In Pompeii, you eat giraffe!

[frigidmagi]

Social reader

We tend to think of Pompeii mostly in terms of its ending. Before lava smothered the city, though, Pompeii was a bustling seaside metropolis—an intersection, essentially, of an empire. Today, its remains still host the ancient objects that serve as evidence of its place in the world.

Since 2005, in a long-ignored area inside the Porta Stabia, one of Pompeii's busiest gates, a team of archaeologists has been examining evidence of the city as it once was—evidence that may date as far back as the 6th century BC. The team, from the University of Cincinnati, is examining a plot that encompasses 20 different shop fronts from the old city. Most of those establishments, it seems, served food and drink. Which means that their remains offer—via trash collections, kitchens with food remnants, drains, cesspits, and latrines—a record of the kind of meals that ancient residents of the city would have enjoyed.

So what did the Pompeiians eat? The stuff you'd probably expect ... but also some stuff you probably wouldn't. On the one hand, the team discovered evidence of food that would have been both inexpensive and widely available to ancient Romans—stuff like grains, fruits, nuts, olives, lentils, fish, and (chicken) eggs. They also found some evidence of butchered meat.

In other words, the ancient Pompeiians ate in similar ways to modern-day Italians ... and to non-Italians who are trying to do the whole Mediterranean Diet thing. But the average Pompeiian, it seems, rounded out the staples with a more exotic diet. The Cincinnati team found, in the remnants even of businesses that would have served the lower classes, evidence of salted fish that would have come from Spain. Via a drain from a property in the center of the plot, they also discovered evidence of shellfish not native to Italy. They found mineralized remnants, as well, of sea urchin. And also! The butchered leg joint of a giraffe.

"That the bone represents the height of exotic food," Steven Ellis, an associate professor of classics who led the research, told Heritage Daily, "is underscored by the fact that this is thought to be the only giraffe bone ever recorded from an archaeological excavation in Roman Italy."

It's a mystery how the bone found its resting place in the middle of Pompeii. In the larger sense, though, it's not a mystery at all. As Ellis puts it: "How part of the animal, butchered, came to be a kitchen scrap in a seemingly standard Pompeian restaurant not only speaks to long-distance trade in exotic and wild animals, but also something of the richness, variety and range of a non-elite diet."

Ellis and his co-authors will present their findings tomorrow at the joint annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America and American Philological Association in Chicago. Despite their residence in the relatively globalized world of 2014, however, they will likely not celebrate their presentation by dining on giraffe.

What's really interesting is that this isn't the diet of the rich Romans but of the lower classes, meaning eating animals from Africa wasn't no thing! Which is fricken amazing thing.

[LadyTevar]

They ate pretty damn well, didn't they :)

[rhoenix]

This says many interesting things about time back then, I have to say.

[LadyTevar]

Now, they have been doing studies on bones, testing to see what the individual ate for the majority of his life. There are still several individuals from obviously low-income areas who had a much simpler diet that was mostly Millet and other early easily grown grains and lentils/beans. Fish, while plentiful along the coasts, was much harder to ship inland, and meat seems to be rare.

Also, Pompeii and Herculum were Resort Cities, where people came to get away from it all. Just like modern resorts, fancy dining is a part of that. The followers of Epicurius were very into food, fun, and enjoying themselves, as you recall. (Of course, the 'tomorrow we die' did get them in the end....)

[rhoenix]

Now, they have been doing studies on bones, testing to see what the individual ate for the majority of his life. There are still several individuals from obviously low-income areas who had a much simpler diet that was mostly Millet and other early easily grown grains and lentils/beans. Fish, while plentiful along the coasts, was much harder to ship inland, and meat seems to be rare.

Also, Pompeii and Herculum were Resort Cities, where people came to get away from it all. Just like modern resorts, fancy dining is a part of that. The followers of Epicurius were very into food, fun, and enjoying themselves, as you recall. (Of course, the 'tomorrow we die' did get them in the end....)

