phil25

PP, I have suggested in another thread (or earlier in this one??) that the promiscuity story might be part of a cover-up by the Augustan regime. A conspiracy to them might have been more damaging than sexual intrigue. But I'm afraid I don't really wear all this Julio-Claudian sexual stuff - the times were one's when real politics was nasty enough. For the reasons I cited, I doubt that multiple sexual lovers was really a practical possibility. As for Tiberius, as I said, I think he would have dealt with infidelity discretely and quickly - political intrigue might have been more difficult and damaging. On Vipsania, it is not often noted that as Agrippa's daughter by his first wife, she had a very complex relationship with Julia - her step-mother and second wife to her first husband. She and julia must have known each other well, if only from meeting in Agrippa's house during his lifetime. One wonders what their relationship was? Phil

There was, as I recall, a theory in the 1930s or before, that Stonehenge was built (or at least inspired and designed by) Mycenaean visitors. this was based on finding cup and dagger markings on the stones that seemed similar to those found in the Mycenaean world. I even have a fantasy novel based on the idea - and it was certainly told to me by my classics master at school in the Uk in the mid-60s. Perhaps the writer had picked up that idea. The chronology quoted (I have NOT read the link) seems VERY confused. Is it possible the whole things is a horrible direct/literal translation from a foreign language? It's not usual, is it, in the English speaking world, to talk of "Roman kings" - except for the first seven up to 509BC? Certainly Roman kings here seems to be a substitution for Roman emperors. Phil

I'm not sure I agree, Caldrail. Having affairs is one thing, being promiscuous for an aristocrat quite another. Privacy, as we know it was practically unknown until the C20th. Rooms in houses interconnected, and Roman bedrooms (cubicula) seldom had doors - curtains were more the norm. Also slaves, in noble households, would have been ever-present - a body servant often slept outside the doorway. All of which means that sleeping around would not have been very secret or unknown. In the political climate of Rome, the daughter of the princeps' acting in such a way would have attracted immediate attention and almost certainly would have been reported. there was political capital in it - even Augustus' allies would have seen it as an opportunity to get at the men involved (political rivals). Given Livia's strict domesticity, I am sure that the situation would have been even more stark. I certainly rule out all the stuff about fornication on the rostra etc - very uncomfortable and far too public and dangerous. I am quite happy to believe that Julia had a few affairs, and as i have said am pretty sure she was involved in one (and a conspiracy) with young Antonius. Disliking her political machinations would in my view have been a far greater motive for tiberius to seek exile in Rhodes than the infidelity and promiscuity of his wife. Unfaithfulness he could have dealt with easily - and I doubt he would have wanted to bring disgrace to Augustus - so would have dealt with that by staying in Rome. Why do I doubt the written evidence? Because it is impractical and also because I find the similarity of the story about Julia Minor too implausible. Maybe stories about Messaline are being thrown back a generation (even if those are true). It is interesting that there is apparently no scandal attached to julia during her marriages either to Marcellus or the much older Agrippa. Her marriage to Tiberius would not have been a love match, but I don't see him as a man to let his wife wander sexually - he was too dignified and traditional. But political chicanery might have been less evident. And the evidence certainly implies that was involved. Look at sexual scandals in our own day - Profumo in the UK; Kennedy or Clinton in the US. Almost always the sexual peccadillos are on a small scale, but the scandal is great because of the political fall-out. The sins are made to look large and awful by rivals. I think Rome was similar. Phil

Excellent post, Caldrail, I think I understand you now. And I think this is the BEST short description of Augustus I have EVER read: Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure. I don't know whether he set out to "rule" the Roman world, but I think he soon discovered that, with his knew name of Caesar, that was a distinct career option!! Incidentally, have you ever been to the House of Livia, on the Palatine? It sums up all you say - modest (though with a distinct sense of taste and style) compared to some of the grand houses of Pompeii, you see that the imperial family lived without being over-grand. Even the set of BBC's "I CLAVDIVS" was too large and stylish. Whether he actually lived in that house or the one next door is not, I think, clear. But they must have been very similar. Thanks for responding, Phil

