from routine to ritual: social and spatial - Open METU

FROM ROUTINE TO RITUAL: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL

CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ROMAN DOMESTIC CONTEXT,

SAMPLING POMPEII, EPHESUS AND ZEUGMA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

OF

MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

NİLAY BAŞAR

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

JUNE 2022

Approval of the thesis:




submitted by NİLAY BAŞAR in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts in History of Architecture, the

Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical

University by,

Prof. Dr. Yaşar KONDAKÇI

Dean

Graduate School of Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Fatma Cânâ BİLSEL

Head of Department

Department of Architecture

Prof. Dr. Lale ÖZGENEL

Supervisor


Examining Committee Members:

Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Yoncacı Arslan (Head of the

Examining Committee)

Middle East Technical University


Prof. Dr. Lale ÖZGENEL (Supervisor)

Middle East Technical University


Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatma Gül ÖZTÜRK BÜKE

Çankaya University


iii

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained

and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I

also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully

cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this

work.

Name, Last Name: Nilay BAŞAR

Signature:

iv

ABSTRACT




BAŞAR, Nilay

M.A., The Department of History of Architecture

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Lale ÖZGENEL

JUNE 2022, 329 pages

While access to water and its use in both public and private spheres is a

historical phenomenon that we can trace in earlier cultures, it was Roman

engineers who brought water to cities and houses and made running water a

comfort of daily life more than any other culture in the ancient world. Romans

built impressive aqueducts, water channels, public fountains, and baths and

made water management and engineering one of the central aspects of their

empire. The consumption and management of water in the Roman culture is

better understood in sites that are rich in archaeological material and

architectural remains, such as the Campanian cities, for which there is

evidence in both urban and domestic contexts. The aim of this study is to

examine the ways in which water was utilized as an operative and

transformative element in the social construction of a private setting, that is,

how water was associated with the spatial layout, consumed as both a

functional and symbolic element in the performance of routines and rituals in

reference to case-studies. The discussion traces information in a

chronological framework to organize the key points of the argument. The first

v

part, in this regard, makes a brief presentation of the public and private use of

water in the Greek culture that sets the framework and the argument themes,

and which also serves to highlight the cultural continuities and changes

concerning water use in the Roman period. In this respect, it structures both

a brief historical survey and a thematic insight to argue how and in which

ways water was a culturally privileged item of consumption and hence was

utilized as an agent of spatial design and social use in Roman domestic

architecture.

Keywords: Roman House, Anatolia, Water Consumption, Ritual, Space

vi

ÖZ

RUTİNDEN RİTÜELE: ROMA KONUTLARINDA SUYUN SOSYAL

VE MEKANSAL TÜKETİMİ, POMPEİİ, EFES VE ZEUGMA

BAŞAR, Nilay

Yüksek Lisans, Mimarlık Tarihi Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Lale Özgenel

HAZİRAN 2022, 329 pages

Doğanın ana elementi olan su, tarihler boyu doğal bir fenomen olmanın

ötesinde kültürel tarihin önemli bir parçası olarak ele alınmış, günlük

ihtiyaçtan ritüellere varan çeşitlilikte tüketilmiştir. Örneğin, Hititler, M.Ö

1240 dolaylarında su kültlerine sahipti ve yaptıkları su kanallarını tarımın

yanı sıra atalarını onurlandırmak için kullandılar. Bir diğer önemli uygarlık

olan Urartular da benzer şekilde şehirlerine etkileyici su kanalları entegre

ettiler. Efes, Teras Evler, Roma ve Geç Antik Dönem’de akan suyun rahatlığı

ve keyfinden faydalandı. Antik Yunan Dönemi’nde, Minos Medeniyeti,

Knossos Sarayı’na ve evlerine akarsulardan kaynak sağladı, şehirlerini

çeşme, su kanalları ve drenaj sistemleri ile donattı.

Suya erişim ve kamu/özel alan kullanımı erken dönem uygarlıklarına kadar

takip edilebilen bir tarihi olguyken, şehirlere ve evlere bol miktarda su

sağlayan, günlük hayatı kolaylaştırmanın yanı sıra konfor sunabilen

Romalılardı. Romalılar, göz alıcı su kemerleri, su kanalları, süslü çeşmeleri

vii

ve banyo kompleksleriyle su sistem ve mühendisliğini imparatorluklarının

öncelikli yapı elemanı olarak kullandı. Roma kültüründe su yönetimi hem

evsel hem hem kentsel bağlamda arkeolojik malzeme ve mimari kalıntılar

bakımından zengin olan Roma gibi şehirlerde daha iyi okunmaktadır. Bu

bağlamda ilk kısım, çeçeveyi ve argüman temalarını belirleyen ve aynı

zamanda Roma’da su kullanımına ilişkin kültürel süreklilik ve değişiklikleri

vurgulamaya yardımcı olan Yunan kültüründe suyun kamusal ve özel alanda

kullanımına kısaca değinmektedir.

Bu bağlamda çalışma ana hatlarıyla tarihsel araştırmayı ve suyun nasıl ve

hangi biçimlerde kültürel olarak ayrıcalıklı bir tüketim maddesi olduğunu

tartışmak için tematik bir öngörü sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Roma Evi, Anadolu, Su Tüketimi, Ritüel, Mekan

viii

DEDICATION

To Silas

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank, in particular, my supervisor Prof. Dr. Lale Özgenel, for her

mentoring along the way; her precious ideas, inspiration, and patience made

this study possible. I am also thankful to members of the examining

committee, Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Yoncacı Arslan and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatma

Gül Öztürk Büke for their valuable reviews and contributions to improving

my text.

I would like to express my gratitude to my dear friend beyond my coordinator,

Dr. Evren Dayar, for his support, for giving me space to complete this study,

and for the joyful moments, we shared. I am also thankful to Mehmet Şengül

for sharing his network to develop my research, Göktuğ Özgül for sharing his

delightful photograph archive, and my colleagues Selin Aydemir, Pınar

Bozkurt, Mehmet Kaymak, and Berrin Cesur for their support and fun times.

I am also grateful to my beloved friend Gonca Coşkun for her support and

precious friendship.

Last but not least, I am very thankful to my family, Ali Turan Başar, Fatma

Nihal Başar, and Seda Başar, for their encouragement, support, and endless

love.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM .............................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. iv

ÖZ ................................................................................................................. vi

DEDICATION ............................................................................................ viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................ ix

TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................... xii

CHAPTERS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

2. USE AND CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ANCIENT GREEK

CULTURE ..................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Public Use ...................................................................................... 8

2.2. Routine, Ritual, and Social Use of Water in Private Context ........ 9

3. ROUTINE AND RITAUL CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ANCIENT

ROMAN CULTURE ................................................................................... 24

3.1. Social and Spatial Aspects of Roman Domus .............................. 28

3.2. Pompeii: Water Narratives of Roman House ............................... 33

3.2.1. Personal Cleansing, Hygiene and Wellbeing ..................... 39

3.2.2. Kitchenworks……………………………….………….....42

3.2.3. Domestic Businesss and Production…………………..….43

3.2.4. Family Rituals……………………..……………………...50

3.2.5. Social Meetings………….……………………………….53

3.2.6. Water as Representation and Status………………………68

xi

4. WATER NARRATIVES IN HOUSES OF ROMAN ANATOLIA ........ 77

4.1. Domestic Architecture ................................................................. 80

4.2. Zeugma: Sumptuous Display and Blessing of Water in Hot

Climate. .................................................................................................... 84

4.3. Ephesus: Consuming and Staging Water on the

Slope ……………………………………………………...…………...101

5. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...…127

REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 138

APPENDICES

A. FIGURES .............................................................................................. 160

B. SUPPLEMENTRAY EXAMPLES OF ROMAN ANATOLIA ........... 253

C. WATER FEATURES IN THE SAMPLED HOUSES ......................... 260

D. PUBLIC WATER STRCUTURES in ANCIENT GREEK PERIOD .. 261

E. PUBLIC WATER STRCUTURES in ANCIENT ROMAN PERIOD.. 287

F. TURKISH SUMMARY/TÜRKÇE ÖZET ............................................ 315

G. THESIS PERMISSION FORM/TEZ İZİN FORMU ........................... 329

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Votive relief showing family members worshipping at a rock altar

with three nymphs on the right, in a cave setting overseen by Pan, Athens,

fourth century BC…………………………………………………………160

Figure 2. Spring at the Monastery of Kaisariani, Mount Hymettos, fifth

century BC………………………………………………………………..160

Figure 3. Archaic kore fragment dedicated to nymphs, Miletos, sixth century

BC………………………………………………………………………...161

Figure 4. Terracotta pipes in a stone distribution box, Priene, Hellenistic

Era………………………………………………………………………...162

Figure 5. House G, Emporio, eighth -seventh century BC………………...162

Figure 6. Zagora, Andros, a:775-725 BC, b: late-eighth century BC……...163

Figure 7. East and West Houses, Azoria, Eastern Crete, seventh-fifth

centuries BC………………………………………………………………163

Figure 8. North House Building, Azoria, Eastern Crete, seventh-fifth

centuries BC………………………………………………………………164

Figure 9. Repaired bathroom in Symrna, seventh-sixth century BC………165

Figure 10. Prostas houses, Priene…………………………………………166

Figure 11. Herdraumhauses, Kassope…………………………………….166

Figure 12. Plan of the central and southern parts of the Great Drain area in

pre-Roman times………………………………………………………….167

Figure 13. House C, Athens, fifth century BC…………………………….168

Figure 14. Tunnel and its cross-section with supply conduit in Avenue A,

Olynthus…………………………………………………………………..168

Figure 15. Reconstruction of The Fountain House and reconstructed plan of

the conduit, Olynthus……………………………………………………..169

Figure 16. Water systems found in the house, plan of block A.V,

Olynthus………………………………………………………………….169

xiii

Figure 17. House of Many Colors, Olynthus, late-fifth-early fourth century

BC………………………………………………………………………...170

Figure 18. House A iv 9, Olynthus, late fifth-early fourth century BC…….170

Figure 19. Maison Du Trident, Theater Quarter, Insula II, House A,

Delos……………………………………………………………………...171

Figure 20. House II D, Theater Quarter, Delos……………………………172

Figure 21. House II F, Theater Quarter, Delos…………………………….172

Figure 22. Typical Delian House………………………………………….173

Figure 23. House of Official, Morgantina, third century BC……………...173

Figure 24. Lekanis Lid, showing wedding preparation, mid-fourth century

BC………………………………………………………………………...174

Figure 25.Terracotta toilet from Olynthus, fourth century BC, Archaeological

Museum at Thessaloniki………………………………………………….174

Figure 26. Toilet and bathtub in the same room, Olynthus………………..175

Figure 27. Ships sailing around the interior rim of a black figure dinos, 530-

510 BC, floating Herakles depicted on the cup of Helios, fifth century

BC………………………………………………………………………...176

Figure 28. Lion Spout, House of Mosaics, Eretria, mid-fourth century

BC………………………………………………………………………...177

Figure 29. Water Distribution of Pompeii………………………………...177

Figure 30. Typical Pompeian Domus……………………………………..178

Figure 31. Axonometric view of a typical Pompeian domus……………...178

Figure 32. House of Centenary, a peristyle house, Pompeii……………….179

Figure 33. Exterior of the House of Vetti, Pompeii………………………..180

Figure 34. Perspective through the atrium from the street entrance, the House

of the Vetti, Pompeii……………………………………………………...180

Figure 35. House of Small Bull, atrium-tablinum, Pompeii………………181

xiv

Figure 36. House of Faun, atrium-tablinum-peristyle sequence,

Pompeii.......................................................................................................181

Figure 37. House VI 17, atrium, Pompeii……..…………………………..182

Figure 38. House of Ancient Hunt, atrium-tablinum-peristyle sequence….183

Figure 39. House of Clos de La Nombra, Lombarde in Narbonne, between

40-20 BC……………………………………………………………….…183

Figure 40. Map of Pompeii………………………………………………..184

Figure 41. House of the Vetti, Pompeii……………………………………185

Figure 42. House of Venus Marine, Pompeii, first century BC……………185

Figure 43. House of Silver Wedding, Pompeii, 30-40 BC………………...186

Figure 44. House of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii, second century BC………..186

Figure 45. Longitudinal section of the House of Tragic Poet, Pompeii……187

Figure 46. Bath of House of Menander, Pompeii……………………….…187

Figure 47. Bath of House of Julia Felix, Pompeii…………………………187

Figure 48. Reconstruction of a kitchen from Pompeii to the right of the

counter is a toilet………………………………………………………….188

Figure 49. The latrine of House of Faun, Pompeii……………………...…188

Figure 50. Location and layout of service areas, kitchens and latrines in the

sampled houses, Pompeii…………………………………...…………….189

Figure 51. Summer triclinium, House of Citharist, Pompeii, first century

BC………………………………………………………………………...189

Figure 52. Perspective from summer triclinium to the garden, House of

Citharist, Pompeii, first century BC………………………………………191

Figure 53. House of Postumii, Insula VIII.4, Pompeii, second century

AD………………………………………………………………………..192

Figure 54. House VI.8 with a fullonica, Pompeii, first century AD……….193

Figure 55. House VI.14, Pompeii, first century AD……………………….193

xv

Figure 56. House of Owen, Pompeii, original layout dates to second century

BC, Pompeii………………………………………………………………194

Figure 57. House of Bakery of Popidius Priscus, Pompeii………………..195

Figure 58. Reconstruction of pseudo peristyle……………….…………...195

Figure 59. The nymphaeum in the frigidarium, House of Centennial…....196

Figure 60. Left: Nilotic detail of east wall of the pool in Suburban Baths,

Right: Frieze with pygmies in the frigidarium…………………………….196

Figure 61. Private Baths in the sampled houses,

Pompeii…………………………...………………………………………198

Figure 62. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Silver

Wedding and House of Tragic Poet…………………… …………………199

Figure 63. Visual and movement axis of social meeting, House of Vetti and

House of Julius Polybius ………………….……………………...………200

Figure 64. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Large

Fountain and House of Venus Marine………………….…………………201

Figure 65. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Small

Fountain and House of Loreius Tiburtinus……………..…………………202

Figure 66. House of Large Fountain, Pompeii, original layout dates to the

second century BC………………………………………………………..203

Figure 67. House of Small Fountain, first century BC, Pompeii…………..204

Figure 68. Plan of the House of Polybius………………………………….205

Figure 69. House of Loreius Tiburtinus, Pompeii…………………………206

Figure 70. House of Faun, Pompeii……………………………………….206

Figure 71. House of Menander, Pompeii……………...…………………..207

Figure 72. Part of Frieze at the upper zone of the atrium, House of Menander,

Pompeii…………………………………………………………………...208

Figure 73.The Nile Mosaic from Praeneste……………………………….208

Figure 74. House of Ephebe, Pompeii, 60 or 70 BC………………………209

xvi

Figure 75. Painting depicting a shrine probably devoted to Isis-Fortuna and

surmounted by a sphinx, couches of summer triclinium, House of Ephebe,

Pompeii………………………………….………………….…………….209

Figure 76. Painting showing Egyptian worship and leisure, couches of

summer triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii…..……………………….210

Figure 77. Painting showing Egyptian worship and leisure, couches of


Figure 78. Painting depicting Nilotic animal life in the riverbank, couches of


Figure 79. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies,

Pompeii…………………………………………………………………...211


Pompeii…………………………………………………………………...212


Pompeii…………………………………………………………………...213

Figure 82. Painting depicting garden and hunting scene on the wall in the

garden, House of Ceii, Pompeii……………..…………………………….213

Figure 83. The Hellenistic Fountain, Ephesus…………………………….213

Figure 84. The Reconstruction of Nymphaeum Traiani, Ephesus………...214

Figure 85. Façade of nymhaeum Tiberius Claudius Piso, Sagalassos……..214

Figure 87. Reconstructed elevation and plan of the colonnaded avenue at

Termessos………………………………………………………………...215

Figure 88. Colonnaded Street of Perge……………………………………216

Figure 89. Houses XXXIV and XV, Priene, fourth century BC………….216

Figure 90. Zeugma…...…………………………………………………...218

Figure 91. Roman villa……………………………………………………219

Figure 92. House of Synaristosai………………………………………….219

Figure 93. Roman Villa…………………………………………………...220

Figure 94. Reconstruction of the domestic area, Zeugma, first and mid-third

centuries AD……………………………………………………………...220

xvii

Figure 95. Location of Houses……………………………………………221

Figure 96. The lararium, Dionysos and Danae Houses, Zeugma, first and mid-

third centuries AD…………………………………………..…………….221

Figure 97. House of Poseidon A, Zeugma, first and mid-third centuries

AD………………………………………………………………………..222

Figure 98. Mosaic floor depicting the re-birth of Aphrodite, House of

Poseidon, Section A, Room (9)………………………………………...…223

Figure 99. Mosaic floor depicting Poseidon, Oceanus, and Tethys, House of

Poseidon, Section A, floor mosaic in the pool of colonnaded

courtyard…………………….……………………………………………223

Figure 100. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, House of Poseidon,

Section A, Zeugma…………………………………..……………………224

Figure 101. House of Poseidon, Section B, Zeugma, First and mid-third

centuries AD……………………………………………………………...225

Figure 102. Galatia on water panther, Section B, House of Poseidon,

Zeugma…………………………………………………………………...226

Figure 103. The aquatic floor mosaic, triclinium, section B, House of

Poseidon, Zeugma………………………………………………………...226

Figure 104. House of Euphrates, Zeugma, first and mid-third centuries

AD………………………………………………………………………..227

Figure 105. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, House of Euphrates,

Zeugma……………………………………………...……………………228

Figure 106. House of Danae, Zeugma, second and mid-third centuries

AD………………………………………………………………………..239

Figure 107. The mosaic floor of the pool in the small courtyard……….….230

Figure 108. Nymphe mosaic in front of the area of the cistern in the courtyard,

House of Danae…………………………………………………………...230

Figure 109. Fountain in the new atrium of House of Quintus Calpurnius

Eutyches…………………………………………………………………..231

Figure 110. Corinth atrium, House of Dionysos……………………..……231

xviii

Figure 111. Reconstruction of the triclinium carved into the rock, House of

Dionysos………………………………………………………………….232

Figure 112. Cistern and water tanks in the atrium of House of Mousa….....232

Figure 113. Cistern and water tanks in the atrium of House of

Mousa…………………………………………………………..………...233

Figure 114. Representation of the sea god/goddess Okeanos and Tethys on

the mosaic cover of the atrium……………………………….……………233

Figure 115. Corner of pieces of the atrium floor mosaic of House of

Mousa…………………………………………………………………….234

Figure 116. Ephesus………………………………………………………234

Figure 117. Water structures in Roman Ephesus………………………….235

Figure 118. Pipe systems, Terrace Houses…………………………….….235

Figure 119. Residential areas in pre-Hellenistic Ephesus….……………...236

Figure 120. Residential areas in Ephses of Hellenistic, Roman and Late

Antique periods…………………………………………………………...236

Figure 121. Plan of Terrace House II, Phase IV…………………………...237

Figure 122. From Celsius Library to Terrace House II and Curates

Street……………………………………………………………………...238

Figure 123. Terrace House II……………………………………………...238

Figure 124. Residential Unit 1, Terrace Houses II, originates from the first

century AD………………………………………………………………..239

Figure 125. 3D model, Residential Unit 1 in Terrace House II…………....240

Figure 126. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 1,

Terrace Houses II, Ephesus………………………….……………………240

Figure 127. Residential Unit II, Terrace House II, originates from the first

century AD………………………………………………………………..241

Figure 128. 3D Model, Residential Unit 2 in Terrace House II…………...242

xix


Terrace House II, Ephesus………………………………………………...242

Figure 130. Residential Unit 3, Terrace House II, originates from the first

century AD……………………………………………………...………...243

Figure 131. 3D Model, Residential Unit 3, Terrace House

II……………………………………………………..……………………244


Terrace House II, Ephesus………………………………………………...244


century AD…………………………………………………..……………245

Figure 134. Axonometric view, Residential Unit 4, Terrace House II,

Ephesus……………………………………………………...……………245


Terrace House II, Ephesus…………………………………………...……246

Figure 136. 3D model of Residential Unit 5 in Terrace House II…………246


century AD…………………………………………..……………………247

Figure 138. 3D model, Residential Unit 5, Terrace House II……...………248


Terrace House, Ephesus…………………………………...……...………248


century AD…………………………………………..……………………249


Terrace House II, Ephesus………………………………………...………250


century Ad……….……...……………………………………………...…251


Terrace House II, Ephesus………...………………………………………252

Figure 144. Section of the waterline, Eupalinos Aqueduct, Samos, sixth

century

BC………………………………………………………………...............261

xx

Figure 145. Clay gutters thought to be connected at the right angles at the

bottom of the SamosTunnel………………………………………………262

Figure 146. Shafts found in Megara………………………………………263

Figure 147. Section of access between the shafts in-branch D, Megara, late

sixth century BC…………………………………………………………..263

Figure 148. Reconstruction of the fountain grottoes above the theater,

Syracuse, fifth century BC………………………………………………..264

Figure 149. Alysia Dam in Western Greece, fifth century BC……………265

Figure 150. Fountain House at Ialysos, Rhodes, Fourth century bc……….266

Figure 151. Theagene’s Fountain House, Megara, late seventh century

BC………………………………………………………………………...267

Figure 152. Reconstruction of Theagene’s Fountain, Megara, late seventh

century BC……………………………………………………………..…268

Figure 153. Peirene Fountain, showing all the Greek period phases, Corinth,

late seventh century BC…………………………………………………...269

Figure 154. Reconstruction of Peirene Fountain in the Hellenistic Period

Corinth, originally dates to the seventh century BC………………………270

Figure 155. Restored plan of Minoe Fountain, Delos, fifth century BC…...271

Figure 156. Depiction of a fountain, late fifth century BC, British

Museum…………………………………………………………………..272

Figure 157. The Civic fountain house, Ephesus, Hellenistic Era………….273

Figure 158. Bath-fountain, Corinth, as a bath in fourth-fifth centuries BC, as

a fountain in 200 BC………………………………………………………273

Figure 159. Restored view of the latrine in the gymnasium, Amorgos,

Hellensitic Era…………………………………………………………….274

Figure 160. Restored view and plan of the latrine in Kotyo’s stoa, Epidaurus,

Hellenistic Era………………………………………………………….....275

Figure 161. Latrine in the Agora of the Italians Delos, first century BC…..276

Figure 162. View of the latrines in the Agora of Delos, first century

BC…...........................................................................................................277

xxi

Figure 163. Lavatory outside the Agora in Athens, Hellenistic Period……277

Figure 164. Longitudinal Section of the lavatory in Agora at Athens,

Hellenistic Period…………………………………………………………278

Figure 165. Bathing Athletes, sixth century BC…………………………..279

Figure 166. Red Figure vase showing female bathers, 520 BC, Berlin

Staatlcihe Museum………………………………………………………..279

Figure 167. Loutron with basis, Priene, 130 BC…………………………..280

Figure 168. North Bath Complex, Morgantina, around the third century

BC………………………………………………………………………...282

Figure 169. Baths in the Sanctuary of Asklepios, Gortys, second century

BC………………………………………………………………………...284

Figure 170. Baths of Buto East……………………………………………285

Figure 171. Taposiris Magna/Abusir, the first phase, the classical model on

the left: the hybrid model on the right, Egypt, late third-mid second century

BC………………………………………………………………………...286

Figure 172. Cardstock, Via Appia Nuova………………………..……….288

Figure 173. Pont Du Gard, Nimes, first century AD………………………288

Figure 174. Eifel Aqueduct, inspection shaft at Buschhoven, Cologne…...290

Figure 175. Diagram of a Roman water system…………………………..290

Figure 176. Lithography of part of Aqua Martia in Rome………………..291

Figure 177. The Aqua Marcia, Rome, 144 BC……………………………292

Figure 178. Kırkgöz Aqueduct, Side……………………………………...292

Figure 179. Nymphaeum at the city gate, Side……………………………293

Figure 180. Plan and photo of The Larissa Nymphaeum, Argos, 124

AD………………………………………………………………………..296

Figure 181. Doric Fountain at Sagalassos, Late Hellenistic Period……….297

Figure 182. F3 (Kestros) Nymphaeum, Perge, around 117-138 AD………298

xxii

Figure 183. Hydrecdochheion Fountain, Ephesus , around 80 AD………..299

Figure 184. Nymphaeum in Demeter Sanctuary, Pergamon, early first century

AD………………………………………………………………………..299

Figure 185. Restored plan of bath of Agrippa, Rome late first century

BC………………………………………………………………………...301

Figure 186. Trajan’s Bath, Rome, second century AD……………………302

Figure 187. Baths of Cemenelum, Nice, Severan Period………………….305

Figure 188. Bath of Caracalla Complex, third century AD………………..305

Figure 189. Reconstruction of frigidarium, Bath of Caracalla…………….306

Figure 190. Bath of Diocletian, Rome…………………………………….307

Figure 191. Reconstruction of Baths of Diocletian Rome………………...308

Figure 192. Dolphin shaped armrest, Timgad……….…………………....310

Figure 193. Double-width seating, Timgad……………………………….310

Figure 194. Latrine in Baths of Cyclops, North Africa, second century

BC………………………………………………………………………...311

Figure 195. Latrine and Bath of Madauros, Algeria, second century

BC………………………………………………………………………...313

Figure 196. Latrines of Bath-gymnasium of Publius Vedius Antoninus….313

Figure 197. The latrines at Frontinus Street, Hierapolis, late-first century

BC………………………………………………………………………...314

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

There was a clear pool with silvery bright water, to which no

shepherds ever came, or she-goats feeding on the mountainside, or

any other cattle; whose smooth surface neither bird nor beast nor

falling bough ever ruffled…While he seeks to slake his thirst another

thirst springs up, and while he drinks, he is smitten by the sight of the

beautiful form he sees.1

The description of a pool in Ovid's Metamorphoses is one of the oldest

references in which water was portrayed as an aspect of aesthetic abstraction

rather than a necessity. Water, indeed, has been approached as more than a

natural phenomenon in the cultural history of many eras; as Mircea Eliade

mentions, it was seen as the ˈthe reservoir of all possible existence'.2 Water

was taken as an essential component of nature and utilized as both a daily

consumption item and an agent of ritual performance in early cultures. To

name a few examples, the Hittites had water cults and used the dams they had

constructed around 1240 BC for agricultural purposes and to honor Gods.3

Urartians had built impressive water channels to bring water to cities, and the

Terrace Houses in Roman and Late Antique Ephesus enjoyed the comfort and

pleasure of running water. Nabataeans from South Jordan, whose settlement

was on the major trade routes connecting Yemen to the Arabian Gulf and

1 Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book III, 153.

2 Eliade, 1959, 130.

3 Kuşlu and Şahin, 2009.

2

Syria, had impressive stone-cut bottle-shaped cisterns that represented state

power, while the representation of creation myths found on the bas-reliefs in

the remarkable temples at Angkor Wat contains scenes of marine life.4 In

ancient Greece, the Minoans brought water to the Knossos Palace and the

houses from the rivers.5 Ancient Greeks equipped their cities with fountains,

water channels, and drains. Romans built impressive aqueducts, water

channels, elaborate public fountains, and bath complexes, thus making water

management and engineering one of the central aspects of their Empire.

While access to water and its use in public and private spheres is a historical

phenomenon that can be traced to the early cultures, it was indeed the Romans

who brought ample water capacities to cities and houses and made running

water a comfort of daily life. Several well-preserved water features, water-

related buildings, and well-built infrastructure systems from the Roman

period thus, provide good information about public and private use of water

and its management in the Roman Empire. The domestic contexts found in

several cities provide rich evidence of the consumption of water in the Roman

private domain.

In this study, I take water as an "operative element" to discuss how water,

both functionally and symbolically, served to accomplish domestic routines

and social rituals, and its social consumption, articulated space, and

constructed usage patterns in the private realm in the context of three Roman

cities. The primary research questions of the study in this regard are: What

were the contexts and spaces of water consumption in the Roman culture?

How was the social and ritual use of water articulated spatially in Roman

houses? Did water acquire values other than functionality in the Roman

private sphere?

4 Mithen, 2012, 107, 112.

5 Ibid., 79-80.

3

The study structures both a historical and a thematic survey to argue how and

in which ways water was utilized as an agent of social and ritual consumption,

and hence architectural design in both Greek and Roman eras. The Greek

period is briefly addressed to contextualize the historicity of the subject as the

Romans had always admired the ancient Greek culture, and thus, especially

during the Hellenistic period, the Roman elite had begun to equip their houses

with the elements utilized in the Greek private sphere; this cultural exchange

was especially effective in the planning of the houses in the eastern provinces

of the empire. The Roman period is articulated and detailed and sets the

themes and modes of water usage in reference to three cities; Pompeii,

Zeugma, and Ephesus. These Roman sites are selected as a case study as they

are well-known for the remains of domestic fabrics and the variety of

individual houses, which are also among the well-studied and published sites.

A group of houses sampled from Pompeii is used to present the social and spatial

narratives of Roman domus through which water-based dynamics of daily

routines and rituals are briefly introduced. In this respect, the structure and the

contextual frame of the thematic readings for the rest of the study are set by the

material abundance of houses from Pompeii. The houses are neither thoroughly

discussed nor described in the same detail and content; prominent situations and

highlighted features related to water elements or water use were specified in each

case study. In other words, the sampled houses, taken together, are used to set

the framework to contextualize types, characteristic features, and location of

water elements, purpose, diversity of water consumption, and water-related

decorations like marine themes or exotic landscapes. The sampled context and

content of Pompeiian houses formed a base and reference for the analysis of

Roman houses in the cities of Ephesus and Zeugma, the two important urban

centers in Roman Anatolia. The occupancy of houses in Roman Anatolia goes

back, in many instances, to the Greek Era. Both archaeological and architectural

data reveal that the Greek type of plan layouts that took an often central courtyard

as its basis, as in Olynthus and Delos, was the common scheme in Greek

Anatolia, for example, seen in Priene. With the Roman intrusion into Anatolia,

4

cultural interaction and change began, manifesting in both the public and private

spheres that are also traceable in the architectural environments in cities and

houses. The houses of Zeugma and Ephesus provide a readable reflection of this

cultural change in terms of the architectural fabric of houses and their spatial

design, decoration, and use. The social and spatial narratives of the single-

family, domus type of houses exemplified well in Pompeii, in this sense, provide

a context to compare and discuss the physical transformations, and links to

Roman cultural practices as performed in Anatolia. Similarities and differences

in house plans, spatial articulation of major living and reception areas, and water-

associated practices indicate the means of cultural adaptation and/or the

sustainability of local traditions. The study, as such, traces the spatial existence

of water in ancient Roman houses, presents its consumption modes, and

discusses the cultural consumption of water through the architectural and

archaeological data compiled within the scope of three case studies. In addition,

a sampling compiled from the singular Roman houses of Anatolia and Late

Roman houses of Anatolia is given at the back of the thesis as an Appendix in

order to provide a piece of introductory information about the spatial mapping

of water use in the later periods.

The architectural and archaeological data is gathered primarily through a

literature survey, including the excavation reports and related publications. The

site visits to Ephesus, Perge, Side, and Arykanda enabled us to see examples of

domestic spatial contexts and make personal observations and thus provided

general insight into such issues as location, scale, material, and decoration. The

architectural layout and the published plans of the case study houses served as

the primary medium of analysis, while the thematic cultural insights on the

delivery, symbolic meaning, use, and consumption of water in both the Greek

and Roman provide a basis for the conceptual framework.

5

CHAPTER 2

USE AND CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ANCIENT GREEK

CULTURE

Water was seen as nature's gift and water sources as the primary habitat and

symbolic landscapes of nymphs, besides mountains, caves, and semi-

cultivated vegetations, in both the Homeric texts and later Greek epigrams.6

The life-generating aspect of water was associated with divinity as it was

believed that Zeus was nurtured in a cave by nymphs in his childhood. The

Nymphs were accepted as a source of fertility and well-being; hence the

sovereignty of Zeus, whom they raised, was associated with the divine nature

of water. Ancient Greeks visited the springs for practical purposes and

performed ritual activities related to nymphs; the protectors of female life

were personified with the goddesses of Artemis, Hera, and Persephone.7 A

girl near puberty indicated her dedication by getting into a pool of marriage,

and the wedding ceremony included a nuptial bath. According to the

inscriptions of cathartic laws in Kyrene, the newly married women took a

bath for purification at the Artemis Festival.8 Examples of late fifth century

Greek votive reliefs also represent rituals performed in the cave contexts in

which springs were illustrated as places where women could ask the help of

nymphs in matters related to marriage and childbirth.9 (Figure 1) Since many

mythological stories were linked with caves and nymphs, the nymph cults

were associated with purification and healing waters.10 Sanctity in the ancient

6 Larson, 2001, 8, 9.

7 Bowe, 2012, 202.

8 Larson, 2001, 100, 197.

9 Munn, 2009, 194.

10 Larson, 2001, 196.

6

Greek world was indeed associated mainly with springs, and many natural

water sources were linked with possession of water, a representation of

Olympian control, due to their locations in the wild. (Figure 2) Ancient

literature reveals the importance of water consumption in the sanctuaries and

the sacred characteristics of springs as well; water elements were placed

mainly at the entrances of the sanctuaries, along with the circulation areas and

in the vicinity of the altar.11 Hand basins used for such ritual activities as

bathing, drinking, and purifying the cult statue were found at several Greek

sanctuaries. The sixth-century BC devotion reliefs found in Miletos possibly

depict the nymphs of the sanctuary, where spring and remains of statues are

found.12 (Figure 3)

The healing power of water emerges as another value in ancient Greeks. The

nymphs were worshiped in Asklepia, such as the one in Pergamon, where the

purity of water had to be protected. To maintain the water sanctity in the

Askleipion at Pergamon, for example, laws were issued to ban polluting the

waters by washing clothing in public fountains or watering animals.13

The quality of water and its health-related aspects in the writings of Greek

physicians as well. For example, Hippocrates highlighted the importance of

water quality in ‘On Airs, Waters, and Places’ as early as the fourth/fifth

century and mentioned the importance of water source and how the source

was an essential determinant in using water for cooking and drinking

purposes:14

11 Kobusch, 2020, 69.

12 Larson, 2001, 201-204.

13 Ibid., 2001, 197.

14 Hippocrates On Airs, Waters and Places (Part 1),

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.1.1.html. Hippocrates is one of the most

outstanding figures in the history of medicine and traditionally referred to as the "Father of

Medicine". Later authors such as Oribasius (460-c. 370 BC), Greek medical writer and the

personal physician of the Roman emperor Julian; Galen (129-216 AD), Greek physician,

surgeon and philosopher in the Roman Empire, and Paul of Aegina (c.625-c.690 AD),

Byzantine Greek Physician also categorized water who classified natural springs according

7

Whoever wishes to investigate medicine properly should proceed thus: in the first

place to, consider the seasons of the year and what effects each of them produces, for

they are not at all alike but differ much from themselves in regard to their changes.

Then the winds, the hot and the cold, especially such as are common to all countries,

and then such as are peculiar to each locality. We must also consider the qualities of

the waters, for as they differ from one another in taste and weight, so also do they

differ much in their qualities. In the same manner, when one comes into a city to which

he is a stranger, he ought to consider its situation, how it lies as to the winds and the

rising of the sun; for its influence is not the same whether it lies to the north or the

south, to the rising or to the setting sun. These things one ought to consider most

attentively, and concerning the waters which the inhabitants use, whether they be

marshy and soft, or hard, and running from elevated and rocky situations, and then if

saltish and unfit for cooking; and the ground, whether it be naked and deficient in

water, or wooded and well-watered, and whether it lies in a hollow, confined situation,

or is elevated and cold; and the mode in which the inhabitants live, and what are their

pursuits, whether they are fond of drinking and eating to excess, and given to

indolence, or are fond of exercise and labor, and not given to excess in eating and

drinking.

Corpus Hippocraticum, attributed to Hippocrates, is a collection of a group

of ancient Greek medical works and covers many diverse aspects of medicine,

Hippocrates' medical theories, ethical means of medical practice, and various

illnesses. Accordingly, using spring water as well as bathing were mentioned

as useful in healing some diseases in a number of sections. ‘Regimen in Acute

Diseases,’ written by Hippocrates around 400 BC, is another book, a corpus

of treatments and drinks considered good against diseases, in which a section

is reserved for bathing.15 The Regimen was commonly practiced in Classic

times; for instance, Plato influenced Herodicus of Selymbria (5th century BC)

to train athletes with a special diet, training, and massage.16

to the mineral quality of water source, since they were utilized as natural baths for health

care. For instance, Paul of Aegina classified water which was seen beneficial for good health

as nitrous, saline, aluminous, sulfurous, bituminous, and copperish in his ‘Epitome’ in the

seventh century AD. Accordingly, water that contained sulfur had a relaxing effect on nerves,

and copper helped treat mouth and eye health Zytka, 2019, 130.

15 Jouanna, 2012, 155. For the section on baths, Hippocrates, On Regimen in Acute Diseases

(Part 18), http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/acutedis.18.18.html.

16 Draycott, 2019, 23.

8

2.1. Public Use

Greeks traced the contours of the natural water sources or used tunnels and

siphon systems to collect and distribute water. Natural flow channels created

by the water lines are dated back to the eighth century BC, while the earliest

examples of sophisticated water systems come from the seventh century

BC.17

Ancient Greek cities had complex water delivery systems. Clay pipes

distributed the water around the city for different tasks. For instance, springs

fed fountains used for obtaining drinking water, and less potable water was

transferred to the cisterns for washing, cleaning, and flushing toilets. Water

supply was efficient in Athens, particularly in areas near the Acropolis. Wells

and cisterns were located at the Acropolis and reached the agora and the

domestic neighborhoods.18 In Hellenistic times, more sophisticated pipe

systems following the street pattern came to street fountains and many houses.

In large cities, there were additional water storage facilities beside street

fountains, such as the cylindrical stone distribution pipe structures in Priene.19

(Figure 4)

The technical developments in water systems, such as bringing water from

long distances, eventually led to the development of water control

mechanisms and the preparation of regulations concerning water use. Archaic

tyrants were prone to construct public structures, such as fountains and

harbors, to meet the needs of individuals and the city and assumed control of

water distribution. For example, the tyrant Theagenes built a fountain house

17 Although Greeks had the technical knowledge of constructing arches, it was Romans

who applied arch-based water transportation systems like aqueducts, Hodge, 2000, 40-42.

18 Mithen, 2012, 93, 94.

19 Jansen, 2000, 105.

9

in Megara and kept the power to control the water features in his own hands.20

In sixth-century Athens, Peisistratos, son of Hippokrates who dominated

Athens from 546 to 510 BC,21 gave control of water consumption to a board

of commissioners. In the fifth century, individual engineers became

responsible for constructing water structures, such as Eupalinos, who had

built and supervised the Samos Tunnel. In the fourth century BC, building

commissioners had the right to regulate alignments for the water lines.22

While Greek water rights were not strictly dependent on legal authorities,

laws regarding the use of water were put into effect in the Classical period.

The regulation mentioned by the farmers in Plato’s Laws23 can be accepted

as an initial reference to an official arrangement.24

2.2. Routine, Ritual, and Social Use of Water in Private Context

The hot and dry climate with few spots of rain made water usage in the ancient

Greek domestic context indispensable. Private cisterns and wells, in this

respect, were vital for the sustainability of the households. The typical daily

schedule of Greek individuals started with personal rinsing with the water

taken from the cisterns. Apart from providing water for personal

sanctification, the cisterns supplied the water consumed for household tasks,

and private cisterns were utilized to prepare meals, do washing and cleaning,

20 Tyrant Theagenes, a Greek tyrant captured the sovereignty of Megara. He slaughtered the

herdsmen of the wealthy and married his daughter to protect his ruling. Since that he was a

cruel ruler, he could have aimed to symphatize with the citizens by building a fountain.

https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-

9780199381135-e-6325.

21 Lavelle, 2005, 1.

22 Crouch, 1993, 125.

23 The Laws commonly refer to seven principles: The Right to Draw Water for Agricultural

Purposes; Further Aspects of Water Ownership, Leases and Sales; The Right to Draw

Drinking Water in the Country; The right to Water in the Cities; Public Water Supply:

Construction and Safeguarding; Neighbourhood Relations: Servitudes; Public Baths in

Graceo-Roman World; Water Law and Religious Sphere; Agreement Between Cities, Bruun

2000.

24 Ibid., 557.

10

and provide water for plants and animals. Laundry, which necessitates the

availability of a considerable amount of water, was done in the courtyards

using the water collected either from the roof or taken with buckets filled from

the cisterns. The bathing, a water-based routine activity, was also supplied

from a cistern and could be heated and used during the meals.25

Early Greek Houses, until the late archaic period, were single-room houses.

(Figure 5) In the Early Iron Age, small social groups lived in single space

dwellings, built detached or as clusters.26 The absence of water features such

as piping or drainage suggests that water was supplied from natural sources

and/or by collecting rainwater. Starting from the late eighth century BC, the

size of settlements and the number of houses in settlements increased. During

the Archaic period, political institutions and offices were formalized, and

governance by tyrants or communal councils with extensive authority was

accepted. Most of the buildings, including houses, reflected economic and

social improvement. Thus, one or two-room houses were replaced by multi-

space houses organized around a courtyard area.27 (Figure 6)

Examples of Archaic houses from Azoria in northeastern Crete were built as

linear or axially articulated buildings or square houses with identifiable

corridors, dating to the period between the seventh and fifth centuries BC.

The East Corridor House was entered from a southeast passage and led to the

kitchen and hearth of the building. (Figure 7) The West Corridor House had

a vestibule directing to the courtyard through the main hall. (Figure 7) The

kitchen, storeroom, and production areas were the prominent spaces of these

buildings. Other houses found were larger and had a more complex layout.

The Northeast Building had an entrance from the courtyard, leading to the

main hall. (Figure 8) The storeroom, located at the eastern corner of the hall,

25 Crouch, 1993, 309, 310.

26 Lang, 2007, 183.

27 Ibid., 183, 188.

11

included pithoi and chambers.28 The primary axis ran through the vestibule

and the hall, indicating that the storeroom and the separate kitchen were

private in character. Besides a rich amount of pithoi and amphorae remains

used for oil and wine production and storage, several drinking and dining cups

were found in the halls, suggesting the use of these spaces space as semi-

public or formal drinking and dining. Activities.29 The drain close to the

kitchen and back courtyard evidence the daily utility of water.

Specially designed cleaning areas, such as bathing facilities, remain unknown

in many cases, but the kitchens could have also served as a cleansing area.

Basins must have been used to collect water while taking a bath in the private

context by the water transported by slaves was also possible. Excavations

revealed terra-cotta bathtubs with painted rims in the archaic settlement at

Smyrna, indicating that there were bathrooms or alcoves that contained

bathtubs. A bathroom dated to the seventh /sixth centuries BC, and about

155x170 cm showed that the wet spaces had clay floors with a buried bathtub.

(Figure 9)

Greek poleis and its institutions were established around 500 BC when Greek

became the primary language in many parts of the Greek peninsula, coastal

Asia Minor, and islands of the eastern Mediterranean.30 In the newly planned

colony cities, like Sicilies and Olynthus, the fifth century BC synoesicsm31

led to a standard urban layout and spatial organization.32 The households in

the Classical era became the nuclear core of the city, an indicator of the social

unity in the poleis. Hoepfner and Schwandner (1994) identified isonomia as

another primary organizing approach of the classical polis, a state which was

28 Haggis and Mook, 2011.

29 Haggis, 2012, 212.

30 Naerebout and Singor, 2014, 137.

31 Synoesicsm refers to the gathering of small communities to create a larger community.

32 Tsakirgis, 2016, 277.

12

defined by laws based on equality and that which affected social networks,

urban layout, parcels, and the construction of buildings.33 Houses are thought

to be planned in line with economic subsistence; for example, in Athens,

farmers predominated the society, so the house plans were influenced by the

economy of the community besides climate factors; the distribution of good

land was unequal. So the courtyards of city houses, where dense housing

made privacy more critical, served as enclosed yards to guarantee the

ownership of household property.34

According to Hoepfner and Schwandner (1994), isonomia and democracy in

Athens gave way to typenhouse, which is basically a physical expression of

the political decisions in society reflected in the city. Pastas, prostas,

courtyard, and herdraumhaus, in this respect, are accepted as the types of

Greek housing. Although the influence of democracy over house design and

typenhouse concept is polemical for many scholars, Ault (2000) highlights its

utility to read aspects of houses in the poleis, and other influential factors like

political transformations and their reflections, household interactions, and the

spatial layout of domestic realms.35 Archaeological work demonstrated that

houses designed in this typology varied regionally;36 houses in Priene

provided examples of prostas type (Figure 10) while the Olynthian houses

demonstrated pastas and those in Kasssope the herdraumhaus type.37 (Figure

11)

Houses with a central courtyard and multiple rooms with separate entrances

were the most common dwelling form of the Classic and the Hellenistic

33 Ault, 2000, 483.

34 Goldberg, 1999, 144.

35 Ault, 2000, 483.

36 Westgate, 2015, 67, 71.

37 Sewell, 2010, 88.

13

periods.38 The courtyards became enclosed with rooms that varied in size and

decoration. The open area provided a semi-open multifunctional space for

working, living, and socializing, which benefited from natural ventilation and

lighting.39

With the courtyard serving as the heart of the house, the spatial relationships,

the organization of water features, and the consumption of water were also

modified. The new social language of the house attributed a more intimate

and particular substance to the water features. Indeed, narratives of Greek

houses suggest a direct or/and indirect relationship with water. For example,

according to Cahill (2002), the artifacts found in the Olynthus houses

highlight a multifunctional use, such as a louteria that could serve as a

washing or a ritual artifact, making it challenging to determine the functions

of rooms in which such items were found. As a blueprint of daily life in the

ancient era, ancient texts also suggest clues about the planning and use of

houses. For instance, Aristophanes mentions the absence of bathrooms in the

fifth-century houses in Athens, and Menander writes about the lack of upper

stories, storerooms, and weaving areas in the fourth century.40 So, the

permeability of the house between spaces and functions makes it difficult to

understand the social aspect of water in operating patterns of daily life with

certainty. In addition, the absence of in-situ or function-specific furniture

suggests multifunctional space use, which may lead to taking water as

evidence to associate functions to areas, such as daily or ritual practices, as in

the Roman world. For example, the impluvium built centrally in the atria in

the Roman houses is a unique feature and, contrary to the multifunctional

usage of spaces in the Greek houses, designates clearly a water-based use of

space. Moreover, it generates dialogue between visitors and the household by

acting as a reference for movement in space as well.

38 Nevett, 2005, 35, 36.

39 Westgate, 2015, 67, 71.

40 Tsakirgis, 2016, 21.

14

The primary feature of the Classical Greek houses was spatial flexibility. In

several examples, it is seen that a vestibule-like anteroom (pastas and prostas)

operated as a buffer zone between the public courtyard and the distinguished

private rooms, generally used as living and reception areas. The courtyard

regulated the domestic traffic and functioned as a liminal area for the

gendered and temporal use of the domestic setting. Although particular

objects such as cups used for food preparation and service give a hint of the

function of rooms, specific labeling is impossible.41 An exception, of course,

is wet spaces, which can be identified by the remains of pipes, the mortar used

for waterproofing, drainage systems, and bathtubs. Such evidence indicated

that the bathrooms commonly opened to a large area, mainly to the room that

contained the hearth.42 The andron was another distinctive room used for

symposium, festive dining, and drinking sessions43; it was often designed as

a square space with a raised platform on which dining couches were placed.44

Examples of houses with a central courtyard came from several classical sites.

A group of well-excavated houses dating to the fifth and fourth century in

Athens demonstrates two phases: the first corresponding to the period prior

to the construction of the south branch of the Great Drain and the second to

the fourth century when alterations were made. The drain was built according

to the layout of the houses, so the infrastructure and its path adopted the

organization of houses. (Figure 12) House C reflects the plan type common

in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. (Figure 13) The house was organized

according to the urban layout, and its physical expansion was limited to three

sides.45 The street entrance led to a long and narrow corridor, which might be

41 Tsakirgis, 2016, 281.

42 Westgate, 2015, 67, 71.

43 Greek drinking party organized only for male participants and took place in the andron, as

an representation of the communal feasts housed in public spaces, such as sanctuaries, in the

domestic sphere, Özgenel, 2000.

44 Tsakirgis, 2016, 281.

45 The boundary of the house was determined by House B on south, the existing road on east,

and Street of Marble Workers on Northwest and the entrance of House C, Young, 1951.

15

called a pastas, that opened to the courtyard; the courtyard was not at the

center but towards the south, except for the two rooms on the southwest, all

rooms open to the courtyard. Room 6 had two drain systems, collecting water

from the courtyard’s earth floor and identified as a bath. Room 3 was probably

the andron, as suggested by its size and position. Room 7, next to the

bathroom, could have been the kitchen. The second large room, number 9,

could serve as a production space, as indicated by the remains of a loom.

Room 12 was a shop or a rented space. The house had an irregular plan

scheme compared to the houses in grid-iron cities like Olynthus. There is no

evidence of a staircase and an upper floor. A narrow open corridor separated

House C from the adjacent House D.46 The distance from the entrance and the

offset position of the openings for the passage to the courtyard in this latter

provided a sense of privacy for the wet spaces. The construction of the great

drain in the later period connected the wet areas of the houses, followed the

urban topography, and adjusted the slope of the houses and the street.

