Assessment Four – Take Home Exam

AHIX331 to Pompeii: in Ancient

Lecturer & Tutor: Ray Laurence

Referencing Style Used: Harvard (Author-Date) Style

Word Count: 2952

Section A

Figure (a)

This Italo-Mycenaean amphora was discovered in Brogolio di Trebisacce during excavations directed by Renato Peroni in 1979.1 Brogolio di Trebisacce is located in the Sibaritide region on a hilltop overlooking the Ionian Sea, with a settlement site that dates back to the LH IIIA.2 There were a number of vessels excavated from the

LH IIIA to LH IIIC strata that exhibited distinct Mycenaean influence in design and construction indicating trading connections between Greece and southern Italy, with the greatest yields for this type of pottery being derived from the LH IIIB phase.3

This is evident from the use of floral motifs and geometric painted decorations, wheel-made technologies, high temperature firing and similarities in vessel shapes to those identifiable to the Aegean and central Mediterranean with slight variations.4 The vessel is a medium sized amphora with a notable wide and short

1 Vagnetti (1999: 143) 2 Vagnetti (1999: 143) 3 Kilian (1990: 456) 4 Jones & Vagnetti (1989: 131); Wijngaarden (2002: 244) neck signifying that it was not suitable for the storage of liquids such olive oil or wine, which were customarily stored in dolia, but may have been used for the storage of grains or dry agricultural produce. 5 This is also reinforced by the placement of the handles in the horizontal position indicating their design for lifting rather than pouring.6 The piece originated during the LH IIIB phase and corresponds with increased agricultural production and advancement in harvest storage in the region, which may have resulted from the diffusion of Mycenaean farming techniques.7 Based on petrographic and chemical analysis of the site’s pottery yield, it can be asserted that this piece was locally made from levigated clay sourced from

Italy rather than being imported, however the materials were likely obtained outside the direct regional vicinity. 8 This is another indication that not just trade of merchant goods occurred across the Mediterranean but that techniques in farming and pottery construction were influenced as well. This may have been through the imitation of imported goods in addition to the arrival of pottery makers to southern

Italy, suggested by finds of Mycenaean style kilns in the southern Italian region.9

5 Mountjoy (2001: 123); Ridgway (1988: 626); Wijngaarden (2002: 244) 6 Mountjoy (2001: 123) 7 Kilian (1990: 457) 8 Kilian (1990: 457); Vagnetti (1999: 143) 9 Mountjoy (2001: 121) Figure (d)

The ‘Shipwreck’ krater was found on the island of Ischia, ancient Pithekoussai, in the

Bay of .10 Excavations of Valle di San Montano began in 1952 led by Giorgio

Buchner and yielded the remnants of a necropolis containing over a thousand burial pits, the ‘Acropolis dump’ as well as pottery such as the Nestor’s cup that exhibits possibly the oldest three lines of Euboian inscription.11 The ‘Shipwreck’ krater is a vessel that dates to the Late Geometric phase and is notable for its depiction of the dangers of voyage between the Mediterranean regions and may be the oldest representation of a shipwreck and oldest vessel with figured painting found on

Italian soil.12 This krater was found in the necropolis and pieced together from sherds recovered from outside a burial pit suggesting it was possibly broken while being carried to the burial place.13 It is missing the stem and base, however the pictorial design remains largely intact. 14 The pictorial scene presents a clear sequence of events, firstly the maritime vessel is shown in the upside down position surrounded by swastikas while next to the vessel there are fish and bodies depicted

10 Whitley (2001:126) 11 Holloway (1995: 364) 12 Holloway (1995: 364); Keegan (2014: 228); Whitley (2001:126) 13 Keegan (2014: 228) 14 Keegan (2014: 228) in the water.15 As the sequence continues there are further images of bodies surrounded by fish and a fish in the process of consuming a body until finally there are only suspiciously big-bellied fish.16 Buchner has theorized that this vessel along with the yields from Pithekoussai have a direct connection to Phoenician culture through the burial practices of the necropolis. 17 This theory is not without contention, as there are also clear indications of Corinthian and Euboea influences in this piece, for example use of one continuous large frieze around the belly of the vessel with black-figure men is emblematic to Corinthian style while the expansion of territorial control and trading routes are emblematic of the Greek and Euboean culture.18

15 Keegan (2014: 228) 16 Keegan (2014: 228) 17 Ridgway (1994: 35) 18 Coldstream (2004: 228); Payne (1931: 94); Ridgway (1994: 35-36) Figure (e)

This vessel is a red-figure calyx krater created during the Lucanian period, around

350-340 B.C.E., by Asteas.19 The red-figure style originated in Greece and was transferred to Italy through trade and relocation of potters dating to the eighth century.20 The production process involved the vessel being constructed in separate sections and allowed to air dry.21 After the assemblage of the piece a mixture of fine-grained clay slurry was applied to the background, which could vitrify in a short time period and be fired at lower temperatures than the clay used for the body.22

There was a single firing cycle that consisted of a sequence of oxidizing and reducing with precise control of time and temperature to ensure the final piece would retain accurate colour.23 This piece was created in Asteas’ workshop, located in Paestum in southern Italy on the Tyrrhenian coast and it can be inferred that the vessel was made with fabrics sourced locally, although due to the limited chemical analysis of

19 Hughes (1996: 102); Murley (2001: 27, 44) 20 Colivicchi (2014: 214); Mirti et al., (2004: 713) 21 Murley (2001: 6) 22 Mirti et al., (2004: 712) 23 Mirti et al., (2004: 712) pottery during this period it is currently speculation.24 This type of vessel belongs to a series of krater vases; column, volute, bell and calyx, which were all associated with the mixing of wine with water as indicated by the horizontal handles for lifting and the wide mouth to allow for ladling.25 The piece is crudely known as ‘Robbing the Miser”, a recreation of Athenian comic theatrical performances, highlighting the style’s Greek origins and the dispersion of Greek culture in southern Italy.26 The vase has been signed by Asteas, one of only eleven, with the names of the characters written in white paint above the characters.27 One aspect of vessels with this style of pictorial design demonstrates there was no uniformity in stage performances of the period, with this particularly vessel depicting five pillars beneath the stage.28

24 Hughes (1996: 105) 25 Murley (2001: 4-5) 26 Hughes (1996: 104) 27 Murley (2001: 27) 28 Hughes (1996: 101) Section B

Identify and describe the impact of 3 significant aspects of the development of

Italian archaeology.

The history of Italian archaeology is a complex amalgamation of events and theoretical disciplines, which were influenced by both internal and external factors.

Scholars have loosely divided these developments into five categories, spanning from the unification of Italy. We will examine three aspects of Italian archaeology and outline how these contributed to its development. Firstly, the dominance of

Luigi Pigorini in the 19th century will be explored and the emergence of eoria pigoriniana. Following this, the materialization of fascism will be highlighted and how this impacted the direction and scope of archaeology between 1920 and 1945.

Finally, we will examine the liberation of theoretical constraints from the post-war period till present.

The unification of Italy in 1861 marked the beginning of a transitional period for

Italian archaeology, which would shape the discipline for over a hundred years.

Schools such as the Accedemia Nazionale dei Lincei, which was founded in 1603, were primarily controlled by the church and had dominion over funding, academic appointments, theoretical approaches and excavation methodology in Italy.29 This control of fundamental aspects of the discipline led to the adherence to creationist and anti-evolution theory as well as an isolationist approach to collaboration.30

29 Loney (2002: 202) 30 Loney (2002: 204) However, after unification authority over archaeological studies was transferred away from the church to three centres of study; Naples, Florence and .31 This facilitated the establishment of the Scuola Archeologica di Pompei in 1866 under

Guiseppe Fiorelli, the Archive for and Ethnology in Florence by naturalist Paolo Mantegazza in 1871 and the National Museum of Rome in 1876 with

Luigi Pigorini becoming Chair of Paletnology in 1877.32 As Chair of Paletnthology and the only professor of prehistory in the Italian peninsular, Pigorini took control of archaeological activities from 1870 to 1923 by controlling research, regional planning, excavation methodology and final academic interpretation as well as avoiding the creation of new chair positions.33 Under Pigorini, previous excavations of the Swiss lake dwellings, the Terremare settlement in the Po valley and the

Golasecca and Villanovan cemeteries in Bologna became the basis of the theory eoria pigoriniana.34 This theory focused on cultural facies and cultural replacement by primarily northern peoples migrating across Italy during the Bronze Age. 35

Dedication to this theory sparked a rift between the disciplines of prehistory and archaeology with the natural sciences studied in Florence, who the Rome school accused of adhering to an Italian Paleolithic sequence based on French theology.36

While this differentiation in theory appears minor the dominance of Pigorini over all archaeological activities led to the divergence of these schools in theoretical and

31 Loney (2002: 201-202) 32 Loney (2002: 201); Guidi (2010: 14) 33 Loney (2002: 205) 34 Guidi (2010: 15) 35 Loney (2002: 205) 36 Guidi (2010: 15) methodological approaches, which would hinder future archaeological advancements in Italy.37

Fascist Italy emerged during the 1920’s under the rule of Benito Mussolini and had a profound impact on the focus and direction of Italian archaeology for over the next quarter century. Firstly Mussolini and the Fascist party rose to power in 1922 with the March on Rome, which was designed to mimic Caesar’s march on Rome.38

Mussolini labeled the emergence of Fascist Italy as the Third Rome, explicitly linking it to the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire.39 This preeminent strategy was designed to promote nationalist sentiment and the connection to Roman greatness through a number of physical and theoretical associations.40 This was evident through the increased focus on classical archaeology and excavations in Rome, Ostia and Pompeii, the use of the fasces on the Fascist flag that corresponded to the ancient Roman symbol for jurisdiction and magistrate’s power, integration of visual iconography such as use of eagles and she-wolves into daily life as well as identifying

Mussolini’s actions as reproductions of classical events such as the March on Rome and the Aventine secession.41 During this period the Roman school was led by Ugo

Rellini and oversaw the funding and chair appointments of classical archaeologists to the detriment to the prehistoric discipline.42 There was also an increased desire for excavations in Africa and Mediterranean as Mussolini envisaged the emergence of the Third Rome encapsulating maritime expeditions and African provinces, which

37 Guidi (2010: 15) 38 Manson (2015: 60); Quartermaine (1995: 207) 39 Manson (2015: 61) 40 Manson (2015: 64) 41 Quartermaine (1995: 208); Whittam (1995: 86) 42 Guidi (2010: 16) was realized through the invasion of Ethiopia and conquest of Addis Ababa in 1936.43

This corresponded to previous excavations by Gian Alberto Carlo and his son Alberto

Carlo in 1927 of classical Roman settlements in Africe.44 While there was an increase focus on classical archaeology and excavations, after 1935 excavations dwindled due to the engagement of World War Two and redirection of funding to the war effort.45

The final phase of development that will be examined is what has come to be termed the ‘pluriverse’, which began around the post-war period. The short history of Italian prehistoric academia had seen a number of powerful influences focusing significantly on classical archaeology to the detriment of both prehistory and the natural sciences. Despite the fall of the Fascist party and Mussolini in 1945 there was still an emphasis on classical archaeology, although there was the beginning signs of expanding technical and methodological approaches. The post-war period saw the emergence of increased collaboration with international scholars who introduced more advanced statistical, mathematical, chemical and scientific analysis procedures such as the Harris-type excavation and use of anthropological modeling.46 There was also a renewed interest in theoretical approaches such as processualism, post-processualism, culture-historical paradigm, Marxism perspective and Etruscology introduced by scholars such as Renato Peroni and Massimo

Pallottino. 47 The amalgamation of methodological approaches, cross discipline collaborations, scientific advancements such as Atomic Absorption Spectrometry and

43 Alonso (2012: 15); Guidi (2010: 16) 44 Guidi (2010: 16) 45 Loney (2002: 206) 46 Guidi (2010: 18); Loney (2002: 207) 47 Guidi (2010: 18-19) Neutron Activation Analysis as well as the burgeoning different theoretical philosophies has resulted in a plurality of approaches to archaeological excavations and analysis of evidence.

As has been demonstrated Italian archaeology has experienced a unique sequence of developmental events. This included the separation and eventual collaboration of archaeological and natural sciences as well as the adoption of foreign techniques and modern technological advancements. It can be seen that during the dominant periods of Luigi Pigorini and Benito Mussolini there was a significant emphasis on classical archaeology and prioritizing of internally developed stratification and data collecting systems. This insulated approach had the effect of inhibiting prehistoric studies while advancing the classical studies, however since the 1950’s the disciplines of prehistory, archaeology and natural sciences have experienced a renewed vigor through incorporation of new theoretical avenues.

Section C

What factors need to be considered when Pompeii is studied from an environmental perspective? How does studying the physical context of Pompeii contribute towards understanding the life of the city?

Pompeii is often viewed as a perfect specimen for archaeological excavations due to the encapsulation of the city after the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. While this has presented a unique opportunity to study a snapshot of Roman history, environmental factors on regional, societal and architectural construction should be considered when accessing the archaeological evidence and how it informs the evidence derived from excavation yields. Firstly, we will look at the societal effects on Pompeii in the aftermath of the 62 AD earthquake. Following this, we will examine the impact of water and seaside situational positioning for the city’s commerce and trading patterns. Finally we will look at the geographical location of

Pompeii and the impacts of volcanic conditions on agricultural production.

In 62 A.D. Tacitus and Seneca recorded that an earthquake had struck the Campania region with damage to the city of Pompeii.48 Through literary recordings there are indications that Pompeii suffered considerable destruction of the city, and there was a substantial exodus by the elite leading to a notable depopulation and shift in the society’s cultural perspective.49 This appears to be validated by the archaeological evidence revealing a number of building efforts that incorporated additional shops

48 Grahame (1997: 570) 49 Grahame (1997: 570); Poehler & Crowther (2018: 595); Wallace-Hadrill (1995: 188) and workshops to street frontages in addition to general rebuilding of infrastructure. 50 Some specific rebuilding efforts focused primarily on streets surrounding the Forum in particular expansion and increasing the number of baths in the vicinity such as the Stabian baths rather than the Forum itself.51 This has been used to imply that the city saw an influx of lower class and freed peoples who had less inclination towards public life, however it should also be noted that while the

Forum was neglected in this initial rebuilding effort there have been indications that rebuilding of the Forum was planned.52 Besides the possible population changes, the earthquake also had impacts on infrastructure such as roads, marketplaces and the water systems. There is archaeological evidence that the aqueduct supply may have disrupted or cut off as a result of the earthquake, however this needs further archaeological analysis. 53 The condition of paved roads after the earthquake, however, provides a significant data point in establishing the condition of older roads, newly laid roads and roads that were in the process of renovation or replacement such as Via Stabiana.54

Excavations of the city of Pompeii have revealed an intricate establishment of aqueduct and water systems, which facilitated numerous aspects of daily life. It has been revealed that water sources were primarily derived from ground water, rainwater and river water through a number of manmade and environmental

50 Grahame (1997: 570); Raper (1977: 193) 51 Grahame (1997: 571) 52 Grahame (1997: 570); Wallace-Hadrill (1995: 152) 53 Keenan (2004: 152) 54 Poehler & Crowther (2018: 581) mechanisms.55 Infrastructure such as the castellum aquea, which was connected to the Serino springs to the west through a series of downwards flowing pipes, highlight the utilization of the surrounding geography as well as the advancement of logistical town planning. 56 The premise of Roman aqueducts was based on utilizing continuously flowing water in a downward fashion, however significant calculations in regards to pressure and velocity had to be incorporated to ensure infrastructure wasn’t damaged.57 This water system was connected to the city through three main pipe systems and facilitated water usage in baths, fountains and commerce enterprises such as tanneries and bakeries.58 Another collection source was through the inclusion of compluvium, a rectangular hole in the roof, in building designs.59

Rainwater would flow through the opening, typically situated in the atrium, into a shallow pool that would then be diverted to underground cisterns for future uses.60

This could be used for the cultivation of lemons, olives, cherries and flowers, which has been established through palynology and the examination of excavated root cavities.61 The inclusion of such features to housing indicates that there may have been significant periods of rainfall in this region, which could be collected and retained for use during dry seasons.62

While there has been limited study of the surrounding ecological sphere of Pompeii, the volcanic conditions can be seen to have impacted aspects of daily life such as

55 Keenan (2004: 150) 56 Jones & Robinson (2005: 698); Keenan (2004: 152) 57 Jones & Robinson (2005: 699); Keenan (2004: 150) 58 Keenan (2004: 150-151); Wallace-Hadrill (1995: 165) 59 Keenan (2004: 150); Wallace-Hadrill (1995: 167) 60 Keenan (2004: 150) 61 Keenan (2004: 150) 62 De Simone (2016: 25) agricultural production and trade. Wine production comprised a significant part of daily life, which can be seen through the large number of surviving amphorae, the level of pottery transportation as well as the large number of bars and taverns identified in Pompeii.63 Ellis’ analysis of Pompeii’s structural indicators reveals that of 158 establishment with serving counters at least 81% were used for the sale of food and drink.64 Another indicator of the importance of wine and agricultural production is evident through the archaeological yields of tools, wine and olive presses as well as literary sources of the time and agricultural markers on Mount

Vesuvius and surrounding plains.65 Strabo noted the fertility of Pompeii:

“Above these places is Mount Vesuvius, which is covered with very beautiful

fields…perhaps this may have been the cause of the fertility of the

surrounding country.”66

The archaeological record also suggests that viticulture was prolific on the southern slopes of the volcano with possibly up to two thirds of the slope used for vineyards with the upper third woodland.67 This level of cultivation can also be supported by the examination of the number of dolia found in wine cellars, while physical evidence of crop growth can be gleaned from the excavation of farmhouses discovered at the being of the twentieth century.68

As has been demonstrated, the study of Pompeii’s archaeological remnants is entwined with environmental considerations. Through an understanding of Roman

63 Ellis (2004: 374); Lomas (1996: 142) 64 Ellis (2004: 375) 65 De Simone (2016: 36) 66 Strabo, Geography 5.4.8 67 De Simone (2016: 36) 68 De Simone (2016: 36) utilization of geographical features specific aspects of city life such as agriculture, water collection and extraction as well as building infrastructure can be derived. A comprehensive encompassment of environmental phenomena such as the earthquake of 62 A.D. and the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D. and 472 A.D. are also required when analysing archaeological evidence to establish accurate data and theoretical derivations. The importance of incorporating environmental factors into archaeological yields provides for a greater depth of understanding daily life but also has the ability to validate or disprove theoretical approaches.

Bibliography

Section A

Coldstream, J.N. (2004) Geometric Greece: 900-700 BC, London. Routledge.

Colivicchi, F. (2014) ““Native” Vase Shapes in South Italian Red-Figure Pottery”, in T.H. Carpenter, K.M. Lynch & E.G.D. Robinson (eds.) The Italic People of Ancient Apulia: New Evidence from Pottery for Workshops, Markets, and Customs. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Holloway, R.R. (1995) “Pithekoussai I: La necropoli: Tombe 1-723, scavate dal 1952 al 1961 by Giorgio Buchner and David Ridgway”, American Journal of Archaeology, 99:2, 364.

Hughes, A. (1996) “Comic Stages in Magna Graecia: the Evidence of the Vases”, Theatre Research International, 21:1, 95-107.

Jones, R.E., Vagnetti, L. (1991) “Traders and Craftsmen in the Central Mediterranean: Archaeological evidence and archaeometric research”, in N.H. Gale (ed.) Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the Conference held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989, Jonsered. Paul Åströms Förlag.

Keegan, P. (2014) Graffiti in Antiquity, New York. Routledge.

Kilian, K. (1990) “Mycenaean Colonization: Norm and Variety”, in J.P. Descœudres (ed.) Greek Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour of Emeritus Professor A.D. Trendall, Camberra, Clarendon Press.

Mirti, P., Gulmini, M., Perardi, A., Davit, P., Elia, D. (2004) “Technology of production of red figure pottery from Attic and southern Italian workshops”, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 380:4, 712-718.

Mountjoy, P.A. (2001) Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction, Oxford. Oxford University School of Archaeology.

Murley, J. (2001) The South Italian Krater in the Speed Museum: An Iconographic and Cultural Study, Ann Arbor. ProQuest LLC.

Payne. H. (1931) Necrocorinthia: a study of Corinthian art in the Archaic period, Oxford. McGrath Publishing Co.

Ridgway, D. (1994) “Phoenicians and Greeks in the West: A View from Pithekoussai”, in G.R. Tsetskhladze & F. de Angelis (eds.) The Archaeology of Greek Colonization: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman, Oxford. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

Vagnetti, L. (1999) “Mycenaean pottery in the Central Mediterranean: imports and local production in their context”, in J. Crielaard, V. Sissi & G.J. van Wijngaarden (eds.) The complex Past of Pottery: production, circulation and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery (sixteenth to early fifth centuries BC): proceedings of ARCHON international conference, held in Amsterdam, 8-9 November 1996, Amsterdam.

Whitley, J. (2001) The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Wijngaarden, G.J. van (2002) Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy: (Ca. 1600-1200 BC), Amsterdam.

Section B

Alonso, F.G. (2012) “Academic Relations Between Italian and Spanish Archaeologists and Prehistorians, 1916-1936”, Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 22:2, 12-22.

Guidi, Alessandro (2010) “The Historical Development in Italian Prehistoric Archaeology: A Brief Outline”, Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 20:2, 13-21.

Loney, H.L. (2002) “Themes and Models in the Development of Italian Prehistory”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 15.2, 199-215.

Manson, A.J. (2015) Rationalism and Ruins in Roma Mussoliniana: The 1934 Palazzo del Littorio Competition, Ann Arbour. ProQuest LLC.

Quartermaine, L. (1995) ““Slouching towards Rome”: Mussolini’s imperial vision”, in T.J. Corell & K. Lomas (eds.) Urban Society in Roman Italy, London. Routledge.

Whittam, J. (1995) Fascist Italy, Manchester. Manchester University Press.

Section C

Carroll, M., Godden, D. (2000) “The Sanctuary of Apollo at Pompeii: Reconsidering Chronologies and Excavation History”, American Journal of Archaeology, 104:4. 743- 754.

De Simone, G.F. (2016) The Economy of Pompeii. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, S. (2004) “The Distribution of Bars at Pompeii: archaeological, spatial and Viewshed Analyses”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 17, 371-84 .

Grahame, M. (1997) “Public and Private in the Roman House: Investigating the Social Order of the Casa del Fauno”, in R. Laurence & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.) Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond, Portsmouth. Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Jones, R., Robinson, D. (2005) “Water, Wealth, and Social Status at Pompeii: The House of the Cestals in the First Century”, American Journal of Archaeology, 109:4, 695-710.

Keenan, D. (2004) “Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal in Pompeii: An Overview”, Ancient History: Resources for Teachers, 34.2, 149-58 .

Lomas, K. (1996) Roman Italy, 338 BC-AD 200: A sourcebook, London. UCL Press.

Poehler, E.E., Crowther, B.M. (2018) “Paving Pompeii: The Archaeology of Stone- Paved Streets”, American Journal of Archaeology, 122:4, 579-609.

Raper, R.A. (1977) “The Analysis of the Urban Structure of Pompeii: A Sociological Examination of Land Use (Semi-micro)”, in D.L. Clarke (ed.) Spatial Archaeology, London. Academic Press.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1995) “Public Honour and Private Shame: the Urban texture of Pompeii”, in T.J. Cornell & K. Lomas (eds.) Urban Society in Roman Italy, London. UCL Press.

Ancient Sources

Strabo. Geography, in The Geography of Strabo (1903) ed. and trans. H.C. Hamilton & M.A. Falconer. London. George Bell & Sons.