

brick masonry made from Sarno limestone

was not as conducive to creating a

rectangular shaft. Moreover, the porous

nature of the stone did not lend itself well Figure 24. IV.4.6_5 note the nails side by side. This not the only example of this found, but the current study did not find many samples of this type of pattern. The blue line indicates the to a wall feature with waste falling through calcification build-up on the outside of the wall.

368 Vitr. De arch. V.10.2.3, VII.4.2. Measurements of one and a half Roman feet is common and legal measurement Vitr. De arch. II.8.17; 2.8.17.5, Adams 1994:147 the three main divisions of tiles are bessales at 19.7cm, sesquipedales at 44.4 cm and bipedales at 59.2 cm. 369 Another example of cut vertical channels in tuff is found along the façade of VII.4.60-61 in Pompeii. This shaft also has terracotta pipe placed in it. 115

it. Still visible in figure 19 are the grooves cut along the sides of the shaft, which helped embed the tile cover, and iron nails are visible (red arrows). As the shaft proceeds up the wall, it loses the defining rectangular shape, because the wall transitions from Tuff to Sarno masonry. The masonry style seems to have an effect upon the success and frequency of recessed shafts in Pompeii. This might suggest a link between the use of the rectangular shaft and the evolving nature of the construction industry. It could have been a technological advancement in the process of waste disposal. The evidence from Ostia suggests a preference in the development of this type of technology, especially when compared to prolific use of terracotta pipes in Herculaneum and

Pompeii.370

3.3 Iron Nails The iron nails that held the terracotta tile covers in place provide some of the best information regarding the longevity of the shaft and whether it was repaired. The nails themselves are not typically in the best condition, but they were so large when they were pulled out that they left holes and staining where they were once held in place. In figures 20 and 21, the size and depth of the nails’ penetration of the walls is well illustrated. The size and the depth of the nails needed to be complementary to the size and weight of the tiles that they had to hold in place, which means that they had to penetrate the wall many centimetres.371 This is visible in figure 20 with the large nails protruding from the wall (blue arrow and green arrow), as well as the large hole in the wall (red arrow). And in figure 21, the nail is visible penetrating the wall for at least 8 cm. The external part of the nail is missing, making it at least 10-12 cm in length. For the sake of clarity in this report,

370 Discussion regarding the technological development of this shaft type away from the terracotta pipe will be preented in greater detail in Chapter 3. 371 McConchie 2012:1-12. A study on the five types of nails known from Inchtuthil demonstrates that there were a variety of iron nails and hooks used in construction. Vitruvius does not tend to discuss nails often, typically only using the term clavis (VII.1.2, VII.1.5, X.10.3) and on one occasion he uses the term clavis muscariis (VII.3.11) possibly referring to a broad head nail which might explain the fly association. 116

the shafts that did not display clear evidence of the iron nails were not included; however, many of the shafts display holes along the sides, which could indicate that there were iron nails originally that were removed or simply eroded as indicated.372

Determining a pattern for the nails at first glance is relatively obvious; however, given the state of perseveration and the number of times the shafts were repaired can cause inconsistencies.

Also, not having any of the tile covers in place creates additional problems for interpretation because there are no measurements for them in situ. This study relies on the overspray patterns

(visible in figures 9, 11 and 13). This build-up found along the external edges of the shafts is a deposit of calcification from the spray of deposits falling down the shaft. The action of waste and ground water flushing the system forced small amounts of water and waste between the tile and the section of wall it overlapped. The outside edge of the overspray provides a basic width of the tile. In many cases, the iron nails correspond to the overspray patterns as can be seen in figures 9 and 11. The combination of the overspray pattern and the location of the nails provide a useful method regarding how the covers were held in place and whether or not the inconsistencies in the nail pattern suggest repair work. Middleton’s observation of the nails used on the tiles in the Opera del Duomo in Orvieto suggests that each tile was held in place with four nails, one in each corner through the “projecting bosses” of the tile.373 Comparative evidence shows that the nail pattern found for the tiles in the House of the Faun in Pompeii suggest a single nail for each tile placed randomly; mostly they appear to be adhered to the wall with mortar.374 And in La Villa Prima

Porta, sala 2, the walls are lined with tiles (61 x 44 cm) five rows high that are held in place with

372 Future studies in mapping the iron nails will better demonstrate the inconsistencies in the process of nailing the tiles in place. The information presented here is the initial results from the surveys. 373 Middleton 1892: 181. 374 Adams 1994: 219. There are two rooms that have walls with a tile lining. The size of the tiles are 62 x 49 cm. 117

T-shaped nails, allowing the T nails to hold the edges of two tiles similar to the box-flutes visible in figure 17.375

3.3.1 Nail Patterns There appears to be a couple of different ways that the tiles were held in place over the shafts found in Ostia. The first pattern was the T-shaped iron nails overlapping two tiles simultaneously and holding both the upper and lower tiles in place as they move vertically up the shaft.376 This nail pattern is indicated by the overspray found along the external edges of the shaft, because the placement of the nail was set at least a centimetre or two inside from the edge as can be seen in figure 10. In this sample, there is heavy calcification build-up along the edges, and in the middle there is an iron nail (indicated with a red arrow) where two tiles met and were held in place with a single T-nail. The overspray indicated the outer edges of the tiles extending beyond the iron nail (to the left of the viewer) ending where the edge of tile was sealed off. This observation helps to provide a general pattern to expect when observing how the tiles covered the shafts. The nails placed in the joint of the two tiles provides both the size of the tiles covering the shafts and the regularity of the pattern for the iron nails.

For example, in III.10.1_4 (Fig. 22), there are four nails indicating the location of the tile cap and its size, as indicated by the red arrows. The nails seem to match in size and are relatively consistent in their spacing. In figure 23 is the right side of the shaft, (visible in figure 22); there are many smaller nails (green arrows) found spread vertically in an inconsistent manner. These

375 Calci and Messineo 1984: 29. Adams 1994: 219-20 also notes that in a temple at Villards d’Hera in the Jura, a similar technique is used. My own observations in the Domus del Torello di Bronzo in Pompeii V.1.7 suggest that nail patterns found in the tiles lining rooms seven and twenty-five could be very limited when ties are aligned horizontally. The rows tie into one another and the lower tiles hold the upper tiles in place. The use of nails in these types of constructions is very limited. 376 Deocormeille and Woimant 1983: 26-27. The use of T-shaped nails and tegulae mammatae in a bath complex. 118

nails (green) are an indication of repair, meaning that the original tile had to be lifted and the smaller nails were either added to the replacement tiles along with the original nails or they were used to hold in the new tile without the original nails.

Another pattern appears to be an overlapping of the ends of the tiles, which caused the nails in this area where the tiles overlapped to be clustered. This method required an internal and an external nail, as found in example IV.4.6_5 where the two nails are placed side by side (Fig. 24).

This could also be an indication of repair work, as they are not very common. On occasion, it appears that some tiles were held in place with nails placed along their edges, which also could be an indication of repair work. It could also simply be how the original tiles were held in place.

A final observation proposed for the nail patterns found can be associated with the height of the wall. If the height of the wall that the tiles needed to cover was low, it is possible the tiles were simply held in place with the wall plaster. For example, in Caseggiato di Bacco e Arianna

III.17.5, shafts two and three do not display any evidence for nails, but shaft one does. This might explain some of the inconsistencies, such as why, in some instances but not all, there is good evidence for the nails. Future studies will provide a greater emphasis on adding to the database more measurements in order to substantiate patterns in the construction style and use of nails.

Further assistance for studying the pattern of iron nails was provided by using Agisoft

PhotoScan software. This program is designed for photogrammetry and was used in the mapping process of the iron nails. The information provided by mapping the nails allows for the opportunity to review the construction process on a broader scale and bring together the previous discussion of the tile covers and how they were attached to the shaft with nails. In Appendix III, seven samples are provided that demonstrate the capabilities of the software and its value to this study. Each

119

sample provides a screenshot of the working template and close-ups in order to highlight specific anomalies. Each set of plates are labelled A,B, or C if required. For example, figure 1 in Appendix

III displays one shaft (shaft four) from Cassegiato degli Aurghi. On the lower left-hand side of the image is a 50 cm scale. This measurement is used to secure the scale for the measurements taken from nails. It must be kept in mind that this is not the entire length of the shaft. The samples varied in their height. It depended upon the height of the shaft’s preservations and the height that I could reach with my camera. Nearly 2.2 metres high was as far as I could reach. The blue flags indicate nails found in the shafts. The measurements taken between the nails are provided in the lower left- hand box. The first measurement in the list is the scale. The small blue flags indicate where a nail was found on the surface and the yellow lines indicate a measured distance between two nails.

Both vertical and horizontal distances can be assessed. In the first sample, figure 1, clusters of nails can be found. The measurements indicate that they are roughly 10-11 cm apart. The indication is that this area is consistently covered therefore establishing a pattern, which supports the theory of construction discussed earlier. Also, many smaller nails are found consistently just outside of the overspray, the visible white build-up on either side of the shaft and the heavy build-up in the back of shaft. This is clearly visible in the third image, Part C. It is possible that the smaller nails indicate repair work, because they tend to deviate from the pattern.

Figures 2 and 3, in Appendix III, do not provide an overwhelming amount of evidence regarding the nails. But the construction style is especially clear along with the alterations that are visible in figure 2. In figure 2, the repair work is demonstrated by the addition of a terracotta pipe to a shaft that was originally type RS II, and the nails left behind are from the original construction.

In addition, the change in the surrounding masonry is very clear, which coincides with the damage done that was required to access the shaft in order to repair it. (On the backside of the same wall,

120

a similar change in the masonry is visible.) In figure 3, there is an example of two nails side by side. As suggested earlier in section 3.3, this could be from repair work or it could also be from an overlapping of the covering tiles when they were applied to the wall.

Figures 4 through 7 highlight some of the better examples found in Ostia regarding construction style. An interesting point found throughout this study was that many of the measurements do not correspond to those known from Roman building materials. It might be assumed that because the shafts are a rather common feature in Ostia, they might match common tile sizes. For example, in figures 5, 4, and 7, consistent measurements of about 40 cm horizontal distance would have been the width of the tile needed to cover the shaft. These measurements are relatively consistent to those of sesquipedales.377 Overall throughout all of the samples from the survey where the width of the tiles could be assessed, there was a general consistency. This corresponds to the uniformity found in the internal dimensions of the shafts as well. The width of tiles suggests then a specific type designed specifically for covering the shafts. Further investigation will provide conclusive evidence for the existence of this building material. It is a possibility that they used lead sheets to cover the shafts where it ran through a room that was occupied, such as the examples found in IV.6.4.

The tiles’ lengths are more difficult to assess. The nail patterns themselves do not clearly reveal where one tile ended and another began. But because there is consistency in the widths and the internal dimensions of the shafts, it would seem possible that the tile lengths would correspond, in the original design, to a known tile size such as sesquipedales or bipedales. An example of tile length is found in figure 7 in Appendix III. On the lower left-hand side, as the viewer looks at the

377 Adams 1994: 293 suggests an average size that could be cut into small sizes: bessales 19.7cm x 19.7 cm, sesquipedales 44.2 cm x 44.2 cm, and for bipedales 59.2 cm x 59.2 cm. Vitr.VII.5.2 suggests bipedales. 121

image, between the lowest nail and the fourth nail indicated by the flag, there was a repair made, indicated by the change in masonry and the long gap between the nails. The measurements can be found corresponding to lengths of bipedales and sesquipedales.378 However, it must be kept in mind that this still does not entirely indicate tile length. Adams suggests that tile sizes in general can vary greatly and that the sizes provided are not exact given regional differences and functional changes.379 Further exploration of the tiles that line the back of the shaft (type RS II) might also reveal the size of tile that could have covered the exterior of the shaft. The tiles that line the back of these shafts are typically engaged within the facing masonry of the wall and therefore how much the tiles overlap behind the brick is not clear. Only one example from the survey, Caseggiato degli

Arriana e Bacchus III.17.5_3, see figure 7, provides good evidence for this, but its tile size is smaller than that of the other samples, which makes it difficult to substantiate other findings based upon it. Its size corresponds more closely to bessales, at least in its length.

Equally, all of the samples provided in Appendix III show various signs of wear and use.

For example, in figure 5 there is an incredible level of calcification/waste build-up in it. It is a type

RS II shaft, but the tiles in the back of the shaft are barely visible; only the lines between each tile indicate its type. In fact, all of the shafts in Appendix III have evidence of calcification inside of the shaft and on the exterior wall, indicating an overspray pattern and therefore the width of the tiles covering the shaft. In figure 4, image B, a horizontal measurement is visible, but in this case the nail on the right-hand side (as the viewer looks at it) is actually within the overspray pattern.

Many of the nails found in this example are very close to or within the overspray, suggesting that they were using the T-shaped nail, which allowed the nail to fasten both the upper and lower tile

378 See footnote above. 379 Adams 1994: 293. 122

Type and Iron Nails

49 RS I-III

7 TP

Figure 25. to the wall simultaneously. This nailing pattern left a couple of centimetres of tile hanging over to the outside of the nail, which is indicated by the overspray on both sides of the nails.

This is an exploration in the nail pattern within the greater context of the shaft identified in the survey. Largely this demonstrates a wealth of information yet to be discussed in the field of architecture and masonry studies. Further studies on this subject will aid greatly in understanding upper floor habitation and techniques in building construction. For now, the evidence suggests that the inconsistent clustering of nails designates areas of repair and that the tiles had been lifted and the shaft cleaned, fixed, or assessed. (See figure 25 for the total number of nails and their associated construction type). There seems to be no specific type of nail used with the exception of the T-

shape in order to hold the upper and lower tiles in

place simultaneously, as discussed in the previous

section. In places of repair, there are some indications

that a different size of nail was used. Unfortunately,

it is not possible to tell what it is given the level of

preservation in my samples.380 Figure 26. I.13.4_1 Tile revetment installed in a late wall.

380 Consideration of the varying building styles and material can also affect how the tiles were held in place. Future work on this aspect would greatly strengthen the argument for differing construction style and possibly a chronology for this type of feature. 123

3.4 Function of Types RS I, II and III The functioning feature of types RS I and RS II (possibly RS III if the terracotta pipes were

a later addition) was their open chute, which remained open

without a drainage pipe placed internally. They could have

had water pipes placed in them as S. Stevens has suggested

from her work in III.9.13-20.381 However, it seems more

likely that these functioned as open chutes for dumping sewer,

other refuse, and runoff for water features, such as the first

floor basin in Caseggiato della Volte Dipinte (III.5.1_1).382

Within close vicinity of the basin there is a downpipe. In this

Figure 27. II.8.5_1. Notice the changes in case, it functioned partially as a drain for clean water runoff masonry style. The shaft was still in use and tile revetment was reinstalled. and for dumping waste. Visible in the bottom of some of the shafts, it is possible to find a piece of travertine with a round hole cut out, or sometimes the shaft itself is rounded at the bottom. This is the juncture where the shaft met a pipe that connected to the main sewer lines. Scholars have documented the sewer lines.383 Although, they have not been studied in their entirety, Jansen has provided the most accessible study. Jansen’s work demonstrates the considerable effort that the city of Ostia applied to their sewer and drainage system. Elevations taken throughout the city exemplify the desire to control and drain the city into its main sewer line under the Decumanus384 (or at least to other large sewer lines running east to west, presumably emptying into the sea, although there is no actual evidence for this. The sewer

381 Stevens 2005: The author suggests that there are water pipes within these shafts because of the calcification. 382 Felletti Maj 1960: 49-50. There is an awkward feature in room twenty-four where the floor has been covered with hydraulic plaster with a lip around the edges. I would suggest that this feature functions as a type of reservoir for flushing the drain pipe. Felletti Maj has suggested it was for bathing, but there could be many more functions. 383 Calza 1953, Jansen 2002. 384 Jansen 2002. 124

that drained Cardo V in Herculaneum emptied into a massive

tank instead of emptying into the sea.385)

The lining in the back of the shafts, type RS II, is an

added complexity to what seems to be a logical and relatively

simple system. There is no tangible consistency throughout the

121 buildings that were sampled. Only thirty-eight have lined

shafts with some variation among them. It appears that

preference is the common thread, with some buildings

containing only type R I or only type RS II. For example,

Caseggiato di Diana (I.3.4 and I.3.3-2) originally only had

type RS II. Yet, in Case a Giardino, which predates

Figure 28. Tile lined back I.12.9_2. Caseggiato di Diana by only twenty-five years and has had many renovations, none of its sixty-seven shafts are lined and there appears to be no attempt to include shafts that were lined.386 Only in the extensions of shops III.9.24B _1 and III.9.25_1 are there two shafts found with tile revetment in the back.

Clearly, the prevention of water or waste from leaking through the wall could have been an issue, but the fact is that this form of shaft is the more rare of the three yet is found in later walls, such as Molino (I.13.4_1, see figure 26). Also, in V.2.3_1 and in Domus dei Aplueius

(II.8.5_1, see figure 27), type RS II are included in walls constructed in opus vittatum A and B,

385 Wallce-Hadrill 2011: 280. 386 Building sequences in Ostia Antica and evidence for different contractors is well demonstrated in Delaine’s 1996 article. For the sequence of architectural adaptations, see Gering 2002 and Cervi 1998. 125

which dates them to mid-fourth century CE

at the earliest.387 The tile revetment is

piecemeal, with broken pieces of tile fitted

together, and neither example provides

immediate visible evidence of iron nails. It

could suggest a fluctuating interest that was

specific to whomever desired the shafts to Figure 29. Ground floor toilet found in Herculaneum: Casa due Atri VI.29. be built, and perhaps a closer look at the mortar would reveal more.388

The most complex and most reasonable use for type RS II’s function is that of shared walls, paries communis.389 The tile in the back prevented any damage happening to the opposite side of the wall, and it also would have hindered access to it from the opposite side given that there was no clear access to it through the brick (Fig. 28). If someone attempted to insert something into the wall and they hit the tile, it might have been an indication of a property boundary. A common use for tile lining is found on the floors in the toilets of Pompeii and Herculaneum. It is also found as a lining in the sewer mains in Ostia and the two Campanian cities.390 On many occasions, the ground floor toilets have a flooring of tiles in order to dump or flush waste (Fig.29). There could be a simple correlation between the two examples of tiles used as flooring and as revetment. The structural integrity of the shafts as they filled with build-up, which can be found in Caseggiato di

387 Boersma 1985. The construction of the type RS II shaft in II.8.5_1 was part of the original structure. The wall was later reconstructed on top of the original masonry where they continued the shaft, adhering tiles to the back of shaft in a rather piecemeal manner. 388 If the mortar in the shafts of RS I might prove to have a higher quality of mortar that could have reduced the need to line the shafts with a tile as is found with shafts RS II. This remains to be proven. 389 These are known to exist in Ostia; see Appendix II section 10 under Paries Communis. 390 My own observations. See also Jansen’s extensive work on the toilet systems of Pompeii. 126

Annio (III.14.4_1) in figure 30, must have been of

considerable concern. This might explain why these types

of shafts needed to be accessible in order to maintain them.

The tile revetment in the back must have aided in

preventing any seepage. Clearly, there was a concern or a

need to line the backs of the shafts; perhaps this suggests a

different function for the thirty-eight identified shafts with

this characteristic. Further questions can be asked

concerning the depth of the walls and function of the

neighbouring property that could reveal some of the

reasoning for this structural alteration. Overall with only

Figure 30. III.14.4_1 thirty-eight samples, which range in date from early second to fourth or fifth century CE, the conclusions are difficult to make. Further conclusions will be provided in a case study regarding the importance of shared walls in Chapter 4.

More interesting are the buildings with mixed types of shafts because they suggest that a

time arose when additions where needed and the

buildings’ function was changing, or they were

replacements for inaccessible pipes. A good

example of this is found in Caseggiato degli

Aurighi, with four type RS I and seven type TP

and TPI shafts found (Appendix IV, map 11).

This is a prime example of a change in habitation

Figure 31. TP found in V.2.13_1. Notice the calcification. patterns and building function. There are several

127

buildings that present evidence of changes in upper

floor function, all of which adds to the argument of

awareness between the dominus and their

relationship with the tenants. This ties in with the

forthcoming section 4.0 that discusses repairs and

late additions.

One further consideration for structures Figure 32. TP located in V.2.13_2 having multiple shafts is the structure’s height. Each shaft serviced a specific floor and terminated there. There is no evidence of access to the shafts from anywhere other than from the opening in the top of the shaft. Most likely they were either attached to a sitting toilet or they had a cover over them. Further exploration might reveal that the number of shafts originally placed in a building coincides with its height. This evidence would corroborate the need for later additions of downpipes added to the building and repairs made to preexisting shafts if the population patterns changed within a building, which is most likely what is found in Caseggiato degli Aurighi.

3.5 Terracotta Pipes and Terracotta Pipe Impressions The second major type of drainage shaft is the large terracotta pipe with 106 samples. Its size tends to be 26-31 cm in diameter (Fig. 31). They are typically found simply built into a wall, very similar to those found in Pompeii. On rare occasions, they were placed vertically in a recessed shaft or adhered to a wall with masonry and then plastered and painted over. Sometimes this type is covered with tiles that are held in place with iron nails (only if it was placed in a recessed shaft), but typically they are covered with brick, only visible by a straight running vertical seam (see section 3.6). On many occasions throughout the survey, they were located only because of damage

128

done to the wall by someone trying to access the pipe. How

these pipes were located is unknown, but presumably there

was a seam in the wall that indicated that there was pipe

behind the brick (section 3.6). Terracotta pipes are ideal for

late additions to buildings as the proprietor did not have to

damage the wall to insert it but simply brace the pipe against

the wall with masonry (see section 4.0). It was a very

effective and simple solution, and the surrounding masonry

further sealed the pipe, which prevented leaking. Terracotta

pipe impressions (TPI) were located on the rare occasion.

The purpose for this designation is due to the evidence of a

Figure 33. Grooved line for holding in the tile round impression left in the masonry after the pipe was against the wall in II.5.1-3_4. removed or eroded. There were only a few located, but the logical explanation is that there was originally a vertical terracotta pipe.

Terracotta pipes are the overwhelming dominant type in Pompeii; I have recorded over 200 examples and in Herculaneum there are at least twenty-eight known.391 The problem with this construction type would have been accessing the damaged or blocked pipe. Because they were built into the wall, there was no way to address the problem without damaging the pipe and the wall in order to repair it. Or the dysfunctional shaft had to be left and an additional pipe added, as is found in example IV.5.4_1 and _2 where there are two shafts located within a couple of metres

391 Hobson 2009 and 2010, Mauri 1958: The architect Oliva drew elevations of the buildings and the upper floor drainpipes entering the sewer system. 129

of one another with IV.5.4_1 being a later addition.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the development

and use of the recessed shaft in Ostia became so prevalent.

The fill in these pipes has been studied in Pompeii

and Herculaneum. They contain either human waste or

ground water and on occasion both, according to Hobson

and Anderson.392 I know of no study so far in Ostia that

uses chemical analysis, but it would seem logical that

Figure 34. Vertical seam in III.3.1-2. these pipes are serving much the same function and would therefore contain similar contents.393 Where close observation could be made, it appears that some pipes have heavy build-up displayed in rings, which suggests that there could be a seasonal function to them (Fig.32) or periods of more frequent use depending upon how densely occupied the upper floors were at that time. It has been suggested that Ostia’s population was seasonal and depended upon the seasonal importation of grain, which may have resulted in housing becoming more crowded during the peak months of importation.394 The city of Rome as a consumer means it was also a great market, which required a constant supply of goods other than just food.395 Products such as marble, which can be found in Ostia, would have been brought up the Tiber.396 The dominance of collegia in Ostia suggests specialized commercial interests, which had a dual effect. It gave Ostia growth and independence from Rome both financially and politically while at the same time they were able to use Rome as part of their own expanding

392 Hobson 2010, Andrews 2006: 52-62, Jansen 2006:175-82. 393 Boersma 1996 strongly advocates that these features are toilets. 394 Meiggs 1973. 395 Edwards and Woolf 2003: 1-20. 396 Leotardi 1979. Fant 2001. 130

market.397 The deposits in the shafts may provide key

evidence in habitation patterns, especially population

density, as well as whether the population was seasonal

because they worked with the grain supply or if it was more

consistent, which collegia and a specialized work force

suggest. The frequency of collegia in Ostia implies a high

level of raw goods coming into the city either for local

manufacturing purposes or for resale beyond Ostia. It is

possible that the importation of these goods is related to the

horrea dispersed throughout the city. They could store a

variety of goods other than grain as Galen tells us regarding

his books that were lost when the horrea they were held in

Figure 35. Iron nail found center of Type RS burned.398 This will be further analyzed in Chapter 4. I in III. 9.17_3.

3.6 Grooved Walls and Seams Along with the nails to hold the tiles in place are examples of grooves in walls to hold the tiles in on one side where the two walls intersect perpendicularly as found in II.5.1-3_4 (Fig. 33).

The examples of this are very rare, with only four samples, but they demonstrate clear evidence of the tiles. The use of the architecture was an effective way to provide access if a repair was required, but the damage done when removing and replacing the tiles is very extensive. In the samples listed

III.9.23_1 and_2 and in IV.4.6_4, there is considerable damage done to the wall, which could suggest repair or damage from looting.

397 On collegia, Diosono 2007 and Pavolini 1986:129-40. 398 See Rothschild and Thompson 2011 for a translation. 131

On rare occasions, there are short vertical

seams visible in the walls (Fig.34). It would seem

that they represent either a type RS I-III or a

terracotta pipe. In figure 27, the seam runs only 1.30

metres and disappears. It is located under the stairs

in Caseggiato della Trifore III.3.1-2_3 (Appendix

Figure 36. Two iron nails to help hold the pipe vertical V map 10).399 Of the few vertical seams that are and align to the wall in IV. 4. 6 _1. located, they tend to be found under the stairs, which coincides with the majority of shafts located in the survey. Another type of running seam found is due to repair or blocking of the shaft. A good example of this is found on the eastern façade of Caseggiato di Diana and will be discussed in greater detail below in section 4.0. It is difficult to see whether this is from repair or the shaft was blocked. Given that there are nails located on either side of this shaft, the use of bricks to cover it is most likely indicates evidence

for repair or it was blocked. Throughout the city, there are

several examples of shafts being blocked, indicating that the

upper floors they serviced either changed function or the shafts

were not worth repairing. Repairs will be discussed in greater

detail in section 5.0.

There are many shafts that do not have evidence of iron

Figure 37. Travertine Pipe Brace in I.12.6_3 with the pipe impression located nails. It could be that these seams represent yet another type of in the plaster behind. shaft or another way to seal the shaft. The seams provide

399 Also found near III.3.1-2_1 and under the stair in III.14.1 (see Appendix IV map 11). 132

evidence of where the shaft was located in the wall and provides

a place to access it. There is some consistency in the destruction

patterns of these shafts. Many display a low entrance into the

shaft with an area entirely destroyed as if someone was prying

out the tiles or brick using the wall as a fulcrum. This was

possible by placing an iron bar in the seam and prying the

covering tiles or bricks out. If there is no evidence of repair

Figure 38. Travertine Pipe Brace in work, it would seem that much of the destruction was for the I.2.5_1, notice the heavy calcification on the wall, outlined with red. removal of the material in the shaft, and this happened after or during the process of abandonment.

3.7 Centre-Placed Iron Nails and a Water Tower There are five examples of iron nails placed in the centre of type RS I (I.16.2_3, III.9.17_3,

IV.5.14_1, II.4.2_9, IV.2.2-4_6). The interpretation of these features is that they functioned as water towers (Fig 35). The water towers of Pompeii and Herculaneum, for example, demonstrate similar placement and types of iron nails.400 In IV.2.2-4, there is a unique tower with an iron nail placed in a recessed section, making it relatively comparable to water towers found in Pompeii in

Herculaneum (Fig 8). Its location is also linked to shaft three in one of the main entrances (see

Appendix IV, map 18). The proximity of the water tower to the shaft located in the corridor might suggest that the shaft served as a drain for runoff and an open chute for dumping refuse. One feature, or rather lack of, is that this water tower did not have multiple recesses in it as opposed to those in Pompeii where deep rectangular channels exist on either side. This suggests that it needed to work together with shaft three in the exterior corridor as part of its overflow.

400 My own observations. See Chapter 4 for images and more discussion. 133

Clear evidence of centre-placed iron nails is visible in figure

35. It matches the other samples with only one nail located in

the centre. Interestingly there is little calcification located in

these shafts, with the exception of IV.2.2-4_6, but that alone

does not indicate or guarantee that there was clean water

running through lead pipes; it simply lends to the suggestion.

There is a possibility there was a lead lining within these

shafts. This seems unlikely, however, due to the fact that there

are other shafts with build-up and none in these suggests an

alternative reason. One would expect there to be severe

damage done to the shafts to remove the lead lining or that Figure 39. Caseggiato delle Trifore III.3.1- 2_1. there would be a very obvious nail pattern to hold the lead sheeting in place, but theses shafts are all in good condition. Greater emphasis should be placed upon the construction type and similarities among the samples.401

3.8 Pipe Braces Travertine plates with holes can be found throughout Ostia. Often they appear in the bottom of recess shafts but also in isolated places throughout the city.402 There are eight so far located in the city (this number is very conservative). Their placement suggests that they were attached to vertical terracotta pipes that ran the height of the wall, such as in IV.4.6_1_2. On map 17, the locations of two pipe braces are identified in the structure. Placed in the wall directly behind feature

1, there is heavy plaster on the wall and two iron nails placed on what would have been either side

401 Stevens 2005 for the evidence of calcification. 402 Most likely some of these plates are not in situ. 134

of the pipe in order to secure the pipe in place (Fig.36).

It is hard to imagine this specific feature as a drain, and

given that there are another four type RS I shafts in the

building, it would suggest that water was going up

these pipes, not flushing down. Perhaps it was some

type of water tower or a drain from the roof. It also

must be considered that they were added later to the

building, which might account for their construction

style.

Figure 40. Caseggiato del Portico del Mosaico An example of drainage using pipe braces is found in I.14.2_2. the forica I.12.6_1-4 next to the Terme Foro. In each corner, there is a travertine plate with a hole cut out. Above each hole, there are two iron nails to hold the pipe in place. And in figure 37 there is still found the impression of the pipe in the plaster.

