Ancient Graffiti and Domestic Space in the Insula of the ...

ANCIENT GRAFFITI AND DOMESTIC SPACE IN

THE INSULA OF THE MENANDER AT POMPEII

AN HONORS THESIS

SUBMITTED ON THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2014

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICAL STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE HONORS PROGRAM

OF NEWCOMB TULANE COLLEGE

TULANE UNIVERSITY

FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF ARTS

WITH HONORS IN CLASSICAL STUDIES

BY

___________________________________

Julia Judge

APPROVED: _____________________

Susann Lusnia Director of Thesis

_____________________

Dennis Kehoe Second Reader

______________________ Christopher Rodning Third Reader

ii

Julia Judge. Ancient Graffiti and Domestic Space in the Insula of the Menander at Pompeii.

(Dr. Susann Lusnia, Classical Studies; Dr. Dennis Kehoe, Classical Studies; Dr. Christopher Rodning, Anthropology.)

This thesis is a case study of the ancient graffiti found in a specific city block, the

Insula of the Menander (I.X), in the ancient Roman city of Pompeii. Contrary to the

late 19th and early 20th century treatment of graffiti in Pompeian scholarship, which

dismissed ancient graffiti as casual inscriptions with little relevance to the

archaeology of Pompeii, recent scholarship approaches ancient graffiti as artifacts,

studying them within their context. Using this contextual approach, my thesis

examines the spatial distribution of the graffiti in the Insula of the Menander to better

understand the use of public and private space. Chapter 1 introduces the topic of

ancient graffiti in context, providing a brief description of the current state of

scholarship and of the history of the Insula of the Menander. Chapter 2 discusses the

challenges of defining ancient graffiti, and the various approaches to their

interpretation. The two hypotheses are: first, that graffiti frequency and public and

private space are related, and second, that graffiti type and room function are related.

Chapter 3 outlines the methodology for analyzing the graffiti in context, and

introduces general comparisons of frequency and spatial distribution. Chapter 4

continues this analysis, describing the graffiti in the context of each house and unit in

the insula. Chapter 5 concludes that ancient graffiti, when used along with related

archaeological evidence, are an informative source for studying the conceptualization

and use of public and private space in antiquity, and may be used in future studies for

gaining insight into the functions of space in the Roman cultural mindset.

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables………………….........................................................

List of Figures ……………………..................................................

Chapter 1: Graffiti and Roman Domestic Space...............................

Chapter 2: Ancient Graffiti: Definition and Interpretation...............

Chapter 3: Graffiti in Context: Frequency and Distribution.............

Chapter 4: Graffiti in the Insula of the Menander............................

Chapter 5: Graffiti and Defining Domestic Space............................

Bibliography ………………….........................................................

Tables………………..………..........................................................

Figures……………..……….............................................................

Appendix A

Appendix B

iv

v

1

20

35

44

65

78

82

95

iv

List of Tables

Table Number Description 1 Total graffiti in insula I.X by room type. 2 Graffiti location percentages, interior vs. exterior. 3 Exterior graffiti by door number (see fig. 4 for plan of insula with this

data). 4 Interior graffiti by room type, in order from front to back of house. 5 Interior graffiti by room type, by frequency. 6 Total graffiti percentages by category. 7 Numerical Graffito I.X.9 (CIL 4.8391) Roman numerals. 8 Numerical Graffito I.X.9 (CIL 4.8391) Transliterated Arabic Numerals. 9 Frequency of total graffiti by sub-category, textual. 10 Frequency of total graffiti by sub-category, figural. 11 Textual graffiti by sub-category: exterior. 12 Textual graffiti by sub-category: interior. 13 (The following tables express the graffiti of each house or unit, listed by

room type.) I.X.1

14 I.X.2-3 15 I.X.4 16 I.X.5-6 17 I.X.7 18 I.X.8 19 I.X.10-11 20 I.X.18 21 Exterior graffiti associated with entrances with and without benches. 22 Comparison of number of exterior graffiti and house size.

v

List of Figures

Figure Number Description 1 Map of Pompeii (Dobbins and Foss, 2007) 2 Map of Pompeii, Regio I. (Dobbins and Foss, 2007) 3 Floor plan of the Insula of the Menander, I.X. (Allison, 2006) 4 Exterior graffiti frequencies in association with house placement and

benches. (Plan from Allison, 2006) 5 Figural graffito, I.X.11. (Langner, 2001. n.1828) 6 Graffito in I.X.8, rm 3. (Langner 2001, n. 820)

1

Chapter 1: Graffiti and Roman Domestic Space

Houses were physically and figuratively an integral part of the Roman cultural

mindset. The domus was a central, sacred image in nearly all aspects of Roman culture:

in the Roman religious tradition, Vesta was highly revered as the goddess of the hearth

and home. Her temple in the Forum Romanum held the hearth of Rome from the earliest

days of the Republic. The lares and penates watched over different parts of the house,

and the imagines of ancestors were displayed prominently in the atria to be revered.

Latin authors treat the domus, both the physical home and the household, as the crux of

life and family, and a symbol of a free Roman male’s social position and lineage.1 In

Roman law, the house often represented a legal boundary; the question of whether or not

a woman was married, for example, was determined based on whether or not she had

been “led into the husband’s home”. A Roman citizen was absolved from murdering a

lower-class man who cuckolded him, so long as he caught the adulterer in the act with his

wife domi suae, “in his house,” which was thought to increase the outrage of the crime. 2

The social mores and customary ideals of Rome in many ways revolved around the

domus.3 By studying how the Romans behaved within their homes, we may gain a deeper

understanding of the intricacies of Roman culture and daily life. This study is focused on

the domestic culture in Roman Pompeii. I will analyze the graffiti found in Pompeian

houses in order to better understand the function of Roman domestic space.

1 Saller 1984. 2 Frier and McGinn 2004, 112. 3 Hales 2003, 18.

2

When studying Roman domestic activity, people are often struck by its

similarities to our own way of life. The mosaic boasting a fearsome collared dog and the

phrase cave canem (“Beware of dog”) in the vestibule of the House of the Tragic Poet is

met by viewers of today with warm familiarity. What is equally striking, however, is one

of the biggest differences between a Roman domus and a typical Western home of today,

the distinction between public and private spaces. In the modern Western mindset, the

division between public and private is sharp. We typically leave our homes to work and

return home when the day is done. Although some people may work from home, it is

considered typical for business to be conducted away from the home, which is a personal,

not professional, space. This boundary between work and home did not exist in a Roman

domus. Well-to-do Romans of the late Republic and early Empire conducted most

business from their homes. This would be atypical today, with most of our business

occurring in office buildings that are zoned away from residential areas. In Pompeii,

however, the Roman equivalent of a banker would have met his clients in the front room

of his own house. Living and working in one space would have made for a completely

different conceptualization of how domestic space should be viewed and used,

particularly with regards to which spaces were considered “public,” and which were

“private.” Andrew Wallace-Hadrill has suggested that the Romans operated on a socially-

accepted hierarchy of privacy in a residence: some areas were fully open to the public,

some by invitation of the pater familias only, and others strictly for household members.4

A Roman home would have functioned as a private residence, but with public features.

4 Wallace-Hadrill 1994.

3

The concept of public and private space greatly affected the Roman way of

domestic life. One of the results of this integration of public and private space is the

appearance of graffiti on the walls within Roman houses. This phenomenon is essentially

non-existent in the Western world today. Although the appearance of graffiti on the

walls of Pompeian homes may seem bizarre to a modern observer, the content of the

graffiti is often quite similar to the graffiti we see today; the same names, insults,

declarations of love and even lewd drawings that we see on our streets today can be

found on the walls of Pompeii5.

An individual, modern or ancient, may choose to inscribe a graffito for a number

of reasons; to idly pass the time by sketching a familiar design, to convey a message to

another person or a specific group of people, or perhaps to simply make his mark by

signing his name. Whatever the authors’ intents may have been, the presence of graffiti

indicates that people spent time in that space. Not only did people have to be present in a

space to actually write the graffiti, but many of these authors were writing with an

audience in mind; they must have expected others to pass through and view their

inscription. In this way graffiti may act as indicators of where people spent time in

Roman houses. I argue that the spatial arrangement and frequencies of graffiti may be

viewed as a map of where people spent the most time, and even what sort of activities

were done in those areas. In this way the study of domestic graffiti may illuminate what

5 Compare categories and sub-categories of ancient graffiti (Langner, 2001) and modern graffiti (Cook, Dutcher, Hargrove, and Terrance 1972).

4

kind of activity occurred in the different rooms of a house, and where those rooms may

have fallen on the hierarchy of public and private.

The rooms of a Roman house were categorized by their level of privacy, but they

were also organized by their functions. Scholars have met the task of determining the

functions of rooms in Roman houses with some difficulty. One source of this problem is

the issue of preconceived notions about domestic space. For decades it was taken for

granted that cubicula, the small rooms connecting to the atria, were used for sleeping.

This assumption was based purely on the modern idea that the members of a household

should habitually sleep in one small, personal room. More recently it has come to light

that not only is there little material evidence for bedding in this type of room, but Roman

sleeping habits may also have been far more itinerant throughout their houses, compared

with the contemporary Western habit of sleeping in “bedrooms”.6 Because of this need

for a re-interpretation of the Roman use of space, domestic behavior has become a point

of focus for recent scholarship.7

One approach to understanding the use of domestic space has been studying the

works of ancient authors. Our purview in this area is somewhat limited; ancient writings

describing common Roman domestic activity exist only in fragments today. There is only

a handful of ancient authors whose extant writings give us a substantial amount of

information on domestic space. The three authors providing the most evidence for

6 Allison 2004. 7 Laurence 1994.

5

domestic architecture are Vitruvius, Varro and Pliny the Younger.8 From these authors

we can glean two important things: the general layout of an “ideal” Roman home, and the

nomenclature used to describe the areas within such a home. Scholars have continually

relied on these accounts for studying Roman houses; many of the houses in Pompeii, for

example, were originally named and labeled based on ancient terminology. It is

inaccurate, however, to use these sources exclusively to determine the name and function

of every room in every excavated Roman home. The function of rooms in a house may

differ depending on who is living in the house, and at what time they are occupying it.

Another approach to studying Roman domestic space has involved the

architectural and decorative features of Roman homes. It is important to look at domestic

activity from this angle, because the layout of a house will inherently affect the way

people behave in the space. Some areas may be displayed prominently, with large, open

spaces designed to appear welcoming, whereas others may be removed to the

background. Pathways may open up to other spaces, or close them off. These visual cues

will guide people through the home in the manner that is intended by the house’s design.

John Clarke and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill suggest that the rooms in a Roman residence

would have been built and decorated in a way that would inform a visitor of their socially

accepted functions.9 For example, the long line of sight, lofty ceilings, and wall

decoration reminiscent of public buildings give atria the appearance of a space for

8 Allison 2001. 9 Wallace-Hadrill 1994; Clarke 1991.

6

business and other public interactions. A visitor would take note of this design and

understand the function of the space.

One drawback of the studies that use art and architecture to define the Roman use

of domestic space is their tendency to focus on the houses of the wealthy. It is tempting to

use the larger, richly decorated houses as examples, not only because of their remarkably

preserved beauty, but also because their designs fit so neatly with the ideal Vitruvian

home. Although Vitruvius’ architectural guidelines for how rooms should be designed

and used are evident in many Roman homes, they cannot be applied to every house that is

excavated.

Material evidence has recently been more carefully examined and appreciated for

its value to inform us of the use of domestic space. Joanne Berry and Penelope Allison

suggest that excavated materials are a far better source for studying domestic space than

the writings of ancient authors or even architectural patterns.10 Penelope Allison’s

comprehensive studies on the material findings of Pompeian households show that not

every single Roman home was used in the ideal Vitruvian way. Some of the rooms that

had always been referred to as triclinia, for example, were found to have almost no signs

of dining furniture or equipment.11 This stark discrepancy between previous thought and

tangible evidence shows the need for reevaluating how we approach the study of Roman

homes. One explanation for the disjunction between a room’s apparent function, based on

architectural patterns, and actual function, according to material evidence, may be found

10 Allison 2004; Berry 1997. 11 Allison 2004; Allison 2006.

7

in the chronology of the home. Many of the houses in Pompeii were built a century or

more prior to the eruption, so the residents in the first century C.E. were occupying older

homes that they did not build themselves. Often the new owners of an old home will

make use of the space in different ways than the original architects intended. For this

reason, the architecture and decoration of a home may not accurately represent the

perspective of the owner at the time of the eruption. The materials, however, were

actively used by the most recent occupants of the home. It is therefore more accurate to

interpret the functions of rooms in Pompeian households, at the time of the eruption,

based on the materials found within them, rather than basing interpretations on the

placement of rooms within preconceived house layouts.

A problem with relying on material sources, however, is that many of the areas in

the houses of Pompeii exhibited no visible patterns in the materials found. These areas

contain similar general categories of domestic utensils and storage wares, and the

identification of the use of each room type becomes jumbled. To supplement the areas

where the information provided by the material evidence becomes vague, other sources

must be used. I will argue that epigraphy, particularly the graffiti found in Pompeian

residences, is a valuable source for studying domestic space.

The Graffiti

When studying graffiti of the ancient world, it is important to approach the subject

without any preconceived notions connected to the contemporary concept of graffiti. In

modern western societies, writing graffiti is an illicit activity that bears negative

associations with vandalism and the destruction of property. With the exception of artistic

8

or commissioned graffiti, the presence of graffiti gives a modern public space the

appearance of being unkempt, or, in some perspectives, disreputable and dangerous. In

Pompeii, however, graffiti appear not only on public buildings and the exterior walls of

private buildings, but also on the walls within houses, even those belonging to the town’s

wealthiest citizens. This phenomenon is in stark contrast with our modern idea of graffiti;

we find graffiti in an almost exclusively public context and consider it vandalism. In the

ancient world, however, it seems that writing graffiti was a far more acceptable practice.

In order to differentiate ancient graffiti from other forms of ancient inscriptions,

we may define graffiti, for the purposes of this thesis, as any kind of mark purposefully

made on a wall or other surface, in Mairs’ formulation, “personally written by a private

individual in a setting constrained by fewer rules of public behavior.”12 The challenges of

defining ancient graffiti are discussed in Chapter 2.

