Among scholarship devoted to the Roman house, scant attention has been given to the complex multisensory experiences of domus and villae. P.'s contribution, which surveys the sensory world of the home and inhabitants’ corporeal engagement within various Roman domestic spaces and rituals, aims to address this gap. In the absence of any one authoritative methodology in sensory archaeology (cf. R. Skeates and J. Day [edd.], Chapters 1 and 32 in The Routledge Handbook of Sensory Archaeology [2020]), P. employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating data from archaeological contexts, architectural design and ancient texts (pp. 19–20). Throughout the volume, she moves between interpretative and analytical processes and integrates artefactual data, the analysis of house remains and literary descriptions to reconstruct possible multisensory experiences. She likewise taps into the rich body of emergent scholarship that shapes our understanding of ‘multisensory living’ in urban and domestic spaces.
P.'s examination of multisensory experiences within the household is current and exciting, contributing insightful interpretations of the domestic sphere to the field of sensory studies; however, her aim to investigate the ‘organization and manipulation of space and [domestic] surroundings’ as managed by the homeowner to exercise, display and communicate power and status to others (p. 2) is less novel and has been canvassed by a number of scholars (e.g. A. Wallace-Hadrill, PBSR 56 [1988], 58–77, and Housing and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum [1994]; J.R. Clarke, The Houses of Roman Italy [1991]; S. Hales, The Roman House and Social Identity [2003]). P.'s argument that homeowners shaped the multisensory environment to communicate power is developed in Chapter 2, where she examines the younger Pliny's villa letters (Ep. 2.17 and 5.6). These, she suggests, demonstrate the Roman homeowner's desire to curate the sensory experiences of inhabitants and his awareness that the house could be used to exercise his social position and influence (p. 27). Following a paradigm of power described by E.R. Wolf (American Anthropologist 92 [1990], 586–96), P. argues that power is manifested in the dominus’ ability to orchestrate the experiences of residents, guests and slaves within settings (e.g. the house) that are themselves organised and managed by him (pp. 24–6). The chapters that follow serve as case studies to support this thesis.
In Chapter 3 P. argues for the presence of architectural/spatial ‘buffers’ that separated householders from urban noise and various smells. Focusing on examples drawn from Pompeii's eastern regions, where residents would have come into contact with amphitheatre noise, torch lights, food odours and increased pedestrian traffic, P. suggests that gardens, courtyards, long entry-corridors (fauces) and the presence of few, high windows buffered a home's inhabitants from potentially disturbing sensory stimuli. Terrace houses on the southern and western cliffs of the city achieved the same effect by orienting rooms to the river valley or seashore. Thus, the overall design of the home was organised to limit the urban environment's sensory impact.
This use of architectural form and spatial articulation is examined again in Chapter 7, where P. investigates how kitchens and latrines were furnished (e.g. with doors) or spatially distanced (p. 199; Cicero, Nat. D. 2.56.141) to shield inhabitants and guests from noise and smell. To support her thesis, P. offers original field data to document the location of kitchens in the home, their distances from reception rooms and proximity to roads, and the presence of doors as mechanisms of sensory isolation. In some cases, for example, corridors or walls functioned to segregate the sensory signatures of servile zones from atria, triclinia or peristyles (pp. 212–21), while some larger houses featured kitchens on separate terrace levels entirely (pp. 225–6).