And in I.2.5_1, located under the stairs is a large toilet. Part of the flooring is a travertine plate with a hole cut out where the pipe from the upper floor attached to the toilet and flushed into the drain. Between the red lines, calcification can be seen where the pipe either leaked or was left unrepaired to overflow until it was abandoned (Fig. 38).

4.0 Repairs and Maintenance Evidence for repair and maintenance of the shafts can be complicated. This component is possibly the most important element in attempting to understand archaeologically the relationship between the dominus and tenant. It is why so much time was spent trying to understand and explain the construction style of the shafts and their components in order that alterations or any deviation

135

from the suggested patterns can be further analyzed. This

evidence can then be compared to the discussion provided in

Chapter 2 regarding the legal processes for repairing insulae.

In Ostia, there are three categories of repair to

consider: first, standard repair work to return the shaft to its

preexisting condition; second, the blocking of shafts,

indicating that they went out of use, and third, the late addition

of a shaft or pipe (see Appendix II, table 2 for a list of the three

categories). Overall, this evidence demonstrates the awareness Figure 42. III. 10.2-3_2 Repair work on the outside of building directly behind shaft 2. and general interest that the landlord and/or operator displayed concerning the welfare of the building and the tenants. It also suggests an interest to preserve the structure and its integrity. In many cases, the repair was very rough as in Casa della Trifore III.3.1-

2_1. Visible in figure 39, the shaft’s original construction can be seen as a type RS II with the plate in the back of the shaft still visible (this construction style matches shaft 1, see Appendix. IV map

10). During the repair, a terracotta tile was placed in the shaft and covered with a heavy mortar.

They left the iron nails that held the original tile cover in

place because they were no longer needed to hold a tile

cover over the shaft; see Appendix III Figure 2 for an

image of this shaft with nails marked and measured.

Something rather similar can be found in Caseggiato del

Figure 41. Image of III.10.2-3_2 from the Mosaico del Porto in figure 40. The original shaft was a interior. type RS I with a tile cover matching the other two shafts in the building. To repair the shaft, a terracotta pipe was placed in it and then covered with brick

136

masonry. Again, small fragments of the original iron nails

that held the tile cover in place were left in the wall.

The existence of repair work is closely related to the

shaft’s location and construction style. These two elements

are essential due to the accessibility required to fix the shaft

and how easily one could assess the problem. The collected

samples in Ostia demonstrate that of type RS I, there are

seventy-four located in stairways and another fifty-one

located in external corridors (Appendix II table 6),

Figure 43. Either repair, change of type or blocking of RS in I. 3.3-2_3. suggesting that there is a higher probability of repair work found among these shafts given their location within highly accessible areas. Also, considering the evidence for iron nails found in forty-nine of the RS I-III shafts and that seven among those with terracotta pipes have nails, there is greater potential for these shafts to show evidence of repair work.

Shafts of the type RS III, even though there are only seven, seem to be almost exclusively associated with repair work, which seems an interesting development in the chronology of the shafts. It might have more to do with the surrounding social and economic situation of the building, its tenants, and the owners. It is unclear why placing a large terracotta pipe inside should be better than fixing the shaft. It could suggest that there was a functional change. However, it must be reiterated that it could have been how it was originally built and it has been noted by Ulrich that the Romans did tend to overbuild.403

403 Ulrich 1996: 140. 137

Evidence for repair is found in a variety of scenarios. For

example, in figures 41 and 42, the evidence for the repair work

done converting the type RS I shaft into a type RS III is visible

from the terracotta pipe that was placed in the shaft, visible in

figure 42. From the outside of the building, the evidence for

repair is clear in the alteration to the masonry (Fig. 41). The

repair work to this shaft might correspond to III.10.2.3_1 where

it went out of use. It was blocked up and covered with plaster

Figure 44. Caseggiato di Bacco e Ariana and painted over. The addition of the pipe within the shaft in III.17.5_2 figure 42 allowed for a quick repair. The pipe, in fact, does not fit; visible in the image, the pipe extends beyond the shaft where it was simply plastered over instead of using tiles to cover the opening.404

4.1 Blocked Shafts Other kinds of repair found in Type RS I-III are blocked shafts. In Caseggiato di Diana

I.3.2-3 (Appendix IV map 4), which has multiple type RS II shafts, shaft number three is located on the façade of the building in an alley. It appears to be blocked because there are iron nails located on either side of this shaft, indicating that at one time it had tiles covering it. Within this building, shaft two also shows signs of being blocked. The technique is later than the opus latericium than is seen in figure 43. In shaft two, Tuff blocks were used in a manner similar to that

404 Evidence for repair can be found in the following shafts: I.14.2_1 Caseggiato del Portico Del Mosaico, I.16.2_2 Caseggiato, I.1.1-4_1 Caseggiato del Portico delle Mura del Castrum, II.4.2_10 and _12 Terme Nettuno, III.3.1-2_1 Caseggiato delle Trifore, III.10.2-3_2 Caseggiato del Serapide, III.14.1_4 Tecta degli Aurighi, IV.9.1_1 Loggia di Cartilio, IV.4.6_4 and _5 Caseggiato, IV.5.18_4 Caseggiato delle Taberne Finestrate, V.6.3_1 Edificio, V.6.1_1 Caseggiato del Sole. 138

of opus vitattum A or B.405 It is possible that this is simply

repair work; however, there are several nails located along

the sides, which suggests that originally it was a type RS I or

RS II with a tile cover. Most likely the shaft was blocked,

indicating a change in habitation.406

Many other buildings demonstrate blocked shafts

with several still displaying plaster and paint over this

alteration, as can be seen in Caseggiato di Bacco e Ariana

III.17.5_2 in figure 44. The masonry used to fill in the shaft

is still visible. It was then plastered and painted over with red

paint, which can be seen in figure 44. A similar event also

happened in shaft three in the same building, where white

Figure 45. Late addition and/or possible paint is still visible over the filled-in shaft. There is a strong repair to pre-existing pipe, in I.9.2_1. possibility that this is associated with other changes within the building. The purpose behind blocking the shafts is of interest because there must have been a specific reason for it. The inhabitants could have simply left them and just sealed off the point of access. Perhaps this is bound to servitudes and building function or maybe a change in ownership, or perhaps the opportunity to clean out what could have been an unattractive or smelly feature.

Room function must also be considered not just on the upper floor but also rooms that the shaft ran through. It could be that it leaked and had been a problem in a space where it was not acceptable or could be fixed, which might explain the blocking of shaft two in Caseggiato di Bacco e Ariana.

405 It is possible that shaft I.3.3-2_1 was never in use. The wall plaster and paint abuts the tile revetment in the back of the shaft; see figure 1 in Chapter 1. 406 This building has a long occupation with many alterations. It will be included in the Chapter 4 discussion. 139

Upper floor habitation patterns seem to decline inconsistently throughout the city, which could be due to versatility of the buildings.407

Perhaps the reason that some buildings remained operational for a longer period of time was related to the structures’ adaptability. The blocking of shafts or their adaption was part of this process.408

4.2 Late Additions The later additions of upper floor drainage, especially if they conform to the patterns of stairways and corridors of earlier shafts, provide evidence of continuing occupation. They equally demonstrate a change in habitation patterns and a functional change in many of the buildings’ upper floors.409 Structurally, late additions of terracotta pipes that are covered with masonry provide architectural comparison, which gives some clue as to their initial construction date. These types of alterations were easily applied to the preexisting architecture and raise the question of a building’s adaptability. One such example is found in I.9.2_1; the masonry of the pipe’s cover is in opus vittatum A, which dates to the mid-fourth century CE at the earliest (Fig.45). There are two possible suggestions: one, that it could have been repair or two, that it could have been a replacement of a previous shaft. There is a slight build-up of sinter on the wall near it as seen in figure 46 (green circle). It is also noted that outside of the shaft there is calcification build-up (red

407 Gering 2012. 408 Evidence for other blocked shafts are found in buildings: I.3.3-2_2 and _3 Caseggiato di Diana, I.12.6_6 and _8 Terme Foro, 1.12.1_1 Caseggiato dei Triclini, I.12.9_1 Edificio, III.9.20_1 Case a Giardino, III.17.5_2 and _3 Caseggiato di Bacco e Arianna, III.10.2-3_1 Caseggiato del Serapide, V.2.4-5_1_2 and_3 Domus del Protiro, III.9.21_1 Insula del Graffito. 409 Evidence of later additions of downpipes is found in: I.9.2_1Caseggiato, I.6.1-2_5 and _7 Portico ovest di Pio IX e loggia, I.4.2_1 Domus di Giove e Ganimede, I.3.5_1_2_3 and _4 Caseggiato del Mitreo di Menandro, I.14.8_2 Terme del Bagnino Buticosus, I.13.4_1 Molino, I.12.7_1 Botteghe, I.11.2-3_1 Domus del Tempio Rotondo, II.8.5_1 Domus di Apuleio, II.6.5-6_1 Casa del Soffitto Dipinto, III.8.1_1 Edifico, III.1.14_1 and 2 Botteghe, III.10.1_2_6_9 and _11 Caseggiato degli Aurighi, IV.3.3_1 Domus dei Pesci, IV.3.1_1 and _2 Domus delle Colonne, V.7.1-2_1 and _2 Sede degli Augustali, V.2.8_3 Domus della Fortuna Annonaria, V.2.3_1 Caseggiato. 140

circle figure 46). It appears that there was a problem

with this shaft leaking and it too eventually went into

disrepair, no longer functioning appropriately; it was

allowed to malfunction before abandonment.

Overall repairs suggest an element of stability in

habitation and consistent use. The buildings in this

survey that show evidence for repair suggest that the

Figure 46. I.9.2_1 calcification buildup along the wall and outside of the masonry construction of the landlord did not disregard renovation or repairs. terracotta pipe. Perhaps this is due to the residents’ social or economic status, especially considering Frier’s suggestion that the inhabitants were those of a social and economic status with the means to sue upon breach of contract.410 Clearly, the repairs made are a strong indication of contractual agreement between the dominus and tenant. It is possible the building operator or conductor may have performed the work as well. The shaft’s construction style was part of the ease with which it could be repaired. With nails holding tile covers in place,

repairs could be made quickly and with less

invasive methods than having to remove a section

of the wall to access the pipe. While it is not clear

why many chose to return to using terracotta pipes,

it is possible that the buildings by then had changed

owners or there

Figure 47. Caseggiato del Larario with a large terracotta pipe from the upper floor.

410 Frier 1980 and 1977. 141

Region RS I RS II RS III TP+TPI PB TOTAL Region I 31 13 2 51 6 103 Region II 42 2 1 5 0 50 Region III 90 10 2 18 0 120 Region IV 14 2 0 18 2 36 Region V 7 11 2 14 0 34 Figure 48. Condensed table of shaft dispersion throughout the city’s regions. came a time when the building’s function changed and there was little interest in repair work. As far as the late additions of upper floor toilets, the terracotta pipe was the most advantageous. Even though they needed to put a hole through the floor where the new pipe was going to run, it was still the best way to add a new pipe for drainage. The evidence presented in this section suggests that construction types RSI-III with tile covers were intended to provide an easier point of access for repair purposes. The second part of their accessibility was their location within the buildings, which will be explained in greater detail in the next section both locally and city wide.

5.0 Location and Spatial Distribution In the introduction of this chapter, distribution was suggested to be a key element. The purpose for investigating this component is to better understand city-wide trends for these features.

Furthermore, the location of these features suggests that the buildings were designed to provide easy access to these features for the use of the tenants and for maintenance; these features in fact demonstrate that their placement was in anticipation of repair. Evidence for the distribution is detailed in Appendix IV figure 1. The colour coding provides visual reference to the density of features within a building. Tables for distribution are located in Appendix II tables 5-7. The importance of repair work has already been established in the previous section. Initial discussion of the features’ locations has been brought to light. Further evidence presented here demonstrates the architectural relevance of these features.

142

5.1 Local Distribution Each structure presents its own unique identity

when it comes to the disposal of waste from the upper

floor. Some buildings provide clusters of shafts, as we see

in the Case a Giardino (Appendix IV figure 1:1 maps 8

and 9); there are groupings of shafts found running east-

west through the centre of the entire building. Or in

Caseggiato degli Aurighi (Appendix IV figure 1: 2 and

map 11), there are many shafts and they are spread

throughout the structure. In the latter example, their Figure 49. Caseggiato degli Trapazoidal III.4.1_1. distribution and typology are inconsistent due to the changing function of the building. Others are like Caseggiato della Larario (Appendix IV figure

3 and map 2), which has ten TP shafts consistently placed throughout the building, and their construction style never changes (Fig. 47).

The most important conclusion about the shafts’ distribution in the buildings is their visible location; some of this was presented above in the section on repairs. There is a clear pattern of location and repair coinciding with 200 of the 343 samples (Appendix II tables 5 and 6) being located in stairways and corridors. The significance of this addresses the functionality in their accessibility for tenants’ use and maintenance. Stairs and corridors represent the sections of a building traversed by the population who had a reason to be in there either living or working within the structure. These areas are equally public and private because they are a transitional space, a place where someone is not intended to spend time but to move through it, which makes it a logical place for a toilet or a chute to flush down waste.

143

Scholars have documented the importance of stairs

and their construction style.411 They are important for

upper floor toilets because architecturally they are a

section of the building where the vertical space is

consistently repeated floor after floor. Stairs themselves

are a vertical corridor of space that in a building with many

floors creates an area neither occupied nor abandoned and

more importantly it was outside of the leased cencaculum.

Packer’s study on stairs follows that of Calza’s with a

Figure 50. I.12.9_1 systemized category for each type.412 None of the various types of stairs that have been identified altered the evidence for upper floor toilets. Access to underneath the stairs directly under the first flight was an essential component for accessing the shafts for maintenance purposes.

The traffic patterns in the area of stairs localized the population residing in these structures, especially in the case of Case a Giardino. In the blue areas indicated in Appendix IV figure 1, access to the stairs was from the inner court only (with the exception of the gate via dipinti, see

Appendix IV map 8). As in many cases, Casa a Giardino is entirely unique in Ostia. Its size, arrangement, and array of spatial design leaves many questions.413 Stevens has suggested that the concentration of shafts was due to some of them being for clean water on the upper floors. While this is possible, we have little evidence to suggest what the lifting mechanism might have been.

The shafts with sinter build-up do not have any type of pipe impressions, and sinter is frequently

411 Calza 1923, Packer 1971:28-31. Stevens 2005. 412 Packer 1971: 29. Calza 1923:54. 413 Gering 2002, Delaine 1994, Cervi 1998. 144

found in a variety of types of shafts, including terracotta pipe. None of this negates the possibility that there was clean water in these pipes; it only suggests that more exploration is required. The main piece of evidence that this study can supply for the option of lead pipes in these shafts is the existence of the shafts that have a nail in the centre of them (Appendix IV map 9). There was only the one found in this building, but nonetheless it provides a building block for the argument.

One element not addressed by Stevens is the fact that the shafts do not run the height of the entire building. There would have been a floor they serviced and then terminated on. With five shafts known in each structure of III.9.17-20, it is possible to see how they might have aligned with the floors. Perhaps there were two per floor with one for water, but a variety of scenarios are possible. Also, the argument for the shaft in III.9.18_5 is difficult to make because it is very shallow in its depth and still has mortar with specks of paint over it. Overall, the concentration of shafts in the area of the stairs in Case a Giardino demonstrates areas of high use in a controlled environment. The most important point for placing shafts in the stairs is that they are outside the living area boundaries, which ties in well with a line from the Digest regarding repair work involving cenacula. In book 19.2.27.pr, the text discusses repair work that needs to be done. This clause protects the rights of the tenants’ use of the main portion of the cenaculum and their rights to sue regarding loss of their comforts based upon the nature of the repair.414 The level of repairs needed to address a malfunctioning drain was going to be invasive, and it would have been out of commission for an extended time. Their placement in transitional areas such as stairways and

414 Dig. 19.2.27 pr. Alfenus: Habitatores non, si paulo minus commode aliqua parte caenaculi uterentur, statim deductionem ex mercede facere oportet; ea enim condicione habitatoremesse, ut, si quid transuersarium incidisset, quamobrem dominum aliquid demolri oporteret, aliquam partem paruulam incommode sustineret: non it tamen, u team partem caenaculi dominus aperuisset, inquam magnam partem usus habitator haberet. For discussion on this passage and its late classical alteration see Frier 1980: 151-53. He suggests that even though there are some late alterations to the text it largely provides the overall sentiment of the jurists. 145

corridors, while inconvenient, would not have been grounds to sue or abandon the cenaculum. The architecture of the building allowed for as much convenience as possible for both the tenants and operators.

Another pattern to consider is the tendency to prefer a similar type of shaft. For example, in III.1.1 has five shafts and four are type RS II (Appendix IV figure 1 and map 2). This points to a well-conceived architectural plan for the building with housing as part of its function. This is much like the above sample in Caseggiato del Larario, which has ten type TP located within it

(Fig. 47). The arrangement of the shafts displays part of the building’s function. In this specific example, because they are all terracotta pipes and buried in the walls, the ability to access them for repair was only possible by severely damaging the walls. The consistency within some buildings severely contrasts with those that have different types of shafts within them. In some scenarios, it appears that they are part of the original design, but architecturally they may have needed to use a terracotta pipe to pass through the vault instead of using type RS I or II. This still points to an awareness both of drainage and of the tenants’ needs. The use of differing types of drains also points to late addition and repair work. A prime example is in Caseggiato degli Aurighi and it will be used as a case study in Chapter 4.

5.2 City-wide Distribution Studies in urban distribution and spatial design in Ostia have brought critical evidence to light in our understanding of the city.415 Clearly, the local residents saw urban organization as a fundamental element to their city’s success. At some point, the city was organized into five regions and vici have been noted as well.416 Drainage was part of the urban organization. Jansen has

415 Stöger 2011a and 2011b. 416 CIL 14.352. Van der Meer 2015:107-109 has noted that the potential for Ostia to be organized by regions and vici could have been as early as Augustus. 146

demonstrated through meticulous survey the elevation of streets and the direction of the drains underneath them.417 It appears that there is some consistency city wide that buildings that have close proximity to a large drain underneath a nearby street will have upper floor toilets. For example, it was noted by Calza that Balcone e Mensole’s large ground floor toilet (and attached upper floor toilet) drained into the sewer line underneath Via della Fortuna.418 Also, horrea I.8.1 and I.8.2 had upper floor toilets, which most likely drained into this same drain as well as I.7.1-2

(Appendix IV map 3). Clearly, in this area of the city there was good reason to have upper floor toilets given their proximity to a large sewer system. Scobie’s suggestion that “Ostia lacked

Pompeii’s generous distribution of private latrines” is thoroughly outdated. The organization and the inclusion of toilets on the upper floors meant that there was no need to have many foricae on the ground level.419

Throughout the city, structures that seem to have the best access to large underground sewage systems tend to have the greatest frequency to display upper floor toilets. However, much of this is masked by the fact that there are many baths spread throughout the city, which would have required a drainage system. It seems that Ostia with its naturally high water table was a prime candidate for having a good drainage system; adding baths and toilets to it was a logical step. What this means for upper floor toilets is that there was a greater social and possibly political influence in their development.420

417 Jansen 2002, See also Sheperd and Olivanit 2008 for gardens in Ostia. Sheperd records water access and drainage. 418 Calza 1953: 216. 419 Scobie 1986: 415. 420 See Chapter 2 section 2.4 for things thrown out the windows. This might have been a consideration and encouraged the dominus to include upper floor toilets. 147

There is little evidence to suggest that a single area or region demonstrates a greater consciousness for having upper floor toilets with the exception of Case a Giardino (Appendix IV, figure 1; See also maps 8 and 9). The blue areas highlighted in Appendix IV figure 1 demonstrate a dense clustering of these features. These were high-traffic areas, and logically they are located near the stairs. The large number of shafts in Case a Giardino (67) throws off the results of the survey (Fig. 48). Evidence is spotted throughout the city such as Caseggiato degli Trapazoidal

III.4.1 (App IV figure 1: map 10), which has a later wall that was added for the stairway and with it was added three type RS I shafts (Fig. 49). This structure is discussed as a stable that serviced

Caseggiato della Volte Dipinti, which was across the street and only has one terracotta downpipe.421 It was suggested that this building was a brothel or hotel of some kind.422 Why a stable would need more upper floor toilets than a structure with potentially high traffic volume might point to a more social conclusion; perhaps the residence in the stable was required to take care of their own waste whereas the hotel may have had people working there to dispose of waste in metalla.423 Petronius poses his story in a deversorium where there were people who attended the residents (the author is not implying Volte Dipinti was a deversorium).424 Volte Dipinti also has a kitchen and a water basin on each floor, which strongly suggests that there were attendants running the property. While it might be difficult to see the city-wide distribution as a valuable study, it might be that studies of property and its neighbours end up linking urban trends and thus create a type of vicus relationship.425 If part of Volte Dipinti’s functionality required a neighbouring building to support it, then the connection between either structures’ purpose cannot be neglected.

421 Felletti Maj 1960. 422 Felletti Maj 1960 and 1961. 423 CIL 4. 04957. Miximus in lecto fateor peccavimus hospes si dices quare nulla matella fuit. 424 Petron. Sat. 81 425 Stöger 2014. 148

One element of the survey not yet discussed is the category of shafts that were located in what seems to be random places in the wall. They were labelled OTH (other) (see Appendix II).

This designation was based upon the lack of distinguishable architecture surrounding the shaft.

The location of these shafts on the ground floor level suggests that on the upper floors there could have been a significant change in the function from floor to floor. Many times they are found in what appears to the back wall of a tabernae, but the term tabernae is equally unspecific in many examples found in Ostia. They are also frequently located running through the centre of the wall, as can be seen in figure 50. They are associated with repairs and later additions with twenty-seven listed in table 2 for repairs, blocked shafts, and late addition found in architecturally unspecified areas. Region I contains the majority of civic architecture and has most of the shafts identified as

OTH, with thirty-five (see Appendix II table 2). Region I is also the crossing point of the

Decumanus and the Cardo. Given the amount of pedestrian activity in and around the area, there could have been a great consciousness to keep the area cleaner; also, access to the large sewer lines running under these roads would have allowed for upper floor toilets to drain efficiently.426 What they represent is the ubiquitous nature of housing, and there was no structure type that could not contain the element of housing.

6.0 Summary In summary, this chapter has sought to explain the physical elements of upper floor toilets with the purpose of outlining their significance in the relationship between landlord and tenant.427

426 This evidence corresponds well to surveys in Pompeii where there were many terracotta pipes located in structures along the Via Abbodanza, which is the city’s Decumanus Maximus. 427 There is little conversation regarding downpipes and shafts in Rome. They could be more unique to Ostia, but they were found in the insulae under San Lorenzo in Lucina. From the images, it is clear they are type RS II. They ran to a collection pipe, which drained into a main sewer line, which ran down the Via Lata. See Brandt 2012. How prolific they were in Rome has yet to be discovered, although there is no reason to not suspect that they were every bit as common in Rome as in Ostia or as the terracotta pipes found in Herculaneum and Pompeii. 149

The quantity and quality of the evidence provided demonstrates that this subject has a wealth of data yet to be explored. The construction style of the shafts revealed that there was variety and that repair work could be found by understanding the construction of the original design. From these observations, the relationship between landlord and tenant can be established and qualified by the fact that there is evidence for repairs being done in accordance to the contractual obligation.

Furthermore, the locations of the features in stairways and corridors suggest that the architectural design of the building was planned for the toilets or drains to be easily accessed for the tenants to use and suggests their placement was in anticipation of maintenance. The raw evidence presented here provides the central theme for the concluding chapter. In Chapter 5, various case studies will bring together all of the information gathered so far in this thesis and presented in a broader context. It has been discussed that the legal evidence (Chapter 2) demonstrates that urban property, and especially rental property, played an important role in the maturity of the Roman city as a means for income, investment, and security for future loans, as well as for political office. The archaeological evidence presented here works well with the development of Roman legal attitudes toward rental housing. The application of all the theories and evidence will further substantiate that the relationship of the landlord and tenant was one that can found in the archaeological record because the nature of rental housing was not one of neglect and abuse but one of contractual obligation.

150

Chapter 5: The Distribution of Housing and Upper Floor Toilets.

1.0 Introduction This chapter provides a summation of the evidence previously presented in the context of the archaeological remains, which were outlined in Chapter 4. It serves two main purposes that address the core of the thesis. First, this evidence demonstrates the contractual relationship between the landlord and tenant; and second, it demonstrates the diversity of the evidence found in the survey. Both objectives demonstrate housing as a core feature of the buildings’ function, which is substantiated by the repairs and additions made to the upper floor toilets. Earlier discussion from Chapters 1, 2 and 3 have provided some of the textual and legal evidence, which will be further explored in the archaeological context. In Chapter 4, the evidence collected in the survey provided the numbers to qualify the broad range and inclusive nature of housing in Ostia.

Upper floor toilets appear in a variety of conventional building types: horrea, balnea, insulae, tabernae, domus and collegia. They all address the option of housing as an addition to property to expand its economic possibilities. They further demonstrate that housing could have been an essential component of the building’s function. The variety of housing in the ancient Roman city was likely incredibly diverse. This is revealed in Ostia, and it helps to explain the range of terminology we find used to address housing by Roman authors.428 However, in legal sources such as the Digest, many of these terms were rarely used or disappear entirely with insulae, cenaculum and domus being the preferred terms to use.429 The lack of this specific colloquial vocabulary was

428 See Chapter 1 and 2 for a discussion of the many types of urban housing testified in ancient sources. 429 See Chapter 1 and 2 for terminology. 151

due to the clinical nature of legal discourse. It was simply not necessary to identify them independently due to the overlap of their functions.430

The variation of building typology or suggested function of a structure (which modern scholars have assigned to the building) does not negate the evidence of upper floor toilets, their repairs, alterations, or the late additions of upper floor amenities. Rather, they help identify some of the unique characteristics that will feature in this chapter’s case studies. This is further corroborated with direct evidence that demonstrates that repairs made and/or additions of downpipes to the upper floors reveal the relationship of the contract between the owner/operator and the tenants. The physical evidence further indicates an awareness for the binding obligation of the rental contract between the tenant, the dominus and conductor, which enforced their share of the liability.431 The frequency and distribution432 of this feature in Ostia and its association with the upper floor allows for a reassessment in the individual structure’s function and its economic, social, and political purpose. The evidence of the upper floor toilets found in a broad range of structures will demonstrate that there is tremendous overlap in function, blurring the distinction

430 Basically, rented accommodation all fell under a similar contract. Contractually, they are related closely to Horrea, see Zimmerman 1996: 383-84 note 37, du Plessis 2012: 173-89, Frier 1980:63. 431 Chapter 2, section 2.0-2.5. 432 This excludes the evidence located in the theatre, potentially thirteen type RS I, nearly one in the back of every shop. They are difficult to assess given the amount of reconstruction and some are not entirely visible, but they are located on the map found in SO I. The question is why a theatre would need so many. In the larger theatre in Pompeii, there is a foricae located as one enters from the Triangular Forum. In many Roman cities, toilets are typically located close to a theatre or other public venue, if they were not built within the immediate architecture. The number and the location in the theatre of Ostia seems to be a remedy for using the upper floor space for toilets because there were no public toilets located in the vicinity and/or runoff from rain. One would have had to go over to the large latrine in the Baths of Neptune. Also, runoff for decorative water features could have been included as part of their function. The biggest problem is the severely poor level of preservation of the building. Archival photos show that the building’s brick and other masonry was robbed, leaving only the rubble core of the arcades. There is no indication of a terminating floor for them. They seem to run above a functional height for the ground floor shops even if they had an upper floor, such as a mezzanine. It is possible that some of them could have serviced the shops, which ran around the cavea on the upper floor of the portico. See Calza 1927 and Gismondi 1954. 152

and purpose of insulae and other buildings types where housing was located, such as balnea, horrea, etc.

The distribution of the upper floor toilets presented in Chapter 3 provided the initial ground work for how pervasive this feature was in Ostia. For example, table 7 in Appendix II shows the distribution for each region. Figure 1 in Appendix IV identifies the structures that contain two or more shafts. The colour differences in the figure indicate the density of the shafts among these buildings. The green indicates structures or sections that contain two to three shafts. The blue indicates four to five shafts. The orange indicates six to seven shafts and red indicates eight or more shafts in a building. As can be seen in the Case Giardino (Appendix IV figure 1), the clustering of shafts are isolated and represent area of high traffic on the upper floors (refer to maps

8 and 9 for the location of the individual shafts). In other buildings with a higher volume of shafts, it was impossible to isolate clusters of shafts because of how well they were integrated and dispersed throughout the building, such as Cassegiato della Larario (Appendix IV figure 1). Or because they were inconsistent, such as in building III.1.1, which has five shafts, four of them type

RS II with one type RS I (Appendix IV figure 1, see also map 13). Other issues can be associated with later additions of downpipes, which might have been replacing an older shaft that was out of commission.

The complexity in the distribution does not demonstrate any kind of preference for building types or shaft types, with the exception of shaft type RS I, which appeared through the city.

Furthermore, the time frame is not relevant either because all of the known construction types of shafts appear simultaneously. For example, type RS I is not only found in structures that date to

Hadrian but is found in buildings from all eras. Only the later additions of terracotta pipes and evidence for repair work seem to indicate that either there was a change in the habitation patterns 153

or that there was a needed alteration to the preexisting toilet system (see Appendix II table 2).

Buildings like Case Giardino are complicated structures to assess because there are so many shafts in the structure, and they are clustered in specific areas (Appendix IV figure 1). The only comparable structure is Caseggiato degli Aurighi, but many of its shafts are later additions and they used terracotta pipes in the repairs; also, they are distributed throughout the building, something that is not found in Case Giardino. The conclusion for the distribution of the upper toilets is that they represent housing as a key component in the purpose for the buildings. This also means that for the buildings that do not display any evidence for upper floor toilets, housing might not have been part of its purpose or perhaps the rental contracts for these structures were different.

It could have been that there were social or economic differences between the structures that had upper floor toilets as opposed to those that did not, but it is not possible to substantiate. The only conclusion drawn so far is that these buildings did not support housing and the tenants in an equal manner. There was more individuality represented within the structures, which implies that the contracts for housing in these buildings might have been different. It must be concluded that each structure had the possibility for their own unique arrangement between landlord, conductor, and tenant.

