Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T02:12:05.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - A Response: ‘Using the Material and Written Sources’ Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2022

By
Penelope Allison
Edited by
J. A. Baird  and
April Pudsey
J. A. Baird
Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, University of London
April Pudsey
Affiliation:
Manchester Metropolitan University
Get access

Summary

Penelope Allison’s 2001 article on using material and written sources to study Roman domestic space has framed the debate on the topic more broadly for ancient world housing. In this chapter, she revisits that contribution and responses to it, and surveys the theoretical and methodological frameworks of the chapters in the volume. By examining the nature of the data, analytical and interpretative approaches to them, and the research questions, Allison assesses the extent to which the two decades since her critique have produced more critically engaged scholarship, particularly in approaches to relationships between textual and material evidence.

Keywords

changing approachesusing the data household assemblagesanalogy
Type
Chapter
Information
Housing in the Ancient Mediterranean World
Material and Textual Approaches
 , pp. 470 - 494
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, P. M. (1992a). The distribution of Pompeian house contents and its significance (PhD thesis, University of Sydney. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services no. 9400463, 1994).Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1992b). Artefact assemblages: not the Pompeii Premise. In Herring, E., Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J., eds., Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology, London 1990, 3, pt I. London: Accordia Research Centre, 49–56.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1992c). The relationship between decoration and room type in Pompeian houses: a case study of the Casa della Caccia Antica. Journal of Roman Archaeology 5, 235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1993). How do we identify the use of space in Roman housing? In Moorman, E., ed., Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, Annual papers in Classical Archaeology 3. Leiden: Babesch, 1–8.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1997a). Artefact distribution and spatial function in Pompeian houses. In Rawson, B. and Weaver, P., eds., The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 321–54.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1997b). Roman households: an archaeological perspective. In Parkins, H. M., ed., Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City. London and New York: Routledge, 112–46.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1999a). Introduction. In Allison, P. M., ed., The Archaeology of Household Activities. London and New York: Routledge, 1–18.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (1999b). Labels for ladles: interpreting the material culture of Roman households. In Allison, P. M., ed., The Archaeology of Household Activities. London and New York: Routledge, 57–77.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (2001a). Using the material and the written sources: turn of the millennium approaches to Roman domestic space. American Journal of Archaeology 105, 181–208.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (2001b). Placing individuals: Pompeian epigraphy in context. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14(1), 54–75.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (2008). Household archaeology. In Pearsall, D., ed., Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London: Elsevier, 1449–58.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (2013). People and Spaces in Roman Military Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (2015). Characterising Roman artefacts for investigating gendered practices in contexts without sexed bodies. American Journal of Archaeology 119(1), 103–23.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M. (2020). Who Came to Tea at the Old Kinchega Homestead: Tablewares and Teawares and Social Interaction at an Australian Outback Homestead. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2964. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Allison, P. M., Pitts, M. and Colley, S., eds. (2018). Special issue: Big Data on the Roman Table: New Approaches to Tablewares in the Roman World. Internet Archaeology 50.Google Scholar
Bergmann, B. (2001). House of cards: a response to R. A. Tybout. Journal of Roman Archaeology 14, 56–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, N. (2002). Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Caraher, W. R., Hall, L. J. and Moore, R. S. (2008). Introduction: A tribute to Timothy E. Gregory. In Caraher, W. R. and Hall, L. J., eds., Archaeology and History in Roman, Medieval and Post-medieval Greece: Studies on Method and Meaning in Honor of Timothy E. Gregory. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ciolek-Tiorello, R. S. (1984). An alternative model for room function from the Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. In Heitala, H. J., ed., Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 127–53.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. R. (1991). The Houses of Roman Italy 100 BC – AD 250: Ritual, Space and Decoration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cool, H. E. M. (2007). Telling stories about Brougham, or the importance of the specialist report. In Hingley, R. and Willis, S., eds., Roman Finds: Context and Theory. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Durham. Oxford: Oxbow, 54–58.Google Scholar
Cougle, L. (2008). Dress and social identities: the role of GIS in mapping social structure in the central Italian Iron Age cemetery of Osteria dell’Osa. In P. M. Allison, ed., Dealing with Legacy Data. Internet Archaeology 24.Google Scholar
