When a Local Legend is (Mis)Appropriated in the Interpretation of an Archaeological Site

7/31/2019 When a Local Legend is (Mis)Appropriated in the Interpretation of an Archaeological Site

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/when-a-local-legend-is-misappropriated-in-the-interpretation-of-an-archaeological 1/23

1 3

ArchaeologiesJournal of the WorldArchaeological Congress ISSN 1555-8622Volume 6Number 3 Arch (2010) 6:447-467DOI 10.1007/ s11759-010-9148-2

When a Local Legend Is

(Mis)Appropriated in the Interpretation of

an Archaeological Site



1 3

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by World

Archaeological Congress. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If youwish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.



When a Local Legend Is (Mis)Appropriated

in the Interpretation of an ArchaeologicalSite

Akira Matsuda, Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts

and Cultures, SOAS, Russell Square, London, WC1H 0XG, UK

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT________________________________________________________________

Context permitting, should public archaeologists allow ‘‘archaeologically

incorrect’’ accounts of the past? In this paper I discuss this question

through a case study based on the experience of myself and my colleagues

at the excavation of the Villa of Augustus in Somma Vesuviana, Italy. In

2003 and 2004, we became aware that some visitors to the excavation

interpreted the site by reference to a legend of the tunnel of Queen

Giovanna, which had existed in Somma Vesuviana over the centuries.Although initially interested in this phenomenon, we soon realised that we

needed to make certain judgements as to how to respond to local people

asking whether the tunnel had been discovered in the excavation. We

presented two different ways of interpreting the site, one based on

archaeology and the other on the legend, and both as equally meaningful,

while at the same time stressing what we as archaeologists believed, based

on what we had found. In this process we decided to adhere to the

principles of archaeology, even in embracing the multivocality of material

remains.________________________________________________________________

Resume: Selon le contexte, les experts archeologues doivent-ils relayer les

interpretations «archeologiquement incorrectes» du passe? Au cours de cet

article, j’aborde cette question au travers d’une etude de cas basee sur

l’experience que mes collegues et moi-meme avons vecue lors de la fouille

archeologique de la villa d’Auguste a Somma Vesuviana, en Italie. En 2003

et 2004, nous avons realise que certains visiteurs du site de fouille l’avaient

interprete en s’appuyant sur la legende seculaire a Somma Vesuviana du

tunnel de la reine Giovanna. Bien qu’initialement interesses par ce

phenomene, nous avons rapidement compris la necessite de faire des choix

concernant la reponse a apporter a la population locale, qui demandait si le

tunnel avait ete decouvert au cours des fouilles. Nous avons presente deux

axes d’interpretation du site: l’un base sur l’archeologie et l’autre sur la

R E S E A R C

H

A R C H A E O L O

G I E S

V o l u m e 6

N u m b e r 3

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 0

Ó 2010 World Archaeological Congress 447

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( Ó 2010)

DOI 10.1007/s11759-010-9148-2



legende, en prenant soin de leur donner une importance equivalente mais

tout en insistant sur ce que nous, en tant qu’archeologues, avions deduit denos decouvertes. Ce faisant, nous avons decide d’adherer aux principes de

l’archeologie, en embrassant meme la multivocalite des vestiges materiels.________________________________________________________________

Resumen: Siempre que lo justifique el contexto, ¿deberıan los arqueologos

publicos permitir descripciones del pasado «incorrectas desde el punto de

vista arqueologico»? En este trabajo, analizo esta cuestion a la luz de un

estudio de caso basado en la experiencia que, tanto mis companeros como

yo, tuvimos en la excavacion de Villa Augustus en Somma Vesuviana, Italia. En

2003 y 2004, nos dimos cuentos de que algunos visitantes de la excavacioninterpretaban el yacimiento en funcion de una leyenda sobre el tunel de la

Reina Juana, con varios siglos de antiguedad en Somma Vesuviana. Aunque

inicialmente nos interesamos por este fenomeno, pronto nos percatamos de

que debıamos valorar la respuesta que dabamos a los lugarenos que nos

preguntaban si el tunel habıa sido descubierto en la excavacion. Presentamos

dos interpretaciones distintas del yacimiento: una basada en la arqueologıa y

la otra, en la leyenda, las dos igualmente significativas, aunque dejando claro

nuestra opinion como arqueologos en funcion de los descubrimientos

realizados. En este proceso decidimos adherirnos a los principios de laarqueologıa, aunque aceptando la multivocalidad de los restos materiales._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Archaeology and folklore, Local legend, Multivocality of archaeological

materials, Somma Vesuviana, Villa of Augustus_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Over the last decade or so, public archaeologists have embraced the con-cept of multivocality and examined a variety of ways in which different

members and groups of the public interpret material remains (Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006; Gazin-Schwartz and Holtorf 1999; Holtorf 2005b;

Pokotylo and Brass 1997; Schadla-Hall 2004; Talalay 2004). The rationale

for this is twofold: it allows public archaeologists to gain a deeper under-

standing of what the past means to a wide range of people; and it helpsthem to make a more socially inclusive and informed judgement in manag-

ing archaeological resources in the public interest.

