LAUSR

Using a term drawn from economic anthropology1 and pushing the boundaries of this type of analysis, I would like to describe an attempt to trace in time and space the roots of the technical, stylistic and iconographic know-how that gave form to Roman painting. Considering the fragmentary nature of the evidence at our disposal, the argumentation set forth here cannot follow a linear path containing various steps that can all be neatly demonstrated. I believe that the time is right, however, to tackle Roman painting — and particularly painting in the domestic setting — with more conviction. Although understanding the rôle and nature of the patrons and painters remains an objective that is still far off, it is probably worth investigating the traditions that enjoyed some level of continuity in Roman painting and the concrete ways and contexts in which the process unfolded. The aim is to achieve a deeper understanding of the rôle that this artistic technique played in a society that made ample use of it during a fundamental phase of its history. In the 1st c. B.C. and 1st c. A.D., in the brief period that saw the transition from Republic to Empire, the domestic ideology of Roman society found expression in a decorative system marked by a continuous stream of innovations with respect to themes, schemes and ornament that were adopted consistently by a broad spectrum of patrons. Indeed, beyond simply protecting and covering the walls of dwellings, figurative painting — especially of such a complex nature as we are dealing with here — added a wide range of elements which I believe it is useful to investigate.