Sybaris – part 2

 

As we have seen, the empire of Sybaris went beyond the borders of the area directly marked by the sanctuaries. The foundation of Poseidonia made the Sybaris’ aims explicit to open a door on the Tyrrhenian Sea as close as possible to the flourishing Etruscan settlements of Campania, located just north of the Sele river, and at the same time, to control the communities of Oenotrians of the interior who, between the eighth and sixth centuries B.C. were able to consolidate and to take on the role of attractive business partners. These were small inhabited areas that were in close contact with Sybaris from whom they learnt the use of writing and the alphabet, as shown by the inscription on the “Castelluccio” olla-shaped jar and, above all, the “Tortora cippus”. It is a kind of “lex sacra” (sacred law) written in a palaeo-Italic language (the language of the Oenotrians), adapting and integrating the Achaean alphabet used by Sybaris and Poseidonia.
The same Oenotrian communities used a certain coinage named by the modern scholars the “coins of the alliance”. They were incuse coins (with hollow images), probably beaten at Sybaris, which presented on one side the retrospective bull (which looks backwards) and on the other side the names of the towns such as PAL-MOL (Palinuro and the nearby Molpa), SIRINO-PYXOES (Sirinos in the “Valle del Noce” and Pixunte in the Gulf of Policastro).
For the maintenance of this complex political-institutional organisation, Poseidonia played a very important role. That Sybarite colony represented the last bastion of Achaean Hellenism in front of the flourishing Etruscan centres north of the Sele river and privileged mediator with the communities of Oenotrians gravitating on the Tyrrhenian Sea. This role was reiterated on the occasion of the foundation of Velia (Herodotus, I, 167) – Poseidonia favoured the foundation of Velia by the Phocaeans – but also in the Olympia treaty where Poseidonia together with the Gods, was called to guarantee the pact between Sybarites and the Serdàioi.
But the great power of Sybaris did not hold up to the innovative thrusts that rose from the great mass of the lower-middle social classes, kept away from the many riches. Towards the end of the 6th century, B.C. riots led to the rise of the tyranny of “Telis”, who was so strongly anti-aristocratic that in 510 B.C. 500 Sybarite nobles were forced to find shelter in the oligarchic Kroton, asking and obtaining asylum. When Telis asked for them to be returned, Kroton – where a strongly influential figure was Pythagoras – refused. The result was a war that saw Sybaris badly defeated. After a siege of 70 days, the city itself was destroyed forever by the diversion of the Crathis (Crati) river which submerged the remains (Strabo, VI, C 263). In this regard, Domenico Mussi, an Italian historian (1934-2010), has rightly pointed out that this war was not a simple fight between neighbouring Greek “pòleis” (cities), but two “pòleis” with opposite political and institutional orientations.
The outcome of the war profoundly changed the political scenario of “Magna Graecia”, and radically changed the previous balance, weakening the Achaean cities. The indigenous populations economically and/or politically linked to Sybaris went through a critical period, as can be seen from the downsizing of many main centres and their necropolises and the end of the emissions of the “coins of the alliance”.

Excerpt from: Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia , Editori Laterza, 2011, pp 84-90

 

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii and Herculaneum

/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

/by

GENIUS, LARES, PENATES AND MANI IN POMPEII

The “Genius”, generally covered – even the head – by a “toga praetexta”, a white toga with a broad purple stripe on the border, is a tutelary deity linked to a person, to the head of the house, while the Lare is linked to the earth. Each person has his genius – women have a “Iuno” – who guards their nurturing power. The genius is generated and dies at the same time as man, and lives closely connected with him. On each anniversary, he is offered wine, incense and other bloodless gifts (such as focaccia).

