Navigating Libre

8/11/2019 Navigating Libre

1/18

- Well, I dont know the mans name,but I know the place where he is.

- Tell me the place then.

- Do you know the portico by the Macellum, down that way?

- Of course I do.

- Go that way straight up the street. When you get therethe Slope is right down in front of you: up it you go. Atthe end theres a shrine on this side. Just by the side of ittheres an alley.

- Which?

- That where the great wild-fig-tree is.

- I know it.

- Take that way.

- Thats a blind alley.

- So it is by Hercules. You must think me a fool, I made amistake. Come back to the portico: thats a much nearerway and much less chance of missing it. Do you knowCratinus house?

- Yes.

- When you are past it, turn to your left, go straight alongthe street and when you come to the Diana turn to the right.Before you come to the town-gate, close by the fountaintheres a bakers shop and opposite it a carpenters workshop.Thats where he is.

Terence, The Brothers574587.

THE QUOTE ABOVE from the second-centuryBC playwright Terence shows us at a glancethe problems involved in moving throughancient Rome, even for an inhabitant. Theroute described could in fact be the urban ViaTiburtina, moving from the market (macellum)

near the Forum, up the Subura Slope andpassing the Fountain of Orpheus before reachingthe Porta Esquilina. This article will follow asimilar route along the urban Via Tiburtinaat the beginning of the third century AD. Byapplying a comprehensive perspective, from the

Fig. 1. Piazza della Madonna dei Monthe Subura, showing several elements thshape urban navigation and local identPhoto: S. Malmberg.

Navigating theUrban Via Tiburtina

By Simon Malmberg


2/18

Forum area to outside the Aurelian city wall,comprising the ancient streets Argiletum andClivus Suburanus as well as the Via Tiburtina,this route may be viewed as a coherent urbanand suburban path (Figs. 2 &3).

The main idea behind this article is totry to explain how one navigated a Romanurban environment, an environment whichmust have been bewildering to many Romans,and chaotic to our modern eyes. The analysiswill benefit from the use of the theoreticalmodel promoted by the urban planner KevinLynch, who has inspired several scholars onthe ancient city (Corlita 1979; MacDonald1986; Zanker 1987; Yegl 1994; Dyson &Prior 1995; Wharton 1995; Favro 1996;Bayliss 1999). Lynchs theories on how peopleperceive and organize spatial information as

they navigate through cities were based uponfive years work in Boston, Jersey City and LosAngeles. Working from field reconnaissanceand interviews Lynch developed a model ofhow people understood their surroundingsin consistent and predictable ways, forming

mental maps. These mental representationscontain many unique elements, which aredefined by Lynch as a network of paths,districts, landmarks, edges and nodes. Thisarticle hopes to contribute to this field by

applying Lynchs theories to an analysis ofthe urban stretch of the Via Tiburtina, usingarchaeological and literary sources and athird-century marble plan of Rome (Figs. 2&7). To get a full understanding of what itmust have been like to travel the city, somecolouring and life to the cityscape has alsobeen provided, as this in itself was probablyan important ingredient in knowing your wayaround the town (cf. Hellerstrm, t.v.; Purcell1987: 187188).

To most Romans it was probablyinconceivable to use a map, both because they

could not have afforded it, and if they could,they probably would not have understoodit. Their mental map, ingrained as much aslanguage itself, belonged to the streets wherethey grew up. Nearby towns might as well havebeen foreign countries for them. The use of

Fig. 2. Map of the locations mentionedin the text. Illustration: S. Malmberg and

J. Westin.


3/18

symbolic, topographical maps was probablyrestricted to the upper classes and theadministrative staff of the government, whichled to such impressive propaganda projects asthe map of the world put up at Rome under

Augustus, or the marble plan of Rome set upin the city in the early third century, probablywith several predecessors from the early firstcentury onwards (Coarelli 1991; Reynolds1996; Rodriguez-Almeida 2002). It was morecommon to show cities in a birds-eye view,as can be seen in Roman paintings. Thissituation made landmarks more importantin tying the route together, since an abstractsense of space was generally missing. Outsidethe city, milestones were one of the mostimportant ways to fix your position along anitinerary (Laurence 2004). However, these did

not work inside the urban maze.Larger streets, districts and gates at Romeusually had names, but since there wereno signs or house numbers, this was not ofmuch help to a stranger (Dilke 1985: 103107; Ling 1990a). As will be shown, quarters

and their populations were relatively stable,isolated and distinctive in Rome, so outsidethe thoroughfares, they probably constitutedthe main navigation tool, but you had to askaround to find your way (Lynch 1960: 130;

Wallace-Hadrill 2001; Macauley 2002).LANDSCAPEOFTHESENSES

When moving from the official Forum areato the commercial quarter of the Subura, oneentered a different world through the so-calledSubura Gate (Figs. 2, 3 & 4; Martial 2.17).This was probably the arch that led from theForum Transitorium to the Porticus Absidata,or Apsed Portico, which created a small,semicircular square. The steps up to the porticoformed a small theatre, perfect for lounging,which has left traces in the form of rough

gaming boards being incised into the steps, andpresumably also left space for vendors (Martial2.17.1; Bauer 1983; MacDonald 1986: 103105; Stambaugh 1978: 587). One immediatelyentered a busy commercial district, dominatedby cobblers, leatherworkers and booksellers.

Fig. 3. An aerial photograph of the presday Subura.1. Forum; 2. Forum Transitorium withSubura Gate; 3. Piazza della MadonnaMonti; 4. Cavour Metro Station, probaat the ancient Fountain of the Nymphs

5. Location of the Portico of Livia at thVia in Selci; 6. Santa Lucia in Orfea;7. Fountain of Orpheus and Shrine toMercurius; 8. Santa Maria Maggiore;9. Remains of the Republican Wall atVia Carlo Alberto; 10. Porta Esquilina11. Remains of the macellum at PiazzaManfredo Fanti; 12. Fountain of Alexaat Piazza Vittorio Emanuele.


