Stephan T.A.M. Mols
The wall paintings of Ostia - status quaestionis and future prospects
Bulletin Antieke Beschaving (Bulletin of Ancient Civilization), 77 (2002), 151-174.
Translated from the Italian by Jan Theo Bakker, with the permission of the author.
If we want to gain a deeper understanding of Roman painting from the imperial period after the 1st century AD, in a more specific way than the current literature allows, the research must start in Ostia. In Rome itself, the number of wall paintings from that time is constantly increasing, up to the present day. New finds are recorded every year. Sometimes the paintings are largely intact, but in most cases their condition is fragmented and their heterogeneity makes it rather difficult to reach a coherent overall picture. The material found in Ostia is more homogeneous and, in a relative sense, more numerous than the material from Rome. It therefore seems logical to gain more knowledge of the material from Ostia before turning our attention to the finds that have surfaced in the capital.
In this contribution some aspects of painting in Ostia will be considered from the earliest remains, which can be attributed to the 2nd century BC, up to the 4th century AD. I will also discuss the history of studies related to wall painting and the current state of research. A first attempt will be made to arrive at a new chronological order of the material, that could serve as a basis for future research. In contrast to the past, in which precise dates have been assigned to almost all paintings found until then, recent studies are much more sceptical of these assignments to periods. Many 'precise' dates remain open, but their number may increase in the coming decades with the help of studies based on external dating, such as architectural and epigraphic analyses.
When walls and ceilings were painted in Roman times, the surface covered by the decoration coincided with the entire wall or ceiling. Therefore, such decorations are difficult to compare with what we usually consider 'paintings', which only cover part of a wall. However, isolated compositions, somewhat similar to our paintings and often also surrounded by a frame, were sometimes part of the larger painting covering the wall or ceiling. Autonomous paintings, hung or placed on easels, certainly existed: they are referred to repeatedly in written sources. However, none of these works has been preserved, which is a real shame as they were probably of much higher quality than the paintings that have been preserved so far.
The history of painting in Ostia that follows is therefore necessarily an overview of the decoration of the walls and ceilings, and of all the figurative elements that formed part of them. Before concentrating on Ostia, however, it makes sense to provide a general characterization of Roman painting. I will first discuss the walls, then the ceilings, and finally a series of general features common to the paintings on the two different surfaces.
The walls are often divided horizontally into zones: from a minimum of two to a maximum of four, but there is almost always a main zone and an upper zone. In many cases, but not always, there is a plinth at the bottom, below the main area, and another band can be fitted between the plinth and the main area, or above it. The division of the wall into different zones is often reminiscent of an architectural separation. The different ways in which the painters structured the pictorial surface made it possible to define real 'systems' in wall painting, often based on the imitation of elements and motifs derived from architecture: marble slabs or decorations with paratactic panels, sometimes separated through architectural elements such as aediculae, structures consisting of columns supporting beams and resembling a temple. More complex are the so-called parade facades, systems of which sometimes also a 'painting' formed part. Less frequent are free compositions and 'iterative' schemes.
The ceilings, whether square, polygonal or round in shape, usually have patterns arranged symmetrically from the centre. For rectangular surfaces the system consists of a central square with two bands on the sides or an elongated composition. In this article, we will only briefly mention these types of surfaces.
The history of Roman wall painting can be told by describing the different fashions that have emerged over time: the use of certain systems, their representation and the range of colours used, as well as the ways of adding figures and ornaments. The shape and position, central or otherwise, of any 'pictures' can in turn give an indication of when a particular decoration appeared on the scene. The iconography of the central scenes, of the 'paintings', but also of other figurative elements is always relevant. Recent studies of wall painting, and this includes the material from Ostia, also pay close attention to the original context, if known, in which the paintings were placed and their relationship to the surrounding architecture. The aim, of course, is to gain a better understanding of the use of the rooms and ultimately of daily life in ancient times. In this field of study, wall decorations from the Roman era are seen less and less as artistic products and instead increasingly as part of all the effects of interior architecture, in the same way as floors, and thus as a reflection of the choices and wishes of the clients with regard to the cladding of the buildings, but especially of ordinary people with regard to their personal living environment. As is the case in Ostia, where the paintings almost never come from important public buildings, but mostly from small bath buildings or from houses, in some cases from small shrines.
Now that we are going to discuss specifically the murals of Ostia, we may note in general several techniques used for their realization. To begin with, many paintings have a fine stucco layer that is applied to a mortar substrate. The fine stucco contains lime dust, in the case of precious decorations even marble dust. On this layer the decoration was applied, usually when the lime was still fresh, but in Ostia there are abundant examples of work that was clearly done when the lime was already partially or completely dry. In many cases this has prevented a good grip and resulted in the loss of the entire surface layer or large parts thereof, so that today we do not know exactly what the painting looked like at the time of realization.
Another method of applying the paint is the one we also know from Pompeii, where it was mainly used for the texts on the outer walls of buildings. It is a mixture of tempera and lime milk that was applied directly in a thin layer on the substrate, for example on bricks, or on an existing plaster layer.[2] In these cases too the top layer did not adhere sufficiently, so that today it is almost always preserved in a fragmentary state. In Ostia, however, a trained eye can recognize remnants of this type of decoration in many places.
OSTIA AND THE POMPEIAN STYLES
Until recently it was thought that the history of wall paintings in Ostia began where that of Pompeii ended, that is, towards the end of the first century AD or even later, during the second century. It is significant that Carel Claudius van Essen, in his discussion of the chronological framework of Ostia's wall decoration, published in the years 1956-1958, doesn't start until the time of Hadrian, without any mention of the preceding period. In the first edition of his work "Roman Ostia" (1960), Russell Meiggs adjusts this position by rightly noting that little or nothing remains of buildings before the second century AD, including their decoration. Most of the remaining decoration of buildings dates back to the 2nd century AD. But especially in the excavations of recent years, which - contrary to what has happened so often in the past - go beyond the layers corresponding to the beginning of the second century AD, more and more remains of frescoes from previous periods appear.
Although Ostian material from earlier times is scarce, fragments of all four styles, or rather periods in which Pompeian painting has traditionally been divided, have been preserved. The subdivision of the Pompeian paintings into four styles, proposed as early as 1882 by the German archaeologist August Mau, is still the starting point for the study of the painted decoration of the walls and ceilings in Pompeii. This subdivision is also a parameter for the classification of Roman paintings from other sites. A subdivision that, as has been said, does not so much identify styles as periods that elaborate architectural elements in different ways. In light of the similarities with the large amount of material from Pompeii, we may assume that the history of the paintings of walls and ceilings in Ostia before the 2nd century AD developed in a way almost similar to that of cities like Pompeii and Rome itself, which in turn has yielded a large amount of material. Moreover, it is to be expected that, with the increase in the number of excavations of layers dating back to periods before the second century AD, the number of wall decorations dating back to the period before Hadrian will also increase.
