Problems of Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Design in the Forum at Pompeii Author(s): John J.

Dobbins Reviewed work(s): Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1994), pp. 629-694 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506550 . Accessed: 21/11/2011 01:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Problems

Chronology, Decoration, and in the Forum at Design Pompeii

of
JOHN J. DOBBINS
Abstract

Urban

This article offers an archaeological and structural analysis of the four main buildings on the east side of the forum at Pompeii and challenges widely published and generally accepted views about the forum. Major problems of chronology, decoration, and urban design are emphasized through a methodology that rejects the prevalent building-by-building approach to the forum in favor of an approach that allows the significance of the urban ensemble to reveal itself. Connections with Rome in areas of building type, iconography, and design are stressed. A reexamination of the evidence points to a comprehensive post-earthquake(i.e., post-62) plan for the east side of the forum, a design whose hallmarks are the * I am grateful to Baldassare Conticello, Soprintendente alle Antichita di Pompei, and to the staff at the Soprintendenza archeologica and the Direzione degli Scavi for facilitatingmy work in the forum at Pompeii. The Fototeca of the Soprintendenza generously provided the photographs that appear as figs. 13-14. In a sense this project began 20 years ago when as a graduate student at the University of Michigan I began to investigate Pompeii under the direction of John H. D'Armsand concentrated on the Eumachia Building. The completion of the present study provides the opportunity to express appreciation not only to John D'Armsfor his guidance and encouragement on matters Pompeian, but to other mentors at the University of Michigan, at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and at the excavations at Corinth and Dibsi Faraj. Their instruction in the close study of ancient monuments has meant a great deal. The more precise on-site archaeological phase of the project began in 1982 with two observations that contradicted current views regarding the forum and indicated that further research was merited. University of Virginia Summer Research Grants enabled me to spend parts of the summers of 1988 and 1991 gathering and interpreting the data on which this study is based. A visit to Pompeii in 1992 completed the fieldwork. At various stages I have discussed the problems posed by the forum with colleagues and with undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Virginia. Their participation in the debate has been most helpful; in particular I thank Stephen Gavel, who read the manuscript and made useful comments. Alastair M. Small's careful reading of the manuscript has helped me focus on specific problems. L. Richardson,jr, kindly sent me pages of his 1988 book in advance of its publication. From 1989 to 1993, as an AIA lecturer, I shared the results of my research with local societies of the Archaeological Institute American 98 Journal of Archaeology (1994) 629-94 629

unification and monumentalization of the urban center.These goals were achieved by blocking streets, linking facades, upgrading building materials, and emphasizing the now more prominent northeastern and southeastern entrances. The concomitant economic implicationsare significant.Rather than being a symbol of the depressed economic conditions at Pompeii after 62, the forum with its vigorous and ambitious post-earthquake building program reveals both a desire to rebuild on a grand scale and an ability (with assistancefrom Rome?) to carry it out.*
INTRODUCTION

The forum was the focal point of Pompeii's life, housing its institutions of government, its retail of America.The public presentation of the evidence along with the accompanying discussions and encouragement advanced the project. Papers delivered at annual meetings of the AIA (AJA93 [1989] 259; 96 [1992] 373; 97 [1993] 327) presented an overview and certain aspects of the research. An appointment to the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia in 1993-1994 allowed me to work on 2-D and 3-D AutoCAD models of the forum and to move the Pompeii Forum Project in new directions. AutoCAD plans and models used in this publication were produced at the Institute with the help of Karim Hanna, whose contribution to the project has been considerable. The Dean of the Facultyof Arts and Sciences, the Director of the Center for Advanced Studies, and the Associate Provost for Research of the University of Virginia provided a subvention to cover the large number of illustrations.James Packerand Roger B. Ulrich reviewed the manuscript for AJA and I thank them for their thorough, rigorous, and helpful comments. In the pages that follow I take exception on several occasions with the interpretations of August Mau and Amedeo Maiuri. My disagreement should not be seen as disrespect for their work. On the contrary, the more I struggle with the monuments of Pompeii, the more I am impressed by their contributions. Mau seems to have looked closely at everything. He is the pioneer after whom all follow. Maiuri used the techniques of archaeological excavation and visual analysis to lay the foundation for future study. As occasionallyhappens, separate individualson different continents work independently on a common project without being aware of the other's investigation. While at Pompeii in 1991 I learned that KurtWallatof the University of Freiburgwas undertaking his doctoral research on issues quite close to those considered here. Wallat'sdis-

630

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA 98

markets, and its cult buildings (figs. 1-2).' The four main buildings along the east side of the forum are the subject of the present study (fig. 3). At the north is the Macellum, the main food market. To its south a large open-fronted structure, whose design is the most advanced among the buildings on the forum in its curvilinear plan and articulation of interior wall surfaces, is usually designated the Sanctuary of the Public Lares. While the building cannot be identified with certainty, it will be argued here that it was a sanctuary for the imperial cult, built after the earthquake of 62; it is designated the Imperial Cult Building in this study. Next is the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus, traditionally, but incorrectly, designated the Temple of Vespasian. Then follows the Eumachia Building, the largest building on the forum and the one about which we possess the most information.2 Nonetheless, its precise function remains elusive.3 The open space of the forum is surrounded by a two-story colonnade, mostly of limestone, except in front of the Macellum, where Luna marble is employed, in front of the Imperial Cult Building where only the foundations for eight columns remain, in front of the Temple of the Genius of Augustus, where there seems to have been no colonnade, and along the south, where the tufa colonnade of Popidius still stands.4 Associated with the sections of colonnade in front of the Macellum and the Euma-

chia Building are statue bases placed against the east sides of the columns. By means of these two sculpture galleries, the forum colonnade in front of the two buildings was given special emphasis. In Pompeii's final phase, three primary and two secondary entrances led into the forum and remain in use today. The primary approaches are the two east-west streets near the southern end (the via Marina and the via dell'Abbondanza) and the via del Foro that enters the forum through the arch at the northeast corner (fig. 1). The secondary entrances are at the northwest from the vicolo dei Soprastanti and at the very southeast corner along the Strada delle Scuole just east of the three civic buildings. The final years at Pompeii were framed by two natural disasters: a devastating earthquake in 62, whose epicenter was at Pompeii, and the cataclysmic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 that destroyed Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the surrounding villas. The conjunction of circumstances that damaged and then destroyed Pompeii provides a unique opportunity for us to use the city as an urban laboratory in which we can observe the nature and the degree of the Pompeian response to the disaster of 62. Like the great fires of Rome in 64 and in London in 1666, the earthquake at Pompeii presented its inhabitants with a challenge and a need to rebuild, as well as an opportunity to rebuild in a manner and on a scale that they may never have undertaken if disaster had

completed in September 1992; I have not seen it. Our independent studies, therefore, should serve as useful and interesting counterbalances to one another. I hope that they will advance our understanding of the Pompeian forum and encourage further detailed masonry analyses and their applications to urban issues at Pompeii. Appearing too late to be taken into consideration in this article is K. Wallat,"OpusTestaceumin Pompeji,"RM 100 (1993) 353-82. Except where noted otherwise, the photographs are by the author. The following abbreviationsare used:
Maiuri 1942 Maiuri 1973 Mau 1879 Mau 1892

sertation, Baugeschichtliche Untersuchungen an den kaiserzeitlichen Gebduden der Ostseite des Forums von Pompeji, was

Mau 1896

A. Mau, "Der staedtische Larentempel

in Pompeji," RM 11 (1896) 285301.

Mau 1902

Overbeck and
Mau PAH

A. Mau (trans. EW. Kelsey), Pompeii:Its Life and Art (New York 1902).

J. Overbeck and A. Mau, Pompejiin

seinen Gebduden, Alterthiimern und
Kunstwerken4

(Leipzig 1884).

Richardson
1

G. Fiorelli ed., Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia (Naples 1860-1864). tectural History (Baltimore 1988).

L. Richardson, jr, Pompeii:An Archi-

A. Maiuri, Lultima fase edilizia di Pompei

(Rome 1942).
A. Maiuri, Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana (Naples 1973). A. Mau, PompejanischeBeitrige (Berlin

For an overview of the civic institutions and the role of the forum in the life of the city, see J.B. Ward-Perkins and A. Claridge,Pompeii A.D. 79 (Boston 1978) 39-51. 2 In addition to its architecturalremains, the Eumachia Building preserved five inscriptions,one complete statue,
fragments of other statues, traces of marble veneer, wall paintings still extant in the porter's lodge at the southeast corner. I South of the via dell'Abbondanza at the southeast corner of the forum is what conventionally has been called the Comitium, or Voting Place. Richardson 145-47, argues that this is a law court, but, in any case, the building remains a civic structure. 4 Richardson 145.

1879).
A. Mau, "Osservazioni sull'edifizio di Eumachia in Pompei," RM 7 (1892) 113-43. A. Mau, "Osservazioni sul creduto tempio del Genio di Augusto," Atti della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti [Napoli] 16 (18911893) [published in 1894] 181-88.

painted plaster that is now lost or faded, and Third-Style

Mau 1894

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

631

o 0 0f L1
.D

IADEGI A GUTAL
D3

"

~iSC3

C3 C3 C3
d
0

C2 Dr
s
>

I0

O F1

C3 C38 C3 RNA VIAM

----~-CC33

VI EL'BONAZ

_1-

\~d --colLa-PI

Fig. 1. Pompeii. Forum. Plan: 1) Macellum;2) Imperial Cult Building; 3) Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus; 4) Eumachia Building; 5) Comitium; 6) civic offices; 7) Basilica; 8) Sanctuary of Apollo; and 9) Temple of Jupiter. (M. Pinsley and S. French, after H. Eschebach, Die Staidtebauliche des Entwicklung antikenPompeji [Heidelberg 1970] foldout plan) not struck. Careful observation allows us to measure that response, and the conclusions are both new and exciting as they pertain to individual buildings and to the urban core as a whole. It should be emphasized that Pompeii was neither a provincial backwater nor merely a seaside resort town whose preservation may be interesting, but without greater implications for urban history.5 Pompeii had served for centuries as a major regional center. After the founding of the Roman col5 J.-P Adam, citing Seneca and Tacitus,emphasizes the importance of Pompeii: "Observationstechniques sur les suites du seisme de 62 a Pompei," in C.A. Livadie ed., de Tremblements terre,&ruptions et volcaniques vie des hommes dansla Campanie antique(Bibliotheque de l'Institut frangais

ony in 80 B.C., and especially throughout the first century A.D. up until the destruction, its urban evolution consciously mirrored developments in Rome. It is therefore legitimate to view Pompeii as more than a regional curiosity and to use it as a gauge for exploring more widely applicable Roman practices of the first century. The forum experienced two particularly vigorous building periods with much construction concentrated on its east side: the principate of Augustus (31 de Naples, ser. II, 7, Naples 1986) 67; an Italian version appears as "Osservazionitecniche sugli effetti del terremoto di Pompei del 62 d.C.," in EmanuelaGuidoboni ed., I terremoti prima del Mille in Italia e nell'areamediterranea (Bologna 1989) 460-74.

632

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

NMW

,:Wk,
:
o.-AV.

::~

iL-

:-I'Li-~:?i ~i

i-i: -

.:

:i-

- i ~ i: i

Fig. 2. Pompeii. Forum. Balloon photograph, Whittlesey Foundation. (Courtesy Aristide D. Caratzas,all rights reserved) B.C.-A.D. 14) and the years between 62 and 79. To the Augustan period belong the Eumachia Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Not on the forum, but belonging to the Augustan period, and therefore useful for architectural comparisons, are the Temple of Fortuna Augusta,6 located one block north of the forum, and the Holconian renovations in the theater.7 The Macellum, which is not closely dated, is generally considered to be post-Augustan and clearly pre-earthquake. To the years after 62 belong the construction of the Imperial Cult Building and the rebuilding of 6 CILX, 820, 824, 825; A. Mau, "Der Tempel der Fortuna Augusta in Pompeji,"RM 11 (1896) 269-84; Mau 1902, 130-32; Maiuri 1942, 67-68; Richardson202-206. 7 CILX, 838 records that M. Holconius Rufusbuilt the and theatrum. Maiuri 1942, 78-80; 1973, tribunalia, crypta, 183-89; and Richardson 78 agree that the annular corridor,which supported the summa cavea,are among the Holconian renovations. This is an important point as the the Eumachia Building, the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus, and the Macellum. The eruption of 79 halted the process of urban development and preserved much of the evidence that inevitably would have been destroyed or obscured if Pompeii had endured throughout antiquity. Pompeii, then, in a very rare and important way, permits us to come face to face with civic aspirations, building techniques, and urban design schemes of the third quarter of the first century A.D. The narrowly circumscribed sequence of damage, recovery, and destruction assumes considerable imannular corridor furnishes important comparisons with Augustan-period buildings on the forum. There is not total agreement on the building history of the theater; the parallels that can be recognized between it and the forum buildings are, however, sufficient for the present study. RM 21 See also A. Mau, "DasGrosseTheater in Pompeji," (1906) 1-56. The theater is a building that would repay further study.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

633

34 L73456 6
1956
c

77

88

1
IL-

1451 r__ 1j[13

15

1615 1752
51

53 57

54 58 62
6

55
59

20

28

3061 363 731660 7

co67

co
aO 21
0 0

66

22072
18
CO

OC]U1
23'.:

32

34

35

37

70o

68

75
71 79
o

7
81
8

co0

24

25

38

39

80

co

83

80

26

40 4142434445464748450 6 47 44684985

88

co

27

96
2971
98

C)
0
o

124
104

17

18

19

12531
120

121

12
1530
13

154

126
126

125

1g

15
136

156

1132
0o

0
10
137
o

13

134

15d159
138
139
0

160
14

0
C)

102

103

16
162
147ian

95

105

106

14

142

146
143

165
10

16
72

167

169
17

13
ooo0

148
0

0
0

170

17

0o o

1 175

107

108

109

01
15

14
149

0 0o0
150

173

176

1 79 1

73
C3

17 o0
3
186

178
=
ga

0151
o0

196 207
12

220
190

183

at

1]l87

193
0

Porera
9

Ldg

94

20

208

01
o
co co
195

209
06

21

203
a3 co

192
0

204

0O

212

213

214

215

2t6

217

?2 R5
a
196

1207

220 21o

~o \

1218
CO O 221

222 ea Ldge

"Pomr

Fig. 3. Forum, east side. Plan. The numbers are those used throughout this article. (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins)

634

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

portance for a clearer understanding of the history of urban form as well as for the study of Pompeii itself. The conventional view holds that the forum had not returned to full functioning and was still in shambles when Vesuvius erupted.8 The designation "builders' yard" is frequently applied to the post-62 forum.9 August Mau laid the foundation for this widely held view, and the archaeological investigations and building analyses of Amedeo Maiuri ostensibly confirmed the opinion.1' Most commentators on Pompeii follow Mau and Maiuri to a considerable degree. Apart from the evidence provided by the buildings themselves, the strongest argument against the conventional view is human nature. The extensive repair and redecoration of houses in post62 Pompeii confirm that the residents possessed the will and the means to recover from the disaster. It is inexplicable that such a vigorous domestic recovery was not accompanied by a comparable rebuilding of the public buildings. It must be stressed that the Pompeians did not know that Vesuvius would destroy the city in 79. The reason for the conventional view is obvious. The forum is a ruin that contrasts quite dramatically with the well-preserved Temple of Isis or numerous houses that preserve wall paintings, mosaics, statuary, and fountains. In the otherwise exceptionally well-preserved city, the stripped-down and ruined condition of the forum has readily been attributed to an incomplete recovery from the earthquake that, in turn, reflects the depressed economic conditions of the post-earthquake city. This interpretation is, as we shall see, demonstrably wrong, but in
8 Ward-Perkins and Claridge (supra n. 1) 50; J.B. Roman Imperial Architecture (HarWard-Perkins, mondsworth 1981) 158; E Sear, Roman Architecture (London 1989) 117-18; A. De Vos and M. De Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia (Bari 1982) 12-13 (speaking of the city as a whole); Maiuri 1942, 25-30 and passim, esp. 212; J.-P Adam, "Consequences du sdisme de l'an 62 ta Pompdi," in B. Helly and A. Pollino eds., Tremblements terre, histoireet de

the absence of complete walls, columns, stylobates, marble revetment, etc., it is understandable. Three factors account for the present appearance of the forum. The first is the eruption of Vesuvius and the damage it inflicted. The earth tremors accompanying the eruption must have toppled columns and entablatures, as well as statues. Walls of unstable fabric, as those inside the Eumachia Building, collapsed. Revetment slabs, whose impressions are still visible, may have become dislodged. Plaster was damaged. Even sturdy walls that are still standing display cracks that are probably attributable to the eruption. The second is the extensive salvaging that took place immediately after the eruption. Pompeii was not immediately erased from memory. The location of the city was remembered, along with the knowledge that it contained usable and reusable, not to mention valuable, material. Pompeii became a quarry and, as the site of the most lavish buildings, the forum was the focus of salvaging efforts. It is impossible to know the duration of these endeavors, but in the end, the forum was stripped." Only the scraps remained for the early excavators, who are the third cause of the present appearance of the forum. The written accounts of excavation from 1814 to 1822 reveal an archaeological methodology typical of the nascent discipline.12 The intention was to recover objects (preferably sculptures), not information, and record keeping was rudimentary at best. Each week of work is recorded in a single paragraph that frequently begins with the statement that "not much of interest happened" that week!'" It is impossible to know how much poered. 9 Maiuri 1942, 40 and 215 (where "cantieredi lavoro" is applied to the Eumachia Building); Ward-Perkinsand Claridge (supra n. 1) 50; De Vos and De Vos (supra n. 8) 12, speaking of the city as a whole. 10Mau 1902, 94-118 (where the four buildings under discussion are seen as unfinished or not fully repaired in 79); Maiuri 1942 and 1973, passim. " There is a trend toward acknowledging these salvage efforts, e.g., De Vos and De Vos (supra n. 8) 40 regarding the Eumachia Building; Richardson 25-26 and passim (e.g., 204, 205); Adam (supra n. 5) 77. No one, however, has connected the extensive ancient salvage efforts with the erroneous modern interpretation of the forum's final state.
12 PAH.

et internationales archdologie: d'archdologie IVres Rencontres d'histoire 1983 (Valbonne 1984) d'Antibes, 3, 4, novembre 2,
165-67; Adam (infra n. 11) 77, 86; P Zanker, Pompeji:Stadt1987) 41. The most recent expression of this view is by W. Jongman, JRS 81 (1991) 213-15, who states that "in the final period, after the devastating earthquake of A.D. 62 . . domestic architecture once again dominates. The renovation of public buildings was postponed, with the perhaps significant exceptions of the Temple of Isis, and of recreational buildings" (214). Jongman's acceptance of this premise has already influenced his view of the Pompeian economy as presented in The Economy and Society of Pompeii (Amsterdam 1988) where the role of post-62 building in the forum and throughout the city is not consid-

bilderals Spiegelvon Gesellschaft Herrschaftsform und (Mainz

13 PAH 1.3, 181: the seven weekly entries from 10 August 1816 to 21 September 1816 include such phrases as "non e occorsa alcuna novitainella spirante settimana"; "nulla di nuovo vi e occorso"; "non vi e occorso cosa notevole"; and "non e occorsa cosa . .. che meriti attenzione."

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

635

tentially useful information was lost, but it must have been considerable. If a typical excavation offers a mine of information, the forum at Pompeii must have been a treasure trove of debris that could have revealed much about the buildings. The rubble removed without examination or documentation surely contained wall fabric, bricks, roof tiles, heaps of plaster, small broken bits of architectural members deemed unworthy of retention, and fragmentary small finds. What the early salvagers did not recover, the early excavators removed. Today we are left with the vestiges that still adhere to the walls and the few architectural fragments that were significant enough to keep but too heavy to haul away.
METHODOLOGY

Understanding and sorting out the complexities of the buildings require 1) a method appropriate for gathering and interpreting data, and 2) a format appropriate for presenting the evidence in written form. At face value, the four buildings would seem to invite a traditional building-by-building analysis and interpretation. I maintain, however, that certain details are comprehensible only in the light of the whole, and call into question traditional methods of examining and discussing the forum's buildings. For this reason, this first section, on methodology, is followed by a "supra-building" section entitled "Four CriticalWallJunctures." The starting point for the present investigation is the realization that the buildings in the Pompeian Forum still preserve an astonishing amount of evidence that can be used to reconstruct their architectural histories, their decorative schemes, and their roles in the evolving urban design of the forum. This evidence has never before been systematically collected or interpreted.14 It becomes evident that the extensive physical overlapping and interconnections of buildings preclude the traditional single-building approach to the forum. For example, the facade of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus must be explained in conjunction with the Eumachia Building with which it bonds and with the Imperial Cult Building that abuts and overlaps its northern end. Seeing and recording the data as belonging to an urban schemeprepare the way for broad conclusions of an urbanistic nature. While
14 This situation has not discouraged scholars from offering various, sometimes conflicting, definitive interpretations. Such interpretations are flawed due to their failure to use fully the evidence provided by the buildings themselves. 15 While considerable detail must be presented here,

various studies consider the whole forum, they treat buildings individually;they incompletely document the evidence; and they fail to recognize that the associationof facts is in itself an essential class of evidence. My goal, on the contrary, is to understand both the details of the individual components of the forum (architectural, decorative, chronological, political, economic, etc.) and the organic development and functioning of urban form as a whole. In order to achieve this double goal, a two-part methodological approach is used. First,in order to approach the issues as objectively as possible, and to avoid the biases of generations of single-building analysis, the phase of data gathering and analysis concentrates on the masonry and not on individual buildings. Then, in order to contextualize the conclusions reached through technical means, issues related to specific buildings are considered. At this stage epigraphic and sculptural evidence, iconography, patronage, architecturalcomparanda, etc., are considered. Scholars to date have so thoroughly focused on the second approach that the first step, the objective gathering of data, has never been implemented fully. The present study is fundamentally archaeological and structuralin that it documents building materials and techniques: the relationships between walls, i.e., bonding or abutting; seams between different types of masonry that may indicate different building phases; cracks resulting from the Vesuvian eruption, which, as they do not signal different building phases, must be distinguished from seams; vestiges of painted plaster; evidence for marble revetment; the superimposition of decorative wall treatments, i.e., setting beds for marble veneer on top of finished-coat plaster belonging to an earlier period; and evidence for earthquake repair-especially important, as this confirms the existence of a building before the earthquake. Simply stated, the method involves the wall-by-wallobservation and recording of all preserved features, which are then interpreted on an urban scale.'5 Among the types of evidence just listed, that for marble revetment requires a further word of clarification.In the discussions that follow a distinction is made between definitive evidence for marble revetment and partial evidence on a wall whose
this is not the appropriate place to catalogue all data acquired. The information presented is, perforce, selective. I have attempted throughout to present important and representative details and to allow the architecture to speak for itself.