4/18


5/18

But most of the travellers were on foot. The oddaristocrat could also be glimpsed, through theawnings of his litter, something which made thefirst-century philosopher Seneca lament thateven to be carried for any length of time is hardwork (Letter55.1; cf. Andr 1994; Saliou 1999;Hartnett 2003). Traders and local craftsmenwalked and sold in the street or set up theirbooths and barrows, further blocking the traffic,as described by Seneca: then the cake seller withhis varied cries, the sausage man, the confectioner,and all the vendors of food hawking their wares,each with his own distinctive intonation (Letter56.2).

The city administration must have had a hardtime to keep the traffic flowing, especially sincethey lacked a public cleaning service; accordingto regulations this was to be done by the houseowners themselves, with varying results (Tabula

Heracleensis2023, 5355; Digest43.10). The stateof the road surface may be pictured by readinglaws such as cleaning is to reduce the road toits proper level by clearing away all that is uponit (Digest 43.11), and it was forbidden to digholes in the street, or to encumber them (Digest43.10.2). The workshops probably easily spilledout into the streets, but one was not supposedto put anything outside, except fullers leavingclothing to dry or carpenters putting out wheels(Digest43.10.4), which presumably may also haveworked as signboards. The first-century poetMartial complained about the state of the ViaTiburtina: I must surmount the track up the hillfrom the Subura and the dirty pavement with itssteps never dry, and I can scarce break throughthe long droves of mules and the blocks of marbleyou see hauled (5.22.58; Pailler 1981; Dyson &Prior 1995; Rodriguez-Almeida 1996).

Fig. 5. The Argiletum Street forks at to

Piazza della Suburra with Vicus Patricthe modern Via Urbana, to the left andClivus Suburanus, the later Via in Selcthe right, through what is now the CavoMetro Station. Photo: H. Bjur.


6/18

The roadway was flanked by tall houses, upto six or seven stories high. The upper floorswere often crammed with tiny one-room flats,while shopkeepers lived with their families intheir shops, in small rooms at the back or ina mezzanine floor above. These lower classdwellings were not homes in the modern senseof the word. They were so small that everythingexcept sleep had to be done outside the flat(Yavetz 1957; Packer 1971: 7376; Thompson1982; Guidobaldi 2005: 144). You could notusually cook at home, since an open brazierwas punishable by flogging, due to the firehazard (Digest1.15.4). So eating and drinkingwas done at restaurants and bars. To wash youvisited the communal baths, and there werecommunal latrines in the ground floor of thebuilding, or you had to use the public latrinessituated along the thoroughfares (Jansen 1997).Children played in the streets, often pretendingto be gladiators (Balsdon 1969: 92). The streetsbecame the dwelling place of the collective(Amato 2004: 174). Urban dwellers were usedto not having any privacy, which made it allthe more precious. To be able to performyour daily routine at home would be a sign ofprestige, the mark of the upper class. The lackof this for the ordinary inhabitants gave rise toan abundance of public meeting places, both

formal and informal, as we shall see along theVia Tiburtina.And the noise! Martial 12.57 contrasts his

noisy city apartment with the quietness of hispatrons senatorial residence, and the serenecalm of Tivoli. But even senators rented flats,albeit luxurious ones, on the lower floors ofapartment blocks (Frier 1980: 3947). Senecacomplained that I have lodgings right over abathing establishment. So picture to yourselfthe assortment of sounds, which are strongenough to make me hate my very powers ofhearing! ... Among the sounds I include

passing carriages, an artisan in the same block,a saw-sharpener nearby, or some fellow who isdemonstrating with pipes and flutes, shoutingrather than singing (Letters 56.1, 4). But thetraffic was perhaps the main source of noise,especially at night. Juvenal moans For what

sleep is possible in a rental flat? Who but thewealthy get sleep in Rome? ... The crossingof wagons in the narrow winding streets, theslanging of the drovers when brought to astand, would make sleep impossible (3.235248). Perhaps wood-pavingslippery whenwetwas used on main thoroughfares to softenthe sounds of iron-shod horses and wagons, asit was employed in nineteenth-century London(Turvey 1996: 137140). But the sound ofthe thoroughfares was surely an importantdirectional tool in the city mazejust follow thenoise!

And the smell! As noted above, streetmaintenance was probably rudimentary (fordystopian Rome, see e.g. Yavetz 1957; Brunt1966; Scobie 1986, versus Braund 1989;Laurence 1997; Jansen 2000; Morley 2005).The smell was not improved by the location ofpublic latrines in the vicinity of thoroughfares.But people relieved themselves everywhere,even behind statues, or defiled the water infountains (Digest 43.8.2.29; 47.11.1.1; Juvenal1.131). Since people often lacked latrines insidethe houses, it was not uncommon to empty yourpot through the window (Digest9.3.5; 43.10.5;Juvenal 3.268274). The fullers also used urinewhen dyeing and cleaning cloth. Martial tellsus about a prostitute in the Subura: So bad

as Thais smells, so bad smell not even thefullers workshops! (6.93.1). Food shops wereprobably fly-infested, which was not improvedby the habit of dumping intestines and carcasesin the streets (Digest43.10.5). However, smellsevoke strong emotions and memories, andmay therefore have been a subconscious way ofurban navigation, finding your way to the fullerat the Vicus Sabuci, the fish market near thePorta Esquilina or the street of the perfume-sellers (Classen 1993; Porteous 1990).

PATH

The urban Via Tiburtina was a path, or anarmature (Lynch 1960: 47; MacDonald 1986:3), one of the main channels people use whenmoving through a city. Paths with clear and well-known origins and destinations have strongeridentities; the urban Via Tiburtina led straight

66| SIMONMALMBERG


7/18

from the Forum to the city gate. It is natural tofollow the main stream of traffic, which makestrusting to the main, wide street automatic(Lynch 1960: 5051, 111). If this is true of themodern city, it is all the more so of the ancientone. Outside the few public, relatively broadthoroughfares, Rome must have felt like alabyrinthine maze to the outsider. Most of thestreets were probably privately owned, and theland of a private road belongs to someone else,but the right of going and driving along it isopen to us as the third-century jurist Ulpianputs it. It is interesting to note that the laws onstreet maintenance and regulations only dealwith public roads, and Ulpian contrasted theprivate road with the public one, which wasmarked out, with fixed limits of width (Digest43.8.2.21), implicitly telling us that this wasnot the case with the private roads. Moreover,city regulations only limited the height ofstreet fronts toward public roads, and orderedonly public roads to be kept clean (TabulaHeracleensis3245; Digest 43.10.3; Strabo 5.3.7;Suetonius,Augustus89; Tacitus,Annals15.43.1;Saliou 1994; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995). So privateroads were left to the whim of their owners,which may explain some of the more eccentricwindings and narrowness of many side-streets.This was also an expression of social formation,

and formed a defended neighbourhood, hardfor outsiders to penetrate (Schwirian 1977;Wallace-Hadrill 2001 and 2003; Lott 2004:1920).