Since their discovery, the inscriptions of the Roman world have been recorded

and collected in a number of volumes. Ancient Latin and Greek inscriptions began to be

systematically recorded in the middle of the nineteenth century. The Corpus

Inscriptionum Latinarum, a compendium of surviving inscriptions from the ancient

Roman world, was formed by Theodore Mommsen and first published in 1863. Volume

four of the CIL contains the inscriptions found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, including

graffiti. Matteo Della Corte’s collections and analyses of Pompeian graffiti are invaluable

12 Mairs 2011, 157.

9

for studying the context of the graffiti in Pompeian houses.13 More recently Martin

Langner published his book Antike Graffitizeichnungen: Motive, Gestaltung und

Bedeutung, which is the most comprehensive work on the figural graffiti of the ancient

world.14 One of the biggest problems one faces when studying ancient graffiti is the

amount of decay the inscriptions have undergone over the years.15 Not only have many of

the recorded graffiti vanished, but it has become increasingly difficult to locate any

undiscovered graffiti.16 Much information regarding the context of the graffiti that we do

have has been lost. Therefore, we now rely on modern collections of published graffiti as

our primary sources for viewing the graffiti and their locations.

Because of the diverse content in Pompeian graffiti, there are numerous methods

for dividing and subdividing them into different types. The broadest division that can be

made is between textual, figural, and numerical graffiti. These categories were coined by

Antonio Varone.17 Rebecca Benefiel employs these categories in her analyses as well.18

Numerical graffiti, for the most part, tend to be similar; most are simply series of

numerals or rows of tally marks. Figural graffiti can be categorized by the patterns of

images that occur. It appears that it was popular among Pompeian inhabitants to

reproduce certain images or designs on walls throughout the city, and even to make direct

copies adjacent to an original inscription. Martin Langner divides the figural graffiti by

13 Della Corte, 1929. 14 Langner 2001. 15 Langner 2001. 16 Baldwin, Moulden, and Laurence 2013. 17 Varone 1991. 18 Benefiel 2010.

10

their image or category of image, such as palm fronds or parts of ships.19 Because textual

graffiti exhibit innumerable thoughts and concepts, it is more difficult to divide this group

into subcategories. Peter Keegan suggests that because graffiti are representations of

memory, they should be divided according to what psychological action they represent.

His three categories are skills, facts, and experience: the “Skills” category includes

patterns of text that have to be learned and practiced, such as alphabets or artist

signatures. Graffiti with concrete information, such as dates and names, are considered

“Facts.” The “Experience” group refers to inscriptions that describe events that the author

is remembering in his writing, such as greeting, congratulatory, or insulting statements.20

Keegan further divides the graffiti groups using Langner’s method, which categorizes

textual graffiti according to general patterns.21 I use Langner’s subcategories of figural

and textual graffiti for this study.

The initial discovery of Pompeian graffiti generated some excitement among

scholars.22 A new window had been opened to the Roman world, and it was possible to

get a glimpse of what a typical Roman had to say about his daily life. Soon several

studies of the graffiti were published, discussing how the words written on the walls of

Pompeii provided unique insight into the day-to-day activities of the people who wrote

them.23 However, this initial enthusiasm for the personal and individualistic nature of

graffiti messages quickly faded. Since the graffiti had only been studied to the extent of

19 Langner 2001. 20 Keegan 2011. 21 Langner 2001. 22 Baird and Taylor 2012. 23 Breitenbach 1906; Garucci 1854; Tanzer 1939.

11

their content, they soon were considered to be a novelty. Their usefulness for studying

Ancient Rome, it was believed, had been exhausted. August Mau even dismissed the

graffiti as being almost certainly authored exclusively by the lower classes, and therefore

were useless for understanding the “cultivated men and women of the ancient city.”24

Whether or not scholars from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

appreciated the value of Pompeian graffiti, most of them approached these inscriptions

with only their content in mind, not their context. The names, references, and actions

expressed in the words of the graffiti are carefully considered, but their relationship with

their surroundings is either referenced without analysis or ignored altogether. J.A. Baird

and Claire Taylor note that “the perceived ephemeral, informal and unsophisticated

character of graffiti has meant that they have not received sufficient attention relative to

other parts of the epigraphic corpus.”25 It is only in recent decades that this perception has

been challenged. The focus has changed from the content of the graffiti to their context.

Scholars have begun to use graffiti as a means of understanding how the

inhabitants of Pompeii interacted with each other and their environment. Benefiel’s

studies of Pompeian graffiti focus on the dialogues and social interaction that are evident

in clusters of graffiti around the city. She also argues that the degree of visibility in a

space would make someone more likely to inscribe a graffito there.26 Katherine Huntley,

Eamonn Baldwin, Helen Moulden and Ray Laurence focus on identifying the authors of

24 Mau 1902. 25Baird and Taylor 2012. 26 Benefiel 2010.

12

graffiti, and how marginal groups, such as slaves and children, participated in the act of

writing in Pompeii.27 Some scholars are now working with graffiti as a means of studying

the literacy of Pompeian inhabitants. The results of these studies show that literacy in the

ancient world was a spectrum rather than a hard-and-fast skill, and not isolated to the

elite.28 The trend of this new scholarship on graffiti is gravitating towards investigating

the normative social interactions of the people of Pompeii.

One observation that has been made in recent years about ancient graffiti is the

fact that they are not only written records, but material artifacts.29 If graffiti in Pompeii

are approached as pieces of archaeological evidence, rather than historical anecdotes,

they may be studied in relation to their context, just as potsherds or trash middens are

most informative when compared with their archaeological surroundings. This is the

approach I will take to analyzing graffiti as evidence for the Roman use of domestic

space.

The Insula of the Menander

Pompeii is one of the most thoroughly studied archaeological sites of the ancient

Roman world. The town lends itself well to the investigation of Roman epigraphy and

domestic space, because a breadth of information on the art, architecture and archaeology

of the city has been recorded through decades of Pompeian scholarship. In order to

27 Huntley 2012; Baldwin, Moulden, and Laurence 2013. 28 Garraffoni and Laurence 2013; Baird and Taylor 2012. 29 Baird and Taylor 2012.

13

narrow my study to a specific area of the city, I have chosen to focus my research on the

specific city block, or “insula,” known as the Insula of the Menander (Regio I, Insula

X).30

The Insula of the Menander was originally excavated by Amedeo Maiuri from

1926 to 1932, during the great revival of Italian archaeology in the Fascist era.31 The

palatial Casa del Menandro, which takes up about 55% of the insula, was named for the

painting of the playwright Menander, which is located in a large niche in the peristyle.32

Six other houses border the Casa del Menandro, including the Casa del Fabbro and the

Casa degli Amanti. The other remaining “units”33 in the insula are smaller, external

spaces that are considered to have been cauponae, workshops or other types of

independent shops.34 Compared to the orthogonal grid that divides the majority of the

city, the Insula of the Menander lies on an irregular axis, having been constructed during

one of the older phases of Pompeii’s development.35 The insula was likely to have been

built after the major roads, the cardo and decumani, were laid out in the early third

century B.C.E.36

After Maiuri’s excavation, the insula underwent a period of restoration in 1934.

Many of the walls were restored to solidify the ancient structures and to support modern

30 See Fig. 1, 2, and 3 for map of Pompeii, map of Regio I, and insula plan. 31 Berry 2007. 32 Berry 2007. 33 Allison 2004. 34 Houses: I.X.1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 18. Units: I.X.2, 5-6, 9, 10, 12, 13 (Ling 1997). 35 Ling 1997. 36 Ling defines the terminus post quem for the insula at the end of the third century B.C.E: “there is no evidence that any of the existing structures in I. 10 goes back far, if at all, into the third century BC” (1997).

14

roofs, which were added to protect the wall paintings in the houses.37 The insula was

fortunately not damaged by the Allies’ bombing in 1943. It did not, however, escape the

destruction of looting; the Casa degli Amanti was tunneled through by modern treasure

hunters. Some of these holes were filled in as restoration efforts, others remain open.38

The insula began to deteriorate in the 1970s, and a second restoration program was

launched on the Casa del Menandro. The house was again restored in 1980 to repair

earthquake and water damage.39

There are a number of problems that arise when attempting to date the building

phases of the Insula of the Menander. One of these is due to the raising of the walls

during the restoration of the 1930s. This modern masonry was worked mostly in opus

incertum, and was set apart from the ancient masonry by tile fragments. These restorative

additions, however, have eroded over several decades, and are now “scarcely

distinguishable” from the original walls.40 The walls which were not restored are also

difficult to date. Much of the wall fabric is covered by preserved wall paintings. In this

case excavators are reluctant to damage the paintings in order to date the masonry

underneath. Taking these issues into account, Roger Ling roughly divides the chronology

of the construction and development of the insula structures into five architectural phases:

In the first phase the buildings were initially constructed in the opera a telaio style, as

37 Ling 1997. 38 The date of these tunnels is unknown, and may range from antiquity to the middle ages, or possibly even later (Ling 1997). 39 Ling 1997. 40 Ling 1997.

15

was the fashion in the third and early second centuries B.C.E.41 This style was worked

exclusively in Sarno stone, so this period may also be referred to as the “Sarno-Stone

phase.” The following four phases are based on Mau’s four styles of wall decoration, and

their corresponding chronologies: The First Style spans the second and early first century

B.C.E. The Second begins to appear around 80 and lasts through the end of the first

century B.C.E, and the Third runs through the latter half of the first century B.C.E.

through the mid-first century C.E. The Fourth Style, which occurs the most frequently of

all the styles in the insula, is datable to the final three decades before the eruption. 42

Because most of the insula was re-painted in the Fourth Style, the approximate

terminus post quem for the graffiti of the insula dates to about 30 years prior to the

eruption. Although this date range is not absolute and cannot be applied to graffiti

appearing on older walls, the terminus post quem gives a general perspective on the

chronology of the majority of the graffiti in the Insula of the Menander.

The structures that make up the Insula of the Menander are a near ideal sample

group for examining the Romans’ use of domestic space. The insula features both large

and small houses;43 the richly decorated Casa del Menandro, Casa degli Amanti and

Casa del Fabbro stand adjacent to the more modestly built I.X.8 and I.X.1.44 The

differing degrees of wealth that are evident in these houses almost certainly indicate that

41 The majority of the insula is worked in opera a telaio and the slightly later style opus incertum (Ling 1997). 42 Ling 1997. 43 Sizes are relative to the rest of the town. 44 Ling 2005.

16

the people visiting and residing in these homes would have fallen within a wide range of

social statuses. It is possible then to observe the way all types of people in Pompeii used

domestic space in this insula. In addition to these private residences there are several

external units that open up to the streets surrounding the insula. Although these units may

have belonged to the owners of the adjacent houses, their locations indicate that they

possessed public functions; some suggest these spaces were used for selling goods, or as

workshops for craftsmen.45 At any rate these units, whatever their purposes may have

served, were more accessible to the public than the houses of the insula were. Working

with graffiti on a larger scale of public and private space is useful for the purpose of my

study.

The Insula of the Menander is probably the most carefully studied city block in

the entire city of Pompeii.46 Oxford University has published four volumes on different

aspects of the insula: the first volume details the structural history and architecture of the

insula.47 The second analyzes the insula’s decorative features.48 The third volume is a

meticulous database of its material finds,49 and the fourth volume specifically discusses

the silver treasure found in the cellar of the Casa del Menandro.50 A fifth volume, which

will discuss the inscriptions in the insula, is forthcoming.51 The extensive scholarship on

45 Ling 1997. 46 Ling 1997. 47 Ling 1997. 48 Ling 2005. 49 Allison 2006. 50 Painter 2001. 51 Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

17

the Insula of the Menander will facilitate my study of how the spaces in the insula were

used by its ancient inhabitants.

The group of graffiti in Insula X is an excellent sample for studying the

relationship between graffiti and space. A substantial number of graffiti have been found

here, and are recorded in the CIL Volume IV. Della Corte reproduces the graffiti of this

insula in Epigrafi della Via fra le isole VI e X della Reg. I, and includes some context and

analysis.52 He goes into more detail concerning certain graffiti in Case ed Abitanti di

Pompei, in which he puts forth the hypothesis that the Casa del Menandro was owned by

the same Poppaea family who are often associated with the famous villa at Oplontis. 53

Della Corte conducted the earliest and most detailed study of graffiti at Pompeii.

His work, however, has been criticized for its lack of consistent methodology by modern

standards. His interpretations of the texts either exclude pertinent information or are far-

fetched stretches of the imagination. However, there are merits to Della Corte’s work; his

familiarity with Pompeian inscriptions is unparalleled, and he took great care in recording

the inscriptions, relative to the standards of his time.54 I use Della Corte’s works as my

primary source for graffiti data, not only out of necessity, but because of his close, if

inconsistent, attention to details of the graffiti.

The graffiti of the Insula of the Menander are remarkable for their diversity.

Textual, figural, and numerical graffiti are all present in the insula at varying frequencies.

52 Della Corte 1929. 53 Della Corte 1925. 54 For further discussion of the criticism of Della Corte as a source, see Wallace-Hadrill 2011.

18

The figural graffiti represent several of Langner’s categories of images.55 There is a

variety of content in the textual graffiti as well; from political campaign advertisements

to farewell addresses, from “word squares” to spiteful jeers of rivals in love, the graffiti

of the Insula of the Menander are representative of the various messages that the

Pompeians would write on their walls.

I will demonstrate in the following chapters that by studying the spatial

distribution of the graffiti in the structures of the Insula of the Menander, it is possible to

see the relationship between the presence of graffiti and the manner in which the people

of Pompeii understood and used public and domestic space.

Methodology

I have conducted a case-study on a select set of graffiti in one city block in

Pompeii, Insula I.X.56 In Chapter 2, I provide a more detailed background of ancient

graffiti. I discuss the challenges of defining ancient graffiti, as well as the changing trends

of graffiti scholarship. I also put forth my two hypotheses for this study: one, that graffiti

frequency and public and private space are related, and two, that graffiti type and room

function are related. In Chapter 3 I present the graffiti data collected for the insula,

demonstrating the general graffiti frequencies and categories within their spatial context

in the insula. The methodology I used for compiling my dataset is outlined in this chapter

as well. The fourth chapter is dedicated to analyzing the data. I have included a detailed

55 Langner 2001. 56 Wallace-Hadrill notes the benefits and drawbacks of performing a case study of graffiti (2011).

19

discussion of each house and unit in the insula, in which I explain the graffiti and their

contexts. I then make general conclusions about the significance of the distribution of the

graffiti in this insula. In my concluding chapter I evaluate both of my hypotheses, and the

implications that these conclusions have on graffiti scholarship. I also consider how the

conversation of ancient graffiti in context may continue in the future, and how studies

such as mine may contribute to the broader understanding of ancient Roman culture.

20

Chapter 2: Ancient Graffiti: Definition and Interpretation.

