Klingan

I will add comments as I have time Oh another thing about visiting Pompeii and Herculaneum. Be there before the tourist groups if possible. And unless you are, do not listen too seriously to the guides, I heard some truly terrifying things while being there.

I'm interested in your opinion on that, too. Also, Klingan, did you get to Ostia in your travels? -- Nephele I missed Ostia this time but it should really be worth it. Comparing Pompeii and Herculaneum is really tricky. Pompeii have the mass to give it the feel of a city, Herculaneum doesn't since so little is excavated. On the other hand Herculaneum is no doubt in many ways better preserved, especially the wooden and other organic objects. I wouldn't miss any of the cities for anything in the world. However if I somehow had to pick, I think I'd go for Pompeii. (Please do understand that I dearly hope that I never will have to pick like that - It's very unfair to say that one of the sites are better then the other) Anyway I have now resized and uploaded about 40 pictures, you may find them here.

It is always very difficult to translate a very short Latin phrase.

This seems very "optimistic" to me... As in many cases of bible archeology, lots of assumption, few facts.

Too bad they had to be disturbed by a helicopter. (At least I suppose that is what the aircraft was)

Well I have now returned from my trip to Naples where I was visiting Pompeii and Herculaneum. During the 4 days I spent at those sites I took well over 1300 photos so I can't upload them all and I'm far to tried by the trip to write everything down at the moment, so I thought that I would give everyone a chance to ask for if there's anything in particular they wonder or any place they want a picture of. Here's a taste of it! My apologies for that the pictures ridiculous size. I'm just too tired to start resizing tonight.

I don't think we should confuse ancient filtering with modern since our filters. It's really not comparable and I'm almost certain that no ancient filter could stop algae. I would also like to take a look at the Latin version of the text and not a translation, I have had far too much trouble with translations before. Anyway we know that some kind of filters existed, there are marks left of two at Pompeiis castellum. However those are lost today, presumably due to metal hunters. About mud, the main element to lose the mud was settling pools, not filter. It's a very interesting quote though

Wow... This is what I would call an unexpected theory... Welcome to UNRV

Well from all the bathhouses I have been looking at they tried to keep the water flowing. The baths at Pompeii have exits in all the pools and there were a number of different ways to place those outlets. Archaeologists have also noticed that only one single plug have been found to shut the water flow. It was made of lead and found in the Stabian baths. However that no more have been found is, in my opinion, probably an effect of the material of choice. If I were a roman bath owner I wouldn't get a new lead plug each time on disappeared when I can make on out of wood myself in no time... Then imagine how good the chances of fining such a item would be. Anyway normally when connected to an aqueduct system plugs wouldn't be needed very much. A bath doesn't require as much water as most people imagine, once it's filled once. There are also evidence of re-use of the hot water. Then again, a great deal of cities (London as an example) never had any aqueduct. The problem really starts when you're not connected to an aqueduct system since the value on water now is much higher. We know of a few baths which depended on rainwater only (There are one such bath at Sicily, I cannot find the exact place right now. (I'm quite sure Hodge or Jansen writes abuot it in "Handbook of ancient water technology") since the normal quantity of rain per year is no more the 1000 mm. That means that in real life you need to have as much rain catching area as you ahve one meter deeps pools. That won't give you much room for changing water.

That would depend on what bathhouse but in general at least to a point almost all rooms had so be exposed to sunlight. It's very expensive to keep a room with sufficient artificial light all the time. Here are some pictures from the Stabian baths in Pompeii: And here is one from the roman bath at Bath, England: Now that would never have happened at the place during roman times because of natural circumstances, but one thing is sure, roman baths were not immune to algae. It's also important to remember that there also were the Natatio that normally wasn't covered due to it's size. I have done tests on how algae reacts on lead but it have so far been fruitless maybe mostly beacuse of poor conditions. I'm right no awaiting midsummer for more sun.