The snake, which we often find painted below the domestic “sacellum” (shrine) – also coupled with a female snake, from which it is distinguished by the crest – is sacred to the Genius (as a symbol of nurturing power) and also enjoys the attention of man. These snakes are also painted on the external walls, which are thus protected. (1)

The Lares were tutelary deities who, according to tradition, were the children of Mercury and Lara, a nymph. It would seem that their name is of Etruscan origin and means “chiefs, princes” and originally they were tutelary deities of the fields and of individual farms. Over time they became protectors of the domestic hearth (from the Latin “Lar”, “hearth”) and each family had its own “Lare”. The Romans invoked the domestic “Lare” on all the important family anniversaries, for births, for weddings and when a family member left or returned from a trip. Unlike the “Penates”, the “Lares” were intimately linked to the home where their image was located. They were never removed from the house and they had the task of protecting it from dangers coming from outside. In ancient times a Roman had only one “Lar”, his protector, but later this tutelary deity was replaced by two or more and, merging with the “Mani”, they became the personification of the souls of the good-hearted deceased who protected the house from evil spirits. (2) The “Lares” also were represented in twos: in Pompeii they were often arranged symmetrically on the sides of the “Genius”, young and moving as if they were guiding the dances in their cheerful parties: “laralia” or “compitalia”, celebrated at the intersections of the streets (compita).

Associated with them are the Penates, protector deities of the “penus” (the food pantry), and therefore of the general well-being of the home. Along with the “Lares”, they were considered protectors of the family and when the family moved house, the images of the “Penates”- two statuettes placed next to the hearth in a special cabinet – were transported from one house to another. Over time, other divinities with tutelary functions were added to the two original “Penates”, such as Mercury, Neptune, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, whose image was placed next to that of the “Penates”. Even the State, considered as a large family, had its “Penates”, which were kept in the temple of Vesta and called “Major” or “Public Penates” to distinguish them from those of the family, called “Minor” or “Private Penates”, and placed next to the domestic hearth. (3)

The “Mani” were the souls of the dead who had been good-hearted in life (“manus”, in archaic Latin means “good”), and the same term was used to indicate the underworld deities and the tutelary genies of the dead. As mentioned above, over time the “Mani” merged with the “Lares”, becoming the personification of the souls of the good-hearted deceased who protected the house from evil spirits. The cult of the “Mani” was imposed by one of the laws of the “Twelve Tables”. In their honor, festivals called “Feralia” and “Parentalia” were celebrated in February. (4)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1) Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976, pag. 273
2) Corrado D’Alesio, Dei e Miti, Edizioni Labor, Milano, 1954, pag. 422
3) Ibid., pag. 563
4) Ibid., pag. 447

 

For further info about our Pompeii and Herculaneum private tour

 

/by

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

/by

WINE IN pOMPEII

 

Wine was the most widespread drink and certainly the most loved by the Romans in their daily diet and an important element of convivial moments. The Romans had compiled real classifications of the finest wines, among which Falerno excelled, but Surrentinum and  Vesbius or Vesuvinum also enjoyed a good reputation. Particularly appreciated wines were also those produced in Greece and in the Aegean islands, for example the lyttios, greatly appreciated by the Pompeians, as shown by the amphorae of particular shapes found and the inscriptions read on them. The wine was never drunk pure, but generally served with water, hot or cold depending on the season. Furthermore, liqueur wines such as mulsum -the best mulsum was obtained from the must -, passum and defrutum were produced. Defrutum was a condiment based on reduced must used by cooks of ancient Rome; together with garum it was one of the most used sauces in the preparation of all sorts of dishes. Poor drinks were lora, obtained from maceration in water of the pressed marc (vinacce) and  posca, a drink of water and vinegar.

From the wine sold in Pompeian thermopolia (wine bars) we also know the cost, reported by the inscription CIL IV 1679: “Hedoné proclaims: Here we drink for only one axis; with two you will drink better wine; with four you’ll drink Falerno ”. (1)

Most of the wine consumed in the cities was made locally. At least forty local farms and estates had cellae vinariae or wineries, some producing on an enormous scale. These estates are characterized by a large number of dolia (large earthenware vase), buried up to the rim (defossa), in which the wine was stored as it matured. “Villa Regina” at Boscoreale had eighteen of these. Some were for olives and grain, but the vast majority contained wine. Many of them were still capped with terracotta lids and sealed with mortar, showing they were full when the eruption happened. The wine remained in dolia until the following year, when it was sold or taken to the owner’s house in the city. The transportation of large quantities of wine required considerable effort, as each dolium could hold over twenty amphoras’ worth (about 120 gallons or 545 litres). In Pompeii, in front of the Forum Thermal Baths, we have also found a thermopolium where on one of its dolia (large jars), used for fermenting wine, the name “A Apulei Hilarionis” (“of A. Apuleius Hilarion”) was stamped.