DISTRICT

Districts in a city are areas with a common,identifying character. The Subura possessed astrong identity as a district, characterized by theRoman upper-class as a sordid commercial area,riddled with violence and prostitution, but urbanzoning in the modern sense did not precede thenineteenth century (Laurence 1994: 17; 1995:

65; Favro 1996: 44). The image of the Suburawas probably exaggerated, but the location of thedistrict, at the bottom of a valley, probably gave ita proportionately large plebeian population, whilethe surrounding hills, with access to more sun andair and not plagued by the annual inundation of

the Tiber, presumably had a larger proportionof aristocrats (Aldrete 2007). This topographicalcircumstance may indeed have promoted thecommunal identity of the Subura, since, by theconcavity of its site, it was easily visible as a whole(Lynch 1960: 47, 103104).

To many people the district is the basicelement of the city image. People with the leastknowledge of a city tend to think in terms oftopography or district when navigating. Thosemost familiar with the city recognize the socialimportance of districts, but tend to rely on smalllandmarks for orientation (Lynch 1960: 49, 67).Typical physical characteristics of a district are theuse and texture of buildings, street activity, noiseand smells, inhabitants and topography (Lynch1960: 6768; Cullen 1971: 31).

The smallest urban district was the vicus,which may be translated roughly as an urbanneighbourhood, corresponding to a single streetand its adjoining houses (Festus 508L; Varro,Latin language 5.145; Isidorus, Etymologies15.2). Itwas these small districts that provided the socialcohesion in the city and also became importantnavigational tools. Pliny reports that Rome had265 vici in the census of AD 73 (Natural history3.66). This had increased to perhaps 323 vici inthe fourth century, partly by subdividing existingvici (Coarelli 1997; Tarpin 2002: 172173). The

physical and social centre of each vicus was acrossroads (compitum) where there was a shrineto its two tutelary spirits, the Lares, often witha statue and an altar given to the vicus by theemperor.

Although the vici had existed in Rome fromtime immemorial, they were revived by Augustus,who organized them into official administrativeunits under the charge of four vicomagistrielected among the inhabitants, the vicani. Thevicomagistri were almost invariably freedmen,and their charge gave them a unique opportunityfor social status, since all other magistracies were

closed to them. The vicomagistri came under thesupervision of the regionary curator and his staff,together with whom they worked concerning foodsupply, water distribution, prevention of fire andcrime, and regulation of businesses. The curatorhad his own police and fire-fighters, the vigiles, but

NAVIGATINGTHEURBANVIATIBURTINA


8/18

these worked in close cooperation with the vicani(Sablayrolles 1996: 2526).

Each vicus also had at least one collegium,which was a kind of neighbourhood club whicheither gathered in its own clubhouse (schola) orin a local bar and which strove to improve thequality of life in the neighbourhood. This wasan important development, since extendedkinship groups often wither in an urbanenvironment, whereas voluntary associationsgrow in number and importance (Wirth 1938).The communal spirit of the vici was furtherstrengthened through a special festival knownas the Compitalia, which included a religiousprocession, stage plays and street shows allowedto be in the various native languages of theinhabitants, and performed in all of the vici(Suetonius, Caesar 39;Augustus34.1; 63). Thevicus organization thus allowed the governmentto develop a grassroots base of legitimacy(Robinson 1992: 1112; Tarpin 2002; Lott2004). Since most of the population workedin their residential neighbourhood, and usedthe same shops and water basins, it was naturalfor a strong local identity to form. This wasencouraged even more by the existence of thevici, but used for state supervision (Wallace-Hadrill 2001). Vicus could also denote a street,a meaning first unambiguously attested in the

late first century AD (Martial 7.61.34).Vici were very important for navigating thecity, and were often used for directions. It wasquite natural for collegia to give their addressesaccording to vicus (e.g. CIL 2.365; 5.4488;5.7923). Inhabitants naturally identified veryclosely with their own vicus, and sometimeseven inscribed its name on their tombs. Sincethey were such close-knit communities, onceyou arrived at a vicus, there would probablynot be any problem finding someone whocould tell you where to find the person youwere looking for. It would of course be another

matter whether they wanted to tell you, and onecould get into trouble, like the main characterin the novel Satyricon (67), written by thefirst-century writer Petronius. To narrow downwhich part of a vicus was meant, the concept ofscamnumcould sometimes be used. A scamnum

was a unit originally used by land surveyors,measuring ca. 1525 m in width. So, if you saidthat someone lived in the scamnum primum,you had narrowed it down to a house locatedalong the first few metres of the street (Hunt &Edgar 1934: 357). Another way to put it was asin a graffito from Pompeii: At Nuceria ask forVolvellia Primigenia in the Vicus Venerius bythe Rome Gate (CIL4.8356; Butterworth &Laurence 2005: 110).

LANDMARK

A few hundred metres from the Subura Gate,the Via Tiburtina reached the foot of theCispian Hill (Figs. 2 & 5). Here the road forked;to the left went the Vicus Patricius up the valley

between the Viminal and Cispian, while to theright was the Clivus Suburanus (the urban ViaTiburtina) between the Cispian and OppianHills. This was surely a very important junction,where three major urban thoroughfares met. Itmay be here that the house of the early second-century consul Stella was situated. The househad a monumental fountain towards the streetin the form of a grotto with representationsof Hercules and the Nymphs (Statius, Silvae1.2.7172; Martial 6.21; 6.47; 7.15; 7.50;LTUR1.3940). It probably gave its name tothe whole surrounding district, ad Nymphas,

attested in the third century (e.g. CIL6.9526).The fountain was still in use in late antiquity,since it was restored by the city prefect around400 (CIL6.1728ab), and was perhaps identicalwith the Fountain of the Shepherd (LacusPastoris) attested in the fourth-century regionarycatalogues.