Defining “graffiti” as a category of ancient inscriptions is difficult. Not only is

there no evidence for graffiti being labeled as a distinctive practice in antiquity, the

modern definition of ancient graffiti is currently somewhat nebulous.57 The contemporary

definition of modern graffiti is clearly understood in the west: “writing or drawings

scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place.”58

This definition, when applied to ancient graffiti, becomes problematic; graffiti in

antiquity was not seen as defacement in most contexts, and seems to be very rarely

outright illegal.59 The parameter of “public” in the modern definition is also not

applicable to ancient graffiti, which often appear within private residences. The core

concept behind the definition, however, lends itself well to this category of ancient

inscriptions, which are casually scribbled on walls or other surfaces. The word “graffiti”

comes from the Italian verb graffiare meaning “to scratch.” Following the general

implication of this word, we may define “graffiti” as any kind of mark purposefully made

on a wall or other surface.60 This broad definition, however, does not distinguish graffiti

from formal inscriptions. We may then follow the conventional distinction described by

Mairs:

57 Baird and Taylor 2011, 5. 58 Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. 59 Kruschwitz 2010, 217-218. 60 Baird and Taylor 2011, 3.

21

“a texted carved on official orders in a public setting is an ‘inscription’ and one personally written by a private individual in a setting constrained by fewer rules of public behavior is a ‘graffito’.”61

Graffiti may be created using a variety of writing instruments, including styli, charcoal or

paint. Sometimes dipinti (painted inscriptions), a category often including electoral

programmata (political campaign advertisements), are considered to be formal

inscriptions and are separated from graffiti. Determining whether or not certain dipinti

should be considered graffiti can be difficult; some seem to be quickly drawn by a non-

professional, but others appear to have been painted by professional scriptores.62 The

electoral programmata of Pompeii, however, are often grouped with other forms of

graffiti, and I am including all dipinti inscriptions found in the Insula of the Menander for

the purpose of this study.63 Ancient graffiti have also been categorized in modern

scholarship as any writings that appear in unexpected places which were not originally

intended to feature text or images. This definition at the outset seems useful, because it

captures the spontaneity of graffiti. However, the concept of “unexpected” places is too

subjective to be a criterion for accurately defining graffiti.64

What were the attitudes toward graffiti in antiquity? It is important to approach

this question without modern bias toward the ideas surrounding the practice of graffiti.

As stated previously, ancient graffiti are found in both public and private spaces, a

61 Mairs 2011, 157. 62 See Kruschwitz 215-216 on the term scriptor used for both professional scribes and authors of graffiti (2010). 63 Baird and Taylor 2011, 3. 64 Baird and Taylor 2011, 4.

22

fundamental difference between ancient and modern graffiti. It is also necessary to

determine whether or not the ancients considered the writing of graffiti to be an act of

vandalism, whether in public, private, or all spaces. Kruschwitz notes that based on the

number and location of graffiti, the act of writing graffiti seems to have been a somewhat

accepted practice, but that “a large group of texts explicitly prohibits defacing sacred

spaces and/or monuments.”65 These prohibitions are sometimes polite requests, while

others threaten individuals not to write in a specific place. Some even express legal

consequences, such as fines for writing graffiti. The prohibitions, however, are limited,

both in the context in which they appear and the content which they address; Kruschwitz

finds such warnings on “monuments, dedications, walls and buildings in sacred…

spaces,” and rarely in the private sphere. The warnings are generally directed against

dipinti inscriptions and programmata, as opposed to all kinds of graffiti writing. We may

presume that this limitation results from the probability that larger, painted campaign

inscriptions would be more noticeable and more expensive to remove than smaller carved

or charcoaled inscriptions. It would also be far more feasible to prosecute the author of a

programma than the author of a simple graffito.66 It seems, then, that graffiti in antiquity

were considered to be destructive in certain contexts, for example, the surfaces of sacred

monuments and similar spaces. They were not, however, seen as vandalism, both socially

and legally, to the degree that we view them today.

65 Kruschwitz 2010, 217. 66 Kruschwitz 2010, 214-218.

23

According to Kruschwitz’ examples of introspective textual graffiti that make

reference to the act of producing graffiti itself, the main motivations behind graffiti

writing were attributed to “amorous ambitions and too much spare time.”67 Arguably the

most famous example of a graffito criticizing other graffiti comes from the crypta of the

Amphitheater at Pompeii:

Admiror te paries non cecidisse qui tot scriptorum taedia sustineas.(CIL 4.2487)

I am amazed, o wall, that you have not collapsed, you who bears so many writers' tedious items68

Countless examples of love-related ancient graffiti are found throughout the

epigraphic corpus. One example from the façade of house 1 of the Insula of the Menander

reads:

Amat qui scr(ibit) (CIL 4.8229)

He who writes (this) is in love.

Certainly a great number of ancient graffiti seem to have been produced during

idle time or in a lover’s reverie, but it is hardly plausible that the people of antiquity

believed that every single graffito could be attributed only to these two causes. We may

compare such an impossibly limited scope to the motivations behind contemporary

graffiti; there are, of course, numerous examples of suggestive amatory remarks scrawled

67 Kruschwitz 2010, 215. These motivations, of course, are excluding the motivation behind writing electoral programmata 68 All of the translations included are my own, except where noted otherwise.

24

on bathroom walls, and the occasional doodle drawn by a distracted child on a

schoolroom desk. We also see, however, a myriad of political and cultural sentiments, as

well as artistic images, on the walls of public spaces in any major city in the modern

West. The motivations behind graffiti, both ancient and modern, inherently are limitless.

Identifying general patterns of motivation in the corpus of ancient graffiti is

possible, however. One distinguishable pattern of motivation for producing graffiti is

practicing writing. Alphabet graffiti are found quite frequently across the Roman Empire,

for example at the Forum of Caesar in Rome and the Large Palaestra of Pompeii.69 An

“alphabet graffito” is identified as the letters of the alphabet, even as few as one or two

(according to convention), written in order. The exercise of writing out the letters of the

alphabet was very popular and was even varied to make it more challenging: occasionally

an alphabet is found written with the letters alternating from the beginning and the end of

the Latin alphabet: AXBYCV….etc. In the House of the Menander, one graffito shows

that someone had intended to start this exercise:

AX (CIL 4.9272b)

Another example of graffiti as writing practice is the repetition or copying of a graffito.

There are many instances, both in the textual and the figural categories, of groups of two

or more identical or nearly identical graffiti. This suggests the possibility that someone

was practicing writing his own name, or that a second person came along and wanted to

69 Garraffoni and Laurence 2013, 126.

25

try his hand at writing what the original author had produced. A few examples of this

phenomenon appear in Reg. I. Ins. X:

Modestus (CIL 4.8252a) Modes(tus) (CIL 4.8252b)

Neptunus (CIL 4.8289a) Netunus (CIL 4.8289b) Net (CIL 4.8289c)

Famulus (CIL 4.8280a) Famulus hic (CIL 4.8280b)

Benefiel finds evidence of this practice occurring in figural graffiti as well; similar

drawings appear near each other, indicating the possibility of someone learning to draw.70

Additionally, Della Corte notes that many electoral programmata appear to be copied.

Often a professionally made programma dipinto will have a crude graffito counterpart in

another part of town.71

Recent graffiti scholarship is calling past assertions on ancient Roman literacy

into question. It has been assumed, not unreasonably, that literacy in the Roman world

was limited, and generally reserved for the privileged few.72 It was also taken for granted,

as previously mentioned, that graffiti in Pompeii were a phenomenon perpetuated

exclusively by the lower class.73 These two assumptions, however, when taken together,

are paradoxical; how can this massive corpus of writing be created solely by an

70 Benefiel 2011, 35. 71 Della Corte, 1929. 72 Harris 1989. 73 Baird and Taylor 2011, 10.

26

uneducated and largely illiterate underclass? Baird and Taylor argue that both of these

claims should be re-examined.74 First, the question of literacy: it is often taken for

granted that literacy is a hard-and-fast skill, which one either possesses or lacks. This

view, however, seems not entirely accurate. For example, an individual may be able to

read but not write. A person with this skill set cannot be entirely dismissed as illiterate,

since he or she can comprehend written words. A person’s ability to write, on the other

hand, does not necessarily indicate that he or she is literate. People may be capable of

copying letters without being able to independently reproduce them in different

combinations which they are able to read and comprehend. Mairs suggests that many

people’s literacy level allowed them to reproduce only the letters of their name, which

may account for the high frequency of single-name graffiti.75 Therefore, literacy in the

ancient world must be viewed as a fluid spectrum, especially when approaching informal

writing.76 Recognizing that graffiti writing is not limited to the fully educated expands

our scope of the potential demographic groups who were responsible for the writing of

ancient graffiti. Although it would be incorrect to assume that the vast majority of the

population of the Roman world were literate, in any sense of the word, it is important to

acknowledge that people outside the elite could also read and write.77

The second assumption, that graffiti in Pompeii represented a “vulgar” habit of

the lower class, is evidently false; by studying even a limited sample of the graffiti at

74 Baird and Taylor 2011, 10. 75 Langner 2001, 22-24. Mairs 2011, 162. See Chapter 3 of this thesis for statistics of sub-categories of textual graffiti. 76 Baird and Taylor 2011, 10. 77Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 402.

27

Pompeii, one can find multiple examples of urbane wall-scribblings. Lines of Vergil’s

poetry, for example, are a popular subject of graffiti.78 This suggests that at least some

formally-educated people were participating in the act of writing graffiti. One example is

found on the outer wall of the entrance to the Casa del Menandro.

vidisti quo Turnus equo q(uibus ibat in armis (CIL 4.8292) ( Verg. Aen. 9.269)

You have seen on which horse Turnus was riding, with which arms he was going… 79

Della Corte notes that this line is written in neat lettering, which further suggests that the

graffito was inscribed by a well-educated hand.80 We may safely assume from this

graffito and many similar examples that some authors of Pompeian graffiti were members

of higher, educated social groups. The study of graffiti makes clear that many people of

the ancient Roman world, regardless of age, gender, or social status, were participating in

the cultural habit of writing on the walls of their cities.

As was mentioned in the introduction, ancient graffiti scholarship has shifted its

focus toward new questions. Scholars are now studying graffiti as cultural artifacts within

their archaeological context. This new perspective on the study of graffiti has taken shape

in a variety of approaches, all which aim to contextualize the act of writing graffiti within

the social landscape of antiquity. One of these approaches focuses on “graffiti dialogues,”

groups of two or more graffiti that are in communication with each other, and what can

78 Milnor 2014, 255. 79 Nettleship and Wagner 1898, 281. See note 269. 80 Della Corte 1929, 465.

28

be learned from them about the social use of space. Graffiti dialogues are found relatively

frequently throughout the city of Pompeii.81 Dialogues often occur between different

textual graffiti. One example is read as a spat between two people, presumably both men,

who are vying for the love of a certain Iris, who is evidently a slave girl working in the

“caupona” I.X.2 in which the graffito is found. Graffiti conversations such as this one

show that writing on the walls functioned as a method of communication for the people

of Pompeii.

Successus textor amat Coponiaes ancilla(m) nomine Hiredem quae quidem illum non curat sed ille rogat illa com(m)iseretur scribit rivalis vale

invidiose quia rumperis sectari (?) noli formonsiorem, et qui est homo pravissimus et bellus

dixi, scripsi. Amas Hiredem quae te non curat. Sev(erus) Successo ut scr….. S…. Severus (CIL 4.8259)

“Successus the weaver loves the slave girl of Coponia named Iris, who does not care at all for him, but he begs, and she takes pity on him. A rival wrote this. Bye.

“Since you are bursting [i.e. you who are bursting with jealousy], don’t jealously harass someone better looking, and one who is a very depraved, and handsome, man.”

“I have spoken, I have written. You love Iris, who does not care for you. Severus to Successus….”

The relationship between groups of textual and figural graffiti, on the other hand,

is more difficult to approach. The vast majority of figural graffiti are either ignored or

only mentioned briefly in passing by the CIL and Matteo Della Corte. The relationships

81 Benefiel 2011, 24.

29

between spatially connected figural and textual graffiti are rarely noted, unless the

connection is plainly clear, such as a name labeling the image of a gladiator.82 Reading

the “dialogues” between text and image, however, can often illustrate the same kind of

social interactions that are evident in text-to-text conversations. For example, the

collection of textual and figural graffiti addressing a certain Onesimus, which is found

“on the northern wall of a room that lies to the right of the vestibule of house no. 7” in the

Insula of the Menander:83

Onesimi [image of a phallus]

ecce xurikilla

dos [image of a phallus] labii(s) Onesimus

Onesimi <c=Q>un(n)u(m) li(n)ge(re) (CIL 4.8380)84

The two images of a phallus drawn with related phrases suggest a few possibilities: these

words and pictures may have been inscribed by one author. By including a visual

representation of his or her intention beside the name of the addressee, the author may be

attempting to reach a wider audience; perhaps an illiterate person would recognize the

name, and be able to construe the meaning from its association with the image, without

reading the whole inscription. It is also possible that these graffiti were written and drawn

by multiple contributors. One person may have written the words, and another decided to

add the images, perhaps because he or she could not write, or simply because he or she

82 Benefiel 2010, 75. 83 Della Corte, 1929. Della Corte suggests that the term “xurikilla” is synonymous with “male member.” 84 The act of “cunnum lingere” performed by a man was “regarded with a certain contempt.” See Varone, 2001, 82-83.

30

liked the visual manifestation of the written phrase. In either case, the author(s) of the

graffiti are communicating with other people around them, besides poor Onesimus.85

Sometimes the textual and figural graffiti communicate with each other only in

terms of their spatial position, as opposed to their content. Benefiel finds such instances

in the House of Maius Castricius.86 Although it is not coincidental that the graffiti were

inscribed close together, the drawing and writing in these instances do not seem to be

directly responding to one or the other. Such “dialogues” are more indicative of the

tendency for graffiti to cluster, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

Dialogues between graffiti are not always confined by their spatial relationship

with one another. Greetings are one of the most common types of graffiti found in

Pompeii and sometimes a greeting and its response are separated, sometimes as far as

multiple city blocks, from one another.87 A better-known example is the series of

greetings between “Secundus” and “Prima,” which are found in various places around

Pompeii.88 `Two of their greetings are found outside two houses in the Insula of the

Menander (I.X.3 and I.X.7):

Prima Secu(n)do salute(m) plurima (CIL 4.8270)

Prima sends many greetings to Secundus

85 Varone says that the act of “cunnum lingere” by a man was “regarded with a certain contempt” (2001, 82-83). 86 Benefiel 2010, 76. 87 Benefiel 2011, 25. 88 CIL IV 2993b, 2993c, 8270, 8365 and 8366.

