FREE ESSAY ON CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE POMPEIIAN ARCHITECTURE

CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE POMPEIIAN ARCHITECTURE

The ancient Roman city of Pompeii was buried by a volcano in 79 AD. That should be enough
to destroy any town, but the city's buildings were in fact protected by this coating of
ash, and although it would never be inhabited again, it now bears witness to an
incredible period of history. For thousands of years, the city lay virtually undisturbed,
and protected from the elements and erosion. Excavations carried out over the last
centuries have allowed the city to be once again buzzing with people, and even if this
notion may appear romantic, the city is also affected by the elements once again, and
that is a major problem.
Since it was freed from its ash coffin, Pompeii has not fared well. The millions of
yearly visitors, who flock to the site to see firsthand the living legend that is
Pompeii, are causing erosion in a way that was not anticipated. The balance that had kept
the city protected for so long has been disturbed, and it is now a victim of an
unacceptable degree of damages. 
This two-part project will look at this problem. Part one will explain the main causes
and nature of the damages: World War II air raids, the earthquakes (especially 23/11/80),
vegetation, water, erosion by tourists, atmospheric pollution, and restorations. Most of
the information for this paper comes from Jean-Pierre Adam's book, Degradation et
restauration de l'architecture Pompeienne, which is a very thorough and detailed
description of the degradation of Pompeii. Part two will deal with what is or should be
done to prevent further damage and restore what has been lost, which includes proper
restoration, control of tourists, and effective management of the site and funds.
Section 1: Causes and Nature of the damages:
Ideally, Pompeii should be in a bubble, where only highly trained archaeologists and
experts could come in contact with it with gloved hands. But since that is impossible,
some problems arise from having such a large area unprotected. 
A) Air raids of World War II:
The bombing of several buildings during the second great conflict of the century caused
damages that are still visible in some of the less known buildings, even after some
restoration work. 
B) Earthquakes:
The region of Italy where Pompeii is located is subject to many earthquakes and that
causes a permanent threat to the aging architecture of the site. With each new
earthquake, the structures become weaker and in a more eminent danger of collapsing.
On November 23, 1980, an earthquake of relative lightness hit Pompeii. The earthquake was
more then what the fragile architecture could sustain and severe damage was done,
especially in region VII. Walls, roofs, and columns collapsed, often in a domino effect,
one wall collapsing on another and so on. Many walls also suffered from cracks. The
damage from this earthquake could have easily been limited had the structures been
maintained regularly. 
C) Vegetation:
The Pompeian soil is very fertile due to an array of minerals. Not only is the soil rich,
but the region receives more then its fair share of rain and sunshine. That would not be
a problem if the area in question was a farmer's field, but for the ancient town of
Pompeii, it is a major source of concern. These favorable conditions are all it takes for
vegetation to thrive wherever dirt or dust permits. Amongst the species of plants that
cause problems: the acanthus, whose much-used leaf ornates many a Corinthian column; the
wild strawberry; the ivy; the field mint; and thyme. (See annex 1 for a complete list)
Lichens and mosses are also found on the site.
Plants in Pompeii are found everywhere: on bare soil, paved roads, and walls. The plants
found on bare and open areas, like the forum, and the palestrae are the easiest to deal
with. There is little risk of damaging a structure and plants can often be used in these
areas has an element of decoration. Also, in many of these, the passage of more then two
million visitors yearly assures that the plants do not thrive. It is in the large open
areas closed to the public, where the soil is thicker and attention minimal that plants
grow with the most freedom. Some of the houses with restricted access have been
transformed in virtual greenhouses, with walls and roofs keeping in moisture and heat.
Many of the paved roads are not affected by vegetation, some plants being unable to even
settle between the stones. But roots from nearby trees have been known to affect the
alignment of the pavement stones. The problem is more serious when considering the effect
even the smallest plants can have on mosaic. If a mosaic is intact, no plant will be able
to take hold on it, especially if it is a wall mosaic. But if a piece falls of, say from
pressure from an outside root of a tree, plants will grow in the dirt that will be
wind-blown in the hole and will detach even more pieces. This can happen in a matter of
hours; just think of how fast dandelions grow on your lawn!
Plants can also be found growing on walls, taking root in cracks or between bricks, and
in the form of ivy. (See annex 2 for a representation of an affected wall.)
D) Water:
Water, not only has a nourishing agent to the vegetation, will cause damage on its own.