Greek courtyard houses dating to the Classical Period are best exemplified in

Olynthus,47 a city known for its well-preserved domestic quarters.48 The

residential area of Olynthus, located on the North Hill, was settled during the

last third of the fifth century BC.49 Around fifty fully excavated houses out of

more than 100 houses in four campaigns display an approximately standard

plan.50 The space labeled pastas, a semi-closed, narrow, and columned hall

which adjoined the courtyard on the north features in all houses and thus is

46 Young, 1951, 187, 202.

47 For Olynthus and Greek house in general, see Sewell (2010); for social behavior and spatial

relations in Olynthian houses, Nevett (1999); for the transformation of courtyard, Graham

(1966); for an evaluation of courtyard house typology, Bilge (2019).

48 Nevett, 1999.

49 Nevett, 2015, 146.

50 Nevett, 1999, 53.

16

associated with the Olynthian houses.51 The standard house was commonly

square in plan, approximately 17.2 m on one side. Rooms are entered straight

either from the pastas or the courtyard. Two distinguished rooms were the

andron and the kitchen suit. The andron is identified from the raised platform

and its location, which was near the street entrance. The typical kitchen

complex was a relatively large room, around 4.6 x 5.6 m., and opened to the

courtyard; some examples also included a bathtub. The houses also had shops

and workshops, opening to the street at the south and sometimes also to the

interior of the house as well. Many houses had an upper floor, as understood

from the remains of staircases.52

The urban water conduit of Olynthus is thought to be provided from the

Polygiros mountains, which corresponds to the first expansion of the urban

settlement in the fifth century BC. The city had an underground tunnel system

and at least one fountain house on the north hill, towards where the population

moved and increased. (Figures 14 and 15) The town did not have a public

bath; however, each house had a bath alcove that provided the necessary

hygiene and sanitary needs.53 (Figure 16)

The House of Many Colors, which dates to the late fifth and early fourth

century BC, was located in the villa quarter of Olynthus. (Figure 17) The

entrance is from the street named Avenue G to the vestibule, which directs

the visitors to a small courtyard or an exedra, probably used more in summer.

The semi-closed pastas, on the north, was a multi-functional area for the

household’s daily and ritual tasks as understood from the finds that included

a marble louter, an altar, and some production and storage tools. The kitchen

51 Sewell, 2010, 92.

52 Cahill, 2002, 77.

53 It is suggested that, the inhabitants who lived at the south part of the city in the Archaic era

collected rainwater, particularly in the autumn months, by gutters and directed it to the

cisterns, or filled the earthen jars, Van Der Ham 2006.

17

complex included pieces of a bathtub.54 Another well-studied dwelling,

House A iv 9 is located at the center of downtown Olynthus. (Figure 18) Due

to the topography, the eastern part of the house was 1 meter higher than its

west. The pastas, kitchen complex, shop, and the andron were the

distinguished areas of the house. The entrance was from room c and had

drainage directed to the street, and included a staircase that led to the upper

story. The drainage that passed through the cobbled court, the pithoi set into

the floor at the corners of the court to collect water, a terracotta in-situ louter

basin, and storage amphora found in the pastas, and the kitchen complex (j,

k)55 were the water-related features of the house.56

Few numbers and types of water features in the houses suggest that the

primary utilization of water was for daily routines, such as food processing,

cleaning, and bathing. No significant type of production that required a

substantial amount of water consumption, such as garden-related farming or

oil press, was evident in the houses. While analyzing the social and daily

dynamics of Greek houses from a modern perspective needs a critical

approach, the presence of bathtubs in visible areas triggers an examination of

the operation of privacy in the houses. Several questions can be addressed in

this respect: Did the households receive regular visitors or guests that affect

the amount of water consumption for washing, bathing, and cooking? Did the

organization of rooms be done regarding the privacy of bathing? Were the

bathing areas located near the more 'private' rooms that were far from the

vestibule and the courtyard, considering that a close spatial relationship

between the two would be practical in terms of dressing/taking off clothes

and collecting the staff after bathing? The private rooms, on the other hand,

are devoid of diagnostic remains and hence can not be labeled securely as

54 Cahill, 2002, 85-97.

55 Considering the complex nature of the house, Graham suggested that spaces b and c could

be a second kitchen, Cahill, 2000, 110.

56 Cahill, 2000, 108-111.

18

private according to functions; therefore, it is more proper to suggest that

were alternative practices, such as using curtains in baths or using the

relatively distanced rooms at the north as changing rooms.

In the Hellenistic period, it became fashionable to add porticoes to the

courtyards and thus turn them into more monumental and decorative settings.

Cisterns and wells that supplied water and private water features such as

bathing installations, terracotta bathtubs, and toilet vessels were installed in

the courtyards or near them. Several well-preserved houses dating to the

period were found in Delos, a port city that prospered by the slave trade in the

Hellenistic Era.57 Three completely excavated insula blocks at the Theatre

Quarter, II, IV, VI, and twenty houses of insula III well exemplify the plan

schemes of Delian Houses. The domestic quarters of the city date mainly to

the third and second centuries BC. Some of the notable houses were located

between the agora and the theatre at the Theatre Quarter. The Delian houses

were planned with a central courtyard and had private wells and cisterns;

hence the households consumed water comfortably for cleaning, laundry, or

industrial production. (Figures 19, 20, 21) The common spaces on the ground

floor of the Delian houses were a courtyard, vestibule, latrine, and rooms

arranged often as suits. (Figure 22) Most houses had a second floor, but few

had internal staircases; many of them were located outside the houses; in

some houses, the upper floors had separate entrances from the street,

suggesting that multiple households could live under a single roof. The

internal staircases were built near the vestibules, where the latrine, drain, and

sink could be located. The upper floors were also equipped with a piping

system to drain the dirty water; the down-pipes suggest that the service areas

on the ground floor supplied water to the upper floors.58 Latrines were

commonly located in the courtyard area, adjacent to the suite of rooms, and

close to the nearest street drainage. Most seemed to have been open spaces,

57 Gates, 2015, 398.

58 Trümper, 2007, 332.

19

but remains of door pivots found in some latrines indicate that they could be

arranged as private spaces with doors, as in House III B.59 The presence of

wet spaces on the ground floor meant that those living in the house shared the

courtyard. Indeed, the lack of evidence for the distinction between public and

private usage of spaces, the service areas like kitchen, latrines, and bath could

have been shared by the households who lived on both floors

The domestic context of Morgantina, a Greek colony settlement in Sicily,

exhibits the Hellenistic features as practiced in Delos. The city was not

established close to a stream and received less rain. As such, it relied on water

supply features and had several cisterns, wells, reservoirs, and fountains. The

rectangular grid system seems to have taken reference from the location of

springs, and gates and roads were placed in line with the flow.60 The houses

had central, paved courtyards with rooms organized, often on the eastern side

of the courtyard. The dining rooms, andrones, were located at the center of

the house and distinguished not with raised floors but with different flooring

materials. Houses were at least two-story-high, as understood from the

remains of staircases.61

The House of Official, which dates to the third century BC, is a typical

example of the Morgantinian Houses.62 (Figure 23) The main entrance to the

house was from the east. The vestibule (1 and 8, after 211 BC), pastas (the

area beneath room 15), courtyard, colonnaded areas, portico, U shape area

around the north courtyard, and exedra (2) are the primary spaces of the

southern area; in the northern part of the house were some other private

rooms. The courtyard of the third century period had two porticoes; in the

second century, a third one was added to the south by reducing the size of the

59 Burke, 2000, 139-143.

60 Crouch, 1984, 356-360.

61 Tsakirgis, 1984, 457, 458.

62 Ibid., 458.

20

central area. The pastas, the courtyard, and the portico functioned as public

transition spaces in the south part.63 The bath/kitchen suit (10), the service

area (10 and 11), the cistern in front of room 7, the basin, and the drain under

room 22, were the wet spaces of the domestic quarter. 64 Room 17, which

opened to the pastas, once had a cistern at the center and a stone altar. Room

23 is identified as a pottery shop.65

The household and the city interacted during the festivals, in some of which

the rituals were performed with water. For instance, the three-day Athenian

Festival partially took place in the domestic sphere besides the sanctuary; the

first day started with a wine offering to Dionysus at the sanctuary and

continued at the house on the second day, with a small drinking party among

the family members. On the third day, the household merged into the

community again and participated in the drinking competition. In the festival

of Panathenia, different social groups, from young girls to magistrates, took

their place along the Sacred Way, between the Kerameikos and the Parthenon.

The festival included drinking rituals done in both the private realm and the

public context and thus between the sanctuary and the house. In the domestic

part of the festival, familial events, such as births, deaths, and marriages, were

commemorated and cherished, and water was consumed symbolically.

Putting louters or water vessels in front of the houses during the funeral

ceremonies and at sanctuaries to separate men’s area from the gods

represented the intimate symbolic arrangements with which the house

detached itself from the city during the mourning period.66 Water was

symbolically consumed in the marriage ceremonies, which included bathing

and cleansing sessions. A vase depiction shows a woman washing, probably

63 Although the pastas functions as transition area, since that it locates at the domestic qaurter,

it is the most private space of the private realm.

64 A drain is found at the south east corner of the room and the pottery remains.

65 Tsakirgis also mentions that apotter should have bought north house, because the rooms at

the north, including room 23 have pottery remains and kilns (pottery qwen).

66 Morgan, 2010, 26, 27, 28.

21

a representation of purifying, at the basin, and next to her on the left of the

scene was the pithoi.67 (Figure 24)

Most of the water features are associated with the courtyard in the Greek

Houses. Not only are drainage systems an almost standard feature of the

courtyards in the houses, for example, at Olynthus, but also cisterns and

pithoi.68 Rain was the primary running water source for the houses, so

collectors such as pithoi and cisterns were essential to perform the daily

routine.

The Greek houses began to receive proper bathrooms, starting from the fourth

century BC. They were often placed next to the hearth or kitchen to benefit

from heating.69 In many houses at Halieis and Olynthus, for example, the bath

was located adjacent to the kitchen. In many Olynthian houses, the kitchen

complex was organized as a large room that included a flue and a bath.70

Washbasin and terracotta toilets, looking like a modern closet, were also

utilized for household tasks and sanitary purposes in these houses as well.

(Figure 25) Latrines were rare until the Hellenistic period; potties or cesspits

arranged in the courtyards were the alternatives. The washbasin, cistern

mouth, and latrine could be organized separately. The latter could be located

next to the exterior wall of the house and connected to the street drain. The

latrines in the houses at Morgantina and Delos, for example, were close to

the street and drained the dirty water to the street in the shortest distance

possible.71 Latrines designed with stone trenches and wooden seats were

designed as a separate rooms, usually adjacent to the wellhead in the

67 Walter-Karydi, 1998, 68.

68 Cahill, 2002, 78, 79.

69 Tsakirgis, 2016, 283, 284.

70 Ault, 2000, 490.

71 Tsakirgis, 2016, 283, 284.

22

courtyard with louters.72 The clay fixed utensils (vessels) for sewerage found

in Olynthos can be accepted as one of the oldest residential lavatories,

commonly built adjacent to the street and supplied reused water for the house.

In Delos, such lavatories were designed as L-shaped ditches, and the louters

were often placed in the courtyards, as opposed to Olynthus, where they were

located in bathing rooms.73 (Figure 26)

Although not widely elaborated, water was depicted in the decoration of the

Classical and Hellenistic period houses. Themes associated with water

especially decorated the floors of the dimly lit dining rooms (androns), in

which mosaic pavements depicting aquatic subjects could give the feeling of

a cave with a spring.74 Mosaic floor panels, in this respect, distinguished the

privileged areas in the Greek houses, such as the reception rooms. Elegant

and impressive compositions embellished the houses, in particular the

Hellenistic period settings, for which Delos provides a rich sample. Mosaic

compositions often depicted common themes, alluding to mythology, floral

patterns, and sea creatures. Marine motifs embellished not only the lavish

rooms or reception spaces, like the androns, but also the objects. For example,

aquatic symbols, representations of a sea trip, or a Herakles, themes that could

animate scenes associated with sea and water, could be depicted on pottery

(dinos), used to serve the treats in a symposium.75 (Figure 27)

Classical Greek houses, in general, did not have gardens, but remains of

paradeisos (pleasure garden) were spotted in some Hellenistic houses,

reflecting the welfare introduced during the era of Alexander the Great.

Although technologically possible, Greek houses lacked ostentatious

72 Crouch, 1993, 302, 303.

73 Antoniou, 2010, 81.

74 Munn, 2009.

75 Franks, 2014, 162.

23

fountains or water sculptures as well.76 Decoration, however, could be applied

to the water elements, for example, in spouts. The Lion figured tap found in

the House of the Mosaics in Eretria, which served to collect and direct water

from the roof to the courtyard, is an example.77 (Figure 28) Elaborates

fountainheads, such as those made from marble and found at Delos, and

terracotta heads with lavish moldings that came from the House of Arched

Cistern at Morgantina illustrate other types of decoration applied to water

features in the Hellenistic houses.78 These may also reflect the wealth of the

household.

Most of the water features were mobile and suited the spatial flexibility of the

houses: louters and pithoi were used for cleansing and food processing, while

terracotta potties could circulate among private rooms. In-situ water

structures were the bathtubs and drain systems. Compared to food preparation

or laundry, bathing was an activity that required privacy; moreover, it could

be practiced as a leisurely and pleasing activity that might take a longer time

than simple bodily cleansing. The private bathrooms, in this sense, provided

a comfortable setting to sit and rest while bathing and enjoying hot water. In

houses that lacked private baths, the courtyards or the rooms close to the

cisterns and wells in the courtyards could be used to take baths or perform the

aquatic ceremonies related to death, birth, or marriages, for which poured

water would be used. Despite the presence of private baths, it is not possible

to say that the Greek households, unlike the Romans, enjoyed the social

aspect of water, in particular the luxury and status of running water in their

houses. While the water was technically transportable to the houses via public

water systems, it did not turn into a manifestation of status and a powerful

agent of decoration and spatial experience.

76 Tsakirgis, 2016, 282.

77 Ducrey and Metzger, 1979, 41.

78 Tsakirgis, 2016, 282.

24

CHAPTER 3

ROUTINE AND RITUAL CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN

ANCIENT ROMAN CULTURE

Ancient societies approached water as a sacred source due to its life-giving

and taking ability, and Romans were no exception. Fondness for water in

public areas initiated a similar search in the domestic context. Simple

fountains, ornated nymphaea, water basins, pools, fishponds, and mosaics and

paintings portraying aquatic themes curated to adorn the private sphere reflect

this desire. Indeed, in the social use of the Roman house, water was assigned

a primary role in designating and articulating spaces according to

significance, accessibility, and service. Besides its daily usage in household

routines, water was utilized as one of the leading operative and transformative

elements in the spatial coding of the house.

Grottos with nymphaeum were already common in the imaginary Italian

landscape of the Roman Republic. Most rivers had a conceptual link to the

formation of national identity and culture as the Tiber River. In Roman art

and literature, Tiberanus was recognizable as a water deity. For instance, his

appearance to Aeneas in his dream offers different roles as a male water deity,

soul of water, and a sort of creature.79 Moreover, it was believed that each

river and water source had a different character and that consuming running

water was preferable to still water as the latter might have been more polluted.

Thus the elite had the privilege to choose the water source from which they

could supply water to their houses.

79 Romans respected and indeed adopted some Greek institutions and practices to reshape

them for their benefit, including water culture and related cults. The Dii Consentes, twelve

gods of the Greeks, in particular the Neptunus, God of fresh water and sea, for example, were

honored by the Romans, who also gave blessings to Cloacina, the Goddess who presided over

Cloaca Maxima, the main trunk outlet of the system of sewers in Rome, Robinson, 2017,

178.

25

Urban springs and fountains were remarks of respecting nature and conveying

mythological lineage to associate ktiseis (foundation stories) and heroic

landscapes with a family's patrons, rulers, and deities. For instance, the

foundation of Ephesus was a subject of Ionian migration ktiseis. Prince

Androclus, son of King Condrus of Athens, was guided by a Delphic oracle

to lead Ionians to Asia Minor, removed locals, and established the royal

Ionian house at Ephesus, where a fish would see them and a wild boar would

lead them. The prophecy came true in the Hypelaeus spring, where fishers

were cooking fish, and a boar that in the first place escaped but was hunted

by a spear.80

Finding water sources was indeed an essential task for survival and was a vital

issue in urbanization. Vitruvius reserved a section on water, mentioning that

finding water required a thorough understanding of local culture, climate, and

topography.81 As for everything else, the Romans elaborated on water use on

a grand scale and built magnificent water systems and structures over the

course of time.82 The infrastructure of water systems developed the city's

maintenance and hygiene. The arrangements, repairs of previous water

structures, and increase in fountains and water basins by various emperors

improved the quality of urban layout and life of individuals.

The most detailed account of Roman water systems comes from Frontinus'

(40-103 AD) writings. Frontinus wrote De Aqua Duct during the

administrative duty he held in the cura aquarium at Rome (the administrative

80 This place is also accepted where the Athenian Temple was believed to be found, Robinson,

2017, 178.

81 He noted that water obtained from sites of clay soil and fine gravel was not suitable for

drinking due to meager depth and muddy context and gave further details on water

transformation in daily practice. Accordingly, water was boiled in furnaces and created hot

vapor that was made to circulate underneath floors or through walls to sustain hot water for

bathing and keeping a room at optimum temperature. Hot water originated from hot springs

and was immersed in the vineyards and gardens, was transformed into a stone with chemicals

and minerals inside, and utilized as a construction element in walls, (De Arch. 8.1.1; 8.1.2;

8.2.1, 8.3.10).

82 Fagan, 2012.

26

office responsible for the city water) around 95 AD. The book provides a

history of aqueducts, the capacity of the water supply systems, descriptions

of usage, and technical details.83 Accordingly, Rome's water management

policy was based on both population increase and imperial politics. For

example, with the leadership of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, two natural

source lines were added, besides repairing the old ones, and new ornamental

sculptures were built next to the fountains.84 Frontinus also wrote that one-

third of the water supplied from the aqueducts began to be distributed outside

the city after the Claudia and Novus aqueducts increased the water supply of

Rome; sixty percent of the reserve was used for villas, gardens, and irrigation

within a payment system; the remaining forty percent was used for imperial

properties. Inside the city, twenty percent was consumed for the imperial

necessities; forty percent was reserved for the private sphere, and the last forty

percent was given to public amenities, including shops, baths, markets, and

alike.85 The water layout of Pompeii is a good example that shows the water

distribution that started from the water tank located at the Vesuvius Gate, the

highest point of the town. (Figure 29) Water was collected at the towers,

called castellum, after flowing by gravity through the specus (conduits).

Various types of pipes, built from terracotta, wood, lead, stone, and open

channels, were the main components of the Roman aqueducts.86 In general,

two different pipe systems were installed along the streets: the first one

carried water from a secondary castellum with subbranches through the main

pipe, while the second carried water directly from a secondary castellum to

individual buildings by a separate pipe system.87 Examples of Roman

aqueducts or bridges built with piscinae (settling tanks) to remove the

sediments are also known.

83 Mithen, 2012, 131.

84 Ibid., 132.

85 Mithen, 2012, 136.

86 Mays, 2010, 128.

87 Angelakis, Mays, Koutsoyuannis and Mamassis, 2012.

27

Providing and bringing water in huge quantities to the cities necessitated

various arrangements on how to manage water distribution. Frontinus

highlighted the regulations introduced to sustain the city maintenance through

water sources in ‘The Aqueducts of Rome’:88

(…)The effect of this care displayed by Emperor Nerva, most patriotic of rulers, is

felt from day today by the present queen and empress of the world; and will be felt

still more in the improved health of the city, as aresult of the increase in the number

of works, reservoirs, fountains, and water-basins.No less advantage accrues also the

private consumers from the increase in the number of the Emperor’s private grants, those also who with fear drew water unlawfully, now free from care, draw their supply

by grant from sovereign. Not even the waste water is lost; the appearance of the city

is clean and altered; the air is purer; and the causes of the unwholesome atmosphere,

which gave the air of the City so bad a name with the ancients, are now removed.

(…)But it was not sufficient for our ruler to have restored the volume and pleasant

qualities of the other waters; he also recognized the possibility of remedying the

defects of New Anio, for he gave orders to stop drawing directly from the river and to

take from the lake lying above the Sublacensian Villa of Nero, at the point where the

Anio is the clearest; for inasmuch as the source of Anio is above Treba Augusta, it

reaches this lake in a very cold and clear condition, be it because it runs between rocky

hills and because there is little cultivated land even around the hamlet, or because it

drops its sediment in the deep lakes into which it is taken, being shaded also by the

dense woods that surround it. These so excellent qualities of water the water, which

bids fair to equal Marica in all points, and in quantity even to exceed it, are now to

supersede its former unsightliness and impurity; and the inscription will proclaim as

its new founder, "Imperator Caesar Nerva Trajanus Augustus. "

Roman water features are among the most striking and conspicuous

inheritances of the ancient world. Thus, large public buildings such as bath

complexes and water structures like aqueducts offering ostentatious water

consumption enhanced the interest of local elites and their ties to the imperial

regimen. Indeed, Roman citizens, particularly the wealthy and elite, benefited

from the technical developments in water supply systems in their houses to

consume water beyond daily routines.

88 Frontinus, The Aqueducts of Rome (Book II), 419, 421, 423. A later source is Ulpian’s

Digest, written between 211-222 AD. This book gives information on the drainage system of

houses and mentions that the connection of houses to public sewers required a legal procedure

for which the owners paid a fee, Koloski-Ostrow, 2015.

28

3.1. Social and Spatial Aspects of Roman Domus

A significant number of well-preserved Roman townhouses came from

Pompeii. The city represents a sample of the traditional patrician house, called

domus in the ancient literature.89 The domus, was a reflection of Roman

culture in its social structure and hence a medium of Romanization that

illustrated Romans’ existence and footprint within the empire. The socio-

political context, cultural guidelines, and social rituals articulated the

architecture of the house as a way of forming Romanitas; manifesting their

unique Roman identity. Thus, as Wallace-Hadrill (1994) attested, the house

owner's identity marked the prosperity and status that shaped the design of

the house and its spaces. Each space assumed a social coding that permeated

between humble/grand and public/private, regulating the synergetic language

between daily life and the syntax of the house, for which social rank was a

powerful differentiator. The house of a Roman with no culturally recognized

status, say a workshop or a commercial establishment owner, in this sense,

did not necessitate arranged reception areas and lavish decoration to entertain

social peers, but perhaps more appropriately planned to have production and

storage spaces to serve efficiently for the clients.

Domus, represented a dynamic entity between the public and private settings

and was designed accordingly to respond to this variable state. In this house

type, the street entrance (fauces) was aligned axially with a group of spaces;

atrium, tablinum, and the garden courtyard. (Figures 30 and 31) Starting from

the second century BC, the garden courtyard at the back turned into an

elaborate outdoor space with the addition of colonnades on all or some sides.

The colonnaded courtyard was further enhanced with combinations of such

different elements as fountains, pools, greenery, sculpture, mosaic floors, and

wall paintings. In about the same period, the number of water elements

increased in the colonnaded courtyards and began to serve as the foci in the

89 Clarke, 2014, 343-344.

29

optical frames arranged towards them to engage visitors' mobility.90 (Figure

32) The relatively private back garden, in this sense, became a showcase, in

particular for the socially well-off who were hosted in the reception spaces

planned in this part of the house. Through such representative use, ˈwaterˈ

gained a conceptual agency and transformed from being a natural entity and

necessity to producing meanings associated with status, luxury, and

conspicuous consumption.

Domus is portrayed as a set of social and functional diversity. Its functionality

relied on ‘dialogue.’ Two types of dialogue were in operation in this regard.

The primary one was the social dialogue that enabled interaction between the

users and took it to reference the cultural norms that guided the usage in

domestic contexts. Household events and rituals, informal get-togethers with

friends, or formal meetings with visitors defined the tone of publicity and

were occasions of social dialogue. The second dialogue was between space

and people, which shaped the architectural layout of the dwelling based on

users’ movement.

The relationship between the street and the interior world of the house was a

critical determinant in both dialogues. The door provided the physical

boundary and acted as a social threshold that defined the interior and exterior

both psychologically and physically, affirming the Roman house's ambiguity

as both public and private and/or outside and inside. One might expect, in this

regard, that the house exteriors were as attractive as their interiors, in a way

to reflect this ambiguity and interchangeability. However, there was a sharp

contrast between the two. The Roman domus, as exemplified in Pompeii,

often had one visible façade that flanked the street, as the houses were built

adjacent to each other and shared common walls. Only the houses occupying

corner lots' façades might become visible. The street facade contained few

features, often one or two small windows, the street door, and commercial

units, if they existed. As such, the houses lacked personification. (Figures 33

90 Graham, 1966, 17.

30

and 34) This contrast between the null outside and the articulated inside

manifests the essential motive of designing the house as a stage in between,

as an interactive world of private and public happenings.

The domus encompassed a rich visual and sensory content, which formed a

décor for social happenings. The Romans approached this as decorum, as a

matter of ˈappropriatenessˈ, between the event and its setting. The opening of

the street doors, in this sense, was an act of invitation into this decorum, which

represented an artistic program executed in a personal way. The house

owners, in this respect, paved floors with mosaics, painted walls with visual

themes, elaborated surfaces with stuccos and textiles, and spaces with

columns, statuary, and water features according to their taste, budget, and

aspirations. The resulting decorum had aspects of multisensory experiences,

such as glitters reflected from mosaic pavements, reflections of water from

pools and basins, and color harmonies on the walls, all appealing to the eyes,

or the sound of water coming from water features and appealing to the ear.91

Such experiences also represented a ˈpassageˈ from the noisy street to the

peaceful inner world of the house, the limits of which were determined

according to the social coding of visitors.92 (Figures 35, 36, 37, and 38)

Cultural interaction between local and Italic norms inevitably happened, in

architecture, from houses to public buildings in the provinces. The elite,

single-family house generally planned as a courtyard house, with or without

an atrium, indeed played a vital role in the political and social dynamics of

the cities within the Empire. The domus type of house and its variations

served as a medium of cultural adaptation and change in the cultural spread

of the Roman empire. An example is the House of Clos de La Nombra

91 Beacham, 2013, 366.

92 Ancient authors mention that not everyone was admitted to the houses of patrons for

salutatio. In the time of Gaius Gracchus and Livius Drusus, in the last two centuries of the

Republic, only some were permitted to the tablinum for a private audience, while many were

accepted only to the atrium; the least fortunate might not even pass the threshold, Platts,

2020, 90.

31

Lombarde in Narbonne, which was planned like a characteristic atrium house,

with fauces and tablinum that were aligned on the same axis, a triclinium, a

viridairum, and a Rhodian peristyle93 courtyard.94 (Figure 39)

Likewise, the House of the Ocean Gods in Roman Vienna shows the

characteristics of a modest domus and had a peristyle garden that included a

water basin and a pool.95 The peristyle courtyard dominated the domestic

trends in the Mediterranean basin, in particular in North Africa and Asia

Minor. Although peristyle houses were introduced to the region long before

the Roman period,96 the domestic architecture of the Italian peninsula and that

of Roman Africa and Asia Minor show several similarities in terms of

architectural planning and social use of houses. Carthage is exemplary in this

respect. After the defeat of Carthage in the Third Punic War in 146 BC, the

urban layout of the city was re-shaped in a grid system. The elite houses were

all designed as peristyle houses and demonstrate a repertoire of design

preferences, though their chronology is different.97 More than two dozen

excavated houses in the city confirm the peristyle typology, which was in use

during the colonization of the town. The remains, however, represent more

the Late Roman trends and show, for example, the use of apsidal rooms with

a stibadium98 that were used as banqueting halls. Like their Pompeian

predecessors, the houses displayed fine mosaic pavements, mainly found in

the public areas like dining rooms and porticoes.99 As in Pompeian houses,

93 A peristyle that has one such higher colonnade, Vitrivius, De Arch, Book VI.

94 Anderson, 2013, 206-207.

95 Ibid., 214-215.

96 Rossiter, 2005, 370.

97 Dufton, 2019, 272, 286.

98 In the early houses at Roman Carthage, tricilinium, similar to the Pompeian examples, was

designed as a rectangular room with a wide opening to the courtyard, Rossiter, 2007, 371.

99 Rossiter, 2007, 370-375, 379.

32

these provinces utilized water features in the atrium, peristyle courtyard,

garden, and service areas for daily and social operation.

The Roman House was a locus of both private and public activities, and water

was a sine qua non of domestic architecture. From daily consumption to

production and wellness, water was in process and treated both as a necessity

and a cultural value with symbolic aspects. Fondness for water in public areas

initiated a similar search in the domestic context. Simple fountains, ornated

nymphaea, water basins, pools, fishponds, and mosaics and paintings

portraying aquatic themes curated to adorn the private sphere reflect this

desire. Indeed, in the social use of the Roman house, water was assigned a

primary role in designating and articulating spaces according to significance,

accessibility, and service. Besides its daily usage in household routines, water

was utilized as one of the leading operative and transformative elements in

the spatial coding of the house.

As in the modern world, water was regularly consumed on a daily basis in the

Roman house for personal cleansing (in baths and latrines), food preparation

(in kitchens, storage, and outdoor areas), washing and cleaning (in service

areas, production areas, paved outdoor areas). The use of water, however, is

not limited to such regularly performed routine activities. The Roman

households consumed water in a symbolic sense in the family-oriented rituals

like wedding and funeral ceremonies, festivals, worshipping, ancestral

commemoration, and social occasions like salutatio, banqueting,

entertaining, and recreation. Water had the agency to organize and direct the

rituals associated with these events in a personal and public context. For

instance, the visual axis starting from fauces to the atrium and then to the

tablinum had a central role in supporting the salutatio ritual, the routine

morning visit of the clients to their patrons. The axis created both a visual and

a physical boundary for the visitor's mobility. The central position of the

impluvium had a determinant role in directing and controlling the visitor's

approach to the house owner seated in the tablinum. Water was also

33

consumed in a luxurious and representative sense; different types of water

features used in the decorum of the house signified the wealth and status of

the domus. Running water was accessible in the service areas like kitchens

and the hygienic areas like latrines and baths, while both still water and

running water could be found in the atria, triclinia, peristyles, and gardens,

basins, fountains, and pools. The instrumentality of water in constructing the

semantic universe of the Roman house, thus, is a potential narrative.

3.2. Pompeii: Water Narratives of Roman House

Pompeian houses present exceptional historical data, allowing us to make

interpretations and suggestions about the function of water repertoire in

private settings and the cultural consumption of water. The city was located

on the high, dry plateau of the volcanic mountain Vesuvius. In the early period

of the city, water was supplied from wells and from River Sarno and stored

in tanks and cisterns. The Pompeian households also collected rainwater

gathered from the roof openings (the compluvium) in the atria, which was

directed to the centrally placed a shallow ornamented pool called impluvium.

The overflowed water was led into the storage cisterns built underneath the

impluvia. The construction of imperial aqueducts provided a permanent

running water supply starting from the first century AD.100 The castellum

aqua, a water tower that was built near the Vesivus Gate, the highest point of

the city, distributed water through led pipes to 43 public fountains located at

the street corners in the city; to the public baths, the Stabian, Forum, Central,

and Amphitetahre baths, and also to the elite and wealthy houses.

Nevertheless, public and private wells were also significant sources of water,

as the groundwater of Pompeii was 20 m below the surface. The public wells

were located at Via Consolare, at the corner with Vico di Narciso, in the Via

del Foro, the Forum and Stabian Baths, and the Triangular Forum. Thanks to

emperor Augustus, the aqueducts eased the water supply, and the city got a

100 Wilkonson, 2017.

34

constant and ample amount of water from the early first century AD.101

(Figure 40)

To illustrate the agency of water in the spatial and social construction of

Roman house, it is necessary to engage with the common narratives that

illustrate in which ways and for what purposes the unique and complex nature

of the Roman domestic setting got into communication with water. Looking

briefly into some Pompeian houses reveals the variety in the internal layout

of the Roman domus and the planning of water-specific areas despite adhering

to the axial atrium-colonnaded scheme. The selected examples are used to

illustrate the possible variations in the plans of the houses and the situations

associated with water rather than to give a detailed spatial and artistic

description of the houses.102

The House of the Vetti in Pompeii is one of the well-known houses and hence

a good first case to look at the type, location, and variety of the main spaces,

wet spaces, and the water amenities used to adorn its setting. The house

exhibits an atrium-peristyle plan, in which the Tuscan atrium (1), peristyle

(2), service atrium (3), private atrium (4), triclinium (10), exedra (11), and

oecus (7) a feature as the distinguished public and/or reception spaces (Figure

41). The main entrance (6) was located at the linear axis that cut through the

atrium, tablinum, and the peristyle; in its final stage, however, the tablinum

was moved to a side location. The two alaea in the main atrium could have

replaced the function of the tablinum.103 The main water features of the house

that supported the social and spatial articulation of the house were; impluvium

in atria, nymphaea in the peristyle courtyard, and possibly piping and

drainage systems feeding service areas.

101 Wilkonson, 2017, 32, 68, 69.

102 The role water features played to articulate space and social happenings is discusses in

section 3.2.5.

103 Wilkonson, 2017, 134-138.

35

The House of Marine Venus, another popular destination in Pompeii today,

displays a similar layout, with multiple entrances. (Figure 42) The main

entrance (1) led to the atrium (2) area, while two others, which were likely

used as services entrances, opened into a large room and via this room to the

service area (7) planned at the northwest corner of the house. The kitchen,

which was located in the service area, operated the house through the atrium.

The main representative spaces included a triclinium (6), large living room

(5), tablinum (10), which was located on the eastern side of the colonnaded

courtyard instead of the usual on-axis position like in the House Vetti, and a

wide portico on the north, named ambulacrum (8). The two rooms opening to

the atrium at the north (3, 7) are in the character of a cubiculum. Among the

group of spaces found in the courtyard area was a series of similarly sized

rooms (14, 15, 16, 17) which were identified as cubicula. The remarkable

water features in the house are the marble impluvium and the cistern beneath

it in the atrium. The absence of ornamented water features seems to have been

compensated by marine-themed paintings. On the southern wall of the

courtyard, flanking the central garden, was a painting that showed an

illusionary sea scene in which was Venus, decorated with a forehead

ornament, necklace, earrings, and armlets, lying in a pink seashell drawn by

dolphins and ridden by cupids. Another aquatic image was painted on the wall

of the northern portico. The theme of this composition was a villa maritime.104

On the exterior of the wall of room 11 was painted a garden with a marble

fountain.

The House of Silver Wedding, which dates to 40 to 30 BC, was located south

of Nola Gate.105 (Figure 43) This was a sumptuous residence, composed of a

104 Nappo, 2009, 364-367.

105 Wilkonson, 2017, 200; http://pompeiisites.org/en/archaeological-site/house-of-the-

silver-wedding/.

36

tetrastyle atrium106 and two peristyles in its last phase.107 The house features

the typical axial sequence of the street entrance (1), a showy tetrastyle atrium

(2) with an impluvium (3), tablinum (5) and generates the more social and

recreational spaces of the house, the triclinium (12), exedra (13), and a large

room (15) in the peristyle garden (6). The peristyle (6) was in the Rhodian

style and flanked by a bath suite (7-9) on its west, three rooms (13-14) on its

south, and two deep rooms (15-12) on its east and west. The kitchen (10) and

a latrine (10A) are adjacent to the bath complex. The house had a second,

imposing peristyle (16) to its east, which had an open-air triclinium. The

atrium (2) led to a centrally placed tablinum. The other rooms and a small

garden in this wing were accessed both from the tablinum and the narrow

passageway next to it. The presence of staircases in the atrium and the west

wing indicates the presence of an upper floor. The west wing did not have

direct access to the small peristyle, bath suite, and the other spaces (12, 13,

14, 15) in the small peristyle, as well as the large peristyle, from the interior

of the part, suggesting that it was a relatively private wing that could be

rented; if not it could function as a service quarter, used by the slaves and the

household staff. Indeed, the small peristyle, bath complex, kitchen, and

exedra formed a separate zone behind the tablinum; there is no access from

the tetrastyle atrium to the large peristyle. The primary water features of the

house were impluvium, found in the atrium, and a sizable pool in the large

peristyle. The bath complex included a labrum (water basin used for bathing)

and a plunge pool (11), and in the kitchen (10), there was a vessel used to heat

water for the bath. The remains of a pipe system suggest that there was a water

feature, most likely a nymphaeum in the large peristyle.

The House of the Tragic Poet, which dates from the second century BC, was

across the Forum Baths108, and its main entrance (1) was at Via Dell Terme.

106 A tetrastyle atrium is where the inverted roof is supported by four columnes rather than

beams as in Tuscan type, Wilkonson, 2017, 201.

107 It could well achieved its final form after merging two neighboring houses.

108 The house was redecorated after 62 AD, Wilkonson, 2017, 197.

37

(Figures 44 and 45) It was adjacent to a thermopolium (small cookshop), and

most likely, the two shared a mutual piping system for wastewater and

running water. This is a typical Pompeian house, displaying the axial spatial

alignment. Passing through a narrow fauces (2), one entered the atrium (4),

which had a Tuscan roof and a marble impluvium (5) and oriented towards

the tablinum (10), behind which was colonnaded courtyard (11) surrounded

by the triclinium (15), possibly cubicula (8 and 13), kitchen (14) and the

latrine (14A).109 The water features of the house were; a marble impluvium

in the atrium with a puteal and cistern beneath it and a cistern in the portico

of the colonnaded courtyard; the kitchen and latrine suggest the presence of a

pipe system, possibly also used for the irrigation of the garden in the

colonnaded courtyard.

Evaluation

Water features, commonly integrated into areas with circulation, such as

atria, peristyles, and porticoes, created visual and auditory pleasures as well

as provided optical guidance for movement. Visual composition was

confirmed as one of the essential constituents of the socio-spatial coding of

the Roman house, and such water features as a nymphaeum, pool, impluvium,

fountain basins, and sea/marine-themed painting and mosaics were those

objects and pictorial narratives employed not only to invoke water settings

but also to create visual focus, engagement and gaze. In a way, they

functioned as an orientation sign, almost mimicking the street fountains.110

109 Wilkonson, 2017, 196-200.

110 There were generally four zones in the Roman cities, each accessible with 10 to 15 minutes

of walking; the district around the amphitheater reserved for outdoor entertainments;

residential zone in the proximity of the central baths area; cultural area given to theathrical

amusement and the forum area that functioned as the urban center. The fountains were the

essential landmarks in way-finding. For instance, fountains and a standpipes were built to

invegorate the Via degli Augustali intersection in Pompeii, at the corner where Via

dell’Abbondanza Street met the amphitheter. To the east of the city, where Via

dell’Abbondanza joined the narrow Stabiana street, an open area was created by constructing

a fountain and raising the opposite pavement, there by illusinostically expanding the

perception of the area, Westfall, 2007, 132, 133.

38

The atrium that witnessed more circulation and crowd as the public part of

the house was distinguished by the shallow water pool at its center. This pool

was the focal item of the décor of the atrium and was inevitably captured

visually by those passing through the space. The sunlight filtering through the

roof opening or raindrops hitting the water created an experiential and

dynamic spatial perception enhanced by the pictorial walls and mosaic floors.

The colonnaded courtyard was commonly located at the end of the central

axis that connected fauces and tablinum. In general, it was larger than the

atrium, and benefited from the pleasure-giving aspects of different water

features, such as fountains and a pool, combined with a landscaped garden

and sounds of birds. The courtyards were generally surrounded by living and

socializing rooms such as triclinium, exedra, or bath, where invited guests

could enjoy banqueting, games, and wellness through/around a décor of

nymphaea merged into the greenery. The experiential state of the interior

changed in terms of shadow-light configuration and reflection of light on

water features during the day; the light and dark areas in the atrium shifted

during the day, and those who came for a salutatio in the mornings or a

banquet in the evenings experienced different states of the same space.

Water, as sight and sound, was a point of attraction, and water features, as

elements of transition areas, decorated spaces and generated vistas for

visitors. Water features could be placed in the middle of atria and gardens, at

the back wall or sidewalls of the colonnaded courtyards, and hence could be

seen and heard from the nearby social spaces, like tablinum, triclinium, and

exedra during the regular household routines and rituals like family events

and gatherings, banqueting or domestic entertainment. One might have visual

access from the entrance to the atrium marked with an impluvium or a

fountain in the central axis, while the colonnaded garden located further

behind could be visually and physically experienced better by spending time

in that area. The garden, which formed a natural and serene environment and

was enhanced with water elements, provided a setting isolated from the

unwanted sounds of the street, human and vehicular traffic, and crowds.

39

Besides its life-sustaining utilization, water served as an instrument in

operating and sustaining settings that boosted the performance of domestic

routines and rituals. Water features have the potential to regulate social and

architectural patterns within the house. For instance, the impluvium in the

atrium, the communal hall and circulation area of the house, served the daily

operations taking place in the rooms surrounding it; during the salutatio, the

atrium accommodated socially inferior visitors, foe whom the impluvium

functioned as the visual and acoustic foci, an instrument to mark wealth and

social status, and a cognitive agency for movement. For instance, the position

of the impluvium in the atrium set the walking patterns, and thus the dynamic

perspective of the atrium, tablinum, and the colonnaded courtyard. Indeed,

this layout could also affect the decoration, the themes of wall paintings, and

floor mosaics in relation to the visual gaze and perception of light; thematic

wall paintings, including marine lives, could be applied to complete the

pleasure aura of the impluvium. Additionally, the running water provided

from the well-developed piping infrastructure allowed the elite to achieve the

privilege of having a private bath and hence benefit from the

bath’srecreational atmosphere for social gatherings, another marker of wealth

status. So, the primary utilization of space according to user needs was

encoded with water features that represented cultural and social information.

3.2.1. Personal Cleansing, Hygiene, and Wellbeing

Romans valued water not only for social purposes but also for hygiene and

health and believed that water had the power to balance the body's nature, like

the yin-yang.111 Water, in this respect, was considered an agent of wellness

and thus was consumed for both bodily and mental wellbeing.

111 Zytka, 2019, 130. Greek writers on medicine and health also began to be followed, for

example Hippocrates’ “Regimen in Acute Diseases’, from the early 3rd c. BC onwards. Pliny

the Elder, in this respect, mentioned that, “the Roman people had lived for six hundred years

without “professional” physicians until Greek-style medicine started to wreak its exorbitant

havoc among them”, Fagan, 2002, 93.

40

Bathing, considered an activity of health treatment today, was practiced as an

aspect of wellness in both public and private life. Not all houses had private

baths, but in those houses with a private bathing suit, it is observed that the

baths were often re-designed to receive the water infrastructures and drainage

systems. As opposed to the traditional Greek houses, where a bathtub and

kitchen were often grouped as a unit, the Roman domus could be adorned by

bathing suits, often in the vicinity of the colonnaded courtyards. Examples of

lavish private baths decorated with mosaics are found in several houses at

Pompeii, yet, they were more common in the elite villas and imperial palaces.

As illustrated in the House of Julia Felix or House of Menander, the spatial

layout of such private baths could allude to public bath complexes, including

all the primary rooms, caldarium, frigidarium, and tepidarium. (Figures 46

and 47) In addition, they could be located in the courtyard areas, which could

be utilized as a gymnasium area, as in the public baths. Bodily cleansing and

hygiene as such were re-contextualized privately and as a privilege of the

elite, and the renovation of houses to add bath complexes that demanded extra

space and running water, furthermore, signified wealth and luxury.

The Roman house had a setting that could support a good mental mood and

health. The domus had open areas and porticoes, as in temples dedicated to

Aesculapius and Hygieia, which served clean, good quality water and spaces

to relax, exercise, and enjoy fresh air, similar to those in temples and

gymnasiums. The open areas in the domus were utilized to benefit not only

from daylight and natural ventilation but also from water, both for hygienic

consumption and also as a pleasure-giving, aesthetically pleasing element. In

several cases, irrespective of the size of the house, there were shady porticoes

that provided comfortable circulation around garden settings, which enabled

a multi-sensory spatial experience, accompanied by the sound of birds, wind,

and water, and sights of greenery and smell of flowers. The domus, as such,

had a rustic aura in an urban context and hence responded modestly to the

suggestions of ancient writers, such as Varro, Columella, or Cato, who

41

mentioned the importance of the countryside in sustaining a healthy life.112

The organization of water features in various parts of the house also provided

the infrastructure necessary to install private bathing facilities, receive

running water directly from the urban water system, and transfer the

wastewater directly back to the public drains; such well-built systems

contributed to maintaining hygiene and bodily wellness, by supplying fresh

water and taking the dirty usage outside the house.

Private latrines were indispensable in maintaining bodily hygiene, cleansing,

and health. Although most Pompeian houses had at least one single-seat toilet,

they used the public cloacae instead of connecting to sewers, so they used

cesspit toilets that had to be emptied and cleaned manually rather than

building fixed toilets over the sewer lines. According to Koloski-Ostrow

(2015), this unusual combination was a security precaution to prevent animals

from climbing through public sewers, as there was no trap for the holes in the

sewer lines. Latrines were often paired with kitchens and commonly found in

service areas which were generally located close to the street and off the sight

of the optical frames captured by guests and households. In some cases, the

drainage pipe extended from the kitchen-toilet areas to the gardens, which,

most likely, spread the bad odor to the interior. Houses involved in economic

businesses, such as bakeries, butchers, and fulleries, most likely were also

exposed to bad smells. Water leakage from the upper story piping of toilets

was also a problem, as well as the uncontrolled moisture, which could pose a

health threat.

The service areas might have had a separate entrance, avoiding undesired

encounters with family members and visitors. The organization of latrines

and kitchens in the same room seems inappropriate in today’s standards and

practice of hygiene, but it was a common practice in the Roman houses.

(Figure 48) This co-existence had some advantages. First of all, clean and

dirty water were managed together, using a common inlet and discharge

112 Draycott, 2019, 27.

42

system. The water supply system, however, changed according to the type of

latrine. The niche toilets had visible drain pipes under the wall. On the other

hand, the latrines with seats could be placed on a drain system installed

beneath the ground that provided flowing water to get rid of the urine and

waste. In seat-type latrines that lacked this system, stored water was used to

get rid of the waste. On some occasions, latrines were located in gardens too.

In such cases, the clean running water reaching the toilet could be channeled

or utilized for irrigation or supplying the fountains in the gardens. Latrines

placed in the gardens could also serve the banqueters, apart from the

household. Particularly in large houses like the House of Faun, latrines found

in the vicinity of colonnaded courtyards provided practicality for those

spending time in the open area. (Figure 49) On some other occasions, it is

seen that the toilets were planned concerning the neighbors, and mutual drains

and pipe systems were planned.

3.2.2. Kitchenworks

Cooking, an essentially water-consuming process, demanded a physical and

social organization in the ancient Roman houses too. The production of food

required a preparation session, while consuming it needed another. The latter

was performed as a social event, be it among the family or with guests, in the

setting of a triclinium. The location of the kitchen was related to that of the

urban water system and determined its arrangement.113 An examination of

thirty Pompeiian houses reveals that % 26 of the kitchens were located in the

front area of houses, while % 50 were in the middle, and % 24 at the back; %

11 Pompeian houses had kitchens next to the atrium, while %37 of the houses

in Herculaneum had kitchens situated in close distance to the atrium.114 The

size of the house, which also manifested the social welfare of the owner, was

one of the significant determinants of the layout of the service area, often

composed of a kitchen and a latrine. In larger houses, different architectural

113 Foss, 1994, 171.

114 Platts, 2020, 204.

43

solutions were developed, while in smaller dwellings and work(shops), there

were fewer choices. (Figure 50) In such elite houses as the House of Citharist,

House of Menander, and House of Ephebe, the kitchens were close to the

elaborate triclinia, bath complexes, and peristyle gardens to serve the social

and cultural meetings efficiently; however, they were accessed with separate

corridors to eliminate visual access and any interaction between guests and

household staff. The service corridors also helped to reduce the leakage of

odors and noise to the reception spaces. House of Citharist, one of the largest

houses of Pompeii (resulting from the merging of a number of houses), had

three peristyle gardens and two atria, of which the central peristyle was the

most luxurious and included a summer triclinium. (Figures 51 and 52) The

diners had experienced the pleasure of not only lavish fountains and

sculptures during the banquet but also a swimming pool. The kitchen, on the

other hand, was located in the service quarter, far away from the dining and

meeting spaces. The kitchen in the modest houses, on the other hand, like the

House of Venus Marine, had separate entrances and were located close to the

street entrance for easy connection to the city water supply system and

drainage.

3.2.3. Domestic Business and Production

The domus was one of the essential structures of the Roman economy, and

many houses were physically and socially integrated with the urban economy.

The domus involved production in various capacities and forms, from

landscaping and agricultural activities to commercial establishments like

laundries and bakers. The first two could well take place in domus with large

gardens or in garden estates with a domus. Such gardens, called hortus115,

could be utilized to generate revenue from small-scale farming or else to

supply the household demand. It was possible to grow agricultural products,

herbs, flowers, or even do viticulture in spacious gardens. Literary sources

115 Hortus is a Latin word commonly used to mean a cultivated space or a small vegetable

garden, but the horti states were large, semi-urban properties owned by the elite, Kontokosta,

2019, 60.

44

and archaeological remains revealed that urban agriculture was practiced in

ancient Rome. Indeed, farming agricultural products used for medical and

religious purposes, vegetables and fruits, particularly grapes, was a significant

industry in the Roman empire. It would not be unexpected to have similar

productions, especially in the houses with imposing green lawns, such as the

House of Vetti, House of Ephebe, or those with more than one open area, like

the House of Loreius Tibertinus, House of Menander, and House of Silver

Wedding in Pompeii as well. Since rainwater could not be relied on in the

Mediterranean, a large amount of water was necessary to cultivate orchard

trees and do farming, for which the newly built aqueducts in the Roman cities

in the imperial era must have been extremely beneficial. Flowers could be

cultivated as a market product, and its industry was also a lively business, as

flowers were extensively used to make garlands in both public and private

events, such as funerals, weddings, and festivals.116

A significant amount of profit came from agricultural cultivation in the

Roman world. The Campania, in this respect, was a notably fruitful region for

land cultivation.117 Pompeii, too, was located in a region with diverse

geographical features, such as a hill, riverside, plain, and mountain, an

advantageous state for cultivating a variety of agricultural products. For

example, the skirts of Vesuvius were very suitable for viticulture, as

evidenced by the farmhouses discovered to the south of Mount Vesuvius.118

Where irrigation was possible, the riverside was also a fertile area to grow

various agricultural products. This diversity also brought abundance to the

city, which had all sorts of economic and commercial productions and spaces,

from bakeries, perfume shops, textile dyeing, and pottery workshops, to

tabernaes.