Trying to understand the changes in sanitation culturally and in the role of technology in sanitation has become a popular topic in recent years.433 The evidence from Ostia provides some of the pieces to the complicated picture of ancient sanitation and their cultural response.434 The prolific inclusion of shafts in the buildings of Ostia, Herculaneum, and Pompeii testifies to an awareness and a sensitivity to their cities’ general cleanliness. What it does not explain is why they

433 Mitchell 2015, Koloski-Ostrow 2015. 434 Neudecker 1994, discussed the large ground floor latrines in Ostia. 154

are not found in every building, or what the difference is between the large ground floor latrines and the upper floor toilet shafts. The prolific architectural design of the type RS I and type RS II shafts should be considered a commanding development in sanitation technology, which might be related to the masonry techniques found in Ostia. The use of irregularly cut Sarno blocks in

Pompeii made it more difficult to create the rectangular shape of the shaft. Sarno is also very porous, and therefore the waste running down the shafts might have leached more easily through the walls and the waste would have also clung to the porous stone, possibly filling the shafts very quickly. There are many questions to consider regarding the popularity of upper floor toilets. They could range from the obvious need to effectively purge waste, to legal concerns, as discussed in

Chapter 2, to more nuanced arguments of investment and awareness of a client basis. This thesis by no means addresses them all, but it will attempt to reconcile the evidence collected in the survey within the context of the social and economic significance.

2.0 Horrea, Markets and Retail Horrea, markets, and retail space all pose a more complicated scenario in the housing market because of the manner in which commercial and residential occupation overlap and the fact that they tend to be forgotten in the urban real estate market.435 The most detailed example of this is found in Quilici’s work in the area of S. Paolo della Regola in Rome. It is suggested that it was a Vespasianic horrea that was modified and turned into an insula of some kind.436 It is a thorough demonstration of architectural capacity and design. Even though the Severan remodeling was quite

435 Several inscriptions and business transactions for lease in horrea for the storage of grain are known, TpSulp specifically conductio 45, 46, 47 and in 51, 52 and 79 the lease transaction is implied, see also CIL 6. 33860, 6. 37795. Rickman 1971: 194-209. 436 Quilici 1986-87:403 399- 408. 155

extensive, elements of the building’s original

function existed and were embellished.437 Also

there is transparency and some overlap in the

function of storage and housing; for example, in

some of the Pompeian domus, there were stored

amphora in the atrium.438 This immediately calls

into question not just room function but also the

structures’ identity and function. Among insulae

it must have been a relatively common scenario

Figure 51. I.8.3, the red arrow points to the first floor apartments. They were accessed from directly below. simply because it could be a leased component and it would have been needed for commercial activity if the insula had shops or factories. An inscription from Rome, CIL 6.29791, provides an example of an insula for lease where there is storage provided under the stairs (Appendix I section 1.1). The epigraphic and legal texts are not well supported by discussion from the typical Roman corpus on this subject. The utilitarian nature of horrea and the relative silence from Roman authors has left this building type out of the bigger conversation of housing and its added social significance. It makes the evidence for housing within these buildings all the more compelling.

The evidence for housing in several of the known horrea in Ostia can be identified by the multiple vertical shafts located in buildings known for their storage and market facilities: I.8.3,

I.8.2, and I.8.1, (possibly I.7.1-2, and I.4.5). These structures vary greatly in their shape and size, which is partly owed to their function. The one element that is consistent is the location of

437 Quilici 1986-87: 252 -61, 403. 438 In Pompeii I.9.12 is the most commonly cited; see Berry 1997a. 156

downpipes and shafts in stairways and

corridors. It could be that these upper floor

toilets were only for those who worked

within the structure, or perhaps they were

used for cleaning and disposing of products

spilled on the floor. But the location of the

features and their access suggest that they

were most likely for tenants or the

employees’ use in a domestic capacity.

Exactly how common was it to

have residential elements in horrea? Both

Beccati and Calza recognized the

connection in the form and function of

these buildings with insulae, but Figure 52. Forma Urbis: Slab piece VII.20 near the Tiber River. http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/plate.php?plateindex=24 exploration of horrea in their diversity is largely limited to their participation for the Annona.439 Horrea such as the Horrea Piperataria, found in Galen’s commentary because it burned down along with much of the Palatine and Forum, are troublesome because the records for them are rare.440 An inscription from Rome regarding the lease of a private horrea describes all the different storage components available in CIL 6. 33860: apothecae, compendiaria, armaria, intercolumnia et loca armari; clearly they were complex

439 Becatti 1940: 49. Calza 1929, 1953. Rickman 1970: 176-93. Vitelli 1980: 54-68. 440 See Rothschild and Thompson 2011: 113-15, for a translation of Galen’s On Grief. Houston 2003: 45-51 on the location of the Horrea Piperataria and its purpose. LTUR 1996: 37-50 for Horrea. 157

buildings, which could hold a

variety of goods.441 This makes

identifying the elements of

housing within horrea difficult.

However, some of the evidence

collected in the survey might aid

in challenging some conventional

thoughts regarding their function

(See Appendix I section 7.0-7.2

for samples of Horrea)

Figure 53. Image of the ground floor architecture. It does not demonstrate the upper floor habitation that can been seen in figure 52. In Ostia buildings I.8.3,

I.8.2 and I.8.1 (Appendix IV maps 2 and 3), upper floor toilets were found near to or in the entrances of the structures. This corresponds well with the pattern for toilets located in stairways and corridors. For horrea I.8.2 and I.8.1, the toilets are located in stairways and corridors. In structure I.8.1, there are two separate areas for housing. Both are accessed from the portico on the north side. It initially appears that there was no secondary entrance to the upper floor housing from an internal stairway. Keeping this area entirely separate from the internal courtyard further suggests that the inhabitants could have had no association with the activity associated with the horrea other than housing for themselves.

In horreum I.8.2, the arrangement of shafts is different. For one, they are type RS I and the placement of shafts is found in the main entrance, and they are parallel to one another (Appendix

441 In the Sulpicii archive on several occasions intercolumnia is mentioned specifically for the storage of grain from Alexandria TPSulp. 158

IV map 3). Both shafts seem to be corresponding with housing that was located over the shops along the main street front. Security appears to have been a concern, given the controlled entrances, but spatial function of the building may have played a role in the entrances as well. The entrances are limited to the north and to a side door that was originally accessed under the far west stair as a secondary entrance, which was later blocked. Access to the upper floor is limited to the internal stairs, although it must be considered that there could have been stairs in the shops that lined the street front. This suggests that the purpose of this facility could have required a higher level of security. While it could have been part of a larger market, it has a strong sense of control, meaning that the general public might not have had a role here but only those whose business specifically required access to the horreum.

In these first examples, the differences in the access to the upper floor suggest a variance in the activities of the horrea. Most especially, it calls into question the people who were associated with them. The orientation of the toilet shafts identifies the residential areas and further stresses the point that the buildings are not singular in their purpose. Delaine has suggested that horrea

I.8.1 and I.8.2 are part of the market (macellum) and storage (horrea) environment, which naturally existed side by side.442 Perhaps part of the services provided within these venues was housing and only for those who were employed in the industry but also those simply looking for a place to live.

The latter seems highly possible given the external access to the upper floors in high traffic areas such as the northwestern corner of I.8.1 where it is located next to an intersection. Its general location across the street from Caseggiato dei misuratori del grano, a building thought to be associated with measuring grain, could be one of the reasons for the location of housing. There

442 Delaine 2005:40. 159

must have been a need for temporary housing in this area with the seasonal commerce of the grain supply.

The final example is found in the Antonine Horrea Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana (I.8.3).

In this structure, the added element of housing is very clear.443 Located on the first floor on the far south end, it was arranged into small living quarters (Fig.51, red arrow). There appears to be no access to them from any other part of the building except from the room directly below on the ground floor. The relationship between this area and the shops located in I.8.10, which extend further to the south, is not entirely clear. Beccati discusses at one point that there used to be access between the horreum and the neighbouring shops on the ground floor located in I.8.10, but eventually the access point in I.8.10 is closed off.444 Located in two of the shops in I.8.10 are holes for drainage pipes coming through in the corners of the vaults (Appendix IV map 2). This area most likely had its own upper floor inhabitants, with the upper floor accessed from another set of stairs visible in figure 51. It is possible that initially there was some communication between these spaces on the upper floor, but without further architectural analysis it is not clear.

The area on the upper floor in the Horrea Epagathiana is reminiscent of Rome’s Horrea

Lolliana appearing on the Forma Urbis.445 This horrea was located near the Tiber. In figure 52, there is an open space with stairs (probably leading up to the ground floor from the river); the configuration of this space is similar to of the example in the Horrea Epagathiana with shops attached to one side. The mapping tradition of the Forma Urbis shows only the ground floor.446

This creates a map similar to the urban plan of Ostia found in Scavi di Ostia Volume 1. If the image

443 Becatti 1940, Calza 1953, 1940, 1929 Packer 1971: 148-52. 444 Becatti 1940. 445 LTUR Horrea: 37-50. See also Rickman 1971: 108-22. 446 Reynolds 1996: 67, 140-41. 160

of Horrea Epagathiana in figure 53 is compared to

the image from the Forma Urbis in figure 52, where

the upper floors are not included, there is

considerable similarity in its spatial placement and

alignment. And there is no indication of an access

point from the internal part of either horrea to this

area, which might suggest that this was integrated

into the buildings’ function. Rather, housing on the

upper floors in both horrea must have remained a

separate feature from the activities that took place

within the internal part of the buildings. It is Figure 54. Shaft located in Horrea Epagathiana I.8.3_1 possible that this space on the upper floor of both horrea was used in a similar manner keeping the added residential feature a separate economic investment.

Also, within the Horrea Epagathiana are two larger terracotta pipes; both contain refuse that is still visible within them (Appendix IV map 2). Their placement further suggests that housing was located in the front of the structure similar to the two horrea previously discussed. In figure

54, one of the large terracotta pipes is visible (red arrow). In the lower section of the shaft, there was a later addition. It appears that there came a time when the shaft needed to have the lower section extended. This lower area seems to have remained open possibly for a urinal or for dumping waste. The 50 cm scale is placed on the added extension. The visible terracotta pipe was found nearly blocked with waste, which might explain why there was an extension added to the

161

lower section of the shaft. It was possibly a quick fix to circumvent the blocked pipe, and the residents could have dumped their waste into the ground floor drain.

Despite these structures having designated titles of horrea, it does not negate the evidence for upper floor habitation. A comparison can be made to the known horrea in Oplontis, the so- called Villa B. On the far north side, there are small residential quarters built against the wall of the horrea.447 Housing built onto the structures suggests a community that was strongly associated with the daily activities concerning the building’s many functions.448 The commonality of this living arrangement is difficult to assess, but the evidence from Ostia suggests that this was relatively common.

The inhabitants in many cases were the horriarii (Appendix I, section 7.1). Their position, most likely as caretaker of the facility, would have required their constant attention.449 Regardless of their social status as a slave, freedman, or born free, the nature of the storage most likely required them to reside on the premises. Legally, horrea carried a level of culpa associated with the stored goods.450 In CIL 6.33747 (Appendix I, section 7.3), the inscription provides some of the legal responsibility of those who were responsible for the property brought in. In order to safeguard the objects entrusted to them, having people there to guard the building makes sense.451 It was the terms of the contract that determined the liability of the horriarius. Horrea too fell under the

Praetorian Edict because they operated under locatio conductio, which also means that it held

447 Thomas, van der Graff and Wilkinson 2013: 8. 448 Muslin 2016: 166-70. 449 Appendix I section 7.1, Rickman 1971: 176-93. 450 Zimmerman 1996: 383, du Plessis 2012 173-89. This is debatable because the Digest does offer a suggestion that whoever leased a space in an horrea had no right to sue if their property was lost. For examples of horrea in legal discussion see 19.2.60.5, 19.2.60.9, 20.2.55.pr. 451 See Appendix I section 7.3 for inscriptions dealing with the lease of a horrea. 162

obligatio.452 Therefore, any damage done to private people or their property even though it happened in a public place could make use of the interdict and sue.453 Horrea can be similar to insulae on this point because legal action for delict applied to horrea as well.454

Placing a horriarius in horreum is logical as an employee and/or a subcontractor. They were the person who would have been held liable for the loss or damage of property.455 But the evidence from the Horrea Epagathiana and I.8.1 suggest that there were broader housing functions for these buildings. Scholars have noted the overlapping nature of tabernae, macella, and horrea; it would seem, given the complexity of these buildings, that housing would be a logical addition.456

Overall, the evidence of upper floor toilets is found in a variety of structures identified as markets, such as the Caseggiato de Larario (I.9.3), which has at least ten terracotta pipes in it of varying sizes, as well as had lead piping for water, or the Portico dei Pio (I.6.1-2), whose terracotta pipes are almost entirely later additions. The use of rental housing in horrea is a logical step in the resilience of urban architecture. Ensuring that a building had the capacity to generate profit and appeal to investors would have made for a sound investment.

3.0 Terme di Nettuno and the Bath Complexes Bath complexes were an integral part of urban design in the Roman city. It stands to reason that housing within them would be a lucrative addition. In Seneca the Younger’s letter to his friend, he relates the familiar complaints of living in an apartment.457 He describes living over or near a bath complex near the Meta Sudans in Rome, providing an added layer of complexity in the rental

452 Dig. 20.2.3. 453 Dig. 44. 7.4. 454 Dig. 9.3.5.9 and 9.3.5.3 for specific examples relating to horrea. 455 Dig. 19.2.60.9. du Plessis 2012: 175. 456 Delaine: 2004, Rickman 1971: 43-53 addresses the phases of the Grandi Horrea in Ostia and questions its function. 457 Sen. Ep. 56 uses the term habitare. See du Plessis 2012: 172-73, Amirnate 1965, it is suggested that this term may refer to a rented space without the ability to be subleased. 163

housing market and the nature of bath complexes.458 He never

uses any of the typical terms associated with rental housing

except for his exclamation of migratio, an expression found

with those who leave their housing under duress and

sometimes abandonment.459 In this case, the use of a relatable

term for leaving implies a level of mockery for his past

housing; he was not leaving because he feared collapse of the

building or was trying to escape the payment of rent.460 He

Figure 55. II.4.2_10 Shaft type RS III. paints a vivid picture of activities, shops selling their products, and workshops like the farrier loudly making their goods. He describes the baths as a nucleus of activity, making it a good place to include housing.

In another example, from Pliny’s letter to Trajan, he discusses the need to demolish a house that was given to the city for the collection of rent.461 The building had become rundown, and Pliny desired that it be torn down and a bath complex built in its place. It would seem likely that rental accommodation would be part of the new structure. The potential for exploitation of location for rental income as well as the fee for bathing would make the new property a multifaceted investment for the city. It was clearly not an uncommon feature to lease baths and their components either from the local government or from a private individual(s). An inscription from Lusitania provides some insight into some of the regulations for leasing a bath.462 Did they too have habitation

458 Pirson 1999:144-152 discusses housing found in the baths of Pompeii Koloski-Ostrow 1986:134-43. 459 Frier 1980: 92. 460 Sen. Ep. 56. 461 Pliny Ep. 10.70. The structure was derelict and had become visually unattractive. 462 From Lusitania, an inscription CIL 2.5181 discusses the regulations of a lease for a bath. Fagan 1999, for a collection of inscriptions regarding baths. 164

available for lease? It is not possible to say, but we

have a singular rental advertisement from Pompeii

that discusses the lease of a bath complex, housing,

and commercial spaces. The advertisement identifies

the building as the Praedia of Julia Felix where the

Baths of Venus was for lease, which was followed Figure 56. Terme Nettuno II.4.2_9 Holes in the back of the shaft possible for a plate. Much higher in the with complementary housing (cenacula) and shop shaft there could be an iron nail. This shaft was not labelled with others that had very clear evidence of 463 iron nails placed in the center. (tabernae et pergula) components. Again, the structure is not identified in the inscription as an insula or as containing an insula, yet it had for lease some of the components that can be associated with one, including cenacula et tabernae et pergola.464 Just how common this practice was is not clear. But the economic advantages suggest that this would have been a good way to diversify one’s property to ensure that there was a consistent income from the structure.

In Ostia, ten bath complexes provide evidence of residential quarters that existed on the upper floors, as indicated by their vertical shafts located within the structure.465 The presence of flues and other anomalies that might exist in a bath complex has been considered. The identified areas of habitation are typically associated with the exterior of the structures and are consistent with other buildings in their location of the upper floor toilets (e.g., around stairway and corridors).

Much like the evidence found for housing in horrea, the tendency is to keep this feature separate

463 CIL 6.00138 See also Dig. 8.2.13.pr for an example of an owner of an insula who complains about his neighbour building a bath with its piping against their shared wall. Koloski-Ostrow 1986, suggests housing over the Sarno Baths. For a complete study on the Praedia of Julia Felix see Parslow 1989. 464 Appendix I section 2.0, CIL 4.01136. 465 V.2.6-7 Terme del Filosofo, V.5.2 Terme dell'Invidioso, V.3.1 Caseggiato dei Lottatori, I.17.2 Mitreo delle Terme del Mitra, I.14.8 Terme del Bagnino Buticosus, III.16.6-7 Terme della Trinacria, II.2.3 Terme dei Cisiarii, III.10.2-3 Caseggiato del Serapide, I.12.6 Terme Foro. This excludes structures that have a bath within a building identified as a domus. For example, Domus Dioscuri and Casa de Rotondo are excluded. 165

from the main function of the structure with access to the upper floor from the exterior. Therefore, it is logical to find the evidence for housing closer to the façade of the buildings, which was a similar feature in the horrea that were previously discussed. Visible in figures 55 and 56 are the distinct features of shafts of types RS I and RS III. In Appendix IV map 6 shows the prolific evidence of the toilet shafts in Terme di Nettuno. Delaine’s survey work in Ostia suggests that

Terme di Nettuno and the surrounding portico were part of a large public building project, possibly providing a commercial investment for the colony.466 It would seem likely that the inclusion of rental housing would have been part of the reason for building the structures. Much like the example from Seneca above, the proximity of the baths to housing made for a vibrant area. The element of community or vicus seems to be at the core of Seneca’s discussion and the architectural design of the Terme di Nettuno.

Baths that were leased, much like insulae and horrea, could have fallen under locatio conductio. Clearly, the Praedia of Julia Felix would have been in this category. Samples from the

Digest discuss the lease of baths in the same manner as a conductor would lease an insula. There needed to be security given (pignus/hypotheca) and as a conductor one had the right to sue in accordance with their contract stipulations.467 They would have also been bound to perform, in accordance to their contract, under obligatio. Presumably, the lease of a bath complex would have been very lucrative, especially the Terme di Nettuno; its location along the Decumanus would have been prime real estate. It is easy to imagine this area as melding together the social, economic, and political spheres. The element of housing within baths can be easily understood because it was intended for public use. Housing located in the other baths is slightly more nuanced. These

466 Delaine 2004: 62. 467 Dig. 20.4.9.pr, 19.2.30.1. du Plessis 2012: 172. 166

buildings are far more integrated into the surrounding architecture. Terme del Bagnino Buticosus has one type RS I shaft and one late addition of a terracotta pipe in the main entrance (Appendix

IV map 2). Terme della Trinacria has three terracotta pipes integrated into the walls. They are not late additions. Pipes one and two are most likely contemporary with the later added shops in the front. There is clearly an interest for the inclusion of housing in these features to add a great sense of community and functionality to the building and vicus.

4.0 Habitation and Repairs Repairs and maintenance of the insulae in Ostia further substantiate the desire for a city to display itself as recognizably Roman. These observations provide an accessible way to approach the subject of insulae. Furthermore, they address a society concerned with more than just public venues, but also with infrastructure, roads, water ways, sewers, and buildings. Habitation on the upper floors of insulae could be complicated by a variety of problems, which were explored in

Chapter 2. Exactly how directly the repairs relate to the tenants or housing is more difficult to assess. It might have been that the building was sold and the new owner went through and cleaned it up. Regardless, the location of upper floor toilets tends to suggest that there was a sincere awareness of the need to access the shafts repeatedly. Therefore, not only does the buildings’ design indicate that they were anticipating to repair the shafts, but the late additions of toilet shafts indicate an awareness of the tenants’ needs and a change in the habitation pattern of the upper floors. The architecture of types RS I-III proposes a standardization to the structure of the shafts themselves. This means that when additions to preexisting tabernae (or any other known types of space) were made, there was an agreed or implied exchange of obligatio. For example, in figure

57, a terracotta pipe is found added to a shop that abuts the castellum for the Terme Foro (see

167

Appendix IV Map 20). Placing a terracotta pipe up

against a shared wall implies that there was some

recognition between the owner and tenants.

Over the life span of these structures, many

alterations can be found. For housing, it

emphasizes that the most critical element of the

buildings’ function was maintained and adapted.

The evidence presented earlier in Chapter 3

identified the repairs and alteration found in these

structures. (See Appendix II Table 2). The repairs

and additions were simply part of the evolving Figure 57. I.12.7_1. The terracotta pipe is concealed in masonry that dates to the early-mid 4th century. process for the buildings and their role within

Ostia. This is something testified for in the insulae of Rome as well. The insulae known as Guilio

Romano and in Paola della Regola were occupied and reconstructed in the early Medieval period.468 Most likely the additions and alterations were probably one of the main culprits for the decay of the structures by inserting walls or removing elements, possibly weakening the structures.

But, in the case of this study, they also suggest that late additions of terracotta pipes are necessary when the habitation pattern changes on the upper floor, and the recessed shafts are either no longer functioning or are unable to meet the needs of the occupants.

Within Caseggiato degli Aurighi were found eleven separate vertical flushing sewer features located on the upper floors. They are a mix of both type RS I and terracotta pipes

468 Packer 1968-69: 127-48, Quilici 1986-87: 175-416, Coates-Stephens 1996: 239-59. 168

(Appendix II table 1, see Appendix IV map

11). It appears that some of the terracotta

pipes were part of the original design. They

are typically found running through a vault,

which architecturally was easier to build

and maintain than the rectangular shape of

the RS I shafts. The type RS I shafts are

Figure 58. III. 10.1_2. First floor toilet located in its terminal found in exterior walls and around the location. The wall around it suggests privacy, but they are late additions with modern reconstruction. Photo taken 2006. stairways. The spatial distribution of the later added downpipes are found throughout the structure, sometimes in close proximity to an original toilet shaft. The additions suggest that either they were to replace the original shaft or they were an addition. Perhaps through these later additions it is possible to trace how the upper floor inhabitants shift from a mercantile function to habitation.469 They could correspond to specific

areas of the building either being abandoned or

simply an increase in population density. Some of

these changes may also include those found in the

portico on the north side of the structure known as

Via Tecta Aurighi III.14.1. Not long after the

portico was built, it seems that the upper floors of

Figure 59. Directly under the toilet in figure 58. The Caseggiato degli Aurghi were made accessible masonry covering the terracotta pipe and wall painting is still preserved.

469 Delaine 2005, Mols 1999, Gering 1999, Packer 1971: 177-82. 169

from the upper floor of the portico. It appears

that these structures functioned together as

perhaps a market of some type.470

The first two downpipes are terracotta pipes;

the first is found in the southeastern corner

flushing into the main latrine. The second,

visible in figures 58 and 59, is located just off

Figure 60. III.10. 1_9. Terracotta pipe running through the the stairway in a small room, which first floor from the floors above. Photo taken from Via della Aurighi with a telephoto lens. Notice the alterations to the masonry most likely from the late addition of the pipe and the apparently was provided with partition walls. damage done to the corner of the vault where the pipe was added. I am not entirely clear if these walls are original; they seem to be modern reconstruction, as the mortar appears to have a purple colour.

However, it could be that the original walls were visible and the reconstruction is covering it.

Below from the ground floor the shaft is covered with masonry and wall paintings, which are well preserved (Fig.59). The location of this toilet is suggestive of a later addition, given that the building has four other type RS I shafts; however, this shaft runs through the densest section of the vault. It would have been incredibly difficult to add this after the fact. Most likely, it was original and it was easier to run a terracotta pipe through the vault than a type RS I shaft. The proximity of shafts two, three, and four suggest a higher density of residents. It also could represent the number of floors that the building had on that side of the structure. It must be taken into consideration that each toilet shaft could have serviced separate floors.

470 Delaine 2005. 170

The clearest alterations found in the building are

shafts six, nine, and eleven. In figure 60, the remains

of a terracotta pipe can be seen. It is on the first floor

of the building and mostly corresponds to the later

added wall seen to its left, which dates to the early

fourth century CE. The alterations extend over to the

section of the vault where the shaft ran through it. In

figure 61, shaft number eleven is visible. The

masonry is earlier than that of shaft number nine, for Figure 61. III.10.1_11. which Heres dates the opus vittatum simplex to the early fourth century CE.471 The implication is that there were multiple additions of shafts added over a long period of time, which means that the habitation patters evolved slowly and with some consistency. Otherwise, the masonry associated with the additional terracotta pipes would be similar in date.

In figure 62, the later addition of a terracotta pipe can be seen in the round impression of the pipe left in the calcification build-up, which is highlighted in the green box and in the image of this area visible on the right. This pipe probably serviced the first floor as part of the extension of flooring of the first floor, which is indicated by the later added vault that can be seen in the image. The later addition of shaft eleven probably corresponds to the late architectural changes associated with shafts six and nine. The conclusion that can be drawn from these additions is that the population density began to rise in this building and new toilet shafts were added as they were

471 Heres 1982:13, 403 and plate I.1 for a reference to vittatum simplex. 171

Figure 62. III.10. 1_6. Scale on left-hand side is 2 meters. Notice the heavy calcification on the bottom and the rounding of the terracotta pipe impression left through the vault and deposits. Image on the left is a close-up of the area in the green box. needed. It is also possible to suggest that the population shifted in the building, moving into the western side in greater numbers. Alterations toward the south of the building or the bath complex with its first floor water supply may have prompted the addition of housing toward this side of the building.472 The complexity of the structure provides ample evidence for housing, and additional toilet shafts were added to accommodate or to replace the preexisting ones that could have gone out of order.

Further examples of alteration can be found in figures 63 and 64. The evidence found suggests that the shaft was originally a type RS I that was either converted to a terracotta pipe, making it a type RS III as in figure 65, or that there was considerable work done to repair it back to working order. The nail holes found along the sides (green arrows) and the calcification found

472 Jansen 2006: 176. 172

seen in figure 63 and 64 suggest that it was

covered with a tile. The damage to the shaft

gives the impression that a terracotta pipe was

used; however, the placement of the

calcification and the nail holes prove the shaft

was repaired without having to use a pipe. In

figure 65, it appears the shaft was retrofitted Figure 63. IV.2.2-4_2. Green arrows indicate nail holes. with a terracotta pipe that did not fit it. It was then covered with mortar. This matches the evidence found in Caseggiato della Trifore and in

Caseggiato del Serapide.

The economic impact of neglecting a

building could have been very costly. As discussed

previously, tenants had the right to abandon or

attempt to sue if they felt that their contract was

being abused. Additions or repairs to the buildings’

amenities address the relationship between the

dominus, the conductor, and the tenants. There

would have been little reason for a building to

display these specific types of changes if there was

no financial gain or obligation to the tenants.

Figure 64. IV.2.2-4_2. Green arrow indicates nail holes. Notice the calcification build up on the edges of the shaft. Furthermore, the location of the shafts indicates that there were functional changes happening on the upper floor. Either the population density

173

began to increase or there were areas of the building

being abandoned, and there needed to be new toilets

placed in the structure for the newly inhabited areas.

In Pompeii, the structure known as the Insula

Arriana Polliana provides a comparable example to

architectural alterations previously discussed

through the provision of habitation to the upper

floors as is evident from the addition of terracotta

pipes for flushing waste. Originally, it seems to have

been a domus that was converted into an insula

Figure 65. V.6.1_1. (Chapter 2 section 3.2).473 Within this building, there were added several terracotta pipes to service habitation on the upper floor. Figures 66 and 67 indicate the changes made. The location of pipes corresponds to the evidence of upper floor toilets throughout Pompeii and Herculaneum. The location of the toilets tends to be placed closer to the streets, which is logical considering access to cesspits and drainage to sewer lines running under the streets.474 Previous surveys in Pompeii and Herculaneum have demonstrated that toilets on the upper floors were part of the basic infrastructure, especially of street front properties in Pompeii.475

Yet, the domus-type structures, which recede deeper in the building plot, tend to not have this feature; a good example is the Insula Arriana Polliana (VI.6). Nearly all of the located terracotta

473 de Albentiis 1989. Peterse 1985, Pirson 1999. 474 See Hobson 2009 for the mapped location of the terracotta pipes in his survey. 475 For examples seen the House of the Faun (VI.12.2/5), Bronze Bull (V.1.7/9), Menander (I.10.4) and the shops from the forum along the Via Abbondanza. 174

Figure 66. Insula Arriana Polliana VI.6.22. Terracotta pipe added later to the wall and runs through the relief vault. pipes coincide with the later architectural changes and are found in the living and working areas outside of the internal domus (type) structure. It does not mean that there were not people staying in the upper rooms in the internal domus, but the habit of using or providing toilets for the use of the household on the upper floor was not a priority. The use of matella was probably more common with household attendants dealing with the contents of chamber pots. As opposed to the residences/shops nearer to the streets with their own toilet or communal shaft, those who resided there dealt with their own waste. In the Praedia Julia Felix with its known cenacula and tabernae that were for lease, it did not have upper floor toilet shafts. This could be an indication of social status. It is possible that there were cenacula that did not have a need for upper floor toilets because they had slaves to deal with it, which might explain why some buildings in Ostia have this feature and others do not, although upper floor toilets and medianum-style apartments are commonly found together (forthcoming).

175

Figure 67. Insula Arrian Polliana, Pompeii VI.6.1. Red dots indicate the location of down-pipes. After Peterse 1985. Room 35 in this image corresponds to Room 22 in Figure 66. The evidence for upper floor toilets in tabernae is actually rare, which might be a big difference between Ostia and Pompeii where they are found more regularly in tabernae. In the

176

survey, many times they were catalogued

with a location as OTH (other) because

the shops are self-contained, and

therefore the shaft is stuck in a corner or

other nonspecific architectural area. The

example from Ostia, figure 68, is very

clearly a later addition and was simply

placed in the most logical area. This

example corresponds well to evidence

collected in Pompeii, but the overall

count of upper floor toilets in shops

seems to be higher in Pompeii.

