Pompeii Quadriporticus Project

Combining cutting-edge scanning technologies with an exhaustive examination of the physical fabric of the poorly-understood Quadriporticus, and incorporating the results from the excavated remains of its easternmost borders (Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia), the PQP is putting this long-ignored monument back into its architectural and urban contexts.

The PQP is co-directed by Eric Poehler (University of Massachusetts-Amherst) and Steven Ellis (University of Cincinnati), who is also the director of PQP's sister project, the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia. Our work is generously funded by a UMass Amherst Faculty Reseach Grant/Healey Endowment Grant, the UMass Department of Classics, by the Louise Taft Semple Fund of the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati, and by a gift from Cardinal Intellectual Property.

The Quadriporticus is a monumental structure that has for a long time been identified with the gymnasia of the Hellenistic world. It consists of a large, rectangular open area surrounded by a continuous four-sided colonnade. Behind this colonnade are a series of square rooms, except on the eastern side where the shapes of these rooms provide a record of the negotiation of the boundaries with the properties to the east. These properties are the subject of the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia.

The Quadriporticus is located in the south of the ancient city of Pompeii, fitted between the Triangular forum, the large theater and covered theater (Teatrum Tectum), the city's southern fortification wall and the Porta Stabia. The research context of our study is broader still. Indeed, the Quadriporticus is the only unexamined area across a more than 250 meter transect of the city, from Insula VIII, two in the west, and Insual I, five in the east.

The specific research questions of the Pompeii Quadriporticus Project reflect our interest in conducting a comprehensive investigation of the Quadriporticus and setting those results within the context of the adjacent and related research projects as well as the wider urban environment at Pompeii. After three seasons of field work, we have made significant advances toward answering these research questions. These advances have refined both our methods and our understanding of those answers' implications for the ancient city.

1. Construction History. 

How was the Quadriporticus built and repaired in the ancient period and how has it been reconstructed since its excavation? A cursory examination of the building’s architecture appears to show a single construction event with at least one major later rebuilding phase. The results of our research in the western and southern portions of the building in 2010 and 2011 has confirmed this general observation and described in detail several related, intervening phases. The construction style of the eastern side of the Quadriporticus, studies in 2012, is nearly identical to the late phases in other parts of the building, suggesting it too was rebuilt in the final phases. Moreover, this rebuilding of the eastern side put out of use a large drainage structure (excavated in 2009, Trench 28000) for the nearby covered theater (Teatrum Tectum or Odeon), a fact that further indicates that this eastern portion is later than the rest of the building.

Continued close examination of the masonry of the Quadriporticus will help to disentangle these different events of construction. Reconstruction and restoration from the modern period is also being identified so that the impact of Pompeii’s long history as a tourist destination does not skew our interpretations. Historical drawings and paintings, in conjunction with masonry analysis, will be of particular importance.

2. Infrastructure. 

What role did the Quadriporticus play in the systems of municipal infrastructure? There are at least two drainage channels that physically connect the Quadriporticus to the city's wider infrastructural context. The first is a large sewer that originally ran behind the western section of the building. In the final period, the sewer was reoriented to flow below the western portico. This channel was originally designed to funnel wastewater from a major bath complex located in the north, but by the time of Pompeii’s destruction it was serving as the storm drain for nearly 20% of the entire city. After two seasons of research in the Quadriporticus we know a great deal about the history of this transformation, but the sewer's final sections and its exit are still unknown.

The other sewer, mentioned above, is the destroyed drainage channel leading from the area of the small theater (Teatrum Tectum) to the eastern wall of the Quadriporticus. This channel, together with several drainage features along the Quadriporticus' eastern colonnade, suggests that another drainage feature also exists below the eastern portico, perhaps connected to the large cisterns known within the building. Nineteenth-century representations show a modern water-wheel installed near the southern portico that made use of one such ancient cistern. Geophyscial prospection conducted in 2011 confirmed the existence of this cistern and others but also showed that no other ancient infrastructure passed through the open, central area of the Quadriporticus. A second campaign of Geophysics in 2012 will help clarify the activities below the floor of the colonnades.

Answering where the water from these sewers went is a priority for the PQP because of the implications that answer has for our understanding of Pompeii, both inside and outside of the city walls. That is, knowing where the huge volume of water from the western sewer exited the city will help us conceive of a landscape that could handle such a flow. Likewise, dating when the Teatrum Tectum's drainage system was put out of use will help us to understand why such a major infrastructural reordering was required and suggest where the water was redirected.