My conclusion of the baths were that they certainly wasn't clean as we think of baths today. Since people who were ill were recommended by some doctors to take baths (public for the overwhelming majority of the population), people who had worked out bathed at the same place it can't have been too healthy. Also imagine how much algae there must have been at the baths that didn't have a huge water supply. (Think about the Stabian baths in Pompeii that for a very long time only had a well with a paternoster system. On the other hand was it probably healthier then never taking a bath.

I'm from Canada and can't read Swedish, unfortunately. But I'd be very interested if you were willing to summarize it! I did my own paper on the baths as a Romanizing agent in Judaea at the time of Herod the Great. I am still but an undergrad in many subject areas of Rome and I have to admit that I was quite betaken by the significant exchanges of ideas and technology that passed between the Herodians and the Augustan circle and very significantly in the direct importation of Roman baths. If you're willing to wait a little, I may bet time to translate at least a part of it after June 13th when my semester is over. Unless some other project catch me

Most finds of this type ends up being disappointing. Mostly it's some early 20th, late 19th century agriculture machine piece.

You should report this to the local authorities, not trying to identify it. You just ruined an archaeological find (assuming that it's ancient) by removing it from it's context.

The question then is, how many death penalties were executed? I cannot claim that I know of even a single one. However it's unlikely that we would have records of them from all over the empire. There's only one thing sure. The priced continued to rise and people continued to accept that and adapt not minding any death penalty. Logically it cannot be too many then, people usually try to avoid death. As a result the empires economy were further and further pushed into an in nature economy.

I'll read that article later! Do we know why new praenomina didn't developed? Again back to my Etruscan trail. Do you believe that there might be a connection? They names doesn't sound the same but it's a (at least from my point a view) reasonably similar way of naming. (Very common first names (Shorted in inscriptions), family names and sometimes branch names.) It's also interesting to notice that the Etruscans once had many praenomen but lost most of then rather quickly. Could something similar happened in Rome? Possibly during the royal period.

Yeah I know how it works that far Thanks anyway What I'm interested in primarily is why the first name declined in importance as the third names importance (at least in a great deal of cases) grew. I know that the Etruscans also had very few first names to move around with (10-15 ish) and I would guess that there must have been influence in some direction. What's interesting is that they had the same way of just writing one or two letters for the first name as the romans too. I could guess that the first name declined because of the lack of preanomena, but that I fell that it cannot serve as a full explanation, it's more of an effect. It would have been as easy to make up new first names and cognomen. But then again even as the Etruscans influenced the romans at some levels their language was not (from what i know) one of those fields. I would very much like to hear the long explanation if you have a link or the time to write a short summary!

Since you know names Nephele, do you know why the Roman name developed into what it became?

Well something must have changed since the first name now is much more important then the second, in contrast to the ancient roman world where the first name was rather worthless and the second well used.

That's correct, Spittle: #116 Patrick and #442 Patricia: derived from the cognomen Patricius, meaning "patrician, noble". I have suspected that for some time (Since my name is Patrik people have from time to time asked me about it). It's good to have it confirmed.

May I ask where you are from? If you are interested (And can read Swedish) I wrote and essay on Roman baths from a technological point of view which was very fruitful. It's published at Xerxes (Lund).

Good point Maty! Also remember the depressing and demoralizing effect on the population when someone build a wall from the sea to the sea... It's a clear statement to all inhabitants of the area: We are here. We can build a wall from one side of the country to the other. Don't even think about it...

Well how many festivals they celebrated per year depends very much on when. Anyway how does we know how often a gladiator fought? About the contractors, they just slipped my mind. Those had a set time of service, but I would guess that it would be a deal between them and the school, no universal rule.

Welcome Dyna I'm quite sure that you'll learn a lot if you hang around here Klingan

I have heard a number of different numbers (years of "service") before too, I remember 3, 6 and 7 right now. I would really like to know where they get it from. It must be a written source, can't be too many of them mentioning this so I would guess that someone found a letter mentioning that a gladiator was freed after X years and drew a general conclusion. Very scary.