Amphorae often carried a painted inscription. Some were basic, like those on the amphorae from Villa della Pisanella marked RUBR(um) = rubrum, the Latin for “red”. Others served as address labels. A fragment of an amphora from Pompeii bears the words, “For Albucia Tyche at Pompeii”, suggesting Albucia was a landlady. (2)

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Grete Stefani, Michele Borgongino, Cibus. L’alimentazione degli antichi romani. Le testimonianze dell’area vesuviana in AAVV Cibi e Sapori a Pompei e Dintorni , Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, Edizioni Flavius,  2005, pp. 77-78
  2. Paul Roberts, Life and death in Pompeii and Herculaneum, The British Museum Press, 2013, pp. 66-68

For further info about our guided tours of Pompeii and Herculaneum

/by

POMPEII – GREEK FASHION IN ROMAN TIMES

From the 2nd century BC onward, the Roman world imported a new Hellenism, far more intellectualized, far more contemplative, and far more utilised for the Gods. The phenomenon was defined by the Romans themselves as “asiatica luxuria” (Asian luxury), the irresistible desire to exhibit private luxury, which possessed the upper class at the time of conquests in the East, in imitation of the living standards of the Hellenistic courts.(1)

For Roman men, changing the heavy and voluminous Italic “toga” into a graceful Greek mantle, “pallium” (i.e., the “himation”) was an extraordinary action which indicated luxuriant laxity and moral decadence. The men who dared to wear the “pallium” or the “chlamys” in public,  generally did so with specific intentions, such as the famous pro-Hellenic Scipio Africanus Major or the emperor Hadrian. The power of attire in the construction of identity was so strong, that the Romans defined themselves as the “gens togata” (“toga-wearing people”), and their theatrical art was named as a “fabula togata” to distinguish it from the Greek “palliata”.

If for men their image was strongly bi-polarized, oscillating between “toga” and “pallium”, for women, the situation was quite different. From the late Republic period until late antiquity, the attire of the upper-class Roman woman was practically the same as worn in  the eastern Greek Mediterranean. Only the names of the two main clothing items changed: the first, the long tunic, was quite similar to the Greek “chiton”,  the Roman tunic also being sewn along the sides; the second, the rectangular mantle around the upper part of the body, “palla” or “pallium”, was identical to the Greek “himation”.     Luxury accessories – such as a Greek-gold belt, “zona”, a cloth woven in silk from the Isle of Cos, a Greek sandal like the “diabathron” – stood out as exotic and deserved the comments of Roman writers. Just as perfumes and cosmetics, also the most luxurious items in transparent, coloured silk, were part of a global Mediterranean trade. The “mitre” is an interesting case of cultural fusion: originally a Middle Eastern turban, it was later adopted in the archaic age by Greek women as a headband tied around the hair. In Rome, the “mitre”  represented Greek refinement, but it could also be synonymous with prostitution. Even silk, the most luxurious of all fabrics, was further embellished with Greek expressions by the Romans, to denote the quality. While Chinese silk fabrics were called “sericae vestes”, the types produced in the Mediterranean by local insect species had the name of “vestes bombycinae” and, deriving from the place of production on the island of Cos, “Coes vestes”.

Likewise, the finest colors often kept the Greek name, such as the different shades of purple: the two-colored  “dibapha”, the “Tyrianthina” (from Tyro), as well as  “ianthina” and “amethystina”, or “thalassina”.The Pompeian woman, depending on her financial resources and social status, may have had a series of objects from the most distant corners of the empire in her jewelry and make-up case. In reality, however, only in a few houses in Pompeii, have archaeologists found large collections of ointments.

