It was the paterfamilias who determined how far visitors could reach in the house. The friendlier his relationship with the visitor was, the further he was allowed in and thus the more intimate setting the meeting took place in (Grahame 1999: 49). Differently decorated space indicated his social status to the visitor. More intimate rooms were more likely to be decorated and therefore were appropriate to show off to the closest or most important visitors. The house was a very important tool in impressing clientele (Hales 2007: 335).
So what about the rest of the Roman style domus? Vitruvius’ commentary provides a basic outline and we see that the Roman domus, both rural and urban, was symmetrical and lay upon an axis (McKay 1975: 32), so that the visitor, from the doorway, had a good view of the grandest rooms, the atrium, tablinium and the peristyle. The vestibulum allowed the visitor to take refuge from the street and/or to await the paterfamilias for morning salutation. Clients, who would come specifically for this and had to perform this ritual daily, as the paterfamilias was their patron (McKay 1975: 32). This sort of visitor was often poor and the architecture around him was rich; it was also as far as he would reach for much of the time (Ellis 1999: 81-2).
Vitruvius also mentions the triclinium which he considered to be a broad room (VI. 3. 8). The excavated House of Livia has three such triclinia and they were very similar to Vitruvius’ requirements (McKay 1975: 69). A number of houses also contain rear entrances and corridors to the triclinia so that visitors awaiting outside could not see the slaves bring food into the triclinia (Ellis 1999: 86).The triclinium also played host to banquets which were used by noble families to display their wealth via the extravagant food and surroundings (Dunbabin 2003: 13), it was the ideal opportunity to impress visitors of similar status. The environment spoke of the greatness of the host, with the food plentiful, the beautiful architecture and with artefacts reflecting the host’s learning (see figure two (Ellis 1999: 82). Literary sources from the first centuries BC and AD acknowledge that more personal dinners contained no more than nine guests, with three per couch (Dunbabin 2003: 39)
Most Roman houses provided a court/peristyle (despite special constriction (Ellis 1999: 85) and this area contained porticoes which provided a shade of privacy to an extremely open area. Despite this, visitors to the peristyle could be seen by the occupants. These two groups could never be isolated from each other within the household (Ellis 1999: 85). It was also an area of traffic in the circulation of the household, since the dearth of direct connections between rooms forced visitors to pass through controlled or watched areas (Ellis 1999: 86). However, the centrality of the peristyle was such that it was hard to restrict inhabitants to one part of the house (Ellis 1999: 77).
The atrium allowed the paterfamilias to receive his family, friends, clients and other visitors (Graham 1966: 17). Household doors were made extremely high and fitted with iron locks/bolts (McKay 1975: 32). Presumably, these would have been fitted in strategic locations and provided a dual function: to ‘remind’ visitors as to which areas were not accessible and to provide security against those on the outside who had ill intention. Marcus Valerius’ house was constructed so that his doors opened outwards and thus restricted door-callers from seeing inside (Plut. Publicola. 20).
So how did Greek houses from the Roman period compare to Roman households? Evidence for Greek housing during the Roman period, unfortunately, pales in comparison to the data we have for Roman housing; there are a lot less excavated examples (McKay 1975: 211). The lack of literary sources also makes it hard to gauge the effect of the Roman occupation on households and social relations within it (Nevett 1999a: 100). Our understanding, therefore, comes from houses with rich decoration and/or shared Roman features and so we might miss out on some houses because they lack features that we see in Roman housing (Nevett 1999a: 101).
The Classical Greek house was organised around a courtyard (to shut off domestic activity from the street) and contained the andron, which entertained friends of the house-owner and for drinking parties (symposion). The andron is identified archaeologically by ‘decorated walls, plaster/mosaic pavements, drainage facilities and reclining couch emplacements’ (Nevett 1999a: 102). The Hellenistic era house covered a larger area and contained a second court, so as to separate domestic and public functions into either (Nevett 1999a: 105). The rooms around the second court contained a number of decorated rooms. The domestic area of the house remained mostly undecorated, increasing the divide between ‘public’ and ‘private’ areas. The emphasis on the household graduated towards displaying wealth, as attested by increasingly elaborate mosaic decoration (Nevett 1999a: 105) and towards social interaction.