Embracing multivocality, however, does not simply mean that the more

interpretations, the better. Most of those who argue for the exploration of

448 AKIRA MATSUDA



various possibilities of interpreting archaeological materials simultaneously

stress the importance of distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptableinterpretations (Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006:23; Holtorf 2005a:549; Merri-

man 1999:4, 2004:7; Schadla-Hall 2004:268–269; Trigger 1995:278–279). If

one accepts this then the key question is how to decide what is acceptableand what is not, and how archaeology, as a discipline, can influence that

decision-making activity. It could be argued that such decisions are not sub-

ject to universal, uniform rules and that ultimately they depend on the

‘‘context’’ (Holtorf 2005a:249). This is probably correct, but it would never-theless be reasonable to maintain that public archaeologists need to know at

least how to deal with interpretations of material remains that are judgederroneous according to the generally accepted logic and methodology of

archaeology, since it directly concerns the raison-d’etre of their profession.Context permitting, should public archaeologists accept ‘‘archaeologically

incorrect’’ accounts of the past?

One of the situations in which a clear answer to this question is neededis the appropriation of folklore for interpretation of archaeological remains.

Folklore rejects a linear concept of time and reanimates people’s collective

memory of the past in the present (Gazin-Schwartz and Holtorf

1999:15–19; Layton 1999:27–28). It is often appealing, and informative inanthropological terms, yet archaeologically incorrect. Should public archae-

ologists accept or reject an interpretation of material remains based onfolklore, or is there any alternative solution? In this paper I wish to explore

this question through a case study of the experience of myself and my col-

leagues at the excavation of the Villa of Augustus in Somma Vesuviana,

Italy.

The Excavation of the Villa of Augustus in Somma

Vesuviana and the Legend of Queen Giovanna’s Tunnel

The site of the Villa of Augustus is located on the northern slope of Mt

Vesuvius (Figure 1). The site was first excavated in the 1930s, during which

the remains of a monumental building and objects of the Roman ImperialPeriod were discovered (Della Corte 1932). Examining these finds in rela-

tion to Roman literary sources, the director of the excavation came up

with a hypothesis that the first emperor Augustus (63 BC–AD 14) died inthe building, and that it was subsequently converted into a temple dedi-

cated to him and thereafter buried by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD79 (Della Corte 1936[1933]). Following this hypothesis, local people soonbegan calling the site the ‘‘Villa of Augustus (Villa di Augusto)’’.

The excavation then ran short of funds and was suspended in 1935,

with the entire site being backfilled in 1939 (D’Avino 1979:48). Despite

Interpretation of an Archaeological Site 449



several attempts to re-investigate the Villa in the post-war period, the land

remained an agricultural field until the summer of 2002, when a team from

the University of Tokyo finally reopened the excavation.The excavation has since been undertaken each season (Figure 2) and

made a number of new findings. Most importantly, it has been establishedthat the buried building was constructed in the second to third century

AD, abandoned in the late fifth century AD (Aoyagi et al. 2006:94; Aoyagi

et al. 2007; De Simone 2009), and then buried by several eruptions in andafter the late Roman period (Kaneko et al. 2005). It has also become clear

that the building was architecturally more complex than a villa; however,since the name of the Villa of Augustus has been and is still commonly

used by local people, it is referred to as the Villa of Augustus or simply the

Villa in this paper.

The excavation has been normally closed to the public for reasons of safety and the risk of looting. However, the team organised Open Days

each season since 2003, during which the site is open to the public for afew days and visitors are given an explanation of the Villa as well as the

excavation work. On the Open Day seasons from 2003 to 2008, well over

1,500 visitors attended each time, mostly from Somma Vesuviana.

During the Open Days of 2003 and 2004 it came to our attention that

some visitors asked if Queen Giovanna’s tunnel and her golden coach hadbeen found in the excavation. Intrigued by this enquiry, we studied the

source of the information and discovered that there is a widely acceptedlegend in Somma Vesuviana that there is a tunnel in the town, whereGiovanna, the Queen of Naples, kept her golden coach. It soon became

apparent that a number of local people, particularly the elderly, interpreted

the Villa with reference to the legendary tunnel.

Figure 1. Map of the Vesuvian area: the Villa of Augustus is located in Somma

Vesuviana

450 AKIRA MATSUDA



Considering that this appropriation of the legend––or folklore––in the

interpretation of the Villa could serve as a case study to examine the extent

to which public archaeologists should accept the multivocality of materialremains, I decided to collect relevant information through interviews and

from the publications of local historians. I held interviews during the Open

Days in 2006 with 20 visitors to the excavation, all residents in Somma

Vesuviana, who had heard about the Queen Giovanna’s tunnel and/or hergolden coach.1 As examined later, they provided various types of informa-

tion regarding different versions of the legend. I also studied all the avail-able books and articles on the history of Somma Vesuviana written by

local historians from the 1920s up to the present day. Several of them

made mention of Queen Giovanna’s tunnel and allowed me to gain an

insight into the historical context in which the legend came into existence.

Based on the results of this research, in what follows I shall first exam-ine the formation and transformation of the legend and discuss the mean-

ing it has today to local people in Somma Vesuviana. This will be followedby a discussion as to why a number of local people interpreted the Villa by

reference to the legendary tunnel. Finally, returning to the question raisedin the introduction, I shall review the judgement that we, the excavation

team, made in deciding how to respond to visitors when they asked

whether the tunnel had been found in the excavation.

Figure 2. General view of the excavation of the Villa of Augustus in 2005 (Photo by

courtesy of the Archaeological Mission of the University of Tokyo)




Data collected from the interviews, all in Italian or Neapolitan, will be

presented in English translation.2

As regards the interviews, round bracketsare used to indicate words added by the author for clarification, and

square brackets are used to indicate comments and notes added by the

author to aid explanation of the original statement. Double dashes (–) areused for pauses and incomplete sentences in interviews, and ellipses (…)

for omitted words, edited out for brevity.