To conclude this section, repairs Figure 68. I.4.2_1 throughout the city of Ostia suggest that there was a viable contractual obligation between the dominus and the tenants. The financial return must have been enough to include remodeling structures such Caseggiato degli Aurighi and Insula

Arriana Polliana. Furthermore, it ensured that those who resided on the upper floors were not abusing the property by throwing things out the windows. It demonstrates a rental market that was more inclusive of the tenants’ needs and that the dominus had an interest in continuing to develop their own property.

177

5.0 Medianum476 and Insulae One of the main characteristics of the cenacula of Ostia is known as the medianum apartment. It has been the most popular housing element to study within insulae of Ostia. This is due to its large size and wall paintings, which suggests that they were designed for those with wealth and social status.477 While this might be an accurate assessment, it does not explain why they were so common in Ostia, nor does it address their development. Their importance for this study focuses on their association with upper floor toilets and their architectural design as an indication of the contractual obligations of the dominus, conductor, and tenant, particularly as it relates to the previously discussed section of Digest 19.27.2.pr, where the concern was in the location of the repair work.478 The other consideration is the possible inclusion of this type of cenaculum as discussed in the Digest, which addressed the fault of those who have thrown something out of a window from the middle (medianum) section of the apartment.479

The medianum-style apartment became of great interest because it provided archaeologists with a comparison to the domus, both spatially and functionally. Some of this is related to the claim that the medianum space is comparable to the atrium; due to its large size, its function as a hall from which the rooms were accessed, and it typically was the main source for light with large widows on its exterior wall. Gering has suggested this along with their growth as people desired a place to live that provided some of the comforts of a domus but on a much smaller scale.480 This is a complicated suggestion, because spatial (or room) identity and function begins with each space

476 The term medianum is entirely a conventional label. This author uses this term only as a way describe how modern scholarship has labeled these cenacula. The term has been erroneously applied to describe large cenacula with spatial articulation. 477 Gering 1999, Delaine 2004, Calza 1923 and 1929. Hermansen 1981. 478 See Chapter 2. 479 Dig. 19.2.30, especially 9.3.5.2. In this specific text, multiple people reside within a cenaculum with a section described as medianum. The text further explores whose responsibility it would have been if something was thrown out the window and caused damage. See Chapter 2 section 2.4. 480 Gering 1999: 110. Hermasen 1970 and 1981: 44-49. Delaine 1999 and 2004, Packer 1971: 8-11. 178

having the capacity to perform many functions.481 Space is ultimately defined by human action and interaction, a sentiment that is true in housing regardless of its size and shape. In many domus, there was so much variation among room or spatial function that jobs such as atriensis or ostiarius were required to ensure the people knew where to go and how to behave within a specific area.482

In a smaller or a more localized space like a cenaculum, this was not necessary, and each area needed to have as much utility as possible. According to some Roman authors and the Digest, the term that describes this space was known as diaeta, a place where lifestyle or living activities took place.483 The purpose of this term was not, entirely, to specify a physical area or specific space but to describe the activities that could go on, particularly rooms that were connected, which could have been physically as well as thematically linked.484 The problem is, the terms diaeta and medianum are difficult to work with, because they are rarely used by Roman authors therefore trying to use them as an architectural label can be misleading.485 Attempting to suggest that there was a desire for cenacula to imitate a domus is equally inaccurate. This does not mean that activities that took place in a domus were neglected, simply that the physical arrangement of the activities was different.486 An atrium or an atrium-type feature (medianum) is not required to express spatial hierarchy and spatial articulation, as Delaine has thoroughly demonstrated there were many variations of the ‘medianum’ style apartment.487 Therefore, this feature cannot serve as a good indication of wealth, nor can it correlate a desire to imitate the domus or any feature of it.

481 This has been outlined in Chapter 1. 482 Mouritsen 2011:195 discusses the use of these job terms as a way to display wealth because they were excessive in their title and function. 483 Dig. 29.5.1.27, 46.4.13.2, 7.4.12 Delaine 2004: 149. See also Appendix I, 5.1 for an example of diaeta. 484 Pliny Ep. 5.6, 2.17. 485 Allison 2001. 189-92. See also Chapter 1. 486 Delaine 2004: 162. 487 Delaine 2004. 179

For those who did not own their housing, they were without a key means to demonstrate their influence, and they were without an option for legally manipulating their residence in order to reflect their status, with the exception of the material wealth that they brought with them.488 But this does not mean that these apartments were all a single cell space, poorly lit with little ability to reflect a desired status. Renting in the right location and filling the apartment with the appropriate material wealth were ways for someone to express their economic position. Potentially, the medianum-style apartments could fulfil this desire and are considered to be (by modern scholars) the highest level of apartment because they demonstrate spatial and artistic variation. They can vary in size and arrangement, which has provided some latitude to suggest that they were part of a housing market designed for those with more wealth and the desire to express it through their home.489

Delaine, Gering, and Hermansen have surveyed Ostia, recording the architectural design of these apartments; they have all remarked upon their unique attributes and arrangement of rooms.490 But in the context of upper floor toilets, there is only one discussion. Stevens has suggested that the shafts in the central medianum apartments in Case Giardino allowed for water to run to the upper floors. This theory was addressed in Chapter 3 and while it has merit, it is difficult to substantiate clean water being piped to the upper floor. The evidence for the shafts to serve as toilets on the upper floor, at this stage of the research, is more plausible. The entire complex contains sixty-seven type RS I shafts along with one shaft that had an iron nail in the back of it (Appendix IV figure 1, and maps 7 through 9). Not found in this structure is evidence of added terracotta downpipes, which occurs throughout the city and coincides with other buildings’ later

488 See Chapter 2 for a discussion on the purpose of objects brought into a cenaculum. 489 Delaine 2004. 490 Gering 1999, Delaine 1999 and 2004, Hermansen 1970, 1981. 180

additions and alterations. Despite the many different phases that this complex goes through, there is no concluding evidence that suggests that terracotta pipes were ever used.491

This structure does not fit the distribution trend found throughout the city because the distribution of the shafts is incredibly consistent. The significance of this stresses the unique living environment within this complex. Much of the interpretation of this building’s association with wealth and the upper class residents is based on the size of the living spaces, the privacy, and the access to water and sewer. And with the restoration of Caseggiato degli Iredolue, much more can be said about the general decorative nature of the apartments.492 Collectively, all of these elements suggest an innovative response to the rental market, and consideration needs to be emphasized more on the nature of locatio conductio and the sublease of the apartments not just the tenants, as we have tended to focus on in the past.493 Evidence supports that the building had a private source of water within the courtyard, with six fountains.494 The potential for security was also very high, with the building being enclosed with a circuit of housing and six gateways for access. The architectural design placed all of the type RS I shafts in the stairways and corridors. The suggestion of the localized treatment of the shafts is that they were areas of higher traffic and intense use.

These zones were repeated floor after floor, which kept the residential area protected from the potential problems of either a shaft breaking or the mess of needing to access a shaft for maintenance reasons.

491 On the structural phases of Case Giardino see Cervi 1998 and Gering 2002. 492 Falzone 2004. 493 See Chapter 2. 494 There are six large fountains around the courtyard. The elevated ground not only provided added stability for the weight and mass of the structure but also adds a benefit of adding water pipes and drainage for grey water. 181

The internal apartments thirteen through twenty are very different from their surrounding neighbours. They have their own unique building phases and seem to have an enormous supply of down shafts, which is why Steven’s suggestion on the water supply seems plausible. There are so many that it might suggest that each individual apartment had their own toilet/chute, but even this seems impossible because apartments seventeen through twenty would have needed to be at least five stories high, which does not seem likely. These shafts were also located in stairways and corridors, making them as accessible in case a problem with one should develop. The internal apartments bring to mind the jurists’ conversations regarding objects thrown out the windows from the upper floor. Visually, one can easily imagine that if human waste was thrown from the upper floor, some would have run down the sides of the building and it would have been in the courtyard.

Again, the legal definition of insulae as public place has bearing because of the damage done and the right to enjoy a public place would have been threatened.495 It seems probable that the multitude of down shafts represents the reciprocal relationship of obligatio, in that it was for the landowner to provide them and for the occupants to use them.496 Furthermore, it questions the frequency of upper floor occupancy and the socio-economic level of those who resided there. If these buildings had a higher level of amenities contractually, it would seem logical that they would have needed to use part of their property, furniture, or other investments as security (pignus/hypotheca), which means that these people were of some financial means and thoroughly represent the discussions in the Digest concerning insulae.497

495 Dig. 43.9.1.pr-1. 496 See Chapter 2, section 2.4 for evidence regarding the physical nature of insulae and the shared obligation of tenants and the landlords/operators. 497 Frier 1980: 5. 182

6.0 Water and its association with insulae. While this study’s scope does not directly address clean water, it must be briefly discussed because there are some similarities to the shafts (presented in this study) and the shafts found in the water towers in Pompeii. The most direct evidence collected from the survey were the five type

RS I shafts and the water tower that have iron nails in the centre, much the same as the water towers known from Pompeii. While sinter build-up in the shaft is a good sign of water activity, it is not necessarily an immediate factor in identifying whether the pipe or shaft had water in it that came from the aqueduct. Without chemical analysis, speculation must include the possibility of the build-up containing water (from the aqueduct however it arrived there) and/or human waste.498

In some cases, water could have been brought in at height from the aqueduct499 and in others it was lifted by a water wheel;500 in these cases, the wheels are associated with a bath complex and industry. But in most situations, it appears to have been brought up by hand; for example, Martial says that his water has not been delivered yet to his cenaculum.501 We do have a line from the Digest discussing that every floor needs to have a bucket (or a supply) of water for dealing with fires.502 We also have discussion from Frontinus who quoted a line from Caelius speaking (in 50 BCE when he was Curule Aedile) about the abuses of water being stolen from the

498 Andrews 2006, see Chapter 2. 499 Suggested for the Terme Foro into the cistern which then had a water wheel. 500 Jansen 2011: 176. Riccardi and Scinari 1996. 501 Mart. 8.67. 502 Dig. 1.15.3.4, 8.5.8.5. 183

aqueducts and piped into cenacula and tabernae.503 One has to wonder how the theft of water worked; most likely it was very difficult to disconnect someone from the lead pipe system. If a structure previously had water, it would have been possible for the owner to try and tap into the system again and it would have been relatively difficult to know. The discussion from Frontinus emphasizes the desire for running water or at least for there to be water on the upper floors.

Figure 69. Pompeii. IV.13. Shafts construction is similar to the one in Caseggiato del Portico dell’Ercole in figure 70.

503 Bruun 1991 and Frontin. Aq.76. 184

Figure 70. Water tower found in IV.2.2-4_6. The red arrow points to an iron nail placed in the center of the shaft. The image on the right show the area in detail.

The water tower located in Caseggiato degli Ercole suggests that there was water on the upper floors. It could have been that the water was diverted from the aqueduct at height and brought along the street front. The features of the water tower in Pompeii, figure 69, and the tower in

Caseggiato degli Erocle correspond well to one another. The wide recessed shafts visible in both images are very similar in shape and size, and they both have visible iron nails. The difference is found in the narrow shaft on the backside of the tower in Pompeii (image to the right). The corresponding narrow shaft for the water tower in Ostia is located in the nearby corridor visible in figures 70 and 71. Calcification is found on both water towers and in shaft three (figure 72). There

185

could have been many reasons

for placing the narrow shaft in the

corridor instead of the backside

of the tower like the tower in

Pompeii. The architecture for the

upper floor in this area is difficult

to determine. There is a stairway Figure 71. Detailed map of shaft of the water tower and shaft in IV.2.2-4. The proximity of the tower and the shaft suggests they could be working together. that ran from either side, which means that there could have been a structural compromise. How the water would have been siphoned from the water tower’s tank also would have affected the placement of the shaft. Clearly, further investigation is required, but there is comparable evidence between the tower in Pompeii and Ostia. Furthermore, explaining the purpose of the shafts with iron nails in the centre is difficult because they are rare and the corresponding upper floors are missing. Exactly where the shaft terminated would be a helpful place to start. These shafts typically do not have calcification in them, which suggests that either it eroded or they were not in service for very long.

The limited archaeological evidence from Rome supports the relationship between water and insulae. Two insulae in Rome were very close to castellum: one known as the Vicus Caprarius, which had a castellum added next to it during the reign of Hadrian,504 and the other, the insulae known under S. Giovani e Paolo along the Clivus Scari.505 In almost all the known or suggested insulae in Rome, there was a nearby water system.506 Insulae were good structures to place near a

504 Insalaco 2002. 505 Tucci 2006. Strabo 5.3.8 discuss that many domus had running water and tanks. 506 The area under Termini, Piazza Cinquecento, had a large bath complex with insulae, see Paris and Barber 1996. The insulae along Guilio Romano was located in a very public and accessible area; I find it hard to accept there was not a water source nearby. The insulae under San Lorenzo in Lucina had vertical recessed shafts (type RS II) in the 186

bath complex. There seems to be a desire to place

baths near insulae or to include insulae features in

bath complexes, as section 3.0 has already discussed.

This is found in the excavations under Piazza

Cinquecento in Rome507 and throughout Ostia. As

discussed previously in Chapter 3, while looking for

trends and city-wide distribution of downpipes and

shafts, the evidence seems to be masked because there

are baths located near housing, which required

constant source of water and a drainage system. In

Figure 72. IV.2.2-4_3. other cities like Pompeii and Herculaneum, the baths are not as extensive, emphasizing a distinction in the urban fabric and trends possibly based on the limited access to water and perhaps a difference in population density as well.

One example of a basin on the first floor is known in Ostia. Felletti Maj’s study of Volte

Dipinti revealed that there was an upper floor terracotta shaft. This arrangement is quite unique among the finds in Ostia. In room twenty-four there was found watertight concrete/plaster poured on the floor with a shallow lip to make a basin. This was attached to a shallow trough that ran along the south wall under the stairs to room twenty-six where there was a small basin with a hole in the bottom, which emptied into this trough. In the middle of the trough under the window, there was the terracotta pipe that emptied downward, functioning as a shoot to dump refuse and overflow for the basin. The function of the watertight plaster flooring in room twenty-four seems to act as a

building and had a fountain in the courtyard; see Brandt 2012. The insulae known under San Paolo della Regola was along the Tiber, possibly a converted horrea, most likely it served a dual purpose. It had a water supply. 507 Paris and Barbera 1996. 187

reservoir for the basin and the shaft.508 The preference for the reservoir instead of another room to lease places an exceptional interest in the use of water.509

A final consideration is the evidence that later domus that were built out of the remains of the earlier existing insulae have a tendency to use water as display, as found in the Domus de

Colonne, and Domus dei Dioscuri.510 It is possible that the owner of the domus was simply coopting a preexisting water feature into their own building and these insulae were targeted for reconstruction because they already had this feature. It is difficult to suggest or to make a coherent argument because the earlier architecture many times was removed, and therefore it is impossible to say whether the building was originally an insulae. However, Heres’ work suggests that there is supporting evidence for several identified domus structures to have previously been insulae.511

7.0 Shared walls, paries communis and Type RS II shafts The Roman city was a complicated place. Servitudes and buildings with shared walls created an unforgiving environment for construction and demolition. Remodeling for the purpose of generating more money or refurbishing something that was derelict was very difficult, as was discussed previously in Chapter 2. Yet, shared walls were part of the urban architectural identity

…nam in confinio preadiorum urbanorum displicuit, neque enim confines hi, sed magis vicini dicuntur et ea communibus parietibus plerumque disterminatur.512 When Nero tried to widen the gaps between the structures, it was met with resistance, and there is little evidence to suggest that

508 Felletti Maj 1960. 509 It looks from Beccati’s drawing as if the housing on the south end of Horrea Epagathiana might have had a small basin, but there is nothing mentioned in the notes. Beccati 1940. 510 Becatti 1948 for an overview on the latter houses. Domus dei Dioscuri had a bath complex added to it. See also Domus dei Pesci, which had a cistern, a fountain and possibly a small bath facility. 511 Heres 1986. 512 Dig. 10.1.4.10: “…for it has not been thought applicable to boundaries between urban land, since there one talks of neighbours rather than people with a common boundary and urban properties are generally separated by common walls.” 188

anyone followed the new building guidelines.513 Attempting to make sense of the shared walls or party walls is complicated. This section does not seek to answer this complex question, but it will instead add more layers to the complexity of the architectural and legal argument. The intent is to examine the purpose for the development of type RS II shafts. There were only thirty-eight found throughout the city (Appendix II, tables 3, 4, and 7). This number seems low given the commonality of type RS I. It would suggest that there was a specific reason to add the tile revetment to the wall. An exploration of how shared walls might work and the evidence for how

Romans thought of them is also required.

Beginning with the inscriptional evidence, we know that there was some interest in designating one’s property boundary (Appendix I section 8.0). This is challenging to substantiate today largely because we do not know how they were displayed, and we may only speculate as to why they would have placed them up for public notice. The significance of displaying a sign that says who owns the property would seem largely irrelevant to the public, yet even from the scant evidence we have, this was an important aspect of property ownership, even if it was indirect through lease or other means. In the Terme delle sei Colonne in Ostia, an inscription was found that provided the height of the shared section of a wall.514 Presumably, the boundary marker was placed were the boundaries needed to be identified. There might have been something ambiguous about this section of wall. There must have been more concern regarding property ownership and its boundaries.515 Presumably, the signage was to prevent damage from a neighbour inserting a beam into the shared wall or from any activity that could have damaged the property on the other side.516 Many metrological studies have been done in Pompeii and Herculaneum where shared

513 The Vicus Caprarius seems to have not followed the new building guidelines from Nero. Tac. Ann 15.43. 514 CIL 14.01867. 515 Schoohoven 2006: 71. 516 Dig. 8.2.13.1 discusses damaged frescoes on a shared wall. 189

walls were the norm. Schoohoven discusses the nature of shared walls and how they developed as a means of exploitation of urban property plots in Pompeii.517 But in Ostia, there are many buildings that have their own walls, which might be an indication of property boundaries; however, many of the type RS II shafts are found within the same structure. Perhaps owners did not wish to damage their own walls, or there was more concern for the tenants on either side of the walls.

One suggestion for placing the plaques up was to warn neighbours or prospective property owners/developers that there was a known contract and with it a servitude that bound the walls to their contractual function. There would be little ability to change servitude without further legal action. For example, near the western wall of the Sanctuary of Apollo in Pompeii was found an inscription that discusses payment for the right to block light.518 This contract was not entirely for the public but for those who were inside the sanctuary; perhaps the plaque was also a boundary marker, demonstrating the right to purchase a servitude. The conversation in the Digest has several examples that discuss shared walls and how best to deal with the problems and who bears the responsibility.519

Without specific evidence, it is difficult to say where ownership begins and ends, making rental property even more inaccessible for the researcher. According to Pirson in his study of rental property in Pompeii, the vertically placed terracotta pipes indicate property boundaries.520 This is impossible to prove but by no means should be disqualified for lack of evidence. It would seem more plausible that they were simply partition walls, possibly separating rental property.521

Furthermore, there is nothing that says that private ownership on the ground floor would exclude

517 Schoohoven 2006: 171. 518 See Appendix I section CIL 10.787. 519 Dig. 39.2.36 a shared wall must bear the weight of two houses. 520 Pirson 1999: 67-68. Contra Craver 2010a: 63-65. 521 Craver 2010:65. 190

communal living on the upper floors. The downpipes running vertically in many of the partition walls are visible on either side of the wall, which is due to the narrow partition. It is a strong possibility that the partition was intended to provide an architectural means for the pipe to be placed vertically in the most advantageous location for the floor it serviced and for it to drain into a cesspit or the sewer line. In fact, there is a strong possibility for this scenario in many of the shops in Pompeii. For example, in figure 73, the shafts are built not in the wall but on either side.

These two pipes were later additions to the shops, and both could drain into the same cesspit or use the same drain into the sewer line.

For type RS II shafts, there are several reasons for the tile revetment in the back of the shaft: one, simply protection from damaging the wall and anything seeping through; two, reinforcement for the shaft itself; or three, protection from anyone inserting something from the other side. Therefore, the revetment acted as a boundary marker protecting the shaft from the main problem of shared walls, which was the inherent damage from neighbours abusing the wall. Most likely it was a combination of all three. There is much work left to be done on this subject. Our understanding of property boundaries is limited, but seeing urban development bound to legal device and that developers were most likely to adhere to some guidelines because they could not sell a property that would place a dominus at risk of being sued by their neighbours suggests that there is more consistency and sensitivity to boundaries than has previously been suggested.

8.0 Residential Elements in Collegia Throughout the survey, it became clear that buildings identified as collegia (of some kind) frequently contained upper floor toilets. Current work on these buildings and their significance has

191

been identified in Stöger’s research through spatial analysis.522 Identifying spatial and architectural features to reveal the structures’ residential elements opens up a new avenue for discussion on the importance of these buildings. The significance of housing within structures that have been identified with specific religious or political groups suggests a wide range of investment possibilities. The architectural variation among these structures is very broad, which might be an indication of the range of needs the building had to serve. Buildings such as the Sede de Augustales

V.7.2 (see Appendix IV map 23) in comparison to those such as in Caseggiato deil Triclini I.12.1, which was linked to fabri tignarii (See Appendix IV map 19) can serve as an indication of the variation that can be found.

Among these types of structures, there is consistent evidence for housing on the upper floors. There was great utility in these buildings. It was possible that the housing elements were for the members, but Liu’s work in the gift of endowment from the patron of the collegium to the collegium itself was an important part of their survival. In many cases, monetary gifts from a patron to a collegium were invested to ensure that there would continue to be enough money for festivals or whatever the patron stipulated in their will.523 With this in mind, it would seem that leasing out their building or sections of their building was another lucrative way to ensure a consistent income.

Two key examples demonstrate the influence of the patron in the collegium structure. In the first example, the patron is thanked by the collegia for repairing their insulae (Appendix I CIL 6.

01682). The interest of the patron restoring their insula suggests that it served as more than simply a place to work but also as their housing, and possibly it provided further economic support. In the

522 Stöger 2011a, 2011b, 2014 and 2015, Hermasen 1981: 55-89, Meiggs 1973: 311-36, Royden 1988, See also Waltzing 1895-1900. 523 Liu 2008:243-56. See also CIL 5. 04488. 192

second example, the patron provides a small income for the collegium in the form of usus fructus for a portion of the insula (see Appendix I CIL 6.10248).524

A final feature to consider for these structures is the shared architectural element of the distyle columns found in many of these structures that are thought to be insulae. For example, in

Domus delle Muse, Caseggiato degli Triclini, Domus del Tempio Rotondo, Tempio Colliegial et

Mitreo di Fructosus or the Sede Augustales, all share a linear axis with two columns off of a central courtyard. This feature can also be found in the Case delle Ierodule, which is located in Case

Giardino, and in the western wing of the Terme di Nettuno. The inclusion of this specific type of architectural expression implies that there were activities that required it. There is transparency among the architecture in Ostia, much of it integrating various structural elements. Stöger’s work clearly identifies the layers of integration within the densely built environment of Ostia.525 What this means for housing is that it was inclusive of many different types of activities. This feature was added within structures to serve a utilitarian purpose. Future studies of these structures will reveal that housing was more abundant than previously suggested, and its civic purpose was most likely to serve as an investment and to meet social expectations.526

8.1 Employment and Religion The final consideration is the evidence for employment and religion in insulae. One key element of insulae was the fact that these buildings had employees. Tertullian discusses the fact that one could find a job in one.527 Clearly, the meaning of this simple statement could be broad.

But given the nature of the building, employment could have been found in any number of ways.

524 Johnston 1988: 86. 525 Stöger 2011a: 227-28. Bolleman 1997: 212-13. Steuernagel 2006: 143. 526 Verboven 2007: discusses the purpose of collegia in life and death. It would be logical that housing would be part of this process. 527 Tert. De Idol. 7.4. 193

It is not known whether a general employee of an insula was called an insularius, but it is a possibility.528 The term is not commonly found in the general Roman corpus, but they are known from epitaphs in columbaria (Appendix I section 1.3). If indeed they are employees of the building and not the conductor, they are the main link between the tenants and owners of the buildings.

Frier has commented upon the ties of the Imperial family and other competing elites to insulae through the evidence of epigraphic evidence of insularii.529 Although much of this evidence is from columbaria and dates to the first century CE, it has been suggested that there were many private developers in Ostia; perhaps this was a similar feature in Rome in the second century CE.530

Chapter 2 discussed some of the legal means and broad interests for those interested in investing in a building project. To protect their interests, the owner of a building had a right to place a watchman in their own building.531 This makes more sense when we consider the dominus expelling certain tenants or even being aware of tenants in their building that they did not want.532

The role of the insularius must have been very broad, from keeping an eye on the tenants to any number of jobs depending upon how their position was defined and how the building functioned.

Its appearance in the Digest is rather limited and generic, simply referring to someone who worked there. In the case of the living arrangement found in Petronius, there was a deversorium as one of the businesses within an insula. In this scene, the insularii attack Eumolpus, and the situation becomes serious enough to require the insula procurator, who seems to fix the situation.533 It would seem that running an insula required a division of labour with the insularii being the

528 Martino Lucarini 2003: 245-52. 529 Frier 1977 and 1980. 530 Delaine 2002. 531 Dig. 7.8.16.1. 532 See Dig. 19.2.28, 19.2.7. 533 Petron. Sat. 95. 194

labourers. If this is applied to the archaeological remains in Ostia, one might ask how many people were needed to ensure that the Case Giardino was running correctly. It should also be considered that the structures without evidence for upper floor toilets might have had someone, perhaps an insularius, to empty the chamber pots (matella).

One element that seems to evade commentary is the inscriptions of insulae in the context of burial. They are rare, but nevertheless they suggest housing and commercial activities in a burial context (see Appendix I CIL 6.10250). There are a number of inscriptions for tabernae with custodia to take care of the monuments, and possibly they included retail for those in need of goods relating to the ritual associated with the festivals of the dead (See Appendix I, section 3.0 for a selection of tabernae epitaphs).534 In a letter from Cicero, he writes to his friend Memmius about an artisan, C. Avianus Evander, who is qui habitat in tuo sacrario.535 It appears that Memmius needs him to leave before the first of July, but Cicero requests on behalf of himself and the main patron of Avianus, M. Aemilius, to allow him to stay given that he has many commissioned pieces of work. Taking up residence in a burial ground could be associated with collegia or the residents were to watch over the area and protect it because the grounds could be extensive and carry a variety of servitudes.

Another feature of insulae rarely covered is religion. Scholarship is used to discussing the household lararia and associated elements, but insulae are not commonly included in this conversation.536 In a single inscription, there is a woman who was the popa de insula.537 Her role as the insula priestess suggests a broad range of purposes for the structure and people living there.

534 See Appendix I section 1.0-1.5. 535 Cic. Fam 13.2. 536 Bakker 1994. 537 See Appendix I section 1.5 for inscriptions concerning religion and insulae. 195

The emphasis is one of community and collective identity. This had to begin with either the dominus or someone with the authority to provide a visible ritual space; perhaps this correlates to the inscription found in the Insula of Bolanii, which was associated Bonae Deae.538 Steuernagel has suggested that there is integration of religion and insulae under the guise of collegia.539

Bakker’s work also reveals the religious elements of insulae.540 Is it possible that insulae had their own identity without the need for collegia? It would seem that housing in Ostia was a very nuanced system; it was abundant but also very transparent, being woven into urban design. Religion was part of this and can be found in the niches of the Horrea of Epagathiana or in Caseggiato del

Larario. The inclusion of niches or wall paintings was significant and noticeable to those who recognized it, which addresses the social significance of community among the residents.

9.0 Summary In conclusion, this chapter has been a summation of the evidence for upper floor habitation in Ostia. It has demonstrated the relationship between the tenant and the dominus in the context of the archaeological evidence produced in the surveys, which was further supported by the legal text from the Digest. The conclusion drawn from this discussion has been that housing was abundant in Ostia. Regardless of a building’s original purpose, housing was woven throughout its architecture. There was great utility in adding housing to property. In Ostia, developing the housing market became a logical investment. It has been demonstrated that housing was found throughout the city of Ostia in many conventional types of property. From horrea to balnea to the insulae used by collegia, there was no type of structure that could not include housing. The opportunity to use the property for a variety of purposes made the inclusion of housing within these buildings

538 Appendix I section 1.5. 539 Steuernagel 2006: 143-44. 540 Bakker 1994. 196

more lucrative. The ability to demonstrate the element of housing was based upon the prolific evidence of upper floor toilets. Their location within the buildings and their repairs demonstrate the necessity of this feature and the relationship between the landlords and tenants.

The interest and influence of the jurists provided the legal means to encourage the growth of insulae and to protect the dominus, the conductor, the tenants, and the neighbouring property from abuse. This by no means protected everyone who participated in leased property, and there was clearly a greater interest to defend the landowners’ interests over everyone else’s. The inclusion of obligatio became an adapted urban legal device, and its association with locatio conductio is not surprising. The potential for abuse on either side of the contract was very high and could have been very common. However, when looking at the evidence for repairs, there clearly was something that bound a dominus to make the necessary changes. Alternatively, the additions of a shaft to a building ensured that there was no reason to throw waste out of the windows. The behavioural control found in the jurists’ writings suggests a greater interest than clinical legislation but a genuine desire to solve an issue. The discussion in Chapter 2 highlighted the most significant elements regarding the evidence for repairs and why they were legally important. The evidence from the survey corresponded well with the basic principles found in the

Digest.

On several occasions, community and vicus has been considered. There is viable evidence to suggest that because the urban landscape of Ostia was so flat and the water table very high, they had to employ a city-wide waste disposal system.541 Everyone, if they wanted a sewer line for their building, had to connect it to main drainage channels. The city of Ostia was most likely collectively

541 Jansen 2000:44-49. 197

concerned with waste. Did they have a fee for connecting to the main sewer line? We know that they had to pay for clean water; the evidence for sewage disposal can be found in the Digest, where it is suggested that cloacarium nomen, was a fee that existed for sewage disposal.542 It is possible that the owners of the buildings that did not display evidence of shafts or terracotta pipes did not want to pay a fee for sewer disposal. It could be interpreted that these buildings might have been for a lower economic bracket, or it could have been that there was no housing in these buildings.