Early burials have been found in the Forum area before now. Given that the early settlements are supposed to have been on the Palatine and Capitoline hills, the marshy valley would have been a sensible place to inter the dead of the communities. It the Roman custom of burial outside the walls goes back that far, then the area of the Forum Romanum would have provided that, until itself enclosed by the Servian Wall. But that might still have given a period of several centuries for interments. The Forum Romanum is a palimpsest of ancient levels - the area of the Lapis Niger near the Curia is an example - with archaic language used to 9apparently) record some even then ancient taboo - assuming the stone is read aright. There is also a dwelling (it was once called a brothel) near the temple of Antoninus and Faustina. And the Cloaca Maxima - the main sewer of the area - runs nearby. The Regia, the triangular religious structure, stands close by, and is among the sites in Rome that go back furthest - probably because the site was sacred even in early times. Interesting report that adds to our knowledge. Phil

For clarification, I wasn't getting at the Vatican or their archaeologists in my comment - on my first reading of the report, I had not picked up that the excavations were on church property - just that they were in Rome. It is entirely right that the Vatican has responsibility in this case. Phil

I bought the book on Saturday -

Several things strike me. First - I wonder what environmental conditions the bodies were found in/ Above all, where material - presumably wool or linen has been preserved. Second - whether the way the "togas" are draped will tell us anything about the fashion, the size or shape of the garment? Third - whether the bodies are male or female - or a mixture? If the latter, then some of the garments will not be togae, but stolae presumably? Whether the bodieas are laid out in individual or shared (double?) niches, or in a large room? If these are early in date, but inhumated, and wear togae - the sign of a Roman citizen - then why were they not cremated. Also are the "catacombs" concerned outside or inside the ancient City walls? Wherever they are today, in classical times burial; was not allowed within the pomerium - Trajan being the exception that proved the rule). Finally, why Vatican archaeologists are involved and not state ones? Thanks, Viggen, fascinating stuff. Phil

idahojeri You wrote that there are "...no instances of mystery religions influencing Christianity..." I myself cited some examples of potential similarities in an earlier post. How did the scholars you mention conduct their analysis? On the basis of admittedly limited reading, I would question whether Mithraism was influenced by Christianity, but continue to suggest that the influence was the reverse. Are you sure that the scholars were not influenced by that they wanted to find? Phil

By my calculation, if julia had five different lovers a day, on every day of the year, it would take her more than 43 YEARS to reach a total of 80,000. Was Julia even that age by the time she was exiled? I rest my case. Phil

Isn't one of the Vindolanda tablets, a letter about a soldier's relatives sending him socks and underwear? Phil

I think the whole thing is probably untrue - not least because it is all supposed to have happened a generation later with Julia's daughter (of the same name). Neither do I think there is a scrap of evidence that Roman aristocratic ladies were promiscuous. Given the falling birth-rate, which Augustus legislated on - the risks were too great of an illegitimate offspring being foisted on a noble as an heir. Think about it. Do you honestly think it realistic that Roman husbands were so stupid? I certainly don't. And I don't think it credible that Augustus would allow the only channel through which his blood (and technically that of the divine Caesar) could pass, to prostitute herself with all the risks of off-spring who could claim some right to the throne. Given the lack of heirs, even an illegitimate one might have been able to make something of Julian blood. That Julia may have had an affair with Iullus Antonius (son of the triumvir) I find wholly plausible. That there was a conspiracy, or a planned coup against the Augustan regime, I don't doubt. I suspect Julia was conned into acting by the promise of being regent for her sons; or a "queen" to Antonius' monarch. The death of Iullus is the key, I think. Probably some story about promiscuity was put around as a cover by the regime. They would not want internal divisions to be exposed in case they were then used by others. That Gaius and Lucius remained loyal to their adopted father (and blood grand-father) to me also suggests that they were aware of what their mother had done. I think Rome and Romans, (especially the rulers) despite their earthy humour and undoubted sex drive, were far more serious than these repeated tales of perversion and manic sex would have us believe. When rivals clashed under the republic it was common practice to throw sexual innuendoes out about the other - homosexuality, perversions, sleeping with virgins, bestiality.... None of it was true. Remember caesar and the claims of his relationship with the King of Bithynia? There is no other trace of homosexual tendencies in Caesar's life, but it was a convenient piece of much to hurl at him. Phil