31

Secundus Prim(a)e suae ubi que i<p=S>s(a)e salute(m) rogo domina ut me ames (CIL 4.8364)

Secundus greets his Prima anywhere (she may be) I ask, lady, that you love me

This sustained graffiti dialogue indicates the commonplace use of graffiti as a means of

communication, and the habitual practice of both reading and writing graffiti in Pompeii.

Benefiel postulates that graffiti dialogues will occur in spaces that both have a

high degree of visibility, and are in places in which people tend to gather. If a graffito is

written in an open space, easily seen by multiple passers-by, it is more likely that

someone will read the graffito and be inclined to respond to its message.89 The presence

of a graffiti dialogue, therefore, is important information for understanding how the space

was used and interpreted by those who encountered it.

Graffiti clusters are another phenomenon that facilitates our understanding of a

space in antiquity. Scholars now study graffiti clusters within the context of social space

in the ancient world. A graffiti cluster is defined as a group of graffiti in close proximity

with one another, but not in direct discourse with each other, as is the case with a graffiti

dialogue. In the modern world, we find graffiti clustering quite often in the public

context. Because of contemporary legal prohibitions against defacing public property,

modern graffiti tend to cluster in areas in which the authors are less likely to be noticed

89 Benefiel 2010.

32

and apprehended, such as public restrooms, alleyways, or large public transportation

vehicles such as trains or subway cars. In the ancient Roman world, attitudes toward

writing on walls were far more relaxed, and clusters of ancient graffiti are found in both

public spaces and domestic residences in Pompeii. Peter Keegan finds clusters in spaces

of all sizes, especially ones that are “visible, legible and memorable to a broad cross-

section of the city’s oral-literate social strata.”90 From the presence of a graffiti cluster we

may assume similar conclusions as we can with the presence of graffiti dialogues: if

several graffiti are written in the same area, it must be a space that is frequently

encountered by a relatively high density of people. The authors of the graffiti also may

choose to write in such a space because they are aware that it is a popular area and that

their words will have a higher chance of being read by others.91 Something else that may

be concluded from a graffiti cluster is that the presence of graffiti creates an “attitude of

permission” for other people to contribute their own graffiti. It is human nature to feel

more comfortable expressing oneself if a strong precedent for doing so has been

established. Claire Taylor notes this “process of legitimization” of graffiti in the

gradually augmented clusters at Thorikos and Hymettos.92

These new approaches of studying graffiti in their spatial and social context have

recast graffiti as a potent source for gaining fresh insight into ancient perspectives on

social space. Following along this newly-trodden path of graffiti scholarship, I will

investigate the distribution of graffiti in the Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. My study

90 Keegan 2011, 179. 91 Garroffoni and Laurence 2013, 132. 92 Taylor 2011, 97.

33

began with two hypotheses: the first is that the frequency of graffiti in a given area

indicates the degree to which that space was public or private. The higher the number of

graffiti, the more public the space was in the eyes of its visitors. If a low number of

graffiti are found in a space, it was likely considered to be private. This correlation is

based on the logical assumption that more people are likely to be in a “public” space at

any given time, because fewer people are permitted into more private spaces. Again, the

ancient concept of “public” and “private” was a gradated spectrum, as emphasized by

Wallace-Hadrill.93 Based on the results of my study I am able to show that graffiti

frequencies reflect this spectrum of public and private in the Insula of the Menander.

My second premise is that the distribution of the categories and sub-categories of

graffiti illuminates potential uses of the different types of domestic spaces. In the Villa

San Marco, Baldwin, Moulden, and Laurence found that most numerical graffiti were

found in the service quarters, areas in which activities such as cooking would have

required “functional writing,” such as mathematical equations. They find a high number

of figural graffiti occurring in the bath areas, and postulate that this is due to ease of

incising the plaster softened by the heat of the baths. Bathers might have had more time

to draw while relaxing in the bath area, as might the slaves who could have drawn in their

spare time while waiting to serve the bathers.94 In the Insula of the Menander, such

definitive patterns are not found. However, I will show that some connections may be

93 Wallace-Hadrill 1994. 94 Baldwin, Moulden, and Laurence 2013, 162-163.

34

drawn between certain graffiti and their contexts to support theories of how those spaces

might have been used.

From the results of my research I am able to demonstrate that graffiti are a useful

and important source for understanding the use of domestic space in antiquity. By

recognizing ancient graffiti as archaeological artifacts, we may use their presence at other

sites, perhaps sites yet to be discovered, as evidence of the social activities in the ancient

world. In the following chapters I test my two hypotheses and the implications of these

results for the study of ancient graffiti.

35

Chapter 3: Graffiti in Context: Frequency and Distribution

In this Chapter I present the distribution and frequency of the graffiti in Insula

I.X. For this thesis, I compiled a database of 194 select graffiti from the insula. Wallace-

Hadrill uses a comparable number of graffiti in his case study of the near-by insula, I.9,

although he asserts that “it seems meaningless… to say whether 201 inscriptions is a lot

or a little for an urban block of 8 properties.”95 The majority of the data for I.X is taken

from two of Della Corte’s publications: his article Epigrafi della Via fra le isole VI e X

della Reg. I in Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, and his book Casa ed Abitanti di

Pompei96. Several of the inscriptions in these publications are taken from CIL 4

Supplement 3, but many are Della Corte’s own observations, and are not recorded in the

CIL. Likewise, there are a few inscriptions in the CIL that are left out by Della Corte.

Several of the figural graffiti from the insula, which are missing from the CIL, have been

taken from Martin Langner’s 2001 study Antike Graffitizeichnungen: Motive, Gestaltung

und Bedeutung.97

In order to visualize the graffiti content within the context of these structures, I

have organized the data both by their location in the insula and by the category of their

content. In my database, I recorded each graffito with the following information:

-Available citation or reference

95 Wallace-Hadrill 2011, 404. 96 Della Corte 1929, 455-476. Della Corte 1925, 292-304. 97 Langner 2001.

36

-House number

-The text, image, or description of the graffito, or its interpretation by the source

from which it is cited

-The type of room in which the graffito appears (adapted from Penelope Allison’s

categorization of room types)98

- Any further details regarding the graffito’s location, such as its height on the

wall or relationship with a certain wall fixture (below a window, inside a

lararium, etc.)99

-The graffito’s general category (textual, figural, or numerical)

- A “subcategory,” detailing the content of the graffiti (e.g. a textual graffiti that

expresses a greeting.)

A full presentation of the graffiti database may be found in Appendix A.

The specificity of available information varies for each graffito: in terms of

location, for some graffiti I am able to note the exact room and wall number on which

they appear. For others, only the room number or room type is available. Others have

only the notation that they are found either in the interior or the exterior of the house.

From this information, I have charted the number of graffiti occurrences in each room

type of the insula as a whole. As is clearly seen in Table 1, the great majority of the

graffiti found in the insula appears on the exterior walls near entrances, which accounts

for about 63% of the total number of graffiti occurrences. This high frequency is a logical

98 Allison 2004, 64. Table 5.a 99 Not included in Appendix A.

37

result of the traffic patterns of the daily salutatio, which will be discussed further in

Chapter 4.100

Working from the hypothesis that graffiti will appear in a higher frequency in

more public spaces, we would expect to see a great number of graffiti found on the

exterior walls facing the street. More interesting, however, are the results of the

comparison between the exterior wall graffiti surrounding each house entrance. In these,

we find that there is a higher frequency of graffiti on the walls that are connected to the

larger street, the Vicolo del Menandro, which connects to the northern side of the insula.

Of the 123 graffiti on exterior walls, 108 of them are found on the walls facing the Vicolo

del Menandro. The frequency then diminishes on the walls further away from the main

road. There are 4 graffiti on the exterior walls of the west side of the insula, 0 on the

south side, and 11 on the east side.101

Since the number of graffiti appearing on exterior walls dwarfs the number that

appears in individual room types, it is useful to compare the frequencies within interior

room types, isolated from the exterior.102 I have sorted Table 4 by a general progressive

room order, beginning with the entrances of the house opening to the street and

progressing toward the back. For Table 5, I reordered the rooms by graffiti frequency, in

order of highest to lowest. We can see from these tables how the general trend of graffiti

frequency changes as one moves through the house, and which types of rooms tend to

100 See Table 2 for comparison of graffiti found on exterior and interior walls of the insula. 101 See Table 3, Figure 4. 102 Langner makes this division as well (2001, 22-23).

38

have higher frequencies. The comparison of these frequencies will be informative to the

discussion of graffiti’s relationship with public and private space.

My identification of room types is based on Penelope Allison’s Pompeian

Households: An Analysis of the Material Culture.103 Allison includes her own descriptive

labels for the room types, along with the traditional Latin or Greek equivalents (e.g.

Peristyle= “Main Garden”). She does this in order to emphasize the importance of leaving

behind preconceived notions of the function of a room type when approaching the study

of domestic space. In the discussion of graffiti in the context of domestic space, this

admonition is even more necessary to keep in mind; the majority (though slight) of

graffiti in interior spaces of the insula is found in cubicula, the small rooms that extend

off of the larger areas of the house, which are often referred to as private spaces. This

discrepancy will be further investigated in Chapter 4.

The frequency in other areas is less surprising. The three room types containing

the highest frequency of graffiti are peristyles, main entranceway areas (fauces and

vestibula), and rooms that open up to the street (tabernae, cauponae, workshops, etc.).

These spaces have long been considered as public spaces, relative to other parts of the

house such as triclinia or oeci.104

For the discussion of my second hypothesis, concerning what types of graffiti

occur in the different parts of the insula structures, it is necessary to compare the general

103 Allison 2004, 64. 104 Wallace-Hadrill 1994, 17- 28.

39

categories of graffiti, defined by Varone as textual, figural, and numerical.105 The

percentages of the total graffiti in the insula by category are as follows:106

Textual: 79%

Figural: 20%

Numerical: 1%

These results seem to be typical,107 and can be explained in a number of ways: first, the

exceedingly low number of numerical graffiti could be due to the fact that numerical

graffiti are relatively under-recorded.108 Since hand-written Roman numerals often appear

like simple hash marks, a numerical graffito may be indistinguishable from the rest of the

weathered wall on which it was inscribed. The lower number of figural graffiti compared

with that of textual graffiti can also be explained by under-recording.109 In his

publications, Della Corte marginalizes figural graffiti by only briefly noting them within

his descriptions of the cited textual examples,110 and figural graffiti are generally

excluded from the CIL.111 Benefiel finds a higher number of figural graffiti on the

exterior of the House of Maius Castricius than in the interior, and suggests that the lower

105 Varone 1999. 106 See Table 6. 107 Compare to the House of Maius Castricius, where Benefiel finds that textual messages make up nearly two-thirds of its extant graffiti (2011). 108 Benefiel 2011, 37. 109 Benefiel 2011 32. 110 Della Corte 1929. 111 Benefiel 2011 32.

40

number of figural graffiti in domestic spaces is due to the overpowering decoration that is

often prevalent in the houses of Pompeii.112 Textual graffiti may also be more prevalent

simply because for literate people, writing is more instinctive than drawing or

counting.113

Because there are only two recorded examples of numerical graffiti in insula I.X,

it is worth discussing them both in detail. The first is located on the outer wall of door

number 3, and it reads:

LXXIICII114

The numerals represent two numbers written closely together, 72 and 102.115 This graffito

is inscribed in the vicinity of multiple figural graffiti depicting gladiators. It is possible

that the numerals were written in association with the drawings, perhaps noting the

gladiators’ rankings resulting from recent matches.116

The second numerical graffito appears inside of door number 9, high on the

northern uncovered brick wall. This graffito records multiple, methodical lists of

numbers:

112 Benefiel 2011. 113 See Taylor (2011) and Kruschwitz (2010) on graffiti and the epigraphic habit, and Keegan, (2011) on the connection between graffiti, culture and literacy. 114 No CIL citation. Della Corte 1929, n. 163. 115 72 and 102 according to Keegan (2011). 116 See Carter for epigraphic evidence of gladiator ranking and pricing (2003).

41

1 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 6

X XXXV XIX XIIX XXV XIX XVI

XV XIX XXII XVI XIII XII

XIV XXV VIII XIII XIII

XIIX IIX XXII VIII XV

III

Table 7. Numerical Graffito I.X.9 (CIL 4.8391) Roman numerals.

1 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 6

10 35 19 18 25 19 16

15 19 22 16 13 12

14 25 8 13 13

18 8 22 8 15

3

Table 8. Numerical Graffito I.X.9 (CIL 4.8391) Transliterated Arabic Numerals.

42

Unit 9 has been labeled as either a workshop space or a food outlet. One can assume,

then, the possibility that a slave or other employed person in the workshop or food shop

would have at one point needed to make numerical notes, perhaps for the purpose of

taking inventory or to note the quantity of goods being bought or sold. I will discuss this

graffito and its context in unit 9 in more detail in Chapter 4.

The distribution of textual and figural graffiti, on the other hand, is more varied

than that of the numerical. The sub-categories of textual and figural graffiti are based on

Langner’s divisions in his brief chapter on textual graffiti.117 From the textual sub-

categories, we see that electoral programmata, single names, and greetings are the three

most frequent sub-categories of textual graffiti in this insula. These sub-categories are

generally some of the most frequent in all parts of Pompeii.118 This also follows with the

pattern we have already seen of graffiti tending to appear on exterior walls; these three

categories make up the highest percentage of textual graffiti on exterior walls, and all but

two of the programmata found in I.X appear on exterior walls.119

Looking at the figural sub-categories, we may note that gladiatorial images appear

at a slightly higher frequency than other types, with animal images being a close

second.120 We may compare these results with the frequencies of figural sub-categories

117 Langner 2001. 118 Langner does not include programmata in his statistics of textual graffiti (2001, 22-24). See Table 9. 119 CIL 4.7371 and CIL 4.7373. 120 See Table 10.

43

for all graffiti in Pompeii: the three most frequent sub-categories are human heads and

figures, gladiators and other sportsmen, and animals, respectively.121

From the information presented in this chapter, we are able to make some general

observations. The highest frequency of graffiti appears on the exterior walls of the insula,

and these exterior graffiti tend to appear on the Vicolo del Menandro. Textual graffiti are

the most common of the three categories of graffiti in this insula, and the three most

common subcategories of textual graffiti are single names, programmata and other items

of information, and greetings. In the following chapters, I will discuss the graffiti

distribution in further detail, and explain the implications of these observations.