More importantly, the overall trend of the buildings that do include upper floor toilets suggests that there was coordination between the dominus and those who operated the civic amenities. If there was a fee for disposing waste, then the building with the shafts would have been registered in a census in order to assess the fees. How the Ostian population thought of their city was one of cleanliness and order.

The combined methodology of the archaeological survey, the legal texts, and primary sources has led to the conclusion that housing was a large part of the investment process of insulae and that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant was one of great economic potential.

Therefore, the repairs found were part of the process in maintaining this relationship; even the buildings’ architectural design was intended to facilitate easy access to the shafts for repair. One could conclude that if this was how a dominus interpreted the functional capacity of their own building, they could have interpreted their city in a similar fashion. Despite the criticism from ancient and modern authors, there was concern and thought put into preserving the view of the city. There were legal efforts to prevent those who would disfigure the city; ne ruinis urbs deformetur is repeated in the Digest several times and included in multiple municipal charters,

542 Dig. 7.1.27.3. 198

such as the SC Hosidianum from Herculaneum.543 In Ostia, this was exemplified by the inclusion of the upper floor toilets and the desire to maintain them.

543 Dig. 43.8.7, 43.2.17, 39.1.20, 1.18.7, SC Hosidianum CIL 10. 1401. 199

Chapter 6. Conclusion

1.0 Chapter Summary Each chapter provided a layer in answering the main question of; is there archaeological evidence that demonstrates the relationship between landlord and tenant. This question was designed in order to encompass the complexity of the topic. It therefore required a methodological approach that included the use of ancient texts, Roman law in order to support the archeological evidence presented. One of the project’s goals was to offer a counter argument of past scholarship’s treatment of insulae that would be based upon the physical remains. As a result, the combined evidence was able to address theories of the building’s social standing and the need for an owner to keep their structure in working order.

Chapter 1 introduced the topic, which led to the literary review in Chapter 2. Largely, this chapter identified the problematic approach to these structures and how scholarship has chosen to explain their significance. This chapter was followed by a review of Roman law in Chapter 3. In this chapter, it was identified that these structures played an important role economic maturity of

Rome. Their significance in the urban property market ensured investment opportunities for owners and provided the requirement of surety and security for those pursuing a political career.

Chapter 4 provided the archaeological evidence collected from the surveys in 2014 and

2015. It provided an explanation and the significance of each feature. The study allowed for the opportunity to challenge past treatment of insulae in both quantity and the quality of the evidence found. Finally, in Chapter 5 all of the evidence; textual, legal and archaeological could be placed in a great context. This was largely dealt with in the form of case studies. Each studied provided

200

the opportunity to analysis the significance of the evidence. For example, it became clear that housing was an integral part in many different types of structures. Horrea, traditionally are not thought of when housing is discussed, but clearly there are strong indications that in Ostia it was a relatively common inclusion to the building.

2.0 Contributions to the field The contribution to the field of Classical Studies and Classical Archaeology are broad reaching. The most obvious are housing (both modern and ancient), sanitation and water, architecture, urban distribution and legal theory. By establishing the status quo within each discipline’s agenda regarding insulae, it was possible to apply the evidence accrued by using a complementary research method to challenge the established thought on insulae.

3.0 Future Studies Futures studies for this work would benefit from comparative studies on housing from the

19th through the early 20th centuries. A broader range of evidence could be drawn from observing the growth of these cities during this era. Also, chemical analyses from the shafts should be taken.

A thorough methodology would first have to be approved by the Soprintendenza of Rome and

Ostia along with access to a local lab is essential. The significance of chemical analysis is to identify with greater accuracy the shaft’s function and longevity. Finally, the use of the daily excavation journals from Calza and other who excavated Ostia would be essential to understanding the reconstruction of the city. It is essential that any conversation regarding the upper floor toilets or thoughts about these features be understood from those who first witnessed them. Because of the architectural nature of the shafts understanding the city’s excavation and reconstruction is essential.

201

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, J.P. (1999) Roman Building: Material and Techniques. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.

de Albentiis, E. (1989) “Indagini sull Insula Arriana Polliana di Pompei.” DialArch 3.7 1: 43–84.

Allison, P. (2001) “Using the Material and Written Sources : Turn of the Millennium Approaches to Roman Domestic Space.” AJA 105 2: 181–208.

Allison, P.J. (1999) “Labels for ladles: Interpreting the material culture of Roman households.” In Archaeology of Household Activities, edited by, P.J. Allison, 57–77. London: Routledge.

Amirante, L. (1965) “Locare Habitationem.” In Studi in Onore di Biondo Biondi, 455–465. Milan.

Andreau, J. (1999) Banking and Business in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andrews, J. (2006) The use and development of upper floors in houses at Herculaneum. Ph.D. University of Reading.

Ashby, T. (1912) “Recent discoveries at Ostia.” JRS 2: 153–194.

Aulus Gellius (1927) Noctes Atticae. Translated by J.C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bakker, J.T. (1994) Living and Working with the Gods. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Bannon, C. (2009) Gardens and Neighbors. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Bauers, N. (2001) “Die insulae dell’Ercole bambino und del Soffitto dipinto in Ostia.” In Tagung fuer Ausgrabungswissensschaft und Bauforschung, 67–73. Bericht ueber die 41.

202

Beccati, G. (1940) “Ostia- Horrea Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana.” In NSc, 32–52.

Beccati, G. (1948) “Case Ostiensi del tardo impero.” BdA 33: 197–224.

Berger, A. (1953) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Berry, J. (1997a) “The conditions of domestic life in Pompeii in AD 79: A case study of houses 11 and 12, insula 9 region I.” PBSR 65: 103–125.

Berry, J. (1997) “Household artefacts: towards a re-interpretation of Roman domestic space.” JRA Supp. 22: 183–195.

Birks, P. 1983. “Obligations: One Tier or Two?” In Studies in Justinian’s Institutes in memory of J.A.C. Thomas., edited by, P.G Stein, 18–38. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited.

Blake, M. (1973) Roman Construction in Italy from Nerva through the Antonines. Philadelphia: American Philological Society.

Boersma, J. (1982) “Large sized insulae in Italy and the Western Roman provinces.” BABesch 75: 38–51.

Boersma, J. (1985) Amoenissima Civitas. Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Boersma, J. (1986) “Excavations in the House of the Porch (V.ii.4-5) at Ostia.” BABesch 61: 77– 136.

Boersma, J. (1996) “Private Latrines in Ostia: a Case Study.” BABesch 71: 151–160.

Boethius, A. (1934) “Remarks on the Development of Domestic Architecture in Rome.” AJA 38 1: 158–170.

Boethius, A. (1960) The Golden House of Nero. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

203

Boethius, A. (1978) Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Boin, D. (2013) Ostia in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bolleman, B. (1997) “La distribuzione delle scholae delle corporzioni a Roma.” In La Rome imperiale. Demographie et logistique. Actes de la table ronde (Rome, 25 mars 1994), 209–225. 230. Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome.

Borbonus, D. (2014) Columbarium Tombs and Collective Identity in Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borghi, R. (1997) “L’Acqua come ornamento nella domus Pompeiana documentazione archeologico e fonti letterarie.” In Architettura e pianificazione urbana nell’Italia antica, edited by L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli, Rivista 6: 35–51.

Borkowski, A. (1994) Roman Law. London: Blackstone Press.

Borkowski, A., and P. du Plessis. (2005) Textbook on Roman Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boyle, B. (1972) “The Ancient Italian Town House Reconsidered.” JSAH 31 4: 253–260.

Brandt, O. (2012) San Lorenzo in Lucina: The transformation of a Roman quarter. ActaRom 4.61.

Brodribb, G. (1987) Roman Brick and Tile. Sutton.

Bruun, C. (1991) The water supply of ancient Rome: a study of Roman imperial administration. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Bruun, C. (1997) “Water for Roman Brothels: Cicero ‘Cael’ 34.” Phoenix 51 3/4: 364–373.

204

Calci, C. and G. Messineo. (1984) La Villa di Livia a Prima Porta. Roma: De Luca Editore.

Calza, G. (1914) “La preeminenza dell’insula nell’edilizia romana.” MA 23: 541–608.

Calza, G. (1915a.) “Ostia: La pergula e i maeniana dell case ostiensi.” In NSc, 324–333.

Calza, G. (1915b.) “Ostia: Sterri nell’edificio detto della Pistrine, e pressola casa di Diana.” In NSc, 242–258.

Calza, G. (1917) “Ostia: La Casa detta di Diana.” In NSc, 312–328.

Calza, G. (1920) “Gli Scavi Recenti Nell’Abitato Di Ostia.” MontAnt 26, 322–443.

Calza, G. (1923) “Le origine latine dell’abitazione moderna (I).” Architettura e Arti Decorative: 3–18.

Calza, G. (1927) Il teatro romano di Osita. Roma-Milano.

Calza, G. (1929) “La Casa Romano.” Capitolium: 521–53.

Calza, G. (1933) “Ostia in the light of recent discoveries.” Antiquity 7: 405–409.

Calza, G. (1941a.) “Contributi alla Storia della edilizia imperiale Romana.” Palladio: 1–33.

Calza, G. (1941b.) “La Popolazione di Roma Antica.” BullCom 69: 142–155.

Calza, G. (1953) Scavi di Ostia. Vol 1.

Camardo, D., M. Martelli Castaldi, and J. Thompson (2006) “Water Supply and Drainage at Herculaneum.” In Curam Aquarum in Ephesus Vol 1-2. BABesch supp.12, 183–191.

205

Camodeca, G. (1991) “Novita sui fasti consolari delle tavolette cerate della Campania” In Epigrafia. Actes du colloque international d’epigraphie latine en memoire de Attilio Degrassi pour le centernaire de sa naissance, Rome (27-28 mai 1988). Rome Ecole Franciase de Rome, 45-74.

Camodeca, G. (1999) Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum. Edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii. Roma: Quasar.

Carrington, R. (1933) “The Ancient Italian Town House.” Antiquity 7: 133–152.

Carrive, M. (2016) “Rome et Ostie en regard" mode d’haiter de l’elite au IIs. ap. J.C.” MEFRA 128. 1. http://mefra.revues.org/3353 ; DOI : 10.4000/mefra.3353.

Casey, J. (1985) “The Roman Housing Market.” In Roman Urban Topography in Britain and Western Empire, edited by, O. Grew and E. Hobley, 43–48. London.

Cervi, R. (1998) “Evolizione Architettonica delle cosiddette ‘casa a giardino’ad Ostia.” In Citta E Monumenti Nell’Italia Antica, 7:143–157. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Cicero (1913) De Officis. Translated by W. Miller. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Cicero (1923) Cicero Orations: Pro Archia, Post redium in Senatu, Post Redium ad Quirites, De Domo Sua, De Haruspicum, Responsis, Pro Plancio. Translated by N.H. Watts. Loeb. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Cicero (1958) Orations: Pro Caelio. De Provinciis Consularibus. Pro Balbus. Translated by R. Gardner. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Cicero (1961) Letters to Atticus. Translated by E.O Winstedt. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Clarke, J. (1991) The Houses of Roman Italy: 100 B.C. - A.D. 250 Ritual, Space and Decoration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

206

Clarke, J. (2003) Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representation and Non- Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 B.C-A.D. 315. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Clarke, J. (2010) “The decor of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede at Ostia Antica: Private Residence turned gay hotel?” In Roman Art in the Private Sphere, edited by, E. K. Gazda, 89– 104. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Clauss, M. (1999) “Epigraphik-Datenbank.” http://www.manfredclauss.de/index.html.

Cleere, H. (1981) The Iron Industry of Roman Britain. Ph.D. Thesis, University College London.

Coarelli, F. (1997) “La consistenza della citta nel periodo imperiale: Pomerium, Vici, Insulae.” In La Roma Imperiale: Demographie et Logistique. Actes de la ronde (Rome, 25 mars 1994). 89–107. Ecole Francaise de Rome: Palais Farnese.

Coates-Stephens, R. (1996) “Housing in Early Medieval Rome, 500-1000 ad.” PBRS 64: 239– 259.

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1893--) Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin

Craver, S. (2010a.) Patterns of Complexity: An index and Analysis of Urban Property Investment in Pompeii. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Virginia.

Craver, S. (2010) “Urban Real Estate in Late Republican Rome.” MAAR 55: 135–158.

Crook, J. (1978) “Working Notes of Some of the New Pompeii Tablets.” ZPE 29: 229–239.

Crook, J. (1991) Law and Life of Rome, 90 BC - AD 212. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Corpus inscriptionum latinarum (1893-) Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin

207

Cuq, M.E. (1916) “Une stastique de locaux affectes a l’habitation dans la Rome imperiale.” MemAcInscr 40: 279–335.

Daube, D. (1951) “The Peregrine Praetor.” JRS 41. 66-70.

Decormeille, A., and G. Woimant. (1983) “Transformation de la tegula mammata en Gaule Begique.” Revue archeologique de Picardie 2: 26–27.

DeFelice, J. (2008) “Inns and Taverns.” In The World of Pompeii, edited by, J. Dobbins and P. Foss, 474–486.

Delaine, J. (1995) “The Insula of the Paintings at Ostia I.4.2-4: Paradigm for a city in flux.” In Urban Society in Roman Italy, edited by, T.J. Cornell and K. Lomas, 79–106. London: UCL Press.

Delaine, J. (1996) “The Insula of the Paintings. A model for the economics of construction in Hadrianic Ostia.” In Roman Ostia Revisited, edited by, C. Zevi and A. Claridge, 165–184. London: The British School at Rome.

Delaine, J. (1999) “High Status Apartments in Early Imperial Ostia- A Reading.” Meded 175– 189.

Delaine, J. (2002) “Building Activity in Ostia in the second century Ad.” In Ostia e Portus nellle loro relazioni con Roma, edited by, C. Bruun and A. Gallina, 41–101.

Delaine, J. (2004) “Designing for a market: medianum apartments in Ostia.” JRA 147–176.

Delaine, J. (2005) “The commercial Landscape of Ostia.” In Roman Urban Working Lives and Urban Living, edited by, Mac Mahon A and J Price, 29–47. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Delaine, J. (2012) “Housing Roman Ostia.” In Contested Spaces, edited by, D Blach and A Weissenrieder, 327–354. Mohr Siebeck.

Dessales, H. (2006) “Castella privata: Water Towers and Tanks in Roman Dwellings.” BABesch 42.

208

Diosono, F. (2007) Collegia: Le associazioni professionali nel mondo romano. Arti e Mestieri nel Mondo Romano Antico 1. Roma: Edizioni Quazar.

Dubouloz, J. (2011) La Properiete Immobiliere a rome et en Itale (Ier - Ve Siecles). Roma: Ecole Francaise de Rome.

Elmore, J (1918) “Ciceronian and Hercalean Professiones.” CQ 12.1: 38-45.

Erdkamp, P. (2012) “Urbanism.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, edited by, W. Scheidel, 241–265. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Evans-Jones, R., and G. MacCormack. (1998) “Obligations.” In A Companion to Justinian’s Institutes, edited by, E Metzger, 127–207. London: Duckworth.

Fagan, G. (1999) Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Falzone, S. (2004) Le Pitture Delle Insulae. Scavi di Ostia 14. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca Dello Stato.

Falzone, S. (2010) “Stratigrafia orizzontale dell pitture delle Case a Giardino.” AnzWien 1: 107– 160.

Falzone, S., I. Montali, and V. Treviso. (2014) “La fase di abbandono dell’Insulae dell Ierodule nel contesto delle Case a Giardino, alla luve dei nouvi dati archeologici.” MEFRA 126 1. http://mefra.revues.org/2153.

Fant, J.C. (2001) “Rome’s marble yards.” JRA 14: 167–198.

Felleti Maj, B.C. (1960) “Ostia- La Casa delle Volte Dipinti: contributo all’edilizia privata imerpiale.” BdA 45: 45–65.

209

Felletti Maj, B.C. (1961) Le pitture delle Case delle Volte Dipinte e delle Pareti Gialle. Ostia 1- 2. Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia 3.

Flor, M. (2013) The World of the Fullo: Work, Economy, and Society in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Franklin, J. (1997) “Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius and the Amphitheatre: ‘Munera’ a Distinguished Career at Ancient Pompeii.” Historia 46 4: 434–447.

Franklin, J. (2001) Pompeis DiffiCILe Est. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Frier, B. (1977) “The Rental Market in Early Imperial Rome.” JRS 67: 27–37.

Frier, B. (1978) “Cicero’s Management of His Urban Properties.” CJ 74 1: 1–6.

Frier, B. (1980) Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frier, B. (1985) The Rise of the Roman Jurist. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frontinus. (2004) De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae. Edited with Commentary by R.H Rodgers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, J. (1995) Women in Roman Law and Society. London: Routledge.

Garnsey, P. (1976) “Urban Property Investment.” In Studies in Roman Property, edited by, M.I. Finley, 123–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Geraci, G. (2003) “Documenti ellenistici e appalti di stato romani. Ancora su Polybi, VI.17.4 e UPZ I, 112, col.II, LL.5 ss.” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 14: 45–66.

Gering, A. (1999) ‘Medianum-apartments’: Knozepte von Wohnen in der insula im 2.Jh.n.Chr.” Meded: 128–142.

210

Gering, A. (2002) “Die Casa a Giardino als Unerfullter Architecktenraum, Planung und Gewandelte Nutzung Einer Luxuswonhnanlage Im Antiken Os.” RM 109: 109–140.

Gering, A. (2012) “Ruins, Rubbish Dumps and Encroachment.” Late Antique Archaeology 12: 249–288.

Girri, G. (1956) La Taberna Nel Quando Urbanistico E Sociale Di Osita. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Gismondi, I. (1923) “Le origine latine dell’abitazione moderna (II).” Architettura e Arti Decorative: 49–63.

Gismondi, I. (1954) “La Colimbetra del teatro di Ostia.” In Anthemon, 293–311. Scritti in onore di Carlo Anti. Venizia.

Goebel, R. (1961) “Reconstructing the Roman Law of Real Security.” Tulane Law Review 36: 29–66.

Gonzalez, J., and M. Crawford. (1986) “The Lex Irnitana: A new copy of the Flavian Municipal Law.” JRS 76: 147–243.

Grahame, M. (1998) “Material Culture and Roman Identity.” In Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, edited by, R Laurence, 156–178. London: Routledge.

Guilhembet, J.-P. (1996) “La densite des domus et des insulae dans les XIV regions de Rome selon les Regionnaires: representations cartographiques.” MEFRA 108: 7–26.

Hales, S. (2003) The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hardy, E. (1924) Some Problems in Roman History: Ten Essays Bearing on the Administrative and Legislative work of Julius Caesar. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Hardy, E. (1975) Roman Laws and Charter and Three Spanish Charter and other documents. New York: Arno Press.

211

Harsh, P. (1935) “The Origins of the Insulae at Ostia.” MAAR 12: 7–66.

Heres, T. (1982) Paries: A proposal for a dating system of Late- Antique masonry structures in Rome and Ostia AD 235-600. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Heres, T. (1992) “The Structures related to the water supply of Pompeii: building materials and chronology.” Meded 51–52: 42–61.

Heres, T. (1986) “Ostia Antica: The House of the Columns revisited.” BABesch 61: 138–148.

Hermasen, G. (1970) “The Medianum Apartment.” Phoenix 24 4: 342–347.

Hermasen, G. (1974) “The Roman Inns and the Law: The inns of Ostia.” In Polis and Imperium: Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, edited by, J.A.S Evans, 167–181. Toronto: A.M. Hakkert.

Hermasen, G. (1978) “The Population of Imperial Rome: The Regionaries.” Historia 27: 129– 168.

Hermasen, G. (1981) Ostia: Aspects of Roman City Life. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press.

Hobson, B. (2009) Pompeii Latrines and Down Pipes. 2041. BAR International.

Hobson, B. (2010) Latinae et Foricae: Toilets in the Roman World. London: Duckworth.

Holleran, C. (2011) “Migration and the urban economy of Rome.” In Demography and the Graeco-Roman World, edited by, C. Holleran and A. Pudsey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holleran, C. (2012) Shopping in Ancient Rome: The Retail Trade in the Late Republic and the Principate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

212

Hope, V. (1997) “A roof over the dead: communal tombs and family structure.” JRA Supp 22: 69–90.

Hopkins, K. (2002) “Rome, Taxes, Rents and Trade.” In The Ancient Economy, edited by, W Scheidel and S Von Reden, 190–232.

Houston, G. (2003) “Galen, His Books, and the Horrea Piperataria at Rome.” MAAR 48: 45–51.

Insalaco, A. (2002) La citta del’acqua: Archeologia sotterranea a Fonatna di Trevi. Milano: Electa.

Jansen, G. (1997) “Private toilets at Pompeii: appearance and operation.” In Sequence and Space, edited by, R Jones and S Bon-Harper, 121–134. Oxbow Monograph 77.

Jansen, G. (2000a.) “Studying Roman hygiene: the battle between ‘optimists’ and the ‘pessimists’.” In Cura Aquarum in SCILia, BABesch Supp. 6. 275–280.

Jansen, G. (2000b.) “Systems for the disposal of waste and excreta in Roman cities, the situation in Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia.” Sordes Urbis: :La Eliminacion de Resiuos en la ciudad roman: actas de la Reunion de Roma 15-16 de Noviembre de 1996 24. Bibliotheca Italica/ escuela Espanola de Historia Y Arguelogia En Roma: 37–49.

Jansen, G. (2002) Water in de Romeinse stad: Pompeji, Herculaneum, Ostia. Leuven: Peeters.

Jansen, G. (2006) “The Unknown Urban Water System at Roman Ostia.” In Curam Aquarum in Ephesus Vol 1-2. BABesch supp.12: 175–182.

Johnson, D (1988) “Trusts and Tombs.” ZPE 72, 81-88.

Johnston, D. (1999) Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, D. (2006) The Bankers of Puteoli. Stroud: Tempus.

213

Jones, R., and D. Robinson. (2005) “Water, Wealth, and Social Status at Pompeii: The House of the Vestal in the First Century.” AJA 109: 695–710.

Joshel, S. (1992) Work, Identity and Legal Status at Rom. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Juvenal and Persius. (1928) Satires of Juvenal. Translated by G.G. Ramsay. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Kaser, M. (1980) Roman Private Law. Translated by R Dannenbring. Pretroia: University of South Africa.

Keenan-Jones, D. (2015) “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply ad Pompeii and the Bay of Naples.” AJA 119 2: 191–216.

Keppie, L. (1991) Understanding Roman Inscriptions. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Kleberg, T. (1957) Hotels, Restaurants et Cabarets Dans L’Antiqueite Romaine. Bibliotheca Ekmaniana 61. Uppsala: Alquist and Wiksells.

Koloski-Ostrow, A.O. (1986) “The Sarno Bath Complex: Architecture in Pompeii’s Last Years.” Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Michigan.

Koloski-Ostrow, A. O. (2015) The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy: Toilets, Sewers, and Water Systems. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Laurence, R. (2002) Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. New York: Routledge.

Leach, E. (1997) “Oecus on Ibycus: Investigating the Vocabulary of the Roman House.” In Sequence and Space in Pompeii, edited by, S Bon and R Jones, 50–72. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Leotardi, P. (1979) Marmi di cava rinvernuti ad Ostia e considerazioni sul commercio del marmi in eta romana. Scavi di Ostia vol. X.

214

Levoy, M., and J. Trimble. (2002) “Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Project.” http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/.

Ling, R. (1990) “A stranger in town: Finding the Way in an Ancient City.” Greece & Rome 37 2: 204–214.

Ling, R. (1997) The Insula of Menander at Pompeii. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liu, J. (2008) “The Economy of Endowments: The case of the Roman Collegia.” In Pistoi Dia Ten Technen: Bankers, Loans and Archives in the Ancient World, edited by, K Verboven, K Vandorpe, and V Chankowski, 231–256. Peeters.

Lo Cascio, E. (1997) “Le Procedure di recensus dalla tarda repubblica al tardo antico e il calcolo della popolazione di Roma.” In La Rome imperiale. Demographie et logistique. Actes de la table ronde (Rome, 25 mars 1994). l’Ecole francaise de Rome 230. 3–76.

Lott, J.B. (2004) The neighborhood of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lugli, G. (1957) La technica edilizia romana, con particolare riguardo a Roma e Lazio. 2 vols. Roma: Bardi.

Lugli, G. (1965) Studi Minori Di Topografia Antica. Roma: De Luca Editore.

Mac Mahon, A. (2006) “Fixed-Point Retail Location in the Major Towns of Roman Britain.” OJA 25 3: 289–309.

MacCormack, G. (1971) “Roman and African Litigation.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiendens 39: 221–255.

Mannuci, V. (1995) Atlante di Ostia Antica. Venezia: Marsilio.

Martial. (1919) Epigrams. Translated by W.C.A. Ker. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

215

Martin, S. (1989) “The Roman Jurists and the Organization of Private Building in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” CollLatomus 204. Bruxelles: Reve D’Etudes Latines.

Martino Lucarini, C. (2003) “Insularius (Petr. Sat. 95).” Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 51: 245–252.

Mauiri. (1958). Ercolano nuove scavi Vol I-II. Roma: Poligrafico dello Stato.

Mayer, E. (2012) The Ancient Middle Classes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Mayer-Maly, T. (1956) Locatio conductio: Eine Untersuchungzum klassischen romischen Recht. Verlag Herold.

McComish, J. (2015) A Guide to Ceramic Building Materials. York Archaeological Trust.

McConchie, M. (2012) Five iron nails for the Roman hoard at Inchtuthil. Australian National University.

Meiggs, R. (1973) Roman Ostia. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Metzger, E. (2013) “Obligations in Classical Procedure.” In Obligations in Roman Law: past, present and future, edited by, T.A. McGinn, 158–173. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Meyer, E. (2004) Legitimacy and Law in the Roman World: Tabulae in Roman belief and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Middleton, J.H. 1982. The Remains of Ancient Rome. London: Adam and Charles Black.

Mitchell, P. (2015) “Why we need to know about sanitation in the past.” In Sanitation, Latrines and Intestinal Parasites in Past Populations, edited by, P Mitchell. 1-5. New York: Routledge.

Moatti, C. (2013) “Immigration and cosmopolitanization.” In The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome, edited by, P Erdkamp, 77–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

216

Mols, S. (1999) “Decorazione e uso dello spazio a Ostia. Il caso dell’Insula III x (Caseggiato del Serapide, Terme dei Sette Sapienti e Caseggiato degli Aurighi).” Meded 58: 247–386.

Mommsen, T. (1887) Romisches Staatsrecht. Vol. II. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.

Mommsen, T., P. Krueger, and A. Watson, eds. (1985) The Digest of Justinian. 1-4 vols. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.

Morely, N. (2006) “The Poor in the city of Rome.” In Poverty in the Roman World, edited by, M Atkins and R Osborne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mouritsen, H. (2011) The Freedman in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muslin, J. (2016) “Working and Living in Oplontis B: Material Perspectives on Trade and Consumption.” In Leisure and Luxury in the Age of Nero, edited by, E Gazda and J Clarke, 166– 170.

Neudecker, R. (1994) Die Pracht der Latrine. Zum wandel offeltlicher Bedurfnisanstalten in der kaiserzeitlichen Stadt. Studien zur antiken Stadt 1. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.

Nevett, L. (2000) “A real estate "market’ in Classical Greece? The example of town housing.” ABSA 95: 329–343.

Newbold, R. (1974) “Some Social and Economic Consequences of the A.D. 64 Fire at Rome.” Latomus 33: 858–869.

Newsome, D.J. (2009) “Traffic, Space and Legal Change around the Casa del Marinaio at Pompeii (VII 15.1-2).” BABesch 84: 121–142.

Nicholas, B. (1962) An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Packer, J. (1967) “Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome.” JRS 57: 80–95.

217

Packer, J. (1968a) “La casa di via Giulio Romano.” BullCom 81: 127–148.

Packer, J. (1968b) “Structure and design in Ancient Ostia: A contribution to the study Roman Imperial Architecture.” Technology and Culture 9 3: 357–388.

Packer, J. (1971) The insulae of Imperial Rome. MAAR: 31.

Packer, J. (1975) “Middle and Low Class housing in Pompeii and Herculaneum.” In Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, 133–146.

Paine, R., and G. Storey. (2006) “Epidemics, Age at Death and Mortality in Ancient Rome.” In Urbanism in the Preindustrial World, edited by, G Storey. 69-87. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

Paribeni, R. (1916) “Ostia: Scao dell’isola ad est dell’area sacra del tempio di Vulcano.” In NSc, 14:399

Paris, R., and M. Barbera. (1996) Le antiche stanze di Termini: un quartierre di Roma antica. Milano: Electa.

Parkins, H. (1997) “The ‘consumer city’ domesticated? The Roman city in elite economic strategies.” In Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City, edited by H.M. Parkins, 83-111. London: Routledge.

Parslow, C. (1989) “Praedia of Julia Felix.” Ph.D. Thesis, Durham, NC: Duke University.

Patterson, J. (2006) “The City of Rome.” In A Companion to the Roman Republic, edited by, N Rosenstein and R Morstein-Marx, 345–364. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Pavolini, C. (1986) La Vita quotidiana a Ostia. Roma: Laterza.

Peterse, K. (1985) “Notes on the design of the House of Pansa (VI, 6, 1) in Pompeii.” Meded 46: 35–55.

218

Peachin, M (2005) “A new text and commetary on Frontinus.” Review of Frontinus. De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae, edited with introduction and commentary, by R. H. Rodger JRA 18: 502-534.

Petronius (1969) Satyicon. Translated by M Helseltine. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Philips, E. (1973) The Roman Law on the Demolition of Buildings. Latomus 32: 86-95.

Phillipson, D. (1968) “Development of the Roman Law of Debt Security.” Stanford Law Review 20 6: 1230–1248.

Pirson, F. (1997) “Rented Accommodation at Pompeii: the evidence of the Insula Arriana Polliana VI 6.” JRA Supp. 22: 165–182.

