The porta stabia neighborhood at pompeii: volume i structure, stratigraphy, and space 1st edition st

Page 1


https://ebookmass.com/product/the-porta-stabia-neighborhood-

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you

Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

The Porta Stabia Neighborhood at Pompeii Volume I: Structure, Stratigraphy, and Space Steven J. R. Ellis

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-porta-stabia-neighborhood-atpompeii-volume-i-structure-stratigraphy-and-space-steven-j-r-ellis/ ebookmass.com

Quantum Space: Loop Quantum Gravity and the Search for the Structure of Space, Time, and the Universe Baggott

https://ebookmass.com/product/quantum-space-loop-quantum-gravity-andthe-search-for-the-structure-of-space-time-and-the-universe-baggott/

ebookmass.com

Physics I For Dummies, 3rd Edition Steven Holzner

https://ebookmass.com/product/physics-i-for-dummies-3rd-editionsteven-holzner/ ebookmass.com

https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-0133867541-thephilosophers-way-thinking-critically-about-profound-ideas/ ebookmass.com

Project Management For Dummies, 6th Edition Jonathan L. Portny

https://ebookmass.com/product/project-management-for-dummies-6thedition-jonathan-l-portny/

ebookmass.com

Migrant Construction Workers in Times of Crisis: Worker Agency, (Im)mobility Practices and Masculine Identities among Albanians in Southern Europe Iraklis Dimitriadis

https://ebookmass.com/product/migrant-construction-workers-in-timesof-crisis-worker-agency-immobility-practices-and-masculine-identitiesamong-albanians-in-southern-europe-iraklis-dimitriadis/ ebookmass.com

The Complexities of John Hejduk’s Work: Exorcising Outlines, Apparitions and Angels J. Kevin Story

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-complexities-of-john-hejduks-workexorcising-outlines-apparitions-and-angels-j-kevin-story/

ebookmass.com

Better than Alpha Christopher M. Schelling [Christopher M. Schelling]

https://ebookmass.com/product/better-than-alpha-christopher-mschelling-christopher-m-schelling/ ebookmass.com

A Pharmacology Primer: Techniques for More Effective and Strategic Drug Discovery 5th Edition Terry P. Kenakin

https://ebookmass.com/product/a-pharmacology-primer-techniques-formore-effective-and-strategic-drug-discovery-5th-edition-terry-pkenakin/

ebookmass.com

Job

https://ebookmass.com/product/job-readiness-for-it-and-ites-r-anand/

ebookmass.com

THE PORTA STABIA NEIGHBORHOOD AT POMPEII

The Porta Stabia Neighborhood at Pompeii

Volume I

Structure, Stratigraphy, and Space

STEVEN J. R. ELLIS, ALLISON L. C. EMMERSON, AND KEVIN D. DICUS

With major contributions by Eric E. Poehler, Jenny R. Kreiger, Gina Tibbott, Mark Robinson, Christopher F. Motz, Ivo van der Graaff, Ambra Spinelli, Jacqueline DiBiasie-Sammons, Catherine K. Baker, Gregory Tucker, Sarah Wenner, Aimée Scorziello, and John Wallrodt

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Steven J. R. Ellis, Allison L. C. Emmerson, and Kevin D. Dicus 2023

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023934094

ISBN 978–0–19–286694–3 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192866943.001.0001

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Preface and Acknowledgments vii

List of Illustrations ix

List of Tables xviii

List of Abbreviations xix

PART I

1. Introduction 3

2. Methodology 23

3. The Database Christopher F. Motz and John Wallrodt 31

4. The History of Excavation and Research Activity in Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Ambra Spinelli and Aimée Scorziello 42

5. A Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Gregory Tucker 60

6. The Architecture of the Porta Stabia Neighborhood: Method, Design, and Construction Eric E. Poehler 70

7. The Geomorphology and Topography of the Area of the Porta Stabia Excavations (Insulae VIII.7 and I.1) Mark Robinson 90

PART II

8. Phase 1: The Earliest Structures and Surfaces (Sixth–Third Centuries bce) 101

9. Phase 2: The Beginning of Production Activity (Third–Second Centuries bce) 121

10. Phase 3: The Establishment of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (c. 125–c. 80 bce) 129

11. Phase 4: Fish-Salting and Other Activities across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (Early First Century bce–Early First Century ce)

12. Phase 5: The Rise of Retail in the Early Imperial Period (Early First Century ce) 200

13. Phase 6: The Julio-Claudian Years (Mid-First Century ce)

14. Phase 7: The Final Years Following the Earthquake/s (Early 60s–79 ce)

15. The Properties through the Phases

PART III

16. The Porta Stabia Gate and Fortification Ivo van der Graaff

17. The Porta Stabia Necropolis Allison L. C. Emmerson

18. Conclusions

19. Appendices 357

19.1 The Bar Counters of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Sarah Wenner 358

19.2 The Cisterns of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Christopher F. Motz 361

19.3 The Cooking Facilities of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Jenny R. Kreiger 378

19.4 The Doorstops of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Steven J. R. Ellis 384

19.5 The Drains of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Christopher F. Motz 388

19.6 The Fish-Salting Vats of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Christopher F. Motz 404

19.7 The Floors of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Jenny R. Kreiger 413

19.8 The Quarry Areas of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Eric E. Poehler 417

19.9 The Ritual Contexts in Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Jenny R. Kreiger and Ambra Spinelli 429

19.10 The Soak-Aways of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Catherine K. Baker 435

19.11 The Thresholds of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Steven J. R. Ellis 445

19.12 The Votive Objects of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Kevin D. Dicus 452

19.13 The Toilets and Cesspits of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Kevin D. Dicus 460

19.14 The Graffiti and Dipinti of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 Jacqueline DiBiasie-Sammons 468

20. The Contexts 476

21. The Harris Matrices 687

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Bringing archaeological excavations of any size and scale to publication is often an insuperable challenge. The types of data we create are not always suited to a clear description and an ordered narrative, irrespective of print or digital media. The data are normally incomplete, the information often unclear. Moreover, the time it takes to undertake the fieldwork, and then to commit that data and information to text can seem endless; indeed, the whole process can often outlast the various individuals and groups and teams responsible for bringing it all together. So in spite of the necessity to sufficiently publish archaeological excavations, the experience of doing so serves as a reminder as to why too few archaeological projects reach this milestone. That we have ourselves arrived at this point comes with another, overwhelming reminder: all of what follows is entirely due to the excellent and tireless efforts of many individuals and institutions that supported our fieldwork, the research, and the ultimate publication of our efforts.

The excavations were carried out under the auspices of the University of Cincinnati, with generous financial and institutional support from the Semple Fund of the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati. More than supporting the excavation of each field season since 2007, the financial support from Cincinnati allowed for ongoing field research throughout the off-seasons as well as, and crucially, the provision of multiple study seasons. Further financial and institutional support came through grants and fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, the Loeb Classical Library Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Academy in Rome, and the Archaeological Institute of America. We remain ever-grateful for the financial support of Ann and Harry Santen, John Yarmick, Charlotte and David Ackert, and an anonymous donor.

