Melvadius

Well I've not checked this but I somehow get the feeling that the Pantheon wasn't really the first doom they built, just the largest. Also consider that it's much easier to build a dome inside an existing structure (Aka a cave roof in this example). AFAIK The Pantheon is generally claimed to be the largest 'free standing' domed structure built in the ancient world - not the first .

Just for the record, I am Melvadius (my name arising from my re-enactment days) and have recently joined the forum. Although new to the site I have been posting on a number of different fora over the years so will try and fit in my two-penn'oth where it seems appropriate . Melvadius

Froma swift glance that looks like it is an interesting encapsulisation of some of the major Augustan themes which I must find time to read myself. As far as general works on the period are concerned some of the essays in Huskinson, J. (Ed) (2000) Experiencing Rome: Culture Identity and Power in the Roman Empire may also be appropriate dealing as it does with a range of issues on how the Romans saw themselves and what means they used to communicate those perceptions. As, in my view, any form of communications can be seen as a form of propoganda to some extent all of the essays in Experiencing Rome depict and interpret differing forms of communications of ideas and images in the Roman Empire so may be of interest. Although possibly the second essay Richard Miles 'Communicating culture, identity and power' is most appropriate to this topic . In his essay Miles itemises five key questions to ask about any form of communication (or in this case propoganda): The communication process involves 'Who?' 'Says what?' 'How' 'To whom?' 'With what effect?' To that I would probably add 'with what intent?' Although to be fair Miles doesn't touch that viper's nest as that last is a question to which the answer may sometimes be irresoluble unless you know in more detail than we often have what the important events (driving forces) of the day were. But just to itemise some of the forms of communication/propoganda that were available obviously there is Res Gestae depicting how Augustus wished to be remembered but think also of the military tombstones of the first and early second century with their supine barbarian images, commemorative images on coins, patronage messages on theatres/ other public buildings not to forget the graffiti which survive scrawled on the walls of Pompeii. These are all forms of propoganda which you could try to discuss and unpick their meaning - indeed the establishment of de novo towns throughout the Empire are another form of propoganda that can be incorporated in any essay. Melvadius

I would only flag one thing on this post - that Tuesday to Friday are actually named after Norse (or as I have seen claimed on one website possibly Germanic!) gods so probably are the result of the attempt to incorporate their own equivalents into the existing Roman/ Romano-British calendar. However, given the way that ancient peoples always looked for equivalences between their own and their neighbours gods I suppose that it could have been the other way about - with gods anything is possible:).

I know of at least two groups that have been performing and recording Roman period music using recreated instrumentsFurther details are available as follows http://www.ancestral.co.uk/index.html - Main site for David Marshall who wrote and recorded a mixture of Roman and Medieval music You can separately buy

Ever since I had to set a question in school as part of a Statistics course I have always get uncomfortable when people ask what was 'THE Most Significant ....?' type question. For obvious reasons a number of events may come beating to the fore BUT they will always depend upon the viewpoint of individuals. In the case in hand I am hard put to choose one significant event as it depends upon what basis you are considering them or to put it another way in what context do you consider it. To pick a few of the suggestions: Mons Graupius - In the Roman period this was not the last hurrah of anti-Roman resistance which appears to have continued to some extent throughout Roman rule in Britain. Even if it is considered as the final push of the Romans into Scotland there was at least one further major assault under Alexander Severus. Bannockburn - The turning point of Medieval Scottish resistance to English expansion under Edward I but against that; what about The Wallace starting of that process of resistance (for instance the Battle of Stirling Brig) without which The Bruce would have had a harder job of gathering support. Culloden - A sad day for Scottish independence or was it? Did Scotland gain by remaining in the Union? Did Britain gain by not having 'A Wee Bit Highland Laddie' (or should that be more a French/Italian by then) in charge? Not to mention the obvious benefits to the British war machine by having an almost limitless supply of shock troops once they had gained a little more discipline. Battle of Britain - Usually everyone's favourite and was significant in the mid-twentieth century but behind 'The Few' there were a large number of people keeping a few men with their head in the air. Those fighting to keep the sea lanes open and the colliers bringing vital supplies around the coast to where they were needed. How about Mitchell's battle to develop the Spitfire in the first place against Government inertia? Mind you to win Britain also needed the Hurricane, with one fighter specialising in attacking bombers and the other keeping the fighters off while they did so. In fact during the actual 'Battle' period there were far more Hurricanes involved in the Battle than Spitfires. Against this for the Second World War I would cite the intelligence led Battle of Bletchley Park as probably the most significant long term effort. It was there helping to identify targets and vector in defensive flights and other military actions during the Battle of Britain as well as the equally devastating Battle of the Atlantic and any number of other battles during WW2 - including the US efforts in the Pacific. Etc. Basically I take the view that they were probably all significant in their day and to be honest the world wouldn't be the place it is today without them all having the outcome they did so on that basis maybe they were all 'The Most significant'? Edited for Spelling mistakes - BTW en passant the Moseley sisters were notorious in no small part to the diversity of their political beliefs from staunch Communist and mild socialism at one extreme, through apolitical to fascist at the other extreme. To touch slightly on what has already spun off from this thread - Britain like America had a vast variety of views in the immediate Pre-War period but possibly had a better outcome than many realised by unwittingly by allowing the Brown shirts to march through the east End of London, where as today a large number of immigrants were living - then many Jewish and other refugees from Nazi Germany or communist Russia. The Battle of Cable Street ensued where the police effectively were outmanoeuvred by a combination of local residents and a large gathering of anti-fascists expressing their views against the Brown shirts and their intended march which ultimately led to a breakdown in support for the Fascist cause in Britain and the banning of uniformed political parties. If anyone is interested the following link has a reasonable overview on events if you read through its' own obvious political agenda: http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Cable.html [Edited for spelling]