Caldrail, just a few comments on your post: Augustus would have been keen to avoid any accusation of becoming a king... I agree, and I think that a main reason for rejecting thge proposed title of "Romulus" - which had been the name of the first king of Rome. (I must admit I have often wondered whether "Romulus" was anciently a title rather than a name, as the first king also appears to have been called (and deified as) Quirinius.) I notice that he kept a less fancy wardrobe than later emperors too. Where do you draw this comment from? I think he was relatively spartan and keen to wear homespun; but I do not doubt that he also wore triumphal gear when appropriate. Much of the time he would have been entitled to wear the toga praetexta as Consul, anyway. But as there was no precedent (except Caesar the Dictator) to follow, he presumably would simply have followed the approach of previous Principes Senatus. He certainly permitted honours to be shown above the front door of his domus, and was not modest either in his self-written epitaph, or the other public honours he accepted. Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did. Here I would entirely disagree with you. By assuming the honorific "imperator" into his actual name, he clearly did see himself as such. He was also "son of the god" (divi filii). Octavian - the blood-stained, inconstant, ambitious, self-conscious, machiavellian teenager, who appeared in Rome in 44BC, in no way saw himself as an ordinary joe. He was eager to claim the full ame of his adoptive father and use it - he knew its power. It was only Augustus, the victor of Actium, eager to throw off his evil reputation as gangster and murderer, who had sufficient auctoritas and dignitas to practice a sort of inverse snobbery. The less i claim, the more modest i seem, the more i am acclaimed, the more power i have. From first to last, Augustus was the among the most ruthless, ambitious, self-aware, focused and manipulative politicians in history. Less was more with him towards the end, but he was an actor first to last. Two more modern examples. Napoleon I - note how the simple grey redingcote and unadorned black bicorne, with the relatively modest dark green coat of the undress of a mere Colonel of the Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard, made the Emperor stand out against the gold embroidery and swans feathers of his marshals, or the overblown flamboyance of Murat. Similarly, Goering's white Reichsmarschall's outfits, Himmler's black and silver SS uniform, or Ribbentrop's diplomatic gear, were an effective backdrop for the Fuehrer's simple brown party uniform, of the almost anonymous grey jacket and black trousers he war as Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht. Augustus would have been taught no lessons by them. Now, if you want an example of a TRUELY simple man, consider Tiberius... Phil

Some thoughts: The title of "king" (rex) was anathema to Romans after the abolition of the monarchy in 509BC. Dictator was an office under the republic (with none of the modern connotations until Caesar adopted the title for life). Antonius abolished the title of Dictator because of what it had come to mean when used by Caesar. Imperator was a tile assumed by generals after a victory. Technically they were hailed by that name voluntarily by their troops. Most of the leading figures who held military posts (Cicero is perhaps a notable exception) could have said they were an imperator one of more times over. Caesar was a family name, inherited by Octavianus under Julius Caesar's will as the Dictator's heir. He legally became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus. Later adding Divi Filii (son of god) to his titles/name after Caesar's deification. I understand that Octavian used the title Imperator differently to anyone previous to him, and assumed it into his name as Imperator Caesar. After actium, the Senate considered conferring the title/name "Romulus" on him, but Octavian thought bad omens/associations went with that (kingship; legend that Romulus was murdered by senators). He finally elected to be called Augustus - which had religious connotations. After his death and under his will, Augustus' wife, Livia, was granted the title of Augusta, which was held by several other wives of Augusti. But in Augustus' own time, the word was more a personal name or soubriquet than a title, and Augusta is not connate with "empress" (except by implication and in terms of real-politic). By that, I mean that Augusta is not the matching pair to Imperator and (as far as I know) no Roman lady called herself Imperatrix!! Tiberius never adopted the title Augustus, but his successors did. Antonia, Marcus Antonius' daughter and Claudius' mother was made an Augusta by Gaius. She was never wife of an Augustus. From Nero on, no ruler of rome was a Julio Claudian, but rulers continued to take the name Caesar which became a title. Princeps (First man) was a title in use under the republic for the Senator with greatest auctoritas at the time. Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, active around 100 AD, was Princeps Senatus (and I think took it as part of his name). Augustus, after Actium had more auctoritas than anyone else living and the title naturally became his. Personally, I would argue that the period Augustus to Nero forms the principiate, with later rulers better thought of as "emperors", or Augusti. That said, I would argue that Gaius and Nero were attempting to change the hidden monarchy of the principiate (the hiding is what all the names are about - obfuscation of real-politic) into an open autocracy. This was taken further by Domitian, who wanted to be called "Lord and God". After nero, the idea of a famililial siccession, or the idea of hidden monarchy was completely blown. the use of the term "emperor", to me, marks that change in an effective way. The Antonines and their successors all started to include the names Marcus Antoninus into their titles, even if - as with Septimius Severus and his heirs - there was no blood relationship. Later on, of course, we have the titles Augustus and caesar being used for "grades" of ruler, and duplicated with senior and juniour Augusti and Caesares. Just my view, Phil