The best source of available evidence for Roman era housing comes from Delos, which became a ‘free port’ under Rome and as a result, was increasingly settled by foreign merchants until its decline in the Imperial period. The port contains a variety of different sized abodes and the biggest properties give an impression of wealth (Nevett 1999a: 105). The wealthier properties display an intriguing mix of Hellenistic and Roman customs. The peristyles were covered in mosaic pavements rather than garden, the oecus was located in the centre of the peristyle like Roman houses and had three doors, which was neither Greek nor Roman in practice (Ellis 2000: 49). The mosaic panel was also located in the centre of the oecus, which allies with Greek dining custom as the couches were placed in a circular setting, close to the walls (comparable with Olynthian custom), rather than the Roman custom of a ‘U’ shaped couch placements in the centre (There is still debate about the arrangement of couches: Trümper 2007: 330).
The Delian oecus also had two ‘retiring’ rooms attached to the side whereas Roman ‘retiring’ rooms were located away from the oecus (Ellis 2000: 49). The House of the Trident contained a deep entrance to accommodate clients and guests and was decorated with a mosaic pavement in order to impress those whose social station was below that of the home owner (see figure three). The house contained an alcove situated off the peristyle which is comparable with an alae but its oecus was in direct contrast to that of a Roman one – it was wider than it was long (Ellis 2000: 49). Rooms like this were used for dining but were also multifunctional. Smaller rooms alongside this broad room were sometimes found and could hold three couches for more private dining (Dunbabin 2003: 47). The more important visitor was likely to be a friend and thus was given access to these secluded rooms.
Where service rooms can be identified, they show up alongside major reception rooms and can be entered from the main court and/or through entrance passages from major rooms, which indicates that there was no desire to try and hide the domestic side of the house from the ‘public’ side and therefore visitors, whether welcome or unwelcome were able to visually access this side of the household. It seems wealthy Delian homeowners were a lot less worried about visitors prying into their domestic life compared their ancestors. Decorative elements were so extensive in the peristyle, that space would have been restricted to the extent that they would have operated on a decorative level rather than a functional one (Nevett 1999a: 106). It is unclear, however, if domestic activities were fitted around the peristyle (Nevett 1999b: 165-6).
In contrast with earlier period houses, domestic activities were assigned as low priority compared to entertaining guests. As the city was a trading haven and also given the fact that some business dealings took place at home with social peers and those of a level below, then it was natural for the owner to want to project a good image of him through his home (Nevett 1999b: 166). In this case the visitor would have been allowed into the most visually impressive rooms to negotiate and perhaps the more lavish the décor, then the more likely that the visitor would cement a deal? Secondly, the house owners may have decided that domestic tasks did not need an outdoor space and that the responsibility for domestic tasks was transferred from the women to the slaves, like Roman society (Nevett 1999b: 166).
If, like Rauh suggests (1993: Chapter 5), house owners were away for most of the year, then the household would have been run by slaves and transactions would be undertaken by them. The house owner, ironically, would then have been like a visitor to his own home because of the short periods he spent there! More plausibly, there was less domestic production because household needs would have been provided by imports and from farmstead in the Delian countryside (Nevett 1999b: 166). These farmsteads were also rented out to tenant farmers and it was likely that slaves would have run the farmstead themselves, with the tenant visiting occasionally (Nevett 1999b: 35, citing Kent 1948).
There is also a proliferation of lower class housing in Delos. Many of these houses had more than one floor and built upwards as space in the commercial sector was limited. Tabernae that existed from the late Hellenistic and Roman period had many functions, acting not only as shops bust sometimes also having taverns, workshops and accommodation on the upper floors (Pirson 1999: 19-20). Even a single room taberna could serve as a living and sleeping space for the shopkeeper, especially if it had a mezzanine (Trümper 2005: 121). Some single-room tabernae had two doorways: one led to the ground floor and the other, smaller door leading to a stairway up to the upper-most floor (Trümper 1998: figs. 87-8). This indicates that the complex was intended to be lived in and that access to the upper floor was off limits for the visitor.
Complexes with a higher standard of living are harder to find but they all share something in common and that is the default incorporation of a tabernae. Some of these complexes also contained courtyards, water supply and rooms as well as the shops that were used as living rooms (Trümper 2005: 121, fig. 8.1b, 122). The complex ζ-θ in Insula II of the Quartier du stade (see figure four) was built in the Roman period. It was large - 104m2 in total and contained a courtyard with a large cistern, a room and two tabernae. One of the shops had a staircase which was entered from the Rue de stade (Plassart 1916: 232-4).