Long renowned for the range of their collections (and idiosyncratic exhibit layout - although that is changing ) it is good to see this resource of the Ashmolean being made available in this way to a wider audience. Melvadius

Yep! Every now and again I pick up Brian Campbell's excellent reference 'The writings of the Roman Land Surveyors'....and then quietly put it down again in wonder at how much he has found was available on the subject

Ah the joys of trying to decipher the pretty technical description of the aqueduct supply written by Frontinus - personally I still like the Loeb translation despite it being several years old. However, the whole point of making the supply pipes larger and the delivery pipes smaller was the ongoing fraud that Frontinus discovered and eventually suppressed. It meant that the 'water men' who were responsible for maintenance of the aqueduct system could sell unregistered access rights to the water supply, while at the same time increasing the flow of water they were receiving. It was an attempt to hide what they were doing by maintaining the flow to the legal outlets - unfortunately their calculations were off and the discrepancies became increasingly obvious - especially after Frontinus made a comparison between the actual sizes of pipes and what they should have been as well as the actual number of private distribution pipes attached to the system. Melvadius

Well, I won't say that I actually watch this load of tosh but they keep running the ads for it over what I am watching. I only have one question - they are now up to Anne Bolyen and precisely what age is the actor playing Henry supposed to be? According to my reference books he should be in his 40's! Melvadius

I suppose that it really depends how often sand storms swept into Thysdrus in the Roman period and if they felt that it was an important enough issue to make the attempt to ameliorate the effects. I believe that sandstorms are fairly infrequent or at least generally confined to particular parts of the year - we were there in late February, so rather suspect they would have taken the practical view to hold games outside that period or at least if they did hold them then to suspend combat if the audience couldn't see the activity. (Possibly issuing a 'sand' check? ) As to evidence for the use of a canopy; the picture with the camel is one of two from outside the visitors entrance that also show the surviving upper course of the amphitheatre. The stones on top may have had holes drilled through them. If they did, and I remember the programme attempting to recreate a canopy correctly, these may be surviving beam 'slots' for the supports of the canopy. I have now uploaded a close up of the original image and a second photograph showing the most convincing stone from another angle. The one showing the visitors entrance and another view of the stone in question also shows a couple of people in an upper level so giving a better sense of scale to the picture. Melvadius

Did I miss something? Where did anyone use Wikipedia as a source? During my research it quickly became obvious that most of the available web references are simply regurgitated postings from elsewhere with no verifiable reference to original archaeological material and no attempt at deconstruction of what was said in the historical and biblical sources referenced as I have attempted - only blind acceptance. Thus the Wikipedia et al comment as one of the offenders that I found.