116 De Simone, 2017, 32-34.

117 Campanian land was accepted as constructing a bridge between mythology, as Bacchus

and Ceres on supremacy over the soil, De Simone, 2017, 32.

118 De Simone, 2017, 32-34.

45

Inscriptions from Pompeii inform about an active economic life in the city,

where both local and imported products had a marketplace.119 While most of

the production was done in the workshops found in tabernae (shops) and

ateliers, there is also evidence of financial and commercial activities that took

place in the houses.120 Profit-based production was evidenced in the House of

Postumii, which had plenty of basins and a large kitchen (11, 12), latrine

(space 12 in the kitchen), and workplace (the north side and spaces 14-19).121

(Figure 53) The house is located on one of the busy streets across the Stabian

Baths. There were tabernaea operated by the house owner on the north and

west sides (14-19) of the house.122 The destruction of the house in the AD 62

earthquake necessitated re-construction when the owner added a large

peristyle garden (13) to the small atrium (2), which was constructed in the

first century AD with wide cenationes (general name for every type of dining

room) (20, 21). The house in its last stage had remarkable marble furniture

and a fountain in the peristyle that acted as a separator for the kitchen

entrance, and a laundry section concentrated in the kitchen area. The

remarkably large kitchen located at the north-eastern corner of the house was

one of the oversized kitchens found in Pompeii and is thought to have been

used in a multi-functional way, as it included heavy tables and basins.123 Next

to the tablinum (9) was a narrow corridor (10), possibly a staff passage. The

kitchen had a locked door on the south-western side through the more

expansive east portico of the courtyard. There were basins; one was on the

west wall, and another was outside, to the right of the entrance on the east.

119 At Pompeii, the tabernae occupied more than 40 percent of the domestic units, Pirson,

2009, 457. In 79 AD, there were around 600 tabernae in Pompeii which is a huge number,

considering that only around 400 houses included an atrium in the city, Mayer, 2012, 34.

120 The term taberna is used commonly for those spatial units that were suitable to operate

for both commercial and residential purposes. They could include latrine, niches for bed and

even wall decoration in spaces used as a retail area, Pirson, 2009, 468-469.

121 Pirson, 2009, 457, 458, 468.

122 Mayer, 2012, 49.

123 Based on graffiti and remains of garlic, it is suggested that the house was operated as a

small butchery, where sauge was produced of; it is also suggested that the installation was

part of a textile workshop, where fabrics were washed and dyed, Dickmann, 2013, 210.

46

The hearth and latrine were arranged together on the east wall of the kitchen,

which had an underground drainage system. A deep cauldron, also located on

the same wall, was used to collect fresh water through the pipe underneath.

Apparently, the basins in and outside the kitchen supplied and stored

freshwater to do the rinsing works. The basin found to the east outside the

kitchen is thought to be evidence of the utilization of both the kitchen and its

immediate exterior as a laundry area.124

As in the House of Postumii, textile dying and laundry were among the

economic activities pursued in domestic contexts. The dying and laundering

process was done by fullors in specially arranged workshops called fullonica.

Examples of fullonicas, found in a number of Pompeian houses demonstrate

that the business could well be operated within the confines of a private

setting. Since that purity and cleanliness were valued concepts in the Roman

culture, economic occupations related to garment cleaning must have been

one the profitable small businesses. As clothes reflected the social status of a

person, the fullors were expected to achieve whiteness in the clothes and

textiles as a symbol of purity.125 The fullonicas, needed a large amount of

water but at the same time, produced a strong odor, because of which they

were established in a full interior location in an insulae.126 House VI. 8 is one

example. In its present state, it did not look like a traditional atrium-peristyle

house but, most likely, a combination of two houses, as the atrium, and the

colonnaded courtyard was not positioned on the same axes but located in two

124 Dickmann, 2013, 208.

125 The most typical figure of a male Roman was a clean-shaved man, wearing a long, and

luminous toga. The white toga developed as the dressing code of the elite, particularly worn

in ceremonial events. The women, on the other hand, were dressed in a tube style clothing,

with some nudity on the shoulder area. There is evidence for garments with gold thread from

the time of Republic, which was taken as a symbol of luxury. Emperor Nero, for instance,

was portrayed in ‘white clothes interwoved with gold’, Croom 2012, 12. In many ancient

texts the term candidus, is also mentioned to denote white. In some Late Antique texts, that

mention elite clothing, the garments were described as shining; the colors varied but as

Maxim of Turin stated the “fullo” gave splendour, cleanliness, and shine to the clothes,

Flohr, 2013, 60, 61.

126 Pirson, 2009, 463.

47

neighboring zones with separate street entrances. (Figure 54) Archaeological

evidence indicates that the fullonica in the west of the colonnaded courtyard

was a later addition, which apparently did not reduce the spatial capacity of

the domestic area.127

The fullonica, had four rectangular rinsing basins (B1, B2, B3, and B4) and

six fabric pounding cells (33), which were connected by pipes to the water

system and hidden behind a wall that separated the area from the living unit.

The arrangement, as such, occupied the western portico of the colonnaded

courtyard and transformed it into a workshop. The drainage system could be

merged with the service zone in the south quarter. The urine was used as a

detergent in the process of laundry and might have been collected in the hole

to the west of the two southernmost cells.128 The business, no doubt, required

an ample amount of water and high-quality drainage infrastructure. The

clients who came to the fullonica entered from the spacious vestibule (40) and

proceeded to the colonnaded courtyard.129 The colonnaded courtyard could

also be accessed from the atrium. The small room (7) next to the street

entrance could function as the office space to take orders and manage business

communication and payment. There was a fountain placed in the east portico

(10) between two pillars, with spouts placed on low walls. The fountain had

a unique design. It consisted of a marble basin supported by a small, fluted

pedestal that stood in an unusually shaped pool. Water jetted from the pipes

and fell into the basin, and then overflowed into the pool. At the south of the

colonnaded courtyard was a kitchen (19) with a furnace. Both the fullonica

127 In 50 AD the house undergone a major renovation, during which a fountain (in front of

oecus 12) was built, the bath suite (15, 16, 17 and 18) was converted to four rooms, and a

kitchen and service area were built to the west of the former bath, Flohr, 2011, 95-96.

128 A large amount of water was consumed for agriculture in the countryside, rather than in

the urban context. Due to water’s prominent role in production, legal institutions had

accurately established laws, particularly regulations on property rights. One of the significant

concepts was dominium, ownership, which covered owning natural resources as well. More

extensive hydraulic sources and rivers were liable to authorities, while small water bodies,

such as ponds or creeks could be subject to individual control. Bruun, 2015, 133.

48

and the kitchen flanked the colonnaded courtyard from where the smell could

escape. Next to the kitchen was once a private bath suite (15, 16, 17, and 18),

which was dismantled and converted into a standard suite of rooms during the

renovation.130 The residential part of the house seems to have been reserved

for the spaces to the east, south, and north of the colonnaded courtyard

dominated by a columned atrium. Due to the dominance of economic

activities in the house, one might argue that the paterfamilias was involved

in dense business communication and required a tablinum-like study and

meeting spaces to accommodate the clients and store business documents.

Rooms 11 and 13 were conveniently placed to be used for business-oriented

purposes, as they were reached easily from the street entrance and the vast

east portico (10) distanced them from the garden section and the surrounding

rooms in the courtyard. The fountain in the colonnaded courtyard served as a

viewpoint for the users of these rooms, more so for those in room 12, which

might have also functioned as an oecus. And the largest room could be a

living/reception area for banquets and entertainment. Despite having a smelly

workshop, the house was lavish in terms of having a large open area, a

fountain, and wall paintings. A river god and Venus were painted on the left

pillar and a standing female figure on the opposite one. A painting of Bacchus

and of Apollo was depicted on the low walls flanking the pillars. On one of

the pillars, there was also a painting of an altar with two large serpents,

designating a spot for domestic worshipping. The L-shaped corner pillars in

the east portico are particularly noteworthy. A remarkable series of four

paintings that depicted in detail the various processes of fulling was painted

on three sides of the corner (left) pillar, which served as an advertisement of

the business. In this house, water was used extensively to perform the

economic routines of laundry and dying business. The elegant and unique

fountain that welcomed the clients and other visitors entering the courtyard

130 The house was built in the second century AD, originally around two atria. Later, it and

had many alterations. In first century BC, the house was extended with a peristyle courtyard.

Although the construction of the fullonica antedates the peristyle courtyard, it did not cause

any remarkable space loss in the interior; other rooms such as deconstrcution of the bath suite

(around after 50 AD) provided means to re-design the residential area, Fhlor, 2011, 95-97.

49

area, on the other hand, utilized water to create a visually attractive and

enjoyable focus. Thus the courtyard area, with a central garden, three

porticoes, and the fountain, both concealed a dirty and smelly business and

also constructed the typical outdoor aura found in numerous domus and

served the users as an aesthetically appealing space. The house is a prime

example of how a conspicuous amount of water was consumed both for

business, housework tasks, personal cleansing, and pleasure. The latrine, and

the private bath, which was in use before the business was incorporated into

the house, had obviously enhanced the life quality and responded well enough

to the hygienic needs of the family.

Another house with a fullonica was House VI. 14.131 (Figure 55) The house

was originally built in the first century BC as an atrium house with an L-

shaped colonnaded backyard. There were two separate, two-story shops (2,

3) on either side of the entrance. The fullonica, occupying the entire southwest

corner, was built in the peristyle during the reconstruction after the earthquake

around 50 AD. The spaces to the north of the courtyard and the atrium (4)

area constituted the private part of the house. As such, the private zone was

not separated sharply from the workshop area like in the previous house. In

the last state of the house, a white marble fountain basin which was fed by the

pipes of the four basins in the fullonica was added to the impluvium. Unlike

the sunken impluvium that directed movement and let the gaze freely extend

towards the courtyard, the pedestal-type fountain with running water must

have been conceived as a visual and auditory landmark to draw attention away

from the fullonica at the rear.132 The south portico between the workshop (2)

and the fullonica at the rear of the house created a more public axis for

customers and made the north and east parts available for residential

activities. However, the guest room (5) and the narrow corridor (6) adjacent

to the tablinum (7) can be seen as a precaution to separate business and

entertainment activities. Although the reception room does not have direct

131 Flohr, 2008, 1.

132 Flohr, 2011, 99.

50

visual contact with the water feature in the atrium during the meetings, it

accompanies the movement. It displayed the characteristics of water

articulation in public areas as in other Pompeian houses.

Operating a bakery was another commercial business for which running water

was a necessity. Bakeries were mainly located north of Pompeii, close to the

agricultural hinterland, but small-scale bakeries were also found in the

domestic context. The bakery of House of Owen (VI.3.3) is one such

example. (Figure 56) The bakery section was located to the rear of the

domestic quarter and had a separate entrance from the street (8). The mill

room (7), including four millstones, dominated the processing center which

was installed in the traditional place of a back courtyard. The grinding in this

process necessitated running water used to make the dough. The tablinum (3)

had a view of the bakery. Milling was the most critical process that required

hydraulic energy. The owen (5) was closely related to the storage room (4)

and a preparation table (6). The floor was paved, considering that there would

be animal traffic between the stall (9) and the mill area.133 The Bakery of

Popidius Priscus (VII.2.22) was a later addition to the domus of Popidius

Priscusa, a member of one of the elite families of Pompeii. (Figure 57)

Besides the main entrance (2), a service door (1) connected the house and

shop. The bakery had four mills (3) and an oven (5). The impluvium with a

wellhead and four pillars marked the atrium.134

3.2.4. Family Rituals

The domus was the locus of the family-oriented rituals of funeral, wedding,

birth, and coming of age. In families from Rome’s upper stratum, triumphs

and celebrations brought the family to the attention of the public arena and

assisted in attaching a family’s glorious genealogical tree to Rome’s history.

In addition to the demonstration of military and political accomplishments

133 Pirson, 2009, 461-462.

134 Wilkonson, 2017, 139-141.

51

that helped to assure reputation, ceremonies concerning births, marriages, and

deaths were equally found their way into the public domain through

processions in the streets.135 Since the domus was a dialogue agency between

the public entity of the city and the family members, Roman house owners

opened their domestic settings to the public for ceremonial access under their

control and arrangement. Particularly, the public and social areas such as

atrium, tablinum, colonnaded courtyard, and triclinium were suitable for

holding domestic ceremonies.

Participation of the family in a funeral was essential, as it confirmed the

memorial celebration of the ancestors.136 Although a funeral was a family-

oriented ritual, its grandeur was a status symbol. In this intense and intimate

ritual activity, the engagement of the community as friends, family, and even

paid professionals seemed essential; the paterfamilias accepted visitors

coming for the mourning calls in the atrium.137 Considering the intimate

relationship of family members with their ancestors, the appropriate

articulation of the atrium was necessary for both ancestral commemoration

and funeral ceremonies; they honored their ancestors by following the ritual

rules and manifested their status to visitors with lavishly decorated reception

spaces. The body of the deceased would lie on a couch, feet facing to door in

the atrium, after being washed, dressed, and festooned by garlands, candles,

and incense. Collocatio -keeping the dead body as part of the funeral ritual

for up to ten days- as an act of honoring the defunct's soul and distributing

meals and beverages to glorify the lately dead were parts of the ceremony

done inside the house. Following the funeral, the family members would

sanitize themselves and the Lares with ritual cleansing with water and a laurel

branch, and incense was used against the smell for the corpse was seen as

pollution, and purification was essential. Private baths could be used to

135 Platts, 2020, 113.

136 Cianca, 2018, 55-59.

137 Hekster, 2009, 95.

52

cleanse the dead body and the family members; in the absence of a bath, the

atrium was a suitable space to do the cleansing as the impluvium and the

connected well provided clean water.

The Roman wedding was another ritual open to social participation. A central

aspect of marriage was the public transition of the bride to her new home,

such that the marriage was accepted officially when the bride arrived at the

groom's house. The wealth of the families of the bride and groom was a

significant marker in the marriage ritual.138 Particularly the wealth of the

groom symbolized a 'powerful and blessed' home for the future of the bride

since her social status would change from a girl to a woman, and also, she

would leave her natal home for a new domus.139 The wedding ceremony was

a procession from the bride’s atrium-tablinum to the groom’s atrium-

tablinum and included a celebration dinner which was a part of this exchange,

both physically and socially. The marriage ritual, associated with water

features, was realized in four parts: the preparations and departure from the

atrium-tablinum of the bride, the ceremonial walk to the groom’s house, and

the wedding dinner at the groom’s house, and the reception at atrium-

tablinum of the groom.140 The ceremony also included the act of the bride

getting fire and water;141 As soon as she arrived at her new home, the groom

offered his wife a fire (torch) and water in a vessel. The offering of fire and

water was a meaningful indication in Roman culture since these elements

were believed to be vital for survival,142 for which the impluvium could have

been used. The focus point, the bride, was a representation of the wealth status

of both her family and the new one, a kind of pedigree exchange between

138 Hersch, 2010, 114-140.

139 Ibid., 139.

140 Platts, 2020, 119.

141 Ibid., 140.

142 Panoussi, 2019, 19.

53

families. The ambiance of these spaces was articulated by the impluvium

and/or by a fountain.

3.2.5. Social Meetings

In the Roman house, there were three regularly held social gatherings, the

content, and space of which differed according to the social status of the

participants. One of them was salutatio which was a daily morning ritual

whereby clients visited their patrons to accept sportulae143 of sustenance and

financial provision and/or to get advice, assistance, and help. As a

distinguished cultural practice, it took place in the atrium and tablinum. From

the street entrance144 to the tablinum, the ritual curated a social hierarchy

between the clients and patronus, family members and slaves, and even

between doorkeepers and clients. The clients wore togas during the meeting.

Considering the variations of seasons, walking in the city might have created

dirt, sweat, and an unpleasant physical and mental condition for visitors.145

Indeed, the meeting has its unique pattern and short-term interval of day-

time.146 So, the context of the interior intends to regulate social and

architectural settings, particularly with the robust characteristics of water

features.

Banqueting, adopted from the Greek symposion or drinking party, was an

elaborate social ritual that took place in the triclinium.147 The traditional

143 Presents that are given to the customers and, on some occasions, used by merchants to

present their goods and part of their income to gain status change

https://www.arkeolojikhaber.com/haber-sportulae-15641/.

144 Benches that visitors waited at the outside of the houses for salutatio were not only an

architectural choice of house owner but also act as social artifacts befor the metting,for

further information see Hartnett, 2017.

145 Platts, 2020, 116.

146 Özgenel, 2000, 184.

147 The spaces used by Roman for dining are; triclinium, exedra, oecus, and cenaculum. The

triclinium, by far was the most commonly used term to identify dining spaces, Platts, 2020,

162.

54

triclinium has a U-shaped furnishing with couches placed on three sides. The

orientation of the triclinium was towards the garden, particularly to the water

elements and fountains.148 Some basins were located near the triclinia to

provide cooling and decoration. (Figure 58) Indeed, there could be fish ponds

close to the banqueting areas, as Seneca the Younger mentions in Naturales

Quaestiones: 149

Fish are to be found swimming in the dining coach; one is caught right under the table,

to be transferred immediately to the table. A mullet is not thought fresh enough unless

it expires in the hand of banqueter. These fish are handed round enclosed in glass jars,

and their colours are observed while they expire; death paints many hues on them as

they draw their last struggling breath. Others are pickled alive and killed in the sauce.

These are the people who think one is romancing who asserts that a fish can live

underground and instead of being caught, can be dug up! How inconceivable it would

sound to them to hear that a fish swam in sauce and was killed during dinner, but not

served at dinner; that first it was long admired, and that eyes were feasted on it before

the gullet was!

Natural and artificial water structures within the domestic context become

critical, especially in the public areas of houses where the house owner

articulates his social and cultural relationship via social meetings. For

example, in his letters, Pliny the Elder highlights the importance of corporeal

and multi-sensory experience between the sea and the rooms of his villa in

'Epistles' (100-109 AD):150

My villa is large enough for my convenience without being expensive to maintain.

The entrance hall is plain, but not mean, through which you enter into portico in the

form of Letter D, which includes a small, but agreeable area. This affords a capital

retreat in bad weather, as it is sheltered by glazed windows, and much more by

overhanging eaves. From the middle of this portico you pass into an inward hall

extremely pleasant, and from thence into a handsome enough dining room which runs

out towards the sea; so that when a south-west wind drives the sea shoreward, it is

gently washed by the edge of the last breakers. On every side of this room there are

either folding doors or windows equally large, by which means you have a view from

the front and the sides, as it were of three different seas; from the back part you see

the middle court, the portcio and area; and by another view you look through the

148 Özgenel, 2000, 248, 254, 255. In the pleasure villas, the triclinia were oriented to sea

vistas.

149 Seneca the Younger, Naturales Quaestiones, Book III, XVII.

150 Pliny the Elder, Letters, Book II, 153-155.

55

portico in the atrium, from whence the prospect is terminated by woods and mountains

which are seen at distance.

The architectural and social coding done by water features concerning the use

of triclinium where convivial, social, and recreational activities was a highly

employed practice. Social dining in Roman society took place in various

sceneries and events, such as weddings and funeral feasts, banquets

associated with Roman festivals such as Saturnalia151, and the common

convivium of Roman social and cultural life. Many scholars highlighted the

importance of visuality and mental recreation in the convivium.152 Besides the

pleasant visual items accompanying the meeting, eliminating unwanted noise

and odor was also essential to please the guests. So, the nature of dining

highlighted the importance of articulation of spaces, particularly in

introverted/extroverted and public/private contexts. For instance, the kitchen

and latrine organized at allocation far from the dining and recreational

areas153 helped to eliminate unwanted encounters between the circulation of

guests and slaves and unwanted smells and sounds. The size of the house was

also a critical factor for the discrimination in the movement of different

classes. Large size houses had an opportunity to separate service zones and

dining areas. Indeed, sizable dwellings provided alternative open areas that

merged with various water features and planting that provided optional

pleasant areas for banquets and entertainment with the olfactory, the visual

and acoustic ambiance of water structures, birds, and flowers/trees.

151 Saturnalia was a Roman festival, dedicated to Roman God Saturn. It took seven days, and

during the festival all work and business were postponed,

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Saturnalia-Roman-festival.

152 The visual articulation of convivium is often defined by the term energia in ancient

literature, which meant 'the means or strategy by which the art of bringing a described object

to mind’s eye is effected.' Energia refered to the vividness used to involve the audience within

a setting in a multi-sensory experience, so beautiful words, things worth seeing, and splendid

fatures gained importance and tried to be achieved in the interiors with various design

elements like decorative objects and water features like a nymphaeum, Platts, 2020, 165.

153 People who dined at tabernae or popinaea were exposed to the challenging atmosphere

of the urban texture; intense smell of fish and garlic in the typical menu, the odor of urban

excrement in the avenues and high-volume, crowded murmur of the city explains the

importance of special dining arrangements in theelite houses, Potter, 2015, 125-126.

56

By the second century, private, sponsored spectacles, combined with imperial

games, spread through the society. Private spectacles as real-time shows

could be staged during banqueting, particularly in an open area such as

colonnaded courtyards, which had direct visual contact with the triclinium, or

in bath complexes before/after the banqueting.154 The performances were

articulated by a colorful and lavish décor in both the dining room and its

visual extension, the colonnaded garden.155 A decorated nymphaeum, in this

respect, acted as a stage element, combined with luxury objects like textiles,

sculptures, and the sight and smell of a garden. The change of daylight in a

real-time show, combined with the illusion of water reflections and sound,

created sensory states for the visitors. The position of fountains could well

have determined the boundaries of the stage; because of their three-

dimensional characteristic. In the bath complexes, the visitors could enjoy

both recreational cleansing and watch the games in a pleasant atmosphere.

Bathing in the social context of public baths was a routine activity not only

for the Roman elite but also for all social classes. Bath complexes provided

socializing in a lavish environment for every individual, independent of social

status, whereas nudity brought some social equality, though for only a short

time. As a widespread cultural practice, the elite could mimic public bathing

in the form of a social event in their dwellings as well, a practice that

distinguished them from the socially inferior.

Private baths were established in large elite houses. The owners benefited

from the advantages of accessing running water, and hence they could

comfortably transform spaces into baths suits with an extension to open areas.

The House of Centennial, House of Julia Felix, House of Menander, House

of Silver Wedding, and House of Vestals exemplify the private baths found

in Pompei. (Figure 61) The private baths of Roman houses transformed the

idea of cleansing into a socialized entity. Baths of House of Silver Wedding

154 Stephenson, 2016, 56, 58, 59, 63.

155 Özgenel, 2000, 248, 254-255.

57

and House of Menander had close relations with kitchens that supported the

other social rituals as banqueting merged into cleansing and multi-sensorial

pleasure besides the mutual utilization of wastewater management and

distribution of clean, running water. House of Vestals, House of Julia Felix,

House of Menander, and House of Silver Wedding had private open areas

suitable for leisurely walking and offered perspectives of the interior to the

visitors, a manifestation of social status. The private baths in these houses

were integrated with social areas such as courtyards, triclinia, or oeci rather

than private living quarters of the core family, which might be seen as a

demonstration of the social consumption of bath complexes together with

invited guests and as indicators of wealth and luxury.

The physical pleasure of public baths, such as lavishly designed outdoor

areas, marble interiors, artistic depictions of Nilotic themes, heroes, or

mythological, was reproduced in the domestic setting in the form of private

balnea. One of the remarkable examples was in the House of Centennial. A

nymphaeum placed in front of the pool had cascades of marble steps and a

Nilotic landscape surrounding the swimming pool, which imitated the

decoration of the Forum Baths, the Sarno, and Suburban. (Figures 59 and 60)

The pool was surrounded by a crypta, decorated by a dado illustrating exotic

birds in the garden. The upper frieze also included a maritime landscape with

fish and birds.156

Selected examples (Figures 62, 63, 64, and 65) aim to illustrate the

contribution of water elements to the dynamics of the social and spatial

arrangement of special meetings within the house.

156 Esposito, 2021, 57.

58

House of Tragic Poet

In the House of Tragic Poet (see also Figure 44), the spacious single-room

shops (3) on both sides of the door and probably owned by the house owner

reveal the importance of the tablinum for salutatio. The angle of the fauces

suggests a primary axis for salutatio movement from the left side. The

lararium meets the eye in the first place during walking, which is a dominant

architectural structure. The marble puteal at the left corner of the atrium

should have served the daily routines of the house rather than an ornamental

choice. The impluvium, on the other hand, combined with the aquatic painting

that portrayed a composition of Amphitrite and Poseidon, completed the

lavish vista of the decorum of the atrium; the depiction brought the image of

water to the semi-public part of the house, and the primary axis gives the

opportunity for a close look at the painting. (Figure 44, upper right). The

primary movement axis, reaching from the left side of the tablinum, also

offered a wider range of the green areas of the colonnaded courtyard, which

might have acted as backstage texture. However, the secondary axis provided

a broader panoramic perspective that variation of daylight-shadow

configuration influenced the perception of painting.

The primary axis of banqueting offered to pass through the tablinum.157 The

triclinium benefited visually from the square garden, looking to the lararium,

and could communicate with the outside through the back garden door

(Figure 44, see left below). The spacious triclinium (15) in the back courtyard

had the view of a lararium, rather than a fountain, perhaps as a sign of

importance given to household gods than to lavish pools or fountains.

However, the secondary axis from the secondary entrance, through a narrow

corridor adjacent to the tablinum, might have been used for reception. In this

case, the impluvium became a dominant pleasure and wealth status from both

sides. The close relationship between the triclinium and the kitchen might

157 Although the house had one more entrance at the back of the house (number 16), the

entrance labelled (1) is accepted as the main entrance in relation to the canonic fauces, atrium

and tablinum axis and layout of the domus.

59

cause unwanted odor and noise, yet, the service could be faster. This house is

noteworthy also for the unusually placed latrine (14A), which was

conveniently located to serve best the rear court and the triclinium; in several

Pompeian houses, latrines were instead found in the service areas and often

near the street entrance. It is likely that the banqueters and guests used

chamber pots to urinate in such houses, which were then carried to the latrines

by the slaves. In the House of the Tragic Poet, on the other hand, the rooms

opening to the colonnaded courtyard had easy access to the latrine, which

provided comfort for both the family and the visitors.

House of Silver Wedding

The House of Silver Wedding (see also Figure 43) provided a symmetrical

approach while passing along the impluvium from the entrance to the

tablinum. The compluvium and impluvium were larger than those of the House

of Tragic Poet, which might reflect the house owner’s wealth, offered more

pleasant light and sound reflections during the day, and supported the

extended distance from the entrance to the tablinum. The columns also

strengthened the centrality of the impluvium and created more focus points to

the water, which could have been on the water as wellThe green area in the

smaller peristyle with an opening that completed the landscape frame of the

tablinum. Although visitors' gaze reached behind the tablinum upon entering

the atrium, the social consumption of water was not an issue in the small

peristyle (6) as it lacked a water feature. Unlike several other Pompeian

houses, the peristyle planned typically on the linear axis of the house did not

offer any water decoration, neither a nymphaeum nor an aquatic wall painting.

However, the pipe system in the small peristyle suggests water utilization for

irrigation in the green area.

The house provided more pleasant and luxurious alternatives for banqueting

and spectacle arrangements due to its grand size. Visitors reached the

60

triclinium158 by passing through the atrium, considering the primary axis.

Although the range of vision is deprived of elaborated water features, the

bathing suit could be utilized to experience a relaxing session before/after the

banqueting to where visitors were directly taken from the secondary axis. The

location of the kitchen adjacent to the bath also affirmed the interwoven

communication of social meetings. The bath, which included an open pool,

was a luxury and a status item for the house owner. The unique space of the

house was the larger peristyle and the summer triclinium with a pool located

at the northern part of the house. The summer triclinium offered a recreational

experience159 that took advantage of the pool, sunlight, landscape, and fresh

air. The space was convenient for leisurely walking and to stage spectacles

during banqueting, without encountering any distractions. The large peristyle,

in this regard, must have served intensely for recreational and social purposes,

such as open-air banqueting, doing physical exercises, and spending leisure

time. It was indeed, in the character of a private park, which must have been

an ideal playground for children as well.

The triclinium and room 15 were in this peristyle area but were located off-

centered with respect to it and did not have a full view of the garden and its

porticoes; the best vista they captured was the south portico. The exedra (13)

and the two neighboring rooms (14), on the other hand, had a commanding

view of the peristyle, which also gave access to the private bath section of the

house, in which room (7), presumably a changing room, was entered directly

158 Although triclinium is an accepted common dining space, the house offers other reception

rooms like the living room and exedra where social events could have taken place.

159 According to Pliny the Elder, some of the most significant daily practices during otium,

the non-work and leisure time, were writing, particularly the creation of literature, walking,

and recreation, which indeed defined the essence of villa culture. Spaces such as porticos and

xystus functioned as recreational spaces that could be used for lingering, walking, exercising,

and resting in both the domus and villa, to which can be added the garden area itself. Cicero,

L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Lutatius Catulus, too, drew specific attention to movement,

mainly leisurely walking in the gardens or porticos during otium, an activity associated with

Greek philosophers' intellectual conversations, Zarmakoupi, 2014, 88, 90. The movement of

the body was connected to the traveler's gaze, and the acquisition of knowledge took

reference from theoria; the word came to be used more commonly for traveling to explore

other places, people, and the culture; the famous Greek thereoi were Odyssey, Solon, and

Herodotus, whose traveling were associated with wisdom, O’ Sullivan, 2006, 133-140.

61

from the peristyle. Around the peristyle then were a number of significant

socializing spaces, including triclinia, exedrae, and a private bath. This

accumulation suggests that while the small peristyle (6) itself did not have a

water installation in the garden section, it could well have been used as an

extension of social spaces, as an activity and performance area; for example,

for staging games and entertainments during banquets or as exercising,

walking, and resting venue during bathing sessions.

An ample amount of water was directed to the bath complex, kitchen, atrium,

and the peristyle garden in this house, indicating a luxurious consumption and

a conspicuous one. Undoubtedly, the well-watered gardens in the peristyles

and the private bath provided an upscale medium for experiencing bodily and

mental pleasures.

House of Vetti

The House of Vetti (see also Figure 41) lacked a traditional tablinum;

however, two alae at the end of the atrium could have met the function. The

impluvium was positioned at the central position in a square atrium; however,

walls located at the passage (one wide entrance and two smaller gates) to the

peristyle and the columns of the peristyle in the background offer different

vistas for the visitor while turning either to left or right alae; various planting

and fountains were on the perspective and gave further clues about the

availability of water and support the idea of using water as wealth, status and

lavish decoration item. The shallow pool identified the central core of the

atrium and matched with the roof opening above. The design of the space was

undoubtedly intentional, and the still water in the pool and the filtering

sunlight were designed to give visitors a sense of outdoor space, a public aura.

The pool could well have also served as a marker of passage between the

semi-private atrium, which neighboured the public street, and the tranquil,

more private peristyle courtyard.

62

Following the primary axis of banqueting, the triclinium opened to the

peristyle and captured the garden area in full visual perspective. In this

perspective, apart from the green landscape, were two fountains with basins,

sculptures, and benches. The fountain closer to the triclinium naturally

offered a more intense visual and acoustical pleasure, while the distant one

supported the general ambiance of the space. The latter indeed served in a

similar way for the exedra located nearby, functioned as a decoration focus,

and provided the sight and sound of water to those resting in the space. The

peristyle, which could be sensed visually from the vestibulum was

experienced and enjoyed by the household and also by those visitors who

were invited to this more private part of the domus. This area was designed

as a garden which was elaborated as a monumental decorum, a showcase of

luxury and aesthetics, inviting the beholders to consume it visually and

physically via such recreational activities as walking, relaxing, reading,

reciting, and banqueting.

Due to the grand scale of the house, social meetings were articulated more

freely in and outside the house. For instance, the second atrium (3) found in

the service area must have provided exceptional privacy for the slaves as it

was a spacious hall, physically separated from the main atrium (1) and

peristyle courtyard, had private circulation, and even a lararium. As an

introverted and airy space with daylight, it can also be considered a luxury

for the household staff. The main atrium and the rear peristyle provided ample

indoor space for the core family, who could spend time in both as well as the

triclinium, the main reception space planned in the garden area. Fed by

running water, the kitchen (8) was related to the service atrium, yet it was not

much distanced from both the peristyle garden and the upper story, which was

reached by a staircase located at the atrium, and hence served efficiently for

both family meals and social banquets. The house did not have a private bath.

63

House of Julius Polybius

At the House of Julius Polybius (see also Figure 68), the tablinum was off the

central axis; however, the wider part of the impluvium could serve as the

primary axis of direction. The initial courtyard (B) prevented the complete

perception of the impluvium at the beginning, but from the C part, the modest

size of the atrium allowed a full perception. The puteal also provides a

cognitive axis to the center of the tablinum.

Following the primary axis for banqueting, the other puteal at the colonnaded

courtyard acted as a border to support the east portico, surrounded by columns

on the left and cupboards on the right. The lack of a nymphaeum was

compensated by the marine theme wall painting on the surrounding walls of

the colonnaded courtyard, which also included plant and fruit representations.

The storage elements and the landscape paintings replaced the status of

natural and artificial water structures during the banqueting movement.

However, the secondary axis from the narrow corridor could have led visitors

directly to the colonnaded courtyard, and reaching from the east corner of the

courtyard would offer a wider optical frame and provide a recreational walk.

The secondary atrium with an impluvium, which served as a service quarter,

eliminated encounters between slaves and clients. The service and kitchen

area were far from the triclinium, but the kitchen had direct access to the main

atrium. The impluvium in the kitchen area could provide an advantage for

daily routines.

House of Large Fountain

In the House Large Fountain (see also Figure 66), the difference between the

right and left sides of the impluvium could have directed the movement to the

left side, the primary axis, since there was a straight wall rather than a

staircase and rooms as in the right. However, although the ornamented

nymphaeum, which gives the name to the house, is at the center for the

64

client/visitors coming from the right side of the impluvium, they could have a

broader perception of the portico and the greenery, which strengthens the

visual pleasure of the fountain. Although the depth of the garden was narrow,

the horizontal extension at the location, including the nymphaeum and the

green area, created a powerful and attractive backstage for the decorum.

The position of the door of the triclinium, which opened to the atrium,

suggests that the primary axis operated from the right side of the impluvium.

In this case, the other entrances provided pleasure vistas of the garden during

the meeting. Although the open layout offers a lavish scene of the garden with

the magnificent nymphaeum from the entrance, the visual perception of the

secondary axis was broadened. While the perpendicular location of the

triclinium to the garden reduced the vista of the nymphaeum, the openings on

three sides compensated for the situation; the impluvium and the garden were

in the viewpoint. The ornamented nymphaeum provided both a visual and

auditory sensual pleasure during the banquet. The kitchen was reached by a

hidden corridor, taking advantage of the elevation difference, and provided

both an easy access for banqueting service and kept away to some degree the

odor and noise of the kitchen works from the reception room.

House of Venus Marine

The movement flow between the entrance and the tablinum in the House of

Venus Marine was a symmetrical one with respect to the impluvium (Figure

42). However, if the visitor approached from the left side, he could have a

more comprehensive visual frame for the marine-themed wall painting at the

rear wall of the colonnaded courtyard and benefit from the wide perception

of the portico and the greenery. Another marine-themed painting right across

the wall of space 11 became visible to someone who stood at the north portico

before entering the tablinum. This layout illustrates the relationship between

the spatial syntax and the water features. The unusual layout of the tablinum

could be done consciously to make visitors engage with the rear painting at

65

the colonnaded courtyard; the absence of an ornamented nymphaeum could

well have been compensated with the colored marine painting while also

enabling a circulation freed from the guidance of visual landmarks like water

features in the house.

The courtyard surrounded by colonnades only on three sides was not fully

aligned with the atrium, but the two were linked both visually and physically.

The impluvium, which defined a dynamic presence in the relatively dim

atrium, oriented the passage from the atrium to the back garden, as in several

other Pompeian houses, and supplied water for daily routines and private

rituals. If water was required during a salutatio it could also be taken from

the impluvium as well.

The house provided alternative rooms for festive dining (number 6 is

identified as triclinium while number 5 could have also been utilized as a

triclinium). The impluvium could offer visual and acoustic delight for room

6, and the marine-themed painting on the rear wall of the colonnaded

courtyard and the outer wall of room 11 could appeal to the visitors by the

optical illusions referring to exotic landing, sea-vistas, and painted fountains.

The secondary axis of banqueting could be chosen before/after the dining for

a recreational walk and a closer look at the marine-themed painting in the

courtyard. The location of the service area and the lack of a nymphaeum might

suggest that the house owner had no private access to running water, and the

marine-themed wall painted made an allusion to a water scenery. The houses

did not have a private bath, and no latrine is identified though It could have

been positioned in the service area which had the infrastructure of running

water. Vessels, instead, were offered to visitors during dining.

The house was elaborated not so much with physical water installations but

with wall paintings that depicted aquatic subjects. The marine painting, which

covered the entire wall at the south colonnade, formed a backdrop for the

green garden and was the visual extension of the visitors' gaze from the

66

atrium, the large room 5, and the ambulacrum (8). Yet, while the aquatic

themes embellished the setting, the absence of a nymphaeum in the garden

area deprived the lavish agency of water in enhancing the social consumption

of food and entertainment in the banqueting receptions. The aquatic themes

painted on the south wall of the colonnaded courtyard and the outer wall of

space 11, however, were in the vision of visitors' gaze from the tablinum,

which could also serve as a triclinium, perhaps more so in summer times.

Running water in the domestic context was already a privilege, a sign of status

and exclusivity in Roman society; wall paintings that mimicked natural water

features and landscapes reinforced this status more. Thus, many gardens in

the Pompeian houses, like the House of Venus Marine, displayed

representations of exotic and mysterious landscapes and water-related

depictions.

House of Small Fountain

The layout of the House of Small Fountain also defined a central axis to the

tablinum, and the impluvium with a puteal acted as a labeling feature for the

approach from the main entrance. (see also Figure 67) As in the House of

Large fountain, the open spatial layout made the nymphaeum and the green

area at the rear of the house visible to the visitors. Indeed the position of the

nymphaeum not at the front but at the back wall of the courtyard increased the

sense of the depth of the interior, which might have compensated for the

modest size of the house. The other primary axis from the secondary entrance

benefitted only from the impluvium in the atrium 3A. However, the openings

of the oecus connected the two atria, and the two impluvia accompanied the

movement. This atrium led to a more private zone behind the tablinum and

also connected to the garden area, which might have been utilized for more

intimate meetings.

Following the primary axis, the visitors could reach the triclinium, passing

through the tablinum, and benefit from the garden's complete vista, merged

67

with the lavishly decorated tablinum. However, from the secondary entrance,

the guests could have a chance to follow the narrow corridor near the

tablinum; walking parallel to the longitudinal side of the rectangular garden,

they could have met the impluvium at the right and nymphaeum on the left

that reinforced the lavish ambiance achieved by water features. The position

and the opening direction of the triclinium offered a broader vista to the

nymphaeum and garden; however, the existence of two tablina might be taken

to attest to the importance of formal saluatio next to banqueting. Indeed, the

access from the secondary tablinum (in front of the atrium 3A) through the

rooms (possibly cubicula) closer to the garden area and portico suggests that

the garden and porticoes were utilized for the daily recreational activities of

the family when there were no banqueting or related events.

House of Loreius Tiburtinus

The extensive House of Loreius Tibertius lacked a tablinum; the colonnaded

courtyard (6) might have been used for the salutatio. The distance between

the fauces, and the rear peristyle area (6) was traversed like traveling through

a natural context, as in Homer’s descriptions; the perpendicular position of

the movement axis with the small euripi, running in front of the courtyard (6),

offers an instinct and mystery for the search of the depth of the house (Figure

69).

The main triclinium (7) took advantage of the intersection of two eurupi

which gave a dramatic background for banqueting and spectacles. The

biclinium (8), surrounded by Narcissus’ story concerning water in Ovid's

Metamorphoses, and the nymphaeum between the couches provided an exotic

world for visitors. Gardens, indeed, were designed with water features and

plants that symbolized nature and provided seclusion, security, tranquility,

and wellness.160

160 The Persian prince Cyrus found safety working in his paradise garden. On the other hand,

Socrates and Phaedrus also selected a restorative, grassy, under-planted tree to discuss their

discourse on the nature of the soul. Epicurus found serenity for the spirit in nature; he was

68

3.2.6. Water as Representation and Status

The magnitude of any Roman house manifested in size and/or decoration,

hence in terms of representation and wealth. Wall paintings, mosaic floors,

and sculptural items were the primary visible luxury tools.161 Rich interior

panoramas were applied in the domestic context, even in small rooms, such

as cubicula. Majestic representations adorned the reception spaces.

Significantly, the decoration of a specific quantity and context in function-

specific rooms showed the status of the rooms, linked with social activity.162

Water features were utilized to foster luxury and socio-economic status in the

colorful interior settings. Water-based luxury was attested in the relatively

public spaces in the domus, such as triclinium, exedra, atrium, and peristyle,

where the elite rituals took place.

Water was consumed as a visual pleasure as well as a relaxing medium in the

elite houses. Literary sources mention that sunbathing and stable bronze tan

became fashionable, and swimming became a luxury interest during the first

century BC in the lives of the Roman aristocrats. Decorative pools adorned

the Roman houses more intensely in the Imperial Period. Circular basins

merged into rectangular areas were seen in the House of the Tower of

Vesunna in Gaul, House of Columns at Volubilis, and House of Hunt in

Pompeii. The House of Centenary and House of Bracelet in Pompeii, House

of Calendar in Antioch, House of Alcazaba de Mérida in Spain, and House of

the Polychrome Mosaic in Gaul had pools designed in apsidal forms. Water

recorded as the inventor of the Roman pleasure garden that merged into interiors, Giesecke,

2001, 13.

161 Nineteenth century political economists identified the term luxury to define all forms of

private consumption not for health or working productivity. Luxury differs from comfort in

terms of providing positive pleasure by the freedom in the choice beside eliminating

discomfort, Sidgwick, 1894, 2-4. While luxury was a cultural phenomenon the Greco-Roman

writers of the first century BC and Roman writers of the Imperial period complained about

its spread. They mostly highlighted the difference between rich and poor lives and according

to them, luxury was not a matter of economics and wealth delivery but a moral issue, Mayer,

2012, 23, 24.

162 Wallace-Hadrill, 1994, 6, 28,145, 149.

69

installations could be further elaborated to increase their spatial and

experiential effect. Semicircular fountain apses and linear pools, called ̍ Nileˈ,

for example, were exemplified in the showy houses in Roman Africa, as in

the House of Large Oecus. Water channels supplied by water jets could be

applied to provide motion, sound, and aesthetics to the gardens,163 while

fishponds equipped with saltwater to create the optimal atmosphere for the

living conditions of aquatic life, sustain movement within the fishpond, and

set temperature by adding freshwater were the novel arrangements used to

animate an underwater concept.164 Water, indeed, also assumed an operative

role and acted as a cognition agency in the spatial coding of the house and the

social eminence of the household, serving as a landmark for the social and

reception-oriented spaces. The visitors were thus immersed in the social and

intimate lives of the households and engaged together in the representational

context of the houses.

The garden was the major locus of water-based decorum. Pools, fountains,

water jets, and nymphaeum are the main design elements of the system, which

were commonly located at the center of courts or near the porticoes. Elevated

surfaces to control water flow with surface grading and gutters could also be

designed to obtain visual and acoustic effects of flowing water.165 One of the

vital features distinguishing pleasure gardens from heredium166 was water

articulation. Hellenistic houses had luxurious courtyards and peristyle, and

the Romans not only adapted them to their private context but also introduced

“garden peristyle” and attached it to reception and socializing rooms, like

triclinia, oecus, exedra in a particular way. Planted courtyards, merged with

elaborate decoration elements like sculptures and water features, served as a

circulation area between all the surrounding rooms, presenting to those

163 Morvillez, 2018, 47-51.

164 Zarmakoupi, 2014, 166.

165 Gleason and Palmer, 2018, 391.

166 The heredium refers to a vegetable or an orchard garden, , Morvillez, 2018, 18.

70

moving around, more than anything else, a visually pleasing and aesthetic

atmosphere.167

Among the houses that displayed a water-based manifestation of wealth,

status, and luxury in Pompeii are the House of Ephebe, House of Loreius

Tibertinus, House of Faun, House of Pygmies, House of Ceii, House of

Centennial, and House of Menander. These houses utilized either size, that is,

a grand-scale spatial layout or a water-associated decorum to manifest status,

wealth, and luxury; they had ornamental garden designs with nymphaea and

several water structures placed in various rooms, as well as Nilotic and

marine-themed decorations.

House of Loreius Tiburtinus/Octavius Quartio in Pompeii was an abode of

luxury consumption. Located in the larger part of the insula II 168 and entered

from the north side of Via dell’Abbondanza this was a genuinely majestic

residence. (Figure 69) The entrance (1) led to the atrium (2), which lacked

the tablinum typical found on the same axis.169 The marble-paved atrium had

an impluvium and a fountain with a vertical spout, and its colonnaded

courtyard (6) had a viridarium (pleasure garden) that opened to the triclinium

(7) and oecus (5). On the wall of room 4, designed as an ala that opened to

the atrium, was a depiction of fishing Venus on a red ground. The house's

most remarkable aesthetic and luxury features were the two euripi

(ornamental pools). The shorter one had Bacchic scenes with substantial

garden statues and mythical paintings of Lucius from Ovid’s Metamorphoses,

which might have been utilized to reflect the intellectual aspiration of the

owner. An aedicula running between the two dining couches (8) (biclinium)

(a structure including niches commonly served as a shrine) included a

kneeling boy statue pouring water from an amphora and a fountain that

167 Morvillez, 2018, 18, 19, 20.

168 The presence of numerous public wells beneath the oldest houses, indicated that the area

of the insula was once a farmland, Nappo, 2009, 348.

169 Wilkonson, 2017, 161.

71

provided water visuality and sound. The longer euripus was built in the

spacious garden (11) landscaped with shady plants and fruit trees with a

fountain with several spigots and a vertical jet in the aedicula of two eurupi.

The water was supplied by the castellum plumbeum (lead-lined reservoir)

found at the north corner of the insula.170 It is thus notable that the house

owners made use of water as a wealth issue more than any other tool.

House of Faun, originally dating to the Samnite period, was one of the

grandest houses of Pompeii. (Figure 70) The front part of the house was

organized around two atria (2 and 24) surrounded by cubicula and guest

rooms; space 2 includes an impluvium. The primary rooms of the house are;

the tricilinia (35 and 6) placed on both sides of the tablinum (4), the first

peristyle (7) with 28 Ionic columns and included a fountain and basin at the

center of the garden, exedra (8) which is framed by decorative Corinthian

columns and a Nile themed mosaic-floor, two summer triclinia (10 and 9)

looking towards the second peristyle that had Doric porticos, two alae (3 and

3A), cubicula (rooms 31, 27, 28, 29, and 33); the wet spaces included part of

the kitchen (16), toilet (18) and bath (19). The size of the house enabled to

separate daily operations from the entertaining guests. The size of the bath

seems more proper for daily consumption rather than social cleansing with

visitors, but it had access to the peristyle. The central but hidden location of

the service area, including the bath, kitchen, and latrine was convenient to

support both daily and social utilization of water.171

House of the Menander met the character of the canonical domus with its axial

spatial flow from fauces to the atrium and tablinum (8).172 (Figure 71) The

Rhodian-style large peristyle included a summer triclinium and a fountain

170 Nappo, 2009, 363.

171 Wilkonson, 2017, 125-134.

172 Ibid.,, 192.

72

pool. A sumptuous dining room (18) and two oeci or cubicula173 (15 and 19)

were lavishly decorated. The bath complex (46-49) with an atrium (45),

kitchen (27), latrine (26), impluvium of the atrium, and the fountain pool in

the garden were the wet spaces of the house. The hortus (50), stable (29),

courtyard (34), several rooms reserved for production, and amphora show the

economic prosperity and high-ranking status of the owner as well as a large

amount of water consumption for daily functions.174 The house was located

in insula I, the older part of the city, and was designed like a suburban villa;

the residential section, the service area, and areas of agricultural production

were detached from each other. An oversize wall painting in the atrium175

illustrates a seaside villa and could have been positioned to signal the passage

to the garden and an allusion to a far-away landing. (Figure 72)

The big houses in Pompeii display a more flexible utilization of water features

as they had the advantage of having a large occupation area with several

rooms and outsized open areas that were fitted with various water features.

Open spaces with water jets, eurupi, and garden ensembles acted as a stage

for banqueting and spectacle and were suitable for outdoor activities like

recreational walking around water features and dining in the company of a

water scene sound and cool environment. Indeed the distanced relationship

between reception areas and service zones in such large houses helped to

eliminate unwanted noisy interruptions and odor.

Recreation of natural environments indeed symbolized a microcosm of

conquered cultures, history, and time; the users could experience real and

mythical times in houses with showy gardens and peristyles.176 Capturing

173 Number 17, accessible from number 16 is accepted cubicle also for more personal space,

Varriale, 2012, 166.

174 The house is though to be owned by Quintus Poppeus, a relative of the Empress Poppea

Sabina, second wife of Nero (http://pompeiisites.org/en/archaeological-site/house-of-the-

menander/), whose bronze family seal was found in the slave quarter, Wilkonson, 2017, 192.

