NEH GRANT PROPOSAL

POMPEII FORUM PROJECT


[Following are the "Statement of Significance and Impact" and "Narrative Description" sections of the proposal submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities in October 1994. The headings reflect the organizational structure required by the NEH.One notable change has taken place since the submission of this proposal. Robert Dripps was unable to participate in the project. His place was taken by Mark M. Schimmenti, formerly on the faculty in the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia, and presently on the faculty at the College of Architecture and Planning, University of Tennessee.]

Statement of Significance and Impact of Project

Now in the early stages of phase two, the Pompeii Forum Project addresses issues presented by an already excavated city and brings together systematic methodology, advanced technology, and an interdisciplinary group of scholars to confront both specific Pompeian questions and more wide-ranging issues of ancient and later urbanism.

The Pompeii Forum Project is significant because (1) it brings to old questions a new methodology that is appropriate for the problems encountered, (2) it applies an advanced technology that provides greater accuracy and speed than older techniques in both the documentation and the analysis of data, (3) it produces computerized data records that are easily shared, archived, and published through traditional and electronic media, (4) its research design transcends the archaeological parameters of the project in order to make wider contributions to both the history of urbanism and contemporary problems of urban design, (5) it has already reached and published conclusions that challenge the traditional understanding of the history of the Pompeian forum, and (6) it opens new and as yet unexplored avenues for research into the social and economic implications of the major architectural recovery in the urban center at Pompeii. In short, through archaeology and urban historical analysis the Pompeii Forum Project contributes to the debate on the nature of the city, a debate that since the time of Plato and Aristotle has been one of the fundamental issues in the history of Western ideas.

The project and its conclusions are already becoming known to classical archaeologists. One of the reviewers of the project director's October 1994 AJA article offered the following assessment to the editor of the journal: "Dobbins' evidence convincingly supports his conclusions, and his reading of the site will almost certainly become the 'new orthodoxy'." The project will have an impact on classical archaeologists, urban historians, architectural theoreticians, and urban designers and their students who recognize historical parallels to contemporary situations, as well as on a large and diverse populace that considers Pompeii to be fascinating for a variety of reasons.

Several publications along with conference papers and public lectures will address the audiences just mentioned. A multi- authored book and specialized articles, including electronic publications, will present data and interpretations at a scholarly level, while more general articles will be submitted to such publications as Archaeology magazine. Interim reports will appear in standard and electronic forms. All data will be archived electronically and will become widely accessible at the end of the project.

Narrative Description

Nature and Significance of the Project

Like the forum in Rome itself, the forum at Pompeii was the focal point of urban life housing institutions of government, cult buildings, and retail markets. In its most succinctly stated form, the goal of the Pompeii Forum Project is to understand the evolution of Pompeii's urban center. The multiple dimensions of this goal involve questions of chronology, decoration, building function, patronage, individual building design, overall urban design, relationship to Rome, and the social and economic implications of urban development.

Funding is sought for phase two of the project, a collaborative venture that is archaeologically based, heavily dependent upon advanced technology, and broadly conceived to that it transcends the archaeological component and addresses broad concerns in the humanities, namely issues of urban history and the ways in which an ancient city can serve modern architectural theoriticians and designers. The three components of the project are documentation, analysis, and interpretation. On-site documentation is the largest budget item; advanced technical equipment described under Computer Use plays a central role in the documentation and analysis.

New observations by the project director (published and in press) reveal that the Pompeian forum provides an unexpected opportunity for reassessing the urban development of the city's core. Traditional methods are insufficient for efficiently and accurately recording, storing, and relating the evidence that is quantitatively large, architecturally complex, and three- dimensional in nature. The existing two-dimensional 1:100 plan of the forum (known to be incorrect in many details) cannot support the abundant three-dimensional data that prompt the new research questions. Moreover, the existing plan is simply descriptive and does not attempt to present evidence of chronological or constructional phasing, building materials, repairs, masonry seams, or other construction details upon which conclusions can rest. In order to allow currently available technology to serve the project it will be necessary to continue the systematic documentation begun in 1994. As the accuracy of our conclusions depends upon the accuracy of our data, precision in the documentation phase is paramount. As discussed in more detail below, the collaborative research team has begun to gather data using a total station and to create plans and models using AutoCAD. Traditional methods of hand measurement, field notes, and photography are also being employed. NEH support will contribute to three annual six-week seasons of on-site research beginning in June 1995 and analysis during the intervening academic years. This, in turn, will prepare for phase three which will be the presentation of the results in a variety of publications to a diverse audience.