An example of very old fragments are the remains found recently during the excavations carried out by the University of Reading in the House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2; fig. 1). These fragments show the stucco relief with which wall decoration made with different types of marble was imitated, usually in a realistic way, typical of the decorative repertoire from the period stretching from about 200 to 80 BC, the so-called First Pompeian Style. There are several examples, albeit in a fragmentary state, of what is called the Second Pompeian Style, in which the characteristic relief of the First Style is less and the paintings become two-dimensional, a style that, through the extensive use of painted architecture, is also referred to as architectural style (about 80-15 BC). The same is true of the Third Style (about 15 BC - 45 AD), which makes abundant use of decorative elements and transforms the architecture of the previous period into flat and two-dimensional decorative motifs. To the Second Style can be attributed, for example, the fragments painted with architectural elements that appeared during the excavations carried out in 1998 below the Schola of Trajan (IV v 15), in the peristyle of a republican domus.[3] A good example of the Third Style are the painted fragments from the House of the Fishes (IV iii 3).[4] Fragments found in the Macellum (VI v 2), showing a panel with a panther, seem to belong to the transition from the Third to the Fourth Style.[5]
Larger surfaces with paintings in situ can be assigned to the Fourth Style, which obviously ends in Pompeii with the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, but which remained fashionable elsewhere for some time. The paintings of the Fourth Style, on the one hand, continue to resort to the decorative repertoire of the Third Style, reusing on the other hand the architectural elements as a defining component. However, because of the often fantastic shapes, these elements have a weaker link to reality than the examples of the Second Style.
Since we are familiar with the material from the Vesuvian cities, it is in many cases not difficult to date, at least approximately, material found elsewhere in Italy. But of course there is no lack of variations that can be traced back to, for example, local workshops, to the use of materials and techniques that are typical for a place, or to specific wishes of the local customers. And when the differences are so striking when the finds from Pompeii are compared with the paintings unearthed in nearby Herculaneum, the greatest caution is required when evaluating material from Ostia, a city 200 kilometers further to the north. Various paintings from Ostia can be assigned to the Fourth Style on the basis of stylistic analogies, but in most cases it is impossible to give them a more precise place, also because very little is known about the history of the Fourth Style after 79 AD. Up to the present day, comparative material, datable and from Ostia, is lacking for this period, and until such material is available it will be difficult, if not impossible, to provide with certainty dates based on stylistic grounds to future discoveries.
Here I will limit myself to discussing two examples of paintings that were undoubtedly made in the period of the Fourth Style, but which according to scholars are difficult to place more precisely. The first painting can be found in building V ii 2 and shows a very simple panel decoration, with red squares standing out against a white background.[6] The panels appear to be demarcated by 'carpet edges', a typical element of the Fourth Style. The second example is a fragment found not long ago during excavations carried out by the German Archaeological Institute in Rome, in what was probably once a domus on the southern outskirts of the city, in region V.[7] Different features indicate that it is a fragment of a decoration of the Fourth Style, but there are no direct parallels from other places, not even Pompeii. Besides the hypothesis that it shows a local preference, far removed from the Pompeian examples, it is also possible that this is a fragment from the last decades of the first or the beginning of the second century AD, a period from which until now very few, if any, datable examples are known. Similar fragments have appeared in the recent excavations carried out on behalf of the Superintendency by Alfredo Marinucci and the University of Augsburg (Valentin Kockel) in the so-called Macellum (IV v 2) and its immediate vicinity.[8]
As an example of figurative scenes dating back to the reigns of the Flavian emperors or Trajan, we may note a painting with large figures in the Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2), found during excavations in the second half of the 1930s and now only partially preserved. A photograph taken at the time of the discovery shows a farmer leading two oxen, and one or more people in a small boat (fig. 2).[9] Here too the link with the Pompeian examples is evident, but it is not possible to assign a precise date on the basis of stylistic characteristics. Some panels with decorations that came to light in the House of Diana, studied by Stella Falzone and Angelo Pellegrino, belong to the same period.[10] As mentioned above, most of the paintings in Ostia of which remains have been preserved are later than the Pompeian examples. More extensive remains have only been preserved from the reign of Hadrian onwards, when, as part of the intense building activity in the city, many walls of private houses were also decorated. Compared to what we know about Pompeii, our knowledge of Roman decoration of ceilings and walls from the 2nd and 3rd century AD is really limited.[11] Now let's look at this material and the way it has been addressed in the specialized literature.
 |
 |
| Fig. 1. Fragments of the First Style. House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2). Excavations Univ. of Reading, 1999. Photo: S. Mols. |
Fig. 2. Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2). Fragment of a painting in situ during the excavations in the 1930's. Photo: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia, neg. no. 1892. |
PAINTING IN OSTIA IN THE 2ND AND EARLY 3RD CENTURY: REVIEW OF THE STUDIES
The Pompeian and Roman examples of the Fourth Style show a remarkable variation in terms of patterns, use of colour, figurative motifs and ornaments. This heterogeneity remains an essential characteristic of paintings from the second century and even part of the third century AD. The absence of genuinely innovative impulses in paintings after the first century has often resulted in paying little attention to post-Pompeian paintings. Responsible, and in no small measure, was the same August Mau, whose negative judgment we find in more than one passage.[12] It is however not appropriate to stress the beauty of Pompeian paintings in contrast to the much inferior quality of the later production. Even Pompeii never had an Apelles! It is therefore better to look at the story that the paintings of each time and place tell about people, their way of life and the furnishing of their homes. In this respect there are actually no differences and each painting can contribute to our knowledge of antiquity. The value judgment of us modern people should have no weight in this debate. In this respect Guido Calza (1920-1921, 407) has already aptly compared modern judgments about Ostia's painting with the arrows of Vitruvius directed against the paintings of his time (the late Second Style).
From the end of the first century AD, the composition of the paintings always reveals a choice within the traditional repertoire of the four Pompeian styles.[13] There are, however, focal points in well-defined periods, which make it possible to speak of conscious eclecticism, and these paintings must therefore be regarded as products of their time, even if they draw freely and abundantly from the repertoire of the four Pompeian styles.[14] To briefly characterize Ostia's painting of the second and third centuries, we can use the words of Bianca Maria Felletti Maj (1966-1968, 38), who recognizes 'the tendency towards simplicity'. It is a trend that concerns above all painted architectural elements and which ends in the total abstraction of reality, with a decorative repertoire that is now purely ornamental. Roger Ling (1991, 175) attributes this tendency to the shift of interest from the walls to the floor of a room, but the issue is a little more complicated in our opinion. It would be risky to speak of a different 'style' for Ostia's 2nd and 3rd century painting, succeeding the Fourth Style.[15] The typical characteristic of painting from this period is its eclectic character, which contrasts with the development of a new style. Local trends such as the frequent use of certain colours or architectural shapes in paintings, such as 'yellow-red style', based in the past on stylistic observations concerning different paintings attributed to a particular era, give too much the impression of a true style and go beyond the idea of deliberate eclecticism in painting until the end of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 3rd.