175 Varriale, 2012, 170.

176 Newby, 2012, 355, 359.

73

native water in domus via physical installations could be an aspiration to

mythical times because rivers, water sources, and springs were considered

life-giving and sustaining. In some cases, the representation of aquatic themes

on walls might have also served as an alternative to physical water

arrangements.

Conquered landscapes of Hellenistic kingdoms indeed contributed to

Romans' cultural transformation in art, architecture, and lifestyle. Among the

most prominent examples that show Greek cultural influence was the

Palestrina Nile Mosaic177 and Odyssey Frieze178, both of which stand as a

symbol of Rome’s overseas interest in creating familiar scenes of

mythological figures, and the environment of the Underworld.179 Egypt was

introduced into the collective memory of Roman art and architecture as a

matter of triumph after its conquest. Egyptian subject matters became

reflected in the wall painting figures depicting sphinxes or the Nile river that

appeared in third style wall paintings, for example, reflected not only

paterfamilias' intellectual and financial capacity but also his will to reflect the

glory of the empire.180 Depiction of the Nile River in aquatic themes,

particularly as a garden design element, animated further water-based

scenarios, such as water channels going through porticos as a mimesis of

going on an excursion. From the end of the second century BC, with the

launch of the Nile Mosaic in Praeneste, the illustration of the Egyptian

pictorial landscape became a visual theme that symbolized the colonization

177 The mosaic occupied an apsidal nymphaeum on one end of a long basilica in the city of

Praeneste in Rome, Merrills 2017, 51.

178 Scenes from Odysseus’ legendary travel was the theme of a mid-first century Roman wall-

painting found on Esquiline Hill,

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/papers-of-the-british-school-at-

rome/article/abs/ralegh-radford-rome-scholarship-the-odyssey-frieze-a-roman-wallpainting-

of-the-first-century-bce-considered-in-a-spatial-and-cultural-

context/05E69E79FE2C58A8D0B38538918FF5D8.

179 Bergmann, 2001, 154.

180 Barrett, 2017, 314, 318-319.

74

of a distinct land.181 (Figure 73) The conquest generated touristic travels to

Egypt, with which Egyptian material culture was transported to various

settings, from public and private spaces to objects and decoration trophies.

Some early imperial domestic sceneries included Aegyptiaca182 mosaics,

statuaries, lamps, jewelry, and seals. The Nilotic theme decorated dining

halls, in particular, which became the primary spaces where a natural garden

and an imaginary, exotic, and far-away landscape and culture could

amalgamate.183 Euripi, nilli, the private water channels that served as an

allusion to the river Nile, became signatures of some elite houses. The

addition of deity representations and statues of animal gods and Egyptian

deities, besides water features, also accompanied such reconstructed and

imaginary settings.

The Egyptian exotic was mimicked with a domestic syntax in a number of

Pompeian houses. The House of Ephebe, also known as the House of P.

Cornelius Tages (a freedman wine merchant), is an example of a wealthy

middle-class merchant house enhanced at the end of the first century AD.184

181 Some scholars argue that the garden design in Rome was a colonialization movement.

Pollard (2009) , for instance, create a relationship between the catalogue of Pliny the Elder’s

‘Natural History’, written in 70s BC, with the Flavian Templum Pacis. Some of the large

gardens, such as Horti Agrippae, Horti Luculliani, and Horti Sallustiani were also important

illustrations of adopting to the colonization concept of Roman power: Planting and

landscaping works done in these famous gardens were tied to the aftermath of military

conquest. Individiuals were also prone to grow non indigenous plants and vegetables in their

private 'Roman soil' because the contex of the city garden was a triumphal celebration of the

conquests, Pollard, 2009, 311, 312, 321.

182 Various types of material culture imported from Egypt is called Aegyptiaca, Barrett, 2019,

10.

183 In villas, furthermore, it is mentioned that the guests used boats to reach the dining areas

designed as separate islands, or removable bridges to strengthen the illusion of arriving at

cave-shaped dining areas. To create a travel experience light and sound effects were also

used; in a way animating the travel of Odysseus who had overcome the storm and beat the

sea, Neby, 2012,359. In the first century A.D villa at Sperlonga, which may have belonged

to Tiberius, the triclinium stretched out towards the artificially filled basin in a cave, and was

adorned with natural landscape and sculptures. Although the grotto was natural, the planting,

Homer-themed sculptures and the basin's organization as a rectangular platform of the

triclinium were features designed to articulate water and bring it close to the diners, to make

them experience an episode of the history, Macaulary-Lewis, 2018, 103. 184 Merrils, 2017, 107, 116-119.

75

The house was re-shaped by merging several houses during 60-70 BC.185

(Figure 74) It had two atria; one (2), which met the vestibule (1), and the

other (3), including an impluvium. While the south and north walls of the first

atrium (2) were decorated in the fourth style, the second one was undecorated

at the time of the eruption. Next to the tablinum, was cubiculum (4) that had

mythological wall scenes, including a representation of Narcissus and

Echo,186 and Venus and Aphrodite. The other cubiculum (5) had a connection

to the winter triclinium and acted as its annex. A water channel that ran to a

pool in between the couches of summer triclinium in the garden and fed from

the fountain on the garden's south wall was the showiest water feature of the

house. The triclinium in the garden had panels depicting exotic architectural

structures and lands. At the center of the triclinium's eastern external panel

was a shrine probably devoted to Isis-Fortuna and surmounted by a sphinx.

(Figure 75) The western board also represented a small kiosk showing a

pornographic scene, water screws under an awning beside a river bank

surrounded by ducks, which symbolized the Nile River. (Figure 76) Indeed,

the story continued in the inner side of the masonry couches in the summer

triclinium and included exotic Nile animals, religious architectural

complexes, and activities. (Figures 76, 77, and 78)

Other houses that display Nilotic themes as part of the decorum are House of

Apollo, House of Chariots, House of Pygmies (Figures 79, 80, and 81), and

House of Ceii, which was a block away from the House of Ephebe. The

paintings that date to the 70s BC in the House of Ceii, particularly the one

dominating the visitor’s gaze entering the house in the south, illustrate exotic

wild animals, two painted fountains, each supported by a painted female

sphinx, and was placed in front of the masonry channels, that caught the

draining water from the roofs of the adjacent houses to the garden. (Figure

185 http://pompeiisites.org/en/archaeological-site/house-of-the-ephebe/.

186 The story of Narcissus and Echo is an abstract representation of water; the physical

character of water was transformed to a representational agency of pride., see Ovid, Book 3,

Narcissus and Echo.

76

82) The scene represents a paradiseos scene, found in the Hellenistic palaces,

and also fantastic hunting shows187 or venationes188 that were organized most

likely in the nearby amphitheater.189 And, the water channel in the House of

Loreius Tiburtinus at Pompeii, a combination of a long, linear basin that

joined a T-shaped one, and articulated with plants and flowers, is one of the

majestic representations of the Nile River in the Roman domestic context.190

187 According to the graffiti on the walls, the possible owner of the house was Lucius Caius

Secundus, who was selected as civic aedile and duovir in Pompeii, probably in the late70s,

and was responisble from the organization of shows, Merrills, 2017, 120.

188 A public spectacle that usually in relation with gladitaor shows and hunting animals,

https://www.britannica.com/sports/venationes.

189 Merrils, 2017, 109.

190 Feldman, 2014, 41.

77

CHAPTER 4

WATER NARRATIVES IN HOUSES OF ROMAN ANATOLIA

Ancient Anatolia, rich in water sources and home to a wide range of

civilizations, is a fertile context to address the cultural, sacred, and social use

of water. For instance, the springs and mountains in the Hittite landscapes

were associated with divine characteristics and considered 'suppi' settings.191

Hence the springs were not only seen as representations of goddesses but also

acted as a passage to the underworld. The Eflatûn Pınarı, a monument Hittite

water structure composed of two stone water basins and located at the

southern periphery of the Hittite Empire, for example, was a cult place.192 The

Urartian kings prioritized water management as well and constructed dams

and channels not only for daily necessities and irrigation but also as a political

agency to ensure the sustainability of the expanding population. For instance,

the cisterns and a possibly small canal that provided water for the extensive

vineyards attributed to Menua, known as the fifth king of Urartians, were

accepted as symbols of authority and power as they maintained the water

necessary to pursue the economic activities in the face of population

growth.193

The abundance of water sources and landscapes in Anatolia was known from

many Greek cities such as Miletos and topographical contexts like Mount Ida

as well. The significant karstic topography shaped by water drives formed the

springs at Mount Ida, a mythologically and hence culturally significant topos.

The geology that characterized many settlement locations induced Greek

191 The adjective suppi in Hittite vocabulary is commonly translated as 'sacred' and highlights

the link between an object and nature, particularly between the springs and the otherworld

that belonged to the gods and spirits, Mouton, 2015, 43.

192 Harmanşah, 2015, 56.

193 Burney, 1972, 180, 182.

78

colonizers to construct their cities on hills and in rocky environments due to

the management capacity of such settings to handle karstic water. Indeed, the

springs shaped by the karstic rock played an essential role in designing and

practicing religious and cultic places/activities. Another result of karstic

topography was the formation of thermal waters, as in Pergamene

Asklepieion and Hieropolis, that were used for wellness, ritual performances,

and even in achieving the famous purple color of Hierapolis.194

The development of hydraulic engineering and technical infrastructure of

water management started in the third century BC in Anatolia, as in other

Greek cities on the mainland. But the greatest advances were made in the

Roman period. Channeling water from natural sources such as springs and

aqueducts or harbor contexts, as in Ephesus, formed a developed

infrastructure that provided an economic advantage in the production of

several export goods, such as marble, glass, and also for textile processing

such as coloring. For instance, Hierapolis was rich in terms of thermal and

sulfuric water, which were used in textile coloring processes, and had at least

two aqueducts supported by tunnels, bridges, and terracotta pipe systems that

brought water to the city for daily usage and for public consumption. Indeed,

obtaining the Hierapolitan marble, which was used in the Roman monumental

decorum that adorned the city, also required a water-necessitated practice.195

According to inscriptions, there was a process to follow for funerals. For

instance, clothing was essential to honor ancestors, and dyers196 and wool

cleaners were one of the primary necessities. On the other hand, a wide range

of objects and activities demanded the involvement of nail and pottery

manufacturing demanded an ample amount of water consumption.

194 Feldman Weiss, 2003, 21, 22, 144, 145.

195 Ibid., 21, 22.

196 The textile production was very important in the local economy as understood from an

inscription found on a- tomb that identfied a man as a dyer of purple and a councillor, Levick,

2004, 190.

79

A significant urban, rural, physical and cultural symbol of water management

was the construction of aqueducts. Before the Roman Era, few Anatolian

cities, such as Ephesus and Pergamon, were fed by aqueducts: several big or

modest cities depended on rainwater cisterns.197 The political instability,

conflict, and war situations prevented the Hellenistic rulers from building

above-ground water infrastructures. Pax Romana198 provided opportunities to

transform cities. Anatolia, which came under Roman dominion in this period,

is one of the significant territories to trace the dozens of Roman water

structure projects.

They refurbished the water structures of Ariassos in Antalya, which are dated

initially to 189/9 BC, besides building an immense triumphal arch. The

Hellenistic fountain house of the city was renovated, new large cisterns were

built in front of the theatre, and a new pipeline was constructed to deliver

running water to the town. The construction of an aqueduct at the upper part

of the valley transformed the character of the whole area; the new nymphaeum

and the palaestra-bathhouse made water-based urban features the new norms

of public life in the city.199 Aspendos witnessed prosperity under Roman

control as in many other Anatolian cities. The aqueduct of Aspendos made a

significant contribution to the transformation of the urban silhouette, besides

the monumental nymphaeum, the grand theater, and the substantial bath

building, which were all built in the Roman era.200 The aqueduct was a major

hydraulic achievement of Roman engineering, before which water was

maintained from wells and cisterns. Ephesus is another significant urban

arena where Roman cultural features merged with the earlier Greek structures

197 Kerschbaum, 2022, 154.

198 The state of tranquility throughout the Mediterranean world from the reign of Augustus

(24 BC-14 AD) to the authority of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD). The Empire protected

and governed individual provinces, allowing each to make and administer its own laws while

accepting Roman taxation and military power, https://www.britannica.com/event/Pax-

Romana.

199 Owens, 2005, 33.

200 Ward Perkins, 1955, 115-118.

80

and formed a unique architectural language. For instance, the Hellenistic

fountain built in front of the Terrace house II continued to operate during the

Roman era. This fountain which was distinguished by its Doric order

provided water for daily utilization in the neighborhood and, as such, differed

from Romans' monumental water manifestations that were concretized with

urban nymphaea located at urban nodes. (Figure 83) the Nymphaeum Traiani

was such a monumental Roman edifice that it became a vital public

instrument in the planning of the new urban fabric. The structure had a large

pool surrounded by three monumental facades terminating with another

narrow pool in front of the street. (Figure 84) The Tiberius Claudius Piso's

nymphaeum at Sagalassos, built-in 160-180 AD, presents another

monumental façade with Hadrian status placed on the upper story, between

the bronze images of the benefactors.201 (Figure 85)

4.1. Domestic Architecture

With Roman power and administration, the cities in Anatolia became exposed

to rich cultural mobility and change in art and architecture in both the public

and private contexts, which eventually created a harmonized urban silhouette.

The Greek urban grid was altered with equal interest by the Roman planners,

who enhanced this favorite instrument by introducing new urban structures

or transforming and integrating the existing ones. In this respect, the idea of

stoa grew richly to include elaborate statues and to connect to various

buildings of Greek origin and Roman construction.202 One of the motives

behind the admiration of monumental streets and structures is that they

reverenced the traditional centers of culture and social life in a physically

imposing sense and could easily accommodate colossal statues. Termessos is

one example where honorific statues were erected in the colonnaded street in

the Roman period. As seen in many cases throughout the Roman era,

associating sculptures with columns was the withdrawal of a canonic

201 Ryan, 2018, 163.

202 Burns, 2017, 53-54.

81

representation of Greek public space, a proposal to correlate the elite with a

longstanding conception of the society with the new Roman identity. (Figure

87) Another example is Perge, whose urban character was also transformed

after the addition of a nymphaeum, a gated complex merged with statues of

the local elite, gods, and heroes, and an ornamental water channel that ran

through the center of the street; the new buildings were visually harmonized

by those of the past of the city, reflecting the ambitious social, cultural and

political attributes Romans implemented to the city and society.203 (Figure

88)

Romans' physical and social glorification in the provincial context was not

limited to public structures. Domestic architecture also became exposed to a

cultural change, and houses, from location to interiors, followed the process

of Romanization. The majority of the houses dated to the Roman period in

Anatolia demonstrate a long occupation history from the Hellenistic period to

Late Antiquity, making it difficult in most cases to read the traces of the

Hellenistic Era. The Classic Period houses, comparable to those in Olynthus,

exhibit the canonical Greek courtyard.204 For instance, similar to Greek

houses, rooms in Burgaz houses were radially oriented around the outdoor

space in the form of a courtyard. Commonly north part was occupied by

storage areas and food preparation while living quarters were planned on the

south side. Indeed, these houses were introverted as in Greek dwellings with

a single entrance from the street and benefited from natural light and

ventilation through the courtyard. However, there was no open vestibule or

wide portico as in Olynthian houses' traditional scheme.205

203 Ryan, 2018, 152, 163.

204 Before the Greek period, starting from 3000 th BC, there were megaron-type dwellings in

Anatolia. For instance, in Beycesultan settlement in Tarsus, most of the houses were planned

as contiguous rectangular plan schemes, and they did not have a central courtyard, but some

of them had front yards; they were designed as one large room and two smaller ones adjacent

to this extensive room. In the Geometric and Archaic periods, oval, rectangular, or apsidal

houses were designed separately but close enough to create fabric settlements, Gönül, 2008,

6-8.

205 Gökdemir, 2006, 44, 45.

82

A good case to look at the domestic architecture in Anatolia in the late

Classical and Hellenistic periods is Priene. The city was redesigned in a grid

plan in the fourth century BC. Several houses were unearthed as early as the

beginning of the 20th century. Though the finds were not contextually treated

and published, they provide information about the architectural layout of the

houses. Accordingly, the houses were built in regularly organized lots and

exhibit certain standards. They are planned as courtyard houses, with some

exceptional circumstances where the courtyards received colonnades. In a

few cases, there were peristyle courtyards, which dominated the Hellenistic

domestic architecture in especially the Eastern Mediterranean.206 An example

is House XV, which had three zones; a central courtyard divided by the living

quarters planned in the northern part and the shops in the southern part. The

planning scheme, as illustrated in this house, is identified as a prostas layout,

while a peristyle courtyard was also in use in Hellenistic Anatolia. The

courtyard was available from the long corridor reached from the single

entrance. The andron was accessible from prostas, and there was spatial flow

between prostas and the yard. The circulation following the entrance,

courtyard, and reception/social areas in relation to the courtyard shows

similarities to later Roman house organization in terms of providing visual

and social spots for visitors’ movement to the interiors.207 (Figure 89)

The houses in Roman Anatolia were designed as peristyle houses, a typology

that was already practiced in the Greek Era but lacked the central axis of the

Pompeian houses that linked the fauces- atrium-tablinum and the peristyle

courtyard. Thus the Roman atrium type of house exemplified superbly in the

Campanian sites did not dominate the housing contexts in Roman Anatolia,

although there are modest examples of atria in some Roman and Late Antique

houses.208 In the Anatolian context, both the local and Roman elite enjoyed

206 Uytterhoeven, 2019, 415.

207 Bilge, 2019, 68.


83

large and decorated peristyle houses, such as those exemplified in Ephesus

and Zeugma, while the less well-off families had lived, as expected, in modest

houses with or without courtyards and/or having workshops. In Late

antiquity, the elite houses became even more elaborate in scale, and spatial

articulation, which is well illustrated by the houses found at Xanthos,

Aphrodisias, Sardis, and Sagalassos.209

Water features were indispensable in the houses of Roman Anatolia. Water

was consumed in contexts similar to those that shaped the social use of houses

in Roman Italy and the provinces. The daily housework routines, such as

cleaning, washing, cooking, laundry as well bodily hygiene, took place in

kitchens and/or in spaces arranged in courtyards and/or porticoes that were

supplied with running water and hence could function as service areas; bodily

cleansing took place in latrines and in private baths which constituted the

major wet-spaces; ritual activities such as salutatio, banqueting or family

rituals took place in reception spaces like triclinium, exedra, and/or courtyard,

where water served as one of the main transformative architectural elements.

Studies on water supply, drainage, and infrastructure in public and private

contexts in Roman Anatolia are not many, but such water collecting and

supplying features like fountains, basins, cisterns, and wells, were found in

all private houses, often in the courtyards. Elaborate private fountains began

to adorn the houses from the first century onwards. The construction of new

aqueducts and related water and piping systems in the first and second

centuries AD, no doubt, enabled the elite dwellings and public water edifices

to receive continuous running water.

The availability of running water in large capacities enabled the construction

of private baths, one of the leisure articulations found in many Pompeian

houses. The private bath suits were generally located close to the entrance,

where service areas and other water-demanding spaces were planned,

209 Yegül and Favro, 2019, 696.

84

possibly to benefit from the same piping infrastructure and to have the

shortest accessibility to the street drainage system. Eas access to wet spaces,

in particular to latrines from the peristyle/courtyards and reception rooms,

was an advantage, for the participants of receptions could use them. The

private baths found in the wealthy houses were used by the family to perform

bodily cleansing, but undoubtedly they also served as leisure spaces where

social bathing with friends and social peers could take place in the company

of water pleasures. Besides the sound of water, the refreshing feeling and

relaxation of getting wet and clean, aromatic oil scents, and smelling

perfumes mixed with burnt wood and charcoal must have provided a

multisensory pleasure experience, an aspect of elite culture.

4.2. Zeugma: Sumptuous Display and Blessing of Water in Hot Climate

Zeugma was located near modern Belkis Village, 10 km east from Nizip, in

Gaziantep. The terrain on which the city was built was rocky, characterized

by low-lying shrubs and pistachio trees. The city was established as Seleucia

by one of the commanders of Alexander the Great in the third century BC.

After the Roman conquest in 64 BC, its name was changed to Zeugma, which

means bridge or crossing. Zeugma referred to a pair of towns built at the

opposite banks of the river Euphrates; the one on the west was called Seleucia,

and the east Apameain, where the Roman legion of Legio III Scythica was

stationed in the first century AD.210 One of the main routes that connected the

Mediterranean and Mesopotamia passed from Antioch Zeugma. The road

leading to Tigris via Zeugma and Edessa (Şanlıurfa) passed through the well-

watered landscape, which formed a plentiful fertile agricultural setting. One

other route, which became significant in the second century, passed through

Palmyra to the south of Zeugma. Due to its critical location, Zeugma became

a vibrant commercial urban center and an important military base.211 The city

210 GAP, 2001, 37.

211 Comfort, Abadie-Reynal, and Ergeç, 2000, 99, 100.

85

started to lose its importance with the Sassanid attacks in 253 AD and also

the earthquakes, which resulted in massive destruction and demolition.212

(Figure 90)

The excavations in Zeugma were conducted by Gaziantep Museum between

1987 and 1999, during which several houses belonging to the Roman period

were unearthed at the northern slopes of the city, overlooking the Euphrates.

A sumptuous villa was unearthed on a hill to the east of Kelekdağı in 1993 by

the joint efforts of the Museum.213 In 1996, during the construction of Birecik

Dam, a bath was unearthed, together with some mosaic fragments found in

the vicinity. The bath, which had a caldarium, tepidarium, and frigidarium

exhibits the characteristics of a typical Roman bath complex. Another Roman

villa with fountains, pools, and three near-complete mosaics was found in

2000 by the French team.214 (Figures 91, 92, and 93) The most recent

excavation was undertaken by Ankara University in 2005, within the scope

of the Zeugma Archeology Project, and aimed to analyze the city's physical

boundaries. The studies showed that the town had received fortifications in

different periods, the first being constructed in 300 BC. The early Roman

period was revealed in the east and west parts of the city, corresponding to

the military expansion.215

The joint excavations done between 1992 and 2000 by Turkish, French, and

British teams revealed 20 dwellings. Two large houses among them are the

House of Poseidon, which is about 1000 m2, and the House of Synaristôsai,

which approximately had a 700 to 800 m2 ground floor plan. Most of the

houses are dated to a period between the first and mid-third centuries AD and

had survived with minor transformations. (Figure 94) The houses were built

212 GAP, 2001, 37.

213 Prof. David Kennedy from the University of Western Australia also contributed the

excavation.

214 GAP, 2001, 37.

215 Görkay, 2020, 20.

86

attached on terraces, similar to the terrace houses in Ephesus, Antioch and in

modern Gaziantep. Only the ground floors were built with stone blocks, while

mudbrick and timber bonding was used on the upper floors. The houses

commonly had a layout similar to a Corinthian atrium216, but many had

peristyle courtyards with local adaptations.217 Indeed, some courtyards were

designed by short loggias, composed; of a single colonnade with two

columns. Courtyards were surrounded by reception and recreation rooms such

as triclinium, living room, and service areas, including latrine, kitchen, and

cisterns, while some rooms were carved into the slopes.218 In Seleucia, the

houses were oriented towards the north as a precaution against the hot weather

in summers, while most of the houses built on the slope of Belkis Hill were

carved into the limestone rock and thus had a splendid view. The courtyards

were designed with various water structures. There were shallow pools in

courtyards, which no doubt provided coolness besides giving visual and

acoustic pleasure.219 Private rooms and some slave rooms are thought to have

been located on upper floors.220 By the mid-second century, the mosaic

pavements in the courtyards of some homes were altered to build

underground cisterns, presumably due to the increasing demand for water.

The excavated houses were decorated with mosaics and wall paintings, but

some were extensively decorated with exquisite mosaic pavements, like the

Houses of Okeanos, Metiokhos, Parthenope, Poseidon, and Euphrates that are

located in region A; Houses of Neraid, Satyros, Zosimos, Kointos, and Giyoş

that were found in region B; and those of Dionysos and Danae unearthed in

region C.221 (Figures 95)

216 The Corinthium atrium is a type which the girders run in from the side walls, and all

supported by round columns, Vitruvius, De Architectura, Chapter III.

217 Görkay, 2020, 46-66.

218 Abadie-Reynal, 2006, 2.

219 Görkay, 2020, 46-66.

220 Önal, 2013, 7.

221 Önal, 2013, 7.

87

The city had a Hellenistic past, but the houses show that under the Roman

rule, the inhabitants pursued a life that combined Greek and Roman traditions.

On the one hand, they sustained such Hellenistic cultural features as using the

Seleukos calendar till 8 AD and Macedonian moon names, as well as

celebrating Greek festivals, while on the other, they adapted Roman private

rituals, like domestic worshipping, as shown by the lararium found in the

courtyard of Dionysos and Danae Houses and the evidence for Roman festival

celebrations found in the military region where Legio IIII Scythica was

stationed.222 (Figure 96)

The city had a Hellenistic past, but the houses show that under Roman rule,

the inhabitants pursued a life that combined Greek and Roman traditions. On

the one hand, they sustained such Hellenistic cultural features as using the

Seleukos calendar till 8 AD and Macedonian moon names, as well as

celebrating Greek festivals, while on the other, they adapted Roman private

rituals, like domestic worshipping, as shown by the lararium found in the

courtyard of Dionysos and Danae Houses and the evidence for Roman festival

celebrations found in the military region where Legio IIII Scythica was

stationed.223 (Figure 96)

The house plans also reflect an architectural combination of Greek and

Roman traditions. Pastas and prostas-like spaces seen in the Classical and

Hellenistic Greek houses were designed in front of guest rooms and/or

triclinia. Most of the houses dating to the second and third centuries AD had

mosaic floors depicting themes from Greek mythology and tragedy. The

Greek symposion, commonly held as a male event, changed and turned into a

Roman convivium, that is, living together. The Greeks and Etruscans adopted

the symposion tradition from the Levant and Mesopotamia; however, they

introduced a class differentiation and made it privileged to the elite. It seems

that the regularly practiced Roman social rituals like convivium and

222 Görkay, 2020, 92.

223 Ibid., 92.

88

banqueting were well adopted in Zeugma houses, as illustrated by the mosaic-

function match, which is comparable to the Pompeiian houses. An inscription

that informed guests about taking off shoes and following the hygiene rules

before entering the triclinium is another example that evidences the use of

private baths during social meetings; accordingly, the visitors were expected

to take a bath before the meeting, which also suggests that the houses were

equipped with private baths. A similar reminder inscription depicting a slave

holding an odor vessel and a sandal were found on the door of the triclinium

in the Euphrates House, which did not have a bathing suit. But the tiny pool

found in the small courtyard of the house is thought to have been used to wash

feet before entering the triclinium.224

The houses at Zeugma had ostentatious triclinia, similar to those found in the

houses at Antioch. For instance, the House of Maenad had a triclinium of

9.25x13.50 m, and the ones in the House of Poseidon and the so-called House

of Quintus Calpurnius Eutyches were 9.71x7.1 m and 6.48x9.17 m

respectively. The triclinia had service doors that are thought to have been

used by guests who came late, by slaves to do service, and also to access

latrines.225

Although the city was located on the banks of the Euphrates river, its

elevation prevented supplying water from the river. Clean running water was

delivered from the springs found within a 5-8 km distance and carried by

tunnels to the city. The fountains, cisterns, and water jets, often found in

courtyards, must have provided the water for daily routines while at the same

time acting as a visual accompaniment for triclinia and living rooms. The

remains of a water pipe found on the upper floor of the House of Euphrates

224 Görkay, 2020, 51, 70, 72, 73.

225 Ibid., 72, 73.

89

shows that at least some houses had access to water on the upper stories as

well.226

The water supply systems were also modified in the Roman Period. The early

cisterns that were often cut into the limestone rock began to be replaced with

independently built fountains. Starting from the first century AD, manifesting

the Roman impact. Terracotta pipes dating to the last phase of the third

century AD found in different parts of the city also demonstrate that clean

water began to be supplied from an aqueduct. Apparently, only the elite

houses benefitted from this infrastructure, as modest houses, like Houses 3

and 4 in Trench 12, did not have water pipes.227

Houses of Poseidon A and B and House of Euphrates are chosen as case

studies because they have more detailed plans; some partially excavated

houses are given as complimentary examples.

House of Poseidon, A Section

The House of Poseidon228 was located on the northeast side of Ayvaz Hill, in

region B, and was oriented towards the Euphrates. (Figure 97) The rooms

226 Önal, 2013, 7.

227 Abadie-Reynal, 2006, 1.

228 The architectural layout indicated that the houses were arranged for large families. The

kyrios, the senior authority who made the decisions in the family, had a respected position in

the Greco-Roman culture and most of the domestic rituals were conducted by him.. If the

kyrios died, the oldest male family member would took the position.If a conflict or legacy

problem occured between the family members after such a replacement the house could be

seperated into individual areas. For instance, a papyrus dating to 88-89 AD from Dura-

Euphoros in Syria mentions about a notarized document for the division of a house, after the

death of the family’s kyrios. It gave detailed information about the rooms tobe given to

family members, and specified a penalty tuition against breaking the rule. The House of

Poseidon is thought to exemplify such a division between family members. The house once

occupied a larger lot but later survived as two separate units. Indeed the transformation of

the large triclinium in the House of Quintus Calpurnius Euytkhes into a secondary atrium

according to the layout of the two individual units presumably reserved for two different

families, and the addition of a fountain for common utilization is also thought to be the results

of such property divisionpractices, Görkay, 2020, 92-98.

90

found in part A section opened to the courtyard (11). The triclinium (3),

possibly oecus (5 and 9), cubiculum (6), tablinum (8), waiting room (2), alae

(7), colonnaded courtyard (11), and the small courtyards (4 and 10) are the

main spaces of the house. Like the central atrium-tablinum axis of most

Pompeian houses, the central axis of this house connected the entrance to the

courtyard and directed visitors to a spacious room located at the other end,

which is identified as a tablinum.229 The visitors’ movement axis was guided

by a spacious colonnaded courtyard, which had a large pool, as the houses

lacked an atrium. Before the house was split into two sections with separate

colonnaded courtyards to accommodate two households, it had a single,

majestic peristyle.

The wet spaces and water features of the house included a latrine (12), a large

pool that covered the entire area defined by the columns, and a nymphaeum

placed on one short side of the colonnaded courtyard. A second, smaller large

pool with a depth of 0.10-0.15 m was found in the small courtyard 4. This

pool was called an impluvium,230 though it was not architecturally designed

as the impluvia seen in the Pompeian houses. A third pool, which was also

identified as an impluvium231 and a cistern, was found in the small courtyard

10. This pool, too, was not designed in the manner of a Pompeian impluvium.

The house was equipped with a terracotta pipe system buried in a lime mortar

channel that supplied clean water and discharged the wastewater. The clean

water was distributed from the left side of the entrance (1) through the

corridors and reached the cistern in the small courtyard (10) on the south.

There were 2 T-shaped, four-holed distribution stones in the colonnaded

colonnade; one was found on the stylobate on the eastern side, the other to

the south of the nymphaeum. The eastern one supplied the pool of the small

courtyard (4) on the east, while the second provided water to the nymphaeum

229 This room is suggested as tablinum by Önal, 2013, 44.

230 Önal, 2013, 26.

231 Ibid., 46.

91

and the cistern in Room 10.232 There were aquatic-themed mosaics in Room

9 and in the large pool in the colonnaded courtyard. These not only decorated

the rooms but also established cognitive links to the water elements placed

throughout the house and thus strengthened the instrumental role of water in

the decorum of the house as well as serving possibly, as a symbolic reference

to the relationship between springs and gods/goddesses and mythological

characters. (Figures 98 and 99)

Spatial and Social Consumption of Water

Colonnaded courtyard came first in the primary axis from where the tablinum

(8) was accessed; in the sampled Pompeian houses, on the other hand, an

atrium would define the way to the tablinum, and the peristyle would be

located at the rear of the tablinum and acted as a privileged backstage for

visual gaze and physical movement. On the other hand, though not interpreted

as such by the excavators, Room 9 looks more suitable to be used as a

tablinum in terms of its commanding position and spatial relationship to the

colonnaded courtyard than room 8. No matter which room had served as a

meeting space, in the absence of an atrium, the colonnaded courtyard served

as a circulation area and thus became the main movement reference for both.

The salutatio visitors walked alongside the large pool and captured the view

of its mosaic floor that was visible beneath the glittering water surface. The

long rectangular pool in the courtyard thus offered a deep vista towards the

tablinum, which was much extended than the vista framed by the impluvium

in a typical Pompeian house, making the visitors experience a visual pleasure

enhanced by the optical reflections of the water-themed mosaic and the

nymphaeum on the south. Along the movement towards the major spaces on

the south, the visitors could also capture the sight and sound of the pool and

the nymphaeum of courtyard 4. They, therefore, benefitted from the lavish

ambiance of the colonnaded courtyard and the nearby water installations

during their approach to large rooms 8 and 9.

232 Önal, 2013, 25, 26.

92

In the Pompeian, triclinium was commonly located in the peristyle area. In

this house, the majestic space next to the street entrance was identified as a

triclinium.233 As a triclinium, this reception space was unusually far from the

colonnaded courtyard, and those using it could not see the view of the

courtyard. The lack of the décor, on the other hand, was compensated by the

small courtyard (4), to which the room opened on its short side. The pool and

the nymphaeum in this small courtyard provided the visual and multi-sensory

aura of meeting and dining in the company of an open area marked with water

features. The association of a banqueting hall with a more intimate courtyard

with water features was also seen in several houses in Antioch. Multiple

courtyards designed with water elements were not only an appropriate spatial

response to the hot climate but also served as a reference to the Roman

cultural coding of interiors as a wealth and status symbol. The nymphaeum in

the small courtyard four could be seen in a lateral view from the coaches, but

its sound could well be heard during the banqueting. Having an intimate

courtyard with a pool also enabled guests to take from alternative entrances;

in this case, from room 2, which could function as a secondary vestibule and

a waiting room. The shallow pool elevated the atmosphere of the triclinium

as well as the other adjoining room (5), while the secondary axis offered

visitors a recreational walk before/after dining and exposed the social status

of the house owner. The latrine was not located in close proximity to the

triclinium; which might have been planned as such in the initial undivided

phase of the house. However, the distance between the latrine and triclinium,

in a way, made the visitors pass through the colonnaded courtyard and hence

experience the primary decorum of the house on their way between the two

spaces. The nymphaeum was a landmark, a way-finding structure inside the

courtyard area, although most likely a slave assisted the visitor on his way to

the toilet and back to the triclinium. (Figure 100)

233 Önal suggested this area as triclinium according to similiar floor mosaic panels formed as

T and U shape fitting to position of kline in Pompeian houses, Önal, 2013, 33.

93

House of Poseidon, B Section

Section B of the Poseidon House occupied the west side of section A. (Figure

101) The connection between houses A and B was from room 10, which was

thought to have been closed in the Roman Era. The east rooms were accessed

from the colonnaded courtyards of sections A and B, which provided daylight

and ventilation. The interruption of the direct access to the colonnaded

courtyard from the street by a passage-like space (6) was not a common

Roman practice and recalls, indeed, the introverted design of Greek pastas

houses. The identifiable areas of the house were; the vestibule (1), waiting

room (2), triclinium (11), colonnaded courtyard (7), kitchen (5 and 10;

number 10 was identified as a service room and probably was connected to

part A in the original plan), a possible oecus (9), and storage rooms (6a and

6b).234

Among the main wet spaces and water features of the house was a 0.12-0.20

m deep pool, measuring 5x5.81 m, placed at the central part of the peristyle.

The pool had a drainage hole in the northeast and a channel that was

connected to one of the two cisterns on the west side of the peristyle. The first

one was carved into the rock and was supplied by a pipe system placed at the

west wall; it is thought to provide water to the upper part of the peristyle (on

the south side of the peristyle was a second story). The second cistern was on

the west side of the pool. To the north of the colonnaded courtyard was a

nymphaeum placed between two columns and was supplied by terracotta

pipes coming from the north of the house. The bath (3), latrine (4), and a

kitchen (5) were located near the street entrance, as in many Pompeian

houses, where the other water demanded spaces of the house. The bath

considering its modest size, unpretentious design, and distanced position from

234 The passage on the Room 10 in B section of House of Poseidon is thought to be closed in

the Roman Era according to difference in the wall construction tecnique; because the western

wall which was built cut block stones from side to side was made of ashlar stone and mud

mortar only at this part and the plaster is facing inward from the door, Önal, 2013, 50.

94

the colonnaded courtyard, was used more for regular hygienic cleansing

and/or family ceremonies than for complementing the banqueting sessions.

Apparently, the colonnaded courtyard was home to domestic production and

was used as a food processing space, besides being a circulation node and

decorum, as understood from the remains of an oven, a mill, six hand-made

grinders, and an oil press. These in-situ production features, which might have

been later additions, required clean, running water and discharging of dirty

water at the same time and hence indicate the multifunctional use of

courtyards.235

The decorum of the house included aquatic-themed mosaics. One of them

decorated room 9. The floor of these rooms was paved with two panels. The

0.60x0.85 m panel represented Galatea on a water panther with a fishtail

(Figure 101). Another floor mosaic, 7.90x 5.60-meter in size, decorated the

triclinium. The mosaic depicted the rescue of Andromeda by Perseus after

killing the sea-monster Ketos.236 (Figure 103)


The excavators did not identify a tablinum space in Section B; however,

rooms 9 and 2 might have been used as a tablinum. Room 9 seems more

suitably positioned to take advantage of the primary axis that connected the

entrance and the colonnaded courtyard. Its location required the visitors to

pass alongside the large central pool and the nymphaeum. The décor and

ambiance of the house would thus become exposed to the visitors; during their

approach to this relatively large room that had a partial view of the

colonnaded courtyard. The nymphaeum did not perhaps play a major role in

welcoming the visitors to the hearth of the house as they saw its back façade

upon entering the courtyard area; however, its modest height allowed them to

perceive the whole water scene merged into the pool. Indeed, the

235 Önal, 2013, 58.

236 Ibid., 53.

95

asymmetrically positioned nymphaeum -close to the left side from the

entrance made a cognitive reference to the visitors to take the eastern

colonnade that provided access to room 9.

As in section A, the triclinium (11) had a separate entrance from the waiting

room 2 . If the bath was used during the banqueting, access to it could also be

done from this waiting room. The representation of prosperity was more

strongly emphasized along the axis leading to the banqueting space from the

colonnaded courtyard. The triclinium, however, was positioned parallel to the

courtyard and thus could not capture the visual scene of the nymphaeum and

pool during the meeting, but the sound of water must have reached the space.

The water-themed mosaic floor, on the other hand, brought water in a visual

sense to the interior, and the guests could enjoy the recreational aura of the

courtyard area after/before the dining ritual. Room number 10 once connected

the sections, A and B. It was identified as part of the kitchen and storage and

could have been utilized for food and beverage service. The main primary

food preparation/cooking possibly took place in number 5 due to the possible

piping infrastructure in relation to other wet spaces, latrine, and the bath. As

such, the noise and smell associated with food preparation and cooking were

kept at a distance from the banqueters. (Figure 100)

House of Euphrates

The House of Euphrates was located adjacent to the Poseidon House. (Figure

104) The two shared the south wall but had separate entrances on the north.

The house had a secondary entrance from the same street. Although the

excavators identified the main entrance as area 1, passage 15 seems more

suitable to function as the main entrance as the path from area 1 did open not

to the colonnaded courtyard but to a small courtyard (3). Space 15, on the

other hand, was a long passageway and could direct the visitors straight to the

colonnaded courtyard as seen in the Pompeian houses. The service area's

close location, including the kitchen and latrine, to passage 15, also support

96

this suggestion. The distinguished spaces of the house were; the vestibule (1),

waiting room (4), triclinium237 (2); small courtyard with a pool (3);

storage/service rooms (7 and 8); colonnaded courtyard (10); cubiculum (5); a

large room, possibly an oecus (13) the kitchen (11 and 12) and a large room

identified as a storeroom (6). The house had an upper floor reached by a

staircase located on the east of the vestibule. The rooms on the east side of

the house were not clearly identified; rooms 16-21 and basement 22-23 are

mentioned as storage and service areas.

The main wet spaces and water structures of the house were; two pools found

in the small courtyard (3), a large pool, a nymphaeum, a cistern in the

colonnaded courtyard (10), a latrine (24), and a possible bath located near the

latrine; the presence of running water and drainage infrastructure suggests

that the areas next the latrine could have been utilized as a bath. The large

pool in the colonnaded courtyard was paved with a mosaic panel representing

the young river god Naias and goddesses the Euphrates.238 Room number 9

had a pipe system running south-north and branching to west and east; a

vertical pipe found to the southeast is thought to be the drainage channel of

the upper floor. The latrine also received clean running water supplied from

the pipeline coming from room 15 and stored in a water tank placed at the

south corner of the toilet. The same channel also fed the nymphaeum and the

cistern in the colonnaded courtyard.


No space is identified as a tablinum, but some of the rooms could have

functioned as such based on their location. Room 13, for example, could

compensate the spatial need for the salutatio, as it was linked to the

colonnaded courtyard, the pool, and the nymphaeum. The visitors could have

237 Önal mentions this space as triclinium according to U shape mosaic floor covering, 2013,

103.

238 Ibid., 102, 103.

97

walked through the courtyard and experienced the lavish atmosphere of the

house. This might have formed the primary axis from the main entrance that

allowed a comprehensive visual perspective to water structures from both the

entrance (through number 15) and also during the meeting. Another possible

spatial alternative for salutation is Room 5, near the entrance. This room had

a direct view of the small courtyard 3, and this relationship is similar to that

of an atrium-tablinum in the Pompeian houses. In this case, the saluters would

not proceed to the hearth of the house but were met in the relatively less

private area of the house. The second entrance, on the other hand, created a

primary axis for triclinium, which was located right next to and waiting room

(4). The small courtyard (3) had two pools, and the large one had a mosaic

floor, providing light, ventilation, and a pleasure vista for the triclinium. The

passage (1) intersected with the larger pool in the inner courtyard (3), where

a narrow path for circulation was left. The triclinium in the Pompeian houses

was indeed located in the colonnaded courtyard area and benefitted from the

garden and water features. The space identified as triclinium in this house, on

the other hand, had an unusual location; it was right next to an entrance, with

no view of the colonnaded courtyard.239 Yet it enjoyed the solitude of the

small courtyard and its two pools. The small pool could have been used for

hygienic purposes. Both pools had aquatic-themed mosaic floors and added a

sumptuous look to the modest courtyard. The service rooms (7 and 8) were

positioned opposite the triclinium and separated the triclinium from the rest

of the house. The colonnaded courtyard was only available for visitors if they

entered from the other entrance (15).

Assuming that there was a guest/reception room (carved into the rock at the

south) organization similar to that in the Poseidon House, the second entrance

leading to the colonnaded courtyard would gain importance; in this case, the

nymphaeum was not positioned to welcome the visitors during their approach

to the rooms on the south but served as a sensory element. Notably, the large

239 It is known that the triclinium could be arranged with different mosaics and decorative

objects to host a wedding ceremony, Görkay, 2020.

98

open courtyard with a big pool in the south section of the house helped to

tolerate the hot climate. The existence of kitchen and service units (11 and

12) suggests that this zone was utilized as the private section of the family

members. (Figure 105)

The examples considered so far suggest that in Zeugma houses, the

banqueting and the associated games/performances240 were more overtly

practiced than the salutation ritual; triclinia was identified from unique and

refined spatial design, while there is no supporting evidence for tablinum. The

clean running water and drainage system provided the freedom to create

various water zone spots that supported daily operations and triggered sensual

agencies like visual and acoustic pleasure, as well as symbolizing a level of

wealth. As Görkay (2020) mentions, although the mosaic decorations seem

to regulate the circulation axis of houses in Zeugma, he suggests that function

matches with mosaic decoration themes. For instance, the peristyle with pool

was merged with aquatic mosaic context the location of water elements,

benefiting from the cooling water effect, easy access from different parts to

various cisterns and fountains expedites satisfying for daily and social

consumption. For instance, most of the wall decorations in the colonnaded

courtyards included pastoral scenes depicting several animals, like birds and

planting, likely to give the sense of a hortus. The large windows directing to

the peristyle courtyard of the House of Poseidon included peacock images.

House of A, under the protection site of Dionysos and Danae houses, had

similar plant and bird depictions in the atrium, which was once thought to be

used as a hortus to give the sense of seating in a garden.241

240 An inscription found in the Dura-Europes excavations, verifies the fashion of games and

shows during the banqueting and convivium as in Antiokheia; there was a list of organizers'

names for the preparation of presentations that verifies the importance of entertainment in

Zeugma Houses, Görkay, 2020, 60.

241 Görkay, 2020, 140, 141.

99

House of Danae

House of Danae, located adjacent to the House of Dionysos in the C region,

is also worth mentioning. (Figure 106) The house was constructed on a terrace

following the slope of the topography. Due to the demolition of the north side,

the relationship between the street and the house is unavailable. The

excavations revealed that the house was constructed in the second and mid-

third centuries and survived until the seventh century AD. The house had a

courtyard, surrounded by rooms similar to those in the other Zeugma houses.

Distinguished rooms of the house are; space 1 with a cistern and space 1A at

the left side of the entrance, a small courtyard (4) with a pool, a nymphaeum,

a cistern, a latrine (2), a room (3) with a south-north running drainage channel,

peristyle (5) with a cistern, impluvium and a nymphaeum. There were carved

rooms at the south of the building as in other houses in Zeugma.242

In the house of Danae, the space thought to be used for convivium, was at the

south of the peristyle that connected to the rock-carved rooms and had a

mosaic floor that depicted 'Üç Güzeller.' In this room, visitors had a chance

to see both the mosaic floor cover and the fountain in the peristyle. The

4.50x3.85 m mosaic of the pool in the inner courtyard depicted an underwater

scene, the story of Danane and Diktys243 (Figure 107), while in the small

courtyard was a mosaic floor that depicted a nymph.244 (Figure 108)

The central position of the latrine and separated courtyards indicate a spatial

change and alteration as in the other large houses. The pipe infrastructure and

existence of multiple cisterns show that a large amount of water was

demanded to adapt to new spatial situations. Multiple water elements

242 Önal, 2009.

243 The representation of Danae and Diktys was found in the public bath complex of Thyna

in Tunis and also in a fresco in Pompeii, Önal, 2009, 58. Danae and her daughter Perseus

were closed to the chest by her father and were found by fishers on the Seriphos island after

being dragged in the sea for several days, Önal, 2009, 56-57.

244 Görkay, 2020, 57, 174.

100

surrounded by a reception room and living rooms offered comfort,

gratification, and affluence to the house owner as well as providing the water

necessary for performing the daily operation.

Some partial information comes from the House of Quintus Calpurnius

Eutyches, House of Dionysos, and House of Mousa. Due to the rising dam

water, the house of Quintus Calpurnius Eutyches was not totally excavated;

however, its architectural remains verify the transformation of one of the

largest rooms, the triclinium, into an atrium. It was thought that the house

was altered at the end of the third century AD. The addition of a fountain in

the new atrium highlighted the continuing importance of water structures in

the public areas of the interiors.245 (Figure 109)

The House of Dionysos, located to the east of the domestic quarter, was on

the east side of the Hellenistic Agora. It had a courtyard on the central axis of

the entrance, similar to a Corinthian atrium with eight Doric-style columns.

The south rooms that were carved into the rock were the most prestigious

spaces of the house (Figure 110). The triclinium was in this part and entered

through a vaulted door. The triclinium was also vaulted, like the vaulted oeci

seen in some Pompeian houses. (Figure 111) The pool served both as a

pleasure focus and also as a cooling feature.246

The House of Mousa occupied a rectangular plot of 12x30 m and was located

on the east side of the Dionysos and Danae Houses. Its entrance defined a

north-south running axis, as in the Pompeian domus.247 It took its name from

one of the rooms, which was thought to be used as an andron248; the mosaic

245 Görkay, 2020, 162 ,174, 175.

246 Ibid., 162 ,174, 175

247 The house exhibited some characteristics which are interpreted as a reflection of Greek

culture, Görkay, 2020, 172-174.

248 Görkay defines this sqaure plan space which located at the right part of the entrance as

andron, Görkay 2020, 254.

101

floor, dated to the second and mid-third centuries AD, represents the nine

Greek muses. The entrance gave way to a small courtyard with a cistern and

water tanks, and the latrine is thought to be in this area. The house had an

enormous courtyard on the south, surrounded by living spaces on the east and

west; a storage room and a kitchen were identified in the west section.

(Figures 112 and 113) The courtyard was designed with two symmetric

loggias on the west and east and included a cistern that provided the water

necessary for daily consumption. The south wall was designed to look like a

two-story fountain. Such illusionary depictions found in the atria or peristyle

courtyards served to mimic actual nymphaea, besides being a decoration. The

floor mosaic in the courtyard displayed an aquatic theme; the images of

Okeanos and Tethys, the sea god and goddesses, together with sea

creatures.249 The mosaic enhanced the aquatic pleasure of the area, which was

decorated with a fountain façade. The visitors enjoyed this scenery during

their passage to the carved reception rooms on the south. (Figures 114 and

115)

4.3. Ephesus: Consuming and Staging Water on the Slope

Ephesus, which came under Roman control in 129 BC and became the capital

of the Roman province of Asia, is a good case to pursue the process of

Romanization in both urban and private contexts.250 (Figure 116) The initial

settlement was on the Ayasoluk Hill, on the northern slope of the theater.

