History Internal Assessment
Research Question: When was Pompeii Actually Destroyed?
Word Count: 1998
This study will investigate the question, When was Pompeii actually destroyed? The sources selected for this essay are: the letter from Pliny the Younger to his friend the Roman historian Tacitus, which detailed the destruction of Pompeii down to the hour, and a charcoal inscription that has been dated to October 79 AD which places the time of the eruption to two months later than previously thought.
Source 1: “Pliny the Younger’s Vesuvius Letters to Historian Tacitus” Written in Latin in 106–107 AD
The origin of the source is a letter by Pliny the Younger that was written to his friend and historian Tacitus about thirty years after the eruption of Vesuvius. Tacitus had asked him to recount the events of Pompeii as he had witnessed the destruction of it. This letter is valuable as it provides a direct and first-hand description of what had occurred, which revealed that Pompeii did not fall in a day, rather two. It also gave insight into how the city stayed buried for centuries. The eyewitness account is especially crucial as it provides a timeline of events that allows historians to compare it with physical evidence that is discovered yearly from Pompeii and surrounding towns and gather a more accurate understanding of what happened, acting almost as an archaeological snapshot into social, economic and political life. Nevertheless, having read the letter it is one of emotion and tragedy and having been written almost three decades later it could have been misremembered and misrepresented in the storytelling to his friend. The source further has some limitations such as the translation discrepancies across different versions of the letter such as an early Greek translation which changed some of the military words and vocabulary, thus changing the meaning of the letter, as well as the fact that it was copied and translated many times throughout medieval times in manuscripts from as early as the 6th century that were then rediscovered later in the 13th century. This resulted in variations in word choice and the date of destruction. This makes the account somewhat unreliable for historical investigation.
Source 2: The Charcoal Inscription "XVI K Nov," “16th day before the kalends of November” October 17th, 79 AD
A value of this source is that it is dated to two months after the supposed explosion date thus disproving the letter written by Pliny. The inscription is written in a “fragile and evanescent” material, showing historians that it was not meant to last and was most likely used for temporary writing for a house renovation thus showing that the inscription was most likely made just before the eruption. This presents historians with a closer timeframe as well as corresponds with some of the other elements that they found that did not correspond with Pliny's date, such as autumn fruit and wood-burning homes. However, similar to source 1 there is no definitive translation of the wording; however, it does point to a date in late October 79 AD. There is also no certainty in what the note was for and whether it was a work log or a personal message is still unclear. This along with it not being definitive proof such as a dated, signed authorial document makes the finding and interpretation of it bound with supporting archaeological evidence. This creates an uncertainty that is unreliable for dating the eruption.
Section 2: Investigation
In the year 79 AD a peaceful summer/autumn day turned into many people’s worst nightmare as the volcano that they had been living next to erupted, surrounding them in debris and an ash cloud. The gases along with the ash cloud killed an estimated 2000 people in just 15 minutes. For the last almost 500 years historians have accepted that Pompeii was destroyed on the 24th of August 79 AD based on the letter found from Pliny the Younger written to his friend and historian, Tacitus. However, in 2018 after a charcoal inscription was found in Pompeii it led many historians and archaeologists to argue for the later date in October. By looking at two key sources, Pliny’s letter and eyewitness account and the newly discovered charcoal inscription that is dated "XVI K Nov," “16th day before the kalends of November”, this essay will argue that the traditional date is now very difficult to defend and prove.
The traditional date of the eruption was found through the only surviving eyewitness account written in two letters by Pliny the Younger to the historian Tacitus in 106 AD. In the letter Pliny supplied specific information about the eruption, how it began around the 7th hour, which translates to the early afternoon on the 24th of August, 79 AD. Because of the status and nature of Pliny, who at the time of the eruption was 17, lost his uncle Pliny the Elder in the destruction and watched it from Misenum which was across the bay, his testimony and account was considered unchallengeable and reliable. Even for years after the rediscovery of Pompeii, Pliny’s letters remained our only literary source on the disaster and his date in August remained as the accepted date in every school and textbook.