121 Langner 2001, 22-24.

44

Chapter 4. Graffiti in the Insula of the Menander

The focus of this chapter will be the discussion of my dataset of graffiti within the

context of public and private space in the Insula of the Menander. I have organized my

analysis of the distribution of graffiti by the individual door numbers of the insula. The

assortment of graffiti, as well as other significant architectural and archaeological finds,

will be detailed for each house or unit. Analyzing the graffiti in conjunction with related

archaeological finds facilitates the understanding of graffiti as artifacts in their context of

public and private space. I will make general conclusions about the graffiti distribution in

the insula as a whole in the following chapter.122

House 1 (I.X.1)

In the first house, located on the North-East corner of the insula, I recorded five

graffiti. All are located on the exterior walls outside of the entrance. Three are electoral

programmata. Another is the single letter “L.” The fifth graffito is the beginning of a

relatively common phrase:123

AMAT QUI SCR(ibit)(CIL 4.8229)

He who writes this is in love.124

122 See Tables 11-20 for graffiti frequencies of each house or unit, listed by room type. 123 See CIL 4.2360, CIL 4.4008. 124 The database of graffiti for insula I.X is listed by house number in Appendix A.

45

This small dwelling, decorated in the Fourth Style, appears to have “served as

both a dwelling and a workshop,” based on Allison’s analysis of the material finds.125

The lack of precious finds, in addition to its relatively small size, indicates the possibility

that this was a poorer household.126 This may account for the lack of graffiti in the

interior: if the owner of this house was not wealthy, he would not have held a daily

salutatio (the house is too small to be considered a true atrium house), and it is likely that

he had relatively few visitors in comparison with the wealthy house owners of Pompeii.

With no need to entertain clients, the “public” aspect of the house would certainly have

been diminished. There is a lower probability for the appearance of graffiti inside a house

such as this one.

House 3 and Caupona 2 (I.X.2-3)

This structure is a small dwelling including an adjoining shop (entrance 2), which

opens to the Vicolo del Menandro. The shop, decorated in the Fourth Style, features a

masonry counter with two dolia, and a fornello (a “small oven”). The shop, and the house

as a whole, have been identified as either a taberna,a popina or a caupona.127 In any case

it is clear that some kind of food or drink was sold in this space. There are five graffiti in

this shop, including the dialogue mentioned in Chapter 2 between “Successus the

weaver” and his rival. The presence of a graffiti dialogue in this caupona is significant,

because it reaffirms the already widely-held belief that street-facing shops such as I.X.2

125 Allison 2006, 289. 126 Allison 2006, 292. 127 Allison 2006, 297.

46

functioned as public spaces. Successus’ rival wrote this message with the expectation that

others would see it. The relationships between the individuals mentioned in the dialogue

also suggest that they were not all members of the same household. This food outlet was

clearly open to the public.

A great deal of graffiti is found on the exterior walls of the caupona and the house

entrance: there are 32 instances of graffiti outside I.X.2-3, comprising a variety of types.

Drawings, alphabets, Roman and Greek letters and names, and commemorative

dedications are intermingled around the doorway, creating a visual representation of the

high number and variety of people who must have gathered frequently around this area.

The cluster of figural graffiti on the lower third panel to the right of entrance 3 is also

notable. The clustering of graffiti on these walls created the “attitude of permission” that

encouraged others to contribute more graffiti. By observing these clusters we can imagine

people mingling and milling about outside the caupona, perhaps drawing or writing to

pass the time while waiting for food or drink.

Three graffiti are also found in and around the lararium niche on the east wall of

the house’s fauces. These consist of a date, a possible dedication, and a few items of

information:

X K(al) GAIOS (CIL 4.8281)

Ten days before the Kalends – Gaius

LARES AVGVSTOS (CIL 4.8282)

The Lares of Augustus

47

Felix aeris as(sibus) IV, Florus X. (CIL 4.7339)

Felix for four asses, Florus for ten128

Della Corte and Varone postulate that the monetary values written in accordance with

these names are the rates for their prostitution services. Florus and Felix are most likely

male names.

This small cluster of graffiti, unrelated with respect to their contents, around a

ritual niche is somewhat bizarre. The decoration within the niche is typical of a lararium,

a sacred shrine to the household gods. In the entire corpus of lararia at Pompeii, only

eight feature graffiti.129 Most graffiti found in lararia are related to religion or rituals,

such as dates or names of gods, and CIL 4.7339 seems relatively profane (possibly in

both senses of the word) to be inscribed on a lararium.

The lararium’s proximity to the door may explain the uncharacteristically placed

graffito: the vestibule of the house would have been visited by more people than the

further removed back rooms of the house. The vestibule’s “public” location would have

increased the likelihood of the creation of graffiti in this space, even within a sacred

shrine.

Casa del Menandro (I.X.4)

128 Translation of CIL 4.7339 from Varone 2001, 154. 129 2, 47, 63, 209, 269, 294, 299, 467 (Boyce 1937, 102).

48

The majority of the graffiti in Insula X appears in and outside of the Casa del Menandro.

Because of the great size of the house and the large number of graffiti, my discussion into

three parts: graffiti appearing on the outer walls, in the main peristyle and in other areas

of the interior house.

Exterior Walls

Over 60% of the graffiti in the Casa del Menandro are found on the exterior walls

outside the main entrance. The grand entrance is flanked with two Corinthian columns,

and on both sides are two infixed masonry benches. Many of the graffiti appear on the

plastered panels above these benches, suggesting that the graffiti were inscribed by

people sitting on the benches. The presence of the graffiti in relation to the benches

indicates that people frequented this space and spent a relatively prolonged period of time

here. A discussion of the significance of graffiti in relation to street-side benches and the

salutatio will be included in the following chapter. The secondary entrances to the house

(I.X. 14, 15, 16, and 17) feature six more programmata graffiti. There are no masonry

benches on the exterior walls by these secondary entrances.

From the high concentration and variety of exterior graffiti, as well as the

grandeur of the house’s main entrance, one can surmise that a comparatively greater

number of people approached the Casa del Menandro on a daily basis than visited the

neighboring houses. The cluster of graffiti indicates that people were reading the graffiti

and participating in the activity, contributing their own names, phrases and drawings. We

49

may conclude from the context of the graffiti that the area outside the main entrance of

the Casa del Menandro was a public, highly populated space.

Peristyle

In the scheme of the Roman household, Wallace-Hadrill considers the peristyle,

the main garden area, to be a public space. Perhaps less public compared to the atrium,

the peristyle required invited entry, but access to it was more easily obtained than an

invitation to a triclinium or cubiculum.130 The peristyle of the Casa del Menandro is

relatively large,131 and is the nexus between the four wings of the house. About 17% of

the total graffiti in the house are found in this peristyle. Most of the graffiti are the names

or titles of public figures, including “celebrities” such as Tiberius and Cleopatra.132 We

also find a lamentation of unrequited love; “Chloe” and “Eutychia” have been identified

as two women.133 .

Chloe Eutychiae s[alutem] non me curas Euty- chia spe(s) [f]irma tua Ruf[um/am?] amas (CIL 4.8321)

Chloe greets Eutychia: Eutychia, you don’t care about me. With a firm hope you love (Rufus/Rufa)134

130 Wallace-Hadrill, 1994. 131 Berry 2007, 169. 132 This is the only mention of the name Cleopatra in the corpus of Pompeian graffiti (Keegan 2011, 179). 133 Varone 2001, 102. 134 Translation adapted from Varone, 2001, 102.

50

If we were to base our inferences solely on graffiti frequency in this house, we

would conclude that the peristyle was a more public space than the atrium, and was on

average more populated (there are no extant graffiti in the atrium of the Casa del

Menandro). However, since an external visitor would have had to pass through the atrium

to reach the peristyle, this conclusion would be false; anyone present in the peristyle

would also have been present in the atrium at some point. Benefiel remarks that the

peristyles of Pompeian houses tend to have a relatively high frequency of graffiti,

especially compared to the number found in atria.135 What caused the Pompeians to

prefer writing and drawing on the walls and columns of the peristyle to writing and

drawing in the atrium? We have already established that the peristyle is considered to

have been a relatively public space. The material findings in this and other peristyles in

Pompeii indicate that they were multi-functional spaces. In addition to the apparent,

primary purpose of the peristyle (ambling around the portico to enjoy the landscaped

garden), it is clear that the space was used for other purposes as well. Evidence of

utilitarian and domestic storage, food preparation and dining, and industrial materials

have been found in this peristyle. Because of its central location and multi-functional

nature, the peristyle drew in a variety of people from the house to perform a variety of

tasks, including both work and leisure activities, throughout the day.

The peristyle’s connection to spaces of leisure, such as the bath complex (rooms

46-49) and banquet hall (room 18), probably created a relaxed atmosphere that

encouraged writing and drawing. Those who lingered in the peristyle had idle time to

135 Benefiel 2011, 30.

51

ponder and imagine words and pictures which manifested themselves in numerous

graffiti. The busyness of the atrium, perhaps, did not provide such free time for writing

graffiti.

Another influential factor in the high frequency of graffiti in the peristyle was

lighting. Benefiel suggests that the more well-lit a space was, the more likely it was that

someone would inscribe a graffito there.136 Not only would more lighting facilitate the

author’s vision while writing or drawing, but the space’s higher degree of visibility would

increase the graffito’s potential audience, giving the author a greater incentive to write

there.

Other areas

The remaining graffiti make up about 17% of the total graffiti in the house, and are found

sporadically throughout the building. Because of the trace frequencies of the graffiti

outside the main reception areas (vestibule, atrium, and peristyle) of the house, it is

difficult to make any definitive inferences about these spaces. We can, however, make a

few noteworthy observations.

In the two entrances to the house, the graffiti are mostly “items of information.”

On the walls of the fauces of the main entrance, the documentation that some kind of loan

was given by Quintus is recorded (Della Corte would argue that this refers to Quintus

Poppaeus Sabinus, the purported owner of the house). Written in the same area among a

set of figural graffiti (identified by Langner as four shoes) is a monetary amount: 6

136 Benefiel 2011, 31.

52

asses.137 In the secondary entrance on the east side of the house, the following graffito is

inscribed:

Nucerea quaeres ad Porta(m) Romana(m) in vico Venerio, Novelliam Primigeniam (CIL 4.8356)

Look for Primigenia Novellia in Nucerea at the Roman gate in the prostitute’s district.

Della Corte reads this message as a “cheerful address.”138 Others have interpreted it as

directions to find a prostitute, Primigenia, in the “vico Venerio” in Nuceria.139 These

examples of informative graffiti appearing in entranceways suggest that entrances,

although small, were more public spaces with a high degree of visibility.

The name Sabinus appears twice again in room 19, the “golden cubiculum.”140

This room, lavishly painted in the Fourth Style, is connected to the peristyle and the large

banquet hall 18. If we assume the several occurrences of the name Sabinus are inscribed

by one man, we may assume that he either lives or works in the insula. Della Corte’s

assumption that this was Quintus Poppaeus Sabinus, and that he was at one point the

owner of I.X.4, is certainly plausible.141 The size and location of room 19 makes its

identification as a cubiculum dubious. Allison finds no furniture indicative of the room’s

use and suggests the possibility that the room was out of use at the time of the eruption.142

137 There are other instances of the monetary unit “as” abbreviated as “a.” (CIL 4.8357b). 138 Della Corte 1925, 299. 139 Cooley 2004, 111. 140 Della Corte 1925, 294. 141 Allison 2006, 334. 142 Allison 2006, 307-308.

53

Whatever function the room originally served, its location is removed to the back of the

house and not easily accessible. This detachment, along with the lack of graffiti apart

from the two names, suggests that this room was more private and less frequented by

visitors to the house. The presence of Sabinus’ name in such a space provides more

evidence that he was the owner or at least a resident of the Casa del Menandro.

Other graffiti found within the house include fragments of poetry scattered

throughout the interior. A greeting from Crescens to Chryseros and a dedication to the

divine Romulus appear in the service areas of the west side of the house.

Summary

The areas with the highest frequency of graffiti for I.X.4 are the exterior walls

near the main entrance, the peristyle, and the main vestibule.143 Imagining these

frequencies within the whole space, one can visualize the line of public space extending

from outside the entrance through to the peristyle. The public nature of these spaces is

reflected in the architecture: large spaces, lofty ceilings and certain artistic features like

columns all serve to create an “allusion” to public space.144 The Casa del Menandro is an

example of a Pompeian house with a clear public function, defined by its architecture and

evident in its graffiti record.

Domestic workshop (I.X. 5-6)

143 I am ignoring the percentage of interior graffiti with an unidentified location. 144 Wallace-Hadrill 1994.

54

I.X.6 is a small two-room unit, which possibly served as both a workshop and

living space. The two rooms are divided by stairway 5, which opens directly to the street

and led to a series of non-extant upper rooms. There are only 8 instances of graffiti

recorded in this unit. On the exterior wall of the stairway, we find the name “Crescens,” a

small drawing of a gladiator helmet, a greeting to “Primilla,” a statement of love, and a

fragmented sentence that reads as vaguely poetic but cannot be tied directly to any extant

ancient literature. A mini-dialogue between textual and figural graffiti is found on the

walls within stairway 5. The phrase “Primilla va” is written again, twice, with the

drawing of a phallus inserted between the two greetings. The implications of this

dialogue have been used to suggest that the upper story functioned as a brothel, but there

is no evidence to substantiate this claim.145 The graffiti dialogue alone cannot be used as

concrete evidence. This cluster is similar to the “Onesimus” dialogue described in

Chapter 2, and it is clear that House 7 did not function as a brothel. The usefulness of

graffiti for identifying the functions of space is contingent upon comparing their content

and context to material and architectural evidence. For example, we may observe the only

graffito found in the interior of unit 6, the single word “fullo,” the Latin word for “fuller.”

A fuller was a professional clothing launderer. In the back of the first room of unit 6 is a

rectangular structure enclosed by two low walls, containing two stone basins. Ling

identifies these as “wash basins.”146 Elia and Moeller suggest that this unit was a fuller’s

workshop, a claim that has been met with some opposition.147 The graffito, however,

145 Allison 2006, 335; Elia 1934, 276; Moeller 1976, 43. 146 Ling 1997, 147. 147 Allison 2006, 335.

55

gives more weight to the theory. Although we still cannot say with certainty whether or

not this area functioned as a fullery, the comparison of the graffito to the material

evidence gives us more information for considering the function of this space.

