guy

Here's another example of how modern technology (in this case, Google) was used to find an Ancient Roman village near Parma (and about eight miles from my cousin's farm): http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050912/full/news050912-6.html Analysis of a Google map led to the discovery of a Roman villa like this one in Parma, Italy guy also known as gaius

Soon to be released:

Interesting post, Joe. Here are some images of a coin from similar dies: Augustus

Wikipedia defines damnatio memoriae: Caracalla subjected his murdered brother Geta to damnatio memoriae. Geta, however, did not undergo damnatio memoriae by official Senate decree. I heard a Roman expert state that only two Emperors had their memories formally damned by the Senate: Domitian and Aemilian. I've seen a long list of emperors whose memories were formally damned, however: http://ancienthistor...erorsErased.htm

This April, Show Time's gripping series "The Borgias" returns. It's a great series with fantastic Renaissance scenary and historical background. I recommend highly: http://www.sho.com/site/borgias/video.sho?bclid=1336127529001 guy also known as gaius

As most Romanophiles know, Julia Domna was the Syrian wife of the emperor Septimius Severus. Here is a portrait of the Severus family, including the ill-fated sons Caracalla and Geta. Julia Domna's coins are quickly identified by their unique hairstyle. There are several statues of her, some even thought to have a moveable hairpiece. This would be consistent with a hairstyle that required various types of wigs. This is, at least, the traditional viewpoint I had always accepted as dogma. No longer. Recently, however, I found some interesting work by Janet Stephens, who is known as a "Hairdressing Archeologist." This interview gives insight into her background as a hairdresser. She brings an interesting perspective on hairstyles in Ancient Rome. She contends that this hairstyle could have been done with the empress' hair and not a wig. (Note: Here are some important definitions to know to more fully understand the video: A chignon is a roll or knot of hair worn at the back of the head or especially at the nape of the neck. A bodkin a long pinshaped instrument used by women to fasten up the hair.) It is assumed that Julia Domna and other aristocratic women had access to at least one or possibly a team of skilled slave hairstylists, called ornatrices, to create their intricate hairstyles. The detachable wigs on statues of Julia Domna may have been used to update the statues. It is possible, therefore, that these intricate hairstyles were created using only the empress's natural hair, and not wigs as previously believed. I found this interesting quote from an article by Elizabeth Bartman "Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment": (PDF) Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adornment (researchgate.net) Now, I have to consider this different perspective.

I am not sure your coin is a radiate (spikey crown) seated image. (The DIVVS AVGUSTVS side seems to be a radiate bust, however.) Here's a very similar coin: DIVUS AUGUSTUS. Struck under Caligula, 37-41 AD. Dupondius (16.80gm). Radiate head of Divus Augustus left / Caligula(?), laureate and togate, seated left on curule chair, holding branch in right hand. RIC I 56(Gaius); BMCRE 88 (Caligula); Cohen 87. Good VF, glossy olive green and brown patina (Image from Wildwinds.com) I guess it comes down to two things: Whether the seated image is, in fact, Caligula and whether the seated image on your example is a radiate head. Your post is very thought provoking. guy also known as gaius

I agree the show isn't perfect in its depiction of the courtroom scenes of late 1700s. (For example, from the criticisms I've read, English judges have never had gavels

Wow. I didn't see this post until right before bedtime, so I will only give a quick impression with my exhausted eyes for now. First, let me say that you have some great coins and images on your flicker account. Second, I would like to see both sides of the coin before commenting. Could this just be the god Helios on the reverse? Third, I'm not so sure the marks above the head represent a radiate (spikey crown) bust, anyway. Could these marks just be a die or strike defect? guy also known as gaius

One of my favorite periods of time to study is 18th Century Britain. The British courtroom drama "Garrow's Law" gives insight into that world:

Ian: Thank you for the thoughtful answer. I certainly have something to think about, now. guy also known as gaius

I agree that 5th century leaders such as Honorius were disgraceful, but there were also competent leaders such as Constantius and Majorian who tried to restore order, but ultimately failed. Note the hedge in my statement: "early fifth century." When Theodosius dies (AD 395), I feel that the Western Empire still had a great potential for lasting success and stability. If Rome had a Stilicho (died 408) as emperor, instead of the worthless Honorius.... By the time of Aetius (died 454), however, Rome may have already been in a terminal death spiral and nothing could have saved her. I will defer to Ian on this, however. guy also known as gaius

