AND PAVOLINI
Rieger explored Ostia’s urban development through its changing religious landscape.125 The
study addressed the urban integration of the sanctuaries, their architectural layout, their history of reconstruction, as well as their periods of activities. However, Rieger’s most valued contribution lies in her social approach to these sanctuaries: she examined the function of sanctuaries as social and communicative space, and as a provider of identity within the city and its society.126 DeLaine’s research
has been contributing to Ostian archaeology through various detailed publications on the building industry, the construction process and the brick industry related to it.127 However, more relevant to
this study are her applications of formal methods of spatial analysis, of which she is a pioneer in Ostia.128
DeLaine’s spatial assessment of Ostia’s medianum
123. Carl et al. (2000: 338).
124. See Carl et al. (2000: 342-344) for Kemp’s comparison between Amarna and London.
125. Rieger (2004).
126. See Hein�elmann (2008) for a review of Rieger’s contribution to the better understanding of Ostia’s sanctuaries.
127. DeLaine (2002; 2004; 2005; 2008).. DeLaine (2002; 2004; 2005; 2008). 128. DeLaine (2004). . DeLaine (2004).
apartments is a remarkable example of a fully data- driven examination of Ostia’s built environment. Finally, Pavolini’s work on quotidian Ostia is of utmost relevance to everyone who takes an interest in the daily life of the city.129 His socio-economic
perspective on urban life has produced a number of scholarly works centred on the economy of Ostia quotidiana, with his more recent publication on Ostia’s changing economic role in the Severan period.130 Last but not least thanks to Pavolini’s
outstanding scholarship Ostia can pride itself of having the best archaeological guide book to the city and its buildings.131 Pavolini’s ‘Ostia’ is far more
than a guide book it is the first and foremost point of reference for anyone in Ostia, without we would be lost.
129. Pavolini (1996). . Pavolini (1996). 130. Pavolini (2002). . Pavolini (2002). 131. Pavolini (2006). . Pavolini (2006).
From this appraisal of research in Ostia it should be clear that recent studies have made important contributions to the understanding of urban formation processes and development. However we also conclude that not much attention has been paid to the city’s spatial structure as a research focus in itself, let alone the relationship between the spatial organisation und urban society. Moreover, the evaluation has shown that there is a need for more data-driven studies related to the built environment. Next to the pioneer work in Space Syntax by DeLaine, it appears that there is scope for further development within the line of systematic, analytical research, i.e. Space Syntax, and hence this explains why it is applied to the archaeological record of Ostia by this study.
This chapter aims to widen the research perspective and bring into the discussion studies in the field of Roman urbanism which developed outside of Ostia, notably in Pompeii. The intention is to take account of the advances made elsewhere, and to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of these earlier studies. A number of works concerned with Roman urban development will be critically examined. These have been selected for their pioneering work and outstanding contribution to the study of the Roman city. They all share a marked concern with urban space. These works will be discussed at some length, thoroughly examining the methods of analyses as well as the results achieved. This is done not only to appraise and contextualise these works, but also to engage with a wider theoretical discussion and to place Ostia within debates about the Roman city. Roman urban theory comprises a wide field, ranging from ideal-type economic models to the study of individual houses and households. The sheer number of Roman urban studies is impressive, reflecting not only different theoretical approaches but also the confusion in the general theory of the ancient city that pervades the discussion of ancient urbanism.1 Economic theories in general, and the
Weber-Finley consumer-city model in particular as opposed to a ‘producer city’,2 dominated the ancient
urban discourse into the late 20th century.3 Almost
habitually these economic theories have been taken for a theory of the city itself.4 As part of the same
debate, alternatives to the consumer city have been formulated, addressing urban production, urban services and the role of cities as processors and organisers.5 Yet again, these approaches sought
1. As stated by �hittaker (1995: 9).
2. Capogrossi Colognesi (2004); Finley (1981); �eber (1958, 1976).
3. Cf. �hittaker (1990, 1995); cf. Mattingly (1997). 4. Grahame (1997: 152).
5. Engels (1990); Hopkins (1980); Jongman (1988).
to explain the economic function of the city by reconciling models of consumer and producer cities, but failed to offer a theory to explain the nature of the ancient city. Consequently researchers have been asking whether theories of Roman urbanism matter at all.6 Some decided to disregard urban theory
altogether and above all dispense with economic models, since these do not provide useful ways of conceptualising the phenomenon of Roman
urbanism.7 As Grahame argued, such abstract
concepts bear no reference to the physical reality of the ancient city; instead they separate function from form by conceptualizing ‘urban form’ as the location
rather than the outcome of economic activity.8
Recently, a more coherent picture of the ancient city has been portrayed in Zanker and Neudecker’s Lebenswelten (lifeworlds and mentality),9 discussing
the ancient retail and rental markets in combination with aspects of cult and community.10
By the 1990s the general paradigm shift from modernism to postmodernism was reflected in the fields of archaeology and urban studies.11 As a result
the economic hold on urban research seemed to have waned, judging by the increasing number of studies that left behind the constrictive framework of economic models and the ‘consumer city’ debate and instead explored the experiential and phenomenological aspects of the ancient city. Still, escaping economic ties did not seem to occur without difficulties, as Laurence’s work demonstrates, and hence a study specifically defined to redress the theoretical balance still seems to carry an economic
6. Parkins (1997); �hittaker (1995); Grahame (1997); Mattingly (1997).
7. �hittaker (1995: 9); Grahame (1997: 161). 8. Grahame (1997: 152).
9. Lebenswelten can be translated as lifeworlds, or ways of life and mentalities.
10. Neudecker and �anker (2005). 11. MacKay (1997: 275). . MacKay (1997: 275).
bias.12 In Laurence’s work, although presented with a
social twist and with much declared distancing from economic models, the continued use of essentially economic definitions of Roman urbanism comes as a surprise.13 It might have been an oversight owing
to the lack of alternative terminology available in the field of urbanism, or just another sign of the irredeemable confusion that permeates the theory of Roman urbanism. All in all, when considering the amount of critique levelled at the ancient city debate, it seems difficult to imagine that any study could ever address all conceptual difficulties inherent in the urban discussion, and at the same time present a novel approach to the ancient city. Nonetheless a much praised recent reassessment of Weber’s work by the Italian legal scholar Capogrossi Colognesi might prompt researchers once more to re-engage with the Weber-Finley model,14 or re-evaluate Weber’s ideal
type economic concepts, which after all are at the root of the consumer city debate. As much as new approaches influence the theoretical discussion, a re- appraisal of Weber’s work could equally inform and reshape the consumer city debate.
However, any such endeavour is beyond the scope of this study and is better left to ancient historians. Instead, this study looks into some of the approaches that moved the debate ‘beyond the Consumer City’. The studies examined pursue a common interest: all focus on the relationship between the physical fabric of the Roman city and the social activities and societal processes taking place within the built environment. Drawing on Social Theory, these studies are based on the assumption of a mutual relationship between space and society. The studies under discussion form part of the recent wave of Pompeian research that has become a paradigm of Roman urbanism in its own right.15 The scholarly advances made in Pompeian
studies have turned the town into a useful source of comparison within the wider debate on urbanism, hence studies concerned with other Roman cities, such as Ostia, should benefit from the “Pompeian Renaissance”.
12. Laurence (1994: 141), see also Laurence (2007: 190). 13. Laurence (1994: 133-141), cf. Foss (1996: 352). 14. Capogrossi Colognesi (2004); Deininger (2005). 15. The only exception is Kaiser’s assessment of Empurias in Spain (2000).
2.1 ZANKER: THE CONCEPT OF