The Fountain of the Nymphs is a primeexample of a landmark. Landmarks are objects,characterized by singularity, a clear form,contrast with their background and prominenceof spatial location. Some landmarks are distantones, seen over the tops of roofs, and often

used as navigational tools for people not thatfamiliar with the city (Lynch 1960: 48, 78,81). If moving towards the Forum on the ViaTiburtina, one probably navigated with oneseyes set on the temples on the Capitoline orthe palace on the Palatine Hill, whereas in

68| SIMONMALMBERG


9/18

the other direction, in late antiquity one mayhave had the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore,prominently sited on the crest of the CispianHill, as a guiding landmark towards the PortaEsquilina.

For those familiar with the city, moreimportant are local landmarks, only visiblefrom certain approaches. A sequential series oflandmarks appears to be the standard way inwhich people travel through the city. They workas trigger clues in turning decisions and give thedistance to the final destination (Lynch 1960:8283). As an aid in memorizing long speeches,the first-century rhetoric teacher Quintiliansuggested that a cityscape might form a usableenvironment of memorization, with objectsand buildings serving as landmarks in theorganization of the speech (Institutes 11.2.21;cf. Bloomer & Moore 1977: 3655; Bergmann1994; Favro 1996: 7). Often sounds and smellsreinforce visual landmarks, for instance thereek from the fish market at the Porta Esquilinawas probably a landmark in itself.

Landmarks were often used when givingdirections. Especially common were trees, seenfor instance in the quote from Terence at thebeginning of this article. Martial referred tohimself as living near the Pear-tree (Martial1.117.6; cf. DeRose Evans 1992: 7578), and

a road close to the Via Tiburtina was calledthe Vicus Sabuci, which means the Street ofthe Elder-Tree (Zimmer 1976). Martial alsosaid that he lived near the Travertine Column,and a vicus of the city was known as that ofthe Wooden Column; both landmarks surelysingled out because of their height (Martial5.22.24; CIL 6.975). Otherwise, many viciwere named after fountains, city gates, statuesor crafts.

EDGE

The street fork was a place where probably four

urban regions converged (Fig. 2). The regions werethe major administrative internal division of thecity of Rome, and had been created by Augustus.A curator was put in charge of each region, andthey ruled the city in cooperation with the cityprefect (Robinson 1992: 10). There were fourteen

regions, seven within the Republican wall andseven for the most part outside the wall (Suetonius,Augustus30). Although Augustus never seems tohave extended the city limits (pomerium) beyondthe wall, in practice the seven regions outside thewall extended the urban area. The regions evenspread further than the later Aurelian wall, sincewe know that the river Almo formed the southernlimit of the first region, the Vatican was part ofthe Trastevere region, while to the north theMilvian Bridge was also considered part of theurban regions.

Major urban thoroughfares made up theboundaries between the regions (Dio Cassius55.8; Robinson 1992: 9). It was very common,almost inevitable, to use the main thoroughfaresof Rome as limits between regions, because ofthe chaotic state of the private streets in between.Based on the listing of monuments in theregionary catalogues, it is possible to conjecturethe boundaries along the Via Tiburtina. TheArgiletum Street formed the limit between thesixth and fourth regions. When it forked, thenorthern road, Vicus Patricius, constituted theboundary between the sixth and fifth regions,while the southern Clivus Suburanus separatedthe fifth and third regions. It is also revealingthat several regions were named after their mainstreets, such as the third region (Isis et Serapis:

Vicus Isidis), the sixth (Alta Semita), the seventh(Via Lata) and the twelfth (Piscina Publica: VicusPiscinae Publicae) (Palmer 1975: 654; Rodriguez-Almeida 1983).

Above, the Via Tiburtina was characterizedas a path, but here one sees how it also couldfunction as an edge, a boundary in the city.The strongest kinds of edges are those that arevisually prominent but also continuous andimpenetrable, such as a city wall. However, anedge could also operate as a seam, along whichdifferent districts of the city could be joined, asalong the Via Tiburtina.

ENTERINGTHEMARBLEPLAN

Shortly after the bifurcation at the Fountainof the Nymphs the street started to climb (Fig.6). The strength of a path may be furthered bya directional quality, when one direction may



10/18

easily be distinguished from another. Thus itis given a sense of progression, to go up ordown a street. This is commonly sensed inthe form of some quality that is cumulative inone direction, such as a slope, which is whatgave the Via Tiburtina much of its force (Lynch1960: 54, 97).

One now entered an area covered by thethird-century marble plan (Fig. 7). The mostaccessible information on the plan can befound on the homepage of the Stanford DigitalForma Urbis Romae Project (SDFURP; http://formaurbis.stanford.edu), which has been

consulted extensively. The marble plan showsthe Via Tiburtina as a wide street lined withsmall tabernae, probably functioning as shops(Staccioli 1959).

The area was an important road junctionwhere two side streets joined the Tiburtina.

The street to the right, crammed with shopsand arcaded on one side, climbed sharply upthe precipitous Oppian Hill, from the crest ofwhich the huge Baths of Trajan looked downfrom their artificial platform. Larger rooms,perhaps small apartments, lie on the other sideof the street, tucked between an exedra of theBaths and a grand rectangular portico. Theside street uphill is tentatively identified as theClivus Pullius (LTUR 1.284285; SDFURP fr.11a). An inscription found nearby, dating to the370s, mentions a group called clivumpullenses,the inhabitants of this quarter, presumably

a vicus (CIL 6.31893). At the corner betweenTiburtina and Pullius streets there was aninteresting element: a triangular area partiallyenclosed by a wall, and probably open to thesky. It seems to have been a perfect place forlounging, and for seeing people coming and

Fig. 6. The slope of the modern Via inSelci follows the ancient Clivus Suburanus.

Photo: H. Bjur.