The Formation of the Legend: Between Story and History

Although there are many different versions of the legend, most share sev-

eral common elements. Synthesising these elements, the legend typically goes as follows:

A tunnel has existed for a long time underneath the former palace of Starza

della Regina and/or the church of Santa Maria del Pozzo. The tunnel con-

nects with other buildings in Somma Vesuviana, and in some versions places

outside the town. Queen Giovanna used to keep a golden coach in the tunnel

so that she could escape from attacks by enemies. In times of peace, she used

the tunnel to revel in secret lechery with her favourite soldiers.

The core of the legend seems to have developed from historical accounts

relating to the four queens of Naples: two Angevin queens, Giovanna I(1327–1382) and Giovanna II (1373–1435), and two Aragonese queens,

Giovanna III (1455–1517) and Giovanna IV (1478–1518). It is a historically

established fact that each queen spent or lived in Somma Vesuviana forcertain periods (Coppola 2006:16–19, 23–27; Greco 1974:87–91, 99–102,

139–146, 159–170). According to Coppola (2006:28), the four queens

‘‘were intertwined to give birth to a single myth’’ of Queen Giovanna.

Of the four queens, Giovanna III and IV in particular were closely related to the town of Somma Vesuviana. Giovanna III was patron for the

construction of the upper church of Santa Maria del Pozzo (Greco1974:159–167), and Giovanna IV and King Ferdinand II were married in

the palace of Starza della Regina (Greco 1974:139–142), where the queen

lived in later years (Angrisani 1928:64). These facts partly account for the

association between the legend and the two historic buildings, although

some specific aspects of the buildings need to be considered, as will bedone later.

Certain elements of the legend seem to have originated from the (hi)s-tory concerning the Aragonese queens. For example, the ‘‘golden coach’’

probably derives from the documented ‘‘elaborate coach with six horses

for the queen’’ (Coppola 2006:24), presented to King Ferdinand I on his

452 AKIRA MATSUDA



marriage with Giovanna III. Likewise, Queen Giovanna’s alleged lechery

was likely to be based on a centuries-old Neapolitan folktale about Giovan-na IV, summarised by Greco (1974:169) as follows:

The unfortunate circumstances of her [i.e. Giovanna IV’s] life made bad ton-

gues say that she, not being able to stand the spur of lechery, provided her-

self with people with whom she gave vent to her desire. … It was even said

that in the Palace in Somma Vesuviana there was a trebuchet where, after

she had satisfied her desire with some lover, she threw him to die (Greco

1974:169).

‘‘The unfortunate circumstances’’ refers to Giovanna IV’s loss of her con-sort immediately after their wedding. The ‘‘trebuchet’’ mentioned in thefolktale was supposedly used by Giovanna IV, a widow, in the palace of

Starza della Regina.

The Transformation of the Legend: Gradual, ContingentFusion of New Historical Elements

What distinguishes the legend of Queen Giovanna from various existingNeapolitan folktales about the four queens is its concern with a subterra-

nean tunnel that allegedly connected several places in and outside Somma

Vesuviana. Different versions of the legend refer to different places, amongthese the two most commonly cited are Starza della Regina and the church

of Santa Maria del Pozzo. Other places mentioned in the interviews were:

the Aragonese castle, the church of San Domenico, the Villa of Augustus,the church of Madonna della Sanita in the neighbouring town of Mariglia-

nella, and three other towns, Naples, Portici and San Giorgio a Cremano

(see Figures 1, 3 for the location of each place). The diversity of the places

considered as tunnel links suggests the contingency with which the legendhad transformed over time. Changes presumably occurred as various ele-

ments of fact and fiction relating to the history of Somma Vesuviana,including the four queens named Giovanna, entwined with each other. In

this context it is worth examining how these elements have been blended

into the multiplying versions of the legend; this examination provides clues

to understanding why some local people associated the excavation of the

Villa of Augustus with the legend.Beneath the upper church of Santa Maria del Pozzo, another church,

the so-called lower church, has been below ground since a fifteenth-century flood raised the level of the surrounding area by several metres (Greco

1974:335). The origin of the lower church is unclear; historical documents

suggest its construction in 1333 (Greco 1974:327), but the oldest fresco




paintings conserved in its apse date to the eleventh century AD (Coppola2006:45–47; D’Avino 1991:156).

Below the lower church is a rectangular room known as ‘‘the well

(il pozzo)’’, which is connected to the lower church by stairs. Althoughlater converted into a chapel, it is unlikely to have been originally used for

religious purposes (Greco 1974:328). Most local historians concur that the

room represents the remains of a Roman villa rustica (Angrisani 1936:37;

D’Avino 1991:156, 1995; Coppola 2006:35), whereas Greco (1974:328–329)argues that it might have been part of ‘‘a secret passage of the palace of

Starza della Regina’’ or a branch of the Augustan aqueduct.Given the history of the upper church relating to Queen Giovanna III,

and the lower church, now underground, of unidentified origin and with

an eerie atmosphere, connected to the enigmatic rectangular room, it is

unsurprising that many local people consider––as Greco suggests––that the

Figure 3. Topographical map of Somma Vesuviana (based on cartography of prov-

ince of Naples n.d.)

