Melvadius

I have several problems in answering this post not least the fact that it flies in the face of my understanding about several major Roman Laws. I have a couple of reference books that touch on the issue of legal positions, unfortunately I don't at present have the time to go through them all or go into a university library to research the appropriate legal codes, including the Codex Theodosianus , to get fuller details. Although not specifically on children I have been able to compile something from Grubbs, J.E. (2002) Women and the Law in the Roman Empire, which I would recommend as a readable reference for any research touching on female status in the Roman Empire. As has already been indicated the legal situation of any child born of such a union was liable to be somewhat constrained especially in the Republican period when a family court would have decided how to deal with a female member of the family (or IIRC wife if married in potestas who effectively passed from her fathers control coming into her husbands) committing adultery and any child of such an act. I believe that exposure of illegitimate children was a favourite method of disposal at one point in Rome's history so it really depends what period you wish to know about. However at the heart of the matter is a series of laws enacted under Augustus, intended to promote marriages and child bearing amongst Roman citizens, while suppressing adultery and extra-marital sex. These lasted to a great extent unchanged for something like 550 years so it is probably best to give this background as it indicates the answer to some of your questions. 18BCE - Lex Julia de Maritandis ordinibus - Julian law regulating marriages and of the social orders. 18BCE - Lex Julia adulteries - Julian law of adultery 9CE - Lex Papia-Poppateae - Papian-Poppaean Law These are generally known as the Lex Julia et Papia-Poppaea The laws set out three basic principals: 1) All male citizens between 25 and 60 as well as female citizens between 20 and 50 were to be married, widows were to remarry with 2 (or possibly 3) years and divorcees to remarry within 18 months. If they failed to do so they faced financial penalties. There were also a series of restrictions placed on inheritance especially for childless couples while those married with children were rewarded with certain privileges. 2) Marriages between members of the senatorial order and former slaves were prohibited - any union which did occur were not considered legal marriages. Marriages between all freeborn people and prostitutes, pimps, condemned adulteresses or those caught in the act of adultery were also prohibited. 3) Adultery was any sexual relations between a married man and a woman other than her husband became a criminal offence to be tried by a standing court. Conviction led to relegation to an island and confiscation of half her dowry and a third of her property and in the case of the man half of his property. Stupum was illicit non-marital sex with an unmarried woman of 'respectable' status and fell under the same laws for adultery. Husbands were required to divorce adulterous wives or be prosecuted as a lenocinium (pimp). Inheritance penalties for unmarried women were not repelled until 320 A.D. and most of the prohibitions on marriages between different ranks were only repelled by Justinian in the mid-sixth century. Although Cassius Dio, Roman History 54.16.1-2 did report that the laws were relaxed allowing all but senators to marry freedwomen. As you can see from the above the penalties for any citizen member of Rome would have been horendous if they had been found guilty in a court of adultery - even for the Patrician class. As I indicated haven't had a chance so far to try unpicking the scattered comments on inheritance and children but one thing to be aware of is that much of Roman Law revolved around the rights of inheritance for 'legal' heirs, which may not necessarily be children. As such any illegitemate child, given they were not exposed by the Pater Familias, would have been in a very poor position to claim any inheritance. That said there is apparently a whole series of recorded legislation indicating that members of the Patrician class did make various attempts to work their way around the law to give some form of inheritance to illegitemate children they had had with a variety of unsuitable people although from my reading this was more about banned relationships rather than resulting from adultery. Various emperors enacted a series of legislation on the inheritance rights of illegitimate children born from the unions prohibited by Constantine in 336. A law of Valentian I allowed illegitimate children or their mother to inherit up to one-fourth of the father's estate if there were no legitimate heirs, or one twelth if there were [Cod. Theod. 4.6.4.371]. This was apparently a substantial improvement on Constantine's Law, which had prohibited him leaving anything under the threat of severe penalties. Specifically, as Grubbs notes, regarding children Roman law was straightforward. Children born in legitimate marriage came under their father's power, and if the marriage broke up, they remained under his control. A woman who divorced her husband ran the risk of never seeing her children again although it was recognized that some children were better off living with her rather their father IF he was a disreputable character. There was also a series of legislation about divorce including the possibility of declaring children illegitimate after a divorce. If I get a chance I will do some more reseach in the references I have but unfortunately I don't think they will change the picture much or really give you the answer you wished.

