Seismic Activity in Campania Throughout 62-79 C.E. and the Archaeological Implications

Posted on by Discentes
View of Mount Vesuvius from the Pompeiian Forum, courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Seismic Activity in Campania Throughout 62-79 C.E. and the Archaeological Implications

By Everett Meckler

 

The city of Pompeii and the surrounding region, while best known for the 79 C.E. eruption of Vesuvius and being “preserved” for posterity, was also subjected to an often concomitant natural disaster: earthquakes. While the site provides a wealth of knowledge and a window into the Roman world, the extraordinary circumstances that color modern scholarship must be fully understood. In this regard, the major earthquake the region suffered in 62/63 C.E. has long been incorporated into the scholarly inquiry of Pompeii, owing largely to its record throughout Book 6 of Seneca’s Natural Questions and a brief mention in Tacitus’ Annals (15.22.2). However, a growing number of scholars have concluded that Pompeii experienced a series of earthquakes from the 62/63 C.E. earthquake until the eruption of Vesuvius.1 This essay will synthesize and assess a diverse array of evidence with a particular focus on the water network of the city for this subsequent seismic activity and clarify the implications of such activity on interpreting the archaeological evidence at the site of Pompeii.

            Contemporary literature regarding post-62/63 C.E. seismic activity is sparse. Shortly after the 62/63 C.E. earthquake, another earthquake in the region, dated to 64 C.E., found its way into the record as it coincided with an imperial visit from Nero.2 Tacitus writes that on the Northern side of Vesuvius, the city of Naples, Nero experienced an earthquake shortly after a visit to the city’s amphitheater (Ann. XV.34). Suetonius provides an additional account of this earthquake. Still, it is couched in an anecdote which disagrees with Tacitus’ retelling in what seems an effort to highlight Nero’s performative nature (Nero 20). However, the sources agree on the basic facts of the earthquake. Tacitus was likely alive during the event, but he would have been a young boy and wrote the Annals much later.3 Suetonius’ chronology is roughly similar to that of Tacitus, though Suetonius was born shortly after the earthquake.4 This marks the only specific instance of a post-62/63 C.E. earthquake in historical sources. Besides this, Pliny the Younger’s letter to Tacitus regarding the eruption of Vesuvius explains, “For several days past there had been earth tremors which were not particularly alarming because they are frequent in Campania” (Ep. VI.20.3). This indicates the presence of earthquake swarms in temporal proximity to the eruption, as well as seismic activity that was regular-enough to accustom the local populace. The subdued literary depiction of the specific earthquake in 64 C.E. (which was only notable because of Nero’s presence) also suggests the presence of earthquake swarms, a factor that holds significance for later discussions in volcanology within this paper.

            Unlike the literary record, the archaeological record supplies ample evidence of continuous seismic activity.5 The placement of objects in the city as they were during the eruption of Vesuvius indicates preventative measures for further earthquake damage, as well as preliminary treatment of recent earthquake damage. Materials from collapsed walls were found neatly organized for recycling and furniture of various sorts appears to have been stored in stockpiles so as not to be damaged.6 Extensive repairs were found to be in progress throughout the city and in some cases, even this repair work was destroyed.7 The Stabian Baths (VII.1.8) provide an excellent example of the latter category as clear signs of repair work to the entrances can be identified, yet these entrances were purposefully walled up in the face of further tremors.8The volume of repair work in progress in 79 C.E. is poorly explained by damage from an earthquake 17 years prior.

Such an explanation is especially confounded when considering a pair of marble reliefs found in the atrium of the House of Lucius Caecillius Jucundus (fig. 1). These reliefs are thought to depict the earthquake of 62/63 C.E.9Specifically, they illustrate the effects of the earthquake on the Pompeiian forum and the active destruction of the Temple of Jupiter, which was found to still be in a state of disrepair at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius.10 This element suggests the relief was constructed no earlier than the 62/63 earthquake. Such a fine work of veneer masonry depicting the earthquake preceding the completion of most repair work presents a complication for the single earthquake narrative.

