POMPEIAN PERISTYLE GARDENS As a Means of Socioeconomic Representation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Samuli Simelius POMPEIAN PERISTYLE GARDENS as a means of socioeconomic representation Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki in lecture room 1 (Metsätalo, Unioninkatu 40), on the 25th of August, 2018 at 12 o’clock. Helsinki 2018 Copyright © Samuli Simelius, 2018 Cover and layout: Maija Holappa ISBN 978-951-51-4431-7 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-51-4432-4 (PDF) Printed at Unigrafia Oy, Helsinki ABSTRACT This thesis studies the Pompeian peristyle gardens as a means of socioeconomic representation. Gar- dens featuring at least one colonnade are the main criteria for consideration. The data for the study was collected during extensive field seasons at the site, and by reading the excavation reports and other written descriptions of the gardens. Pompeian studies have previously connected the peristyle garden strongly to the function of socioeconomic representation, meaning that they were used for displaying a person’s wealth and social status. This interpretation, however, has been built on only a few select examples, and this study instead takes a whole-city wide perspective and examines all 251 peristyles gardens of Pompeii. The aim is to study how the peristyles were utilized for socioeconomic display and how the peristyles reflect their owners’ social status and wealth. In addition, this work investigates the different means of socioeconomic display used in the peristyles, and how the garden architecture and decoration of the peristyles influenced the other peristyle gardens of the city. The study takes a critical approach to the top-down model proposed by the previous scholarship on the Pompeian house. This model regards the lower classes as mere imitators of the elites. There are several similar features in the peristyle gardens and some ideas are likely transferred from the upper classes to the lower classes, but there are also significant differences between the peristyles gardens, and some peristyles suggest that the lower classes had developed innovative means to display their wealth and social status – not just passively mimicking the upper classes. The research methods can be divided into two phases. The first phase is the reconstruction of all the peristyles gardens, which includes a critical interpretation of the sources to explore the state of the gardens during the last phase before the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE. The second phase compares the reconstructed peristyles. The statistical and comparative analysis allows the exploration of what was considered normal or average in the Pompeian peristyles, which in turn permits us to suggest what was special and used as a means to impress and display high socioeconomic status. The result of this study is a classification of the peristyles into seven groups: opulent, large full, ornamental, large painting, imitation, minor decoration, and architectural peristyles. The four first mentioned types have relatively clear evidence that supports their interpretation as important means of socioeconomic display. The imitation peristyles attempt to create the image of the opulent peri- styles, but their scarce decoration indicates that they were not planned for significant display purpose. The same conclusion can be arrived at for the minor decoration peristyles, except that for these peri- styles there is not even an attempt to make the space very similar architecturally to the upper-class peristyles. The last group, the architectural peristyles, had hardly any decoration, which suggests that they were not planned to be used for display and that these peristyles were built specifically for their architectural functions: providing air and light for the house and guiding movement inside the house. The last group is clearly the largest; it has 101 peristyles while the other groups have 15–32. To sum up, more than half of the peristyles did not have any planned display function, whereas 97 peristyles – the opulent, large full, ornamental and large painting peristyles – did. Even though the peristyles ABSTRACT 3 were commonly built for purposes other than display, all of them still reflect the economic standing of their owners. Generally, the owners of the opulent peristyles were the richest, and the level of wealth declines in the order of the peristyle groups as presented, meaning the owners of the architectural peristyles were most likely the poorest. 