I have worked with several Indian's, Pakistani's and Bangladeshi over the years so have a small understanding of some of the pressures the various communities are under. Unfortunately if my understanding is at all correct (and I am open to correction) it is probably a mixture of religious and ethnic factors at work. As far as I am aware a large number of Bangladeshi's originally come from the 'untouchable' caste while Pakastan's major ethnic group come from the higher Pathan caste which is an obvious cause for some of the difficulties. I won't go to far into other problems like that of Kashmir, which had a majority Muslim population but ended up split between both countries at partition, and the cause of a continuing shooting war, because the local ruler was Hindu and chose Indian membership over Pakistani. As far as mixing with other communities are concerned that is not necessarily racist but it is obviously easier for any large immigrant community to stick together, especially when members can feel that consciously or unconsciously they are under attack for their race and/or religion by the media and pretty much everyone else they meet. It takes lot for them to learn to trust any interloper into territoriy that they may have come to see as that of their own community. Similar pressures have operated over the centuries with pretty much all large groupings settling in new territory and led to some if not all of the same conflicts - in this respect America has had several of its own ghetto's. A lot of it boils down to perceptions and sometimes if you really checked through the real as opposed to press reported crime fugures you may find that these area's are not the hot bed of trouble that everyone thinks they are.

Spittle has already given what appear reasonable alternatives but out of curiosity I did a quick search on Google for 'History of Islam books'. "The Oxford History of Islam" by John Esposito (published by the Oxford University Press) came out pretty much top of the list. Strangely enough, when considering your search results, this listing was on Amazon. From a brief check of a few reviews of the book on Amazon and elsewhere, including comments about the author's background, it looks like this could easily also be much more even-handed in its approach than the books you seem to have previously found on Amazon.

What can I say, it was my first attempt at such a complete review and a few errors slipped through the net, inlcuing forgetting that I needed to put in italics markers separately . I have now edited the original posting to make a few amendments which hopefully now resolves the worst of them .

I would agree that they are looking good and would like to see the finished product when they are ready.

I must admit that I haven't come across anything that claims Augustus had a large number of illegitimate children. The closest I have found is a comment that Claudius revived a rumour that his father, with whom his grandmother Livia was pregnant when she divorced her husband to marry Augustus, was actually Augustus

