should the need arise. This may be the norm for modern Western society, but one cannot be certain that this was always the case, as suggested by Suetonius’ description of the Emperor Augustus’ teeth as ‘small, few and decayed’. 91 Further, it is often assumed that people from higher classes are healthier and have better hygiene than people of lower social status. However, the preserved body of a Han Dynasty (mid-second century BC ) Chinese lady of known high rank showed evidence of tuberculosis and parasites, such as schistosomes, whipworms and pin worms. It is also unreasonable to interpret status on the basis of nutrition. Wealthier individuals do not always have a better diet than the rest of the population. In England, for example, from the period of the Industrial Revolution to World War II, upper-middle-class people were comparatively malnourished as a result of eating white bread and jam. This diet was, in itself, a status symbol of people who could afford food that was more processed. 92
It is rather simplistic to infer social status from associated finds, like jewellery. 93 Expensive jewels do not always reflect high status; for example, some people in poor communities in parts of the Indian subcontinent adorn their children and women with gold jewellery. In addition, it is possible that looting occurred whilst people were attempting to escape the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, a point Bisel acknowledged. 94 It is plausible that at least some of the jewellery found in association with bodies in the Campanian sites was stolen.
The provision of names to ancient individuals is not unique to Herculaneum. It tends to be misleading, as can be seen in the case of the ascription of the name ‘Lucy’ to an australopithecine skeleton, which was discovered in 1974. This name makes it difficult to consider the skeleton as anything other than female, though the sex attribution has been questioned. 95
The names and attributes that Bisel gave the skeletons she examined were not mere inventions for the National Geographic . She used these whenever she spoke about specific Herculanean individuals. She saw these characterizations merely as a tool to make them more accessible to the general public. She was well aware that some of her interpretations stretched the evidence beyond the boundaries of the discipline but considered that most people would understand that she was only suggesting a possible reconstruction. 96 This approach is not at all unlike that of Bulwer-Lytton, albeit with the added benefitof modern forensic knowledge.
Deiss devoted an entire chapter to the work of Bisel in the second edition of his book on Herculaneum. It was based on the National Geographic articles and direct communication with Bisel. A portion of this chapter is devoted to an examination of the population of the town from the skeletal evidence. The rest is concerned with the description of the same individuals that were ‘refleshed’ for The Secrets of Vesuvius and the National Geographic articles. In discussing the reconstructions Deiss stated that the skeletons ‘seemed … to develop personalities of their own’. 97 This is somewhat ironic in the light of the fact that Deiss dedicated this account of the victims to the memory of Amedeo Maiuri, who decried The Last Days of Pompeii for creating an imitation of the site with numerous falsifications for the sake of romance and for lacking ‘a true and direct penetration into the city and its inhabitants’. 98
It could be argued that simpli fication and romanticism is acceptable practice for popular works but the same influences can also be observed in Bisel’s more scholarly work. In one article, Bisel included the National Geographic artist’s reconstruction of ‘the Soldier’ with a skeletal biography in her own words. The caption states that this individual was a soldier. She did not mention that the only evidence for this attribution was the fact that the body was found with a
It is rather simplistic to infer social status from associated finds, like jewellery. 93 Expensive jewels do not always reflect high status; for example, some people in poor communities in parts of the Indian subcontinent adorn their children and women with gold jewellery. In addition, it is possible that looting occurred whilst people were attempting to escape the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, a point Bisel acknowledged. 94 It is plausible that at least some of the jewellery found in association with bodies in the Campanian sites was stolen.
The provision of names to ancient individuals is not unique to Herculaneum. It tends to be misleading, as can be seen in the case of the ascription of the name ‘Lucy’ to an australopithecine skeleton, which was discovered in 1974. This name makes it difficult to consider the skeleton as anything other than female, though the sex attribution has been questioned. 95
The names and attributes that Bisel gave the skeletons she examined were not mere inventions for the National Geographic . She used these whenever she spoke about specific Herculanean individuals. She saw these characterizations merely as a tool to make them more accessible to the general public. She was well aware that some of her interpretations stretched the evidence beyond the boundaries of the discipline but considered that most people would understand that she was only suggesting a possible reconstruction. 96 This approach is not at all unlike that of Bulwer-Lytton, albeit with the added benefitof modern forensic knowledge.
Deiss devoted an entire chapter to the work of Bisel in the second edition of his book on Herculaneum. It was based on the National Geographic articles and direct communication with Bisel. A portion of this chapter is devoted to an examination of the population of the town from the skeletal evidence. The rest is concerned with the description of the same individuals that were ‘refleshed’ for The Secrets of Vesuvius and the National Geographic articles. In discussing the reconstructions Deiss stated that the skeletons ‘seemed … to develop personalities of their own’. 97 This is somewhat ironic in the light of the fact that Deiss dedicated this account of the victims to the memory of Amedeo Maiuri, who decried The Last Days of Pompeii for creating an imitation of the site with numerous falsifications for the sake of romance and for lacking ‘a true and direct penetration into the city and its inhabitants’. 98
It could be argued that simpli fication and romanticism is acceptable practice for popular works but the same influences can also be observed in Bisel’s more scholarly work. In one article, Bisel included the National Geographic artist’s reconstruction of ‘the Soldier’ with a skeletal biography in her own words. The caption states that this individual was a soldier. She did not mention that the only evidence for this attribution was the fact that the body was found with a
Similar Books
