The Surviving Evidence from Pompeii - Essay Example

The Surviving Evidence from Pompeii Undeniably, Pompeii remains to be the most famous of antiquity and each and every person is well informed that this city was destroyed on the 24th day of August 79 AD in the event of what is believed to have been the very first eruption of Mt. Vesuvius to have been recorded. In 1748, it is when staid excavations start and since then, it has been a tourist trap. Besides, all learning institutions are teaching of this city, with each and every other individual having the desire to make a visit. The historian might be better positioned in eloquently waxing how Pompeii is a city “frozen in time” as well as how the eruption turned out to be a blessing in disguise to the generation of the present time. On the contrary, the Romans had a totally different view of the destruction of Pompeii and the neighboring cities. In their viewpoint, this eruption was among the worst ever natural disaster to have ever occurred in the history of the world. It is believed that things would have been worse (Cooper 1). Despite the fact that modern day newspaper stories report that twenty thousand people passed on during this eruption, the exact figure of the people who lived there is hardly known. The 20,000 figure is seemingly the most common figure availed, but other sources have the same figure 10,000 lower. Either way, the agreeable guess figure is that over 35000 people died and in Pompeii alone, between 1600 and 2000 were trapped in the eruption. What remains is the surviving evidence to tell us how the situation was like (Cooper 1). The surviving evidence presents us with one of the very best glimpses of what the everyday life was like in a Roman city. Being a resort town as well as a center of commerce, the surviving evidence depicts how the rich in the society had come to this town so as to free themselves from the hassles of living in Rome, and ships put into the Bay of Naples from all corners of the globe. In addition, the surviving evidence presents both the aura and the prosperity of enjoyment that seems to have been in prevalence (Maiuri and Battaglia 652). These two (the prosperity and the aura of enjoyment) have hardly been shared in any other of the workaday towns. From this evidence, we are lured to believe that hardly was there peace and harmony in Pompeii. By the virtue of there being an excess of the rich in the society it is probable that there was a big-me/little-you division with the ordinary town folks. Tis same scenario was in Rome and from the judgment of how things are as regards to what was left, the inhabitants of Pompeii undeniably knew very well how to enjoy themselves (Gore 556). It is worth noting that historians may not be totally certain of the number of days in each of the Roman Months. The thought of these historians is that the roman months just resemble ours, though there is enough uncertainty for any given date to be off by a couple of days. The surviving evidence also testifies that the Pompeians rose up early in the morning, as is the case with the present Romans. Besides, it can be told from the very first glance that they were respectable middle class persons. If this was not the case, there would have been an evidence of a slave waking then up and probably helping them dress. This may actually sound somewhat strange since the Pompeian’s’ clothes, from the surviving evidence, were unpretentious in the extreme (Harris 56). For each and every Roman national, irrespective of whether poor, middle class or rich, tunic was the main piece of clothing. Having been made of wool, the tunic was simply a two-square piece cloth sewn together, with holes having been left for the arms and the head. From the surviving evidence, the tunic- having been as wide as it was broad hung loosely on all but the heftiest frame. Moreover, the cut had been made in such a way that the excess clothe did form sleeves of a sort, with its appearance resembling a long shirt dropping somewhere between the calf and the mid-thigh. However, it is worth noting that the tunic version of the women was longer. Another of the common characteristic of the men’s and women’s version was the fact that they had to be belted at the waist, producing an attractive look which made the simple clothing a surprise (Maiuri and Battaglia 655). The toga is another garment but it might be not certain that the scholars of the modern day do know exactly how the toga was since none of the original ones has lasted down to date. The surviving evidence avails us with the image of the toga to have been a sheet of cloth that was just wrapped across the body and whose shape is actually not discrete. While some say it was a large rectangular blanket of wool, there are those claiming that it was circular in shape and others believe it was semi-circular. From the surviving evidence, and more especially on looking at the statues, there is a likelihood that all these guesses hold some truth about the toga and that the cut did change as time progressed (Sirgurdsson, Cashdollar, and Sparkes 40). Nevertheless, even without holding much reliance to the popular opinion, the typical Roman hardly walked around with the above discussed clumsy, heavy and quite unreasonable woolly burdens. As a matter of fact, a majority of the people did not have the permission to do so and besides, togas were specifically kept aside for two classes of people and solely these two groups of people. The male citizens were the first group who did not all the time have to be in this clothing in the event that they did not have to (Cooper 1). The most paining thing was that one needed to help in putting on the toga and in case the arms were not rightly held, there were likelihoods of the toga slipping off. It was such a bother wearing the toga and more especially in the event that the emperors were persistently issuing decrees reminding all the males in the society that they were under obligation to be in togas during official functions. As was the case with all other dress codes, the toga was out of favor, but the orders of the emperor had to be obeyed to the letter