636

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA 98

marble revetment and mortar setting bed have vanished. Unequivocal evidence for marble revetment is the presence of revetment slabs in situ, or impressions of vanished slabs in an extant mortar setting bed. In the absence of revetment slabs or their impressions, evidence of preparation for marble revetment consists of one or all of the following: a mortar setting bed that retains shims or imprints of the shims that were characteristically pressed into the setting bed; metal tangs and/or marble wedges set into the wall fabric; and holes that once contained the tangs and wedges even if the latter are no longer preserved. As these features constitute the standard preparation of a wall for the installation of revetment, and are never part of the preparation for painted plaster or stucco, they are important in recovering a building's decorative history. In a strict interpretation, only the unequivocal evidence can support a claim that a wall was revetted; tangs, wedges, and setting beds remain evidence for preparation. A particularly important question in the Pompeian context is whether or not a wall so prepared ever received its revetment. Evidence for preparation alone does not, of course, preclude a wall's complete revetment. On the contrary, such evidence is proof that the very next step would have been the installation of the marble itself. In my opinion, walls so prepared most likely received their intended revetments.16 Especially when traces of the mortar setting bed are preserved, it can be concluded that the slabs were installed, for the mortar would not be left to dry without the revetment slabs having been put in place. Masonry study at Pompeii is complicated by the use of various building materials at the same time in the same building. Not one of the buildings under study is constructed of a single fabric throughout. The situation is further complicated in those buildings, such as the Macellum or the Eumachia Building, that experienced extensive post-earthquake repair. In such cases, the rebuilding introduced various materials that were abutted against or superimposed upon pre-earthquake masonry. Alternatively, wholly new stretches of post-earthquake
16 Adam (supra n. 5) 78 indicates by his remarks on the revetting of the Eumachia facade that he is of the same opinion. 17 A wooden lintel is an obvious reconstruction. If it is load bearing, the masonry directly above it will belong to the reconstruction, as will the masonry at the points of insertion. Such reconstructions are easy to detect and present no problem. Other conditions that alert one to modern work are modern cement, material or techniques incompatible with ancient practices, and level wall tops. This last case, the leveling of walls, was frequently carried

could, and frequently did, replace thoroughly damaged walls. The practice of applying different facings to the opposite sides of the same wall provides an additional complication. An inevitable frustration is the presence of plaster, stucco, or setting beds that occasionally obscure critical relationships, but a more serious and genuine concern is that unrecognized, or unrecognizable, modern reconstruction may distort the results. Recent reconstructions are usually marked by an intentional, easily detected, seam, but older reconstructions remain problematical." In the end, each wall requires close examination and each must be understood as part of the whole to which it belongs.'8
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

construction

Nomenclaturefor "Rooms,"Walls, and Doors Figure 3 presents the numbering system employed for all rooms and spaces in region VII, insula 9. The conventional system of numbers for region, insula, and door does not designate spaces within or between buildings. The system adopted here retains the region and insula number, but replaces the door number with a number for every space within the insula. Numbering begins at the northwestern corner of the insula and proceeds left to right within individual buildings, to the extent that their boundaries can be identified. Thus each space has a tripartite number whose first two elements are those of the conventional system. For example, the shrine within the Macellum is VII.9.37. As all of the spaces under discussion belong to region VII, insula 9, only the third element in the numbering system is employed here. A shorthand system of designating walls uses the letter W and the numbered space on each side of the wall in question.19 The first number indicates the side of the wall being discussed, when that is an issue. For example, among the north shops of the Macellum (fig. 3), W7.8 refers to the wall between shop 7 and entrance 8 with particular attention to the side within shop 7. When seen from the opposite side, the same wall is W8.7. Similarly, D refers to a
out for structural and aesthetic reasons. 18 For a statement on the complexity of dealing with

19 This is the system devised by L.F. Ball, The Masonry Chronology of Nero's Domus Aurea (Diss. Univ. of Virginia 1987) 43-44, and Ball, "A Reappraisal of Nero's Domus Aurea," in J.H. Humphrey ed., Rome Papers (IRA Suppl. 11, Ann Arbor 1994) 234, n. 119.

Pompeian masonry similar to that expressed here, see R. Ling, "The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii: Interim Report,"AntJ63 (1983) 38.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

637

door; d would refer to a blocked door. Thus D112.115 is the door between 112 and 115 in the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Streets are designated as "via" followed by the numbers of the blocks that define the street. Thus W18.viaVII4/VII-9 indicates the wall between space 18 and the street that runs between VII.4 and VII.9. Brick Counts: Coursesper Meter Opus testaceum, i.e., brick-faced concrete, lends itself to a modular analysis. Determining the number of brick courses per meter reveals similarities or differences in construction that may not otherwise be evident or it corroborates what is already obvious. Whereas a wall that abuts another to produce a legible seam presents no interpretative problem, noncontiguous walls or walls in which joints are obscured may reveal their similarities or differences by means of a modular analysis of their bricks.20 Coigning versus Seams Coigning is the construction method by which larger or more regular building elements create a vertical crenellation pattern in order to bond with smaller or less regular building elements. In general, coigning is used to define and stabilize corners, doorjambs, and window frames. On the forum, coigning typically appears on building corners and doorjambs. The reason is obvious. Opus incertumand opus reticulatum-favored building techniques (or more appropriately, facing techniques)-serve well on curtain walls, but neither forms a straight edge at a corner nor bonds effectively with an adjacent wall of the same building. A case in point is the exterior southeastern corner of the Macellum (see below, fig. 48) where brick coigning at the corner and flanking the door frames the opus reticulatum wall. Coigning, or lack of it, always rewards close observation. As coigning provides a smooth and regularized interface, in other words a bond, between two building techniques, it announces in definitive construction terms that two disparate materials and techniques are contemporary. Here on
20

the Macellum the brick doorway is contemporary with the reticulate curtain wall, which in turn is contemporary with the corner. By the same token, a ragged interface between two different materials and techniques usually signals chronological discontinuity. In the Eumachia Building the brick-faced western end of the south wall (fig. 20) abuts and overlaps tufa block construction and reveals itself to be a secondary feature that belongs to the repair of the building's facade. The designation "coigning pattern" accompanied by a numerical reference, such as "3 x 3," or "6 x 6," refers to the regular alternation of projecting and non-projecting courses of brick or stone employed in coigning. An interruption in a regular coigning pattern requires special attention as it may signal a chronological as well as a structural change in a wall's construction. Opus vittatum mixtum The type of brick-and-block construction in which one course of tufa block alternates with two or three courses of brick (e.g., fig. 5)21 is here called opus vittatum. While opus vittatum appears in pre-62 construction, it is more common in post-62 repairs and for that reason requires careful attention wherever it occurs. Heterogeneous Work A rubble construction composed of various materials assembled in a manner that is a cross between opus incertum and rubble work (e.g., the shop walls in fig. 49) is here called heterogeneous work. The designation "heterogeneous" refers to the diversity of materials used. Such walls often contain a large percentage of Nocera tufa, which gives the wall a light brown color. The technique appears in walls constructed after 62. ArchitecturalRubble Many walls contain broken tufa architectural elements, always in association with other materials and usually in contexts that are clearly repairs (fig. et Adam, La construction romaine, materiaux techniques (Paris early first century A.D. While there is some debate as to

Ball (supra n. 19). See Ball 1987, 19-27 and 1994, 239, 242, for an explanation of the method.
21 There is no consensus in the designation of this construction technique. I follow T.L. Heres, Paries: A Proposal for a Dating Systemof Late-AntiqueMasonry Structuresin Rome

I have employed the method used so effectively in

1984) 151-56: opus mixtum; Richardson 379: opus mixtum vittatum. Ling dates the inception of the technique to the the appropriateness of using opus vittatum as an indicator of post-62 repairs, it remains true that the technique occurs most frequently in post-62 contexts. Each patch of opus vittatum must be evaluated on its own merits, just as each section of masonry in any building at Pompeii must be evaluated. The point here is that opus vittatum should be an immediate signal to examine the interface between it and adjacent passages of masonry.

and Ostia (Amsterdam 1982) 13, 29-30, where she uses

opus vittatum mixtum, or vittatum B, to refer to tufa block and brick construction (vs. opus vittatum simplex, or vittatum A, which is strictly tufa block construction). My designation "opus vittatum" should be understood throughout as opus vittatum mixtum, or vittatum B. A short list of other designations follows. Ling (supra n. 18) 38: opus listatum; J.-P

638

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 4. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Facade. Eumachia Building, northern end of facade, from the southwest. 25). Most prevalent are broken wall blocks and column drums whose fluting often preserves its white stucco coating; capital fragments also occur. The extensive use of architectural rubble in repair work throughout Pompeii argues that some common agent caused widespread damage to tufa colonnades throughout the city and that the broken architectural elements were incorporated into subsequent repairs. Semibonds The term "semibond" describes the technique of preparing the face of a wall for the reception of another wall that was to abut it at a 90' angle. A vertical seam several centimeters deep and equal in width to the abutting wall was cut into the face of the first wall; the abutting wall was then constructed and "bonded" into the first wall by penetrating into its fabric to the depth of the prepared groove. This technique is virtually impossible to detect when the two walls remain standing, but when the abutting wall has partially collapsed, the semibond scar becomes visible. Such is the case along the exterior north wall of the Macellum where semibond scars reveal the preparation for the walls of the northern shops (fig. 50). Recognition of this technique here and elsewhere is important in establishing chronology because it proves that the abutting wall is later than the wall face to which it is attached. RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGIES It is virtually impossible to offer an absolute date for an individual wall without taking into consideration its relationship to other walls; material and technique are not in themselves secure chronological indicators. As a major goal of this study is to distinguish between pre-62 and post-62 elements of urban design, the recognition of post-62 earthquake repair plays a central role in establishing an absolute chronology. Repairs to buildings are so widespread at Pompeii that it is reasonable to posit the earthquake of 62 as the common cause that necessitated the repair work. The presence of architectural rubble in many repaired walls indicates that a destructive force damaged colonnades throughout

Fig. 5. Eumachia Building. Spaces 200, 199 (at left), and D200.191 from the south.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

639

Fig. 6. Eumachia Building. Facade, 194, from the west. the city and made the broken elements available for incorporation into the repairs. Moreover, the nature of the repairs throughout the city indicates that they were not products of normal maintenance or localized renovation. Instead, irregular horizontal and vertical seams testify to collapsed walls. Where planned renovation might alter the shape of a building, much of the repair at Pompeii is a rebuilding of what had collapsed. When understood in the context of repairs throughout the city, the repair work on the forum can be recognized as part of the larger pattern of post-62 recovery. If this assessment is true, then a critical link is made between relative and absolute chronology: buildings that exhibit earthquake repair existed before the earthquake; earthquake repair and design elements in association with earthquake repair postdate the earthquake.
FOUR CRITICAL WALL JUNCTURES

There are four instances in which buildings on the east side of the forum relate to each other in ways that are so complex that the structural relationships transcend the individual building. Consequently, these relationships are discussed first; then the individual buildings are considered. Moreover, as the interpretation of a single building depends upon evidence from adjacent buildings, such evidence must be presented before the buildings can be discussed in a serial fashion.

I. Eumachia Building/Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus The opus testaceum facade of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus extends beyond the sanctuary proper, definitively blocks the street that had opened onto the forum between the two buildings, turns the corner, and defines the northern limit of the Eumachia Building (fig. 4).22The linked facades literally cement together the structures, and therefore the chronologies, of the two buildings; this development can be recognized as a post-62 feature. At the same time, from an urban design point of view, the linked facades present themselves as one of several instances of an effort to create a unified forum plan by physically joining buildings and allowing one construction element to serve two buildings. Here the physical union also performs the additional function of blocking a street that had once opened onto, and therefore fragmented, the eastern side of the forum. This unitary and seamless wall terminates within the doorway to stairway193 where itjoins and forms irregular coigning with another wall (W193.191) of post-62 opus testaceum that belongs to the extensive repairs that characterize this corner of the Eumachia Building.23 is clear It that all opus vittatum in this area is secondary construction associated with repairs. This includes D200.191, the vaulted chamber 199 that supports stairway 193 (fig. 5), and the northern section of W194.200 (fig. 6). The remainder of W194.200 is constructed of irregularlyshaped tufa splinters. Seen from the opposite side (fig. 5, partial

22 Mau 1879, 256-58 recognized the contemporaneity of these two facades and the fact that they blocked the

street. 23 The juncture is in the shadow in fig. 4.

640

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA 98

Fig. 7. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Facade, W107.108/W107.95, and opus incertum, from the west. view), the lower part of W200.194 (apart from the opus vittatum) is primary construction, while the upper part is secondary. Clearer indications that the shared wall is a secondary feature that abuts extant original masonry within the Eumachia Building are the relationships that exist among the wall at the left of figure 6 (the shared wall), the construction that forms doorway D192.193, and the podium in exedra 194. The brickwork above doorway D192.193 bonds with the shared wall that runs perpendicularly to it.24 The right jamb of the doorway, in turn, abuts vestiges of the original brick coigning that still remain embedded in the podium at its northern edge. (Comparable remains of coigning are also seen at the southern edge of the podium, confirming that the podium itself, including the brick coigning embedded within it, survived the earthquake only to be flanked on both sides by post-earthquake repairs.) The chronological implication of these technical

showing seam between opus testaceum

By following the common facade to the north, past the entrance to the sanctuary,25we arrive at the next critical juncture where the facade's interface with original pre-earthquake masonry further clarifies its post-62 status. II. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus/South Side of Imperial Cult Building This is the most difficult conjunction of walls on the east side of the forum and one that is not entirely unambiguous. Discussion begins with a description of the walls, starting with the facade of the sanctuary (W107.108), then proceeds in a clockwise fashion into and around the south exedra of the Imperial Cult Building, and finally ends with an examination of W105.95. The opus testaceum facadeof the sanctuaryabutsa wall of opus incertum at a distance of 3.35 m from the inner corner of the sanctuary'sfacade (fig. 7); the join produces a roughly coigned but irregular enough seam to indicate that the two sections of wall are not contemporary.The opus testaceum is the later of the two sections of wall, a relationship recognized by Mau long ago.26

observations at the south end of the shared wall is that it is part of the extensive post-62 repairs visible in this area. The post-62 date of the sanctuary facade is also supported by its structural relationship with the sanctuary's south precinct wall, discussed below under "Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus."

24 Figs. 4 and 6 are not detailed enough to reveal the bonding. The wooden lintel and brickwork immediately above the doorway are modern. 25 The entrance itself is something of a problem as the

ancient brickwork is not continuous over the doorway. Instead, the masonry over the door is modern as is the northern jamb, which reduces the original width of the portal by 0.32 m. On the other hand, the brickwork(including a count of 24+ courses per meter) is identical on both sides of the door and can be accepted as belonging to the same project even though there is a lacuna at the

doorway. The masonry over the doorway can be recognized as modern on two accounts. First, a 19th-century lithograph by Achille Vianelli shows a lacuna over the doorway and the brick-facedwallsjust as they would be if the masonry in question were removed; see L. Fino, Ercolano e Pompei: veduteneoclassicheromantiche e (Naples 1988) 149. Second, the brick and block construction is anomalous in block size and coursing and has no parallels in genuine ancient masonry. 26 Mau 1879, 256.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

641

Fig. 8. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Facade, corner (juncture between W107.95 and W107.93), from the southwest. The opus incertum wall, here identified as a vestige of the original facade of the sanctuary, runs to the inner corner of the facade where it meets opus testaceum coigning in a 6 x 6 pattern (fig. 8); the coigning, also used to bond the corner to the adjacent W107.93, indicates that the corner and the adjoining stretches of opus incertum wall are contemporary. W107.93 finally terminates at its western end in opus testaceum, again employing coigning in a 6 x 6 pattern (fig. 9). Slightly to the west (left in fig. 9) of these latter coigns--ca. 0.60 m from the western end of the wall-is a vertical seam created by slicing off the ends of the bricks that are associated with the coigning. Although the final 0.60 m of the wall are of brick construction, the brickwork is not the same as that associated with the coigningjust described or the coigning in the inner corner. The
27 Brick counts are not conclusive. In the inner corner very little of the brick coigning is exposed. A reading of 21/22 or 22/23 can be obtained by using the 6 x 6 coigning pattern to count courses hidden behind the mortar setting bed. The bricks associated with the coigning at the end of W107.93 yield an 18/19 count, while the western face of W107.93 (where the bricks are better preserved) yields a

western end of W107.93 therefore reveals itself to be a reworking that is later than the main fabric of the wall.27 The brickwork that runs the length of W107.93 above the opus incertum (fig. 9) is problematical because its relationship with W107.95 is masked by extant setting bed mortal: It is clear, however, that this brickwork constitutes the back of the sculpture niche (of W93.107) associated with the Imperial Cult Building, and that the brickwork itself is therefore part of the Imperial Cult Building. If the brickwork is contemporary with the wall fabric below it (i.e., of W107.93), then the whole wall must be interpreted structurally and chronologically with the Imperial Cult Building.28 This brickwork, however, interrupts the 6 x 6 pattern of coigning at the western end of the wall and therefore appears to be a later reworking of the wall that supersedes the 6 x 6 coigning and its associated opus incertum. The ability to distinguish the phases of this wall has important implications for determining the date of the Imperial Cult Building. Extremely important pieces of evidence, and the first clue toward establishing the long history of the sanctuary, are two small segments of painted plaster preserved in the inner corner of W107.93 and W107.95 (fig. 8). The first, ca. 2 cm thick, adheres to the wall, turns the corner, and is without any doubt an intentional decorative treatment of the wall. Higher up the wall the edge of a second fragment is visible. Both patches of painted plaster are overlapped by the setting bed for the marble revetment that constituted the second decorative treatment of the facade. The setting bed has fallen away to reveal the painted plaster just described, but it is clear from.the thickness that the setting bed once covered these still extant patches of painted decoration. Mau made the same observations in 1879; however, as discussed below, he considered the plaster and the wall to which it is attached to belong to the exterior of the south exedra of the Imperial Cult Building.29 Maiuri did not consider the painted patches to be in a primary context.30 When the sculpture niche, W93.107, is viewed from the north, it is apparent that the niche underwent some reworking to produce its present form, but those changes have no bearing on the structural and chronological relationship between the Imperial Cult Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. More important is exedra 95 whose coherent fabric reveals it to have been constructed all at one time. Its wall facings are of quasi-reticulate masonry except for the northern ends of W95.107 and W95.105 where brick coigning effects the transition from the quasi-reticulate walls to the opus testaceum antae that frame the entrance to the exedra.

201/4count. 28 This was Mau's view (infra n. 29), which will be taken up below. 29 Mau 1879, 256; Mau 1894, 184. My observations were made before I had read Mau's accounts. 30 Maiuri 1942, 52.

642

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 9. Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus. Facade, W107.93, from the south. It is clear from plans and aerial photographs that there is a thickening of walls in the zone where exedra 95 meets the precinct wall of the adjacent sanctuary (figs. 1-2).31 Conclusions regarding the chronological relationship between the two buildings depend upon the reading of the relationship between the exedra's rear wall and the sanctuary. Which wall was earlier?The plan and aerial views suggest that the sanctuary wall is earlier. The southwest corner of room 105, where W105.95 meets the sanctuary wall,is critical,but the relationshipbetween the wallsis not completely clear.Figure 10 shows D105.95, W105.95, and the interface between the latter and the sanctuary wall. The Imperial Cult Building appearsto be constructed It against the sanctuarywall.32 is clear that figure 10 does not depict a finished corner of a preexisting exedra because corners terminate in solid, coigned masonry, not irregular facing. To argue otherwise and claim that this edge is a preexisting corner not only posits a structural anomaly,but also the serendipitous presence of a straight vertical edge made of irregularly shaped stones against which the sanctuarywall could be smoothly constructed. It is much more reasonable to read the straight edge of W105.95 as the product of constructing it against the already existing sanctuarywall. One response might be to argue that the exterior of the exedra was sliced off to allow for the straightalignment of the sanctuary wall and that this action eliminated the coigned corner of the exedra. This, too, fails.The straight Herculaneum of 31 W.EJashemski, The Gardens Pompeii, and the VillasDestroyed Vesuvius (New Rochelle 1979) fig. by 8; Jashemski, Gardens PompeiiII: Appendices (New Roof chelle 1993) fig. 4; L. Franchidell'Orto ed., Pompei: EinJbrmatica servizio una cittdt al di antica(Rome 1988) pl. 18. 32 Some cleaning and scraping might help, but only a edge would still be an improbable happenstance and the shaving of the exedra would have produced a perilously thin wall at its southwest corner. Here there would have been almost no masonry to support the facing. The wall would surely have collapsed,but there is no trace of repair. Another response might be to claim thatjust as D105.95 is constructed of opus incertum without brick coigning to produce itsjambs, so the exterior corner of the exedra was constructed without the usual corner treatment. The argument is attractive,but the comparison is misleading for it pairs the exterior corner of a major building with a small, subsidiary door. Other subsidiary doors are constructed in a similarfashion, but the freestanding exterior corners of large buildings are coigned. In sum, the evidence indicates that the south exedra of the Imperial Cult Building is later than the sanctuary wall. As so much depends upon the interpretation of this interface, further analysis is required. Moreover, as Mau's evaluation of the evidence underwent a 180' transformation, and as his revised view has had such a profound effect on Pompeian studies, it is justifiable to reopen the discussion in order to consider the problem as fully as possible.33 Initially, Mau considered that the sanctuary was dedicated to the Genius of Augustus and that the Imperial Cult Building, then called the Curia, was a later construction because the south wall

dismantling of the walls would provide confirmation,and that is obviously not recommended. 11 None of the current speculation concerning a pre-62 date for the cult building is supported by a new architectural analysis. It therefore seems likely that Mau's hypothesis lies at the root of these theses.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

643

Fig. 10. Critical wall juncture II. D105.95 and junction between W105.95 and W105.109 (north precinct wall of the Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus), from the east. of the exedra abutted the Augustan sanctuary wall.34 He also argued that the facade of the sanctuary, which he correctly observed bonds with the Eumachia facade, abuts the southwest corner of the cult building's exedra, thereby creating the ragged seam already discussed. Thus, for Mau in 1879 the construction sequence was 1) the Augustan sanctuary, 2) the Imperial Cult Building (his "Curia," which he dated to the pre-earthquake period), and 3) the post-earthquake facade of the Augustan sanctuary. "4Mau 1879, 255-56. Mau 1894. In this article Mau did not offer a date for the cult building. These views are reiterated in Mau 1896, 285-87. Here Mau retains the belief that our W107.95 and W107.93 belonged only to the south exedra of the
15

Then, following a reexamination of the walls he reversed his opinion, mistakenly I believe, and argued that the south exedra of the cult building was anterior to the sanctuary's precinct wall and that the sanctuary itself was a post-earthquake foundation dedicated to Vespasian.35This pronouncement prepared the way for Maiuri's study and for the view, current until very recently, that the temple was a Flavian foundation. The change in Mau's thinking involved only the chronological relationship between the exedra and the adjacent sanctuary. Remaining constant through both phases of his theory was his belief in the structural independence of the south exedra and of the cult building as a whole (fig. 11). Herein lies a major difference between Mau's reading of this juncture and my own. As will be seen, I recognize three components in this juncture (fig. 12): a vestige of the original precinct wall of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus, the post-62 reconstruction of the same sanctuary, and finally the south exedra of the Imperial Cult Building. In order to evaluate Mau's readings we must return to W107.95/W95.107 and W107.93. Mau considered these two walls to belong to the Imperial Cult Building and believed the seam on W107.95 between opus incertum and opus testaceum to be the point at which the postearthquake sanctuary facade abutted the preexisting south exedra (fig. 11). By chance, this seam falls at the location where the southwestern corner of the exedra would have been if the exedra had been a freestanding structure, but this is just a coincidence. The absence of coigning proves that this point in the wall was never a finished exterior corner againstwhich the repaired facade of the sanctuary was built. If the opus incertum masonry actually belonged to a preexisting exedra, the corner would have been located further to the south to account for the additional masonry requiredby its coigning, a situation that would undercut the argument for seeing the present juncture as a corner. In addition, the arguments against reading the southeastern corner of exedra 95 as a finished freestanding corner (fig. 10) must be recalled here. The conclusion is that the exedra lacks the two finished exterior corners it should have if Mau's theory were correct. Lackingthese, the exedra failsto achieve the structuralindependence required to support Mau'sinterpretation. From the above analysis it follows that the opus incertum ofW 107.95 does not belong to a freestanding, preexisting exedra; another explanation must be sought. Mau cult building. The possibilitythat these walls are vestiges of the earlierfacade of the sanctuaryis not entertained. In the 1896 article, p. 287, Mau offered an Early Imperial date for the cult building.