I can't even be mad at people in Pompeii, considering that we see behavior like this from people now. "Oh, something terrible might be happening here? Eh, it'll wait until I leave, because the world revolves around me. PARTAAAAY!"

[General Havoc]

I can't even be mad at people in Pompeii, considering that we see behavior like this from people now. "Oh, something terrible might be happening here? Eh, it'll wait until I leave, because the world revolves around me. PARTAAAAY!"

So... what? Self-indulgent and self-centered living caused the Volcano to erupt? Did it also cause the Indonesian Earthquake or something?

This was a little bit before Vulcanology was an exact science. The reason you can't be mad at the people in Pompeii is the same reason you can't be mad at the people who died in the Szechuan Earthquake. Because getting mad at them for some perceived moral sin would make you a colossal asshole.

[rhoenix]

I can't even be mad at people in Pompeii, considering that we see behavior like this from people now. "Oh, something terrible might be happening here? Eh, it'll wait until I leave, because the world revolves around me. PARTAAAAY!"

So... what? Self-indulgent and self-centered living caused the Volcano to erupt? Did it also cause the Indonesian Earthquake or something?

...No. I wasn't implying that self-indulgent behavior caused the volcanic eruption, I was implying that self-indulgent behavior helped people take any and all warning signs less seriously.

I'm curious now - can you show me from my statement above where I implied that "bad living causes volcanoes?" I simply can't see it.

This was a little bit before Vulcanology was an exact science. The reason you can't be mad at the people in Pompeii is the same reason you can't be mad at the people who died in the Szechuan Earthquake. Because getting mad at them for some perceived moral sin would make you a colossal asshole.

So you seriously interpreted my post from:

I can't even be mad at people in Pompeii, considering that we see behavior like this from people now. "Oh, something terrible might be happening here? Eh, it'll wait until I leave, because the world revolves around me. PARTAAAAY!"

to:

Those moral degenerates in Pompeii deserved to burn in pain, terror, and fiery ash for their MORALLY BANKRUPT LIFESTYLE.

I was speaking to the common psychology of people that I see around me today, and extrapolating from there to the probable thought patterns of the people then, just to make this fantastically clear for those who manage to find ethical repugnance where none was implied or meant.

I'm completely okay with being considered a colossal asshole. I'm not okay with people who claim moral outrage and a pseudo moral high-ground over non-existent offenses.

Of course, only colossal assholes make assumptions and then rant vociferously about them, right?

[General Havoc]

...No. I wasn't implying that self-indulgent behavior caused the volcanic eruption, I was implying that self-indulgent behavior helped people take any and all warning signs less seriously.

What warning signs? Tremors and smoke? This was the ancient world. Living memory had forgotten that Vesuvius was a volcano at all. Spartacus made it his base of operations during his revolt a hundred and fifty years earlier. Mariners set up shrines to Vesuvia Occulate, Far-sighted Vesuvius, for guiding them home to the bay of Naples. People thought volcanic eruptions were the acts of angry gods, not geologic forces. The very reason they're called "volcanos" is because they were supposedly the work of Vulcan detonating a mountain to express extreme displeasure. Campagna has always been susceptible to minor earthquakes, and nobody had any reason to associate those with the mountain. Hedonism did not cause the Romans to ignore the warning signs. A complete lack of any modern vulcanology did. Vesuvius could have been one of the seven hills of Rome itself, and nobody would have been prepared for it.

Pliny the Younger, one of the foremost natural philosophers of the early Roman Republic, was on-hand in the area for the eruption, and had not the slightest conception that anything was brewing until the volcano blew up. Neither did his father, commander of a naval squadron based in Naples, who died of a heart attack (or something) in the midst of the eruption. Hell, Nero had made a tour of Campagna not ten years before, performing as an actor, and had his theater on the slopes of the mountain destroyed mid-performance by an Earthquake. Nobody interpreted that as anything but the Gods being acting critics.