Dyer, T. H. (1867). Pompeii: Its History, Buildings and Antiquities. London: Bell and Dawdy.Google Scholar
Dyson, S. L. (1997). Some random thoughts on a collection of papers on Roman archaeology. In Bon, S. E. and Jones, R., eds., Sequence and Space in Pompeii. Oxford: Oxbow, 150–57.Google Scholar
Foxhall, L. (2004). Field sports: engaging Greek archaeology and history. In Sauer, E., ed., Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking down the Boundaries. London and New York: Routledge, 76–84.Google Scholar
Gazda, E., ed., (1991). Roman Art in the Private Sphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Décor of the Domus, Villa and Insula. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
George, M. (2004). Domestic architecture and household relations: Pompeii and Roman Ephesos. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Goldberg, M. Y. (1999). Spatial and behavioural negotiation in Classical Athenian city houses. In Allison, P. M., ed., The Archaeology of Household Activities. London and New York: Routledge, 142–61.Google Scholar
Hales, S. (2000). At home with Cicero. Greece and Rome 47, 44–55.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. (2013). Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Affect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, O. and Cipolla, C. (2017). Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, B. (2004). Tacitus, Agricola and the role of literature in the archaeology of the first century AD. In Sauer, E., ed., Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking down the Boundaries. London and New York: Routledge, 151–65.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. (2005). Archaeology and the body. Annual Review of Anthropology 34, 139–58.Google Scholar
LaMotta, V. M. and Schiffer, M. B. (1999). Formation processes of house floor assemblages. In Allison, P. M., ed., The Archaeology of Household Activities. London and New York: Routledge, 19–29.Google Scholar
Laurence, R. (1997). Space and text. In Laurence, R. and Wallace-Hadrill, A., eds., Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 22. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 7–14.Google Scholar
Laurence, R. (2004). The uneasy dialogue between ancient history and archaeology. In Sauer, E., ed., Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking down the Boundaries. London and New York: Routledge, 99–113.Google Scholar
Leach, E. (1993). The entrance room in the House of Iulius Polybius and the nature of the Roman vestibulum. In Moorman, E., ed., Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving, Annual Papers in Classical Archaeology 3. Leiden: Babesch, 23–33.Google Scholar
Leach, E. W. (1997). Oecus on Ibycus: investigating the vocabulary of the Roman house. In Bon, S. E. and Jones, R., eds., Sequence and Space in Pompeii. Oxford: Oxbow, 50–72.Google Scholar
Leach, E. W. (2004). The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, K. M. (2011). The Symposium in Context. Pottery from a Late Archaic House near the Athenian Agora. Hesperia Supplement 46. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.Google Scholar
Mattingly, D. J. (1997). Beyond belief: drawing a line beneath the consumer city. In Parkins, H. M., ed., Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City. London and New York: Routledge, 210–18.Google Scholar
Oakley, J. H. (2004). Picturing Death in Classical Athens: The Evidence of the White Lekythoi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawson, B. (2003). The Roman family in recent research: state of the question. Biblical Interpretation 11(2), 119–38.Google Scholar
Rawson, B. and Weaver, P., eds. (1997). The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggsby, A. (1997). ‘Private’ and ‘public’ in Roman culture: the case of the cubiculum. Journal of Roman Archaeology 10, 36–56.Google Scholar
Riggsby, A. (2003). Pliny in space and time. Arethusa 36, 167–86.Google Scholar
Sauer, E. W., ed., (2004). Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking down the Boundaries. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. (1987). Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico (republished 1996, Salt Lake City).Google Scholar
Schouwenberg, H. (2015). Back to the future? History, material culture and new materialism. International Journal of History, Culture and Modernity 3(1), 59–72.Google Scholar
Skeates, R. (2010). An Archaeology of the Senses: Prehistoric Malta. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (1992). Braudel’s temporal rhythms and chronological theory in archaeology. In Knapp, A. B., ed., Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–34.Google Scholar
Tamm, B. (1973). Some notes on Roman houses. Opuscula Romana IX.6, 53–60.Google Scholar
Tybout, R. A. (2001). Roman wall-painting and social significance. Journal of Roman Archaeology 14, 33–56.Google Scholar
Vom Bruck, G. (1997). A House Turned Inside Out: Inhabiting Space in a Yemini City. Journal of Material Culture 2, 139–72.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. F. (1990). The social spread of Roman luxury: sampling Pompeii and Herculaneum. Papers of the British School at Rome 58, 145–92.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. F. (1994). Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, D. (1998). New approaches to old problems. In Whitley, D., ed., Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-processual and Cognitive Approaches. London: Routledge, 1–28.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (1985). Reactions against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8. New York: Springer, 63–111.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (1989). Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein’s ‘Options beyond objectivism and relativism’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19, 1–18.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×