Laurel Weiss
Rochelle Johnson
Gipson First Year Seminar
November 12 2016
A Morbid Taste for Pottery
At the College of Idaho, there is a rather large vase that was removed from Pompeii in
approximately 1919. We can consider the meaning of this vase through many lenses. When
Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD, the local residents of Pompeii had no idea that they would
become the fascination to modern society that they are today. Their minds were likely occupied
with escaping the unknown menace that threw ash and magma over their lives. However, in a
modern context, we are afforded a more in-depth look at the lives of people who lived so long
ago. We can see their food, stores, pottery, and even their bodies. The expressions of some of
those people are forever encased in ash, allowing us to witness their last moment of cognizance
(Maiuri). With all of these aspects of Pompeii, meaning can be discovered through multiple
lenses or methods of examining them. These lenses lead us in many directions, but ultimately
lead to the final question; why do we care about the vase? This question leads us to find meaning
in how we, as a society, understand this vase and how this understanding of it reflects who we
are, who we will become through death, and how to rationalize this through human empathy.
Ultimately, this vase matters because although the world has changed since Pompeii, we are still
people and we are still afraid of death. Through this vase, we are looking for a connection to
people that have already faced down what we can’t bear to face.
The first level of examining the vase from Pompeii is understanding its origins and how
they build into a higher understanding of what the vase represents to modern society. According
to Jan Summers-Duffy in a recent interview, the word-of-mouth story about this vase is that it
was removed from Pompeii in the 1900s. It was seemingly pried from the ash by a Mr. and Mrs.
Swain in 1914, as a small, ancient-looking tag that rests inside the vase claims. Through an
unknown series of events, the vase eventually made its way to the College of Idaho’s Orna J.
Smith Museum of Natural History, donated by A.J. Swain in 1919. It now rests in the bottom of
a small case near the center of the museum, along with other Egyptian and Roman treasures.
Because of this method of gaining the vase, very little is known about its exact location in
Pompeii at the time of the catastrophic event that now shares the same name as the city.
However, recent research has led to more insight into how this vase was made and what it
was made for, thereby denoting how it was understood by its creator society. According to Gina
Tibbot (per J. Summers Duffy), its appearance gives away its purpose. This vase starts with a
fairly narrow mouth, going steadily larger until the shoulder, where it narrows to an even smaller
width at the base. Only one handle remains, with the other one likely being left behind in
Pompeii at the time of excavation. Likewise, the handle-less half is still coated in the distantly
deadly ash. The mostly intact half reveals a rather plain decoration, with a reddish stripe below
the handle and, above that, black-looking designs on the horizontal strip around the handle that
looks vaguely fly-shaped to some. Around the intact handle, the reddish stripe begins to turn
black due to some sort of charring, and in addition to the darkened stripe, there is also a design in
the glaze around the handle that was obviously not purposeful. A distinctly oval shape, the
current best guess for this spot in the glaze is a thumbprint. However, this charred glaze gives
away its purpose as cookware. As Gina Tibbot says, “the pot could have been exposed to a non-
cooking related fire, but that’s unlikely… the Vesuvian eruption would not have resulted in such
char”. This effectively proves the likely purpose of the pot as cookware.
As the purpose of the pot is revealed, we are also given clues to the likely location of its
creation. No-one truly knows of the import and export habits of Roman pottery in Pompeii, but
some clues point to the possibility of it being made locally. As reported by J. Theodore Pena and
Myles McCallum in “The Production and Distribution of Pottery at Pompeii; A Review of
Evidence”, there was quite the local economy for pottery. As they wrote, “(in the Roman period,
there were)… two Roman frescoes depicting potters, three graffiti referring to potters, and the
excavated remains of two modestly sized pottery production facilities”. In addition, we now
know that the Via di Nocera facility produced lamps and commonware, while the Via Superior
facility produced cookware (Pena and McCallum, 57). And so, we now know a possible location
of the production of the vase—the Via Superior pottery facility in Pompeii. Of course, it must be
kept in mind that since there is no definitive proof that this is so, it must be regarded as pure
speculation. The only absolute facts that can be known about this pot is that it was found in
Pompeii, is probably cookware, and that it now rests in the basement of the Boone Science
Center in the College of Idaho.
However, within this speculation, we are now afforded the opportunity to examine how
such an object would be viewed and valued within Pompeiian society as a commodity. As we
know, pottery is nearly the oldest technology known to humankind, and is easily produced
(Violatti). Pottery was also hugely produced in Roman society, as it was a necessary part of daily
life for anyone in nearly any social strata (History for Kids). Even the poor Romans could afford
some basic cookware. Because of this, it is quite likely that the pot wasn’t very highly valued, as
it was a usual aspect of anyone’s daily life, and had a value in the vein entirely of commodity.