Pompeii is located south of Rome in Campania at the mouth of the Sarno River near the base of Mt. Vesuvius and is among the most important sites for classical archaeology because its sudden and total destruction in A.D. 79 preserved a quantity of data that is unique in the classical world. Moreover, much of the city is already excavated and is therefore available for study without expensive and time-consuming excavations. It should be emphasized that Pompeii was neither a provincial backwater nor merely a seaside resort town whose preservation may be interesting, but without greater implications for urban history. Pompeii had served for centuries as a major regional center. After the founding of the Roman colony in 80 B.C., and especially throughout the first century A.D. until the destruction in A.D. 79, its urban evolution consciously mirrored developments in Rome. It is therefore legitimate to view Pompeii as more than a regional curiosity and to use it as a gauge for exploring more widely applicable Roman practices of the first century.

The starting point for the project was the project director's observation that the buildings on the Pompeian forum preserve an astonishing amount of information that had never been systematically gathered or interpreted. This prompted work to begin in 1988. In turn, the newly gathered information challenged widely published and generally accepted views about the forum. A summary of the issues follows.

The final years at Pompeii were framed by two natural disasters: a devastating earthquake in 62 that damaged much of Pompeii and the cataclysmic eruption of Vesuvius in 79 that destroyed Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the surrounding villas. The conventional view has been that the forum was still in shambles-- a builders' yard--at the time of the eruption and that the Pompeians had neglected the city's public buildings. The alleged absence of recovery in the public realm has been seen as symptomatic of the general state of economic depression at the site.

The buildings themselves tell a different story. Newly observed or newly interpreted evidence points to a comprehensive post-earthquake (i.e., post-62) plan for the forum, a design whose hallmarks are the unification and monumentalization of the urban center. These goals were achieved by blocking streets, linking facades, upgrading building materials, and emphasizing the entrances that now provided the major access to the forum. The process included the retention and repair of several older buildings and the new construction of others. It is possible that such a recovery was beyond the means of the Pompeian treasury and was achieved with assistance from Rome. (It was normal for Rome to assist cities throughout the empire that had been damaged by earthquake. Ample textual and epigraphic evidence survives regarding this policy.)

The concomitant economic implications are significant. Rather than being a symbol of the depressed economic conditions at Pompeii after A.D. 62, the forum with its vigorous and ambitious post-earthquake building program reveals both a desire to rebuild on a grand scale and the means to carry it out.

Like the great fires of Rome in 64 or of London in 1666, the earthquake at Pompeii presented its inhabitants with a challenge and a need to rebuild, as well as an opportunity to rebuild in a manner and on a scale that they may never have undertaken if disaster had not struck. By observing what the Pompeians rebuilt we can determine what was important to them. The implications of this simple truth are profound. In the absence of written accounts of the post-earthquake period, the patterns and extent of recovery in the forum provide the only access we have to the thinking of the Pompeians on the nature of the city and its proper physical embodiment. In short, the conjunction of circumstances that damaged and then destroyed Pompeii provides a unique opportunity for us to observe the nature and the degree of the Pompeian response to the disaster of 62.

The core of our project is to employ archaeological analysis to recover the ideas of the Pompeian designers, particularly during the final years of the city; to interpret those ideas in a broad historical context; and to actively engage modern designers and students of urban design with those ideas so that in very concrete and tangible ways this one ancient model can assist those who shape the modern city. Source materials are the remains at Pompeii itself, the early published excavation accounts, other urban sites in Italy and elsewhere, photo archives in Pompeii and Rome, modern analyses of the forum that began in the 1820s, and literature on architectural theory and design. The project not only intersects an already large body of Pompeian scholarship including some very recent work by German scholars, but also relates to more general studies of Roman architecture and urban design. Studies of social and economic issues at Pompeii are less numerous. The project will provide raw data for those working in such areas and will itself make at least some initial observations about these issues in the light of the new data.