At the heart of our endeavors was the Parco Archeologico di Pompei, to which we remain ever grateful. Having begun in 2005, our project has experienced multiple generations of administrative support and on-site collaborations with staff. Among the many we take pride in thanking, we want first to thank Pier Giovanni Guzzo for his invitation to carry out the research and for his kindness and hospitality in those first years to help ensure that our team became established. A succession of superintendents followed, and we thank them all for their continued support: Mariarosaria Salvatore, Giuseppe Proietti, Jeannette Papadopoulos, Teresa Cinquantaquattro,

Massimo Osanna, and not least Gabriel Zuchtriegel. Especial thanks is due to both Massimo Osanna and Gabriel Zuchtriegel for providing such critical support for our project once we had transitioned from excavation campaigns to the study of the materials. Their leadership and support extended throughout the Superintendency, and we are forever grateful to the following for their ongoing assistance and guidance of our fieldwork, and not least their friendship: Grete Stefani, Antonio Varone, Antonio D’Ambrosio, Ernesta Rizzo, Giuseppe Di Martino, Patrizia Tabone, Ulderico Franco, Enrico Busiello, Laura Desposito, Luana Toniolo, Stefania Giudice, Giuseppe Scarpati, and Raffaele Martinelli. At risk of singling out one individual from among the many, still something special must be said of Giuseppe Di Martino. To him we owe our highest gratitude, and echo the same from all of the many members of our team from over the years. Peppe took a keen interest in enabling not only our work on site but also our well-being on a daily basis in Pompei. His care and friendship continues to this day, now long after his retirement.

The project owes an enormous debt to the American Academy in Rome. As an affiliated archaeological project of the Academy, we enjoyed enormously generous infrastructural and intellectual support over the years. From the use of various spaces for the storage and study of the materials to the hosting of regular meetings and events that brought the three affiliated projects together (Morgantina, Gabii, and ourselves), the Academy provided the perfect Italian base for our efforts beyond Pompeii itself. Moreover, the three primary authors of the present volume each were awarded Rome Prizes, which helped the production of this volume enormously: Steven Ellis in 2012–13 (National Endowment for the Humanities / Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Post-Doctoral Rome Prize), Kevin Dicus in 2016–17 (Andrew Heiskell PostDoctoral Rome Prize), and Allison Emmerson in 2018–19 (Emeline Hill Richardson Post-Doctoral Rome Prize). Thanks to a Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies, Steven Ellis was able to return to the Academy for the academic year of 2015–16 to focus on the production of the present volume. Thus, the American Academy in Rome has played a very special role in the success of our field seasons as much as our ongoing publication program. Beyond the institutional support itself, we thank especially the individual efforts of Chris Celenza, Kim Bowes, John Ochsendorf, and Lynne Lancaster. And with much of our time at the Academy being spent in the library,

we give warm thanks to Sebastian Hierl and Paolo Imperatore for their endless support along the way.

Critical to the success of reaching publication are the publishers themselves, Oxford University Press. We thank OUP for their trust, support, and willingness to take on projects of this type. And central to all of this was Charlotte Loveridge, who has been with us from the beginning. Charlotte’s guidance through all the many steps of the process was always delivered with a kindness and patience that will forever be appreciated. Our thanks on this front goes also to Joanna Harris, Jamie Mortimer, Saraswathi Ethiraju, and Gillian Northcott Liles. We are also very grateful to Jennifer Sacher for her advice on so many matters of the publication process.

Of all the challenges of bringing an archaeological project to publication, one of the most pressing is that of conveying the gratitude we have to the many members of our team. Their critical role in publishing the excavation should at once be evident in their many contributions throughout this volume. But as for any successful archaeological project, their efforts have underpinned the project at every stage from setup through fieldwork and post-excavation seasons, and now the publication. And with so much time being taken by field seasons, we extend our appreciation to their families and loved ones for supporting their efforts and their time away from home. Gary Devore deserves our first expression of appreciation, given his essential role in the earliest years of our project. Aimee Scorziello and Ambra Spinelli were instrumental in helping to manage all the various moving pieces of the project. To the supervisors of each trench, we owe a special note of thanks: John Bennett, Christian Cloke, Flint Dibble, Alex Marko, Amanda Pavlick, Nick Ray, Taco Terpstra, Gina Tibbott, and Sam Wood. Eric Poehler brought together the study of the architecture, and was instrumental in helping us to think through the phasing as well as the final writing of the present volume. The total station survey was undertaken by Sydney

Evans, its conversion to a model by Gregory Tucker. The studies of the bioarchaeological and artifactual materials, which will feature in successive volumes but of course underpin much of the present, were carried out by: Leigh Lieberman, Catherine Baker, Laure Marest, and Allison Sterrett-Krause on the artifacts; Archer Martin, Esperança Huguet Enguita, Sedef Kinacioglu, and Albert Ribera on the ceramics; Giacomo Pardini on the coins; and Mark Robinson, Andrew Fairbairn, Michael MacKinnon, and Jennifer Robinson on the bioarchaeological remains. Many of the illustrations for the present volume were prepared by Gina Tibbott, while it was Gareth Blayney who built the site reconstruction. Alison Whyte expertly led our conservation program. Chris Motz deserves much praise for managing, maintaining, and developing the database–first designed by John Wallrodt–on which so much of our project and this publication depends. And it was Jenny Kreiger who brought together all of the appendices and their authors in the present volume, which we believe are a real highlight of our work.

As much as we take pride in thanking everyone here, our one main hope is that the many students and other individuals who joined us each year will know the extent of our appreciation for the time they spent with us and the contributions they have each made to the field work, the research, and the publication. It is impossible to thank everyone adequately, but we are ourselves reminded of our appreciation on every page that follows.

Finally, we extend heartfelt thanks to our own families, who supported us through so many years of work at the Porta Stabia, and without whom this volume would not have been possible.

Steven Ellis Allison Emmerson

Kevin Dicus

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

1.01

1.03 The site-wide Harris Matrix for the excavations of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1; each unit represents the phase of a trench (the horizontal arrangement is according to the spatial relationships of and between each property)

1.04

1.06

VIII.7 and I.1 during

of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 3a and 3b

1.07 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 4a, 4b, and 4c

1.08 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 5a and 5b

1.09

1.11 Reconstructed view of the Porta Stabia neighborhood, looking north (digital reconstruction by Gareth Blayney on behalf of the project)

3.05 Screenshot of the Finds tab including the main small finds list page

3.06 Screenshot of the list of small finds recovered from selected SU

3.07 Screenshot of the list of absolute dates for artifacts from SUs in selected phase

3.08 Screenshot of the detailed information about the selected small find (cf. Figs. 3.05 and 3.06) 40

3.09 Screenshot of the page for analyzing spatial, chronological, and contextual distributions of artifact classes. The number of structural fragments is shown here as a percentage of all small finds recovered from different contextual categories of SUs

4.01 La Vega’s 1809 map of what would become the Porta Stabia neighborhood, indicating the partial exposure of the northern limits of Insula VIII.7

4.02 Tascone’s 1879 map of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

4.03 Jacob Hackert’s 1799 oil painting of Pompeii, with the highest parts of insula VIII.7 exposed and those of Insula I.1 not yet excavated. Attingham Park, The Berwick Collection, National Trust; inventory no. 608992 46

4.04 Close-up of Jacob Hackert’s 1799 rendering of the rear (westernmost) area of Insula VIII.7; the awning against the Quadriporticus may have covered the lime pit. Attingham Park, The Berwick Collection, National Trust; inventory no. 608992 46