Wooliscroft, D. J. & Hoffmann, B. (2006) Rome’s First Frontier: The Flavian Occupation of Northern Scotland, Stroud, Tempus The core topic of this book is the development of the 'massive and complex frontier system' by the Romans in Scotland. This system comprises three distinct elements; the Highland and Strathmore lines of forts and the Gask line of watchtowers and fortlets running in parallel between them. Although previously seen as separate phases (c/f Jones and Mattingly (1990), An Atlas of Roman Britain), this system is now becoming recognized as a unified whole and the prototype for all subsequent linear Roman frontiers including Hadrian’s Wall and the fortifications along the Danube. The book has been written by the archaeologist co-directors of the Gask Project, run by the University of Liverpool, whose broad remit is the study of all Roman sites north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus and the second century Antonine Wall which crosses it. Between them they have carried out 27 excavations on 18 sites since 1996 as well as organising geophysical surveys on another eleven sites including six complete forts in the study area. The book has two basic audiences; anyone with a general interest in Roman military history or interest in individual sites but equally for archaeologists it provides a comprehensive overview of the state of archaeological knowledge of Roman remains within the Gask Project study area. This is the first such study since Crawford’s Topography of Roman Scotland North of the Antonine Wall was published in 1949. The presence of some 70, poorly dated, marching camps in the area have long only added to the confusion about the sequence of events in this area. In this book the authors make a quantitative as well as qualitative study of the available evidence. Effectively they remove such confusing 'wood from the trees' to show what the evidence actually tells us about the activity in the area - both Roman military and to some extent the native civilian population interaction with the Romans. This is a field of study which has advanced enormously in the last 10 years, during which time the Gask Project has been operating. As such it is a long overdue update on the study of both the visible and non-visible and even in some cases no longer extant remains of the area. An unusual and welcome feature of the book is the ability shown by the authors to deconstruct extant Latin historical texts covering the Roman occupation, before reversing the previously more common practice, and going on to fit those same texts around what the archaeological evidence proves. As already noted despite much being written about the area, including Keppie’s excellent and frequently updated guide book to the visible Roman remains of Scotland, there has been no similar book written providing as complete an over view on the initial development of this part of Roman Scotland for almost 60 years. As well as their own in depth knowledge of their subject area, as the introduction indicates, the authors have used a multidisciplinary approach. They have drawn on the expertise of a wide range of archaeologists and historians working on different aspects of Roman Britain (including Birley and Keppie) to test and validate their theories before this publication. The book is sumptuously illustrated with 95 text figures and 31 colour plates covering every major and minor known Roman military site in the study area. References are given to the appropriate large scale maps (preferable 1:25000) and the searchable database held by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland is mentioned as a good resource c/f: http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/search.html#canmore. The book is written in two halves; Part 1 reverses the usual sequence of similar books by concentrating on the archaeology of the Frontier. This provides both a good general foundation on the background to the Roman military sites in Scotland, including their disposition and a reasonable refresher for the more experienced researcher. It points out such esoterica as local differences in types of ditches as well as between tituli, claviculae and the Strathcaro type gates found at Roman sites. This chapter would have made good research material for at least one recent author dealing with Roman activity in this area. In the following four chapters the authors proceed to look at the three key elements of the frontier in depth. They do this on a site by site basis using a combination of antiquarian and/or archaeological reports along with maps. In addition they use some geo-physical results and air photographs to provide as clear a picture as possible the development and chronology of each site along the frontier. They also consider the evidence for any Roman period roads connecting each site. Chapter 2 covers the Highland Line from Drumquhassie north east to the abandoned legionary fortress at Inchtuthill. Chapter 3 similarly itemises the Gask Line: Camelon to Strageatha extending in Chapter 4 Gask Line: Strageatha to Bertha to the conclusion of the signalling system. Finally Chapter 5 on The Strathmore forts completes the picture of the known site in this area. Forming little more than a quarter of the total book length Part 2 provides an interpretation of the authors' findings yet does stand by itself for anyone unwilling or unable to read all of Part 1. Chapter 6 on the History of the First century invasion of Scotland markedly departs from earlier interpretations of an invasion occurring in AD 79 followed by abandonment in the mid-80's based on a period in use of only 3 years for the northern forts and possibly as little as a single year for the Gask line of watchtowers. This departure from previous interpretations is most noticeable with the inclusion of Hoffmann’s earlier thesis on the inconsistencies in the historical record provided by Tacitus’ Agricola. The archaeological material and indeed other historical accounts have now provided compelling evidence for successive phases of construction and rebuilding over a much longer period than first envisaged by writers using Tacitus as a 'true' history of events. As connections were made between the archaeological and other evidence presented and the authors implications slotted into place I found myself laughing out loud at least twice in surprise and pleased anticipation amidst the dawning revelations. Chapter 7 keeps up the pressure by re-evaluating the interaction between the Roman occupiers and the native population asking and answering the question of why the conquest failed. While chapter 8 points out the difficulties associated with interpreting the systems operations based on a modern landscape that only arose in the 18th century following land drainage and reclamation turning much of the previously marshy bottom land some of the most fertile land in Scotland and eminently suitable for growing arable crops. The final appendix compares the construction methods of the different watch towers and their surrounding ditches on the Gask Line. The different methods used suggests construction was undertaken in at least four and no more than six distinct groups of towers which may fit in with separate working parties being used from each of the four legions then based in Britain. As I have indicated above this book is written from the point of view of experts in their field, however it is eminently readable by non experts. The archaeological evidence although taking prominence does not need to be read in its entirety to gain a flavour of the wealth of evidence for re-interpretation. However in the first part the authors have made extensive use of a wide range of illustrations and other materials to point out the difficulties in previous interpretations of individual sites. In some cases, where only incomplete excavation records survive of particular excavations, personal comments by excavators have necessarily been included. On the whole I am convinced that the authors have presented their case well and made the best possible interpretation of a wider range of evidence than is usually provided for public consumption. Where there are alternative views they provide both, or in some instances, multiple arguments which have been made along with their own reasoning and interpretations. Their necessary re-evaluation of Tacitus' Agricola in my analysis does not really detract from his mastery of the use of Latin although it does question his historical veracity, rather it has the potential to expand general understanding of his 'real' intent in why he wrote as he did. I have deliberately not used many quotations from this book as I feel that each reader should have the opportunity of finding his or her own moment of revelation, I would however recommend it without reservation to anyone with an interest in any aspect of Roman Frontier studies. If anyone wishes to extend their knowledge of how the system of watchtowers on the Gask Line actually operated I would refer them to Wooliscroft's earlier book Roman Military Signalling. [Edited for a few minor spelling mistakes, to break up a couple of sentences into smaller chunks and to put back in the sections in italics that weren't copied across]

