This document provides directions from one location to another in ancient Rome. It describes multiple routes involving landmarks like the portico by the Macellum, Cratinus' house, and a baker's shop near the town gate. However, the routes involve alleys and locations that prove confusing. The guide realizes some mistakes were made and offers an alternate route involving fewer turns near the portico to find the destination.
This document provides directions from one location to another in ancient Rome. It describes multiple routes involving landmarks like the portico by the Macellum, Cratinus' house, and a baker's shop near the town gate. However, the routes involve alleys and locations that prove confusing. The guide realizes some mistakes were made and offers an alternate route involving fewer turns near the portico to find the destination.
This document provides directions from one location to another in ancient Rome. It describes multiple routes involving landmarks like the portico by the Macellum, Cratinus' house, and a baker's shop near the town gate. However, the routes involve alleys and locations that prove confusing. The guide realizes some mistakes were made and offers an alternate route involving fewer turns near the portico to find the destination.
This document provides directions from one location to another in ancient Rome. It describes multiple routes involving landmarks like the portico by the Macellum, Cratinus' house, and a baker's shop near the town gate. However, the routes involve alleys and locations that prove confusing. The guide realizes some mistakes were made and offers an alternate route involving fewer turns near the portico to find the destination.
- 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 there the Slope is right down in front of you: up it you go. At the end theres a shrine on this side. Just by the side of it theres 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 a mistake. Come back to the portico: thats a much nearer way and much less chance of missing it. Do you know Cratinus house? - Yes. - When you are past it, turn to your left, go straight along the street and when you come to the Diana turn to the right. Before you come to the town-gate, close by the fountain theres a bakers shop and opposite it a carpenters workshop. Thats where he is. Terence, The Brothers 574587. THE QUOTE ABOVE from the second-century BC playwright Terence shows us at a glance the problems involved in moving through ancient Rome, even for an inhabitant. The route described could in fact be the urban Via Tiburtina, moving from the market (macellum) near the Forum, up the Subura Slope and passing the Fountain of Orpheus before reaching the Porta Esquilina. This article will follow a similar route along the urban Via Tiburtina at the beginning of the third century AD. By applying a comprehensive perspective, from the Fig. 1. Piazza della Madonna dei Monti in the Subura, showing several elements that shape urban navigation and local identity. Photo: S. Malmberg. Navigating the Urban Via Tiburtina By Simon Malmberg Forum area to outside the Aurelian city wall, comprising the ancient streets Argiletum and Clivus Suburanus as well as the Via Tiburtina, this route may be viewed as a coherent urban and suburban path (Figs. 2 & 3). The main idea behind this article is to try to explain how one navigated a Roman urban environment, an environment which must have been bewildering to many Romans, and chaotic to our modern eyes. The analysis will benefit from the use of the theoretical model promoted by the urban planner Kevin Lynch, who has inspired several scholars on the ancient city (Corlita 1979; MacDonald 1986; Zanker 1987; Yegl 1994; Dyson & Prior 1995; Wharton 1995; Favro 1996; Bayliss 1999). Lynchs theories on how people perceive and organize spatial information as they navigate through cities were based upon five years work in Boston, Jersey City and Los Angeles. Working from field reconnaissance and interviews Lynch developed a model of how people understood their surroundings in consistent and predictable ways, forming mental maps. These mental representations contain many unique elements, which are defined by Lynch as a network of paths, districts, landmarks, edges and nodes. This article hopes to contribute to this field by applying Lynchs theories to an analysis of the urban stretch of the Via Tiburtina, using archaeological and literary sources and a third-century marble plan of Rome (Figs. 2 & 7). To get a full understanding of what it must have been like to travel the city, some colouring and life to the cityscape has also been provided, as this in itself was probably an important ingredient in knowing your way around the town (cf. Hellerstrm, t.v.; Purcell 1987: 187188). To most Romans it was probably inconceivable to use a map, both because they could not have afforded it, and if they could, they probably would not have understood it. Their mental map, ingrained as much as language itself, belonged to the streets where they grew up. Nearby towns might as well have been foreign countries for them. The use of Fig. 2. Map of the locations mentioned in the text. Illustration: S. Malmberg and J. Westin. symbolic, topographical maps was probably restricted to the upper classes and the administrative staff of the government, which led to such impressive propaganda projects as the map of the world put up at Rome under Augustus, or the marble plan of Rome set up in the city in the early third century, probably with several predecessors from the early first century onwards (Coarelli 1991; Reynolds 1996; Rodriguez-Almeida 2002). It was more common to show cities in a birds-eye view, as can be seen in Roman paintings. This situation made landmarks more important in tying the route together, since an abstract sense of space was generally missing. Outside the city, milestones were one of the most important ways to fix your position along an itinerary (Laurence 2004). However, these did not work inside the urban maze. Larger streets, districts and gates at Rome usually had names, but since there were no signs or house numbers, this was not of much help to a stranger (Dilke 1985: 103 107; Ling 1990a). As will be shown, quarters and their populations were relatively stable, isolated and distinctive in Rome, so outside the thoroughfares, they probably constituted the main navigation tool, but you had to ask around to find your way (Lynch 1960: 130; Wallace-Hadrill 2001; Macauley 2002). LANDSCAPE OF THE SENSES When moving from the official Forum area to the commercial quarter of the Subura, one entered a different world through the so-called Subura Gate (Figs. 2, 3 & 4; Martial 2.17). This was probably the arch that led from the Forum Transitorium to the Porticus Absidata, or Apsed Portico, which created a small, semicircular square. The steps up to the portico formed a small theatre, perfect for lounging, which has left traces in the form of rough gaming boards being incised into the steps, and presumably also left space for vendors (Martial 2.17.1; Bauer 1983; MacDonald 1986: 103 105; Stambaugh 1978: 587). One immediately entered a busy commercial district, dominated by cobblers, leatherworkers and booksellers. Fig. 3. An aerial photograph of the present- day Subura. 