However, it also has some basic decorations, though it certainly isn’t by any means extravagant.
This could mean that it was slightly more valuable than average, but once again, there isn’t
enough evidence to do more than say that the vase could have belonged to anybody.
And so we see that, through the first lens outlined previously, that this was a basic
cookware item that was used by (quite possibly) the average Pompeiian citizen of the era.
However, this vase didn’t carry out the usual life span of a piece of pottery, as there was quite a
catastrophic event that disrupted the average timeline. This event that encased the vase is
commonly referred to within the very name of the city that it effected; simply, Pompeii. This
eruption, taking place in 79 AD is best described by Pliny the Younger, a Roman citizen who
witnessed the even from afar. He described a nearly apocalyptic scene, writing, “Elsewhere there
was daylight by this time, but they were still in darkness, blacker and denser than any ordinary
night, which they relieved by lighting torches and various kinds of lamp” (Eyewitnesses to
History). The citizens of Pompeii were taken unawares and were terrified, as Pliny described,
You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of
men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to
recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their
relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many
besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and
that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore (Eyewitness to
History).
And so, the means of interpretation by the creator society of the vase was sealed forever
by the death of the very same creator society. Excavation of the Pompeii site that was created in
79 AD only began in 1870. The knowledge of Pompeii had been lost with the fall of the Roman
Empire (Owens). The rediscovery of Pompeii began the new understanding of it, with the
additional significance of the previously mentioned catastrophe. The new method for
understanding this vase was crafted built on top of the original understanding of it with the
discovery of Pompeii by modern society. Many more questions can now be asked from a wider
perspective, as we can ask what it represents through the lens of our society today. Now we can
empathize with its creator society, especially through the vehicles of the thumbprint and the pure
possibility of it belonging to anyone.
The first step in understanding this point of view is to question-- though perhaps not
always understand—why this would seem relevant to us today. We live in a world that seems
completely separate from that of Pompeii. It is highly unlikely that the catastrophic event in
Pompeii has any tangible effects on how the world goes on today. Nevertheless, the past is
perceived as relevant. People are fascinated with history and artifacts that harken back to times
before ours. Indeed, many argue that the study of history is vital. As Penelope J. Corfield writes
in The Atlantic, “The answer is that History is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of
the past in the present. Far from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and
encourages its students to take a long view of such connections.” This effectively answers why
history matters, but it still doesn’t explain why people care about it.
A common misperception is that people care about things that matter, as a rule.
However, this can be easily disproven. As Gil Laroya points out in his essay in The Huffington
Post, “…we are too busy with our days, our jobs, our smartphones and our apps, to even take a
second to care about another human being’s issues (Laroya).” In short, we don’t always prioritize
what is actually important to our lives.
And so, it is easy to see that people don’t always care about things (or other people), even
when it matters on some scale. However, people do care about history because it applies to them.
People connect with events in history on an empathic level that helps them to rationalize and
connect with their futures in a more indirect way than being forced to gaze directly into the eyes
of their own impending death. In order to understand this, it is necessary to take into account
cross-disciplinary knowledge.
As C. Wright Mills, a famous American sociologist, described in his book, The
Sociological Imagination, all people need to have an integrated approach to the world around
them. As he writes, “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be
understood without understanding both” (Mills, 3). Though a great deal of his book was
aimed at the social scientist, he nevertheless emphasized the need of multiple views to
understand anything, particularly through a scholarly view. With this idea, people can take
something like a vase from Pompeii and use it to examine what it means to them and what
can be learned about themselves with it. They can use their knowledge of themselves with
the knowledge of psychology and history to have an integrated interest in this vase from
Pompeii. The original interest for it may have been the history of Pompeii, but now it can
be seen with new eyes.
But why are our new eyes so specifically interested in this pot from Pompeii? The
average answer as to why Pompeii is so fascinating is that it is so well preserved, from the
people to the pottery. The window into the life of the people of Pompeii is far clearer than
most archaeological sites. Even the expressions of the people are preserved in ashy terror,
effectively exposing a distant but unconscionable horror; people die, and people die in
painful ways (Maiuri). With the vase, there is the evidence of humanity within its design,
emphasized by the thumbprint that is seen in the glaze. When someone puts their own
thumb over the print from about two thousand years ago, the connection to the people that
died in Pompeii becomes far clearer, and a less frightful connection with death is made.