The region’s most definitive evidence for continuous seismic activity relates to the Pompeian water distribution system. Multiple excavations have found deep ancient trenches spanning along the Pompeian sidewalks and filled with lapilli, a material generated and dispersed during volcanic eruptions (fig. 2).11 These trenches seem to have been dug to lay pipes for the water network of the city. This pipe system appears to have been dug much deeper than the older pipe system it was intended to replace.12 This added depth would serve a twofold purpose by allowing more slope in the piping as well as providing further protection. Such an expensive replacement process indicates a clear perceived need for improvement and protection of the water network. The lapilli found in the trenches indicate that the work had yet to have been completed, with the trenches themselves exposed at the time of the eruption of Vesuvius.

The earthquake of 62/63 surely engendered such a need, but further evidence shows these trenches were part of a second series of replacements for the water network. Three phases of the capillary water network have been identified: (1) the original Augustan-era network that served the city since sometime around the turn of the millennium, (2) post 62/63 repairs to this old system as well as provisional piping placed somewhere around ground level, and (3) the phase of total replacement associated with the open trenches which were in progress at the time of the eruption.13 While the ground-level additions of the second phase of the water network were likely intended to be temporary, the subterranean fixes to the Augustan-era system seem a more permanent solution. Nonetheless, this line of redress for the water network was abandoned in favor of the planned rehaul, as implied by the open trenches.

Ultimately, the capillary issues in the water network indicate larger issues upstream. The second phase of the water network, beyond its patchwork fixes, shows significantly reduced water flow that particularly affected those downstream of the aqueduct.14 This manifested in the prioritization of public fountains, the reactivation of cisterns on the periphery of the network, and the raising or outright abandonment of relatively low water towers and tanks.15 With public fountains still available and the common preference for the use of cisterns, this loss of water flow did not present much of a concern to the livelihood of Pompeian citizens, but rather to status displays in the form of water features.16

An example of the confluence of these issues can be found in the water connection of insula V 1. This area has a high relative vertical topography in the city and thus a lower water tower servicing the area.17 In the reassessment of the water network during the second phase, this tower was abandoned, and the aqueduct was directly piped to the water fountain to meet the baseline needs of the citizens.18 Subsequently, the higher-class inhabitants of insula V 1 (which happens to include the aforementioned House of Lucius Caecillius Jucundus) had piping installed from the public fountain to their houses to maintain their water features.19 A different response to the abandonment of flowing water can be observed from the owner of Villa A at Oplontis. This villa was likely connected independently to the same aqueduct that fed the city of Pompeii, and further upstream at that, indicating either the destruction of the villa’s connection by an earthquake or, as Duncan Keenan-Jones has hypothesized, intentional blocking to prioritize the residents of Pompeii.20 I prefer the former explanation, as many of the water features of the villa, including several large pools, were all filled in with debris at this time, and repairing the villa’s connection would likely present a large private expense.21 The point of difference in private versus public expense is further supported by the opposition in the active remodeling of the several bath houses of Pompeii during the time of the eruption, despite these baths being non-operational or operating at a lesser capacity.22 That is to say, unlike Villa A at Oplontis, the capillary systems and water features of Pompeii were largely repaired and even in the process of being improved. The last remaining problem was the aqueduct, which the Pompeians, in their continued investment in water features, clearly expected to be solved.

The aqueduct system, in its reliance on a minuscule declivity to transport the water via gravity, appears to have been continuously disrupted by bradyseism, the vertical displacement of the earth’s surface due to the movement of magma below the surface.23 Earthquake swarms are naturally highly correlated with bradyseism and have been observed as accompanying the phenomenon.24 In order to forewarn new volcanological activity in Vesuvius for the safety of modern inhabitants of the region, Roberto Scandone and Lisetta Giacomelli have modeled that the condition for an eruption of Vesuvius is the intrusion of enough foreign magma into the relatively shallow magma reservoir of Vesuvius, which would present as bradyseism and seismic activity.25 Pliny the Younger’s comments on the lead-up to the eruption as well as the accounts of the 64 C.E. earthquake quoted above are highly congruent with this modern volcanological explanation. This phenomenon also potentially provided the incentive for the deeper placement of the capillary water network and the raising of water towers/tanks.