644

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 11. Critical wall juncture II. Plan and isometric drawing (Mau). (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins)

Fig. 12. Critical wall juncture II. Plan and isometric drawing (Dobbins). (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins)

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

645

did not take into consideration the possibilitythat the two sides of a single wall may not be contemporary; consequently, he read W107.95 as a wall of one period. A different reading recognizes that at Pompeii the two sides of a single wall may be faced very differently and that the two facings may or may not be contemporary.Instances where the two visible sides of walls are of different dates are W111.114 and W197.221. The view taken here (fig. 12) is that W107.95 (fig. 7), the patches of painted plaster (fig. 8), and most of W107.93 (fig. 9) are vestiges of the original Augustan sanctuaryand that the process of constructing exedra 95 produced 1) the facing that is designated W95.107, 2) the sculpture niche in W93.107 whose back is formed by the stretch of bricks above the opus incertum on W107.93 (fig. 9), and 3) the western termination of W107.93/93.107 (fig. 9). In other words, when the Imperial Cult Building was constructed, exedra 95 ran up against the eastern side of W107.95, continued along the northern side of W107.93, and overlapped the western end of W107.93 (fig. 12). This masonry chronology indicates that the cult building postdates the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Moreover, as the exedra abuts the rebuilt north precinct wall of the sanctuary, its sequence in the construction history of the forum must be assigned to a period that postdates those repairs. Presented in the discussion of the cult building itself are additional arguments for assigning its absolute date to the post-62 period. III. Imperial Cult Building/Macellum The design relationship between the Imperial Cult Building and the Macellum is much more intimate than the simple construction of one building against another. The Macellum, a simply designed, but structurally complex building, consists of several discrete building projects (fig. 38 presents the post-62 building projects). The evidence by which these several construction projects can be identified and associated with the post-62 period is presented in the discussion of the Macellum itself. Of interest here is the "facade and portal project," which includes most of the facade shops, the redesigned entrance, and the projecting termination of the southern end of the facade. The southern end of the facade project, located at the southwestern corner of the Macellum, extends beyond the already re-

paired corner of the building, turns the corner, and forms the back wall of the north exedra of the Imperial Cult Building. At the same time, the construction forms the southern limit of the Macellum facade and also defines the northern edge of the entrance to the cult building, including a sculpture niche (in W93.27) that balances the one already discussed. In addition, the facade project blocks the street that once ran along the south side of the Macellum. While the multiple function of this single construction is fascinating from the point of view of design and urban planning, the chronological implications are equally apparent and important: the construction of the Imperial Cult Building belongs to the same project as the facade of the Macellum. To date one is to date the other. While it is relatively easy to see that the Macellum facade wraps around the southwestern corner of the building and becomes one with the Imperial Cult Building, a detailed assessment of the masonry is frustratedby a modern refacing of the corner that also included a refacing and a rebuilding(?) of the rear wall of the Imperial Cult Building's exedra 92. Two photographs provided by the Fototeca of the Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei (figs. 13-14) show the state of the walls prior to my work at the site in the '80s and early '90s. Figure 13 shows that the upper part of the facade wall is constructed of reused tufa architectural fragments in a manner typical of the post-earthquake period. Later repairs now completely mask the architecturalfragments that are most helpful in providing a date for the wall and therefore for the whole facade project and the adjacentbuilding associatedwith it. Figure 14 also documents the use of architecturalrubble in the south wall of the Macellum (upper left corner) and in the back wall of the exedra. No evidence of the door in the eastern wall of the exedra is apparent.36The opus reticulatum backing of the exedra is modern; the doorjamb of small tufa blocks in the northeastern corner of the exedra is certainly modern; the creation of the doorway itself may be modern.37 Mau confessed difficulty in reading the interface between the cult building and the Macellum.38 In the same passage he claimed that the relationship between the cult building and its adjacent buildings will not yield a clearer date for the former. This is a surprising declaration because it is precisely those relationships that reveal the building's relative and

36 The angle, the distance, and the presence of soil in the exedra may mask features that were actually present. 37 This rebuilding is at odds with Mau's account (1879, 256; 1896, 287; reiterated by Maiuri 1942, 50) that this door was blocked. The date of the soil deposition shown in fig. 14 is problematicalas well; Mau'sobservationof the blocked door suggests that this area was clear of earth at

that time. The Eschebachplan from which fig. 1 is derived does not show a door in this location nor does Mau's own plan in Mau 1896, 285; see H. Eschebach, Die StadtebaulicheEntwicklung antikenPompeji(RM Suppl. 17, des Heidelberg 1970). 38 Mau 1896, 287.

646

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 13. Macellum. Facade. Shops 25 and 26 showing masonry now masked by modern repairs, from the west. Undated photograph (E24 [ex. E/10]). (Courtesy Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei)

Fig. 14. Imperial Cult Building (north side) and Macellum beyond showing masonry now masked by modern repairs, from the south. Photograph (A[773] 7912 8-6-67). (Courtesy Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei) absolute chronologies. Mau was led to this conclusion by his already firmly held conviction that the so-called Temple of Vespasian was later, and by his observation that it was not possible to determine whether the cult building abutted the original or the repaired Macellum. We can see where Mau's usually more strict methodology broke down. The cult building should have forced him to reevaluate his understanding of the relationship between the cult building and the adjacent buildings. Instead, Mau's prior opinions dictated his interpretation of the cult building. This, coupled with his difficulty in discerning the relationship between the cult building and the Macellum, undermined his reading of the masonry chronology and led him to date the building to the Early Imperial period.

Arch Corner IV. Northwest Project/Forum

The Macellum's northwest corner project is fully discussed under the Macellum. It consists of facade spaces 1, 2, 19, and the now-broken arch that once spanned the northern entrance to the sculpture gal-

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

647

Fig. 15. Macellum. Facade (right); forum colonnade and associated statue bases; forum arch; eastern flank of the Temple of Jupiter; from the south. ery associated with the Macellum's forum colonnade, reaching from the northwest corner project of which it was a coherent part to the previously standing forum arch whose eastern edge was prepared to receive it. The forum arch is the prominent arch that stands at the northeast corner of the Temple of Jupiter (fig. 15). There are only two points to be made here. The first is chronological. Abutting walls and seams make it very easy to recognize that the northwest corner project is posterior to the outer face of the western perimeter wall of the Macellum. Once the facade and portal project (see below) is seen as posterior to yet earlier features, and understood as post-62 repair work, the northwest corner project assumes a chronologically late position in the rebuilding of the Macellum. The essential issue, however, is its post-62 date. The second point relates to design: the connection between the Macellum and the forum arch, by means of the new arch, is yet another example of the unifying force of the post62 design.
THE EUMACHIA BUILDING

General Discussion Although a detailed understanding of the undoubtedly multiple uses of the Eumachia Building (figs. 16-17) may always elude us, the building is a useful starting point, as it offers a wealth of architectural, sculptural, and epigraphic evidence, and also presents many of the problems of analysis and interpretation that are typical of the forum as a whole. Moreover, it can be dated with considerable confidence to the first decade A.D., thereby documenting building techniques and materials during the Augustan period. Mau's Tiberian date, which held sway for so long, is finally being replaced by a clearer understanding of the building's Augustan date and context.39 Richardson identifies the Eumachia Building typologically as a porticus that is related historically, architecturally, and ideologically to the building program of Augustus at Rome.40 Kockel, too, prefers an Augustan date for the building.41

39 Mau 1902, 111-12. Some years ago W.O. Moeller, "The Date of Dedication of the Building of Eumachia," 1 CronPomp (1975) 232-36, argued for an Augustan date; more recently,but without discussion, De Vos and De Vos (supra n. 8) 40 also assigned an Augustan date. Richardson's discussion of the building'sAugustan allusions (infra n. 40) and Kockel'sAugustan dating (infra n. 41) are representative of the new trend. Thus, the building can assume its rightful position along with the Temple of FortunaAugusta and the Holconian additions to the theater,both securely dated Augustan projects,as an example of Augustan masonry style at Pompeii.

L. Richardson, jr, "Concordia and Concordia Augusta: Rome and Pompeii,"PP 33 (1978) 260-72; and Richardson 194-98. Although I cannot agree with Richardson'sassessmentof the post-earthquakehistoryof the Eumachia Building, his observations have been central to the formulation of my own understanding of the pervasive Augustan and Julio-Claudian imagery on the east side of the forum and extending beyond the forum to the Temple of FortunaAugusta one block north. 41 V. Kockel, "Funde und Forschungen in den Vesuvstidten," AA 1986, 457-58.

40

648

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

190

211

217

223

189
2187

210

220 214

186 185

208

209

213

218

221

15

112

212
9
20

-4206

203

204

194

M Augustanmasonry
M Post-62-masonry Fig. 16. Eumachia Building. Plan. (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins) Scale and siting give the Eumachia Building special prominence (figs. 1-2). In size it nearly equals the open space enclosed by the forum colonnade and it was the first building one saw upon entering the forum from the via Marina. The building inscription on the architrave called attention to the donor and pointed to the building's wider civic meaning. For the person approaching the forum along the upward grade of the via dell'Abbondanza, the Eumachia Building marked the final stretch of road. The building's articulated southern facade served as a gauge to the pedestrian's measured progress along the last 70 m of the via dell'Abbondanza, while announcing the proximity of the forum and the importance of the building behind this facade. Inscriptions over the forum colonnade and over the southeast entrance record that Eumachia, public priestess and daughter of Lucius Eumachius, in her own name and in that of her son, Marcus Numistrius Fronto, constructed the building with her own funds and dedicated it to Concordia Augusta and Pietas (CIL X, 810-11). The three parts of the building named in the inscription (chalcidicum,porticus, and crypta) are identified, respectively, as the space between the forum colonnade and the main facade, the interior colonnade, and the corridor behind the interior colonnade that is separated from it by a wall with windows. Through her dedication of a porticus at Pompeii, Eumachia emulated the dedication in Rome of the Porticus Liviae in 7 B.C., a dedication to Concordia that Livia shared with her

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

649

Fig. 17. Eumachia Building. Facade, from the southwest. son, Tiberius. Building type, joint benefaction with her son (surely in the hope of advancing his career), and dedication to Concordia Augusta indicate that one of the most prominent women at Pompeii was consciously expressing her civic responsibilities and aspirations in the same architectural, familial, and religious language employed by the most prominent woman in Rome.42 The chalcidicum presents an articulated facade to the forum (fig. 17). Curved and square exedrae (figs. 6, 18), as well as sculpture niches, flank the main portal. Fragmentary inscriptions for statues of Aeneas and Romulus connect the sculptural program of the chalcidicum with the Forum of Augustus in Rome.43 It is not known if the statue bases against the forum colonnade (figs. 1-2) continued the Augustan program or served as a Pompeian analogy, perhaps with local summi viri. The ample portal is framed with an inhabited scroll carved in marble that evokes the acanthus scroll of the Ara Pacis Augustae. To the south of the portal is a small room (205) that appears to have been a porter's the lodge. Toib left, in the space between the facade wall and the interior wall, a service passage leads to The dedication to Concordia Augusta affords us a specific example of an abstractionbeing explicitly associated with Augustus and the Augustan regime. For discussions of Concordia and of the Augustan transformationin form and meaning of the Temple of Concord in the Forum Romanum, see Richardson (supra n. 40) and B.A. Kellum, "The CityAdorned: ProgrammaticDisplay at the in AedesConcordiae Augustae," K.A. Raaflauband M. Toher and eds., Between of Republic Empire: InterpretationsAugustus and His Principate (Berkeley 1990) 276-307. 43 II 13.3 (Rome 1937) nos. 85-86 (CILX, 808, 809); the
42

Fig. 18. Eumachia Building. Facade, detail of 196, from the southwest.

Aeneas inscription, no. 85, is similarto but is not a verbatim copy of the Aeneas inscription from the Forum of Augustus, II 13.3, no. 1.

650

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 19. Eumachia Building. South wall and via dell'Abbondanza,from the southwest. an alley between the Eumachia Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. The south and east exterior walls are treated as a series of shallow bays framed by stepped pilasters and capped by pediments alternatingly triangular and segmental in shape (figs. 19-22). This treatment does not continue onto the north wall whose outer face remains unarticulated, as far as pre-

served. The east side of the building preserves the best evidence for the stucco decoration of the bays, a First-Stylescheme featuring a large panel within each bay topped by two courses of ashlarblocks (fig. 21).44 Triangular pediments are framed by a normal leaf-and-dart, while segmental pediments are framed by an egg-and-dart molding; pilasters terminate in Corinthian capitals. The application of

Fig. 20. Eumachia Building. South wall, western end, from the southwest.

44

A. Laidlaw, The First Style in Pompeii:Painting and Architecture(Rome 1985) 320-21.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

651

Fig. 21. Eumachia Building. East wall, from the northeast.

Fig. 22. Eumachia Building. Northeast corner, from the northeast. the very high quality stucco, containing marble dust in the surface coat, reflects the highest standards of craftsmanship. In its pristine condition the Eumachia Building would have gleamed in the Pompeian sun like the marble buildings of Augustan Rome. The porticus surrounded the open-air central court. Today the court is framed by a gutter, a step, and a stylobate, all in lava (fig. 23). At the eastern

end of the court, the step and stylobateare sheathed with marble (fig. 24), a condition that raises several interpretive problems, discussed below. At the east, the porticus terminates in a large apse flanked by two smallerapses communicatingwith the cryptaby windows (fig. 24). Excavations by Maiuri demonstrate that the apse with its central statue base and flanking statue niches replaces a rectilinear pre-

652

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 23. Eumachia Building. Interior,south portico, from the northwest. earthquake recess.45 The temple-like projection at the center of the eastern branch of the porticus emphasized the apsidal sculpture gallery and invested it with an aura of religious sanctity.46 The apse may have contained the statues whose fragments were found in 1820.47 Richardson is probably correct in reconstructing a sculptural program consisting of a statue of Livia on the central base flanked by statues of Concordia and Pietas in the niches.48 There are three entrances to the crypta (fig. 16). Two are located at the western ends of the interior portico; the doorway to the northern crypta preserves a well-worn threshold with cuttings for a door. A third is a stepped ramp leading from the southeast entrance. A porter's lodge, still containing Third-Style wall painting, flanks this entrance. At the center of the eastern branch of the crypta, a sculpture niche contained a marble statue of Eumachia and an inscription recording that the fullers dedicated it (fig. 24).49Ample windows with low sills (ca. 0.95 m above the porticus floor) connect the crypta to the porticus. Several are sufficiently preserved to provide widths from 1.40 m to 1.47 m. The sills were marble slabs (two measure 0.41 m in depth). Those in situ (or possibly replaced) in the south porticus wall preserve setting lines for the jambs and cuttings at the corners for shutters, although no central hole for a latch is visible.50 The conclusion to be drawn is that the crypta was amply lighted by windows and was capable of being secured by shutters and doors, while access to the building as a whole could easily be monitored by porters at the two entrances. Both entrances to the southeast porter's lodge, the southeast entrance proper, and the top of the entrance ramp contain thresholds with cuttings for doors.

45 Maiuri 1973, 92. For a reconstruction drawing, see Mau 1902, 116. 47 PAH 11.4, 19 (17 March 1820) records that during the previous week the following finds of marble sculpture were made: the upper part of a cornucopia, the foot of a life-sizestatue, a hand of a life-sizestatue, and an inscribed herm. The report does not provide the findspot(s)of these sculptures. As the previous entry (1 March 1820) records the discovery of the statue of Eumachia in the niche behind the central apse, however, it is possible to infer that the excavations of March 1820 were taking place in the eastern part of the building. Richardson 197 assigns the fragments to a statue of Concordia, observing that "fragments of a statuette less than life-size that carried a cornucopia and would fit the Concordia type were found in the If Concordia and Pietas were only supexcavation ....
46

porting figures for the statue that stood on the central base, the central figure may have been Livia."As the account in PAH records that the foot and hand are life-size, Richardson may be in error on the scale; I have not seen the fragments. The niches that flank the central base would accommodatelife-sizestatueswhile the centralbase would appropriatelyhold an over-life-sizestatue. 48 Richardson 197. 49 PAH 11.4, 17-18 (1 March 1820); CIL X, 813. The original statue is in the Museo Nazionale, Naples; a plaster copy occupies the niche. 50 The absence of holes for latches should not be construed as evidence that the shutters could not be locked. The sills are fragmentarywhere they do exist and are, at least in part, the products of modern repairs.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

653

Fig. 24. Eumachia Building. Interior, general view of east end, from the southwest. A convincing explanation of the function of the building has long eluded scholars. On the basis of the fullers' inscription and the vats allegedly found next to the south porticus, early commentators identified the building as a fullery.51 Mau correctly rejected the theory and suggested instead that the building served as a market for wool or clothing in general.52 In associating the Eumachia Building with porticus structures in Rome, Richardson argues for a multipurpose use, possibly including the sale of luxury goods, and not excluding the woollen trade;53I think he is right. Materials and Techniques Building materials and techniques link the Eumachia Building to other securely dated buildings. As this group of monuments allows the character of Augustan-period construction at Pompeii to emerge, it is necessary to turn our attention to building fabric and technique. The original phase of the Eumachia Building employs limestone (for opus incertum), gray tufa (for coursed stonework using small cut blocks), and brick (for opus testaceum). The extensive use of opus incertum throughout the building dictated that corners, doors, window frames, and the bays of the exterior walls employ brick or cut stone to produce sharp, plumb, vertical edges. We begin with the exterior. The pilasters are constructed of gray tufa blocks in a scheme of alternating courses: two blocks of equal length alternate with a three-block scheme of a standard-length block flanked by two short blocks (figs. 20-21, 25). Bay centers of opus incertum bond with the pilasters by means of a 3 x 3 coigning scheme. Two Pompeian buildings, dated by inscriptions to the Augustan period, display the same use of small, gray Nocera tufa blocks and opus incertum. The earlier of the two is the Temple of Fortuna Augusta dedicated by M. Tullius and dated by Mau to the years just before 3 B.C.54 Here the outer corners of the temple as well as the frames of the four interior wall niches employ the same tufa blocks while the walls themselves are of opus incertum. The coigning is not as precise as on the Eumachia Building. On the other hand, opus testaceum jambs of the door to the cella of the temple parallel precisely the relationship of brick to opus incertum that one sees

e di 1'G. Bechi, Del calcidico dellacripta Eumachia scavati l'anno1820 (Naples 1820) 79-82. A usenelforodi Pompeja ful history of the attempts to identify the building is found in "The Building of Eumachia:A ReconsidW.O.Moeller, Moeller's own identificaeration," AJA 76 (1972) 323-27. tion of the function has not found favor.

52 Overbeck and Mau 133; Mau 1892, 141-42; Mau 1902, 112-13. 53 Richardson 198. De Vos and De Vos (supra n. 8) 41 also share in the current trend toward rejecting both the fullery and wool market hypotheses. 54 Mau (supra n. 6).

654

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 25. Eumachia Building. South wall, detail, from the south.

on the Augustan segments (and also the repairs) of In the Eumachiafacade.55 short, the same construction techniques and the same use of limestone, gray tufa, and brick link these two buildings at the level of construction, while their dedications link them at the level of iconography and patronage in which both benefactors chose to express their publicamagin nificentia the current Augustan idiom. The second Augustan structure is the Holconian addition to the theater.60 Here the doorways to the upper vaulted passage, the tribunals, and the exterior corners of the scene building employ tufa blocks and opus incertum in a manner comparable to that seen on the Temple of FortunaAugusta and the Eumachia Building. The 3 x 3 coigning scheme is not as precise as that in the Eumachia Building, but it is clear enough in thejambs flanking the doors to the annular corridor. While it is not possible at present to offer a precise date within the Augustan period for the Holconian renovations, the masonry style allows the theater to be associated with the Eumachia Building and the Temple of Fortuna Augusta. Given the extensive influence from Rome on the architecturaland sculpturalprograms on the

forum, it is likely that the newly completed Theater of Marcellusin Rome was the inspirationbehind the Holconian benefaction. Marcus Holconius Rufus, then, should be credited with modernizing the Pompeian theater and thereby transforming it into a theater of Roman form.57 The similarityof materialsand techniques among the three buildings just discussed lends support to the arguments based on patronage and Augustan iconography that have been employed to date the Eumachia Building to the Augustan period. Now that the date is establishedand the building assumes its rightful chronological position as an Augustan structure, it can serve as a valuable point of reference in confronting other buildings, not the least of which is the problematicaladjacentSanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus. In addition, the exercise of looking closely at the masonry prepares the way for recognizing disjunctionsin the pattern of constructionjust described. Such disjunctions,characterized by changes in materials and techniques, point to a massive repair that is compatible with other such repairs throughout the city in the period following the earthquake of 62.