4.05 The outline of the lime pit survives against the outside of the Quadriporticus (WF 178)

4.06 The distribution of paintings and inscriptions across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (courtesy of G. Tibbott)

4.07 The quantity of portable finds sorted by material class across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (courtesy of Gina Tibbott)

4.08 The distribution of stray coins found in the 79 ce contexts for Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (courtesy of Gina Tibbott)

4.09 Drawing by Discanno of the painted lararium (Hospitium Hermetis) in Room 23 of I.1.6–9, WF 1220 (after PPM I, 7, no. 4)

4.10 The triclinium and masonry table in Room 46 of VIII.7.6–9, viewed from the south

4.11 Close-up of masonry table in Room 46 of VIII.7.6–9, with a staging of the various objects found nearby

4.12 The military diploma of Marcus Surus Garasenus, in two leaves. Side A is the visible, principal text; Sides B and C are the inner, concealed “copies” of the text; Side D is the visible collection of witnesses (with evidence for the bindings and seals). Leaves are 16.5 cm × 12.5 cm. Photos courtesy of MANN

47

52

54

55

56

57

57

58

5.01 Aerial image of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 with GPR data indicating shallow depth results 60

5.02 The presence of walls from Phase 4 in the GPR survey of I.1.3–5 (Time-slice 06: ~0.64–0.81m) 64

5.03 The presence of wall (SU 1050) in Room 7, farther north of its excavation in Room 1 of VIII.7.1–4 64

5.04 The corner of the Phase 4a tank in Room 9 of VIII.7.1–4; note the potential presence of tanks at a similar level in Room 7 (Time-slice 06: ~1.05–1.30m)

5.05 The presence of Fish-Salting Vat 5 in the GPR survey of Room 101 of I.1.1–2 (Time-slice 06: ~0.64–0.81m) 65

5.06 The presence of Drain 25 northward of its excavation in Room 78 of VIII.7.13–15; note also the potential presence of Drain 30 (Time-slice 04: ~0.63–0.88m)

5.07 The presence of Drain 3 in VIII.7.1–4 (Time-slice 03: ~0.42–0.67m)

5.08 The shallow, structural feature in Room 51 of VIII.7.9–11 (Time-slice 04: ~0.63–0.88m)

6.01 Reconstructed view of the Porta Stabia neighborhood, looking north (drawing by Gareth Blayney on behalf of the project)

6.02 The retail shops, bars, restaurants, and inns of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

6.03 The inns at the Porta Stabia neighborhood

6.04 VIII.7.12 in its final phase

6.05 The restaurants at the Porta Stabia neighborhood

6.06 The bars at the Porta Stabia neighborhood

6.07

shops at the Porta

6.08 An example of the use of opus incertum at the Porta Stabia neighborhood (the south wall (WF 1061) in Room 108 at I.1.2)

6.09

6.10 The Wall Construction Units (WCUs) for Insula VIII.7

6.11 The Wall Construction Units (WCUs) for Insula I.1

7.01 The urban landscape of the Porta Stabia as seen from the air, looking

7.02 The lava cliff to the west of the Porta Stabia, beneath Insulae VIII.2

7.03 Exposed lava in the north face of Trench 26000 in Room 65 of VIII.7.12

7.04 Exposed lava in the courtyard of the house at I.2.2–4. Photo courtesy of Eric Poehler

7.05 The location of excavated trenches across Insulae VIII.7, I.1, and the Porta Stabia

7.06 The typical geological sequence (as encountered here in Trench 51000) of lava (SU 51131) beneath the yellow Mercato ash (with white lapilli at the top; SU 51125), and the brown prehistoric paleosol/ash above (also SU 51125). (scale = 50 cm)

7.07 Accumulation of colluvial soil in Trench 54000 (within later Room 106 of I.1.2). (scale = 50 cm)

8.01 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 1a

8.02 The Phase 1a road surface, with possible wheel rut, in Trench 52000 under (later) I.1.6–9

8.03 Location of the pappamonte foundations of a Phase 1a building in the southern area of (later) Insula I.1

8.04 The pappamonte foundations in Trench 54000 (SU 54121); Room 106 of (later) I.1.2

8.05 Section view of the construction trench for the pappamonte foundations in Trench 54000; Room 106 of (later) I.1.2

8.06 The two pappamonte blocks in the northeast corner (right of photo) of Room 37 in (later) VIII.7.7–8

8.07 The tree-throw pit (SU 50094) in Trench 50000; viewed from the west. (scale = 50 cm)

8.08 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 1c

8.09 The hard-packed gray volcanic ash road (of Phase 1c) overlying the earlier Mercato ash road (from Phase 1a); Room 118 of (later) I.1.3–5

8.10 Section of sequence of gray ash road revealed in Trench 54000; Room 106 of (later) I.1.2. (scale = 50 cm)

8.11 Section of gray ash surface in window trench southeast of later Fish-Salting Vat 6; Room 106 of (later) I.1.2. (scale = 50 cm)

8.12 The gray ash and cobblestone road (SU 54058) in Room 106 of (later) I.1.2. Shown from above (top) and in section (bottom)

8.13 Phase 1c wall (Sus 55113 and 55118) in Room 120 of (later) I.1.3–5, viewed from the south

8.14 Phase 1c wall formed by three irregularly shaped pappamonte blocks (SU 16071); Room 15 of (later) VIII.7.5–6

8.15 One of the two irregularly shaped pappamonte blocks that had been incorporated into the foundation of a later wall; Room 15 of (later) VIII.7.5–6

8.16 The single pappamonte block in the southeast corner of Room 1 in (later) VIII.7.1–4, topped by courses of small lava stones; viewed from the north

8.17 Ritual pit cut in association with the pappamonte foundation (Ritual Context 11) in Room 15 of (later) VIII.7.5–6; viewed from the north

8.18 Ritual pit (Ritual Context 11) in Room 15 of (later) VIII.7.5–6 during excavation; viewed from the east

9.01 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 2

9.02 Kiln 1 under Room 103 of (later) I.1.1/10; viewed from the north

9.03 Outline of the shape of Kiln 1 under Room 103 of (later) I.1.1/10; viewed from the south

9.04 The rounded tank in Room 37 of (later) VIII.7.7–8

9.05 The rounded tank with the pipe and perforated lead sheet in Room 37 of (later) VIII.7.7–8

9.06

Fish-Salting Vat 9 in Room 106 of (later) I.1.2

9.07 Tank in Room 106 of (later) I.1.2

9.08 The “sidewalk” surface beneath (the later) Room 9 of VIII.7.1–4; viewed from the west

10.01 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 3a

10.02 Plan of Property VIII.7.1–4 during Phase 3a

10.03 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–8 during Phase 3a

10.04 Plan of Property VIII.7.9–13 during Phase 3a

10.05 The cesspit (Waste Feature 14) in Room 58 of (later) VIII.7.12

10.06 The eastern tank in Room 48 of VIII.7.9–13

Waste Feature 13 in (later) Rooms 57/66 of VIII.7.12

10.08 Soak-Away 17 built with WCU 014 in Room 68 of (later) VIII.7.14–15; viewed from the north

10.09 Plan of Property I.1.1–2 during Phase 3a

10.10 The poured mortar foundation for the eastern boundary wall of I.1.1–2 (WCU 1030); viewed from above

10.11 The poured mortar foundation for the eastern boundary wall of I.1.1–2 (WCU 1030); viewed in section

10.12 Kiln 2 in Room 105 of I.1.1–2

10.13 Interior of Kiln 2, with sections of the floor surface

10.14 Interior of Kiln 2 during excavation with an olla in situ; form of the vessel pulled from the kiln

10.15 Ritual Context 12 in Room 103 of I.1.1–2 during excavation; below: the nine votive cups at the time of excavation

10.16 The public well in Room 102 of I.1.1–2; note the increased wear marks along the western internal face

10.17 The four sections of the well in Room 102 of I.1.1–2, with the coring to indicate the nature and depths of the deposits