However, in the time after the rediscovery, new details began to be uncovered that kept challenging the date that had been accepted for centuries. Since the 19th century there have been discoveries that repeatedly went against the narrative of a summer eruption. For example clothing items found on the people that were buried in the eruption such as heavy winter clothing and cloaks found on the victims. Autumn fruits such as pomegranates, nuts such as chestnuts and walnuts as well as dried fruits in shops presented that they were preparing for the coldest of the winter months which is not done at the height of summer but rather later in the year. Braziers being in use and around the house rather than in storage spaces cast further doubt on the validity and reliability of Pliny's date. This presents a more reliable picture and timeframe for the eruption because these items existed at the same time as the eruption and were not subjected to scribal errors.
Then in 2018 a new discovery pushed the doubt on the date to an all-time high. A charcoal inscription was uncovered in Regio V that read "XVI K Nov," or “16th day before the kalends of November”. Because of the fragility of the charcoal inscription it would not have been possible for it to have survived the previous winter, which means that the writing must have been made in the autumn of 79 AD and at the earliest either days or possibly weeks before the house was buried under ash. The discovery immediately earned recognition not only from the archaeologists of the site but also from the Italian culture minister Alberto Bonisoli who stated that “Today, with much humility, perhaps we will rewrite the history books because we date the eruption to the second half of October”. This one piece of literary evidence in combination with the overwhelming amount of physical evidence convinced many archaeologists that the eruption happened in late October to early November in 79 AD.
Pliny’s letter has been questioned since the discovery in 2018 as it called into question many of the circumstances of the letter. Being written almost 30 years after the event itself he had to rely on his memory of the event which could have been skewed or altered over time. As well as the changing techniques of reading and understanding ancient manuscript that led to the belief of many modern scholars that the original manuscript actually read “nonum kalendas Novembres” or the 24th of October but was mistranslated by medieval scribes, as abbreviations for dates and months often lead to confusion when translating the earlier manuscripts. Many of the 9th to 14th century manuscripts show variations of the information and even the first printed edition, printed in 1471, contained mistakes. In addition to this, Pliny was not actually in Pompeii itself when the disaster occurred and was across the bay; he was also recounting a traumatic memory from his childhood that reduces the precision and validity of his account of events. This along with the fact that it was written to his friend on a request, “You ask that I write to you about the death of my uncle, so that you might be able to hand it down more accurately”, made the focus mainly on the details of the death of his uncle rather than the destruction of the city.
Since the uncovering of the charcoal inscription in 2018, many of the archaeologists that are active in the excavation of Pompeii such as Massimo Osanna and Gabriel Zuchtriegel, who are directors of excavation in Pompeii, agree and accept the new October/November date. However there are some traditional historians and classical historians who rely mostly on literary texts that still agree with and defend the original date in August as described by Pliny; however they are few and far between. The overwhelming physical evidence from the site itself has proven to be stronger than the single piece of literary evidence.
Although Pliny the Younger’s letter remains a crucial source for understanding life and the experience of the eruption, it is not reliable for dating the eruption. The growing archaeological evidence that is uncovered yearly provides stronger conclusions and evidence, particularly that of the charcoal inscription of the 17th of October, which shows the precise date of the destruction of Pompeii as being in October of 79 AD rather than the previously accepted August.
Section 3: Reflection
The main challenge of this investigation was evaluating the reliability of Pliny the Younger’s letter. With the letter having been written 30 years after the event had occurred and the emotional retelling of it because of the tragedy that he had faced because of it, there is an inevitable question of memory and exaggeration. Furthermore the letter has been translated and passed down for almost 2000 years, while many of the original letters have been described as a mosaic, almost like an art piece, because of the fragmented nature of them, and the translation of these letters having been publicised with some mistakes and mistranslations. Over time the original wording and translation being lost makes it difficult to interpret the original meaning of the letter. The Romans also used a different calendar, with a different system of counting days in relation to kalends, nones and ides, which made it so the means in which the date was translated may have been vastly different from what the date actually was.