Urban History and Design. In order to present to the panel the ways in which the urban historian and urban designer relate to the project and believe that they and their disciplines can profit from a study of Pompeii, I am calling attention to the fact that Westfall and Dripps contributed the following section. Their remarks are direct testimony to the potential that this project holds for broad application in the humanities. The similarity in their thinking and the compatability of both approaches to the archaeological research design are striking. The first series of comments is by C. W. Westfall.

Participation by an urban historian and an urban designer in the Pompeii project will address two major issues: (a) the division between architectural history and the practice of architecture, and (b) the increasing inability to build, either in whole or in part, villages, towns, and cities in America that are just, humane, and elegant.

Historically, American architects have looked to classical models in the Mediterranean world for inspiration on how to design individual buildings and how to assemble them into civil, urban ensembles. When used in America these models have always been extensively translated, the most successful examples revealing the most intense knowledge of the model and the most penetrating and extensive translation. But over the last few generations architects have turned away from using past models for present practice. They have relegated a knowledge of history to the status of a cultural ornament. Moreover, they have increasingly based their designs on personal interpretations of current conditions and treated them as private expressions rather than as contributions to a vivid, urbane, civil life.

The most promising reforms in current architectural practice involve a return to an understanding of the way American villages, towns and cities were built when historical examples were an important part of the knowledge upon which architects drew when designing. The reform, variously known as the New Urbanism, the Traditional Towns Movement, and the Neotraditional Towns Movement, attempts to produce something more than a mere subdivision by using a plan and a system of building codes and landuse guidelines based on local, traditional practice as the framework for building a village, a town, or a neighborhood. Excellent as the products of this approach are and promising as this approach is in its ability to remedy the deficiencies of standard approaches to subdivision design, its own deficiency lies in the weakness of the design of the center of the village, the town, or the neighborhood unit that it aspires to produce. Study at Pompeii will go far towards remedying this deficiency by providing a way to look beyond or behind the important American examples to the models on which they themselves are based. The larger area of Pompeii might be thought of as analogous to urban sprawl, and its central, civil forum as an urban center. As we learn better how to design around the core, we will have to do a better job of designing the core. A study of Pompeii as a model will furnish a broader basis of knowledge about the design of the individual pieces and their assemblage into an urban ensemble and therefore support a more competent translation of favorite models, both American and ancient, to current American circumstances.

There are other kinds of cores that knit their surrounding areas into urban wholes, and some of these have also been important sources for American practice. Examples are the market squares of medieval towns, the piazzas fronting both a Renaissance palace and the cluster of lesser, dependent buildings, and the ceremonial, honorific places organizing the highly ritualized civic life in absolutist states. A careful and detailed study of Pompeii's forum in relation to its surrounding areas and as a collection of disparate pieces made into a coherent whole through the design of a few simple elements will allow us to study these kinds of cores more knowingly, as the method used to build them is similar in many ways to the method used in Pompeii. Thus a more extensive knowledge of Pompeii will be useful for expanding our understanding of a variety of other historical examples. This enhanced historical knowledge will then provide the practitioners of the reformed architecture with a richer insight into the components they must manipulate and the range of methods for doing so when they tackle the design of buildings and public places that enrich the public life of America's villages, towns, and cities. (This ends C. W. Westfall's comments. The following observations are by Robert Dripps.)

The most significant body of theory in the history of American architecture and urbanism has recognized the critical relationship between the American urban context and models of urbanism in western Europe. Such models offered parallels so persuasive that their adoption and subsequent transformation to the conditions in America were inevitable. The history of American buildings and towns up to the Second World War is a history of the sage observations of architects, political thinkers, and urbanists on these models and the ingenuity with which the underlying principles of the models could inform their American counterpart. At its best, the results were inventions of enormous power which produced places that distinguished America as a worthy contributor to a global body of architectural and urban theory.

What America had to learn from these European models was in many ways different from what it now needs to know. Principles derived from a general understanding of European patterns of settlement were quite adequate to inform the first phases of the building of the American product. These principles remain informative; however, the nature of the urban project has shifted to one of rehabilitation and reinvestment of meaning within cities and landscapes that are in a state of profound intellectual, political, and physical collapse.