I think that collecting the 'wind' is probably an accidental effect of the damage it has suffered over the years but any large building will be subject to a few vortices now and again. The information that I have (from Hedi Slim El Jem: Ancient Thysdrus Mediterranean Heritage) indicates that the earliest amphitheatre was rebuilt at the end of the 1st century AD while the second was itself replaced by the large amphitheatre in the early 3rd Century AD which was probably modelled on the Collosseum in Rome. The amphitheatres use probably continued into the fourth century as some mosaics from the town depict gladiatorial games and wild animals into that period. El Djem its outside circumference is 427m compared to the Colosseum's 527 m, but was built with its underground galleries to service the arena - including the two lift shafts seen in my arena photographs. The interpretation is that given the pictorial evidence from Pompei of a canopy in use and given that the Colosseum was its model it would also have had a canopy. Its later use tended to be as a fortress; in 647 remnants of the Byzantine army, defeated at Sbeitla, and the population fleeing the muslim invaders took refuge there. Then it was referred to as the Citadel of Kahena, a prophetess and leader of the Berber resistance to the arab invasion in the VIIth century. In XIIIth century 'the citadel was vigorously attacked by Ibn Ghania'. In 1695 the local tribes used the amphitheatre as a centre of their revolt against taxation by Mohamed Bey from Tunis who then used cannon fire to create two breaches in the walls. It was used again by rebellious tribes in 1850 when Ahmed Bey widened the breaches after which it effectively was reduced to being a quarry for building materials then in 1881 became a gunpowder arsenal for resistance against the French protectorate As to its population it seems to have originally had a local Berber population as elements of the name Thysdrus have been compared to other Berber names but like most Romanised tons at its height there would have been a mixed population with Punic as well as Roman elements but I don't know of any census information which will say how many came from each population. Melvaius

I would not necessarily say that child sacrifice never occured in the Mediterranean world - history is too wide an area of study to say 'never' with any 100% guarantee . To slightly recap what I have already posted: I believe that there is some archaeological evidence indicating ritualized killing in a few isolated instances. However for the reasons I have indicated above I believe that the claims by Diodorus et al are unproven. The arguments posted by Stager and Greene fail as archaeological proof on the simple basis that they have not provided any statistical breakdown of the archaeological evidence. For an honest interpretation of facts I would have expected them to include information on the percentages found of children in each age group, how many urns contained votive offerings, how many animal remains and the breakdown of mixed groups of votive offerings and child remains. They have not provided any usable information of this type. I am also concerned about their contention that cremated remains provided evidence of the children having been sacrificed. I have seen cremated remains and suspect that even with full forensic tests in the majority of cases it would be extremely hard to say with any degree of certainty what was the cause of death. Regarding Kleitarchos as I have already said the only source for his comments is Diodorus which in effect means half of the four 'independent' ancient authors quoted by Stager and Greene are the same person . The biblical sources are a matter of interpretation but in my view they should not be read in isolation and reading of closely associated passages either side of the quoted sources indicates that they do not actually provide evidence of carthaginian or Phonecian human sacrifice. Despite claims by their supporters to the contrary, personally I do not believe everything posted on Wickipedia, et al is based on fact. Melvadius

I have been doing a little research into what has been posted on this thread here and elsewhere so feel it is time to recap and deconstruct what is on the net: As far as I can see so far two main arguments have been made on the net for and against the case for the Phonecians practicing child sacrifices. On one hand we have Lawrence E. Stager and Joseph A. Greene both representing the Harvard Semitic Museum, with in the case of Greene at least apparently several seasons of practical archaeological work in Tunisia. On the other we have M

Unfortunately this article has the same inherent problem as the others, previously quoted, that speculated on the possibility of Carthaginian child sacrifices. The sources which have been quoted come from one side of what was an internecine war against their enemies, and when you actually consider the context of what has been written and for whom it was intended is at base propoganda. Both sets of victors ended up in possession of someone elses land. Obviousl for this method to be really successful it also helps that the enemies have been long defeated ro in effect powerless to refute false accusations...this somehow is beginning to sound like (and probably is) history repeating itself. Anyway, one of the fastest ways to drum up support amongst your own people (and amongst possible allies) is to present your opponents as 'demonic', blood spattered, inhuman child murders, etc. The same methods have been used inumerable times throught recorded history with varying degrees of success. Admittedly sometimes there is a grain of truth in such accusations - but not always. I keep thinking of the old tag that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and in this context it honestly looks like the victors painting as black a picture as they can of their enemies based on little or no real evidence. Melvadius

