Resurrecting Pompeii

Estelle Lazer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781134507184
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Resurrecting Pompeii provides an in-depth study of a unique site from antiquity with information about a population who all died from the same known cause within a short period of time.

Pompeii has been continuously excavated and studied since 1748. Early scholars working in Pompeii and other sites associated with the AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius were seduced by the wealth of artefacts and wall paintings yielded by the site. This meant that the less visually attractive evidence, such as human skeletal remains, were largely ignored.

Recognizing the important contribution of the human skeletal evidence to the archaeology of Pompeii, Resurrecting Pompeii remedies that misdemeanour, and provides students of archaeology and history with an essential resource in the study of this fascinating historical event.

Part I
THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII

1
SKELETONS AS ARTEFACTS

On 7 April 1768 the Austrian Emperor Joseph II visited Pompeii. To mark the occasion, a house was named in his honour and he was invited to witness the excavation of its contents. As he watched the workmen remove the pumice stones that covered the kitchen on the lower level of the house, a human skeleton was revealed. Perhaps the bones were draped just a little too artistically over several amphorae. Whatever the reason, it was instantly apparent that a deception had been perpetrated and that it was not of the highest order. Joseph II was not impressed.¹

This occurrence was not unique, though other dignitaries were more gullible than the Austrian Emperor and failed to recognize that the scenes of the final moments in the lives of victims that emerged from the pumice and ash had been faked.

Such tableaux were the result of the tendency for those in charge of the site in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to re-excavate spectacular finds and produce vignettes for the benefit of celebrity guests; for example, the Casa del Chirurgo (House of the Surgeon) (VI, i, 10) was ‘discovered’ three times in the presence of royalty. The designated area was liberally salted with valuables, such as coins and statues, and then re-covered with ash and pumice stones or lapilli. Skeletons were often employed as they provided wonderful props for this kind of entertainment.²

Elements of this approach to the site have continued to the present, albeit in a less ostentatious form. In this context, the bones of the Pompeian victims have been treated as artefacts rather than as a class of archaeological evidence. That this happened in the eighteenth and even in the nineteenth centuries is perhaps not so surprising. The continuation of this tradition and the fact the skeletal material found at the site was not subjected to the types of analysis routinely used for human remains from other sites until the latter part of the twentieth century requires some explanation. The nature of the destruction of Pompeii, the history and philosophy of the excavations and the close relationship between popular culture and skeletal finds had considerable bearing on the study and presentation of human remains from this site.

Victims as artefacts: an overview of the history and philosophy of the excavations in Campania

A brief survey, especially of the early history and philosophy of the excavations at the settlements destroyed by Mt Vesuvius in AD 79, provides some insight into the status of human remains found in Pompeii.³ It should be noted that the majority of skeletal finds from Herculaneum were made from 1982 onwards, and as a result, the skeletal material has been treated very differently at this site (see Chapter 3).

Excavations started after the accidental discovery of Herculaneum in 1709, though they did not officially commence until 1738 at this site and in 1748 at Pompeii. In general, the initial excavations amounted to little more than a mining operation for artefacts with, at best, antiquarian interests. The main aim of these was to provide precious objects to adorn the residences of, first, the Austrian and, later, the Spanish Bourbon rulers of Naples. The techniques that were employed attracted criticism from eighteenth-century visitors, such as Thomas Gray and Horace Walpole, who considered that the excavations were being conducted in a haphazard manner. Some forty-seven years later, in 1787, Goethe also lamented that Herculaneum had not been excavated methodically and suggested that the work would have been much better if it had been done by Germans. One notable exception to the questionable practices of the eighteenth-century excavators can be seen in the work of Karl Weber, a Swiss engineer who worked as principal assistant to the director of the excavations, Rocque Joaquin Alcubierre. Between 1750 and 1764, Weber pioneered the first truly systematic approach to the excavation of Vesuvian sites. Not only did he explore new methods of excavation and produce detailed plans, he also recognized the importance of context. He developed a system for cataloguing finds and marked their provenance on the maps he produced. He also attempted to synthesize the literary and archaeological evidence.⁴

The Bourbon authorities attracted criticism for lack of access to the finds for study and the generally poor level of scholarship. Documentation of the work in progress tended to be minimal and information was jealously guarded, ostensibly because of the threat of robbery. When a description of the excavations was published by the king’s antiquary Venuti in 1748, the authorities at Naples did all they could to keep it from the public. In addition, visitors to the sites were discouraged from taking notes and drawing finds.⁵

One of the scholars who was initially denied access to the excavations was Johann Joachim Winckelmann, arguably known as the ‘father of archaeology’. Though this title is perhaps somewhat extravagant, there is no doubt that the art-historical approach he developed for the study of antiquities provided the foundation of classical archaeology. After unsuccessful attempts to view the excavations in 1758 and 1762, he wrote two scathing open letters on the mismanagement of the excavation, recording and preservation of the sites. These did nothing to endear him to the authorities, but eventually he was pardoned and granted permission to visit the excavations at Pompeii and Herculaneum. Winckelmann was one of the first scholars to provide information about the Campanian excavations to the European public.⁶ His legacy to the history of Pompeian research can be seen in the continued emphasis on art history over other aspects of the discipline of archaeology, for example in the work of Ehrhardt, De Vos and Schefold.⁷

Le Antichità di Ercolano esposte, the first of seven volumes that made up an illustrated catalogue of finds, was published by the Academy of Herculaneum in 1757. It is notable that this work was instrumental to the development of Neoclassicism. From the latter half of the eighteenth century, Pompeian motifs and influences began to appear in the repertoire of many artists, architects and craftsmen, including Canova, David, Ingres, Piranesi, Thorvaldsen, Adam, Soane and Wedgewood.⁸

The eighteenth century was also a time of antiquarians and collectors as exemplified by William Hamilton. Hamilton was appointed as British envoy to Naples in 1767, three years after his arrival in that city. Apart from his political role, Hamilton’s main contribution to the region was as a gentleman scholar. His reports on the volcanic activity of Mt Vesuvius to the Royal Society of London were published in 1772 and have been lauded as pioneer works in the field of volcanology. Hamilton was also fascinated by the excavations and was present when some of the more important edifices were uncovered, such as the Temple of Isis. He often acted as a guide to visitors of note, including the Emperor Joseph II and Lord Nelson. He was an avid collector of ancient artefacts and it has been suggested that he was responsible for organizing clandestine excavations. After a visit to Hamilton’s residence in 1787, Goethe expressed his suspicion that two candelabra he observed in Hamilton’s secret vault had ‘somehow strayed here from the cellars of Pompeii’. Hamilton published his first collection of antiquities in four illustrated volumes. This collection was subsequently bought by the British Museum in 1771.⁹

One of the more unfortunate long-term effects of this object-oriented, acquisitive approach to the past was that it encouraged plundering of the site for artefacts and discouraged proper documentation.¹⁰ The emphasis on collectable antiquities also served to diminish the perceived value of human remains, which generally only received attention for their macabre entertainment value. Perhaps the attitude towards this aspect of the site is best summarized by the comment Goethe made after his second visit to Pompeii on 13 March 1787. He wrote: ‘There have been many disasters in this world, but few which have given so much delight to posterity.’¹¹

William Gell was Hamilton’s successor as an expert guide to the excavations. Gell was also the resident corresponding member of the Society of Dilettanti in Naples from 1830. This society was formed in 1734 by a group of gentlemen who wished to educate the cultivated English public and encourage them to develop a taste for the classical art that they had admired during their travels in Italy. The Society of Dilettanti provided assistance to members of the British aristocracy who wished to establish collections of antiquities whilst on their obligatory Grand Tour. William Hamilton had worked for the society in this capacity. The society also supported the publication of scholarly works on the classical world.¹²

Gell became famous as a classical topographer, describing Greece and Asia Minor, Rome and Pompeii. His first volume of the Pompeiana series was published in 1817. These works were very popular as they provided the first account of the excavations in English. In fact, very little had been published on Pompeii in any language in the first fifty years of excavation. In a letter to the Society of Dilettanti in 1834, Gell complained about the politicking amongst those responsible for the excavations. He stated that on-site petty rivalries were responsible for preventing the documentation of finds either by the excavators or visitors to the site. He attempted to alleviate this situation by recording everything he saw as he watched the excavations progress. This information was included in the 1832 and 1852 editions of Pompeiana. Eventually, he was thwarted in this aspect of his work as he could no longer afford the bribery necessary to ensure him access.¹³ His contribution to the dissemination of knowledge about Pompeii in a period of poor documentation cannot be overrated. Nonetheless, he was criticized for concentrating his efforts on architecture at the expense of the more portable finds.¹⁴ This is certainly true for the skeletal evidence. The skeletons he described from the excavations he witnessed were generally only those that were discovered with gold coins or other valuables.¹⁵ This is hardly surprising as skeletal finds were not a major priority of the primarily beaux-arts interested Society of Dilettanti.

Even though the need for systematic planning and recording of the sites had been recognized, for example by Karl Weber, Francesco la Vega and Caroline Murat, the appointment of Giuseppe Fiorelli, first as inspector in 1860 and then as director of the excavations in 1863, marked the commencement of a rigorous approach to archaeological work in the Campanian region. He has been credited with a large number of improvements in the excavation and documentation of the sites, including the instigation of systematic excavation and regular documentation of all new finds. He enabled finds to be accurately mapped by dividing the site into regions made up of architecturally defined blocks or insulae which, in turn, were subdivided into numbered houses. This system is still in use. He also developed a policy of leaving objects and wall paintings in situ, where possible.¹⁶

Most importantly for a review of the history of the treatment of skeletal finds in Pompeii, it was Fiorelli who first applied a technique that had been used to reveal the forms of furniture and other objects made from wood to the human victims from Pompeii. Liquid plaster of Paris was used to fill cavities in the ash where organic material had decomposed over time. When it dried the surrounding ash was removed, leaving a cast of the form of the organic material. The first human casts were made in 1863.¹⁷ The impact of Fiorelli’s casting technique on the popular imagination was profound. It is telling that prior to 1994, the scientific potential of these casts had never been exploited (see Chapter 10).¹⁸ Ironically, it was probably the seductive nature of the strong images produced by the casts that ensured their relegation to the status of entertaining artefacts. Conversely, the scientific contribution of the botanical remains had been appreciated for some time.¹⁹

One of the advantages of Fiorelli’s policy of not removing panels of wall paintings for museum display was that they could be studied in their original context. This enabled another nineteenth-century scholar, August Mau, to influence the course of Pompeian research. His main contribution to Pompeian studies was the classification of Pompeian wall paintings into four separate decorative systems in 1873. The details of his system of classification were elucidated in his 1882 publication Geschichte der decorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji. These so-called ‘four styles’ were thought to be more or less chronologically distinct. They are still employed as a standard for the study of Pompeian paintings, though their chronological relationship is the subject of some controversy.²⁰ Like his compatriot, Winckelmann, Mau’s work reinforced the art historical approach to Pompeian scholarship. His continuing influence can be seen in the number of works devoted to the classification of Pompeian paintings.²¹

The methods of excavation and documentation established by Fiorelli were continued into the twentieth century by Sogliano (1905–10), Spinazzola (1910–23) and Maiuri. Amedeo Maiuri, who directed the excavations from 1924–61, further developed Fiorelli’s approach and techniques with the aim of presenting the site as it looked at the time of its destruction. Buildings were restored and domestic objects were left in situ. The policy for human remains was also that, where possible, they be left in situ.²² Maiuri’s successors in Pompeii essentially continued this approach, especially with casts, as can be seen in the case of a number of fugitives that were discovered in 1989, cast and left in situ in the Casa di Stabianus in Region 1, Insula 22 (Figure 1.1).²³

It is notable that site management was often personality-based and driven by politics. Nonetheless, the history of these excavations reflects the development of the history and philosophy of classical archaeology.²⁴ This overview highlights the continued emphasis on art and architectural history as a research priority at Pompeii. It partially explains why the human skeletal remains from the sit...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Making sense of death
• PART I The last days of Pompeii
• PART II The victims
• Glossary
• Appendix 1: Historical overview of excavations in Campania
• Appendix 2: Terms associated with anatomical orientation
• Appendix 3: Diagrams
• Notes
• Bibliography