Although many of the luxuries and refinements coveted by the Roman women were of oriental origin – gems from India, silk from China (“sericae vestes”), pearls (“elenchi”, “stalagmi”) from the Red Sea, perfumes from Arabia (“diapasmata” and “hedysmata”) – most of their names and methods of use were adopted by way of the “filter” of the Greek world.(2)

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. Gioacchino Francesco La Torre, Sicilia e Magna Grecia, Editori Laterza, 2011, pag. 234
  2. Ria Berg “Attrarre” in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, “Pompei e i Greci”, Electa 2017, pp. 218

 

 
 

For further info about our Pompeii and Herculanem private tour

 

/by

STEFANO DE CARO AND THE CITY WALLS OF POMPEII – Part II

3. The third and final phase, as can be seen today from the long stretch of walls between “Porta Ercolano” and “Porta Vesuvio”, has three walls containing two embankments  preserved in excellent condition. The flat topped layer of earth between the first two walls was used as a walkway, as was the top of the second embankment (also probably flat but raised higher than the previous one). The remaining part of the second embankment, which is lower towards the interior of the city, served mainly to strengthen the fortification. The third and last wall, in addition to containing the thrust of the second embankment, also delimited the route of a road that, at least in this area of ​​the city, skirted the city walls. Along the stretch of walls between “Porta Ercolano” and “Porta Vesuvio”, three of the original twelve rectangular towers (named clockwise, XII, XI and X) are well preserved, and near the “Porta Ercolano”,  the remains of a monumental staircase which served to reach the levels of the flat walkways, is found.

To understand why the walls were completely rebuilt several times in Pompeii , we must refer to Poliorcetics, which is the art of besieging and conquering fortified cities. Military technology and technology (in general)  changed over the centuries. While the city walls in “pappamonte” stone initially offered effective defense to the city, from the end of the IV and the beginning of the third century BC, a new fortification was built. This was necessary due to change in the strategies of attack and defense of the cities. In the Archaic age in the Greek world, the technique of the siege of the city was adopted with the aim of isolating it from its territory and forcing it to surrender due to lack of food resources or due to the exhaustion of the war arsenal. The only alternative to break the pressure of the enemy siege was to leave the (refuge of the ) city walls and face an open battle. To defend itself from the besiegers a particularly powerful fortification was not necessary since  the function of the city walls was to separate and to protect the population from the besiegers. In the IV century C., with the development of war strategies supported by scientific research and the publication of treatises dedicated to machines and the methods of attack and defense of cities, the old fortifications became obsolete. Thanks to the use of increasingly efficient war machines (as catapults), the new Poliorcetics allowed besiegers to assault and conquer cities by destroying walls and gates. The fortifications thus acquired ever greater importance, not only because defensive measures suitable to frustrate the destructive potential of hostile weapons of war were needed, but also because they had to be set up in such a way as to accommodate  throwing weapons of various types, to counterattack  pressure from the besiegers.

 

 

Excerpt from:  Marco Fabbri, Difendersi, in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, Pompei e i Greci, Electa, 2017, pp. 268-271

 

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/by
,

STEFANO DE CARO AND THE CITY WALLS OF POMPEII – Part I

Until a few decades ago, it was thought that the first urban nucleus of Pompeii was much more limited than what is seen today. It was believed that the walls developed around the “Vicolo del Lupanare”, “Vicolo degli Augustali” and ” Vicolo dei Soprastanti ”, that is the area closest to the current Forum. This theory was also reinforced by the presence, in the aforementioned area, of a road network oriented in a different manner from the rest of the city. It was then thought that, later, around the fifth century BC, the city had developed towards the East and North. In other words, it was believed that, after an initial urbanistic phase where Pompeii developed over just 9.3 hectares,  it later spread to over 63.5 hectares. (SEE NOTE)

During his directorship of the excavations of Pompeii from 1982 to 1984, Stefano De Caro started a series of archaeological digs in the Vesuvian city, both in the northern sector of the fortification, near the Tower XI, and in the southern, in the section between Porta Nocera and the Tower IV.

Today, based on the archaeological results coming from those important excavation campaigns, it is believed that three different generations of city walls  were superimposed in the Vesuvian city over the centuries:

 

1. The first, and oldest, is in local tufa stone, the so-called “pappamonte”, and dates back to at least the 6th century. b.C. In this first phase the walls cover already roughly the same way as the current one, except for the north-eastern corner (where Porta di Nola would be built), where the path seems to have moved slightly towards the west. Their structure was very simple and consisted of a few rows of square blocks in “pappamonte”  or tender lava stone, above which an embankment (on the outer wall) no more than 3 meters high was set. A “pomoerium” lane ran along the inner edge of the city walls.

