ogden_g_e

=E. Conclusion (150-200 words) Tips]=

In conclusion, Pompeii is a brilliant insight for a historian studying the Roman Empire. With the research that I had carried about on the Cellar of Skeletons, the strength of my sources are their reliability. The documentaries are from the BBC and the Discovery Channel. These mean that they are particularly reliable because they are both well-known intellectual channels which are meant solely to inform their audiences. However, we need to bear in mind the limitations of these sources. I am not able to visit the Cellar of Skeletons myself, so I cannot be completely certain and say, from a personal angle, what I have experienced. Also, this is the only found, preserved cave in the city of Pompeii. It would have been interesting to compare another similar cave with bodies found in and see how their skeletons differ, if a different location may offer different results. In terms of the wall writing, this source is particularly reliable because of the context that it has been available to me in. When researching, the graffiti on the walls is the aspect that historians and archaeologists seem the most fascinated in, meaning that there is a wide range of information available. The limitations to this source however, is that a lot of the writing has been erased over time, due to reconstruction, tourists and harsh weather damaging the walls. We are only able to read a small amount of what was actually written over the walls, which means that we cannot grasp the full extent and evidence it offers us to be able to make a good conclusion of what it tells us about life in the Roman Empire. This study doesn’t really raise any fundamental problems in history apart from the fact that this brilliant insight into past can be interpreted according to the person investigating it. If a historian //wants// to believe something about Ancient Rome he can find enough evidence in Pompeii to turn it to favour his belief. We have sufficient evidence but the limitations are people can judge the evidence differently.