I have to say that this subject was brought up during an archaeological tour of Tunisia led by one of the senior archaeologists in Tunisia. He mentioned a few of the sacrifice theories but was firmly of the opinion that in his pactical experience of child burials invariably being separate from adults is a stronger argument for differing burial practices dependant on age rather than any 'purported' practice of child sacrifices. Consider instead that it was common Roman practice to separately bury infants below about 2 years of age within buildings - often with 'sacrificial' items including animals in close proximity. if you were totally objective, you could instead present similar arguments for Romans (and several other cultures) practicing child sacrifice. In reality I have to come down on the view that in ancient (and not so ancient) cultures there was usually a high infant mortality rate so like the Romans, who did not name infants for several days after birth to see if they might live ,a range of practices developed to deal with the 'expected' high rates of child loss. In this the Libyo/Punic culture of Carthage was probably only different in form, but not substance, from their rivals and close neighbours around the Mediteranean. On that basis I find the anti-sacrifice argument a lot more compelling. Melvadius

At least initially the Romans appear to have used native leaders as commanders - having first given them citizenship and presumably basic instruction in Latin although I would not be suprised to find that they used a similar proceedure to more modern armies faced with the same problem. Find someone who can communicate with your auxilliaries and if necessary drill them in basic commands. On a personal note having been involved in Roman re-enactment, as a non-Latin speaker, I found that it is suprisingly easy to train raw recruits to follow commands in a foreign language if you have enough time to drill and provide them with a training cadre of experieinced troops to guide their initial steps. We do have evidence from tombstones for men moving between legionary and auxilliary units on promotion. As well as providing evidence of a route for their promotion in my view it could also be evidence for the Romans making use of such training cadre. Melvadius

I would agree that Vegetius is very much later Empire so should be used with caution as to how accurate a picture of the period he paints although to be fair for all we can tell he may well have been basing at least some of his comments on Roman documents now lost to us. Regarding the Roman military being mainly vegetarian this may well not have held true for the auxiliaries with some of the Vindolanda tablets including pork and other meats in lists of food items that presumably were being eaten by at least the centurions and/or optios at Vindolanda in the early second century AD: http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLink2/4D...isplayEnglish=1

Perhaps you're thinking of the signet ring that many Romans used to sign documents as their personal seal of identification? I've been through Sherwin-White's The Roman Citizenship and can't find any mention of a special "citizen's ring" for use as proof of citizenship. -- Nephele Alternatively you may be thinking of the gold ring worn to signify 'equestrian' status. Melvadius

I have seen it suggested (I believe by Margaret Roxan who published several standard works on Diplomata) that the distribution of diplomata may indicate that these individual bronze tablet copies of the unit record of retirements posted in Rome were actually purchased by veterans intending moving away from where they had served and presumably from where they were well known by men still serving in their unit. This view of an 'official' requirement for a personal diplomata does seem to become more likely when you consider that most such have been found well away from where their owners presumably served as auxilliaries. Melvadius

This is not necessarily correct as several of the British MP's at least cut their teeth in their University debating chambers, while a significant percentage of the rest were practicing lawyers so in theory at least should be able to argue their case. Probably it is truer to say that modern politicians have a limited time in which to carry out their own research so have to rely on information they are provided with by their researchers and may to an extent seem to become lazy being fed scripts by civil servants and/or poitical advisors. The scripts obviously will contain details of the arguments they may be presented with or else have to present to their audience but the pace and style of delivery as well as some details of wording will obviously be down to individual politicians. Ronanld Regan was never really seen as anything other than an actor reading a script in much of the international community however he was able to use his skills as an actor to deliver most of his speeches well. Against that the less said of Bush and all too many other politicians the better. However on the same theme if you go back to Roman times in my view there is some evidence for the same methods being used - even if not recorded. There are innumerable comments by poets like Juvenal and other writers complaining of the Greek philosophical influence on the senior Roman politicians including the various postures that they made during speeches or debates. Maybe politicians have always had a team of slaves researching what was likely to influence particular audiences and providing at least the outine scripts for what was to be said - only fine tuning the presentation. It mayput new light on Cicero having a favourite slave and why all his debating scripts were re-written before publication Melvadius