55This includes a 7 x 7 coigning scheme and 22-23 courses of brick per meter in both buildings. Richardson 204 is incorrect in speculating that the brick coigning of the doorjambs is post-earthquake repair. The coigning bonds smoothly with the adjacent opus incertum; there are no seams to indicate that the brick jambs are later features. On the contrary,the evidence points to thejambs

being part of the seamless construction dating to the Augustan period. 56 Supra n. 7. 57The tribunalia constructed in what had been the parodoi of the original Hellenistic-typetheater linked the scaena and the cavea and created a unified theater of Roman form.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

655
m"- -7

seam

I I+ +
- =,

E+
+ ++ . .

u0 U o 0-uo-o 0 0 u- CC0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0T00000 00 0 0 0 C 0 < 00 D000000 0 O O 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OcC 0 0 0 OC0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 Q30 0 0 0 0 0C0 0 0 ,) 0 cC0 -0 00 0)0 0 + +cO 0 0 O 0 _C C C 0 ) 0 0 0 C00+ + ++ + +O+ 0 2 + ++ D 0 O+_+ + OOc ,++ + + O? + + + _+O + + ++- + + + + %._+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + ++ + ++ ++++++ + seam +

?~ Y 7b~-f~r ,oT-/0 0\-o\-o\.c\-o , %') o?-o- o )o

++

.+
+ .+ +++ + +

+
+ +. +

+
+

+ + + + ++++++++++

+ +

+ -+ ..+ + -

+++++++ + +

+ +A +

++ +

+ ++++++++ + + +

+++++++ + +

+++ +

++

4 4

+
+

+
+ +

+ + +..
++

+
+ +

+
+ + + + + ++ +

+
+ + + + + +

+
+ + +

+
+ + +

+
+ + +

+
++

+
++ +

+
++ + + + +

+
++ + +

+
++ +

+
++

+
++ + + +

+
+ + + + + + +

4+

++ +

+ + + +

+ +. + + + +

++ + + + I+ + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + +

+
+

+ + +. + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + +

4 +

+ Ct +

++ + + +

++-

+ + + "+ + +

++

+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +

++ + + + ++ + + + + 4+ + + + + 1+ + + + + + + + + +t~ + + +

4
4 4
+ I+

+ + +

++

+ ++ + + + + + + + +

++

+ +

+ + + + + ++ + + + + ++ ++++++++
+ + + + + + + +

+ + Ctl +++++ + + +

+ +

+ +
+

+ + Original

t Ancient+ +rM O ai++++++++++++++d+++++++++++++n

++ +

I:'? Original

repair E~o Ancient

C-- Modern

Fig. 26. Eumachia Building. South wall. Drawing of detail shown in figure 25. Post-62 Repairs and Decoration It is not surprising that such an important building would be repaired after the earthquake; indeed, repairs abound.5" Our examination begins with the southern exterior wall, proceeds to the northeastern exterior corner, then to the facade, and finally to the interior. The preserved evidence indicates that the building was not only repaired inside and out, but redecorated as well in a manner consistent with the importance of the spaces decorated. Two horizontal seams divide the south exterior wall into three zones (figs. 25-26). The upper seam is a level line near the top of the wall marking modern consolidation that at one time probably provided the wall with a level top. The lower seam corresponds to the top of the preserved stucco and appears as two curved lines that dip into the south side of the building (fig. 19). The closeup (fig. 25) and the accompanying drawing (fig. 26) reveal that the lower seam marks a change in construction. Below the seam is original construction as described above, while above it the masonry changes to rubble repair work. Above the lower seam the pilasters are roughly constructed and do not use coigning to bond with the fabric of the bays. The bays, for their part, contain large chunks of architectural rubble. This repaired zone is unmistakable and indicates that the southern wall of the building was severely damaged and subsequently repaired. The absence of stucco on the repaired zone indicates either that the decorative finishing of the exterior was never completed or that the quality of the stucco repairs was such that it has not adhered to the masonry.The western end of the south wall is constructed of opus testaceum and joins the original bay system in an irregular seam, devoid of coigning (fig. 20). As the repairs to the facade were effected largelyin opus testaceum, this segment of wall can be recognized as belonging structurally to the project aimed at restoring the facade to its original form. At the northeastern exterior corner the last two bays reveal extensive repairs (fig. 22). The entire corner of the building seems to have been rebuilt. Not only is there a change to brickfor the upper edge of the bays, but also the pilaster that separates the last two bays is constructed without coigning, and the pediments differ by using tufa blocks and bricks instead of the more thinly cut and more friablestone employed in the original construction.These observations pertaining to the construction of the pediments will be applied to the construction and chronology of the similarbays in the adjacent Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus. The Eumachia facade (fig. 17) was restored essentially as Maiurihas reported and the repaired walls stillbear the evidence for post-62 marble revetment, namely bronze tangs with their marble wedges, mortar setting beds with shims still in place, impressions of fallen or salvaged revetment slabs, and slabs still in situ (or restored correctly). It is worth underscoring that the post-62 structure, an articulated facade, duplicates both the form and the brickwork of the original Augustan-period building. Augustan brickworkis extensively preserved in the original part of rectangular exedra 197. At the northern edge of exedra 196, projecting elements of original brickcoigning remain embedded in original opus incertum (fig. 18). A prominent vertical seam separates the original masonry from views on the post-earthquake reconstruction are expressed graphically in his plan of the building, Maiuri 1973, fig. 45. Richardson 198 is of the same opinion. This view on the extent of the reconstruction can be traced back to Mau 1892, 114, 120.

58 Maiuri 1942, 41-42, and 1973, 91-99, however, argues for only limited repairs that returned the chalcidicum to use, shored up the northeastern corner, and saw the beginning of repairs to the interior, namely the construction of the eastern wall of the portico with its large apsidal niche in place of an earlier rectangular one. His

656

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 27. Eumachia Building. Interior,north crypta, W208.209 (near east end), opus incertum with rubble above, from the northwest. the repairs. The seam and the absence of coursing between the original coigns and the adjacent brickwork confirm that this is a construction of two phases. Similar vestiges of original brick coigning remain in situ in the podium of rectangular exedra 194 (fig. 6). These vestiges confirm that the Augustan-period building employed a combination of brick-faced concrete and opus incertum and that the post-62 repairs remained faithfulto the original form and materials of the facade.59 The use of opus testaceum in a creative curvilineardesign is noteworthyas the surviving monuments of Augustan Rome suggest a more conservative approach both to design and to concrete as a building medium. The Eumachiafacade, therefore, points to a greater variety in Augustan-period architecturaldesign than is suggested by Rome itself and serves as a corrective to interpretations that raise the Roman model to a universal standard.60 Extensive repairs to the interior resemble those of the exterior. The wall separating the north crypta from the porticus (W208.209) is constructed of opus incertum at its lowest level; above a ragged horizontalseam are repairs in rubble work (fig. 27). Sections of the south porticus/south crypta wall (W218.221) display the same treatment and include numerous Nocera tufa architecturalfragmentsin the rubble work.61' The western end of the south crypta, 221, is especially important, for here we begin to see that the wallswere not only reconstructed, but redecorated as well. Within the original western end of the south crypta a repair wall was constructed up against the end and side wallsof the crypta as if within a preexisting envelope (fig. 28). The opus incertum of the new construction, W221.197, employs lava and limestone for the most part, but also includes tufa rubble, tiles, and cruma. Rising above and behind this heterogeneous construction, the more homogeneous lava opus incertum represents the original eastern face of W221.197. The inner returns of the new wall are opus vittatum. Also of opus vittatum are the repaired doorjambs that abut the damaged walls that originallyformed the doorway.The seam between the two phases of constructionis clear,particularlyas one looks along the axis of W221.218 (fig. 28, right). Plaster,retaining some of its red

5" In stressing that the post-62 facade is constructed of brick,J.-P Adam seems to infer that the pre-62 facade was not: Degradation restauration l'architecture et de pompeienne (Paris 1983) 14; and Adam (supra n. 5) 78. 60 For the conservatism of Augustan architecture in Rome see Ward-Perkins (supra n. 8) 21-44 and 42 for the observation that "the most significant innovation [of Augustan architecture in Rome] was undoubtedly the occasional use of brick." While this claim is supported at Pompeiiby the limited use of brickin the EumachiaBuilding and in the Temple of FortunaAugusta, the curvilinear

design of the Eumachia facade, executed partly in brick, should not go unnoticed. 61 The preservation of original opus incertum at the lower level and rubble work above contradictsthe observations of Mau 1902, 113: "The other [interior]walls had remained standing at the time of the earthquake"and Richardson 196: "The building had been badly hit in the earthquake and was being rebuilt, in large part from the very foundations."The damage was neither as minimal as Mau argues, nor as extensive as Richardsonbelieves.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

657

Fig. 28. Eumachia Building. Interior, W221.197 (western end of south crypta), post-62 construction, from the east.

paint, appears on the end wall and on the two opus vittatum returns. Moreover,at the base of the south return (fig. 28, left) is a marble socle capped by a simple molding. The doorway to the north crypta, D209.208, displays the same opus vittatum repairs (fig. 29). The right (east) jamb meets the original porticus/cryptawall in an irregular seam. Whereas coigning would indicate contemporaneity of the two parts, the ragged seam indicates that the two elements belong to two temporallyseparatedbuilding projects. In this case it is clear that the right doorjamb is later than the wall it abuts. The left (west)jamb is part of

a wholly new post-62 wall that extends as far as and cuts into the original interior wall of the building, W209.201. Regular coigning between the opus vittatum left (west) jamb and the opus incertum wall demonstrates that the west jamb and its associated wall form a unitary construction. Important for identifying the post-62 marble veneer that decorated the rear wall of the porticus is the evidence of tangs (iron here), marble wedges, and setting bed (left of door) that definitively signal preparation for marble revetment. Tangs and wedges extend eastward along the entire length of the north porticus rear wall. An africano

Fig. 29. Eumachia Building. Interior, D212.208 (entrance to north crypta), showing post-62 construction, from the south.

658

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA 98

Fig. 30. Eumachia Building. Interior, W208.200 (western end of north crypta), showing post-62 construction, from the east. marble socle with a white marble crown molding has been restored along much of the wall's length; at the east end an africano revetment slab has been reerected. The similar treatment of the west and south walls of the porticus (tangs, wedges, setting bed) indicates that these sides, too, were destined for marble revetment and undoubtedly received it.62 (The east end requires a separate discussion, below, but the conclusion is that it, too, received its final decoration.) The association of the marble revetment evidence with post-62 walls is critical for establishing that the post-earthquake period saw not only the repair of the interior of the Eumachia Building, but also its lavish decoration. And finally, as the revetting or plastering of a wall is an aspect of finish work, and an indication that a building was structurally complete, the presence of such finish work on post-62 masonry proves that recovery had been carried to completion. By stepping through the door to the north crypta, D209.208, and turning left, one encounters repair work 62 For the method of interpreting evidence for marble revetment, see supra pp. 635-36. The observation by J.B. Ward-Perkins, "Tripolitania and the Marble Trade," JRS 41 (1951) 98, that the Eumachia Building was being veneered with imported polychrome marble at the time of the eruption should now be read in the light of the above comments on the proper reading of marble revetment evidence. Moreover, as Ward-Perkins was not concentrating on the construction, decorative history, or chronology of the Eumachia Building, his remark should not be taken as definitive in our evaluation of the building's degree of decorative completeness; rather he was using Pompeii with its fixed terminus of 79 as a gauge for measuring the dissemination of exotic marble in Italy. His conclusion, similar to that at the west end of the south crypta (fig. 30). A precisely constructed wall employs opus vittatum coigning to frame an opus incertum center; opus vittatum returns extend for 0.90 m along the sides of the crypta. The left (south) return forms a seam with the post-62 wall just described, i.e., the western end of W209.208. The abutting of one post-62 wall against another simply indicates that the various repairs in this sector were undertaken sequentially. Painted plaster and one side of a marble socle, echoing that in the south crypta, indicate that here, too, the walls were not only reconstructed, but decorated as well. The eastern wall of the porticus (fig. 24) with its large curved exedra flanked by windows and smaller curved niches (universally accepted as post-62 since the excavations of Maiuri)63belies its appearance as a wall that never received its decoration. Traces of the preparation for decoration survive, as close inspection reveals. The straight wall to the south of the large exedra preserves

supported by Fant (infra n. 65), was that the wide dissemination of polychrome marbles seen in the second century had not even begun by 79, the Eumachia Building being an exception. The present study reveals that contrary to being a unique exception, the Eumachia Building is joined by several other structures on the forum that were also revetted in marble. As the marble veneer of these other buildings has been removed, we cannot comment on polychromy; however, the very existence of evidence for stringcourses and narrow dividers between panels suggests a scheme employing polychromy. Thus, the forum as a whole, rather than the Eumachia Building alone, may constitute an exception. 63 Maiuri 1973, 92.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

659

tangs and wedges to a height of 1.28 m, substantial amounts of mortar to a height of 1.10 m, and traces of mortar at the upper level of the wall. Within the central exedra traces of mortar are visible throughout, while at the uppermost height of the exedra's northern end are three substantial patches. To the north of the exedra the straight wall preserves traces of mortar.On such evidence it is impossible to specify the type of decoration. The mortar is consistent with setting-bed mortar used in revetting, but the absence of tangs and wedges, except for the one small area mentioned, is anomalous, but that is beside the point. The significant conclusion is that the wall was prepared for decoration of some kind, and presumably received it. The discovery of statue fragments in this part of the building supports this conclusion, for statues were set against walls and in sculpture niches only after those walls and niches had received their decorative treatment. The installationof sculpture indicates that repairs to the building were finished and that scaffolding did not cover the interior. The statue of Eumachia herself, in the central niche of the crypta, argues the same point. ArchitecturalFragmentsand the Marble Stylobate Attention may now turn to the various architectural fragments of white marble (presumably Luna) that remain within the building so that they, too, can be incorporated into an assessment of the rebuilding and redecoration (figs. 23-24). In 1892 August Mau catalogued column and entablature elements and offered a reconstruction of the interior of the Eumachia Building.64 Leaving aside the question of the restoration of the interior, my aim here is to argue that the marble architectural elements belong to the post-62 phase of the building. Numerous architectural fragments of stuccoed tufa incorporated into the repairs of the Eumachia Building, the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus, and numerous buildings throughout Pompeii attest to an extensive tufa architecture in the pre-62 period. It is likely, but not certain, that the tufa architectural fragments belonged to the buildings into which they were later incorporated. It would have been possible, of course, to haul away the debris of the Eumachia Building and bring in other rubble, but carrying 64 Mau 1892. This reconstruction appeared subsequently in Mau 1902, 114, 116. 65 J.C. Fant, "Ideology, Gift, and Trade: A Distribution Model for the Roman Imperial Marbles,"in W.V.Harris ed., TheInscribed (Ann Arbor 1993) 145-70, esp. Economy 151-52. 66 Bechi (supra n. 51) 15. Bechi's wording is "si discende per un scalino marmoreo." 67 G. Fiorelli, Descrizione di Pompei(Naples 1875) 259: "Segue il portico poggiato su di uno stilobate di pietra nucerina, che andavasi rivestendo di marmo." 68 Overbeck and Mau 133; Mau 1892, 120.

coals to Newcastle is illogical at any time and certainly inconsistent with the well-organized and grandiose plans that the Pompeians had for monumentalizing their urban center. It seems reasonable in the face of the evidence and wholly in keeping with the post-62 use of marble both here and elsewhere on the forum to suggest that within the Eumachia Building the extant marble architectural fragments belong to the reconstruction while the tufa fragments incorporated into the repairs belong to the original building. This conclusion is consistent with current thinking on the diffusion of Luna marble throughout Italy in the first century.65As the partially preserved marble sheathing of the stylobate of the porticus contributes to the present discussion and raises other problems of its own, it deserves our attention. At the eastern end of the porticus the marble sheathing of the lava step and stylobate may initially appear to be modern due to the employment of broken and nonjoining marble scraps, which have the distinct character of being reused (fig. 24). Indeed, it is possible that some of this work is to be dated to the 19th century, particularly the placement of the final column and adjacent base at the eastern end of the south stylobate (fig. 24). On the whole, however, a case can be made that the sheathing is ancient and belongs to the post-62 period. Earlyrecords from the period of the initial excavation indicate that the marble sheathing may have been in situ when the Eumachia Building was excavated. Unfortunately, there is no account in PAH of the discovery of marble sheathing on the e stylobate. Guglielmo Bechi's 1820 Del calcidico dellacripta di Eumachia,however, records that one descends marble steps to reach the central court.66Fiorelli, writing a generation later, is of the same opinion.67Mau, yet another generation later,accepts the marblesheathing as ancient.68 More recently, Maiuri expressed the same opinion.69Of these accounts, the most critical,yet the most imprecise, is Bechi's. Does he document what was found during the initial excavation or what was thought to have existed, and which was then partially restored? There is no clear answer.70 It is clear,however,that the marble sheathing is a secondary treatment of the stylobateas it would have covered a

69 Maiuri 1942, 42.

Bechi (supra n. 51) 14 describesthe portico as it once appeared, not as it was found: "Si entra nella porta principale, ed ecco i portici tutti marmorei, sostenuti da quarantotto colonne corintie di bianco marmo."By the same token, the description of the marble-clad stylobate may refer to the condition that he believed once had existed. An abundance of marble fragments found at the east end of the court may have led to an early post-excavation sheathing of the stylobate that has subsequently been accepted as ancient.
70

660

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

regularly spaced pattern of dowel holes that belong to an earlier arrangement in which columns were bedded directly on the lava surface. Dowel holes along the unsheathed length of the south stylobate are approximately 2.27 m apart in contrast to the 2.56-m interaxial distance between the column and base at the southeast corner of the porticus (fig. 24). The lengths of three intact marble entablature blocks (two are visible in fig. 23) are 2.27 m, 2.27 m, and 2.29 m. These entablature blocks could have been supported by columns set on the lava stylobate, but not by the columns with 2.56-m interaxials set on the sheathed stylobate. Should the marble entablature blocks be associated with a colonnade that stood on the lava stylobate or with a colonnade with the same spacing that stood on the sheathed stylobate?If the latter,how should the anomalous 2.56-m interaxial distance be interpreted? If it is correct that the stuccoed tufa column fragments incorporated into the repairsbelonged to the original construction, then they could have stood on the lava stylobate. While most of the visible fragments are from columns, an intact tufa pilaster capital built into W218.221 also may have been part of the scheme. One fragment of a Doric drum immured in W221.218 provides a restored diameter of 0.48 m, a dimension that would have allowed it to stand on the 0.50-m-wide lava stylobate.There is no proof that this fragment belonged to the original colonnade, but it raises the possibilitythat an original tufa order may have been Doric. It is difficult to imagine that a lava stylobatewould have carried a marble colonnade. It therefore seems more likely to posit that the post-62 reconstruction replaced a tufa order with a marble order that employed the same interaxial spaces-the compatibility of dimensions between the lava stylobate cuttings and the marble entablature lengths suggests that this was the case. If this hypothesis is correct, an explanation for the anomalous 2.56-m interaxial emerges: it is a product of a 19th-century resetting of the columns, a process that probablyalso included the refacing of the stylobate with various marble scraps left by the ancient salvagers who recovered most of the ancient sheathing. The 2.27-m dimension of the first interaxial at the western end of the southern lava stylobate would have been balanced by an identical interaxialat the eastern end. Seen in this light, the marble stylobate is ancient, but displays modern repairs. Surviving elements of the modillion cornice indicate that the new marble order was Corinthian.

chia-all located at the eastern end of the building. At the same time, the chalcidicum was fully stripped, marble veneer from the western interior wall was removed, and even the very blocks of the western stylobate were salvaged. Salvaging appears to have proceeded from west to east, and for reasons now unknown, was incompletely carried out at the eastern end of the building. Additional evidence supports the hypothesis that the stylobate was sheathed, namely clamp cuttings along the outer edge of the unsheathed portion of the south stylobate. These cuttings, which could have contained the clamps that held the vertical slabs in place, have parallels on the stylobate of the forum colonnade in front of the Macellum. It is clear from those cuttings that the face of the stylobate in front of the Macellum was revetted in marble. Lime Vats Five lime vats, located along the south side of the central court, constitute the final impediment to recognizing that the Eumachia Building was rebuilt and redecorated.7" The standard interpretation is that they were in use at the time of the eruption and that they constitute proof that the building was still undergoing repairs in 79.72 This interpretation has not always held sway, nor have the vats always been so confidently identified. Indeed, by now reassessing their nature and function, we can determine that they do not constitute the clinching evidence that the building was still undergoing repairs. To start, there is no account in PAH that records the discovery or provides a description of these features. The first mention occurs in 1820 by Bechi who interprets them as vats in which fullers wash clothing.73The vats thus played a major role in the identificationof the building as a fullonica, a view finally laid to rest by Overbeck and Mau.74 Bechi's plate I is a plan of the building that depicts the vats in two-dimensional fashion as line-drawn rectangles, each with a central longitudinal line (as Richardson's fig. 31). In 1838 Mazois presented two versions of the vats.75 volume III, plate 14 (plan of the forum), the vats In appear as in Bechi, but with the addition of hatching on one side of the longitudinal dividing line. In plate 22 of
the same volume (plan of the Eumachia Building) the vats have acquired pitched roofs and even cast shadows! In the absence of adequate descriptions by the excavators and their contemporary, Bechi, the monumentality given to 73 Bechi (supra n. 51) 66. 74 Overbeck and Mau 133 and n. 60; Mau 1892, 141-

The reasons for the incomplete salvaging of the sheathing cannot be recovered, but the survival of the sheathing at the eastern end of the building is consistent with the survival of several column fragments, statue fragments, and the statue of Euma71 These occur on most plans of the building, but they are not visible on site, and no living Pompeianist has ever seen them. 72 Maiuri 1973, 94, 99; Moeller (supra n. 51) 324; Richardson 196.

43; Mau 1902, 112-13. de 75 E Mazois,Les ruines Pompli(Paris 1824-1838).