For this new project to be successful demands a revisiting of models of urbanism to learn not so much from their general intentions and diagrammatic structure but more from the specific strategies of their own response to changing political course, and natural and manmade disaster. Attention needs to be paid to the constructional and material means by which rebuilding could address what already existed while responding to changes perhaps never forseen and still maintain a coherent and comprehensive envoronment for its citizens. Although the broad outline of Pompeii is well known to urban designers and has over the course of American architectural and urban history been the source of some of its most successful urban places, Pompeii can now be examined under this new agenda. As explained elsewhere in this proposal, Pompeii is uniquely suited to this study since its own destruction by volcano ironically preserved its physical form even at the level of the detail so that it can still instruct in ways that other cities spared this end cannot. The findings of the archaeological investigation already suggest that the questions of juncture between old and new relative to the earthquake offer substantial potential as exemplars for current urban rebuilding. This is especially so at the level of detail.

Despite the rapid changes in technology, buildings and urban settings are put together in much the same way that is seen at Pompeii. The same intellectual, aesthetic, and constructional questions must be faced by professionals and scholars proposing ways to intervene in our present chaotic urban environments. This means that a much more rigorous knowledge of these conditions as preserved at Pompeii would form a significant ground on which to build effective theories for this daunting task of rebuilding our country.

We would propose that this groundwork become the basis for research within selected design programs in the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia, especially within the program in American Urbanism (Directed by Dripps). This would be undertaken as both theoretical studies intending to establish working hypotheses about strategies of possible action as well as through applied case studies where specific American urban settings are used as test sites for rebuilding under these theories. The program in American Urbanism is well qualified to carry out both phases of this work since the Pompeii project would form a particular study within a program that has its own sympathetic theoretical and working methods already well developed. As well, it would be anticipated that this work would be presented to both the academic and professional community through publication of drawings and text which illustrate quite specific strategies for confronting an array of conditions expected to be encountered within this rebuilding process. We think that this could produce some of the most effective proposals for dealing with this problematic rebuilding since it braws on the strengths of a unique collaboration. (This ends the section by Robert Dripps.)

History and Duration of the Project

Investigations began in 1988 as a one-person research project financed by University of Virginia Summer Grants to the principal investigator. My work concentrated on the four main buildings on the east side of the forum and has resulted in several conference papers, numerous public lectures in the U.S. and Canada, an invitation to lecture in Munich, correspondence with scholars in Canada, England, Germany, and Italy, and several articles, primarily a lengthy study in AJA 98:4 (1994) [40 double columned pages] and an electronic hypertext publication on the World Wide Web (instructions for access in Appendix 2).

The acceptance of the article by AJA and the appointment of the principal investigator as a Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia for the 1993-94 fiscal year concluded phase one of the project. These two events were instrumental in transforming the project into a collaborative research venture that is archaeologically based, heavily dependent upon advanced technology, and broadly conceived so that it transcends the archaeological component and addresses broader issues of urban history as discussed above.

Phase two began in June 1994 with funds raised by the principal investigator and with contributions from the collaborators themselves. During a two-week preliminary season at Pompeii Dobbins, Eiteljorg, Ball, and Hanna tested equipment and working procedures and began to gather data in preparation for a longer season in 1995. Additional comments appear under Methodology and Computer Use. (The work conducted in 1994 was featured in the CSA Newsletter, August 1994.)

I have asked the American Academy in Rome to become a co- sponsor with the University of Virginia. There is interest in this prospect at the Academy; no final decision has been made. Since 1988 I have received permission from the Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei to conduct research in the forum, including the collaborative season in 1994 when a total station was employed. It is anticipated that permission will continue to be extended.

As indicated above, NEH support is sought for three summers of on-site work to begin in 1995 and for continued work during the intervening academic years. Several publications will be finished by the fall of 1998.

Financial support for the project so far totals about $91,000. This consists of $15,000 in U.Va. summer grants, $75,000 for my appointment to the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities (equipment, software, overhead, travel, research assistant, technical assistance, release time from teaching), and $6,000 that I have raised from other sources.