1. Forum; 2. Forum Transitorium with the Subura Gate; 3. Piazza della Madonna dei Monti; 4. Cavour Metro Station, probably at the ancient Fountain of the Nymphs; 5. Location of the Portico of Livia at the Via in Selci; 6. Santa Lucia in Orfea; 7. Fountain of Orpheus and Shrine to Mercurius; 8. Santa Maria Maggiore; 9. Remains of the Republican Wall at Via Carlo Alberto; 10. Porta Esquilina; 11. Remains of the macellum at Piazza Manfredo Fanti; 12. Fountain of Alexander at Piazza Vittorio Emanuele. What may have struck one first were the throngs of people and the heavy traffic on the road, further increased by the proximity to the Markets of Trajan (LTUR 1.286287; Tortorici 1991). The second-century poet Juvenal, who lived on the urban Via Tiburtina (Rodriguez- Almeida 1991; Marache 1989), complains that we are blocked by a surging crowd in front, and by a dense mass of people pressing in on us from behind My legs are beplastered with mud; soon huge feet trample on me from every side, and a soldier plants his hobnails firmly on my toe (3.255259). A law from ca. 45 BC banned traffic in the city during the first ten hours of the day, but not for the last two. The Roman day, reckoned from sunrise to sunset, always consisted of twelve hours, whose length depended on the time of year. Furthermore, the ban probably only involved heavy four- wheeled wagons. Even these were exempted if carrying materials for public works, rituals or rubbish disposal, but in such cases the drivers had to get licenses from the proper magistrate (Tabula Heracleensis 5667; Palmer 1980; Nicolet 1987). But light two-wheeled carriages, hand carts and pack animals were always allowed (Dio Cassius 77.4). Based on the measurements of street ruts and preserved Roman carriages in Pompeii, it seems that two-way traffic was only possible on principal streets, such as the Via Tiburtina, and in that case right-hand traffic was probably enforced. Many smaller streets barred vehicles altogether through the erection of various barriers, which funnelled even more traffic into the few thoroughfares (Ciprotti 1961; Tsujimura 1991; Poehler 2006). Fig. 4. View from the Piazza della Madonna dei Monti, indicating the vicinity of the Subura to the monumental centre of Rome, in this case the Colosseum. Photo: H. Bjur. But most of the travellers were on foot. The odd aristocrat could also be glimpsed, through the awnings of his litter, something which made the first-century philosopher Seneca lament that even to be carried for any length of time is hard work (Letter 55.1; cf. Andr 1994; Saliou 1999; Hartnett 2003). Traders and local craftsmen walked and sold in the street or set up their booths and barrows, further blocking the traffic, as described by Seneca: then the cake seller with his varied cries, the sausage man, the confectioner, and all the vendors of food hawking their wares, each with his own distinctive intonation (Letter 56.2). The city administration must have had a hard time to keep the traffic flowing, especially since they lacked a public cleaning service; according to regulations this was to be done by the house owners themselves, with varying results (Tabula Heracleensis 2023, 5355; Digest 43.10). The state of the road surface may be pictured by reading laws such as cleaning is to reduce the road to its proper level by clearing away all that is upon it (Digest 43.11), and it was forbidden to dig holes in the street, or to encumber them (Digest 43.10.2). The workshops probably easily spilled out into the streets, but one was not supposed to put anything outside, except fullers leaving clothing to dry or carpenters putting out wheels (Digest 43.10.4), which presumably may also have worked as signboards. The first-century poet Martial complained about the state of the Via Tiburtina: I must surmount the track up the hill from the Subura and the dirty pavement with its steps never dry, and I can scarce break through the long droves of mules and the blocks of marble you see hauled (5.22.58; Pailler 1981; Dyson & Prior 1995; Rodriguez-Almeida 1996). Fig. 5. The Argiletum Street forks at todays Piazza della Suburra with Vicus Patricius, the modern Via Urbana, to the left and Clivus Suburanus, the later Via in Selci, to the right, through what is now the Cavour Metro Station. Photo: H. Bjur. The roadway was flanked by tall houses, up to six or seven stories high. The upper floors were often crammed with tiny one-room flats, while shopkeepers lived with their families in their shops, in small rooms at the back or in a mezzanine floor above. These lower class dwellings were not homes in the modern sense of the word. They were so small that everything except sleep had to be done outside the flat (Yavetz 1957; Packer 1971: 7376; Thompson 1982; Guidobaldi 2005: 144). You could not usually cook at home, since an open brazier was punishable by flogging, due to the fire hazard (Digest 1.15.4). So eating and drinking was done at restaurants and bars. To wash you visited the communal baths, and there were communal latrines in the ground floor of the building, or you had to use the public latrines situated along the thoroughfares (Jansen 1997). Children played in the streets, often pretending to be gladiators (Balsdon 1969: 92). The streets became the dwelling place of the collective (Amato 2004: 174). Urban dwellers were used to not having any privacy, which made it all the more precious. To be able to perform your daily routine at home would be a sign of prestige, the mark of the upper class. The lack of this for the ordinary inhabitants gave rise to an abundance of public meeting places, both formal and informal, as we shall see along the Via Tiburtina. And the noise! Martial 12.57 contrasts his noisy city apartment with the quietness of his patrons senatorial residence, and the serene calm of Tivoli. But even senators rented flats, albeit luxurious ones, on the lower floors of apartment blocks (Frier 1980: 3947). Seneca complained that I have lodgings right over a bathing establishment. So picture to yourself the assortment of sounds, which are strong enough to make me hate my very powers of hearing! ... Among the sounds I include passing carriages, an artisan in the same block, a saw-sharpener nearby, or some fellow who is demonstrating with pipes and flutes, shouting rather than singing (Letters 56.1, 4). But the traffic was perhaps the main source of noise, especially at night. Juvenal moans For what sleep is possible in a rental flat? Who but the wealthy get sleep in Rome? ... The crossing of wagons in the narrow winding streets, the slanging of the drovers when brought to a stand, would make sleep impossible (3.235 248). Perhaps wood-pavingslippery when wetwas used on main thoroughfares to soften the sounds of iron-shod horses and wagons, as it was employed in nineteenth-century London (Turvey 1996: 137140). But the sound of the thoroughfares was surely an important directional tool in the city mazejust follow the noise! And the smell! As noted above, street maintenance was probably rudimentary (for dystopian Rome, see e.g. Yavetz 1957; Brunt 1966; Scobie 1986, versus Braund 1989; Laurence 1997; Jansen 2000; Morley 2005). The smell was not improved by the location of public latrines in the vicinity of thoroughfares. But people relieved themselves everywhere, even behind statues, or defiled the water in fountains (Digest 43.8.2.29; 47.11.1.1; Juvenal 1.131). Since people often lacked latrines inside the houses, it was not uncommon to empty your pot through the window (Digest 9.3.5; 43.10.5; Juvenal 3.268274). The fullers also used urine when dyeing and cleaning cloth. Martial tells us about a prostitute in the Subura: So bad as Thais smells, so bad smell not even the fullers workshops! (6.93.1). Food shops were probably fly-infested, which was not improved by the habit of dumping intestines and carcases in the streets (Digest 43.10.5). However, smells evoke strong emotions and memories, and may therefore have been a subconscious way of urban navigation, finding your way to the fuller at the Vicus Sabuci, the fish market near the Porta Esquilina or the street of the perfume- sellers (Classen 1993; Porteous 1990). PATH The urban Via Tiburtina was a path, or an armature (Lynch 1960: 47; MacDonald 1986: 3), one of the main channels people use when moving through a city. Paths with clear and well- known origins and destinations have stronger identities; the urban Via Tiburtina led straight 66 | SIMON MALMBERG from the Forum to the city gate. It is natural to follow the main stream of traffic, which makes trusting to the main, wide street automatic (Lynch 1960: 5051, 111). If this is true of the modern city, it is all the more so of the ancient one. Outside the few public, relatively broad thoroughfares, Rome must have felt like a labyrinthine maze to the outsider. Most of the streets were probably privately owned, and the land of a private road belongs to someone else, but the right of going and driving along it is open to us as the third-century jurist Ulpian puts it. It is interesting to note that the laws on street maintenance and regulations only deal with public roads, and Ulpian contrasted the private road with the public one, which was marked out, with fixed limits of width (Digest 43.8.2.21), implicitly telling us that this was not the case with the private roads. Moreover, city regulations only limited the height of street fronts toward public roads, and ordered only public roads to be kept clean (Tabula Heracleensis 3245; Digest 43.10.3; Strabo 5.3.7; Suetonius, Augustus 89; Tacitus, Annals 15.43.1; Saliou 1994; Zaccaria Ruggiu 1995). So private roads were left to the whim of their owners, which may explain some of the more eccentric windings and narrowness of many side-streets. This was also an expression of social formation, and formed a defended neighbourhood, hard for 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 a strong identity as a district, characterized by the Roman upper-class as a sordid commercial area, riddled with violence and prostitution, but urban zoning in the modern sense did not precede the nineteenth century (Laurence 1994: 17; 1995: 65; Favro 1996: 44). The image of the Subura was probably exaggerated, but the location of the district, at the bottom of a valley, probably gave it a proportionately large plebeian population, while the surrounding hills, with access to more sun and air and not plagued by the annual inundation of the Tiber, presumably had a larger proportion of aristocrats (Aldrete 2007). This topographical circumstance may indeed have promoted the communal identity of the Subura, since, by the concavity of its site, it was easily visible as a whole (Lynch 1960: 47, 103104). To many people the district is the basic element of the city image. People with the least knowledge of a city tend to think in terms of topography or district when navigating. Those most familiar with the city recognize the social importance of districts, but tend to rely on small landmarks for orientation (Lynch 1960: 49, 67). Typical physical characteristics of a district are the use and texture of buildings, street activity, noise and smells, inhabitants and topography (Lynch 1960: 6768; Cullen 1971: 31). The smallest urban district was the vicus, which may be translated roughly as an urban neighbourhood, corresponding to a single street and its adjoining houses (Festus 508L; Varro, Latin language 5.145; Isidorus, Etymologies 15.2). It was these small districts that provided the social cohesion in the city and also became important navigational tools. Pliny reports that Rome had 265 vici in the census of AD 73 (Natural history 3.66). This had increased to perhaps 323 vici in the fourth century, partly by subdividing existing vici (Coarelli 1997; Tarpin 2002: 172173). The physical and social centre of each vicus was a crossroads (compitum) where there was a shrine to its two tutelary spirits, the Lares, often with a statue and an altar given to the vicus by the emperor. Although the vici had existed in Rome from time immemorial, they were revived by Augustus, who organized them into official administrative units under the charge of four vicomagistri elected among the inhabitants, the vicani. The vicomagistri were almost invariably freedmen, and their charge gave them a unique opportunity for social status, since all other magistracies were closed to them. The vicomagistri came under the supervision of the regionary curator and his staff, together with whom they worked concerning food supply, water distribution, prevention of fire and crime, and regulation of businesses. The curator had his own police and fire-fighters, the vigiles, but NAVIGATING THE URBAN VIA TIBURTINA | 67 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 which either gathered in its own clubhouse (schola) or in a local bar and which strove to improve the quality of life in the neighbourhood. This was an important development, since extended kinship groups often wither in an urban environment, whereas voluntary associations grow in number and importance (Wirth 1938). The communal spirit of the vici was further strengthened through a special festival known as the Compitalia, which included a religious procession, stage plays and street shows allowed to be in the various native languages of the inhabitants, and performed in all of the vici (Suetonius, Caesar 39; Augustus 34.1; 63). The vicus organization thus allowed the government to develop a grassroots base of legitimacy (Robinson 1992: 1112; Tarpin 2002; Lott 2004). Since most of the population worked in their residential neighbourhood, and used the same shops and water basins, it was natural for a strong local identity to form. This was encouraged even more by the existence of the vici, 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 the city, and were often used for directions. It was quite natural for collegia to give their addresses according to vicus (e.g. CIL 2.365; 5.4488; 5.7923). Inhabitants naturally identified very closely with their own vicus, and sometimes even inscribed its name on their tombs. Since they were such close-knit communities, once you arrived at a vicus, there would probably not be any problem finding someone who could tell you where to find the person you were looking for. It would of course be another matter whether they wanted to tell you, and one could get into trouble, like the main character in the novel Satyricon (67), written by the first-century writer Petronius. To narrow down which part of a vicus was meant, the concept of scamnum could sometimes be used. A scamnum was a unit originally used by land surveyors, measuring ca. 1525 m in width. So, if you said that someone lived in the scamnum primum, you had narrowed it down to a house located along the first few metres of the street (Hunt & Edgar 1934: 357). Another way to put it was as in a graffito from Pompeii: At Nuceria ask for Volvellia Primigenia in the Vicus Venerius by the Rome Gate (CIL 4.8356; Butterworth & Laurence 2005: 110). LANDMARK A few hundred metres from the Subura Gate, the Via Tiburtina reached the foot of the Cispian 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 the right was the Clivus Suburanus (the urban Via Tiburtina) between the Cispian and Oppian Hills. This was surely a very important junction, where three major urban thoroughfares met. It may be here that the house of the early second- century consul Stella was situated. The house had a monumental fountain towards the street in the form of a grotto with representations of Hercules and the Nymphs (Statius, Silvae 1.2.7172; Martial 6.21; 6.47; 7.15; 7.50; LTUR 1.3940). It probably gave its name to the whole surrounding district, ad Nymphas, attested in the third century (e.g. CIL 6.9526). The fountain was still in use in late antiquity, since it was restored by the city prefect around 400 (CIL 6.1728ab), and was perhaps identical with the Fountain of the Shepherd (Lacus Pastoris) attested in the fourth-century regionary catalogues. The Fountain of the Nymphs is a prime example of a landmark. Landmarks are objects, characterized by singularity, a clear form, contrast with their background and prominence of spatial location. Some landmarks are distant ones, seen over the tops of roofs, and often used as navigational tools for people not that familiar with the city (Lynch 1960: 48, 78, 81). If moving towards the Forum on the Via Tiburtina, one probably navigated with ones eyes set on the temples on the Capitoline or the palace on the Palatine Hill, whereas in 68 | SIMON MALMBERG the other direction, in late antiquity one may have had the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, prominently sited on the crest of the Cispian Hill, as a guiding landmark towards the Porta Esquilina. For those familiar with the city, more important are local landmarks, only visible from certain approaches. A sequential series of landmarks appears to be the standard way in which people travel through the city. They work as trigger clues in turning decisions and give the distance to the final destination (Lynch 1960: 8283). As an aid in memorizing long speeches, the first-century rhetoric teacher Quintilian suggested that a cityscape might form a usable environment of memorization, with objects and buildings serving as landmarks in the organization of the speech (Institutes 11.2.21; cf. Bloomer & Moore 1977: 3655; Bergmann 1994; Favro 1996: 7). Often sounds and smells reinforce visual landmarks, for instance the reek from the fish market at the Porta Esquilina was probably a landmark in itself. Landmarks were often used when giving directions. Especially common were trees, seen for instance in the quote from Terence at the beginning of this article. Martial referred to himself as living near the Pear-tree (Martial 1.117.6; cf. DeRose Evans 1992: 7578), and a road close to the Via Tiburtina was called the Vicus Sabuci, which means the Street of the Elder-Tree (Zimmer 1976). Martial also said that he lived near the Travertine Column, and a vicus of the city was known as that of the Wooden Column; both landmarks surely singled out because of their height (Martial 5.22.24; CIL 6.975). Otherwise, many vici were named after fountains, city gates, statues or crafts. EDGE The street fork was a place where probably four urban regions converged (Fig. 2). The regions were the major administrative internal division of the city of Rome, and had been created by Augustus. A curator was put in charge of each region, and they ruled the city in cooperation with the city prefect (Robinson 1992: 10). There were fourteen regions, seven within the Republican wall and seven for the most part outside the wall (Suetonius, Augustus 30). Although Augustus never seems to have extended the city limits (pomerium) beyond the wall, in practice the seven regions outside the wall extended the urban area. The regions even spread further than the later Aurelian wall, since we know that the river Almo formed the southern limit of the first region, the Vatican was part of the Trastevere region, while to the north the Milvian Bridge was also considered part of the urban regions. Major urban thoroughfares made up the boundaries between the regions (Dio Cassius 55.8; Robinson 1992: 9). It was very common, almost inevitable, to use the main thoroughfares of Rome as limits between regions, because of the chaotic state of the private streets in between. Based on the listing of monuments in the regionary catalogues, it is possible to conjecture the boundaries along the Via Tiburtina. The Argiletum Street formed the limit between the sixth and fourth regions. When it forked, the northern road, Vicus Patricius, constituted the boundary between the sixth and fifth regions, while the southern Clivus Suburanus separated the fifth and third regions. It is also revealing that several regions were named after their main streets, such as the third region (Isis et Serapis: Vicus Isidis), the sixth (Alta Semita), the seventh (Via Lata) and the twelfth (Piscina Publica: Vicus Piscinae Publicae) (Palmer 1975: 654; Rodriguez- Almeida 1983). Above, the Via Tiburtina was characterized as a path, but here one sees how it also could function as an edge, a boundary in the city. The strongest kinds of edges are those that are visually prominent but also continuous and impenetrable, such as a city wall. However, an edge could also operate as a seam, along which different districts of the city could be joined, as along the Via Tiburtina. ENTERING THE MARBLE PLAN Shortly after the bifurcation at the Fountain of the Nymphs the street started to climb (Fig. 6). The strength of a path may be furthered by a directional quality, when one direction may NAVIGATING THE URBAN VIA TIBURTINA | 69 easily be distinguished from another. Thus it is given a sense of progression, to go up or down a street. This is commonly sensed in the form of some quality that is cumulative in one direction, such as a slope, which is what gave the Via Tiburtina much of its force (Lynch 1960: 54, 97). One now entered an area covered by the third-century marble plan (Fig. 7). The most accessible information on the plan can be found on the homepage of the Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project (SDFURP; http:// formaurbis.stanford.edu), which has been consulted extensively. The marble plan shows the Via Tiburtina as a wide street lined with small tabernae, probably functioning as shops (Staccioli 1959). The area was an important road junction where two side streets joined the Tiburtina. The street to the right, crammed with shops and arcaded on one side, climbed sharply up the precipitous Oppian Hill, from the crest of which the huge Baths of Trajan looked down from their artificial platform. Larger rooms, perhaps small apartments, lie on the other side of the street, tucked between an exedra of the Baths and a grand rectangular portico. The side street uphill is tentatively identified as the Clivus Pullius (LTUR 1.284285; SDFURP fr. 11a). An inscription found nearby, dating to the 370s, mentions a group called clivumpullenses, the inhabitants of this quarter, presumably a vicus (CIL 6.31893). At the corner between Tiburtina and Pullius streets there was an interesting element: a triangular area partially enclosed by a wall, and probably open to the sky. It seems to have been a perfect place for lounging, and for seeing people coming and Fig. 6. The slope of the modern Via in Selci follows the ancient Clivus Suburanus. Photo: H. Bjur. going. The Tiburtina then points straight towards a monumental staircase with two landings, flanked by tiny shops. As with the enclosed area at the junction, the monumental steps were also perfect for lounging, as well as a place for beggars and vendors hawking their wares, an eddy in the stream of activity (MacDonald 1986: 106; cf. Stambaugh 1978: 587; Whyte 1980). This was the main entrance to the Portico of Livia, a huge portico measuring about 120 70 m, with double rows of columns built upon an artificial platform on the Oppian slope. It was built by Augustus, and contained a shrine to the goddess Concordia, dedicated to matrimonial happiness (Ovid, Fasti 6.637), somewhat ironic in an area known for its prostitution. The shrine may be the rectangular structure in the middle of the portico, otherwise identified as a pool (LTUR 4.127129; SDFURP fr. 10opqr, 11a; Boudreau Flory 1984; Panella 1987). According to the first- century writer Pliny the Elder, a vine protects the open walks with its shady trellises (Natural history 14.11), which must have been a nice, quiet contrast to the hectic street life below. It must also have had an important social function, and the large exedras along its outer walls could be used for meetings, such as that between Pliny the Younger and his friend: I was awake when the messenger came from Spurinna that he was on his way, and sent back to say I would call on him, so we met in the Portico of Livia, each making for the other (Letter 1.5.89). But the Portico was also important as an architecture of passage, which tied together many different levels of the neighbourhood, most importantly the Via Tiburtina, in the valley, and the Vicus Sabuci, which ran along the crest of the Oppian Hill. Fig. 7. Part of the third-century marble plan of Rome, showing the area of the urban Via Tiburtina. Illustration courtesy of the Sovraintendenza ai Beni Culturali del Comune di Roma and the Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project, adapted by S. Malmberg and J. Westin. NODE Continuing up the Tiburtina slope one laid eyes on a monumental fountain consisting of three large, circular basins, located where the road forked again (Figs. 2 & 7; SDFURP fr. 11c). Paths should not have changes in direction that are too sudden; if they maintain a satisfactory degree of continuity they are seen as dependable. The urban Via Tiburtina was by no means a straight street, but it still maintained a directional quality. Indeed, its organic form allowed the street space to be subdivided into a series of revelations, or a serial vision, which gave the street a stronger impact than a monotonous straight road (Cullen 1971: 9; MacDonald 1986: 107). The serial vision also allowed a series of landmarks and nodes to be inserted along the way, which enabled one to sense ones position along the total length of the path. The path then became scaled, marking identifiable points, so that the traveller felt that he was moving in the right direction (Lynch 1960: 55, 97). Martial 10.19 provides a description of the fountain: when you have crossed the Subura in breasting the steep path; there you will at once notice Orpheus, spray-sprinkled, crowning his drenched audience. The fountain can be identified with the Fountain of Orpheus, mentioned in the regionary catalogues, and the house behind it probably worked as an ornamented backdrop (LTUR 3.171; Rodriguez-Almeida 19701971 & 19751976; Wallace-Hadrill 2001; cf. the Fontana di Trevi). As with the Fountain of the Nymphs before, this house was probably an aristocratic one. One may identify the large, curved entrance steps in the open area to the right of the fountain which led into an upper-class domus. Since we know that Pliny the Younger lived close to the fountain, it is possible that the domus may have belonged to him, although this must remain hypothetical (Rodriguez-Almeida 1983; LTUR 2.158159; SDFURP fr. 10aa). The Fountain of Orpheus gave identity to an important junction along the Tiburtina, in fact it named the whole neighbouring district. In an inscription of the 370s we hear of a group of inhabitants called orfienses, and the Book of Popes from the early sixth century twice mentions a domus in regione Orfea intra urbem (LP 1.171, 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 part of the monastery of Santa Lucia in Orfea. They consist of travertine arches which support a brick wall. A large apsed hall was built on top of the shops in the fourth century (Fig. 8; LTUR 3.191; Bjur & Malmberg, t.v.). Fig. 8. Ancient travertine pillars and brick arches at the Via in Selci. Photo: H. Bjur. The Via Tiburtina was obviously the centre of activity in the Subura, and functioned as a linear node of the district. A node is defined by Lynch as an intensive focus in the city, and if a node is the focus of a district it is a core. Moreover, along the Via Tiburtina were important junctions which also worked as nodes in their own right, such as the one just mentioned. When a traveller reaches a node, this heightens their attention. Elements located at such nodes automatically derive special prominence from their location, such as the monumental entrance to the Portico of Livia, or the Fountain of Orpheus. Approach to such a node often seems to come from a particular side, a directional quality (Lynch 1960: 47, 7276), something shown in the description by Martial. It may be confusing to the traveller when many paths converge, especially if they do so at a non-perpendicular angle. But the character of such a node may be made clear by a heightened physical character of the node (Lynch 1960: 58). The fountain and the portico thereby made navigation along the Via Tiburtina easier. A series of nodes can form a related structure, linked together by intervisibility, such as the Subura Gate and the Fountain of the 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 very different from the busy street life, but linked the Via Tiburtina with the other important street in the area, the Vicus Sabuci, as well as with the Baths of Trajan. NEIGHBOURHOOD AMENITIES AND LOCAL LANDMARKS The road that branched off the Tiburtina to the right at the Fountain of Orpheus has been hypothetically identified with the Via in Figlinis (Potters Street), mentioned by the first-century BC scholar Varro (Latin language 5.50) and probably forming the border between the third and fifth urban regions (Figs. 2 & 7; LTUR 1.263265; 2.171, 252253; SDFURP fr. 10opqr). The Via in Figlinis climbed the Oppian Hill towards Vicus Sabuci. Halfway up the slope was an early third-century rectangular hall built in brick-faced concrete. It has been suggested that it functioned as a covered market of the area, later to be turned into a Christian meeting hall, forming part of the later Church of San Martino ai Monti (CBCR 3.93). Further up, at the corner between Figlinis and Vicus Sabuci, behind a row of tabernae, there was a columned open space around a rectangular element. This was probably a meeting hall (schola) of the club (collegium) in the vicus. Almost next door to this building was found a dedication to Vulcan by the magistri vici Sabuci (CIL 6.801), and it is possible that the rectangular element was an altar or statue dedicated to that god (SDFURP fr. 10n, 10lm; cf. Staccioli 1968). The location of the possible schola, close to Via in Figlinis and the Portico of Livia, both offering passage between two of the main arteries of the Subura, also demonstrates the areas importance as a core of the Subura district. Back at the Fountain of Orpheus one continues up the last part of the Subura slope. After only a few metres a side street ran to the left, up the Cispian Hill. At the crossroads there was a shrine to Mercurius, uncovered in 1888. It consisted of an open paved plaza with a raised, rectangular platform covered in marble. On the platform were an altar and an inscribed base for the statue of Mercurius, donated by Augustus. An inscribed boundary stone reveals that the extent of the public plaza, which surrounded the altar and served as a religious precinct, was about 48 25 m. The building of this precinct probably coincided with Augustus construction of the Portico of Livia nearby. Since Mercurius was the patron god of commerce, especially the grain trade, he attests to the commercial character of the area. Moreover, he was the father of the neighbourhood 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 had connections with the crossroads cult, which was so important to the vici. In fact, the shrine may have formed the centre of a hypothetical Vicus Orphei. NAVIGATING THE URBAN VIA TIBURTINA | 73 Continuing up the Tiburtina, it was still crammed with shops. However, in this area the central parts of the blocks seem to have lacked structures, which suggests a somewhat lower population density. This was even more marked along the Vicus Sabuci (SDFURP fr. 10Aab, 10abcde, 10g). At the first intersection after the Fountain of Orpheus there was a somewhat larger, very open taberna, a typical layout and location for a bar (Kleberg 1957; Ellis 2004). The counter of a bar was placed right at the entrance, while guests would sit at tables on the sidewalk. Martial complained that the impudent bars had taken over all of Rome, blocking streets with their furniture and hanging wine bottles in every portico, probably as signboards (Martial 7.61). The entrances to shops were often covered in advertisements and gossipy graffiti, which provided dashes of colour in the urban environment (Martial 1.117.1012; cf. Armstrong 1917; Wilber 1942). Apart from their ad hoc signboards such as bottles and wheels, shops could also have proper ones. The Digest (50.16.245) informs us about pictures attached by chains or fixed to a wall, or lamps similarly fixed, and several brick plaques, figurative or geometric, have been found in Pompeii and Ostia, advertizing different trades and crafts (Ling 1990a; 1990b; Butterworth & Laurence 2005: 55, 110). These could function as small landmarks, guiding the traveller. When it got dark, bar owners lit lanterns above their shops. All other shops were closed during the night, and since there was no street lighting, streets without bars would have been pitch black and dangerous. Bars crowded around the thoroughfares, since that was where the night traffic in heavy vehicles was concentrated. If you just kept to the main street, navigation would be no problem, even easier than in the daytime, but all the other streets would be very perilous (Juvenal 3.268301; Apuleius, Metamorphoses 2.32; Petronius 79). Passing a few shops up this side street to the right we come to the entrance of a small bath, centred on a columned courtyard (SDFURP fr. 10g; Staccioli 1961; Reynolds 1996, fig. 3.41). This was one of the hundreds of small, privately run baths (balnea) that dotted the cityscape and formed social foci in the neighbourhoods (Packer 1971: 74; MacDonald 1986: 115; Delaine 1999). Leaving the part of the Via Tiburtina covered by the marble plan, one may discern that the street will join with Vicus Sabuci at an acute angle just off the map, just inside the Porta Esquilina (SDFURP fr. 10Aab). One now reached the top of the Esquiline Plateau, at the Forum Esquilinum. Looking out through the arch in the Republican wall one could see the bustling market square of the Campus Esquilinus, where executions took place, and from which the reek of the fish market was unmistakable (Fig. 9; Bjur & Malmberg, t.v.; cf. Cullen 1971: 31; Bodel 2000: 145147; Amato 2004: 161). Just outside the gate, the road forked, with the Tiburtina going to the left. At this junction there was another of those monumental street fountains, probably built by Augustus. In the early 220s it was Fig. 9. The Porta Esquilina with the Fountain of Alexander seen through the archway. Illustration: Vasi 1756, plate 126 (cropped). replaced by the much larger Fountain of Alexander, which may very well have been inspired by the Fountain of Orpheus down the hill (LTUR 2.171; 3.3512). This fountain was also used to identify the surrounding district, known in the 370s as ad nymf(eum) Alexandri (CIL 6.31893). CONCLUSIONS This study has tried to show how the Romans navigated and perceived their urban environment, using the analytical tools of path, district, landmark, edge and node promoted by Kevin Lynch. An analysis of paths showed how people trust the main thoroughfare and avoid the maze outside. These main paths also worked as edges, in this case limits between urban regions. This highlights the importance of the urban Via Tiburtina in new ways, and merits a closer analysis of its location, different stretches and atmosphere. The article has also brought in new examples of architecture of passage, such as the Portico of Livia. The concept of district has been used to explain the strong identity of the Subura through its location, and its use for movement. Its social cohesion may be understood by looking at its sub-districts, such as the vici. Landmarks, on the other hand, are often seen mainly as facilitating navigation through a directional quality and by providing turning clues. This has also been demonstrated here, with crossroads fountains as a prime example. However, this article also stresses their importance, together with paths and edges, for local identity, giving their name to small districts and their inhabitants. They also take many different forms, ranging from the monumental to trees, graffiti and small brick plaques. In this context the role of paths and crossroads as nodes of districts has been explored, giving them a heightened physical character and identity. The aspect of daily social use has also been addressed, where articulations of the street space, such as fountains, crossroads and colonnades, could be used for lounging, for markets, and as meeting places. The Portico of Livia once more comes across as a prime example, being a place for meeting, commerce and passage. In short, this contribution aims to stress the factors of movement and urban identity in studying the street networks of ancient cities, in order to obtain a more multi-faceted view of Roman society. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most grateful for the generosity shown by the Sovraintendenza ai Beni Culturali del Comune di Roma and the Stanford Digital Forma Urbis Romae Project, in allowing me to use their photographs of the fragments of the marble plan. Fig. 10. The Porta Esquilina today. Photo: S. Malmberg. 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 de la ville, Ktma 19, 14554. ARMSTRONG, M. 1917: Significance of colors in Roman ritual. BALSDON, D. 1969: Life and leisure in ancient Rome. BAUER, H. 1983: Porticus absidata, RM 90, 11184. BAYLISS, R. 1999: Usurping the urban image: the experience of ritual topography in late antique cities of the Near East, in TRAC 98, 5971. BERGMANN, B. 1994: The Roman house as a memory theatre: the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii, ArtB 76, 225256. BLOOMER, K. & MOORE, C. 1977: Body, memory and architecture. BODEL, J. 2000: Dealing with the dead: undertakers, executioners and potters fields in ancient Rome, in Death and disease in the ancient city, eds. V.M. Hope & E. Marshall, 128151. BOUDREAU FLORY, M. 1984: Livias shrine to Concordia and the Porticus Liviae, Historia 33, 309330. BRAUND, S. 1989: City and country in Roman satire, in Satire and society in ancient Rome, ed. S.H. Braund, 2347. BRUNT, P. 1966: The Roman mob, PastPres 35, 327. BUTTERWORTH, A. & LAURENCE, R. 2005: Pompeii: the living city. CIPROTTI, P. 1961: Contributo allo studio della disciplina della circolazione stradale nellantichit: Roma e Pompei, Rivista giuridica della circolazione e dei trasporti 15, 118. CLASSEN, C. 1993: Worlds of sense: exploring the senses in history and across cultures. COARELLI, F. 1991: Le plan de via Anicia: un nouveau fragment de la forma urbis marmorea de Rome, in Rome: lespace urbain et ses reprsentations, eds. F. Hinard & M. Royo, 6581. COARELLI, F. 1997: La consistenza della citt nel periodo imperiale: pomerium, vici, insulae, in La Rome impriale: dmographie et logistique. Actes de la table ronde (Rome, 25 mars 1994) (CFR, 230), 89109. COMBET-FARNOUX, B. 1980: Mercure romain. CORLITA, D. 1979: La situazione urbanistica degli archi onorari nella prima et imperiale, in Studi 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, Martial and Rome: two poetic outsiders read the ancient city, Arethusa 28, 245264. ELLIS, S. 2004: The distribution of bars at Pompeii, JRA 17, 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 compitale dellantichissima regione Esquilina, BullCom 16, 221239. GUIDOBALDI, F. 2005: Le abitazioni private e lurbanistica, in Storia di Roma dallantichit a oggi. Roma antica, ed. A. Giardina, 133161. HARTNETT J. 2003: Streets, street architecture, and social presentation in Roman Italy. HUNT, A. & EDGAR, C. 1934: Selected papyri. JANSEN, G. 1997: Private toilets at Pompeii: appearance and operation, in Sequence and space in Pompeii, eds. S.E. Bon & R. Jones, 121134. JANSEN, G. 2000: Studying Roman hygiene: the battle between the optimists and the pessimists, in Cura aquarum in Sicilia, ed. J.C.M. Jansen, 275279. ABBREVIATIONS CBCR Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae CIL Corpus inscriptionum latinarum LP Liber pontificalis LTUR Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae SDFURP Stanford digital forma urbis Romae project 76 | SIMON MALMBERG KLEBERG, T. 1957: Htels, restaurants et cabarets dans lantique romaine: tudes historiques et philologiques. LAURENCE, R. 1994: Roman Pompeii: space and society. LAURENCE, R. 1995: The organization of space in Pompeii, in Urban society in Roman Italy, eds. T.J. Cornell & K. Lomas, 6378. LAURENCE, R. 1997: Writing the Roman metropolis, in Roman urbanism beyond the consumer 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: finding the way in an ancient city, Greece & Rome 37, 204214. LING, R. 1990b: Street plaques at Pompeii, in Architecture and architectural sculpture in the Roman Empire, 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 urban environment, in Transformations of urban and suburban landscapes, eds. G. Backhaus & J. Murungi, 193226. MACDONALD, W. 1986: The architecture of the Roman Empire II. An urban appraisal. MARACHE, R. 1989: Juvnal: peintre de la socit de son temps, in ANRW 2.33.1, 592639. MORLEY, N. 2005: The salubriousness of the Roman city, in Health in antiquity, ed. H. King, 192204. NICOLET, C. 1987: La table dHeracle et les origines du cadastre romain, in LUrbs: espace urbain et histoire (CFR, 98), 125. PACKER, J. 1971: The insulae of imperial Ostia. PAILLER, J.-M. 1981: Martial et lespace urbain, Pallas 28, 7987. PALMER, R. 1975: The neighborhood of Sullan Bellona and the Colline Gate, MFRA 87, 653 665. PALMER, R. 1980: Customs on market goods imported into the city of Rome, in The seaborne commerce of ancient Rome, eds. J.H. DArms & E.C. Kopff, 217233. PALMER, R. 1997: Rome and Carthage at peace. PANELLA, C. 1987: Organizzazione degli spazi sulle pendici settentrionali del colle Oppio tra Augusto e i Severi, in LUrbs: espace urbain et histoire (CFR, 98), 611651. POEHLER, E. 2006: The circulation of traffic in Pompeiis Regio VI, JRA 19, 5374. PORTEOUS, D. 1990: Landscapes of the mind: worlds of sense and metaphor. PURCELL, N. 1987: Town in country and country in town, in Ancient Roman villa gardens, ed. E. Blair MacDougal, 185204. REYNOLDS, D. 1996: Forma urbis Romae: the Severan marble plan and the urban form of ancient Rome. ROBINSON, O. 1992: Ancient Rome: city planning and administration. RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 19701971: Forma urbis marmorea: nuove integrazioni, BullCom 82, 105135. RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 19751976: Aggiornamento topografico dei colli Oppio, Cispio e Viminale secondo la forma urbis marmorea, RendPontAcc 48, 263278. RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 1983: I confini interni della regio V Esquiliae nella forma urbis marmorea, in Larcheologia in Roma capitale tra sterro e scavo (Roma Capitale, 18701911, 7), 106115. RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 1991: Tra epigrafia, filologia, storia e topografia urbana: quattro ipotesi, MFRA 103, 529550. RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 1996: Promenons- nous avec Martial, in Rome Ier sicle ap. J.-C. Les orgueilleux dfis de lordre imprial, ed. J. Gaillard, 176187. NAVIGATING THE URBAN VIA TIBURTINA | 77 RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA, E. 2002: Formae urbis antiquae: le mappe marmoree di Roma tra la repubblica e Settimio Severo. SABLAYROLLES, R. 1996: Libertinus miles: les cohortes de vigiles. SALIOU, C. 1994: Les lois des btiments: voisinage et habitat urbain dans lempire romain. SALIOU, C. 1999: Les trottoirs de Pompi: une premire approche, BABesch 74, 161206. SARTORIO, G. 1988: Compita larum: edicole sacre nei crocicchi di Roma antica, Bollettino della Unione storia ed arte 14, 2334. SCHWIRIAN, K. 1977: The internal structure of the metropolis: neighborhoods, in Topics in contemporary urban sociology, ed. K. Schwirian, 199209. SCOBIE, A. 1986: Slums, sanitation, and mortality in the Roman world, Klio 66, 399433. STACCIOLI, R. 1959: Le tabernae a Roma attraverso la forma urbis, RendLinc 14, 5666. STACCIOLI, R. 1961: Terme minori e balnea nella documentazione della forma urbis, ArchCl 13, 92102. STACCIOLI, R. 1968: Una probabile sede di corporazione nella pianta marmorea di Roma antica, QITA 5, 2326. STAMBAUGH, J. 1978: The functions of Roman temples, in ANRW 2.16.1, 554608. TARPIN, M. 2002: Vici et pagi dans loccident romain. THOMPSON, L. 1982: Development and underdevelopment in the early Roman Empire, Klio 64, 383402. TORTORICI, E. 1991: Argiletum: commercio, speculazione edilizia e lotta politica nellanalisi topografica di un quartiere di Roma di et repubblicana. TSUJIMURA, S. 1991: Ruts in Pompeii: the traffic system in the Roman city, Opuscula pompeiana 1, 5890. TURVEY, R. 1996: Street mud, dust and noise, London Journal 21, 131148. VASI, G. 1756: Sulle magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna 7. WALLACE-HADRILL, A. 2001: Emperors and houses in Rome, in Childhood, class and kin in the Roman world, ed. S. Dixon, 128143. WALLACE-HADRILL, A. 2003: The streets of Rome as a representation of imperial power, in The representation and perception of Roman imperial power, 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 in architecture, JSAH 2, 1722. WIRTH, L. 1938: Urbanism as a way of life, American journal of sociology 44, 124. YAVETZ, Z. 1957: The living conditions of the urban plebs in republican Rome, Latomus 17, 500517. YEGL, F. 1994: The street experience of ancient Ephesus, in Streets of the world: critical perspectives on public space, eds. Z. elik et al., 95110. ZACCARIA RUGGIU, A. 1995: Spazio privato e spazio pubblico nella citt romana. ZANKER, P. 1987: Drei Stadtbilder aus dem augusteischen Rom, in LUrbs: espace urbain et histoire (CFR, 98), 475489. ZIMMER, S. 1976: Zur Bildung der altrmischen Strassennamen, Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung 90, 183199. 78 | SIMON MALMBERG