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

661

the vats by Mazois caused problems for Mau who had never seen the vats even though they were (and remain) prominent features on the building plan. In 1884 Mau observed that the vats had vanished and appeared only in the texts of earlier commentators.76In 1892 Mau speculated that 1) the vanished vats may have been discovered elsewhere in the excavations and brought to the Eumachia Building for storage; 2) they may actuallyhave been statue bases; and 3) the pitched roofs (Mau had been looking at the Mazois plans!) may have been contemporary protective coverings.77In 1902 he repeated that the function of these features is impossible to determine.78 Maiuri's 1940 excavations uncovered three of the vats and provide us with the first real archaeologicalevidence for their interpretation since the building was discovered.79The vats are subterranean structures of poor construction that Maiuri correctly identifies as locations for the preparation of plaster.80 Maiuri goes further,however, to conclude that the vats were used in the reconstruction and were still in use at the time of the eruption when the EumachiaBuilding was a great builders' yard ("ungrande Based on the information that Maicantiere di lavoro").8Y uri provides, it is not possible to determine whether the vats were used during the initial construction, during the rebuilding, or both. Moreover, there is no basis for concluding that the vats were in use when Vesuvius erupted. That conclusion is evidently based on the faulty premise that the interior of the building was unfinished. The argument has thus become circular: the vats were in use because the interior was unfinished; and the interior was unfinished because the vats were still in use. In truth, the evidence for repaired and redecorated walls breaks the circle and allows us to see that the vats, after having been twice excavated, reveal nothing about their status in 79. A linear form of logic, though, leads to the conclusion that since the interior was finished, the vats were not in use. We therefore may lay them to rest and return them to their subterranean status as the Pompeians themselves had

vide a terminus post quem of 2 B.C. (the dedication of the Forum Augustum) for the construction of the Eumachia Building. The building materials and techniques are consistent with those of dated Augustan buildings at Pompeii, thus permitting Eumachia's dedication to be recognized as a major component of an Augustan-period development on the forum at Pompeii. The Eumachia Building was repaired after 62 and redecorated in a manner that was both lavish and sensitive to the hierarchy of spaces: marble veneer for the facade and for the highly visible back walls of the porticus; painted plaster for the crypta; an interior Corinthian order of marble in place of the original stuccoed tufa; marble statuary in the central exedra, and in Eumachia's niche behind the central exedra (presumably the Augustan-period statue); and a sculpture gallery in the chalcidicum.82 The rebuilt structure also played an important role in achieving the broader design goals of the post-62 forum: by uniting the rebuilt Eumachia facade with that of the adjacent sanctuary (critical wall juncture I, above), and in the process blocking the street between the two buildings, the repairs contributed to a new unity of design while maintaining the basic form of the building and its neighbor. The introduction of the sculpture gallery lent new grandness to the now more important southeastern entrance to the forum.
THE SANCTUARY OF AUGUSTUS OF THE GENIUS

done. Conclusions
The architectural, sculptural, and epigraphic references to the Porticus Liviae, the Ara Pacis, and the Forum Augustum not only strengthen the argument that Eumachia's publica magnificentia derives from the Augustan building program, but also pro-

Throughout most of this century scholars have identified the sanctuary just north of the Eumachia Building as the Temple of Vespasian (figs. 31-37).83 Mau's arguments in favor of a Flavian date and Maiuri's excavations that found no earlier temple proved persuasive and convinced most that the temple, allegedly unfinished at the time of the eruption, was to have been dedicated to Vespasian, the most recently deified emperor.84 Some recent opinion has returned to Fiorelli's 1875 identification of

76 Overbeck and Mau 133 and n. 60.

77 Mau 1892, 141-42. 78 Mau 1902, 113.

Maiuri 1973, 94, 99. Maiuri did not illustrate the excavated vats; his fig. 49, however,illustratescomparable subterranean features located elsewhere within the court and makes very clear the way in which the vats could have been used and then covered over.
79 80 81

82 The sculpture gallery consisted of statues associated

Mauiri 1973, 99.

with the Eumachia facade and with bases set against the eastern sides of the colonnade in front of the Eumachia Building. It is not possible to know if these bases replaced earlier statues or if they were a new component in the post-62 scheme. The essential point is that in the post-62 period the sculpture gallery as a whole contributed to the grandeur of the chalcidicum. to 83 I employ the term "sanctuary" designate the entire sacred precinct and refer to the temple proper as the "temple." 84 Mau 1894, 183 and Mauiri 1973, 88-91.

662

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

113

114

115

106
110 110111
112

105
109

199

200

194

193
95

108

107

Augustan masonry Post-62 masonry

Fig. 31. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Plan. (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins) the sanctuary as that dedicated by the priestess Mamia to the Genius of Augustus (CIL X, 816).85 It is not disputed that Mamia was an Augustan-period priestess; indeed, Kockel has established that Mamia's tomb outside the Porta di Ercolano dates to the late Augustan or Tiberian period.86 Moreover, it is generally accepted that Mamia made a dedication to the Genius of Augustus and that the present building is that dedication. Most recently, however, Gradel has challenged both the traditional reading of the inscription and the consensus that the present building is Mamia's dedication.87 Gradel's new restoration of the critical lacuna in the inscription replaces the traditional M[a]MIA P(ublii) F(ilia) SACERDOS PVBLIC(a) GENI[o Aug(usti) s]OLO ET PEC[unia sua with M[a]MIA P(ublii) F(ilia) SACERDOS PVBLIC(a) GENI[o coloniae s]OLO ET PEC[unia sua. Thus

85 Fiorelli (supra n. 67) 261-62. For the Augustan dating of the sanctuary see the following: Kockel, without discussion (supra n. 41) 457 n. 52; Zanker (supra n. 8) 28-30; Richardson 192-94, who assigns the temple to the Genius Augusti on the basis of the Mamia inscription;J.J. Dobbins, "Problemsof Chronology, Decoration, and Urban Planning on the Forum at Pompeii,"AJA 93 (1989) 259 (abstract);Dobbins, "The Altarin the Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus in the Forum at Pompeii," RM 99 (1992) 251-63. R. Ling takes exception to the new view in

"GermanApproaches to Pompeii,"JRA6 (1993) 333. 86 V. Kockel, Die Grabbauten vor dem Herkulaner in Tor (Mainz 1983) 57-59. Kockel,however,adhering to Pompeji Maiuri'sconclusions, chooses not to associate the inscription with the so-called Temple of Vespasian(n. 95). ius. The Imperial Cult in Italy and the Genius Coloniae in 20 Pompeii,"AnalRom (1992) 43-58. This is not the place to review Gradel's arguments in full.
87 I. Gradel, "Mamia's Dedication: Emperor and Gen-

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

663

Fig. 32. Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus. Facade, W107.108; main portal with view to temple, from the west. Mamia's dedication is not seen as a direct reference to the emperor. In addition, Gradel dissociates the inscription from the present sanctuary and argues instead that the Genius of Pompeii was worshipped in the Imperial Cult Building, a structure that he dates to the pre-earthquake period. While his bold new reading invites a rethinking of the notion of a sanctuary to the Genius of Augustus, his claim that the inscription could not fit the sanctuary, a conclusion that prompts Gradel to seek an alternative site for the Mamia dedication, cannot be supported.88 Moreover, the redesignation of the so-called Sanctuary of the Public Lares as the pre-62 sanctuary dedicated by Mamia cannot be accepted without a thorough reassessment of that building's architecture. It is not a foregone conclusion that the structure dates to before the earthquake. On the contrary, as the present study shows, there is reason to place it in the post-earthquake period. Furthermore, our ability to speculate on the nature of the building site before the present construction is severely limited by our lack of information. (Gradel allows that the Public Lares may be a post-Mamian, but still pre-62, rebuilding of the original building.) And finally, even if the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus had been dedicated to the Genius of Pom88 Gradel's calculation that the 5.34-m (minimum length) inscription cannot fit the 4.80-m temple front is convincing, but his subsequent claim that it is too short for the 18.00-m facade wall fails to recognize that the inscription did not have to span the entire length of the facade. In fact, the inscriptioncould have been centered at the top peii, the potent Augustan imagery contained in the relief sculpture of the altar supports the current trend toward seeing the sanctuary as a dedication to Augustus. Consequently, I use the designation that heads this section. The Masonry Chronology The present study is the first to establish on architectural grounds that the sanctuary's initial building period predates the earthquake and dates to the Augustan period.89 The sanctuary shares the same architectural history as the Eumachia Building: constructed of both brick and opus incertum, it was damaged in the earthquake of 62, and like the Eumachia Building, it was repaired and redecorated in an elegant manner as part of the redesign of the forum. Circumstances of patronage are the same as well: both buildings were dedicated by Augustanperiod public priestesses who chose to express their civic pride, status, and political ambitions in terms that emulated the Augustan building program and religious revival at Rome. While the sanctuary parallels and corroborates the conclusions drawn from the Eumachia Building, it also provides additional data that advance our understanding of the forum's evolution.

of the wall above the main door where modern masonry is now located (see supra n. 25 for a discussion of the modern masonry).
89 Dobbins 1989 (supra n. 85). A.M. Small, in a review of Richardson, EchCl 34 (1990) 311-17, cites my paper in support of an Augustan date.

664

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 33. Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus. Interior, general view, from the southwest.

Fig. 34. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Interior, temple, general view from the southwest. Our earlier examination of criticalwalljunctures I and II dealt with the opus testaceum facade of the sanctuary and led to the conclusion that it is post-62. We may now proceed to the interior, where an appropriate starting point is the temple, which is the only certain Augustan survivalinside the sanctuary(figs. 33-34). The opus incertum podium employs brickcoigns at the corners as did the original podia of exedrae 194 and 197 of the Eumachia Building (fig. 6), and was reached by two marble stairways ascending from the east along the sides of the temple. The northern stairwayremains in good condition; the southern has been reduced to a rough ramp. Next to the northern stairwaythe temple wall still preserves the large marble slabs of the dado. The pronaos preserves no traces of its columnar arrangement. The threshold within the doorway is absent. The temple is constructed of opus testaceum throughout. Its interior preserves an elongated base appropriate for a seated statue. The large hole with modern patching to the south of the base is a likely product of ancient salvaging that may have recovered the cult statue. The temple displays several alterations attesting to its longevity:a rise in podium level of some 0.16 m; a reworking of the exterior sides and front walls; a replacement

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

665

blockjimmied into position at the base of the northjamb; a patch of brick, possibly modern, on the north anta; an alteration to the southeastern corner to accommodate D 112.115. These features alone call into question the thesis that the sanctuary was a post-62 foundation; it would be difficult to reconcile so many alterationswith the claim that the sanctuary was begun only after the earthquake and still incomplete in 79. It is clear from the remains of the mortar setting bed that the temple carried marble revetment on its interior and exterior. The impressions of the revetment slabs in the setting bed of the northern interior wall are so clear that it is possible to reconstruct the decorative scheme.f1o The exterior decorative treatment is associatedwith a major reworking of the temple sides that produced three fields separated by uncut vertical strips on the sides, a string course below the panels, and single panels flanking the doorway (fig. 34). As the mortar setting bed is still preserved within the extensively cut areas, it is clear that the walls were cut back in anticipation of the marble veneer: three large panels on each side of the temple, and a pair flanking the door. The treatment of the sides as repetitive units separated by verticalelements resembles the bays and pilasters of the interior sanctuarywall and may have been designed in intentionalemulation. The reworking of the exterior of the temple indicates that the marble revetment was a later decorative treatment, and not one planned from the beginning. The secondary nature of the decoration parallels the treatment of the sanctuary'sforum facade where marble revetment overlapped an earlier painted scheme. Although no traces of the earlier scheme survive here on the temple, the association of revetment with a reworking of the walls indicates that the marble is probablya late feature in the decorative history of the temple. The marble revetment on the forum facade is associatedwith post-62 construction as is the revetment on the interior and exterior of the Eumachia building. Given those parallels, the proven lateness of the decoration within the construction historyof the temple, and the history of the disseminationof marblebeyond Rome,9'the marble veneer appears to be a product of a majorpost-62 remodeling that strove to enhance the impression of the sanctuary. In the construction sequence, the temple was built first and was designed to be abutted by the precinct walls.This is evident from the form of the northeastern and southeastern corners of the temple, which were constructed with sloping faces in order to receive two flat arches, one defining the adjacentbay top and the other located above the bay pediment (fig. 35). The junctures between the temple and the precinct walls are marked by prominent seams. It remains to be determined whether the precinct walls are contemporary with the temple or later constructions, as I believe. To address this question we must first take a closer look at the precinct walls.

Fig. 35. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Temple, northeastern corner and junction with W110.113, from the northwest. A 19th-centurylithograph by GiacintoGigante depicts the interior of the sanctuaryas it appeared after excavation and shows the south precinct wall to have been seAs verely damaged (fig. 36).92 seen today (fig. 37), the wall has been repaired and given a level upper surface; the seam between the ancient and the modern constructionis easily recognized. Maiuri dismissed the entire wall as "bruttaopera moderna.93 Its top section is indeed modern, but beneath the modern leveling is ancient masonry that constitutes a veritable museum of architecturalfragments. Much of the wall is comprised of tufa architectural rubble: squared blocks; column fragments preserving stucco fluting; a capital fragment still bearing much of its stucco; and a possible fragment of drapery in the fifth bay from the east. Construction shifts to opus incertum and small, yellow tufa blocks at the eastern and western ends, respectively, where precise coigning in opus testaceum bonds the wall to W112.115 and to the southern spur wall, W109.108. From the spur wall, bonding continues as one moves from corner to corner through vestibule 108, out

90 intend to treat this issue in a separate article. I 91 Ward-Perkins (supra n. 62); Fant (supra n. 65).

92 Fino (supra n. 25) 164. 93 Maiuri 1942, 44, n. 1.

666

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 36. Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Interior, general view from the west, 19th-century lithograph by Giacinto Gigante. (Courtesy Electa Napoli) the door, along the facade, and around the corner to the Eumachiafacade.94 All this leads to the conclusion that one cohesive wall, albeit of diverse fabric, extends from the southeastern corner of the temple to the Eumachia facade. As this wall, i.e., the south precinct wall with its eastern and western returns, contains gray tufa architectural fragments typical of post-62 construction and a great deal of yellow tufa, and is one with the facade wall, which for different technical reasons has been identified as postearthquake, then it, too, must be post-earthquake.95 There are several indications that the north precinct wall and its eastern and western returns were constructed after the earthquake. The first is the wall's seamless construction;bonding exists at every corner, including bonding with the opus testaceum facade wall. If the previous assessmentof the facade wall as post-62 is correct, then the north wall and its eastern return are also post-62. The cornice blocks now in place at the top of the north precinct wall are a second indication that the north wall is post-62. Their damage indicates that they are at present in a secondary use-related context having been damaged by a fall in 62 and replaced by the Pompeians,or in a fall in 79 and replaced in the modern period. The former alternativeis favored here. A third indication is the tufa-blockconstruction of the pediments, a technique that mirrors that of the post-62 bays at the northeast exterior corner of the Eumachia Building. The pre-62 treatment is quite different on the Eumachia Building: longer, thinner, and more friable stone is employed. A fourth indication comes from approaching the north wall through its construction relationships with the three eastern rooms (113, 114, 115) and recognizing that those rooms are post-62 in date. The predominant use of opus vittatum throughout the three rooms strongly suggests that they might belong to a post62 redesign of the sanctuary.At the same time, the rooms display no signs, such as construction seams, of having been added onto the main sanctuary. On the contrary, they are a cohesive part of the post-62 structure;there are no seams, for example, on the exterior north and south, where their exterior wallsmeet the exterior precinct walls of the sanctuary.If the three eastern rooms (113, 114, 115) had been added later, we would expect to find seams at thejuncture of W191.112 and W191.115, and at thejuncture of W106.110 and W106.113. Instead, the rooms bond with the north and south precinct walls.At the same time the slit windows in W113.110 and W 115.112 confirm that the eastern rooms are structurallyand chronologically one with the precinct wall. The tufa block construction of each window penetrates the full thickness of the wall and forms part of the face of each wall, indicating that

94 It is possible to select a brick course on the eastern side of the spur wall, W108.109, and follow it all the way to the stair construction, 193, in the northern exedra of the Eumachia Building. 95 There is some controversy regarding yellow tufa as an indicator of post-62 construction. Richardson 380 identifies walls that contain this stone in significantquan-

tity as post-earthquake.This position has drawn criticism from R. Ling, "The Architecture of Pompeii,"JRA 4 (1991) 254. While I have not made a systematicstudy of the question throughout Pompeii, the east side of the forum employs yellow tufa in quantity only in those walls which on other technical grounds can be recognized as post-earthquake.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

667

Fig. 37. Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus. Interior,south precinct wall (W112.191), from the northwest. each wall is an integral structure. If rooms 113-115 had been added onto an already standing precinct wall, the windows would not be structurally united to each face. Simply stated, the east precinct wall (W113.110, W114.111, W115.112) is post-62; since it bonds with the north wall, it corroboratesother arguments that the north wall is also post-62. W114.111, however,tells a different story,but also helps to prove that the precinct walls and eastern rooms comprise a single, later unit; as such, W114.111 constitutes a fifth indicator for such a chronology (fig. 31). While the east side of W114.111 bonds with and therefore is structurally and chronologically one with W113.110 and W115.112 (proving that the western sides of rooms 113115 are a single construction), it is both structurallyand chronologically separate from the west side of WI 11.114. (It has been established that the eastern precinct wall segments W110.113 and W112.115 do not bond with the eastern corners of the temple-figs. 34-35.) The solution to this apparent conundrum is that this is one of the instances in which the two sides of a single wall are of different materials, styles, and dates. This is the only interpretation that accounts for the complete bonding on the eastern side of the wall and the absence of bonding at the rear corners of the temple when the wall is viewed from the west. Corroboration is provided by examining the wall from the top. The upper surface is a modern repair consisting of cement and broken pan tiles. Walls W110.113 and W112.115 are 0.55 m thick, while W111.114 is 0.70 m thick. Due to the modern capping, no clear north-south seam is discerniblewhere room 114 was added. Aligned at 0.55 m from the western face of W111.114, however, are the eastern faces of some opus incertum blocks in white limestone that probablybelong to the original eastern exterior of the temple. This construction is reminiscent of W197.221 where the same relationship of pre- and post-62 walls appears in the Eumachia Building. In short, the bonding visible at all wall intersections proves that from the northern jamb of the main portal through the three eastern rooms and

back to the southern jamb of the main portal the precinct wall is all one construction, albeit employing diverse materials and techniques. There are
only two structural and, therefore, chronological

anomalies visible. One is the temple itself against which the unified precinct wall and eastern rooms are built. In terms of construction, the temple is therefore earlier. As its numerous alterations suggest that it predated the unified wall-and-room scheme by a considerable period of time, it is possible to recognize it as a component of the original sanctuary.The other anomalous construction is the brick and block-and-brickrepair to the spur walls separating vestibule 108 and courtyard 109, and similar repairs to the other three walls of vestibule 108, including the northern jamb of the main portal. As numerous arguments have been adduced to prove that the walls repaired by this masonry are
post-62, then these repairs must be later than those

post-62 features; i.e., they are modern. This assessment based on a masonry analysis is corroborated

668

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

by a 19th-century lithograph96 depicting a gap above the main portal, thereby indicating that the masonry in question is modern.97 Conclusions We know a great deal about the decoration of the sanctuary even though little is preserved today. During the first phase, the sanctuary presented a polychrome, painted facade to the forum. We can infer that the interior of the sanctuary was painted or stuccoed during the same period. During the post-earthquake period the facade was enriched by slabs of marble revetment as was vestibule 108 and the temple itself (interior and exterior). The interior precinct walls of the open court bear rough coat plaster in preparation for receiving additional finer coats. As not a trace of these subsequent coats survives, it is likely that the walls never received them. This situation is frequently interpreted as one of the many indications that the sanctuary, along with other forum buildings, remained unfinished at the time of the eruption. Such an interpretation is too extreme and neglects the abundant evidence that shows the sanctuary to have been rebuilt and redecorated. Its sculptured altar was restored and a cult statue appears to have sat in the temple (if a salvager's hole next to the base can be associated with the recovery of the statue). Whether or not the precinct walls bore their final plaster coat, the sanctuary had been returned to functioning order.98 Elsewhere I have discussed the altar and have presented evidence for recognizing a two-phase
96 Fino

chronology that parallels the two structural and decorative phases of the sanctuary itself.99The iconography of the altar's relief sculpture is pervasively and consistently Augustan and supports arguments drawn from masonry style that the sanctuary is Augustan in date and a most likely candidate for the benefaction to the city recorded in the Mamia inscription. Parallels with the Eumachia Building are numerous: materials, construction style, and design details (i.e., the bays), sculptural references to Augustus and to Augustan themes, and evocations of Augustan-period buildings in Rome, in this instance the Temples of Divus Iulius and of Venus Genetrix, which provided models for the rostra-like These parallels sugpodium and lateral staircases.100 gest a similar date, probably in the first decade A.D. Unfortunately, the absence of a junction between the Augustan phases of the two buildings renders it impossible to assign a relative chronology on architectural grounds, but the point is moot; the buildings are essentially contemporary.'10
THE MACELLUM

The rectilinear simplicity of the Macellum's plan (fig. 38) belies the complexity of the building's construction history and gives no hint of the important role the Macellum played in the post-62 reshaping of the forum. As the main investigations are those of Maiuri, an assessment of his work must be the starting point. Maiuri presents a three-phase development: 1) an initial phase dating to 150-100 B.C.; 2)

(supra n. 25).

97 In spite of the above arguments, it is difficult to believe that the entire north precinct wall is a replacement because the materialsand construction methods so closely resemble those of the original bay construction on the exterior of the Eumachia Building. The lowest meter or so might be an Augustan-period vestige of the original construction. To argue that the entire north wall is post-62 is to claim that the post-62 builders employed Augustan-' period construction methods in the style of the Eumachia Building's bays in order to rebuild the devastated sanctuary.While possible, this seems very unlikely.And why here when they did not do so when rebuilding the bays of the south precinct wall or even the upper parts of the bays of the Eumachia Building's south wall?A possible answer is that some of the original wall survived, suggesting that the reconstruction of the rest of the wall was carried out using the same technique. The limestone opus incertum in bays 1-4 and part of 5 (counting west to east) might signal that the lower parts of these bays are original. While a clear seam is not present, there is a definite change in material, where it is visible (much of the upper wall is covered with rough coat plaster): there is a greater concentration of

yellow tufa in the upper parts of the bays; the stone of the piers is tufa, but the lower parts are more gray,the upper parts more brown. If this alternate hypothesis is right, then the masonry of the north wall belongs with the masonry of the temple itself in the catalogue of Augustan masonry that includes walls from the Eumachia Building, the Holconian repairs to the theater, and the Temple of FortunaAugusta. 98 It is universallyassumed that the unfinished plastering belongs to the first and only post-earthquakerebuilding and redecorating scheme. Nothing prevents us from entertaining the possibility that the plaster work belongs to a subsequent phase of post-earthquake redecoration. On this the walls are mute. 99 Dobbins 1992 (supra n. 85) 251-63. 100 See R.B. Ulrich, 'Julius Caesar and the Creation of the Forum lulium," AJA97 (1993) 49-80. 101Richardson 191-93 posits a sequence with the sanctuary the earlier of the two, and Small (supra n. 89) 314 appears to agree, but the wall Richardson employs is the post-62 shared wall, which cannot inform us about the relative dates of the original foundations.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII 52 0 56 60 66 = 7

n

669

121i
8

n6
37 16
15
14
u

68

3871

120
119
18

30 3439

117
?
3
- 29

111
35 49 50

51
0

23

17

33 6
9
10

48
47

21 28

7
6 5
4

VIA

342 38
43

46
45

97

3396
4 o

.42
342 32.41
40

3 20
21
2

19

OO

23

24

25

26

27

EE t

O 0 0 E

Perimeter

Wall

0 0

Wall 1.2 Northern Interior Shops Project Shops Project

Piers of Triple Arch Facade Northwest and Portal Project Corner Project

Fig. 38. Macellum. Plan showing the various post-62 construction projects. (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins) a Late Republican or Early Imperial phase that modified the design of the earlier building; and 3) post-earthquake repairs that were still incomplete in 79.'02 The physical evidence for Maiuri's first phase is so limited, however, that it is far from certain that the remains beneath the Macellum belong to an earlier market. It is possible that the first Macellum is the Early Imperial construction. The Macellum was severely damaged in the earthquake and required a multifaceted effort to restore it to operation. Maiuri is correct in his overall assessment that there was extensive post-62 rebuilding, but the rebuilding is not as straightforward as he suggests. Figure 39 is a redrawing of his published plan that focuses exclu-

102 Maiuri 1942, 54-61, and 1973, 75-88. C. De Ruyt's examination in Macellum: Marche alimentaire des Romains

(Louvain-La-Neuve 1983) 137-49, 310 is a summary of Maiuri that breaks no new ground.