Project Staff

John J. Dobbins, Project Director University of Virginia Assoc. Professor of Classical Art & Archaeology Associate Fellow, Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia

Larry F. Ball University of Wisconsin Assistant Professor of Art History

Robert Dripps University of Virginia Professor of Urban Design

Harrison Eiteljorg, II Director, Center for the Study of Architecture Bryn Mawr, PA

Karim K. Hanna Wassenaar Associates, Charlottesville, VA Architect

Carroll William Westfall University of Virginia Professor of Architectural History

All collaborators are well qualified to carry out their responsibilities. I have been studying Pompeii since the 1970s and in 1983 made the initial observations that led to the inception of the project in 1988. My excavation experience at Greek and Roman sites and my directorships of the La Befa villa excavation and of on-site theater research at Morgantina have prepared me to serve again as a project director. Moreover, the methods of close architectural study that we are employing in Pompeii are those which I have used with success on the Athenian Acropolis, at La Befa, and at Morgantina. Harrison Eiteljorg is a classical archaeologist whose architectural work of the Old Propylon on the Athenian Acropolis is in press. As a computer and AutoCAD specialist and director of the CSA, Eiteljorg is a leader in the movement toward greater computer use in classical archaeology. The on-site intricacies of computer applications and the operating of the total station are his responsibilities. Larry Ball is a classical archaeologist whose excavation experience and close study of the masonry chronology of Nero's Domus Aurea in Rome single him out as the one colleague in the United States most capable of working closely with me on the complex problems of interpreting the masonry evidence. His precision and attention to detail along with his skills as draftsman and photographer complement his analytical abilities. Karim Hanna is a young architect who belongs to the new generation of computer geniuses. He is a specialist in AutoCAD and other programs. He maintains an intensely focused concentration for very long working days and excels at problem solving. In the field he works closely with Eiteljorg as collaborator and assistant. C. William Westfall is a senior professor in architectural and urban history whose work on European and American urbanism provides the basis for interpreting Pompeii in the broadest of contexts. He complements my knowledge of Roman urbanism and at the same time he complements the work of Robert Dripps by providing an important link between historical evidence and the theory and practice of modern urban design. In this sense he plays a pivotal role in effecting the transition from archaeology to urban design. Robert Dripps is a senior professor of urban design whose broad intellectual and theoretical interests regularly lead him and his students (in the studio setting) to the cities of the ancient Greek and Roman world. His role is to identify, tranform, and apply to a modern context those models of urban design at Pompeii that constitute recurring urban responses to universal situations. A graduate assistant will work for with me for one month during the summer after my return from the field and will continue during the academic year. Duties include assistance with AutoCAD models, data base, and photogrammetry. In order to receive the highly technical assistance needed to link several kinds of data in a computer environment the budget includes salary costs for a computer technician at IATH.

I will devote full time to the project during the summers, including six weeks at Pompeii. In the fall of 1996 I will be on leave to work full time on the project and will apply for grants to extend the leave to a year. In addition, I am requesting the equivalent of 1/4 of my salary for the first and third year so that I can reduce my teaching load by a quarter and devote that time to the project. Eiteljorg: six weeks of on-site work during the summers and the equivalent of two weeks during the remainder of the year. Ball: six weeks of on-site work. Hanna: four weeks on site. Westfall and Dripps: three weeks per summer including two weeks on site. Research assistant: One month during summer; 280 hours (10 per week) during academic year. During the academic year all collaborators will be devoting non-billable hours to the project as we discuss our results, work with our students, and prepare for subsequent seasons.

Research Methods

As indicated above, the primary aim of understanding the evolution of Pompeii's urban center can be broken down into questions of chronology, decoration, building function, patronage, individual building design, overall urban design, relationship to Rome, and the social and economic implications of urban development. In addition, the research questions extend to wider issues of urban history and design.