10.18 The paving of the via Stabiana

10.19 The earlier curbstones of the via Stabiana; note also the later lead pipe that fed the fountain, as well as Drain 1 (at left). Viewed from the south

10.20

and I.1 during Phase 3b

VIII.7.9–13 during Phase 3b

10.23 Drain 21 leading toward Waste Feature 14 in Room 58 of VIII.7.9–13

10.24 Plan of Property I.1.1–2 during Phase 3b

11.01 Aerial view indicating the properties (VIII.7.13–15, I.1.3–5, and I.1.6–9) that were newly constructed in Phase 4; viewed from the west

Plan of

VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 4a

VIII.7.13–15 during Phase 4a

11.04 Drain 25 in the northwest corner of (later) VIII.7.15; viewed from the west

11.05 Stone structure (SU 28047) in the northwest corner of (later) VIII.7.15; viewed from the south

11.06 Terracotta fragments of a left foot (TC28-5) and a face (TC28-6); both from SU 28012

11.07 Plan of Property I.1.3–5 during Phase 4a

11.08 The “workbench” along the southern side of (later) Room 118 of I.1.3–5

11.09 Soak-Away 8 within Waste Feature 20 in (later) Room 118 of I.1.3–5

11.10 Soak-Away 8 (Punic amphora of type: T-7.4.1.1) within Waste Feature 20 after the removal of the fills (SUs 51072 and 51087); in (later) Room 118 of I.1.3–5, viewed from the south

11.11

11.12

The pit (SU 55098) in Room 120 of I.1.3–5 following excavation; viewed from the south

The lava bedrock at the bottom of the pit (SU 55098) in Room 120 of I.1.3–5

11.13 The footholds cut into the pit (SU 55098) in Room 120 of I.1.3–5

11.14 Plan of Property I.1.6–9 during Phase 4a

11.15

Fish-Salting Vat 7 in Room 122 of I.1.6–9; viewed from the south

11.16 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–8 during Phase 4a

11.17

Fish-Salting Vat 1 (at left, beneath entrance) in Room 32 of VIII.7.5–8; note also Cistern 5 (center) and the column base (at right), both of Phase 5a

11.18 Waste Feature 12 in Room 37 of VIII.7.5–8

11.19 The opus signinum surface (SU 25023) in Room 20 of VIII.7.5–8

11.20 The Sarno limestone blocks that formed the latrine (Waste Feature 2) in Room 20 of VIII.7.5–8

11.21 Plan of Property VIII.7.9–12 during Phase 4a

11.22

Fish-Salting Vat 2 just inside the entrance (at left) to Room 38 of VIII.7.9–10; viewed from the north

11.23 Cistern 4 in Room 38 of VIII.7.9–12; visible also is Fish-Salting Vat 2 at left (not yet fully excavated), and Soak-Away 1

11.24 Fish-Salting Vat 3 in Room 48 at entrance VIII.7.11

11.25 Fish-Salting Vat 4 in Room 58 at entrance VIII.7.12

11.26 The tannery tanks in Room 56 of VIII.7.9–12; viewed from above looking west

11.27 The tannery tanks in Room 56 of VIII.7.9–12; viewed from the south with footholds visible in the southern tanks

11.28 The amphora base, with the ash-based contents, in situ in Room 55 of VIII.7.9–12

11.29 Plan of Property I.1.1–2 during Phase 4a

11.30 Fish-Salting Vat 5 in Room 101 of I.1.1–2; viewed from the east. Note also Threshold 16 and Bar Counter 1

11.31 Fish-Salting Vat 6 in Room 106 of I.1.1–2; viewed from the west. Note also Bar Counter 2

11.32 The bronze spatula (BR54-14) and lead weight, shaped in the form of a Greco-Italic amphora (PB54-3), recovered from the lowermost deposit of Fish-Salting Vat 6 (SU 54044) in Room 106 of I.1.1–2 179

11.33 The tile (SU 58067) and amphora (SU 58066) in situ in Room 107/8 of I.1.1–2, and after excavation

11.34 Plan of Property VIII.7.1–4 during Phase 4a

11.35 The tank (SU 24033) and dolium base (SU 24026) in Room 9 of VIII.7.3–5; viewed from the west

11.36 Plan of Property I.1.3–5 during Phase 4b

11.37 The architectural terracottas recovered from I.1.3–5 (above), with one (the larger) alongside those from I.9.9 (below)

11.38 Locations for the architectural terracottas recovered from I.3–5 and I.9.9

11.39 Foundations for the brick pillar (WCU 1058) in I.1.3–5; viewed from the west

11.40 Cistern 8 in Room 118 of I.1.3–5; viewed from the west

11.41 Doorstop 3 in Room 118 of I.1.3–5

11.42 Part of the shaft of the well in I.1.3–5, beneath the later (Phase 5a) Cooking Facility 9; viewed from the west

11.43 Plan of Property I.1.6–9 during Phase 4b

11.44 Fish-Salting Vat 8 in Room 122 of I.1.6–9; viewed from the south

11.45 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–8 during Phase 4b

11.46 Cistern 3 in (later) Room 44 of VIII.7.5–8: left southern end (note the Phase 5a blockage and the Phase 7 repairs); right northern end; bottom mouth

11.47 Plan of Property VIII.7.9–11 during Phase 4b

11.48 Plan of Property VIII.7.12 during Phase 4b

11.49 Plan of Property I.1.3–5 during Phase 4c

11.50 The collapse of the surface (SU 59047), and Cistern 9 (SU 59039) in Room 114 of I.1.3–5; viewed from the north

11.51 Plan of Property I.1.6–9 during Phase 4c

11.52 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–8 during Phase 4c

11.53 The basin (SU 16020) in Room 15 of VIII.7.5–8

11.54 Plan of Property VIII.7.12 during Phase 4c

12.01 An indication of the types of properties (as they will appear in their final form), noting the predominance of retailing and hospitality activities that mostly appear from Phase 5

12.02 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 5a

12.03 Plan of Property VIII.7.9–11 during Phase 5a

12.04 Drain 18 along with the filling of Fish-Salting Vat 3 in Room 48 of VIII.7.9–11; viewed from the west. Note also Threshold 11

12.05 The viewshed from the street through to the rear room (Room 56) of VIII.7.9–11

12.06 a. Drain 17 passing through the newly opened doorway that had previously separated properties VIII.7.5–8 (at right) and VIII.7.9–11 (at left); viewed from the west. b. Inlet basin to Drain 17 in Room 44 of VIII.7.9–11

12.07 The catchment in Drain 17 (above) with lava capstone (below) in VIII.7.9–11

12.08 The projection of the downpipe (SUs 15009 and 2065) from Room 55 southward into a basin (SU 2034) in Room 46 in VIII.7.9–11; note the north wall of the tank from Phase 4b