Thank you everyone for reading my post. Although I'm not a coin collector, I respect the work of numismatists in helping us to understand the past. Nowhere is the work of Ancient Roman numismatists more important than shedding light on the confusing, poorly-documented Third Century of Crisis. The epigraphic evidence from the middle of the "Third Century of Crisis" is sparse. We lose the works of the reliable Cassio Dio after AD 229 during the reign of Severus Alexander. We are, therefore, forced to look more closely at the numismatic evidence. Although I don't collect coins, I have needed to study the coins if I want a better understanding of this nebulous period of Roman history. As an aside, I think Pat Southern, in her book Empress Zenobia, does an exceptional job using numismatic evidence to make her points. Ian: I appreciate your use of numismatic evidence in the excellent book Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome. A single coin can sometimes convey an abstract concept better than several paragraphs. Barca: I disagree with your statement. I think the challenges and pressures on the Empire in the third century were as great as (if not greater than) those on the Empire in the early fifth century. The major difference, of course, was the skill and success of the leadership to meet those challenges. For example, a feckless and incompetent Honorius in the fifth century was unwilling to even defend the city of Rome. The third century had the benefit of many skilled and determined emperors. Without the successful reunification of the East by Aurelian during the depths of the Third Century of Crisis, for example, there might not have been an intact eastern portion of the Empire that was to survive as the Byzantine Empire for almost a thousand years after the collapse of the Western Empire. Thanks, again, for reading, guy also known as gaius

The third century of the Roman Empire is the least documented, most poorly understood, and the most confusing period of the Roman Empire. It includes my favourite period of Roman history to study: from AD 235 (the death of Severus Alexander) to AD 284 (the ascension of Diocletian). The third century was a period of instability. It can be characterized by a near fatal array of diverse and destructive pressures. These included a devastating plague, numerous barbarian invasions, a lethal and aggressive Sassanian Empire, multiple rebellious and rogue generals, several civil wars, economic disruptions, the persecution of the Jesus movement, and a seemingly endless and confusing succession of emperors and usurpers who almost always died violently. Despite the century's turbulence and monumental changes, Roman history between AD 235 and 284 is poorly documented. Reliable historians of previous eras included Tacitus and Cassius Dio. The next century had the reputable Ammianus Marcellinus. Those of us interested in this period find our sources either too unreliable (the notorious Scriptores Historiae Augustae) or too detached in time (composed centuries later by Byzantine writers). No period of the Roman Empire is more dependent on numismatic evidence for its understanding than the third century. It is through numismatic evidence that we know about Domitianus II, a possible usurper during the Romano-Gallic Empire. As most people know, the Romano-Gallic Empire was a breakaway empire (AD 260-274) founded by Postumus. At its height, it included Britannia, Gaul, Germania, and Hispania. By 274 Aurelian defeated the later Romano-Gallic emperor Tetricus I and his son, forcing the secessionist state to reunite with the Roman Empire. The Romano-Gallic Empire lasted fourteen years and was ruled by five accepted rulers: Postumus (AD 260-269) Marius (269) Victorinus (269-271) Tetricus I (271-274) with his son Tetricus II as Caesar (273-274) An important usurper was Laelianus (269) who was unsuccessful against Postumus. Another usurper, until recently unrecognized and relatively unknown, was Domitianus. It is recent numismatic evidence that has confirmed the existence of a usurper in AD 271 named Domitianus. Literary evidence for a Domitianus is vague and unreliable. There is no concrete literary mention of a Romano-Gallic usurper with that name. The numismatic evidence for Domitianus was non-existent until 1900. A coin of the unknown usurper was found as part of a hoard discovered in a vineyard in Cleons, France. Suspiciously, this coin disappeared from public view for a century (and even museum officials thought the coin lost), preventing its closer scrutiny. Only plaster casts of the coin were available for study. Not surprisingly, this coin was deemed a modern forgery by many experts. The Romano-Gallic usurper, Domitianus, was thought to be a fabrication or misinterpretation of the literary sources. This controversy took a dramatic turn in 2003, however, with the discovery of a single coin. In April, 2003 a hoard of nearly 5000 coins was discovered by Brian Malin with the use of his metal detector near Chalgrove in South Oxfordshire, England. The hoard consisted of typical radiate coins of the AD 250s-70s. They were fused together within a third-century Roman pot. After an initial examination at Oxford's Ashmolean Museum, the Chalgrove hoard was taken to the British Museum conservation laboratory for further study. The emperors depicted on the coins of the Chalgrove hoard ranged from Trebonianus Gallus (AD 251-3) to Probus (AD 276-82). Other coins included the emperors Gallienus (AD 253-68), Claudius II (268-70), Postumus (260-8), Victorinus (268-70) and Tetricus I and II (270-4). There was one coin, however, that warranted special attention. Its bearded bust and radiate spiky crown head was typical of coins from that era and from other coins of the hoard. The inscription, however, was unique: IMP C DOMITIANVS P F Imperator Caesar Domitianus Pius (dutiful) Felix (fortunate) Augustus. This coin confirmed the existence of a previously poorly documented usurper: (Coin description from Wildwinds.com) Domitianus, British Usurper, Antoninianus, 271 AD. IMP C DOMITIANVS PF AVG, radiate, cuirassed bust right / CONCORDIA MILITVM, Concordia standing left, holding patera and cornucopiae Comparison between the Cleons coin discovered earlier and the Chalgrove coin shows that they are die-identical. Since the more recently discovered Chalgrove coin was undisturbed and examined in a controlled setting, it is considered authentic. The controversial Cleons coin is now thought to be authentic, also. This numismatic evidence has forced historians to add the name of Domitianus to the list of unsuccessful usurpers in the Romano-Gallic Empire. Like many usurpers and outlaws in Roman history, Domitianus is poorly documented. Two coins, however, at least help to confirm the existence in AD 271 of this mysterious usurper. guy also known as gaius Here is a good article on the subject: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/coin/index.html

