Usefulness and Reliability of Written and Archaeological Evidence in Pompeii and Herculaneum
WHAT DO HISTORIANS NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF WHEN LOOKING AT USEFULNESS AND RELIABILITY OF WRITTEN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM?
There is a significant amount of evidence from Pompeii and Herculaneum, however, historians must be careful about the conclusions they come to from examining said evidence. There are many gaps in the evidence resulting not only from the nature of ancient societies, but also from the destruction caused by the eruption. Historians must also keep in mind that the preservation techniques used have not always been completely successful, and excavation is still incomplete in Herculaneum.
Although the sources relating to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius are all ancient, they may not necessarily be primary sources, already impacting on their reliability. And while some sources may be eye witness accounts of the eruption, they would not have been written at the exact time of the eruption, meaning some of the details of could have been forgotten, and other details could have been consequently made up to corroborate an individual’s recount of the eruption. A prime example of this is Pliny the Younger’s letters to Tacitus. Although Pliny was present at the eruption of Vesuvius, he wrote about the eruption many years after it happened from memory, and some details could have been forgotten. Historians must also recognise that Pliny may have written these letters in order to eulogise his uncle, Pliny the Elder, who he most likely viewed as heroic for trying to save people from the eruption. In relation to the eruption itself, this source is highly useful and reliable, but in regards of Pliny the Elder, the reliability of this source comes into question.
Historians also need to be aware of the limitations when examining written and archaeological evidence. There are many gaps in written sources from Pompeii and Herculaneum. For example, there is not much written about women from lower classes. These gaps in ancient history have
There is a significant amount of evidence from Pompeii and Herculaneum, however, historians must be careful about the conclusions they come to from examining said evidence. There are many gaps in the evidence resulting not only from the nature of ancient societies, but also from the destruction caused by the eruption. Historians must also keep in mind that the preservation techniques used have not always been completely successful, and excavation is still incomplete in Herculaneum.
Although the sources relating to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius are all ancient, they may not necessarily be primary sources, already impacting on their reliability. And while some sources may be eye witness accounts of the eruption, they would not have been written at the exact time of the eruption, meaning some of the details of could have been forgotten, and other details could have been consequently made up to corroborate an individual’s recount of the eruption. A prime example of this is Pliny the Younger’s letters to Tacitus. Although Pliny was present at the eruption of Vesuvius, he wrote about the eruption many years after it happened from memory, and some details could have been forgotten. Historians must also recognise that Pliny may have written these letters in order to eulogise his uncle, Pliny the Elder, who he most likely viewed as heroic for trying to save people from the eruption. In relation to the eruption itself, this source is highly useful and reliable, but in regards of Pliny the Elder, the reliability of this source comes into question.
Historians also need to be aware of the limitations when examining written and archaeological evidence. There are many gaps in written sources from Pompeii and Herculaneum. For example, there is not much written about women from lower classes. These gaps in ancient history have