The birth of archeology

We continue to publish essays on the history of science Pavel Kolosnitsyn , head. The field research sector of the Center for Archaeological Research of NovGU. See the previous notes of the cycle: “ antiquity in antiquity ” [1] and “ relics and antiquaries ” [2].

By the beginning of the 18th century, the collection of ancient antiquities has gained incredible popularity. Over the past centuries, monarchs, cardinals, dads, rich nobles and simply educated antiquely formed several large museums and many small collections and meetings. At the site of ancient cities, organized groups of treasure hunters, flooding the markets and executing orders of wealthy collectors, led the prey of antiquities. At the same time, the production of fakes acquired a wide scale. There was a need for specialists who were able to distinguish the original from the fake. And the specialist needed education and deep knowledge of the subject. Over time, the number gradually turned into quality - more and more people began to see in finds not just valuable and beautiful ancient things, but a source of information about the past.

This tendency was most clearly and distinct in the research and books of Johann Winckelmann (Johann Winckelmann, 1717–1768), who later received the honorary title of archeology from historians of science, although he visited excavations only as a viewer and did not use the term “archeology” at all.

Vinkelman was born into a poor German family, was carried away by ancient art in his youth and fanatically plunged into research, thanks to which from which the main prefect of the antiquities of Rome and the main antiques of the Apostolic court and turned into the authoritative scientist of his time from the Prussian gymnasium teacher.

In 1764, Winkelman published the main work of his life - “The History of Arts” (Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums), which has become the first example of a scientific approach to the study of ancient artifacts. Antiquities were now perceived as one of the historical sources that must be studied as part of the entire cultural heritage of the past. Prior to this, the antiquers considered things in isolation, by themselves, and historians wrote their works, guided by the theories of ancient authors and literary sources.

In his book, Vinkelman actually formulated the principles of the comparative historical method: the completeness of the source code (it is necessary to cover all the materials available for study), criticism of sources (only genuine sources should be involved for research), attention to trifles (any, even the most minor elements and objects are important), repeatability of observations, etc.

As a result, he identified the styles and eras of ancient art that distinguished each other, which he distinguished by different signs and elements. All this laid the principles of deduction in archeology.

Using these methods, Winkelman proved that ancient Roman art was based on the ancient Greek, and caused this wave of interest in ancient Greece, which had previously remained in the shadow of Rome.

Ideas about the need for new methods of studying antiquities began to gradually conquer the minds of researchers. Some, under the influence of Winkelmann's work, others, regardless of him, began to show attention to the little things and carefully record everything that they found during excavations, and archaeological finds became a full -fledged source for studying the past.

This is perfectly illustrated by the excavations of Pompeii and Herculanum - the ancient Roman cities who died during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79. e. Ashes and pyrochlastic flows for hundreds of years hid the houses of houses, temples, theaters and public buildings with all the contents buried under them. The cities were hastily abandoned by residents who managed to take only the most necessary. All things left and buildings are perfectly preserved in their places under a thick layer of deposits. The ideal archaeological complex turned out. Several times people accidentally stumbled upon him, but until the 18th century they showed no interest in him.

In 1706, the Neapolitan peasant, digging a well near the city of Portici, came across marble blocks lying deep underground. This was learned by the French nobleman, who was at that time in the service of the Austrian Emperor, Emmanuel Maurice, Duke D'Elbef (Emmanuel Maurice, Duc D'Elbeuf), who needed materials for the construction of Villa Villa. The duke bought the site and organized excavations in 1709-1711, laying galleries from the peasant well. As a result, he found not only stone blocks, but also nine Roman statues that he was not particularly interested in, but used to decorate his villa and gifts to patrons.

In 1738, King of Naples and Sicily (and the future king of Spain) Charles III (Carlos III), along with his wife, visited the Villa of the Duke d'elböf. They liked the views of the sea and Vesuvius so much that Karl decided to build a palace here for himself. The Spanish architect Rock Hoacin Tequín de alcubierre, sent for its construction, learned about the finds of antiquities that could decorate the new palace. Having received the permission of the king, he began excavations in the old mine, expanding the deck and laying the galleries. Despite the modest means, he almost immediately found many magnificent statues, inscriptions and frescoes. It turned out that d'Elböf was mining building material, analyzing the richly decorated city theater of Herculanum. Karl allocated funds to continue the excavations of the buried city, which brought many rarities. And in 1748, excavations began at the village of Resin, where several statues were accidentally found - these were Pompeii, also filled with finds. In 1765, work in Herculanum was suspended and Pompeii became the main object of excavations.