12.09 The water system in Room 46 of VIII.7.9–11: top, overflow from the first settling (and display) basin; middle, the second settling basin; bottom, access to Cistern 3

12.10 Cooking Facility 4 in Room 44 of VIII.7.9–11; viewed from the north

12.11 The exposed eastern part of the triclinium in Room 46 of VIII.7.9–11; viewed from the north

12.12 Plan of Property VIII.7.7–8 during Phase 5a

12.13 Cistern 5 in Room 32 of VIII.7.7–8

12.14 Inside Cistern 5 in Room 32 of VIII.7.7–8; the three votive cups during excavation

12.15 Plan of Property VIII.7.12 during Phase 5a

12.16 The above-ground tank and Cooking Facility 6 in Room 66 of VIII.7.12: above, viewed from the west (and above); below, viewed from the south

12.17 Plan of Property I.1.1–2 during Phase 5a

12.18 The Phase 5a fills of Fish-Salting Vat 5 in Room 101 of I.1.1–2; note Drain 33 (Phase 5b)

12.19 The storage vessel (SU 54052) during excavation in Room 106 of I.1.1–2

12.20 Plan of Property I.1.6–9 during Phase 5a

12.21 Decorated wall plaster and opus signinum flooring in the northeast corner of Room 132 of I.1.6–9; note also Bar Counter 4

12.22 Bar Counter 4 and Drain 41 in Room 132 of I.1.6–9

12.23 Drain 41 in Room 132 of I.1.6–9: above, the eastward stretch (with capping removed) along Bar Counter 4; below, the southward stretch toward Room 123

12.24

VIII.7.1–4 during Phase 5a

12.25 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–6 during Phase 5a

12.26 The capping of Waste Feature 2 in Room 20 in VIII.7.5–6 (at right); note the new opening formed from an amphora

12.27 Waste Feature 3 in Room 20 of VIII.7.5–6; viewed from the east

12.28 Waste Feature 1 in Room 20 of VIII.7.5–6; viewed from the east

12.29 Plan of Property VIII.7.13–15 during Phase 5a

12.30 The arrangement of two small, narrow rooms uncovered in (later) Room 78 of VIII.7.13–15; viewed from the south

12.31 Waste Feature 5 in (later) Room 78 of VIII.7.13–15; viewed from the west

12.32 Plan of Property I.1.3–5 during Phase 5a

12.33 Doorstop 4 (above Doorstop 3) directly behind the “night-door” of Threshold 20 in Room 118 of I.1.3–5: above, viewed from the west; below, viewed from the east

12.34 Bar Counter 3 in Room 118 of I.1.3–5; viewed from the west

12.35 The low-walled feature on the sidewalk fronting I.1.5; note the cobblestone surface of Phase 4c

12.36 Cooking Facility 9 in Room 110 of I.1.3–5: above, viewed from the west; below, viewed from the south to show opening

12.37 The eastward extension of the Quadriporticus

12.38 The (northern) section of fill in Drain 25 in VIII.7.13–15

12.39 Drain 30 in the vicolo north of Insula VIII.7; viewed from the north

12.40 Plan of Property I.1.1–2/10 during Phase 5b

12.41 The Fountain at the Porta Stabia; note also Drain 1

12.42 Drain 33 in Room 101 of I.1.1–2/10; viewed from the west

12.43 Bar Counter 1 in Room 101 of I.1.1–2/10; viewed from the north

12.44 The facade of I.1.1–2/10, with Bar Counter 1 blocking Entrance 1a

12.45 Doorstop 6 in Room 106 of I.1.1–2/10; viewed from the west

12.46 Bar Counter 2 in Room 106 of I.1.1–2/10

12.47 Cooking Facility 8 in Room 108 of I.1.1–2/10; viewed from the east

12.48 Plan of Property VIII.7.1–4 during Phase 5b

12.49 The four tanks along the north of Room 1 of VIII.7.1–4

12.50 Plan of Property VIII.7.9–11 during Phase 5b

12.51 Cooking Facility 5 in Room 53 of VIII.7.9–11; viewed from the north

12.52 The construction fills associated with each phase of development, indicating the spike in both Phase 4 and Phase 5

12.53 The number of finds associated with each phase of development, with a pronounced spike in Phase 5

13.01 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 6

13.02 Plan of Property VIII.7.1–4 during Phase 6

13.03 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–6 during Phase 6

13.04 Amphora set into the basin (from Phase 5a) in northwest corner of Room 11 of VIII.7.5–6

13.05 Possible base to a staircase in the southwest corner of Room 11 of VIII.7.5–6

13.06 Plan of Property VIII.7.7–8 during Phase 6

13.07 The course of Drain 10 and Drain 11, running west–east, in VIII.7.7–8

13.08 The overflow system of Drain 11 between the cesspit (SU 17020), its new head (SU 17006), and secondary catchment basin (SU 17100) in Room 37 of VIII.7.7–8; viewed from the northeast

13.09 The merging of Drain 10 and Drain 11 in Room 32 of VIII.7.7–8 before exiting onto the via Stabiana

13.10 Plan of Property VIII.7.9-11 during Phase 6

13.11 Plan of Property VIII.7.12 during Phase 6

13.12 Doorstop 2 (at left and above Doorstop 1 from Phase 5a) in Room 58 of VIII.7.12; viewed from the west

13.13 The passage of Drain 24, passing to the south of Waste Feature 14 in Room 58 of VIII.7.12; viewed from the west

13.14 Plan of Property VIII.7.13–15 during Phase 6

13.15 Plan of Property I.1.1–2/10 during Phase 6

13.16 Plan of Property I.1.3–5 during Phase 6

13.17 Threshold 32, between Rooms 110 and 114 of I.1.3–5, raised in Phase 6 (on fill SU 59041); viewed from the west (Room 110)

13.18 The slight widening of the via Stabiana outside I.1.3–5; viewed from the west

13.19 Plan of Property I.1.6–9 during Phase 6

13.20 Bar Counter 4 in Room 132 of I.1.6–9; viewed from the southwest

14.01 Plan of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 during Phase 7

14.02 Plan of Property I.1.1/10 and Property I.1.2 during Phase 7a

14.03 Plan of Property I.1.1/10 during Phase 7a

14.04 The toilet (Waste Feature 6) in the southeast corner of Room 103 of I.1.1/10

14.05 Plan of Property I.1.2 during Phase 7a

14.06 Plan of Property I.1.3–5 during Phase 7a

14.07 Out-of-plane failure in the rear (easternmost) wall of I.1.3–5

14.08 Plan of Property I.1.6–9 during Phase 7a

14.09 The portion (of a once larger section?) of lava pavement across Room 126 of I.1.6–9; viewed from the south

14.10 Plan of Property VIII.7.1–4 during Phase 7a

14.11 The blocking of Ritual Context 3 in the southeast corner of Room 1 of VIII.7.1–4

14.12 The course of Drain 3 in Room 5 of VIII.7.1–4; viewed from the west

14.13 The course of Drain 3 in Room 9 of VIII.7.1–4 during excavation; viewed from the west. Note also Threshold 4

14.14 The outlet of Drain 3, from VIII.7.1–4, onto the via Stabiana

14.15 The opus signinum surface in Room 5 of VIII.7.1–4; note the missing features along the southern side of the room (at right), the masonry bench along the northern side of the room (at left), and the blocked doorway to Room 10