11/18

going. The Tiburtina then points straight towardsa monumental staircase with two landings,flanked by tiny shops. As with the enclosed areaat the junction, the monumental steps were alsoperfect for lounging, as well as a place for beggarsand vendors hawking their wares, an eddy inthe stream of activity (MacDonald 1986: 106;cf. Stambaugh 1978: 587; Whyte 1980). Thiswas the main entrance to the Portico of Livia, ahuge portico measuring about 120 70 m, withdouble rows of columns built upon an artificialplatform on the Oppian slope. It was built byAugustus, and contained a shrine to the goddessConcordia, dedicated to matrimonial happiness(Ovid, Fasti6.637), somewhat ironic in an areaknown for its prostitution. The shrine may bethe rectangular structure in the middle of theportico, otherwise identified as a pool (LTUR4.127129; SDFURP fr. 10opqr, 11a; Boudreau

Flory 1984; Panella 1987). According to the first-century writer Pliny the Elder, a vine protectsthe open walks with its shady trellises (Naturalhistory14.11), which must have been a nice, quietcontrast to the hectic street life below. It mustalso have had an important social function, andthe large exedras along its outer walls could beused for meetings, such as that between Plinythe Younger and his friend: I was awake whenthe messenger came from Spurinna that he wason his way, and sent back to say Iwould callon him, so we met in the Portico of Livia, eachmaking for the other (Letter1.5.89). But thePortico was also important as an architectureof passage, which tied together many differentlevels of the neighbourhood, most importantlythe Via Tiburtina, in the valley, and the VicusSabuci, which ran along the crest of the OppianHill.

Fig. 7. Part of the third-century marble

plan of Rome, showing the area of theurban Via Tiburtina. Illustration courtof the Sovraintendenza ai Beni Culturadel Comune di Roma and the StanfordDigital Forma Urbis Romae Project,adapted by S. Malmberg and J. Westin


12/18

NODE

Continuing up the Tiburtina slope one laideyes on a monumental fountain consistingof three large, circular basins, located where

the road forked again (Figs. 2 & 7; SDFURPfr. 11c). Paths should not have changes indirection that are too sudden; if they maintaina satisfactory degree of continuity they are seenas dependable. The urban Via Tiburtina was byno means a straight street, but it still maintained

a directional quality. Indeed, its organic formallowed the street space to be subdivided into aseries of revelations, or a serial vision, which gavethe street a stronger impact than a monotonousstraight road (Cullen 1971: 9; MacDonald 1986:107). The serial vision also allowed a series oflandmarks and nodes to be inserted along theway, which enabled one to sense ones positionalong the total length of the path. The path thenbecame scaled, marking identifiable points, sothat the traveller felt that he was moving in theright direction (Lynch 1960: 55, 97).

Martial 10.19 provides a description of thefountain: when you have crossed the Subura inbreasting the steep path; there you will at oncenotice Orpheus, spray-sprinkled, crowning hisdrenched audience. The fountain can be identifiedwith the Fountain of Orpheus, mentioned inthe regionary catalogues, and the house behindit probably worked as an ornamented backdrop(LTUR 3.171; Rodriguez-Almeida 19701971 &19751976; Wallace-Hadrill 2001; cf. the Fontanadi Trevi). As with the Fountain of the Nymphsbefore, this house was probably an aristocraticone. One may identify the large, curved entrancesteps in the open area to the right of the fountainwhich led into an upper-class domus. Since weknow that Pliny the Younger lived close to thefountain, it is possible that the domus may have

belonged to him, although this must remainhypothetical (Rodriguez-Almeida 1983; LTUR2.158159; SDFURP fr. 10aa). The Fountain ofOrpheus gave identity to an important junctionalong the Tiburtina, in fact it named the wholeneighbouring district. In an inscription of the370s we hear of a group of inhabitants calledorfienses, and the Book of Popes from the earlysixth century twice mentions a domus in regioneOrfea intra urbem (LP1.171, 178).

The marble plan shows that an informal,triangular square formed around the junction,which was crowded with shops of different sizes.

A few of these can still be seen, now forming partof the monastery of Santa Lucia in Orfea. Theyconsist of travertine arches which support a brickwall. A large apsed hall was built on top of theshops in the fourth century (Fig. 8; LTUR3.191;Bjur & Malmberg, t.v.).

Fig. 8. Ancient travertine pillars and brickarches at the Via in Selci. Photo: H. Bjur.


13/18

The Via Tiburtina was obviously the centreof activity in the Subura, and functionedas a linear node of the district. A node isdefined by Lynch as an intensive focus in thecity, and if a node is the focus of a district itis a core. Moreover, along the Via Tiburtinawere important junctions which also workedas nodes in their own right, such as the onejust mentioned. When a traveller reaches anode, this heightens their attention. Elementslocated at such nodes automatically derivespecial prominence from their location, suchas the monumental entrance to the Portico ofLivia, or the Fountain of Orpheus. Approachto such a node often seems to come from aparticular side, a directional quality (Lynch1960: 47, 7276), something shown in thedescription by Martial. It may be confusingto the traveller when many paths converge,especially if they do so at a non-perpendicularangle. But the character of such a node may bemade clear by a heightened physical characterof the node (Lynch 1960: 58). The fountainand the portico thereby made navigationalong the Via Tiburtina easier.

A series of nodes can form a relatedstructure, linked together by intervisibility,such as the Subura Gate and the Fountain ofthe Nymphs, or further up the road, the Porta

Esquilina and the Fountain of Alexander.They may also be related by juxtaposition,such as the Portico of Livia, which was verydifferent from the busy street life, but linkedthe Via Tiburtina with the other importantstreet in the area, the Vicus Sabuci, as well aswith the Baths of Trajan.