670

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

pre-62

I post-62

Fig. 39. Macellum. Plan showing Maiuri's chronological phases. (After Maiuri 1973, fig. 37; K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins) sively on his views of the building's pre- and postearthquake phases: the northern shops and the exterior of the western wall are survivals from the preearthquake phase; the unshaded walls represent repairs made after the earthquake. Maiuri's reconstruction avoids countless problems that the masonry poses, thereby masking the complexity of the ancient reconstruction and failing to appreciate the achievement of the rebuilding and the redesign. In addition, there are certain a priori problems with Maiuri's scheme. The insertion of a new west wall within the envelope of the earlier, and allegedly still-standing, western perimeter wall, seems unlikely over so great a distance. It is unlikely that this one wall would have survived to serve as a structural envelope. If it had, the need for its thickening or the benefits to be derived from such a construction method are unexplained. (There were, in fact, surviving elements of the earlier facade, but much was repaired and the scheme is complicated.) Another problem attends the northern shops. One is justifiably skeptical that they, too, would stand while the northern perimeter wall of the Macellum would fall. It will be seen that semibond scars on the north perimeter wall indicate that it was reconstructed beforethe northern shops were added to it. While the repair of the Macellum was essentially one massive project, several separate subprojects can be identified. It would be overly simplistic to imagine that such a complicated building grew from its foundations in seamless unity, as if it were a plant. In actual practice, there must have been separate crews working on various facets of the repair. While the separate projects were clearly interrelated, each can be recognized by its own architectural features,

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

671

Fig. 40. Macellum. Main portal, from the west.

materials,and interface with adjacent projects.The following discussion treats the Macellumin terms of these projects.
The PerimeterWall The perimeter wall itself (fig. 38) was constructed and repaired in separate projects, as vertical and horizontal seams as well as changes in masonry indicate; for the sake of clarityit appears as an unbroken unit. Recognizing and isolating these projects allows us to distinguish between primary and secondary construction and thus to assign elements to the pre- or post-earthquake phases of the Macellum. Materialsused in the perimeter wall are black lava, brick, gray and brownish Nocera tufa, yellow tufa,

cruma, Sarno limestone, and various bits of fine limestone, opussigninum,tiles, etc. Techniques employed are opus incertum, opus reticulatum, opus testaceum, opus vittatum, rubble work, and heterogeneous work. Coignat ing is characteristic corners, doorjambs,and at the ends of shop walls. Our discussion begins at the main portal (fig. 40) and refers to the plan detail (fig. 41). The west perimeter wall is of double thicknessand consistsof an inner and an outer lining. The outer is discussed below with the facade and portal project. The inner, presented here, is divided into three main sections by the two doors of the portal. Essential in distinguishing the phases of the western wall is the recognition that the aediculaof the Macellum'sentrance

22

023

Dl

11

Fig. 41. Macellum. Plan, Detail of main portal. (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins)

672

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

angle formed by the northern stretch proper (B) and the northern pier (A') of the arched portal (fig. 43). Seams and differences in brickworkare obvious. The brickwork of C, however,is identical to the brickworkof D and E (18 courses per meter). Thus C, D, E, and F emerge as secondary features in the evolution of the portal. Once the secondary elements have been isolated, the primary features are easily recognized. PiersA'-A4define the earlier triple-archedportal. The opus testaceum wall B is associatedwith the piers on the basis of visual appearance and brickcounts. Counts on all four piers are consistently 22 courses per meter. WallB does not offer a clear meter-long height for taking a measurement, but several readings give 11 courses to a 0.50 m height and show that this wall's construction uses 22 courses to the meter as does the triple-archedportal. A point of contact between the arched portal and wall B may exist behind the later northern jamb (C), but as that juncture is now obscured the issue of bonding is moot and only the brickcounts and the visual appearance of the brickscan serve to link these ostensibly identical components. Also associatedwith A'A4 and B is a third feature: the first ca. 2.00 m of the eastward return of wall B as part of the north perimeter wall.'04The interior wall north of the main portal preserves the noted Fourth-Stylewall paintings that, in turn,

Fig. 42. Macellum. Main portal, northern arch, from the west. blocks the central arch of a former triple-archedentrance whose four piers are labeled A1-A4 (fig. 41). Arcuated brickworkof the springing of the central arch is visible on each side of the aedicula, confirming the former existence of the central arched passage (fig. 42). Prominent seams reveal the infilling of the arch. The podium, which supports marble columns, abuts the lower part of the central aedicula.'03 The central stretch of the inner lining (D) can thus be identified as a secondary feature associatedwith the blocking of the central arch and the concomitant reworking of the portal. The brickworkof D is identical to the brickwork forming the northern end (E) of the southern stretch, i.e., 18 courses per meter. This latter brickwork bonds with the opus incertum (F) of the southern stretch by means of coigning. Thus it becomes evident that D and E/F are contemporarysecondaryfeatures that are chronologically later than the now-blocked triple entrance. The situation to the north of the main portal is somewhat different. Here the first 0.40 m of the northern stretch (C) is a separately constructed unit built into the

Fig. 43. Macellum. Interior. Main portal. Northern door (D32.22), from the southeast.

(with references) indicates that the capitals have been appropriated from a tomb; the originals were decorated with eagles. 104 The brickwork terminates in a seam about 2.00 m

103 Richardson 200

from the inner northwestern corner of the Macellum. As will be seen in the discussion immediately following, the lowest level of masonryeast of this seam-extending as far as the northern entrance-is also a pre-62 survival.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

673

Fig. 44. Macellum. Interior, north perimeter wall. Section to left of entrance 8, from the southeast. obscure most of the masonry including the interior northwestern corner where it is impossible to determine whether or not bonding exists.105The remodeling just discussed relates the triple arch and its associated walls either to a pre-62 phase of the Macellum or to the first of two post-62 reorganizations of the portal. As the first alternative seems more likely, the opus testaceum of the portal's two present arches is interpreted as being pre-62. The north entrance (figs. 44-46) reveals a two-phase construction sequence whose first phase can be associated with the earlier portal and wall segments just discussed. Both sides of the inner end of the north entrance display a double coigning scheme in which brick corners coign with tufa or limestone blocks, which, in turn, coign with black lava opus incertum. The interruption of this pattern by later repairs is clear. The repair work is partly rubble

Fig. 45. Macellum. Interior, northern entrance 8 and adjacent sections of north perimeter wall, from the south.

105 Even though wall B and the first 2.00 m of its eastern return constitute a unit, the construction is not seamless. There are construction seams and patches of opus incer-

tum that cannot be understood properly due to the overlay of the Fourth-Style paintings.

674

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Original
SBrick Limestone
SBlack Lava Nocera Tufa
+ +
+

Repair
Brick
Mixed

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + +
+

+ + +
+
+

+ + +
+
+

+ + +
+
+

++ + + + +
+
+

+ +
+
+

+ ++
+ ++

+ + +
+

+ +
++++

+ +
+ +

++ +
++

++ + +
+

+ + +
+
+

+ + +
+

+ +
+

+ + + +-+++++++++++
+
+

4-+ +4-++ + + + +
+ + ++ + +++00 0000000000000000O-O-O-O-O-

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++
0 00 _-u=0`?5 O

++
I

+ +
00 OO

IO

+ + + + + o

0 00 /\00 0 ,\ 00 /-\ ,\ /-\/-"00 /"\ 0 00 0

00 OO

0 0 00 00 r /- r,00 /- /-\r 00 /C

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O

Fig. 46. Macellum. Schematic drawing of figure 45 illustrating materials, seams, and repairs. and partly heterogeneous work. Plasterobscures much of the fabric to the left of the door where the lower strip of lava opus incertum extends to the aforementioned seam located ca. 2.00 m from the western end of the wall (not visible in fig. 44). There the lava overlaps the brick return of the inner west wall, thus indicating that in the construction sequence the west perimeter wall and its return preceded the north. This relationship suggests only separate construction projects, not differences in chronology. By associatingthe primary construction of the north wall with the primary features of the west wall the building history of the Macellum begins to emerge. Moreover,in terms of material, it is important to recognize that the black lava opus incertum extending eastward, as well as westward, from the north door belongs to the primary construction phase. The lava also appears on the opposite side of the wall as a component of the rear walls of the northern shops; it is visible from shop 3 to 14 where there is a change in material and technique. Above the lava the fabric is typicallyarchitecturalrubble or heterogeneous work. Having determined the primary nature of the black lava of the north wall, we return to the stretch of the interior west wall that lies to the south of the main portal. As plaster obscures most details, it is impossible to offer a definitive construction sequence. It appears, however, that this is the line of the Macellum's original west wall, that the present lava is a survival of the original construction incorporated into the post-62 repairs, and that the remainder of the wall fabric is of the heterogeneous type. The wall continues southward to a brick anta that responds to the antae of the southern shops; it finally terminates within shop 40 where it forms a corner with the south wall. Plaster obscures any evidence of bonding at this junction. Seen from the south, the south perimeter wall is divided by a prominent vertical seam that aligns with the interior W46.47 (fig. 47). The wall to the east of the seam is a unified construction extending as far as the corner of the building (fig. 48). This is the only exterior wall that remained unencumbered by the construction of shops or houses. Here yellow tufa and gray Nocera tufa create the handsome reticulate pattern so highly praised by Maiuri.106 Coigning in brick forms the corner and the doorway. It is impossible to know if this wall was destined for plaster. I doubt that it was. It may be an example of otherwise unadorned decorative masonry that was intended to remain visible. After the construction of the Imperial Cult Building, the decorative work of the south wall was visible to those who used the south entrance to the Macellum; the wall that separates space 97 from the street along the Macellum'ssouth side obscured from view the aforementioned seam and the less attractiveconstruction that lies to the west of the seam (fig. 47). Immediately to the west of the vertical seam the wall is constructed to its full height of opus incertum (fig. 47). The offset and the lowest part of the wall are black lava, while the remainder of the wall is Nocera tufa. This opus incertum, which supports some recent restoration (fig. 14), continues westward to a second seam aligned approximately with interior W41.42. This second seam was created by an overlap, namely the construction of the north exedra of the Imperial Cult Building against the The perimeter wall of the Macellum.107 masonry now visible consists of wall core and extensive modern recon-

106

107There is also a vertical crack at this point whose

Maiuri1942,57.

significanceis impossible to determine due to the overlapping of the masonry.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

675

Fig. 47. Macellum. South perimeter wall showing seam in masonry,from the south.

Fig. 48. Macellum. Southeastern corner and south entrance 51, from the southwest. struction. This seam marks the end of the visible portion of the south perimeter wall. Fromthis point to the western corner of the south wall, the Macellumwas abutted by the Imperial Cult Building, and therefore not exposed to view. This section was thus constructed in a utilitarian manner with opus incertum and rubble (if fig. 14 actually records ancient masonry). Such a careful segregation of materialsand techniques demonstrates that the impact of the Imperial Cult Building was anticipated prior to its construction. It is clear that the Imperial Cult Building

676

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 49. Macellum. Northern shops. Shops 13-15 (right to left), from the northwest. had not been constructed prior to the rebuilding of the south wall, because the Cult Building could only abut the Macellum'ssouth wall and be tied into the facade project of the Macellumafterthe south wall had been erected.'08 The prominent seam aligned with interior W46.47 invites further analysis (fig. 47). Adam acknowledges the difficulty of reading the seam and offers two possible inThe first sees the original south wall as terpretations.'09 totally destroyed in 62. The wall was then reconstructed in two building projectsseparated in time; the earlier produced the western section, the later the more finely detailed eastern part. This interpretation admits the possibilitythat the black lava is a survivalfrom the original construction.Adam'ssecond interpretationsees the entire opus incertum construction as pre-62; only the reticulate work is reconstruction. There would seem to be a third possibility,not favored here, that the reticulate section is also pre-62 and that the repair east of the south door (fig. 48) is post-62. The reading preferred here is similar to Adam's first alternative in which the black lava is seen as a vestige of the pre-62 phase. There is no need, however, to posit a hiatus in the construction.The two aspects of the repair project were contemporary.The seam is a product of the interface between opus reticulatum and opus incertum. Neither the seam nor the crack, which may be due to the Vesuvian eruption or to later settling, have any chronological significance.The horizontalalignment of building materials across the seam supports the contention that, apart from the black lava, the south wall of the Macellumbelongs to one construction project.The repair at the eastern end of the wall would then be modern. The implicationsof the seam do not end here, however, for as one reads the seam so must one read the entire east perimeter wall and the eastern stretch of the north wall to the point where it abuts the main north wall in the corner of northern shop 14. This is the case because coigning at the southeasterncorner of the building bonds the eastern end of the south wall to the east wall. Bonding by means of opus vittatum coigning forms the inner and outer corner as the east walljogs to the east. The exterior northeastern corner also employs opus vittatum coigning as does the exterior corner where shops 14 and 15 meet. Thus by a series of bonds, the eastern end of the south wall can be recognized as part of a construction project that extends as far as the seams in the southeastern corner of shop 14. Seen from their exteriors the constructionof the east wall and of the eastern stretch of the north wall is the same: the lower part of each wall consists of black lava, probably a survival;above is opus incertum. The relationshipof wallsat the southeastcorner of shop 14 has importantchronologicalsignificance.Here the lava of the rear wall of the shop turns 900 to the north and forms the first few centimeters of the lower southern end of W14.15. The prominent opus vittatum construction then abuts the lava and rises to a considerableheight (figs. 49-50). The south wall of the shop, in turn, abuts the upper ca. 3.00 m of the opus vittatum. The lava of the

108 It is certainly possible that work had begun on parts of the Imperial Cult Building at this time, but its full pe-

rimeter had not been laid out.

109Adam (supra n. 5) 79.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

677

Fig. 50. Macellum. Northern shops. Shop 14, detail of southern end including semibond scar of W13.14, from the northwest. north wall has already been associated with the primary construction of the north doorway while the fabric above the lava has been identified as secondaryrepair.The reading of the present corner is consistent with that sequence of construction and repair. The main mass of the opus vittatum is later than the original lava and would appear to be a repair.At the same time it is earlier in the construction sequence than the upper part of the shop's south wall (= Macellum's north wall), which is clearly a repair. It would therefore seem that in the process of repair the opus vittatum corner preceded the rebuilding of the Macellum'snorth wall. The shop's side wallsare last in the construction sequence; W14.15 abuts the opus vittatum corner and W14.13 abuts and makes a semibond with the full height of the building's repaired north wall.The semibond scar proves that Maiuri'ssequence (fig. 39) cannot be right. The opposite is true: the shop wall postdates the north wall. Seen from the interior,the wall that runs from shop 15 to 17 supports the present reading (fig. 51). The lowest level is black lava; above that is opus incertum of Nocera tufa; the upper level is a U-shaped repair that dips deeply into the second level. Opus testaceumcoigning frames the wall. Under normal circumstances such coigning would signal that the entire wall is a single construction, but at the eastern end there is an anomaly.An interruption in the consistent pattern of the lavaoccursat the point where the upper severalcentimetersof lava meet the brick. Here

Fig. 51. Macellum. Interior. Room 30. Entrance and north wall, W30.15-17, from the southwest.

678

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

Fig. 52. Macellum. Northern shops; space 2 at right, from the northwest. a leftwardbowing seam isolates a pocket of lava that penetrates an indentation in the coigning. Mortar within this pocket is consistent with the mortar of the brickwork,but different from the coarse peppery mortar of the remainder of the lava. The brick coigning and the lava are not contemporaneous; the brick is later. The pocket of disturbed lava reveals the accommodation made to add the brick corner, which must then be seen as a secondary feature. On the other hand, the brickcoigning bonds with the opus incertum above the lava and therefore indicates that the wall above the lavajoins the brick in being secondary construction. The prominent vertical crack filled with modern mortaris not a building seam, but merely a crack, possibly due to the Vesuvian eruption; it has no chronological significance.In addition to the primaryand secondary constructionsjust identified, the wall also displays tertiary construction in the layered repair to the opus incertum. The tertiaryconstructionis the same as the repair seen in figure 48 and in W138.143 where a post-eruption tunneling hole is filled by what must be modern repairs. It is therefore possible to suggest that the tertiary construction in figure 51 is also modern. In summary, the examination of several masonry junctions suggests that from the vertical seam on the south wall (fig. 47) to the corner of shop 14 (figs. 49-50) the perimeter wall was repaired as a single project employing a variety of materials and techniques and reusing throughout most of its length some of the original lava."0O Major repairs and revisions also have been recognized in the west, north, and south perimeter walls; in all cases original black

110 There is one problem that must be considered: the semibond scar at the end of north shop wall W16.17 (not visible in fig. 49). The scar rises into the downward-dipping repair work suggesting that the repair,whose opposite side we have just examined (fig. 51), is ancient. This contradicts my view that the repair shown in fig. 51 is modern and challenges the notion that this stretch of the north wall, and all its associated elements as far as the vertical seam on the south wall, is post-62. The repair shown in fig. 48 would then also be post-62, not modern. The problem can be solved. I think it likely that the eruption of 79, which probably caused the vertical crack seen at the right in fig. 51, also damaged the upper part of the same wall. Some of the wall core may have remained standing, especiallythat associatedwith the end ofW 16.17

whose upper part now projects as a spur wall from the lower part of the repair. After excavation, the wall was repaired leaving the spur projecting from it. Repair work rose higher than the preserved end of W16.17, creating a smooth plaster face above the preserved ancient spur. This explanation may be right as the semibond scar associated with W15.16 has been plastered over in the same manner,proof that the plaster is not ancient. The situation is quite different in an authentic ancient wall devoid of modern patching, e.g., figs. 49-50, where the semibond scar associated with W13.14 rises to the full height of the preserved wall and as such confirms that, except for the modern capping, the north wall of the Macellum is ancient to its full preserved height.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

679

Fig. 53. Macellum. Northern shops. Shop 7, from the northwest. lava was incorporated into the repairs. The entire perimeter wall, then, was rebuilt using the same plan as that of the immediately preceding phase; the post-62 design did not alter the basic shape of the building. Northern Shops Project The northern shops project achieved the complete restoration of shops 3-7 and 9-17, and entrance 8 (fig. 52). Plaster, poorly preserved, but detectable in all but one shop, attests to the finished state of the work.111The north perimeter wall served as the back wall of each shop. The same black lava opus incertum seen on the interior of the Macellum's north wall is visible at the rear of most shops, rising to about 1.00 m above the floors. All shop walls were reconstructed. Some preserve lava opus incertum that may belong to the earlier phase, but in general the fabric of the walls is not original. In general, the technique is heterogeneous work, but some tufa architectural rubble is employed as well. Some lava-and-tufa piers survived the earthquake.'I2The others were reconstructed in opus testaceum or limestone blocks (east pier of shop 13). Shop 7 illustratesseveralaspects of the project (fig. 53). Bonding in tufa and limestone blocks relates the southeastern corner of the shop to the primary phase of the inner corners of entrance 8 already discussed (cf. fig. 45). It remains to determine whether the remainder of W7.8 was reconstructed,contrary to Maiuri.This is a matter of interpreting the seam between the block construction in the corner and the opus incertum at the southern end of W7.8. Which is built against which? I believe that the opus incertum is built against the block construction. To have adapted the blocks to an irregular seam in the incertum and to achieve corner bonding, as well as the coigning with the opus testaceum at the southern end of W7.8, might have been possible, but difficult and not a logical
way to build. Moreover, as it has already been shown that the block construction belongs to the primary phase of the north entrance, it would be difficult to follow Maiuri and argue that the block construction of the corner is secondary to W7.8. The present reading of the seam assigns W7.8 (as well as W8.9/8.10) to the post-62 period. Support is offered by the thinness of the wall itself: 0.46 m. It would

be difficult to explain how this wall survived the earthquake when the shop's south wall did not. This assessment
also explains the smooth abutting of W7.8 to its lava-and-

tufa pier: the pier either withstood the earthquakeor was reconstructed; then the opus incertum wall was built up

1' Shops further to the east and those on the opposite side of the street were also rebuilt, but discussion of them lies beyond the scope of this report. They would repay investigation,however,as they constitute further evidence

for the extent of the recoveryat Pompeiiin this important commercial quarter. 1'2 The survivingpilastersare those on the east sides of
7, 8, 9, and 14.

680

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

against it. The upper two-thirds of the south wall employ large, broken tufa blocks and clearly constitute a post-62 repair of the perimeter wall. The upper few centimeters are modern.

Facadeand PortalProject
The reconstruction of the Macellum facade made significant contributions to the monumentalization of the forum. The reconstruction is discussed under two headings. The present section treats the modifications to the portal, 22, 23; the reconstruction of spaces 20-21, 24-27; W3.2; and the structural and design connections between the Macellum facade and the Imperial Cult Building. As the northwest corner project is a discrete, although contemporary, aspect of the facade's design, it appears separately in the following section. The masonry evidence for the transformation of the portal appears above in the discussion of the west perimeter wall. The new design created a small entrance court, entirely revetted in marble, separated from the forum portico by two freestanding statue bases, and containing at its rear an aedicula (fig. 40). The aedicula's form lent a sacred character to the entrance, while its statue no doubt specified that meaning. The statue does not survive. The marble columns, the statue in the niche, and the two statues on the freestanding bases provided a formal connection to the forum colonnade and its associated sculpture gallery.The new design allowed the portal to hold its own in the newly elaborated context of the northeastern zone of the forum. The facade wall reveals itself to be later than the rebuilt perimeter wall by overlapping the latter at the southwestern corner of the building. In addition, if the architectural rubble visible in two older photographs (figs. 13-14) is ancient, then wall fabric supports a post-62 date for the facade as such construction is typical of the period after the earthquake. (Unfortunately,extensive modern repair to the facade obscures the architectural rubble and renders examination on site very difficult in general and futile on this issue.) The northern end of the facade extends beyond the corner to form W3.2. This, at least, would seem to be the most appropriate interpretation of the blocks that project northward from the upper part of the northwestern corner of the building. Plaster preserved in the southwestern corner of shop 3 obscures the relationship between the standing section of wall and the corner. In a technical sense, then, the shop wall belongs to the Brick counts (21 courses per meter) are the same for "113 the wall ends and pilasters, and the brickworkis the same in appearance. The upper parts of several pilasters are modern, however,as the different fabricof the bricksindicates. 114 Supra pp. 645-46, critical walljuncture III. "115 Very little of the arch survives. Only the beginning of its springing from the upper part of W18.viaVII4/VII-9 is preserved, but this detail and the cutting to

facade and portal project rather than to the northern shops project. The walls of shops 20, 21, and 24-26, constructed of heterogeneous work and employing opus testaceum coigning at their western ends, abut the facade in all cases where the joint is not obscured by plaster.The method of attaching the opus testaceum pilasters to the ends of the shop walls is largely obscured by preserved plaster. The few exposed areas indicate that the pilaster could be built up against the opus testaceum wall end, or it could slightly envelop the wall end. It should be underscored that while the pilastersare later additions in a strictlytechnical sense, the context verifies that they are contemporary components in a single phase of rebuilding."3Shops 20, 21, 24, and 25 preserve traces of plaster.The pilaster faces above the abutting statue bases were plastered as well, exceptions being the two pilasters flanking the Macellum'sentrance-they were revetted in marble. Shop 26 was also revetted in marble. The facade's southern termination, W27.93, corresponds to the analogous northern W18.viaVII-4/VII-9. Together these two extensions frame and define the Macellum's facade, while in design and structure the southern termination also belongs to the Imperial Cult Building. This is thejuncture at which the chronology and the structure of the Macellum facade and the Imperial Cult Building literally bond together."14 Here the facade extends ca. 0.50 m beyond the southwestern corner of the Macellum, turns eastward and forms an evident thickening of the wall as it overlaps the already-built south perimeter wall and becomes part of the Imperial Cult Building, forming the rear of its northern exedra, 92. It is therefore apparent that the Macellum and the Imperial Cult Building do not simply abut; they are integrated at the level of design and execution. A concomitant feature of the integrated plan is the blocking of the street that runs along the south side of the Macellum.The implicationsof these observationsare explored in the general conclusion.

