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:
FROM ROUTINE TO RITUAL: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL
CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ROMAN DOMESTIC CONTEXT,
SAMPLING POMPEII, EPHESUS AND ZEUGMA
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
Department of Architecture
Examining Committee Members:
Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Yoncacı Arslan (Head of the
Examining Committee)
Middle East Technical University
Department of Architecture
Prof. Dr. Lale ÖZGENEL (Supervisor)
Middle East Technical University
Department of Architecture
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatma Gül ÖZTÜRK BÜKE
Çankaya University
Department of Architecture
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
FROM ROUTINE TO RITUAL: SOCIAL AND SPATIAL
CONSUMPTION OF WATER IN ROMAN DOMESTIC CONTEXT,
SAMPLING POMPEII, EPHESUS AND ZEUGMA
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
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
summer triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii…..……………………….210
Figure 78. Painting depicting Nilotic animal life in the riverbank, couches of
summer triclinium, House of Ephebe, Pompeii…..……………………….210
Figure 79. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies,
Pompeii…………………………………………………………………...211
Figure 80. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies,
Pompeii…………………………………………………………………...212
Figure 81. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies,
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
Figure 129. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 2,
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
Figure 132. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 3,
Terrace House II, Ephesus………………………………………………...244
Figure 133. Residential Unit 4, Terrace House II, originates from the first
century AD…………………………………………………..……………245
Figure 134. Axonometric view, Residential Unit 4, Terrace House II,
Ephesus……………………………………………………...……………245
Figure 135. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 4,
Terrace House II, Ephesus…………………………………………...……246
Figure 136. 3D model of Residential Unit 5 in Terrace House II…………246
Figure 137. Residential Unit 5, Terrace House II, originates from the first
century AD…………………………………………..……………………247
Figure 138. 3D model, Residential Unit 5, Terrace House II……...………248
Figure 139. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 5,
Terrace House, Ephesus…………………………………...……...………248
Figure 140. Residential Unit 6, Terrace House II, originates from the first
century AD…………………………………………..……………………249
Figure 141. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 6,
Terrace House II, Ephesus………………………………………...………250
Figure 142. Residential Unit 7, Terrace House II, originates from the first
century Ad……….……...……………………………………………...…251
Figure 143. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 7,
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.
208 Uytterhoeven, 2019, 419.
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)
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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.
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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.
258 Uytterhoeven, 2013, 145.
259 Ladsttätter, 2013, 142.
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.
268 Ladsttätter, 2013, 134.
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
271 Ladsttätter, 2013, 146.
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.
275 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 55.
110
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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.
291 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 62.
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
292 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 62.
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
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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
294 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 62.
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
295 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 62.
120
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
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.
Spatial and Social Consumption of Water
The colonnaded courtyard with a nymphaeum, characteristic of the Pompeian
domus, was common in the units in the insula, including Unit 7. However,
296 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 62.
297 Çinici, 2006, 90.
298 Zimmermann and Ladstätter, 2011, 62.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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
Figure 80. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies, Pompeii
(http://pompeiisites.org/en/archaeological-site/house-of-the-pygmies/).
Figure 81. Painting depicting Nilotic landscape, House of Pygmies, Pompeii
(http://pompeiisites.org/en/archaeological-site/house-of-the-pygmies/).
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).
216
Figure 88. Colonnaded Street of Perge (author, 2017).
Figure 89. Houses XXXIV and XV, Priene, fourth century BC (adapted
from Bilge 2019).
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.
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).
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).
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).
Figure 129. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 2, Terrace House II, Ephesus.
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).
Figure 132. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 3, Terrace House II, Ephesus.
245
Figure 133. Residential Unit 4, Terrace House II, originates from the first century AD (plan: adapted from Thür, Beitr, and Jilek
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)
Figure 136. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 4, Terrace House II, Ephesus.
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).
Figure 139. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 5, Terrace House II, Ephesus.
249
Figure 140. Residential Unit 6, 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).
250
Figure 141. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 6, Terrace House II, Ephesus.
251
Figure 142. Residential Unit 7, 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).
252
Figure 143. Spatial and Social Consumption of Water, Residential Unit 7,
Terrace House II, Ephesus.
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
306 Uytterhoeven, 2013, 147.
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.
309 Uytterhoeven, 2019, 17.
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.
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.
339 Kontokosta, 2019, 48.
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
372 Kontokosta, 2019, 46.
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.
374 Kontokosta, 2019, 46.
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.
377 Kontokosta, 2019, 48.
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.
Top Related