NEIGHBOURHOODAMENITIESANDLOCALLANDMARKSThe road that branched off the Tiburtinato the right at the Fountain of Orpheus hasbeen hypothetically identified with the Viain Figlinis (Potters Street), mentioned by the

first-century BC scholar Varro (Latin language5.50) and probably forming the border betweenthe third and fifth urban regions (Figs. 2& 7;LTUR1.263265; 2.171, 252253; SDFURPfr.10opqr). The Via in Figlinis climbed the OppianHill towards Vicus Sabuci. Halfway up the slope

was an early third-century rectangular hall builtin brick-faced concrete. It has been suggestedthat it functioned as a covered market of thearea, later to be turned into a Christian meetinghall, forming part of the later Church of SanMartino ai Monti (CBCR3.93). Further up, atthe corner between Figlinis and Vicus Sabuci,behind a row of tabernae, there was a columnedopen space around a rectangular element. Thiswas probably a meeting hall (schola) of the club(collegium) in the vicus. Almost next door tothis building was found a dedication to Vulcanby the magistri vici Sabuci(CIL6.801), and it ispossible that the rectangular element was analtar or statue dedicated to that god (SDFURPfr. 10n, 10lm; cf. Staccioli 1968). The locationof the possible schola, close to Via in Figlinisand the Portico of Livia, both offering passagebetween two of the main arteries of the Subura,also demonstrates the areas importance as acore of the Subura district.

Back at the Fountain of Orpheus onecontinues up the last part of the Subura slope.After only a few metres a side street ran to theleft, up the Cispian Hill. At the crossroadsthere was a shrine to Mercurius, uncoveredin 1888. It consisted of an open paved plazawith a raised, rectangular platform covered inmarble. On the platform were an altar and

an inscribed base for the statue of Mercurius,donated by Augustus. An inscribed boundarystone reveals that the extent of the public plaza,which surrounded the altar and served as areligious precinct, was about 48 25 m. Thebuilding of this precinct probably coincidedwith Augustus construction of the Portico ofLivia nearby. Since Mercurius was the patrongod of commerce, especially the grain trade,he attests to the commercial character ofthe area. Moreover, he was the father of theneighbourhood Lares (Ovid, Fasti 2.610616;Gatti 1888; Combet-Farnoux 1980; Sartorio

1988; Palmer 1997: 80103; Lott 2004: 7679;LTUR 1.265). Thus the shrine probably hadconnections with the crossroads cult, whichwas so important to the vici. In fact, the shrinemay have formed the centre of a hypotheticalVicus Orphei.



14/18

Continuing up the Tiburtina, it was stillcrammed with shops. However, in this areathe central parts of the blocks seem to havelacked structures, which suggests a somewhatlower population density. This was even more

marked along the Vicus Sabuci (SDFURPfr.10Aab, 10abcde, 10g). At the first intersectionafter the Fountain of Orpheus there was asomewhat larger, very open taberna, a typicallayout and location for a bar (Kleberg 1957;Ellis 2004). The counter of a bar was placedright at the entrance, while guests would sitat tables on the sidewalk. Martial complainedthat the impudent bars had taken over all ofRome, blocking streets with their furnitureand hanging wine bottles in every portico,probably as signboards (Martial 7.61). Theentrances to shops were often covered in

advertisements and gossipy graffiti, whichprovided dashes of colour in the urbanenvironment (Martial 1.117.1012; cf.Armstrong 1917; Wilber 1942). Apart fromtheir ad hoc signboards such as bottles andwheels, shops could also have proper ones.

The Digest (50.16.245) informs us aboutpictures attached by chains or fixed to awall, or lamps similarly fixed, and severalbrick plaques, figurative or geometric, havebeen found in Pompeii and Ostia, advertizingdifferent trades and crafts (Ling 1990a; 1990b;Butterworth & Laurence 2005: 55, 110).These could function as small landmarks,guiding the traveller. When it got dark, barowners lit lanterns above their shops. Allother shops were closed during the night,and since there was no street lighting, streetswithout bars would have been pitch blackand dangerous. Bars crowded around thethoroughfares, since that was where the nighttraffic in heavy vehicles was concentrated. Ifyou just kept to the main street, navigationwould be no problem, even easier than in thedaytime, but all the other streets would bevery perilous (Juvenal 3.268301; Apuleius,Metamorphoses2.32; Petronius 79).

Passing a few shops up this side streetto the right we come to the entrance of asmall bath, centred on a columned courtyard(SDFURP fr. 10g; Staccioli 1961; Reynolds1996, fig. 3.41). This was one of the hundredsof small, privately run baths (balnea) thatdotted the cityscape and formed socialfoci in the neighbourhoods (Packer 1971:

74; MacDonald 1986: 115; Delaine 1999).Leaving the part of the Via Tiburtina coveredby the marble plan, one may discern that thestreet will join with Vicus Sabuci at an acuteangle just off the map, just inside the PortaEsquilina (SDFURP fr. 10Aab). One nowreached the top of the Esquiline Plateau, atthe Forum Esquilinum. Looking out throughthe arch in the Republican wall one couldsee the bustling market square of the CampusEsquilinus, where executions took place, andfrom which the reek of the fish market wasunmistakable (Fig. 9; Bjur & Malmberg, t.v.;

cf. Cullen 1971: 31; Bodel 2000: 145147;Amato 2004: 161). Just outside the gate, theroad forked, with the Tiburtina going to theleft. At this junction there was another ofthose monumental street fountains, probablybuilt by Augustus. In the early 220s it was

Fig. 9. The Porta Esquilina with theFountain of Alexander seen through thearchway. Illustration: Vasi 1756, plate

126 (cropped).


15/18

replaced by the much larger Fountain ofAlexander, which may very well have beeninspired by the Fountain of Orpheus downthe hill (LTUR2.171; 3.3512). This fountainwas also used to identify the surroundingdistrict, known in the 370s as ad nymf(eum)Alexandri (CIL6.31893).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has tried to show how theRomans navigated and perceived their urbanenvironment, using the analytical tools ofpath, district, landmark, edge and nodepromoted by Kevin Lynch. An analysis ofpaths showed how people trust the mainthoroughfare and avoid the maze outside.