TheNorthwest Corner Project

This project not only accomplished the practical task of creating spaces 1, 2, and 19, but in a more significant way contributed to the monumentalizing of the Macellum facade by adding its northern niched wall, W18.viaVII-4/VII-9, and the new arch that spanned the entrance to the sculpture gallery and tied the Macellum facade to the previously existing arch."5 The new arch also relates to the via del receive its western end made on the previously existing arch confirm its existence. Moreover,a 19th-centurylithograph by Frederic Horner of this corner shows more of the arch and corroborates the present observations: Fino (supra n. 25) fig. 165. In addition, the redressing of the older arch's pier to accommodate the post-62 arch is architectural confirmation that the older arch predates the earthquake.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

681

Fig. 54. Macellum. Interior. Southern shops 46, 45, 44 (left to right), from the northeast. Foro and to the via degli Augustali and to the pedestrian traffic that approached the forum by those roads. This project is significant, then, as it transcends the purely practical and illustrates some of the broader urban concerns of the post-62 design. The northwest corner project extends from W20.19 to W2.3, abutting the facade wall proper and the western wall of shop 3. Fromwithin spaces 1, 2, 19, and 20 it is very easy to recognize that the northwest corner project abuts the facade as a structurallyseparate construction project. Its wall, which is not preserved to the same height as the facade wall, forms a kind of shelf abutting the Macellum facade. The result is a thickened wall as well as a vertical seam on the pilaster of W2.3 (fig. 52)."6 Space 2 is an afterthought, formed by the subsequent construction of W1.2.117 After the initial post-earthquake repair, shops 1 and 19 communicated by means of a window high in what is now W2.19, and shop 1 opened onto the via degli Augustali by the door in its northeastern corner.This arrangement was changed by the addition of W1.2. While the precise date of this post-62 adaptation cannot be known, the remodeling is instructive in two ways. First, it demonstrates the rapidity of change in an urban environment, thereby underscoring the special qualityof the post-62 evidence at Pompeiiby which we can measure and scrutinize a discrete moment in the history of urban design. Had Pompeii survived for even several more decades, the purity of the evidence would have been altered, and our ability to bring it into focus diminished. Second, the modifications of the post-earthquakedesign prove that, at least here, the repairs had been accomplished. Interior Southern shopsand entrance51. The rebuilding of the south perimeter wall included the reconstruction of the south entrance."80pus testaceum coigning at the outer corners of entrance 51 bonds the entrance walls to the perimeter wall (fig. 48). Therefore, as one dates the eastern stretch of the south perimeter wall, so must one date the southern entrance, and by extension, the repairs to the southern interior shops, which employ the west wall of the south entrance as a shop wall, and like the entrance, align with the anta at the western end of shop 40. The interior shops reveal a two-phase construction history (fig. 54). Most ofthe lateralwalls preserve black lava opus incertum to the same elevation as the black lava of the south perimeter wall (= the back wall of the shops). The upper part of the walls employs heterogeneous work. The northern end of each shop wall proper terminates in opus testaceum that is connected to the main wall fabric by coigning. A 5 x 5 coigning pattern is associated with the lava and a 6 x 6 pattern with the heterogeneous work. In addition, horizontal seams separating wall fabric and slight shifts in brick coursing in the coigning confirm that

W2.3 is especially thick at 0.95 m. The pilaster of shop 3 has been reworked to receive the end of the new wall. The result is a makeshiftattempt to bond the two by means of rough coigning. Maiuri's plan suggests that W2.19 is the after117 thought. It is not. It is one with W1.19, a single wall that

116

initially separated shops 1 and 19 for their full length. 118 The claim is occasionally made that the south entrance had been a shop (Richardson202). Why this should be so is unclear; there is nothing visible in the existing masonry to support that conclusion. In any case, the practicalityof an entrance in this location is apparent.

682

JOHN

J. DOBBINS

[AJA 98

Fig. 55. Macellum. Interior. Central shrine, from the west. we are dealing with two construction phases. Are the construction phases the products of temporally separated building projects? I read the lower lava level and its associated coigning as pre-62 and the upper level as part of the post-62 repairs; this is consistent with the interpretation given for the construction phases of the south perimeter wall as seen from the south (fig. 47). The method of attaching the opus testaceum pilasters is largely obscured by plaster. The pilasters of W40.41 and W41.42 are bonded to their respective walls, while the pilaster of W42.43 appears to envelop, but not bond with, the wall end. Plaster preserved on the shop interiors and pilasters indicates that the shops had been returned to use. Beam holes whose lower edges are located at 2.85 m above the floors provide ceiling height and confirm the existence of second-story lofts (fig. 54). Plaster in the lofts conforms to the beams that were placed against the back walls, indicating that the upper floors were in place before the plastering was accomplished. Eastern end of the interior The band of the black lava around the outside of the central shrine raises an important question, namely the date for the inclusion of the central shrine in the plan of the Macellum. If the lava is original, as it appears to be elsewhere, then so is the general plan of the central chamber. If not, then the question is moot.'19Apart from the black lava band the masonry of the three chambers at the eastern end of the Macellum can be assigned to the post-earthquake period because all of it is associated with the perimeter wall, whose date already has been argued to be post-62. Moreover, although the east end displays a variety of materials and techniques, the construction forms a coherent unit devoid of extensive damage and repair that would place it before 62 (exceptions being the U-shaped repairs seen in figs. 48 and 51 and considered to be modern). The opus testaceum coigning at the northern corners of the north chamber and at the southern corners of the south chamber bonds these two spaces to the perimeter wall. The white limestone stylobates at the entrance to the north and south chambers were designed to fit those spaces as reconstructed after 62. Both stylobates extend from jamb to jamb without being overlapped by the brickwork of the jambs. In other words, they were installed after the construction of the walls and accommodated themselves to the newly built spaces.120 The two square bases on each stylobate are wider than the stylobates, measuring 0.65 x 0.65 m, and are bedded on blocks of the same material as the stylobate large enough to accommodate them. The inclusion within the stylobate of the larger footings for the four square bases indicates that the bases were integral parts of the design. The central shrine (fig. 55), resembling in plan a temple in antis, is the most prominent of the Macellum's interior spaces. Its significance is underscored by its size, axiality, elevation above the interior pavement, stucco decoration, interior marble veneer, and statuary. Each interior side wall contains two statue niches. Statues survived in the two southern niches, but their identity has not been established. In the east niche and related dado of the north wall

"'9 The general fidelity of the rebuilding to original plans suggests the former alternative. 120Maiuri's plan fails to indicate the full northern extent of the northern stylobate. The stylobate extends beyond the end of the opus vittatum construction, which is

built over it. Moreover, the north jamb has a straight face and is not stepped as his plan shows. The width of the stylobate varies from about 0.45 to 0.60 m, depending on the blocks used.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

683

are 19th-century patches that block a large hole, possibly associated with the ancient tunneling used to remove the missing statues from the shrine. The axially situated statue base held the main statue. The large, filled hole to its south must have been the access for its post-79 salvage. Like the Macellum as a whole, the central shrine displays a variety of building materials and techniques. The antae, decorated with pairs of reeded pilasters in stucco, are constructed in opus testaceum. The exterior side walls are opus incertum, as is the interior east wall. The walls and jambs separating the pronaos-like entrance from the interior chamber are opus testaceum that bond with the north and south walls at the interior northwestern and southwestern corners. Coigning is visible at dado level on the north wall. The dado of the north and south walls is opus incertum, above which is opus vittatum, which also forms the sculpture niches. An interesting treatment is the bonding that occurs between opus testaceum and opus vittatum at the western end of the north and, to a lesser extent, the south wall. On the north wall, the opus testaceum continues for several centimeters and smoothly blends into opus vittatum.121 The central shrine appears to bond with the perimeter wall. The northeastern and southeastern interior corners are partly obscured by mortar, but bonding is visible in the southeastern corner of space 30. The pronaos was decorated with painted plaster. The antae still bear the stuccoed remains of the pairs of cabled, fluted pilasters. The inner returns of the antae are treated as pilasters, as are the jambs of the broad doorway separating the pronaos from the central room. The stucco treatment of these jambs wraps around to the interior of the central room for a distance of about 0.20-0.25 m. The interior of the central room was revetted in marble.'22 In the northern shrine, the southern end of the stylobate is overbuilt by a marble-faced platform whose function is unclear, but which must have pertained to the cult served by the small vaulted chamber to the east and its associated altar (fig. 56). The altar is a low lava tray, pierced by a hole at its southeastern corner and set on a two-step marble-clad base. The vaulted chamber, set on a podium reached by marble steps from the south, is constructed of opus testaceum, as is the short stretch of perimeter wall between it and the southeastern corner of the shrine area. The podium still preserves marble revetment, base and crown moldings, and pavement. The chamber itself was revetted inside and out with marble, now miss-

Fig. 56. Macellum. Interior. Room 30. Vaulted chamber and altar, from the west.

ing. A prominent constructionseam separatesthe vaulted chamber from the opus testaceum wall adjacent to its southern side.'23 While these seams indicate that the vaulted chamber was constructed as a separate unit during the rebuilding of the Macellum,there is no reason to doubt that the chamberand associatedaltarand platform were integral parts of the refurbishing.124 The nonaxial disposition of the chamber is striking. The precise motivation for this alignment may remain forever uncertain, but it may be due to a desire to avoid a serious fragmentation of the space at the eastern side of the shrine that would have resulted by placing the chamber and altaron axis. Moreover,the present arrangement of chamber,altar,and platform leaves most of the interior free for whatever activities took place there. Given the careful constructionand the use of marble revetment that was such a prominent feature of the forum's redesign, I would not be surprised if the group were a new feature of the rebuilding of the Macellum rather than a repair of a

This is an unusual but not a unique example of bonding between opus testaceum and opus vittatum. 122 Preserved are tangs, wedges, and some of the setting bed. 123 A glance at the plan reveals that this seam to the right of the vaulted chamber in fig. 56 is really the corner of a prominent jog in the perimeter wall. When viewed from the outside, i.e., from the east, the perimeter wall appears to be a coherent structure that reveals no irregular seams or other indications of earthquake repair. Cor-

121

ners (interiorand exterior 90' angles) employ coigning in which opus vittatum bonds with opus incertum in a precise manner indicating the contemporaneitybetween the different materialsand different techniques. In short, the eastern perimeter wall, both here and throughout its entire length, reveals that it is a post-62 construction. 124 In addition to the construction seams, the brick counts also isolatethe chamberas a separatelyconstructed project: 19.5 courses per meter for the chamber vs. 17.5 per meter for the wall to its south.

684

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

S
El
El El

D
El
El

D
0

Fig. 57. Imperial Cult Building. Plan. Lines indicate major and minor axes. (K.M. Hanna and J.J. Dobbins) remains of painted plaster pre-earthquakefeature.125The the interior of the shrine indicate that its rethroughout pairs had been finished and that it was in operation. The southern room, identified as the meat market, is approached by the same type of entrance as the shrine to the north, but its interior is simpler, displaying only a low counter.An opus signinum pavement is visiblebehind the counter, particularlyon the northern side where it overlaps the reeding of the northern pilaster and the plaster along the northern side of the counter. Opus testaceum coigning at the southwestern and southeastern interior corners balances the same treatment in the northwestern and northeastern corners of the northern shrine. A careful assessment of the central court's stylobateand related gutter is important, as the incomplete preservation of these features has been used as evidence that the interior colonnade had not been erected and that the Macellum was still under reconstruction at the time of the eruption. 6This thesis is demonstrably wrong. Maiuri reports that only the north side and no more than one-third of the west side of the travertine stylobate exists and that the remaining blocks in tufa are modern reconstructions from the early 1800s.127 He reports further that the gutter in travertine exists only on the north and west, the other sides being wholly lacking; that the north side was finished with a chisel and that the west side was only roughed out and waiting to be finished in place; and that in only one place is lead found in the holes and channels used to secure columns to the stylobate.'28 The is that all of these features indicate that the implication interior colonnade of the Macellumhad not been erected. Some modificationsmust be made to Maiuri'sobservations. At least one additional stretch of gutter is still in situ. This piece, 0.72 m long and located at the southern end of the eastern colonnade, appears on Maiuri'sown plan.129 Also, the western gutter is more than just roughed out. It is not as finely dressed as the northern gutter, but it is concave and capable of conducting water.There may have

125 Without extensive excavation and dismantling of the existing architecture, this hypothesis cannot be proven and should be taken only as a suggestion.

127 Maiuri 1942, 55; I agree. 128Maiuri 1942, 55.

129

126Maiuri 1942, 55.

Maiuri 1973, fig. 37.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

685

Fig. 58. Imperial Cult Building. Interior.General view of eastern end, from the west. been an intention to finish it more completely, but that would have been a very minor detail. In the areas where the original stylobateis lacking, Maiuri interprets the footings as preparation for stylobate blocks not yet in place. An alternativeand completely opposite interpretation is possible, as anyone who has excavated a robber trench might suggest, namely that the remaining footings130were all that remained after existing The stylobateblockshadbeenremoved. absence of stylobate blocks should be attributed to post-79 salvaging activity, rather than to incomplete construction. Three considerations support this interpretation.The first is the presence of lead for attaching columns in at least one place on the stylobate. This argues that columns were once installed. The absence of lead in the other holes is the product of salvage work here and on other stylobatesthroughout the city (for example, the southern stylobateon the interior of the Eumachia Building reveals the gouging out of lead). Second, the small stretch of newly observed gutter along the eastern colonnade would not have existed in isolation, but must have been associated with a stylobate that was subsequentlyrobbed out. Third, and most important, the plaster, stucco, and marble finish of all interior surfaces offers firm proof that the interior, including the colonnade, was completed. It is inconceivable in terms of construction sequence to argue that finish work, such as the well-preserved Fourth-Style paintings of the west wall, would be undertakenbefore the constructionof the building was completed. It is not only contraryto building practice but also counter to common sense to argue that the interior walls would be plastered and painted before the colonnade roof was constructed or that the raftersfor the colonnade roof were intended to cut through the finish work. Instead, the existence of finish work throughout the interior of the Macellum is evidence that the colonnade was in place and, along with it, the roof of the colonnade and the associated stylobate and gutter. Together, these 130 Maiuri 1942, 55. Maiuri uses the phrase "apparecchio di fabbrica." features provided the protective structure that allowed the finish work to be undertaken. The central tholos remains somewhat of a problem as far as its constructionhistory is concerned. Maiuriconsiders that it was not finished.'"'It is difficultto imagine work in progress in the center of the Macellumat a time when the rest of the building had been returned to use. Further study of the tholos would be useful, including a reexcavation and reassessment of the data. At present, it is impossible to evaluate it accurately. Conclusions In brief, the original foundation of the Macellum predates the earthquake, but a precise date cannot be offered; the building experienced extensive post-62 renovations that largely conformed to the plan of the original structure. Departures from the original design are seen in the remodeled entrance portal (a marble revetted court cum aedicula that replaced a triple-arch), the facade project (forming a link to the Imperial Cult Building and simultaneously blocking a preexisting street), and the northwest corner project (linking the Macellum to the forum arch). Repaired walls and the extant FourthStyle painting indicate that the building had been returned to use.
IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

The most important building on the Pompeian forum for Roman architectural history is the Imperial Cult Building (figs. 57-58), a building that could assume a more prominent position in discussions of the Roman architectural revolution, not only regarding the impact of that revolution outside of Rome, but also concerning Roman developments

1' Maiuri 1942, 61.

686

JOHN J. DOBBINS

98 [AJA

themselves because the building fills the gap between the experiments of the Domus Aurea's octagon suite and the more fully developed forms of Domitian's Aula Regia. While typically treated only in accounts of Pompeii, and only superficiallythere, the building deserves more attention. The achievements of Nero's architect, Severus, in the Domus Aurea are noted especially for their bold essays in the creation of innovative interior spatial design as seen in the octagon suite. The centralized plan of the octagon fixed the spectator in space, while simultaneously directing vision and motion into the radiating chambers and outward to the grounds of the Neronian estate. The dome overhead and the broad doorways of the octagon dematerialize the traditional walls and roof of the trabeated enclosure and substitute curve and vista by means of the dome and the amply pierced octagonal container. The Imperial Cult Building alludes to these developments without attempting to recreate the Neronian octagon suite. The Imperial Cult Building is nearly a centralized plan. Its width from exedra to exedra is the same as its depth (26.60 m); axes are marked in figure 57. The strong transverse axis from exedra to exedra, apparent even today when a spectator is standing in the ruined building, reduces the impact of the central axis that focuses on the eastern apse with its high podium. Even though the west side is open to the forum (originally through a screen of eight columns), the spectator feels totally enveloped by a vast architectural space that anticipates the impact of Hadrian's Pantheon by at least half a century. There is no other building like this at Pompeii. Expressed differently,the innovative spatial treatment of the Imperial Cult Building has more in common with the interior of Sant'Agnesein Agone in the PiazzaNavona in Rome than it does with the adjacent Temple of the Genius of Augustus or the nearby Pompeian Basilica. The innovative design must be recognized as a product of developments at Rome that we term the Roman architectural revolution. The highly articulated wall surfaces, originally clad in marble, present advancing and receding sculpture niches whose original statues would have awed the spectator who, by means of space, opulent material, and imperial iconography, was trans-

ported into another realm. The eastern apse, with its statues elevated on a high podium, drew the spectator to the intersection of the central axis and a secondary transverse north-south axis (dotted line in fig. 57). At this optimum viewing point, the spectator was locked into the architectural and sculptural coordinates of the building and held suspended in a world that transcended any architectural experience that could be found at Pompeii. This interplay of axial apse, transverse axes, and elaborated wall surfaces decorated with statuary and marble revetment anticipates the Aula Regia of the 90s in Domitian'sPalaceat Rome. From this position in the Pompeian building, the spectator who would turn to face the forum would see the interior space expand into the two large exedrae before it contracted to frame a view of the forum whose open center must have seemed very far away. The great distance between the building's interior and the open forum further emphasized the isolated quality of the interior without denying its inherent connection with the forum. Date The preceding comments reflect the author's own assessment of the building as belonging to the post-62 developments in the forum;'32there is no scholarly consensus on the date. Mau and Maiuri favored a pre-62 date. In recently published statements, Zanker, Jongman, and Ling-in contexts other than the analysis of this building per se-have either stated, implied, or entertained the possibility that the sanctuaryis a pre-62 construction.'33 fact, In there is no extended modern assessment of the evidence that could provide us with a date, but a date is, of course, essential if we are to place the building accuratelyin the history of the Pompeian forum and in the history of Roman architecturein general. Toward that end, several approaches are suggested that point to a post-62 date. or Structure, building fabric.The building is devoid of the kind of repairs with their attendant masonry seams, abrupt changes of material, reused architectural fragments, or overlapping decorative schemes that characterizebuildings repaired after the earthquake.134 other words, the structural integrity of In the building argues that it was not struck by the

132 J.J.

Pompeii," AJA 97 (1993) 327 (abstract). 133 Zanker (supra n. 8) 28; Jongman (supra n. 8); Ling

"The'Sanctuary the Public of Lares' at Dobbins,

(supra n. 95) 253. 134 Maiuri 1942, 50 comments on the unitary construction and makes similar observations.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY, DECORATION, AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

687

earthquake because it was not in existence in 62.'35 The reused architectural fragments in the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus or the ragged seam in the Eumachia Building (fig. 20) contrast with the seamless fabric of the Imperial Cult Building.136 This is not to say that there were no changes in the building. The two niches near the entrance, for example, reveal design changes, but these are not earthquake repairs. Design. Three aspects of the building's design point to a post-62 date: 1) As already discussed, the relationship of the building's design to that of dated buildings in Rome places it in a developmental and chronological position between the Domus Aurea's octagon suite and the Aula Regia of Domitian's palace on the Palatine Hill. 2) Whereas the Eumachia Building, Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus, and Macellum-all pre-earthquake foundations-defer to the preexisting street grid, the Imperial Cult Building completely ignores it, especially the street that had run along the south side of the Macellum and which is now definitively blocked. The chronological implication is that the cult building was constructed at a time when the street grid was no longer a principal component in the design of the forum. The building, therefore, appears to be later than the adjacent buildings that do adhere to the grid. As the structures that serve to suppress earlier streets-the Macellum's facade project and the wall shared by the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus and the Eumachia Building-are post-62 constructions, it is possible to date this urban design scheme to the post-62 period. 3) In rejecting the straitjacketof the street grid, the Imperial Cult Building displays a bold, expansive design that fully occupies the building site by taking the adjacent buildings, and not the preexisting street, as the limits for the design. This way of thinking about building has neither precedent nor parallel on the forum. The designers of the building rejected, or at least superseded, the design
135 It would be possible to agree with the structural integrity of the building, but to argue that this reflects a pre-62 building that was not repaired. Quite apart from the difficulty of placing the design in a pre-62 context, this counterargument is inconsistent with all other evidence from the east side of the forum, which shows that the other three buildings were repaired. One would be constrained to explain why such an ostensibly important building was left untouched. 136 I have already pointed out (supra p. 645) that an old photograph, fig. 14, reveals that the back wall of the northern exedra was partly constructed of reused architectural fragments. I am not providing contradictory ar-

parameters of all other forum buildings, thus indicating a more urbanisticallyadvanced, and presumably more chronologically advanced, approach to urban design. Decoration. the conclusions drawn throughout If this study are correct in assigning marble revetment to the post-62 period, then the marble-revetted interior can be seen as consistent with that pattern.'37 Architectural with contiguousbuildings. relationships As the buildings on the forum are physicallylinked, an architectural analysis of one inevitably requires an analysis of adjacent structures. As has already been discussed above,'38 construction of the Imthe Cult Building is part of the same project that perial accomplished the post-62 repairs to the facade of the Macellum. Moreover, as the Macellum's facade project postdates the Macellum's repaired south wall, which it overlaps, the facade project and the Imperial Cult Building (which is part of the facade project) belong to an advanced stage in the post-62 repair of the forum. A consequence of linking the two buildings was the suppression of the street that had run along the south of the Macellum. While the juncture between the Imperial Cult Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus is more difficult to read and not entirely unambiguous, the case was made above for recognizing the Imperial Cult Building as posterior to the sanctuary.139Conclusions are that the south exedra of the cult building abuts the precinct wall of the adjacent sanctuaryand that the southern side of the cult building's entrance overlaps and thickens the northern termination of the adjacent sanctuary's facade. Identification The designation of the building as the Sanctuary of the Public Lares has never been argued in detail, although it is the most commonly accepted attribution. Mau argues, correctly I think, for the religious
guments here. In terms of construction, the architectural rubble shown in fig. 14 belongs to the Macellum's facade and portal project. The rest of the cult building is devoid of such treatment. 137 The argument from decoration is in danger of becoming circular if it is not accompanied by other arguments, such as those presented in this section. The building's marble revetment can justifiably be used as evidence for the post-62 decorative preference so long as the date for the building is reasonably established on grounds other than the decoration itself. 138 Supra pp. 645-46, critical wall juncture III. 139 Supra pp. 640-45, critical wall juncture II.