Pirson, F. (1999) Mietwohnungn in Pompeji und Herkulaneum. Munich: Pfeil.

du Plessis, P. (2005) “A New Argument for Deductio Ex Mercede.” Fundamina 11, 69: 69–80.

du Plessis (2005a) “Subletting and the Roman law of letting and hiring Interpreting C. 4.65.6.” Revue Internationale des droits de l’Antiquite L II: 131–144.

du Plessis, P. (2006) “Janus in the Roman Law of Urban Lease.” Historia, 55. H.1 48-63.

du Plessis, P. (2006a) “Between Theory and Practice: New Perspectives on the Roman Law of Letting and Hiring.” CLJ 65 2: 423–437.

du Plessis, P. (2006b) “The Roman concept of lex contractus.” Roman Legal Tradition 3: 79–94.

du Plessis, P. (2007) “ The hereditablity of locatio conductio.” In Beyond Dogmatics: Law and Society in the Roman World, edited by P. J. du Plessis and J.W. Cairns. 139-153. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

219

du Plessis, P. (2012) Letting and Hiring in Roman Legal Thought: 27 BCE-284CE. Leiden: Brill.

du Plessis, P. (2013) “Theory and Practice in the Roman Law of Contracts” In Obligations in Roman Law: Past, Present and Future, edited by T.A.J. McGinn. 131-157. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Pliny the Elder (1962) Natural History. Translated by D.E. Eicholz, Vols 36-37. Cambridge, Mass, University of Harvard Press.

Pliny the Younger (1931) Letters. Translated by W.M.L Melmoth. Vol. I & II. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinenman.

Powell, J. (2011) “Legal Latin.” In A Companion to the Latin Language, edited by, J Clackson, 464–484.

Priester, S. (2002) Ad Summas Tegulas. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Purcell, N. (1994) “The city of Rome and the Plebs Urbana in the Late Republic.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, 644–688.

Quilici, L. (1986-1987) “Roma. via di S. Paolo di Regol. Scavo e recupero di edifici antichi e medioevali.” Nsc 8, 40–41:175–416.

Raff, K. (2001) Painted decoration in the apartments of roman ostia: standardization, social status, and visual experience. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan.

Rainer, J. (2013) “Public Building Contracts in the Roman Republic.” In Obligations in Roman Law: Past, Present and Future, edited by, T.A. McGinn, 174–187. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Rawson, E. (1976) “The ciceronian Aristocracy and its Properties.” In Studies in Roman Property, edited by, M.I. Finely, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reynolds, D. W. (1996) Forma Urbis Romae: The Severan Marble Plan and the Urban Form of Ancient Rome. Ph.D. Thesisi, University of Michigan.

220

Ricciardi, M., and V. Scrinari. (1996) La Civile dell’Acqua in Ostia Anitca. Vol. I–II. Roma: Fratelli Palombi.

Richardson, L (1992) A New Topographical Dictionary of Rome. The John Hopkins University Press.

Rickman, G. (1971) Roman Granaries and Store Buildings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rimmel, V. (2005) “The poor man’s feast: Juvenal.” In The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire, edited by, K. Freudenburg, 81–94.

Riva, S. (1999) “Le cucine delle case di Ostia.” Meded: 117–128.

Robinson, D. (2005) “Rethinking the social organization of trade and industry in first century AD Pompeii.” In Roman Working Lives and Urban Living, edited by, A Mac Mahon and J Price. 88-105, Oxbow Books.

Robinson, O.F. (1992) Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. London: Routledge

Robinson, O.F. (1997) The Sources of Roman Law. London: Routledge.

Roller, M. (2010) “Demolished Houses, Monumentality and Memory in Roman Culture.” CA 29 1: 117–180.

Rothschild, C.K., and T. Thompson. (2011) “Galen: ‘On the Avoidance of Grief.’” In Early Christianity, edited by, M Siebeck, 110–129.

Royden, H. (1988) The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy. Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori.

Saliou, C. (1999) “Les trottoirs de Pompei: une premiere approche.” BABesch 74: 161–218.

221

Saller, R. (2002) Personal Patronage under the early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sandars, T. (2007) The Institutes of Justinian. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

Santamato, E. (2010) “Deversorium, Meritorium, Cellae: Pratiche Affittuarie Nella Roma Antica e Gestione Amministrativa Dell’Habitare in Eta Imperiale.” Palamedes 5, 1: 71–113.

Schiller, A. (1978) Roman Law: Mechanisms of Development. New York: Mounton Publishers.

Schoonhoven. A.V. (1999) “Residences for the rich: some observations on the alleged residential and elitist character of region VI of Pompeii.” BABesch 74: 219–246.

Schoonhoven, A.V. (2006) Metrology and Meaning in Pompeii: The Urban Arrangement of Regio IV. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Scobie, A. (1986) “Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World.” Klio 68, 2: 399–433.

Sear, F (1992) Roman Architecture. New York: Cornell University Press.

Sear, F. (2004) “Cisterns, Drainage and Lavatories in Pompeian Houses Casa del Granduca (VII.4.56).” PBSR 72: 125–166.

Sear, F. (2006) “Cisterns, Drainage and Lavatories in Pompeian Houses Casa dei Caitelli Colorati (VII.4.51), Casa della Cassia Antica (VII.4.48) and Casa dei Capitelli Figurati (VII.4.51).” PBSR 74: 163–201.

Seneca (1925) Ad LuCILium Epistulae Morales. Translated by R.M Gummere. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Seneca (1932) Moral Essays, Vol. II. Translated by J. W. Basore. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

222

Seneca (1935) De Beneficiis. Translated by J.W Basore. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Shepard, E., and P. Olivanit (2008) “Giardini Ostiensi.” BullCom 109: 69–98.

Sigismund-Nielsen, H. (1996) “The Physical Context of Roman Epitaphs.” AnalRom 28: 35–60.

Steinby, E.M. (ed). (1993-2000). Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Roma Edizioni Quasar.

Steuernagel, D. (2006) “Ancient Harbour Towns: Religious Market Places? Formation and social functions of voluntary associations in Roman Ostia.” Hephaistos 24: 141–151.

Stevens, S. (2005) “Reconstructing the Garden Houses at Ostia: Exploring Water Supply and Building Height.” BABesch 80: 113–123.

Stöger, H. (2007) “Monumental Entrances of Roman Ostia. Architecture with Public Associations and Spatial Meaning.” BABesch 82: 347–363.

Stöger, H. (2011a) “The Spatial Organization of the Movement Economy: The Analysis of Ostia’s Scholae.” In Rome, Ostia, Pompeii, edited by, R Laurence and D Newsome, 215–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stöger, H. (2011b) Rethinking Ostia: A spatial enquiry into the urban society of Rome’s imperial port-town. Archaeological Studies Leiden University 24. Netherlands: Leiden University Press.

Stöger, H. (2014) “The Spatial signature of an Insula neighborhood of Roman Ostia.” 297–315. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/31734/Stoger_2014_Paliou_Lieberwirth_ Polla_Spatial_Anslysis-libre.pdf?sequence=1

Stöger, H. (2015) “Roman neighborhoods by the numbers: A space syntax view on ancient city quarters and their social life.” JOSS 6 1: 61–80.

Stoop, B. (2006) “Law and Economy in Antiquity: The Housing Shortage in Ancient Rome.” In Polis, Studi Interdisciplinari sul Mondo antico, edited by, F Costabile, 2:259–267. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

223

Storey, G. (2001) “Regionaries Type Insulae 1: Architectural/Residential Units at Rom.” AJA 105 3: 369–401.

Storey, G. (2002) “Regionaries-Type Insulae 2: Architectural residential units at Rome.” AJA 106 3: 411–434.

Storey, G. (2003) “The ‘Skyscrapers’ of the Ancient Roman World.” Latomus 62: 1–28.

Storey, G. (2004a) “Roman Economies: A Paradigm of their own,” In Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, edited by, G Feinman and L Nicholaa, 105–128. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Storey, G. (2004b) “The meaning of insulae in Roman residential terminology.” MAAR 49. 47– 79.

Strabo (1917-32) Geography. Translated by H.L. Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Suarez Blazquez, G. (2011a) “Derecho de superficie -ius in re aliena- negocio superficiario publico. Negocio superficiario privado en el derecho romano clasico.” Revista General de Derecho Romano 16.

Suarez Blazquez, G. (2011b) “Negocio Urbanitico Superficario en el Derecho Romano Classico.” Dereito 20 1: 7–41.

Suetonius (1914) Lives of the Caesars. Translated by J.C. Rolfe. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Tacitus (2006) Annals. Translated by J Jackson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Terpstra, T. (2013) Trading Communities in the Roman World. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 37. Brill.

224

Tertullian (1999a) “Adversus Valentinianos.” The Tertullian Project. http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_valentinianos.htm.

Tertullian (1999b) “De Idolatria.” The Tertullian Project. http://www.tertullian.org/works/de_idololatria.htm.

Thomas, J.A.C. (1971) “Reflections of Building Contracts.” Revue Internationale des droits de l’Antiquite 18: 673–689.

Thomas, M., I. van de Graff, and P. Wilkinson. (2013) “The Oplontis Project 2012-13: A Report of Excavations at Oplontis B.” Fasti Online: 1–9.

Thesaurus linguae latinae (1900-) Lipsiae : In aedibus B.G. Teubneri

Tucci, P.L. (2006) “Ideology and technology in Rome’s water supply" castell, the toponym AQUEDUCTUM, and the supply to the Palatine and Caelian hills.” JRA 19: 94–120.

Ulrich, R. (1996) “Contignatio, Vitruvius and the Campanian Builder.” AJA 100 1: 137–151.

Ulrich, R. (2007) Roman Woodworking. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ulrich, R. (2014) “Courtyard Architecture in the Insulae of Ostia Antica.” In A Companion to Roman Architecture, edited by, R Ulrich and C Quenemoen, 324–341. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing.

Van Aken, A.R.A. (1950) “The Cortile in the Roman Imperial Insula-Architecture.” OpArch 6: 112–128.

Van Den Bergh, R. (2003) “Plight of the Poor Urban Tenant.” Revue Internationale des droits de l’Antiquite L: 443–477.

Vellius Paterclus (1924) Compendium of Roman History. Translated by F. W. Shipley. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

225

Verboven, K. (2007) “The associative order: status and ethos among Roman businessmen in Late Republic and Early Empire.” Athenaeum 95: 861–893.

Verboven, K. (2011) “Resident aliens and trans local merchant collegia in the Roman Empires.” In Frontiers in the Roman World: Proceedings of the Ninth workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Durham, 16-19 April 2009). Edited by, T Kaizer, 335–348. Brill.

Verhagen, H.L.E. (2011) “Das Verfallpfand im fruhklassoscjen romischen Recht Dingliche Sicherheit im Archiv der Suplizier.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiendens 79 1: 1–46.

Vidman, L. (1982) Fasti Ostienses: Edendos, illustrandos, restituendo, curavit. Prague.

Vitelli, G. (1980) “Grain Storage and Urban Growth in Imperial Ostia: A Quantitative Study.” World Archaeology 12 1: 54–68.

Vitruvius (2002) On Architecture. Translated by G Granger. Vol. 1–2. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1994) Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2008) Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2011) Herculaneum. London: Frances Lincoln Ltd.

Waltzing, J.P. (1895) Etude sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’a la chute de l’Empire d’Occident. 4 vols. Louvain.

Ward-Perkins, J. (1981) Roman Imperial Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Warry, P. (2006) Tegulae: Manufacture, typology and use in Roman Britain. BAR British Series 417.

226

Watson, A. (1968) The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Watson, A. (1984) “The Evolution of Law: The Roman System of Contracts.” Law and History Review 2 1: 1–20.

Watson, A. (2008) Comparative Law: Law, Reality and Society. Florida: Vandeplas Publishing.

Wilson Jones, M. (2014) Origins of Classical Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wiseman, T.P. (1987) “Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo’: The Public Image of Aristocratic Houses in the Late Republic and Early Empire.” In L’Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (1er siecle av. J.C. IIIe siecle ap. J.C.), 393–413.

Woolf, G., and C. Edwards (2003) “Cosmopolis: Rome as World City.” In Rome the Cosmopolis, edited by, G Woolf and C Edwards, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yavetz, Z. (1958) “The Living Conditions of the Urban Plebs in Republican Rome.” Latomus 17. Bruxelles.

Zimmerman, R. (1996) The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

227

APPENDIX I: INSCRIPTIONS

The inscriptions provided are from the Clauss-Slaby Epigraphic Database.544 Their notation and notes have been left intact.

All texts are presented without abbreviations and completed. Only very few special characters have been used: ( ) resolution of abbreviated texts, insertion of missing letters [ ] addition [ 3 ] blank within a line [ 6 ] a blank line ] blank of unknown length at the beginning [ blank of unknown length at the end [[ ]] erasure correction (example: fcit for FFCIT) Here texts are listed that have been created to fill erased passages - especially in the <> time of the Severan dynasty. <<[[ ]]>> This text has been erased and then carved again; often leg. III. { } canceled letters / division of lines * in front of a number indicates an inscription that is thought to be forged or * modern + in front of a number of the AE, AEA, ILCV or at other places indicates to + bibliographical references, with other publications to comments given under the number indicated.

544 http://www.manfredclauss.de/ 228

1.0 Insulae

1.1 Insulae for lease

Pompeii: CIL 04, 00138 Insula Arriana / Polliana Gn(aei!) Ali Nigidi Mai / locantur ex (alendis) Iuli(i)s primis tabernae / cum pergulis suis et c{o}enacula / equestria et domus conductor(is) / convenito Primum Gn(aei) Ali / Nigidi Mai ser(vum)

Rome: CIL 06, 29791 In his praedi(i)s / insula(m) Sertoriana(m) / olo esse Aur(eliae) Cyriacetis / fili(a)e meae cnacula n(umero) VI tabernas / n(umero) XI et repos(i)one(m) sub{i}scalre(m) / feliciter

1.2 Insulae as architectural form

Rome: AE 1971, 00045 Insu[la] / Saeni Val[3] / Aurel[3]

Pompeii: CIL 04, 04429 M(arci) Iuni insula sum

Rome: CIL 06, 40887 Imp(erator) [Caesar divi f(ilius)] / Aug(ustus) [co(n)]s(ul) VI[I a][tribuit] / Ti(berius) Claud(ius) Caesar Au[g(ustus)] / Germ(anicus) pontif(ex) max(imus) trib(unicia) / po[t]est(ate) VIII imp(erator) XV p(ater) p(atriae) / L(ucius) Vitellius censores / cognita causa a/tributionem divi / Aug(usti) pertinentem ad / insulam Volusianam / con[fi]rmaverunt

Rome: CIL 06, 02302 [D Eid(us) n(efas) p(iaculum) feriae] Fauno in insul(a) / [ // ] / G c(omitialis) / H en(dotercisus) / A E[quirr(ia) n(efas) p(iaculum)] / B E[id(ibus) n(efas) p(iaculum)] / C [f(astus)

Rome: CIL 06, 29844 [3 i]nsula [

Rome: NSA-1933-510 [3 i]nsula / [3] Eutychetis /

1.3 Insularius

Rome: AE1926, 00050 Tarulae / I(uli) Bai ser(vo) insula(rio) / [vix(it) an]n(os) LV DI[

229

Pompeii: CIL 04, 07766 Veientonem / Satrium ins(ularii) rogamus aed(ilem)

Rome: CIL 06, 05857=CIL06, 00837 Antiochus / Iulian(us) insul(arius)

Rome: CIL 06, 09479 Apolloni insul(ario) / Servili

Rome: CIL 06, 09480 ]me Nicerotis ins(ularii)

Rome: CIL 06, 09481 Oclatius / insularius

Rome: CIL 06, 09482 Philargyrus / insularius

Rome: CIL 06, 09483 ]us insul(arius) / [a M]ercurio / sobrio / [3]ius vilicus de suo / fecit

Rome: CIL 06, 17454 Di{i}s Manibus / [Eu]tychidis vixit [m]e(n)sibus / [3 die]bus XV Eut[y]chus L(uci) / [Volusi] Saturnini / [insul]arius et / [3] an(nis XXXX / [

Rome: CIL 06, 33863 Quintio / insularius / decurio

Rome: CIL 06, 33864 C(aius) Curtius C(ai) l(ibertus) Protus / interp{te}s de i(n)sula / sibi libertisq(ue) suis

Rome: IViaSalaria00022 Sac[3]/ius / [i]insulariu[s 3] / Lucullia [

Rome: CIL 06, 03973 Q(uinto) Annio Q(uinti) l(iberto) / Philocalo / Helenus Liviae / ad insul(am) ollam dat

Rome: CIL 06, 03974 [C]erdo insular(io) / [[

Rome: CIL 06, 04347 M(arcus) Antonius / Felix / insularius

Rome: CIL 06, 04446 P[[h3m]] / [[Messallae]] / [[faber]] // Sabinus / Messallae / insul(arius)

230

Rome: CIL 06, 06217 Chius L(uci) Sisennae / silentiarius / ex colegio hic situs est / curatores / Musaeus ostiar(ius) dec(urio) / Amaranthus colorat(or) l(ibertus) / Eros insular(ius) dec(urio) / de suo dant

Rome: CIL 06, 06296 Demostenes / insularius

Rome: CIL 06, 06297 Diogenes / insularius

Rome: CIL 06, 06298 Felicis insul[arii] / ossa sita sun[t]

Rome: CIL 06, 06299 Eros i(n)sularius / ex horteis Pompeia

Rome: CIL 06, 07291 Eutycho / insulari[o]

Rome: CIL 06, 07407 Dacus / insularius

Rome: CIL 14, 02769 = CIL 15, 07149 Narcisi / Ti(beri) Claudi / Britannic/i supra / insulas

Rome: CIL 06, 08856 Papia / Ti(beri) Caesaris / ser(vus) insula // D(is) M(anibus) / AYPN ANN P

Rome: CIL 06, 06215 Statilia Ammia hic / sepulta est quoius sepult(urae) / curam egerunt coleg(ii) / commorient(es) cerdo ins[ul(a)] / vir eius Bathyllus Atriens[is] / Musaeus ost(iarius) Eros ins(ularius) Philocal[us] / unctor

1.4 Insulae and Collegia, Socii, Employment and Burial

Rome: CIL 06, 01682 Honorii Ammio Manio Caesonio Nico/macho Anicio Paulino v(iro) c(larissimo) cons(uli) ordinario / pr(a)ef(ecto) urbi iud(ici) sacrar(um) cognit(ionum) [pr]oconsuli / prov(inciae) Asiae et Hellesponti vice sacra iudicanti / legato Kart(h)ainis sub procons(ule) Afric(a)e Anicio / Iuliano patre suo cuius providentia adque / {e}utilitas et integritas rei publicae corporis / corariorum insulas ad pristinum statum / suum secundum leges principum priorum / Impp(eratorum) [L(uci)] {Val} Septimi Severi et M(arci) Aur(eli) Antonini Augg(ustorum) /

231

restaurari adque adornari pervigilant/ia sua providit in mira memoria adque / in omnia iustitia sua corpus coriariorum / patrono digno staterunt

Rome: CIL 06, 08855 Au]/gust lib(ertus) Daph/nus praepos(itus) / insulariorum / Maniliae Florae / con(iugi) be[ne merenti]

Rome: CIL 06, 09383 V(ivus) Diophanthus / exactor ad insulas / sibi et coniugi suae / Austurniae M(arci) l(ibertae) / Vitali / vix{s}it annis XXXVII

Rome: CIL 06, 10248 i]n cuius / [loci et] monmenti reliqui/[aru]mque suarum culturam / [dedi]t libertis libertabus/[que s]uis usum fructum insulae / [3]alatianae partis quartae et / quartae et vicensimae quae iuris / sui esset ita ut ex reditu eius insu/lae quodannis die natalis sui et / rosationis et violae et parentalib(us) / memoriam sui sacrifici(i)s quater in an/num factis celebrent et praeterea omnib(us) K(alendis) / Nonis Idibus suis quibusq(ue) mensib(us) lucerna / lucens sibi ponatur incenso inposito

Rome: CIL 06, 10250 Huic / monmento iter / aditus ambitus debetur / ex sententia Erotis Aug(usti) l(iberti) / iudicis a via Campana / publica dextr[o]sus inter / maceriem Calamianam / et insulam Eucarpianam / per latitudinem pedes duos / semis usque ad hoc / monumentum et hinc / per circuitum totius / monumenti usque in via / quae ducit in agro item / idem monumenti iter / aditus debetur hinc / secundum monument/um Afiniae Tyches et / inde secundum maceriem / Eucarpianam in qua ollari[a] / sunt et inde recto us[q(ue)] ad / viam publicam Campanam

Rome: CIL 06, 33893 P(ublius) Tullius Felus / fecit of(f)icinator / insul(a)e Vitalian(a)e / donum fecit // G(enio) p(opuli) R(omani) f(eliciter)

Rome: CIL 06, 08511 D(is) M(anibus) / Aurelius Hermias Aug(usti) lib(ertus) / proc(urator) k(astrensis) heroum maceria / cinctum cum superficio / insulae comparavit / sibi posterisque suis / itemque libertis libertab[us]

1.5 Insulae and Religion

Rome: CIL 06, 09824 Critonia Q(uinti) l(iberta) Philema / popa de insula / Q(uinti) Critoni |(mulieris) l(iberti) Dassi / scalptoris v(as)lari(i) / sibi suisque poster(isque) / eor(um)

232

Rome: CIL 06, 00067 Bon(ae) deae Restitu(ae) // Bolani // simulacr(um) in tu(elam) insul(ae) / Bolan(i) posuit item aed(em) / dedit Cladus l(ibens) m(erito)

2.0 Cenacula

Pompeii: CIL 04, 01136 In praedi(i)s Iuliae Sp(uri) f(iliae) Felicis / locantur / balneum Venerium et nongentum tabernae pergulae / cenacula ex Idibus Aug(ustis) primis in Aug(ustas) sextas annos continuos quinque / s(i) q(uis) d(esiderabit) l(ocatricem) e(o) n(omine) c(onvenito?)

Brescia / Brixia: CIL 05, 04488 [D(is) M(anibus)?] / [6] / qui et Mannuli / et Va(l)eriae Aprillae C(aius) / Valerius Primitius / parentibus bene / merentibus et sibi / et coniugi suae / Acutiae Ursae / qui legaverunt / coll(egiis) fabr(orum) et cent(onariorum) / HS n(ummum) II(milia) et (h)oc ampliu(s) / tabernas cum cenac(ulis) / coll(egio) centonariorum / quae sunt in vico Herc(ulio) / profusiones in perpetu(um) / per of(f)iciales c(ollegii) cent(onariorum) / quod mi(!) voluptati(!) sati(s) / non fecerit iubo / castellum (h)abere(?) Ingenan(orum) / quae r(e)ddunt d(enarios) CC ut / ex d(enariis) C profusio nobis fiat et ex / d(enariis) C tutela{m} taber(nar)um s(upra) s(criptarum)

Benevento / Beneventum: CIL 09, 01938 ]edius Priscus / [f]eci heredes filio(s) meo/s i(nfra) s(criptos) qui nomen meum / tulerint cum nepot/es eorum hortum / tabernam cenacu/lum quod si anima/lium fili(i)s meis aliqu/[od nocuerit

Minturnae: CIL 10, 06069 Huius monmenti ius qua maceria / clusum est cum taberna et cenacul(o) / hered(em) non sequetur / neque intra maceria humari / quemquam licet

3.0 Tabernae

Roma: AE 1961, 00112

233

Hic locus maceria clusus / cum taberna et / vigiliario quae sunt / applicita arco / pertinent at(!) custodiam monumenti / Aeliorum Zotici et / Pomponiae / et Liviae Rhodopes / heredem non / sequitur se libertos

Pozzuoli / Puteoli: AE 2006, 00314 L(ucius) Domitius Pudens patro/nus pagi Tyriani tabernam / et culinam cocinatoriam / ob honore(m) patro(i) / pecunia sua a solo / fecit paganis pagi / Tyriani

Pompei: CIL 04, 02324 F Sentiusil / Celsus Amaliani / taberna ad dextr(am)

Roma: CIL 06, 09404 Dis Manibus / L(ucio) Trebio Fido quinquennali / collegi(i) / perpetuo fabrum Soliarium / Baxiarium |(centuriarum) III qui consistunt / in sc(h)ola sub theatro Aug(usti) Pompeian(i) / et immuni Romae regionibus XIIII / sibi et / Trebiae Ammiae uxori et / libertis libertabus / posterisque eorum omnibus / taberna cum aedificio et cisterna / monmento custodia cedit / lege publica uti liceat itum aditum ambit(um) / haustum aquae ligna sumere

Roma: CIL 06, 13562 Domit[i]ae Dione matri [3] / Domit[io Be]roniciano patri BIS / [3 Domi]tius Beronicianus / eques Romanus parentibus sanctis/(s)imis fecit tabernas n(umero) III quae sunt / sepulcro a dextera l(a)eaque adiunct/ae donait cum horto qui est intra / concluso et (h)abitationes quae sunt sup/er tabernas eaed(em) sepulturae et libertis / libertabusque

234

posteri(s)que eorum [ut] / qua(m)dius nomen originis nostr(a)e co(n)stit{u}erit / [ad] eos pertineat quod si nomen originis / [nostrae de]f[eceri]t tunc ad possessorem

Roma: CIL 06, 17992 T(itus) Flavius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Alexander / fecit sibi et / T(ito) Flavio Epagatho filio / et Iuliae Coetonidi / uxori bene merenti libertis libertabus / posterisq(ue) eorum huic monmento cedit / custodiae causa quae est iuncta tabernae cum / aedificio et horto plus minus iugeru(m) V quiqui iuris est / eius sepulc{h}ri ita ne vendere liciat se colere / h(oc) m(onumentum) et aedificiu(m) h(eredem) non s(equetur)

Roma: CIL 06, 28375 Vaticia C(ai) l(iberta) Zosimae(!) monu/mentum fecit sibi et C(aio) Vati/cio Primo patrono suo isdem / viro et filiis suis et libertis / libertabus posterisq(ue) eorum / et taberna cum [a]edificio / monumento cedunt

Roma: CIL 06, 29791 In his praedi(i)s / insula(m) Sertoriana(m) / olo esse Aur(eliae) Cyriacetis / fili(a)e meae cnacula n(umero) VI tabernas / n(umero) XI et repos(i)one(m) sub{i}scalre(m) / feliciter

Pozzuoli / Puteoli: CIL 10, 03161 [D(is?)] M[anibus] / [3]orus sibi et lib(ertis) liber(tabusque) / [3]orum quidquid con(iugi) / [3] taberna et balineum / [3]erit aut emerae / [3]M HSS C|(mille) n(ummum)

Minturno / Minturnae: CIL 10, 06069 Huius monmenti ius qua maceria / clusum est cum taberna et cenacul(o) / hered(em) non sequetur / neque intra maceria humari / quemquam licet

Ostia Antica: CIL 14, 04291 ] duov[ir(o) 3] / [3] Isi et S[erapi 3] / [3 ta]bernas [

Ostia Antica: AE 1940, 00094 Iunia D(ecimi) f(ilia) Libertas / hortorum et aedificiorum et tabernarum Hilar/onianorum Iunianorum ita uti macerie sua propria / clusi sunt quae iuris eius in his sunt usum fructumqu[e] / dedit concessit libertis libertabusque suis quive ab [iis] / posterisque eorum manumissi manumissaeve sun[t] / eruntve et ne qui ex is usum fructumve portioni[s] / suae vendidisse aut alienasse aut ali concessisse / velit donec ad unum unamve usus fructus / perveniat et si nemo ex familia superaverit / tunc eos hortos cum aedifici(i)s et tabernis / ita uti macerie clusi sunt finibus suis / proprietatis iurisque esse volo / colonorum coloniae rei publicae Ostiensiu[m] / ex

235

quorum reditu ab re pu(b)lica Ostiensium / ipendi volo in ornationem sepulc{h}ri / et sacrificis die parentaliorum / HS C violae HS C rosae HS C / hanc voluntatem meam publicari volo / ad lib(ertos) libertasq(ue) meos primo loco ius pertineat post eos ad posteros eor(um)

Pozzuoli/Puteoli: LIKelsey 00259 ] tabernam et stabul[um] / et membra quae infra E[3] / cum hortulo et ustrino qua[e] / in tutelam huic monmen[to cedunt] / ita ut nulli liceat neque ex hoc [3] / ex his aedificiis quae tutela [

Ostia Antica: SdOstia-12-A, 00008 =AE2001, 00635 Taber[na cum] / custod[ia] / monume[nti] / C(ai) Fontei C[

4.0 Pergula

Roma: AE 1968, 00165 ] ea con[3] / [3] est T(iti) Flav[i 3] / [3]m eius loci siv[e 3] / [3]ire aut mittere po[3] / [3]isse possidere dixit [3] / [3]is ager est quo de agitur mon[mentum(?) 3] / [3]i tabernas cum pergulis diaetam ve[l 3] / [3]itia aliudve quid aedificare cippum cip[pos 3] / [3 m]aceria cludere clusumque habere inqu[e 3] / [3]m mortuos ossave mortuorum cineresv[e 3] / [3 monu]mento aut maceria titulum titulos po[3] / [3 monu]mento aram aras ponere posita[s 3] / [3 si]ve is ager est itum actum aditu[m 3] / [3 e]o loco sive monmento sacr[3] / [3 C]occeio Atimeto heredique ei[us 3] / [3 vol]untate Coccei Atimeti he[redis 3] / [3]m locumque arae ve[3] / [3 qu]od ita licitum [

*Nin/Aenona,Dalmatia: CIL 03, 14322,04 Q(uintus) Baebius [3] / f(ilius) Zuprio [3] / aedilis ta[bern]/am pergu[lam] / maenianum / r(ei) p(ublicae) d(edit)

Roma: CIL 06, 10234 Lex collegi(i) Aesculapi et Hygiae / Salvia C(ai) f(ilia) Marcellina ob memoriam Fl(avi) Apolloni proc(uratoris) Aug(usti) qui fuit a pinacothecis et Capitonis Aug(usti) l(iberti) adiutoris / eius mariti sui optimi piissimi donum dedit collegio Aesculapi et Hygiae locum aediculae cum pergula et signum marmoreum Aesculapi et solarium tectum iunctum in / quo populus collegi(i)