Casa del Fabbro (I.X.7)

To the right of the entrance of the Casa del Fabbro is another masonry bench. Seven

instances of graffiti were recorded in this house, none of which survive today. Three were

found on the exterior wall above the masonry bench, all of which appeared to be

programmata. The two most notable graffiti associated with this house were already

described in Chapter 2: to the left of the door was the romantic greeting from Secundus to

Prima. The “sneering invitation”148 to Onesimus was found in room 1, which is

connected to the vestibule. This room features a small latrine area in the North-West

corner. Although phallic graffiti appear in spaces without latrines, it is interesting to note

that this relationship between the graffiti and the space is reminiscent of modern

“latrinalia” graffiti on the walls of public restrooms today.

House 8 (I.X.8)

There are three instances of graffiti on the exterior walls of house 8. One is a

programma supporting a certain Certus’ candidacy for aedile. Another is a fragment of a

graffito that potentially identifies the owner of the house

148 Varone 2001.

56

[…oru]m domus.149

Unfortunately we can no longer read the name that appeared in the genitive before

domus. The third graffito was also recorded in a fragmentary state but seems to be

commemorating the victory of a gladiator, “Minucius the Myrmillo.” This graffito, now

lost, was written with black paint. Based on this graffito, Della Corte believes that the

(former) gladiator Minucius was the owner of the house. Given the more professional

nature of the inscription, this argument may be correct, but there is no other concrete

evidence to support it. Another graffito quoting the Aeneid is found on a wall in the

vestibule:

entelle heroum (quondam fortissime frustra) (CIL 4.8379) (Aen. 5.389)

O Entellus, once the bravest of heroes, in vain…150

Room 3

A large cluster of 13 textual and figural graffiti is found in this room, which is

identified as a cubiculum. The textual graffiti include a list of names: Rarus, Rufus,

Quietus, Onesimus, Primigenius, Gelaste, and Salvilla. Alongside these names are several

fragmentary or lost inscriptions that read as “jokes, insults and obscenities,” including:

ΚΟΝΤΕΜΝΩ ΔΗΡΙΔΙΩ ΛΑΤΩΝΑ ΤΟΥΑ ΣΑΛΒΙΛΛΑ (Contemno, derideo Latona(m) tua(m) Salvilla) (CIL 4.8384)

I don't care about your pregnancy, Salvilla, I despise it."151

149 No CIL citation. Della Corte 1929, n. 225. 150 A.S. Kline, 2012.

57

A variety of figural graffiti were drawn among the text. The images include

human faces, patterns and shape designs: a gladiator, a bird, and two leaves. Because of

the relatively massive number of loom weights found in this house, Della Corte has

suggested that this house functioned as a weavers’ workshop, and the graffiti names are

some of the textores and textrices who worked in the house.152

The function of this room is difficult to identify. The material findings point to a

number of unrelated activities. Elia labeled this room as a bedroom (cubiculum) based on

the items of personal domestic use.153 Allison, however, argues that this is unlikely given

the presence of large lava slabs that were possibly used as floor polishers. The mix of

unrelated items may suggest that the room was being used for “haphazard storage,” and

its regular use may have been suspended at the time of the eruption. 154

When taking the graffiti into account, it becomes impossible to identify room 3 as

a personal bedroom. The number of names, as well as the dialogues and clustering of text

and images, suggests that this space was habitually occupied by multiple people at some

point. For what purpose they gathered, however, is unclear.

A substantial cluster of graffiti, which were clearly authored by multiple people,

found in a small, interior space is surprising at first glance; however, by digging deeper

into the epigraphic corpus we find that this is not an isolated incident. Benefiel finds

151 The Latin words of this graffito were written in Greek letters. I have included Varone’s transliteration and translation (2001, 100). 152 Della Corte 1925, 301. 153 Elia 1934, 309-310. 154 Allison 2006, 351.

58

clusters of comparable size in smaller spaces extending off of the atrium in both the

House of the Four Styles and the House of Maius Castricius.155 The graffiti cluster in

room 3 of House I.X.8 is another reminder that not all small rooms extending off of the

atrium are private, personal spaces. This room was clearly a more common space.

Shop 9 (I.X.9)

Only one graffito has been recorded in unit 9, the numerical grid described in

Chapter 3. This graffito was written on the northern wall of unit 9.

The function of this one-room structure opening to the street is uncertain. Elia

identified it as a workshop; its size and street-corner location give the general impression

that it is a functional workspace.156 The material finds in unit 9 are varied and do not

point to a single function or activity. The fixed finds include a masonry base in the south-

east corner, with some kind of hearth or oven unit at the end. There are also remains of

stairs on the back wall leading to an upper story. The loose finds include two small

marble weights and one lead weight for scales, a ceramic storage jar, ceramic table wear,

and ceramic lids. Based on the presence of the hearth and the ceramic dishware, Allison

postulates that unit 9 might have functioned as an outlet for selling cooked food. She also

notes that the space was in a state of great disrepair at the time of the eruption. 157 This

observation, as well as the Allison’s recorded loose finds, leads me to believe that unit 9

155 Benefiel 2011; Benefiel 2010. 156 Shops and workshops tend to be exterior rooms that “pressed against the sides” of houses (Maiuri 1960, 188). 157 Allison 2006, 357.

59

once functioned as either a workshop or a food outlet, but was out of its regular use at the

time of the eruption, and had been temporarily repurposed for miscellaneous activities.

As was mentioned in Chapter 3, we can easily imagine the numerical graffiti

being connected to the activities that were done in the space; perhaps an owner or

employee of the shop wrote this graffito for the purpose of taking note of a transaction or

taking inventory of the goods being bought or sold. Nevertheless, although this graffito is

clearly related to the probable commercial function of the space, it does not provide any

more specificity to its exact function than do the material finds.

Casa degli Amanti (I.X.10-11)

The Casa degli Amanti is located on the south-west corner of the insula. The

graffiti in this house appear on the outer walls, the vestibule, the peristyle, and

unidentified interior locations. Four programmata appear on the exterior walls of this

house, all advertising candidates for aedile. The remains of a stone bench are visible to

the right of the entranceway. Three instances of graffiti are recorded in the vestibule. One

is textual, a commemorative note that the master of this house received musicians into his

home. The other two are figural, two drawings depicting birds. One of these figural

graffiti is identified by Huntley as a child’s graffito.158 I will discuss the presence and

significance of children’s graffiti in the Insula of the Menander in the next chapter.

There are five instances of graffiti in the peristyle of the Casa degli Amanti.

Cooley describes CIL 4.8405 as a commemorative statement of a cavalry man of the 10th

158 Huntley 2011, 74.

60

praetorian cohort.159 Three mythological/astrological names, Venus, Ursa, and Hermes,

are inscribed outside of rooms 10, 11, and 12, respectively, which make up the back wall

of the peristyle. Della Corte says that these were the names given to these three rooms.160

Both this interpretation, and even the reading of the words themselves, is debatable.

On the south wall adjacent to room 13, inscribed on a fresco depicting a bird, is

the well-known graffiti dialogue, which concerns the nature of love, between an optimist

and a pessimist.

a amantes ut apes vitam mellitam exigunt

b velle (CIL 4. 8408 a,b)161

A Lovers, like bees, lead a honeyed life

B Would that it were

This graffiti dialogue, from which the house takes its common name, gives us a very

pleasing impression of the kind of philosophical conversations that supposedly occurred

as residents or visitors of the house ambled thoughtfully through the peristyle colonnade.

Strictly speaking, however, its very presence indicates that the peristyle was an open,

public space that was encountered by several people, who presumably were reading the

graffiti on the walls and contributing their own.

159 Cooley 2004, 177. 160 Della Corte 1925, 302. 161 Varone ignores the third line, CIL 4.8408c, which is sometimes included in this dialogue (2001, 60).

61

Other graffiti found in the Casa degli Amanti include the single name Herodotus,

the name Metrodorus written as an artistic signature in the shape of a boat, and the

presumably insulting command

move te fellator (CIL 4. 8400)

Move it, cocksucker

We see a similar pattern of graffiti frequencies in the Casa degli Amanti: the

highest numbers of graffiti occurrences appear down the midline of the house: exterior

walls by the entrance, vestibule, and peristyle. There were no graffiti found in the atrium,

as was the case in the Casa del Menandro. We are able to make the same assumption in

the Casa degli Amanti as was made in the Casa del Menandro: because one had to cross

through the atrium in order to access the peristyle from the entrance, the atrium must

have been considered a “public” space as well.

Unit 12 (I.X.12 )

This one-room unit opens up to the south side of the insula. A doorway on the

back wall of the unit had been blocked off in antiquity, suggesting that this room was

once connected to the Casa del Menandro. At first glance this space appears to be a

workshop.162 Allison suggests that the room may have been used for spinning thread

during the final phase of occupancy.163 The findings include a two-block stone base

162 Elia 1934, 340. 163 Allison 2006, 366.

62

protruding from the west wall, an inscribed amphora, a small ceramic pot, a bronze lock

bolt, an iron door key, two nails, and pieces of equipment for spinning thread.

Only one graffito is found in this unit. Written in two lines, this fragmentary

graffito begins with a sentence that is difficult to decipher. The CIL suggests the

following reading:

ba]sium ami[co] prae[sta?]

[pu]bli Marcellae om[n…

vale Paris (CIL 4.7367)

The last line clearly reads as a farewell address, suggesting that the first sentence is some

kind of commemorative dedication or address to a friend, perhaps Marcella. The graffito

cannot be confidently connected with any theoretical function of the space.

Caupona 13 (I.X.13)

This unit, which features a masonry counter with imbedded dolia and a hearth, is

referred to by Della Corte as the Poppaeorum caupona, associating it with the Casa del

Menandro. There are no graffiti found in this unit. This is somewhat surprising because

based on the fixed finds, this space seemingly functioned as a bar or food outlet, and

therefore a public area. Compared to the caupona I.X.2, we would expect to see more

graffiti in this space, or on adjacent exterior walls. Furthermore, according to Allison, the

unit seemed to be functioning during the time of the eruption (items associated with food

63

preparation, as well as a door key, suggest a hasty departure).164 One possible explanation

for the lack of graffiti in this unit is its position in this insula. It is removed from the main

road, the Vicolo del Menandro (on which I.X.2 is located). This may have meant that the

caupona received fewer visitors, and therefore would have had a smaller potential

audience for graffiti.

House 18 (I.X.18)

This relatively small house can be accessed from the Vicolo di Paquius Proculus on the

north-east side of the insula. All the graffiti recorded for this house appear on the exterior

walls by the entrance, which is flanked with a stone bench on either side. There are six

programmata, two single names (one of which appears to be repeated from one of the

adjacent programmata), and three figural graffiti: a gladiator head, a four-legged animal,

and a palm frond. Allison reports that the loose finds in this house were mostly of a

utilitarian nature. She notes that the state of disrepair and the sparse number of luxury

goods suggest that the house was not occupied at the time of the eruption.165

Summary of Insula

164 Allison 2006, 367. 165 Allison 2006, 370.

64

The highest frequencies of graffiti in the houses of insula I.X occur on exterior

walls near entrances, vestibula, and peristyles. These areas define the midline of the

house, with each space falling on the axis drawn from the entrance to the back of the

house. We also find graffiti scattered throughout other areas of these houses, including

the clusters in I.X.8, room 3 and I.X.7, room 1. The frequencies of graffiti in the shops

and units that open up to the streets are varied. While several graffiti are found in shop

I.X.2 and unit I.X.5-6, only 1 graffito is found in unit I.X.9 and I.X.12, and none appear

in I.X.10 and I.X.13. I will explain the causes for the distribution and frequencies of the

graffiti in the Insula of the Menander and the implications of these results in the

following chapter.

65

Chapter 5: Graffiti and Defining Domestic Space

In this chapter I will address the two hypotheses put forth in Chapter 2. The first

was that the distribution and frequencies of graffiti should be correlated with the varying

degrees of public and private space in the Insula of the Menander. The second hypothesis

was that the categories and sub-categories of graffiti may indicate the use of the spaces in

which the graffiti were found. By connecting the graffiti data presented in Chapter 3 with

the analysis of the insula in Chapter 4, I am able to make the following conclusions with

regards to the two hypotheses.

As stated previously, the largest percentage of the graffiti recorded in insula I.X

appears on exterior walls. All the exterior walls of the insula, and any insula for that

matter, are open-faced toward public streets. These areas are inherently public; how, then,

can we account for the great disparity between the graffiti frequencies on some walls and

others? If we observe the different qualities of the houses that would cause one to seem

“more public” than the others, we find a correlation between the graffiti frequency and

these differences. One of these differences is the presence of benches outside entryways.

The placement of masonry benches beside the doorways of Pompeian households

is a common phenomenon that requires some explanation: these benches, which usually

measure about 0.4 meters in height, are found in many places across the city of Pompeii.

In his 2008 study, Hartnett found 100 benches in front of 69 properties.166 The original

assumption made about these benches was that they were constructed to provide seating

166 Hartnett 2008, 93.

66

for clients waiting to greet their patrons in the atrium during the daily salutatio ritual.167

The salutatio, a Roman social ritual inseparably tied to the domus, was the daily meeting

of a patronus (patron) and his clientes (clients) in the atrium of his townhouse. The

purpose of this meeting was to reaffirm the bond of clientela, the relationship between

the patron and client, which provided the client with protection and some degree of

monetary support, and the patron with an “electoral base and social prestige.”168 Because

a wealthy Roman patron would often have many clients, it is possible that, while one

client was meeting with the patron in the atrium, the others would be required to wait

outside; the outdoor benches would provide them with a comfortable place to wait.

Recently, the idea that the street-side benches of Pompeii were used only for the

salutatio is being reevaluated. Although there is literary evidence that benches were

constructed for the salutatio, they may have served other purposes as well.169 Allison

notes that street-side benches were also built outside modest homes, whose owners likely

did not have clients.170 Therefore, the seating must have been used by residents of the

house, or public passers-by. What would incentivize an owner of a small home to build

benches outside his or her home? Harnett suggests that a house owner would choose to

construct a bench outside his door not only to provide a resting place for the residents and

167 Elia 1934, 278; Leach 1993, 23. 168 Hales 2009, 19. 169 Hartnett 2008,105. 170 Allison 2006.

67

visitors of his home but also to consciously create an inviting atmosphere to “attract

favorable attention to the house.”171

The Insula of the Menander has a relatively high number of street-side benches.172

There are eight benches directly connected to the outer walls of five houses. When

comparing the total number of exterior graffiti on houses with benches to that of houses

without, there is a correlation between the likelihood of graffiti and the presence of a

street-side bench (Table 21).