One issue with this line of inquiry is that while the Pompeian reservoir (the Castellum Aquae) into which an aqueduct fed is extant, the actual line of connection is not.26 There is debate about what aqueduct line supported this region, with different travertine samples at Pompeii bearing chemical resemblances to water from multiple sources, suggesting attempts at connecting Pompeii to different lines.27 The common thread with most theories as to the source of Pompeii’s aqueduct supply is that they would have had to pass through the point of Ponte Tirone.28 At this point, the remains of the Aqua Augusta aqueduct have been excavated, revealing two parallel channels (fig. 3). It has been hypothesized that one of these parallel lines branched off to feed Pompeii and the surrounding cities.29 Repair work dated between 62-79 C.E. shows that the floor of this aqueduct line was continuously raised and lowered (fig. 3) and that, for much of this period, the Aqua Augusta was supplying reduced water to this part of the circuit.30 This repair work is highly suggestive of responses to continuous bradyseism. The earth’s crust would rise and lower as subterranean magma first passed through the region and then deposited into the Vesuvius reservoir. Attempting to solve these problems as they occur would look much like the evidence we have from Ponte Tirone: changes in the floor level of the aqueduct that would quickly become obsolete.

As I have suggested above, the damaged water supply of Pompeii would not have threatened citizens’ access to potable water. At most, it could be said that Pompeians’ everyday interactions with water were perhaps more tedious than usual at the time of the eruption. However, the seismic activity certainly did have a large effect on the circumstances of the “preserved” city. For one thing, Seneca claims that many had abandoned the region following the 62/63 earthquake (NQ VI.10). This might, however, be little more than a stoic jab at other elites who vacationed in the region. While Amedeo Maiuri’s theories of a “social revolution” may not be well received, the element of an influx of construction workers for the many active works across the city is true.31 This influx, combined with damage to accommodations from the various earthquakes, generated demand for more accommodation. Evidence for the construction and further subdivision of various upper-story apartments lends credence to this notion.32 In other words, the surprising response to the earthquakes of investment seems to have engendered a positive feedback loop of even more investment in this period of Pompeian history. An inscription describing economic intervention in the region by an agent of the emperor suggests imperial investment may have been present as well (CIL IV 1018). This imperial interest might make sense for the aggressive investment into the water system. Pompeii was certainly chaotic, being defined by massive construction projects, trenches along the roadways, earthquakes, ruins, and a reduced water supply, but it was also (ironically) on the fast track to improving beyond what it had been at the time of the earthquake.

The archeological record shows that Pompeii was faced with serious and continuous seismic activity. While more obvious signs of earthquake damage and preventative measures are found throughout the city, the water network of Pompeii, due to its highly sensitive reliance on gravity systems, shows continuous ground deformations. The city was thus functioning at a lesser level than usual. This adversity was met with heavy investment, which likely had a demographic impact on the city. This context can help produce a better understanding of the wealth of information at the archeological site of Pompeii.

 

Everett Meckler is a senior at UCLA majoring in Classics and Political Science

 

