Andreas Tschurilow, Features of the Domenico Fontana′s Water Conduit (the Canal of Count Sarno) and the Date of Pompeii's Destruction. Scientific Study, 2009. (Also published in German and Russian.)
Abstract:
It is considered that Pompeii was destroyed in the first century and, being buried under a layer of volcanic ash and pumice-stone, it remained forgotten for more than 1500 years until in 1592 the architect Domenico Fontana, during the construction of a canal to bring water to Torre Annunziata, found in an underground passageway several inscriptions on marble plates indicating the location of an ancient city. In this paper we present arguments in favor of another hypothesis: that Pompeii came to the end of its existence after the completion of the canal which was constructed in ruined city, however, still not fully covered by the volcanic ashes. The paper brings up for discussion some results of the author’s study partially popularized on the Internet and presents his opinion that the famous Pompeii, being excavated by the archeologists in the last 200 years, in fact finally disappeared off the face of the earth as a result of the eruption of Vesuvius in 1631.
A blog for all those who work on Pompeii and the other archaeological sites of the Bay of Naples.
5 comments:
After spending a few minutes familiarising myself with Tschurilow's article, I'd like to know if anyone else has read this and what they think. It will be interesting to know archaeologists, classicists and historians take on this paper. Even more so, perhaps some of the researchers who Tschurilow quotes in his work.
Looking forward to hearing other's thoughts.
Sera : )
I would like to read this article, but before buying it, I would like to know if it is worthy. Has anybody reviewed it?
Hi Massimo,
I'm not sure I would purchase this article again after reading it. It hasn't been peer reviewed and I wonder about some of the statements made and the lack of in-text references. I suppose that it is ideal that scholars question accepted views, but I don't agree with this one. There are too many reasons why it doesn't add up.
All best wishes,
Sera
Dear Sera,
The main target of this article was to point out the problem of the features of Canal of Count Sarno which are definitely in conflict with the traditional date of Pompeii's destruction. This problem really exists regardless of appearances. All necessary in-text references have been given in the article, indeed. Unfortunately, there is a lack of published excavation reports of the water conuit, if any. If you have any questions concerning my statements, please do not hesitate to contact me. It would be also great to discuss these with you.
I would suggest to start with remarks of Giovanni Boccaccio about 14th century Pompeii he made in his work: "De montibus, silvis, fontibus, lacubus, fluminibus, stagnis seu paludibus, et de diversis nominibus maris"
Like the following:
"APPENNINUS...includens cum Campania Vesuvium, Pompeios, Noceriam, Stabiam, Surrentum, post hec habens fere in visceribus Beneventum";
"SARNUS mons est medius inter Pompeianum agrum et Salernitanum, ex quo magno cum murmure Sarnus erumpit fluvius apud Sarnum oppidum in montis radicibus constitutum.";
"VESEVUS Campanie mons est nulli montium coniunctus, undique vinetis atque fructetis abundans. Hinc ab euroaustro Pompeios in radicibus habuit atque Sarnum ab euro fere, sed remotius Beneventum et a Vulturno Capuam et a circio Neapolim Chalcidensium Parthenopem dictam, in tumulo Sirene sedentem."
Any comments? :)
Andreas
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for your reply. It is always a good thing to encourage debate amongst scholars and I'm glad that you've weighed in further for your side. I hope to find some time in the near future to take a look at your suggestions and then reply.
All the best,
Sera
Post a Comment