About 290 BC, the city had developed in the area between the Mountains of

Bülbül and Panayır.251Although it was planned in reference to a grid system,

with streets running at right angles, the topography had a strong influence on

the urban layout.252

249 Görkay, 2020, 172-174.

250 Burns, 2017, 169.

251 Uğurlu, 2004, 56, 57.

252 Ladsttätter, 2013, 16.

102

The city went under significant transformation in the Roman era to achieve a

comprehensive imperial building project that concentrated in two zones. The

first area was the State Agora, located at the eastern entrance of the town,

where the imperial cults, bouleuterion, prytaneum, and stoa basilica were

located. The second area corresponded to the Commercial Agora, found on

the western side of the theatre. Romans adapted local identities and structures

and manifested their dominion by expanding the previous city landscape. The

remarkable transformation of the town was achieved by specific, monumental

public facilities such as baths, latrines, fountains, and civic structures like

theater, odeon. Although the State Agora (Upper Agora) was not planned as

the central feature of the city and was not similar to the Roman forum, which

was usually planned at the intersection of the two major avenues, it had an

imposing design, a conscious choice that reflected the self-identity of

Romans’ civic pride, political and cultural transformation.253 In the first

century BC, some monumental architecture developed along the so-called

Curetes Street, on which the Memmius Monument and the Heroon of the

legendary founder Androcles were located. Tabernae and lavishly decorated

houses were also introduced. Another significant feature that enriched the

urban transformation of the city was the harbor which provided a dense

commercial and cultural network for the city, its hinterland, and other

provinces. In the Augustan period (27 BC-14 AD), the new constructions

focused on the public and private glorification of the city with the help of

private donors. Besides such individual finance, the administrative power of

the Empire was also shaped to monumentalize the urban scenery of the city.254

Among the private benefactions, for instance, were Gaius Sextilius Pollio and

his family, who donated a basilica in the so-called State Agora and

contributed to the water supply of the city by financing the construction of an

aqueduct. Some later imperial urban alterations included the construction of

253 Topal, 2020, 50, 51.

254 In every city were wealthy individuals and a middle class, consisiting of shop owners,

craftsmen, and money dealers; however, the civic benefactors who took active role in the

construction processes had political position and involvement, Zuiderhoek, 2009, 15.

103

Harbor baths, which included a gymnasium complex, and one of the large-

scale imperial projects of the Flavian period (AD 69-96) and the replacement

of the gravel pavement of Curetes Street with marble which changed the

ambiance and function of this urban thoroughfare; the monumental sculptures

added to the street created an honorific decorum and suppressed the

utilization of the street as a downtown traffic artery.255

The city was accessible from three main directions which were marked with

gates; the Magnesian Gate to the south-east, three harbor gates to the west,

and the Koressos gate to the north. In between these entrances ran the main

streets. During the imperial era, the Domitian street, Curetes street, Marble

street, the Arkadiane, and the plateia of Koressos functioned as the major

arteries. The commemorative Via Sacra shaped the alignment of the streets.

The so-called South Street from the Magnesian Gate, the Lane of Domitian,

the Curetes Street, the Marble Road, and the Plateia were the primary traffic

lines of Greco-Roman Ephesus after the Roman renovation. In the area

between the Marble Road and the Lane of Domitian, there were four parallel

axes crossing or starting at Curetes Street (Embolos). On the north-south axis

that led to the Magnesian Gate, there were many significant structures, such

as the terrace of Domitian Temple, the gymnasium of Vedius, and several

well-decorated houses arranged on terraces, including a Hellenistic house

under the library, and a sumptuous peristyle villa located above the theater.256

Most of the urban water structures were the Roman period's re-constructions.

The development of the Terrace Houses, which are the subject of this context,

was related to the development of the water structures. In the Hellenistic

period and early Roman times, there was a single clay pipeline in this area, to

which new branches were added due to the increasing demand for more water.

At the beginning of the second century AD, the small clay pipes were no

longer enough to supply water for the new urban structures, such as baths and

255 Ladsttätter, 2013, 16-34.

256 Yoncacı, 2007, 39.

104

splendid nymphaea. So, two new 40 m channels were added.257 The terrace

houses received piped water from Aqua Iulia and/or Aqua Throessitica in the

Augustan Period; by the mid-second century, around 120 AD, Değirmendere

Aqueduct became the primary water supply source.258 These water structures

provided abundant water to the elite dwellings while also acting as a

manifestation of Romanization, an urban decorum, and a landmark in the city.

(Figure 117) The houses benefited from the running water in a social and

spatial way. Deep wells dating to the Hellenistic period were available for

each terrace, providing adequate water storage. The slope on which the

houses were built was an advantage to taking running water from the upper

levels to distribute to the public fountains, latrines, and baths. The houses had

a system of clay pipes built into the walls or beneath the floors. (Figure 118)

The rainwater that drained from the roofs of the open courtyards was also

collected in the courtyards and connected to the piping and drainage systems,

and led to the main sewer on Curetes Street. There were fountains in the

courtyards, as well as in the private baths and dining rooms. The private

latrines had multiple seats, and most of the graffiti found in them verifies

that they were used for social purposes, as in public toilets.259

Close to the western edge of Curetes street, on the northern slope of Mount

Preon, were two-building insulae.260 The initial building activity in the area

dated to the end of the first century BC and survived to the seventh century

AD.261 The Terrace House II was constructed in the late Augustan-Tiberian

257 Wiplinger, 2019, 5, 6.



260 The excavated domestic context of the city actually dates to the Archaic period. There is

archaeological evidence of individual, densely settled single-room structures with

rectangular and occasionally oval plans. The single-room houses were 10.20 x5.20 m in size.

Remains of four-room structures (at least 16.00x12.00 m in size), some including courtyards

and dating to the mid-sixth century BC, were also found. Two late Classical courtyard houses

that are dated to the fifth century BC are found in the northern area of Panayırdağ, Schwaiger,

2017, 80-82. (Figures 119 and 120)

261 Çinici, 2006, 70.

105

period. Seven residential units are identified in the insula.Two house owners

are known from this context, from the inscriptions found on the statues

displayed in the houses. Residential Unit 2 belonged to knight Vibius

Salutaris, and Unit 6 was the property of Caius Flavius Furius Aptus,262 who

was a Dionysos priest; his son, senator Titus Flavius Lollianus Aristobulus,

also lived in the house.263

The unearthing of the units had begun under the directorship of Otto Benndorf

in 1895, including a topographical view of the city with sculptures and other

rich finds. In later years, after Franz Miltner’s extensive excavations, the

Curetes street which was an essential link between the state and commercial

agoras, and the remains of Terrace Houses I and II opened to touristic visits.264

The first phase of excavation of Terrace House II was completed in 1962. A

more comprehensive excavation in this domestic quarter started under the

directorship of Hermann Vetters in 1967 and continued until 1985.265

The Terrace Houses had four architectural phases; phase I dated to 20-30 AD;

phase II to100-120 AD; phase III to140-160 AD and phase IV to 230 and 260

AD. In this study, the latest phase is taken into account. (Figure 121)

Terrace Houses I and II

Terrace houses formed two insulae and were located along the western end

of Curetes Street, facing mount Preon. (Figures 122 and 123) The eastern part

is named Terrace House I, while the west part of the insulae Terrace House

II. Terrace House I covered an approximately 3000 m2 area, including six

dwelling units, while Terrace House II, comprising seven residential units,

262 Schwaiger, 2017, 84.

263 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 53.

264 Krinzinger, 2000, 18.

265 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 42, 43.

106

was around 4000 m2. Both insulae had two or three stories and peristyle-type

units.266 Units 1-5 in Terrace House II are thought to be designed as houses

from the beginning, while unit 6 may have been used as an association and

unit 7 as an imperial cult.267 The location of the Terrace houses verifies the

integration of elite dwellings with the nearby significant public buildings,

such as the library, theater, and agora.

The Terrace House II is architecturally well-recorded. During their long

occupation period, the seven units underwent many transformations; for

instance, the central terrace dwelling was divided into units 5 and 3 in the

second century AD, and the residential unit 6 was converted into a city palace.

The units had either a central columned courtyard or a central peristyle with

surrounding rooms. They received light and ventilation through their

courtyards, while the upper floors had a view of the exterior.268

The houses' major reception and social activity areas were; the triclinium (in

most cases also theatre room), exedra, and the peristyle courtyards with

lavishly decorated water structures, mosaics, and paintings. The service areas,

latrines, and kitchens were commonly located close to the entrances and, like

the water supply systems, could have been shared by the units.269 Kitchens

were identified from in-situ installations like built-in ovens 270and private

baths from the hypocaust systems and furnaces. Developed water systems

enabled to design of heated, private bathrooms that suited the elite lifestyle.

266 Çinici, 2006, 70.

267 Zimmermann, 2020, 211, 212.


269 Ibid., 130.

270 Several receipts were incised into the wall plaster. The tabernae, which functioned as both

a workshop and a house, were found in front of the residental complexes at north and south.

The lack of identifiable kitchesn in some units is argued in relation to the suggestion that the

cookshops could provide ready-made food. There were such type of structures in Roman

cities, in which retail activity took place on the front while the rear part was utilized as a

production quarter and the upper part for sleeping and storage, Schwaiger, 2017, 85, 86.

107

The rooms with heating installations (praefurnium) like Unit 4, which

possibly served more than one unit, were located centrally and provided the

surrounding rooms with a warm atmosphere.271 Unit 1 had a hypocaust bath

complex, like Unit 6, which had a sizeable hall equipped with a hypocaust

system in the mid-third century AD. Some private baths were designed more

elaborately and had frigidarium, caldarium, and tepidarium spaces, like the

bath in Unit 6.

All the units had at least an upper story; residential units 4 and 6 had a third

story dating to their last phase (around 260 AD). Some had upper-level

entrances as well, such as the residential unit 7, which was accessible from

alley 3, suggesting that the upper parts of the house could well have been

rented or shared by different families. The evidence of socket of hinge joints

at the doors in the vestibula strengthens this argument. Upper floors could

also include major living and reception areas such as triclinium, columned

courtyard, partially heated cubicula, and even service spaces like a kitchen

and latrine.

The units were constructed with stone, brick and had marble/mosaic-paved

floors. Some spaces were distinguished with marble cladding interior walls.

Marble was a luxurious decorum item and hence a marker of wealth, and was

applied to the more formal spaces in many units, especially in the third

century. As it had texture and color variations, the marble created colorful

and vivid optic illusions in the interiors. The opus signinum floor pavement

with a gravel layer beneath in Unit 6 verifies that waterproofing was also

applied in the units. Many walls and floors were treated decoratively, not only

with slabs of marble but also with colored stones, mosaics, and paintings.

Mosaic was another luxurious item used to adorn, mostly the floors. Besides

the common black-white geometric patterns, a central, carpet-like

emblematic design with figural depiction was applied in several cases. Glass

mosaics, commonly applied to niches and vaults, in particular, showed the


108

high standard of decoration used in the Terrace Houses. Among the depictions

were themes from Greek mythology. Wall paintings were applied on stucco

moldings as ornamental painted bands above the main zone of walls. The

main central zone of the walls was primarily painted with depictions of

muses, gods, and philosophers.272

The irregularity in spatial articulation and topography adjusted layout

distinguish the Terrace houses from the sampled Pompeian houses. In

contrast to the latter, where the axiality between fauces and the tablinum

created a powerful orientation, the Terrace Houses in Ephesus lacked an

atrium and its water marker, the impluvium. Instead, they were commonly

planned with a central courtyard/peristyle as in the Hellenistic houses; the

Greek inheritance, in this respect, had survived in the Roman era.273 The axial

syntax and the water agencies offered a social coding in the Pompeian houses.

Its absence strengthened the role of such water features as the nymphaeum

and water basin as a way-finding, social orientation, and decorative ensemble

in the Ephesian Terrace Houses. Another evident difference between the

Pompeian domus and the Terrace Houses is the organization of the peristyle

garden. Ephesian peristyles, though planned on terraces, had limited open

space and lacked landscaping. The area surrounded by colonnades in this

respect was not designed as a garden but as a paved space. The absence of

private gardens might indicate the survival of Greek courtyard tradition, in

which the courtyards were paved, acted as circulation areas for surrounding

rooms, and the water features served to support daily housework routines.

One other possible reason for the lack of gardens is the topographical and

terraced state which made some units accessible from the upper stories of

other dwellings; this state of entanglement might have restricted the building

of an irrigation system for garden spaces that would possibly be located at

different levels. In addition, the architectural transformation of houses and/or

spatial alterations/extensions could have been much more easily done in the

272 Ladsttätter, 2013, 112, 115, 155-160.

273 George, 2004, 15.

109

absence of gardens as well. The situation of entanglement also limited

variations in the social and physical utilization of peristyles, such as lacking

the decorum of a garden and its visual and olfactory pleasures. However, as

Kaynakçı Elinç (2007) suggested, Nerium oleander, the typical flora of

Ephesus mentioned in ancient literature, could have adorned the spaces in

decorative vases.

Residential Unit 1

Residential unit 1 is located on the southwest side of the insula and originates

from the first century AD. It was spatially transformed till the earthquake in

the first quarter of the third century. (Figures 124 and 125) The rooms were

organized around the east, west, and north sides of the colonnaded courtyard.

In the second phase of the house, around the end of the first century, a latrine

(8) was added to the south of the colonnaded courtyard. With the addition of

a staircase from room 9, the house became connected to the upper level of

Unit 4, and the service spaces, including a kitchen, became a commonly used

area. Later, in the third century AD, the large room on the east side was

divided to function as a triclinium (4) and a vestibulum (1).274 The walls of

the surrounding rooms, except the colonnaded courtyard, were all decorated

with mosaics and paintings. Among other units, the richly colored mosaics

depicting mythological scenes are very elaborate. Around 230 AD, some

rooms were added to Unit 2, and some of the others were rented out.275 The

main areas of Unit 1 were; the entrance (1), the colonnaded courtyard (3), two

rooms (10 and 11), triclinium (theater room) (4), exedra (7), and service area

(12). The wet spaces included a bath suite (2) and a latrine (8), while the

nymphaeum and the cistern in the colonnaded courtyard, the fountain in the

entrance area (1), and the piping and drainage system Were major water

features.

274 Kuleli, 2005, 37-41.


110


The position of entrances resulting from the sloped topography and the

narrow staircase leading through the terraces differed from the main street

entrances of most sampled Pompeian houses. Despite Curetes Street being a

commercial axis with several shops and dense traffic, this part of the town

seems to have developed as a privileged residential zone. A visitor to the units

in the Terrace Houses could have a view of the entrance landings while

reaching them. But the initial gaze towards the interiors from the entrances,

which was a manifested experience in many Pompeian houses, seems to have

been a less critical issue in both this and other units. Like the other units in

the Terrace Houses, Unit 1 displayed a more inward-oriented character, as in

the Greek houses.

The vestibulum had a private nymphaeum that transformed the space into a

wealthy welcoming reception area while serving as a water source for daily

consumption. The fact that it was close to the service area strengthens its use

as a water supply element for the housework routines. The nymphaeum in the

colonnaded courtyard, which was oriented towards the vestibulum, operated

as a cognitive agency, inviting visitors to the interior of the house, both

visually and acoustically. However, rather than its main façade, the lateral

side of the nymphaeum welcomed the visitors. The façade of the nymphaeum

was oriented towards an exedra (7), one of the lavishly decorated rooms in

the house. Indeed, the more comprehensive section of the portico to the south

directed the visitors to this room. Although the courtyard lacked a garden, the

portico offered a recreational lingering accompanied by natural lighting,

ventilation, and the nymphaeum.

The second broader portico to the east of the colonnaded courtyard led to the

triclinium (also named “theater room”). Although this room had an opening

to the colonnaded courtyard, the nymphaeum did not offer a visual vista for

the banquets as in Pompeian houses. The relatively distant location of the

111

service areas eliminated the possible noise and unpleasant smell that could

happen during the food preparation, reaching the major living and reception

spaces. The latrine was not located far from the reception rooms and could

be accessed easily during the social meetings. The bath complex (2), located

at the entrance area and close to the service spaces, offered a secondary axis

for meetings and could be utilized for routine hygienic purposes and also for

recreational cleansing before/after social gatherings. (Figure 126)

No space was located and/or designed in the character of a Pompeian type of

tablinum, but the space identified as an exedra could have been used to

receive the clientele and hold official meetings.

Residential Unit 2

Residential Unit 2 is on the southwest terrace of the insula and was the only

house that had both a peristyle and an atrium-type courtyard. (Figures 127

and 128) The entrance was from the west side of the atrium (1). The absence

of a compluvium and an impluvium, however, differentiates this atrium from

the typical Pompeian houses. The major spaces of the house were; the

triclinium (6), atrium (1), peristyle courtyard (4), exedra (10), cubicula (8 and

9), museion (7), named after the shelves- probably for books- where various

intellectual activities like literature performances and music shows could be

performed276, room 5, and service areas (3) including a kitchen. After 260

AD, a kitchen with a separate fountain was added to the service area, which

received direct access to the peristyle.277 The triclinium had a T-shaped

mosaic floor, allowing for two kline at the east, two at the north, and one at

the west, like in the standard Campanian triclinium.278 An exedra (10) to the

south of the peristyle had a colorful mosaic decoration. Wet spaces and water

276 Çinici, 2006, 82.

277 Ibid., 107-117-129.

278 Ibid., 116.

112

structures of the unit were; two nymphaea in the triclinium, a nymphaeum and

a cistern in the peristyle courtyard, a fountain in the kitchen, and a latrine

(2).279


Unit 2 also lacked the central axis of the Pompeian Houses. The atrium or

Room 5 could have been used as a social area for client receptions. Room 5

appropriately met the approach principles that guided the visitors for official

meetings; the space opened to the courtyard, and from inside the nymphaeum

was visible. Thus it could operate as the starting movement point, hence the

primary axis that connected the entrance and the courtyard and made visitors

perceive the decorum of the house. In the atrium area, the kitchen with a

fountain and the latrine provided water and compensated for the absence of

an impluvium for daily utilization. Adding a fountain to the kitchen in a re-

construction phase verifies the need for running water in this section of the

unit.

As in Unit I, the peristyle courtyard was not visible from the entrance. The

nymphaeum, found on the south side of the vestibulum as well, was not visible

from the door and thus did not contribute to the way-finding as in Unit I.

However, once a visitor entered inside the more expansive north portico, he

could see the nymphaeum that dominated the visual aura of the courtyard and

signified the location of the exedra. The mosaic floor of the north portico, on

the other hand, was simple and composed of black and white geometric motifs

in contrast to the one in the south portico, close to the nymphaeum side, which

was more elaborate and depicted Poseidon, the sea god. The walls of the south

portico (entrance of the exedra) were decorated with paintings that displayed

aquatic themes. At the entrance of the triclinium were marble fountain niches

whose walls were painted with nymphs. This is an excellent example of

Roman influence manifested in the design and decoration of private context;

279 Yıldırım, 2010, 119.

113

associating mosaic contexts, decoration/functional water structures, and

entrances of and/or vistas from major spaces to assign meaning and hierarchy

to rooms and manipulate the concept of interior space as a medium of socio-

spatial encounters.

Following the primary axis of banqueting, from the triclinium side, the

nymphaeum created a focal point of gaze and an optical illusion through the

columns. Since the mosaic floor of the peristyle courtyard was simple with

no figural depictions (except for the south portico), a light-shadow

configuration of water through vertical elements like columns could create a

spacious atmosphere, accompanied by the vaulted arches of colonnades. So,

the water scenery extended the monumentality of the house to a vertical

dimension, a possible allusion to public buildings, for example, to bath

complexes that had monumental heights and similar arched and vaulted

interiors. The blue marble revetment of the courtyard walls enhanced the

setting by adding an aquatic ambiance. It is notable that most parts of the

peristyle had a parapet wall, limiting physical accessibility to the center and

the nymphaeum and thereby providing a more hygienic setting for the

nymphaeum and the underground cistern. Capturing water in this way, on the

other hand, might have been a symbolic act of power represented by the house

owner, reminding emperors to manifest power by conquering water via

aqueducts. Encapsulating water in a protected setting turned the central area

of the house into a stage to watch rather than to penetrate. (Figure 129)

Residential Unit 3

Residential Unit 3 was created by separating Units 3 and 5 in the second

century AD. (Figures 130 and 131) In a typical peristyle house, the unit was

entered from the west of Stiegengasse III street.280 The main spaces of the

house were; the vestibulum (1), peristyle courtyard (4) with two nymphaea

280 Çinici, 2006, 83.

114

symmetrically placed to the south281, triclinium (3)282, which had a mosaic

floor depicting a lion, and Room 2 (undefined), and the latter, Room 5

identified as a museion, which had a marble floor and wall paintings that

represented the Muses.283


The salutatio-type meetings could be done in the atrium or the upper stories

in this modest house.284 The nymphaea located at the south portico, in this

sense, was available for a limited perception. However, its acoustical

presence could be sensible.

The primary axis of banqueting directed visitors through the west portico.

The nymphaea did not totally remain in the visual perspective, but the

triclinium looked to its front façade, which stood as a focal point during the

meeting. The presence of two nymphaea in this small-scale house likely

reflects the desire of the owner to create an ambiance of wealth and luxury,

as manifested in larger residences. Indeed, the arch (see right center photo in

Figure 130) over the rectangular basin of the nymphaea provided visual and

spatial continuity and connection from the south portico285 to the triclinium,

creating an optical illusion of experiencing an interior larger than it actually

was. The back wall of the nymphaea (south portico) was elevated, perhaps

due to the piping infrastructure and the basin feeding them. This elevated

281 Parrish, 1997.

282 Ibid., 1997.

283 Çinici, 2006, 83, 84.

284 Sayram Okray highlighted the similarity in the articulation of the layout of the upper

stories and ground floor, particularly the hospitality epigrams found in both peristyle

courtyards in Unit 4, Sayram Okray, 2009, 96. The same approach could well have been

applied in this small house to create multi-funcitonal spaces.

285 The south portico was later divided into two seperate areas with mosaic pavament, Çinici,

2006, 84.

115

surface directed visitors to turn left from the entrance to reach the museion

(5). In this scenario, the nymphaea created both a visual and an acoustic

accompaniment for the visitors. (Figure 132)

Residential Unit 4

Unit 4 was located in the eastern part of the insula.286 (Figures 133, 134, and

135) The entrance was from Stiegengasse I on the east. The house was a three-

story structure. Its building phases were: mid-first century AD (Phase I), the

vestibulum (1), and the peristyle courtyard on the ground floor belonging to

this phase. The second phase dates to the early second century AD; a

nymphaeum was added to the peristyle courtyard. Due to the addition of new

rooms for Unit 6, the upper floor of Unit 4 was expanded to gain extra space.

In phase III, low walls were erected in the court, and paintings depicting

natural themes were applied to the courtyard decoration. Rooms 6 and 7

(which initially functioned as storage) turned into a summer triclinium. Room

3 also served as a triclinium. The upper floor included a triclinium (10), a

latrine, and a colonnaded courtyrad in this period. Indeed during phases II

and III, Units 1 and 4 had a connection from the south. Phase IV focused more

on reception rooms; once a service space, room 11 was turned into a reception

room, and the access of Units 4 and 1 was closed.287

The main areas of the house, according to the last phase, were: the vestibule

(1) that led to the colonnaded courtyard (4), which had a nymphaeum placed

in front of a narrow wall, museion (3), the walls of which were painted with

muses288, summer triclinia (6 and 7), triclinium (9), latrine (possibly close

286 During the second and third centuries AD, the northern part of Unit 4 was added to Unit

6 and transformed into an apsed room (shaped as a basilica), Zimmermann and Ladstätter,

2011, 62. The house had witnessed many other alterations as well, see Sayram Okay 2009.

287 For further infromation see Sayram Okay 2009, 51-56.

288 Çinici, 2006, 86.

116

to the staircase), and a pool in the courtyard289 on the upper floor, and storage

areas (2, 5). The wall paintings in the courtyard mimicked a natural garden

with flowers.290 A fountain that welcomed the visitors in the entrance area

provided water for the daily routines. The reception rooms of the first floor

surrounded a colonnaded courtyard that had marble and mosaic floors,

different than the ground level, which lacked any particular pavement.291

Possibly due to the space lost to Unit 6 at ground level (the basilical room of

Unit 6 cut through the northwest halls of the courtyard), the upper floor

became the representative part of the house, which had wealthy and

prestigious reception rooms. The impluvium, which once stood at the center

of the colonnaded courtyard (4), could have served the summer triclinium (6

and 7) visually and acoustically. The deconstruction of the impluvium in the

courtyard might have been due to moving the piping infrastructure to Unit 6

during phase III; to gain space for doing activities in the courtyard following

the transformation of the northern part; or to moving the representative living

and reception rooms to the upper level, one or both of which made the

impluvium lose its physical and social importance. There is no firm evidence

about the presence of a kitchen, but it could have been positioned close to the

entrance (1) and storage areas (2 and 5). During the social banquets in the

summer triclinium, the visitors could have used the latrine located on the

upper level and had a chance to look at the lavish ambiance of the house. The

existence of a latrine on the upper floor verifies the active usage of the upper

floor and, in a way, provides the guests a VIP utilization in the banquets. The

upper-story toilet and pool also confirm the existence of a developed piping

system that ran vertically to bring running water to all levels.

289 Sayram Okay 2009, 58.

290 Parrish, 1997, 585.


117

Room 5 is attested as a storage area, and there is no certain tablinum.

However, rooms 5 and 11 were suitable to hold clientele receptions. The

nymphaeum in the entrance was the only visually appropriate water structure

for multi-sensory ambiance. The users of the summer triclinia (6 and 7)

benefitted from the water structure upon entering the house rather than during

meetings. Room 9 is identified as a triclinium but lacks the accompaniment

of a water structure. The pool in the courtyard, surrounded by reception areas

in the first-floor plan, was a luxury item that served as a status symbol in this

small residential unit as well. (Figure 136)

Residential Unit 5

Residential Unit 5 was located in the western part of the insula, on the middle

terrace. The unit took its final form after Units 3 and 5 were separated into

two different dwellings in the second century AD. It was entered from the

Stiegengasse III, from its west, and via a long corridor (1). The corridor

opened to the colonnaded courtyard (4), which had porticoes on three sides.

(Figures 137 and 138) The distinguished spaces and water features of the

house were; the colonnaded courtyard (4) with a nymphaeum which had a

back wall that contained three arched niches for sculptural decorative display,

an oecus (3) with marble decoration, and a possible bathing room (2) that

included a hypocaust system with a nymphaeum on the south wall, and a

drainage system below the ground, two cubicula (5 and 6) at the west of the

colonnaded courtyard,292 and a vaulted exedra transformed from the south

portico (7).293

A staircase located in room 5 gave access to the upper story, which included

lavishly decorated rooms, thought to have been utilized as reception areas.

Indeed, the remain of Muses wall fresco suggests that the museion of this

house was on the upper floor. There is no evidence of the presence of a latrine


293 Çinici, 2006, 87.

118

and a kitchen in this house. However, although room 5 is attested as

cubiculum, the existence of a staircase suggests this area as a service room,

possibly including a kitchen and a latrine.294


The alterations in this part of the insula, resulted in interior spaces that were

different in plan and position than sampled Pompeian houses. The long

corridor (1) did not create a central axis, as in the domus, and was not aligned

with the colonnaded courtyard and hence with the nymphaeum. While the

more expansive north portico directed the users to the oecus (3), the newly

built exedra (7) had narrowed the access from the east portico. The

nymphaeum came into full visual perspective while reaching the exedra. The

oecus, possibly also used for social meetings and clientele reception as

suggested by the primary axis, had more visual contact with the nymphaeum

from the northeast side. Although its construction date is unknown, the

nymphaeum was built in a period different than the colonnaded courtyard;

perhaps, it was constructed after the separation of the house to respond to the

daily water usage. The transformation of the south side of the courtyard into

an exedra left the nymphaeum in a lateral position instead of the centrally

located fountains found in many sampled Pompeian houses. The exedra could

also serve for banqueting and ceremonial feasts by following the primary

axis. The nymphaeum blocked the entrance from the west portico, but this

area was still suitable for recreational walking. Although it does not act as a

cognitive agency for any other room other than room 6, that is, it did not serve

as a reference for any room opening to the courtyard; the nymphaeum surely

changed the atmosphere of the courtyard.

Room 2, which apparently was a bathing room, could have been used for

recreational bathing before or after the banquets and also served as a heating

unit for oecus. The private fountain was also appropriately placed in the south


119

to be used during the family rituals. It provided the water for the possible

service areas (like room 5) near the entrance and provided visual and

acoustical pleasure during the social cleansing. (Figure 139)

Residential Unit 6

Residential unit 6 was located on the northeast of the insula, on the lower

terrace. The house was expanded by the addition of Unit 4, which had a

basilica-shaped room, and the Marble Hall during the second century AD.

(Figure 140) In its final form, the house was around 950 m2. The entrance was

from Curetes Street. The main areas and wet spaces/water structures of the

unit were; the vestibule area (1), including a staircase on the east side leading

to the colonnaded courtyard (4), a cult space (2), a partially heated room on

the west (3), a latrine (5) reached from the south portico of the colonnaded

courtyard but was removed in the last occupation phase, and, a Marble

Hall/triclinium (6) which included nine kline, and was the most prestigious

room of the house and a basilical room that had a fish pool (7). During the

third century AD, A private bath (8) was installed at the east portico of the

colonnaded courtyard. The bath had three sections; on the north was the

caldarium with rectangular and semi-circular basins; in a second room in the

middle was the sudatorium (sweat room), and a third room to the south

functioned as a change room and frigidarium. The walls and the floor of the

Marble Hall were marble-covered, and the mosaic borders highlighted the

kline area. Moreover, this spacious room had a square pool at its central axis

and a nymphaeum on the south wall, supplied by a clean, running water

system. The basilical room was presumably the guest room and had an arched

ceiling sub-space decorated with stucco on the west side. The ground floor

seems to have been the reception area rather than a private section, and there

is no evidence of a kitchen and service area; from the south portico of the

peristyle courtyard, a second staircase led to the upper floor which also had

lavishly decorated rooms.295


120


Unit 6 was the most significant unit of the insula. The entrance was from the

main street. Although there was heavy traffic on the street, the unit was

isolated from the noise of Curetes Street by its elevation and introverted

articulation. Like the other units of the insula, the unit was planned to fit the

topography by expanding on terraces and thus naturally lacked the fauces-

atrium-tablinum axis as seen in sampled Pompeian houses that were built on

flat land. The unit indeed looked like a majestic residence, especially after the

addition of the spacious rooms 6 and 7. The owner of this unit was indeed a

wealthy one. During the expansion of the Unit, it is seen that the new spaces,

including a basilica-shaped room, Marble Saloon, and the bath complex, were

equipped with water elements, and sumptuous water consumption was

possible for daily and social activities. The house owner took advantage of

the visual and acoustical joys of running water in various rooms and for

different activities and even could mimic the public baths. The bath complex

in the house, as in the Pompeian examples, could have been utilized for family

rituals like weddings and funerals and in social rituals like banqueting. The

colonnaded courtyard was accessible from various rooms, providing light and

ventilation. The position of the nymphaeum to its south accompanied the

circulation towards the upper floor and to the latrine before it was

demolished. The square pool and the nymphaeum in the Marble Hall were on

the room's central axis, referencing the entrance of the room and acting like

the impluvium found in the atria of Pompeian domus. The reflection of the

marble texture on the walls over the water features could have also created a

delightful atmosphere. The size and location of the fish pool in the lapsed hall

manifested the importance of this space for a particular use. The vaulted

ceilings covering the water elements placed below in these rooms could well

have been an allusion to caves considered sacred by the Greeks, in a way

adding sanctity to the space and power to the house owner.

121

Although there is no defined tablinum, the cult space (room 2) could be used

for clientele reception due to its elaborate position concerning courtyrad and

the nymphaeum on the south side. Once the visitors entered the colonnaded

courtyard, a nymphaeum would greet them. Water structures in rooms 6 and

7 could accompany them acoustically and invite visitors to discover the rest

of the house. Each banqueting and/or reception space had a unique interaction

with well-attested water structures in these areas. The ample amount of

running water and developed piping system that reached the bath and various

water features represent the articulation of spaces according to the Roman

way of social coding. (Figure 141)

Residential Unit 7

Unit 7 was located in the northwest part of the insula. Although the initial

layout was unknown due to the Byzantine layers, its entrance (1) is thought

to have been from Stiegengasse III296, from the upper floor.297 (Figure 142)

The significant spaces of the house were an eight-columned courtyard (2) and

a marble-riveted room (3), which seems to have been transformed from the

partial south portico of the colonnaded courtyard. A nymphaeum

distinguished the north side of the colonnaded courtyard. There was a second

nymphaeum at the center of the colonnaded courtyard.298 The upper floor

included a room and a large latrine, perhaps also some small cubicula that

were accessible from each other.


The colonnaded courtyard with a nymphaeum, characteristic of the Pompeian

domus, was common in the units in the insula, including Unit 7. However,


297 Çinici, 2006, 90.


122

entering this unit from the upper floor automatically eliminated the central

axis idea of the domus, and created another unique plan within the insula

instead. The longitudinal form of the colonnaded courtyard created a

perspective effect terminating the central nymphaeum. One of the major

rooms of unit (3) had a complete visual gaze of the two nymphaea. The central

nymphaeum might have been associated more with the social meetings in

Room 3, while the one on the north side could be linked to rooms 4 and 5 due

to their accessibility from north and east porticoes. Indeed, rooms 4 and 5

could also be utilized as a reception room for banquets and entertainments as

they opened to the colonnaded courtyard. There were cubiculum-like rooms

and a latrine on the upper floor, suggesting a utilization independent from the

ground floor. The salutation reception could be performed in one of these

upper floor spaces. The service area, though not designated firmly, must have

been located close to the entrance on this floor and could well have served all

the reception rooms in the unit. (Figure 143)

Evaluation

Sampled houses from Zeugma and Ephesus provide some insights into the

spatial and social role of water in the use of a private setting. Some usage

patterns and articulation of specific areas and water structures offer a range

of evidence for the Roman influence on the domestic context of both cities.

As Rapoport (2005) suggests, the organization of space is an organization of

communication, and the constituents such as culture, context, interaction, and

defense scenarios vary according to the daily lives of a society.299 Both sites

had a Greek period occupancy, and with the overlay of Roman culture, a

hybrid articulation took place.

One of the main distinguishing factors in both sites is the lack of the atrium-

tablinum axis of the domus. The local circumstances, such as topography,

culture, and climate, were influential on the variations seen in the design of

299 Rapoport, 2005, 161.

123

domestic structures. For instance, the slope made the Terrace Houses develop

around a more inward orientation than the Zeugma houses or sampled

Pompeian houses. The way water was articulated in the form of large pools,

likewise, might have been a response to the hot climate in Zeugma. However,

both sites recall the social articulation of specific spaces such as triclinium

and circulation areas like colonnaded courtyards or peristyle courts as a

dialogue between public and private like in sampled Pompeian houses. As

Clarke (1991) attested, Roman attitudes towards the house and its use were

close related to domestic rituals.300 One of the remarkable Roman influences

on the provincial houses was the alterations of rooms for ceremonial

activities. Family ceremonies and social meetings such as salutatio,

banqueting, or spectacles were performed in triclinium, tablinum, exedra, or

atrium/peristyle courtyards which were lavishly decorated. The inward

orientation was shifted to more elaborate public areas with the manipulation

of spaces by including specialized water structures like nymphaea or pools as

well as thematic floors and wall coverings as a cultural mark of Roman

identical spatial layout.

As Vitruvius mentioned, decoration offered various meanings, acted as a

differentiator between the private and public areas of the house, and

functioned as a way of dialogue between the house owner and the society

through the domus:301

A picture is, in fact, a representation of a thing which really exists or which can exist:

for example, a man,a house, a ship or anything else from whose definite and actual

structure copies resembling it can be taken (…) Afterwards they made such progress

as to represent the forms of buildings, and columns, and projecting and overhanging

pediments; in their open rooms, such as exedrae, on account of the size, they depicted

facades of scenes in the tragic, comic, or satyric style; and their walks, on account of

the great length, they decorated with a variety of landscapes, copying the

characteristics of definite spots. In these paintings there are harbors, promontories,

seashores, rivers, fountains, straits, fanes, groves, mountains, flocks, shepherds; in

some places there are also pictures designed in grand style, with figures of the gods,

or detailed mythological episodes, or the battles at Troy, or the wanderings of

300 Clarke, 1991, 2.

301 Vitruvius, De Arch. Book VI, 5.1., Book VII, 5.2.

124

Ulysses, with landscape backgrounds, and other subjects reproduced on similar

principles from real life.

Most of the wall paintings found in the Terrace Houses at Ephesus date to 20-

250 AD and commonly show local preferences, including open white fields

and narrow, vertical rectangular fields with botanical designs, these large

straight areas in the central part are usually bordered by a higher zone with

open architectural frames offering visual illusions beyond the wall.

Particularly in museion rooms, the upper zones of the walls portrayed Muses

and Greek theatrical scenes. The remarkable marble applications on walls and

fountains were also symbols of Roman elite lifestyles. Stylistic and

homogeneous mosaics of Zeugma showed local preferences and were thought

to be produced, at least some of them, by mosaicists Zosimos. The context of

mosaics varied from polychrome figural themes to black and white geometric

designs, as in Ephesus. Notably, the peristyle courtyard in section A of House

of Poseidon had stored a large amount of water in a region of drought, which

was a marker of power on behalf of the house owner. Although the use of

monumental nymphaeum as a cognitive agency and status marker recalled the

Roman practice, Greek mythological themes such as the Homeric characters

Penelope and Deidamis written on one of the floors of the House of Euphrates

linked the Zeugna houses to Greek culture.302

Water structures were the primary narrative instruments. Considering

movement/circulation303 between social spaces a significant dimension of

302 Lepinski and Roussea, 2022, 227-232.

303 There is tenacious credence in Roman literature and culture on the regulation of gait; how

you walk defined who you were; it depended on the contribution of an audience instructed in

the art of watching others walk. For instance, in a public funeral ceremony or triumphal

celebration, where and when who walked through, what they wore, what was on the vista, or

whom they were accompanied with were manifestations of status, O’Sullivan, 2011, 13, 53-

54. The domus, also constructed a mental context in relation to movement in ancient Rome.

Since that rhetoric and memory were primary instruments in Roman culture, three Latin

rhetorical authors Cicero, Quintilian, and the author of Ad Hrennium, suggested to use the

house to make an integration between space oand memory. The mental process followed the

axial organization of the domus; from fauces to atrium, there was a suggestion to add more

information at the impluvivum. Due to the strong relationship between memory and visual

attraction and significance, the decorated house was desirable for memory exercises

throughout walking because the term memoria was also associated with invention

125

Roman domestic contexts, various spots marked with water structures

provided a physical and social coding of accessibility and use. In both cities,

social reception areas were articulated around courtyards and linked with

water structures. Particularly in Zeugma Houses, large pools merged with

nymphae were the main water features, for sure to respond to the hot weather

in addition to manifesting wealth, while in Ephesus, the singular nymphaea

articulate rooms, except for some specific water structures like the pools in

rooms 6 and 7 in Unit 6 or the early phase impluvium in Unit 4. However, by

virtue of exaggeration, a generous amount of water operation concerning

social areas could be seen as a transformative strategy of Roman culture. In

the Terrace Houses, it is more apparent that there were intimate relationships

between courtyards and reception rooms, which even was visible on the upper

stories. The wet spaces, water structures, pools, and nymphaea were

orchestrated as luxury and pleasure instruments. This situation, indeed,

created unique private zones for service areas in the house; in the Terrace

Houses, it was observable that social meeting areas such as triclinium or

courtyards were elaborated in a unique way, manifesting house owners’

wealth while service areas could be used commonly. The wet spaces on the

upper stories supported the upper-level reception rooms.

Indeed, the houses at Ephesus and Zeugma, despite their varying scale and

lack of some typical spaces found in domus like tablinum, were designed and

equipped to enjoy the privilege of consuming water in ample quantities and

structuring a syntax of water armatures in the spatial configuration and

decorum of houses.

Private baths were also found in both cities, but more so in Ephesus. The

modest bath (Room 3) in section B of House of Poseidon could well have

been utilized for family ceremonies or for leisurely cleansing before the

banqueting. The hygiene rules written in an inscription placed in front of the

(discovery), disposiio (organization), elocution (ornamentation with word or figures), and

actio (performance through speech and gestures), Bergmann, 1994, 225.

126

triclinium of the House of Euphrates symbolized a connection of meanings

and values to specific ceremonies and spaces; hygiene/cleansing was no

anymore a daily necessity but a part of a performance, a rhythm of the social

meeting. The baths found in the units of Terrace Houses (Room 8 in Unit 6,

Room 2 in Unit 5, and Room 2 in Unit 1) also exemplified how cleansing

became a wealth indicator. Particularly in Unit 6, the layout of the bath,

caldarium with rectangular and semi-circular basins, the sudatorium (sweat

room), a change room, and frigidarium, created a civic bond between the

domestic context and the public baths. This unique bath privileged the house

owners and their guests and made them enjoy the pleasure of water

consumption in the privacy of a domestic bath.

Nymphaeum was a significant operative water agency. Although

fountains/nymphaea with U-shaped or rectangular basins (as in units 5, 3, 2,

and 1 in Terrace Houses and in A section of House of Poseidon) recall the

Grek fountain houses, it is observable that most of the nymphaea was cladded

with marble, glass mosaic, or had a monumental façade as in Roman public

nymphae (The nymphae façades in the House of Mousa and A section of

House of Poseidon, and the ornamental marble fountain niche in Unit 2 in

Terrace House). Due to their powerful three-dimensional presence, the

nymphae were an appropriate decorum to highlight the look of the spaces

physically and socially. Besides providing water for routine utilization, they

performed as cultural, social, and even political agents that reflected self-

identity. Particularly the consciously arranged openings and vistas towards

lavishly designed nymphaea, commonly merged with decorative

sculptures/statues in the niches, represent a mimicking of public buildings

with statues in houses.

127

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

As a transcendent agent of fecundity, water had both concrete and symbolical

consumption in antiquity. From social and religious use to daily consumption,

both the Greeks and the Romans merged water's hydraulic and non-material

aspects into their lives. For instance, Greeks traced the contours of the natural

water sources or used tunnels and siphon systems to collect and distribute

water, built fountains in the urban setting to allow many users to take

advantage of water supply, and considered Nymphs, who were associated with

divinity, as a source of fertility and well-being. The Greek water management

and consumption were more evident and ample in the public sphere than in

the private sphere until the Hellenistic period, which mainly concerned the

technical and fundamental nature of the existing water sources rather than

acting as an agency in complementing and constructing privately performed

events. Wells and cisterns, rather than fountains, commonly occupied the

easily accessible, often centrally placed courtyards. Indeed, the central, paved

courtyard, which was common in Greek houses, including Anatolia, stored

and even concealed the water elements, like reservoirs, cisterns or louters,

and wells, rather than serving as a background décor to elaborate such

elements. The courtyards were paved and not arranged as gardens, a design

aspect that suggests a desire to have durable surfaces in the open area of the

houses. Such paved surfaces made the courtyard and its porticoes suitable

spaces to perform all housework tasks that required water use comfortably.

Unlike in the Roma era thus, the yard served more as a work and utility area

rather than a medium of symbolizing status, wealth, or luxury through its

water exposition. In Greeks domestic contexts then, water was dominantly

utilized to perform the daily housework necessities and hygienic needs. As

such, water had a more practical agency, thus a fixed role rather than a

128

progressive one. Although the houses changed in size, spatial complexity, and

social use, from the perspective of thematic contexts like gender, public-

private, and production from the Archaic period to the Hellenistic Era, the

daily water use mainly retained a humble and pragmatical consumption.

During the Hellenistic period, the agency of water, at least as a decoration

medium, began to be used in the elaboration of houses. Mosaic floor panels

or decorative objects depicting mythological and aquatic themes that

illustrated sea creatures and marine scenes were included in the repertoire of

decoration, particularly in both the private and public areas of the houses, like

colonnaded courtyards and androns. Some examples found in spaces

identified as androns, alluded to cave settings, where the aquatic decoration

was applied not only to embellish the interior but also to create the feeling of

a cave with a spring in the dim ambiance of the space. Although elaborated

wall paintings and mosaic floors were applied as a symbol of prestige and

success of house owners in the vestibules, courtyards, and surrounding

reception rooms, and even in the rooms found on upper floors in some

examples, such as those in Delos, water seems to have been consumed more

for daily and practical utilization. Water features such as a nymphaeum or a

pool were not dominantly at a stage to generate symbolic values or make use

of them for representational purposes, despite the fact that the houses of the

well-to-do were designed often with peristyle courtyards and decorated with

thematic mosaics that represented wealth, prestige and social status. Hence

water repertoire remained humble in terms of honoring the mythological

legacy and representational power of water in even the sumptuous houses of

the Hellenistic period, compared to the extravagant representations found in

Pompeian domus. The piping infrastructures found on the upper floors of

some houses, such as those in Delos, also served in the same manner; they

were built to bring running water to the second stories, which were arranged

to function as rentable units, as understood from the architectural

investigations, rather than expanding an ambiance of water pleasure vertically

129

through pools or fountains, as opposed to such examples that came from

Pompeii.

In terms of daily sanitary usage latrines designed in the form of space with

running water became available from the aqueducts, while private baths for

bodily hygiene, socialization, and recreation remained rare. Latrines arranged

as separate areas were also rare until the Hellenistic period; potties or cesspits

placed in the courtyards were the alternatives. Washbasin and terracotta

toilets, looking like a modern closet, were utilized for household tasks and

sanitary purposes starting from the fourth century BC. The Greek kitchens

were often designed as wet suits in the rear part of houses and composed of a

hearth area and a bathtub area. Although they were accessible from the

courtyards, kitchens were found in the relatively private parts of the houses;

in the traditional plan layouts, the kitchens were located near the living rooms

to the south with respect to the street entrance, rather than the possible

reception rooms, like androns, located near the entrances. Kitchens were

articulated with partial separators with toilet and bathtub in the same room as

Olynthus or separated bathtub and toilet arrangement as in Delos. The size of

bathtubs and organizations offers more practical utilization as cleansing

rather than socializing and leisure.

Romans, on the other hand, used the capacity of water to connect things; the

materiality of water was domesticated to produce and operate cultural and

social codings. Nature, and in particular water, corroborated the construction

of an honorific and allegorical society. The wildness and superpower of

nature were taken under some control by taming water and integrating it into

the public and private realms. Most significantly, the aqueducts and bridges

became the engineering staples that introduced imperial power and pride and

made the water supply facilities turn into semi-divine symbols in the urban

decorum; the Roman public nymphaeum thus formed a mimicking path

between heroes and rulers and unified schemes of luxury display and

mundane utilization and received intricately ornated facades in time.

130

Additional experiential effects, such as increasing the height of the fallen

water to create more dramatic visual and acoustic effects, were also applied

in many examples. Bath complexes, in the same vein, were also venues

beyond being just a place for bathing and bodily cleansing; they were public

institutions that made users become part of a social experience in a generous

and monumental environment crowned with water pleasures. The number of

public baths, providing an ample amount of running water that was supplied

by the aqueducts, increased dramatically in the second century AD. They

were to be found in several major cities within the boundaries of the Roman

Imperial reach and concretized the consumption of water as a cultural matter.

The technical progression of water management and its social reach in the

Roman Era had a transformative influence on the domestic context as well.

The public aqueduct in this context brought water from the rural to the urban

context, while the private water infrastructure accomplished a similar task and

likewise transferred water from the urban to the domestic. The aqueduct fed

the public reservoir from where the water was branched to street fountains

and urban nymphaea, while the main domestic pipeline fed private water

reservoirs like impluvia and cisterns and branched into the house to transfer

water to private baths, kitchens, gardens, pools, and nymphaea.

Contrary to the secluded and introverted nature of the Greek houses, the

Roman domus enabled physical and social intrusion for the visitors in which

water was used as an agency to construct and/or control social patterns.

Although exposed to similar climatic conditions as the Greek houses, the

Roman house had witnessed a more complex pattern of social and space

consumption, with various usage scenarios. The technical advancements in

water supply technology, the socio-economic status of elite and/or wealthy

households, and socio-political and cultural practices that took place in

houses promoted alterations and privatization of water consumption. The

domus defined an identity that concretized the cultural, social, and economic

potential of Romanization. The axial organization of the house, a sequential

131

spatial procession that oriented movement, flexible room usage, extensions

of indoor spaces to outdoor courtyards, vistas of the yards from the reception

rooms, and various social activities taking place in specialized rooms within

this architectural approach, such as salutatio and banqueting defined the

essence of the Roman domus, which in turn, concretized the cultural

uniqueness of the Romans, and consolidated the status of the elite. The

introduction of various water features into the private setting in the form of

functional and symbolic markers along movement paths, or as focal points,

in this respect, was a technical and social achievement of Roman houses in

terms of producing not only abstract meanings and symbolic representations

but also concrete usage and consumption. Water consumption thus became

an ideological act and attained a measure of value and purpose; no longer was

water awarded in only a material sense but also acted as a constructive agent

for such manifestations associated with a private sphere as power, luxury,

pleasure, and profit.

The addition of bath complexes, water jets, elaborate fountain installations,

and pools into enormous gardens symbolized the highest standards of the

households while conveying a semblance of the amplified triumph of Roman

authority. Originated in the Homeric texts, far-away landing, overseas

territories, mythological marine life figures, and conquering rivers were

indeed those representational themes of power, prosperity, luxury, and hence

status; they were, at the same time, signs of high intellectualism that were

artistically articulated in the interiors and gardens of Roman domus. Many

fountains, some designed as elaborate private nymphaea with colored

paintings and sculptural displays, which were placed in the circulation areas,

alluded to and created references to sea travels and marine scenes for the

domestic journey of the guests between the street and the reception rooms.