During the Roman period, the courtyard was connected to one of the shops and a door was knocked through on its eastern side (Trümper 2005: 121, fig. 8.1b, 122). During its last phase of development, the complex was divided up and a separate apartment was built upstairs, overhanging the street. The house was now three separate units, with the courtyard providing water for the other two. The customer was allowed into the shop and trade; the inhabitants, who may have been separate from each other, would have convened in the courtyard to share water.
These larger complexes rarely had expensive décor; the rooms were often multi-functional to meet the requirements of their inhabitants (Trümper 2005: 128). Since the occupants had no real need to entertain guests, there was no need to impress with rich decoration. The upper storeys in these mixed complexes had staircases that were entered from the street or next to the ground floor entrances which indicates that the upstairs rooms were separate (Trümper 1998: 94-8). Most of the independent upper storeys of houses were expensively decorated, which may indicate the hosting of guests and that their social status was superior to those below (Trümper 1998: 90-106).
Tabernae were linked to lower level housing and 53% of the tabernae that were excavated were noted as belonging to the lowest category housing. They were situated on busy shopping streets and hence those who entered the tabernae were mostly non-inhabitants (Trümper 2005: 129). Rich Delians had no need for tabernae and subsequently lower class Delians rarely set foot in their houses. Rauh suggests that the majority of the Delian population consisted of slaves and freedmen and lived in houses of all levels (1993: Chapter 5). They lived either as owners of their small plots or acted as housekeepers to the richer houses for wealthy patrons who lived for short spells in Delos (Trümper 2005: 134).
Delos was not dominated by one type of house but rather a mix of independent households of varying size. Those of a higher social status reflected their prestige and wealth in their lavish houses, but the domestic architecture and the lack of cellae suggests an absence of pressure upon the upper classes to surround their houses with groups of independents (Trümper 2005: 137). The main concern of the house owners was profit, not displaying origin (Tang 2005: 67). It suggests that slaves and freedmen were part of the household; they weren’t part of the family and were a juxtaposition of insiders and outsiders.
Evidence of Roman era Greek housing also comes from the work of Papaioannou (2007). In Athens, the Roman period began after the sack of Sulla in 86 BC. The reconstruction work upon these houses took place a good deal later in the Augustan period. There began a wholesale change in household structuring. The average area for courtyard houses increased in size from 130-150m2 to 335-420m2 (Frantz et al. 1988: 37). Houses began to be arranged on a symmetrical basis like their Roman counterparts (Papaioannou 2007: 351). Courtyards were made more rectangular to fit this symmetry, as houses N and O in the Industrial district show (Thompson and Wycherley 1972: 183, fig. 45). However, showing a remarkable winding back of the clock, double courtyard houses were re-introduced yet retained a Roman feel with porticoes and gardens (Papaioannou 2007: 351).
The north side of the Areopagus had a peristyle house which contained a fountain in its courtyard. This feature was not to be seen in Classical or Hellenistic times; Roman houses already had this feature since the second century BC in the impluvia. The water features only arrived in Greece during the Imperial period when the water supply increased because of the construction of aqueducts (Lolos 1997: 302-14). Most Athenian dwellings were constructed following traditional methods and decoration also followed suite in local tradition (Papaioannou 2007: 351-2).
This might imply that either Athenian house owners were not particularly conscious of using décor to impress household visitors or that the local elite still conformed to local design in their attempts to impress visitors instead of adopting Roman customs. It is in the second and third centuries that we see an attempt to copy western, Roman design in mosaic pavements (Dunbabin 1999: 210). House T in the Industrial district includes a third century black and white Italian type geometric mosaic (Young 1951: 278, pl. 85b). However, Hellenistic mosaic traditions also remained; House S in the industrial district contained Hellenistic motifs of a rosette, waves, an amphora and two doves in its pavement design (Young 1951: 278, pl. 85a). Wealthy Athenians did copy the Roman practice of private portraiture however, imitating the display of ancestors by the first century AD (Papaioannou 2007: 352). The portraiture was designed to remind the visitor of the house owner’s noble pedigree. Literary documents do exist that confirm this practice occurring in Greece (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 521).