3. Corridor for Movement. 

How did Pompeians navigate the space of the Quadriporticus? How did the Quadriporticus serve as a transitional space amongst the surrounding monumental buildings and how did this pattern change over time? With one of the oldest temples at Pompeii located just to the west and with one of the oldest gates in the city to the east, the area of the Quadriporticus had operated as a corridor for movement for centuries before its construction. Although the current arrangement of the building obscures those paths, careful consideration of the Quadriporticus' construction history can demonstrate how human traffic patterns evolved and reacted to the changing architectural environment. Additionally, some of the early walls together with the alignment of the vicolo Conciapelle, may suggest the division of space prior to the construction of the Quadriporticus. Once the building had been constructed, the specific provisions for movement between the Triangular Forum, the theaters, and the via Stabiana, show that this space continued to be an important node within the city, a collection point that redistributed the flow of people in several directions.

Answering these questions will help fill in the map of the Roman and pre-Roman topography at Pompeii. In the earliest period, a massive hill slope had to be quarried away (along with the area for the large theater) to create the large, open, and flat area of the Quadriporticus. When did these events occur? What was the relationship between them? The connection to the large city sewer that intersects the building in the northwest is often used to provide a mid-second century BCE date for the Quadripoticus. There had been, however, no investigation of the stratigraphic relationships between these structures until our work in 2010–2011. Our research has found stratigraphic evidence to confirm this connection (if not necessarily the proposed date), with the sewer and Quadriporticus physically bonded in their original construction. In the later periods, the Quadriporticus.

Since its inception, the Pompeii Quadriporticus Project has sought to use cutting-edge technology to improve the fieldwork, analysis, interpretation, presentiaton and publication of our work. To date, the techonolgies employed have served to 1. create a digital model of the Quadriporticus, 2. efficiently record obsevations of individual segments of the architecture, and 3. peer below the ground surface in the building's large, open area.

Digital Models

Two complementary digital recording technologies are used in the Quadriporticus: 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry. In 2010, S.I.A. ingegneria e ambiente was hired to capture the open, central area, columns, internal facades, and monumental stairway of the Quadriporticus. Using a Leica ScanStation C10 three-dimensional laser scanner, the survey was completed on July 30, 2010, in nine stations. The scanner captured spatial information in millions of measurements at a resolution of +/- two millimeters. Compared to the standard archaeological practice (which we have employed for more than a decade in Pompeii) using a single-point laser theodolite, the 3D laser scanner is a quantum leap forward.

First in partnership with AutoDesk using its 123D Catch product (and previously using itsbeta project, Photofly, 2010–2011 field seasons) and now using AgiSoft's Photoscan software (2012–2013 field seasons), we are complementing the laser scanning campaign with a photogrammetric method that is more time- and cost-effective for certain aspects of the architecture. Using approximately 40 high-angle digital images per room, the PQP is capturing the dozens of spaces surrounding Quadriporticus and rendering them in photoreal 360˚ panoramas as well as high-density point clouds that can be integrated with the laser scanning results. Preliminary results showed exceptional promise and our current work is surpassing expectations.

Digital Recording

The PQP utilizes most standard procedures for recording masonry analysis at each level of our method, capturing information about the materials, mortars, and construction techniques of each wall face. We have used the iPad, however, to make our recording process completely digital. The iPad is an ideal instrument for our project as it offers a lightweight, durable, and intuitive machine with a battery life that exceeds the length of our workday. A Filemaker Pro database on the main project computer housed the parent database and synchronized with child versions on each iPad (FileMaker Go). One of the main benefits of this system was that each team was able not only to record all the information about the wall faces that they were studying on their own iPad, but also they could (after syncing) instantly access all the information that was gathered on another team's iPad. This was particularly useful when one wall face was in the process of being interpreted and the wall's opposite side had previously been studied and recorded. Our use of the iPad for on-site recording, drawing, and analysis in 2010 found that the only major limitation was that too few iPads created a bottleneck in data entry. We addressed the problem in our 2011 season by equipping every team member with an iPad. Even after controlling for a learning curve, the increase in efficiency was dramatic: with three additional iPads, 371% more work was completed by 35% fewer people. Another benefit of this system, from a data security standpoint is that after synchronizing with the main computer and the other iPads, each machine was carrying the complete dataset, making each a backup file of all the project's data.

The process of drawing each wall face was also improved by using the iPad. Standard practice for wall drawings is to create a horizontal baseline across the width of the wall along which measurements of features (SUs) can be made above and below the line. The measurements are then plotted to scale on mylar with a graph paper template. The process requires two people and is very time consuming. Our process makes the best use of the iPad's touch screen and zooming capabilities in order to streamline the drafting of each wall face. We first take a digital photograph of each wall face - including a one-meter ranging rod - and then import it into the iDraw application. The image is then traced over, drawing the location of each stratigraphic unit in its own layer. Having each stratigraphic unit in its own layer is especially useful because the different phases of construction can be shown alone or in any desired combination, illustrating what the wall or a series of walls looked like at a particular phase of the building. It is also very easy to update the drawing in the event of an error in drafting or if the interpretation of the object changes.

