The Roman house and social assumptions for the network analysis
In the current study, certain assumptions have been made about the Roman house. These have been based on several studies about the social and historical use of domestic architecture and décor during the historic period under examination (Marconi, ed, 2015; see also the monographs by Anguissola [2011] and Nevett [2010] with ample bibliography). From these studies it emerges that architectural design, decoration and social systems were deeply intertwined (see, e.g., Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill [1997] and Zanker [1998] on this). Wall paintings, sculpture and marble décor in Roman houses mirrored the social practices and financial activities that took place within domestic contexts1 (Allison 1992; Wallace-Hadrill 1994; see, e.g., Pader [1997] on domestic routines; see Slater [1991] on social values, forms and rituals of dining) about which textual sources also inform us2 (Vitruvius On Architecture, IV.3-7; Ellis 1991; Marquardt and Mau 1886, 259-263; von Premerstein 1900, 23-55; Sailer 1982,11,61-62,128-129; see, e.g., Dunbabin [1991] on the importance of the triclinium and its emergence as a focal point in the imperial periods). Moreover, it is argued that elite houses expressed the wealth and status of their owners in both size and elaborate decoration (Taylor 2003, 214), particularly through the use of imported materials, such as marble. As Bergmann (2007, 225) put it, ‘to the Romans, the house was a powerful symbol, a sign of man’s social rank and a tool for learning. Educated Romans trained their memories by mentally constructing domestic interiors and placing cues at certain points to serve as visual triggers upon subsequent returns’ (see, e.g., Rapoport [1990] on the role of these markers as ‘cues’ to behaviour and for the relationship between behaviour and environment). Based on this, Wallace-Hadrill (1994) argues that at Pompeii large and elaborately decorated houses belonged to wealthy individuals and that there seems to have been a ‘top-down’ effect, with lower status buildings taking decorative cues from larger elite houses (Wallace-Hadrill, 1994). While it is recognised that domestic decoration with luxury materials catered to those within the highest social hierarchy (Bergmann, 2007), elite houses, as centres of social, political and economic activities, were open and accessible to visitors from a variety of social classes (Clarke 1991, 12; see, e.g., Peachin, ed. [2011] on Roman social relations). Friends and relatives, for example, would have had greater access to rooms within the house than clients, based on social distinction or room function.3 Alongside this, it is apparent that some of the elite houses at Pompeii had tabernae (shops) facing the street that further represented active social hubs (Wallace-Hadrill, 1994; Mouritsen 2011,209-210).
By using a network-based analysis, we plan to test some of these assumptions and to generate insights on the mechanisms by which marble use and social ties were linked. While it is difficult to analyse the motivations behind seemingly subjective choices by Roman architects and house owners, issues, such as taste, have been successfully explored through network analysis (see for example, Lizardo 2006 and Steglich et al., 2006). Moreover, this chapter takes as its methodological backdrop the idea that the house was a location for the construction of identity (Miller 2001; for a discussion of the important influences of the structuralist theories of Lévi-Strauss (e.g. 1982; 1987) and Bourdieu (e.g. 1979 [1970]; 1990) in underpinning ideas of the house and domestic space as an embodiment of social relationships, see Vokes 2013, 526-527. For a discussion of the problems with these theories, see, for example, Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995, 19-20) as was its internal décor and furnishings (for a discussion of the ethnographic literature on identity and houses, see Pink 2004).
Other questions we seek to address are: did the room function influence the spread of marble? If so, which rooms?4 Did larger and richer-in marble houses influence smaller houses? Did the latter only spread marble locally, within their own Regio or more widely across the city? Or were only the largest houses able to influence on a city-wide scale? Was there a link between elite houses through social occasions and/or the patron/client relationship? Were there links between individuals and more public spaces because of com-mercial/business activities? Did marble fashions change over time because of social ties? Indeed, while we are aware that not all these questions can be answered by using a network-based analysis alone, we will endeavour to see how far such an analysis can take the data currently in hand.