and especially in the event of homicidal nut, the likes of Domitian and Caligua. The other group permitted or ordered to wear the toga was ahem – the ladies plying their avocation (Cooper 1). The surviving evidence often views the city to be a composition of a series of local communities, with each and every one of them having its outstanding identity and at the same time centered at a particular neighborhood. On the basis of this conception, each of these neighborhoods is spatially perceived and defined to be a separate entity. This therefore suggests that there was intimacy of association among individuals living in close proximity tone another. Notably, the Pompeii excavations have borne tens of thousands of artifacts, a great percentage of which are locally produced and others having come from various parts of the empire. At the same time, those items either produced at or near Pompeii have found their way to the sites in other places and within the Pompeii city itself, there is plentiful evidence in terms of market gardening and workshops. All this evidence significantly amount to and characterize various economic aspects of the different social groupings in Pompeii (Laurence 62). The Roman city has over and again been described as a consumer city and the evidence paints this city to be economically dependent on the agricultural production of its neighborhood. Furthermore, the agricultural production avails surplus wealth, which is so displayed in both the physical and material wealth of the city. Besides, it is arguable, and to some extend true enough, noting that Pompeii hardly mass-produced goods on a large scale for purposes of export to certain identified markets. Where production did take place, and as was the case, in the urban area, it was in small scale and centered on the workshop as contrasted to factory or manufactory. This small-scale production was ordinarily dismissed as of no significant importance since trade, according to the consumer-city’s exponents; production of goods had to be on a large-scale basis for purposes of export. On this basis therefore, the city remains to be the sole consumer of the wealth coming from its rural neighborhoods, which have marginalized the city’s small-scale production serving the needs of the rural population within its surrounding. From a geographical perspective, Pompeii was the entreport for the Sarno river valley since it had very good connections with the towns of this economic neighborhood. Moreover, it was part and parcel of the economy on the basis of the luxury villas of the Bay of Naples and the broader Campanian economy (Laurence 64). Pompeii’s close proximity to Puteoli, economy –wise, meant that its trade pattern with other parts of the emperor had to resemble that of Puteoli. One of the activities which can be utilized as an index in establishing this pattern is pottery, though not solely on the basis of the scale, but trade taking place between the regions. Nevertheless, this does not at its least mean that pottery was the principal product to have been traded; it was just traded alongside other goods which were considered to be of a greater importance. Campanian-manufactured pottery had distinctive red clay and this has been – in petrologic terms – so identified by the region’s volcanic elements. Similarly, more arduous analysis does establish the production places within the empire to have varied types of pottery and more especially amphorae and terra sigillata. Such evidence can be utilized in defining Pompeii’s trading connections as well as avail a wider context for both the production and consumption trends of the city. Imports to Pompeii came from various regions (Clarke and Larvey 3). The presence of mills used for grinding corn into flour as well as the presence of the large oven symbolizes the existence of bakeries. In Pompeii, the distribution of these bakeries was uneven; with a few of them having been located to the east of the city and a few others in close vicinity to the forum. On the contrary, a concentration of the same is witnessed along Via di Stabia and on the northern part of the city. It is likely that this general trend in the location of these bakeries make a reflection of the neighborhood from where the grain was being brought to the city from. The sole known warehousing (horrea) are located underneath Casa de Marinaio in Vicolo dei Soprastani and the forum and it is likely that these would have been convenient for the north grain. In the central area, the bakeries did not have their own mills and as thus they hardly ground their own flour. Theirs was baking bread and/or other products in their ovens for purpose of sell within the premises. This suggested that the central area was more associated with the production of bread and retailing by the Pompeii inhabitants (Laurence 67). Another element of the surviving evidence is the electoral notices, ordinarily known as the programmata. This was usually placed on public buildings – the likes of the Large Palaestra and on the frontages of houses. The programmata did provide inkling to the clear understanding of Pompeii’s competing concepts of neighborhood (Laurence 54). This evidence had its role in elections and besides, it had different patterns of placement for individual candidates. Having so said, it is worth noting that the placement of electoral notice in the Roman city were so placed on the basis of the fundamental city’s through-routes. In addition, these notices were concerted around their juncture. For instance, Trebius Valens’ house was located on the north side of Via dell’Abbondanza. This suggested that the ground of this patterning was to snatch a win of the vote in his local constituency. There are numerous electoral notices in which the neighbors (vicini) recommended candidates for office. Notable enough, there has been some correlation between the residence of the candidates and the recommendation of the same candidate by his neighbors. Although the limited nature of the evidence of electoral notices referring to the neighbors hardly enable us in defining any particular local area with measurable certainty, the