14.16 Plan of Property VIII.7.5–6 during Phase7a

14.17 Cooking Facility 1 in southeastern corner of Room 15 of VIII.7.5–6; viewed from the north

14.18 Construction of Cooking Facility 1 over the opus signinum surface and the layer of ash in Room 15 of VIII.7.5–6

14.19 The partial inscription (I16-1) that formed part of Threshold 35 between Room 15 and Room 16 of VIII.7.5–6 273

14.20 Waste Feature 22 in the northwest corner of Room 20 in VIII.7.5–6; note also the head to Cistern 7 against the western wall

14.21 Plan of Property VIII.7.7–8 during Phase 7a

14.22 Plan of Property VIII.7.9–11 during Phase 7a

14.23 Plan of Property VIII.7.12 during Phase 7a

14.24 Threshold 12 at VIII.7.12

14.25 Plan of Property VIII.7.13–15 during Phase 7a

14.26 The pumice within Cistern 3 of VIII.7.9–13

14.27 Impressions of both the wooden beams and the basket in the ash that filled the well in Room 102 of I.1.1/10

15.01 The ten properties of insulae VIII.7 and I.1 in 79 ce

15.02 The location of trenches in I.1.1–2 (later I.1.1/10 and I.1.2)

15.03 The phases of development for I.1.1–2 (later I.1.1/10 and I.1.2)

15.04 The location of trenches in I.1.3–5

15.05 The phases of development for I.1.3–5

The location of trenches in I.1.6–9

15.07 The phases of development for I.1.6–9

15.08 The location of trenches in VIII.7.1–4

15.09 The phases of development for VIII.7.1–4

15.10 The location of trenches in VIII.7.5–8 (later VIII.7.5–6, VIII.7.7–8, and VIII.7.9–11)

15.11 The first four phases of development for VIII.7.5–8 (later VIII.7.5–6, VIII.7.7–8, and VIII.7.9–11)

15.12 The development of VIII.7.5–6 from Phase 5

15.13 The development of VIII.7.7–8 from Phase 5

15.14 The location of trenches in VIII.7.9–13 (later VIII.7.9–11, VIII.7.12, and VIII.7.13–15)

15.15 The first four phases of development for VIII.7.9–13 (later VIII.7.9–11, VIII.7.12, and VIII.7.13–15)

15.16 The development of VIII.7.9–11 from Phase 4b

15.17 The development of VIII.7.12 from Phase 4b

15.18 The location of trenches in VIII.7.14–15 (later VIII.7.13–15)

15.19 The development of VIII.7.14–15 (later VIII.7.13–15)

16.01 Plan of the Porta Stabia with phases marked. After Van der Graaff 2018, fig. 3.2

16.02 Overview of the Porta Stabia; viewed from the south

16.03 Before (left) and after (right) the restoration. Left image after BSR ppm-0753; right after Cotugno et al. 2009, fig. 008

16.04 First drawing of the Porta Stabia. After Fiorelli 1873, pl. 14

16.05 Plan of the Porta Stabia with the presumed guardhouse marked. After Overbeck-Mau 1884, 50, fig. 15.

16.06 Overview of areas A, B, and C in Trench 14000 (Area B incorporates Trench 10000)

16.07 Mercato ash layer (SU 14227) in Trench 14000; viewed from the south

16.08 Surface (SU 14225) in Trench 14000; viewed from the west

16.09 The closing mechanism and construction surface of the earliest gate (SU 14121 and SU 14120); viewed from the east

16.10 The first surface (SU 14233) and the later altar; viewed from the west

16.11 Closing mechanism (SU 14212) with the underlying block of the earlier mechanism (SU 14234; outlined in purple); viewed from the west

16.12 Altar (Ritual Context 8) and the two niches (above, Ritual Context 1; below, Ritual Context 2)

16.13 The Oscan inscription at the Porta Stabia: above, the copy shown in the original location, in situ; below, the original on temporary display in the Scuderie del Quirinale (Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli)

16.14 Northern section of Area A in Trench 14000 showing the foundation of the vault

16.15 The Phase 4 surface (SU 14109) associated with the vault; viewed from the west. Note also the semicircular concrete base (at left)

16.16 The Phase 4 altar with its deposit of votive objects in situ; the vessel that held the votives and the votive cup

16.17 The terracotta figurine (TC10-1) associated with the Phase 4 altar

16.18 Phase 5 sidewalk in Trench 14000; viewed from the west

16.19 Inscription of L. Avianius Flaccus and Q. Spedius Firmus at the Porta Stabia

16.20 Holes for a closing mechanism cut into the vault of the Porta Stabia: above, the eastern hole; below, the western hole

17.01 The tombs of the Porta Stabia at Pompeii. After Osanna 2018, fig. 1

17.02 The two schola tombs at the Porta Stabia (the tomb of Marcus Tullius below, that of Marcus Alleius Minius above); viewed from the northwest

17.03 The tomb of Marcus Tullius at the Porta Stabia

17.04 Boundary stone of Marcus Tullius built into the northern end of the tomb

17.05 The tomb of Marcus Alleius Minius at the Porta Stabia

17.06 View south toward the tombs built over the paving stones of the via Stabiana; note also the opus reticulatum wall that flanked the western sidewalk beyond the Porta Stabia

17.07 The southernmost of the two altar tombs built upon the via Stabiana; viewed from the south

17.08 Charcoal graffiti upon the southern door to the tomb at the Porta Stabia

17.09 The northernmost of the two altar tombs built upon the via Stabiana; viewed from the north

17.10 The Tomb of the Magistrate at the Porta Stabia. After Osanna 2018, fig. 2 340 17.11 The marble relief from the Tomb of the Magistrate at the Porta Stabia. After Stefani 1998, 34

18.01 The excavation of complex urban deposits by members of the PARP:PS team

18.02 A more “typical” taphonomic process (with construction, occupation, and abandonment contexts) recovered by the University of Cincinnati excavations at Tharros, Sardinia

18.03 The spatial and chronological distribution of stratified coins at Insulae VIII.7 and I.1. After Ellis 2017, figs. 10.3 and 10.8; the chronological distribution is normalized to thirty-year ranges

18.04 The numbers of non-ceramic finds associated with each Phase of development at Insulae VIII.7 and I.1; note that Phase 5 constitutes c. 46 percent of the total finds

19.1.01 The distribution of bar counters across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.2.01 The distribution of cisterns across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.2.02 Cistern cross-section, indicating terminology and features found in the present text. After Klingborg 2017, fig. 1 363

19.2.03 The cistern head for Cistern 3 in Room 45 of VIII.7.9–11; viewed from the south

19.2.04 The puteal found in Room 20 of VIII.7.6 (Archival Find 403) 364

19.2.05 Water running down the via Stabiana towards the Porta Stabia following a rainstorm on July 5, 2011 366

19.2.06 A reconstruction of the roofed areas of each property

19.2.07 The evolution of the water capture systems in properties VIII.7.5–8, VIII.7.7–8, and VIII.7.9–11 368

19.2.08 Estimated number of times each cistern could have been filled by the rain that fell on its roof catchment area (taking an estimate from June through August of the modern era) 369

19.2.09 The size of each cistern relative to its roof catchment area

19.2.10 Drain 9 and the masonry tank (SUs 17042, 22012) in Room 37 of VIII.7.7–8; note Drain 7 to the right and Drains 10 and 11 in the bottom left 372