In order to be able to determine the sequence mentioned above, it is necessary to determine with the greatest possible precision the moment at which certain paintings were made. Unfortunately, we can only make minimal use of comparison with examples from other places: Ostia's painted heritage is perhaps the richest we have for this period, coming from one place. For the second and third centuries the number of examples is even higher than the number provided by Rome. The material from Ostia therefore seems all the more important to us. Up to the present day, however, only a small portion of this material has appeared in monographs.[16] And in the syntheses elaborated so far on the wall decoration of Ostia, and more generally on painting after the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, it is striking that the same paintings are often given different dates.[17] The reason is that in most cases the judgment is based on a purely stylistic analysis. A limitation that weighed heavily on, for example, the first chronological overview of the paintings of Ostia, which appeared after the great excavation campaign of the 1930s, written by Van Essen. Nevertheless, the dates of this scholar are still used in the archaeological literature, and the same is true of the dates formulated by Maurizio Borda in his work "La pittura romana" (1958), based mainly on older stylistic dates, often questionable. Both authors have rightly been the object of criticism, among others by Harald Mielsch (1981 and recently 2001), who repeatedly expressed himself too cautiously. The risk of dating based on stylistic considerations is evident from the considerable gap that exists between the dates proposed by scientists for the same work. The best example is the case of the famous charioteers in the apartment building of the same name (III x 1; fig. 3): these are dated between 160 (Mielsch 1981, 226) and 260-280 AD. (Dorigo 1971, 113).
Fig. 3. House of the Charioteers (III x 1), corridor of the charioteers, painting with charioteers.
Photo: S. Mols.
In addition to the stylistic analysis, dating criteria have been applied from architecture, or rather the sequence of construction phases and the construction techniques used, taking into account, among other things, the appearance of the masonry and brick stamps. A procedure that was not always valid in the beginning, as shown by Fritz Wirth's misuse of the thickness of the bricks as a criterion for the dating of the paintings. On the other hand, starting from sculpture, this scholar presents as a basis for his classification for each period a study of the taste of the time, the 'Zeitgeist', like neoclassicism for the Hadrianic period. In this way he composes an image of the art of that period and subsequently assigns those paintings to a period that in his opinion are related to it. With these ingredients, the dating of the walls and the 'Zeitgeist', Wirth tried to formulate syntheses. Without success, however, because, as we know today, it is really impossible to define the 'Zeitgeist' when a basis of absolute data is missing. Van Essen, too, uses brick stamps to date the paintings, although not in a coherent way, and therefore many of the proposed dates are too late, a mistake that especially concerns the post-Severan paintings. However, the idea of taking the study of architecture as a starting point is very interesting.
After these first attempts, scholars continued with the analysis of the decorative repertoire of some individual buildings, and a series of monographs or more extensive articles appeared. First of all, mention can be made of the three volumes of the series "Monuments of ancient painting discovered in Italy", in which the painted decorations were published of the House of the Painted Vaults and the House of the Yellow Walls (both composed by Bianca Maria Felletti-Maj), of the House of the Muses (Bianca Maria Felletti-Maj and Paolo Moreno), and those of the Inn of the Peacock (Carlo Gasparri). The fourth part of the series, written by Paola Baccini Leotardi, was not devoted to a single complex, but to a type of painting with garden decorations in bath buildings in Ostia. In his 1981 review, Mielsch accepts most of the dates proposed by these scholars, except for a few reservations.
In her book "The Decoration of Walls, Ceilings, and Floors in Italy in the Second and Third Centuries AD" (1981), Hetty Joyce formulated a detailed typology of the different systems identified in post-Pompeian painting, also including numerous Ostian paintings. Many of the dates seem a little late, but the proposed scheme is of great use to sketch a framework of painting in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, both in Ostia and elsewhere in Italy.[18] Finally, of great interest is a group of studies in recent years examining specific types of painted decorations (Claudia Liedtke 1995: walls with griffins) or one or more building complexes (Falzone / Pellegrino 1996, with an analysis of the House of Themistocles, especially 203-205; Falzone 1999: House of Diana; Mols 1996, 1997, 1999 and 1999a: House of Serapis and House of the Charioteers).
Recent reviews that consider the development of post-Pompeian Roman painting and together also evaluate the material from Ostia include the work of Mielsch (1981, in particular 213-218 for Ostia), Ling (1991), Eric Moormann (1998) and recently again Mielsch (2001, passim). The chapter in Raymond Chevallier's book on Ostia (1986, 214-220) is primarily a summary of previous writings on the subject. Finally, a number of paintings is the subject of analysis in the work of John Clarke (1991, 266-361), who focuses in particular on the iconography of the depictions in the different rooms and the relationship between floor and wall. This scholar takes above all the whole into account and promotes a contextual approach. However, it should be noted that he uses partially incorrect dates, as recent studies show (see below).
TOWARDS A NEW CHRONOLOGY OF THE PAINTINGS IN OSTIA
Following the path taken by the monographs that examine in detail the decorative repertoire of individual building complexes is the best way to get a real understanding of Ostian painting. The first steps in this direction are Stella Falzone's (1999) study of the paintings of the House of Diana and the present author's analysis of the painted decorations of Insula III x, including the Houses of the Charioteers and of Serapis, and the Baths of the Seven Sages.[19] These studies combine the relative chronology of the wall decorations with an architectural analysis, in order to highlight more clearly the succession of the different decorative systems, sometimes reverting to stylistic comparisons with material found elsewhere that is dated with certainty.[20] They also take into account another important aspect, namely the assessment of the quality of the stucco and the paintings.[21]
The starting point of the architectural analysis are brick stamps that can form a terminus post quem.[22] Graffiti sometimes contain the record of a specific year and thus provide a terminus ante quem. As an example, we can mention a graffito in the House of the Charioteers with the names of the consuls of the year 150 AD and another in the House of Jupiter and Ganymede, where we can read the month 'Commodus', a name of which we know that it was in only use in 190 and 191 AD (fig. 4). Sometimes even the inscriptions related in some way to the construction or renovation of a building provide a terminus post quem, where one may think for example of the stamps on lead waterpipes ('fistulae aquariae'), and sometimes even a terminus ante quem, as in the case of a brick stamp in a wall placed against an existing wall on which a painting is still preserved in situ. At best, the combination of this kind of external data can provide an upper and lower boundary for the dating of a painting. The next step could be to use such dates as a reference for dating similar decorations in other places. However, some caution is advised with this type of comparison, performed on the basis of internal formal criteria. On the other hand, this method may provide a better understanding of the phenomenon of customers, the way of working in the workshops and the relationship between decoration and use of the environment.
Fig. 4. House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2), corridor, south wall, graffito.
Drawing: T. Jenkins / W. Loerts.
In the following summary of painting in Ostia from the second and third centuries we have chosen to present some characteristic examples. Current knowledge of the materials and uncertainty about the exact dating of numerous examples do not yet allow us to understand all the systems that exist in each individual period. As mentioned earlier, this requires more detailed studies of individual building complexes.