454 AKIRA MATSUDA



legend of Queen Giovanna’s tunnel is linked with the complex of Santa

Maria del Pozzo. This is borne out by interviews, for example:

Old members of my family were saying that at Santa Maria del Pozzo there

was a stone with her [i.e. Queen Giovanna’s] statue. Queen Giovanna with

horses and with the coach, all golden, were designed on this stone. And then,

no one knows what has happened with this stone. I’ve never seen it. What I

saw below (at the church) –, there were tombs and stuff like that. … And I

know, I remember, that there were flutes of columns. And then, there was a

cave. There were three caves. I saw their arches (Interviewee A).

People were saying to us that at Santa Maria del Pozzo, under the maindoor, there is a big trapdoor. (Through the trapdoor) they went down. But

they did not keep going. Have you seen it? There is a tunnel (Interviewee B).

In these statements there is the fusion of the imaginary vision of the tunnel

and what the interviewees had actually seen at the church. Although ‘‘thetombs’’, ‘‘flutes of columns’’ and ‘‘the main door’’ are observable in the

church, neither a ‘‘statue’’ of Queen Giovanna in the lower church nor a‘‘big trapdoor’’ under the main door of the upper church exist.

The Augustan aqueduct, which Greco tentatively associates with ‘‘the

well’’ of Santa Maria del Pozzo, passed through what is now the town of Somma Vesuviana (Abate 1864; Angrisani 1936:36; D’Avino 1993). Origi-

nally connecting the Roman towns of Serino, Naples and Misenum, andover 92 km, it remains visible at several points along its length. In Somma

Vesuviana, although no remains survive, it ran near the northern end of the town, at some distance from the Villa and the church of Santa Maria

del Pozzo. Despite that, two interviewees associated the aqueduct with

Queen Giovanna’s tunnel, and one mentioned the possibility that the tun-

nel might have been part of the remains of the Augustan aqueduct:

One of the hypotheses of the tunnel, of the legend, is this. In fact, a Roman

aqueduct once existed here. It passed here, supplying water to the imperial

fleet in Misenum. … In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the viceroy

of Naples, the Spanish governor –, viceroy –, wanted to restore this aqueduct.

There were engineers of the king who tried to find the aqueduct and rein-

state it as much as possible. … So, we can say, the legend, the whole story

about Queen Giovanna, are in fact this [i.e. the aqueduct]. This could be the

passageway of the famous coach (Interviewee C).

This detailed knowledge of the aqueduct suggested that the interviewee hadread some relevant literature, probably articles written by local historians,

and that he used this knowledge as a framework for interpreting the leg-end.




Interviewee D gave two different accounts of the legend:

When I was a little girl, they were talking about these tunnels, which started

from the mountains and came to Starza of Queen Giovanna. The tunnels

were used for the secret escape of the –, the secret lovers of Queen Giovanna.

This is what I know. However, then I read in articles that –, the tunnel, in

fact, has something to do with water passage of the Roman period. So, it

could be a channel for the collection of water, or an aqueduct (Interviewee

D).

It should be noted that she demonstrated two types of knowledge that are

epistemologically different: knowledge about the legendary tunnel that hadbeen acquired through oral communication, and knowledge about the

Roman aqueduct gained from reading historical studies. The two types of

knowledge remained unintegrated in her understanding of the tunnel.

Some local people confused the Augustan aqueduct with the Bourbonaqueduct that also runs through Somma Vesuviana. Constructed in the

nineteenth century, this aqueduct took water from several sources in the

Vesuvian area and supplied the royal palace in Portici (Officio Topografico

del Regno di Napoli 1836–1840). Interviewees who mentioned that Queen

Giovanna’s tunnel supposedly connected with Portici seemed to base theirideas on what they had heard about the Bourbon aqueduct.Some of the water sources for the Bourbon aqueduct were located in

Somma Vesuviana, close to Santa Maria del Pozzo. Interviewee C mistook

one of these sources as part of the Roman aqueduct:

Until some years ago, until the 1920s, near Santa Maria del Pozzo there was

an area where there is a small hole (in the ground), in which there were

these wells, from which they could explore the aqueduct. Until the 1920s

there was still this hole. I don’t know its location. All old people know it

[i.e. the location]. … The legend (of Queen Giovanna’s tunnel) could be this(Interviewee C).

His knowledge of the Augustan aqueduct was conflated with what he knew about the hole, which was part of the Bourbon aqueduct. Probably uncon-

sciously, he used his conflated knowledge about the two aqueducts to make

sense of the legend.

A number of local people believed that Queen Giovanna’s tunnel passedbeneath the former royal palace of Starza della Regina; this is not surpris-

ing given the historical fact that Giovanna IV was married and lived there.The presence of a large cellar at the lowest level of Starza della Regina also

helped strengthen the association between the former palace and the leg-

endary tunnel. Interviewee E who had lived in Starza della Regina before

suggested that the cellar related to the tunnel:

456 AKIRA MATSUDA



You have to remember that in this building there is a big cistern. … This is

the reality. I was there, going inside, in that cistern. There was an entrancethat went down, going down in the cistern. There was a room, used as a

kind of cellar, to keep things cool. And there was a big doorway that faced

the cistern. It’s still there, unless they’ve knocked it down. … They’ve done

restoration work, but before, you could go down. Few people actually went

down. In the cellar, in the last cellar in the end, going down, on the left,

you’ll see. There must still be something there now (Interviewee E).