It causes water stains on wall-paintings. It makes deposits of minerals on walls. There
is also the repetitive action of the rain drops on the walls which first erodes the coats
of pigments, and then of the mortar that holds the wall together. Has if that wasn't
enough, when combined with the atmospheric pollution, it can become a powerful acid that
damages marble and stone. When the mortar contains argyle, the material absorbs water,
expends and can cause cracks and even collapsing of walls. Even if the houses are
protected by a roof, water can seep in thru the base of a wall, which explains why most
paintings are damaged on the lower portion. 
E) Sun:
The sun causes the paintings to fade. Since many houses have lost their ceilings after so
many years, it is easy to guess the damage it would do.
F) Erosion by Tourists:
Not surprisingly, Pompeii is a very famous site to visit. With an average of more then
5000 visitors every day, with numbers sometimes reaching 22 000, like on Easter Monday,
the flow of tourist has to be taken into account.
The thousands of daily visitors, even if they were on their best behavior, would still
cause problems simply by walking around! Ancient unprotected sidewalks have been used
through, often leaving lead plumbing exposed, which is in turn broken, damaged or goes
missing. In most other Roman cities, plumbing would not have been so close to the
surface, but this plumbing was temporally installed after the earthquake in 62. Those
same sidewalks would have suffered the same fate in Antiquity, but a sidewalk would never
have gone without reparation and maintenance for millennia back then! Visitors also leave
their traces on walls, those giant backpacks scraping against walls, fingers running on
ancient frescoes. The passage of visitors is more obvious in small areas, and is less
evident on large areas, where the damage is spread out. 
There is also the problem of vandalism and robbery. People leave their names, usually on
painted surfaces to make sure their legacy to posterity is readable. People also take
home little pieces of marble or of a mosaic, a task made easy by the work of plants.
Others just steal entire frescoes, like in 1977, when 14 frescoes were hacked out of the
house of the Gladiators. It should have been a warning, but nearly 600 more items were
stolen from Pompeii over the next 15 years, according to the Italian Archeoclub, a
presevationist group.
There is also the problem of familiarity felt by the inhabitants of the region. It is
hard to be very considerate when Pompeii is the place you go every Sunday for picnic,
almost like a public park. Usually, these groups are only there for the view and will try
to isolate themselves from the tourists, often taking shelter in the restricted areas,
where destruction of the wall covering by a ball thrown on the wall was observed. Since
these areas are supposed to be restricted, guards do not patrol them has much, and
visitors often go unnoticed. The Public Park feel causes also a cleaning problem: imagine
twenty thousand people in a small town during a holiday. Archaeologists end up having to
do the cleaning work themselves, which is ridiculous.
G) Atmospheric Pollution:
The bay of Naples has one of the highest concentrations of population in Italy, with
factories, cars, and the likes. Like mentioned above, their pollution falls back under
the form of acid rain, which greatly affects marble and limestone. But the Pompeian
architecture was mostly built with local volcanic material, which is almost unaffected by
the acid rain. The problem lies in the painted wall covering, usually high in calcium
content; they react like limestone and dissolve.
There is also the problem of the proximity of the Naples-Salerne Highway which is next to
the site; the pollution from trucks and cars are bad enough, but the constant vibrations
from the passing vehicles also weakens the structures. The tourist buses that leave the
motor running, sometimes for hours, while waiting for the tourists to come back is also a
major problem.
H) Restorations:
This should not be here, but bad restoration is a cause of damage. Often, temporary
conservation attempts have become permanent, and are too weak and not up to the task.
Poor-quality wood is often used in an attempt to save money, but it just rots or brakes
under the pressure, often damaging what it was suppose to protect in the first place. The
delicate task of protecting wall painting was also sometime botched and led to more
damage in the end.
Section 2: What is or should be done to prevent further damage and restore what has been
lost:
One of the most important thing to remember when doing conservation work is that every
thing we do must be possible to undo should a better technique arise. 
A) Restoration:
All walls need to be consolidated. This is a difficult task since we must be able to
preserve every part of the wall which is still standing. Cement can only be used in total
reconstruction since it would be more solid then the rest of the wall and would probably
make it collapse during an earthquake. Epoxy can also be used, but is very expensive and
tends not to work has well as wanted. It is mostly used to glue back on fallen blocks and
fill in cracks. When doing any kind of restoration or reconstruction, it is important to
use the same material used two thousand years ago as much as 
possible. Fortunately, the material is easy to find since it was mostly local stuff, even
if sometimes, the colors don't match exactly.