Sparta, unlike Athens and its traditional courtyard house, adopted the Italian style atrium house with an impluvium. Two categories of atrium design were found. The simple atrium with impluvium design was found at Lycurgus Street and at the Salare-Kephalopoulou plot (Raftopoulou 1998: 131, fig. 12.10). The other type, the peristyle atrium was found at Doreion Street (Raftopoulou 1998: 131, fig. 12.11). The evidence seems to discredit Vitruvius’ claim that: ‘The Greeks, having no use for atriums, do not build them’ (6.7.1); he does however attest to the existence of a peristyle and colonnaded areas (6.7.1-3).
Ornamental gardens and fountains became popular during the later Imperial phase in Sparta. The excavations at Chamaretou Street reveal that the impluvium was converted into a planter with a fountain base (Raftopoulou 1998: 132, fig. 12.13). The origins of this horticultural impluvia came from the west; the house of D. Octavius Quartio in Pompeii was one such example (George 1998: 93-4, figs. 11, 12). Crude mosaic patterns of the early Roman period might imply that mosaics were not used to impress guests. The later Imperial phase changed that, with Italian designs being copied into the local work (Papaioannou 2007: 354). A room connected to a third century balneum depicted two black dolphins (Demakopoulou 1965: 173, pl. 155γ). Like Athens, Sparta began to experiment with its own mosaic designs (Papaioannou 2007: 354), which perhaps suggests that the local elite had begun to ‘Romanise’. Household guests expected to see a mixture of local and imperial design.
The remains of intricate floor mosaics, wall decoration and extensive floor plans indicate that Corinth was a wealthy city (Papaioannou 2007: 354). The household remains excavated thus far show that households followed the atrium house with impluvium design, but the simple atrium unit and tetrastyle atrium design make appearances in the first century AD Anaploga Villa (Papaioannou 2007: 355, fig. 38.3) and Roman villa (Miller 1972: 335, fig. 2) respectively. However, both these examples miss a cistern beneath the impluvium and the alae and tablinium do not feature in the villas (Papaioannou 2007: 354).
There is little symmetry in the rooms around the atrium and the alignment of the vestibule and the atrium was off-centre, which prevented the visitors from being able to view the impluvium. The later Imperial phase in Corinth was characterised by households with ‘more complex and extended spatial surroundings’ (Papaioannou 2007: 354). Many houses had more than one court, such as the Panagia Field villa. This harks back to Hellenistic style housing where domestic and public functions were divided between the two courts, with a view to keep visitors and clients from the inner workings of the house. (Papaioannou 2007: 354).
The Roman colony of Patras, established by Augustus in 14 BC and unlike Athens, Sparta and Corinth, buildings in Patras were mostly built with Roman construction techniques and the Italian style domus with atrium and impluvium are featured all over the city (Papaioannou 2007: 357). Out of the fifty-two fragmented house remains in Patras, fourty-four of them are of Italian design with the atrium and impluvium. The remnants of the traditional courtyard houses are to be found in the lower city which was a commercial/industrial region (Papaioannou 2003: 164, no. 15; 174-5; 2005: 357). Wealthy residents in Italy had begun to favour the peristyle garden which could be integrated into residence with the larger atrium and created a villa like context within an urban setting (Zanker 1998, 172, 200). This style was introduced into Patras during the first half of the second century AD and is attested to by remains at Psylalonia 15-16 (Papaioannou 2007: 359, fig. 38.6).
What Papaioannou’s work highlights is that household design and architecture varied incredibly all over the Aegean. There was no uniform movement. For example, Athens drew foreigners from the east and west into the city (Papaioannou 2007: 359-60), many were scholars or tourists who came for financial and cultural means and to acquire an education in the revered city. Therefore, locals and foreigners had an interest in preserving the city. Sparta was a traditional city, but it was influenced by frequent Roman visitors (Papaioannou 2007: 360). Phil-roman ties encouraged the Spartan elite to adopt the Italian style domus as a status symbol. Corinth, as a colony and the capital of the Roman province of Achaea, hence the discovery of Roman style housing is not surprising (Papaioannou 2007: 360). Patras was a colony and a free city. It was built by the Romans, housing officials, veterans and locals. Therefore, the Roman presence is felt in the remains.