He also talked about a mysterious pit that he had seen in front of Starza

della Regina:

In front of the main door (of Starza della Regina), there used to be a big

farmyard. One evening, a pit was created in the farmyard. I can tell you, all

water coming down from the mountain went into the pit. We were anxious

and threw into it stones, blocks, and firewood, in order not to let anyone fall

in there. We don’t know where water was going. … I am talking of 40 years

ago. It’s a long time (ago). Already then, they were saying that there was

something below (Interviewee E).

For him, the large cellar and the mysterious pit, both of which he had

seen, provided reason enough to believe that Starza della Regina was linkedto the legendary tunnel.

An old man whose family had lived in Starza della Regina for several

generations said that he had heard about Queen Giovanna’s tunnel since

his childhood:

Author: ‘‘Can you tell me about the famous legend of Queen Giovanna’s

tunnel?’’Interviewee F: ‘‘Well, it has always been a legend, something that has

been told. But nothing precise has been known. They say that there wasa tunnel leading from here [i.e. Starza della Regina] to Santa Maria del

Pozzo, Casamale, eh –, even other places, far away’’.Author: ‘‘And in this tunnel there is –’’.

Interviewee F: ‘‘Yes, there should be the coach of Queen Giovanna’’.

Author: ‘‘So, you have heard about this since you were little’’.

Interviewee F: ‘‘Yes, yes. I have always heard of it. It has always beensaid. My father was saying that for many years. My grandfather (too) –.

(But) Never, never, no one has ever found anything’’.

He then gave an interesting account of his father’s attempt to find

Queen Giovanna’s golden coach, which was supposed to be kept in the

tunnel:




Interviewee F: ‘‘My father made a spiritual medium come from Naples

in order to see this coach, where this is. But, these [i.e. the legend] were just rumours. He spent a lot of money (to dig up different places). (He

made) A hole here, a hole there. But they didn’t find anything of the

coach. (He tried to) See and find something–. But he didn’t find any-thing. Rumours, only rumours’’.

Author: ‘‘Where did he dig?’’

Interviewee F: ‘‘Exactly where you have just been. The cellar’’.

Several interviewees suggested that there were links between the legend-

ary tunnel and underground holes and passageways existing in SommaVesuviana. Such holes and passageways have been recognised in different

parts of the town. Three interviewees talked about the discovery of a hole/tunnel in the main piazza of the town, Piazza Trivio:

In the centre of Somma Vesuviana, I remember, 20 years ago, they found a

hole. There, they could see more or less how deep it was (Interviewee G).

Interviewee H: ‘‘Once, I remember, when they started the first develop-

ment work in Somma Vesuviana, they began to make the piazza, near the

street Via Aldo Moro. They began to dig. And, digging and digging, atunnel came out. I remember it. I was going to a junior high school then.

A tunnel came out.… Here, we’re talking about the 1970s, more or less’’.Author: ‘‘Was the tunnel big?’’

Interviewee H: ‘‘Well, it was more or less of the height of a human, like

this –. [indicating size by gesture] … I think the golden coach could

not pass through it. … I don’t know if it was an aqueduct of that per-

iod. But I remember, there was something there’’.

Interviewee I: ‘‘In fact, the piazza, where there is the piazza –’’.Author: ‘‘(Do you mean Piazza) Trivio?’’Interviewee I: ‘‘Piazza Trivio, exactly. When they re-covered the piazza

(after the digging for development work), they needed many truckloads

of soil because there was a tunnel underneath’’.

Development works took place in the piazza in the 1970s, but without

any records it is difficult to verify whether a tunnel or hole was discovered

then, and, even if this was the case, what it looked like.

After Santa Maria del Pozzo and Starza della Regina, local people associ-ate Queen Giovanna’s tunnel most commonly with the Aragonese castle.

Whilst this might be because the castle is one of the most recognised heri-tage sites of Somma Vesuviana, the existence of a well in its premises also

458 AKIRA MATSUDA



seem to make some local people think that there might be something

under the castle, as illustrated by the following statements:

When we were kids, they were saying that there was this –, this tunnel that

connected the Aragonese castle with Starza della Regina. And even more,

when we were little, we saw, there was a well in the Aragonese castle, where

there should be a tunnel, an entrance to the tunnel (Interviewee J).

Regarding Queen Giovanna, it is known that this tunnel linked the Arago-

nese castle with Starza della Regina. It is even known that there is an unex-

plored tunnel underneath the well of the castle (Interviewee K).

Interviewee L said that the legendary tunnel related to numerous under-

ground passageways in the town, and gave an example of a cellar in his

uncle’s house, which he said was connected to a church in the historic cen-tre of Casamale with a tunnel.

My uncle has a house in Casamale. Under it, there is a tunnel that goes

directly to the church, well, that church, the church called San Pietro. In the

cellar, down in his house, there is a hole that is walled up. In the past, they

were saying that several mansions were directly connected with the church.

Well, this is true, as I can testify it (Interviewee L).

Another man spoke of subsidence that occurred in the high street about a

decade ago.

In the middle of (the street) Via Aldo Moro, once the street fell down.

Policemen and other technicians went under the street and moved along a

lot. They walked for a long time. Then they returned, as they became afraid

of walking. Because there was – a tunnel that continues all along. … This

happened in 1994, 199 –, 10 years ago, 12 years ago (Interviewee I).