I tend to agree that this is in reality very little, very late although it is finally trying to use American influence with Israel to broker potentially a lasting peace so I would add a note of cautious optomism. It is possible for groups that have been in conflict to turn away from violence as the instant answer to all problems. Northern Ireland is a case in point examplifying that in an area with such a prior history the normally silent majority can be influential in maintaining a drive forward to stability and almost exclusively peaceful co-existence. I suspect that the key to Arab/Israeli co-existence is however likely to require a return to the UN agreed borders no matter how this may dismay the religiously and militarily inclined on both sides. How likely that is to occur is another matter but will require a lot fewer sound bites decrying terrorism on one side against what can be seen as the 'facist' style illegal occupation of Arab land on the other. I am old enough to know that both sides are guilty of aggression and terrorist acts but as my old Granny would say 'two wrongs do not make a right' so this needs negotiation, tact and ultimately trust to have any chance of success.

I wouldn't know about any putative SNP claims but as the recent book by Wooliscroft and Hoffmann pointed out there is strong archaeological evidence for an increase in farming along the area of the Gask Ridge during what is now seen to be a longish period of Roman occupation and/or influence. However they also point out the inherent difficulties the Romans would have encountered in an area with little or no existing administration for them to take over. In most provinces that the Roman's retained there appears to have been some existing cohesion of tribal groupings and consequently pre-existing taxation culture for them to work within. Northern Scotland in contrast does not show evidence for any similar cohesion mainly being small scattered communities until much later on well inot the medieval period. BTW There may have been greed on the part of some administrators but Rome also had a series of laws aimed at reducing that inclination for corruption to acceptable levels - ie a series of Laws enacted banning such activities as members of the adminstration (governors in particular) from marrying people from provinces they were in control of - unless they had already been betrothed before taking up positions in the province concerned.

The BBC has just carried an article about recent Roman and Iron Age finds: 'Pottery from the 4th Century and a Roman coin were found on the London stadium site and Iron Age activity found on the Aquatics Centre site.' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7117040.stm

You may want to include a comparison of how Augustus and his family are depicted on the Ara Pacis (Atlar to Peace) which is full of religious symbolism, with Asugustus depicted as the 'father of his country' undertaking the familial priest role.