If Roman influence was creeping into the Greek sphere, how did it affect the Greek way of life? Greek dining still took place in reclining couches but the presence of women was still frowned upon (Dunbabin 2003: 23). Cicero recalls an incident in the Greek city of Lampascus where the Greek host forbade the Roman party-goers from seeking access to his daughter. It would imply that the reception room was still a male orientated space (Verr. 2.1.26.66). However, other Greek cities in the first century BC allowed male and female participants at banquets (Dunbabin 2003: 24). Wealthy Greek home owners of the Imperial period were more comfortable with change in dining habits. The change in house plans is sufficient to demonstrate their adaptation (Dunbabin 2003: 70). Interestingly, Apuleius describes in Metamorphoses how Hypata’s house is large enough to host a dinner party, indicating that she held the party (Bradley 2000: 285).
If we return to Athens, examples of house plans at the agora show two very simple arrangements based around a courtyard (Thompson and Wycherley 1972: 183-4, figs. 6 and 7). The decoration and construction suggests wealthy occupants and one of the house’s courts is a decorated peristyle with an impluvium and a garden (Nevett 1999a: 106-7). This beatifying of the court reduced the possibility of it being used for domestic tasks. Over time, there was as shift in the way that activities were distributed around the house: the decorative role increasing at the expense of the domestic (Nevett 1999a: 107). As it became part of the Empire, and part of a wider economic network, domestic tasks were no longer on display to visitors. There was less constraint on movement around the house and a decrease in privacy features precipitated a decrease on restriction with visitors (Nevett 1999a: 107).
Conclusion:
As we can see, trying to compare the oikos with the domus can be somewhat problematic as before the Imperial period, there seem to be no uniform movement in Greece towards adopting the Italian style domus. Different cities had their own agendas. Where Athens was reluctant to change its ways, Corinth was quite happy to adapt. Delos was somewhere in between in that it developed with both Roman and Hellenistic stylistic features. Resistance to Roman rule soon wore off in the first and second centuries AD when houses began to adopt more lavish adornments as the empire grew more financially prosperous. Greece experienced a certain amount of social change during this period as increased wealth allowed home owners to buy more slaves to take care of domestic tasks and as a result, there was no need to hide away the female house members in the confines of the house. Initially, during the Republican era, there was little change from Roman influence but that increased exponentially during the Imperial period.
Bibliography:
Ancient Authors:
Cicero, The Verrine Orations I: Against Caecilius. Against Verres, Part I; Part II, Books 1-2, translated by Greenwood, L. H. G. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1928
Philostratos, Philostratus: Lives of the Sophists. Eunapius: Lives of the Philosophers, translated by Wright, W. C. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1921
Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Volume VIII, Books 28-32. Index of Fishes, translated by Jones, W. H. S. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1963
Pliny the Younger, Complete Letters, translated by Walsh, P. G. (Oxford World's Classics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009
Plutarch, Lives, I, Theseus and Romulus. Lycurgus and Numa. Solon and Publicola, translated by Perrin, B. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1914
Seneca, Epistles 66-92, translated by Gummere, R. M. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1920
Sidonius Apollinaris, Poems and Letters in 2 Volumes. Vols. I and II, translated by Anderson, W. B. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1963
Varro, On the Latin Language, Volume 1, Books 5-7, translated by Kent, R. G. (Loeb Classical Library). London: Heinemann / Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1938
Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, translated by Rowland, I. D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999
Modern Authors:
Bradley, K. 2000. ‘Fictive Families: Family and Household in the "Metamorphoses" of Apuleius’, Phoenix: 282-308. (17/1/2011).
Cohen, D. 1991. Law, Sexuality and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambdridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunbabin, K. M. D. 2003. The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, S. P. 1999. ‘Theories of circulation in Roman Homes’, in A. Leslie (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology & Architecture: The Third Conference Proceedings. Glasgow: Cruithne.75-98.
Ellis, S. P. 2000. Roman Housing. London: Duckworth
Frantz, A. et al. 1988. The Athenian Agora XXIV. Lat Antiquity: A.D. 267-700. Princeton.
George, M. 1998. ‘Elements of the peristyle in Campanian atria’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 11: 82-100.