Further information on our use of the iPad can be found through our sister project, available from the PARPPS website as well as a pdf of the original story on apple.com.

Geoprospection

Subsurface imaging in the Quadriporticus' central area was conducted in June 2011 by the British School at Rome and the Archaeological Prospection Service of Southampton. The Ground Penetrating RADAR (GPR) survey covered the c. 1530m2 open area in a series of 0.25m x 0.50m transects and reached an approximate depth of nearly three meters. Preliminary results of this survey can be found in our report on the 2011 Season of the Pompeii Quadriporticus Project, published by the "Fasti Online Documents & Research." (2012). A second campaign GPR survey in 2012 was conducted along the colonnades and within a few rooms behind the colonnades. Subsurface imaging complements our equally non-invasive masonry analysis by revealing the position (and, importantly, the absence) of pre-existing architectures and infrastructural elements

 Together, these technologies complement one another by creating an exacting digital record of the architecture of the Quadriporticus, which serves as both a subject of analysis itself as well as acting as a digital platform to structure, preserve, and access the in-field observations made about the architecture. Thus, the digital model becomes both the most recent and accurate 3D state plan and the framework onto which database information, wall drawings, and imagery (photographic and subsurface) are attached.

Research without publication is at best exercise and at worst, destruction. The Pompeii Quadriporticus Project is committed to considered, timely, and complete publication of our research and, once the work is complete, our research data. Prior to final publication, the PQP is producing preliminary reports each year in the journal Fasti Online as well as presenting our findings at conferences and invited lectures.

Project Co-Directors

• Professor Eric Poehler, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Professor Steven Ellis, University of Cincinnati

Project Field Directors

• Benjamin Crowther (2013–Present), University of Texas at Austin
• Nick Ray (2010–2012), University of Leicester

Project Assistants, 2013–Present

• Tess Brickley, Junior, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Juliana van Roggen, Senior, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Lizbeth Weiss, Junior, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Project Assistants, 2010–2013

• Tess Brickley, Sophomore, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Janet Dunkelbarger, Masters Student, Oxford University
• Heather Pastushok, Doctoral Student, Duke University

2013 Collaborators

• Professor Kevin Anderson, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
• Miriam Kolar, Five College Digital Humanities Post-Doctoral Fellow
• Jeffrey Moro, Five College Digital Humanities Post-Baccalaureate Fellow
• Katrin Wilhelm, Graduate Research Student, Oxford Rock Breakdown Laboratory

2013 Field Season Student Staff

• Sarah Ashman, Junior, Amherst College
• Tess Brickley, Sophomore, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Janet Dunkelbarger, Master's Student, Classical Archaelogy, Oxford University
• Julia Madden, Senior, Mount Holyoke College
• Nickolas Massar, Sophomore, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Noelle Niu, Junior, Amherst College
• Heather Pastushok, Doctoral Student, Duke University
• Juliana Van Roggen, Junior, University of Massachusetts Amherst

2012 Faculty Collaborators

• Professor Kevin Anderson, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
• Professor Bettina Bergmann, Mount Holyoke College
• Professor James Middlebrook, Smith College

2012 Field Season Student Staff

• Sara Champlin, Doctoral Student, Art History University of Wisconsin
• Benjamin Crowther, Doctoral Student, Classics University of Texas, Austin
• Janet Dunkelbarger, Master's Student, Classical Archaelogy, Oxford University
• Daniel Healey, Senior, Art History. University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Maggie Kurkoski, Senior, Classics. Smith College
• Julia Madden, Junior, Archaeology. Mount Holyoke College
• Joshua Parr, Senior, Classical Creativity and Spirituality. Hampshire College
• Heather Pastushok, Senior, Classics and Linguistics. University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Catherine Teitz, Sophomore, Classics and Classical Archaeology. Brown University

2011 Field Season Student Staff

• Sara Champlin, Art History, Graduate Student
• Benjamin Crowther, Classical Archaeology, Graduate Student
• Janet Dunkelbarger, Classics, Senior
• Heather Pastushok, Classics, Senior

2010 Field Season Student Staff

• Jessica Aither, Anthropology, Junior
• Sara Champlin, Art History, Graduate Student
• Lauren Hebert, Classics, Senior
• Heather Pastushok, Classics, Senior
• Adam Tufts, Senior, Classics