4 ABSTRACT CONTENTS Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 7 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Objectives of the study 9 1.2 Sources and methodology 21 1.3 Defining a Pompeian peristyle garden 33 2 Functions of the peristyle garden 41 2.1 Architectural function of peristyle 41 2.2 Activities in the peristyle 43 2.3 Inhabitants and visitors in the peristyles 59 3 The parameters of socioeconomic display 71 3.1 A comprehensive analysis of Pompeii and the difficulties of sourcing: 71 plantings as an example 3.2 Quality of building 75 3.3 Size of the peristyle: area 77 3.4 Columns: the power of porticoes 83 3.5 Pools and decorative basins 89 3.6 Fountains 92 3.7 Sculpture 95 3.8 Wall paintings 100 3.9 Floor decoration 108 4 Classification of peristyles according to their means of economic display 110 4.1 Opulent peristyles 110 4.2 Large full peristyles 114 4.3 Ornamental peristyles 119 4.4 Large painting peristyles 122 4.5 Imitation peristyles 123 4.6 Minor decoration peristyles 126 4.7 Architectural peristyles 128 5 The economic display functions of the peristyle groups 134 5.1 The peristyle groups and the socioecomic standing 134 5.2 Architecture and size as representaions of wealth 137 in the opulent and large full peristyles 5.3 The importance of the quantity and size of decorations: 140 the means of display in the ornamental and large painting peristyles 5.4 The idea of the full peristyle: imitating the top peristyles of ompeiiP 148 5.5 The peristyles without a specifically planned display function 152 5.6 The oler of the peristyles in the architectural functions of the house 154 5.7 Other purposes of the peristyles 160 6 The social status of the ompeianP peristyle owners 164 6.1 Evidence of social status in the domestic sphere 164 6.2 Possible peristyle owners and their social status 174 6.3 Business uses of houses with peristyles 197 7 Conclusions 205 Bibliographia 214 Appendix 229 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has been a process, in which I have enjoyed the help of countless people and institu- tions. I would like to thank deeply my supervisors, Prof. Markku Peltonen and Dr. Antero Tammisto. I owe the subject of this study to Dr. Tammisto, who suggested it to me already for the subject of my Master’s thesis. That work later became the starting point of this doctoral dissertation. I also express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Kaius Tuori and Dr. Eeva-Maria Viitanen, who have participated in the supervising of the thesis. Without their comments and guidance this project would have been of a considerably lower level of quality. I am extremely grateful to the preliminary examiners, Prof. Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Prof. Steven Ellis, who was also my opponent in the final thesis defense. Their critical comments were truly inspiring, and also gave me a direction to continue my work after my dissertation. Thanks to Dr. Christopher TenWolde for proofreading my dissertation and guiding the language towards proper English. Also, thanks to Juliana van Roggen for commenting and help- ing with the language as well. The remaining mistakes are naturally my own. I would like to express my gratitude to Maija Holoppa for editing the layout of this final publication. In Helsinki, there were two major projects which made this dissertation possible: the Expeditio Pompeiana Universitatis Helsingiensis and the Public and Private in the Roman House (PPRH) proj- ect. I thank all the members of both projects. You have offered me valued inspiration and support. In addition, my deepest gratitude goes to the institutes which have financed these projects. In particular, the Eemil Aaltonen foundation, which contributed a major part of my PhD funding, either directly or through the PPRH project. The writing of a dissertation can be lonesome task; luckily, Dr. Laura Nissin, Dr. Juhana Heikonen, and Dr. Heta Björklund – all members of the PPRH – offered me extremely valuable peer support during this journey. I hope that there will be several occasions in the future when we can once again sit together – of course, including our project director Tuori – in some hotel room after a long day at a conference, chatting and listening to music – particularly Finnish rap music. This work would not have been possible if I did not have the opportunity to work abroad. First, I thank the Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Helsinki for the scholarship which made my studies in the Università degli Studi di Napoli L'Orientale possible during the academic years 2010–2012. In partic- ular, I would like to thank Prof. Fabrizio Pesando for being my supervisor in Naples, and Dr. Marco Giglio and Dr. Dora D’Auria for all their help, and the opportunity to participate in their excavations at Pompeii; and, of course, my warmest thanks to all their students. During these two years I was able to carry out a major part of my field work in Pompeii, and I express my gratitude to the Soprinten- denza speciale per i beni archeologici di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia and to directors Prof. Teresa Elena Cinquantaquattro, Prof. Massimo Osanna, and all the wonderful staff who helped me in Pompeii. Additionally, I want to thank Prof. Antonio Varone and Dr. Ria Berg for all the help I received from them in Pompeii. I was also able to study the Pompeian materials in the archaeological museum of Naples, for which I am grateful to director Prof.