The numerous accounts of subterranean holes and passageways in Somma

Vesuviana suggests that local people have good reason to believe that there

is something underneath their town. This belief is presumably strengthened

by the memory of numerous eruptions of Mt Vesuvius that have affectedSomma Vesuviana over the centuries: repeatedly covered by eruptive mate-

rials, the town may well hide something underneath.

Why Did the Villa of Augustus Come to be Associated withQueen Giovanna’s Tunnel?

Given the various historical facts and conjectures relating to the legend of

Queen Giovanna’s tunnel, it is not surprising that many people in Somma




Vesuviana still talk about, and some even believe in, the legend. This gives

a clue as to why some visitors to the excavation of the Villa of Augustuswere curious to know whether Queen Giovanna’s tunnel had been discov-

ered. Seeing the Villa emerging, those visitors were reminded of the legend:

because the tunnel might exist somewhere in the town. Indeed, there wereseveral factors that could specifically associate the excavation with the leg-

end: the depth of the excavation, the age and mysteriousness of the Villa

of Augustus, its vicinity to Starza della Regina, and the collective memory

of the first excavation in the 1930s––which meant something in the groundhad already been seen in the past.

Interviewee M mentioned that the tunnel directly connected with theVilla of Augustus.

When I was little, you know, they were saying that –, that there was this tun-

nel, the tunnel that connected the Villa of Augustus, this one here, with the

church, with the church of Santa Maria del Pozzo, and also, with the Arago-

nese castle, that one up there (Interviewee M).

Since the Villa of Augustus had not been recognised until the 1930s, this

version of the legend must have emerged in or after that period. Presum-

ably, those who saw or heard about the Villa then associated it with thelegendary tunnel, which resulted in a further transformation of the legend,generating a new version.

A marriage between knowledge of the legend and knowledge of the Villa

was also observed at the present-day excavation. Interviewee B made thefollowing statement during his visit to the excavation:

Interviewee B: ‘‘Now, obviously it can be hoped that the tunnel is con-nected with this’’.

Author: ‘‘This site (of the Villa of Augustus)?’’Interviewee B: ‘‘Yeah’’.

It should be noted that he associated the Villa with the legendary tunnelin a contingent manner; not entirely certain of the tunnel’s connection

with the Villa, he only hinted at its possibility on the basis of what he saw at the excavation. His words ‘‘it can be hoped (si puo sperare)’’ are also of

interest as they indicate that he found a positive meaning in linking the

Villa to the imaginary tunnel; this implies that the legend was relevant to

him.

Given these points, it can be argued that for those local people whobelieve that the tunnel might exist, the legend is alive today. They thus can

potentially adapt the legend to new historical realities observed in thetown––this is presumably what happened when local people wondered

460 AKIRA MATSUDA



whether the legendary tunnel had been found in the excavation of the

Villa; they essentially created a new version of the legend by associating itwith the Villa.

How Did We Respond to Local People Asking Whetherthe Tunnel Had Been Discovered in the Excavation?

On discovering that a number of local people associated the Villa with thelegend, most of the excavation team (i.e. we) were initially intrigued and

interested. However, as they kept asking if the tunnel had been found inthe excavation, we came to realise that we could not remain merely inter-

ested in that phenomenon, but needed to make a judgement as to how torespond to those who interpreted the Villa with reference to the living leg-

end––they were expecting us, the archaeologists, to give some explanation

as to the relationship between the Villa and the tunnel.It was clear that relating the Villa to the legend was archaeologically

incorrect. Given the thousands of years that separated the Villa from the

four queens Giovanna, the tunnel, even if it existed, could not connect to

the Villa. Judging from the stratigraphy of the excavation, it was obviousthat no tunnel would ever be found in or near the excavation area. Topo-

graphically, the Villa was not located on any of the lines connecting thethree sites most commonly associated with the legend. Finally and most

importantly, the legend was epistemologically incompatible with archaeo-

logical thinking because it was not structured along the concept of linear

chronology, to which the study of archaeology strictly adheres.

The question for us was whether we should explain these points to localpeople––and if we were to, how we would do it. To consider this, several

issues entered into the discussion. Firstly, we confirmed that various

(hi)stories of Somma Vesuviana were amalgamated into the legend. Sec-ondly, we agreed that the legend was not a so-called ‘‘indigenous belief’’ in

that the people narrating it were not self-identified as ethnically distinctive,

and we also established that those who believed the legend had not been

marginalised by the so-called socially dominant. Finally, we reflected onour professional duty to communicate to local people accurate information

from an archaeological point of view. When considering these points, we

felt that there was no need to defend the legend for socio-political reasons,and that we should rather fulfil our responsibilities as archaeologists by

correcting its inaccurate elements.However, we were also aware that the legend did not, and would not,

harm anyone, and it could in fact be regarded as a legitimate way of inter-

preting the Villa. Besides this was the consideration that the imposition of

the archaeological interpretation of the Villa upon local people might result




in the eradication of the legend, which had existed in Somma Vesuviana

for several centuries. Further, we reflected on the fact that we were inter-vening in local people’s places and lives through our excavation. The key

element in this reflection was that most of us were foreigners––Japanese––

and as such the ‘‘least local’’ of people (Matsuda forthcoming). When con-sidering these points, we felt that we should not deny or detract from the

special meaning that local people recognised in the legend, but preserve it

in one way or another.