Even the fact that any sort of person could have owned this vase makes this indirect look at
death all the more easy to connect to. The vase could have belonged to anyone, but it
belonged to someone, and we can connect with them distantly. This method of looking at
death indirectly is mentioned by Hans Villarica in The Atlantic as he writes, “…they bolster
the psychological resources that they have learned to use to cope with the existential problem of
death” (Villarica). We choose the easiest routes for grappling with the idea of mortality.
And cope with death we must, for it death unavoidable. The options left when people
acknowledge that death must happen are as follows; ignore it or grapple with it. Many people
choose the former as a way of life, because it preserves them from the paralyzing fear that can
consume people when they think about death. When people choose the other option, however,
that fear can lie in the way of acceptance. The process of acceptance is very difficult, however,
because society’s lack of communication and vocabulary makes it difficult to reach out. As
Mattea Kramer claims in the essay, “We Need to Talk About Death”,
That lack of vocabulary is a big problem, and not just for people who directly experience
loss. It’s a problem for all of us, because it means we each grapple alone with the natural
fear of our own expiry. We deny the fear, we bury it under an endless stream of
distractions. And so it festers, making us all the more invested in keeping it buried, for
how painful it would be to take it out and look at it after letting it rot for so long.
The idea that death is difficult to look at directly is valid for multiple reasons. We often
choose not to look at death at all, but when we do, we are unequipped to seek help from others.
Because of this, we don’t choose to actively seek acceptance of death, but we see death in the
world around us in direct and indirect ways. Something like a vase from Pompeii, something so
indirect and far away, is a perfect window into the past that is simultaneously relatable but not
too aggressively apparent. As Leah Sottile reported in The Atlantic about people who purposely
think about death, “The fascination with viewing someone who is [dead] … is driven by that sort
of supreme fear of ours which makes us want to know more and to understand the experience
and feel like we have some kind of window in. (Sottile)” It seems that people want to look at and
justify death, but the fear of it is far too paralyzing. With this vase, it becomes easier to begin to
look at death because the event was so long ago that it begins to feel more distant and less
imminent.
This vase, with patterns and a thumbprint from someone almost two thousand years ago,
is far more than an unassuming piece in the Orna J. Smith Museum of Natural History. It exists
within a new world of distractions and easy living, where the threat of impending death can seem
far away. But this vase still matters, because we are still people and we are still afraid. Through
this vase, we seek a connection with those that have already faced down the unimaginable. The
unimaginable becomes a reality through this dim window of connection.
When you look at this vase, you see humankind’s struggle with mortality. Though the
vase from Pompeii was originally understood only in the context of commodity, it became so
much more with the context of the death of its original society. This vase becomes a grasp at
rationalization. People want to connect to other people, whether it be through vocabulary or
empathy. It is possible to connect on an empathetic level to a particular person, the owner of the
vase. Through this, people may be able to move past the idea of death that can impede their lives.
“Death destroys a man, but the idea of death saves him,” E.M. Forster once wrote in his novel,
Howards End. This vase gives us this power to live, perhaps not without fear, but with a way to
move forward.
Works Cited
Corfeild, Penelope J. "All People Are Living Histories – Which Is Why History Matters." Why
History Matters - Articles - Making History. Making History, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
Forster, E.M. Howards End. N.p.: n.p., 1910. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 27
June 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.
Kramer, Mattea. "We Need to Talk about Death: Why Ignoring Our Darkest Fears Only Makes
Them Worse." Salon. Salon, 13 Dec. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
Laroya, Gil. "Why Don't People Care When It Doesn't Affect Them?" The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
Maiuri, Amadeo. "Last Moments of The Pompeians." National Geographic 1 Nov. 1961: 651-60.
Print.
Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.
Owens, James. "Ancient Roman Life Preserved at Pompeii." National Geographic. National
Geographic, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Peña, J. Theodore, and Myles McCallum. “The Production and Distribution of Pottery at
Pompeii: A Review of the Evidence; Part 1, Production.” American Journal of
Archaeology, vol. 113, no. 1, 2009, pp. 57–79. www.jstor.org/stable/20627542.
"Roman Pottery Facts - History for Kids." Roman Pottery Facts. History for Kids, n.d. Web. 26
Nov. 2016.
Sottile, Leah. "When Death Is a Fascination." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 13 Aug.
2015. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
"The Destruction of Pompeii, 79 AD," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com
(1999).
Villarica, Hans. "How the Unrelenting Threat of Death Shapes Our Behavior." The Atlantic.
Atlantic Media Company, 4 May 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.
Violatti, Cristian. "Pottery in Antiquity." Ancient History Encyclopedia. N.p., 13 Sept. 2014.
Web. 26 Nov. 2016.