236

s(upra) s(cripti) epuletur quod est via Appia ad Martis intra milliarium I et II ab urbe euntibus parte laeva inter adfines Vibium Calocaerum et populum item / eadem Marcellina collegio s(upra) s(cripto) dedit donavitque HS L m(ilia) n(ummum) hominibus n(umero) LX sub hac condicione ut ne plures adlegantur quam numerus s(upra) s(criptus) et ut in locum / defunctorum loca veniant et liberi adlegantur vel si quis locum suum legare volet filio vel fratri vel liberto dumtaxat ut inferat arae n(ostrae) partem / dimidiam funeratici et ne eam pecuniam s(upra) s(criptam) velint in alios usus convertere sed ut ex usuris eius summae diebus infra scriptis locum confrequentarent / ex reditu eius summae si quod comparaverint sportulas hominib(us) n(umero) LX ex decreto universorum quod gestum est in templo divorum in aede divi Titi con/ventu pleno qui dies fuit V Id(us) Mart(ias) Bruttio Praesente et Iunio Rufino co(n)s(ulibus) uti XIII K(alendas) Oct(obres) die felicissimo n(atali) Antonini Aug(usti) n(ostri) Pii p(atris) p(atriae) sportulas dividerent in / templo divorum in aede divi Titi C(aio) Ofilio Hermeti q(uin)q(uennali) p(er)p(etuo) vel qui tunc erit |(denarios) III Aelio Zenoni patri collegi(i) |(denarios) III Salviae Marcellinae matri collegi(i) |(denarios) III imm(unibus) / sing(ulis) |(denarios) II cur(atoribus) sing(ulis) |(denarios) II populo sing(ulis) |(denarios) I item pl(acuit) pr(idie) Non(as) Nov(embres) n(atali) collegi(i) dividerent ex reditu s(upra) s(cripto) ad Martis in scholam n(ostram) praesentibus q(uin)q(uennali) |(denarios) VI patri colleg(ii) |(denarios) VI / matri collegi(i) |(denarios) VI imm(unibus) sing(ulis) |(denarios) IIII cur(atoribus) sing(ulis) |(denarios) IIII panem [a(ssium)] III vinum mensuras q(uin)q(uennali) |(sextariorum) VIIII patr(i) coll(egii) |(sextariorum) VIIII imm(unibus) sing(ulis) |(sextariorum) VI cur(atoribus) sing(ulis) |(sextariorum) VI populo sing(ulis) |(sextariorum) III item pr(idie) Non(as) Ian(uarias) / strenuas dividerent sicut s(upra) s(criptum) est XIII K(alendas) Oct(obres) item VIII K(alendas) Mart(ias) die kar(a)e(!) cognationis ad Martis eodem loco dividerent sportulas pane(m) et vinum sicut s(upra) s(criptum) est / pr(idie) Non(as) Nov(emres) item pr(idie) Id(us) Mart(ias) eodem loco cenam quam Ofilius Hermes q(uin)q(uennalis) omnib(us) annis dandam praesentibus promisit vel sportulas sicut solitus est dare item / XI K(alendas) Apr(iles) die violari eodem loco praesentibus dividerentur sportulae vinu pane Sscut diebus s(upra) s(criptis) item V Id(us) Mai(as) die rosae eodem loco praesentib(us) dividerentur spor/tulae vinu et pane sicut diebus s(upra) s(cripits) ea condicione qua in conventu placuit universis ut diebus s(upra) s(criptis) ii qui ad epulandum non convenissent sportulae et pane et vinu / eorum venirent et praesentibus divideretur excepto eorum qui trans mare erunt vel qui perpetua valetudine detinetur item P(ublius) Aelius Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Zenon / eidem collegio s(upra) s(cripto) ob memoriam M(arci) Ulpi Aug(usti) lib(erti) Capitonis fratris sui piissimi dedit donavitque HS X m(ilia) n(ummum) uti ex reditu eius summae in contri/butione sportularum dividerentur quod si ea pecunia omnis quae s(upra) s(cripta) est quam dedit donavit collegio s(upra) s(cripto) / Salvia C(ai) f(ilia) Marcellina et P(ublius) Aelius Aug(usti) lib(ertus) Zeno in alios usus convertere voluerint quam in eos usus qui s(upra) s(cripti) s(unt) quos ordo collegi(i) n(ostri) decrevit et uti / haec omnia q(uae) s(upra) s(cripta) s(unt) suis diebus ut ita fiant dividantque quod si adversus ea quid fecerint sive quid ita non fecerint tunc q(uin)q(uennalis) vel curato/res eiusdem collegi qui tunc erunt si adversus ea quid fecerint q(uin)q(uennalis) et curatores s(upra) s(cripti) uti poenae nomine arae n(ostrae) inferant HS XX m(ilia) n(ummum) / hoc decretum ordini n(ostro) placuit in conventu pleno quod gestum est in templo divorum in aede divi Titi V Id(us) Mart(ias) C(aio) Bruttio Prae/sente A(ulo) Iunio Rufino co(n)s(ulibus) q(uin)q(uennali) C(aio) Ofilio Hermete curatorib(us) P(ublio) Aelio Aug(usti) lib(erto) Onesimo et C(aio) Salvio Seleuco

237

5.0 Deversorium

Rome: IGUR-03, 01291=AE1966, 00061 Luci Vetteni M[usae(?) Ca]mpestris vides / vitae monument[u]m a[egr]is deversorium / mult{e}is ec variis vitae [reg]ionibus actae / fessum letali sede q[uie]s retinet // "GR"

5.1 Diaeta

Sant'Arpino/Atella: CIL 10, 03750 A(ulus) Plautius Euhodus sibi et liberis suis / A(ulo) Plautio Daphno et Plautiae Primigeniae et / Plautiae Laurillae et Plautiae Festae et Plautiae Successae et / A(ulo) Plautio Asbesto libertis libertabusque suis posterisque eorum is qui / Plauti vocitabuntur vicus Spu[ri]anus cum suis meritoris et diaeta / quae est iuncta huic monumento cum sui[s] parietibus et fundamentis huic monument(o) cedet / si qui ex is qui supra scripti sunt h{u}c monumentum aut vicum Spurianum / aut diaeta quae est iuncta huic monumento vendere volent / tunc ad rem publicam coloniae Puteolanae pertinebit

5.2 Hospitium

Pompeii: CIL 04, 00807 Hospitium hic locatur / triclinium cum tribus lectis / et comm[

Pompeii: CIL 04, 03779 Hospitium / C(ai) Hugini Firmi

6.0 Superficies

Rome: AE 1940, 00010 Carrinatia Fausta Gami ab(!) / solo ad superficiem pro in/diviso partis CC oll(as) IIII / C(aius) Carrinas Cerdo

Rome: Libitina-01, 00014 C(aius) Carrinas C(ai) l(ibertus) / Marmarida / Carrinatia Philusa / a solo ad superficiem / pro ex diviso pars CC / ollae IIII

Rome: CIL 06, 17042 D(is) M(anibus) / Domitiae Vitali / P(ublius) Aemilius Mansuetus / coniugi bene merenti /

238

Aemilia Firmina matri / pientissim(a)e fecerunt et sibi / et suis posterisque eorum / solariu(m) huius munimenti(!) sive / superficium pertinet ad gentem / [3]aes

Rome: CIL 06, 19859 C(aius) Iulius Atimetus fecit sibi / et Iuliae Heraidi conlibertae suae / eidem coniugi et Iuliae Fortunatae liber/tae suae e Iuliae Prosi libertae suae et / libertis suis libertabus posterisque eorum / pro parte sua parietum trium introeun/tibus in monmento contra e sinistra t / n fronte monmenti et superficie

Rome: CIL 06, 25645 P(ublius) Rutilius P(ubli) l(ibertus) Amphio / superficiem monmenti / de suo refecit et ollas in / superficie de suo posuit / sibi et suis // Rutilia / P(ubli) |(mulieris) l(iberta) / Charis

Rome: CIL 06, 27303 D(is) M(anibus) Tettio Hermeti / Seniori et Tettio Hermeti / Iuniori duobus collibertis / qui sua inpesa superficiem / refecerunt et sibi et suis

7.0 Horrea

7.1 Horrearius

Ficulea: AE 1994, 00372e D(is) M(anibus) / Icele / contubernali / Abascantus / Matidiae ser(vus) horrearius / fecit bene merenti

Roma: CIL 06, 00588 Silvano / sacr(um) / Anteros Caes(aris) / horrearius / c(o)hortis III / d(onum) d(edit) a(nimo) l(ibens)

Roma: CIL 06, 04240 Stephanus [3] / Caesar(is) horr(earius) [

Roma: CIL 06, 06292 Felix horrearius / Hipparchi vicarius

Roma: CIL 06, 06293 Protogenes horrearius / Hipparchi vicarius

Roma: CIL 06, 06294 Menander / horrearius

Roma: CIL 06, 06295 Metrogenes / horrearius

239

Roma: CIL 06, 07289 Dis Man(ibus) / Felici Q(uinti) Volusi / Saturnini / hor(r)eario / Q(uintus) Volusius Fortun/atus b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit) et sibi

Roma: CIL 06, 08682 Zosimus / Caes(aris) n(ostri) ser(vus) horrear(ius) / et Ti(berius) Claudius Onesimus / et Ti(berius) Claudius Antigonus / et Nonia Saturnina / et Nonia Tyche fecerunt / sibi et libertis liber/tabusque posteris/que eorum

Roma: CIL 06, 09108 Dis Manib(us) / Apsyrto horr(eario) Apsyrtus / act(or) patri suo merenti et / coniugi eius

Roma: CIL 06, 09460 Manibus / Sabuleiae Secundillae / fecit Ti(berius) Claudius Dapnio / horrearius coniugi carissim(ae) / bene meritae de se quod rogasti / me viva habes et tu et ego et mei

Roma: CIL 06, 09461 Hic requ(i)ecit in pace Constantinus hor/rearius qui vit p(lus) m(inus) an(nos) XXVIII dpositus est di(e) VIII Ka(lendas) / Dec(embres) cons(ulatu) Fl(avi) Lampadii et Orestis vv(irorum) cc(larissimorum)

Roma: CIL 06, 09462 Crustuminus horr(earius?) vix(it) ann(os) XXXVI / v(iva) Aurunceia Arethusa / Arethusa Crustumino coniugi suo fecit et sibi

Roma: CIL 06, 09464 Hic situs est record(abilis) m(emoriae) vir / Fringyllus horr(earius) v(iri) i(llustris) Festi / [qui vix(it) a]nn(os) p(lus) m(inus) LXV dep(ositus) s(ub) d(ie) / [3 Sep]t(embres) Probo v(iro) c(on)s(ule)

Roma: CIL 06, 09465 [G]amus hor(r)earius / Agripp(ae) Antioc(h)ini / coniugi Arscusae

Roma: CIL 06, 09466 D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Considia Trophime et Inachi horreario / Thesmus velarius b(ene) m(erenti) de suo fecerunt

Roma: CIL 06, 09467 Q(uintus) Lollius Lolliae / l(ibertus) Hilarus / horrear(ius)

Roma: CIL 06, 09468 ] Q(uinti) horr(earius) / [3] Aglais / [3] de suo

Roma:CIL 06, 00682 Silvano S(ancto) s(acrum) / Maior et Diadu/menus Caes(aris) n(ostri) ser(vi) / et Crescens Aug(usti) l(ibertus) d(onum) d(ederunt) / hor(rearii) de h(orreis) C(aesaris)

240

Roma: CIL 06, 09469 Thalamus / M(arci) Furi / Camilli ab(!) / horr(eario)

Roma: CIL 06, 13405 C(aius) Aurunceius / Myste Horrearius

Roma: CIL 06, 33746 D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Titinia / Saturnina / Primo Caes(ris) / ser(vo) horreario / coniugi suo / b(ene) m(erenti) fec(it) cum quo vix(it) an(nos) VII / et sibi et suis / posterisq(ue) eoru(m)

Roma: CIL 06, 36763 [Ve]nustus hor[r(earius)] FE[3]CL[3] / Venustus horr(earius) / Apollini d(onum) d(edit)

Benevento/Beneventum: CIL 09, 01545 Genio / loci et / numini / C{a}ereris / Concor/dius co[l(oniae)] / horr(earius)

Ravenna: CIL 11, 00321 Hic r(e)q(uiescit) in p(ace) Dom[3] / (h)orrearius / q(ui) v(ixit) a(nnos) pl(us) m(inus) XL d[eposit(us) est] / sub d(ie) VII Idu(s) [Apri]/ls ind(ictione) V

Luna: CIL 11, 01358 D(is) M(anibus) / Cla[u]diaes(!) / Benedictaes(!) / Abascantus / Imperatorum / hor[r]earius / coniugibus si / fecit et cidit / [

Anzio/Antium: Epigraphica-2003-97=AE2003, 00300 Libero Patri / sacrum / Acindynus horrearius / c(o)hortis III / magisterio suo

Roma: GLISwedish00133 Albanus / Q(uinti) Vitelli / horrearius

Roma: INVaticano00098 ] Apel[les(?)] / [3] horrea[rius(?)

Roma: LIKelsey 00335=AE2000, 00219 Philargyrus / L(uci) Sullae / horrear(ius) vix(it) an(nos) XXV

Roma: LIKelsey 00361 ]us Ti(beri) / [Caesaris ser(vus)] horrea/[rius 3] / Maec[enatianus fecit et] / sibi hic ea[m] qua olla / ossa sua c[on]sita sint

Location? : SIGLUps 00007 = AE 1997, 01749 Albanus / Q(uinti) Vitelli / horrearius

241

7.2 Horrea, Lease and Architecture

Roma: CIL 06, 33747 in his h]orreis / [Imp(eratoris) Nervae C]aesaris Aug(usti) loc(abuntur) / [horrea compendi]ar(ia) armaria et loca / [3]rar(is) ex hac die et ex / [3] lex horreorum / [quisquis in annum futurum retinere volet horreum armarium aliu]dve quid ante Idus Dec(embres) pensione salute renuntiet qui non / [renuntiaverit si volvet retinere et cum horreario aliter pro i]nsequent anno non transegerit tanti habebit quanti eius gener(is) / [horreum armariumve eo anno ibi locari solebit si modo ali locatum n]on erit quisquis in his horreis conductum habet elocandi et / [substituendi ius non habebit 3 cu]stodia non praestabitur quae in his horreis invecta inlata / [erunt pignori erunt horreario si quis pro pensionib]us satis ei [non fece]rit quisquis in his horreis conductum habet et sua / [3] fuer(it) venia [qu]squis in his horreis conduc(tum) habet pensione soluta chirogr(apho) / [3 quisquis habens conductu]m horreum su[a ibi] reliquer(it) et custodi non adsignaver(it) horrearius sine culpa erit

Roma: CIL 06, 33860 In his horreis privatis [3] / Q(uinti) [T]ine[i] Sacerdotis CLM[3] / [3] loc[antur] / [h]orrea apothecae compendiaria armaria / intercolumnia et loca armari(i)s ex hac / die et ex K(alendis) Iuli[is

Roma: CIL 06, 00338 Numini domus Aug(ustae) / sacrum Herculi salutari / quod factum est sodalic(io) horr(eariorum) Galban(orum) cohort(ium) / A(ulus) Cornelius Aphrodisius quinquenn(alis) / aediculam novam a solo sodalibus suis pecunia / sua donum dedit / dedicavit K(alendis) Iuni(i)s Quintillo et Prisco co(n)s(ulibus)

Roma: CIL 06, 37795 In his horr]eis Umm[idianis] / [singulis an]nis locant[ur horrea] / [apothecae comp]endiaria ar[maria inter]/[columnia et loc]a ex hac d[ie et ex K(alendis) Iul(iis)] / [quae in his horreis i]nvecta inla[ta importata] / [erunt horreario pig]nori erunt d[onec satis ei] / [factum non sit aut pensi]o solvatur s[i quid in his] / [horreis conductor in]aedificaverit [tollendi ius] / [non habebit nisi dat]a ei refigendi po[testas fuerit] / [3]IDID[

Roma: CIL 06, 29830 Bal(neum) Faustin(a)es(!) // Horrea // Foru Boariu // Aquae Pensils // Foru (H)olitoriu // Portex Neptuni // T(emplum) Apollinis

Roma: CIL 06, 29844, 034 Horrea / Lolliana

Roma: CIL 06, 29844, 035 H[or]rea / Candelaria

Roma: CIL 06, 29844,036 horrea G]alb[iana

242

Roma: CIL 06, 29844,037 ho]rrea / Gramina/ria

Roma: CIL 06, 29844,038 ] hor[rea]

Nemi/Nemus Dianae: CIL 14, 04190 ] ad horrea Sempron(ia) / ad balneum vetus / in quattuor / plumbi pondo V(milia)|(mille)|(mille)|(mille)DCLXII / et labella IV idem / donus pro se et suis

Roma: CIL 06, 00235 Pro salute / dominorum / Genio horreorum / Saturninus et Succesus / horreari(i) / donum dederunt / Caesare Vespasiano VI / Tito Caesare I(eratore) IIII / con(sulibus)

Ostia Antica: CIL 14, 04709 Horrea Epagathiana et / Epaphroditiana

8.0 Paries Communis

Roma: CIL 06, 22300 Hic paries / totus cedit / Matriniae

Roma: CIL 06, 29960 Hic paries / communis / est interge/ri vos cum / Ilisso Caesaris / Aug(usti) Diogenia // Diogeni / Caesaris / Ilissus / Diogenian / fecit

Ostia Antica: CIL 14, 01867 Hic paries / communis / est

Ostia Antica: NSA-1953-302 Hic paries ad / hanc altitudin(em) / hac fine / communis est

Herculaneum: AE1937, 00176 Iuliae pari/[es] privat(us) perpetuus // M(arci) Noni M(arci) l(iberti) Dama[e] / paries perpetuus priv[at(us)]

Ostia Antica: CIL 14, 04703 [P]rivatum / ad Tiberim / usque ad aquam

9.0 Luminum

Pompeii: CIL 10, 00787 M(arcus) Holconius Rufus d(uum)v(ir) i(ure) d(icundo) tert(ium) / C(aius) Egnatius Postumus d(uum)v(ir) i(ure) d(icundo) iter(um) / ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) ius luminum /

243

opstruendorum(!) HS |(mille) |(mille) |(mille) / redemerunt parietemque / privatum col(onia) Ven(eria) Cor(nelia) / usque a tegulas / faciundum coera(ve)runt

10.0 Recensus

Dacia: CIL 03, 0944, 08

Andueia Batonis emit manci[pioque accepit] / domus partem dimidiam int{e}rantibus partem [dex]/tram qu(a)e est Alb(urno) Maiori vico Pirustar[um in]t[er] ad[fines Platorem Accep]/tianum et Ingenu(u)m Callisti |(denariis) trecentis de Veturi[o Valente] / eam domus partem dimidiam q(ua) d(e) a(gitur) cum su[is s]aepibus sae/pimentis finibus aditibus claustris f{i}enestris ita uti / cla(v)o fix{s}a et optima maximaque est h(abere) r(ecte) l(iceat) / [e]t si quis eam domum partemve quam quis [e]x [ea] / evicerit q(uo) m(inus) Andueia Batonis e(ive) a(d) q(uem) e(a) r(es) p(ertinebit) h(abere) p(ossidere) / u(suque) c(apere) r(ecte) l(iceat) qu[o]d ita licitum n[o]n erit t(antam) / p(ecuniam) r(ecte) d(ari) f(ide) r(ogavit) Andueia Batonis fide promisit / Veturius Valens proque ea do[mu partem] / [dim]idiam pretium |(denarios) CCC Vetur[ius V]ale(n)s // a[b A]n[du]ei[a Ba]tonis accepiss[e et] (h)ab[ere se dixit] / convenitq(ue) int[e]r eos [uti] Veturius Va[lens pro ea] / domo tributa usque ad recensum dep[e]n[dat] / act(um) Alb(urno) Maiori prid(ie) Nonas Maias / Qui[n]tillo et Prisco co(n)s(ulibus) // // L(ucius) Vasidius V[i]c/tor signavit / T(iti) Fl(avi) Felicis / M(arci) Lucani Melioris / Platoris Carpi / T(iti) Aureli Prisci / Batonis Annaei / Veturi Valentis venditoris

11.0 Preades Preadiaque

Puteoli: CIL 10, 01781

M(arcus) Avianius M(arci) f(ilius) / Coniunctus IIvir / iter(um) texit et tectum s(ua) p(ecunia) // Ab colonia deducta anno XC / N(umerio) Fufidio N(umeri) f(ilio) M(arco) Pullio duovir(is) / P(ublio) Rutilio Cn(aeo) Mallio co(n)s(ulibus) / operum lex II / lex parieti faciendo in area quae est ante / aedem Serapi trans viam qui redemerit / praedes dato praediaque subsignato / duumvirum arbitratu / in area trans viam paries qui est propter / viam in eo pariete / medio ostiei lumen / aperito latum p(edes) VI altum p(edes) VII facito ex eo / pariete antas duas ad mare vorsum proicito / longas p(edes) II crassas p(edem) I |(quadrantem) insuper id limen / robustum long(um) p(edes) VIII latum p(edem) I |(quadrantem) altum p(edis) |(dodrantem) / inponito insuper id et antas mutulos robustos / II crassos |(bessem) altos p(edem) I proicito extra pariete / in utramq(ue) partem p(edes) IV insuper simas pictas / ferro offigito insuper mutulos trabiculas / abiegineas II crassas quoquversus s(emis) inponito // ferroque figito inasserato asseribus abiegnieis / sectilibus crasseis quoquversus |(trientem) disponito ni plus |(dodrantem) / operculaque abiegnea inponito ex tigno pedario / facito antepagmenta abiegnea lata |(dodrantem) crassa |(semunciam) / cumatiumque inponito ferroque plano figito / portula(m)que tegito tegularum ordinibus seneis / quoquversus tegulas primores omnes

244

in ante/pagmento ferro figito marginemque inponito / eisdem fores clatratas II cum postibus aesculnieis / facito statuito ocludito picatoque ita utei ad aedem / Honorus facta sunt eisdem maceria extrema paries / qui est eum parietem cum margine altum facito p(edes) X / eisdem ostium introitu in area quod nunc est et / fenestras quae in pariete propter eam aream sunt / pariete{m} opstruito et parieti qui nunc est propter / viam marginem perpetuom(!) inponito eosq(ue) parietes / marginesque omnes quae lita non erunt calce / harenato lita politaque et calce uda dealbata recte / facito quod opus structile fiet in te[r]ra calcis / restinctai partem quartam indito nive maiorem / caementa(m) struito quam quae caementa arda / pendat p(ondo) XV nive angolaria(m) altiorem |(trientem) |(semunciam) facito // locumque purum pro eo opere reddito / eidem sacella aras signaque quae in / campo sunt quae demonstrata erunt / ea omnia tollito deferto componito / statuitoque ubei locus demonstratus / erit duumvirum arbitratu / hoc opus omne facito arbitratu duovir(um) / et duovira[l]ium qui in consilio esse / solent Puteoleis dum ni minus viginti / adsient cum ea res consuletur quod / eorum viginti iurati probaverint probum / esto quod ieis inprobarint inprobum esto / dies operis K(alendis) Novembr(ibus) primeis dies peun(iae) / pars dimidia dabitur ubei praedia satis / subsignata erunt altera pars dimidia solvetur / opere effecto probatoque C(aius) Blossius Q(uinti) f(ilius) / |(sestertiis) MD idem praes(tat?) Q(uintus) Fuficius Q(uinti) f(ilius) / Cn(aeus) Tetteius Q(uinti) f(ilius) C(aius) ranius C(ai) f(ilius) Ti(berius) Crassicius

245

APPENDIX II: SURVEY RESULTS

Table 1. Ostia Antica: Survey Results

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 1 Region I.14.2 Caseggiato 1 TP OTH B 2 I del Portico Del Mosaico 1 Region I.14.2 Caseggiato 2 RS I STR NV 2 I del Portico Del Mosaico 1 Region I.14.2 Caseggiato 3 RS I STR NV 2 I del Portico Del Mosaico 2 Region I.17.2 Mitreo delle 1 TP ECOR NV 1 I Terme del Mitra

3 Region I.16.2 Caseggiato 1 RS I OTH NV 1 I 3 Region I.16.2 Caseggiato 2 RS I ECOR B 1 I 3 Region I.16.2 Caseggiato 3 RS I STR C 1 I 4 Region I.8.3 Horrea 1 TP ICOR NV 2 I Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana 4 Region I.8.3 Horrea 2 TP OTH NV 2 I Epagathiana et Epaphroditiana 5 Region I.8.10 Botteghe 1 TP OTH NV 2 I 5 Region I.8.10 Botteghe 2 TP OTH NV 2 I 6 Region I.8.2 Horrea 1 RS I ECOR L 3 I 6 Region I.8.2 Horrea 2 RS I ECOR NV 3 I 7 Region I.8.1 Piccolo 1 RS(+TPI) STR NV 3 I Mercato III 7 Region I.8.1 Piccolo 2 TP STR NV 3 I Mercato 7 Region I.8.1 Piccolo 3 TPI STR NV 3 I Mercato

246

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 8 Region I.6.2 Caseggiato del 1 RS I STR- FORICAE NV 3 I Balcone a Mensole 9 Region I.7.1-2 Caseggiato 1 RS(+TPI) STR NV 3 I dei Misuratori del III Grano 9 Region I.7.1-2 Caseggiato 2 TP OTH NV 3 I dei Misuratori del Grano 9 Region I.7.1-2 Caseggiato 3 TPI STR NV 3 I dei Misuratori del Grano 9 Region I.7.1-2 Caseggiato 4 TP OTH NV 3 I dei Misuratori del Grano 10 Region I.8.7/9 Caseggiato 1 RS I OTH NV 2 I 11 Region I.9.2 Caseggiato 1 TP ICOR NV 2 I 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 1 TPI STR NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 2 TPI ECOR NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 3 TPI OTH NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 4 TPI STR NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 5 TPI OTH NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 6 TPI OTH NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 12 Region I.6.1-2 Portico ovest 7 TPI OTH NV 3&4 I di Pio IX e loggia 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 1 TP OTH NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 2 TP OTH NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 3 TP OTH NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 4 TP CRT NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 5 TP CRT NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 6 TP CRT NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 7 TP CRT NV 2 I Larario

247

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 8 TP OTH NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 9 TP OTH NV 2 I Larario 13 Region I.9.3 Caseggiato del 10 TP OTH NV 2 I Larario 14 Region I.4.5 Caseggiato dei 1 PB OTH NV 4 I Doli 15 Region I.4.4 Casa dei 1 TPI OTH NV 4 I Dipinti 16 Region I.4.2 Domus di 1 TP OTH NV 4 I Giove e Ganimede

16 Region I.4.2 Domus di 2 RS I CRT NV 4 I Giove e Ganimede 17 Region I.3.5 Caseggiato del 1 TP ECOR NV 4 I Mitreo di Menandro 17 Region I.3.5 Caseggiato del 2 TP STR NV 4 I Mitreo di Menandro 17 Region I.3.5 Caseggiato del 3 TP ECOR NV 4 I Mitreo di Menandro 17 Region I.3.5 Caseggiato del 4 TP ECOR NV 4 I Mitreo di Menandro 18 Region I.3.4 Caseggiato di 1 RS II ECOR NV 4 I Diana 18 Region I.3.4 Caseggiato di 2 RS II STR L 4 I Diana 19 Region I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di 1 RS II ECOR L 4 I Diana 19 Region I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di 2 RS II STR NV 4 I Diana 19 Region I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di 3 RS II F B 4 I Diana 19 Region I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di 4 RS I NV-ECOR NV 4 I Diana 19 Region I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di 5 RS I NV-FORICA NV 4 I Diana 20 Region I.1.1-4 Caseggiato 1 RS I ECOR NV 4 I del Portico delle (+TP) III Mura del Castrum 21 Region I.2.6 Caseggiato del 1 TP water feature NV 4 I Balcone Ligneo 22 Region I.2.5 Caseggiato del 1 PB STR NV 4 I Thermopolio

248

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 23 Region I.14.8 Terme del 1 RS I ECOR B 2 I Bagnino Buticosus 23 Region I.14.8 Terme del 2 TPI STR NV 2 I Bagnino Buticosus 24 Region I.12.8 Sede di una 1 TP ECOR NV 18 I corporazione 24 Region I.12.8 Sede di una 2 TP ECOR NV 18 I corporazione 24 Region I.12.8 Sede di una 3 TPI STR NV 18 I corporazione 24 Region I.12.8 Sede di una 4 TPI ECOR NV 18 I corporazione 25 Region I.13.2 Caseggiato 1 TPI OTH NV 18 I 26 Region I.13.4 Molino 1 RS II OTH NV 18 I 27 Region I.12.4 Terme della 1 RS I OTH-CISTERN NV 19 I Cisterna 27 Region I.12.4 Terme della 2 RS I OTH-CISTERN NV 19 I Cisterna 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 1 RS I F NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 2 TPI F NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 3 TPI F NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 4 TPI F NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 5 TPI ECOR NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 6 RS I OTH NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 7 RS I OTH NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 8 RS I OTH NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 9 RS I CRT NV 19 I 28 Region I.12.6 Terme Foro 10 RS I CRT NV 19 I 29 Region 1.12.1 Caseggiato 1 RS I STR NV 19 I dei Triclini 29 Region 1.12.1 Caseggiato 2 RS I OTH R 19 I dei Triclini 29 Region 1.12.1 Caseggiato 3 RS I STR NV 19 I dei Triclini

