, ,

GREEK URBAN PLANNING IN MAGNA GREECE AND SICILY – Second Part:

The Greek  Sanctuaries can be:

  1. a) Intramural
  2. b) Periurban
  3. c) Extraurban

 

Their location was linked to methods and needs that varied from city to city and that underwent evolution over time.

 

Urban and Periurban Sanctuaries:

 

They were preferably located on the “Acropolis”, citadel built on a high hill, but also in the same “agorài” (main squares), and then along the line of fortifications, to define a sort of “sacred belt”, or, in the case of coastal cities, at the mouth of the rivers, near ports and landings.

 

Extraurban Sanctuaries:

 

The “pòlis”, from the moment of its establishment in a foreign land, in addition to carving out a large urban space clearly oversized for the needs of the first comers, subtracted from the natives and also annexed a portion of territory outside the city. This space, functional to finding food resources, was the “chòra politikè”, an essential part, together with the city, of the “polis” political institution. Therefore, exactly as in the mother country, from the beginning the colonial “pòlis” was composed of an inseparable unity between the city (àstu) and that portion of the territory directly subjected to the government of the city (chòra politiké), dotted with sanctuaries from the earliest phase and variously articulated over time. Since the first generations,  the main extra-urban sanctuaries were almost never more than 10-12 km away from the city: it suggests that the size of the most ancient “chòra” allowed farmers however to reach their property (in the “chòra politiké”), to work the land and to return in city ​​over the same day.

 

Chòra Politiké:

 

It is clear how the best portion of the “chòra” was divided and assigned to the colonists according to a very well regulated property regime, of which we also have extraordinary testimonies of an economic-juridical or cadastral nature, although much later – the Tables of Eraclea (1), the Tables of the Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios of Locri or the Alesina Table. It is equally clear how at the edge of the divided and assigned countryside there was the “eschatià”, that is a sort of no-man’s land set against the indigenous territories or a neighbouring “pòlis”.

It is important to underline that the limits of the colonial territories towards the wooded areas of the “eschatià” and those inhabited by the indigenous populations were not well defined. Along the coast, on the other hand, especially in the case of (A remove) direct proximity between two neighbouring “pòleis”, the borders had to be established more strictly, so that the historical sources refer to border conflicts, trespassing and raids in the enemy territory, similarly to as documented for the motherland. In these cases the borders were often marked by natural elements, especially rivers, also sometimes marked by the sacred.

The sacred mediated between the Greeks and the indigenous communities of the hinterland, in those very permeable areas, defined as frontiers, in which the meeting of the different cultures became more fruitful and where the interests of the indigenous aristocracies were united with those of the dominant classes of the colonial “pòleis”.

 

 

Excerpt  from:  Giocacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia, Editori Laterza, 2011, pp. 157-160

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii and Herculaneum

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

ETRUSCANS AND ITALIC PEOPLES IN CAMPANIA

It is indeed impressive to note that, twice in the 7th century BC and in the 15th century AD, almost the same region of central Italy, ancient Etruria and modern Tuscany, was the decisive hotbed of Italian civilization.(1)

When in the VIII century BC the Greeks set foot on the coasts of Campania, they found it inhabited by populations who were different in language, customs and level of development, and they immediately established a relationship with them, now conflicting, now more or less friendly. The Greek historians of the Classical Age (480 B.C. – 323 B.C.), more attentive to the events of the Greek pòleis (cities), have  told us little or nothing about these local peoples, who appeared to them barbarous and, therefore, devoid of history. Only two names have been handed down from these various indigenous peoples, the  “Ausoni” and the “Opici”, sometimes assimilating them, more often distinguishing them. The “Ausoni”, of whom the “Aurunci” were considered to be descendants in historical times, lived between the “Liri” and “Volturno” rivers and were considered the first inhabitants of the region.  “Opici”, on the other hand, according to some modern historians, would reflect a later reality, the so-called “Fossakultur” (Culture of Fossa Tombs)  of the final Bronze Age (XI-X century BC) and of the early Iron Age (IX- VIII century BC). Of this period we have scarce archaeological evidence, above all the materials of the pre-ellenic necropolis of Cuma, the grave goods of the necropolis of the Sarno Valley (San Marzano, San Valentino Torio, Striano). On this indigenous substratum the “Villanovan culture” (from the burial ground of Villanova near Bologna which was  first identified by Giovanni Gozzadini in 1853), that practiced  cremation, developed.  It seems that  the “Villanovan culture” evolved a few centuries later directly within the Etruscan culture, which was certainly well distinguished also on the linguistic level by indigenous cultures. (2) It is important to underline that the  “Villanovan Culture”  practiced cremation: in this historical period – with the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, which began at the beginning of the IX century. B.C. – the first distinction among the different peoples which draws our attention comes from the various funeral rites practiced . (3) Strabo wrote (4): ” The Tyrrhenians had twelve cities in Etruria, twelve of which they founded near the Po river, witness Livio (5), and twelve they founded in “Opicia”, whose capital city was Capua.   (6) Capua is their metropolis, “head” of the others, according to the origin of its name. Since the others in comparison were small castles, except for Teano Sidicino. The Etruscan culture pervaded the entire interior of the Campania region, so that even the most peripheral Italic tribes, such as the Samnites of the interior, ended up assuming behaviors typical of the Etruscans, by considering the expansion of the more typical Etruscan products such as buccheri (typical Etruscan class of ceramics) and bronze objects. On the other hand, the same Greek border colonies such as Cuma and Poseidonia ended up receiving marked Etruscan influences, for example in the adoption of wooden architecture with terracotta decoration with bright colors. (7)

 

WHY ARE THE ETRUSCANS SO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ROMAN AND POMPEII HISTORY  ?