 

2. The second wall circuit consisted of two curtains of “Calcare del Sarno” (Limestone) and an inner core of ground wrought  with flakes of stone. The walls were in orthostates, ie, slabs placed vertically, but to allow better interlocking of the walls with the filling soil, rows of limestone blocks were arranged horizontally at regular distances, in order to be able to penetrate  the ground. These “pre-sannitic” walls of Pompeii reflect the typical characteristics of  Greek construction method, defined by archaeologists as “emplekton”, borrowing the term from Vitruvius who used it to define the inner core of the double curtain walls. This type of city walls, already extensively attested in the Greek “pòleis” (cities) of the Gulf of Naples (“Neapolis” and Cuma), seems to date back to the 4th century AD.

 

 

NOTE  = Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976, pp. 12-13

 

Excerpt from:  Marco Fabbri, Difendersi, in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, Pompei e i Greci, Electa, 2017, pp. 268-271
 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/by
, , , ,

THE GOLDEN AGE OF POMPEII

The second century B.C. is the “golden age” of Pompeii, a century in which profound transformations in urban planning, of the main places of worship and of the ways of living, were   recorded.

At this point in history, Puteoli became the main port of Rome and began to perform a function of “port-warehouse”, ie, of a large port with a multiplicity of piers and warehouses where the goods from all over the Mediterranean, especially the Eastern part , were unloaded and stored. From this great “port-warehouse”, redistribution took place on a regional scale, based on a hierarchically subordinate port system in which the “epineion” (emporium) of Pompeii played a central role. Through the course of the Sarno river, this dock redistributed the Mediterranean products to the more internal areas such as Nola, Nocera and Acerra. (1)

This progressive enrichment of Pompeii allowed important urban and architectural innovations in the Vesuvian city, innovations that linked Pompeii to the other allied cities of Rome. These breakthroughs were inspired by the new models of urbanization of “International Hellenism”, which Rome appropriated starting from the second century. B.C.

It is precisely in Samnite Pompeii that this phenomenon of progressive adaptation to the Hellenistic-Roman models developed, that is, in the period before Pompeii became a Sillan colony of 82 BC.

There are many monuments, both public and private, from the second century. B.C. that illustrate the development of the city of Pompeii and the adoption of the models of “International Hellenism”: monumentalization of the Forum, reorganization of the so-called  Triangular Forum, with the construction of the adjacent theater and campus/gymnasium, construction of the first thermal facilities, construction of large private houses with atrium and peristyle. The case of Pompeii is unique: a city timelessly preserved in its entirety, covered  with pumice stones and volcanic ash by the  Vesuvian eruption of 79 Ad.  The city clearly shows us how the process of enriching the urban landscape according to the canons of “International Hellenism” , already in practise in Sicily, also involved the Greek and Italic cities of Romanized Southern Italy. Naturally, in the peninsula the architectural models were filtered from Rome and adapted to both political-administrative and cultural needs of a society that was by now profoundly Romanized. Pompeii and the Campania region, in fact, reproduced some of the oldest examples of monumental building typologies that later, in the height of the imperial era, would be exported from Rome to the provinces, starting from Sicily: theaters, amphitheaters, baths, basilicas, aqueducts. (2)

In Pompeii, local patricians vied with those who came from Rome to practice the “otium” (SEE NOTE) in the maritime villas of Campania, in an “Asiatica luxuria” – this unbridled luxury that was inspired by the grandiose Macedonian courts – was made possible by the new riches of oriental origin. To this end, suburban villas, a new building type, arose, and the new architectural elements with  Greek names or in Greek style, such as the “peristyle”, “exedra”, “diaeta”, “triclinium” and “oecus”, were incorporated in the mansions in the city. .(3)

One of the most sumptuous examples of “domus” (House) built in Pompeii in the 2nd century AD. is the “House of the Faun” with its magnificent mosaic (more than one and a half million tesserae), which represents the decisive moment of the battle of Alexander the Great against Darius III of Persia at Issus, when the Persian king, in the moment of defeat, attempts to flee.

NOTE: This Latin term  had the idea of withdrawing from one’s daily business (negotium) or affairs to engage in activities that were considered to be artistically valuable or enlightening (i.e. speaking, writing, philosophy).