249

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 30 Region I.12.10 Caseggiato a 1 TPI OTH R 17 I Tabernae 30 Region I.12.10 Caseggiato a 2 TPI OTH R 17 I Tabernae 31 Region I.12.6 Foricae 1 PB OTH-FORICAE B 17 I 31 Region I.12.6 Foricae 2 PB OTH-FORICAE B 17 I 31 Region I.12.6 Foricae 3 PB OTH-FORICAE B 17 I 31 Region I.12.6 Foricae 4 PB OTH-FORICAE B 17 I 32 Region I.12.7 Botteghe 1 TP STR NV 20 I 32 Region I.12.7 Botteghe 2 RS I OTH NV 20 I 33 Region I.12.9 Edificio 1 RS II OTH R 18 I 33 Region I.12.9 Edificio 2 RS II OTH L 18 I 33 Region I.12.9 Edificio 3 RS II OTH B 18 I 33 Region I.12.9 Edificio 4 RS I STR NV 18 I 34 Region I.13.3 Fullonica 1 RS I ECOR NV 18 I 35 Region I.13.5 Caseggiato 1 RS I ECOR NV 18 I 35 Region I.13.5 Caseggiato 2 RS I ECOR B 18 I 36 Region I.11.2-3 Domus del 1 TP ECOR NV 16 I Tempio Rotondo 36 Region I.11.2-3 Domus del 2 RS II STR NV 16 I Tempio Rotondo 37 Region I.10.4 Tempio 1 RS II STR NV 16 I Collegiale and Mitreo di Fructosus 37 Region I.10.4 Tempio 2 RS II STR NV 16 I Collegiale and Mitreo di Fructosus 37 Region I.10.4 Tempio 3 RS II OTH NV 16 I Collegiale and Mitreo di Fructosus 37 Region I.10.4 Tempio 4 RS I OTH NV 16 I Collegiale and Mitreo di Fructosus

250

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 38 Region I. Forum 1 RS I CRT/F NV 19 I 39 Region II.8.5 Domus di 1 RS II F NV 5 II Apuleio 40 Region II.6.7 Caseggiato 1 TPI OTH NV 5 II delle Fornaci 40 Region II.6.7 Caseggiato 2 RS I STR R 5 II delle Fornaci 40 Region II.6.7 Caseggiato 3 RS I ICOR R 5 II delle Fornaci 40 Region II.6.7 Caseggiato 4 RS I STR NV 5 II delle Fornaci 41 Region II.6.5-6 Casa del 1 TPI OTH NV 6 II Soffitto Dipinto 41 Region II.6.5-6 Casa del 2 RS I STR NV 6 II Soffitto Dipinto 41 Region II.6.5-6 Casa del 3 RS I ECOR NV 6 II Soffitto Dipinto 41 Region II.6.5-6 Casa del 4 RS I ECOR NV 6 II Soffitto Dipinto 41 Region II.6.5-6 Casa del 5 RS I STR NV 6 II Soffitto Dipinto 42 Region II.6.3-4 Casa 1 RS I STR NV 6 II dell'Ercole Bambino 43 Region II.5.1-2 Caserma dei 1 RS I STR B 6 II Vigili 43 Region II.5.1-2 Caserma dei 2 RS I ECOR NV 6 II Vigili 43 Region II.5.1-2 Caserma dei 3 RS I STR NV 6 II Vigili 43 Region II.5.1-2 Caserma dei 4 RS I OTH-FORICAE L 6 II Vigili 43 Region II.5.1-2 Caserma dei 5 RS I OTH-FORICAE NV 6 II Vigili 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 1 RS I ECOR L 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 2 RS I ECOR NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 3 RS I STR NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 4 RS I STR NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 4a RS I OTH NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 5 TPI STR NV 6 II Nettuno

251

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 6 RS I STR NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 7 RS I OTH NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 8 RS I ECOR B 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 9 RS I ECOR B/C 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 10 RS (+TP) STR NV 6 II Nettuno III 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 11 RS I STR B 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 12 TP F NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 13 RS I F NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 14 RS I OTH NV 6 II Nettuno 44 Region II.4.2 Terme 15 RS II OTH NV 6 II Nettuno 45 Region II.4.1 Caupona di 1 RS I OTH NV 6 II Fortunato 46 Region II.3.3-4 Case di Via 1 RS I STR L 6 II dei Vigili 46 Region II.3.3-4 Case di Via 2 RS I ECOR NV 6 II dei Vigili 47 Region II.7.4 Piazzale delle 1 TP OTH NV 5 II Corporazioni 48 Region II.2.3 Terme dei 1 RS I STR L NM II Cisiarii 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 1 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 1a RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 2 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 3 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 4 RS I OTH-CAVEA R 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 4a RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 5 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 6 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II

252

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 7 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 8 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 9 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 10 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 49 Region II.7.2 Teatro 11 RS I OTH-CAVEA NV 5 II 50 Region III.7.3-4 Domus 1 RS I STR NV 7 III Fulminata 50 Region III.7.3-4 Domus 2 RS I ECOR NV 7 III Fulminata 51 Region III.8.1 Edifico 1 TP ECOR NV 7 III 52 Region III.9.1 Domus dei 1 RS I STR NV 7 III Dioscuri 52 Region III.9.1 Domus dei 2 RS I STR NV 7 III Dioscuri 53 Region III.9.2 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 53 Region III.9.2 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 54 Region III.9.3 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 54 Region III.9.3 Case a 2 RS I STR L 7 III Giardino 55 Region III.9.4--Case a 1 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 55 Region III.9.4 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 7 III Giardino 55 Region III.9.4 Case a 3 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 55 Region III.9.4 Case a 4 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 55 Region III.9.4 Case a 5 RS I ECOR R 7 III Giardino 56 Region III.9.5 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 7 III Giardino 57 Region III.9.6 Case a 1 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 57 Region III.9.6 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 57 Region III.9.6--Case a 3 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino

253

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 58 Region III.9.7 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino 58 Region III.9.7 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino 58 Region III.9.7 Case a 3 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino 59 Region III.9.8 Case a 1 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 59 Region III.9.8 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 60 Region III.9.9 Case a 1 RS I ECOR R 8 III Giardino 60 Region III.9.9 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 60 Region III.9.9 Case a 3 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 60 Region III.9.9 Case a 4 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino 61 Region III.9.11 Case a 1 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 61 Region III.9.11 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 61 Region III.9.11 Case a 3 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino 61 Region III.9.11 Case a 4 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino 62 Region III.9.22 Case a 1 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino: Domus delle Muse 62 Region III.9.22 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino: Domus delle Muse 62 Region III.9.22--Case a 3 RS I STR NV 8 III Giardino: Domus delle Muse 63 Region III.9. Case a 1 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino: South Main Gate 63 Region III.9. Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino: South Main Gate 64 Region III.9.13 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 64 Region III.9.13 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino

254

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 64 Region III.9.13 Case a 3 RS I ECOR L 9 III Giardino 65 Region III.9.14 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 65 Region III.9.14 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 65 Region III.9.14 Case a 3 RS I ECOR NV 9 III Giardino 66 Region III.9.15 Case a 1 RS I STR R 9 III Giardino 67 Region III.9.16 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 68 Region III.9.17 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 68 Region III.9.17 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 68 Region III.9.17 Case a 3 RS I ICOR C 9 III Giardino 68 Region III.9.17 Case a 4 RS I STR B 9 III Giardino 68 Region III.9.17 Case a 5 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 69 Region III.9.18 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 69 Region III.9.18 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 69 Region III.9.18 Case a 3 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 69 Region III.9.18 Case a 4 RS I STR L 9 III Giardino 69 Region III.9.18 Case a 5 RS I ICOR NV 9 III Giardino 70 Region III.9.19 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 70 Region III.9.19 Case a 2 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 70 Region III.9.19 Case a 3 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 70 Region III.9.19 Case a 4 RS I ECOR L 9 III Giardino 70 Region III.9.19 Case a 5 RS I ECOR NV 9 III Giardino 71 Region III.9.20 Case a 1 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 71 Region III.9.20 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 9 III Giardino

255

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 71 Region III.9.20 Case a 3 RS I ECOR NV 9 III Giardino 71 Region III.9.20 Case a 4 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 71 Region III.9.20 Case a 5 RS I STR NV 9 III Giardino 72 Region III.9.12 Casa delle 1 RS I STR NV 10 III Pareti Gialle 73 Region III.9.21 Insula del 1 RS I STR NV 10 III Graffito 74 Region III.9.23 Case a 1 RS I ECOR B 10 III Giardino:Gate Via Volte Dipiniti 74 Region III.9.23 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 10 III Giardino:Gate Via Volte Dipiniti 74 Region III.9.23 Case a 3 RS I STR NV 10 III Giardino:Gate Via Volte Dipiniti 74 Region III.9.23 Case a 4 RS I STR NV 10 III Giardino:Gate Via Volte Dipiniti 75 Region III.9.24 Case a 1 RS I STR L 8 III Giardino 75 Region III.9.24 Case a 2 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 75 Region III.9.24 Case a 3 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 76 Region III.9.24 B- Case a 1 RSII ECOR L 8 III Giardino 76 Region III.9.24 B- Case a 2 RS I OTH NV 8 III Giardino 76 Region III.9.24 B- Case a 3 RS I ECOR NV 8 III Giardino 77 Region III.9.25 Case a 1 RS II STR NV 8 III Giardino 78 Region III.4.1 Caseggiato 1 RSI STR NV 10 III Trapezoidale 78 Region III.4.1 Caseggiato 2 RS I STR L 10 III Trapezoidale 78 Region III.4.1 Caseggiato 3 RS I STR NV 10 III Trapezoidale 79 Region III.5.1 Caseggiato 1 TP STR NV 10 III della Volte Dipinti 80 Region III.3.1-2 Caseggiato 1 RS (+TP) STR B 10 III delle Trifore III

256

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 80 Region III.3.1-2 Caseggiato 2 RS II ECOR NV 10 III delle Trifore 80 Region III.3.1-2 Caseggiato 3 RS I STR NV 10 III delle Trifore 80 Region III.3.1-2 Caseggiato 4 TP STR NV 10 III delle Trifore 80 Region III.3.1-2 Caseggiato 5 TP ECOR NV 10 III delle Trifore 80 Region III.3.1-2 Caseggiato 6 RS I ECOR NV 10 III delle Trifore 81 Region III.2.1-2 Tempio dei 1 RS I ECOR NV 13 III Fabri Navales 82 Region III.1.1 Caseggiato 1 RS II STR B 13 III 82 Region III.1.1 Caseggiato 2 RS II ICOR NV 13 III 82 Region III.1.1 Caseggiato 3 RS I ICOR B 13 III 82 Region III.1.1 Caseggiato 4 RS II OTH B 13 III 82 Region III.1.1 Caseggiato 5 RS II STR NV 13 III 83 Region III.1.14 Botteghe 1 TP OTH NV 13 III 83 Region III.1.14 Botteghe 2 RS I OTH NV 13 III 84 Region III.16.6-7 Terme 1 TP OTH NV 12 III della Trinacria 84 Region III.16.6-7 Terme 2 TP OTH NV 12 III della Trinacria 84 Region III.16.6-7 Terme 3 TP NV NV 12 III della Trinacria 85 Region III.17.5 Caseggiato 1 RS II CRT B 12 III di Bacco e Arianna 85 Region III.17.5 Caseggiato 2 RS I CRT NV 12 III di Bacco e Arianna 85 Region III.17.5 Caseggiato 3 RS II OTH NV 12 III di Bacco e Arianna 85 Region III.17.5 Caseggiato 4 RS I NV NV 12 III di Bacco e Arianna 86 Region III.10.2-3 1 RS I OTH NV 11 III Caseggiato del Serapide 86 Region III.10.2-3 2 RS (+TP) OTH NV 11 III Caseggiato del III Serapide

257

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 1 TP OTH-FORICA NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 2 TP ICOR NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 3 RS I ICOR NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 4 RS I OTH B 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 5 TPI OTH NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 6 TPI OTH NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 7 RS I STR NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 8 RS I ICOR B 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 9 TP ECOR NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 10 TP CRT NV 11 III degli Aurighi 87 Region III.10.1 Caseggiato 11 TP ICOR NV 11 III degli Aurighi 88 Region III.14.1 Tecta degli 1 TPI OTH NV 11 III Aurighi 88 Region III.14.1 Tecta degli 2 RS I OTH NV 11 III Aurighi 88 Region III.14.1 Tecta degli 3 TP OTH NV 11 III Aurighi 88 Region III.14.1 Tecta degli 4 TP OTH B 11 III Aurighi 89 Region III.14.4 Caseggiato 1 RS II OTH B 11 III di Annio 90 Region IV.9.1 Loggia di 1 TP STR NV 14 IV Cartilio 91 Region IV.2.2-4 Portico e 1 RS I ECOR NV 18 IV Caseggiato dell'Ercole 91 Region IV.2.2-4 Portico e 2 RSI ECOR B 18 IV Caseggiato dell'Ercole 91 Region IV.2.2-4 Portico e 3 RS I ECOR B 18 IV Caseggiato dell'Ercole 91 Region IV.2.2-4 Portico e 4 RS II OTH NV 18 IV Caseggiato dell'Ercole

258

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 91 Region IV.2.2-4 Portico e 5 RS II OTH NV 18 IV Caseggiato dell'Ercole 91 Region IV.2.2-4 Portico e 6 RS I ECOR C 18 IV Caseggiato dell'Ercole 92 Region IV.3.3 Domus dei 1 TP ECOR NV 17 IV Pesci 93 Region IV.3.1 Domus delle 1 TP OTH NV 17 IV Colonne 93 Region IV.3.1 Domus delle 2 TP ICOR NV 17 IV Colonne 94 Region IV.5.15 Schola del 1 RS I STR NV 15 IV Traiano 94 Region IV.5.15 Schola del 2 RS I OTH NV 15 IV Traiano 94 Region IV.5.15 Schola del 3 RS I OTH NV 15 IV Traiano 95 Region IV.5.4 Insula del 1 TP ICOR NV 15 IV Sacello 95 Region IV.5.4 Insula del 2 TPI ICOR NV 15 IV Sacello 96 Region IV.4.6 Caseggiato 1 PB OTH B 16 IV 96 Region IV.4.6 Caseggiato 2 PB OTH B 16 IV 96 Region IV.4.6 Caseggiato 3 RS I STR NV 16 IV 96 Region IV.4.6 Caseggiato 4 RS I OTH B 16 IV 96 Region IV.4.6 Caseggiato 5 RS I OTH B 16 IV 96 Region IV.4.6 Caseggiato 6 RS I OTH NV 16 IV 97 Region IV.5.14 Edifico 1 RS I ECOR L & C 15 IV 97 Region IV.5.14 Edifico 2 RS I STR NV 15 IV 97 Region IV.5.14 Edifico 3 RS I STR NV 15 IV 98 Region IV.5.18 Caseggiato 1 TP OTH NV 15 IV delle Taberne Finestrate 98 Region IV.5.18 Caseggiato 2 RS I OTH NV 15 IV delle Taberne Finestrate

259

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 98 Region IV.5.18 Caseggiato 3 TP OTH NV 15 IV delle Taberne Finestrate 98 Region IV.5.18 Caseggiato 4 TP F B 15 IV delle Taberne Finestrate 98 Region IV.5.18 Caseggiato 5 TP ICOR NV 15 IV delle Taberne Finestrate 98 Region IV.5.18 Caseggiato 6 TP STR NV 15 IV delle Taberne Finestrate 99 Region IV.7.1-2 Portico e 1 TPI OTH NV 14 IV Caseggiato della Fontano con Lucerna 99 Region IV.7.1-2 Portico e 2 TP OTH NV 14 IV Caseggiato della Fontano con Lucerna 100 Region IV.9.2 Sepolcro di 1 TP ECOR NV 14 IV Cartilio Poplicola 101 Region IV.2.13 Edifici 1 RS I ICOR R 14 IV 102 Region IV.2.9 Edifici 1 TPI STR R 17 IV 103 Region IV.2.5 Caseggiato 1 TPI ICOR NV 18 IV 104 Region V.7.1-2 Sede degli 1 TP OTH NV 23 V Augustali 104 Region V.7.1-2 Sede degli 2 TP OTH NV 23 V Augustali 105 Region V.7.5 Domus dei 1 RS II ECOR NV 23 V Capitelli di Stucco 106 Region V.3.1 Caseggiato dei 1 RS II ECOR NV 22 V Lottatori 107 Region V.8.1-4 Domus del 1 RS II STR NV 22 V Larario 107 Region V.8.1-4 Domus del 2 RS II STR NV 22 V Larario 108 Region V.6.3 Edificio 1 RS(+TP) OTH NV 22 V III 109 Region V.6.1 Caseggiato del 1 TP STR NV 23 V Sole

260

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 109 Region V.6.1 Caseggiato del 2 RS I STR NV 23 V Sole 109 Region V.6.1 Caseggiato del 3 RS I ECOR NV 23 V Sole 109 Region V.6.1 Caseggiato del 4 RS I OTH-FORICA NV 23 V Sole 110 Region V.6.2 Edificio 1 TP OTH NV 23 V 111 Region V.4.1 Edificio 1 TPI F NV 20 V 112 Region V.5.2 Terme 1 RS II ECOR NV 20 V dell'Invidioso 113 Region V.5.3 Edifici 1 RS I ECOR NV 20 V 114 Region V.2.9-10 Caseggiato 1 RS II OTH NV 22 V 115 Region V.2.13 Caseggiato 1 TP ICOR NV 22 V del Pozzo 115 Region V.2.13 Caseggiato 2 TP STR NV 22 V del Pozzo 116 Region V.2.8 Domus della 1 TP OTH NV 22 V Fortuna Annonaria 116 Region V.2.8 Domus della 2 TP OTH NV 22 V Fortuna Annonaria 116 Region V.2.8 Domus della 3 TPI OTH NV 22 V Fortuna Annonaria 117 Region V.2.6-7 Terme del 1 TPI OTH-FORICA NV 22 V Filosofo 117 Region V.2.6-7 Terme del 2 RS I ECOR NV 22 V Filosofo 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 1 RS I OTH-FORICA NV 22 V Protiro 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 2 RS II OTH NV 22 V Protiro 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 3 RS II OTH NV 22 V Protiro 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 4 RS(+TP) OTH-FORICA NV 22 V Protiro III 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 5 TP CRT NV 22 V Protiro 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 6 TP CRT NV 22 V Protiro 118 Region V.2.4-5 Domus del 7 TP CRT NV 22 V Protiro 119 Region V.2.3 Caseggiato 1 RS II OTH NV 22 V

261

# Region OSTIA NUMBER TYPE VISIBLE IRON MAP LOCATION NAILS 120 Region V.1.1 Caseggiato a 1 RS II OTH NV 21 V botteghe 120 Region V.1.1 Caseggiato a 2 RS II OTH NV 21 V botteghe 121 Region V.9.1 Tempio 1 RS I STR NV 23 V Collegia

262

Key for Table 1 and Maps in Appendix V 1-23.

TYPE RS I Rectangular shaft: no tile revetment in back of shaft RS II Rectangular shaft: tile revetment in back of shaft RS III Rectangular shaft with a terracotta pipe (TP) or terracotta pipe impression (TPI) with in it. PB Pipe Brace: Travertine plate on the floor with a round hole cut through it for a vertical pipe to attach to it. TP & Terracotta Pipe and Terracotta Pipe Impression TPI

VISIBLE LOCATION

STR Stairs

F Façade of a building

CRT Courtyard ICOR Internal Corridor ECOR External Corridor many time associated with external stairs OTH Location of shaft or pipe in a generic architectureal space or unspecified location. IRON NAILS B Both: Iron nails found on both sides of the shaft type C Center: Iron nail found in the center of RS I L Left: Iron nails found left of the shaft type from a frontal view R Right: Iron nails found right of the shaft type from a frontal view NV None Visible: no initial evidence of iron nails *NM: No Map available * F- Forica

263

Table 2. Total of Repairs, Blocked Shafts and Late Additions. The row identification corresponds to Table 1.

# Region Ostia Number Type Location Repairs 1 Region I I.14.2 Caseggiato del Portico 1 TP OTH Del Mosaico 3 Region I I.16.2 Caseggiato 2 RS I ECOR 20 Region I I.1.1-4 Caseggiato del Portico 1 RS (+TP) ECOR delle Mura del Castrum III 44 Region II II.4.2 Terme Nettuno 10 RS (+TP) STR III 44 Region II II.4.2 Terme Nettuno 12 TP F 80 Region III III.3.1-2 Caseggiato delle 1 RS (+TP) STR Trifore III 86 Region III III.10.2-3 Caseggiato del 2 RS (+TP) OTH Serapide III 88 Region III III.14.1 Tecta degli Aurighi 4 TP OTH 90 Region IV IV.9.1 Loggia di Cartilio 1 TP STR 96 Region IV IV.4.6 Caseggiato 4 RS I OTH 96 Region IV IV.4.6 Caseggiato 5 RS I OTH 98 Region IV IV.5.18 Caseggiato delle 4 TP F Taberne Finestrate 108 Region V V.6.3 Edificio 1 RS(+TP) OTH III 109 Region V V.6.1 Caseggiato del Sole 1 TP STR Blocked 19 Region I I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di Diana 2 RS II STR 19 Region I I.3.3-2 Caseggiato di Diana 3 RS II F 28 Region I I.12.6 Terme Foro 6 RS I OTH 28 Region I I.12.6 Terme Foro 8 RS I OTH 29 Region I 1.12.1 Caseggiato dei Triclini 1 RS I STR 33 Region I I.12.9 Edificio 1 RS II OTH 71 Region III III.9.20 Case a Giardino 1 RS I STR 85 Region III III.17.5 Caseggiato di Bacco e 2 RS I CRT Arianna 85 Region III III.17.5 Caseggiato di Bacco e 3 RS II OTH Arianna 86 Region III III.10.2-3 Caseggiato del 1 RS I OTH Serapide

264

# Region Ostia Number Type Location 118 Region V V.2.4-5 Domus del Protiro 1 RS I OTH- FORICA 118 Region V V.2.4-5 Domus del Protiro 2 RS II OTH 118 Region V V.2.4-5 Domus del Protiro 3 RS II OTH 73 Region III III.9.21 Insula del Graffito 1 RS I STR Late Additions 12 Region I I.6.1-2 Portico ovest di Pio IX 5 TPI OTH e loggia 12 Region I I.6.1-2 Portico ovest di Pio IX 7 TPI OTH e loggia 16 Region I I.4.2 Domus di Giove e 1 TP OTH Ganimede 17 Region I I.3.5 Caseggiato del Mitreo di 1 TP ECOR Menandro 17 Region I I.3.5 Caseggiato del Mitreo di 2 TP STR Menandro 17 Region I I.3.5 Caseggiato del Mitreo di 3 TP ECOR Menandro 17 Region I I.3.5 Caseggiato del Mitreo di 4 TP ECOR Menandro 23 Region I I.14.8 Terme del Bagnino 2 TPI STR Buticosus 26 Region I I.13.4 Molino 1 RS II OTH 32 Region I I.12.7 Botteghe 1 TP STR 36 Region I I.11.2-3 Domus del Tempio 1 TP ECOR Rotondo 39 Region II II.8.5 Domus di Apuleio 1 RS II F 41 Region II II.6.5-6 Casa del Soffitto 1 TPI OTH Dipinto 51 Region III III.8.1 Edifico 1 TP ECOR 83 Region III III.1.14 Botteghe 1 TP OTH 83 Region III III.1.14 Botteghe 2 RS I OTH 87 Region III III.10.1 Caseggiato degli 2 TP ICOR Aurighi 87 Region III III.10.1 Caseggiato degli 6 TPI OTH Aurighi 87 Region III III.10.1 Caseggiato degli 9 TP ECOR Aurighi 87 Region III III.10.1 Caseggiato degli 11 TP ICOR Aurighi 92 Region IV IV.3.3 Domus dei Pesci 1 TP ECOR 93 Region IV IV.3.1 Domus delle Colonne 1 TP OTH

265

# Region Ostia Number Type Location 93 Region IV IV.3.1 Domus delle Colonne 2 TP ICOR 104 Region V V.7.1-2 Sede degli Augustali 1 TP OTH 104 Region V V.7.1-2 Sede degli Augustali 2 TP OTH 116 Region V V.2.8 Domus della Fortuna 3 TPI OTH Annonaria 119 Region V V.2.3 Caseggiato 1 RS II OTH

Table 3. Total of Features

Total 121 Independent structures Independent features with in the 121 343 structures

TYPE RS I 181 (excluding 5 center placed iron nails) 38 RS II 7 RS III Total of RS

226 (excluding shafts with iron nails placed in the center) 104 TP and TPI 5 Center Placed Iron Nails 8 PB

343 Total

266

Table 4. Feature Attributes

ATTRIBUTES Lined: includes TL, ML and ML+TL

39 (Tile Lined, Mortar Lined and Mortar Lined with a Tile Lining) 63 Shafts that display Iron Nails Center placed iron nails -- includes water 5 tower 1 Water Tower Type and Iron Nails 39 RS I 11 RS II 1 RS III 51 Total RS I, II & III 6 TP & TPI 6 PB

63 Total

267

Table 5. Features according to location

VISIBLE LOCATION OTH (not including foricae, cisterns or 88 cavea) 18 ICOR 76 ECOR - COR Total 94 106 STR - STR + ECOR 182 11 F 13 CRT 27 OTH-FOR; OTH-CIS; OTH-CAVEA 4 NV: unseen but visible in SO I.

343 Total

Table 6. Shaft Type according to Visible Location (values must be >5)

RS I RS II TP &TPI

STR 74 10 17

ECOR 53 7 16

ICOR 7 - 10

OTH 24 17 43

268

Table 7. City Distribution of Features by Region and their Location.

Region & PB RS (+TP) RS (+TPI) RS I RS II TP TPI Grand Location III III Total Region I: 6 2 31 13 31 20 103 Total CRT 3 4 7

CRT/F 1 1

ECOR 7 2 8 3 20

F 1 1 3 5

ICOR 2 2

NV-ECOR 1 1

NV-FORICA 1 1

OTH 1 8 5 13 8 35

OTH- 2 2 CISTERN OTH- 4 4 FORICAE STR 1 2 6 5 3 6 23

STR- 1 1 FORICAE water feature 1 1

Region II: 1 42 2 2 3 50 Total ECOR 8 8

F 1 1 1 3

ICOR 1 1

OTH 4 1 1 2 8

OTH-CAVEA 13 13

OTH- 2 2 FORICAE STR 1 13 1 15

Region III: 2 90 10 15 3 120 Total CRT 1 1 1 3

ECOR 30 2 3 35

ICOR 5 1 2 8

NV 1 1 2

OTH 1 5 3 5 3 17

OTH- 1 1 FORICA STR 1 48 3 2 54

Region IV: 2 16 2 12 4 36 Total

269

Region & PB RS (+TP) RS (+TPI) RS I RS II TP TPI Grand Location III III Total ECOR 5 2 7

F 1 1

ICOR 1 3 2 6

OTH 2 6 2 4 1 15

STR 4 2 1 7

Region V: 1 7 11 11 3 34 Total CRT 3 3

ECOR 3 3 6

F 1 1

ICOR 1 1

OTH 1 1 6 5 1 14

OTH- 1 2 1 4 FORICA STR 1 2 2 5 Grand Total 8 5 2 186 38 71 33 343

270

APPENDIX III: MODELS AND MEASURMENTS

This Appendix demonstrates the use of Agisoft Photoscan in the process of mapping the nails that held the tile covers in place. Understanding the function of these features is bound to their construction style and the maintenance they received through the lifetime of the building’s occupation periods. The images provide a screen a snip of the working panel from the software and is followed by close-up of sections of the shafts to further demonstrate the nails and their placement. The blue flags indicate the nails, with exception to the first two flags which indicate the scale bar (can be seen on either end of the red and white scale.)

Figure 1. A. Caseggiato degli Aurighi (III.10.1_4)

271

Figure 1. B. Caseggiato degli Aurighi (III.10.1_4)

Figure 1. C. Caseggiato degli Aurighi (III.10.1_4)

272

Figure 2. A. Casa delle Trifore (III.3.1-2_1)

Figure 2. B. Casa delle Trifore (III.3.1-2_1)

273

Figure 3. A. Caseggiato (III.1.1_3)

Figure 3. B. Caseggiato (III.1.1_3)

274

Figure 4. A. Portico e Caseggiato dell’ Ercole (IV.2.2-4_3)

Figure 4. B. Portico e Caseggiato dell’ Ercole (IV.2.2-4_3)

275

Figure 5. A. Caseggiato di Annio (III.14.4_1)

Figure 5. B. Caseggiato di Annio (III.14.4_1)

276

Figure 6. Case a Giardino (III.9.13_3)

Figure 7. A. Caseggiato (IV.6. 4_4)

277

Figure 7. B. Caseggiato (IV.6. 4_4)

Figure 7. C. Caseggiato (IV.6. 4_4)

278

APPENDIX IV: MAPS

3: blue 3: 4 -

Ostia Antica 11689. Distribution of upper floor down pipes and shafts shafts floor and down pipes upper Distribution 11689. Antica Ostia of

7: 7: 8+. red -

grouped by location and building. The colouring indicates number of features by grouping: green 2 of by number grouping: features green indicates The colouring groupedbuilding. by and location 6 orange 5: 2 1 Archivio 1: Disegni, After Figure 279

List of Buildings Identified in Figure 1. Colour Name Number on Map

Green & Blue Case a Giardino III.9. 2-24 1 Red Caseggiato degli Aurighi III. 10. 1 2 Red Caseggiato degli Larario I.9.3 3 Green Caseggiato del Trapazoidal III.4.1 4 Blue Caseggiato III.1.1 5

280

Key for Appendix III Table 1 and Maps in Appendix IV 1-23.

RS I Rectangular shaft: A type RS I shaft with an iron nail in the center of the shaft. VISIBLE LOCATION STR Stairs F Façade of a building CRT Courtyard ICOR Internal Corridor ECOR External Corridor many time associated with external stairs OTH Location of shaft or pipe in a generic architectural space or unspecified location. IRON NAILS B Both: Iron nails found on both sides of the shaft type C Center: Iron nail found in the center of RS I L Left: Iron nails found left of the shaft type from a frontal view R Right: Iron nails found right of the shaft type from a frontal view NV None Visible: no initial evidence of iron nails * F on maps locates Forica

281

* The maps are based after V. Mannucci’s 1995 publication Atlante di Ostia Antica. Scale and measurement are based on the assigned projection of ETRS 1999. See Stöger 2011: 52-54 for a dissucion of the Atlante map and its purpose. All building numbers, and labels were created by K. Tipton. The intent is to demonstrate the location of the upper floor toilets and their type. All the mapping was done by hand without the assistance of GPS. Thank you to H. Stöger.

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

APPENDIX V: PERMISSION

305