The bar at VII.15.5 at Pompeii. (Photo: B. Russell.) 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... be examined in full below. Just as the range of materials found on individual bars varies, so too does the way in which they were displayed. In general, the bar counters at Pompeii and Herculaneum are built of masonry, typically fairly rough opus incertum , though wood counters are also attested (Ellis, 2004c: 41; 2005: 48). They were then covered in a range of surface treatments, of which marble-cladding was just one option. Plaster was used more widely. Almost all of the well-preserved counters at Pompeii have traces of plaster on their interior faces, while Ellis has noted that 85 were also plastered on their exterior faces (Ellis, 2005: 49). This plaster was usually painted, a simple red wash being the most popular choice (Kleberg, 1957: 116 – 17; Packer, 1978: 45 – 7). Painted motifs and figured scenes are attested on the bars at I.6.5, VI.16.32 – 33 and IX.6.b, while seven counters were decorated with painted imitation marble ( marmo finto ) (Ellis, 2005: 49; on marmi finti ; Fant, 2007). Marble-cladding, when it was used, usually was employed alongside these other surface coverings. Painted plaster, in fact, is found on most of the vertical faces of the marble-clad bars. Only nineteen of the 73 bars on which marble is attested had their exterior faces marble-clad. This is perhaps because applying marble panels to a vertical surface is more difficult than laying them on a horizontal one. Sometimes these vertical faces were painted to imitate the marble of the counter-tops, as at VI.1.2, VI.15.15 and IX.9.1, but mixing of media also occurred on the same face: at I.11.10 – 11 a single panel of coloured marble was inserted into an otherwise fully-painted scheme (Jashemski, 1973: 40). The relative costs of these different surface treatments can only be guessed. A simple layer of plaster was probably cheaper than painted plaster, and painted plaster was probably cheaper than marble-cladding, though if expensive pigments were used this might not necessarily have been so. 12 What is clear, however, is that the deployment of marble-cladding was generally judicious and sparing rather than wholesale. As a result, interior walls, seen only by service personnel, were never marble-ized. While marble is sometimes found elsewhere in the bars — on a niche in IX.7.24 – 25 at Pompeii or on the floor of V.9 – 10 at Herculaneum — , but these instances are rare and marble usually was saved for the counters. Marble-cladding could have been applied by professionals or amateurs. The haphazard arrangements found on most bars suggest amateurs, but even on these efforts were made to locate panels with straight sides along the edges of counter-tops and faces. On other bars, regular panels were lined up along the base of the vertical faces to create a baseboard; grey slates was used for this at IV.15 in Herculaneum. On nine bars at Pompeii, however, a more ornate arrangement is apparent, and in these cases it is tempting to identify the hands of specialist decorators. Simple schemes are found on the counters at I.9.4 (though it is very damaged) and IX.7.24 – 25 (see Fig. 5), where the face is carefully covered with alternating rectangular panels above a baseboard. On seven counters at Pompeii even more ambitious designs, echoing contemporary patterns in opus sectile flooring, were attempted. Interestingly, on only one of these, at I.9.11, was attention paid to its counter-top, in this case comprising a row of opus sectile hexagons framed by rectangular slabs. Efforts were instead lavished on exterior vertical faces. On three counters, the face was divided into horizontal zones of decoration. At V.4.6 – 8 rows of rectangular slabs of white and grey marble at the top and bottom frame a central zone of diamond and triangular polychrome opus sectile, Guidobaldi ’ s Q2 pattern, bordered by narrow fillets (Fig. 9) (Guidobaldi, 1985: 182 – 6) . At I.11.1 a lower baseboard of rectangular slabs is surmounted by a central zone of diamond opus sectile panels set within squares (Guidobaldi ’ s Q2 pattern), on top of which is a row of square and diamond panels. These panels easily could have been lifted whole from single floors. A less ornate but carefully structured scheme was employed for the counter at VI.10.1/19, on which the large rectangular panel of granito della sedia di San Lorenzo discussed above is set into a series of horizontal rows of rectangular panels and alongside a large opus sectile diamond in africano (Fig. 10). The faces of two other bars were decorated with vertically arranged zones of decoration. At I.8.8, the face is divided into three rectangular zones, each containing a circular opus sectile panel. At VII.2.32 – 33, a similar designs puts the emphasis on clusters of opus sectile triangles and diamonds (Fig. 11). A different approach altogether is attested at VII.15.5, where the small, hidden- away counter is faced elegantly, entirely in white marble panels set around the large disc of black granite mentioned above (Fig. 12). What this example highlights is the attention that was paid to displaying exotic material prominently. The same can be said for the counter at VI.10.1/19, with its green granite centrepiece, and that at I.11.1, on which the two central diamond panels are in porfido verde , a rare material represented by only nine panels on all the bars at Pompeii. With the exception of the counter at VII.15.5, all of these highly decorated faces fronted directly onto the street. Fewer of the bars at Herculaneum have faces on which the panels are obviously arranged with decorative intent. Only the bar at V.9 – 10, which has a series of small cipollino pilasters built into its faces, can be classed alongside the Pompeian examples above (Fig. 13). Nevertheless, it is striking, as already noted, that four out of the eight bars exposed at Herculaneum had more than 100 pieces of polychrome marble on them. These were extremely colourful structures. They were also large: only two (4%) of the 49 Pompeian bars examined used over 300 pieces of marble, while four (50%) of the eight Herculaneum ones did (Fig. 14). Decorated counter-tops are revealing of a level of investment, and, as an index of this investment, their distribution shows some interesting trends. Overall, ...