I have recently come across an article comfirming the discovery of the first known Roman vicus at Strageath north of the Antonine Wall. Giving further archaeological confirmation (if it was still needed) that the Roman presence in the area extended for longer than the 3 or at most 7 years previously believed by historians from the writing of Tacitus. http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNo...tentPK=18472913

The simple answer about what the propoganda meant is that Augustus was in the position of having emerged as victor following a period of civil war. He had military power but probably also felt the need to take over administrative power as well as most of the military were normally kept as far away from Rome as possible. At the time he took control according to Roman law and tradition he was very young for any position of responsibility so arranged that he be granted a number of different official and religious positions often running simultaneously so he could make use of the powers inherent with each postion. He used thes powers in totally new ways to play off his rivals against each other and to manipulate Roman law to his advantage. Look for the comments in Res Gestae where he says I held particular positions like other people but then check at what age they were nrmally held or what the 'normal' sequence of positions should have been.

LacusCurtius has some original latin/greek texts, and you probably could easily find the rest at any university library. If I understand the original question correctly as far as the source documents that we have are concerned I believe that they are probably all later copies (at best 5th or 6th century AD) of the original hand written Latin documents which were mostly discovered between about 1300 to 1500 in various monastic [(Edit) or Islamic (Edit)] libraries. Some parchments contained only part of particular documents and/or were compiled with other documents, be incomplete or even simply only survived in precis versions so some authors have tried to interpolate back to what was originally written. In some instances more than one copy was found of particular texts and academic arguments have since raged over which version is the most accurate (or at least is closest to the 'original' source document) and what the correct sequence of copying may have been. The 'original' parchment copies may no longer survive having had another six or so centuries to rot or ain a few instacnes early printed copies exist which have become the only generally available sources. The Loeb and most other 'academic' translations will probably list the various source documents including where they were found and when as well giving an indication of how complete they may have been. However you are unlikely to be able to see the original copies unless you are a recognized scholar as they now tend to be deemed too precious to allow general access to them and are kept in a variety of academic libraries. Obviously there are translations available in different languages and often transcriptions of the surviving Latin text as others have already indicated.

It depends which 'common soldier' you were referring to. At this time most legionarries would probably still have been recruited from Rome or at worst Italy as you still needed to be citizen to be enrolled in the 'heavy infantry'. Some recruits could obviously have been from amongst people who had already achieved citizen status in older provinces. However as in other parts of the Empire any legionnaries present would have been supported by auxiliaries who would mainly have been recruited from non-citizens. I don't have a full listing for units based in Judea or indeed Syria (where the three legions that saw service in Judea were based) but the University of south Dakota site has a potted history of events along with the observation that at least some auxilliaries were recruited fairly locally as: 'An auxiliary force [was] raised in Caesarea and Sebaste supported the governor in Caesarea and garrisoned Jerusalem.' http://www.usd.edu/erp/Palestine/history.htm Therefore they were raised in modern Syria so the chances were that they may also have spoken Aramaic now that would have been fun and made the film even more confusing with members of both (or should that be all three sides) speaking the same language.

I must admit to not having read either book but as far as the location of Mons Graupius is concerned a more recent book (Wooliscroft and Hoffman (2006) Rome's First Frontier' ) which I have almost completed raises the spectre that although a lot of time and effort has gone into such research and the search for the 'true' location of the battle it which may in reality have been little than a skirmish. Hoffmann in particular has written a fair bit in recent years pointing out the 'literary antecedent's of Tacitus Agricola [N.B. while apparently working on her own forth coming translation] and querying precisely how much historical 'truth' it actually contains and some of this material has been included in Chapter 7 of this book. If her contention and interpretation of the available evidence is in any way correct it does call into question whether there ever was such a battle or if there was precisely how big it actually was and consequently how likely any evidence of it would have survived a few years afterwards let alone almost 1900 years. [edited for spelling and clarifying Hoffmann's apparent publication intention]