19.2.11 The row of amphorae next to Cistern 6 in Room 32 of VIII.7.7–8 373

19.2.12 Water filtration system at Emporiae. Photo courtesy of C. Motz

19.2.13 The interior of Cistern 10 in Rooms 123–124 of I.1.6–9

19.3.01 The distribution of cooking facilities across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 379

19.3.02 Examples of the three principal types of cooking facilities: top, hearth (Cooking Facility 4 in Room 44 of VIII.7.9–11); middle, stove (Cooking Facility 8 in Room 108 of I.1.2); and bottom, small oven (Cooking Facility 9 in Room 110 of I.1.3–5)

19.4.01 Plaster cast of doorstop system at I.7.10. Inset: in situ doorstop (Doorstop 6) in Room 106 of I.1.2 384

19.4.02 The distribution of doorstops across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

385

19.4.03 The replacement of Doorstop 3 (below) with Doorstop 4 (above) in Room 118 of I.1.3–5 386

19.5.01 The distribution of drains across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.5.02 Drain 26, fed by a downpipe, in Room 78 of VIII.7.13–15; viewed from the south

19.5.03

19.5.04

19.5.05

19.5.06

19.5.07

19.6.01

19.6.02

19.6.03

19.6.04

19.6.05

19.6.06

19.6.07

19.6.08

19.6.09

19.7.01

Drain 12 in Room 37 of VIII.7.7–8

Drain 3 in Room 5 of VIII.7.1–4

Drain 28 and Drain 29 in Room 68 of VIII.7.13–15; viewed from the north. Note the masonry feature of Phase 7a 392

Drain 1 at the southwestern limit of the via Stabiana

The chronological distribution of the drains at Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

The distribution of Fish-Salting Vats across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

Fish-Salting Vat 3 in Room 48 at entrance VIII.7.11

Fish-Salting Vats 7 and 8 in Room 122 of I.1.6–9; viewed from the south 406

Fish-Salting Vat 5 in Room 101 of I.1.1–2; viewed from the east

Fish-Salting Vat 4 in Room 58 of VIII.7.9–12

Fish-Salting Vat 1 in Room 32 of VIII.7.5–8

Fish-Salting Vat 2 (with Cistern 4 at right and Soak-Away 1 at top) in Room 38 of VIII.7.9–12; viewed from the north 409

Fish-Salting Vats 6 and 9 in Room 106 of I.1.1–2; viewed from the west. Note also Bar Counter 2

Fish-Salting Vat 9 in Room 106 of I.1.1–2; viewed from the west

The various floor construction events by phase 413

19.7.02 The main floor types encountered across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1: top, packed earth (SU 24035 in Room 9 of VIII.7.1–4); middle, mortar (SU 56027 in Room 132 of I.1.6–9); and bottom, opus signinum (SU 5003 in Room 5 of VIII.7.1–4)

19.8.01 The distribution of quarry areas across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.8.02 Evidence of wedging and fracture of the lava in Quarry Area 14 in Rooms 126 and 127 of I.1.6–9; viewed from the west. Note also the masonry platform for a lifting device

19.8.03 Number of events of quarrying for lava stone (black) and Mercato ash (gray) per phase

19.9.01 The distribution of ritual contexts across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.9.02 Examples of the principal types of ritual context across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1: a. the niche (above, also below) and altar (below) at the Porta Stabia; b. the painted lararium in Room 23 of I.1.6–9 (see Fig. 4.09); and c. the in situ votives in Ritual Context 11 from Room 15 of (later) VIII.7.5–6 (see Fig. 8.18)

414

419

420

422

430

19.9.03 The altar (Ritual Context 9) outside the southeast corner of Insula I.1 433

19.10.01 Reconstruction of a generic soak-away system (drawing by Gina Tibbott)

19.10.02 The distribution of soak-aways across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.10.03 The opening to Soak-Away 9 in Room 122 of I.1.6–9

19.10.04 Soak-Away 14 in Room 132 of I.1.6–9 (drawing by Gina Tibbott) 438

19.10.05 The chronological distribution of the soak-aways at Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.11.01 The distribution of thresholds across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.11.02 A standard, retail threshold (Threshold 10 into VIII.7.10); plaster casting of the shuttered door at IX.7.10, Pompeii

19.11.03 Threshold 5 at VIII.7.5; note the socket for a wooden lintel at right (northern end); viewed from the northeast

19.12.01 The distribution of votives among the excavated trenches at Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (numbers indicate the number of votives per location)

19.12.02 The types of contexts in which votive objects were found (gray = Secondary Context; black = Primary Context)

19.13.01 The distribution of waste features across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1

19.14.01 The distribution of graffiti and dipinti across Insulae VIII.7 and I.1 (note that all examples, except #2, are no longer extant and thus precise location is less than certain)

19.14.02 CIL IV.1014 at the (south end) entrance to I.1.1 (unenhanced photograph)

19.14.03 CIL IV.1014 at the (south end) entrance to I.1.1; DStretch image with CRGB (above) and LABI colorspace (below)

19.14.04 Programma for Cuspius Pansa at the (south end) entrance to I.1.1/10 (CIL IV.1014 add.199); DStretch image with LBK colorspace

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Primary source abbreviations follow the Oxford Classical Dictionary; journal abbreviations follow the American Journal of Archaeology

AP Ante-Plinian

CAD Computer-Aided Design

cm centimeter

elev. elevation

GIS Geographic Information System

GPR Ground-Penetrating Radar

m meter

masl meters above sea-level

pres. preserved

SR Stratigraphic Relationship

SU Stratigraphic Unit

UUID Universally Unique Identifier

WCU Wall Construction Unit

WF Wall Face

WS Wall Segment

AAR American Academy in Rome

APSS Archaeological Prospection Services of Southampton

BSR British School at Rome

MANN Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli

MoLAS Museum of London Archaeology Service

PARP:PS Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia

PQP Pompeii Quadriporticus Project

SAP Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei (now Parco Archeologico di Pompei)

AE L’Année Epigraphique

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CTP Vander Poel, H.B. 1977–81. Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum, Vols. 1–5 (Roma)

GdS Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei

GdS NS Fiorelli, G. 1868. Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei, Nuova Serie, Vol. 1 (Napoli)

GdS UP Giornale degli Scavi di Pompei (unpublished)

ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae

Librette Librette pel rinvenimento degli oggetti antichi

Notamenti Notamenti di spedizione degli oggetti trovati negli scavi di Pompei

PAH Fiorelli, G. 1860–1864. Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia (Napoli)

PPM Baldassarre, I. 1990. Pompei. Pitture e mosaici (Roma)

PART I

chapter 1

Introduction

This volume, the first of four in a series, presents the results of the archaeological excavations undertaken by the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia (PARP:PS), a project of the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati. Excavations began in 2005 following a conversation between then Superintendent, Pier Giovanni Guzzo, and the project’s director, Steven Ellis, about the necessity of asking new questions of the city of Pompeii, and on the potential value of systematic investigations of under-studied neighborhoods. Although Pompeii had experienced a flurry of subsurface excavations during the 1990s, still we saw an opportunity for an international collaboration that could make a new contribution to the study of the city and to Roman urbanism more broadly, one that went beyond individual elite buildings, or even individual insulae, to examine the social and structural development of an entire, seemingly sub-elite, Pompeian neighborhood.1

The neighborhood under investigation encompassed more than 4,500 m2, and by 79 ce comprised ten (structurally) independent properties across two insulae—VIII.7 and I.1—on either side of the southern length of the via Stabiana (Figs. 1.01 and 1.02). Even from cursory observation, it was clear that these properties had once functioned as shops, workshops, and modest residential and hospitality oriented spaces. While the non-elite, and non-monumental character of the remains has contributed to their general neglect in scholarship, it was precisely these qualities that drew us to this particular corner of the city where we could explore new questions about Pompeii’s socio-economic life. Given that we sought the fullest possible understanding of the area, our work necessarily encompassed not only the properties themselves, but also the principal thoroughfare that divided the insulae (the via Stabiana), as well as the Porta Stabia and the necropolis beyond it.

