Resurrecting Pompeii (14 page)
Read Resurrecting Pompeii Online
Authors: Estelle Lazer
While it is quite possible that there was a decrease in population size in the last seventeen years of Pompeii’s existence, it is extremely unlikely that the entire
AD
79 population was killed by the eruption, given the literary references for survivors and the stratigraphic evidence that indicates the possibility of escape in the first phase of the eruption (see below). In addition, instigation of construction programmes that have been dated to the last 17 years of occupation, such as the building of a new bath complex, the socalled Central Baths or
Terme Centrali
(IX, iv, 5–18), implies that the population could not have been all that depleted. Evidence of continued occupation of structures during reconstruction adds weight to the argument that Pompeii was not abandoned in the years between the
AD
62 earthquake and the eruption. Scholars, like Dobbins, argue that such extensive construction work, especially in the Forum could be interpreted as a reflection of growth rather than decline.
36
It has been suggested that it was only in the period immediately preceding the eruption that a considerable number of private residences were fully or partially abandoned as a response to intensified seismic activity.
37
In terms of the interpretation of the human skeletal remains unearthed in Pompeii, there is no need to establish when abandonment occurred as the key issue is the determination of whether the sample of victims is likely to be representative of the
AD
79 population.
The possible importation of labour for public building programmes and reconstruction work could also have contributed to alterations in the population structure in the last 17 years of occupation. These issues should be considered in the light of what is understood about the original composition of the Pompeian population.
The exact origins of Pompeii are uncertain. There is no conclusive evidence for its first settlement, though a number of scholars consider that it was initially occupied by an Italic population, the Oscans.
38
The first century
AD
geographer Strabo wrote that Pompeii and Herculaneum were occupied over time by various groups of people: Oscans, Etruscans, Pelasgians, Samnites and Romans.
39
The archaeological evidence for the earliest period is only now being revealed as there was a policy of not digging below the
AD
79 layer prior to the last decade of the twentieth century to preserve the town as it appeared when it was destroyed.
40
The earliest structural evidence at Pompeii, a supposedly Doric temple in the Triangular Forum (Reg VIII), was generally interpreted as Greek and said to date to the sixth century
BC
. On the basis of these remains and the introduction of the cult of Apollo from the Greek colony of Cumae, it was suggested that Pompeii was used as an outpost by the Greek colonists in South Italy to enable them to control the port associated with the town.
41
Research and excavation of the structure in the Triangular Forum at the end of the twentieth century led to a reinterpretation of this temple as EtruscoItalic. This in turn has resulted in a reassessment of the issue of Greek dominance in Pompeii in the sixth century
BC
.
42
Pompeii was dominated by the Samnites in the fifth century
BC
. The Samnites who settled in this region were known as the
Campani
and spoke the Oscan language. They were an Italic people who originated in the mountainous areas of the Abruzzi and Calabria. Pompeii remained an essentially Samnite centre, despite being an ally of Rome, until it became a Roman colony in 80
BC
. The dictator, Sulla, imposed a colony of between two and four thousand veteran Roman soldiers and their families on Pompeii in that year as a punishment for earlier resistance.
43
It has been generally assumed that Pompeii in
AD
79, with its mixed background and its function as a river port, housed a heterogeneous population.
44
The evidence to support this view has largely come from epigraphy. Oscan inscriptions etched on plaster, ostensibly dating to the last seventeen years of occupation, have been cited as evidence of the presence of Italic people. The identification of Greek names in a list of accounts and Greek inscriptions on walls and amphorae were seen as a reflection of a Greek element in the population. Similarly, names like Martha and Mary on wall inscriptions have been interpreted as Jewish and inscriptions on amphorae as Semitic.
45
While such evidence has been considered proof of the presence of a Jewish community in Pompeii,
46
it should be noted that certain scholars, like Mau, were circumspect about the interpretation of names inscribed on amphorae as they could reflect either the dealers of commodities or the owners of the estates where they were found.
47
Wall paintings that have been interpreted as depictions of Old Testament subjects, such as the Judgment of Solomon
48
have also been used as evidence for the presence of a Jewish community in Pompeii. More spurious is the identification of some sculptures as representations of Semitic types on the questionable basis of stereotypical features associated with Jews, like the shape of the nose. It has also been suggested that the discovery of a temple dedicated to Isis provided proof for the presence of Egyptians at Pompeii.
49
Alternatively, it could be argued that this, like all the evidence cited above, merely implies that there was contact between different cultures.
It is possible that the Pompeian population was never as heterogeneous as suggested by the literary sources, which refer more to diversity in language and culture than genetic identity. Ultimately there is no certainty about the original make-up of the population. As a result, it is not possible to do more than postulate the types of changes that may have occurred in the final years of occupation.
It has been presumed that the people who chose to abandon the town were, on the whole, the members of the upper strata; people who were financially independent and whose economic base was not totally reliant on working the land in the Campanian region. A case has been mounted for some wealthy owners to have left their properties in the hands of their household staff during rebuilding.
50
Evidence has also been presented to support the notion that the old aristocracy was replaced by
nouveaux riches
individuals, such as the Vettii brothers who were credited with the reconstruction and refurbishment of the so-called
Casa dei Vettii
(VI, xv, 1–2). Similarly, it has been suggested that the
Villa dei Misteri
changed hands to a Greek freedman called Zosimus after the earthquake, either because of abandonment or the death of the previous owner. It should be noted that the basis for the determination of the status of the presumed owners of property is often subjective and open to question. For example, it has been claimed that the Vettii brothers were wine merchants because of representations of Mercury and his attributes in the
Casa dei Vettii
.
51
It is simplistic to assume that entire sections of the population abandoned Pompeii after
AD
62. The discovery of a tomb enclosure outside Pompeii, for example, coupled with inscriptions found in Pompeii have been used to support the argument that, at least one élite family continued to exert influence in Pompeii after the
AD
62 earthquake.
52
It has also been suggested that though there may have been an initial drop in the population after the earthquake, growth would have resumed along with reconstruction. It is possible that new arrivals may have come from outside the region to meet the increased demand for people with building and wall painting skills in the final years of occupation.
53
Although the archaeological evidence for this period is dif ficult to interpret, it does appear likely that there was some level of change to the Pompeian population in terms of size, and perhaps also composition, between
AD
62 and 79. The available data suggest that the response of the population to the
AD
62 earthquake and subsequent seismic activity was complex and varied. Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the degree of alteration that may have occurred.
54
It barely needs to be stated that the value of a population study of the Pompeian skeletal remains would be greatly enhanced if we had some idea of the proportion of the community that was killed by the eruption. To determine this, it is necessary to know the size of the population at the time. We should also know the number of skeletons that have been uncovered over the last two hundred and fifty odd years.
There are no accurate figures for the size of the population of Pompeii on the eve of its destruction in
AD
79. No ancient census information exists and estimates of the number of inhabitants vary widely between authors. The size of the population of Pompeii has been estimated to range between 6,400 and 30,000. The arguments for the various estimates have been discussed by a number of authors.
55
The population figures of various scholars and their underlying rationales warrant a brief examination to demonstrate the problems associated with attempting to calculate population for this or any other ancient site.
The earliest estimate of between 18,000 and 20,000 Pompeian inhabitants in
AD
79 was based on a calculation of the seating capacity of the amphitheatre.
56
Fiorelli argued against this high figure as he considered that the space of about 40 cm that was allowed per person was too small. His recalculation of the number of individuals that the amphitheatre could hold was 12,807, based on the assumption that the space occupied by each person was 55 cm. This allowance is more generous than the 50.8 cm that is recommended for modern ergonomic bench design.
57
There is no reason to assume that the requirements of the ancient users of the amphitheatre were substantially different to those of a modern population.
The choice of the amphitheatre as a guide to population size was almost certainly inspired by the account of Dio Cassius, which stated that all the inhabitants were assembled in this edifice to watch a game when Vesuvius erupted.
58
Even though Dio Cassius’ description post-dated the event by about 150 years and despite the fact that no supporting archaeological evidence was found at the amphitheatre, archaeologists were not deterred from using it as the basis for population reconstruction.
Regardless of the number of people that the amphitheatre could hold, this structure does not provide a reliable indicator of the size of the Pompeian population. The literary evidence indicates that this building provided entertainment for the entire region. Tacitus records that in
AD
59 the Roman Senate banned the use of the amphitheatre for ten years after riots broke out between Pompeian and Nucerian spectators at a gladiatorial event where more blood was spilled in the stands than in the arena.
59
Fiorelli made a separate population calculation of 12,000, based on an extrapolation of his estimate of the number of excavated rooms onto the area of the site still to be excavated. The figure he obtained was based on the premise that the number of people who occupied the site was proportional to the number of rooms in a dwelling. His calculations were devised on the premise that most of the public buildings had already been excavated.
60
The underlying assumption is clearly flawed as it can be readily demonstrated from various cultures in different geographical areas that the number of rooms in a residence does not necessarily relate to the number of occupants.
Nissen concluded that there had been about 20,000 inhabitants in Pompeii. His figure was also derived from rough calculations based on his observations of room and house numbers. He considered that Fiorelli’s figure was too low as he did not include upper storeys, which were not represented in the archaeological record.
61
This population estimate has remained popular.
62
Mau, for example, subscribed to this figure as a population minimum while Maiuri was slightly more circumspect and placed a ceiling of 20,000 for the size of the population.
63
Beloch initially accepted Nissen ’s figure but later recalculated Pompeii’s population as more modest in size. He obtained a figure of 15,000 by assuming that there was a population density of 230 people per hectare within the walled area of the town.
64
Frank suggested that there were about 25,000 occupants, whilst Cary and Scullard claimed that as many as 30,000 people inhabited Pompeii at the time of the eruption.
65
Russell estimated a population density of 100–120 people per hectare, which yielded an estimate of between 6,400 and 6,700 individuals for the town with the possibility of another few hundred individuals inhabiting the suburban regions.
66
Eschebach incorporated the results of excavations by Jashemski which revealed vineyards and gardens in the south-eastern part of the town in his determination of the number of Pompeian inhabitants in
AD
79. He concluded that there would have been between 8,000 and 10,000 inhabitants. La Rocca concurs on this population range on the basis of the same evidence.
67
Jashemski emphasized the need to exercise caution in the application of such estimates, as in the absence of ancient Pompeian population records, they could never be considered reliable. She subscribed to the view that the best way to estimate the size of the Pompeian population would be to undertake an investigation of land use in the city, and of the relative density of the buildings in relation to the quantity of open space. Jashemski favoured the lower figures for the Pompeian population as more reasonable in view of the abovementioned discovery of agricultural usage of the land in the south-eastern region of the site. The higher estimates of previous scholars were based on the assumption that this area, like that already excavated, would yield evidence of urban occupation.
68
Jongman and Wallace-Hadrill shared Jashemski’s reservations about the reliability of population estimates for Pompeii and criticized the methodologies for the calculation of population size.
69
Jongman noted that urban population density is variable and archaeological evidence cannot be employed to take account of differences between populations. He stated that it would be impossible to assess the tolerance of the Pompeian population to cramped living conditions. Russell’s low figures, which were based on the assumption that the Pompeian urban population density was not likely to have been higher than that of medieval Europe, were criticized on the grounds that the structure of these two societies was not equivalent. Jongman gave qualified support to a population range of between 8,000 to 12,000 individuals. The discovery of agricultural property within the walled precinct meant that the high estimates of scholars like Nissen were untenable. These higher figures also suggested that Pompeii’s level of urbanization was comparable to that of Rome, which Jongman suggested was unlikely.
70
Wallace-Hadrill also questioned the validity of the extrapolation of data from medieval towns onto Roman sites for the determination of population density as this practice denies temporal and cultural differences. In addition, he tackled the difficult issues of population changes over time and the period in Pompeian history that these population estimates are meant to reflect. All of the estimates that have been made of Pompeii’s population have, by necessity, been simplistic and could not take into account fluctuations in occupation levels in different periods. The calculations that have been made to reconstruct the population size of Pompeii in its last period of occupation have apparently not incorporated the possibility that the population may have been considerably reduced or otherwise altered as a result of the
AD
62 earthquake and subsequent seismic activity. Wallace-Hadrill endorsed the notion that the destruction of Pompeii was not confined to the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in
AD
79, but was probably a lengthy process, which commenced with the
AD
62 earthquake. He also noted the fact that most scholars when presenting their population estimates do not indicate whether these figures are meant to reflect the population on the eve of the
AD
79 eruption or in the pre-earthquake years of the first century
AD
.
71
Wallace-Hadrill argued that had the archaeological data been better recorded, it may have been possible to gain a more accurate idea of the population size. He revisited the work of Fiorelli on the use of the number of rooms in each house as a basis for calculating population size. He considered that if it were possible to establish room function, it would be possible to reconstruct the size of households from the numbers of bedrooms, beds and socalled bed niches in walls. By his own admission, this approach has some problems, such as a degree of uncertainty as to the number of people who occupied each bed and whether all the beds were in constant use.
72
No matter how carefully recorded, the archaeological evidence could never provide answers to these questions. Ultimately, Wallace-Hadrill concluded that the determination of an absolute figure for the size of Pompeii’s population was a futile exercise, though he did incline towards a figure of about 10,000.
73
At best, population estimates can only provide a very rough guide to the size of Pompeii’s population.
74
Such figures should be used with extreme caution as they tend to be based on simplistic and sometimes spurious assumptions.