As demonstrated in Chapter 3, an exterior wall’s proximity to the main road will

increase the chance that someone will write on it. From Tsujimura’s 1991 study of wheel-

ruts in the streets of Pompeii, we can tell that the Vicolo del Menandro had above-

average traffic levels.173 If a wall is connected or close to this main road, there is a higher

chance that graffiti will be found there.

Another factor that could potentially influence the frequencies of exterior graffiti

is the size of the house. If a correlation existed between house size and exterior graffiti

frequency, the correlation between a wall’s exterior graffiti and its proximity to the main

road would be invalid. One could predict that the larger a house is in square meters, the

more visitors it would have, and therefore more graffiti would appear on the exterior

walls. The Casa del Menandro, for example, is by far the largest house in square meters

and has the highest number of exterior graffiti. However, there seems to be no correlation

171 Hartnett 2008, 91. 172 Hartnett 2008, 94. 173 Tsujimura “Ruts in Pompeii: The traffic system in the Roman city” 1991

68

between house size and exterior graffiti frequency in insula I.X (Table 22). For example,

the smallest house (I.X.3) has far more exterior graffiti than the second largest house, the

Casa degli Amanti (I.X.11).

It is therefore not a house’s size, but its prominence, that attracted people to

inscribe graffiti on its outer walls. A house’s proximity to the main road created visibility,

and the presence of a bench offered an invitation to spend time there. Visibility and

popularity are the two most important factors that influence the frequency of exterior

graffiti.

This conclusion may be applied to interior graffiti as well. In the analysis in this

chapter we have established that graffiti tend to occur in highly visible spaces down the

midline of the house, in areas such as vestibula and peristyles. These midline spaces,

including the atrium, are designed to reflect public architecture; features such as spacious

ceilings, decorative columns and wall paintings are thought to have been used to visually

reflect the public function of these spaces.174 The graffiti frequencies in these spaces

support the theory that they were more populated during the day than other areas of the

house. Dialogues and clusters, like the one located in the peristyle of the Casa degli

Amanti, show that people were more likely to read and write graffiti in areas with a high

degree of visibility.

We must account, however, for the significant number of graffiti that appear

outside of these core areas. The most striking example is the cluster of 13 graffiti that

174 Wallace-Hadrill 1994.

69

appears in the cubiculum, room 3, of I.X.8. As stated earlier, this room must have been

used by multiple people for such a large and varied cluster of graffiti to occur. Because

the room affords low visibility, we can assume that its high traffic can account for the

large number of graffiti. It is possible that all the authors of these graffiti were residents

of the house, and in this case the room could still be considered “private.”175 However,

there is no reason to assume that the graffiti were created only by occupants of the house.

Furthermore, the room is clearly not private in the sense of being “personal.” The room

was not set apart for one individual’s private use, as the traditional definition of

cubiculum implies. Although this room may not have been considered as “public” as a

peristyle or atrium in one of the larger houses, it was certainly not strictly private. This

conclusion shows the necessity for exercising caution when labeling room functions in

Roman houses; location does not necessarily imply function.

For the graffiti distribution of this insula, we can confidently say that a high

frequency of graffiti does suggest that a space was more public. However, a low

frequency of graffiti or lack thereof does not necessarily indicate that the space was

private; the houses which have clearly-defined atria do not exhibit any graffiti in those

areas. However, we can infer that these spaces were still public because of the high

frequency of graffiti in adjoining peristyles. There seems to be other factors, such as

visibility and social expectations, which discouraged graffiti-writing in atria.

175 Residents of the house include working slaves and children—a graffito found in this room may have been drawn by a child: see pg 73 of this thesis.

70

We may now turn to the evidence from insula I.X that supports my second

hypothesis, that the distribution of the categories and sub-categories of graffiti may be

used to identify the potential uses of the different types of domestic spaces. Garroffoni

and Laurence state that nearly all types of graffiti appear in both the public and private

context, and that there is an “absence of division” in graffiti categories between public

and private.176 The same can be said for the Insula of the Menander: according to my

data set, there appears to be no significant difference in terms of graffiti content that can

be used to distinguish “public” (exterior) and “private” (interior).177

As for the question of whether or not graffiti categories may be used in

identifying the function of individual spaces, we may look at a few examples from the

insula. Baldwin, Moulden, and Laurence find that numerical graffiti are concentrated in

the service areas of the Villa San Marco at Stabiae.178 They conclude that these

numerical graffiti, most of which occur in the kitchen area, were created by slaves who,

lacking the wax tablets of the elite, made practical calculations for their work on the wall.

Can the same conclusion be drawn for this insula? The only two examples of numerical

graffiti in I.X have been discussed above in Chapter 3. The first, CIL 4.8268, is found on

an exterior wall. It’s identification as a numerical graffito is in fact debatable; the symbol

“L” could represent the Latin letter or the Roman numeral. If we are to interpret the

graffito as a numeral, its content has no bearing on the function of the space, apart from

its possible connection with a figural graffito depicting a gladiator.

176 Garraffoni and Laurence 2013, 132. 177 See Tables _ and _ 178 Baldwin, Moulden and Laurence 2013, 156.

71

The second numerical graffito, the grid series in unit 9, seems to be far more

closely related with the function of the space. As was previously mentioned, the space

seems to have functioned either as a workshop or a food outlet. In either case, the use of

numbers would have been necessary. The numbers alone, however, give little specificity;

we cannot draw any conclusions from them as to how the space was specifically used, but

their presence supports the current theories about this space functioning as a place of

business or work.

Another avenue for studying graffiti as an indicator of the use of space is the

recognition of graffiti authorship. By knowing which people were spending time in a

space, we might gain a better understanding of how the space was used. Although it is

difficult, often impossible, to ascertain the exact identity of the person who inscribed a

specific graffito, there are a few general trends of authorship in ancient graffiti. Some

graffiti, for example, can be identified as possibly created by children. Alphabets, and

parts of alphabets, are a subtype of textual graffiti that scholars often suppose to have

been authored by children.179 One example of an alphabet graffito occurs on the exterior

wall near the entrance of I.X.3. Only the first two letters, “A B,” were written before the

author was presumably interrupted. Another potential indication of a graffito being

authored by a child is the inscription’s height from the floor. Huntley cites that 75% of

her sample of children’s graffiti occurred below 1.1 m from the floor level.180 Della Corte

notes that this particular graffito is “at the lower edge” of the door panels, but

179 Garraffoni and Laurence 2013. 180 Huntley 2011, 77.

72

unfortunately its exact height from the floor is not given, and much of the plaster has

been lost.181 Immediately in front of this alphabet graffito is a figural graffito representing

a human figure. The presence of a drawing near the letters of the alphabet strengthens the

possibility that the two graffiti were created by a child. We cannot, however, know

definitively the age of the author based on such limited criteria alone.

Drawing upon developmental psychology, Huntley claims that a particular

graffito of a five-legged bird, found in the fauces of the Casa degli Amanti, was likely to

have been drawn by a child. The unrealistic number of legs, she argues, emphasizes the

“non-humanness” of the creature. Children will often add abnormal attributes to a figure,

such as ears on top of a head, to characterize their drawing.182

Fig. 5. Figural graffito, I.X.11. (Langner, 2001. n.1828)

181 Della Corte 1929. 182 Huntley 2011, 74.

73

Following Huntley’s approach, I would like to argue for the possibility that

another graffito found in the Insula of the Menander was authored by a child. Langner

cites the following image of a gladiator in room 3 of I.X.8:183

Fig. 6. Graffito in I.X.8, rm 3. (Langner 2001, n. 820)

A young child may have drawn this image for several reasons: First, the use of

basic geometric shapes combined to form a larger figure is a known pattern of drawing in

early childhood. The feet of this gladiator are represented by two rough triangles, and the

torso and arms are formed from amorphous four-sided figures. The prominent head is

disproportionately large relative to the rest of the body, and the legs and arms protrude

directly from the sides. All these features tend to be present in children’s drawings;

183 Langner 2001.

74

children emphasize the head, not only because it is an important image in their social

development, but also because it serves as a focal point for their figures, balancing the

image. The individual hairs that stick straight out from the top of the head also point to a

young artist; children tend to avoid the cross-over of body parts in their drawings, and

Huntley says that children will draw hair “radiating outward” so that it does not overlap

the limbs. The image as a whole appears to depict a retiarius gladiator. Huntley has also

identified examples of gladiator graffiti drawn by children. Such finds are important

because they potentially indicate that children were present at gladiatorial games.184

It is important to note the presence of children’s graffiti in this insula; Huntley

finds the majority of children’s graffiti in domestic buildings, compared to other public

contexts.185 There is also a slightly higher probability that children’s graffiti will appear

in closed-off spaces with reduced visibility.186 However, the distribution of children’s

graffiti is not uniform. Baldwin, Moulden and Laurence find an association between

children’s graffiti and service quarters, whereas Huntley finds no children’s graffiti in

such areas.187 According to Huntley, children’s graffiti appears in nearly all types of

rooms across Pompeii, and there seems to be no designated spaces for children in Roman

homes.188 The same goes for the houses of the insula X; the two children’s graffiti

appear in a vestibule and a cubiculum. The only conclusion we can draw from these

graffiti is that children might have been present in these spaces.

184 Huntley 2011. 185 Huntley finds 40.9% of children’s graffiti in domestic areas (2011). 186 Huntley 2011, 81. 187 Baldwin, Moulden, and Laurence 2013; Huntley 2011. 188 Huntley 2011.

75

Of the total graffiti in insula X, the only graffito that directly mentions an activity

that could be associated with the function of the space is the word “fullo” in I.X.6.

Although we cannot be completely certain, this label in conjunction with the presence of

possible “wash basins” creates a plausible identification of this space as some kind of

fullery. Another graffito, located on the exterior wall of the adjacent Casa del Menandro,

mentions a fullery-slave named Amiantus, which also hints at the possibility of such

activity taking place in this area.

From the examples described above, it seems that the graffiti content alone cannot

give us definitive evidence for the way in which domestic space was used. Graffiti can,

however, be used in conjunction with other evidence, such as architectural and material

finds, to support theories of how the space functioned.

Conclusion

To summarize the results of my study, the distribution and frequencies of graffiti

in the Insula of the Menander accurately indicated the spectrum of public and private

space, acting as a map of where people spent the most time in the insula. Additionally,

the graffiti, when analyzed along with associated architectural and archaeological finds,

provided additional evidence for the use of space in certain cases.

The results of this case study are significant because they prove the usefulness of

studying ancient graffiti in context to better understand the conceptualization and use of

space in antiquity. When treated as casual inscriptions, graffiti provide us with interesting

glimpses into the every-day culture of the ancient world. When employing them as

76

artifacts, however, graffiti may be seen as material culture that has the capacity to yield a

huge range of results when analyzed in context.

The study of the graffiti of the Insula of the Menander can be taken further. By

continuing to approach the graffiti in reference to the space, we may learn more about

how the ancient occupants of this city block organized and used space outside and inside

their houses. In his forthcoming publication on the graffiti of the Insula of the Menander,

Henrik Mouritsen uses a similar approach of analyzing clusters of graffiti in their spatial

context.189 A closer look at certain groups of graffiti or certain areas of the insula would

be productive as well, such as the programmata on the exterior walls or the graffiti

clusters in the lararium of house 3 and in room 3 of house 8. The concept of approaching

ancient graffiti in context is relatively new, and we may expect an increase in case

studies, as well as more comprehensive projects on graffiti in the near future.

The capacity of ancient graffiti to be considered and studied as artifacts is

invaluable. They stand apart from other forms of material culture in their unique ability to

indicate not only the activities and social behaviors of people in antiquity, but also to

show us the memories and sentiments of individuals at a specific time and place in the

past. There is much to be gained from studying ancient graffiti in this new light, which

gives the people of antiquity not only a shape, but a voice.

189 Mouritsen, forthcoming. Baldwin, Moulden, and Lawrence briefly discuss this article (2013, 155).

77

78

Bibliography

Allison, Penelope M. The Insula of the Menander in Pompeii Vol Iii: The Finds, a

Contextual Study. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, 2006. Allison, Penelope M. Pompeian Households: An Analysis of Material Culture. Los

Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2004.

Allison, Penelope. "Using the Material and Written Sources: Turn of the Millennium

Approaches to Roman Domestic Space." American Journal of Archaeology 105, no. 2 (April 2001): 181-208.

Baird, Jennifer, and Claire Taylor. Ancient Graffiti in Context. Taylor & Francis, 2011. Benefiel, Rebecca. "Amianth, a Ball-Game, and Making One's Mark CIL IV 1936 and

1936a." Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 167 (2008): 193-200. Benefiel, Rebecca R. "Dialogues of Graffiti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii."

In Ancient Graffiti in Context, 20-48. New York: Routledge, 2011. Berry, Joanne. The Complete Pompeii. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Boyce, George K. "Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii." Memoirs of the American

Academy in Rome 14, no. Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii (January 01, 1937): 5-112.

Breitenbach, Louise M. "Pompeian Wall-Scribblings." The School Review 14, no. 7

(September 1906): 529-34. Carter, Michael. "Gladiatorial Ranking and the "SC De Pretiis Gladiatorum Minuendis"

(CIL II 6278 = ILS 5163)." Phoenix 57, no. 1/2 (Spring 2003): 83-114. Clarke, John R. The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250: Ritual, Space, and

Decoration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Cooley, Alison, and M. G. L. Cooley. Pompeii: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 2004. Cooley, Alison. The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge

University Press, 2012. Della Corte, Matteo. Pompei: Iscrizioni Dell'isola X Della Regione I' Roma, 1929.

79

Della Corte, Matteo. Pompeji, the New Excavations (houses and Inhabitants). Valle Di Pompei: Tipografia Di Francesco Sicignano, 1925.

Frier, Bruce W., and Thomas A. J. McGinn. A Casebook on Roman Family Law. Oxford

[England: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hales, Shelley. The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press, 2003. Hartnett, Jeremy. "Si Quis Hic Sederit: Streetside Benches and Urban Society in

Pompeii." American Journal of Archaeology 112, no. 1 (January 2008): 91-119. Huntley, Katherine V. "Identifying Children's Graffiti in Roman Campania: A

Developmental Psychology Approach." In Ancient Graffiti in Context, 49-68. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Keegan, Peter. "Blogging Rome: Graffiti as Speech-Act and Cultural Discourse." In

Ancient Graffiti in Context, 165-90. New York: Routledge, 2011. Keppie, L. J. F. Understanding Roman Inscriptions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1991. Kruschwitz, Peter. "Attitudes Towards Wall Inscriptions in the Roman Empire."

Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 174 (2010): 207-18. Langner, Martin. Antike Graffitizeichnungen: Motive, Gestaltung Und Bedeutung.

Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 2001. Laurence, Ray, and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill. Domestic Space in the Roman World:

Pompeii and beyond. Portsmouth, RI: JRA, 1997. Laurence, Ray. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London: Routledge, 1994. Laurence, Ray. "Writing in Public Space from Child to Adult: The Meaning of Graffiti."

In Written Space in the Latin West: 200 BC to AD 300, by Renata S. Garraffoni. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Ling, Roger, and Lesley Ling. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. 2, The

Decorations. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Ling, Roger, and Paul Arthur. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii: Vol. 1, The

Structures. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

80

Mairs, Rachel. "Egyptian "Inscriptions" and Greek "Graffiti" at El Kanais in the Egyptian Eastern Desert." In Ancient Graffiti in Context, 153-64. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Mau, August. Pompeii: Its Life and Art. Translated by Francis Willey. Kelsey. New

York: Macmillan, 1902. Milnor, Kristina. Graffiti and the Literary Landscape in Roman Pompeii. Oxford, United

Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2014. Moulden, Helen, and Ray Laurence. "Slaves and Children in a Roman Villa: Writing and

Space in the Villa San Marco at Stabiae." In Written Space in the Latin West: 200 BC to AD 300, by Eamonn Baldwin. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Vergilius Maro, Publius, and A. S. Kline. 2012. Archiv von: Virgil - The Major Works

The Eclogues, The Georgics, The Aeneid. Saller, Richard. ""Familia, Domus", and the Roman Conception of the Family." Phoenix

38, no. 4 (1984): 336-55. Sears, Gareth, Peter Keegan, and Ray Laurence, eds. Written Space in the Latin West,

200 BC to AD 300. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Stocker, Terrance L., Edwin A. Cook, Linda W. Dutcher, and Stephen M. Hargrove.

"Social Analysis of Graffiti." The Journal of American Folklore 85, no. 338 (1972): 356-66.

Tanzer, Helen Henrietta. The Common People of Pompeii, a Study of the Graffiti.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1939. Taylor, Claire. "Graffiti and the Epigraphic Habit: Creating Communities and Writing

Alternate Histories in Classical Attica." In Ancient Graffiti in Context, 90-109. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Tsujimura, S. "Ruts in Pompeii: The Traffic System in the Roman City." Opuscula

Pompeiana, 1991, 2:58-86. Varone, Antonio. Erotica Pompeiana: Love Inscriptions on the Walls of Pompeii. Roma:

L'Erma Di Bretschneider, 2002. Vitruvius, Pollio, and M. H. Morgan. Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. New

York: Dover Publications, 1960.

81

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. "Scratching the Surface: A Case Study of Domestic Graffiti at

Pompeii." L'Ecriture Dans La Maison Romaine, 2011. Zanker, Paul. Pompeii: Public and Private Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1998.

82

Table 1. Total graffiti in insula I.X by room type.

0   20   40   60   80   100   120   140  

Ala  

Triclinium  (atrium)  

Tablinum  

Andrones  

Triclinium  (peristyle)  

Oecus  

Exedra  

Latrina  

Stabulum    

Upper  rooms  

Atrium  

Cubiculum  (peristyle)  

Culina  

Second  entrance  

Stairway  

Bath  area  

Cella  OsFaria  

Rooms  opening  to  street  (tabernae,  workshops,  etc.)  

UnidenFfied  locaFon  in  house  interior  

Fauces,  VesFbulum  

Cubiculum  (Atrium)  

Peristyle  

exterior  walls  near  entrances    

83

Table 2. Graffiti location percentages, interior vs. exterior.

Table 3. Exterior graffiti by door number (see fig. 4 for plan of insula with this data).

Exterior  63%  

Interior    37%  

5  

0  

32  

54  

5  

0  3   3  

0   0  4  

0   0   1   0   1  3  

12  

0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18  

 Num

ber  o

f  Graffi-  

Door  Number  

84

Room  Type    #  of  Occurrences  

Fauces,  Vestibulum   11  Rooms  opening  to  street  (tabernae,  workshops,  etc.)   7  

Stairway   2  

Cella  Ostiaria   3  

Atrium   1  

Cubiculum  (Atrium)   18  

Ala   0  

Triclinium  (atrium)   0  

Tablinum   0  

Andrones   0  

Peristyle   13  

Triclinium  (peristyle)   0  

Oecus   0  

Cubiculum  (peristyle)   1  

Exedra   0  

Culina   1  

Latrina   0  

Stabulum     0  

Second  entrance   1  

Bath  area   0  

Upper  rooms   0  

Unidentified  location  in  house  interior   5   Table 4. Interior graffiti by room type, in order from front to back of house.

85

Room  Type  (Interior)  #  of  Occurrences  

Cubiculum  (Atrium)   18  Peristyle   13  Fauces,  Vestibulum   11  Rooms  opening  to  street  (tabernae,  workshops,  etc.)   7  Unidentified  location  in  house  interior   5  Cella  Ostiaria   3  Stairway   2  Atrium   1  Cubiculum  (peristyle)   1  Culina   1  Second  entrance   1  Ala   0  Triclinium  (atrium)   0  Tablinum   0  Andrones   0  Triclinium  (peristyle)   0  Oecus   0  Exedra   0  Latrina   0  Stabulum     0  Bath  area   0  Upper  rooms   0  

Table 5. Interior graffiti by room type, by frequency.

86

Table 6. Total graffiti percentages by category.

1 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 6

X XXXV XIX XIIX XXV XIX XVI

XV XIX XXII XVI XIII XII

XIV XXV VIII XIII XIII

XIIX IIX XXII VIII XV

III

Table 7. Numerical Graffito I.X.9 (CIL 4.8391) Roman numerals.

79%  

20%  

1%  

Textual  

Figural  

Numerical  

87

1 2a 2b 3 4 5a 5b 6

10 35 19 18 25 19 16

15 19 22 16 13 12

14 25 8 13 13

18 8 22 8 15

3

Table 8. Numerical Graffito I.X.9 (CIL 4.8391) Transliterated Arabic Numerals.

88

Table 9. Frequency of total graffiti by sub-category, textual.

0   5   10   15   20   25   30   35   40  

Date  statements  without  further  details  

Alphabets    

Gladiator  inscripFons  

Household  noFces  

Mythological  names,  Religious  statements  

ArFst  signatures  

CongratulaFons  (and  acclamaFons)    

EroFc  and  love-­‐related  inscripFons    

Insults  and  curses  

Poetry,  maxims,  verses  

Individual  le^ers  or  word  fragments  

Indecipherable    

CommemoraFve  dedicaFons,  statements  of  presence    

GreeFngs  or  SalutaFons  

Single  names    

Programmata,  other  noFces  and  informaFon  

89

Table 10. Frequency of total graffiti by sub-category, figural.

0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  

Indefinable  single  figures  

Mythological  and  religious  images  

Miscellaneous  figures  and  scenes  

Ships  

Household  objects  

Human  heads,  faces,  figures  

EroFc  images  

Plants  

Pa^erns  (ornaments  and  symbols  

Animals  

Gladiators  (sportsmen,  circus  performers,  etc)  

90

Textual  Subcategory                                #  graffiti  

Single  names     28  Greetings  or  Salutations   9  Erotic  and  love-­‐related  inscriptions     2  Commemorative  dedications,  statements  of  presence     6  Congratulations  (and  acclamations)     4  Insults  and  curses   0  Poetry,  maxims,  verses   3  Programmata,  other  notices  and  information   27  Gladiator  inscriptions   1  Household  notices   2  Date  statements  without  further  details   0  Mythological  names   0  Artist  signatures   2  Individual  letters  or  word  fragments   10  Alphabets     1  Indecipherable     8  

Table 11. Textual graffiti by sub-category: exterior.

Textual  Subcategory   #  graffiti  Single  names     4  Greetings  or  Salutations   5  Erotic  and  love-­‐related  inscriptions     1  Commemorative  dedications,  statements  of  presence     6  Congratulations  (and  acclamations)     0  Insults  and  curses   4  Poetry,  maxims,  verses   7  Programmata,  other  notices  and  information   11  Gladiator  inscriptions   1  Household  notices   0  Date  statements  without  further  details   1  Mythological  names   3  Artist  signatures   1  Individual  letters  or  word  fragments   2  Alphabets     1  Indecipherable     3  

Table 12. Textual graffiti by sub-category: interior.

91

The following tables express the graffiti of each house or unit, listed by room type.

Location   #  Exterior  walls  near  entrances   5  

Table 13. I.X.1

Location   #  Exterior  walls  near  entrances   32  Main  Entrance   3  Shops  opening  to  street   5  

Table 14. I.X. 2-3

Location   #  Exterior  walls  near  entrances   54  Main  Entranceway   3  Small  closed-­‐off  rooms  off  front  hall   1  Main  Garden  area   14  Small  closed-­‐off  room  off  garden   1  Room  with  cooking  hearth   1  secondary  Entrance   1  Bath  area   2  Unidentified  interior  location   5  

Table 15. I.X.4

Location   #    Exterior  walls  near  entrances   5  Stairway   2  Shops  opening  to  street   1  

Table 16 I.X. 5-6

Location   #  Exterior  walls  near  entrances   3  Room  leading  off  entranceway   3  

Table 17. I.X.7

Location   #  

92

Exterior  walls  near  entrances   3  Small  room  off  main  hall   14  Main  Hall   1  

Table 18 I.X.8

Location   #    Exterior  wall  near  entrances   4  Entrance   3  Main  Garden  area   5  Unidentified  interior  location   3  

Table 19 I.X.10-11

Location   #  Exterior  walls  near  entrances   12  

Table 20. I.X.18

Units 9, 12, and 13 feature one graffito or less. See Appendix A.

93

Entrances  with  adjacent  benches  

                       Number  of  exterior  graffiti  

I.X.3   32  I.X.4   54  I.X.5   5  I.X.6   0  I.X.7   3  I.X.8   3  I.X.9   0  I.X.17   3  I.X.18   12      

Total:  112  

   Entrances  without  benches    I.X.1   5  

I.X.2   0  I.X.10   0  I.X.11   4  I.X.12   0  I.X.13   0  I.X.14   1  I.X.15   0  I.X.16   1       Total:  11  

Table 21. Exterior graffiti associated with entrances with and without benches.

94

House  size,  Largest  to  Smallest                      House  (entrance  numbers)  

 Number  of  exterior  graffiti  

1                                                              I.X.4       54  2                                                              I.X.11   4  3                                                              I.X.7   3  4                                                              I.X.8   3  5                                                              I.X.18   12  6                                                              I.X.1   5  7                                                              I.X.3   32  

Table 22. Comparison of number of exterior graffiti and house size.

95

Fig.

1

M

ap o

f Pom

peii

(D

obbi

ns a

nd F

oss,

2007

)

96

Fig. 2 Map of Pompeii, Regio I. (Dobbins and Foss, 2007)

97

Fig. 3. Floor plan of the Insula of the Menander, I.X. (Allison, 2006)

98

Fig. 4 Exterior graffiti frequencies in association with house placement and benches. (Plan from Allison, 2006)

99

Fig. 5. Figural graffito, I.X.11. (Langner, 2001. n.1828)

Fig. 6. Graffito in I.X.8, rm 3. (Langner 2001, n. 820)

100

101

Appendix A

The database of the graffiti I recorded is included on the CD-Rom on page __. The following is a guide for reading the database, which is in the format of an Excel spreadsheet.

Column Letter

Description

A Number order of rows (for sorting purposes) B Citation (“DC#” indicates Della Corte’s citation system) C Door number D Graffito (as transliterated by the CIL and/or Della Corte, Langner) E Room type code (see Appendix B) F Graffiti category G Graffiti subcategory code (see Appendix B)

102

Appendix B

In Appendix A, I give each graffito a number indicating in which room type it was found, and a number defining its subcategory of textual or figural graffiti. The following tables indicate to which subcategory the numbers in the appendix correspond. The graffiti subcategories are adapted from Martin Langner.190 The room type labels are adapted from Penelope Allison.191

Textual Graffiti Subcategory Codes

Code  #   Subcategory  

1   Single  names    

2   Greetings  or  Salutations  

3   Erotic  inscriptions  with  defamatory  contents  (and  any  statements  related  to  love)  

4   Commemorative  dedications  (including  statements  of  presence)  

5   Congratulations  (and  acclamations)    

6   Insults  and  curses  

7   Poetry,  maxims,  verses  

8   Notices/items  of  information/announcements  (including  programmata)  

9   Gladiator  inscriptions  

10   Household  notices  

11   Date  statements  without  further  details  

12   Mythological  names,  religious  statements  

13   Artist  signatures,  word  squares  

14   Individual  letters,    incomplete  words,  words  out  of  context    

15   Alphabets    

16   Indecipherable    

190 Langner 2001. 191 Allison 2004.

103

Figural Graffiti Subcategory Codes

Code  #   Subcategory  1   Patterns  (ornaments  and  symbols)  2   Human  heads,  faces,  figures  3   Indefinable  single  figures  4   Gladiators  (sportsmen,  circus  performers,  etc.)  5   Mythological  and  religious  images  6   Erotic  images  7   Miscellaneous  figures  and  scenes  8   Animals  9   Ships  10   Atmosphere  (plants,  buildings)  11   Other  (household  objects)  

104

Room Type Codes

Code  #   Location  and  description   Common  Latin  term  

1   Main  entranceway   Fauces,  Vestibula  2   Room  leading  off  entranceway   cella  ostiaria  3   Front  hall  with  central  opening  and  pool   Atrium  4   Small  closed-­‐off  rooms  off  front  hall   cubiculum  5   Open-­‐fronted  area  off  side  of  front  hall   Ala  6   Large/medium  room  off  front  hall   Triclinium  

7  Open-­‐sided  room  opposite  main  entrance  leading  to  garden   Tablinum  

8   Long,  narrow  internal  corridor   Fauces,  andrones  9   Main  garden   Peristyle,  ambulatio  10   Large/medium  room  off  garden,  closed  off   Triclinium  

11  Large/medium  room  off  garden,  open  with  window  or  view  

oecus,  exedra,  triclinium  

12   Small  closed-­‐off  room  off  garden   cubiculum  13   Small  open-­‐fronted  area  off  garden   exedra  14   Room  with  cooking  hearth   culina  15   Separate  latrine  room   Latrina  16   Other  rooms  outside  main  areas   cubiculum,stabulum  17   Stairway  

 18   Secondary  entrance   fauces,  stabulum  

19   Shop,  rooms  opening  to  street  Taberna,  Caupona,  etc.  

20   Bath  area    21   Upper  rooms   Cenacula  

22   exterior  walls  by  entrances