From your picture, you are looking younger and younger all the time. guy also known as gaius

No. guy also known as gaius

(To echo what Ghost said) I loved the performance of Ian McNeice as the senate crier in the HBO series "Rome." I don't know whether the following information is correct:

Here is an interesting video about the discovery of sunken Roman ships: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C1HBR0IbcmM#

Wow. That sounds like a great topic. As you have suggested, the Ancient Romans respected older Ancient cultures; therefore, they respected the Ancient Egyptians as well as the Ancient Hebrews. (Keep in perspective that the time period between today and Cleopatra's day is SHORTER than the period between her day and the earliest Egyptian pyramids.) And as you suggested, the early Christians tried to emphasize their relationship with the more respected Ancient Hebrews. They would, otherwise, be considered just another upstart religious cult, undeserving of any special toleration. The problem is that I can't think of anywhere they wrote, "Hey, we respect those Ancient Egyptians and Hebrews because they are much older than we are, so we will cut them some slack." What you may need to do is just give examples of their special toleration for those two cultures: Allowing the Hebrews to maintain their monotheism (while still showing respect to the Emperor), allowing the Egyptians to continue with their unique images and gods on their coins, etc. http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/11074-roman-coins-from-egypt/ Maybe you'll have to research the Chrisitian Apologies closely to find passages insisting that their movement is a continuation of a more Ancient tradition and not some new bizarre cult. I agree that the Emperor Julian (called the Apostate by later Chrisitans) tries to separate the Chrisitians from the Hebrews, thus, denying the Christians any special status in the Roman World. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_0_intro.htm From Julian: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm Keep us informed. We can all learn from your work. guy also known as gaius

Those randy Romano-Brits. A previous post on sprintiae: http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/10952-numismatics-more-than-coinsspintriae/ guy also known as gaius

Atrebates and King Verica : Loyal Roman Allies or Shameless Lackey Collaborators? I am not an expert on coins nor do I know a lot about British Celtic history. The coins below, however, have inspired me to learn more the subjects. First the background story: After the Celtic tribe Atrebates were defeated on the continent by Julius Ceasar around 52 BCE, an offshoot or possibly another related tribe of Atrebates flourished in Britain. During the next century, these British Atrebates became a client kingdom of Rome and Verica became their client king. Verica

Here's a rather extensive list of documentaries available online. (Thanks CanadianEH for the link): http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/ guy also known as gaius

I had incorrectly thought that Roman glass was almost always translucent or colored (and not clear). Obviously, I was wrong. It should be interesting to see which grapes were used to make the wine. guy also known as gaius

Thanks everyone for reading and replying to my post. One day, if I find the time, I will rebut some of the criticisms to my tirade against Marcus Aurelius. Till then, here is an interesting video about the bizarre Faustina-Avidius Cassius-Marcus Aurelius love triangle: (Broken link to video) Here is another video that touches on the subject. (See 30:00 to 39:00)

At another site we discussed a coin of Marcus Aurelius. I flippantly remarked that I didn't think Marcus Aurelius was a great emperor despite Richard Harris's powerful portrayal of him in the movie Gladiator. I was soon challenged for daring to criticize the annointed Marcus. I quickly came up with several reasons for my statement. I wanted to offer them here for critique by the folks at UNRV. I already know the many reasons he is a much beloved and respected emperor. I wanted to take the opposite side of the argument.