The research methodology rejects the traditional building- by-building analysis and interpretation because the extensive physical overlapping and interconnections of buildings indicate that the Pompeians themselves did not conceive of their urban center as a series of discrete structures. Instead, they gave primacy to the urban ensemble. This project's methods of gathering and interpreting data are innovative in that they replicate the approach that the Pompeian designers took. This approach, in turn, prepares the way for broad conclusions of an urbanistic nature. While various studies (e.g., Maiuri, various guide books) consider the whole forum, they treat buildings individually; they incompletely document the evidence; and they fail to recognize that the association of facts is in itself an essential class of archaeological evidence.

While not neglecting any class of evidence, the present field methods are fundamentally archaeological and structural in that they document building materials and techniques: the relationships between walls, i.e., bonding or abutting; seams between different types of masonry that may indicate different building phases; cracks resulting from the Vesuvian eruption, which, as they do not signal different building phases, must be distinguished from seams; vestiges of painted plaster; evidence for marble revetment; the superimposition of decorative wall treatments, i.e., setting beds for marble veneer on top of finished-coat plaster belonging to an earlier period; and evidence of earthquake repair--especially important, as this confirms the existence of a building before the earthquake. Simply stated, the method involves the wall-by-wall observation and recording of all preserved features, which are then interpreted on an urban scale.

Since 1988 these methods have successfully addressed several of the research questions by producing a comprehensive body of data from which conclusions could be drawn about chronology, decoration, and urban design. During phase one of the project, however, methods of data recording were traditional (notebooks, sketches, 35mm. photography, use of already existing plans, computers only for word processing). The AutoCAD plans and models created at the Institute and used in my AJA and Web publications derive from the existing 1:100 plan of the forum mentioned above (see Appendix 1C and 1D for a sample). While the graphics may appear satisfactory, it is evident that the level of accuracy derived from a 1:100 print is inferior to the precision sought in the proposed research design. In other words, the technology I used at the Institute constituted a beginning, not an end.

Field methods of the collaborative project are innovative in a technological sense in that a total station (described under Computer Use) and on-site computers are employed for data gathering and analysis. The computer aspect of the methodology is treated under Computer Use. In addition, in 1995 black-and- white photography will employ large format negatives in order to achieve archival quality results. Post-season study and interpretation will employ advanced technology at the CSA and the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities where I will continue as an associate fellow until the end of the project.

The construction of a complex, three-dimensional computer model of the forum will add significantly to the data recording and retrieval methods of the project. The model will include all the structures in the forum, and the inter-relationships in the model can and will be as complex as those in the forum itself. All points in the model will be recorded three-dimensionally, and the coordinates of those points will be retrievable on command. Furthermore, as the points will be stored at full scale, retrieval of dimensions at full original accuracy is possible. Equally important for analytic work, AutoCAD will enable project members to deal with the model in segments that relate to specific research questions or that pertain to specific physical relationships in the forum. For example, we will be able to select for study the portions of the model that were contemporaneous and look at those portions from various angles, make drawings, add reconstructions, and so on. From the same model, one could select the portions that represent rebuilding, whether contemporaneous or not, the portions that involved the re-use of old building materials, the portions that were built together, and so on. Only with this level of technology can we adequately approach so complex a system as the forum.

The extensive documentation of the site through advanced technology and large format archival photography is justified on two grounds. In the short run (3-5 years) the achievement of our goals depends upon more accurate and more efficiently stored and accessed data records. For example, to understand individual building design (geometry, modular analysis) or design relationships to buildings in Rome we need more accurate plans than those which now exist. In other words, the same advanced technology used to document the site also provides the capacity for a sophisticated level of analysis. Thus there is a close link among the elements of documentation, analysis, and advanced technology. Secondly, the new photographs will be used in the drawing of elevations by means of photogrammetry (discussed under Computer Use). In the long run, the documentation will constitute an invaluable archive of evidence that is in a rapid state of degradation. Moreover, as Vesuvius remains an active volcano and as seismic activity in the region is common (e.g., the 1980 earthquake) the urgency of more fully documenting and studying one of our most valuable archaeological resources is obvious.

Select Bibliography

Adam, J.-P. "Conséquences du séisme de l'an 62 à Pompéi," in B. Helly and A. Pollio eds., Tremblements de terre, historiques et archéologique: IVèmes Rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes, 2, 3, 4, novembre 1983, pp. 165-67. Valbonne, 1984.

