Maladict

Antalya?

Indeed, just doing our bit in the cycle

I guess nymphaea are tricky things in archaeology. It's all too easy to classify a highly decorated room with some plumbing but without a clear purpose as a nymphaeum, and it's only quite rarely that there is convincing proof. That said, nymphaea were common in late Roman domus and especially villae, as they were in earlier times. I haven't noticed a particular emphasis in the later period.

A rather extreme example from Rome, S. Lucia in Selcis. The church of S. Lucia in Selcis was originally a late antique domus, constructed in the 4th century. Recent research has established its appearance before its conversion in the seventh century. Limitations on the available space meant that the parts of the complex that were deemed essential (large peristyle court, a possible nymphaeum and the aula which became the church) were ordered awkwardly in relation to each other. The large apsidal aula opens onto a narrow alley, and was not directly connected to the other parts of the complex. Apparently it was more important to build the more monumental parts of the complex in as grand a fashion as possible, than to have them relate to each other in a harmonious fashion.

Interesting. I've noticed that the later Roman domus tended to emphasize the most important rooms (aula, courtyard) at almost any cost. The connections between the various areas are given much thought as well, but the less important rooms seem to be placed wherever they fit. Some of this can alreay be seen in the Ostian example, although it seems perfectly Vitruvian when compared to 4th-5th century domus.

Can you provide a few examples? I know this change is very apparent from the later third century onwards, but not so much during the second. Then again, I don't know that much of the early period.

It looks like teenagers in an alternate Trek universe. Don't think I want to subject myself to that, much less pay for it.

No licenses required, and no rules save in case of wall paintings and other sensitive materials.

Even when the museum doesn't allow photography? In the case of travelling exhibits, as the Hatshepsut exhibit at NYC's Met about three years ago, I think the Met would be hard-pressed to prove I'd taken the pictures in their museum. I also don't know of any precedent having been set by a museum (especially the Met) of suing a visitor for taking a couple of pics on the sly. Especially if the non-flash pictures were harmless to the exhibit. What sort of "damages" could the museum prove? The most they could do, is throw me out for breaking their rules, as one museum did to Maty. And, as a publicly funded museum, I'd like to see them try it. I think the Met (and other publicly funded institutions) would be asking for more trouble than it's worth, if I and other taxpayers should decide to make a class action issue of such policies. Anybody who receives public funding -- our money -- is, ultimately, answerable to the taxpayers. -- Nephele I don't see anything like that happen either, but it was more of a theoretical question. Do you own full rights to a picture that was taken when it was specifically forbidden to do so? I'm guessing if you were make a book out of your pictures and publish it, you would get sued, and rightly so.

Even when the museum doesn't allow photography?

What about Great Invasions? It has it's flaws, but it is original.

Are you talking EU3 here? That's the only one that is similar to Rome, all the others (the Eu2-generation games) are quite different. CK is a role-playing game, HoI a wargame, Victoria a highly complex socio-economic simulator and then there's EU2 which I suppose is the base template but still very different from the others, as well as different from EU3 and Rome. That said, Rome has turned out to be a flop, and I'm glad I withstood the temptation of finally getting my hands on a Roman Paradox game.

I'm not sure that will work with the kind of crowd the Colosseum attracts. Judging by first impressions, they don't seem to be literate.

I believe Egyptian decorative plaster as used on statues is gypsum-based and contains very low (if any) amounts of carbonates. The story reeks of shameless opportunism, as the statue is about to be moved to its new location. Oddly enough the tabloids don't seem to be interested in it.

It's next to impossible to prevent that kind of vandalism, unless you take the Stonehenge approach, which I don't think Rome can afford.

You forgot the Norwegian factor.

Kosmo, this is the bit where you post the next picture.

Pretty feeble stuff for 25 years of research

Correct!

Well if it's cryptic you're after... The poet in question does indeed write about the region, though lamentably not about the property pictured.

No matter, because that's where the hints come in. The towers of the gate are named after a Roman poet who was born in the region, if not in the town.

It's alive! Is it the villa of the Quintilii on the via Appia?

Interesting. It seems to have been a matter of personal preference then.

I don't think the rules were set in stone, as it were, much like Latin spelling in general. Variations are known in every period, on both official and private texts. That said I've never seen that 32 variation, but I like it. Slightly off-topic, I noticed on that first link (the UNRV roman numerals) lists IV instead of IIII. Perhaps this should be changed, or is there a reason to keep the 'classical' numerals instead of those that were actually used in Roman times?