recommendations of a candidate by the neighbors does pinpoint the undeniable fact that there was a shared identity among neighbors that was appealed to. What these electoral notices did is playing upon the loyalty of the neighbors for them to act in unison. What ought to be noted is that within the overall pattern of the electoral notices, only few mention neighbors, countable ones include named individuals (Laurence 60). Electoral notices were also characterized by the commendation of candidates by women as well as men. Generally, the election pattern evidenced that women did not vote and as a result, the number of the notices were relatively small. Nonetheless, it is of great importance to have a clear understanding of the neighborhood. Women assumed active roles in the formation of local opinion as regards to the candidates and where the supporters had been named, the presence of the women proved to be substantial. The implication of this is that the role of women in elections ought not to be dismissed out of hand or assumed. Despite the fact that the women in the society were excluded in voting, their very presence in electoral commendations- written in a like format as those of their male counterparts- signposts an interconnection or a role between the candidates and the women of the city; an important connection between the innkeeper (the humble persons) and a neighbor and member of the ordo of decurions. The implication of this is that within the Pompeii neighborhoods, there existed an interaction between the elite candidates and their neighbors, irrespective of gender (Laurence 60). Owing to the fact that throughout the greater part of Rome’s history there never has been any government executive or even enforcement agencies, the client-patron institution had been nurtured. Virtually, each and every individual in Pompeii was either a client or a patron to someone, and in many cases, a greater percentage of the people assumed both. In the event that one happened to be a patron, the morning ritual (the salutation) was a must, where you were in receipt of respect the moment you stepped outside and probably give out a dole to your clients- who had a tendency of gathering by the door (Veyne 76). For the clients – the poor – they had to pay respect to the patron. With the continuous growth of the Roman society to being a more organized and complex society, those in the lower strata of the society had a tendency of attaching themselves to another individual whose was a member of the powerful upper crust. Within no time, it was ritualized that the patron and the client had to meet early in the morning for the patron to present the client with a small gift – probably money or food – and the clients would in turn take the present and leave the patron’s compound or stick around, based on what the patron wanted the client to do (Cooper 1). This relationship ended up in a more or less formal institution, endorsed by the law and demanded obligations from either side. While the patron did avail the clients with both support and protection, the clients in return formed a loyal following who were obliged to carry out a bid for the patron. This bib could actually entail providing a cheering section for the patron as he made a speech or in a court argument. In the event that the patron had chosen them right, he would be having on his side a group of stout-arm toughs, necessary in occasions where he would like to muscle in on another individual (Clarke 43). The rich in the society also had their private baths, and even those who were not lucky enough to have one often preferred the public ones. These baths were no ordinary baths. On the contrary, they assumed the form of a mall with a health club and spa attached. Over and above the baths were workout rooms, restaurants, lounges, libraries, place to get a massage and game rooms (Damon 1). These happened to the day’s highpoint for a greater percentage of the nationals of Pompeii. Although they used to bath frequently, children had not been allowed in the baths. On the other hand, slaves only visited the baths in the event that they received permission and had come with their owners. In conclusion, it is evident that while the Pompeii men were known to be the working class, drinking in the popinae and/or making visits to the lupanar, the fairer sex (the women) were consigned to tending the home fires since the society was a male-dominated society. The kitchen was the woman’s domain irrespective of the family’s status. The Pompeii society can, notwithstanding the abovementioned be termed as a responsible society. Despite the fact that women had been denied a number of privileges of the men, they had they rights (Mannix 2). Works Cited Clarke, John. Looking at Lovemaking Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 B.C.-A.D. 250. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print. Clarke, John R., and Michael Larvey. Roman Sex, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250. New York: Abrams, 2003. Print. Cooper, Charles. A Most Merry and Illustrated History of the Last Days of Pompeii. 2005. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. . Damon, Cynthia. An eyewitness Account of the Disaster. Cambridge University. Web. 3 Dec. 2012. . Gore, Rick. “The Dead Do Tell Tale at Vesuvius.” National Geographic 165.5 (1984): 556-625. Print. Harris, Judith. “Five-Star Inn with Great Art.” Archeology Magazine 53.4 (2000): 14. Print. Laurence, Ray. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. Routledge: Taylor & Francis, 2007. Print. Maiuri, Amedeo, and Lee E. Battaglia. “Last Moments of the Pompeii.” National Geographic Magazine 120 (1961): 651-669. Print. Mannix, Daniel P. The Way of the Gladiator. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001. Print. Sirgurdsson, Haraldur, Stanford Cashdollar, and Stephen R. J. Sparkes. “The Eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79: Reconstruction from Historical and Volcanological Evidence.” American Journal of Archeology 86.1 (2005): 39-51. Print. Veyne, Peter. A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 1987. Print. Read More