Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T21:27:22.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Reading’ space in the houses of Pompeii's Regio VI - Mark Grahame, READING SPACE: SOCIAL INTERACTION AND IDENTITY IN THE HOUSES OF ROMAN POMPEII (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 886; Archaeopress, Oxford 2000). Pp. viii + 205, figs., tables. ISBN 1-84171-086-5.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Rabun Taylor
Rabun Taylor*
Affiliation:
Department of History of Art and Architecture, Harvard University, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Roman Archaeology , Volume 15 , 2002 , pp. 439 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hillier, B. and Hanson, J., The social logic of space (Cambridge 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Granarne, M., “Public and private in the Roman house: the spatial order of the Casa del Fauno ,” in Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A. (edd.), Domestic space in the Roman world: Pompeii and beyond (JRA Suppl. 22, 1997) 137–64Google Scholar.

3 Almost all of his data are drawn from the ground plans of der Poel, H. Van and Halsted, B., Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum (Rome 1977-)Google Scholar. Little if any fieldwork was involved in collecting or interpreting the data. The most immediate objection to characterizing the domestic space of Pompeii by ground-plans is that they do not include the plans of upper floors. Grahame concedes that the results will not be perfect, but argues that the majority of discrete, permeable spaces in most houses were on the ground floor. The relative paucity of stairways suggests that the integration of the two floors was not great (41-42).

4 The raw data (ground-plans, access maps, and quantitative tables) are presented in full appendices.

5 Lévi-Strauss, C., “Introduction à l'oeuvre de Marcel Mauss,” in Mauss, M., Sociologie et anthropologie (Paris 1950) xlix Google Scholar.

6 de Saussure, F., Course in general linguistics (transl. Baskin, W.; New York 1959) 113–14Google Scholar.

7 De Saussure ibid. 122-27. His own analogy is architectural. If one takes a column as the unit in question, its relation to the architrave is syntagmatic. If it is, for example, Doric, then its relationship to the Ionic or Corinthian order is associative.

8 Descombes, V., Objects of all sorts: a philosophical grammar (transl. Scott-Fox, L. and Harding, J.; Baltimore 1986) 172–77Google Scholar.