Endnotes

  1. Joanne Berry, The Complete Pompeii, 236; Christer Bruun, “STALLIANUS, A PLUMBER FROM POMPEII (AND OTHER REMARKS ON POMPEIAN LEAD PIPES),” 146; Michael L. Thomas and John R. Clarke, “Water Features, the Atrium, and the Coastal Setting of Oplontis Villa A at Torre Annunziata,” 377.
  2. Aldo Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 961.
  3. Ellen O’Gorman, “Tacitus (1), Roman historian.”
  4. Keith Bradley, “Suetonius, Roman biographer, b. c. 70 CE.”
  5. Berry, The Complete Pompeii, 236.
  6. Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 961.
  7. Bruun, “STALLIANUS, A PLUMBER FROM POMPEII (AND OTHER REMARKS ON POMPEIAN LEAD PIPES),” 146.
  8. Berry, The Complete Pompeii, 238.
  9. Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 961.
  10. Berry, The Complete Pompeii, 236.
  11. Bruun, “STALLIANUS, A PLUMBER FROM POMPEII (AND OTHER REMARKS ON POMPEIAN LEAD PIPES),” 146-147; John J. Dobbins et al., “Excavations in the Sanctuary of Apollo at Pompeii, 1997,” 746.
  12. Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 962.
  13. Duncan Keenan-Jones, “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples,” 192.
  14. Ibid, 199.
  15. Ibid, 193,198.
  16. Berry, The Complete Pompeii, 240; A.-M. Leander Touati,“Water, Well-Being and Social Complexity in Insula V 1: A Pompeian City Block Revisited,” 122.
  17. Leander Touati, “Water, Well-Being and Social Complexity in Insula V 1: A Pompeian City Block Revisited,” 122.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid, 122-123.
  20. Thomas and Clarke, “Water Features, the Atrium, and the Coastal Setting of Oplontis Villa A at Torre Annunziata,” 381; Keenan-Jones, “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples,” 200.
  21. Thomas and Clarke, “Water Features, the Atrium, and the Coastal Setting of Oplontis Villa A at Torre Annunziata.”
  22. Keenan-Jones, “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples,” 197.
  23. Ibid, 200.
  24. Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 965.
  25. Roberto Scandone and Lisetta Giacomelli, “Precursors of Eruptions at Vesuvius (Italy).”
  26. Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 962.
  27. Keenan-Jones, “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples,” 200-201; Marturano, “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies,” 962.
  28. Ibid.
  29. Keenan-Jones, “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples,” 205.
  30. Ibid, 208.
  31. Berry, The Complete Pompeii, 242.
  32. Ibid, 243.

 

Bibliography

Berry, Joanne. The Complete Pompeii. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007

Bradley, Keith. “Suetonius, Roman biographer, b. c. 70 CE.” Oxford Classical Dictionary. 7 Mar. 2016; Accessed 18 Mar. 2024. https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6117.

Christer Bruun. “STALLIANUS, A PLUMBER FROM POMPEII (AND OTHER REMARKS ON POMPEIAN LEAD PIPES).” Phoenix 66, no. 1/2 (2012): 145–57. https://doi.org/10.7834/phoenix.66.1-2.0145.

Dobbins, John J., Larry F. Ball, James G. Cooper, Stephen L. Gavel, and Sophie Hay. “Excavations in the Sanctuary of Apollo at Pompeii, 1997.” American Journal of Archaeology 102, no. 4 (1998): 739–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/506098.

Keenan-Jones, Duncan. “Somma-Vesuvian Ground Movements and the Water Supply of Pompeii and the Bay of Naples.” American Journal of Archaeology 119, no. 2 (2015): 191–215. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.119.2.0191.

Leander Touati, A.-M. “Water, Well-Being and Social Complexity in Insula V 1: A Pompeian City Block Revisited.” 2010. OpAthRom 3:105–61.

Marturano, Aldo. “Sources of Ground Movement at Vesuvius before the AD 79 Eruption: Evidence from Contemporary Accounts and Archaeological Studies.” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 177, no. 4 (August 3, 2008): 959–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.07.017.

O’Gorman, Ellen. “Tacitus (1), Roman historian.” Oxford Classical Dictionary. 7 Mar. 2016; Accessed 18 Mar. 2024. https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6205.

Pliny the Younger. Letters, Volume I: Books 1-7. Translated by Betty Radice. Loeb Classical Library 55. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.

Scandone, Roberto, and Lisetta Giacomelli. “Precursors of Eruptions at Vesuvius (Italy).” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 171, no. 3–4 (April 20, 2008): 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.11.018.

Seneca. Natural Questions, Volume II: Books 4-7. Translated by Thomas H. Corcoran. Loeb Classical Library 457. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Suetonius. Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation, Augmented with the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other Associates. Translated by Alexander Thomson. Philadelphia, PA: Gebbie & Co. 1889.

Tacitus. Annals: Books 13-16. Translated by John Jackson. Loeb Classical Library 322. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1937.

Thomas, Michael L., and John R. Clarke. “Water Features, the Atrium, and the Coastal Setting of Oplontis Villa A at Torre Annunziata.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 24 (2011): 370–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104775940000341X.