Resurrecting Pompeii (13 page)
Read Resurrecting Pompeii Online
Authors: Estelle Lazer
The remains of Pompeii are often described as re flection of a frozen moment in time. This is the basis of the so-called ‘Pompeii premise’, which argues that Pompeii is the ideal archaeological site, providing a standard against which all other sites can be measured. The premise is underpinned by the notion that Pompeii was a thriving town that was destroyed quickly and without warning. This concept undoubtedly owes its origins to popular perceptions of the site rather than academic research.
1
The idea of Pompeii as a frozen moment can probably be traced back to the early excavations, when, for example, the first skeleton was found with a small collection of coins that appeared to have just been dropped.
2
It was reinforced by subsequent discoveries, including those of 1765, when the Temple of Isis was uncovered. On the altar were the remains of the last animal sacrifice and in a room to the rear of the sanctuary, a skeleton was found next to a plate full of fish bones, assumed to be this person’s last meal.
3
Such images provided the inspiration for the Romantic movement, as can be seen in Madame de Staël’s early nineteenth-century novel
Corinne, ou l
’
Italie
.
4
With Bulwer-Lytton’s
The Last Days of Pompeii
, the perception of Pompeii as a time capsule became enshrined in popular consciousness.
While most scholars who work in Pompeii would acknowledge that the concept of Pompeii as a static moment in time is far too simplistic,
5
a number of academic works on Pompeii nonetheless treat the site as such.
6
It is notable that Pompeian scholars who demonstrate awareness of the complexities of the site persist in invoking the imagery of a frozen moment in their works for a more general audience as exemplified by the following description:
In no other ancient site is the past as intensely present as in Pompeii where the clock of history stopped so abruptly. Gazing at the breakfast which is still on the table, at the paint and brushes just prepared by the painter about to start his work, or at the slogans in the streets for the forthcoming municipal elections the visitor feels like the prince entering Sleeping Beauty’s castle.
7
Pompeii is far from the perfect site. The ‘Pompeii premise’ is a romantic ideal that neither Pompeii nor any other site could fulfil. The complexity of the site and its interpretation can be observed on a number of levels. These include the possible impact of the major earthquake experienced by Pompeii in
AD
62 and the impact that subsequent seismic activity may have had on the population and the size of the population in
AD
79. In addition, it is necessary to consider the form and time span of the
AD
79 eruption and how it would have influenced survival prospects of individuals, as well as post-eruption and post-excavation alterations to the site. Examination of these issues enables the parameters of knowledge about the site at the time of its destruction to be established. Since the nature of the sample has been determined by these factors, this information is necessary for the interpretation of the skeletal material.
Pompeii was not an important town in antiquity and only really achieved immortality as a result of the disasters it suffered. The first of these was an earthquake, which was recorded by two ancient writers, Seneca
8
and Tacitus.
9
Tacitus’ account is very brief and notes extensive damage to Pompeii. Seneca described the event in more detail, stating that Pompeii in particular was devastated, though the whole Campanian region was affected. He noted that many of the country villas were so badly damaged that they could no longer be occupied. Though there is some disagreement about the date, most scholars now accept that this event occurred on 5 February,
AD
62.
10
While there is no doubt that this earthquake had a major impact on Pompeii and other Campanian sites, there is no consensus as to the exact nature and degree of change brought about by the catastrophe. All signs of damage, partial or completed repairs and rebuilding in Pompeii were traditionally attributed to the
AD
62 earthquake. These include: damage and interruption to the water supply, villas and houses which had been damaged so badly that they were virtually uninhabitable, partial or complete destruction of public buildings, like the Capitolium and the Temple of Venus in the region of the Forum and reconstruction of the temples of Vespasian and Isis. Many of the larger houses were roughly repaired and subsequently subdivided into what appear to have been separate apartments. Some were also converted for commercial or industrial uses, such as the modification of a house into a fuller’s shop, the
Fullonica Stephani
(I, vi, 7). Houses that were restored were supposedly recognizable by a new system of wall decoration, the so-called Fourth Style. Some houses were totally rebuilt, such as the
Casa dei Vettii
(VI, xv, 1–2).
11
Much of this evidence cannot be unequivocally associated with the
AD
62 earthquake. For example, an inscription commemorating the rebuilding of the Temple of Isis after it was damaged by seismic activity is generally assumed to refer to the
AD
62 event despite the fact that the inscription doesn’t refer to a specific earthquake.
12
Similarly, the relief panels from the House of Caecilius Jucundus (V, i., 6)
13
are generally interpreted as depictions of scenes during the
AD
62 earthquake but as they are undated, this assumption cannot be verified.
Some scholars have variously interpreted evidence of damage and subsequent repairs to structures in the Pompeian archaeological record as either areflection of the
AD
62 earthquake or the result of a series of earthquakes in the final seventeen years of occupation.
14
Another contentious issue is to what extent Vesuvian settlements continued to be occupied in this period. It has been suggested that they were, at least, partially abandoned by the time of the
AD
79 eruption.
15
The ancient sources are unambiguous about the fact that the
AD
62 earthquake was neither the first nor last in the region. The magnitude of the event just meant that it received more attention from ancient writers. In his account of this earthquake, Seneca
16
noted that the Campanian region had never been free of earthquakes, though previous tremors had not caused significant damage. Both Suetonius
17
and Tacitus
18
mentioned an earthquake that shook Naples during a recital by the emperor Nero in
AD
64. The theatre where the concert took place collapsed shortly after it was evacuated. Pliny the Younger
19
stated that earth tremors were so frequently experienced in Campania that the populace had ignored the seismic activity that had occurred for a number of days prior to the
AD
79 eruption.
Despite this evidence, the concept of change as a result of multiple or continuous seismic events in the latter years of Pompeii’s occupation has only been a comparatively recent consideration for archaeologists.
20
It is notable that the notion of intermittent earthquakes throughout the period between
AD
62 and 79 was accepted without argument in the volcanological literature, as earthquake activity often precedes volcanic eruptions.
21
In 1957, Schefold proposed that there had been a second large earthquake to explain chronological inconsistencies in the evidence. This idea never gained general academic favour due to a lack of concrete evidence, especially from ancient literary sources.
22
This issue was revisited, by scholars like Allison, in the 1990s.
23
She examined the contents of 30 Pompeian residences and came to the conclusion that many of the signs of repair, change of function and abandonment that could be observed in Pompeii could be best explained by continued seismic activity in its last seventeen years.
24
Her argument hinged on the premise that the artefact distribution patterns should present a uniform pattern for repair and decoration style for a date of
AD
62 to be ascribed. Similarly, patterns of artefact distribution related to damage and abandonment should show some homogeneity for them to be dated to either the
AD
62 earthquake or the
AD
79 eruption. She reasoned that if a relationship between assemblages showing disruption and damage, structural repair and room decoration was not apparent, it would suggest that such changes could possibly be attributed to a series of earthquakes in the years between
AD
62 and 79.
25
Her results showed that several phases of disruption and alteration could be identified in a number of houses, such as the
Casa dei Vettii
(VI, xv, 1–2) and the
Casa del Sacello Iliaco
(I, vi, 4). This led her to conclude that all the changes observed on the site could not be dated to the
AD
62 earthquake and gave qualified support to a number of subsequent seismic events as the primary cause for alteration and repair. She acknowledged that consideration should also be given to other explanations.
It is not necessary for all restoration from an earthquake to date to the same period or for the building and decoration styles to be uniform. Repairs of earthquake damage can occur continuously over long periods of time. If restoration does not occur within a certain time, it is possible for further degradation or even collapse of buildings to occur. The major earthquake experienced by the region around Mt Vesuvius in 1980 can be used to demonstrate this point. More than ten years after this event, I observed that large numbers of people were still housed in refugee accommodation. Discussion with local residents confirmed that people were still waiting to be relocated to new premises. Without exception, the people involved were from the lower-income bracket, whereas people from higher socio-economic levels did not suffer this fate. This is consistent with the observations of scholars specializing in the recovery process after volcanic and seismic disasters. Though the actual disasters tend to affect all strata equally in terms of death and destruction of property, reconstruction tends to be anything but egalitarian.
26
Further discussion with locals revealed that some people had abandoned damaged premises for other family property in the region, which was easier to restore or develop. Not all properties were restored at the same time.
Another possibility that has not received suf ficient attention by Pompeian scholars is that at least some of the observed occupation changes attributed to the last seventeen years of settlement at Pompeii were the result of factors unrelated to earthquake damage.
27
While there is no doubt that earthquakes were responsible for a number of the alterations that have been observed on Pompeian structures, it is rather simplistic to ascribe all such change in the years from
AD
62 to 79 to a single event or cause.
The complexity of urban settlement patterns has been demonstrated by archaeological investigations of sites with long occupation sequences, like the English city of Winchester. A long-term project in Winchester revealed that changes over time, such as the abandonment of certain areas and changes in function of specific urban precincts, were influenced by a variety of factors. These included the change from Roman to Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance, shifts in national and religious importance of the town over time, increasing industrialization and the development of certain trades in specific areas.
28
The conversion of some larger houses into apartments in Pompeii, for example, may simply have been a reflection of economic change. There is no need to invoke disasters to explain all the alterations in occupation and building usage in Pompeii.
Perhaps the most dif ficult factor to assess in relation to changes between
AD
62 and 79 is whether there was significant abandonment of the settlement by certain sections of the community and whether it had any impact on the composition of the population. The notion of abandonment probably dates back to Seneca,
29
who railed against survivors for emigrating and refusing to return to the region. This, in turn, influenced Winckelmann in the eighteenth century. From the little he had been able to observe on his early abortive visits to Herculaneum, he considered that there was evidence for the abandonment of Pompeii and Herculaneum by a large number of the inhabitants after the
AD
62 earthquake.
30
The idea that Pompeii may have been entirely deserted after the earthquake was proposed in the second decade of the nineteenth century, but was rejected after much debate.
31
The notion of partial abandonment has sporadically been suggested and has been resurrected in more recent literature.
32
The lack of certain expected finds at Pompeii was traditionally interpreted as evidence of post-eruption looting.
33
For example, numerous statue bases were found in the forum, though no trace remained of the statues that should have surmounted them. In addition, there was no evidence of most of the marble flagstones and veneers that once covered buildings in the forum. The possibility that this negative evidence could reflect pre-eruption abandonment has been offered as an alternative explanation. A number of scholars have argued that this resulted in a diminution of the population size in the last seventeen years of occupation.
34
It has even been suggested, though only in popular literature, that the skeletons that have been discovered in the Campanian sites could represent the entire population in
AD
79.
35