Having thus thought through this series of considerations, we finally decided on a strategy that consisted of two elements. First, we issued a

statement that it was unlikely that a tunnel existed in the area we wereexcavating, and explained why we thought so. Second, we presented the

findings of the research I had carried out on the legend to visitors to theexcavation during the Open Days. The text used for this presentation was

as follows:

While we have been working on the excavation, many local people have

asked us whether we have found Queen Giovanna’s tunnel and her golden

coach. The answer, unfortunately, is ‘no’; we have not found, at least to date,

any trace of such a tunnel. In fact, the architectural complex we are bringing

to light is that of the Roman imperial period (from the first to fifth century AD), in other words about 1,000 years before Queen Giovanna was alive!

However, we cannot say for certain that the tunnel did not exist. Given the

lack of relevant clues, the tunnel is unlikely to exist in the land where we are

excavating or in its surrounding areas. Further, we think it is very unlikely

that such a tunnel, big enough to contain a coach, exists in this excavation

site. However, a legend that has been passed down through the words of

local people is often originally based on a real historical fact, which has been

transformed and changed over the centuries.

Since we, as archaeologists, have the responsibility to provide scientific infor-

mation, and as we want to neither impose our own point of view nor destroy local tradition and oral heritage, we have collected information on this leg-

end through interviews. Here are some of the most interesting results.

(Summary of the interviews shown above were presented here)

Considering these results, we now think that the legend was created on the

basis of historical facts relating to Queen Giovanna and then gradually mixed

with other types of information, both real and imaginary, which have

resulted in different versions, including those in which the tunnel connected

with the Villa of Augustus.

Although we believe that the Villa is unrelated to Queen Giovanna’s tunnel

from an archaeological point of view, the tunnel exists, at least, in yourmemories.

This text was not based on a ‘‘good-or-bad’’ judgement of the legend; itpresented two different ways of interpreting the Villa, one with reference

462 AKIRA MATSUDA



to the legend and the other from an archaeological point of view, treating

both as equally meaningful. However, the text made explicit what we asarchaeologists believed, based on what we had found. Thus, we went

beyond the position in which we only listened to local people, and spoke

our own interpretation of the Villa. This implies that we did not assumeour authority to decide the correct interpretation of the Villa, but ‘‘argued

for’’ it (Hodder 1998:217), following the logic and methodology of archae-

ology.

ConclusionThe legend of Queen Giovanna’s tunnel is likely to have transformed overthe centuries as various elements of fact and fiction regarding the history

of Somma Vesuviana have been blended into it. A number of local people

still regard the legend as relevant to themselves, and this explains why some visitors to the excavation of the Villa of Augustus appropriated it for

an interpretation of the site.

Despite its appeal as folklore that has locally existed for a long time, the

legend is fundamentally incompatible with archaeological thinking in sev-eral aspects, and we therefore needed to consider carefully how to respond

to local people who asked whether the tunnel had been found in the exca-vation of the Villa. The conclusion we reached was that we, as archaeolo-

gists, should not surrender our adherence to the principles of archaeology,

even in embracing the multivocality of material remains. We thus treated

the two different ways of interpretation of the Villa, one based on the logic

and methodology of archaeology and the other on the legend, as equally meaningful, but at the same time stressed what was deemed correct from

an archaeological point of view.

I would certainly not claim that our solution was perfect; it could beargued, for example, that we altered the essence of the legend by analysing

and explaining it in written language, whereas it should have been sponta-

neously and orally transmitted by local people themselves. Neither would I

claim that the same solution would work in other cases. In different con-texts, in particular where native indigenous peoples are concerned, archae-

ologists might have to be less insistent on their way of interpreting

material remains. Conversely, in other contexts archaeologists might haveto argue for their ‘‘scientific’’ interpretation more strongly. However,

through the case study we came to realise two types of responsibility thatpublic archaeologists ought to bear in mind in any social context: theresponsibility for being sensitive to the customs and tradition of the local-

ity where they work; and the responsibility for providing accurate informa-

tion according to the generally accepted principles of archaeology.




Returning to the question raised in the introduction, I wish to argue that

archaeologists would indeed need to accept ‘‘archaeologically incorrect’’interpretations of material remains in certain social contexts. However, this

does not necessarily mean that archaeologists need to agree with them or

that they should not present, at the same time, ‘‘archaeologically correct’’interpretations. Listening to different voices of the public is important and

should be encouraged. But listening alone does not constitute a dialogue,

and public archaeologists also need to speak out, of course sensibly, if

archaeology is to have any relevance in the contemporary world.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues at the excavation of the Villa of

Augustus, in particular Masanori Aoyagi, the director of the excavation,

and Girolamo F. De Simone, for helping me with the research on the leg-end. I am grateful to Jenny Moore and Tim Schadla-Hall for kindly proof-

reading my English. I also appreciate the useful comments received from

the two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

1. Data collected from thirteen interviewees (A, B, C … L and M) are examined

in this paper. Interviewees A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J and L were men, and In-

terviewees D, K and M were women.

2. The translation of the Italian and Neapolitan was done by the author.

References Cited

Abate, F.

1864. Studi sull’acquedotto Claudio e Progetto per fornire d’acqua potabile la citta

di Napoli. Stamperia del Giornale di Napoli, Naples.

Angrisani, A.

1928. Brevi notizie storiche e demografiche intorno alla citta di Somma Vesuviana:

Con la bibliografia, cronologia, documenti, tavole geografiche, ed illustrazioni.

G. Barca, Naples.

1936. Somma: le origini e le antichita classiche di Somma. In La Villa Augustea

in Somma Vesuviana, edited by M. Angrisani, pp. 31–40. Nicola Nappa,

Aversa.