The guests, in a way, penetrated the house not only physically but also

visually, acoustically, and mentally via the agency of water. The canonic

rituals that involved visitor participation, like banqueting, salutation, the

intellectual and leisurely walking in the courtyards, or bathing together with

132

friends aggregated the operation of the water-based movement and visual

references in the domestic realm. Water, as such, established different

incentives for the activities by articulating spaces that pervaded the Roman

culture.

The consumption of water in production and manufacturing processes was a

marker and quantification of wealth as well. The new formulations in the

resourcefulness of water could be observed in the technical developments

concerning hydrology. The advanced level of water management led the

house owners to design hybrid spaces that both embodied affluence in the

residential quarter and captured a generous amount of water to be used for

socio-economic operations. Hybrid spaces were attained by integrating

production areas into colonnaded courtyards; the resulting scheme, however,

concealed production while maintaining the décor and ambiance of the

courtyard. For instance, one of the remarkable nymphaeum in House VI.8,

which served as a fullonica and was positioned in a critical circulation area,

was installed between two pillars on which were the commercial

advertisement paintings (depicting the laundry process); an example that

traces the typical spatial and social organization of the Roman house as a

representational medium, while highlighting the socio-economic status and

success of house owner' production process.

The sampled houses from Pompeii, in this respect, demonstrated the means

of social and spatial water consumption in the domestic context. From daily

operation to the regulation of ceremonies, social meetings, and

representational entities, water features were commonly integrated into areas

with circulation, such as atria, peristyles, and porticoes, and reception areas

as triclinium, exedra, or tablinum and created visual and auditory pleasures

as well as provided optical guidance for movement. The mediation of water

in multiple usage scenarios in the private setting, such as social cleansing,

social banqueting, production, or representation of status, transformed and, in

some cases, marginalized the functions of rooms. For instance, baths no

133

anymore only served for hygiene and cleansing; they became part of social

performances like banqueting or recreational performances and transformed

into luxury/privileged instruments by merging water features with

ornamented niches, statuaries, or marble treatment. In this respect, the

progress and spread of water management and spatial and social articulation

of domestic context mutually influenced each other; water gained abstract and

conceptual meanings while rooms connected to social, political, or cultural

relations.

Roman's unique water mobilization within public and private contexts is

traceable in the provincial context as well. Zeugma and Ephesus, sampled in

this study, provide fruitful insights into the operation of water in the context

of Roman cultural references in the regional private sphere. Both cities were

originally Greek settlements and displayed strong Greek cultural references.

Roman's exogenous interests in the consumption of water in a physical,

social, and cultural context, in this sense, were appreciated by the elite and

were applied in their dwellings. For instance, while the co-habitation of large

families in Zeugma houses provides local cultural insight into the city, the

inclusion of specific water features in a particular way and spaces designed

in the Roman fashion after the separation of houses into multiple units

indicate non-local adaptations. Similarly, while the spatial connection and

accessibility within the units in Terrace Houses II in the first phase may reflect

both topographical regulations and a Greek-style of utilizing the private

context, the changes in a later stage brought an elimination of access between

the units, privatization of notable water features in social spaces, and addition

of private service areas or latrines in close relation to reception areas on upper

floors; changes which can be read as pieces of evidence reflecting the

house/owners' new ways of self-promotion and representation of prosperity

and privilege as a result of Roman influence. Although the canonic axial

layout of the domus was absent in the sampled houses, which were planned

around central courtyards, the ways spaces were articulated to accommodate

134

specific rituals and management of water for daily and social purposes in

those spaces had similarities to the Roman way of dwelling.

The impact of the hot climate in terms of responding with water amenities is

observable in Zeugma, where the houses were equipped with multiple water

elements. The climate, no doubt, necessitated the distribution of various,

myriad water sources within the houses to help cool the interiors. The water

elements in the Zeugma houses, for example, were found in all courtyards

and also in the triclinium. As such, they were similar to /different from the

domus as exemplified in sampled Pompeian houses where the water elements

were in atria and peristyle/garden. The substance and social operation of

water structures concerning the reception areas and social meetings, on the

other hand, reflected the Roman cultural patterns. Especially the organization

of the triclinium, as a unique and lavishly decorated separated zone designed

private water integrationcould have been utilized not only for banqueting, but

also for family rituals like wedding ceremonies or for domestic spectacles that

might have accompanied banquets, represents instances of the social dialogue

created between affluence, status, and luxury in the Roman domus, for which

water consumption acted as a mediator. In many Zeugma houses, it is

observed that the house was divided between family members and that the

water structures were placed and regulated in a particular way to sustain the

daily operation of all the involved families, and the role of water elements,

particularly the cultural and social coding they made, contextualized the

spatial syntax of the interiors. For instance, unique triclinium zones were

achieved with shallow pools (labeled impluvium by excavators) and aquatic-

themed mosaic floors that highlighted the wealth and luxury aura of the house

and the status of the owner. Indeed water structures referenced the typical

cultural and social rhythms of meetings performed in the Roman private

sphere. The pool/impluvium placed in front of the triclinium merging with the

inscription on hygiene rules in the House of the Euphrates, for instance,

illustrates how the concrete agency of water was transformed into a

135

conceptual-social medium; the cleansing became a privileged entity of elite

and offered cultural regulations to be ordered for specific social performance.

The terrace houses in Ephesus also display a different architectural pattern

than the Pompeian domus. Although the irregularity in the layout of spaces

resulted from the topographical situation of the insulas, which distinguishes

these houses from sampled Pompeian houses in this study, they were built

around a courtyard, and the articulation of water elements spatially and

socially had similarities to the Pompeian houses. Most of which were built on

flat areas. The initiation of the Roman power in the city led to major urban

changes, including the move of the elite to new residential areas, like Curetes

Street, and equipping their houses with water structures that provided ample

amount of running water, which further rendered the lavishness of the

interiors. As in Pompeian houses, the reception spaces were articulated

around colonnaded courtyards and utilized the potential of water structures

which created a social language and hence transformed the setting into an

experiential realm via the visual and acoustical merits of water; which in turn

reinforced both the elite and the Roman identity. The courtyards, as well as

the reception spaces to which they gave to access, were elaborated with

lavishly designed and decorated water instruments that, indeed, reflected the

owners' commitment to Romanitas. The wet service spaces, such as kitchens

and latrines, were also found in similar positions to those found in the

Pompeian domus and Zeugma houses. They were planned close to the street

entrances, in service areas that integrated baths or kitchens and hence easily

integrated with the urban infrastructure or close to the major living and

reception areas like exedra, triclinium or on the circulation paths like porticos

to provide easy and comfortable access to spaces with social and private

functions.

Private baths contributed to house owners' adaptation to Roman cultural

practices by benefitting from water acting as a cultural dialogue element

between spaces and social usage. Particularly such houses as House of

136

Menander, House of Silver Wedding, and Unit 6 in Terrace Houses II had

prestigious and wealth zones that alluded to the physical setting of Roman

public baths, which merged open recreational areas and water structures like

pools and fountains.

The water elements were aural and visual pleasure installations that enhanced

the atmosphere of social gatherings such as banqueting or spectacles and

supported the luxury level of houses. Various types of water structures such

as a fountain/nymphaeum, impluvium, pool, cistern, and basin were included

in the atrium/peristyle courtyards, baths, or triclinia, in which the behavioral

patterns and dynamics of Roman cultural norms were manifested and

practiced. Moreover, in large houses, such water features might have even

functioned as a way-finding or orientation tool. Not only the houses but also

the streets did not have labeling in antiquity; thus, water structures could have

performed as landmarks to orient people in both private and public domains.

The remarkable nymphae that decorated the gardens of House of Small

Fountain, House of Large Fountain, the peristyle courtyard of A section of

House of Poseidon, and the ones in the triclinium of Unit 1 in Terrace Houses

II illustrate the manifestation of the operative and transformative aspects of

water structures. They regulated the narratives of social meetings both

physically and conceptually. The strategically chosen locations and design

preferences, such as the inclusion of aquatic-themed mosaic floors or marble

statuary niches, were the saturation instances of water in social-cultural

dimensions; creating visual and aural focal and pleasure points, acting as

cognitive media, and thus contributing well to Roman's self-identity

representation in the domestic context.

Water had significant implications for Roman's tangible and intangible

cultural issues, from micro to macro levels. Romans celebrated their unveil

on the world stage by incorporating hydrology engineering as a way of

Romanizing public and private contexts. The materialist and conceptual

legacy of water consumption in the Roman Era were so powerful and

137

remarkable that water consumption was practiced as an operative and

transformative element in public and private contexts. The fixation of water

in a specific way, such as a life-sustaining tool, circulation guide, decorum,

label for wealth, elitism, and power, and progression and manifestation

instrument of social, cultural, and political aspirations in the sampled houses

at Pompeii and Anatolia illustrate the cultural values and such connotations

of water consumption as power, and opulence.

Specific areas such as triclinium, tablinum, atrium, and peristyle/garden were

privatized/personalized and gained an exclusive vocabulary by

contextualizing water features. The settings, complexion, and behavioral

patterns of Roman socio-cultural rituals created and/or demanded relational

attributes of water in the built environment; the concrete form of water

dissolved in various spots in the interiors to generate visual, audial, and

pleasure epitomes at multiple scales and scopes.

138

REFERENCES

Abadie-Reynal, C. (2006).Roman Domestic Architecture at Zeugma. In

Ergeç, R. (Ed.). International Symposium on Zeugma: From Past To

Present (PP.1-6). Gaziantep Üniversitesi Matbaası.

Aldrete, S. Gregory. (2004), Daily Life in the Roman City, Rome, Pompeii,

and Ostia. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Anderson, C. J., Jr. (2013). Roman Architecture in Provence. Cambridge

University Press.

Andersson, E. B. (1990). Fountains and the Roman Dwelling: Casa Del

Torello in Pompeii. Jahrbuch Des Deutschen Archäologischen

Instıtuts, 105, 207-236.

Angelakis, N. A., Mays, L. W., Koutsoyuannis, D. and Mamassis, N. (2012).

Evaluation of Water Supply Through Millenia. IWA Publishing.

Andréadès, A. (1930). The Finance of Tyrant Governments in Ancient

Greece. Economic History, 2(5), 1-18.

Antoniou, P. G. (2007). Lavatories in Ancient Greece. Water Science

&Technology: Water Supply, 7(1), 155-164.

Antoniou, P. G. (2010). Ancient Greek Lavatories: Operation with Reused

Water. In Mays, L.W. (Ed.). Ancient Water Technologies, pp. 67-86.

Springer.

Antoniou, P. G.& Angelakis, A.N. (2015). Latrines and Waste Water

Sanitation Technologies in Ancient Greece. In Mitchel, P.D (Ed.).

Sanitation, Latrines and Intestinal Parasites in Past Populations.

Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Apostol, T. M. (2004), The Tunnel of Samos. Engineering and Science, 67

(1), 30-40.

139

Ault, A. B. (2000). Living in the Classical Polis: The Greek House as

Microcosm. The Classical World, The Organization of the Space in

Antiquity 93 (5), 483-496.

Ault, A. Bradly. (2015). ΟΙΚΟΣ ΚΑΛΟΣ: The Environmental Logic of Greek

Urban Houses Forms. In Di Castro, A.A., Hope, C. A. & Parr, E.B.

(Eds.). Housing and Habitat in the Ancient Mediterranean, Cultural,

and Environmental Responses, pp. 123-131. Peeters.

Avgerinou, P. (2017). Ancient Water Sytems in Megara. Schriften der

Deutschen Wasserhistoricschen Gessellschaft, 27 (2), 443-472.

Barrett, E. C. (2019). Domesticating Empire: Egyptian Landscapes in

Pompeian Gardens. Oxford Scholarship Online.

Barrett, E. C. (2017). Recontextualizing Nilotic Scenes: Landscapes in the

Garden of Casa dell’ Efebo, Pompeii. American Journal of

Archeology, 121(2), 293-332.

Beacham, R. (2013). Otium, Opulentia, and Opsis: Setting, Performance and

Perception Within The Mise-En-Scène of the Roman House. In

Harrison, G. W.M. & Liapis, V. (Eds.), Performance in Greek and

Roman Theatre (pp.361-408). Brill.

Bergmann, B. (1994). The Roman House as A Memory Theater: The House

of Tragic Poet in Pompeii, The Art Bulletin, 76 (2), 225-256.

Bergmann, B. (2001). Meanwhile, Back in Italy…Creating Landscapes of

Allusion. In Alocock, S. E. & Cherry, J. F. & Elsner, J. (Eds.).

Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Greece (p.154-166). Oxford

University Press.

Bowe, P. (2012). The Origin and Development of the Ancient Greek

Fountain. Studies in the History of Gardens&Design Landscapes: An

International Quarterly,32(3), 201-213.

Bilge, E. (2019).The ˈCourtyrad Houseˈ: A Spatial Reading of Domestic

Architecture in Ancient Anatolia and Greece. (Publication

No.544144) [Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University].

140

Burke, S. (2000). Delos: Investigating the notion of privacy within the Greek

House. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leicester].

Burney, C. (1972). Urartian Irrigation Works. Anatolian Studies, Special

Number in Honour of Seventieth Birthday of Professor Seton Lloyd,

22, 179-186.

Burns, R. (2017). Origins of the Colonnaded Streets in the Cities of the

Roman East. Oxford University Press.

Butler, H.C. (1901). The Roman Aqueducts as Monuments of Architecture.

American Journal of Archeology, 5(2), 175-199.

Bruun, C. (2015). Water Use and Productivity in Roman Agriculture, Selling,

Sharing, Servitudes. In Bowman, A. and Wilson, A. (Eds.),

Ownership and Exploitation of Land and Natural Resources in the

Roman World (pp. 132-149). Oxford University Press,

Bruun, C. (2000). Water Legislation in the Ancient World (C.2200 B.C.-A.D.

500). In Wikander, Ö. (Ed.), Handbook of Ancient Water Technology

(pp. 539-604). Brill.

Cahill, N. (2002). Household and City Organization at Olynthus. Yale

University Press.

Campbell, B. (2012). Rivers and The Power of Rome. The University of North

Carline Press.

Cianca, J. (2018). Sacred Ritual, Profane Space: The Roman House as Early

Christian Meeting Place. McGill-Queen's University Press.

Clarke, J. R. (1991). The Houses of Roman Italy: 100 B.C.- A.D. 250. Ritual,

Space, and Decoration. University of California Press.

141

Cahill, N. (2002). Lydian Houses Domestic Assemblages, and Household

Size. In Hopkins, C. D. (Ed.). Across the Anatolian Plateau.Readings

in the Archeology of Ancient Turkey. American Schools of Oriental

Research.

Comfort,A., Abadie-Reynal, C. and Ergeç, R. (2000). Crossing the Euphrates

in Antiquity: Zeugma Seen From Space. Anatolian Studies, 50, 99-

126.

Connolly, P& Dodge, H. (1998). The Ancient City, Life in Classical

Athens&Rome. Oxford University Press.

Çinici, A. (2006), An Architectural Investigation of 'Leisure Spaces' in the

Roman Domestic Context: The Case Studies of Ephesus (Publication

No.204997) [Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University].

Crouch, D. (1984). The Hellenistic Water System of Morgantina, Sicily:

Contributions to the History of Urbanization. American Journal of

Archeology, 88(3), 353-365.

Crouch, D. (1993). Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Croom, A. (2012). Roman Clothing and Fashion. Amberley Publishing.

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., Hunter, M. (2014). Sanitation and Wastewater

Technologies in Ancient Roman Cities. In Angelakis, A.N., Rose, B.

J. (Eds.), Evaluation of Sanitation and Wastewater Technologies

Through The Ancient Cities (pp. 251-268). IWA Publishing.

De Laine, J. (2018). The Imperial Thermae. In Holleran, C. & Claridge, A.

(Eds.). A Companion to the City of Rome. John Wiley&Sons Ltd.

De Laine, J. (1989). Some Observations on the Transition from Greek to

Roman Baths in Hellenistic Italy, Mediterranean Archeology, 2, 111-

125.

142

De Simone, G. F. (2017). The Agricultural Economy of Pompeii, Surplus and

Dependence. In Flohr, M. and Wilson, A. (Eds.), The Economy of

Pompeii (pp. 23-51). Oxford University Press

Dickmann, J-A. (2013). A 'Private' Felter’s Workshop in Casa dei Postumii

at Pompeii. In Gleba, M. and Pásztókai-Szeöke, J. (Eds.). Making

Textiles In Pre-Roman and Roman Times, People, Places, Identities.

Oxbow Books.

Dickmann, J.A. (2011). Space and Social Relations in Roman West. In

Rawson, B. (Ed.). A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman

World (pp. 74-95). Wiley-Blackwell.

Dodge, H. (2000). 'Greater than Pyramid's: the water Supply for Ancient

Rome, In Coulston, J. & Dodge, H. (Eds.), Ancient Rome: The

Archeology of the Eternal City (pp. 346-433). Oxford University

School of Archeology.

Draycott, J. (2019). Medicine and The Body in Antiquity. Roman Domestic

Medical Practice in Central Italy, From the Middle Republic to Early

Empire. Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group.

Ducrey, P.& Metzger, I. R. (1979). The House of Mosaics at Eretria.

Archeology, 32(6), 34-42.

Dufton, J. A. (2019). The Architectural and Social Dynamics of

Gentrification in North Africa. American Journal of Archeology,

123(2), 263-290.

Dunn, E. (2009). Natural Water Resources ad The Sacred in Attica, In Kosso,

C. and Scott, A. (Eds.). The Nature and Function of Baths, Bathing,

and Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance (pp. 277-300).

BRILL.

Dunkley, B. (1935/1936). Greek Fountain Buildings Before 300 B.C. The

Annual of the British School at Athens, 1935/1936, 142-204.

143

Eliade, M. (1959). The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion. The

Significance of Religious, Myths, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life

and Culture. A Harvest Book.

Esposito, D. (2021). Decorative Principles Between Public and Private

Spheres in Pompeii: Contexts, Patrons and Artisans. In Haug, A. and

Lauritsen, T. (Eds.). Principles of the Decoration in the Roman World.

De Gruyter.

Fagan, B. (2012). Elixir: A History of Water and Humankind. Bloomsbury

Press.

Fagan, G. G. (2002). Bathing in Public in the Roman World. University of

Michigan Press.

Feldman, C. A. (2014). Re-Placing The Nile: Water and Mimesis in the

Roman Practice of Religion at Pergamon. In Moser, C. &Feldman, C.

(Eds.). Locating The Sacred, Theoretical Approaches to the

Emplacement of Religion (pp. 35-56). Oxbow Books.

Feldman Weiss, C. (2003). Living Fluidly: Uses and Meanings of Water In

Asia minor (Second Century BCE-Second Century CE) [Doctoral

Dissertation, Brown University].

Flohr, M. (2013). The World of the Fullo, Work, Economy, and Society in

Roman Italy. Oxford University Press.

Flohr, M. (2011). Reconsidering the Atrium House: Domestic Fullonicae at

Pompeii. In Poehler, E., Flohr, M., and Cole, K. (Eds.) Pompeii: Art,

Industry and Infrastructure (pp.88-102).Oxbow Books.

Flohr, M. (2008). Cleaning the Laundries II. Report of the 2007 Campaign.

The Journal of Fasti Online.

http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2008-111.

Foss, P. W. (1994). Kitchens ad Dining Rooms at Pompeii: The Spatial and

Social Relationship of Cooking to Eating in the Roman Household,

Volume I. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan].

144

Fournet, T. & Redon, B. (2017). Bathing in the shadow of Pyramids, Greek

Baths in Egypt, Back to on Original Bath Model. In Redon, B. (Ed.),

Collective Baths in Egypt, New Discoveries and Perspectives (pp. 99-

137). Institut Français d’archéologie orientale.

Fournet, T., Lucore, S., Redon, B.& Trümper, M. (2013). Catalog of Greek

Baths, In Lucore, S.&Trümper, M.(Eds.), Greek Baths and Bathing

Culture: New Discoveries and Approaches (pp. 265-333). BABESCH

Suppl. Leuven.

Franks, H. (2014). Traveling in Theory: Movement as Metaphor in the

Ancient Greek Andron. The Art Bulletin, 96(2), 156-169.

Frontinus. The Stratagems and The Aqueducts of Rome. Bennett, C. E.

(Trans.). London: William Heinemann New York: G.P. Putnam’s

Sons.

GAP (2001). Zeugma, A Bridge From Past to Present. Republic of Turkey

Prime Ministery.

Garbagna, C. (2008). The Baths of Caracalla, Guide. Electa.

Gates, C. (2015). Antik Kentler. Antik Yakındoğu, Mısır, Yunan ve Roma’da

Kentsel Yaşamın Arkeolojisi. Koç Universitesi Yayınları.

Geertman, H. (2009). The Urban Development of Pre-Roman City. In

Dobbins, J. J. and Foss, W. P. (Eds.). The World Of Pompeii (pp.82-

97). Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Giesecke, A., L. (2001). Beyond the Garden of Epicurus: The Utopics of the

Ideal Roman Villa. Utopian Studies, 12(2),13-32.

George, M. (2004). Domestic Architecture and Household Relations:

Pompeii and Roman Ephesus. Journal for the Study of New Testament

1(1), 7-25.

145

Gleason, K.L. &Palmer, M.A. (2018). Constructing the Ancient Roman

Garden. In Jahemski, W. F., Gleason, K. L., Hartswick, K. I., Malek,

A. (Eds.), Gardens of the Roman Empire (pp. 369-401). Cambridge

University Press.

Goldberg, Y. M. (1999). Spatial and Behavioural Negotiation in Classical

Athenian City Houses. In Allison, P. (Ed.) The Archeology of

Household Activities (pp.142-161). Routledge.

Goalen, M. (1995). The Idea of Roman City and excavations in Pompeii. In

Cornell, T. J & Lornas, K. (Eds.), Urban Society in Roman Italy (pp.

185-205). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Gönül, H. (2008). Main Topics and Discussions on the Ancient Greek Houses

of West Anatolia. [Master Dissertation, İstanbul Teknik University].

Gökdemir, Ö. (2006). The Classical Period Houses in Burgaz: An

Archaeological and Architectural Overview. [Master Dissertation,

Middle East Technical University].

Görkay, K. (2020). Zeugma. İki Dünya Arasında Yaşamdan Edebiyete

Zeugma’da Evler ve Mezarlar. İş Bankası Yayınları.

Graham, J. W. (1966). Origins and Interrelations of the Greek House and the

Roman House. Phoenix, 20, 3-31.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1086313?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_con

ten.

Haggis, D. C. (2012). The Structuring of Urban Space in Archaic Crete: An

Example of Settlement Development From the Early Iron Age to

Archaic Periods. Mediterranean Archeology,Zagora in Context:

Settlements and Intercommunal Links in the Geometric Period (900-

700 BC) proceedings of the conference held by the Australian

Archeological Institute at Athens and the Archeological Society at

Athens, 25, 201-214.

146

Haggis, D. C.& Mook, M.S. (2011). The Archaic Houses at Azoria. Hesperia

Supplements, ΣΤΣΓ Α: The Archeology of Houses and Households in

Ancient Crete, 44, 367-380.

Hales, S. (2003). The Roman House and Social Identity. Cambridge

University Press.

Harmanşah, Ö. (2015). Place, Memory, and Healing. Routledge,

Taylor&Francis Group.

Hartnett, J. (2017). The Roman Street. Urban Life and Society in Pompeii,

Herculaneum, and Rome. Cambridge University Press.

Hekster, O. (2009). Honouring Ancestors: The Dynamic of Deification. In

Hekster, O., Schmidt-Hofner, S., and Witschel, C. (Eds.). Ritual

Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings

of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of

Empire.BRILL.

Hersch, K. K. (2010). The Roman Wedding. Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity.

Cambridge University Press.

Hippocrates. On Airs, Waters and Places. (Adams, F. Trans.) Internet Classic

Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/airwatpl.mb.txt (400

BC).

Hodge, T. (2002). Roman Aqueducts& Water Systems. Duckworth.

Hodge, T. (2000). Aqueducts. In Wikander, Ö. (Ed.), Handbook of Ancient

Water Technology (pp. 39-66). Brill Academic Publishers.

Jansen, G. (1997). Private Toilets at Pompeii: Appearance and Operation. In

S.E. Bon &R. Jones (Eds.), Sequence and Space in Pompeii (pp. 121-

134). Oxbow Books.

Jansen, G. (2000). Urban Water Transport and Distribution. Wikander, Ö.

(Ed.). Handbook of Ancient Water Technology (pp. 103-125). Brill

Academic Publishers.

147

Jansen, G. (2011). Roman Toilets of The City Minturnae: A Preliminary

Report. In H. V. Hensberg and R.B. Giovanna (Eds.), Minturnae,

Nuovi Contubuti Alla Conoscenza della Forma Urbis, (pp. 129-138).

Roma: Edizioni Quasar.

Jashemski, W. F. (2018). Produce Gardens. In Jashemski, W. F., Gleason, K.

L., Hartswick, K. I., Malek, A. (Eds.), Gardens of the Roman Empire

(pp. 121-151). Cambridge University Press.

Jones, R. and Robinson, D.(2009). Intensification, Heterogeneity, and The

Power in the Development of Insula VI.1. In Dobbins, J.J. and Foss,

W. P. (eds.). The World Of Pompeii (pp. 389-406). Routledge,

Taylor&Francis Group.

Jouanna, J. (2012). Greek Medicine From Hippocrates to Galen, Selected

Papers. BRILL.

Kaynakçı Elinç, Z. (2007), Batı Anadolu’da Hellenistik Roma Dönemleri’nde

Bahçe Mimarisi, (Publication No. 210992). [Doctoral Dissertation,

Akdeniz University].

Kehoe, P.D. (2015). Property Rights over Land and Economic Growth in the

Roman Empire. In Bowman, A. and Wilson, A. (Eds.), Ownership and

Eploiation of Land and Natural Resources in the Roman World (pp.

88-106) .Oxford University Press

Kerschbaum, S. (2022). Romanization and Beyond: Aqueducts and Their

Multilayered Impact on Political and Urban Landscapes in Asia

Minor. In Horster, M. and Hächler, N. (Eds.). The Impact of The

Roman Empire on Landscapes. Proceedings of the Fourteenth

Workshop of International Network Impact of Empire. BRILL.

Kobusch, P. (2020), Fountains and Basins in Greek Sanctuaries, In Chiarenza,

N., Haug, A., Müller, U. (Eds.). The Power of Urban Water (pp.69-

84). De Gruyter.

Kontokosta, A. H. (2019). Building the Thermae Agrippae: Private Life,

Public Space and the Politics of Bathing in Early Imperial Rome.

American Journal of Archeology, 123(1), 45-77.

148

Koloski-Ostrow, A. O. (2015). Roman Urban Smell: The Archeological

Evidence. In Bradley, M. (Ed.). Smell and the Ancient Senses (pp.90-

109). Routledge, Taylor &Francis Group.

Kopestonsky, T. (2016). The Greek Cult of Nymphs at Corinth. The Journal

of American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 85(4), 711-777.

Krinzinger, F. (200). A Roof For Ephesus: The Shelter For Terrace House 2.

Östterreichisches Archäologiches Institut.

Kuleli, A. E. (2005). Efes Yamaç Evler 2’ de, 1,2 ve 4 Nolu Evler Örneğinde

Roma Dönemi Harç Araştırmaları. [Doctoral Dissertation, Dokuz

Eylül University].

Kuşlu, Y. and Şahin, Ü. (2009). Water Structures in Anatolia From Past to

Present. Journal of Applied Science, 5, 2109-2116.

Ladstatter, S. (2013). Terrace House 2 in Ephesos: An Archeological Guide.

Altın Basım Ltd.

Lang, F. (2002). Housing and Settlement in Archaic Greece. Habitat Et

Urbanisme: Dans Le Monde Grec De La Fin Des Palais Myceniens A

La Prise De Milet, 58, 13-32.

Lang, F. (2007). House-Community-Settlement: The new Concept of Living

in Archaic Greece. British Schools of Athens Studies, 15, 183-193.

La Rocca, E. (2001). The Newly Discovered City Fresco From Trajan’s

Baths, Rome. Imago Mundi, 53(2001), 121-124.

Larson, J. (2001). Greek Nymphs, Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford University Press.

Lavelle, B. M. (2005). Fame, Money, and Power. The Rise of Peisistratos and

"Democratic" Tyranny at Athens. The University of Michigan Press.

149

Lepinski, S. and Rousseau, V. (2022). Iconography and Imagery Between

Rome and The Provinces, A Case Study in Domestic Décor. In Cline,

L, K. and Elkins, N, T. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Roman

Imagery and Iconography (pp.222-242). Oxford University Press.

Levick, B. (2004). The Roman Economy: Trade in Asia Minor and the Niche

Market. Greece&Rome, Oct. 2004,51(2), 180-198.

Longfellow, B. (2009). The Legacy of Hadrian: Roman Monumental Civic

Fountains in Greece. In Kosso, C. and Scott, A. (Eds.). The Nature

and Function of Baths, Bathing, and Hygiene from Antiquity through

the Renaissance (pp. 211-232). BRILL.

Lucore, K.S. (2009). Archimedes, The North Baths at Morgantina, and Early

Developments in Vaulted Construction. In Kosso, C., and Scott, A.

(Eds.) The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene

from Antiquity through the Renaissance (pp. 43-59), BRILL.

Lucore, S. K. (2016). Greek Baths. In Miles, M.M. (Ed.). A Companion to

Greek Architecture (pp. 328-341). Wiley Blackwell.

Macaulay-Lewis, E. (2018). The Archeology of Gardens in the Roman Villa.

In Jashemski, W. F., Gleason, K. L., Hartswick, K. I., Malek, A.

(Eds.), Gardens of the Roman Empire (pp. 87-120). Cambridge

University Press.

Mamassis, N.& Koutsoyiannis, D. (2010). A Web Based Information System

for the Inspection of the Hydraulic Works in Ancient Greece. In Mays,

L. W. (Ed.), Ancient Water Technologies (pp.103-114). Springer.

Mansel, A. M. (1978). Side, 1947-1966 Yılları Kazıları ve Araştırmalarının

Sonuçları. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Marzano, A. (2007). Roman Villas in Central Italy. A Social and Economic

History. Leiden.

150

Mays, L. W.& Angelakis, A.N. (2012). Ancient Gods and Goddesses of

Water. In Angelakis, N. A., Mays, L. W., Koutsoyuannis, D., and

Mamassis, N. (Eds.). Evaluation of Water Supply Through Millenia

(pp.1-16). IWA Publishing.

Mays, L.W. (2010). A Brief History of Roman Water Technology. In Mays,

L.W. (Ed.). Ancient Water Technologies (pp.115-138). Springer.

Mayer, E. (2012). The Ancient Middle Class, Urban Life, Aesthetics in the

Roman Empire 100 BCE-250 CE. Harvard University Press.

Meyers, G.E. (2009). The Divine River: Ancient Roman Identity and The

Image of Tiberinus. In Kosso, C., and Scott, A. (Eds.) The Nature and

Function of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity

through the Renaissance (pp. 233-247). BRILL.

Merrills, A. (2017). Roman Geographies of The Nile, From the Late Republic

to the Early Empire. Cambridge University Press.

Mithen, S. (2012). Thirst. Harvard University Press.

Morgan, J. (2010). The Classical Greek House. Liverpool University Press.

Morkoç, S. (2008), Antik Dönem Yunan Evleri (Publication No.250153),

[Master Dissertation, Ankara University].

Morvillez, E. (2018). The Garden in The Domus. In Jahemski, W. F.,

Gleason, K. L., Hartswick, K. I., Malek, A. (Eds.), Gardens of the

Roman Empire (pp. 17-71). Cambridge University Press.

Mouton, A. (2015). The Sacred Hittite Anatolia: A Tentative Definition.

History of Religions, 55(1), 41-64.

Munn, M. (2009). Earth and Water: The Foundations of Sovereignty in

Ancient Thought. In Kosso, C. and Scott, A. (Eds.). The Nature and

Function of Baths, Bathing, and Hygiene from Antiquity through the

Renaissance (pp. 191-210). BRILL.

151

Myers, K.S. (2018). Representation of Gardens in Roman Literature. In

Jashemski, W. F., Gleason, K. L., Hartswick, K. I., Malek, A. (Eds.),

Gardens of the Roman Empire (pp. 258-277). Cambridge University

Press.

Naerebout, G.F.& Singor, W.H. (2014). Antiquity, Greeks and Romans in

Context. Wiley Blackwell.

Nappo, C. S. (2004). Pompeii: A Guide to Ancient City. White Star Publisher.

Nappo, C.S. (2009). Houses of Regions I and II. In Dobbins, J. J. and Foss,

W. P. (Eds.). The World of Pompeii (pp. 347-372). Routledge,

Taylor&Francis Group

Newby, Zahra. (2012). The Aesthetics of Violence: Myth and Danger in

Roman Domestic Landscapes. Classical Antiquity, 31(2), 349-389.

Nevett, L. (2015). Understanding Variation in Ancient House-Forms: A

Preliminary Discussion. Housing and Habitat in the Ancient

Mediterranean, Cultural, and Environmental Responses

(pp. 143-149). Peeters.

Nevett, L. C. (2005). Ancient Greek House and Households. Chronological,

Regional and Social Diversity. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Nevett, L. C. (1999). House and Society in the Ancient Greek World.

Cambridge University Press.

O'Sullivan, M. T. (2006). The Mind in Motion: Walking and Metaphorical

Travel in the Roman Villa. Classical Philology, 101(2) , 133-152.

Ovid. (1915). Metamorphoses. ( Miller, F. J. Trans.). Harvard University

Press.

Owens, E. J. (2005). The Ariassos Aqueduct and Cultural Developments in

Roman Cities in Asia Minor. Mediterranean Archeology, 18, 31-39.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24668169?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_co

ntents.

152

Owens, E. J. and Taşlıalan, M. (2009). Beautiful and Useful: The Water

Supply of Pisidian Antioch and the Development of the Roman

Colony. In Kosso, C., and Scott, A. (Eds.) The Nature and Function

of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity through the

Renaissance (pp. 301-319). BRILL.

Önal, M. (2013). Poseidon- Euphrates Evleri. Belkıs/Zeugma. Arkeoloji ve

Sanat Yayınları.

Önal, M. (2009). Danae House Mosiacs in Zeugma. Journal of Mosaic

Research, 3(53), 53-69.

Özgenel, L. (2000). Between Public and Private: Investigating Privacy in

Roman Domestic Context. [Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East

Technical University].

Panoussi, V. (2019). Brides, Mourners, Bacchae. Women’s Rituals in Roman

Literature. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Parrish, D. (1997). Architectural Function and Decorative Programs in the

Terrace Houses in Ephesos. Topoi. Orient-Occident.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/topoi_1161-9473_1997_num_7_2_1736.

Pirson, F. (2009). Shops and Industries. In Dobbins, J. J. and Foss, W. P.

(Eds.). The World Of Pompeii (pp. 457-473). Routledge, Taylor and

Francis Group,

Platts, H. (2020). Multisensory Living in Ancient Rome: Power and Space in

Roman Houses. Bloomsburg Academy.

Pliny the Elder (1915). Letters (W.M.L. Ed.). London: William Heinemann.

Polat, G. and Polat, Y. (2003). Antandros 2002 Yılı Kazıları. Olşen, K. &

Özme, A. & Dönmez, H. in (Eds.) 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı I.

Cilt (pp. 453-462). Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

153

Polat, G. and Polat, Y. (2005). Antandros 2003-2004 Yılı Kazıları. Olşen, K.

& Özme, A. & Dönmez, H. in (Eds.) 27. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı

II. Cilt (pp. 89-104). Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Pollard, E.A. (2009). Pliny’s Natural History and the Flavian Templum Pacis:

Botanical Imperialism in First Century C. E. Rome. Journal of World

History, 20(3), 309-338.

Potter, D. (2015). The Scent of Roman Dining. In Bradley, M. (Ed.). Smell

and The Ancient Senses (pp.120-132). Routledge, Taylor&Francis

Group.

Purcell, N. (1995). The Roman Villa and the Landscape of Production. In

Cornell, T. J & Lornas, K. (Eds.), Urban Society in Roman Italy (pp.

157-184). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Radt, W. (1998). Bericht Über Die Kampagne 1997 in Pergamon. In Olşen,

K. & Çakmak, H. & Bayram, F.& Kaymaz, F.& Tarlan, N.& Özme,

A.& SAtaş, K.& Dönmez, H. XX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı II. Cilt

(pp.93-109). Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Richard, J. (2012). Water for The City, Fountains for The People,

Monumental Fountains in the Roman East. Waelkens, M. (Ed.).

BREPOLS.

Robinson, B.A.(2017). Fountains as Reservoirs of Myth and Memory. In

Hawes, G. (Ed.), Myths on the Map, The Storied Landscape of Ancient

Greece (pp.178-203). Oxford University Press.

Rogers, A. (2013). Water and Roman Urbanism: Towns, Waterscapes, Land

Transformation and Experience in Roman Britain. BRILL.

Rapoport, A. (2005). Vernacular Architecture and Cultural Determinants of

Form. In D. King, A. (Ed.), Buildings and Society, Essays on the

Social Development of the Built Environment (pp. 158-169).

Routledge&Kegan Paul.

154

Rossiter, J.Jeremy, (2007). Domus and Villa: Late Antique Housing in

Carthage and its Territory. In Lavan, L., Özgenel, L. and Sarantis, A.

(Eds.). Housing in Late Antiquity, From Palaces to Shops (pp. 367-

392). BRILL.

Rowland, D.I. (2014). From Pompeii, Afterlife of a Roman Town. The

Belknap Press of Harward University Press, Cambridge.

Ryan, G. (2018). Building Order. Classical Antiquity, April 2018, 3 (1), 151-

185.

Sayram Okay, E. (2009). A Case Of Romanization. The Terrace Houses of

Ephesus. [Master Dissertation, Koç University].

Schwaiger, H. (2017). Domestic Architecture in Ephesos from the Hellenistic

Period to Late Antiquity. In Huebner, S.R. and Nathan, G. (Eds.).

Mediterranean Families in Antiquity. Households, Extended

Families, and Domestic Space (pp.79-91). WILEY Blackwell.

Seneca, L. A. (2010). Natural Questions (Hine, H. M., Trans.). The

University Of Chicago Press.

Seneca, L. A. (2014). Seneca The Younger: Complete Works (Clarke, J.

Trans.). Delphi Classics. (65 AD).

Sewell, J. (2010). The Formation of Roman Urbanism 338-200 B.C.: Between

Contemporary Foreign Influence and Roman Tradition. Portsmouth.

Sidgwick, H. (1894). Luxury. International Journal of Ethics, 5(1), 1-16.

Stephenson, J.W., (2009). Villas and Aquatic Culture in Late Roman Spain.

In Kosso, C., and Scott, A. (Eds.) The Nature and Function of Water,

Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance

(pp. 338-360). BRILL.

155

Stephenson, J. (2016). Dining as Spectacle in Late Roman Houses. Bulletin

of the Institute of Classical Studies, 59(1), 54-71.

Talloen, P. and Poblome, J. (2020). Every Agora Needs Fountain: The Early

Roman Imperial Fountain of the Upper Agora of Sagalassos (SW

Turkey), Colloquium Anatolicum, 19, 151-168.

Taylor, C. (2015). A Tale of Two Cities: The Efficacy of Ancient and

Medieval Sanitation Methods. In Mitchell, P. D. (Ed.), Sanitation,

Latrines, and Intestinal Parasites in Past Population (pp. 69-97).

Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Thomas, E. (2007). Monumentality and The Roman Empire. Architecture in

the Antonine Age. Oxford University Press.

Topal, H. V. (2020). Romanization of Urban Spaces in Ephesus. [Master

Dissertation, Middle East Technical University].

Trümper, M. (2007). Differentiation in the Hellenistic Houses of Delos: the

question of functional areas. In Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley,

J. (Eds.).Building Communities, Houses, Settlement and Society in

The Aegean and Beyond(pp. 314-334). British School at Athens.

Trümper, M. (2011). Hellenistic Latrines. In Jansen, G.C.M.& Koloski-

Ostrow, A.O.& Moormann, E. M. (Eds.), Roman Toilets, Their

Archeology, and Cultural History (pp.33-42). Peeters.

Trümper, M. (2014). Baths and Bathing Culture, Greek. In C. Smith at al.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archeology (pp. 784-799). Springer

Verlag.

Tsatsanifos, C. & Michalis, I. (2014). Proceedings of the 2nd Eastern

European Tunneling Conference: Tunneling in a Challenging

Environment, making tunneling business in a difficult times.

Tsakirgis, B. (2016), What is a House? Conceptualizing the Greek House. In

Glazebrook, A.& Tsakargis, B. (Eds.) Houses III of Repute, The

Archeology of Brothels, Houses and Taverns in the Greek World ( pp.

13-35). University of Pennsylvania Press.

156

Tsakirgis, B. (1990). The Decorated Pavements of Morgantina II: The Opus

Signinum. American Journal of Archeology, 94(3), 425-443.

Tsakirgis, B. (1984). The Domestic Architecture of Morgantina in the

Hellenistic and Roman Periods. [Doctoral Dissertation, Princeton

University].

Uğurlu, N. B. (2004). The Roman Nymphaea in the Cities of Asia Minor:

Function in Context. [Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical

University].

Uytterhoeven, I. (2013). Running Water, Aqueducts as Suppliers of Private

Water Facilities in (late) Roman Asia Minor. In Wiplinger, G. (Ed.).

Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archeology (pp. 137-160).

BABESCH.

Uytterhoeven, I. (2019). Increasing Luxury: Living as an Aristocrat in

Hellenistic and Imperial Roman Asia Minor, Tekin, O. (Ed.),

Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia: Kings, Emperors, City States (pp.

414-434). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Van der Ham, N.H. (2006). Olynhtos, Urban Water Management in Classical

Greece. In Wiplinger, G. (Ed.), Cura Aquarum In Ephesus (pp.211-

216). Peeters.

Vandorpe, K. (2010). The Ptolemaic Period. In Lloyd, B. (Ed.), A Companion

to Ancient Egypt. Volume I (pp.159-179). Wiley-Blackwell.

Van Aken, A.R.R. (1951). Some Aspects of Nymphea in Pompeii,

Herculaneum, and Ostia. Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 3 (4), 272-284.

Varriale, I. (2012). Architecture and Decoration in the House of Menander in

Pompeii. In Balch, L. D. and Weissenrieder, A. (Eds.), Contested

Spaces, Houses and Temples in Roman Antiquity and New Testament

(pp. 163-184). Mohr Siebeck.

157

Viollet, P. l. (2007). Water Engineering in Ancient Civilizations. 5,000 Years

of History. (Holly, F. M. Jr., Trans.). Taylor&Francis Group. (Original

work published in 2005).

Vitruvius (1914). The Ten Books on Architecture. (Morgan, M. H. Trans.).

Harvard University Press.

Walter-Karydi, E. (1998). The Greek House, The Rise of Noble Houses in

Late Classical Times. The Archaeological Society at Athens.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1994). Houses and Society in Pompeii and

Herculaneum. Princeton University Press.

Ward Perkins, J. B. (1955). The Aqueduct of Aspendos. Papers of the British

School at Rome, 23, 115-123.

Watts, E. T. (2015). Martial’s Farm in the Window Author(s). Hermathena,

198, 53-90.

Westgate, R. (2015). Space and Social Complexity in Greece from the Early

Iron Age to the Classical Period. The Journal of American School of

Classical Studies at Athens, 84(1), 47-95.

Westfall, W. C. (2007). Urban Planning, Roads, Streets, and Neighborhoods.

The World Of Pompeii (pp. 129-139). Routledge, Taylor&Francis

Group Wilkonson, P. (2017), Pompeii: An Archeological Guide. I. B. Tauris &Co.

Ltd.

Wilson, A. (2011). Urination and Defecation Roman-Style. In Koloski-

Ostrof, A.O., Jansen, G. J.M, Moormann, E. M. (Eds.), Roman

Toilets: Their Archeology and The Cultural History (pp.95-11).

Leiden.

Wiplinger, G. (2019). Thirteenth BABESCH Byvanck Lectures. The

BABESHC Foundation.

158

Wiseman, J. (1970). The Fountain of Lamps. Archeology, 23(2), 130-137.

Wycherley, R.E. (1962). How the Greeks Built Cities. Macmillan and

Company Limited.

Yegül, F. and Favro, D. (2019). Roman Architecture and Urbanism, From the

Origins to Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press.

Yegül, F. (2014). Roman Imperial Baths and Thermae. In Ulrich, R, B.

&Quenemoen, C, K. (Eds.), A Companion to Roman Architecture (

pp. 299-321). Wiley Blackwell.

Yegül, F. (1992). Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. The MIT Press.

Yıldırım, Y. S. (2010). The Culinary Culture of Hellenistic and Roman

Periods in Western Anatolia in the Light of the Ruins of Metropolis.

[Doctoral Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University].

Yoncacı, P. (2007). Roman Urban Space Framed By Colonnades: Mediating

Between Myth, Memory and History in Ephesus.

[Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University].

Young, R. S. (1951). An Industrial District of Athens. Hesperia: The

Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,

20(3), 135-288.

Zarmakoupi, M. (2011). Porticus and cryptoporticus in Luxury Villa

Architecture. In Poehler, E., Flohr, M., Cole, K. (Eds.). Art, Industry,

and Infrastructure in Roman Pompeii (pp. 51-61). Oxbow Books.

Zarmakoupi, M. (2014). Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples, Villas

and Landscapes (100 BCE-79 CE). Oxford University.

Zytka, Michal. (2019). A cultural History of Bathing in Late Antiquity and

Early Byzantium. Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group.

159

Zimmermann, N. (2020). Archeological Evidence for Private Worship and

Domestic Religion in Terrace House 2 at Ephesos. In Schowalter, D.,

Ladstätter, S., Friesen, S., Thomas,C (Eds.). Religion in Ephesos

Reconsidered (pp.211-229). BRILL.

Zimmermann,N. and Ladstätter, S. (2011). Ephesos Duvar Resimleri. Ege

Yayınları.

Zuiderhoek, A. (2009). The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire.

Citizens, Elites, and Benefactors in Asia Minor. Cambridge University

Press.

160

APPENDICES

A. FIGURES

Figure 1. Votive relief showing family members worshipping at a rock altar

with three nymphs on the right, in a cave setting overseen by Pan, Athens,

fourth century BC (Munn 2009).

Figure 2. Spring at the Monastery of Kaisariani, Mount Hymettos, fifth

century BC (Dunant 2009).

161

Figure 3. Archaic kore fragment dedicated to nymphs, Miletos, sixth century

BC, Archaic votive reliefs of two female figures, Miletos, sixth century BC

(Larson 2001).

162

Figure 4. Terracotta pipes in a stone distribution box, Priene, Hellenistic Era

(Jansen 2000).

Figure 5. House G, Emporio, eighth-seventh century BC (Westgate 2015).

163

Figure 6. Zagora, Andros, a: 775-725 BC phase, b: late eighth-century BC

phase (Westgate 2015).

164

Figure 7. East and West Houses, Azoria, Eastern Crete, seventh-fifth

centuries BC (adapted from Haggis and Mook 2011).

Figure 8. North House Building, Azoria, Eastern Crete, seventh-fifth

centuries BC (adapted fromHaggis and Mook 2011).

165

Figure 9. Repaired bathroom in Smyrna, seventh-sixth century BC (Pekşen

2015).

166

Figure 10. Prostas houses, Priene (Sewell 2010).

Figure 11. Herdraumhauses, Kassope (Sewell 2010).

167

Figure 12. Plan of the central and southern parts of the Great Drain area in

pre-Roman times (Young 1951).

168

Figure 13. House C, Athens, fifth century BC (adapted from Young 1951).

Figure 14. Tunnel and its cross-section with supply conduit in Avenue A,

Olynthus (Van Der Ham 2006).

169

Figure 15. Reconstruction of the Fountain House, and the reconstructed plan

of the conduit, Olynthus (Van Der Ham 2006).

Figure 16. Water systems found in the houses, plan of block A.V, Olynthus

(adapted from Van De Ham 2006).

170

Figure 17. House of Many Colors, Olynthus, late fifth-early fourth century

BC (adapted from Cahill 2002).

Figure 18. House A iv 9, Olynthus, late fifth-early fourth century BC

(adapted from Cahill 2000).

171

Figure 19. Maison Du Trident, Theater Quarter, Insula II, House A, Delos

(Trümper 2007).

172

Figure 20. House II D, Theater Quarter, Delos, g: well; f-h: suit of rooms; b-

d: suit of rooms (Burke 2000).

Figure 21. House II F, a: courtyard; c: vestibule; e: previous vestibule; m:

possible staircase Theater Quarter, Delos (Burke 2000).

173

Figure 22. Typical Delian House (Burke 2000).

Figure 23. House of Official, Morgantina, third century BC (plan shows the

state of the house after 211 BC when it was divided into two) (adapted from

Tsakirgis 1990).

174

Figure 24. Lekanis Lid, showing wedding preparations, mid-fourth century

BC, St. Petersburg, Hermitage (Walter-Karydi 1998).

Figure 25. Terracotta toilet from Olynthus, fourth century BC, Archaeological

Museum at Thessaloniki (Crouch 1993).

175

Figure 26. Toilet and bathtub in the same room, Olynthus; separated bathtub

and toilet arrangement, Delos (Crouch 1993).

176

Figure 27. Ships sailing around the interior rim of a black figure dinos, 530-

510 BC; floating Herakles depicted on the cup of Helios, fifth century BC

(Franks 2014).

177

Figure 28. Lion Spout, House of Mosaics, Eretria, mid-fourth century BC

(Ducrey and Metzger, 1979).

Figure 29. Water distribution of Pompeii (Viollett 2007).

178

Figure 30. Typical Pompeian domus, (Clarke 1991).

Figure 31. Axonometric view of a typical Pompeian domus (Clarke 1991).

