A recent report from the Archaeological Park of Pompeii reignited the long-standing debate over the exact date of Mount Vesuvius's catastrophic eruption that buried the ancient city. The report suggests that "there are not enough elements to rule out" the traditional date of August 24, 79 CE, challenging the increasingly popular hypothesis of an autumn eruption.
In 2018, archaeologists discovered a charcoal inscription on a wall of a house in Pompeii dated to "the sixteenth day before the calends of November," corresponding to October 17 in the modern calendar. This finding led some researchers to propose that the eruption occurred after this date. However, recent research casts doubt on this conclusion. The Archaeological Park's director, Gabriel Zuchtriegel, and his team conducted an experimental study demonstrating that such charcoal inscriptions could remain legible for up to ten months. "In August of this year, the text was still visible, almost with the same clarity as at the beginning," reported Zuchtriegel.
This durability suggests that the inscription could have been written the previous October, supporting the possibility of an August eruption. Zuchtriegel emphasized the need for careful interpretation of evidence: "Our study does not aim to be a final point, but a contribution to continue the debate and open new perspectives."
Another key piece of evidence in the debate revolves around the presence of autumnal fruits like chestnuts and pomegranates found in the same archaeological strata as summer fruits like peaches. Some scholars argue that these findings indicate an eruption in October, as these fruits typically ripen in the autumn. However, the researchers suggest that Roman agricultural and storage practices allowed for the preservation of fruits beyond their natural harvest seasons.
Proponents of the autumn date also point to the warm clothing found on the victims and the carbonized fruits as evidence inconsistent with a summer disaster. Yet, Zuchtriegel cautions against drawing conclusions based solely on modern agricultural models. "Searching for equivalences between past agricultural models and current ones can be misleading," he stated. "One must be careful not to fall into that temptation."
The original date of August 24th is derived from the letters of Pliny the Younger, who witnessed the eruption and documented his experiences. While some have suggested transcription errors in his letters might have led to a misunderstanding of the date, historian and archaeologist Pedar Foss's research indicates that alternative dates lack foundation in the manuscript tradition. "Pedar Foss was able to clearly demonstrate that all the dates, except for August 24, are pure invention, without basis in the manuscript tradition," reported the recent study.
Despite the new findings, the debate is far from settled. Massimo Osanna, the former director of the Pompeii Archaeological Park, previously endorsed the October hypothesis based on a broad investigation published in the journal Earth-Science Reviews. New studies continue to challenge the August date, highlighting the complexity of interpreting archaeological and literary evidence.
Zuchtriegel underscores the importance of an interdisciplinary approach in this ongoing investigation. "Only with modern approaches can we definitively assess the validity of both archaeological and textual evidence," he noted. He also highlighted the unique opportunity Pompeii offers to study an ecosystem strongly influenced by human activity 2,000 years ago. "The biodiversity and the variety of practices, crops, and local traditions go far beyond the necessarily schematic picture offered by the ancient authors who dealt with agriculture."
El Mercurio, EL PAÍS, and The Pinnacle Gazette reported on the reignited debate, as did other websites.