Pompeii has had many historians discuss it in the 19th and 20th centuries. The
archaeologists provide a much clearer view of what the cities of Vesuvius were like
than the writers of literary sources, such as Pliny the younger writing to Tacitus about
his uncle Pliny the elder.
Some other sources (mostly archaeological) suggest that Pompeii was a thriving city
at the time of the 79AD eruption, such as the luxurious villas contained in the city.
There are various other people who have accounts on the events that occurred in
Pompeii.
Pompeii was a much bigger site than Herculaneum, and would have been much
harder to excavate. It currently resides under a present town, Medina, so no further
excavations can take place. The evidence that has been found at Pompeii has been
pretty much conclusive.
Dr. Sarah Bisel was one of the most prominent archaeologists at Herculaneum. She
discovered just under 150 skeletons at the site, and analysed them using scientific
methods. She discovered children, men and women at the site. The only way that
scientific methods can be implemented is with extreme caution and expertise.
Although Dr. Giuseppe Maggi was the one who actually discovered the skeletons, he
needed the expertise of Sara Bisel. Bisel used two core anthropological methods:
biochemical analysis, which looks at chemical reactions performed by the body and
measurement and observation of bones. The biochemical analysis found extremely
high levels of lead in several skeletons. This method of archaeology could not be used
without vast scientific advancements in the 20th century.
Different archaeologists have different historical contexts in which to be appropriate
in, and this affects their finds, and their actions after finds have been discovered.
Maori, for example would have used different archaeological methods to Bisel, and
would have had access to different information.
Andrew Wallace-Hadrill said: “The past is shaped and re-shaped in the present. Just
as musicians interpret and re-interpret musical scores, and actors endlessly re-interpret
William Shakespeare’s plays, different interpretations bring out different meanings.”
(The Range of sources and their reliability, pg 38) What he meant by this was that the
reliability of sources at the cities of Vesuvius was incoherent, “as a result of past
neglect, damage to the sites and failure to scribe carefully” (The Range of sources and
their reliability, pg 37).
The plaster casts of victims made by Fiorelli’s process (using plaster) show the
clothes that the people were wearing and the objects they were carrying, which gives
us an excellent look into the state that the people were in before the eruption, what
they were doing before the eruption and how this evidence relates to the current
economic current before the eruption.
There are several “found out” exploitations of discoveries. One such example is the
finding of “the skeletons of Hadraldar”, which were found by three sets of Royalty,
obviously to influence them, and this is an indication of how evidence derived from
the past can be swayed by the theory of treasure hunting.
Archaeologist Wilhemina Jashemski performed an extensive investigation of the
gardens and orchards using plaster casts of the cavities, which was formed around the
roots and vines. She also used analysis of dead ash. Both of these techniques gave
Jashemski the opportunity to identify the flora at the time of the eruption.
Archaeologists have since been able to re-create some of the gardens in the finer
residences and a large vineyard near the amphitheatre. This evidence has shed light
onto the economical stance of Pompeii before the eruption, with the relationship
between rural and urban areas seemingly used.
Another example of flora identification is Henry De St Blanquet’s discovery of 31
parasitic plants, which over time can dislodge tiles and mosaics, weaken mortar which
destabilizes walls. These discoveries allowed Blanquet to see that the water and
drainage systems in Pompeii were extremely bad condition, which gives us a greater
understanding of the possible medical problems that people from Pompeii and
Herculaneum might have had. This influences our judgement of these people,
changing from lack of hygiene and/or medical knowledge to invisible problems in the
basic stages of Pompeii’s and Herculaneum’s infrastructure.
Tourism is a “catch 22” when it comes to the preservation of sites. It brings in
revenue to pay for staff, but at the same time, tourism actually destroys the sites.
Amedeo Mauiri was the director of excavations at Pompeii from 1924 to 1961. He
made an endeavour to progress the infrastructure of the two towns. He attempted to
do this with materials of concrete and steel, which didn’t match the original materials
and also damaged the structure. This mistake could have been one of many
discovered at Pompeii and Herculaneum, and shows the unreliability of sources at
Pompeii and Herculaneum based on the material choice.
The methods used by archaeologists at Pompeii obviously reflect the time period they
were in, and the level of accessibility to sources. The general consensus is that the
methods get more crisp, smooth and thorough as time goes by. There is also a lack of
evidence from earlier in the 19th century and early 20th century, which condemns all
evidence derived from that period to be unreliable. This is partly due to the fault of
the archaeologists, but a lack of experience or knowledge could also be claimed.
Archaeologists have a duty to record information from a site, but this duty was
relieved of the earlier archaeologists, since there is little or no documentation being
recorded.