A problem restorers run into is that we are not always sure what the structure looked
like two thousand years ago. So it is mostly educated guess work on their part. But when
it comes to post-1980 (after the earthquake), every thing can be restored back to the
original state since its appearance is well documented.
In the case of painted coating, it is a little more complicated. It is now easy to
restore painted coating in labs, but the in situ restorations are still very hard to do.
We must start with restoring the wall itself, working from the outside of the wall which
is usually in worst shape. The method that seems to give the best results is the
injection of a solution that will regenerate the ancient mortar instead of replacing it.
Solvents are used to clean and glue the chipping paint. The solvents are all very toxic,
and, since the restorers need to work on big surfaces in closed areas, it can sometimes
be dangerous for them.
The humidity needs to be controlled as well. The first thing to do, is replacing or
restoring the existing roofing, or build a new one. That will usually protect the inside
of a house from water damage. Most houses have a problem with the bases of their walls
which are not waterproof. The water seeps in the wall from the base, which accounts for
the frescoes being more damaged on the bottom portion. There is experimenting being done
on rendering the base of the walls safe from water with injections of epoxy, but the
usual method is the introduction of lead sheets at the base of the wall that prevent the
water from making its way up.
Wood was a material widely used for construction in Pompeii and one that was never meant
to last for millennia. Since it is often a crucial element of the construction, it must
be replaced if the houses and different buildings are meant to stay open to tourists and
archaeologists alike. Depending on what essence and where it is used, the replacement
wood will last anywhere from three to two hundred years. There are three different
categories: contact with ground, without contact but exposed, and without contact and
covered. The wood which is in contact with the ground will decay faster because of an
increased exposure to water and air. Without-contact-but-exposed wood will last longer
but not as long as a piece covered by a ceiling or a wall. Wood is chosen according to
its density: oak, elm and chestnut have to highest density, while fir and poplar have the
lowest. Another thing to consider is in what size the wood can be available; green oak
has the highest density, but is very small, so a less dense oak is used which comes in
bigger pieces. The price is also an important factor, since the budget for restoration is
ridiculously small. Before being used in restoration, the wood is treated to make it last
longer and to protect it against insects. A compound of chromium salt and copper is used
to dry and preserve the wood, but it leaves the treated piece with a greenish tint. To
keep moss and crawlers away, the wood is impregnated with pentachlorophenol. All these
treatments mean that treated oak and chestnut used in a protected area can be expected to
last up to five hundred years. But all this costs a lot of money, and cheaper wood has
often been utilized in the past to cut down on expenses. We now know that it was not a
very good idea. 
The control of vegetation is primordial. Strangely enough, the best way to fight weed is
to grow grass! In open spaces, if it is well tended to, its roots will take all the room
in the soil and make it hard for other plants to grow in the same area. Trees do not
really cause a problem if they are far enough from houses and streets, and they ad a
sense of serenity to the city. The biggest problem is with the plants in walls. They must
be removed, but we must never try to remove the roots, since doing so might damage the
wall further. As for cracks and holes on walls where plants grow, the best way is to
prevent the plants from growing in the first place by covering them with either epoxy or
cement, or whatever is appropriate. Although the town could be sprayed for weed, the only
really effective product would damage the sensitive architecture and can therefore not be
used. Pompeii does have gardeners, but they tend to the replicas of the ancient gardens
in the villas. Pompeii needs a staff of full time gardeners who could detect problem
plants and deal with them before it is too late. 
B) Control of Tourists:
Although it is a good idea to limit the areas open to the public for the time being, it
would not be a good idea to close Pompeii to the public either. We must find a way for
the locals to stop seeing Pompeii has just another place to go play ball on week-ends, to
loose this familiarity, and to start taking the preservation of the site at heart. With
proper education, visitors can be a great tool in achieving the goal of preserving
Pompeii for future generations. A bigger percentage of the admission fee is now being
used for preservation of the site.
The guards are too few in numbers and do not care enough to really do their job. Here
again, education could make all the difference. Visitors should not be allowed to visit
the site unaccompanied; mandatory tours should be imposed to make sure no one gets into
the restricted areas. Guards should patrol these areas more often and fines should be
given to those visitors who do not follow the rules. 
The problem with the buses running for hours just to keep the air-conditioning on while
waiting for the tourists to come back can be easily resolved: just make it illegal, and,
again, fine those who do not comply with the rules. 
C) Effective Management of Site Funds:
In 1996, the region of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Torre Annunziata was included in the
UNESCO's World Heritage Sites list of most endangered sites. By having the region labeled
has a World Heritage Site, Italy was morally bound to step up plans to restore the ruins.