Alkubierre was a builder and military engineer, but was not at all interested in history. He was only interested in what the king’s collections and palaces could decorate - well -preserved bronze and marble statues, mosaics, frescoes and inscriptions. He behaved like a typical treasure hunter - he tried to quickly get everything valuable, not paying attention to the context, stratigraphy, the location of things and structures. Everything that had not had a value ruthlessly thrown away. In addition, it must be understood that due to the power of the layer overlapping Herculanum, excavations were carried out in an open way, but by the minerals-antiquity was mined, breaking through the wells and adit, which often walked directly through the walls of the buried buildings. They switched to open excavations only in Pompeii.

Several stories have been preserved that characterize the methods of work of that time.

On one of the buildings, an inscription lined with copper letters was found. Alkubierre ordered her to remove her. When the letters, folded into the basket, introduced the king, it turned out that no one was worried about reading, and even more so to write down the inscription, which remained forever unknown.

In another case, the quadriga’s bronze sculpture found (chariots with four hidden horses) was dismantled with the charioteer, transferred to Naples and put one of the royal possessions in the corner of the courtyard. While they were lying there unattended, some of the parts were stolen, and some were launched for raw materials for casting busts of the king and queen. When they began to collect the statue back, the remaining details were enough for only one horse, and many elements had to be reconstructed.

Successful excavations in Herculanum became a sensation. Numerous lovers of antiquity and scientists from different countries came to look at them and at them and finds. But the excavations were zealously guarded, and the right to explore and describe them was only among people admitted to work by the Spanish king. The inaccessibility and methods of the work of Alkubierre aroused indignation in the scientific circles of that time. Moreover, there were already examples of a better approach to excavations.

The situation changed when in 1748 another military engineer, Swiss Karl Jakob Von Weber, arrived to help Alkubierre, who approached excavations with scientific criteria. He decided that it was necessary to draw the plans of each house and the court, to keep an excavation diary, collect most of the finds and fix the location of the found objects. Insisting on his innocence, Weber came into conflict with Alcubierre, who considered all this a waste of time. It came to sabotage - the workers of Alcubierre removed the supports from the Weber mines to bring them down.

Weber even put forward the idea of ​​excavations not in the mines, but an open method to fix everything as accurately as possible. However, due to labor intensity, this was rejected.

But still, the weber's approach was recognized as correct, and, being the deputy alkubierre, he continued to conduct independent research. By the way, Johann Vinkelman several times visited excavations in Herculanum and Pompeii and scolded Alcubierre in his notes and highly appreciated Weber's methods.

In 1758, another important event occurred - under the auspices of Charles III, the publication of the multi -volume dedicated to the antiquities of Herculanum, which lasted until 1792.

Thus, Alkubierre opened the world Herculanum and Pompeii. He was not the first to discover them, but it was his efforts that led to the greatest archaeological discovery. But at the same time, his approach is the opposite of Karl Weber's approach. The works of Alcubierre gave many separate (albeit unique) finds, and Weber's legacy is not only finds, but also diaries, drawings, plans, numerous drawings that give a much more complete (although, of course, far from modern requirements) information about the found. Somewhere between these two people, the border between the collection of antiquities and archeology passes. Naturally, not everyone immediately realized the importance of finds to study the past. Too many wanted to just replenish the collections with things, without wasting time for fixation, diaries, drawings and other boring things. The confrontation between them and archaeologists lasted a long time.

Unfortunately, the archaeological career of Karl Weber was not very long: he died in 1764. But his work, his methods, continued by Francisco La Vega.

Rock Hoacin de Alkubierre, despite the numerous reproaches of contemporaries, continued excavations until his death in 1780. He did not make a state, even despite the fact that in 1777 he received the title of Field Marshal, and his widow (who gave birth to eleven children) was forced to turn to the king for help and received a lifelong pension.

After Alkubierre, all the studies in Pompei were headed by the follower of Weber Francisco La Vega, who was later replaced by his brother Pietro. They were already almost real archaeologists, thoroughly digging and meticulously fixed finds. The materials they collected allowed François Mazois (François Mazois) in 1824 to publish the first full and breakthrough study of Pompey. This study has laid new standards: since that time, the main result of any excavation is the maximum complete and systematized publication of their results.

Charles III until his death in 1788 patronized the excavations, but he did not live in the constructed palace and actually turned it into a museum where finds from Herculanum were stored.

Johann Winkelmann's works and large -scale publications based on the materials of the excavations of Herculanum - “Antichità di Ercolano), published in eight volumes in 1757–1792, gave rise to a wave of interest in ancient Greece and Rome and had a huge impact on the spread of the popularity of neoclassicism, giving samples for the samples for imitations of architects, artists and sculptors.

Archeology began a solemn procession around the world.