Dating the Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum

[Viggen]

If you have visited the spellbinding British Museum exhibition Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum you will have, no doubt, rightly been overawed by the wealth of wonders on display; pristine bronzes, dazzling frescoes, even human remains, all eerily preserved by the ashes spewed from Vesuvius on that fateful day: 24th August 79 CE. A date we have been taught in school, read in textbooks and seen in film & television; truly “a date that will live in infamy”. Or not...

 

...fascinating reading --> The Inconvenient Coin: Dating the Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum

 

 

[sonic]

Doesn't surprise me.  Over recent years I've got used to finding that 'facts' are actually opinions from earlier authors.

[caldrail]

So it appears then that the acepted date as in August is from transcription errors over the centuries, whereas Cassius Dio dates it late in the year - consistent with archaeology.

[Caius Julius]

That is VERY interesting.  I love it when stuff like this just pops up.  Makes them have to rethink the whole deal.  Great article.

[caesar novus]

It's not really news or an isolated case... reading Mary Beard's not very recent book "The Fires of Vesuvius" covers the long known later eruption date evidence, and questions a bunch of other popular and scholarly assumptions.

 

Pompeii has coins, skeletons, and graffiti from decades after the eruption as well, as people tunneled to retrieve/loot stuff before the site was forgotten. But there is a suspicious paucity of furnishings and skeletons, suggesting the city was mostly deserted not just days before the peak eruption, but long before. Some of the infrastructure like for water wasn't yet repaired from the years-previous earthquake.

 

I didn't finish the book, but it seems you can go to almost any current explanation and find it based partly on air (and the human need for certainty). For instance, what was this building for and who owned it... is currently treated as 80% likely A, 10% likely B, and 10% chance something unknown. But examine the evidence for even apparently obvious cases (like a supposed brothel) and you must accept it is 80% unknown, 15% B, and 5% likely A.

 

Well, maybe that is just Mary saying that, but she claims much of what we see now is restoration based on imagination rather than a time capsule. I used to hate the way folks on travel forums would gush over hiring private Pompeii guides who were more style than substance. But now I think that the agnostic truth is too hard to bear, and that romantic imaginings are a reasonable attitude to have while appreciating the site.

Edited August 28, 2014 by caesar novus
linked review from Ursus

[Viggen]

...just for info;

Ursus reviewed that book a while back (i linked it in your comment)

[guy]

Interesting article. I recommend that you post it in the Numismatica sub-forum, however. It more likely will be seen by people with an interest in numismatics who could offer an insight.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited August 31, 2014 by guy

[Viggen]

Interesting article. I recommend that you post it in the Numismatica sub-forum, however. It more likely will be seen by people with an interest in numismatics who could offer an insight.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

Done!

[guy]

John Anthony from cointalk.com brought this rebuttal (from the comments section of the article) to my attention:

 

"Richard Abdy of the British Museum examined the coin in question last year when it was part of the BM’s Pompeii exhibit. In his article ‘The Last Coin in Pompeii’ in the 2013 Numismatic Chronicle he concluded the reverse legend actually reads TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII, dating it to July/August 79 AD. Oh well."

guy also known as gaius

Edited August 31, 2014 by guy

[caldrail]

That merely indicates when the coin was struck, not used. Oh well.

[sonic]

That is one of the things that annoys me about the usage of coins for dating.  It sometimes seems that all coins are produced and immediately dropped on the floor.  Never used.

[guy]

Here's a thread I created almost three years ago concerning another coin that challenged accepted historical dating:
 

Old coins shed light on Jerusalem's Western Wall

Israeli archaeologists have uncovered ancient coins near the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City which challenge the assumption that all of the walls of the Second Temple were built by King Herod.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/14957-temple-mount-in-jerusalem-coin-find-sheds-light/



guy also known as gaius

Edited September 1, 2014 by guy

[sonic]

A good example. Coins dating the building of the Temple to twenty years after Herod's death give a 'secure' date proving that Herod may not have been involved in the actual building - although the building may have followed his design.  However, in the case of Pompeii it is assumed that the coin was lost as soon as it was minted.  This strikes me as odd.  (Unless I'm missing something with my superficial reading!)

Edited September 1, 2014 by sonic

[caesar novus]

assumed that the coin was lost as soon as it was minted.

.

First you need to examine the context of the coin, if possible... is it integrated among the old stratigraphy, or could it have been dropped in later. If the former, then you say the stuff among the coin dates from no earlier than the minting date (not equal to it).

 

People sometimes talk in a shorthand, but I think they are assuming and in agreement with above. However in real life there can be uncertainties about the context, etc and you have to weigh in other evidence. And if you found many coins together in a wide range of minting dates... you might treat the youngest coin as closer to the deposit time than from a single found coin (which would be more like the average mint date in hoard).

Edited September 1, 2014 by caesar novus