As in all things archaeological it really depends upon your interpretation of why such objects were being found in middens AND which archaeologist you were talking to - some are a lot less inclined to see religous explanations for everything. A few possible interpretations could include: i) These objects have a lot of meaning to us still but we will be persecuted if we keep them in sight - let us hide them where no one will look for them. ii) A variation to this is we are going to be attacked by the Anglo-Saxon's - let us hide what is valuable somewhere safe. iii) **** I've broken mum's favourite statue/ mum-in-laws wedding gift - where can I hide it? iv) **** I've dropped a coin into the cludgy - I'm not hunting for it. v) what do you mean we will go to hell because we have some old coins kicking about the place? OK nobody will take them anyway get rid of the stupid things. vi I know that now we are baptised we had to get rid of all our valuables to get inot heaven but did grandpa have to keep what he did with them secret? vii) OK and I suppose that 'Fire and brimstone will be our just deserts if we do not get rid of everything with any connection to the old faith' fits in there somewhere too;). Not to forget the all time favourite reason.... viii) The taxman commeth - hide everything of any value!

As The Augusta and others have suggested there is a plethora of material out there but may I make the obvious suggestion - first check the references that you have been assigned for suitable material and then spin out to look at extra material if it seems appropriate to the theme you will hopefully see developing. That is where reference to other forms of propoganda such as the poetry of Horace et al, as has already been suggested, may be appropriate. I would also observe that with a 2000 word limit, unless you have a detailed knowledge of Latin and appropriate Classical sources, may be bit restrictive when giving a rounded answer especially if you are trying to concentrate on only one aspect of Res Gestae. (edited to clarify a couple of points)

In that case to preserve academic rigour and sensibilities take it as read that I have heard her speak on one occasion and generally respect her scholarship - which view as you indicate can only be reinforced by the sources she quotes

Having this year come out the far end of several years of belated undergraduate studies I can honestly say that I have hardly finished any reference type books throughout most of that time and don't really keep track of the fiction I managed to fit in around it. However I did enjoy reading Enigma and Pompeii by Robert Harris a while back. I am however now partly through Wooliscroft and Hoffman's Rome's First Frontier: The Flavian Occupation of Northern Scotland Tempus, which given their background, is throwing up a fair bit of good information and interpretations that I haven't found compiled or even suggested anywhere else.

The supine barbarian decorated tombstones in Britain from the 1st and early 2nd century AD are all military in origin when it comes to civilian tombstones the relativley limited number from Britain tend to follow the Roman traditional practice of head and shoulder images of the deceased. I need to check my references but AFAIR the 'supine barbarian' and indeed portrait style to a great extent went out of fashion by the third century and we end up with only a few inscribed stones as Christianity took a greater hold in the province in many cases simply an inscribed cross.

Not quite in the same league as the announcement about the discovery of the possible Romuls and Remus cave but a relatively rare find of a lead coffin near Aldborough (which was an important Roman settlement for the Brigantes) has just been announced. Details on the BBC news at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_y...ire/7107119.stm

An alternative view on the discovery from academia may be of interest. I have posted below a link to Mary Beard's online blog (Mary is a professor in classics at Cambridge University): http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2...we-found-t.html

Thank you for the belated welcome to my belated introduction. As for gaining a gold ring, what can I say? - I wanted to post a couple of images of Tunisia so threw myself on the Triumvers mercy and requested umpteen thousand postings elsewhere be taken into account. I now have to prove to myself, even if no one else was bothered, that their generous decision was correct.

Exactly my point Glad we agree:) BTW the BBC also has a video report of the find - i believe that this link should take you to it but canoot check at present: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/p.../newsid_7105000? If it doesn't work then there are currently (21/11/07 9.18 GMT) both video and audio news item links under the 'video and audio news' header half way down the front page http://news.bbc.co.uk/