Context 2

... 2004a; Ellis, 2004b; Ellis, 2004c; Ellis, 2005; Mac Mahon, 2005; DeFelice, 2007; Monteix, 2010; also Kleberg, 1957; La Torre, 1988). On the one hand, this is because the more than 10,000 fragments of stone on these counters represent an enormous dataset to analyse and process. On the other, the niggling issue of Pompeii ’ s history of undocumented restoration raises the question of whether these marble-clad surfaces are original at all. That this marble-cladding is not the fanciful creation of modern restorers is shown by paintings and early photographs of Pompeii and Herculaneum, revealing counters during excavation or soon thereafter ( Fig. 4; Maiuri, 1932: 41). William Cooke ’ s early paintings of Pompeii show several marble-clad bars (Cooke and Donaldson, 1827: vol. 2, 8 – 11); and in his earlier account of discoveries at Herculaneum, Niccolò Venuti (1750: 110 – 11) described one in detail and reported that others were being stripped of their marble. This practice of cladding bars with marble was not even unique to the Vesuvian cities. At Ostia, seven marble-clad counters have survived (Hermansen, 1981: 126 – 83), and there is a further example on the Via dei Pilastri at Alba Fucens, which is given a terminus post quem by a coin of Antoninus Pius found embedded in its mortar (De Visscher et al. , 1954: 336 – 7, fig. 19, pl. 12.1 – 2). 3 The faithfulness of the reconstruction of the marble-clad bars that do survive is a more problematic issue (Monteix, 2010: 94 – 5). The key question is whether the marbles used for the restoration were those found on, or at least close to, the counter. Photographs in the archive at Pompeii, documenting bars before and after restoration, suggest most were. Restorers often used impressions left in the bedding mortar to guide their reconstruction (Fig. 5). Moving materials between premises generally was avoided, even if sometimes material had to be moved around on a particular counter. 4 When large gaps had to be filled or rebuilt, machine-cut limestone panels — available from any local bathroom supplier — seem to have been preferred to ancient marble ones (especially for stepped shelves, as at I.3.2 and I.3.21 – 22). Occasionally more aggressive restoration had to be undertaken. Though their faces survived, the tops of the counters at I.8.8 and I.9.4 were discovered ruined, and have since been rebuilt, though apparently with marble found within the premises. 5 While we are confident that most of the bars studied at Pompeii and Herculaneum have been restored faithfully, any that are suspect have been eliminated from our dataset. These include those at VI.2.5 and II.4.7; though both originally were marble-clad, these counters were rebuilt in the nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries respectively. 6 A total of 8,135 panels of stone was documented during the course of this project, 6,047 at Pompeii and 2,088 at Herculaneum. Overall, 50% of these panels were white stones, mostly marble, 20% were grey and 27% polychrome (marble here being defined, as in antiquity, as any stone capable of taking a polish). Different varieties of white or grey marbles generally were not distinguished between, except when it was possible to do so confidently, as for Luna bardiglio or greco scritto . Archaeometric analysis was impractical, since we were dealing with over 4,000 pieces of white marble alone. Five test samples from the counter at VI.17.3 – 4 were analysed using paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy by Donato Attanasio in 2005. 7 All were chosen because they did not look like Luna marble, which seems to be the most common material used at both Pompeii and Herculaneum. The results showed that three were in fact Luna, while the other two were Pentelic. Analyses performed on marble objects in several Pompeian houses show that a range of white marbles was imported into Pompeii, but that, for uses of any substantial volume, Luna was the default material. 8 Polychrome marbles, in contrast, can be identified by eye and the most attested on the bar counters are cipollino (9% of the total), giallo antico (5%), africano and portasanta (each 4%). A range of other imported materials is found in much smaller quantities, including breccia di Settebasi and pavonazzetto , various alabasters, rosso antico , breccia corallina , breccia di Aleppo and fior di pesco . None of these materials could be considered particularly unusual for central Italy in the first century AD . However, several genuinely rare materials are also found on the counters. Eight fragments of Egyptian granites, of which two appear to be of Bekhen stone from Wadi Hammamat, were built into the bar at V.9 – 10 in Herculaneum (below, Fig. 13). At Pompeii, a large rectangular panel of green-grey granito della sedia di San Lorenzo from Wadi Umm Wikala, was used in the face of the bar at VI.10.1/19 (below, Fig. 10), and a disc of the black variety of Aswan granite ( lapis syenites or Thebaicus ) was used in the same way at VII.15.5 (below, Fig. 12). 