The careful placement of building materials and salvaged items in areas that were generally less obtrusive but still accessible suggests strongly that in many houses, attempts were made to minimize the impact of these items upon a continuing daily life. The fact that these priorities seem to have also governed domestic storage in general strengthens the conclusion that for many, priorities remained largely unchanged from the time prior to the earthquake. Concern for the vista from the doorways of a house implies that the doors of these houses were, in fact, open to the public and that the houses, together with their social rituals, continued to function despite the inconvenience of building and restoration work.
Additionally, it may be observed that house owners seem to have been most concerned with the appearance of the house from the exterior. What seems to have mattered was not whether the house was actually under construction or repair, but that it should appear to outsiders to be undisturbed. This may have great significance for more generalized observations about the arrangement of Pompeian houses with regard to their external vista — a phenomenon that has led to much discussion of the importance of axiality and vista from the front door (Bek 1980; 1983; Jung 1984; Clarke 1991, 1—29; Cooper 2007, 15). The research presented here suggests that axial vistas may actually be an epiphenomenon resulting from a more general desire to present the illusion of a “perfect” house interior to the outside world. Verification of this idea will require further spatio-visual research, including the contradictory evidence of wall paintings and unfinished decoration in atria, which were not considered in the scope of the present study.
Overall, the analysis of artifacts of building activity and disturbance in light of the visual and spatial qualities of their find locations paints a more complicated picture of the post-earthquake environment than has previously been presented. Rather than a simple question of the presence or absence of disturbance to daily life, these results reveal that Pompeii’s inhabitants responded to the challenges of rebuilding in a variety of different ways. Moreover, it is possible to identify how particular house owners dealt with the process of rebuilding after AD 62 and to reconstruct what aspects of their houses’ appearance and functionality mattered most to them. A number of Pompeians seem to have tried to make the best of it, attempting to carry out “normal” daily activities despite simultaneous restoration work, minimizing the associated difficulties as best they could. Others clearly moved away, at least for the duration of the rebuilding process, while others followed suit only after their initial restoration efforts had failed. Finally, certain houses, possibly those that had been hopelessly damaged by the initial earthquake or whose owners could not face repeated seismic woes, were abandoned and given over to the storage and procurement of building supplies. Far from the question of simple disruption, spatio-visual analysis of the finds distribution reveals a diverse pattern of disturbance, coexistence and continuity during the site’s final years. The compromises made by individual house owners testify to a vibrant, dynamic, and living city persevering through difficult times.
World History