The study of the Etruscans is fundamental for understanding the Roman world in general and Pompeii in particular. The Etruscan civilization had a profound influence on Roman civilization, later merging with it. The Etruscans were present in Campania from the ninth century, B.C. and it was probably these people who favored the foundation of Pompeii. With their synecism (see Note), they favored aggregation in a single city, Pompeii, of the mythical “Sarrastri”, a people who previously lived scattered in hut villages along the banks of the Sarno river.

 

NOTE:

Synecism = It was originally the amalgamation of villages in Ancient Greece into pòleis, or city-states

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Jacques Heurgon, Vita quotidiana degli Etruschi, Editore:IL SAGGIATORE 1967, p. 23.
  2. Stefano de Caro Le culture della Campania antica preromana: gli Etruschi, i popoli italici e le loro città da Il Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli – Electa Napoli 1994 pag. 33
  3. Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia, Bari, Editori Laterza, 2011, pag 17
  4. Lib. V pag 373
  5. lib. V. C. 33
  6. Ibid.
  7. Stefano de Caro op. cit., p. 34

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii and Herculaneum

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

LÒNGOLA OF POGGIOMARINO – part 2

The huts, of varying sizes and often enclosed by a fence, were generally almost rectangular in shape with one of the short apsidal sides, generally open on the long side, with two aisles and a gable roof. Inside each structure there was a hearth, but often a larger oven was also installed externally for production purposes. The settlement of Poggiomarino, in fact, since the most ancient phases of the Iron Age (IX – VIII century BC), was characterized by handicraft activities of metal, bone, glass paste and amber artifacts, taking shape therefore as an important center of production and exchange of prestige goods. Archaeometric analysis on amber allowed us to confirm that this raw material came from other places, beyond the Baltic. For the “Orientalizing period” (VII century BC), a local fusion activity of metals was also ascertained in Poggiomarino, and isotopic analysis (Isotopengéologie Laboratory of the University of Bern) on lead confirmed that this metal was imported both from South-western Sardinia and from southern Spain (Rio-Tinto Huelva and / or Alpujarride region).

Textile activity, of a domestic nature, must have been fundamental for the local community, as numerous loom weights were found for weaving.

The subsistence economy of this community was mainly based on agriculture and livestock, however, in Poggiomarino, hunting and fishing activities are also documented – irrelevant though, from an economic point of view.

Furthermore, we know that the ancient inhabitants of these marshes also collected spontaneous fruits such as hazelnuts, blackberries, carnelians and – as fodder for the breeding of animals – acorns and oak-galls. There was also a cultivation of cereals and legumes (broad beans), as well as the pressing of grapes to produce wine. Numerous grape seeds were found whose morphobiometric study (dr L. Costantini) confirmed their origin from fruits of cultivated vines.

Also the analysis carried out on the faunal remains (animal bones and malacofauna – which is mollusks) have provided very significant information. The bone remains attributed to domestic animals (cattle, sheep and goats and pigs, but also horses and dogs) are predominant compared to those attributed to wild species (deer and wild boar). Livestock breeding therefore played a primary role in the subsistence economy of Poggiomarino, as cattle, sheep and goats and pigs were the main source of meat to which must have been added, albeit modestly, that from wild mammals and birds. Pigs were only bred for meat production while other domestic animals also provided other resources: cattle had great importance in agricultural work and sheep and goats were exploited for wool, and large and small ruminants could supply skins, horns and bones to work, but also milk for dairy production. As for the horses, of rather limited number, it was thought that their meat did not fit into the eating habits of the local people, and they were used as mounts or draft and loading animals. Among the wild animals the deer is the most widely attested above all through the presence of antlers (the branched appendages of the cervids), some of which were worked. Among the birds, there were animals related to the fluvial-marsh environment such as ducks (geese and ducks) and waders. Otters and turtles are also attested in Poggiomarino – portions of carapace (turtle shell) and plastron (ventral bone plate of the turtle shell) were found. The collection of turtles was evidently for food purposes.

The archeomalacological investigations (studies of ancient mollusks through the observation of the shells) have identified the presence of fresh water, continental and marine mollusks. The first two species were probably collected around the site for food purposes while for marine species they apparently came from sandy bottoms of the ancient mouth of the Sarno river. The perforation of a large number of valves and the shaping of anthropogenic origin of some shells attest to their use for ornamental or ritual purposes. The remains of ichthyofauna (the fish life of this region) are scarce, but the discovery “in situ” (on site) of numerous bronze hooks and net weights confirm the activity.

