Of the hundreds of houses excavated in Pompeii, wall ornaments decorate only a few. The taste for them was shared by owners of vastly different properties, from large, luxurious residences like the Casa degli Amorini dorati and the Casa di M. Fabius Rufus to smaller houses such as the Casa dello Specchio and the house at I 13, 16. The wall ornaments not only revealed these homeowners’ ability to acquire such luxury goods, but also afforded them the opportunity to impress their visitors with stories — factual or fictional — of the objects’ origins. While it is no longer possible to reconstruct with certainty how or why their owners acquired these items, I wish to propose a range of conceivable explanations. Statius (Silv. 2.2, 63—69) and Martial (4.39, 1—8) reveal owners’ and visitors’ interest in the history of objects displayed in their homes, and Martial’s gentle mockery (8.6; 12.69) suggests the inflated or ill-informed pedigrees that owners sometimes claimed for their collections. The striking wall ornaments, conspicuously displayed in areas designed for receiving and favorably impressing guests, may likewise have inspired discussion of their origins and of their owners’ discernment (or lack thereof) in acquiring them.
Imported materials and works of art are prominent among the wall ornaments. The villa descriptions of Statius and Seneca reveal the high esteem in which materials from regions beyond Italy, like the marbles employed in the intarsia panels and the giallo antico herm from I 11, 12, as well as the obsidian mirrors, were held. That certain homeowners in Pompeii and, presumably, some of their visitors had a discriminating appreciation for such goods is further revealed by studies of the use of white and gray marbles within the city, which have shown that the most prestigious imported stones were displayed in highly visible locations, while less costly Italian marbles occupied less prominent places (Fant etal. 2002). Objects fashioned outside of Italy, such as the Attic votive relief in the Casa degli Amorini dorati as well as, perhaps, the neoAttic satyr from the same house and the marble painting from the Casa del Marinaio, must have held a similar level of prestige. These objects may have been souvenirs of the homeowners’ travels or treasured gifts from traveling family or friends (cf. Swetnam-Burland 2007, 124—125), or, alternatively, they may have been purchased from importers or through a series of middlemen. Cicero’s correspondence with his friend Atticus (Att. 1.7; 2.2; 4.2; 5.2; 6.3-4; 7.3; 8.2; 9.3; 10.5) reveals a homeowner actively pursuing the acquisition of imported works of art for his residences with the assistance of a friend living in Athens (see Marvin 1989; Leen 1991). A lively trade in works of art between Italy and the eastern Mediterranean is further attested by the presence of bronze and marble sculptures in the Mahdia (Hellenkemper Salies et al. 1994) and Antikythera shipwrecks (Bol 1972). Pompeii’s proximity to Puteoli, with its close commercial ties to the eastern provinces, and the city’s own role as a port may have eased the flow of imports to local consumers.
Several of the wall ornaments were antiques that may have been in Pompeii for some time, perhaps even generations, prior to the city’s destruction. The Attic votive relief, the oldest of the group, had presumably been displayed for centuries in Greece before being sold at second hand for export (see Kuntz 1994; Baumer 2001). The neo-Attic satyr and the painting on marble probably date to the Augustan period at latest, and repairs to others of the wall ornaments indicate that they, too, had seen prolonged use before AD 79. These objects may have been “heirlooms” handed down and cared for through generations of a family or by successive owners of a property; others may have been received as gifts or legacies (e. g., Digesta 18.1.34; 30.41; 34.2.1; Juv. 3, 215-220; Neudecker 1988, 116; cf. Stirling 2005; 2007). Seiler (1992, 122-123) proposed that the owners of the Casa degli Amorini dorati, for example, acquired most of their sculptures, including the south portico reliefs, prior to the earthquake of AD 62, and that in the aftermath they repaired damaged pieces and returned them to display. The hypothesis that the sculptures changed settings but remained in the same property is particularly attractive in this house, where several repaired or fragmentary sculptures were also displayed in the garden. That some homeowners took care to preserve works of art for future reuse is confirmed by Penelope Allison’s observation (2004, 182-186) that in several houses fragmentary sculptures were found in what appear to be storage rather than display contexts (see also Anderson, this volume). The painted marble panel from the Casa del Marinaio, the gold-glass panels from the bakery at VII 2, 3 and the cameo glass panels from the Casa di M. Fabius Rufus, all of which were found in rooms that they are unlikely to have actually decorated, may likewise have been in storage at the time of the eruption with the intention that they would be displayed again in the future.
