The second domestic fullonica was situated north of the forum in a large atrium house in insula VI 8. As the house was excavated in 1825, the data set at our disposal is different from that at the fullonica of Stephanus and studying it requires a different strategy. No reliable records exist of the artifacts found by the excavators. To understand the role and impact of the fullonica in this complex, we have to rely on the standing remains of the building. These provide important information. While post-excavation decay has destroyed most of the decorations on walls and floors, it has also made details visible that are hidden behind wall decorations in better preserved buildings such as the fullonica of Stephanus. These walls provide a structural relative chronology that reveals much of the historical development of the building.
The house was built in the second century BC and originally was organized around two atria: the large Tuscan atrium of the present Casa della Fontana Grande (VI 8, 22), which was surrounded by two alae, a tablinum and had three cubicula along its north side, and south of it a smaller hexastyle atrium (Pesando 1997, 258; Dickmann 1999, 61—63). The two atria were connected by three doors in the wall between them. Later, this complex was extended with a large peristyle at its south side (Fig. 6.4). This new peristyle has been dated in the first century BC on the basis of the second style floors and the arrangement of rooms along its east side, which include a cubiculum with a double alcove that is typical for this period (Dickmann 1999, 202). Somewhere in the same century, the house was divided into two parts by blocking off the doors between the two atria (Dickmann 1999, 61). The northern part became a traditional house with a large atrium and a small back yard, whereas the southern part had a small atrium and a large peristyle. In this latter part, a fullonica was established.
The workshop was situated in the west part of the peristyle and, obviously, did not belong to its original layout. It is important, however, to establish the exact position of the fullonica within the relative chronology of the area. Originally, the peristyle was built with round brick columns, but most of these were replaced by heavy, rectangular pillars of opus vittatum mixtum in a later phase (Fig. 6.5). In the west portico, three of the original columns have been preserved, as they were incorporated in the wall between the garden and the elevated work space of the fullonica. In the northwest corner of the peristyle, beneath the pillar of opus vittatum mixtum, the lower half of a fourth column has been preserved (Fig 6.6). This situation provides important clues about the history of the area. The opus vittatum pillar was placed on top of the work space of the fullery, which thus necessarily is older. Moreover, below the pillar there is a layer of waterproof plaster running between the column and the south wall of the eastern part of the fullery, indicating that the working area originally was restricted to the western
Fig. 6.4 — fullonica VI8, 20—21.2: plan after split.
Portico, and only later was extended into the northern portico. This extension took place before the operation in which the brick columns were replaced by the heavy opus vittatum mixtum pillars: the pillar in the northwest corner has partially rests on the extension and an imprint of the flutes of an original column is clearly visible in the southeast corner of the extension of the fullonica.
The fullonica thus antedates the renovation of the peristyle, but is older than the last phase of the house. Remarkably, neither the original construction of thefullonica nor its extension caused any other structural adaptations in the peristyle area: the western portico was given over to industry, but for the rest, little seems to have changed. Apparently, the complex was large enough to have a workshop inserted without losing its domestic functions. The renovation of the peristyle had more far-reaching consequences. It must be connected with several other alterations in the surrounding rooms. The three rooms east of the peristyle were redecorated with fourth-style wall-decorations and their vaulted ceilings were flattened. In front of oecus 12, a fountain was constructed. The bath suite was
Fig. 6.5 — fullonica VI8, 20—21.2: overview of peristyle from oecus 12.
Dismantled and turned into four residential rooms. Room 16 was made accessible from the peristyle by two broad steps leading to a wide opening. In the western jamb of this opening, rounded bricks have been applied to the wall. These come from the original columns of the peristyle and indicate that the reorganization of the former bath suite coincided with the reconstruction of the peristyle. The hypocaust of the former caldarium in room 17 was removed and a new connection was made to room 18. Rooms 16, 17 and 18 received new, fourth style wall decorations, while room 15 was turned into a storage room with shelves along three of its walls. To judge from the opus vittatum mixtum door jambs, the kitchen and the service quarter west of the former bath suite near the fullonica also took their present form in this phase, though it is unclear how this part of the house was organized before the renovation. Based on the stylistic properties of the wall-decorations associated
With the renovation, the project must be dated after AD 50, but, again, there are no traces of earthquake damage. Remarkably, while the project involved major changes to the entire peristyle area, the fullonica remained unchanged. Thus, it seems that the purposes of the project were not related to the workshop, but aimed at improving the residential qualities of the complex.