Another issue with the reliability of this investigation is the purpose of the charcoal inscription in Pompeii. With the inscription there is no record of who made it and what it was for. This makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint exactly when it was made and if it was created for a later date or if the date that it says is truly the one that is inscribed. Without this information it is impossible to truly know when Pompeii was destroyed as without the timeline of the inscription the purpose is unknown. For this investigation I not only used literary evidence but also physical evidence found at the excavation site. Rather than just relying on someone's account and experience, there was actually something tangible that could be dated, seen, and felt. However with this it created difficulties when trying to decide what to trust and to believe as these different methods produced two contradictory stories for historians.
Furthermore because of my interest it was difficult to be unbiased because I had always been partial to Pliny’s date. However, having been there myself and seen the site I understood how the date is now seen as obsolete as the continued excavation always uncovers different and new details that were previously unknown to the world. Through this investigation I learned the importance of evaluation of sources and understanding the background of the source and the purpose of its creation.
References
“Archaeological find changes date of Pompeii's destruction | Italy.” 2018. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/16/archeological-find-changes-date-of-pompeiis-destruction.
Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. n.d. “Pliny the Younger — 15th century; Italy, Ferrara.” Manuscripts and Archives. https://marco.ox.ac.uk/ark:29072/x002870w90qz.
Craig, G. Y., and E. J. Jones. 2014. A Geological Miscellany. Princeton University Press.
Feemster, Wilhelmina. n.d. “Pompeii | History, Volcano, Map, Population, Ruins, & Facts.” Britannica. Accessed October 27, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/place/Pompeii.
Foss, Pedar W. 2012. “Translating Pliny’s letters about Vesuvius, pt. 3. The Historian’s Request.” quem dixere chaos. https://quemdixerechaos.com/2012/11/28/translatingplinypt3/.
Gibson, Roy K., and Ruth Morello. 2012. Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
JONES, NICHOLAS F. 2001. PLINY THE YOUNGER'S VESUVIUS LETTERS (6.16 AND 6.20). University of Pittsburgh.
Merrill, Elmer T. 1915. “The Tradition of Pliny's Letters.” Classical Philology 10, no. 1 (January): 8–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/262277.
MEYER, FREDERICK G. 1980. “Carbonized Food Plants of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and the Villa at Torre Annunziata.” Economic Botany 34, no. 4 (October–December): 401. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4254221.
Mezzofiore, Gianluca. 2018. “Pompeii’s charcoal graffiti may rewrite history.” CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/pompeii-eruption-inscription-date-intl.
papa.neocities.org. n.d. “Roman Dates.” https://papa.neocities.org/romandates.
“A Point of View: Pompeii's not-so-ancient Roman remains.” 2012. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20407286.
“Pompeii: Vesuvius eruption may have been later than thought.” 2018. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45874858.
Rand, Edward K. 1923. “A New Approach to the Text of Pliny's Letters.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 34: 79–191.
Segreti, Giulia, Crispian Balmer, and David Stamp. 2018. “Charcoal inscription points to date change for Pompeii eruption.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/charcoal-inscription-points-to-date-change-for-pompeii-eruption-idUSKCN1MQ2FA/.
Tondo, Lorenzo. 2021. “Vesuvius killed people of Pompeii in 15 minutes, study suggests.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/22/vesuvius-wiped-out-all-life-pompeii-15-minutes-study-pyroclastic-flow-cloud-gases-ash.
“Western Medieval Manuscripts.” n.d. Digital Bodleian. Accessed October 23, 2025. https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections/western-medieval-manuscripts/.
York University. n.d. “Pliny Letter 6.16.” Accessed October 23, 2025. https://www.yorku.ca/pswarney/2100/pliny-6-16-20.htm.