_____. La construction romaine. Matériaux et techniques. Paris, 1984.

____. "Observations techniques sur les suites du Séisme de 62 à Pompéi," in C. A. Livadie, ed., Tremblements de terre, éruptions volcaniques et vie des hommes dans la Campanie antique, Bibliothèque de l'Institut Francais de Naples, Deuxième série, vol. 7, pp. 67-87. Naples, 1986.

Andreau, J. "Histoire des séismes et histoire économique: Le tremblement de terre de Pompéi (62 ap. J.-C.)." AnnEconSocCiv 28 (1973) 369-395.

Arthur, P. "Problems of the Urbanization of Pompeii: excavations of 1980-1981." AntJ 66 (1986) 29-44.

Fiorelli, G. ed. Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia, 3 vols Naples, 1860-1864.

Gradel, I. "Mamia's Dedication: Emperor and Genius. The Imperial Cult in Italy and the Genius Coloniae in Pompeii," AnalRom 20 (1992) 43-58.

Jongman W. The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Amsterdam, 1988.

Ling, R. "The Architecture of Pompeii," JRA 4 (1991) 248-256.

MacDonald, W. L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal. New Haven, 1986.

Maiuri, A. Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana. Naples, 1973.

_____. L'ultima fase edilizia di Pompei. Rome, 1942.

Mau, A. "Der staedtische Larentempel in Pompeji," RM 11(1896) 285- 301.

_____. "Osservazioni sul creduto tempio del Genio di Augusto," Atti della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti 16 (1891-1893) [published in 1894] 181-188.

_____. Pompeii: Its Life and Art, trans. Francis W. Kelsey. New York, 1902.

_____. Pompejanische Beiträge. Berlin, 1879.

F. Mazois, Les Ruines de Pompéi, 4 vols. Paris, 1824-1838.

Richardson, L. Jr., Pompeii: An Architectural History. Baltimore and London, 1988.

Romano, D. G. and B. C. Schoenbrun, "A Computerized Architectural and Topographical Survey of Ancient Corinth," Journal of Field Archaeology 20 (1993( 117-90.

Wallat, K. "Opus Testaceum in Pompeji," RM 100 (1993) 353-82.

Zanker, P. Pompeji: Stadtbilder als Spiegel von Gesellschaft und Herrscaftsform. Mainz, 1987.

Work Plan

On the basis of our 1994 preliminary season we have established both on-site working procedures and a proper division of the day between data gathering in the forum and computer work at the hotel. Dobbins, Eiteljorg, Ball, and Hanna use the total station; mark points with prism, prism pole, or reflecting tape; identify photogrammetry points and physically tape card stock arrows to walls. Work is shared and assignments are rotated periodically. In addition, Dobbins and Ball provide documentation with color slides and Eiteljorg uses a medium format camera for photogrammetry. In 1995 the experienced archaeological photographer, Aaron Levin, will perform photographic duties. With two laptop computers equipt with AutoCAD, a portable digitizing tablet, and a portable printer at the hotel, Dobbins, Eiteljorg, Ball, and Hanna will work in pairs to deal with each day's data and to input data into AutoCAD by means of photogrammetry. In addition, the continued analysis of the masonry chronology will fall primarily to Dobbins and Ball. Westfall and Dripps will be at Pompeii for two weeks each season. Both know Pompeii from reading and previous visits. Their task will be to incorporate the data of the archaeological team according to the broad goals discussed above and also to bring their observations to bear on the interpretation of Roman design. In addition, the intense on-site interaction of archaeologists, urban historian, and urban designer should generate new questions and lead to new insights.

June-November 1995: on-site work with full team followed by analysis by all members (beginning of large-scale data gathering); December 1995-May 1996: building of models based on 1995 data, Dripps begins to incorporate elements of the project into his design studios; June-November 1996: continue data gathering and on-site analysis with full team, Dobbins devotes full-time to project and consults extensively with collaborators, interim report published on Web; December 1996-May 1997: preparations for final season, drafts of chapters prepared by all collborators; June-November 1997: data-gathering completed, on- site checking accomplished, manuscripts refined while in Pompeii; December 1997-May 1998: completion of AutoCAD plans and model, full team continues to prepare final publication.