 

 

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

  1. Luana Toniolo  “Commerciare” –in Massimo Osanna e Carlo Rescigno, “Pompei e i Greci”, Electa 2017, pp. 231
  2.  Gioacchino Francesco La Torre – Sicilia e Magna Grecia – Editori Laterza 2011 – pag.243
  3. Eugenio La Rocca, Mariette e Arnold de Vos, Guida archeologica di Pompei, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1976 pp. 33-34

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/by

THE FALL OF NAPOLEON AND RECOVERY OF THE STOLEN ART WORKS

 

On June 18, 1815, the Battle of Waterloo signaled Napoleon’s final defeat and the end of the Napoleonic era. After his fall, the Congress of Vienna (1815) re-established the old pre-Napoleonic kingdoms (Restoration) in Europe. However the “new king” of France, Louis XVIII, had stated in Parliament that works of art belonged to France “by a stronger law than the right of war”. Nevertheless,  despite a cooling of Allied disposition following the Waterloo defeat,  during the Vienna Congress the restitutions were treated as the object of negotiations rather than seen as an obligation.

Furthermore, each of the countries concerned, negotiated for themselves without following a common strategy or direction, in order to regain as much as possible of what had been expropriated. Since the collaboration of the Louvre Museum was necessary for the recovery of the seized assets, Dominique Vivan-Denon (director-general of museums and head of the new Musée Napoléon) benefitted greatly, since he as general manager was among the few to have the complete picture of what had entered France by way of the requisitions.  The country which sided decisively in favor of restitution was England, in the person of  the Foreign Minister Viscount Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington, (Napoleon’s vanquisher at Waterloo). Both rushed to support the rights of nations deemed less defended, such as the Netherlands and the Papal States which were the ones that had in fact suffered the greatest losses. Wellington, as shown in a letter sent to Castlereagh and published in the French press, even sent his troops to the Louvre Museum, ordering his men to remove Flemish and Dutch paintings from the walls. As for the Vatican, British collaboration went as far as covering transport costs without accepting the offer of various antiquities as a sign of gratitude.

Antonio Canova was appointed in 1802 by pope Pius VII Chiaramonti as “General Inspector of Antiquities and the Arts”, and it was he who acted as mediator for the Vatican. On 2 October 1815 the great artist began to examine the works stolen in Rome and the Papal States. The prestige enjoyed by the very famous sculptor among the sovereigns of Europe – not at all challenged by the sarcasm of Minister Talleyrand, who called him “monsieur l’emballeur” – and his undisputed professional competence allowed him to do an excellent job. The recovery, however, was partial, sometimes because he was hindered due to dimensions, other times in order not to further exacerbate already tense relationships

The Austrian government instead dealt with what had been stolen from Lombardy and Veneto: one of the most delicate operations being the recovery of the Horses of San Marco, which had been hoisted on the “Arc de Triomphe” in the Carrousel Square in Paris. The removal of such an important symbol of Napoleonic power threatened to provoke protests from the population and was therefore carried out at night, preventing access to the square in order to avoid disorder.

On the part of French intellectuals very few voices condemned the arrogant policy of theft imposed by Napoleon: but at least one rose in a passionate defense of the rationale of the vanquished. It was that of Antoine Quatremère de Quincy, who in “Lettres à Miranda”, an almost clandestine work released in 1796 while the author was in prison, vehemently exposed his dissent. The interlocutor is the Venezuelan general, Francisco de Miranda, who had fought for the independence of his country and had participated in the French Revolution. Quatremère entrusted to him his reflections on the illegitimacy of requisitions in an ardent defense of the conservation of works of art in places of origin: “dividing is destroying” because “the assembled objects light up and explain each other” . Rome is seen “as a whole” not only for its objects but also for its places and atmospheres, and some are inseparable from others.

 

                CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECOVERY OF THE NAPOLEONIC ART

 With the recovery of seized works of art, there emerged a new sentiment within the offended states: an awareness of belonging to a nation of artistic heritage, one which was the foundation of their cultural identity. Therefore the concept of aesthetic, academic or economic value traditionally attributed to works of art, was overcome and these now became considered as assets linked to the Nation.

 

 

 

Excerpt from:  Maria Teresa Fiorio, Il museo nella storia,   Pearson, 2018,  pp 81-83

 

For further info about our guided tour of Pompeii

 

/by