179

Figure 32. House of Centenary, a peristyle house, Pompeii (Clarke 1991).

180

Figure 33. Exterior of the House of the Vetti, Pompeii (Hartnett 2017).

Figure 34. Perspective through the atrium from the street entrance, the House

of the Vetti, Pompeii (Hartnett 2017).

181

Figure 35. House of Small Bull, atrium-tablinum, Pompeii

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.20301057?).

.

Figure 36. House of Faun, atrium-tablinum-peristyle sequence, Pompeii

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.20318177?searchText=house+of+)

.

182

Figure 37. House VI 17, atrium, Pompeii

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.20308522?searchText=house+VI).

183

Figure 38. House of Ancient Hunt, atrium-tablinum-peristyle sequence,

Pompeii

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.20313541?searchText=HOUSE+).

Figure 39. House of Clos de La Nombra, Lombarde in Narbonne, between

40-20 BC (Anderson 2013).

184

Figure 40. Map of Pompeii (Wilkonson 2017).

185

Figure 41. House of the Vetti, Pompeii (Plan: adapted from Wilkonson 2017,

figures: https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-15/house-of-the-vettii).

Figure 42. House of Venus Marine, Pompeii, first century BC (plan: adapted from

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-ii/reg-ii-ins-3/house-of-venus-in-the-shell, figures:

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-ii/reg-ii-ins-3/house-of-venus-in-the-shell).

186

Figure 43. House of Silver Wedding, Pompeii, 30-40 BC (Plan: adapted from Wilkonson, 2017, figures:

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-v/reg-v-ins-2/house-of-the-silver-wedding).

Figure 44. House of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii, second century BC (Plan: adapted from Wilkonson 2017, figures:

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-8/house-of-the-tragic-poetand Bergmann 1994).

187

Figure 45. Longitudinal section of the House of Tragic Poet, Pompeii

(https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-

8/house-of-the-tragic-poet).

Figure 46. Bath of House of Menander, Pompeii (on the left)

Figure 47. Bath of Julia Felix, Pompeii (on the right)

188

Figure 48. Reconstruction of a kitchen from Pompeii to the right of the

counter is a toilet (Koloski-Ostrow 2015).

189

Figure 49. The latrine of the House of Faun, Pompeii.

House of Vetti House of Venus Marine

House of Silver Wedding House of Citharist

190

House of Ephebe House of Menander

Figure 50. Location and layout of service areas, kitchens, and latrines in the

sampled houses, Pompeii

Figure 51. Summer triclinium, House of Citharist, Pompeii, first century BC

(http://pompeiisites.org/sito_archeologico/casa-del-citarista/#&gid=1&pid).

191

Figure 52. Perspective from summer triclinium to the garden, House of

Citharist, Pompeii, first century BC

(https://ermakvagus.com/Europe/Italy/Pompeii/citharist.html).

192

Figure 53. House of Postumii, Insula VIII.4, Pompeii, second century AD

(plan adapted from Dickmann 2013).

193

Figure 54. House VI.8 with a fullonica, Pompeii, first century AD (original

layout dates to first century BC) (plan: adapted from drawn by the author,

figures:

http://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R6/6%2008%2020%20p2.).

194

Figure 55. House VI.14, Pompeii, first century AD (original layout dates to

the first century BC) (plan: drawn by the author, figure:

https://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R6/6%2014%2022.htm).

Figure 56. House of Owen, Pompeii, original layout dates to second century

BC, Pompeii (plan adapted from Pirson 2009, figures:

https://www.pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R7/7%2002%2022.).

195

Figure 57. House of Bakery of Popidius Priscus, Pompeii (plan drawn by

the author, figures:

http://www.pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/r6/6%2003%2003).

Figure 58. Reconstruction of pseudo peristyle (Andersson 1990).

196

Figure 59. The nymphaeum in the frigidarium of House of Centennial

(Esposito 2021).

Figure 60. Left: Nilotic detail of east wall of the pool in Suburban Baths,

Right: Frieze with pygmies in the frigidarium of Sarno baths.

197

House of Centennial House of Julia

Felix

House of Menander House of Silver

Wedding

198

House of Vestals

Figure 61. Private Baths in the sampled houses, Pompeii

199

Figure 62. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Tragic Poet and House of Silver Wedding.

200

Figure 63. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Vetti and House of Julius Polybius.

201

Figure 64. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Large Fountain and House of Venus Marine.

202

Figure 65. Visual and movement axis of social meetings, House of Small Fountain and House of Loreius Tiburtinus.

203

Figure 66. House of Large Fountain, Pompeii, original layout dates to the

second century BC (plan suggests that adjoining Fullonica of L. Veranius

Hypsaeus was extended northwards at some time to the detriment of property.

The blocked door(9) supports the realteration)

(plan: adapted from

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-

8/house-of-the-large-fountain: sites.google)

(1: fauces; 3: atrium; 4: corridor; 5: oecus; 6: kitchen; 7: portico; 8: ala).

204

Figure 67. House of Small Fountain, first century BC, Pompeii (plan: adapted

from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-

8/house-of-the-small-fountaindrawn by the author, figures:

http://www.pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/r6/6%2008%2023%).

(1: fauces, 2: cubiculum, 3: atrium, 5: oecus, 7: colonnaded garden, 8:

nymphaeum, 9: cubiculum).

205

Figure 68. Plan of the House of Polybius. A: entrance, B: courtyard, C:

antechamber, D: atrium, E: tablinum, F: colonnaded courtyard, G: shop, H:

corridor, I: east portico, J: north portico, K: triclinium, M: kitchen, N: service

quarter, O: staircase, L: cubiculum, J: oecus, Pompeii, second century BC

(plan: adapted from Nappo 2004, figures: Ciro Nappo 2004 and

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-ix/reg-ix-ins-13/).

206

Figure 69. House of Loreius Tiburtinus, Pompeii (plan: adapted from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-

ii/reg-ii-ins-2/house-of-octavius-quartio drawn by the author, figures: https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-

ii/reg-ii-ins-2/house-of-octavius-quartio).

Figure 70. House of Faun, Pompeii (plan: adapted from Wilkonson 2017, figures:

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-12/house-of-the-faun and

https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.20318842?searchText=house+of+faun&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%).

207

Figure 71. House of Menander, Pompeii (plan: adapted from Varriale 2012, figures:

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-i/reg-i-ins-10/house-of-menander).

208

Figure 72. Part of the frieze at the upper zone of the atrium, House of

Menander, Pompeii (Varialle 2012).

Figure 73. The Nile Mosaic from Praeneste (Merrills 2017).

209

Figure 74. House of Ephebe, Pompeii, 60 or 70 BC (plan: adapted from

https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-i/reg-i-ins-7/house-

figures: https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-i/reg-i-i).

210

Figure 75. Painting depicting a shrine probably devoted to Isis-Fortuna and

surmounted by a sphinx, summer triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii

(Merrills 2017).

Figure 76. Painting Showing Egyptian worship and leisure, couches of

summer triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii (Merrills 2017).

Figure 77.Painting Egyptian worship and leisure, couches of summer

triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii (Merrills 2017).

211

Figure 78. Painting showing Nilotic animal life in riverbank, couches of

summer triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii (Merrills 2017).

Figure 79. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies, Pompeii

(http://pompeiisites.org/en/archaeological-site/house-of-the-pygmies/).

212





213

Figure 82. Painting depicting garden and hunting scene on the wall in the

garden, House of Ceii, Pompeii, 70s BC (Merrills 2017).

Figure 83. Hellenistic Fountain, Ephesus (Topal 2020).

214

Figure 84. Reconstruction of Nymphaeum Traiani, Ephesus (Topal 2020).

Figure 85. Façade of nymphaeum Tiberius Claudius Piso, Sagalassos, 160-

180 AD (Ryan, 2018).

215

Figure 87. Reconstructed elevation and plan of the colonnaded avenue at

Termessos (Ryan 2018).

216

Figure 88. Colonnaded Street of Perge (author, 2017).

Figure 89. Houses XXXIV and XV, Priene, fourth century BC (adapted

from Bilge 2019).

217

Figure 90. Zeugma (Görkay 2020).

218

"Figure 90 (cont’d)" Zeugma (Görkay 2020).

Figure Top: 1:Temple, 2:Theatre, 3:Roman Forum?, 4:Stadion/Campus,

5:Hellenistic Agora, 6:Market Building, 7:Circular Plan Building, 8:Houses

of Danane- Dionysos, 9:House of Mousalar, 10:Houses of Poseidon-

Euphrates, 11: House of Synaristosai, 12:City Gate?, 13:Bath?, 14:Mosiac of

Poseidon-Peristyle Structure, 15:Military Extension structure,

16:Monumental Arch

Figure Below:

Roman Era Boundary Hellenistic Era Boundary.

219

Figure 91. Roman Villa (GAP, 2001).

Figure 92. House of Synaristosai (GAP, 2001).

220

Figure 93. Roman Villa (GAP, 2001).

Figure 94. Reconstruction of the domestic area, Zeugma, first and mid-third

centuries AD (Görkay 2020).

221

Figure 95. Location of Houses (Önal 2013).

Figure 96. Lararium, Dionysos and Danae Houses, Zeugma, first and mid-third centuries AD (Görkay 2020)

222

Figure 97. House of Poseidon A, Zeugma, first and mid-third centuries AD (plan: adapted from Önal 2013, figures: Görkay

2020, Önal 2013).

223

Figure 98. Mosaic floor depicting the re-birth of Aphrodite, House of

Poseidon Section A, Room (9), Zeugma

(http://zeugma.org.tr/eserler.aspx?eser=10).

Figure 99. Mosaic floor depicting Posseidon, Oceanus, and Tethys, House of

Poseidon Section A, floor mosaic in the pool of the colonnaded courtyard,

Zeugma (http://zeugma.org.tr/eserler.aspx?eser=8).

224

Figure 100. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, House of Poseidon, Section A, Zeugma.

225

Figure 101. House of Poseidon, Section B, Zeugma, first and mid-third centuries AD (plan: adapted from Önal 2013, figures:

Görkay 2020, Önal 2013).

226

Figure 102. Galatia on water panther, Section B, House of Poseidon,

Zeugma (http://zeugma.org.tr/eserler.aspx?eser=14 ).

Figure 103. Aquatic floor mosaic in the triclinium, Section B, House of

Poseidon, Zeugma (Görkay 2020 and

http://zeugma.org.tr/eserler.aspx?eser=31)

227

Figure 104. House of Euphrates, Zeugma, first and mid-third centuries AD (plan: adapted from Önal 2013, figures: Görkay

2020, Önal 2013).

228

Figure 105. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, House of Euphrates, Zeugma.

229

Figure 106. House of Danae, Zeugma, second and mid-third centuries AD (plan: adapted from Önal 2009, figures: Önal 2009

and Görkay 2020)

230

Figure 107. Mosaic floor of the pool in the small courtyard, House of Danae

(http://zeugma.org.tr/eserler.aspx?eser=32 ).

Figure 108. Nymphe mosaic in front of the area of the cistern in the

courtyard, House of Danae (Görkay 2020).

231

Figure 109. Fountain in the new atrium, House of Quintus Calpurnius

Eutyches (Görkay 2020).

Figure 110. Corinthian atrium, House of Dionysos (Görkay 2020).

232

Figure 111. Reconstruction of the triclinium carved into the rock, Dionysos

(Görkay 2020).

Figure 112. Cistern and water tanks in the atrium, House of Mousa (Görkay

2020).

233

Figure 113. Cistern and water tanks in the atrium, House of Mousa (Görkay

2020).

Figure 114. Representation of sea god/goddess Okeanos and Tethys in the

mosaic floor of the atrium, House of Mousa

(http://zeugma.org.tr/eserler.aspx?eser=12).

234

Figure 115. Corner pieces of the floor mosaic in atrium, House of Mousa

(Görkay 2020).

Figure 116. Ephesus (Topal 2020).

235

Figure 117. Water structures in Roman Ephesus (after Uğurlu 2004).

Figure 118. Pipe systems Terrace Houses; on the left Residential Unit 7; on

the right latrine in Residential Unit 2 (author 2022).

236

Figure 119. Residential areas in pre-Hellenistic Ephesus

1: Çukuriçi Höyük; 2: Ayasoluk; 3: Artemsion; 4: Tetragonos Agora; 5:

Settlement at Panayırdağ (Schwaiger 2017).

237

Figure 120. Residential areas in Hellenistic, Roman, and Late Antique

Ephesus (Schwaiger 2017)

(1: Terrace House 1; 2: Terrace House 2; 3: Domus above the Great Theather;

4: Late Antique houses in the Harbor Gymnasium; 5: Late antique Residences

south of the Church of Marry).

Figure 121. Plan of Terrace House II, phase IV (230-260 AD) (plan: adapted

from Thür, Beitr, and Jilek 2005).

238

Figure 122. From Celsius Library to Terrace House II and Curetes Street

(author 2022).

Figure 123. Terrace House II (author 2022).

239

Figure 124. Residential Unit I, Terrace House II, originates from the first century AD (plan: adapted from Thür, Beitr, and Jilek 2005,

photographs: taken by the author 2022 and Göktuğ Özgül 2018).

240

Figure 125. 3D Model, Residential Unit 1 in Terrace House II (photo taken by the author from the site information board 2022).

Figure 126. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 1, Terrace House II, Ephesus.

241

Figure 127. Residential Unit II, Terrace House II, originates from the first century AD (plan: adapted from Thür, Beitr, and Jilek

2005, photographs: taken by the author 2022 and Göktuğ Özgül 2018).

242

Figure 128. 3D Model, Residential Unit 2 in Terrace House II (photo taken by the author from the site information board).


243

Figure 130. Residential Unit 3, Terrace House II, originates from the first century AD (plan: adapted from Thür, Beitr, and Jilek

2005, photographs: taken by the author 2022, Göktuğ Özgül 2018).

244

Figure 131. 3D Model, Residential Unit 3 in Terrace House II, (photo taken by the author from the site information board).


245


2005, photographs: uthor 2022, Göktuğ Özgül 2018).

246

Figure 134. Axonometric view, Residential Unit 4, Figure 135. 3D Model, Residential Unit 4

Terrace House II (Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011) (photo taken by the author from site information board)


247

Figure 137. Residential Unit 5, Terrace House II, originates from the first century AD (plan: adapted Thür, Beitr, and Jilek

2005, photographs: taken by the author 2022 and Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011).

248

Figure 138. 3D Model, Residential Unit 5, Terrace House II, (photo taken by the author from the site information).


249



250


251



252


Terrace House II, Ephesus.

253

B. SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMPLES OF ANATOLIA

The Legend

256

Appendix A is prepared to illustrate very briefly how the agency of water in

constructing social space and behavior in the Roman House was a common

attitude in several other cities in Roman Anatolia and hence also sustained, in

a more elaborate fashion, in the late Roman Era as well. The two neighboring

257

houses from Side show the common spatial layout of rooms in relation to a

colonnaded courtyard and water structures and how in particular, the exedra

and the reception rooms had expanded vistas to the nymphae and the pools

built in the courtyards that created light-shadow effects, optical illusions,

visual pleasure and had a cooling role, from which the visitors benefitted.

The House of Trader (Tüccar Evi) in Metropolis, was a relatively modest

dwelling compared to many Pompeian houses. The House was arranged

around an atrium with a compluvium and impluvium, which housed a cistern,

piping system, and drainage.304 The Pompeian style axis, connecting fauces,

atrium, and tablinum was shifted to the mosaic paved corridor (written Bona

Fortuna-good luck) that connected to the triclinium; the service area

composed of the latrine and kitchen benefited from the infrastructure of the

street drainage, and were located close to the entrance and benefited from the

street drainage. The banqueting spaces and the possible rooms that might

have accommodated the family ceremonies could also benefit from the sight

and sound of water structures that created a multi-sensual spatial experience,

as in the Pompeian domus.

The Roman villa found in Antandros, on the other hand, was designed on

terraces and as a series of rooms along a portico, rather than in reference to

the common central peristyle. A unique feature of the villas was the vista it

captured towards the gulf, reminiscent of the maritime villas exemplified in

the bay of Naples. The Edremit Gulf view must have provided impressive

water scenery, which might also explain the lack of a decorative nymphaeum

or an impluvium. A remarkable amount of water, on the other hand, must

have been brought to the villa, following the natural slope of the topography,

as it had not only a latrine and a kitchen but also an elaborate bath suite.305

304 Yıldırım, 2010, 141-142.

305 Polat and Polat, 2003; Polat and Polat, 2005; Polat, Polat and Yağız, 2006.

258

The private bath complex of the villa had the typical layout of a public bath

and included an apodyterium, tepidarium, caldarium, and frigidarium.306 The

private bath was a luxury in antiquity, and its presence shows that not only

the city but the houses had an advanced water infrastructure. The ceremonial

rituals could well have been substantiated in the spacious room located along

the long portico and identified as an triclinium, or in the large courtyard that

extended in front of this room. The terraces of the house were also suitable to

be utilized as a summer triclinium; the cistern found to the south of the villa

was in an ideal location to supply water for daily usage in the lower areas of

the house. A door to the east side of the stairs led to another room with a

drainage system that reached the bath complex and a piscina located next to

this room. The separation of some of the villa rooms with doors suggests

another usage pattern in the late period.

In late antiquity, houses became even more elaborate in scale and spatial

articulation; fifth-seventh century houses at Xanthos, Sardis, and

Sagalasosos, for example, had elaborate decoration and water features.307

Between the fifth and seventh centuries, roughly speaking, the houses

changed in scale, elaboration, and appearance, and the spatial layout was

adjusted accordingly. One of the critical novelties was to divide large, richly

ornamented rooms and courtyards into clusters. Fourth and fifth-century

houses, in particular, were the apex for privileged design elements such as

adorned ceilings and pavements and enormous and lavished dining and

reception halls. Starting from the seventh century, the majestic houses began

to be subdivided and/or transformed into economic premises. The assignment

of industrial and rural activities in this Era affected the organization of the

spatial arrangement, particularly the courtyards as in the urban mansions at

Sagalassos. Reorganization of spaces and subdivisions could also aim to


307 Ibid., 697-700.

259

obtain rentable spaces for use as tabernae or workshops, apart from the

industrial and commercial activities within the house.308 The availability of

water in various spaces of the houses, even in terms of vertical piping and

integration of drainage, in this sense, was an advantage on behalf of the house

owners. Availability of water must have given flexibility in the spatial

organization while protecting privacy. The movement of living spaces, the

reception rooms in particular, from the ground floor to the upper stories,309

for example, in the urban mansion of Sagalassos, changed the locus of rituals

but not its performance, as the water was piped to and available, in general,

on upper floors as well.

308 Uytterhoeven, 2019, 9, 16.


260

C. WATER FEATURES IN THE SAMPLED HOUSES

261

D. PUBLIC WATER STRUCTURES in ANCIENT GREEK PERIOD

Aqueducts

In Archaic Greece, the aqueducts were simply constructed as underground

terracotta pipelines and carried water from the springs to the urban

distribution points, such as fountains. The Peisistratean and the Eupalinean

aqueducts are the engineering achievements of the Archaic era. The

Peisistratean aqueduct in Athens had a 7.5 km route dug as a U-shaped tunnel

14 m below the ground with a ceramic pipe system, a security precaution

against possible aggression and demolitions. The Eupalinean aqueduct (also

called the Samos Tunnel), which is older in date, was dug through the solid

limestone Castro Mountain that blocked the delivery of running water from a

large hamlet for the city of Samos. (Figure 144) The tunnel was constructed

to bring water from the source located at Agiades. It was a 1.050 m long

tunnel, built quite below the ground, carved from two openings, and had L-

shaped connected channels at different levels at the bottom.310 (Figure 145)

Figure 144. Section of the waterline, Eupalinos Aqueduct, Samos, sixth

century BC (Crouch 1993).

310 Crouch, 1993, 32-37.

262

Figure 145. Clay gutters thought to be connected at right angles at the

bottom of the Samos Tunnel, Samos (Apostol 2004).

The water structures of the Archaic era had buried terracotta pipe systems,

usually around 20-25 cm in diameter with a 40-50 cm cross-section. They

transmitted water from the spring to the urban distribution point by a constant

gradient utilizing a male/female joint system. Excavations at Megara, in sites

of Orkos and Olive that are located north of the modern city and dated to the

eighth century BC, unrevealed seventy vertical well-like shafts,

approximately 6.10 m apart below the surface, and built as four branches.

(Figure 146) Although the chronology of shafts is different, they were all built

of limestone masonry. Under the shafts, an underground long-distance tunnel,

running parallel with the gravity flow, was found. (Figure 147) The short

distance between the units suggests that the construction was planned to

provide an interim solution for the infertile soil. The stones on the east and

west side of the shafts were carved in a crescent shape. There is an opening

on the water tunnel for delivery, extended with the same masonry in the

connection of shaft and tunnel. Differentiation in the construction techniques

of branches suggests that A, B, and C were built in different periods to support

the initial branch D.311

311 Avgerinou 2017, 443-472.

263

Figure 146. Shafts found in Megara. On the left is a stone-masonry water

tunnel; on the right, narrow branches supported by rumble masonry, late

sixth century BC (Avgerinou 2017).

Figure 147. Section of access between the shafts in branch D, Megara, late sixth

century BC (Avgerinou 2017).

264

Technical achievements came in the Hellenistic Period. The water systems

that were planned to follow the natural contours of the slope began to be

supported with tunnels and siphon systems which enabled overcoming large

spans. Some of the visible water features in Syracuse, such as the grottoes

above the theater, were supplied by the naturally flowed water that came from

the Galermi Aqueduct, a limestone canal built in 480 BC.312 (Figure 148)

Figure 148. Reconstruction of the fountain grottoes above the theater,

Syracuse, fifth century BC (Crouch 1993).

The Alysia masonry dam in Western Greece is another engineering example

of adopting nature to water transfer. (Figure 149) Although the date of the

dam is not precise, its construction is associated with the fifth century BC,

when the city’s affluence was at its peak. The dam was carved into stone with

irregular blocks at the bottom and top; the slope got softer towards the top,

and small gaps were left.313

312 Crouch, 1993, 134-135. Grottoes played a significant role of in the urban development of

Syracause, as they provided ample water.

313 https://www.itia.ntua.gr/ahw/work/2/

265

Figure 149. Alysia Dam in Western Greece, fifth century BC (Mamassis

and Koutsoyiannis 2010).

Fountains

Modifying natural springs for human utilization is recorded in the eighth

century BC Homeric poems. Although many settlements in ancient Greece

were located close to springs to benefit from natural water sources, on some

266

occasions, it became necessary to construct pipe systems, basins, or fountains.

Fountains were built in the urban setting to allow many users to take

advantage of the water supply simultaneously.314 Public fountains were

commonly constructed in the agora, at the street corners, and in the shrines.315

Unlike the Roman public fountains, the Greek public water supply

installations were not ornamented and served as facilities to provide natural,

pure water for the inhabitants. Greeks built fountain houses in front of natural

formations, particularly springs and grottos. Such fountains could receive

architectural facades like columnar porches that provided shade and

protection and nobility to the water spot.316 (Figure 150)

Figure 150. Fountain house at Ialysos, Rhodes, fourth century BC

(Wycherley 1962).

314 Bowe, 2012, 201, 202.

315 For further information see Kobusch, 2020, Bowe (2012), and Dunkley (1935/36)

316 Wycherley, 1962, 200-201.

267

The fountain house of the tyrant, Theagenes of Megara, is an early example

that dates to the late seventh century BC.317 (Figures 151 and 152) It was built

between the Alkathos and Kaira hills and is located close to the agora. The

building, covering an area of 260 m2, had a 5 m high north wall, a large water

tank, and a basin. It had a flat roof supported by thirty-five columns decorated

with red stripped plaster and a bronze drainage system, the oldest example of

its kind found so far in ancient Greece.318

Figure 151. Theagene’s Fountain House, Megara, late seventh century BC

(Avgerinou 2017).

317 Crouch, 1993, 125.

318 Avgerinou, 2017, 445-455.

268

Figure 152. Reconstruction of Theagene’s Fountain House, Megara, late

seventh century BC (Avgerinou 2017).

Another early fountain house is the Peirene Fountain in Corinth which was

first built in the seventh century BC. (Figures 153 and 154) Initially, the

fountain was built in the form of channels carved from bedrock and clustered

retaining walls. The allusion to cave architecture in the artificial water

structures is well exemplified in the Peirene Fountain. In the late sixth/fifth

centuries BC, The Cyclopean Fountain was made to the north of the first

installation, and in the fifth century BC, basins were added to provide a lasting

water source.319 The Cyclopean spring was constructed east of the road that

led from the coast and the agricultural terraces over the agora.320 The fountain

assumed a symbolic status for the city of Corinth in the Hellenistic period, as

understood from its elaboration. (Figure 154) The coarse surface of the

natural rock and marl was the defining character of the first fountain, the

Peirene Fountain, while the Cyclopean Fountain, with its roughly stuccoed

façade, reflects the construction system commonly used in the Archaic era;

319 Kopestonsky, 2016, 744-746.

320 Crouch, 1993, 128.

269

the latter was accepted as a scene of the place where Bellerophon finally

restrained Pegasos.321

Figure 153. Peirene Fountain, showing all the Greek period phases, Corinth,

seventh century BC (Kopestonsky 2016).

321 Kopestonsky, 2016, 744-746.

270

Figure 154. Reconstruction of Peirene Fountain in the Hellenistic Period,

Corinth, originally dates to the seventh century BC (Kopestonsky 2016).

The fountains at sanctuaries and Asklepiae were either located at the center,

on the central axis of the entrance, on a stepped podium with a propylon

(monumental transition area) like in the Asclepieion at Corint, at the entrance

of sanctuaries, or along the main road leading to the sanctuary in a more

elaborate architectural design. One prominent example of the fifth century

BC is the fountain in Delos, also described in the Delian inscriptions. The

fountain was located behind the Stoa of Antigonos. It included a rectangular

basin underneath a roof supported by stone walls. There was a stepped

approach leading down to a rectangular basin. On the front was a colonnade

area.322 (Figure 155)

322 Dunkley, 1935/1936, 180, 181.

271

Figure 155. Restored plan of Minoe Fountain, Delos, fifth century BC

(Dunkley 1935/36).

Two vases dating to 430 BC show the typical street fountains of the era, which

were constructed like a table standing on legs, with a tubular spout built on

the front edge. (Figure 156) Such fountains most likely were located close to

the springs or cisterns.323 The culture of fountains and the design of fountain

houses in the Archaic period continued well into the Hellenistic era with

variations. The most significant feature of the latter examples was an increase

in the use of sculpture and shade-giving roof structures. The public fountain

that dates to 200 BC in Ephesus had an elegant Ionic column and is one of

the remarkable fountains of the era.324 (Figure 157) The fountain house in

Lerna at Corinth dating to 200 BC, is another fountain where typical basins

of the Classical and Hellenistic times were in use.325 (Figure 158) The

fountain was located in the gymnasium area, and its southern part was carved

323 Ibid., 178, 179.

324 Bowe, 2012, 207-209.

325 The structure was identified as a public fountain, but this identification is challenging as

it more likely served the Asclepieion, Wiseman, 1970.

272

into a cave.326 Two limestone basins on the south masonry wall, a third basin

on the north wall, and a marble bench were the in-situ features of the complex.

Figure 156. Depiction of a fountain, late fifth century BC, British Museum

(Dunkley 1935/1936).

326 The fountain was first built as a bath, constructed around the fourth or fifth century BC,

Wiseman, 1970.

273

Figure 157. The civic fountain house, Ephesus, Hellenistic Era (originally

built in the Archaic Period) (Bowe 2012).

Figure 158. Bath-fountain, Corinth, as a bath in the fourth-fifth centuries

BC, as a fountain in 200 BC (Wiseman 1970).

274

Latrines

Public latrines were built as part of buildings, such as gymnasia or as separate

buildings, and were primarily sourced by natural flow. They were arranged

to have several seats, the layout of which was determined by ditches and

pipes. (Figures 159 and 160) The ditches of the public lavatories were

commonly U-shaped, surrounding the three sides of the lavatory. The shape

of the benches was often 45-50 cm wide, while the distance between the stone

seats varied.327 Under every seat, there was a vertical covering supporting the

distance between the floor and the seat.328

Figure 159. Restored view of the latrine in the gymnasium, Amorgos,

Hellenistic Era (Antoniou 2010).

327 For example, 1.20 m at Minoa Amorgos, and 2.30 m at Philloppoi in east Macedonia,

Antoniou, 2010, 73-76.

328 Ibid., 73-76.

275

Figure 160. Restored view and plan of the latrine in Kotyo’s stoa,

Epidaurus, Hellenistic Era (Antoniou 2010).

The lavatory of Minoa in the gymnasium at Amorgos is one of the earliest

well-shaped latrines, dating to the fourth century BC. The latrine in

Philoppoia had a rectangular entrance lobby and an oblong-shaped ground

plan. The ditches lay on four sides along with the floor level. The public and

private latrines found at Delos reveal the characteristics of the Hellenistic Era

latrines.329 A total of eighty-two latrines that came from seventy-seven

different buildings, including clubhouses, one hostelary, a public bath, Sea-

Palaestra, agora, and houses, were dated to the mid-first century. (Figures 161

and 162) Public lavatories have been excavated in the palestra and

gymnasium, which were close to the drainage.330 These had one canal, feeding

one to six seats with a maximum length of 16 m. Their size varied from 1.10

to 16 m2.331 The waterproofing system was the distinctive aspect of these

latrines that were commonly built with 0.30-0.50 m wide waterproof canals

draining water to the street or soil. The construction of the discharge systems

depended on the local circumstances of the topography and technical

329 Trümper, 2011, 33.

330 Antaniou, 2007, 160.

331 Trümper, 2011, 37, 38.

276

qualifications, such as accessibility to the flowing water or the type of mortar

and cement used for waterproofing.332 The Hellenistic lavatory in the agora

at Athens is another typical example. It had drainage urine holes in the floor,

seats placed at an interval of 51 cm, and the broader half piped cross-section

of the water channel was used for sponge cleaning. (Figures 163 and 164)

The building had a colonnaded, shallow reservoir at its center, similar to the

lavatory in Ephesus.333

Figure 161. Latrine in the Agora of the Italians, Delos, first century BC

(Trümper 2011).

332 Trümper, 2011, 33, 34.

333 Antoniou and Angelakis, 2015, 62.

277

Figure 162. View of the latrine in the Agora of the Italians, Delos, first

century BC (Trümper 2011).

Figure 163. Lavatory outside the Agora in Athens, Hellenistic Period

(Antoniou and Angelakis 2015).

278

Figure 164. Longitudinal section of the lavatory in the Agora at Athens,

Hellenistic Period (Antoniou and Angelakis 2015).

Baths

The early public baths were in the form of a loutron334 (simple showers) or a

basin filled with cold water and arranged as an outdoor facility.335 The scenes

on painted vases from the sixth century BC show that the fountain houses

could also function as outdoor bathing spots. (Figure 165) Although the

architectural details in such scenes are unclear, they offer fountain houses

designed as columnar buildings with a spout flowing to a basin or a high

faucet used as a shower.336 A small gable-roofed building supported by Doric

columns and depicted on a vase illustrates women bathing under sprays of

water coming from lion-shaped spouts placed above the shoulders of women.

(Figure 166) The structure was also suitable to be used for washing purposes,

as it included a pool.

334 The loutroun was an outdoor space with elevated basins and a simple shower system in

the early Greek gymnasia of the late sixth century, Yegül, 1992, 17.

335 Kontokosta, 2019, 48.

336 Wycherley, 1962, 204.

279

Figure 165. Bathing athletes, sixth century BC (Kontokosta 2019).

280

Figure 166. Red figure vase showing female bathers, 520 BC, Berlin

Staatliche Museum (Yegül 1992).

It is thought that Greek bathing facilities were developed as part of gymnasia,

although their derivation hardly matches the appearance of loutrons

mentioned in the texts of the fifth and early fourth century BC. One of the

rooms in the Lower Gymnasium in Priene is identified as a loutron; running

water was provided by lion-headed spouts, with rows of marble basins placed

on the north wall. (Figure 167) The Hellenistic palaestrae offered more

complex bathing features, including water supply and drainage systems,

frequently coupled with elevated basins or tubs of limestone and marble and

a washing room in a sheltered position at the corners of the interior.337

Figure 167. Loutron with basins, Priene, 130 BC (Yegül 1992).

337 Yegül, 1992, 17-21.

281

Architecturally developed Greek public baths are defined by the presence of

one or more rooms that are often circular in plan (tholos). The spaces were

equipped with individual and portable hib-bath tubs, built-in masonry,

terracotta, or stone. Later baths of the Hellenistic period were designed to

include innovative, alternative forms of relaxing baths and arranged

according to the rooms with hib-bathtubs. Some baths had two tholoi for tub

bathing, a feature indicating a possible separation of use between women and

men. The bathing rooms served as the entrance, reception area, preparation

rooms, and service areas related to the functioning and maintenance of the

facilities.338 Floor heating could be provided in public baths, as exemplified

by the bathtub found in Gela in Sicily in the third century BC.339

The North Baths in Morgantina is a characteristic Greek bath dating to the

middle of the third century BC. The building is located at the western edge of

the urban zone, at the intersection of one of the crowded parts of the ancient

city, and at the edge of the residential area.340 It had two clear zones: hygienic

bathing and leisure bathing with separate entrances341, a bottle-shaped

furnace, and a hypocaust under an immersion pool.342 (Figure 168) One of

the novel features of the structure was the domed vault roof covering eleven

rooms and waiting for benches that were placed inside. The terracotta piping

system with different sizes suggests a large amount of water consumption,

while the joint detail of the pipes composed of iron pins used to make

horizontal connections reflects a developed technical infrastructure.343 The

338 Lucore, 2016, 330, 331.


340 Ibid., 44.

341 Lucore, 2016, 332.

342 Fournet, Lucore, Redon,Trümper, 2013, 276.

343 Lucore, 2009, 44.

282

drains attested in rooms 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are directed to the nearest sizeable

street drain.344

Figure 168. North Bath Complex, Morgantina, around the third century BC,

(6: reception; 1, 2, and 7: waiting and changing areas; 8: relaxing hall; 5 and

9: bathing spaces; 3: well; 4: central furnace; 10: reservoir; 11: service

corridor; 5: tholos) (Lucore 2016).

The literary and archeological evidence suggests public baths were in use in

Athens from the Classical period onwards.345 The Dipylon Bath is one of the

oldest bathing features attested in the city and dates to the fourth century BC.

Although the entire plan is not available, the tholos and hib-bathtub are clear.

The water could have been supplied from the nearest well and carried to the

furnace installed adjacent to the tholos. In cold weather, portable braziers

could have been used to support the heating system as well. The additional

space adjacent to the furnace and service area was likely the dressing and

344 Fournet, Lucore, Redon,Trümper, 2013, 276.

345 Yegül, 1992, 24.

283

waiting room. The bathing establishments in the eastern Mediterranean in the

second century BC are identified as a discrete group because two new leisure

areas were added to the traditional plan: individual immersion bathtubs and a

circular sweat bath, both heated by hypocaust channels placed underneath the

floors. One of the best examples of this type is at the sanctuary of Asklepios

at Gortys. (Figure 169) Although it was located at the urban sanctuary of the

healing god Asklepios, it did not serve as a healing bath. The interior was

clearly separated into two a service area and a bathing area. The colonnaded

entrance is adorned with statues) directed the users to a multifunctional

lounge with cold water basins and benches. Besides zone A, there were two

entrances; I was possibly the main entrance, and W was the service area

entrance.346 The open plan allowed the bathers to circulate freely in the

facility.347

346 Trümper, 2014, 791.

347 Lucore, 2016, 337.

284

Figure 169. Baths in the Sanctuary of Asklepios, Gortys, second century BC

(G: tholos; D: immersion bath-tub; E: sweat bath; C: central room; W and

Z: service area; A: propylon; Y: heating room) (Lucore 2016).

Several bath buildings belong to a type identified as Graeco-Egyptian

.348 (Figures 170 and 171) The architectural organization and spatial layout

of these tholos-type baths are classified as Western, Eastern, and Egyptian.

The Western Mediterranean baths, dated to the fourth-century BC, included

immersion pools heated by a furnace and an underground heating channel,

besides the tholos. Indeed, another heating corridor provided separation by

limiting the circulation from one side to the other. Different entrances in a

swimming pool gave access to additional functions, such as cleansing and

348 The types were classified according to the architectural organization, characteristics of

geographical regions, technical features, or construction techniques of the evolution of bath

systems regarding the previous critical works.

285

relaxing. The second model, Eastern Mediterranean, peaked in usage in the

third and second centuries BC. Although this type includes various subtypes,

the general layout consists of a tholos and two kinds of relaxation baths heated

from underground: individual bathtubs on one side and a circular steam room

on the other. The last model, the Egyptian type, was more hybrid in nature

and had sub-types displaying classic and hybrid plans.349

Figure 170. Baths of Buto East, general view from the south, showing

elements of classic Graceo-Egyptian baths, late third-mid second century

BC (Fournet and Redon 2017).

349 The emergence of Mediterranean Greek tholos baths are dated to the fifth century BC

whilet their dissappearance to the the second century BC in the West, and first/second century

BC in the Egypt, Ginouves, 1962. Later studies elaborated the typology by adding 34 tholos

baths and 12 small baths from Egypt, Fournet and Redon, 2017.

286

Figure 171. Taposiris Magna/Abusir, first phase, the classical model on the

left; the hybrid model on the right, Egypt, late third-mid second century BC

(Fournet and Redon 2017).

287

E. PUBLIC WATER STRUCTURES in ANCIENT ROMAN PERIOD

Aqueducts and Bridges

The most explicit manifestation of Roman aquatic ascendancy was their

ability to control running water and transport water to faraway cities. Hunting

natural water provided a prerogative of power besides cleaning and

hygiene.350 Although aqueducts were regularly built to carry water to cities

throughout the Roman Empire, only a few towns were equipped with a piped

water management system as establishing and sustaining such monumental

infrastructures was expensive.351

Aqueducts became Rome's civic pride symbol, starting from Aqua Appia, the

earliest structure built in 312 BC. (Figure 172), Although the hydraulic

principles applied by the Greeks and Etruscans were known, the Romans

championed elaborated arch and vault constructions, developed concrete as a

building material, and presented it as a way of status manifestation. The

Romans, following the Etruscans, constructed aqueducts in the form of

masonry channels, supported by vaults or stone slabs in a rectangular section.

The Roman engineers could achieve such long and monumental spans by

using concrete, without mortar and clamps, as in Pont Du Gard.352 (Figure

173) Unlike Greeks, the Romans took advantage of Pax Romana, which

terminated enemy threats and devastating attacks, built monumental

350 The Appian aqueducts was brought in to the city by Appius Claudius Crassus, the Censor

who later was mentioned as 'Blind', in the consulship of Marcus Valerius Maximus and

Publius Decius Mus after the beginning of Samnite War.The same Crassus was also

responsible from constructing the Appian Way, between the Porta Capena and the City of

Capua. Appius entitled his colleague Gaius Plautius asˈHunterˈ for having discovered the

springs of water, Frontinus, Book I, 339.

351 Owens and Taşlıalan, 2009.

352 Hodge, 2002, 129-131, 145-146.

288

aqueducts confidently above the ground, and integrated them into the urban

context.353

Figure 172. Cardstock, Via Appia Nuova, 1904-1917 (publication date)

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/community).

Figure 173. Pont Du Gard, Nîmes, first century AD (Hodge 2002).

353 Dodge, 2000, 352, 353.

289

Daily water consumption, such as the day and night operation of water

utilization, notably in the bath complexes that consumed a large amount of

water, necessitated the need to maintain high-quality engineering and

sophisticated knowledge to plan and execute aqueducts and to sustain them,

for which Roman's powerful army provided the necessary labor.354 Water

became an asset, and its protection became a necessity. For this purpose, laws

on water use were enacted. In this respect, the senate banned private users

from accessing water conduits directly in 11 BC.355

Construction techniques of aqueducts depended on various factors, such as

the topography. The canals were laid on the surface or buried underground,

as in Aqua Appia, according to the geographical context and topographical

situation of the site. The buried aqueducts were typically vaulted and rarely

had a flat stone slab in which the slabs were portable. The vaulted roofs had

maintenance holes for repair and cleaning. (Figure 174) Due to the danger of

water overflowing and causing cracks and leakage, the floor and side walls

were waterproofed by a plaster (opus signinum) composed of crushed tile

hardened with limes. The number of cement layers, and the thickness of

concrete depended on local conditions. For instance, the aqueduct in

Caesarea (Israel) was approximately 2.6-3.0 cm wide and had at least six

coats.356 Water was taken from the aqueduct canal by inverted siphons. The

inverted siphon worked to pass the slope of hills and mountains were standard

in the water management system of Greeks, Etruscans, and the Romans is that

water was carried from the source to the castellum (collector tank) through

natural flow and was distributed to the city through pipes, commonly to a

fountain as the arrival point in the city. Most aqueducts thus operated on the

principle of constant flow. (Figure 175)

354 Dodge, 2000, 47, 46.

355 Fagan, 2012.

356 Hodge, 2002, 97, 98.

290

Figure 174. Eifel Aqueduct, inspection shaft at Buschhoven, Cologne

(Hodge 2002).

Figure 175. Diagram of a Roman water system (Angelakis, Mays,

Koutsoyuannis and Mamassis 2012).

The aquatic context found in the cities of North Africa, Campania, and

Anatolia, in particular, exemplifies well the aqueduct infrastructure and the

291

symbolic aspect of water consumption in the urban setting. The Aqueduct

Marcia, built by Quintus Marcius Rex in Rome in 144 BC is one of the oldest

stone constructed aqueducts and was named after its builder. (Figures 176 and

177) The portions of Marcia are still visible at Porta San Lorenzo, where the

aqueduct was directed over the arch gate. The stone arches were covered by

brick surfacing in later times.357 The aqueduct, known as Kırkgöz Aqueduct

in Side, Antalya, was supplied by the Manavgat stream. (Figure 178) The

open tunnels, which are 2.70 m wide, and closed galleries that were around

1.30 m wide, transferred water naturally to the city358 The water that came

from the closed galleries built inside the hills fed the nymphaeum built at the

city gate and distributed to cisterns and pipes, feeding the other public water

structures and houses. (Figure 179)

Figure 176. Lithography of part of Aqua Martia in Rome; in the foreground

a fountain with acastellum, date and publication unknown

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/).

357 Butler, 1901, 178, 179.

358 The galleries spanned along modern Homa, Şıhlar, Sarılar, Hatipler, and Kemerköy

villages, Mansel, 1978, 79.

292

Figure 177. The Aqua Marcia, Rome, 144 BC (Butler 1901).

Figure 178. Kırkgöz Aqueduct, Side (Mansel 1978).

293

Figure179. Nymphaeum at the city gate, Side (author 2022).

Bridges supported the aqueducts systems in supplying running water. Built-

in ashlar masonry and modest in length, the bridges were commonly located

on a hill to transfer the natural water to the aqueducts. New aqueducts could

be built to connect to the hilltop bridges, in which case extra strengthening

and renovation were made by using buttresses, arches, and other alterations

as supporting elements. The channels found on top of the aqueduct bridges

followed the gradient of the aqueducts. Since these bridges only carried water,

they ran across valleys rather than following the natural route of roads three

cases; Pont du Gard, Ponte Lupe, and Aspendos.359 Water bridges were

essential to sustain water permanently, especially during the intense floods,

in the Mediterranean climate. In this regard, they were built with wide

spanned arches that could provide wider passageways for water flow and

359 Hodge, 2002, 129-131, 145-146.

294

were also protected against fast and strong flows by shaping prows on their

upstream faces.360

Aqueducts were semi-divine symbols in the urban decorum; besides

promoting the city's public image as more monumental, they were the

essential water distributing agencies for public and private consumption. The

running water achieved by aqueducts was utilized in bath complexes, public

toilets, city fountains, and dwellings. Besides public fountains, private houses

benefited from running water with official permission. Street pipes,

commonly lead lines, were built under the sidewalks and carried water to the

private pipes.After the water reached a house under the control of the

stopcock, it was taken into a tank and distributed to the house and the

neighbors361. Within the house, buried or visible (in some luxury houses there

were silver pipes), pipes regulated the water management; fed the fountain

with a basin below it for cooking, drinking, and bathing. Indeed, the

nymphaeum, commonly placed in the garden, was piped for pleasure and

irrigation.362

Fountains and Nymphaea363

Simple fountain structures maintained water accessibly in the urban context

and were often located at street corners. Street fountains were usually modest

360 Viollet, 2005/2007, 155.

361 To reduce the payment house owners shared running water; one neighbor got the

permission for one castellum and shared it unofficially with his neighbours, Hodge, 2002,

327.

362 Hodge, 2002, 304-330.

363 The word nymphaeum derives from ancient Greek, where a vuμϕaіov referred to a

monument dedicated to nymphs, and usually located in a rural cave with a natural water

settling. The term started to be used commonly after the first century AD, Zarmakoupi, 2014,

153, 154. Some researchers, on the other hand, use the word vuμϕaіov as a reference to an

underground chamber assoicated with purification, higlighting the ritual aspect of water,

Richard, 2012, 15.

295

and constructed with an open basin. Such fountains could be installed almost

at every street corner. Ornamented and monumental versions of urban

fountains, called nymphaea, emerged in the first century BC. These showy

water installations were placed at nodal points in the urban fabric, often at the

city centers or entrances and thus, apart from providing running water, also

served as an urban décor. Frontinus listed 591 open basin fountains in Rome.

In the Regionary Catalogues, more than 1000 fountains, which were fed by

water coming from carved pipes with fountain-heads, like in the form of a

rabbit, attached to the walls were registered.364

The pre-Hadrianic nymphaea were relatively modest, supported by thin roofs

and ashlar walls, and contained water in the basins placed in front of the

parapet wall. The nymphaea of the Hadrianic period was built with a

technically advanced hydraulic system and were decorated; they often

incorporated mythical figures and echoed aspects of Greek water culture,

such as the grottoes. The Larissa Nymphaeum in Argos, for example, was

carved into the mountain as a natural landscape component. (Figure 180) A

barrel-vaulted structure with an apsidal niche supported the partly brick

masonry. The interior was fed by two basins and divided by a seven-stepped

water staircase, a typical Roman fountain organization from the first century

AD. The visual and acoustic illusions, the marble veneer used in the basins

that imitated a cave, is a showcase of Roman lavishness.365

364 Dodge, 2000, 380.

365 Longfellow, 2009, 220-221.

296

Figure 180. Plan and photo of the Larissa Nymphaeum, Argos, AD 124

(Longfelllow 2009).

One of the primary technical differences between Roman and Greek fountains

is seen in the positioning of the basins; in the former, the basins were located

as open-air elements, while in the latter, they were instead hidden behind a

portico.366 These variations were prone to various solutions and technical

challenges. For instance, the open-air sections of aqueducts, as in Anio Vetus

and Anio Novus, could be more polluted. The castellum divisorium, in this

sense, functioned as the first cleaning mechanism of a fountain. The castella

of Pompeii and Nîmes, for instance, had specific filters to prevent polluted

water mix into the urban distribution. In earlier cases, such as in the Doric

Fountain at Sagalassos, there could have been a settling tank behind the

fountain to regulate the water flow rate. This fountain is a U-shaped structure

with drawing basins located behind a parapet and acted as a fountain house

surrounded by walls on three sides and a roof o top; as such, it shows

similarities to Greek fountains.367 (Figure 181) Different techniques were

developed to supply fountains with water. In Perge, for instance, the

366 Richard, 2012, 30.

367 Talloen and Poblome, 2020, 157.

297

Hadrianic Nymphaeum F3 was sourced by a castellum divisoruium placed at

the back of the fountain, which presumably also fed the other water-

consuming structures of the city. The fountain was built at the city's highest

point and had one of the largest water distribution capacities among the other

water features. The ornamented lateral walls, which are absent now, were

used to create a U-shaped ornamental, two-story facade. The water was let

from the channel and terracotta pipes to the city. (Figure 182)

Figure 181. Doric fountain at Sagalassos, Late Hellenistic Period (Talloen

and Poblome 2020).

298

Figure 182. F3 (Kestros) Nymphaion, Perge, around 117-138 AD (author

2022).

The Roman nymphaea received intricately ornated facades in time.

Additional experiential effects, such as increasing the height of the fallen

water to create more dramatic visual and acoustic effects, were also applied

in many examples. The nymphaeum Hydrecdochheion, in Ephesus, had a

large basin and a monumental decorated facade. (Figure 183) The rear wall

and the free columns functioned as both load-bearing elements and

monumentality signs. Dominating use of grey marble with purple

pavonazetto exemplifies the cultural taste of the Roman era.368 Another

significant Roman Imperial Era nymphaeum type is the curved one, as seen

in the Demeter Sanctuary at Pergamon. (Figure 184) The Pergamon example

had a semi-circular back wall framing a water basin closed off at the front

with a parapet. There was no statuary display at the back wall, and the

structure had a half-domed roof.369

368 Robinson, 2017, 133.

369 Richard, 2012, 41, 42.

299

Figure 183. Hydrecdochheion Fountain, Ephesus, around 80 AD (Robinson

2017).

Figure 184. Nymphaeum in the Demeter Sanctuary, Pergamon, early first

century AD (Richard 2012).

Fountains and nymphaea were the essential components of the urban fabric

in both physical and socio-cultural terns. They supplied water for domestic

utilization, daily consumption, and public hygiene. Yet they also played a

300

critical role as regulators for the layout of the settlement, which was planned

in accordance with the location of water sources. Monumental fountains,

nymphaeum, were, in addition, served as agents for demonstrating the

ultimate Roman authority, particularly in the provinces. Of all the water

structures, nymphae were probably the most eloquent representative of

power, wealth, and aesthetics in ancient Roman culture.