Graham, J. W. 1966. ‘Origins and Interrelations of the Greek House and the Roman House’, Phoenix: 3-31. (17/1/2011).
Grahame, M. 1999. ‘Reading the Roman house: the social interpretation of spatial order’, in A. Leslie (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology & Architecture: The Third Conference Proceedings. Glasgow: Cruithne. 48-74.
Hales, S. 2007. ‘Dionysos at Pompeii’, in R. Westgate, N. Fisher and J Whitley (eds), Building Communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. British School at Athens 15: 335-342.
Kent, J. H. 1948. ‘The Temple Estates of Delos, Rheneia and Mykonos’, Hesperia 17: 243-338.
Lolos, Y. A. 1997. ‘The Hadrianic aqueduct of Corinth’, Hesperia 66: 271-314.
McKay, A. G. 1975. Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World. London: John Hopkins
Miller, S. G. 1972. ‘A Mosaic floor from a Roman villa at Anaploga’, Hesperia 41: 332-54.
Nevett, L. C. 1999a. ‘Greek households under Roman hegemony: the archaeological evidence’, in A. Leslie (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology & Architecture: The Third Conference Proceedings. Glasgow: Cruithne. 99-110.
Nevett, L. C. 1999b. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papaioannou, M. 2003. ‘Domestic architecture of Roman Greece’, PhD dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Papaioannou, M. 2007. The Roman domus in the Greek world, in R. Westgate, N. Fisher and J. Whitley (eds), Building Communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. British School at Athens 15: 351-361.
Patterson, C. B. 1998. The Family in Greek History. Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Pirson, F. 1999. Mietwohnungen in Pompeji und Herkulaneum. Untersuchungen zur Architektur, zum Wohnen und zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftgeschichte der Vesuvstädte, Studien zur antiken Stadt 5. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.
Plassart, A. 1916. ‘Fouilles de Délos: Quartier d’habitations privées à l’est du stade’. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 40: 145-256.
Raftopoulou, S. 1998. ‘New Finds from Sparta’, in W. G. Cavanagh and S. E. C. Walker (eds.), Sparta in Laconia: The Archaeology of a City and its Countryside. BSA Studies 4: London. 125-40.
Rauh, N. 1993. The Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Riggsby, A. M. 1997.‘ ‘Public' and 'Private' in Roman Culture: the Case of the Cubiculum,’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 10. 36-56.
Riggsby, A. M. 2003. ‘Pliny in Space (and Time)’, Arethusa 36.2: 167-186. (17/1/2011).
Tang, B. 2005 Delos, Carthage, Ampurias : the housing of three Mediterranean trading centres. Roma: "Erma" di Bretschneider.
Thompson, H. and Wycherley, R. 1972. The Athenian Agora 14, The Agora of Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Treggiari, S. 1991. Roman Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Treggiari, S. 1998. ‘Home and Forum: Cicero between "Public" and "Private" ’, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), 1-23. (17/1/2011).
Trümper, M. 1998. Wohnen in Delos: eine Baugeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Wandel der Wohnkultur in hellenistischer Zeit. Internationale Archäologie 46.
Trümper, M. 2005. ‘Modest Housing in late Hellenistic Delos’, in B. A. Ault and L. C. Nevett (eds.), Ancient Greek Houses and Households: Chronological, Regional and Social Diversity. Philadelphia: 119-39.
Trümper, M. 2007. ‘Differentiation in the Hellenistic houses of Delos: the question of functional areas’, in R. Westgate, N. Fisher and J Whitley (eds), Building Communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. British School at Athens 15: 323-334.
Young, R. S. 1951. ‘An industrial district of ancient Athens’, Hesperia 20: 135-288.
Zanker, P. 1998. Pompeii: Public and Private Life. Cambridge, MA
List of Illustrations:
Figure 1: A representation of the house plan of Pliny’s villa at Laurentum. It is interesting to note how the rooms are more intimate the further away from the door! Picture taken from:
Figure 2: The triclinia, where the paterfamilias entertains his social peers and close friends. Picture taken from:
Figure 3: The outstanding mosaic of which the House of the Trident takes its name from. Picture taken from:
Figure 4: An aerial view of the Quartier du stade where the complex ζ-θ in Insula II was situated. Picture taken from:
