Anderson’s book, based on a 2005 PhD thesis completed at University of Cambridge, applies a robust digital approach to the study of Pompeian domestic space. By developing GIS-based methods to undertake space syntax analysis (SSA), A. highlights the interconnected roles of access and visibility in the design of Pompeii’s houses.

Two introductory chapters situate the work: a history of scholarship focusing especially on developments in Pompeian domestic archaeology up to the end of the twentieth century, and a reconstruction of daily life based on a synchronic reading of Roman literature. Unfortunately, the latter chapter adds little new in describing the ‘typical’ day of the elite male, around which A. fits possible activities of other household members. By moving beyond the literary evidence, he might have engaged more effectively with non-elite and non-male actors. For example, drawing on Sandra Joshel and Lauren Hackworth Petersen’s examination of Pompeii from the perspective of the enslaved (The Material Life of Roman Slaves, 2014) would have added an extra dimension here and throughout the book. Likewise, although he rejects multisensory approaches as ‘imaginative’ in contrast to ‘scientific’ visual-spatial analysis (14) — a contentious point deserving of further discussion — incorporating recent multisensory studies that emphasise diverse experiences of domestic life (e.g. H. Platts, Multisensory Living in Ancient Rome, 2020) would have allowed A. to explore a wider range of potential household activities.

The following three chapters form the heart of the analysis, respectively presenting the digital methodology by which A. created access and visibility heatmaps for 68 Pompeian houses, an overview of results emerging from the full sample, and case studies of six houses that stress both general trends and deviations from them. The case studies are especially valuable for including houses of a variety of sizes and layouts. The book concludes with two chapters that apply the heatmaps to broader issues in Pompeian archaeology, namely the state of the city following the earthquake of 62/3 c.e., and how residents and visitors experienced domestic wall painting. In the former chapter, A. responds to Penelope Allison’s contention (Pompeian Households, 2004) that Pompeii was depopulated and heavily disrupted in the years between the earthquake and the eruption. A. joins others in adding complexity to this picture, arguing for a diversity of responses to the earthquake. Correctly, he notes that both reconstruction and storage of building materials within inhabited spaces might have been part of regular urban processes, rather than indications of decline. It is regrettable that the publications of recent clearance projects that included casting of wooden and other ephemeral objects (e.g. M. Osanna, Il mondo nascosto di Pompei, 2022) likely emerged too late to be included in this discussion. Such work has shown that seemingly empty rooms, or those that appear devoted to small-scale storage, could in fact have been crowded with a variety of furnishings, tools and other items, providing essential evidence for the ongoing inhabitation and intensive use of these spaces. Regarding wall painting, A. arrives at the unsurprising conclusion that the most visible spaces tended to be the most decorated. More interestingly, he posits that a pattern of late redecoration of smaller rooms could indicate a shift away from the reception suite of atrium-tablinum-peristyle in the final years of Pompeii’s life.

A.’s heatmaps add a valuable visual component to the now well-established use of SSA at Pompeii. The book’s most significant weakness, however, is the long delay between the initial phase of research and its final publication. While the bibliography has been updated, recent contributions to the study of the city’s domestic spaces do not penetrate the analysis. For example, A. cites but does not engage with Taylor Lauritsen’s work on interior thresholds (e.g. in A. Anguissola (ed.), Privata Luxuria (2013), 95–114). Lauritsen has shown that most household doorways could be closed, above all those that separated the peristyle from the atrium. Nevertheless, A. chooses to treat all doorways as open (69), with the result that his heatmaps show strong connections between atrium and peristyle across the sample. He might instead have explored possibilities of access and visibility based on a variety of door-open versus door-closed scenarios, exploiting the flexibility inherent to digital models to take a meaningful step beyond prior applications of SSA to Pompeii.

Despite its limitations, this book draws together several decades of A.’s scholarship, which he has published and presented in a variety of venues. As a result, the work has already contributed significantly to the digital analysis of Pompeii. Alongside others, A. laid the groundwork for current studies that leverage new digital tools, such as the University of Arkansas’s Tesseract Project (https://tesseract.uark.edu/virtual-pompeii/), which undertakes SSA using 3D reconstructions of Pompeian houses, or Danilo Marco Campanaro’s digital investigations of interior lighting (AJA 127 (2023), 263–92). Scholars of Pompeii, Roman domestic space and digital archaeology will find much to value here.