Thinking further about the intent behind the "Golden House", it occurs to me that we have not given any thought to Roman perceptions of space or intimacy. The domus was preceeded by the Domus Transitoria, which linked Palatine, Velia and the area around what is now the Colosseum. rather impractical for a "dwelling" if you think about it. Even today the distances would take some minutes to walk. Thus different parts of the structure, as with the Domus Aurea, may well have had different uses. If you look at the context, Nero's "palatial" (I would question the term but it serves for the moment) developments are immediately adjacent to the area nowadays referred to as the "imperial fora". What are these? Open structures, linked, with halls and public areas and many colonnades. How could one describe the Golden House? Maybe as an open structures, linked, with halls and public areas and many colonnades? The Forum Romanum, led into the Fora of Caesar and Augustus by the time of nero, and would later link additional to the Fora of Peace, Trajan and Nerva/Domitian (Forum Transitorium). So could we be looking at a neronian conception of an area of public/private space - as in a private domus - where the atrium was pretty public and the inner parts of the house private. there have been several works exploring this concept of gradually increasing intimacy/linked to deeper access into a house, relating to Pompeiian houses. Think about it in terms of Nero's Domus Aurea. The Palatine was already established as a centre of Government, accessible from the Forum, while entertainment was around the lake, with perhaps an associated residence. The colonnades would make access to the Curia in the Forum Romanum easy, especially in wet weather, and the areas between could well have been public. If you look at Domitian's later constructions on the Palatine, we see relatively public areas first - the Basilica and Aula Regia where business would have been transacted. The older palace complex now under the Farnese Gardens dating from the earlier principiate, may have been a bureaucratic centre. There is an elaborate peristyle in front of the cenaculum, but then we find the access more restricted and the rooms smaller. The upper areas of Domitian's palace were also public, I would argue, but perhaps only certain people were admitted. The actual personal quarters for the emperor and his closest associates are on the lower level, around another peristyle. I think that if we knew more about the Domus Aurea we would find similar principles at work and that we would be less concerned about ego and ostentation in the context of personal luxury, and a more sophisticated and (perhaps) novel idea - and sophistication to me goes with Nero's known character - in which an autocratic monarch sought to delineate new patterns of interaction between ruler and subjects. Ideas later taken up by Domitian's architects. I would also ask whether the model of the Domus, in part at least, might not have been the Ptolemaic palace complex at Alexandria, which also seems to have involved similar features and constituted its own "quarter" of the city. Just some thoughts, Phil

ND I think, on balance, that the latter (an innocent but "official" relationship) is more likely than an incestuous one. We know that Roman historians tended to assume that a person's character as determined at the end of their life, was the same (even if hidden) throughout it. Tiberius is the archetype. Thus, with Gaius, it would be easy to take gossip and unsupported supposition at the end of his life and read that back to - Caligula must have slept with his sisters even when they were adolescents. But I am unconvinced by this. Antonia's household would have been an old-style one; Agrippina Major was hardly a complacent mother. She saw her children as a royal family. That is not to say, of course, that the difficult years following Germanicus' death, with Sejanus persecuting the mother and elder sons, might not have driven Gaius and his sisters into a close bond. But that is something different. To me, Gaius is a man seeking to reform the state and introduce a new autocratic model. He was an intelligent and perceptive man, with a quick wit (demonstrated by his sharp and precise humour). I think he would have learned from Caesar the Dictator and Augustus that frightening public opinion with things too alien could have dire consequences. Incest would have been a step too far, but an association with his sisters in a celibate "marriage of state" might have been a future step - this would explain why he was content with a woman of fairly humble origins as a consort. If the princeps had discussed this idea with his close advisers, it would also provide a basis for the later scandalous gossip. A "marriage" to Drusilla might lead to a supposition that children would follow, then to the idea that in fact they had had one and that caused her death. Supposition without evidence, I know. But in my experience, gossip often has some basis in fact, however remote (that's what makes it believeable to others) and often relates to misunderstanding or relies on partial information. I'd love to see a thorough re-examination of Gaius life and reign by an expert, which sought to look at him as a sane (if troubled) young ruler trying out innovative ideas. A novelist who keeps close to facts might also explore the material well. But it is all supposition, I underline that. Just looking at the evidence we have through a different lens. Phil