The government allowed Pompeii to keep and use a larger portion of the admission fee for
conservation, which was a much-awaited permission.
In 1995, Pompeii got a new superintendent, Prof. Pietro Giovanni Guzzo. He replaced
Baldassare Conticello, the previous superintendent, who sought to bring in tourist money
by keeping Pompeii in the news with a steady stream of flashy discoveries. But such
massive new digs sap badly needed money from the restoration and maintenance of
disintegrating structures and the publication results, and add to the number of artifacts
and buildings demanding conservation. The new superintendent seems to be well aware of
the condition of Pompeii and seems to have a good idea of what needs to be done to stop
its slow destruction. He put a halt on projects for excavating the third of the city
which is still under the ash, and he will therefore be able to concentrate his efforts on
the excavated part which is in danger.
In 1997, there were only 34 out of 163 acres opened, half of what was accessible in the
1950's. The rest is simply too fragile for the public to visit. The superintendent
estimated that a once-over restoration would cost 500 billion lire ($310 million) and
take ten years; at the moment, the entire annual budget is only 5 billion lire ($3.1
million).
Conclusion
The problem of Pompeii is one that must be addressed by the Italian government and the
Classical community without any further delays. Pompeii is unique and should not have
gone so long without proper care. We saw in the project how the bulk of the problem comes
from preventable conditions which have gone unchecked because of a lack of funds.
Vegetation can be controlled, and so can tourists. Earthquakes and storms cannot be
prevented, but their effects can be anticipated and measures can be taken to limit the
damages. We saw how walls can be consolidated with epoxy and cement, and how wall
covering can be protected with careful restoration and protection from sun and water
damage. We also saw how the best way to treat the weed problem is to grow grass in large
open areas and to cover holes and cracks on walls to keep plants from taking up
residence. It was also explained how the problem of pollution could easily be addressed
with education of the visitors and enforced with small fines. We now know that it is not
worth using cheaper products in terms of restoration, but we must still deal with past
errors. 
The problem in treating the problems is that there is a lack of money. Although the
Italian government as promised many time an increase in budget for Pompeii, those
promises have yet to materialize, if not for the small increase in the percentage kept
from the admission fees. The arrival of Prof. Pietro Giovanni Guzzo as superintendent is
great news for Pompeii since he seems to be the first to take the problems of
conservation seriously. There is an unfounded feeling that Pompeii will last forever and
that all this can wait. This could easily be addressed by educating the public: people
need to realize the eminent danger in which is Pompeii, and the effects their actions
have. Even if the future of this beloved ancient city may appear grim sometimes, it is
best to remember that it is not too late for Pompeii. 
Once the problems and their solutions have been identified, it is easier to go ahead and
get different areas of expertise working with the local and federal government of Italy.
Let us simply hope that they do that as soon as possible.
Bibliography
Adam, Jean-Pierre. Degradation et restauration de l'architecture Pompeienne. Paris:
Editions du Centre National de la recherche scientifique, 1983.
Ancient Pompeii. http://worldmonuments.org/html/2000List/itaancie.html 
Ancient Pompeii. http://worldmonuments.org/html/progress/pompeiiprog.html
Cornell, Tim and Lomas, Kathryn. Urban Society in Roman Italy. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1995. 
Deiss, Joseph Jay. Herculaneum, A City Returns to the Sun. New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell
Co., 1966.
Frederiksen, Martin. Campania. Oxford: British School at Rome, 1984.
Grant, Michael. Cities of Vesuvius: Pompeii and Herculaneum. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1971.
Guerdan, Rene. Pompei, mort d'une ville. Paris: Editions Robert Laffont, 1973.
Hughes, Candice. Chances to see Pompeii dwindling as time and decay take toll. Seattle
P-I.com. November 27, 1997. h.seatlep-i.com/getaways/112797/pomp27.html
Jones, Rick. http://manbase.ac.uk/hsts/itanan-archaeology/1999-01/0001.html
Leppmann, Wolfgang. Pompeii in Fact and Fiction. London: Elek Books Limited, 1968.
McKay, A.G. Naples and Costal Campania, vol II. Hamilton: Cromlech Press, 1972.
Richardson, L.jr. Pompeii: An Architectural History. London: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1988.
Slayman, Andrew L. Picking Up the Pieces. Archaeology, vol.50, Number 6 November/December
1997. http://www.archaeology.org/9711/abstracts/pompeii2.html
The city of Pompeii. http