Final Product and Dissemenation

As stated above, the present proposal is for part two of the project which concerns data gathering and analysis. A separate grant will be required for part three, the completion of the final product. I should stress, however, that the production of several final products will be well under way by the end of the proposed grant period. Such products will include a multi- authored monographic publication, specialized articles for scholars, general articles and possibly a monograph for the general public along the lines of David Macaulay's books, and an electronic hypertext publication on the World Wide Web. I have discussed with the American Academy in Rome the possible publication in Memoires of the American Academy in Rome. Another appropriate venue for a scholarly publication is the Supplementary Series of the Journal of Roman Archaeology.

In addition to finished publications, the raw data from this work will be made available in computer form. In particular, the model (in standard AutoCAD format, called .dwg, or in the widely used transfer format called .dxf) will be available through the Archaeological Data Archive Project of the Archaeological Institute of America and the Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities at the University of Virginia. Data will be available either over a network or on disks.

Computer Use

The computer model of the forum will be created with AutoCAD software, a total station surveying instrument, other computer aids, and standard surveying methods. These systems were used in 1994 and found to be well-suited to the work. Efficient work methods were developed, and innovative processes were occasionally created to make standard surveying equipment work more appropriately for archaeological survey.

Equipment. Equipment in the field will include an electronic theodolite and attached electronic distance measuring device (together called a total station), a data recorder, prisms and prism pole, reflecting tape, two laptop computers (486 DX25 CPU with 20 MB RAM and a suitable hard drive), mouse, portable electronic digitizing tablet, cables, batteries, chargers, and a portable printer. Software will include AutoCAD (computer-assisted modeling software), Excel (a spreadsheet program), data transfer programs, FoxPro (relational database management system), Microsoft Word and WordPerfect (word processing).

Equipment at CSA includes a Macintosh Quadra with AutoCAD, Sun Sparkstation II with AutoCAD, 486 PC with AutoCAD and ArcCAD, 36"x48" digitizer, plotter (up to 36"), 1200 DPI laser printer (up to 11"x17"). Equipment avaialble for project use at IATH includes an IBM RS 6000 with AutoCAD for UNIX and a 486 Value Point PC (both assigned to the project director for his exclusive use), laser printers, slide digitizers, flatbed scanners, and numerous software programs useful in working with visual data. It is emphasized that apart from the total station, all computer equipment that will be used in the field and at home institutions is already in hand and is now being used for the project.

Equipment Use. Basic surveying will be performed with the total station. Reflecting prisms and reflective tape are used to provide survey targets. Surveyors normally use only a reflecting prism, but the surveying of standing architecture requires a physically smaller reflective device; reflecting tape was used and found to be effective in 1994. A data collector will be used to gather the information from the total station and to convey that data to a computer. The data will be imported into AutoCAD to provide the skeleton for the model.

Further detail will be added with hand measurements taken from the surveyed points and with single-photo photogrammetry. A photograph of a flat surface (even a photo taken from an oblique angle) can be placed on an electronic digitizing tablet and used as a data source. So long as four points on that surface can be identified in terms of x-, y-, and z-coordinates, the details on the surface may be traced directly into the computer model. This process was used at Pompeii in 1994 on the wall surfaces in the Sanctuary of the Genius of Augustus to obtain considerable detail at very good levels of accuracy. Much of the work will be done on-site, but photogrammetry can be performed at our home institutions.

The Model. The computer model will be fully three-dimensional. Walls, doors, stairs, and other features will be modeled as accurately as possible. Using the CAD model, any subsequent scholar will be able to retrieve the actual x-, y-, and z- coordinates of any point in the model for checking or correcting; users will also be able to visualize the material in either perspective or isometric three-dimensional views.

The CAD models will also be constructed so as to permit the division of the total model into discrete segments. As a result, it will be possible to deal separately with different chronological and architectural phases and to combine phases in a variety of ways. It will also be possible to include multiple, competing reconstructions of missing portions in the model and to view each independently.


Copyright 1996 by John J. Dobbins, all rights reserved
Document URL: http://www.iath.virginia.edu/neh/neh.html
Last Modified: Wednesday, 11-Jan-2006 16:18:15 EST