Conclusions

The three houses discussed in this article have several things in common. First of all, the construction of the fullonica did not mean that they completely lost their residential character: the fully equipped kitchens and the many personal objects found in the houses indicate that they were inhabited. The households that inhabited them probably consisted of men and women and there is some evidence for children too. There is no archaeological evidence that suggests that the composition and socioeconomic possibilities of these households differed widely from that in other atrium houses of similar size. At the same time, it can be observed that the working areas were concentrated in places that did not necessarily play a key role in domestic life; all three houses had enough residential rooms from which the workshop was invisible or inaudible. In each case, the construction of the workshop was combined with or even preceded the restoration or redecoration of rooms with a clearly residential function, which indicates that residential priorities continued to play a key role. Moreover, the availability of piped water, which was needed in the fullery, made it possible to construct conspicuous fountains in peristylia and atria, a possibility that was used in all three houses. The fact that the construction of a fullonica in two of these houses cannot be related to an earthquake and the fact that residential priorities played a key role during the reconstruction of the third argue, once more, against Maiuri’s idea that the presence of workshops in atrium houses was a consequence of the social decline in Pompeii after the AD 62 earthquake.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the presence of the fullonica had its influence. There was not always a sharp separation between the domestic and professional spheres. In the fullonicae of Stephanus and of Vesonius Primus, there must have been regular traffic through the atrium during working hours. In the small fullonica of Stephanus, part of the atrium may have been regularly used for activities related to the fullery. Further, there is a notable proximity of workshop and kitchen in two of the three houses. This is in line with a wider trend discernible among workshops in Pompeian atrium houses: it was not uncommon for working areas to be closely related to sets of rooms with other utilitarian functions, such as kitchens and latrines (Flohr 2007, 141). Yet, the workshops were integrated into the fabric of the house and the workers were probably members of the household. Moreover, the presence of the workshop also played a role in the representation of the household towards the outside world. In the two complexes with a shop (I 6, 7 and VI 14, 21—22), the entrances were surrounded by election notices in which inhabitants of the house consciously used their identity as fullers to promote certain candidates (CIL IV, 3476; 3478; 7164). In a different way, the paintings in the peristyle offullonica VI 8, 20 equally demonstrated the pride that the inhabitants took in their work. Apparently, having a fullonica in your backyard was not something to be ashamed of. Instead, it was something that could be publicly advertised to the urban community.

So what does all this mean for our understanding of ‘the Pompeian atrium house’? In one sense, our conclusions are perfectly in line with Wallace-Hadrill’s notion that the atrium house was, in all aspects, the centre of Pompeian society: it even was a suitable location for industrial activities. On the other hand, it may also be argued that our results complement the observations of Penelope Allison about the utilitarian character of many atria and emphasize that atrium houses had more roles than communicating status and wealth. The domestic fullonicae show that the utilitarian aspects of atrium houses should not be underestimated. Perhaps, we must define the concept more broadly than we usually tend to do, and focus less on the rather few urban luxury villas, while giving a more central role to the many medium-sized and small houses that were basically built along the same architectural scheme, but were used in different and varying ways. In other words, the atrium house was perfectly suitable for self-representation if this was part of the social role of the owners, but if they had other priorities, it offered a suitable location for these as well.