So you seriously interpreted my post from:

I can't even be mad at people in Pompeii, considering that we see behavior like this from people now. "Oh, something terrible might be happening here? Eh, it'll wait until I leave, because the world revolves around me. PARTAAAAY!"

to:

Those moral degenerates in Pompeii deserved to burn in pain, terror, and fiery ash for their MORALLY BANKRUPT LIFESTYLE.

No, I rather interpreted it as "I can't even be mad at the people who died horribly in a massive volcanic eruption they had no means of predicting, because after all, self-centered hedonistic assholes exist today too."

If you're going to "just casually" bring up the fact that the victims of a massive natural disaster were self-centered, hedonistic assholes, you've kind of got to expect people will take your meaning as there being a link between these two facts. This is like me "just saying" that there's an area in Arizona that looks awful like the photos of the moon from Apollo 11 and the shadows in the photos look fake and the footage of the original landing was "conveniently" lost, and then acting horrified when someone accuses me of being a moon landing hoax conspiracy theorist.

You don't get to disguise your point and then get snippy when people take what you're saying at face value.

[rhoenix]

What warning signs? Tremors and smoke? This was the ancient world. Living memory had forgotten that Vesuvius was a volcano at all. Spartacus made it his base of operations during his revolt a hundred and fifty years earlier. Mariners set up shrines to Vesuvia Occulate, Far-sighted Vesuvius, for guiding them home to the bay of Naples. People thought volcanic eruptions were the acts of angry gods, not geologic forces. The very reason they're called "volcanos" is because they were supposedly the work of Vulcan detonating a mountain to express extreme displeasure. Campagna has always been susceptible to minor earthquakes, and nobody had any reason to associate those with the mountain. Hedonism did not cause the Romans to ignore the warning signs. A complete lack of any modern vulcanology did. Vesuvius could have been one of the seven hills of Rome itself, and nobody would have been prepared for it.

Pliny the Younger, one of the foremost natural philosophers of the early Roman Republic, was on-hand in the area for the eruption, and had not the slightest conception that anything was brewing until the volcano blew up. Neither did his father, commander of a naval squadron based in Naples, who died of a heart attack (or something) in the midst of the eruption. Hell, Nero had made a tour of Campagna not ten years before, performing as an actor, and had his theater on the slopes of the mountain destroyed mid-performance by an Earthquake. Nobody interpreted that as anything but the Gods being acting critics.

Fair enough, I can admit to looking at it through the lens of modern understanding, and not the worldview that locals there had back then.

No, I rather interpreted it as "I can't even be mad at the people who died horribly in a massive volcanic eruption they had no means of predicting, because after all, self-centered hedonistic assholes exist today too."

If you're going to "just casually" bring up the fact that the victims of a massive natural disaster were self-centered, hedonistic assholes, you've kind of got to expect people will take your meaning as there being a link between these two facts. This is like me "just saying" that there's an area in Arizona that looks awful like the photos of the moon from Apollo 11 and the shadows in the photos look fake and the footage of the original landing was "conveniently" lost, and then acting horrified when someone accuses me of being a moon landing hoax conspiracy theorist.

You don't get to disguise your point and then get snippy when people take what you're saying at face value.

Havoc, you can point out that my snark above depends on a modern understanding of volcanology, and therefore falls flat - and I'd accept that and move on.

You can point out that the understanding of people at the time arose from the causation and vexation of deities, and likely would have been seen through that lens, making it very unlikely that they would have heeded what we would know today as warning signs - and I'd accept that as a joke falling flat, and move on.

But if you view my comment in the worst possible light, lambast me for it, and only explain what precisely your objections are after you hit your outrage button, and continue doing this as a matter of course, then I'll just get in the habit of simply humoring your outrage in future until you explain the source for your outrage.

The entire source of your anger in this thread's case, it seems, is from the non-existent implication that I think they deserved to die, for whatever reason. I don't think anyone deserves to die by default or otherwise, so when you accused me of implying it, of course I was offended.

This thread should be a case study in checking first to see if that's actually what I meant before launching into an angry rant, don't you think?