Unless you are suggesting that the Roman army was occupying Iran at the time, I can't see the logic of your statement. Mithraism was clearly a major force in the army (I have seen the evidence on Hadrian's Wall for myself); in London (the Walbrook temple) and in Rome itself (and places such as Ostia) from the C2nd-3rd onwards. the shrines and sculptures are there to prove it Phil

Frankly, ND, I don't know. I just think I detect a possible coherent pattern that might suggest alternative (sensible) explanations for Gaius' actions. Further than that, I don't think the evidence would allow me to go. But Gaius' grandmother Antonia (Antonius' daughter) could certainly have been brought up with some Egyptian influences, and almost certainly with a pride in the father she never met. Gaius knew Antonia well and lived with her for a time. The possibility of influence is there. As for Ptolemaic models for Gaius' relationship with his sisters - it strikes me as more plausible than the traditional kinky incest interpretation. What do you think? Phil

Re-reading this thread, I realised that two points were never really tackled. First, Gaius did NOT make his horse, Incitatus, consul. There is no record of it, and the whole story is perfectly well explained - as has been said above - as a sarcastic remark. Secondly, the Nemi ships were far from monstrosities. The remains discovered early in the C20th and destroyed in the 1939-45 war, suggest that these were wonderful floating palaces, with mosaics, gilding and heating as well as marble-clad walls. Extravagant and unique they may have been. Monstrous? I doubt it. I have argued elsewhere that Gaius was far from mad, though he may have had personality problems, associated with his very troubled and difficult up-bringing. I see in him a young man, born under the principiate, who had time to think about how monarchy might work, and to observe his great-uncle Tiberius at work. To me, his actions suggest a young man who saw the disguised monarchy of Augustus' creation as a worthless sham. If you were going to have autocracy, why not be open and bold about it. Thus he embarked on a regal style of principiate. This, I argue, was Hellenistuic in style and was based on policies and practices descended from Gaius' paternal great-grandfather, Antonius the tiumvir, who in turn derived them from Ptolemaic Egypt. This involved a semi-divine ruler, greater ostentation and separateness, (perhaps an association or even official incest/marriage with siblings) and a different style of etiguette, quite apart from any detailed differences of policy from the Augustan precedent. Gaius was thus not mad, but far-sighted, foreseeing the way the empire would go in the C2nd. His problem was in being mis-understood - and not only by political rivals in the Senate. Pioneers are often subject to a lack of appreciation or understanding of their aims and motives. But Gaius had grasped that what Rome needed was a firm hand and a single hand on the tiller, that republican forms were moribund and would never return - could never be allowed to return. Gaius needs reassessing. We need to plunge beneath the rather banal scandal of Suetonius and the senatorial bias of Tacitus, to see a genuinely revolutionary and visionary politician doing effective and necessary work. Discuss (as exam paper used to say!! Phil

I think many of the points I would make in answer to the question posed by this thread have already been made. Whatever Jesus' original message, I believe it was perceived in the west and in the Greek world, as a mystery religeon. Indeed, I'd go further, and argue that Paul deliberately cast his preaching in a style that inclined to the mysteries, and thus would appeal to Gentile (initially Greek) minds. Many of the so-called gnostic gospels found in Egypt also posssess this "secret knowledge"/revelation to the initiated student, character. I see the Eleusinian-type mysteries as being often about paradox - the need to die to be reborn (the simile of the wheat which has to die in order to germinate); the need to surrender self to find the true self etc. So that the mystery of the crucifixion and resurrection (with emphasis on the former); jesus meeting with Nicodemus by night, in which he stated the need to be reborn of water and the spirit; are to me examples of this. Mithraism seems to have had a burial rite of initiation, from which the cultist rose reborn. early excisions from Mark's gospel, which make sense of the young man running naked from Gethsemene and perhaps a different interpretation to the raising of Lazarus might suggest something that goes back to Jesus himself; or was interpolated to cater for mystic tastes. The nativity story (only in two gospels and different); the visit of the Magi; the star etc may well also be additions to make the early writings fit better with mystery models. Early Christianity was also quick to seize on pagan festivals and make them Christian - Christmas (25 dec) relates not to the gospels but to the traditional birthdate of Sol Invictus/Mithras. Just some thoughts, not all of which I agree with, but which have been argued. Phil