464 AKIRA MATSUDA



Aoyagi, M., C. Angelelli, and S. Matsuyama

2006. Nuovi scavi nella ‘‘Villa di Augusto’’ a Somma Vesuviana (NA): cam-

pagne 2002–2004. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia:

Rendiconti 78:75–109.

Aoyagi, M., T. Mukai, and C. Sugiyama

2007. Ceramique de l’antiquite tardive d’un site romain de Somma Vesuviana,

Italie. In LRCW 2 Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares, Amphorae in

the Mediterranean: Archaeology, Archaeometry Volume I , edited by M.

Bonifay and J.-C. Treglia, pp. 439–450. Archeopress, Oxford.

Cartography of Province of Naples (Cartografia della Provincia di Napoli).

n.d. Topographic Map (Scale 1:2000).

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C.

2006. Dreams at the Edge of the World and Other Evocations of O’odham

History. Archaeologies 2(1):20–44.

Coppola, E.

2006. Santa Maria del Pozzo: storia, architettura, arte, letteratura, miti e leggende.

Tipografia Felice Alaia, Somma Vesuviana.

D’Avino, R.

1979. La reale villa di Augusto in Somma Vesuviana. Anarcord, Naples.

1991. Somma Vesuviana: la storia nei suoi monumenti. In Saluti da Somma

Vesuviana: ‘‘Somma ieri’’ attraverso la cartoline postali delle collezioni di

Raffaele D’Avino e Bruno Masulli, edited by R. D’Avino and B. Masulli,

pp. 9–207. Marigliano, Anselmi.

1993. L’acquedotto Augusteo Campano e i pozzo-spiraglio nel territorio di

Somma. Summana 29:2–6.

1995. Villa romana rustica a S. Maria del Pozzo. Summana 34:2–4.

Della Corte, M.

1932. Somma Vesuviana: Ruderi Romani. In: Atti della Reale Accademia Nazio-nale dei Lincei: Notizie degli scavi di Antiquita , series VI, vol. VIII,

pp. 309–310. Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome.

1936 [1933]. Dove morı Augusto? In: La Villa Augustea in Somma Vesuviana,

edited by M. Angrisani, pp. 17–27. Nicola Nappa, Aversa.

De Simone, A.

2009. Ricerche e scavi a Somma Vesuviana. In Apolline Project Vol. 1: Studies on

Vesuvius’ North Slope and the Bay of Naples, edited by G. F. De Simone

and R. T. Macfarlane, pp. 157–171. Suor Orsola Benincasa, Naples.

Gazin-Schwartz, A., and C. Holtorf

1999. As Long As Ever I’ve Known it…!: On Folklore and Archaeology. In Folk-

lore Archaeology , edited by A. Gazin-Schwartz and C. Holtorf, pp. 3–25.

Routledge, London.




Greco, C.

1974. Fasti di Somma: Storia, Leggende e Versi. Delfino, Naples.

Hodder, I.

1998. Whose Rationality? A Response to Fekri Hassan. Antiquity 72:213–217.

Holtorf, C. J.

2005a. Beyond Crusades: How (Not) to Engage with Alternative Archaeologies.

World Archaeology 37(4):544–551.

2005b. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture. Altamira

Press, Walnut Creek.

Kaneko, T., S. Nakada, M. Yoshimoto, T. Fujii, A. Yasuda, M. Yoneda, and

M. Aoyagi

2005. Determination of burial age of the ‘‘Augustus’ villa’’ (Italy). Geochemical

Journal 39:573–578.

Layton, R.

1999. Folklore and World View. In Archaeology and Folklore, edited by A. Gazin-

Schwartz and C. Holtorf, pp. 26–34. Routledge, London and New York.

Matsuda, A.

forthcoming. Archaeology by the (Far) East in the West: What Do Local People

Think If Japanese Archaeologists Excavate the ‘‘Villa of Augustus’’

in Italy? In New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology , edited by

K. Okamura and A. Matsuda. Springer, New York.

Merriman, N.

1999. Introduction. In Making Early History in Museums, edited by N. Merri-

man, pp. 1–11. Leicester University Press, London and New York.

2004. Introduction: Diversity and Dissonance in Public Archaeology. In Public

Archaeology , edited by N. Merriman, pp. 1–17. Routledge, London.

Officio Topografico del Regno di Napoli.

1836–1840. A Map of Surrounding Areas of Naples (Scale 1:2000).Pokotylo, D., and G. Brass

1997. Interpreting Cultural Resources: Hatzic Site. In Presenting Archaeology to

the Public: Digging for Truths, edited by J. H. Jameson Jr., pp. 156–165.

Altamira, Walnut Creek, London and New Delhi.

Schadla-Hall, T.

2004. The Comforts of Unreason: The Importance and Relevance of Alternative

Archaeology. In Public Archaeology , edited by N. Merriman, pp. 255–271.

Routledge, London.

466 AKIRA MATSUDA



Talalay, L. E.

2004. The Past as Commodity: Archaeological Images in Modern Advertise-

ment. Public Archaeology 3(4):205–216.

Trigger, B. G.

1995. Romanticism, Nationalism, and Archaeology. In Politics Nationalism the

Practice of Archaeology , edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, pp. 263–279.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


When a Local Legend is (Mis)Appropriated in the Interpretation of an Archaeological Site

Documents

Transcript of When a Local Legend is (Mis)Appropriated in the Interpretation of an Archaeological Site