688

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

character of the building. Its location, large size, innovative design, marble veneer, and sculpture niches certainly elevate the building to a special status. Moreover, its post-62 date and role in the monumentalization of the forum indicate that it was a building of considerable importance to the Pompeians. Mau's suggestion that the building is the public analogy of the household lararium, however, remains less convincing than Zanker's association of it with the imperial cult.140 The weight of precedent, namely that the other three buildings under consideration, in whole or in part, evoke Augustus, his family, and his building program in Rome, should not be discounted. If this building did not refer to the imperial family in some way, it would be the only building in this part of the forum to fail to do so. This is not to suggest, however, that the post-earthquake builders dedicated the building to Augustus. Another emperor may have been the focus. As it is unlikely that the Pompeian recovery was achieved with only local funding, and since the imperial treasury in Rome was the only other source of capital, I am willing to hypothesize that the advanced design of the building, as well as the funds to construct it, derived from Rome and that as a consequence the building could only have been destined for the imperial cult. If this happened in the time of Nero, as I suspect, then the building may have been dedicated to the deified Augustus or to Augustus and to the other Julio-Claudian divi with the clear indication through statuary and inscriptions that Nero was a descendent of the divus and the benefactor who provided the building.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

AugustanConsiderations
The years covered in the preceding analysis extend from the latter part of the principate of Augustus to the demise of Pompeii, i.e., the first century A.D. up to the 79 eruption. The examination of the Eumachia Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus revealed that the two buildings, commissioned by perhaps the two most influential women at Pompeii, were contemporaneous constructions that shared not only proximity, building materials, and construction techniques, but also similar self-conscious references to Augustus and to the architectural and religious context of Augustan Rome. The two buildings were multifaceted instruments (architectural, urban, sculptural, inscrip-

tional, ritual) by which the Augustan ethos was planted in a town outside Rome by means of a local desire to express munificence in overtly Augustan language. Moreover, in the evolution of the forum, these buildings were powerful elements whose impact endured until the demise of the city. These two issues-the dissemination of Augustan imagery at Pompeii using architecture as a vehicle and the transforming function ofAugustan-period developments on the forum-deserve further consideration. Now that the benefactions of the two public priestesses are recognized as contemporary Augustan gestures, Pompeii can serve as a case study of the processes by which Roman urbanism spread outward from Rome. Taken in conjunction with the benefactions by Marcus Tullius and Marcus Holconius Rufus (i.e., the Temple of Fortuna Augusta and the renovations of the theater), the dedications by Eumachia and Mamia illuminate the influential role played by Rome in cities throughout the empire as well as the dynamics of local patronage. Shortly before these developments occurred at Pompeii, Augustus had transformed Rome into the undisputed center of the newly consolidated Mediterranean empire. Within that center Augustus functioned as the supreme patron who successfully encouraged others to emulate his patronage, particularly his building program. His efforts at physically transforming Rome and in particular his transformation of the Forum Romanum and its immediate environs (especially the Forum Augustum) into an imperial showcase are well documented. The force of Rome as a model-particularly for Pompeii, which was so close-should not be underestimated even if the dynamics of the process cannot be fully reconstructed at this historical remove. Certain facts are clear. At Rome the forum took on a new character in which marble buildings expressed an interwoven and unrelenting Augustan theme. Regions near the forum shared in the new construction and echoed the same themes. At Pompeii parallel developments occurred. The east side of the forum was transformed, or at least began its transformation, by the Eumachia Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. Outside the forum, one block to the north, the Temple of Fortuna Augusta rose at a major intersection. In the theater, M. Holconius Rufus performed major revisions that were likely to have transformed the thea-

140 Mau 1896, esp. 299-301; Mau 1902, 102-105; Zanker (supra n. 8) 28; Richardson 273-75 considers the

building to be a library.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

689

ter from a Hellenistic structure into a Roman one. Thus at Pompeii, as at Rome, major contemporaneous constructions changed and monumentalized the physical environment of the urban core. The process continued until the eruption of Vesuvius. The spread of Augustan imagery depended upon the willingness of benefactors to adopt the images of the capital. The Eumachia dedication is a clear case of the conscious co-opting of Augustan imagery. Eumachia could have served her city in countless other ways that would have allowed her contemporaries, and us two millennia later, to recognize her as a wealthy and powerful Pompeian woman. Her choice of dedication, however, requires that we define her influence in Roman terms: Eumachia was to Pompeii as Livia was to Rome; the Eumachia Building was to Pompeii as the Porticus Liviae was to Rome; Eumachia's son, Marcus Numistrius Fronto, was to Pompeii as Livia's son, Tiberius, was to Rome. The same analogies would have been evident to contemporary Pompeians. They are Eumachia's analogies; we have not invented them. Rome was the exemplar and Eumachia found it beneficial to express her generosity to Pompeii in terms that resonated with the values of the capital. The imagery associated with patronage at Rome had already been validated by the status of Augustus; its adoption at Pompeii and elsewhere followed logically. That Mamia, Marcus Tullius, and Marcus Holconius Rufus pursued the same course shows just how compelling the Roman model was. Augustan-period building produced an urban center constructed of tufa, brick, and opus incertum, not marble, as Augustus boasted for Rome itself.'14 Although the Pompeian patrons of the Augustan age emulated the forms and imagery of Augustan Rome, they employed local materials and techniques. Augustus may have been justified in boasting that his program ofpublica magnificentia had transformed Rome into a city of marble, but the same does not apply to Pompeii. The evidence for the marble-clad facades and interiors that dominate the forum today is not Augustan. Augustan buildings were constructed of tufa, brick, and opus incertum. They were decorated not with marble revetment, but with painted plaster and stucco. The construction of the Eumachia Building and the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus began a
141 J.J.

program of monumental civic architecture that reached its culmination only in the years after the earthquake. By replacing the forum shops revealed in Maiuri's excavations, Eumachia took an important first step in transforming the forum into a civic showcase whose sculptural dedications and inscriptions drew specific links to Augustus and Augustan Rome. At the same time the temple erected by Marcus Tullius extended Augustan imagery north of the forum and in urbanistic terms anchored the northern end of the block immediately north of the forum. The temple, in turn, provided the justification for constructing the Porticus Tulliana that linked the temple and the forum and gave greater definition to the street, making it a discrete urban space, almost a piazza, as well as a thoroughfare. In the postearthquake period the Augustan buildings were not swept away. Instead, they were retained and refurbished as enduring monuments to civic pride and to the first princeps. Questions remain for the urban form of the northeastern corner of the forum during the Augustan period. Shops are likely, as Maiuri's investigations suggest, but details are sparse.142 Eventually the Macellum was constructed, but the Imperial Cult Building appeared only after the earthquake. Even within the commercial space of the Macellum, imperial imagery continued. The two statues recovered from the lateral niches of the central shrine are usually identified as members of the imperial family and suggest that the central cult statue portrayed an emperor. '43

Hallmarks the Post-62Design of

The hallmarks of the post-62 design on the forum are the monumentalizing and the unifying of the urban center; these processes were achieved by 1) linking facades; 2) blocking the two central streets that had fragmented the eastern side of the forum; 3) upgrading building material; and 4) emphasizing the now more prominent northeastern and southeastern entrances to the forum. The four means by which the forum was monumentalized and unified are now briefly summarized. Linking offacades. The multiple functioning of individual elements reveals a planning mentality that transcended the specific in achieving a unity of the whole. Let us begin with the Macellum. What elereconsidering this question: "The Shrine of the Imperial Family in the Macellum at Pompeii," a paper delivered at

chitecture of Augustan Pompeii," AJA 96 (1992) 372 (abstract). 142 Maiuri 1942, 54-57, and 1973, 75-88. 143 De Ruyt (supra n. 102) 310. A.M. Small has been

Dobbins, "Publica and Magnificentia the Tufa Ar-

Antiquity, a conference in honor of Duncan Fishwick, University of Alberta, 13-15 April 1994.

and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Powerin Classical Subject

690

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

ments frame its facade? W18.viaVlI-4/VlII-9is the northern frame that is echoed by W27.93; the portal is located centrallybetween these framing walls. Because W27.93 is usually considered to belong exclusively to the Imperial Cult Building, plans of the Macellum do not include it, e.g., Maiuri'splan (fig. 39), where the facade terminates at W26.92. Such segmentation runs counter to the experience of a person standing in front of the main portal. Visually, the southern limit of the Macellum is W27.93. This wall does multiple duty, however. When considered as part of the Imperial Cult Building and designated W93.27, it is clearly the northern respond to W93.107. But W93.107/107.93 is also the northern limit of the space in front of the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus. W107.93 has two southern responds. In plan the southern respond is the wall that extends from the southwestern corner of the Comitium. In actual experience, that relationship is not apparent and one recognizes instead the southern limit of the Eumachia chalcidicum as the termination of the combined space of the sanctuary facade and the Eumachia facade. The southern limit of the Eumachia chalcidicum is not exclusively a wall, but a wall (W198.viaVII-9/VIII-3) and column with a statue base abutting its northern side. Column and statue base are aligned with the western end of the Eumachia Building's south wall and with the end of W107.93 to the north. It is likely that the irregular brickwork at the western end of W107.93 (fig. 9) marks the place where the wall was constructed against a now vanished statue base. The foundation for such a base is still in situ and supports this interpretation. If this interpretation is correct, two statues would have faced each other across the front expanse of the two repaired Augustan buildings. The two statues would have linked the two marble-revetted facades in visual and iconographic waysjust as the facade wall of the sanctuary provided a physical link with the Eumachia Building. The Eumachia Building's own facade remains a discrete subset within the larger complex of relationships. The relationshipsjust described of Blocking streets. to the ways in which old and new buildings testify were incorporated into a new urban scheme. The process of linking facades served the equally important design goal of blocking the entrance of two streets onto the forum: one along the south side of the Macellum and the other between the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus and the Eumachia Build-

Fig. 59. Eumachia Building. Northeast corner and associated streets, from the east.

ing. The former presents no problems; the street went out of use when the cult building was constructed. Admittedly,the date of the cult building is in dispute, but the erection of the building, the blocking of the road, and the consequent elimination of a fragmenting element of the plan are temporally linked. The street between the sanctuary and the Eumachia Building is more problematical because it cannot be determined whether or not the present post-62 blocking is a new feature or a duplication of a scheme that obtained when the two Augustan buildings were originally constructed. Moreover,the relationship between the street and a series of walls revealed by Maiuri'sexcavations remains unclear.144 Nonetheless, the present arrangement is post-62 and must be evaluated as such. Not only is the street blocked at the point where it would have entered the forum, but it is also blocked further to the east

144

Maiuri 1973, fig. 44.

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

691

Fig. 60. Comitium. North side, from the northwest. by a post-62 wall, W191.viaVII-9/VII-9. To the west of this wall a considerable amount of post-62 fill has raised the ground level to the present surface of alley 191. The alley provided an easily controlled back passage from the interior chambers of the Eumachia facade to the three rear rooms of the sanctuary and ultimately to the rear of the cult building and to the south side of the Macellum. While the precise nature of the Augustan-period role in the suppression of the street remains in doubt, it is clear that the process began at that time. At the very least, the street to the north of the Eumachia Building was transformed into a narrow alley: the Eumachia Building eliminated the southern sidewalk and encroached upon the street surface itself (fig. 59); further along, the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus intruded upon the opposite side of the same street. All we can claim with certainty at this time is that the process of suppressing the street, whose tentative beginnings we have just observed, was definitively completed as part of the post-62 reorganization of the east side of the forum. tral streets had the practical effect of rerouting traffic from the east to the northeastern and southeastern corners of the forum. The now more heavily used entrances acquired a grander design compatible with their enhanced role in the new scheme. The north entrance on the east side is the more elaborate of the two (fig. 15). Two arches signaled the presence and the importance of the forum to those approaching from the north and east. For the visitor approaching from the north the forum arch framed a view into a small separate piazza, almost a vestibule to the larger forum, defined by the flank of the Temple of Jupiter, the new Corinthian colonnade in front of the Macellum, and the forum arch itself. In contrast, the Macellum arch, located at the northern end of colonnade 18, invited one into the sculpture gallery that was at once a grand forecourt to the Macellum and a sculptural announcement of the public nature of the forum. The approach from the north was amply prepared by the rebuilding of the Temple of Fortuna Augusta, the Porticus Tulliana, and the large shops on both sides of the via del Foro. The northern end of this segment of the urban armature was marked by another arch that balanced the forum arch. In the post-62 scheme, then, this refurbished piazza-like space played an enhanced role in heralding the proximity of a major entrance to the forum. The southeastern entrance is less complex. At the western end of the via dell'Abbondanza the post-62 reconstruction of the Comitium (fig. 60) appropriated the bay design from the Eumachia Building. This conscious borrowing lent a uniformity to the

material. of Upgrading building Throughout the forum, on the exteriors and interiors of buildings, extensive evidence for marble revetment is associated with post-62 repairs. Likewise, the marble columns and entablature blocks within the Eumachia Building can be assigned to the rebuilding. The shift from painted plaster to gleaming marble must have been the most impressive and visually arresting element in the redesign of the forum.

and southeastern enEmphasison the northeastern

trances to theforum. The elimination of the two cen-

692

JOHN J. DOBBINS

[AJA98

02 02 shops 0o o 020 020 0 0 0<

-

~fp

0 shops

co
02shp 02 02 02 0? 0 020 020 'rif

co

02.

02

ali

? " '

Fig. 61. Forum. East side. Pre-62 plan with streets highlighted. (K.M. Hanna and

J.J. Dobbins)
last several meters of the via dell'Abbondanza as it approached the forum. A second component of this entrance was the sculpture gallery in the chalcidicum of the Eumachia Building: statues on bases set against the east side of the forum colonnade faced the sculpture of the Eumachia facade. Neronian Associations These four interrelated processes took place in the context of damage, repair, and new building. The product was a new creation, different from the old and much more than simply a repair of damaged buildings. This is not to suggest that the entire forum had been repaired by 79; it had not. But in the end, a continuous facade, comprised of four separate buildings, had replaced the earlier fragmented scheme (fig. 61) along the eastern side. The seeds may have been sown in the Augustan period, but the new growth belongs to the years after 62. During these same years Rome was recovering from its own serious disaster, the great fire of 64. The most illustrious post-fire monument is Nero's Domus Aurea, which offers a very instructive comparison with the developments in the forum at Pompeii. Ironically, archaeologists have viewed the Domus Aurea and the Pompeian forum in quite different terms, the former as a brilliant creation ex novo by Nero's architect, Severus, and the latter as a zone of ruins where recovery was haphazard and partial. The present study has sought to dispel the latter notion. Larry Ball has radically modified the former in a study identifying pre-Neronian, early Neronian

1994]

CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

693

(i.e., Domus Transitoria), and late Neronian (i.e., Domus Aurea proper) masonry in the Esquiline wing of the Domus Aurea.145 His reappraisal of Severus's methods and artistic creativity takes into account the existence of the earlier walls and rooms that Severus had to confront in producing a coherent architectural design for the Domus Aurea. Severus's genius resided in his ability to utilize the inheritance of older structures without being bound by them, while at the same time developing new forms within an established architectural tradition. Ball's assessment that "Severus arrived at his designs through a series of clearly traceable steps"'46 parallels precisely the situation at Pompeii where the steps taken to bring unity and monumentality to the forum are clearly traceable.147 Specific parallels include the reuse of walls where they continued to serve a purpose (examples abound); the creation of new designs starting from existing structures (e.g., Domus Aurea room 44, the Macellum portal); and the creation of new forms independent of existing masonry (the octagon suite, the Imperial Cult Building). As at Rome, the unified creation was not planned in a haphazard manner or as work went along. The unity of the result argues in both cases that decisions about design had been made before work began. This points, in turn, to a single anonymous designer who created a master plan for the post-earthquake forum, and who was to the Pompeian forum as Severus was to the Domus Aurea. We do not know if he originated in Rome; one can only speculate. At issue here is the proper interpretation of the parallels with Rome. Do they reveal a close connection between Rome and Pompeii, or are they simply two examples of the way in which architects work? Allowing certain qualifications, the latter would seem to be true. Both projects are examples of Roman creativity operating within existing traditions and manifesting itself as a response to conditions at hand. The qualifications that raise both above the typical and remove them from the realm of purely

practical repairs are the presence of an architectural genius in the employ of an imperial patron at Rome and a master planner at Pompeii, and the fact that at both sites the end results transcended their sources and became new creations. While the evidence above does not prove that the master plan was inspired by Rome or that the master planner was Roman, a case can be made, but other evidence must be adduced. From the foundation of the Roman colony, architectural design at Pompeii had been inspired by Rome. The influence of Rome during the Augustan period was particularly strong; there is no reason for it to have been less so in the 60s. The design of the Imperial Cult Building is without parallel at Pompeii, but fits comfortably within developments at Rome. And finally, if the suggestion that Rome provided post-earthquake assistance is correct, the presence of Roman plans and possibly Roman planners at Pompeii is more easily explained. Who paid for the recovery at Pompeii? There are three possibilities: private benefactions, the Pompeian treasury, or the imperial treasury. No written documentation survives on this issue. Private monies may have been available, but it is clear that much private effort was committed to restoring private dwellings. It is impossible to assess the ability of the Pompeian treasury to support the extensive repairs that have been documented on the east side of the forum, but in view of the enormity of the project local civic funds must have been inadequate. The only remaining source was the imperial treasury. While no direct proof of such assistance survives, there are ample records of imperial assistance to towns, many further from Rome than Pompeii, that suffered natural disasters, especially earthquakes.148 Direct imperial interventions at Pompeii and neighboring towns are known on other occasions.149 Given these imperial actions and the other considerations mentioned above, it is likely that Rome provided both the inspiration and the revenue for the recovery at Pompeii.

145Ball 1987 (supra n. 19) and Ball 1994 (supra n. 19) 182-254. 146Ball 1994 (supra n. 19) 233. 147 A careful tracing of the steps that led to changes in the forum is the kind of detailed armature study urged by WL. MacDonald in TheArchitecture theRoman II: of Empire An Urban (New Haven 1986). Appraisal 148 Fergus Millar has collected and commented upon many of the references surviving in ancient sources in The in Emperor theRomanWorld BC-AD337) (London 1977) (31 423-24. In addition to Millar's citations, Augustan relief efforts at Paphos and many other cities after an earthquake are recorded by Dio Cassius 54.23.7-8 (I thank

Robert Hohlfelder for this reference). I am also grateful to T. Lendon for discussions of imperial relief following natural disasters. 149 Nero suspended games in the amphitheater at Pompeii (Tac. Ann. 14.12); Vespasian restored the temple of Mater Deum at Herculaneum (CILX, 1406); an emissary of Titus restored public lands occupied by private individuals at Pompeii (ILS 5942); after 79 Titus sent a commission to oversee the work of salvage at Pompeii (Suet. Tit. 8.3-4); in 82 Domitian helped to restore the theater at Nuceria (W Johannowsky,"TerraeMotus: Un'inscrizione nucerina relativaal restauro del teatro,"in Livadie [supra n. 11] 91-93).

694

J.J. DOBBINS, CHRONOLOGY,DECORATION,AND URBAN DESIGN AT POMPEII

Urban,Social,and Economic Implications By observing what the Pompeians rebuilt we can determine what was important to them. The implications of this simple truth are profound. In the absence of written accounts of the post-earthquake period, the patterns and extent of recovery in the forum provide the only access we have to the thinking of the Pompeians on the nature of the city and its proper physical embodiment. The present reading of the monuments documents the lavish attention that the Pompeians showered on the forum as they seized the opportunity to lend a new grandeur to their corporate, civic existence. In terms of scale, materials, and sheer magnificence, the forum was primary in the post-62 architecturalhierarchy,a position consistent with the equal preeminence of the civitasin the hierarchy of abstractvalues. If the usual interpretation that the public buildings languished during the recovery can no longer be supported, then we must reassess as well the values that have been imputed to the Pompeians on that basis.'50 A vigorous public building program meant that craftsmen from all aspects of the building trade descended upon Pompeii; the city itself could not have supplied all necessary workers. The craftsmen in turn were customers for greengrocers, bakers, farmers, fullers, leasers of rooms, owners of thermopolia, prostitutes, sellers of lamps and oil, etc. Public building must have been, at least to some extent, a force in the post-62 economy, and yet this

aspect of Pompeii's economic life (and its related social implications) has been systematically discounted because it was believed that the public buildings had been abandoned. Whether in compressed form as part of an overview of Pompeii or in an extended discussion, as that ofAndreau,'51an assessment of Pompeii's economic recovery always includes the observation that the public buildings were left unrepaired, or, at best, still under construction. The data presented here invite a new approach to studies of the social and economic history of Pompeii: rather than being viewed as a symbol of depressed economic conditions at Pompeii after 62 and an indication that the elite had fled the city,the forum with its vigorous and ambitious post-earthquake building program can play its appropriate role in any future study. Yavetzcontends that "scholarlyreassessments are legitimate only if new evidence that invalidates the old is discovered, if a new method of research is All applied, and/or if a new outlook emerges."'52 three criteria apply to the present reassessment of the forum at Pompeii.'15

MCINTIRE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF VIRGINIA HALL

OF ART

FAYERWEATHER

CHARLOTTESVILLE, INTERNET

22903 DOBBINS@VIRGINIA.EDU

VIRGINIA

150 E.g., while acknowledging that the three civic buildings at the south end of the forum were restored, Adam (supra n. 5) 86 contends that the aediles then gave to the populace what seemed essential to them: "l'eau et les loisirs." His observation is useful as far as it goes for it emphasizes the importance of the bath and spectacles; missing is the primacy of the forum in Roman life. 151J. Andreau, "Histoire des seismes et histoire economique. Le tremblement de terre de Pompei (62 ap. 28 J.-C.),"AnnEconSocCiv (1973) 369-95. 152 Z. Yavetz,"The Personalityof Augustus: Reflections on Syme's RomanRevolution," Raaflauband Toher (suin pra n. 42) 22.

153 While the present article has been in production, debate on the identificationof the Sanctuaryof the Genius of Augustus has continued and presents a new challenge to students of Pompeian topography. In a forthcoming article in Epigraphica, Duncan Fishwick reconsiders the Mamia inscription and strengthens Gradel's conclusions that the sanctuaryshould not be assigned to the Genius of Augustus as the Genius was not worshipped at the municipal level during the Augustan period. If the new assessment prevails, the sanctuarywill require a new designation. The new arguments do not require, however, that the Augustan date be abandoned.