A very interesting datum emerged from the analysis conducted on some samples of pebbles found in very large quantities in Lòngola: they came from Ischia and from Sardinia. The hypothesis has been advanced by G. Di Mais according to which this material would have been used as a ballast for boats that arrived empty at Poggiomarino and would then leave full of cereals from there – during the Iron Age the entire plain of Sarno had wheat and cereals growing on it – or even prestige goods.

The huge amount of wood recovered in the village of Lòngola, above all poles and boards for the reclamation and regimentation of the banks of the canals but also structural elements required xylological analysis (xylology = study of wood): the genus “Quercus” (oak tree) was the most represented , both for the excellent characteristics of resistance and, obviously, for the abundant availability in the areas surrounding the settlement. In Poggiomarino, this species had very wide and well-spaced growth rings, typical of trees grown in a damp plain forest, but there is no lack of oaks with more rings, coming from the nearby mountains. Very significant is also the use of boards made of white fir wood, with good durability, which came from areas quite far from the site; this shows an ability to select the material according to the specific need for use. (1)

NOTE:
Magna Graecia (Megalē Hellas) refers to the coastal areas of Southern Italy which were colonized by various ancient Greek city-states from the 8th to 5th centuries BC

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1) Caterina Cicirelli, Stato delle ricerche a Longola di Poggiomarino: quadro insediamentale e problematiche, in Pietro Giovanni Guzzo e Maria Paola Guidobaldi, Nuove Ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006), Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2008, pp. 476-480

 

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii
 

 

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

LÒNGOLA OF POGGIOMARINO – part 1

In the summer of the year 2000, during the construction of the Poggiomarino/Striano (Naples) wastewater treatment plant, in Lòngola di Poggiomarino scholars discovered an exceptional wetland settlement occupied since the Middle Bronze Age (XVI-XIV century BC) until the beginning of the VI century B.C.

The site of Lòngola is located in the upper valley of the Sarno river, near the current course of the same river, a little over ten kilometers east of Pompeii, in an area surrounded by the Iron Age necropolis (IX- VIII century BC) of Striano, San Marzano, San Valentino Torio and Poggiomarino. The plant was eliminated in 2004 and the Superintendency of Pompeii took possession of the entire area to carry out archaeological research. (1)

 

 WHY  IS THE DISCOVERY OF LÒNGOLA OF POGGIOMARINO SO INTERESTING?

It is a partial pile-dwelling settlement near the banks of the Sarno river, which brought us into one of these villages inhabited by the “Sarrastri”, people who founded Pompeii later. Those villages were made up of artificial islets, and their inhabitants created pile dwellings and moved among them trading, entering then already in contact with the Greeks. There we found indigenous ceramics, local ceramics, but already in these high chronological levels – we are in the course of the Iron Age [IX – VIII century B.C. – the period characterized by the use of iron metallurgy, especially for the manufacture of weapons and tools] – imported Greek ceramics. The “Magna Graecia” merchants went up the mouth of the Sarno river  and reached these inhabited areas along the middle and upper valley of the Sarno river. These inhabitants met  Greeks from “Magna Graecia”(See Note): Greeks from  “Pithecusae” (Ischia) (2), “Cuma” (Kyme) in the “Phlegraean Fields”, “Sibari”. In the valley of the Sarno the river people moved by “lontri”, a kind of pirogue, made from great trunks of great trees which allowed goods and people to move easily from one small island to another and from one river point to another. The Lòngola excavations took place in a humid situation which allows the preservation of  wood. In practice the presence of a water-table has favored the formation of an anaerobic environment which has allowed an optimal conservation of the organic matter in the village, in addition to a high number of both ceramic and metallic finds. Therefore Lòngola has given up a large quantity of wood (the wood of the palafittes, the floors of the huts) including two pirogues, always closed in the warehouses, in a casket coffin which is able to stabilize the hygrometric parameters (such as humidity parameters).

 

Numerous bone and horn objects were found, mainly of the deer family (needles, spatulas, awls, dagger handles, pins, pendants).

 

We have seen that since the earliest phase, the inhabitants of those villages covered the islets with thin reed walls belonging to disused huts, and to extend them, wooden boards were stuck vertically in the sand which delineated a new space in the water and then they filled it with heterogeneous material. Plant twigs and mats were then used as water insulators. But this was not enough: we have seen that, due to hydro-geological variations, it was necessary to periodically raise the floor of the houses.

 

NOTE:

Magna Graecia (Megalē Hellas) refers to the coastal areas of Southern Italy which were colonized by various ancient Greek city-states from the 8th to 5th centuries BC

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Caterina Cicirelli, Stato delle ricerche a Longola di Poggiomarino: quadro insediamentale e problematiche, in Pietro Giovanni Guzzo e Maria Paola Guidobaldi, Nuove Ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006),  Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 2008,  473
  2. Pier Giovanni Guzzo “Pompei, Magna Grecia”, in  Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, “Pompei e i Greci”, Electa 2017 – p. 56

 
  

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

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

/0 Comments/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

/0 Comments/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

/0 Comments/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

/0 Comments/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

/0 Comments/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

/0 Comments/by