9 These granites are unusual even at Rome in this period, and are absent from domestic contexts in the Vesuvian cities. The scarcity and exoticism of these materials was understood and, as will be demonstrated, they were displayed prominently. While the range of lithotypes recorded at both Pompeii and Herculaneum is broadly similar, there are noticeable differences in their quantities at the two sites. There is a striking discrepancy, in particular, in the ratio of white, grey and polychrome marbles (Fig. 6). Since the sample size at the two sites differs, we should be careful not to read too much into this, but the extant bar counters at Herculaneum clearly employed a far higher proportion of polychrome marbles than is normal at Pompeii. Other slight differences can be noted in terms of the actual marbles attested (Fig. 7). The top four polychrome marbles at both sites are cipollino , africano , giallo antico and portasanta ; but while cipollino dominates at Pompeii, roughly equal quantities of these materials are found at Herculaneum. In actual quantities, the eight bar counters examined at Herculaneum employ almost the same number of giallo antico pieces as the 49 at Pompeii (212 compared to 228), more breccia di Settebasi (66 pieces to 52) and more alabaster (37 to 21). Differences in the quantities and range of materials used can be noted also between individual premises. Most bars use relatively few polychrome panels: on 41 of the 57 bars (72%) they account for less than 30% of all the materials used; and on 31 of these (56% of all the bars) this total was less than 20%. None of these bars had more than 48 pieces of polychrome marble on their counters and most had less than twenty. However, a much smaller number of bars makes considerable use of polychrome marbles. On eight bars (14% of the total), polychrome marbles accounted for over 40% of the materials used (below, Fig. 16a). 10 Six bars, in fact, four of them at Herculaneum, had more than 100 pieces of polychrome marble on them. 11 Even on this particular sub-group of colourful bars, however, considerable variation can be identified in the varieties of marbles attested (Fig. 8). These hint at certain idiosyncrasies in the way these materials were supplied that are further suggested by particular concentrations of marble types across Pompeii. Half of all the cipollino identified on the counters at Pompeii, for instance, comes from the bars of Regio VI, even though these provide just 36% of all the panels in the dataset; on the bars at VI.3.18 – 20 as many as 25% of all the panels used were cipollino , and the same is true of VI.8.8. One can identify similarly anomalous distribution patterns in the case of materials that are much rarer on the bars, like rosso antico . Only 27 panels of this marble have been documented on the bars at Pompeii and 23 of these come from just two premises, I.8.8 and VII.2.32 – 33. How these materials were sourced and what these distribution patterns reveal about this practice will be examined in full below. Just as the range of materials found on individual bars varies, so too does the way in which they were displayed. In general, the bar counters at Pompeii and Herculaneum are built of masonry, typically fairly rough opus incertum , though wood counters are also attested (Ellis, 2004c: 41; 2005: 48). They were then covered in a range of surface treatments, of which marble-cladding was just one option. Plaster was used more widely. Almost all of the well-preserved counters at Pompeii have traces of plaster on their interior faces, while Ellis has noted that 85 were also plastered on their exterior faces (Ellis, 2005: 49). This plaster was usually painted, a simple red wash being the most popular choice (Kleberg, 1957: 116 – 17; Packer, 1978: 45 – 7). Painted motifs and figured scenes are attested on the bars at I.6.5, VI.16.32 – 33 and IX.6.b, while seven counters were decorated with painted imitation marble ( marmo finto ) (Ellis, 2005: 49; on marmi finti ; Fant, 2007). Marble-cladding, when it was used, usually was employed alongside these other surface coverings. Painted plaster, in fact, is found on most of the vertical faces of the marble-clad bars. Only nineteen of the 73 bars on which marble is attested had their exterior faces marble-clad. This is perhaps because applying marble panels to a vertical surface is more difficult than laying them on a horizontal one. Sometimes these vertical faces were painted to imitate the marble of the counter-tops, as at VI.1.2, VI.15.15 and IX.9.1, but mixing of media also occurred on the same face: at I.11.10 – 11 a single panel of coloured marble was inserted into an otherwise fully-painted scheme (Jashemski, 1973: 40). The relative costs of these different surface treatments can only be guessed. A simple layer of plaster was probably cheaper than painted plaster, and painted plaster was probably cheaper than marble-cladding, though if expensive pigments were ...