There might be one complication, however. It concerns the decoration of the two pillars in front of oecus (12). The oecus itself was the best decorated room of the peristyle and had rich fourth-style paintings with mythological panels depicting the stories of Adonis, Admetos and the Minotaur (Helbig 1868, 471). The fountain in front of it consisted of a marble basin which was fed by waterspouts coming from the low walls surrounding it (Fig. 6.5). These two walls were decorated with depictions of Bacchus and Apollo. On the east face of the pillar south of the fountain was a lararium
Fig. 6.6 — fUllonica VI8, 20—21.2: NW corner of the peristyle.
Painting with two snakes flanking an altar. Probably, this place was a religious focal point and played a central role in household ritual. On the north side of the pillar was a river god, which faced a depiction of Venus on the south side of the opposite pillar (Frohlich 1990, 230). The iconography on the east and north sides of the pillar north of the fountain, however, had a different character. Here, the paintings show scenes of fullers at work (Fig.
6.7). These have recently been discussed by John Clarke (2003, 112—117). Clarke rightly emphasizes their prominent visual position. Visitors coming from outside entered the peristyle from the atrium or room 40. On their way to the main reception rooms, oecus 12 and room 14, they passed along the depictions of the daily work in the fullery.
The question is whether these scenes imply that the redecoration of oecus 12 and the surrounding rooms served commercial rather than residential purposes. There are insufficient data to come to a detailed answer, but it seems unlikely that the rooms east of the peristyle were reception rooms for customers coming to drop off or pick up clothes, as maintained by Clarke (2003, 112). Most fullonicae had a shop for this purpose, but the fact that this establishment did not have a shop does not mean that eventual customers were received in these reception rooms: there was enough space elsewhere. Further, it is likely that a considerable part of the clientele of the workshop consisted of business partners and not of private customers (Flohr 2003, 448). Of course, negotiations with these people may have taken place in oecus 12 or in the surrounding rooms, but this does not really interfere with domestic activities. Similar negotiations may have taken place in many other peristyles as well. Moreover, it must be mentioned that neither the depictions of the fullers at work, nor the fullonica itself were visible for people in the oecus or the reception rooms south of it. The pictures
Fig. 6.7 — fullonica VI8, 20—21.2: pillar with painted scenes of fullers at work, E face.
Were directed at people walking in the peristyle, not at people sitting inside the surrounding rooms. The fullonica was hidden behind a wall at the other side of the garden. Furthermore, the decoration of these rooms is similar to that of many residential rooms off other peristyles. There is, for example, no fundamental difference between the decoration of oecus 12 and that of room N in the Casa dei Vettii (VI, 15, 1; Fig. 4.1), which had panels with Pentheus, Hercules and Dirce (PPM V, 526—533). The decorative fountain in front of oecus 12 and the view over the peristyle garden from both room 11 and oecus 12 were symbolic elements of residential luxury that were all too common at Pompeii. There is little reason to assume that these symbols worked differently here than they did in other peristyles in the city.
Neither the construction of the fullonica, nor the later renovation of the peristyle structurally changed
The domestic character of the area. The reception rooms kept their function and though the bath suite was dismantled, it was replaced by residential rooms. The workshop itself had a marginal position in the west part of the peristyle and did not interfere much with domestic life in other parts of the house, neither before the transformation of the peristyle nor afterwards. The scenes with the fullers at work give an idea of the composition of the work force, and, hence, of at least part of the household. Eleven people have been depicted, of which five are adult males and three are adult females. The other three probably were children — two boys and a girl (Frohlich 1991, 231—232). The boys have been depicted while trampling the clothes in the treading stalls; the girl is shown while handing a piece of cloth over to an adult supervisor. While it is not necessarily true that the paintings show the real persons that actually lived and worked in the
Fig. 6.8 — fullonica VI14, 21—22: Plan.
House (contra Clarke 2003, 117), they may reflect to some extent the composition of the household, which consisted of men, women and children, like most households in the city.
World History