THE HADRIANIC PERIOD
The oldest paintings of which more than one specimen has been preserved in situ in the buildings in Ostia date from the reign of Hadrian, such as those found in the House of the Muses (III ix 22). There are two dominant patterns, on a coloured background and on a white background. Both are illustrated here with an example. In room X (fig. 5) the colour scheme is very reminiscent of the Fourth Style: above a predominantly red plinth, the main zone has a central red panel on which a 'picture' is present, and then some flanking yellow panels, separated by a motif of open doors and windows, partly with glimpses of human figures. The decoration was executed in rich detail, in particular with columns, candelabra and elaborate decorative bands.[23]
 |
|
 |
Top. Fig. 5. House of the Muses (III ix 22), room X, south wall. Photo: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia. Bottom. Fig. 6. House of the Muses (III ix 22), room IX, east wall. Photo: S. Mols. |
In room IX the decoration of the main and upper zone consists of panels on a white background, separated by yellow pilasters surmounted by candelabra (fig. 6). Only the top black edge of the plinth has been preserved. Figures float in the panels of the main zone, all coming from the realm of the god Dionysus, flanked by architectural elements around which very fine garlands are arranged. On the wall depicted here, Dionysus is in a central position and a Maenad in each side panel. In the central frame of the upper zone an almond-shaped object vertically encloses a winged female figure that stands out against a red background. The whole is framed by thin candelabra and vertical rectangular panels. A 'pinax' appears in the centre of the side panels with a standing figure above. In this area too the ornamentation is extraordinarily rich and includes very fine garlands. This type of decoration shows great affinity with the paintings of the Fourth Style on a white background that are known to us from Pompeii.[24] It should be noted, however, that the illusionism is less accentuated in the Ostian paintings than in the first century examples. Moreover, the accuracy of the rendering generates a certain coolness mixed with neutrality, while the use of many colours changes the balance of the whole. It is not without reason that these paintings have been interpreted as products belonging to the tradition of the Fourth Style with the addition of stylistic elements from the Augustan period.[25] Both paintings show the same refinement of the ornamental repertoire and the precision of painting that also characterize several examples from the Villa Hadriana in Tivoli, even though here the degree of perfection is much greater because we are dealing with the decorations of an imperial villa. This applies to all the paintings in the cryptoporticus of the so-called prytaneion and those in the Small Baths.[26]
The situation is quite different as regards the free compositions of the same period, such as the depictions of four of the seven ancient wise men decorating the walls of a small room in the Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2; fig. 7), or those of the fish that once adorned the walls of the nearby pool and of which not much is left today.[27] However, predecessors of the latter type are also known, for example in Pompeii.
The examples that we discussed show already that a number of Ostian paintings from the Hadrianic period still shows such consistent similarities with the Pompeian and Roman paintings of the Fourth Style that it may be necessary to move the end of the Fourth Style to the time of Hadrian.
Fig. 7. Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2), painting with sages, south and west wall.
Photo: S. Mols.
FROM THE ANTONINE TO THE SEVERAN PERIOD
The patterns that characterize the remainder of the second century and undoubtedly also the beginning of the third century are in many ways similar to those of the previous era. New impulses are lacking, which is one of the reasons why we cannot speak of a Fifth Style.[28] However, for each period different choices were made regarding the repertoire of patterns and motifs, most of which appear to have been established before the end of the first century AD. Besides and despite this eclectic character, there is a use of colour linked to the precise historical moment as well as real fashion in the way of painting. There is, on the other hand, a general tendency towards an ever-increasing simplification and stylization of systems, whereby the link with the architectural model is becoming increasingly weaker, even though in substance it is always present. At that time, 'architecture' was probably no longer regarded as such by many painters or even the contemporary viewer. Perhaps it could be defined as an abstraction process, which can also be seen in other forms of Roman artistic craftsmanship during this period. Certainly throughout the second century and still at the beginning of the third century AD, the difference between polychrome walls and walls where white panels predominate persists.
Much has been said about the 'crooked' lines and the remarkable inaccuracies seen in many of the paintings made from the Antonine period onwards. According to some authors, these are desired effects.[29] Russell Meiggs (1973, 438) on the other hand, believes that the phenomenon should rather be attributed to the great speed of execution of the paintings, and that it is not about the combination of lines of curved panels with very fine and extensive details. It is more likely that the lines of the panels and the details were made by different hands, which could give us an idea of the division of labour within the Ostian workshops of the time. Ultimately, what mattered was the overall effect and not so much the detail.
In the best and most precious paintings from the Antonine period, a tendency towards simplification initially emerges: the overall picture becomes calmer than in the past.[30] Glimpses diminish as architecture and figures appear in front of walls without openings. In the polychrome examples the colours are generally quite intense and dark, with red, yellow and ochre as the dominant background. Other colours are also used for frames and smaller surfaces. A good example of this evolution is the room of the Muses in the House of the Muses (III ix 22), which was dated too early in the past, already corrected by Mielsch.[31]
We also see patterns composed of white and sometimes yellow fields, separated by large dark bands, sometimes with quite rich decoration still reminiscent of the walls with a white background from the Hadrianic period, by comparison however looking a lot 'sloppier', perhaps because of a hasty execution. One may for example have a look at the decoration on the south wall of room 28 in the House of the Charioteers (III x 1; fig. 8), which is dated around 150 AD, based on the graffito with the names of the consuls of that year mentioned above.[32] The clear stylistic similarity with the paintings on white panels with still lives in the centre, in different rooms of the House of the Mithraeum of Lucretius Menander (I iii 5), points to the same workshop and a similar dating.[33]
Fig. 8. House of the Charioteers (III x 1), room 28, south wall.
In the centre a painting with a horseman and a deer.
Photo: S. Mols.
Fig. 9. House of the Charioteers (III x 1), room 28, south wall.
Ccentral painting with a horseman and a deer (detail of fig. 8).
Photo: S. Mols.
With the passage of time the composition becomes vivid again, as the decoration panels no longer follow the traditional division into three superimposed areas, but are of different sizes and are scattered on the wall for seemingly complex reasons, as happens in the main room called 'tablinum' of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2; fig. 10). Here brown and black are added to the main colours yellow and red as the background colours of the panels, and the whole gives the idea of a patchwork quilt. In most cases, however, the systems remain symmetrical. Similar decorations can be found in the larger rooms of the two other houses of the same insula, the House of the Infant Bacchus (I iv 3) and the House of the Paintings (I iv 4), even though these are less well preserved.
The paintings of the Garden Houses and the House of the Priestesses can also be dated around 150 AD. They show striking similarities, even when they belong to different houses or apartments.[34]
Fig. 10. House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2), tablinum (room VII), back wall (east).
In the centre a painting with Jupiter and Ganymede and Leda with the swan.
Photo: S. Mols.
Fig. 11. House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2), tablinum (room VII), back wall (east).
In the centre a painting with Jupiter and Ganymede and Leda with the swan (detail of fig. 10).
Photo: S. Mols.
It should be noted that from the Antonine period onwards real 'pictures' in the centre of the decorations with panels become very rare: the scene called 'with Jupiter and Ganymede' in the house of the same name is one of the few examples that exist today (fig. 11). The 'picture' is much like a window framed by some kind of elusive architectural background, which cannot create the effect of depth now. The name of the scene does not do justice to the content, because the painting also shows another love story of Jupiter, namely that of Leda and the swan. The combination of two mythological scenes in one painting is very rare in Roman painting.[35] In this period there are also small pictures and still lives, but their frames often appear only half finished, as in the case of the horseman and the deer in room 28 of the House of the Charioteers (III x 1; fig. 9). And furthermore, again in the panels, there are above all isolated figures that almost seem to float in the air. An important change to note is that these figures are almost never found in the centre of the panel, but always just above or below it, as in the Room of the Muses in the House of the Muses (III ix 22; fig. 12). Sometimes they even go beyond the frame of the panel, as is the case with some figures in the so-called tablinum of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede (fig. 13).
 |
|
 |
Top. Fig. 12. House of the Muses (III ix 22), room of the Muses, south wall. Photo: Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia. Bottom. Fig. 13. House of the Muses (III ix 22), tablinum (room VII), north wall, detail. Photo: S. Mols. |
In addition to the more elaborate examples, there are several simpler decorations, originally designed for the secondary areas, of rooms attributed to the Fourth Style. In this type of painting, the palette often only consists of red, yellow and green colours within panels on a white background.[36] The figurative scenes of the panels are quite simple and are mainly composed of animals such as eagles, swallows, dolphins and lobsters, fantastic animals such as griffins, theatrical masks and sometimes even crockery, hanging on a rope. Claudia Liedtke has been working on this type of decoration.[37] In the last decades of the 2nd century, the increasing stylization of these decorations gradually weakened the link with the corresponding models and the so-called linear systems come to the fore, which will ultimately form the wall decoration par excellence. For the first time in nearly a century we could speak of a true 'style' again, due to the fundamental difference with the examples from the previous period and the fact that the type of decoration is not limited to Ostia alone. It is rightly referred to as 'linear style', also known as the catacomb style, so popular in the 3rd and early 4th century. However, it is a style not only found in the catacombs. In Ostia we find it, for example, in the House of the Triple Windows (III iii 1; fig. 14) in a form very close to examples in Rome, in the house under S. Giovanni in Laterano,[38] and in a more abstract form in room XIV of the Inn of the Peacock (IV ii 6; fig. 15). Fabrizio Bisconti (1998, 36) notes 'a gradual impoverishment of the supporting structures of the architectural system, so much so that the fantastic theatrical scenery, so beloved for the decor of the houses of the Neronic and Flavian eras, are reduced to airy and delicate pavilions that, through inventiveness and fantasy, are reminiscent of the so-called Fourth Pompeian Style, but only as a vague and distant memory.'
Fig. 14. House of the Triple Windows (III iii 1), linear painting in situ.
Photo: S. Mols.
Fig. 15. Inn of the Peacock (IV ii 6), room XIV, north wall.
Photo: S. Mols.
Between these two types of decorations is a type with yellow, monochrome walls and rather flattened architectural elements, mainly brown and red, as is the case in room IX or 33 of the House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2; fig. 16).
Completely separate from the systems illustrated so far is a decoration in the House or Domus of the Eagle (IV v 8) with a strikingly repetitive design above a pedestal of imitated marble (fig. 17): intersecting circles of red, green and grey-blue. The painting is undoubtedly an exceptional case for Ostia and the late empire, which nevertheless fits in a precise tradition. A study on this type of decoration is being prepared by Lara Laken.[39]
 |
|
 |
Top. Fig. 16. House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2), room IX / 33, west wall. Photo: S. Mols. Bottom. Fig. 17. House of the Eagle (IV v 8), room 6, east wall. Photo: S. Mols. |
Several walls of the House of the Yellow Walls (III ix 12), decorated with alternating red, yellow and green areas with panel decoration, date from the early Severan era (fig. 18). In addition to the described decorations, traditional schemes again flourished in the Severan period, with an aedicula in the main body with a figure floating in the centre or parade facades. The spatial illusion returns and the colour gamut is enriched again, even though the preference for dark colours is clear. The paintings of the Inn of the Peacock (IV ii 6) probably date from the first decades of the third century. Here, above a low plinth imitating a single type of marble, the main and upper parts appear to be divided into squares that are almost never aligned and even less symmetrical with each other. These fields mainly have a coloured background, but combinations of coloured and white backgrounds are also found, with two systems from the Antonine period as a model. An important example is the south wall of room IX (fig. 19). The main zones of the type just described can also be found above surprisingly high plinths, even up to two meters, where plants and garden furniture are coarsely painted on a thick reddish-brown background, as is the case in the Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2; fig. 20).[40]
Fig. 18. House of the Yellow Walls (III ix 12), room V, south wall.
Photo: M. Sustronk.
Fig. 19. Inn of the Peacock (IV ii 6), room IX, south wall (b).
Photo: S. Mols.
Fig. 20. Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2), rooms 28-29, painting with socle with garden motifs.
Photo: S. Mols.
In addition to the systems that we discussed, there are some examples of free compositions from this period, such as the paintings of Venus Anadiomene and Venus Marina in the Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2; figs. 21 and 22), and similar paintings in the Baths of the Lighthouse (IV ii 1; fig. 23). The decorations of the Shrine of Silvanus (I iii 1), which show various changes made with lime milk, date from the year 215 or later.[41] For their dating it is important that the paintings in the Baths of the Seven Sages are later than those with high plinths with garden motifs and date from 210 or slightly later.[42]
Fig. 21. Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2), frigidarium 26, west wall, painting with Venus Anadiomene.
Photo: S. Mols.
Fig. 22. Baths of the Seven Sages (III x 2), frigidarium 26, south wall, painting with Venus Marina.
Photo: S. Mols.
Fig. 23. Baths of the Lighthouse (IV ii 1), frigidarium, east wall, painting with Nereid.
Photo: S. Mols.
Also from this period are two erotic scenes in the House of the Painted Vaults (III v 1), which recall the Pompeian decorations (fig. 24). Clarke sees these erotic paintings as signs of luxury.[43]
Fig. 24. House of the Painted Vaults (III v 1), room V, west wall, erotic scene.
Photo: S. Mols.
WALL DECORATION AFTER THE SEVERAN PERIOD
It is difficult to make clear statements about the development of Ostia's painting in the third century after the Severan period, given the lack of well-dated examples. A shortcoming that most likely has to be attributed to the technique used: the decorations were often made on lime milk, which is now in a bad condition, as in the aforementioned case of the Sacello del Silvano. Meiggs (1973, 444) considers the use of lime milk as 'a typical mark of the third century decline in living standards of the middle classes', which seems to me to be a rather daring observation due to the lack of relevant material. As for the type of system, it is likely that many paintings were superimposed on the linear systems already mentioned. The dating proposed by Van Essen for the decorations of this type in the House of the Triple Windows (III iii 1), at the time of Gallienus, is certainly too late, as has already been shown above (fig. 14).[44] There were also figurative scenes, such as a court scene found in the House of Hercules (IV ii 3). [45] When, in the course of the third century, in the more richly decorated Ostian 'domus' the application of marble cladding started once more - at least on the lower part of the walls - the imitation of that material also flourished again, with the help of schemes very similar to those widespread in the Fourth Style, even though the geometric motifs depicting the opus sectile are larger and coarser, and the imitation of the different types of marble is less realistic. A good example of this type of decoration is in the House of the Yellow Walls (III ix 12; fig. 25), where 'peltae' (shields of Amazons) and windows appear in the depiction of a marble incrustation in room VIII. However, we rarely get information about the area of the wall above this type of wall decoration. In some cases we can say that there were scenes with large figures, as is the case in the House of the Nymphaeum, where unfortunately only the lower part of the scene has been preserved, with figures standing still and others in motion.[46]
Fig. 25. House of the Yellow Walls (III ix 12), room VIII, south wall, painting with imitation of opus sectile.
Photo: S. Mols.
THE RELATION WITH THE CONTEXT
Taking into account the relationship between wall paintings and the use of space in Ostia, we cannot fail to notice that in some bath buildings, buildings with a more or less public function, the decorations are coherent with the use of the rooms: one can think of the images of Venus and of a Nereid in the Baths of the Lighthouse, and of the association of Venus Anadiomene and Venus Marina in the Baths of the Seven Sages (figs. 21-23), both probably executed in the first decades of the third century AD and certainly after 205, as noted above. The two paintings are linked to a long tradition, known through numerous Pompeian examples, such as the one in the Suburban Baths in Pompeii.[47] As for the houses, however, it is much more complex to find a connection between the painted figures and the use of spaces. Perhaps because many decorations were commissioned by the owners of the buildings without taking into account the special uses of the different rooms: in short, the tenants had maximum freedom of choice because the paintings allowed a multifunctional use of the spaces of an apartment. An indication of this practice is the fact that in some buildings different apartments have a very similar decoration: it suffices to think of the Garden Houses (III ix 13-20), or the three adjoining houses on the west side of insula I iv, the House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2), the House of the Infant Bacchus (I iv 3) and the House of the Paintings (I iv 4). However, sometimes there is a real link between the use of space and decoration, as is the case in the House of the Painted Vaults (III v 1), where the small rooms are made very bright by light walls, while in the larger representative rooms, with more windows, red and yellow predominate, sometimes even brown and black.[48]
Other figurative scenes are seen in the tomb paintings: scenes from a repertoire of frequently recurring mythological themes, which refer to death itself or are rather to be interpreted in a Dionysian sense as referring to the death and rebirth of nature. From the point of view of the systems used and the use of colour, funerary painting in Ostia takes over the patterns examined here, which were in vogue at various points in the history of the city.[49]
In various recent studies, notably by Falzone (1999, 2001) and Mols (1999 and 1999a), Ostian paintings are no longer studied only as a separate category, but increasingly in their context, and are therefore also used as a source for our knowledge of the history of individual buildings, which can ultimately reveal aspects of life in the ancient city.
HANDS OF PAINTERS AND WORKSHOPS
In some cases it is possible to attribute paintings in different contexts to a single workshop and perhaps even to the same hands of painters. Well known are the aforementioned paintings with various images of Venus or a Nereid in the Baths of the Seven Sages and in the Baths of the Lighthouse (figs. 21, 22 and 23). The style here designates one or more painters who decorated both environments. This painter or studio worked at the beginning of the 3rd century. But even earlier, around 150 AD, we see striking parallels in the systems used, and especially in the details of the added still lives (for example the frames that are only partially realized), pointing to the same workshop that was active in different rooms of the House of the Charioteers (III X 1) in two different apartments (rooms 8, 28, 30; fig. 9), and in different rooms of a house that was later turned into a mithraeum, the House of the Mithraeum of Lucretius Menander (I iii 5).[50] Also in the decorations of some garden houses (III ix 13-20), and in the houses on the west side of insula I iv, the House of Jupiter and Ganymede (I iv 2), the House of the Infant Bacchus (I iv 3) and the House of the Paintings (I iv 4), similarities point to comparable workshops. It is a desideratum for scholars to delve deeper into the problems of the workshops that operated in Ostia in the coming years.[51]
CONCLUSION
With this contribution an overview of the published studies on Ostian wall decoration was presented, as well as a proposal for new directions of studies in the near future. In this type of research it is important, as I have said, to use dating criteria as objectively as possible, such as the sequence of layers in the paintings, and external criteria such as inscriptions or brick stamps. The stylistic comparison plays a minor role, but it is by no means reprehensible. On the basis of stylistic analogies, it is certainly possible to place different paintings in the same time interval. In that case, however, it is necessary to proceed carefully and with great accuracy.
NOTES
[1] This contribution is a modified and updated version of a lecture given at the Dutch Institute in Rome on November 27, 2000, on the occasion of my return to the University of Nijmegen after a two and a half year post as scientific assistant for archaeological studies. A much abbreviated version appeared in the catalogue of the exhibition held in Geneva 'Ostia. Port and porte de la Rome antique' (ed. Jean-Paul Descoeudres, Genève 2001, 325-333). For the authorization to conduct research on Ostia's paintings I thank the Archaeological Superintendency of Ostia, and in particular the Superintendent, Dr. Anna-Gallina Zevi, and Dr. Jane Sheppard. Several colleagues made important contributions through observations, notes and in conversations on the subject. For this I especially thank: Marie-Christine van Binnebeke, Janet DeLaine, Stella Falzone, Nathalie de Haan, Michael Heinzelmann, Willian Loerts, Eric Moormann, Willem Peters and Norbert Zimmermann.
[2] On the subject of whitewashing, see one of the first reviews of Ostian painting: Calza 1920-1921, 376; also Mols 1999, especially 251-254 and 368.
[3] Ostia, Deposits, inv. 57222. The fragments are studied by Stella Falzone and Angelo Pellegrino. Some of them were presented in the 2001 Geneva exhibition. See Chrzanovski / Krause / Pellegrino 2001, 75 and cat. No II.1 (A. Pellegrino), in Descoeudres 2001, 395.
[4] The material from the House of the Fishes was presented by Stella Falzone during the 1st International Colloquium on Ostia Antica (November 1996). A publication by Stella Falzone is in preparation.
[5] See Kockel / Ortisi 2000, 358 and 359, Abb. 9.
[6] The fragment is located on the west side of the west wall of the easternmost room.
[7] For the domus: Bauer / Heinzelmann / Martin 2000, 376 and 394-405; for the Fourth Style fragments see: Mols 2000, 406-407 and Abb. 28-29.
[8] They are mentioned briefly in Kockel / Ortisi 2000, 358.
[9] See for this painting also Mols 1999, 299-302.
[10] See Falzone / Pellegrino 1996, in particular 205-208.
[11] See Reekmans 1968, 201.
[12] Mau expressed himself in derogatory terms regarding post-Pompeian painting (1882, 461): 'Hier haben wir schon nicht mehr bloss Einfachkeit, sondern die erschreckendste Armuth zu constatieren'. Cf. also Styger 1926-1927, 103-104: 'a notable decadence' and Marconi 1919, in particular 112. The effect was that the history of Roman painting after the destruction of Pompeii is much less known than that before 79 AD, an echo of which can still be found in the review 'La peinture romaine' by Alix Barbet (1985), which however does not enter into post-Pompeian material at all, despite the title of his study.
[13] This idea, certainly not new, is already formulated in Fornari (1913), Krieger (1919, 43) and Calza (1920-1921, 407).
[14] See with regard to this eclecticism: Fornari 1913, 311; De Wit 1938, 17; Reekmans 1968, 214. According to A. Linfert (1975, 13) the phenomenon begins already in the Fourth Style: 'Die Systeme der älteren Stile sind Repertoire geworden. Ganz nach Wunsch und Geschmack können sie angewandt werden, wie dies auch in den wenigen Beispielen von Malerei des 2. Jahrhunderts noch zu sehen ist.' Thomas 1995, 324 speaks of a pluralism of forms, determined by the eclectic character of Roman art. See also Moormann 1998, 26.
[15] In the past there have been different opinions on this subject, such as that of Krieger (1919, 51-52), who identified a Fifth Style in the Hadrianic period and a Sixth Severan Style.
[16] See Pavolini 1986, 183. Of the material that emerged in the excavations conducted between 1935 and 1942 only a part was published in monographs: Felletti Maj 1961, Felletti Maj / Moreno 1968, Gasparri 1970, Veloccia Rinaldi 1970-1971. We are pleased to see a growing interest in this field, especially from Stella Falzone and Claudia Liedtke.
[17] We can mention the studies by Fornari (1913), Krieger (1919), Calza (1920-1921, 375-410: 'La pittura murale ostiense') and Wirth (1934), preceding the great excavation campaign in the second half of the 1930s of the twentieth century, and those of Borda (1958, 90-115), Van Essen (1956-1958), Felletti Maj (1966-1968), Meiggs (1973, 436-446), Mielsch (1981) and Ling (1991, 175-197), all of which appeared in the second half of the century, when a more conspicuous number of examples had become available.
[18] For a critical note on some slightly too late dating by Joyce, see Mols 1999, 363 regarding the paintings of the apartments on the ground floor of the House of the Charioteers.
[19] See also Falzone 2001 and Mols 2001.
[20] Mols 1999. Cf. Mielsch 1981, 220-222.
[21] See Felletti Maj (1966-1968, 28) who proposes the following criteria to define a chronology of the wall decorations: 1) architecture; 2) succession of layers; 3) quality of stucco and paintings. Reekmans (1973, 271-291) provides a historical synthesis of the studies relating to the paintings in the catacombs and proposes (ibid., 281-282) to base the method on: a) topography of the catacombs; b) architecture / structure; c) syntax of the decorative system; d) iconography; e) style (inter alia, the development of purely ornamental motifs); f) external criteria for dating. See also Mielsch 1981, 220.
[22] Bloch's contributions (1938 and 1953) are still very useful in this respect. See also DeLaine 2001.
[23] For a detailed description see Felletti Maj / Moreno 1967, 38-39 and for a comment: Mielsch 1981, 214.
[24] See also Felletti Maj / Moreno 1968, 47 and also for the examples in Pompeii: House of Venus in Bikini (I 11, 6.7), PPM 2 (1990), 532 and 533-545 figs. 8-30 (with reference to other similar wall decorations). See for other examples: House of the Four Styles (I 8, 17), triclinium 14, cf. PPM I (1989) 876-891 figs. 53-72; House of Octavius Quartius (II 2, 2), room d and f, cf. PPM 3 (1991), respectively 58-65 figs. 27-38 and 70-78 figs. 46-54; House of the Dioscures (VI 9, 6.7), cubiculum 35, cf. PPM 4 (1993), 876-879, figs. 32-45; House of the Vettii (VI 15, 1), oecus e, cfr. PPM 5, 488-492 figs. 30-35; House of the Prince of Naples (VI 15, 7-8), tablinum and cubiculum f, cf. PPM 5 (1994), 645-657, figs. 12-14 and 16-17; House of the Great Altar (VI 16, 15.17), pseudo-tablinum D, cf. PPM 5 (1994), 880-883, figs. 44-47; VII 3, 21, oecus C, cf. PPM 6 (1996), 882-895 figs. 5-25.
[25] See Mielsch 1981, 224.
[26] Cryptoporticus: cf. Wirth 1929, 130-131 and Abb. 7; Wirth 1934, 65 and Abb. 27.
[27] See Mols 1996 (with previous bibliography) and 1999, 302-305.
[28] See Ling 1991, 175; Moormann 1998, 26.
[29] See for example Fornari 1913, 306-307.
[30] See Mielsch 1981, 224-225.
[31] See Mielsch 1981, 214; contra Felletti Maj / Moreno 1967, passim.
[32] See Mols 1999, 362-363.
[33] See Borda 1958, 111 (fig.), who erroneously dates these paintings to the beginning of the third century.
[34] The dating to 130-140 AD for the House of the Priestesses (II ix, part of the external ring of the Garden Houses), proposed by Veloccia Rinaldi (1970-1971, 165-185) appears too high and we share the criticism made by Mielsch (1981, 208) in this regard. More likely the date is about 150 AD. See also Falzone / Pellegrino 2001.
[35] See for the very dubious placement of the scene within a homosexual context: Clarke 1991, 327-336.
[36] See also Mielsch 1981, 226. There is no reason to date these decorations to the third century, as proposed by Van Essen (1956-1958; period of the reign of Gallienus). The first examples of datable linear style paintings in Rome, in rooms c and c' of a house under S. Giovanni in Laterano, were executed in the 80's of the 2nd century, see Mols / Moormann 1998, 127-130.
[37] Liedtke 1995 and 2001.
[38] See note 36.
[39] See Laken 2001.
[40] Baccini Leotardi (1978) dedicated a monograph to the subject. For critical observations in this regard and for criteria that point to a dating in the Severan age see Mols 1999, in particular 283-285.
[41] See Moormann 1994, 262-272; Bakker 2001, 181-183 with figs. 6 and 7.
[42] See the discussion of the dating in Mols 1999, 310-312 and 363-364.
[43] See Clarke 1998, 265-274.
[44] Van Essen 1956-1958, 177.
[45] See Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 95-96.
[46] See Becatti 1948, 197-224.
[47] See for decorations in bathing contexts in Pompeii: De Haan 1997, 214-219.
[48] See Mielsch 1981, 215; Falzone 2001.
[49] See the overview in Calza 1939a, 97-160, Chap. IV: 'La decorazione pittorica'.
[50] See Mols 1999, 333-335, 346-349 and 362-363.
[51] Currently the present author works with the team of the University of Reading (Janet DeLaine) that is dealing with insula I iv and studying the paintings of the three houses on the west side.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baccini Leotardi, P. 1978, Pitture con decorazioni vegetali dalle terme, Roma (= Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, ser. 3, Ostia fase. V).
Bakker, J.Th. 1994, Living and Working with the Gods. Studies of Evidence for Private Religion and its Material Environment in the City of Ostia (100-500 A.D.), Amsterdam.
Bakker, J.Th. 2001, Les boulangeries à moulin et les distributions de blé gratuites, in Descoeudres 2001, 179-185.
Barbet, A. 1985, La peinture murale romaine, Paris.
Bauer, F.A. / M. Heinzelmann/ A. Martin 2000, Ostia. Ein urbanistisches Forschungsprojekt in den unausgegrabenen Bereichen des Stadtgebiets. Vorbericht zur 2. Grabungskampagne 1999, RM 107, 375-415.
Becatti, G. 1948, Case Ostiensi del tardo impero II, BdA 33, 197-224.
Bianchi-Bandinelli, R. 1970, Roma. La fine dell'arte romana, Roma.
Bisconti, F. 1998, La pittura paleocristiana, in A. Donati (red.), Romana Pictura. La pittura romana dalle origini all'età bizantina (Catalogo della mostra, Rimini 1998), Venezia, 33-53.
Bloch, H. 1938, I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana, BCom 66, 61-221.
Bloch, H. 1953, Ostia. Iscrizioni rinvenute tra il 1930 e il 1939, NSc, 239-306.
Borda, M. 1958, La pittura romana, Milano.
Calza, G. 1920-1921, Gli scavi recenti nell'abitato di Ostia, MonAnt 26, 321-430.
Calza, G. 1939, Die Taverne der Sieben Weisen in Ostia, Die Antike 15, 99-115.
Calza, G. 1939a, Le necropoli del porto di Roma nell'Isola Sacra, Roma.
Calza, G. (red.) 1953, Scavi di Ostia I. Topografia generale, Roma.
Chevalier, R. 1986, Ostie antique, ville et port, Paris.
Chrzanovski, L. / C. Krause / A. Pellegrino 2001, Les nouvelles fouilles de la Schola del Traiano: premiers résultats, in Descoeudres 2001, 74-78.
Clarke, J.R. 1991, The Houses of Roman Italy 100 B.C. - A.D. 250. Ritual, Space, and Decoration, Berkely / Los Angeles / Oxford.
Clarke, J.R. 1998, Looking at Lovemaking. Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 BC - AD 250, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London.
De Haan, N. 1997, Nam nihil melius esse quam sine turba lavari. Privatbäder in den Vesuvstädten, MededRom 56, 205-226.
DeLaine, J. 2001, Techniques et industrie de la construction à Ostie, in Descoeudres 2001, 91-98.
Descoeudres, J.-P. (ed.) 2001, Ostia. Port et porte de la Rome antique, Cat. Genève 2001.
Dorigo, W. 1966, Pittura tardoromana, Milano.
Dorigo, W. 1971, Late Roman Painting, London.
Falzone, S. 1999, Alcune riflessioni sulla decorazione pittorica della Casa di Diana, MededRom 58, 149-163.
Falzone, S. 2001, Les projets décoratifs des maisons ostiennes: hiérarchie des espaces et schémas picturaux, in Decoeudres 2001, 334-339.
Falzone, S. / A. Pellegrino 1996, Nuove testimonianze di pittura ostiense, in D. Scagliarini Corlàita, I temi figurativi nella pittura parietale antica (IV sec. A.C. - IV sec. d.C.). Atti del VI Convegno Internazionale sulla Pittura Parietale Antica, Bologna, 203-208.
Falzone, S. / A. Pellegrino 2001, Les peintures de la Maison des Hiérodules, avec la collaboration d'Evelyne Broillet-Ramjoué, in Descoeudres 2001, 346-360.
Felletti-Maj, B.M. 1961, Le pitture delle Case delle Volte Dipinte e delle Pareti Gialle, Roma (= Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia III, Ostia I/II).
Felletti-Maj, B.M. 1966-1968, Problemi cronologici e stilistici della pittura ostiense, Colloqui del Sodalizio Ser. 2, 1, 27-41.
Felletti-Maj, B.M. / P. Moreno 1968, Le pitture della Casa delle Muse, Roma (= Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia III, Ostia III).
Floriani Squarciapino, M. 1967, Una sistematica opera di restauro e di conservazione, Archeologia 6, 271-280.
Fornari, F. 1913, La pittura decorativa di Ostia, Studi romani l, 305-318.
Gasparri, C. 1970, Le pitture della Caupona del Pavone, Roma (= Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia III, Ostia IV).
Joyce, H. 1981, The Decoration of Walls, Ceilings, and Floors in Italy in the Second and Third Centuries A.D., Roma.
Kockel, V. / S. Ortisi 2000, Ostia. Sogenanntes Macellum (VI 5, 2). Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen der Universität Augsburg 1997 /1998, RM 107, 351-363.
Krieger, H. 1919, Dekorative Wandgemälde aus dem II. Jahrhundert nach Christus, RM 34, 24-52.
Laken, L. 2001, Wallpaper patterns in Pompeii and the Campanian region: towards a Fifth Pompeian Style?, in A. Barbet (ed.), Actes du VIIe Colloque de l'Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique, Saint Romain en Gal, 6-10 octobre 1998, Paris, 295-300.
Liedtke, C. 1995, Weisse Greifenwände. Zwei Leihgaben von Wandmalereien des 2. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. aus Ostia in Berlin, Berlin.
Liedtke, C. 2001, Le décor des pièces secondaires à Ostie, in Descoeudres 2001, 340-345.
Ling, R. 1991, Roman Painting, Cambridge.
Marconi, P. 1929, La pittura dei Romani, Roma.
Mau, A. 1882, Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji, Berlin.
Meiggs, R. 1973(2), Roman Ostia, Oxford.
Mielsch, H. 1981, Funde und Forschungen zur Wandmalerei der Prinzipatszeit von 1945 bis 1975, mit einem Nachtrag 1980, ANRW 12.2, 157-264.
Mielsch, H. 2001, Römische Wandmalerei, Darmstadt.
Mols, S.T.A.M. 1996, I Sette Sapienti ad Ostia Antica, in D. Scagliarini Corlàita, I temi figurativi nella pittura parietale antica (IV sec. A.C. - IV sec. d.C.). Atti del VI Convegno Internazionale sulla Pittura Parietale Antica, Bologna, 89-96.
Mols, S.T.A.M. 1997, Pittura parietale ad Ostia nel suo contesto: il Caseggiato del Serapide, Ocnus 5, 173-180.
Mols, S.T.A.M. 1999, Decorazione e uso dello spazio a Ostia. Il caso dell'Insula III X (Caseggiato del Serapide, Terme dei Sette Sapienti e Caseggiato degli Aurighi), MededRom 58, 247-386.
Mols, S.T.A.M. 1999a, La vita privata attraverso lo studio delle decorazioni parietali, MededRom 58, 165-173.
Mols, S.T.A.M. 2000, Wandmalereien, in Bauer / Heinzelmann / Martin 2000, 404-407.
Mols, S.T.A.M. 2001, La peinture à Ostie, in Descoeudres 2001, 325-333.
Mols, S.T.A.M. / E.M. Moormann 1998, Le pitture romane - frammenti e resti in situ, in P. Liverani (red.), Laterano 1. Scavi sotto la basilica di S. Giovanni in Laterano. I materiali, Città del Vaticano (= Monumenta Sanctae Sedis 1), 115-131.
Moormann, E.M. 1994, Mural Paintings in the Sacello del Silvano, in Bakker 1994, 262-272.
Moormann, E.M. 1998, La pittura romana fra costruzione architettonica e arte figurativa, in A. Donati (red.), Romana Pictura. La pittura romana dalle origini all' età bizantina (catalogo della mostra, Rimini 1998), Venezia, 14-32.
Pavolini, C. 1986(2), Ostia, Roma.
PPM = AAVV, Pompei. Pitture e mosaici I-VIII, Roma 1989-1997.
Reekmans, L. 1973, La chronologie de la peinture paléo-chrétienne, RAC 39, 271-291.
Styger, P. 1926-1927, L'origine del cimitero di Domitilla sull'Ardeatina, RendPontAcc 5, 89-144.
Thomas, R. 1995, Die Dekorationssysteme der römischen Wandmalerei van augusteischer bis in die trajanische Zeit, Mainz.
Vaglieri, D. 1908, Ostia, NSc, 21-26.
Van Essen, C. 1956-1958, Studio cronologico sulle pitture parietali di Ostia, BCom 76, 154-181.
Veloccia Rinaldi, M.L. 1970-1971, Nuove pitture ostiensi: La Casa delle Ierodule, RendPontAcc 43, 165-185.
Wirth, F. 1929, Römische Wandmalerei vom Untergang Pompejis bis Hadrian, RM 44, 91-166.
Wirth, F. 1934, Römische Wandmalerei vom Untergang Pompejis bis ans Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts, Berlin (= repr. Darmstadt 1968).