These main paths also worked as edges, inthis case limits between urban regions. Thishighlights the importance of the urban ViaTiburtina in new ways, and merits a closeranalysis of its location, different stretches andatmosphere. The article has also brought innew examples of architecture of passage, suchas the Portico of Livia. The concept of districthas been used to explain the strong identityof the Subura through its location, and itsuse for movement. Its social cohesion maybe understood by looking at its sub-districts,such as the vici. Landmarks, on the other

hand, are often seen mainly as facilitatingnavigation through a directional quality andby providing turning clues. This has also beendemonstrated here, with crossroads fountainsas a prime example. However, this article alsostresses their importance, together with pathsand edges, for local identity, giving theirname to small districts and their inhabitants.They also take many different forms, rangingfrom the monumental to trees, graffiti andsmall brick plaques. In this context the roleof paths and crossroads as nodes of districtshas been explored, giving them a heightened

physical character and identity. The aspectof daily social use has also been addressed,where art iculations of the street space, suchas fountains, crossroads and colonnades,could be used for lounging, for markets, andas meeting places. The Portico of Livia once

more comes across as a prime example, beinga place for meeting, commerce and passage.In short, this contribution aims to stress thefactors of movement and urban identity instudying the street networks of ancient cities,

in order to obtain a more multi-faceted viewof Roman society.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am most grateful for the generosity shownby the Sovraintendenza ai Beni Culturali delComune di Roma and the Stanford DigitalForma Urbis Romae Project, in allowing meto use their photographs of the fragments ofthe marble plan.

Fig. 10. The Porta Esquilina today. PhoS. Malmberg.


16/18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALDRETE, G. 2007: Floods of the Tiber in ancient Rome.

AMATO, J. 2004: On foot: a history of walking.

ANDR, J.-M. 1994: Snque et les problmes dela ville, Ktma19, 14554.

ARMSTRONG, M. 1917: Significance of colors inRoman ritual.

BALSDON, D. 1969: Life and leisure in ancient Rome.

BAUER, H. 1983: Porticus absidata, RM90, 11184.

BAYLISS, R. 1999: Usurping the urban image: theexperience of ritual topography in late antiquecities of the Near East, in TRAC 98, 5971.

BERGMANN, B. 1994: The Roman house as amemory theatre: the House of the Tragic Poet inPompeii,ArtB76, 225256.

BLOOMER, K. & MOORE, C. 1977: Body, memoryand architecture.

BODEL, J. 2000: Dealing with the dead:undertakers, executioners and potters fields inancient Rome, in Death and disease in the ancientcity, eds. V.M. Hope & E. Marshall, 128151.

BOUDREAU FLORY, M. 1984: Livias shrine toConcordia and the Porticus Liviae, Historia33,309330.

BRAUND, S. 1989: City and country in Romansatire, in Satire and society in ancient Rome, ed. S.H.Braund, 2347.

BRUNT, P. 1966: The Roman mob, PastPres35, 327.

BUTTERWORTH, A. & LAURENCE, R. 2005: Pompeii:the living city.

CIPROTTI, P. 1961: Contributo allo studiodella disciplina della circolazione stradalenellantichit: Roma e Pompei, Rivista giuridicadella circolazione e dei trasporti15, 118.

CLASSEN, C. 1993: Worlds of sense: exploring thesenses in history and across cultures.

COARELLI, F. 1991: Le plan de via Anicia: unnouveau fragment de la forma urbis marmorea deRome, inRome: lespace urbain et ses reprsentations,eds. F. Hinard & M. Royo, 6581.

COARELLI, F. 1997: La consistenza della citt nelperiodo imperiale: pomerium, vici, insulae, in

La Rome impriale: dmographie et logistique. Actes dela table ronde (Rome, 25 mars 1994)(CFR, 230),89109.

COMBET-FARNOUX, B. 1980: Mercure romain.

CORLITA, D. 1979: La situazione urbanisticadegli archi onorari nella prima et imperiale, inStudi sullarco onorario romano (Studia archaeologica,21), 2972.

CULLEN, G. 1971: The concise townscape.

DELAINE, J. 1999: Baths: the urban phenomenon,in Roman baths and bathing, eds. J. DeLaine & D.E.

Johnston,157164.DEROSE EVANS, J. 1992: The art of persuasion:political propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus.

DILKE, O. 1985: Greek and Roman maps.

DYSON, S. & PRIOR, R. 1995: Horace, Martialand Rome: two poetic outsiders read the ancientcity,Arethusa28, 245264.

ELLIS, S. 2004: The distribution of bars atPompeii,JRA17, 371384.

FAVRO, D. 1996: The urban image of Augustan Rome.

FRIER, B. 1980: Landlords and tenants in imperial Rome.GATTI, G. 1888: Di un sacello compitaledellantichissima regione Esquilina, BullCom16, 221239.

GUIDOBALDI, F. 2005: Le abitazioni private elurbanistica, in Storia di Roma dallantichit aoggi. Roma antica, ed. A. Giardina, 133161.

HARTNETT J. 2003: Streets, street architecture, andsocial presentation in Roman Italy.

HUNT, A. & EDGAR, C. 1934: Selected papyri.

JANSEN, G. 1997: Private toilets at Pompeii:appearance and operation, in Sequence and spacein Pompeii, eds. S.E. Bon & R. Jones,121134.

JANSEN, G. 2000: Studying Roman hygiene: thebattle between the optimists and the pessimists, inCura aquarum in Sicilia, ed. J.C.M. Jansen, 275279.

ABBREVIATIONS

CBCRCorpus basilicarum

christianarum Romae

CILCorpus inscriptionum

latinarum

LPLiber pontificalis

LTURLexicon topographicum

urbis Romae

SDFURPStanford digital forma urbis

Romae project

76| SIMONMALMBERG


17/18

KLEBERG, T. 1957:Htels, restaurants et cabarets danslantique romaine: tudes historiques et philologiques.

LAURENCE, R. 1994: Roman Pompeii: space and society.

LAURENCE, R. 1995: The organization of spacein Pompeii, in Urban society in Roman Italy, eds.T.J. Cornell & K. Lomas, 6378.

LAURENCE, R. 1997: Writing the Romanmetropolis, in Roman urbanism beyond theconsumer city, ed. H.M. Parkins, 120.

LAURENCE, R. 2004: Milestones, communications,and political stability, in Travel, communication,and geography in late antiquity, eds. L. Ellis & F.L.Kidner, 4358.

LING, R. 1990a: A stranger in town: findingthe way in an ancient city, Greece & Rome37,204214.

LING, R. 1990b: Street plaques at Pompeii, inArchitecture and architectural sculpture in the RomanEmpire, ed. M. Henig, 5166.