Chapters 4 and 5 (on the atrium-tablinum area and household cubicula, respectively) are focused heavily on the well-known ‘public–private’ debate surrounding the Roman home and specific household spaces (cf. Vitr. De Arch. 6.5.1; Clarke [1991]; Wallace-Hadrill [1994] and, more recently, K. Tuori and L. Nissin [edd.], Public and Private in the Roman House and Society [2015]). In Chapter 4 P. reviews the architectonic features of portals and thresholds (cf. M.T. Lauritsen, in D. Mladenović and B. Russell [edd.], TRAC 2010; E. Proudfoot, in A. Bokern et al. [edd.], TRAC 2012); the multiple functions of the atrium zone; and the ways in which physical access was controlled, critiquing D. Balch's theory (in Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches [2008]) that Roman houses were ‘leaky’ and, therefore, allowed both physical and visual access to interior spaces. Instead, P. argues that the atrium was a liminal space, shaped by varying degrees of control, the presence of ‘private’ familial or ‘public’ social functions (i.e. the salutatio, funerary rituals and marriage ceremonies) and temporally shifting multisensory signatures. According to P. the control of architectonic space and the orchestration of the atrium-tablinum zone's sensory environment were, ultimately, manifestations of the homeowner's power (pp. 85, 88–9, 112, 117).
Chapter 5 similarly describes the cubiculum's sensory signature as a factor in defining its relative ‘privacy’, while acknowledging the various functions of this household space as used for storage, cloth working, sleeping and the reception of guests (pp. 133–4, citing A. Riggsby, JRA 10 [1997], 36–56; E.W. Leach, in S.E. Bon and R. Jones [edd.], Sequence and Space in Pompeii [1997]; and P.M. Allison, Pompeian Households: an Analysis of the Material Culture [2004]). As identified in the previous chapter, P. considers the presence or absence of door panels (or other visual barriers), distances from service areas and the role these played in separating cubicula from exterior sensations (e.g. sounds, odours, light). The cubiculum's resulting multisensory environment converged with architectonic design features and room furnishings to create a domestic space that was conducive to ‘privacy’ and concealment (pp. 139, 154). Expanding the investigation into sunlighting and shade (cf. M. Shepperson, Sunlight and Shade in the First Cities: a Sensory Archaeology of Early Iraq [2017]) would have enriched the findings presented in this chapter.
Moving beyond the ‘public–private’ character of household spaces, P. argues (Chapter 6) for a cultivated multisensory dining experience in household triclinia as a means of communicating the homeowner's power and status. In addition to the gustatory pleasures of the table, P. discusses how the triclinium location was selected to distance diners from unpleasant sensory experiences and often located (e.g. opened to or within gardens) to maximise exposure to the scents of flowers, sounds of birds and views of the sea. This pleasant multisensory environment was augmented by the luxurious fabrics and cushions that covered dining couches (as seen in wall frescos), the manipulation of a room's microclimate with fans or braziers, the convivial sounds of diners, the clattering of tableware and the pleasant (and sometimes unpleasant) odours of foods, lamps, garden flora and one's dinner companions. This theatrical display, P. suggests, was orchestrated by the homeowner as a manifestation of his status and wealth (pp. 166–74).
Given the expense of this volume, one must note a few disappointing production features and distracting editorial gaffes: the volume is profusely illustrated with grainy greyscale images, a flaw that sometimes makes it difficult to identify details referenced in the text. Architectural plans are often, though not always, oriented to true north and doorways/room numbers are sometimes mislabelled (e.g. p. 95, figs 4.7, 4.8); there are occasional errors in referencing and the bibliography (e.g. S.R. Joshel and L.H. Petersen, The Material Life of Roman Slaves [2014], throughout Chapter 7). Tables 2–5 in Chapter 7, which list houses by name, but not by address, fail to explicitly quantify distances and, in a few cases, miss kitchen locations next to Pompeian side streets (pp. 200–3).
Despite these issues and some investigatory paths not taken, the volume represents a useful contribution to sensory studies of domestic space for the amount of research P. synthesises. Her work prompts scholars to move beyond two-dimensional architectural plans and the usual analyses of vision and movement towards a consideration of the complex sensory experiences of life in the Roman house. Overall, P. succeeds in reanimating ancient habitations and demonstrates how domestic spaces and multisensory environments were constructed to shape the corporeal experience of householders and guests. Whether the control and curation of domestic sensoria should always be read as an expression of elite power and status is less clear.