Beyond simply investigating the urban landscape as it stood in 79 ce, we sought to unravel the full sequence of historic development in the area, from identifying the important layering of geological events, to charting the sequence of human activities predating the construction of the standing properties, to delineating the dynamic history of each building, each business and household, destroyed in 79 ce. By excavating

1

multiple neighboring properties rather than individual structures, as well as by focusing on a neighborhood with a distinctly sub-elite character, we aimed: to uncover the livelihoods of the Pompeian sub-elite by reconstructing their socio-economic developments over generations, indeed centuries; to reveal the structural and social relationships over time between neighbors with variable economic portfolios; to determine the role that sub-elites played in shaping Roman urban networks; and to register their responses to city- and Mediterranean-wide historical, political, and economic developments.2 In addition to targeting these social questions, we also looked to develop a new understanding of the connections between urban infrastructure (especially waste management) and the construction of cities.

One primary goal was thus to move beyond the more traditional, hyper-localized approaches that normally are limited to documenting the structural development of one property or another. This is not to unfairly criticize archaeological publications that take this aim as their focus; such outlines of course provide the essential foundations for any given research program. It is rather to demonstrate that we should expect more from certain sites, particularly those as “datarich” as Pompeii. The city’s complexity as an archaeological dataset can hardly be overestimated. More than a site that can boast over 1,000 exposed properties across an urban area of about 627,000 m2, with artifact assemblages that number in the hundreds of thousands, Pompeii has attracted more intensive academic research across more languages and over a longer period than any other. We should expect more from a Pompeian excavation because the site simply has more of everything. Thus, our approach was to target three broad, interrelated questions relating to ancient urbanism:

• How could the results of our excavations contribute to an understanding of the social making of the city?

• How could the results of our excavations contribute to an understanding of the structural making of the city?

• How could the results of our excavations be more broadly contextualized, both within the macrohistory of the Roman Mediterranean as well as the microhistory of the creation of this particular archaeological site?

2 Kim Bowes took a relatively similar approach to the Roman rural poor, but we regret that her landmark volume appeared too recently for its results to be properly integrated with our own work—see Bowes 2020.

In those earliest years the project was co-directed by Steven Ellis and Gary Devore.
Fig. 1.01 Aerial view of the Porta Stabia neighborhood (Insulae VIII.7 and I.1).
Fig. 1.02 Map of Pompeii, indicating the location of Insulae VIII.7 and I.1.

From the commencement of the project, we framed our methodology around these questions, using them to unite the many disparate tasks and teams of a large-scale excavation and to guide each step of the work.

The social making of the Porta Stabia neighborhood

Our desire to make a new contribution to Roman urban studies lay behind the decision to examine a seemingly sub-elite neighborhood of Pompeii. Insulae VIII.7 and I.1, located just inside the Porta Stabia, are entirely populated by notably modest structures; here there are none of the atrium-style houses that are a typical signature of upper-scale living. This situation is unusual for Pompeii, where most city blocks feature at least one such house. The area thus presented an opportunity to move beyond the prevalent focus on elites in order to test hypotheses about Pompeian, Roman, and ancient urban social stratigraphy. Our approach thus recalled some of the tenets of the French Annales School, but with a concurrent recognition that focusing on the “masses” can obscure the extensive diversity within that group, as well as the social and economic hierarchies that structured it.3 By studying an entire neighborhood, we aimed to illuminate the sub-elite with as much subtlety as possible, adopting questions, methods, and ways of thinking that could recognize heterogeneity.

Our interests in the social making of the city were thus both specific and broad, and our questions targeted overall patterns as well as the specific textures of social stratigraphy within the neighborhood. For example: could we recognize socioeconomic distinctions between one property and its neighbor? Could our study of the neighborhood as a whole help us to learn more about the role of sub-elites in shaping urban space? Could we generate a more detailed understanding— even definition—of urban living conditions? And could we effectively monitor the response of sub-elites to broader socio-economic changes? While some of these questions could be approached more productively through the material remains than others, each was essential for framing the Project’s intentions, methodologies, and ultimate results.

The structural making of the Porta Stabia neighborhood

Beyond these social questions, we also sought to illuminate the structural making of urban space. In this we had, essentially, two objectives: to examine the infrastructural components

necessary for the construction of a city—from quarrying and terracing the landscape, to managing and storing water and other resources, to removing and recycling waste—and to understand how these events shaped the volumetric matrix of the site. Consequently, we prioritized the taphonomic formation of artifact assemblages that made up the series of excavated fills, floors, and features, seeking to discern the processes of their deposition, the locations from which they had originated, and why they took on their ultimate forms and locations in the soil deposits.

Archaeological scholarship, and not just of the Roman period or of the Mediterranean region, often seems to lack a consistent model for interpreting the complex taphonomic processes at multi-phased urban sites, which can lead to misinterpretation of recovered artifacts. Among the problematic results are artifact and archaeobotanical studies that assume that the presence of an artifact within a stratified archaeological context directly pertains to its use in that very space.4 In reality, the vast majority of excavated contexts within a Roman urban site resulted from the reuse of refuse as building material within a sophisticated construction industry. For example, the spatial distribution of the more than 1,000 coins recovered in stratified contexts during our excavations reveals that 70 percent of them came from shopfronts. The first impression, therefore, is that we find them where they were used and dropped. Closer analysis, however, shows that only a handful of the coins were recovered on a floor or in some other association with the use of that space. The overwhelming bulk came from leveling fills, which consisted of debris imported to the site during phases of construction and reconstruction in order to raise the space in preparation for laying a new floor. The coins’ find-spots, therefore, have no direct relationship with the use of the room; they appeared in shopfronts more often than in other spaces simply because these rooms were remodeled most often, requiring the greatest volume of infill.5 In all stages of our work, we aimed to prioritize taphonomy, focusing not just on what we recovered, but on why it was found in one deposit or another.

Contextualizing the Porta Stabia neighborhood

Important as these social and structural questions were, the ultimate aim of the project was to situate our results, as

3 For some useful introductions, see Storey 1999, 209–12; Knapp 1992; Bintliff 1991.

4 In spite of the principles of archaeological and systemic context having been canonized some forty years ago by Michael Schiffer (Schiffer 1972), there are countless examples in archaeological scholarship that demonstrate a lack of awareness of those principles; some prominent examples include Binford 1981 (cf. Schiffer 1985) and Blackburn 1989; more recently, see Beliën 2009; Feugère and Py 2011; Kemmers and Myrberg 2011; Reece 2011; Hobbs 2013; and Murphy, Thompson, and Fuller 2013. 5 Ellis 2017.

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook