, ,

ORIGINS OF NEAPOLIS (NAPLES)

Cuma, the first “apoikìa” [from the verb “apoikèo” = “I live far away”] – Greek colony of the West, immediately after its foundation in the second half of the 8th century BC , expanded rapidly along the coast of the Gulf of Naples, founding fortress-ports, “epìneia”, such as Miseno, Pozzuoli, Pizzofalcone, Capri. It was a way to guard the territory and control it.

However, at the end of the 6th century B.C. Cuma also favoured the foundation of “Neapolis” (1), which was not only an emporium like many others, but a real city: this further expansion inevitably led to a clash with the Etruscans, another population which spread across the territory. From their cities in the Campania plain (Capua, Calatia, Nola) and the Salerno area (Pontecagnano, Fratte) they moved towards the coast contending with the Greeks the dominion over the indigenous people. (2) The naval battle of Cuma of 474 B.C. was won by the Greeks and it caused the beginning of the progressive decline of the Etruscans in Campania.

Although very little of the Greek-Roman “Neapolis” remains today, the historical center of Naples, entirely superimposed on the ancient city, has maintained its regular urban planning, articulated on 3 East-West “platèiai” [sing. platèia – main roads] and about twenty North-South “stenòpoi” [sing. stenòpos – secondary roads], forming rectangular blocks (35m x 160/180m). The city developed over about 70 hectares and was surrounded by gullies. It was also bordered by massive city walls of tufa blocks dating back to the 5th century BC, restored several times between the 4th century B.C. and the 5th century A.D. (3)

The very large “Agorà” [main square], was divided into two levels, separated by the median “platèia”, traced by the current “Via dei Tribunali”. This arrangement is known above all for the presence of remains of buildings from the Roman era, although it is a shared opinion that it may reflect a contemporary urban planning of the Greek Hippodamian style.
The upper agora, the mountain area, is characterized by the presence, of two big buildings for show side by side, the Theater and the Odèion (Small Theater). To the south is the great “Dioscuri” temple, also from the Imperial era, which dominated the median “platèia”. (4) Of this temple, two surviving Corinthian columns are still on the facade of the “Basilica of San Paolo Maggiore” in Naples.
The lower agora, however, narrower than the upper one, boasted the presence of the covered market and the shops of the Imperial era. The functional distinction between the two squares, which appeared evident in the Roman era, may have been realized as early as the 4th century BC, when the lower agorà assumed a commercial character, leaving the more purely political functions to the upper one. (5)

 

WHY IS THE HISTORICAL CENTER OF NAPLES SO INTERESTING ?

The historic center of Naples, entirely superimposed on the ancient Greek city, has perfectly preserved the regular urban planning of the Greek “Neapolis”, divided into 3 East-West platèiai (main roads) and about twenty North-South stenòpoi (secondary roads). The Greek city and, at a lesser depth, the Roman city are well preserved under the streets of the current historic center: in archaeological areas such as the excavations of the church of San Lorenzo, this phenomenon is very evident.

Furthermore, it seems that Akragas (Agrigento), in Sicily, was the only city of the colonial West to have developed duplication of the space destined to the ”Agorà” (main square) already in the classical era [480 B.C. – 323 B.C.], with a radical separation of administrative functions from commercial ones, according to a scheme which, in the motherland, took place in the late classical and Hellenistic period. (6). However, it seems that “Neapolis” soon followed the example of the illustrious polis (city) of Akragas, and this aspect is particularly interesting.

 

Bibliography:

1) See article: Daniela GIAMPAOLA, “Approdare”, pag 207, in Massimo OSANNA e Carlo RESCIGNO – Pompei e i Greci , Electa 2017
2) Stefano DE CARO “Le culture della Campania antica preromana: I I Greci (Pithekoussai, Cuma, Neapolis) in “Il Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli” – a cura di Stefano De Caro – Electa Napoli 1994. pag. 21
3) Gioacchino Francesco LA TORRE, Sicilia e Magna Grecia –– Editori Laterza – 2011 pag.210
4) Ivi, pag 260-261
5) Ivi, pag. 261
6) Ivi, pp. 258-260

  

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
, ,

NAPOLEON AND HIS ART THEFTS

In the history of the western world the figure of Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France and King of Italy, is comparable only to that of Julius Caesar. Like him, Napoleon was an unparalleled military genius and a great legislator, in a moment of transition from one historical era to another, deeply marked by the upheavals of the French Revolution.

In 1796,  he was sent to fight on a front considered secondary, Italy, with an army of 38,000 poorly equipped soldiers, but the war results were extraordinary, so also were his “art thefts” (Wescher). Napoleon’s advance was favourably seen both in the cities submitted to Austria, and in the territories of the Papal State where Bologna, Ferrara, Ancona and the occupation of Rome itself were falling in rapid succession. In our country the Napoleonic commissioners were in charge of requisitions. In addition to the painter and collector Wicar, was the painter Antoine Gros, who had long stayed in Italy, the sculptor Jean-Baptiste Moitte, and the engraver Dutertre. Many of them already had a good knowledge of Italy but they used also guide books, collections of engravings as well as reports of travelers of the “Grand Tour” with their descriptions of the main masterpieces kept in churches and palaces.

Napoleon’s march met with no obstacles: even in the States of the Church the intolerance for the papal government was so strong as to make Napoleon appear to be a “liberator”, and as such he was greeted by Foscolo, who  in 1799 dedicated a famous ode to him (“To Napoleon Liberator “).

To give a semblance of legitimacy to the raids perpetrated by his armies, Napoleon had included the requisitions of works of art in the clauses of the armistices and peace treaties: the forced transfer of so many masterpieces would thus be included in the agreements and, instead of appearing as an abuse, it would have been accepted as part of the obligations of the vanquished.  As for the moral aspects, the Directoire justified itself by claiming that the works of art, as created by free spirits, had to be brought into the homeland of freedom, France,  which would also have provided for their better preservation.

The richest haul was collected in Rome, where French troops entered in February 1798.  Pope Pius VI Braschi – the great proponent of the “Pius Clementinus Museum” – was deposed, taken prisoner and sent to France where he died the following year. In the Papal States the Republic was proclaimed. The French commissioners then entered into action and dedicated themselves to the requisition of works of art, while assuring the population that the ancient monuments would not be touched. In reality they entertained the idea of ​​removing the two colossal statues of the “Dioscuri” in front of the “Quirinale” and of dismantling the “Trajan Column”, projects fortunately  abandoned  due to the impossibility of realizing them. On the other hand the sculptures, which had been admired in “The Courtyard of Statues” by Bramante since the Renaissance – such as the “Laocoon”, the “Apollo of the Belvedere”, the “Nile” and the “Tiber”, the “Sleeping Ariadne”, the “Torso” – or masterpieces of the Capitoline Museums as the “Spinario” (“Boy with Thorn”) donated by Sisto IV in 1471, the “Pudica Venus”, the “Discobolus”, all took the road to Paris. As it happens in the turbulent days of every occupation, there were countless episodes of vandalism. Furthermore, the French commissioners, once they had drawn up the list of works to be sent to Paris, began to trade, selling off a quantity of paintings and sculptures considered to be of lower quality.

On 27 and 28 July a very long procession paraded through the streets of Paris to reach the Louvre Museum and a shrewd and spectacular show renewed the glories of the Roman triumphs with an exhibition of the conquered treasures. The boxes were marked by large writings that indicated their contents, but the most famous “preys”, such as the “Laocoon” and the “Horses of San Marco”, were offered, unpacked, to the astonishment of the citizens. The great absentee from this grand parade was Napoleon Bonaparte, who had embarked for Egypt, opening a new front of hostility. Having abandoned the ideals of the “Musée Révolutionnaire”, the great French museum, renamed “Musée Napoléon” since 1803, now takes on the glorification aspect of Napoleonic power, an image of the political and cultural supremacy of France seen through the exhibition of the most representative masterpieces of the great traditions of European States.

So much power was identified in the Louvre Museum that in 1810, Napoleon’s wedding to Maria Luisa of Austria was celebrated in the “Grande Gallerie”, which was cleared of paintings and sculptures for the occasion.

In 1815 the Battle of Waterloo marked the end of the Napoleonic era, but some “art thefts” from the Italian Peninsula remained and are still in France today: the “Tiber” statue, The “Crowning of thorns”, painted by Titian and other relevant masterpieces.

 

Excerpt from: Maria Teresa Iorio, Il museo nella storia , Pearson, 2018, pp 76-81

  

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
,

THE PARADOX OF MODERN MUSEUMS

 

Museums cost a lot of money, because they require qualified personnel, constant maintenance of the spaces, conservation and restoration of the artifacts, microclimatic control of the exhibition halls and repository, security systems, and so on. However, a museum (or an archaeological site) must be financed by the community because only in this way can it  carry out its “public service” of education, study and enjoyment (1) in a complete way and without external influences. On the other hand, the fact that a museum is “financed by the community” is also a litmus paper of the degree of civilization of a Country and its political maturity.

 

If the museum were to self-finance like any private company, that is, trying to be more and more appreciated by its customers/visitors, it would be forced to perform only (or above all) those activities of sure success for its visitors. But the orientation of the museum towards the visitors, if based on the satisfaction of their  needs as they result from the analysis of customer satisfaction, would reduce its capacity for experimentation and innovation.  Egyptian antiquities, the Impressionists and dinosaurs are themes of sure success, but the more exhibitions on these subjects are displayed, the more their contents tend to repeat themselves. So even if these exhibitions bring more public to the museum, that audience from that museum does not draw significant cultural content. (2) Therefore, the museum must be funded by the community.

The Great Paradox:

This institution has been called the “museum/rentier” because it lives on public funding, like the landowner who does not work, but merely manages his own income. The “museum-rentier”, being able to count on financial sources not directly related to the cultural activities carried out, lives – most of the time – a life coldly detached from the demand expressed by citizens, responding exclusively to those who provide the flow of public funding, the Public Administration.  The museum does not need to find sources of support by implementing a strategy of relationships “services offered/financing” with the different components of society (citizens, tourists, foundations and non-profit institutions, commercial operators, companies, business associations, public and private bodies, local authorities, etc.). So here is the paradox that the public functioning of the museum – which is born and justified to favour the use of the public service/museum by all citizens – risks distancing  from them rather than  drawing them in. (3)

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

(1)  ICOM (International Council of Museums) defines the museum as follows:

 It is an organization that was created in 1946 by and for museum professionals. A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.

2) Maria Vittoria Marini Clarelli, Il Museo nel mondo contemporaneo, Carocci Editore, 2014, pag. 82

3) ibid. pp. 53-54

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
, , ,

THE ETRUSCANS, THE GREEKS AND THE PHOENICIANS

                                           

THE ETRUSCANS, THE GREEKS AND THE PHOENICIANS

In the eighth century BC, the Italian peninsula, except for the Southern part, where the Greeks began to found colonies (Cuma in the second half of the eighth century BC, Sybaris at the end of the eighth century BC, as well as a few others), was inhabited by the so-called Italic peoples: Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Piceni, Samnites, Iapigi, Messapi, Equi, Veneti, Liguri, etc., where the economic and cultural influence of the Etruscans was strong. The Italian territory was composed of a network of indigenous villages. (1)

 

For a mere academic schematization, we can outline 3 models of occupation of the  Italian territory, which were applied by the Etruscans, Greeks and Phoenicians.

 

ETRUSCAN MODEL: The Etruscans, with their arrival, favored new forms of urbanization by aggregating small scattered villages. Thus the so-called “Etruscan synoecism” takes place: this term  indicates the process of unification (2). A probable example was Pompeii, where the mythical people of Sarrastri, who previously lived on the banks of the Sarno river in villages of huts, were urged by the Etruscans to “unify” by founding the famous town of Campania.

 

GREEK MODEL: The other model is the one that spread in Southern Italy, “Magna Graecia” [and Sicily ed.], where the urbanization process was the opposite, because it started from a global vision of the urban planning. (3)The Greek settlers considered the “fertile soil” as the most important criteria in the selection of the site, since in most cases, to look for new lands to be cultivated, they had abandoned the motherland, afflicted by the increase in population, by the low quantity of production and quality of its soils (poor, being superficial and stony) and their intensive exploitation, which lasted for centuries. (4)Therefore this will determine the acquisition, sometimes violent, of the land at the expense of the natives. (5) Archaeological research has almost always documented that the Greeks systematically destroyed the indigenous villages in order to establish their settlements in Magna Graecia and Sicily.

PHOENICIAN MODEL:  The Phoenicians tended only to found emporiums for their trade with the local populations, with whom they usually entertained peaceful relations. (6). A notable exception is Carthage, which, in its long history, assumed a hegemonic role in the western Mediterranean. It maintained its great power until the time when, in the III century B.C., it clashed with Rome (Punic Wars).

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Giuseppe Gisotti, La fondazione delle città, Carocci Editore 2016 – pag. 26
  2. Ibid. p. 26
  3. Ibid.  p. 26
  4. Ibid. p. 22
  5. Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia, Editori Laterza, 2011, p. 24
  6. Giuseppe Gisotti, op. cit. p. 20

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
, , ,

ELGIN MARBLES AND THE FUTURE OF THE GREAT MUSEUMS OF POST-COLONIAL COUNTRIES

 

The term for the group of sculptures gathered in Athens by Thomas Bruce, VII Earl of Elgin, Ambassador of England to the Sublime Porte (the office of the Grand Vizier and foreign relations) of the Ottoman Empire in 1799. The term has entered into current archaeological terminology. Assisted by the Neapolitan painter Lusieri and a group of architects, designers and molders, Earl Elgin collected the well-known “Elgin Marbles” such as a capital and a trabeation of a Parthenon column, sculptures of the Parthenon, architectural pieces of the Propylaea, a caryatid, a column, fragments of the Erechtheum, part of the sculptures of the temple of Athena Nike, the statue of Dionysus from the monument of Trasyllos and other architectural fragments of Attic monuments, as well as casts and drawings of the Parthenon sculptures left in place. From 1801 to 1805 Lord Elgin dedicated himself to the collection of these artifacts with a formal authorization from the Turkish government, whose validity is still under discussion today. They were sent to England and temporarily exhibited in the Palace of Lord Elgin from 1807. In 1816 the English Parliament voted a law for their purchase. (1)

Since 1817 the Elgin Marbles are the glory of the British Museum in London. As Salvatore Settis recalled, the marbles were requested “since the dawn of Greek independence, in 1835, and then in 1864 (when England ceded the Ionian Islands to Greece) and in 1924 (centenary of the death of the Philhellenic Lord Byron ). The English also played with fire, flashing the return of the marbles in 1940-41 (as an incentive to the deployment of Greece against Germany and Italy), in the fifties (in exchange for the end of terrorism in Cyprus), and finally during the dictatorship, in exchange for a return to democracy “(2).

The new site of the Acropolis Museum in Athens, designed by Bernard Tschumi, was designed for a worthy presentation of the extraordinary sculptures removed from the temples for conservation reasons. However, the new museum was also created to demonstrate a thesis: through the visual incorporation of the famous hill and its monumental remains, made possible by the glass walls, it is claimed that this is the only appropriate destination for all which come from the site and that here they can also be appreciated in the same light conditions. (3)

To the understandable claim of Greece to the marbles by Fidia, were added those of Egypt for the recovery of works of art removed to foreign museums. These initiatives led the directors of the major museums of the world to sign the “Declaration on the importance and value of universal museums” in 2002 in support of their now historicized structure and of their actions – especially in the case of museums born between the eighteenth century and Nineteenth century – in the dissemination of culture. (4)
A few years later, while the Acropolis Museum in Athens was being set up and opened to the public in June 2009, the British Museum published a splendid collection of its sculptures (5). In its preface the director Neil Mac Gregor argued that in London and in Athens, two ways of presenting the sculptures coexist, both legitimate and for which there is no alternative, given that “the third possibility, that of reintegrating the sculptures in the same building, for reasons of conservation and access is out of the question “(6)

WHY IS THE QUESTION OF ELGIN MARBLES SO IMPORTANT?

The problem, however, is not only about who, between Greece and Britain, has more of a claim on the Marbles, but also, in perspective, the future of the great museums of post-colonial countries. (3a) The question is of great importance. What would happen if the various museums of the world were forced to “return” all their works of art from other places and cultures to their respective countries of origin? The Elgin Marbles are perhaps the most emblematic case of how the integrity of museum collections in post-colonial countries is potentially at risk for the future.

BIBLIOGRAFY:
1) L. Vlad Borrelli “Elgin Marbles” da “Enciclopedia dell’ Arte Antica” (1960) – digital source from
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/elgin-marbles_%28Enciclopedia-dell%27-Arte-Antica%29/ (Last access: 22 December 2018)

2) Salvatore Settis Nuova luce sul Partenone in “Sole 24 ore. La Domenica”, 30 novembre 2008
3) Maria Vittoria Marini Clarelli, Il Museo nel mondo contemporaneo, Carocci editore, 2014, p. 174
3a) ibid, p. 175
4) Maria Teresa Fiorio, Il Museo nella storia, Pearson 2018, pp. 90-92
5) I. Jenkins, Sculptures of the Parthenon, British Museum Press, London, 2007
6) ibid, p.7

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
, , ,

THE CATS IN POMPEII

 

It is believed that the cohabitation of cat and man began when the first men made the change from being hunter-gatherers to being farmers and began to accumulate large quantities of food. Cats were then employed in barns as rat hunters. There is certain evidence of peaceful cohabitation between cats and men in Egypt (where they were worshipped) and later also in Greece where, however, this animal never gained the prestige it had in Egypt.

If in the Roman world cats were rare in the first century AD, their remains are also rare. None of their skulls are preserved, in fact, in the storehouse of Pompeii, where skeletal parts of many and various animals abound (most of them are displayed today in the first room of the Boscoreale Museum). Two of them, however, came to light in Oplontis, returned from the excavation of the Imperial Villa. It is no coincidence that the discovery occurred in a building of such great luxury, that is where it was conceivable that exotic and rare animals were hosted. In Pompeii, however, there is no shortage of representations of the feline: of remarkable beauty, for example, is the mosaic coming from the “Casa del Fauno” which represents a “Cat that bites a partridge”, now kept in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples. The same museum displays another Pompeian mosaic floor which represents “Parrots, a dove and a cat”, also coming from the “Casa del Fauno”. In any case, it should not be forgotten that Pompeii had many contacts with Greece and Egypt; therefore it is believed credible that the “Pompeian” cats, the few there were, managed to save themselves at the first signs of the catastrophe, something that perhaps did not happen in Oplontis. However, these are just mere speculations.

It is interesting to note that the cat, apart from its beauty and its ability to keep company, from the first century AD progressively replaced the weasel in Roman houses, which until then, had been raised in a semi-domestic state to fight mice (See note).

Many wealthy customers were constantly looking for exotic and strange animals which, with their presence, would certainly have emphasized the prestige of their house: and here – see photo – is a new species of cat with a peculiar maculate livery. This valuable Hellenistic mosaic floor, now kept in the Archaeological Museum of Naples, shows this rare cat, two parrots and a dove at the watering place. For the Western world it is a rare animal: it is the Steppe Cat, rich in various forms, all Asian, set mainly in the Southern plains corresponding to the current Pakistan and neighbouring territories. The progenitor of Indian domestic breeds was widespread in its homeland, and, for centuries before it arrived to Rome, it was imported into Egypt. From the end of the first century AD onwards, during the numerous military campaigns, the Romans took cats with them, contributing to their diffusion throughout Europe. Traces of the presence of the cat have been found in all regions conquered by the Romans. However, all this was never experienced in Pompeii, whose life was suddenly brought to an abrupt end by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD.

Excerpt from: Annamaria Ciarallo, Orti e Giardini di Pompei , Publishing House: Fausto Fiorentino 1992, pp. 30

NOTE: Plutarch gives us this piece of news, cfr. Brehm A.E. 1931. vol. V p. 35

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
, , ,

THE LOUVRE MUSEUM IN ABU DHABI: MODEL FOR OUR MUSEUMS ?

 

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, large museum institutions are expanding more and more, not only by enlarging their headquarters but also by opening new branches at home and abroad. The first museum to test this model of development was the Guggenheim Museum which, in addition to the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, has opened in Berlin, and it is building, according to a project by Frank Gehry, the Abu Dhabi Guggenheim Museum.
The Tate Modern Museum in London has a satellite, for example, in Liverpool (Tate Liverpool Museum) while the Beaubourg Museum in Paris has inaugurated one in Mets.(1)

But the “most striking” cultural/commercial deal is the one closed by the Louvre Museum in Paris.

In 2007, the French Government and the Federal State of the United Arab Emirates signed an agreement to launch Abu Dhabi as a center of art and culture. The agreement provides for the thirty-year sale of the “Louvre brand”, along with the long-term loan of works of art from the famous Parisian museum and from twelve other French museums, in exchange for generous financial support.

The goal is to bring 8.5 million tourists annually to Abu Dhabi by 2020.
To distinguish itself from the nearby Dubai, which has already become one of the great capitals of world tourism, focusing on entertainment as well as luxury, and from Doha, which has focused on sport (World Cup 2022), Abu Dhabi has chosen the cultural path. The intention is to create a real museum district in Abu Dhabi, such as those in Berlin or Washington, Amsterdam or Vienna, between sea and sand.

Only the grant of the “Louvre” brand for the duration of 30 years seems to be worth 400 million Euros, while another 575 million Euros will be granted in exchange for loans.
The Louvre Museum in Abu Dhabi is a design by Jean Nouvel: a city-museum, an elegant and Pharaonic project. It is the first museum of its kind in the Arab world, a universal exhibition, which focuses on human stories shared through civilizations and cultures.
According to Mohamed Khalifa Al Mubarak, president of The Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority and Tourism Development & Investment Company, the Louvre Museum in Abu Dhabi embodies the belief of the founders of the United Arab Emirates: that nations grow with diversity and acceptance which highlights how the world has always been interconnected.

The highest representatives of French culture have confirmed, in addition to the complete absence of vetoes regarding representations of the deities of every religion and provenance, that the Louvre Museum in Abu Dhabi will be exempt from any prohibition of representation of the nude, in painting or sculpture, sacred or not.
They will display important masterpieces from France, such as the “Portrait of Lady” (La Belle Ferronière) by Leonardo (from the Louvre), “Napoleon Crossing the Alps” by Jacques-Louis David (from Chateau de Malmaison) and the “Self-Portrait” by Vincent Van Gogh (from Orsay).

THE LOUVRE MUSEUM AND THE ABU DHABI DEAL: A MODEL TO BE IMITATED OR AVOIDED?

The birth of the Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum has invariably raised great controversy in France, where many contested the commercialization of such a noble brand. On 12th December 2006 the French newspaper Le Monde published the article “Les musées ne sont pas à vendre” (transl.: Museums are not for sale) by Françoise Cachin, Jean Clair and Roland Recht “where they claimed that” Les œuvres d’art sont a patrimoine à montrer, pas une attraction ni une marchandise ” (transl.: Works of art are heritage to show, not an attraction or a commodity). And they concluded the article stressing that “les objets du patrimoine ne sont pas des biens de consommation, et préserver leur avenir, c’est garantir, pour demain, leur valeur universelle” (transl.: heritage objects are not consumer goods, and preserving their future means guaranteeing, for tomorrow, their universal value).

The Louvre deal is certainly a way to promote its own “brand” and Western art and customs in countries with different cultures – in this case the Arab world. It is also a way to promote Paris abroad, in addition to significant economic speculation.

However, this phenomenon risks triggering the perverse mechanism that induces in the loan policy to privilege the museum/partner which is wealthier than the others, marginalizing all the “serious” but less wealthy museums. Even the museum, a noble cultural institution of our Society, would become a mere business.

But are we really sure that this cultural and commercial deal is not simply a means of “selling one’s soul”?

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Maria Vittoria Marini Clarelli, Il Museo nel mondo contemporaneo, Carocci Editore, 2014, p. 196

 

 

<a href=”https://dariodavide.com/the-three-hour-tour-of-pompeii-with-its-amphitheater” title=”Our Pompeii three-hour guided tour with the amphitheater”> For info about our three-hour guided tours of Pompeii</a>

/by
, , , ,

THE CONCEPT OF RACE IN THE ANCIENT WORLD

 

Ethnicity, as a biological fact, is a product of the nineteenth century that we can not apply to antiquity.(1) In the ancient world, ethnic identity is not particularly important and it is, in any case, a cultural process, always under construction (2). If it is true that from ancient times many populations or social groups tended to shut themselves off from others, excluding or discriminating against those they considered different, their attitude can be defined as “xenophobic” or “ethnocentric” rather than “racist” in the true sense, based on the foundations of presumed linguistic, cultural, and religious superiority. For example, the Greeks and the Romans called people who did not speak their languages “barbarians”. However, this did not favour a feeling of unity within a single race. Among them, the Greeks carried out ruthless wars which often ended with real genocide and with the enslavement of women and children (the so-called “andrapodismos”). (3) During the battle of Traente (A small Calabrian river), in 510 B.C., Crotone, city of “Magna Graecia” (the name given by the Romans to the coastal areas of Southern Italy), even diverted the course of the Crati river to destroy another Greek city, Sybaris.
To better understand how the concept of race was unimportant in ancient times, an interesting story may be that of Tarquinius Priscus. At the end of the VII century B.C., the son of a man from Corinth (Greece) settled in Tarquinia, southern Etruria (the area corresponding to current-day Tuscany, Italy), decided to emigrate to Rome, together with his wife Tanaquil, because the aristocracy of Tarquinia did not allow him to pursue a career. In Rome they called him “Tarquinius” because he came from that city, and they elected him their king after the death of the fourth king of Rome, Ancus Marcius. Who was Tarquinius? He was raised in Tarquinia and “culturally” he was Etruscan. Was he therefore Tarquiniese, as he appeared to the Romans? Was he a Roman, considering the fact that he was king of Rome? Or was he rather, Greek, considering that his “biological” origin was Corinthian? Evidently all and none of these answers can be considered true. A coherent hypothesis would see Lucius Tarquinius Priscus as an exponent of the archaic Mediterranean élite, who used various ethnic backgrounds to express his status. (4)

Even in the Roman world, race was not a particularly important issue. The emperor Hadrian was born near Seville, in the “Hispania Baetica”, and nevertheless he became emperor. Septimius Severus was born in Leptis Magna (Libya) and he managed to become emperor. The Spaniard, Seneca the Younger, born in Cordoba, became a senator of Rome and preceptor to Nero.
In the ancient world – the modern era begins with the discovery of America in 1492 – other categories of identity could have much more of an impact than ethnic identity. Beyond gender (male or female), it was, above all, the social status that determined the identity of a person. (5)
As we said before, the concept of race as a biological fact is a product of the nineteenth century. One of the texts which gave a decisive impulse to the spread of racist ideas was the “Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines” (1853-55) “The Inequality of Human Races” by J.-A. de Gobineau, who supported the biological and spiritual superiority of the Aryan Germanic race. However, the most tragic expression of racism was in Nazi Germany, which sought to achieve the supremacy of the Aryan race by enslaving the Slavs and eliminating the Jews.

Bibliography:
(1) B. Isaac “The invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity” – Princeton 2004
(2) Gabriel Zuchtriegel “I Greci e le popolazioni indigene dell’Italia antica: un problema antico o moderno?” pag 65 da “Pompei e i Greci” Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno – Electa 2017
(3) ibid. p. 63
(4) ibid. p. 65
(5) ibid. p. 63

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii

/by
, ,

CAMPAIGN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS OF CUMA (25 June – 20 July 2018)

CAMPAIGN OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS OF CUMA (25 June – 20 July 2018)

 

From the end of June to the first part of July 2018 I had the great pleasure of taking part in the excavation campaign conducted in Cuma by the “Luigi Vanvitelli” University of Archeology of Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Caserta, Italy).

The Archaeological Park of Cuma is divided into the so-called “lower city” (the real and original ancient city, first Greek and then Roman) and the “Acropolis”, location of the main sanctuaries, one of which is the so-called Temple of Jupiter. And this ancient Greek sanctuary has been the object of prolific archaeological excavations conducted by the aforementioned University. But why is Cuma so important?

 

IMPORTANCE OF CUMA:

From the island of Pithecusa (Ischia) the Greeks landed on the mainland to stabilize the most ancient polis (town) of the West during the first half of the 8th century. B.C. [All of this] would bring us the alphabet, philosophy, political and legal institutions. (1)

The transmission of the use of writing and the Chalcedon alphabet, used since the eighth century BC in Rome (vase of the necropolis of Osteria dell’Osa di Gabii of the first half of the eighth century BC) and in Etruria (end of the VIII century BC) to write the first, very short written texts, makes the importance of  its role between the Greek world and the indigenous Tyrrhenian world, Pithecusa and Cuma explicit in the first decades of their lives. (2)

This is why the excavations we carried out with the ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’ University of Archeology in Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Caserta) are of such keen interest.

                                                                   WHAT WE HAVE DISCOVERED:

The excavations, conducted by Professor Carlo Rescigno of the “Luigi Vanvitelli” University of Archeology of Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Caserta), have identified in Apollo the tutelary deity of the Upper Temple of the Acropolis of Cumae, subverting the traditional interpretation which called it the Temple to Jupiter. All this has been possible thanks to numerous findings referring to the Apollonian cult, among which the exceptional discovery of a bronze statuette of the Sybil of Cuma, priestess of Apollo, dating back to the 6th century BC. In other words, most likely, these prolific archaeological excavations have confirmed that the temple at the top of the Cumaean acropolis, likely the most important, was dedicated to Apollo.

 

 

Bibliography:

1) Pier Giovanni Guzzo “Pompei, Magna Grecia” pag 56 – da “Pompei e I Greci” a cura di Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno – Electa 2017

2) Gioacchino Francesco La Torre – “Sicilia e Magna Grecia”  – Editori Laterza 2015 pag. 33

/by
, , , ,

WHY A NEW BLOG

WHY A NEW BLOG 


Today the web provides a huge amount of information, photos and news of all kinds. This is certainly a very positive development for the dissemination of knowledge: an immense free offer of information immediately available. On the other hand, the risk of running into unreliable news is very high. This is detrimental to any web user, but then it becomes unacceptable when the news pertains to the scientific field.

Hence the desire to share a blog of information on Archeology, in particular and the Sciences in general, analytically verifying each source (bibliographic and non) of the news, reporting it accurately. This is in order to provide “reliable” tools to other scholars who would otherwise have to undertake additional research in the same field.

However, in addition to archaeologists, historians and scholars in general, this blog has the ambition of delivering the news it contains to any enthusiast or “common” reader who loves Archeology.

So, our goal is to include rather than exclude, to approach rather than push away.

Consistent with this principle is the language used in this blog: the English language. The use of the Italian language would have excluded the majority of potential readers of the articles to follow. English is a “democratic” language because it is understood and spoken by everyone.

Therefore, despite the purely scientific nature of this blog, we will try to use a simple and comprehensible language for everyone. Of course, it is not frequent that archaeological and scientific articles can be read easily and with pleasure, but this is our intent. A great archaeologist and historian of ancient art, the Sienese nobleman Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, remembered, amused, that the best review of his book “Roman art at the center of power”, published in the collection directed by André Malraux “L’univers des formes “, had been that of a mediocre opponent, who, thinking of undermining the work, had said that the book by Bianchi Bandinelli was not to be studied, but to be read. (1) Hopefully we will be able to say the same, even if on a different note, about this blog and the diversity of the topics which we will offer below.

Another reason that led us to embark on this adventure is that scientific dissemination in general, and that relating to the classical world in particular, have been and continue to be the glory and pride of the Anglo-Saxon culture. As a great civilization of Dilettanti (amateurs) – as a glorious association of eighteenth-century English archaeologists was called – the Anglo-Saxon world has developed a scientific literature for the delight of the common person, the “commoner” over time. (2) This literary tradition has reached an ever-wider audience.

In Italy, meanwhile, the Academic world has withdrawn on an “Olympus of knowledge”, self-referential and with an indifference to the thirst for knowledge of the “common people”. Academics, scholars, museum directors tend to take as their main – often exclusive – reference, their own scientific community. From popular scientific television programs by the BBC to those by Alberto or Piero Angela, from Roberto Giacobbo to Mario Tozzi, which play that role of “trait d’union”- intermediary –  in that “vacuum” between the scientific world and the “common people”, at the moment too distant.

Fortunately, in recent times, even in our country, we have begun to record encouraging signs from “enlightened” directors of museums, superintendents and academics who have gradually started to turn their gaze towards the “real world”, but the road is still very long and we are only at the beginning.

 

Bibliography

  • Preface by  Mario Torelli in  Tὃlle-Kastenbein,  Archeologia dell’Acqua, Longanesi & C. Milano 2005, p. 1
  • Ibid p.1
/by