May 16, 2009
Prologue
Posted by meshul under Uncategorized | Tags: Introduction, Karanis, Pompeii, Research |[8] Comments
After a few days off, I’m ready to get started! So, here’s an explanation of what I’ll be doing.
My project is “Relicta: A Comparative Artifact Analysis of Pompeii and Other Roman Domestic Sites.” The idea came to me after reading Joanne Berry’s article “Household Artefacts: Towards a Re-interpretation of Roman Domestic Space (1997)” and Penelope Allison’s “Using the Material and Written Sources: Turn of the Millennium Approaches to Roman Domestic Space (2001)”and (as a bit of trivia) while cat-napping. These authors particularly have suggested paying attention to artifacts in the study of Roman homes, which would make Roman archaeology more thorough and should allow us to get closer to the real lives of real people.
At Pompeii and many other Roman sites (see discussion of Karanis, which is to come) at which excavation began early, focus was placed on certain elements (e.g. plaster casts and paintings at Pompeii or papyri at Karanis), while mundane objects were often ignored (sometimes not even recorded!).This has likely created very flawed picture of life at these sites. By careful attention to every artifact with its location taken into account, the use of rooms and houses and the activities of those living within may be determine. Rather than limiting our knowledge of Pompeiian life to elite entertaining based on decorative elements (paintings, sculpture, room layout), for example, we may be able to uncover more day-to-day aspects of life, as Berry hinted at when she noted the large amount of amphorae (large storage jugs) in the atrium of a Pompeiian house (an area associated almost exclusively with the social ritual of salutatio and the person of the paterfamilias).
My study will attempt to apply the approach of giving strong consideration to the artifacts from a given house in conjuntion with any other evidence (decoration, layout, documents, etc) to houses at several different Roman sites in various locations throughout the empire. This method should allow greater insight into life at each site as well as the variation in different areas. The sites involved with definitely include Pompeii and Karanis, as well as several others (Silcehster, Ephesus, etc?).
I’ve written a paper on Karanis already, which will become the basis for a chapter of the final thesis. This paper was quite successful at displaying the utility of the artifactual approach. I will summaraize it in my next post (knowing how often I skim long blog posts, I’m going to try not to put any readers in a similar position!).
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
Hi Megan, I am glad to see the blog up and running! I will put a link to it on my new website… when, that is, I have that up and running. In any case, have you seen JRA 2008 18 fasc 2 review of P. Allison by Miko Flohr? Might be useful if you are thinking about setting up your data in tabulated form… MSB
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Thanks! Do let me know when your website is up, as well.
I have not seen it yet, but I can look it up today! I’ve been reading Allison this week, as a matter of fact.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hi! I am also a summer Dintersmith Fellow so it’s cool to see what everyone else is working on. Some of the stuff you are researching sounds fascinating. I’ve always like classical studies but I have a primerily history background. It is interesting to see how certain acedemic and research trends are similar across fields. The “bottom-up” version (stories of everyday people) of history is becoming a strong alternative interpretation to the “top-down” (just focusing on the major players, usually wealthy or royal males) teaching. By looking at some of the nontraditional aspects of these sites I’m sure you’re helping expand what can be interpreted. Good luck with the rest of your research.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Thanks! I actually came to WM assuming I’d be a history major, so I understand the top-down/bottom-up in that field as well. It’s sort of fun to see that debate play out in class discussions (and it DEFINITELY does in some classics courses).
August 30th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
This sounds like very interesting research. I have no background in this field, but I was curious about your methods. Is your approach to look through databases of excavated objects and then make interpretations of the lifestyles of Roman life based on type and location of objects within a home? Or is there more? I don’t mean to ask unknowledgeable questions, but I was just curious.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:02 am
That’s not a bad question at all; the hardest part of this thesis (aside from locating sources) is figuring out method. The short answer is “yes” but there is more to it on a theoretical level. Also, I plan to look at other, more traditional topics such as layout and decoration in addition.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:41 am
Wow, sounds like you had a really interesting summer. I took Latin in high school and our textbook was “Ecce Romani.” (You may be familiar with it.) They had all these stories about a Roman family but they were hilarious in that they attributed American family dynamics to this family. So I’m interested to see what you uncover when it comes to actual domestic life.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Tylerdoesscience,
I have heard of that book, though I started Latin here at college and am glad we used Wheelock’s instead. Many of my friends used Ecce in highschool, and quote it often. It looks like I should read it someday, just for laughs. That attribution of Victorian/modern British and American norms was pretty common in Roman studies for a long time, and in fact, a lot of work I’m reading for the Pompeii chapter tries to deconstruct it.