LOTT, B. 2004: The neighbourhoods of Augustan Rome.

LYNCH, K. 1960: The image of the city.

MACAULEY, D. 2002: Walking the urbanenvironment, in Transformations of urban andsuburban landscapes, eds. G. Backhaus & J.Murungi, 193226.

MACDONALD, W. 1986: The architecture of theRoman Empire II.An urban appraisal.

MARACHE, R. 1989: Juvnal: peintre de la socitde son temps, inANRW 2.33.1, 592639.

MORLEY, N. 2005: The salubriousness of theRoman city, in Health in antiquity, ed. H. King,192204.

NICOLET, C. 1987: La table dHeracle et lesorigines du cadastre romain, in LUrbs: espaceurbain et histoire (CFR, 98),125.

PACKER, J. 1971: The insulae of imperial Ostia.

PAILLER, J.-M. 1981: Martial et lespace urbain,Pallas28, 7987.

PALMER, R. 1975: The neighborhood of Sullan

Bellona and the Colline Gate, MFRA87, 653665.

PALMER, R. 1980: Customs on market goodsimported into the city of Rome, in The seabornecommerce of ancient Rome, eds. J.H. DArms &E.C. Kopff,217233.

PALMER, R. 1997: Rome and Carthage at peace.

PANELLA, C. 1987: Organizzazione degli spazisulle pendici settentrionali del colle Oppio traAugusto e i Severi, in LUrbs: espace urbain ethistoire (CFR, 98), 611651.

POEHLER, E. 2006: The circulation of traffic inPompeiis Regio VI,JRA19, 5374.

PORTEOUS, D. 1990: Landscapes of the mind: worldsof sense and metaphor.

PURCELL, N. 1987: Town in country and countryin town, in Ancient Roman villa gardens, ed. E.Blair MacDougal, 185204.

REYNOLDS, D. 1996: Forma urbis Romae: the Severanmarble plan and the urban form of ancient Rome.

ROBINSON, O. 1992: Ancient Rome: city planningand administration.

RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 19701971: Formaurbis marmorea: nuove integrazioni, BullCom82, 105135.

RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 19751976: Aggiornamentotopografico dei colli Oppio, Cispio e Viminalesecondo la forma urbis marmorea, RendPontAcc48, 263278.

RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 1983: I confini interni dellaregio V Esquiliae nella forma urbis marmorea, inLarcheologia in Roma capitale tra sterro e scavo(RomaCapitale, 18701911, 7), 106115.

RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 1991: Tra epigrafia,filologia, storia e topografia urbana: quattro

ipotesi, MFRA103, 529550.RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 1996: Promenons-nous avec Martial, in Rome Ier sicle ap. J.-C. Lesorgueilleux dfis de lordre imprial, ed. J. Gaillard,176187.



18/18

RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 2002: Formae urbisantiquae: le mappe marmoree di Roma tra larepubblica e Settimio Severo.

SABLAYROLLES, R. 1996: Libertinus miles: les cohortesde vigiles.

SALIOU, C. 1994: Les lois des btiments: voisinage ethabitat urbain dans lempire romain.

SALIOU, C. 1999: Les trottoirs de Pompi: unepremire approche, BABesch74, 161206.

SARTORIO, G. 1988: Compita larum: edicolesacre nei crocicchi di Roma antica, Bollettinodella Unione storia ed arte14, 2334.

SCHWIRIAN, K. 1977: The internal structure ofthe metropolis: neighborhoods, in Topics in

contemporary urban sociology, ed. K. Schwirian,199209.

SCOBIE, A. 1986: Slums, sanitation, and mortalityin the Roman world, Klio66, 399433.

STACCIOLI, R. 1959: Le tabernae a Romaattraverso la forma urbis, RendLinc14, 5666.

STACCIOLI, R. 1961: Terme minori e balnea nelladocumentazione della forma urbis, ArchCl 13,92102.

STACCIOLI, R. 1968: Una probabile sede dicorporazione nella pianta marmorea di Roma

antica, QITA 5, 2326.STAMBAUGH, J. 1978: The functions of Romantemples, inANRW2.16.1, 554608.

TARPIN, M. 2002: Vici et pagi dans loccident romain.

THOMPSON, L. 1982: Development andunderdevelopment in the early Roman Empire,Klio64, 383402.

TORTORICI, E. 1991: Argiletum: commercio,speculazione edilizia e lotta politica nellanalisitopografica di un quartiere di Roma di etrepubblicana.

TSUJIMURA, S. 1991: Ruts in Pompeii: the trafficsystem in the Roman city, Opuscula pompeiana1, 5890.

TURVEY, R. 1996: Street mud, dust and noise,London Journal21, 131148.

VASI, G. 1756: Sulle magnificenze di Roma anticae moderna7.

WALLACE-HADRILL, A. 2001: Emperors and

houses in Rome, in Childhood, class and kin in theRoman world, ed. S. Dixon, 128143.

WALLACE-HADRILL, A. 2003: The streets ofRome as a representation of imperial power, inThe representation and perception of Roman imperialpower, eds. L. de Blois et al.,189206.

WHARTON, A. 1995: Refiguring the postclassical city:Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna.

WHYTE, W. 1980: The social life of small urban spaces.

WILBER, D. 1942: The role of color inarchitecture,JSAH 2, 1722.

WIRTH, L. 1938: Urbanism as a way of life,American journal of sociology44, 124.

YAVETZ, Z. 1957: The living conditions of theurban plebs in republican Rome, Latomus 17,500517.

YEGL, F. 1994: The street experience of ancientEphesus, in Streets of the world: critical perspectiveson public space, eds. Z. elik et al., 95110.

ZACCARIARUGGIU, A. 1995: Spazio privato e spaziopubblico nella citt romana.

ZANKER, P. 1987: Drei Stadtbilder aus demaugusteischen Rom, in LUrbs: espace urbain ethistoire (CFR, 98), 475489.

ZIMMER, S. 1976: Zur Bildung der altrmischenStrassennamen, Zeitschrift fr vergleichendeSprachforschung 90, 183199.

78| SIMONMALMBERG

Documents

Navigating Libre