Alternatively, the objects reused as wall ornaments may have been discarded and subsequently acquired at second hand by new owners. The sculptures immured in the walls of Houses I 13, 16 and I 11, 12 may have been obtained in such a way. Since there is no evidence for a larger sculpture assemblage ever having decorated either house, it seems unlikely that the wall ornaments were reused from a previous display in the same home, as in the Casa degli Amorini dorati. The inclusion of marble sculptures like those reused as wall ornaments in the decoration of bar counters around Pompeii, such as the fragmentary mask reliefs immured in the bars at III 9, a and VI 16, 12 and the two marble heads or masks set into the bar at VI 1, 2 (NSc 1905, 274; 1908, 60-61; PAH I, 243-244), provides clear evidence for the availability of such secondhand material. The incorporation of other kinds of scrap marble, including architectural fragments, parts of inscriptions, and shaped pieces from opus sectile floors, in the revetment of bar counters suggests that the secondhand sculptures were probably exchanged as part of a larger market for reused decorative material (Mac Mahon 2005). Although the availability of used marble in Pompeii is often attributed to the effects of the earthquake ofAD 62, its appearance need not have been occasioned by that event. Post-62 repairs, reorganization and sales of sculptures and other goods undoubtedly did take place, but it was not Pompeii’s only earthquake (see Frohlich and Jacobelli 1995; above, Introduction) and such objects might sustain damage in a variety of household accidents unrelated to seismic activity (cf. Tronchin, this volume). As Richard Neudecker (1988, 116-117) has observed, a number of other circumstances, including the death of a collector (Plin. Ep. 8.18) and cash shortages (SHA, Marc. 21, 8-9), provided occasions for the sale of sculptures. Regardless of the circumstances of their acquisition, the wall ornaments in I 13, 16 and I 11, 12 were clearly valued by their new owners, who found creative ways to incorporate these finds into the most carefully decorated areas of their homes.
The prominent display of the antiques reused as wall ornaments reveals the high value their owners placed on these objects despite, or perhaps because of, their secondhand status. Signs of age and even damage, therefore, did not necessarily diminish an object’s value in the minds of potential patrons. Objects like these that were preserved for an extended period and repaired as necessary may even have gained value because of their age or their association with previous owners. The frequent appearance of reused and heirloom sculptures in domestic collections from other regions reveals the inclusion of such material as a normal feature of Roman collecting habits (see, e. g., Neudecker 1988; Bartman 1991; Stirling 2005). The evidence of silver collections, such as the hoards from Boscoreale and the Casa del Menandro, which included pieces manufactured decades before AD 79, confirms the willingness of well-to-do patrons to preserve luxury goods over a prolonged period of time (Baratte 1986; Painter 2001). Contemporary authors, too, attest to the prestige attached to works of noticeable age, as in Pliny’s reference (HN 33.157) to the desirability of certain kinds of silver even when worn, and Statius’ inclusion of ancient sculptures among the noteworthy features of the villas he describes (Silv. 1.3, 47-51; 2.2, 63-69).
The patrons’ interests in imported goods and antiques and their willingness to display damaged or repaired objects appear not only in the wall ornaments but also in other features of their houses. The Casa degli Amorini dorati, because of its size and state of preservation, offers the best example of these tastes: imported materials appear not only among the wall ornaments, but also in the freestanding sculptures and the floor pavements. Reused objects, too, appear among both the wall ornaments and the garden sculptures. The owners of the much less grand House I 11, 12, in just the space of one cubiculum and part of the garden, likewise demonstrated these interests. Their selection of a giallo antico herm for display as a wall ornament is echoed in the imported colored marble slabs that decorate the cubiculum’s floor. The homeowners’ taste for both imports and antiques is further indicated by the statuette of Venus chosen for the garden shrine: in composition and technique, it bears close similarities to statuettes produced by workshops on Rhodes (cf. Gualandi 1976, 96-99, no. 47) and Delos (cf. Marcade 1969, 229-232, pl. 44) in the late second and early first centuries BC and may have been an import from the eastern Mediterranean. The inhabitants of the Casa dell’Efebo, in addition to their obsidian mirror, had an elaborate opus sectile floor fashioned of colored marbles and glass in their triclinium. Their garden included two giallo antico herms and another in rosso antico, the red marble imported from Cape Taenarum in the Peloponnese and known to the Romans as marmor Taenareum (NSc 1927, 73-74; Dodge and Ward-Perkins 1992, 157). The Casa del Frutteto and the Casa di M. Fabius Rufus also had floor pavements that included imported colored marbles, either set into signinum pavements or incorporated in opus sectile designs.
The wall ornaments in marble, glass and obsidian undoubtedly surprised viewers encountering them for the first time. Painted imitations of luxury goods on domestic walls - depicting not only sculptures, colored stone and painted marble, but also wood paneling, metal and glass vessels and gems - reflect the popularity of the sumptuous effects that the wall ornaments created. The owners ofthe wall ornaments made these effects a vivid reality, in some cases by carefully selecting and preserving treasured items and in others by incorporating objects seemingly acquired by chance into their decor. While a few Pompeians made the idiosyncratic decision to insert actual objects into their walls, it was an option that the vast majority, even among those who deployed other lavish features to decorate their houses, did not pursue. The wall ornaments thus invite us to envision the city’s inhabitants visiting each others’ homes and admiring (or criticizing) the assemblages their friends and associates had created (cf. De Angelis, this volume). They also encourage modern viewers to recognize the myriad choices of individual patrons operating within the broader social expectations of those who aspired to status and recognition in Pompeii.
World History