Rome was constantly plagued by "great fires". In fact, I was going to start a thread trying enumerate them, because, by my reckoning the City must have been continually recovering and rebuilding. There was another serious fire in 68/69 was there not? Some of the rebuiling from 64 can hardly have been complete. But there we are, we differ. Thanks for responding Phil

I seem to recall news features on this on the BBC - if memory serves it was a previously unknown wing of the Domus Aurea that was found, and it included several fescoes/murals which were largely intact. The large painting of a town (not a "map" assuch as I recall) was one of them. I assumed then that it was simply an idealised picture of a city, perhaps a conceit in a residence set in parkland as Nero's Golden House was intended to be. I haven't been to Rome in recent years, and when i did the Domus was always closed to visitors. I gather it is now open (at least at limited times) but whether this is part of the tour I do not know. Don't place to much faith in what I have said, it is all written from memory. Phil

Like Viggen, I am a big fan of Schliemann. I have been to both Troy and Mycenae and paid silent tribute to him there. Ok, the old boy was a showman, ego-centric and a bit of a fraud (it seems) in recording his finds. But then, so were some of the early Egyptologists!! But he was a pioneer, the father of a science, and had to develop techniques and approaches that no one today has to do. And never forget, it was his own money that funded it all. True, he hardly used subtle techniques to excavate, and jumped to over-hasty, romatic conclusions about what he found. But he had vision, and conviction and what he discovered was real enough. He was also honest enough to have puzzled at the end about some of the conclusions he had reached and the supporting evidence; and tragically, he probably almost destroyed what he was looking for!! But to me he ranks only a little lower than Darwin in the pantheon of C19th scientific greatness. As for his faults, he was a man of his time. Would we criticise Shakespeare for not writing good filmscripts? Schliemann blazed trails, excited imaginations, answered questions and opened a whole world. He was no more a distorter than was (say ) Evans at Knossos - whose interpretations and reconstructions may have misled to a far greater degree and with some less justification. But both Schliemenn and Evans did things that attract tourists in hordes and sell books and interest people. I can forgive much when that is the achievement. Phil

I have always thought that Ariainism gained its force 9at the time0 from being closer to the "Christianity" preached by the apostles. One must recall that neither jesus nor his immediate followers saw themselves as operating outwith the Jewish faith. But as it diverted under the influence of Pauline teachings,, we see a particular (gnostic?) approach growing. This does not make Jesus "god" - something he never claimed in the canonical gospels (except in quality) - nor associate him directly with a divine trinity. These appear to have been accretions from Egyptian (Osiris/Isis/Horus) or pagan thought - assimilating gods was a very Roman thing. I have got into trouble here before, for questioning the use of the word "heresy", so I must be careful. But I think here it may distort our understanding. essentially it is a perjorative term used by those who claim to be orthodox (note the word "claim"). It seems to me entirely possible that the antagonism towards Arian was so great and so intense because he actually had a greater claim to legitimacy and a lineal descent from early Christian thought, than they did. He thus had to be silenced for a pagan-influenced, imperial (dare I say Roman) Christianity to arise. But I must make it clear that I am no expert in any of this, so shoot me down if you will. Phil

Interesting about the bulldozers, but I was unclear from the article as to whether they had been used before or during the recent archaeological dig. Who might be responsiible - the construction form not wanting to delay their dam? Fundamentalists not wanting to encourage tourism or against paganism? Simple "treasure-hunters"? Interesting article though. Discovery Channel often have documentaries about French digs - Alexandria is an example - so maybe we'll get something on this at some stage. I recall being impressed by Darius when I read a little about him in my schooldays. Phil