Baths

Bath complexes regulated the physical and social rhythms in the cities. They

were institutions of relaxation, exercise, education, socializing, business, and

even sexual activities and were visited regularly and daily.370 Bath complexes

developed into prominent public edifices in the second and third centuries BC

and became social venues, apart from fulfilling hygienic and sanitary needs.

The number of baths increased with the construction of aqueducts; the two

concretized the consumption of water for social and daily use and as a cultural

matter. The Baths of Agrippa, built in Rome in the late first century BC, was

the first bath complex that was fed by a specific aqueduct, the Aqua Virgo.

(Figure 185) The number of baths increased dramatically in the second

century AD with the ample amount of running water provided by aqueducts

and were to be found in several major cities within the boundaries of the

Roman Imperial reach. The large-scale, monumental baths were built and

managed by the Imperial system to serve as symbols of Imperial power and

presence as well. These baths offered more lavish settings. There were also

privately operated bath complexes that supported and enriched public water

consumption in the Roman cities.371 By the fourth century AD, 856 privately

370 Aldrete, 2004, 108.

371 Dodge, 2000, 383.

301

granted baths were under operation, illustrating the social eminence and

popularity of physical and social bathing in the urban culture.372

Figure 185. Restored plan of Bath of Agrippa, Rome, late first century BC

(Kontokosta 2019).

Emperors utilized water as a metaphor of cleanliness and hygiene,

purification, recreation, and rejuvenation in baths; hence the Imperial baths

were designed with such spaces as libraries, athletic fields, and meeting

rooms. Besides, construction novelties and new engineering methods were

applied to overcome the large spans in these monumental public edifices. For

example, the bath complex of Trajan373 inspired the design of other baths

with its symmetrical layout and garden design. (Figure 186) The porticoes in

these complexes served as the fundamental components of civic gardens.374


373 Palladio did sketches of this structure, among other baths and building, in the sixteenth

century, which provided accurate information aboutthe plan and the topographical features

of Aventine, La Rocca, 2001.


302

The enormous terraces375 of Trajan’s bath complex were built on the ruins of

Nero’s Golden House (Domus Aurea). The caldarium, tepidarium, gymnasia,

and changing rooms were on the north part of the structure, while the east and

west were reserved for exedrae, semi-circular alcoves, and libraries. The

porticoes were the recreational and social spaces of the complex.376

Figure 186. Trajan’s Bath, Rome, second century AD (La Rocca 2001).

Hydraulic achievements provided differentiation in infrastructure and

articulation in bathing systems. Larger bath complexes took advantage of

supplying running water from aqueducts; it was hard to maintain large pools

375 The urban area and the Oppian Hill, where the Trajan’s Bath complex was built was

utilized as kitchen gardens and vineyards until the modern times, La Rocca, 2001, 121.

376 La Rocca, 2001, 121-124.

303

with external water supplies like wells, barrels, and buckets. Piping systems

and drainage were included in urban planning and the building. Swimming

pools and water cascades in the fountains necessitated an ample amount of

water and recirculation of wastewater. 377

There were two types of public baths: thermae and balneae378, designed in

similar layouts. The essentials include three main rooms; an area with the

warm water pool called tepidarium, a hot water area called caldarium, and

frigidarium that accommodates the cold water section. Bathing commonly

started at the tepidarium, continued at the caldarium, and ended with a quick

plunge to the frigidarium. Hot water flow was achieved by heating water at

tanks and delivering it to the rooms or with hot air circulated through the

floors or walls within a hypocaust system.379 The first bath type was the

balneae, which referred to the small, privately owned complexes. The

Republican period private baths, in general, were dark and mediocre

complexes, with few exceptions like the luxurious facility of Claudius

Etruscus in Rome. In some Imperial era examples, the high openings in the

vaults provided light and solar heat to the interiors. The second type, thermae,

often referred to the imperial investments, could be designed as a group of

buildings to form a complex or a free-standing building within a garden or a

park. The former380 were often standard in plan and arranged as four barrel-

vaulted halls that were integrated into the recreational and open spaces.


378 There is no strict differentation between calling a bath therme or balnea, the main

difference was size and ownership, Yegül, 2014, 300.

379 Aldrete, 2004, 109, 110.

380 The North, East, and West baths at Cemenlum (Nice) that date to the Severan Period are

examples of bath groups with standard and medium sized layouts, Yegül, 2014, 304. Of the

eleven thermae that were in use in Rome in the fourth century AD. Baths of Caracalla have

recognisable remains. Their plans are common in the sense that they has a rectangular vaulted

frigidairum and a similiarly sized caldarium, projecting from the south or south-west axis,

De Laine, 2018, 329, 330.

304

(Figure 187) Thermae was indeed a gift of an emperor to the locals,

considering that balneae served only the wealthy and a select group. They

offered lavish settings and water amenities, the use of which was free-of-

charge. In Rome, two well-known thermae (imperial baths) were the Baths

of Caracalla and Diocletian. Baths of Neptune and Baths of the Swimmers

can be given as examples of modest facilities. 381 The Baths of Caracalla were

built in Regio XII (public bath area) in the third century AD. (Figures 188

and 189) Lead pipes distributed the water supplied by the aqueduct Nova

Antoniniana from the cisterns to the different zones of the complex. The

drainage system was in the form of a network of underground galleries. The

primary cleansing parts of the structure merged with libraries, lavishly

decorated meeting rooms, and an exedra, and thus a high-status lifestyle was

consumed in a social manner, a cultural aspect of the Romans. The decoration

of the building, which was composed of colored marble floors and walls,

statues displayed in the wall niches alls, stucco paintings, and sculptured of

fountains, attest the magnificence of the edifice and hence the imperial

wealth.382

381 Yegül, 2014, 300-304.

382 Garbagna, 2008, 7.

305

Figure 187. Baths of Cemenelum, Nice, F: frigidarium, T: tepidarium, C:

caldarium, Severan Period (Yegül 2014).

Figure 188. Bath of Caracalla Complex, third century AD, Rome, A:

tabernae; B: garden; C: staircase; D: cisterns; E: stadium (not specific); F:

library; G: caldarium; H: hall; I: laconicum; L: Palaestra; M: apodyterium;

306

O: frigidarium; P: tepidarium; Q: vestibulum; R: Mythraeum; N: natotio; S:

underground levels (Garbagna 2008).

Figure 189. Recosntruction of frigidarium, Bath of Caracalla, Viollet Le

Duc (Garbagna 2008).

The Baths of Diocletian in Rome383 were built in Regio VI in 306 AD.

(Figures 190 and 191) This multifunctional complex was one of the largest

bath complexes in the Roman era. It included the primary cleansing areas,

caldarium, tepidarium, and frigidarium, and had spaces used for such

activities as sporting and exercising, meeting, relaxing, and recreation as well

as a large garden. The complex had big swimming pools and many fountains,

for which Aqua Marcia provided running water. The water that was delivered

via the aqueduct was stored in the cisterns beneath the Piazza dei

Cinquecento.384 The water features placed in the circulation areas provided

383 The National Museum of Rome is located in the area of the remains of the Baths of

Dicletian and is responsible from taking care of the external gardens, which display statues

and the remains of the bath complex, Barbera, 2012.

384http://omeka.wellesley.edu/piranesi-rome/exhibits/show/baths-of-

diocletian/civilengineering.

307

an acoustical experience and enriched the visual background; in addition, they

served as a vanishing point for users to create cognition and wayfinding

within the space as the height of the roof and buttress system demolished the

perception of human scale in the vast volume. The massive construction was,

on the other hand, a manifestation of imperial power and presence, which,

together with the luxuriously decorated settings, formed a temple of water

consumption in social, leisurely, and bodily forms.

Figure 190. Bath of Diocletian, Rome, 4: natatio (swimming pool); 5:

palaestra; 6: main entrance; 7: exedra; 1: caldarium; 2: tepidarium; 3:

frigidarium (https://www.hmoob.in/wiki/Diocletian’s_Bath).

308

Figure 191. Reconstruction of Baths of Diocletian, Rome

(https://colosseumrometickets.com/baths-diocletian/).

Considering the busy and messy streets of the Roman cities, it can well be

suggested that the baths offered an experience of transition from an

unpleasant, rumble, noisy, crowded, and smelly outside to a warm, clean,

quiet, and plentiful inside. Bathsacted as a threshold between the micro and

macro worlds of Roman urbanism, through which the body sensed physical

and psychological wellness through water consumption.

Latrines

Considering that building drainage sewers was an essential and primary

process for the sustainability of civilization and maintaining public hygiene

and health, both the Greeks and Romans designed capable dirty water

transportation systems. Romans added water infrastructures to the cities

under their power and advanced the engineering of sanitation and wastewater

system. Both the cities and their immediate countryside received a drainage

309

system to carry over rainfall and wastewater coming from the baths, other

public buildings, and houses and to prevent floods in the country.385

The Romans mainly used two drainage systems; an open gutter system and

an underground pipe system. Open sewers were accessible for the inhabitants'

daily wastewater, excess rainwater, other rubbish, or spillage of fountains

containing clay, stone, and straw.386 Besides equipping their cities with such

physical organizations to get rid of sewage and garbage, Romans also set

regulations to sustain the cleanliness of cities. Emperor Tiberius established

a commission responsible for the care of rivers in the first century AD. Aediles

were responsible for cleaning the streets and stercorarii for removing human

waste with wagons. The inscriptions and graffiti found in Pompeii also show

that the citizens were banned from polluting the fountains.387

The estimated number of public toilets in the Empire was around 144 by the

fourth century AD. This number will increase if the latrines in the bath

complexes, the drainage of which was connected to the main sewer of the

baths, are also added. Public latrines were primarily built in bath complexes,

gymnasia, theatres, basilicas, and fora. They were designed to have a seating

capacity of 15-20 persons with no separation in between, thus suitable for

socialization out of necessity. Some latrines were large and had a vestibule,

that concealed the users.388 The fourth-century public toilets of Ostia had

double doors that prevented gazing from the street; vestibules and doors,

undoubtedly, also trapped the unpleasant smell inside. The seating

arrangement in the latrines was made in relation to water installations. Seats

could be carved from stone, as in the examples found in the Mediterranean

and Near Eastern contexts, or built with wood in colder, north-western

385 Aldrete, 2004, 94-97.

386 Jansen, 2011, 132.

387 Taylor, 2015, 81-82.

388 Taylor, 2015, 70-75.

310

provinces. Elaborate forms, having dolphin-shaped armrests designed in the

form of thrones, are also seen in later examples. (Figure 192) The space

allotted to users changed; it was 46-58 cm in Ephesus, while the latrine in the

forum Timgad had double-width seats. (Figure 193) The height of the seats

was around 43 cm; on some occasions, there were raised stone footsteps. A

U-shaped cross gutter, carved into stone blocks or built as a canal on the floor,

provided running water for cleansing. (Figure 194) The gutter served as a

washbasin for hands and was reached easily either by hand or by using a

dunking sponge.389

Figure 192. Dolphin shaped armrest, Timgad, (Wilson 2011).

389 Wilson, 2011, 99-104.

311

Figure 193. Double-width seating, Timgad (Wilson 2011).

Figure 194. Latrine in the Baths of Cyclops, North Africa, second century

BC, (Dougga 2011).

Rome was one of the most crowded ancient cities and considering that the

city had several commercial and social facilities, it is not surprising to find

evidence for many public toilets that served as waste-collecting spots.390

Public latrines were also an important symbol of exclusive elite culture,

which evoked the idea of a civilized and idealized lifestyle, with the

development and expansion of urban architecture mentally and physically.391

Monumental declaration of grand scale in architecture spread into the Roman

territory. The increase in population and the shift of perception of beauty

manifested in the construction of elaborate and large buildings such as

monumental bath complexes revealed the integration of other functions such

390 De Feo, De Gisi, Hunter, 2014, 53.

391 Thomas, 2007, 126.

312

as toilets or libraries to these building complexes. The bath complexes, in this

sense also received toilets. (Figures 195 and 196) Most such latrines were

small and dark; only though not many examples of spacious, decorated

structures with sophisticated fountains were also found, like the one in the

Antonine bath complex in North Africa. This toilet was arranged around a

central courtyard with a curved colonnade that benefitted from natural light

and ventilation.392 Other elaborate examples are the latrines in Hierapolis at

Phrygia (Figure 197), which had a peristyle courtyard393 , and the Large Baths

of Madauros in Algeria. The latrine in the latter is lavish; it was arranged as

a semi-circular space, 13 meters in diameter. It merged into the bath complex

with twenty seats and had a niche for status.394 (Figure 195) Water

management was a critical matter in such complexes; it was important to

maintain an ample amount of water to consume for cleansing and recreation

and also to manage the equally ample amount of wastewater.395 In smoothly

operated latrines equipped with efficient running water technology and

decoration, fresh running water's calming and soothing effects could have

motivated the users to spend some more time in the latrines to socialize and

rest. As in modern-day cafes and restaurants, the Roman bathers had the

privilege of accessing a restroom while socializing.

392 Jansen, 2011, 130.

393 Wilson, 2011, 105.

394 Thomas, 2007, 125.

395 In some public latrines, users could have paid for the costs of water management and

cleaning; The Digest also refers to rented public toilets, Wilson, 2011, 100.

313

Figure 195. Latrine in the Bath of Madauros, Algeria, second century BC

(after Thomas 2007).

Figure 196. Latrines of bath-gymnasium of Publius Vedius Antoninus

Sabinianus, Ephesus, second century AD (after Thomas 2011).

314

Figure 197. The Latrine at Frontinus Street (Colonnaded Street), Hierapolis,

late first century BC (https://www.worldhistory.org/image/4409/roman-

latrine-hierapolis/).

315

F. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET

Doğanın ana elementi olan su, çağlar boyu doğal bir fenomen olmanın

ötesinde kültürel tarihin önemli bir parçası olarak ele alınmış ve günlük

ihtiyaçtan ritüellere varan çeşitlilikte tüketilmiştir. Örneğin, Hititler, MÖ

1240 dolaylarında su kültlerine sahipti ve yaptıkları su kanallarını tarımın

yanı sıra atalarını onurlandırmak için kullanmışlardı. Bir diğer önemli

uygarlık olan Urartular da benzer şekilde şehirlerine etkileyici su kanalları

entegre ettiler. Efes, Teras Evler, Roma ve Geç Antik Dönem’de akan suyun

rahatlığı ve keyfinden faydalandı. Antik Yunan Dönemi’nde, Minos

Medeniyeti, Knossos Sarayı’na ve evlerine akarsulardan kaynak sağladı,

şehirlerini çeşme, su kanalları ve drenaj sistemleri ile donattı. Romalılar, göz

alıcı su kemerleri, su kanalları, süslü çeşmeleri ve banyo kompleksleriyle su

sistem ve mühendisliğini imparatorluklarının öncelikli ve ayrıcalılı yapı

elemanı olarak kullandı.

Suya erişim ve kamu/özel alan kullanımı erken dönem uygarlıklarına kadar

takip edilebilen bir tarihi olguyken, şehirlere ve evlere bol miktarda su

sağlayan, günlük hayatı kolaylaştırmanın yanı sıra konfor ve lüks sunabilen

Romalılardı.

Bu çalışma, suyun 'operasyonel' bir unsur olarak, fonksiyonel ve sembolik

tüketim biçimlerinin/anlamlarının, konut içi rutinleri ve ritüelleri nasıl

düzenlediği, mekânı nasıl dönüştürdüğü, bu mekanlardaki tüketim

çeşitliliğini ve mekân/performans özelinde hangi örüntüleri yapılandırdığını

Pompeii, Efes ve Zeugma şehirleri üzerinden tartışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda

çalışmanın temel araştırma soruları şunlardır: Roma kültüründe hangi

mekanlarda ve bağlamlarda su tüketilmiştir? Suyun sosyal ve ritüel

bağlamında kullanımı Roma evlerine nasıl eklemlenmiştir? Roma

316

konutlarında su fonksiyonellikten başka hangi anlamları ve değerleri

üretmiştir?

Çalışma, suyun, sosyal ve ritüel tüketim aracı olarak ve Yunan/Roma konut

mimarisinde nasıl ve hangi biçimlerde kullanıldığını tarihi ve tematik bir

çerçeve üzerinden araştırmaktadır. Yunan dönemi, Romalıların, Yunan

kültürüne hayran olmaları ve bu kültürün fiziksel/sosyal normlarını kendi

kimliklerine dahil etmeleri nedeniyle konunun tarihselliğini

bağlamsallaştırmak için kısaca ele alınmıştır. Özellikle Helenistik Dönem’de,

Roma seçkinleri, evlerini Yunanlıların özel alanda kullandıkları unsurlarla

donatmaya başlamışlardı. Bu kültürel değişim özellikle imparatorluğun doğu

sınırlarındaki konutların tasarımlarında etkili oldu. Çalışmada Roma Dönemi

daha ayrıntılı ele alınmış olup, suyun kullanım temaları ve kategorileri

Pompeii, Efes ve Zeugma şehirleri özelinde detaylandırılmıştır. Bu örnekler,

bireysel evlerin çeşitliliğinin fazla oluşu ve yapılan çalışma ve yayınlar

doğrultusunda elde edilen veriler detaylı bir örüntü sunduğu için seçilmiştir.

Pompeii’den seçilen bir grup ev, Roma konutunun sosyal ve mekânsal

anlatılarını, günlük rutin ve ritüellerin su temelli dinamikleri üzerinden kısaca

sunmak için kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, çalışmanın geri kalanını oluşturan

yapısal ve tematik okumaların çerçevesini Pompeii evlerinin malzeme

bolluğu şekillendirmiştir. Evler tüm detaylarıyla anlatılmamış ya da aynı

oranda detaylandırılmamıştır; her bir yapı spesifik bir su tüketimini ya da su

yapısını örneklemektedir. Örnek evler, bir bütün olarak ele alındığında,

türlerin sınıflandırılması ve karakteristik özelliklerin belirlenmesi, su

elemanlarının konumları, su tüketiminin amaç/çeşitliliği ve deniz ya da

egzotik unsurlar içeren su temalı dekorasyonun çerçevesini oluşturmaktadır.

Pompeii’den örneklenen evlerin bağlam ve içeriği Anadolu’nun iki önemli

şehri Efes ve Zeugma evlerine altlık ve referans oluşturmaktadır. Roma

Anadolu konutlarının geçmişi birçok örnekte Yunan Dönemi’ne

dayanmaktadır. Arkeolojik ve mimari veriler, Yunan Anadolu’sunda, örneğin

317

Priene’de görülen ortak şemanın, Olynthus ve Delos’ta olduğu gibi,

genellikle merkezi bir avluyu temel alan Yunan plan tipi olduğunu ortaya

koymaktadır. Roma’nın Anadolu’yu işgali sonucu başlayan kültürel etkileşim

ve değişikliğin kamusal ve evsel alandaki yansımaları yapılı çevre, şehir ve

konut mimarisinde gözlemlenmektedir. Zeugma ve Efes evleri, yapıların

mimari dokusu, mekânsal tasarımı, dekorasyonu ve kullanımı açısından bu

kültürel değişimin okunaklı bir yansımasını sunmaktadır. Bu anlamda,

Pompeii’de iyi örneklenen, tek aileli, domus tipi evlerin sosyal ve mekânsal

anlatıları ve fiziksel dönüşümleri, Anadolu’da gözlemlenen tasarım

şemalarını, Roma kültürel ve sosyo-politik uygulamalarıyla karşılaştırmak

için bir bağlam sunmaktadır. Ev planlarındaki benzerlik ve farklılıklar, yaşam

ve resepsiyon alanlarının mekânsal tasarımı ve suyla ilintili gerçekleştirilen

performanslar, kültürel adaptasyonun ve/veya yerel geleneklerin

sürdürülebilirliğinin göstergesi niteliğindedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, Roma

konutlarında suyun mekânsal varlığının izini sürmekte, tüketim biçimlerini

ortaya koymakta ve üç şehrin arkeolojik ve mimari verileri doğrultusunda

suyun kültürel tüketimini tartışmaktadır. Ek olarak, Geç Antik Dönem

Anadolu konutlarından bazı örnekler, ilerleyen dönemlerde suyun mekânsal

haritasını anlamamıza yardımcı ön bilgi olarak Ek kısmında verilmiştir.

Homer’in metinlerinde ve daha sonraki Yunan epigramlarında su, doğanın bir

armağanı, su kaynakları ise mağaralar, dağlar ve yarı ekili bitki örtüsünün

yanı sıra su perilerinin (nymphs) birincil yaşam alanı ve sembolik tabiatı

olarak görülüyordu. Suyun yaşam üretme gücü, Zeus’un çocukluğunda su

perileri tarafından mağarada yetiştirildiğine inanıldığı için tanrısallıkla

ilişkilendirildi. Yunanlılar su kaynaklarını gündelik amaçlar, su perileri ve

kadın yaşam döngüsünün koruyucusu olduğuna inanılan, Artemis, Hera ve

Persephone ile kişileştirilen tanrıçalara adanan ritüelleri gerçekleştirmek için

ziyaret ettiler. Ergenlik çağında bir kız, hayatının yeni dönemine hazırlık

olarak evli kadınların olduğu havuza girerdi ve evliliğin ilk gecesinde yapılan

banyo, evlilik töreninin önemli bir parçasıydı. Geç beşinci yüzyıl Yunan vazo

318

kabartmaları, mağara temalı ritüelleri ve buralarda su kaynaklarını, kadınların

su perilerinden doğum ve evliliğe dair yardım istedikleri kutsal yerler olarak

betimlemektedir.

Antik Yunan’da suyun iyileştirici gücü bir başka değer olarak karşımıza

çıkar. Bergama’da olduğu gibi su perilerine adanan şifa tapınaklarında

(Asklepion) suyun saflığı ve temizliğini korumak önemliydi. Örneğin, suyun

kutsallığını ve saflığını korumak amacıyla Bergama şifa tapınağındaki

çeşmelerde hayvanları sulamak, çamaşır yıkamak gibi aktivitelerin

yasaklandığı yasalar mevcuttu.

Yunanlılar, doğal su kaynaklarını takip ederek, tünel, kanal ve sifon

sistemlerini suyu toplamak ve dağıtmak için kullandılar. Antik Yunanlıların

kompleks su dağıtım sistemleri vardı; kil borular farklı görevler için şehre su

dağıtımını sağlıyordu. Örneğin, pınar/ırmak gibi akan su içme suyu için şehir

çeşmelerini besliyordu, daha az içilebilir olan su çamaşır, temizlik gibi

günlük ihtiyaçlar için sarnıçlara transfer ediliyordu. Helenistik Dönem’de

daha sofistike boru sistemleri ızgara sistemli kent plan şeması ile uyumlu

olarak sokak çeşmelerine ve evlere ulaştı.

Su sistemlerindeki teknik gelişmeler, su kontrol mekanizmalarının

geliştirilmesine ve su kullanımı ile ilgili yönetmeliklerin hazırlanmasına yol

açmıştır. Arkaik Dönem tiranları, bireylerin ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için

çeşmeler gibi kamu yapıları inşa etmeye eğimliydi ve su dağıtımının

kontrolünü üstlendi. Örneğin Tiran Theagenas, Megara’da bir çeşme evi inşa

etti ve su sistemlerini kontrol etme gücünü kendi elinde tuttu. Beşinci

yüzyılda ise Samos tünelini inşa eden ve denetleyen Eupalinos gibi bireysel

mühendisler su yapılarının inşasından sorumlu oldular.

Az yağışlı, sıcak ve kuru iklim, Antik Yunan konut mimarisinde su

kullanımını vazgeçilmez hale getirdi. Bu bağlamda, özel sarnıçlar ve kuyular

319

hane halkı ve günlük işlerin sürdürebilirliği açısından hayati önem taşıyordu.

Yunanlıların tipik bir günü sarnıçtan çekilen suyla yapılan kişisel temizlik ile

başlıyordu. Kişisel hijyenin yanı sıra, sarnıç ve kuyular yemek yapımından,

temizlik ve çamaşır yıkamaya kadar farklı ev işleri için kaynak sağlıyordu.

Çok miktarda su tüketimi gerektiren çamaşır yıkama evin avlusunda, çatıdan

toplanan yağmur suyu ya da kovalar aracılığıyla sarnıç/kuyulardan taşınan su

ile gerçekleşirdi.Yunan konutlarında sert zemin döşemeli avlularda bulunan

sarnıç ve kuyular, estetik ve sembolik araç olmaktan ziyade günlük tüketime

ve hijyene yönelik yapılardı ve mekanlarda dönüşüm/ilerlemeden ziyade

stabil temsiliyetleri vardı.

Erken Dönem Yunan evleri, Geç Arkaik Dönem’e kadar tek odalı yapılardan

oluşmaktaydı. Erken Demir Çağı’nda, küçük topluluklar ayrık ya da küme

şeklinde konumlanmış tek mahalli meskenlerde yaşadılar. Gelişmiş drenaj ya

da boru sistemlerinin yokluğu, su ihtiyaçlarını yağmur suyu ve/veya doğal su

kaynaklarından sağladıklarını göstermektedir. MÖ sekizinci yüzyılın

ortalarından itibaren yerleşim yerlerinin büyüklüğü ve evlerin sayıları

artmıştır. Arkaik Dönem’de siyasi kurumlar ve ofisler resmileştirildi ve

tiranlar ile geniş yetkiye sahip komünal konseyler tarafından yönetim kabul

edildi. Evler dahil birçok yapı ekonomik ve sosyal gelişmenin yansımasıydı.

Böylece, bir veya iki odalı mekanlar yerini avlu etrafında düzenlenen çok

odalı evlere bıraktı.

Avlu ve çevresine eklemlenen farklı büyüklük ve dekorasyona sahip

odalardan oluşan çok mekanlı evler Klasik ve Helenistik Dönem’in tipik plan

şemasını oluşturmaktaydı. Avlular, yemek pişirme, yaşam alanı ve

sosyalleşme gibi birçok aktivite için açık, yarı-açık alan sağlıyordu. Avluyu

evin merkezine alan yeni tasarım normu ile su yapılarının mekânsal

organizasyonu ve tüketim biçimi de değişime uğradı; evin yeni sosyal dili, su

öğelerine daha spesifik ve özel anlamlar yükledi. Bu bağlamda Yunan evleri

su öğeleri ile dolaylı ya da doğrudan bir etkileşim/iletişim sunmaktadır.

320

Örneğin, Cahill (2002), Olynthus evlerinde bulunan su öğelerinin çok

fonksiyonel kullanımına dikkat çekmektedir; su teknelerinin (louteria)

günlük aktivite, yıkanma ya da ritüel amaçlı kullanım olasılığı, bu objelerin

bulundukları odaları kullanım amacına göre etiketlemeyi zorlaştırmaktaydı.

Ancak boru sistemi, drenaj hattı gibi kanıtlar sayesinde ıslak hacimler ve kare

formda, yüksek platformda özel dekorasyon ile tasarlanmış andron’u ayırt

etmek mümkündür.

Helenistik Dönem evlerinde, mozaik döşeme ya da su temalı dekoratif

objelerin eklemlenmesiyle daha lüks ve özel alanlar yaratılmış olsa da su

öğeleri gösterişten uzak, avlularda konumlanan, çoğunlukla günlük kullanım

amaçlı sarnıç ve kuyulardan oluşmaktaydı. Birçok su kaynağı, su teknesi

(louter), saklama kabı (pithoi) gibi hareketli objelerdi. Özel alanda tasarlanan

küvetler hijyen dışında rahatlama ve rekreasyon sağlasa da Roma kültüründe

olduğu gibi sosyal diyalog mekanları ya da lüks göstergesi değildi. Her ne

kadar Yunan evlerinde su, kamu yapıları sayesinde özel alana taşınabilir hale

gelse de statü manifestosu olarak kullanılmadı ya da mekân deneyimine

estetik ve semnolik bir katkı sağlamadı.

Romalılar, suyun kapasitesini bir şeyleri birbirine bağlamak için kullandılar;

suyun maddililiği, kültürel ve sosyal kodlamalar üretmek ve işletmek için

evcilleştirildi. Doğa, özellikle su, saygın ve alegorik bir toplum yaratmada

kullanıldı. Doğanın vahşiliği ve yaratım gücü, suyun ehlileştirilmesi ve

kamusal/özel alana entegre edilmesiyle bir miktar kontrol altına alındı.

Özellikle su kemerleri ve köprüleri, imparatorluğun gücünü ve ihtişamını

sergilemek için kullandığı mühendislik mühürleri olarak şehirde tanrısal bir

atmosfer yarattı. Öte yandan süslemeli çeşmeler, kahramanlar ve yöneticiler

arasında benzer bir yol oluşturdu ve güç ve statü gösterim ile günlük

kullanımın bütünleşik şemalarını oluşturarak zamanın ötesinde şehir silüetleri

elde ettiler.

321

Diğer birçok şeyde olduğu gibi Romalılar su kullanımında da etkileyici ölçek

ve detaylarla muhteşem su yapıları ve sistemleri inşa ettiler. Roma’nın su

politikası nüfustaki değişim/artış ve imparatorların yönetim politikası üzerine

kuruluydu. Örneğin Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa yönetime geldiğinde eski su

kaynaklarının onarımının yanı sıra şehre iki yeni doğal su hattı eklemiş ve

çeşmeleri dekoratif heykellerle donatmıştır.

Doğal kaynaklardan su kemerleri ve köprülerle şehre taşınan su, sokak

çeşmeleri, tuvalet, hamam ve sulama dışında belirli bir ödeme sistemiyle özel

konutlara, çoğunlukla da varlıklı ailelere dağıtılmıştır. Pompeii su dağıtımı

bu bağlamda iyi bir örnektir. Şehrin en yüksek noktası olan Vezüv

Kapısı’ndaki su kulelerinde (castellum) toplanan su, doğal eğimle su kanalları

boyunca ilerler ve kil, taş ya da kurşundan yapılmış boru sistemleri ile çeşme,

banyo, dükkân, ve seçkin ailelerin konutlarına ulaşırdı.

Yunan evlerinin içe dönük, gözden uzak doğasının aksine Roma domusu,

ziyaretçiler için, suyun sosyal kalıpları inşa ve/veya kontrol ettiği, fiziksel ve

sosyal diyaloglar yarattı. Yunan evleri ile benzer iklim koşullarına sahip

olmasına rağmen, Roma konutları çeşitli kullanım senaryoları ile daha

karmaşık sosyal kullanım modelleri sundu. Bu bağlamda, farklı su öğelerinin

konut içinde, sirkülasyon alanlarında fonksiyonel ya da sembolik işeret ve

odak noktası olarak dahil edilmesi Roma evlerinde su yönetiminin sadece

soyut anlamlar/değerler ve sembolik kullanımının değil, somut tüketiminin

de teknik ve sosyal başarı göstergesiydi.

Roma konutu genel ve özel aktivite/ritüellerin gerçekleştiği sosyal bir

mekandı ve su bu yapının olmazsa olmazıydı. Günlük tüketimden, sağlığa ve

üretime su önemli bir süreç ve gelişim aracı olarak kullanıldı. Hem pratik hem

de sembolik yönleri olan kültürel bir değer olarak ele alındı. Pompeii’de

bulunan iyi korunmuş, yeterli sayıda Roma şehir konutu (domus) bize Roma

konutlarının ve Romalıların kültürel, sosyal yapısı ve kimliği hakkında bilgi

322

sunmaktadır. Tipik bir Roma konutu girişten (fauces) başlayarak merkezi bir

aks üzerinde sıralanan orta avlu (atrium)- konuk odası (tablinum)-

bahçe/kolonlu avlu (garden/peristyle) alanlarından oluşmaktadır. MÖ ikinci

yüzyıldan başlayarak arka bahçeler kolon ve dekoratif çeşme, heykel gibi

eklemelerle özel olarak tasarlanmış dış mekanlara dönüştü ve özellikle su

elemanları görsel ve akustik ayrıcalıklarından ötürü ziyaretçi mobilite ve

aktivitelerinin odak noktası haline geldi. Su öğeleri bu bağlamda

konseptleştirildi ve doğal/gündelik bir elementten statü, lüks, güç gibi

anlamlar üreten bir araca dönüştü.

Antik Dönem’de suya atfedilen yaşam alıp verme yetisi ve tanrısallık Roma

kültüründe de geçerliydi. Kamu alanlarındaki suya olan düşkünlük konut

mimarisinde de benzer yaklaşımları ortaya çıkardı. Özellikle resepsiyon

alanları olarak nitelendirilen orta avlu ve arka bahçelerde konumlanan

süslemeli çeşmeler, havuzlar, su temalı mozaik ve süslemeler bu arzunun

yansımasıdır. Günlük tüketimin yanı sıra su elemanları mekanlarda

operasyonel ve dönüştürücü araç olarak kullanıldı.

Su, modern dünyada olduğu gibi Antik Roma Dönemi’nde de benzer

şekillerde tüketildi: Hijyen ve sağlık (banyo ve tuvaletlerde), yemek

hazırlama/pişirme (mutfak, depo ve avlularda), çamaşır yıkama, üretim

(servis alanları, üretim yerleri, avlular). Su kullanımı günlük tüketim ve

ihtiyaçlarla sınırlı değildi. Roma hanedanları suyu cenaze, evlilik gibi aile

törenleri, festivaller, sembolik anlamlar, ziyafet (banqueting) ve selamlama

(salutatio) gibi sosyal performanslarda da etkin bir şekilde kullanmışlardır.

Su hem bireysel hem genel bağlamda ritüelin dinamiklerini

yönetme/yönlendirmede aracıydı. Örneğin, orta avluda bulunan sığ havuz

(impluvium) sabah selamlaması için gelen müşterileri girişten seremoninin

yapılacağı odaya (tablinum) kadar yönlendirme ve görsel/akustik olarak

etkileme, lüks, zenginlik gibi göstergeler sunma gücüne sahipti.

323

Roma konut mimarisinde sıklıkla avlu, portiko, kolonlu avlu gibi

sirkülasyon/resepsiyon alanlarına entegre edilen su öğeleri, görsel ve işitsel

zevk sunmanın yanı sıra, ritüel ve performanslar esnasında optik ve bilişsel

yönlendirme aracı olarak da kullanılıyordu. Görsel kompozisyon, Roma

evinin sosyo-mekansal kodlamasının temel bileşenlerinden biri olarak kabul

edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, dekoratif çeşmeler, deniz anlatılı

resim/mozaikler sadece akuatik ortamlar yaratmak için değil,

mekân/fonksiyon bağlamında odak, interaktif deneyim ve etkileşim sağlamak

için de kullanıldı.

Su öğeleri konut içerisinde sosyal ve mimari örüntüleri düzenleme

potansiyeline sahipti. Suyun kişisel temizlikten, üretime, sabah selamlama

seremonisinden, ziyafet ve eğlence aktivitelerine kadar çeşitli alanlarda ve

mekanlarda tüketimi Roma kültüründe suyun sosyal ve mekânsal tüketimi

hakkında önemli veriler sunmaktadır. Örneğin, Antik Yunan evlerindeki

mutfak ile iç içe olan tekil küvetlerin aksine Roma evlerinde yüksek statüden

bazı aileler, evlerindeki banyoları, açık alanlar, dekoratif ürün ve etkileyici

atmosferleriyle özel mekanlar olarak düzenlenmiş ve banyoları temizlik

dışında sosyal hayatın, zenginlik ve güç göstergesinin etkin parçası haline

dönüştürmüşlerdir. Özellikle Menander ve Julia Felix evleri gibi büyük

ölçekli yapılarda, evin içerisinde farklı sosyo-mekansal odaklar yaratılmıştır.

Bir diğer önemli su tüketimi gerektiren yemek pişirme eylemi de ev içerisinde

etkin fiziksel ve sosyal bir düzenleme gerektirmekteydi. Mutfağın özel yemek

salonu (triclinium) ve servis alanlarına olan mesafesi ve etkileşimi ev

sahibinin zenginliği hakkında bilgi sunmaktaydı. Geniş ölçekli evlerde

mutfaklar, portiko, kolonlu avlu, banyo, yemek odası gibi sosyal mekanlarla

iletişim halindeyken servis koridorları ile ayrılarak görüntü, ses, koku kirliliği

ve misafirler ile köleler arasındaki istenmeyen karşılaşmalar önlenebiliyordu.

324

Üretim ve imalat süreçlerinde su tüketimi de zenginliğin göstergesiydi. İleri

seviyede gelişmiş su sistemleri, ev sahiplerinin konut içinde hem zenginliğini

görünür kılan hem de sosyo-ekonomik operasyonlar için kullanılacak cömert

miktarda su tüketimi sağlayan hibrit tasarımlar oluşturmalarına yol açtı.

Birçok ev çamaşır yıkama hizmeti, fırın, çömlek yapımı ya da parfümeri gibi

çeşitli üretim süreçleriyle su tüketiminin günlük yaşamda entegrasyonu,

mekanların üretime bağlı değişimleri ve suyun operasyonel etkisi hakkında

bilgi vermektedir. Örneğin, kumaş boyama ve yıkama atölyesi olarak hizmet

veren Postumii ve VI.8 evleri üretimin günlük yaşam alanına eklemlenmesine

iyi birer örnektir.

İtibar aracı olarak kullanılan askeri ve politik başarıların yanı sıra, evlilik,

doğum, ölüm gibi törenlerin şehrin sokaklarında gerçekleşen bölümleri de

statü ve güç temsili olarak kamusal alanda eşit derecede ilgi gördü. Domus,

kamusal ile özel alan arasında bir diyalog aracı olduğundan Romalı ev

sahipleri, aile yaşantılarını, belirli kontrol ve düzenlemeler ile törensel

aktivitelerle erişime açtılar. Özellikle, avlu, bahçe, kolonlu avlu gibi

açık/resepsiyon alanları aile içi ritüellerin ev dışından olanlara açıldığı,

etkileşime izin verildiği önemli mekanlardı. Örneğin, aile üyelerinden,

özellikle aile büyüklerinden birinin ölümü aile üyelerinin, arkadaşların ve

hatta cenaze töreni için kiralanmış profesyonellerin olduğu bir onurlandırma

performansıydı ve ölüyü, sunakları ve kendilerini arındırma işlemi törenin su

tüketimi gerektiren önemli bir parçasıydı. Bu bağlamda avluda bulunan sığ

havuzlar ya da kişisel banyolar hijyen ve arındırma sağlarken, aynı zamanda

zenginlik ve statü göstergesi olarak ev sahiplerini onurlandırmanın da önemli

bir aracıydı ve ailenin köklerinin seçilmiş belirli bir mirasa sahip olduğunu

yansıtmaktaydı.

Roma kültüründe önemli yeri olan sabah selamlaması (salutatio), ziyafetler

(banqueting), eğlence performansları (spectacles) ya da birlikte yıkanma,

Roma konut mimarisinde suyun tüketiminin mekan üzerindeki operasyonel

325

ve dönüştürücü rolünü en iyi örnekleyen sosyal ritüellerdir. Perfromansların

doğasındaki hareket, su öğeleri aracılığıyla odalarda ve sirkülasyon

alanlarında görsel, işitsel ve bilişsel odaklar yaratarak evin ziyaretçiler ile

iletişiminde etkin mesaj araçları haline gelmekteydi. Örneğin, bir evin orta

avlusunda bulunan sığ havuzun konumu, duvarlara, girişe, arka bahçeye olan

mesafesi ziyaretçinin evi deneyimlemesi üzerinde aktif olarak rol alıyordu.

Su öğeleri yürüyüş esnasında ya da performans sırasında ziyaretçinin evi, aile

üyelerinin statü ve zenginlik durumlarını farklı tematik, konsept tasarım ve

kavramlar üzerinden deneyimletiyordu.

Evlerin ölçeği ve dekorasyon kararlarının yanı sıra, su öğeleri de Roma

konutlarının görkemini, ev sahiplerinin sosyal statü ve zenginliklerini dışa

vuran önemli yapı araçlarıydı. Bu bağlamda Roma kültüründe ve sosyo-

ekonomik, politik bağlamda değişen ve gelişen yaşam standartları ev içinde

de yansımasını bulmaktaydı. Örneğin, Roma aristokratları arasında bronz

tenin moda olması evlerde özel havuzların inşa edilmesine ve dış mekanların

bu havuzlar ile bütünleşmiş bir şekilde lüks ve keyif alanlarına dönüşmesine

neden oldu. Ek olarak, uzak ülkelere yapılan seyahatler veya Roma fetihleri,

hem imparatorluğun hem de kendilerini imparatorluğun mirasçısı olarak

gören ev sahiplerinin, farklı kültürlerin su kullanma örüntülerini ve

temalarını, yaratma/taklit etme yoluyla, güç, statü ve zenginlik aracı olarak

etkin bir şekilde yaşamlarına dahil etmesiyle sonuçlandı. Örneğin, evlerin

bahçelerinde Nil Nehri’ni çağrıştıran özel su kanalları (euripi) inşa edildi,

konutların yazlık yemek alanları (summer triclinium), Mısır egzotik deniz

canlıları ve su tanrı/tanrıçaları betimlemelerinin olduğu resim ve mozaiklerle

donatıldı. Özellikle Pompeii’deki büyük ölçekli Loreius Tiburtinus ve

Menander Evleri farklı su öğelerini kullanarak sosyal/resepsiyon alanları,

bahçeleri, banyo komplekslerini ve farklı yaşam alanlarını daha esnek ve

özgür bir şekilde tasarlama lüksüne sahip oldular ve ev içinde günlük

ihtiyaçların sağlandığı alanlar ile arkadaşlarıyla etkileşimde olabilecekleri

sosyal mekanları ayırma imkânı buldular.

326

Roma’nın kamu ve özel alandaki özgün ve karakteristik su tüketimi çeper

vilayetlerde de izlenebilmektedir. Özel bir coğrafi konuma sahip, tarih

boyunca farklı uygarlıklarla etkileşimde olan Anadolu’da bulunan zengin su

kaynakları da dini, sosyal ve sembolik olarak tüketilmiştir. Örneğin

Urartuların beşinci kralı olarak bilinen Menua’nın yaptırdığı su kanalları ve

sarnıçlar sadece tarım için değil artan nüfus karşısında ekonomik ve politik

dengeyi korumayı ve iktidarı sürdürme gücünü temsil eden simgelerdi.

Anadolu su yapıları Romalılar zamanında oldukça gelişmiştir. Romalılar

gelişmiş su mühendisliği ile inşa ettikleri muhteşem su yapılarını sadece doğa

karşısında üstünlük, güç göstergesi olarak değil, fethedilen yerlerde güç,

otorite ve mülkiyet aracı olarak da kullandılar. Bu yapılar arasında en

önemlisi su kemerleriydi. Roma Dönemi’nden önce Anadolu’da Efes ve

Bergama gibi az sayıda şehir su kanalı/köprüye sahipken diğer birçok şehir

yağmur suyu ve doğal su kaynaklarından taşıma ile su ihtiyacını

gidermekteydi. Roma yönetiminde eklenen birçok yeni su yapısı yanında

mevcut su kaynakları da onarılarak ve/veya yenilenerek Roma kimliğini

yansıtacak şekilde rafine edildi.

Zeugma ve Efes’ten örneklenen evler, Roma kültüründe su yönetiminin

bölgesel konut tasarımında sosyal ve mekânsal işleyişine dair önemli

referanslar sunmaktadır. Her iki şehir de Yunan Dönemi’nde kurulmuş olup,

uzun süre Yunan kültürü ile yönetilmiştir. Roma’nın sosyal bağlamdaki su

tüketiminde sergilediği karakter ve kimliği, bu şehirlerin seçkin kesimleri

tarafından takdir edildi ve spesifik tüketim biçimlerini konutlarında

uyguladılar. Örneğin, Zeugma evlerinde geniş ailelerin bir arada yaşaması

kentin yerel kültürüne bakış açısı sağlarken, evin belirli alanlarının farklı aile

bireyleri arasında bölüştürülmesinden sonra, belirli mekanlarda Roma’ya

özgü bir biçimde su öğelerinin dahil edilmesi Roma kültürünün

benimsenmesi şeklinde yorumlanabilmektedir.

327

Merkezi avlular etrafında planlanmış örnek evlerde, Roma konutunun

kanonik atrium-tablinum-peristyle aks şeması görülmemesine rağmen,

mekanların belirli ritüellere göre tasarlanma biçimleri ve suyun günlük ve

sosyal amaçlarla yönetim biçimi, geleneksel Roma konutları ile benzerlikler

göstermekteydi.

Zeugma evlerinde birden çok alanda oluşturulan akuatik alanlarda hiç

şüphesiz sıcak iklim koşullarının etkisi vardı. Zeugma evlerinde su yapıları

avlu ve yemek alanlarında yer alırken, Pompeii için örneklenen evlerde

ağırlıklı olarak avlu ve kolonlu avlu/bahçede bulunmaktaydı. Fiziksel ve

mekânsal farklılıklara rağmen sosyal/resepsiyon alanlarda belirli ritüel ve

aktiviteleri temel alan tasarım kararları ise Roma su tüketim kültürünü

yansıtmaktadır. Özellikle Euphrates Evi’nin yemek salonu girişinde

betimlenen hijyen kuralları, suyun maddi özelliğininin konsept ve sosyal

kullanıma dönüşmesine iyi bir örnektir; temizlik, seçkinlerin ayrıcalıklı bir

varlığı haline geldi ve belirli bir sosyal performans için uygulanacak kültürel

düzenlemeler yarattı.

Efes evlerinde de Roma su tüketim modellerinin izleri görülmektedir.

Örneklenen Efes evleri de bu çalışmada incelenen Pompeii evlerinden farklı

mekânsal dokuda planlanmış olsa da, su öğelerinin statü, lüks ve zenginlik

göstergeleri olarak, belirli mekanlarda spesifik sosyal performanslar ile

ilişkilendirilerek yerleştirilmesi Pompeii evleri ile benzerlik göstermektedir.

Her ne kadar, incelenen evler Domus’un geleneksel atrium-tabinum aks

şeması doğrultusunda planlanmamış olsa ve topoğrafya, iklim, yöresel

malzeme ve kültür bağlamında kendi özgünlüklerini yansıtsa da her iki

şehirde Roma’nın günlük rutin ve ritüelleri ile doğrudan ilişkili su yapıları-

mekânsal organizasyon örüntüsü gözlemlenebilmektedir. Örneğin, Zeugma

evlerinde sıcak iklimin etkisiyle çeşitli alanlarda çok sayıda su noktaları

yaratılmış olup, bu alanların özellikle Roma sosyal ve politik yaşantısında

328

önemli yeri olan ziyafetlerin (banquets) gerçekleştiği yemek alanları

(triclinia) ve sosyal/resepsiyon alanları olan kolonlu avlularda

konumlandığını görmek suyun doğal bir olgudan kavramsal bir araca

dönüşmesini iyi örnekler. Su yapıları gerçekleştirilen ritüel/performansın

doğası ile uyumlu, görsel, işitsel, estetik ve soyut değerler, mesajlar üretmiş

ve bulunduğu mekânın atmosferini değiştirmiştir.

Suyun Roma’nın mikro düzeyinden makro düzeyine kadar somut ve somut

olmayan kültürel durumları için önemli işlevsel ve dönüştürücü etkileri oldu.

Romalılar, kamusal ve özel bağlamları Romalılaştırmanın bir yolu olarak

tasarımlarına hidroloji mühendisliğini dahil ederek dünya sahnesindeki göz

kamaştırıcı yerlerini kanıtladırlar. Roma Dönemi’nde su tüketiminin

materyalist ve kavramsal mirası o kadar güçlü ve dikkat çekiciydi ki, su

tüketimi kamusal alan ve konutlarda operasyonel ve dönüştürücü bir materyal

olarak kullanıldı.

Pompeii ve Anadolu konutlarında suyun, yaşam döngüsünün devamlılığı,

mekanlarda bilişsel ve yönlendirici konumu, dekor öğesi, güç, zenginlik

göstergeleri ve belirli sosyal, kültürel ve politik aktivite ve ritüellerin ilham

kaynağı ve düzenleyicisi olarak kullanımı suyun kültürel, sembolik anlam,

değerler ve temsiliyetler üretmesini betimlemektedir.

329

G. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU

ENSTİTÜ / INSTITUTE

Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Social Sciences

Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Applied Mathematics

Enformatik Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Informatics

Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Marine Sciences

YAZARIN / AUTHOR

Soyadı / Surname : Başar

Adı / Name : Nilay

Bölümü / Department : Mimarlık Tarihi / History of Architecture

TEZİN ADI / TITLE OF THE THESIS (İngilizce / English): Rutinden Ritüele: Roma

Konutlarında Suyun Sosyal ve Mekansal Tüketimi, Pompeii, Efes ve

Zeugma/ From Routine to Ritual: Social and Spatial Consumption of Water

in Roman Domestic Context, Sampling, Pompeii, Ephesus and Zeugma.

TEZİN TÜRÜ / DEGREE: Yüksek Lisans / Master Doktora / PhD

1. Tezin tamamı dünya çapında erişime açılacaktır. / Release the entire

work immediately for access worldwide.

2. Tez iki yıl süreyle erişime kapalı olacaktır. / Secure the entire work for

patent and/or proprietary purposes for a period of two years. *

3. Tez altı ay süreyle erişime kapalı olacaktır. / Secure the entire work for

period of six months. *

* Enstitü Yönetim Kurulu kararının basılı kopyası tezle birlikte kütüphaneye teslim

edilecektir. /

A copy of the decision of the Institute Administrative Committee will be delivered to the

library together with the printed thesis.

Yazarın imzası / Signature Tarih / Date (Kütüphaneye teslim ettiğiniz tarih. Elle doldurulacaktır.)

(Library submission date. Please fill out by hand.)

Tezin son sayfasıdır. / This is the last page of the thesis/dissertation.

from routine to ritual: social and spatial - Open METU

Documents

Transcript of from routine to ritual: social and spatial - Open METU