sylla

Here is another pic of the Bosavi woolly rat (Mallomys spp.). This rodent is classified as a rat (ie, one of the 500+ members of the muridae and related families); it is big (reportedly up to 1.4 kg) but not so much in comparison with the really colossal rodents, like the famous capybara, who may grow up to 50 Kg (the World record reported by the WAZA is 105.4 kg).

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Please note that Tiberius showed from the very beginning notable administrative and military abilities, especially evident from his brilliant performance in Dalmacia and Germania, which were both actually extremely difficult tasks. Additionally, Tiberius was not at the top but actually at the very bottom of Augustus

You know, for the bitter depressed psychotic misanthrope he supposedly was, good ol

Thanks for your patient answers, Mel. Your posted links are wonderful; the British heritage protection in particular is something I was looking for. At the end of the day, this seems to be the quid of this issue. The main fact is of course that the system seems to be working fine.

That is an interesting conclusion; is there any statistical evidence that might support it?How can you define (and identify) the responsible detectorists? Should the irresponsible detectorists be excluded from this activity?

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Most if not all of us accept that we don't live in a perfect world, which is not the same as doing nothing; as usual, we almost entirely agree. I guess not so many metallic artifacts (those actually recovered by the detectorists, like coins) end up as a simple "stain in the ground". Besides, most archaeological material has been hidden (or abandoned, or laid, or the term that you prefer) for centuries or at least decades. Ecological emergencies aside, in all likelihood in most cases a delay of even a couple of years would not make any notable difference for the decay of such material. I can perfectly understand the potential advantages of amateurs pinpointing previously unknown archaeological sites; the problem is simply that under all the evidence I'm aware of, the described risks clearly exponentially outweigh any potential benefit; additionally, far less risky alternatives to locate such sites are available. Your comparison of the risks of the "legitimate" farming and construction (and of the "illegitimate" varieties too, BTW) on one side and looting on the other is a false dilemma fallacy; even if there is no perfect solution, there are reasonably effective measures available; doing nothing is just not an option. Besides, it's also a faulty probabilistic assessment, because the odds of archaeological destruction are many times greater for the average looting than for the average farming or construction. A crude analogy; the obvious fact of being all of us mortal has not prevented any nation from forbidding homicide..

To clarify an earlier point: Officially, the Empire was re-unified when Odoacer sent the imperial regalia to Constantinople, stating that there was no need for two emperors. The term 'Eastern Roman Empire', much like the term 'Byzantine' is a convention used by ourselves - as Colin McEvedy puts it (Penguin Atlas of Medieval History): '...to recognise the many differences between the Classical Empire of Rome, and the Roman Empire of Constantinople'. From about 200AD until its fall in 1453, the Roman Empire was known as 'Romania' by its citizens and everyone else. This is echoed in the name 'Romagna' which was the part of Italy that remained in Roman hands throughout the Dark Ages.

As detectorists by definition use metal detectors, that may be an overstatement. That obvious risk is presumably the main problem and it seems to be unavoidable as long as amateurs are allowed to dig archaeological sites on their own. Equalizing looting and farming seems a bit out of proportion. Under the same logic, as any farmer in Borneo may be already threatening the survival of the orangutan in some way, it would be only fair to allow the indiscriminate hunting of those primates... We don't live in a perfect world and there will always be someone willing to break the law; not dealing with any problem just for those obvious facts would be pure negligence. From where I am, a responsible detectorist that carefully plots key archaeological material is regularly called an archaeologist; period.Archaeology is a professional activity, and there's a reason for that; responsible non-archaeologists shouldn't dig archaeological sites, in the same way that reponsible non-surgeons shouldn't perform major surgery, Point # v) ("working with archaeologits") seems to me to be the only potentially viable option, aside from absolute forbiddance. Even if for the sake of the argument we may admit that destroying the non-metallic archaeological remains and context would be the only alternative for new discoveries (as archaeologists are not everywhere), my guess is that experience overwhelmingly shows that it would be better to left them undisturbed until the archaeologists have the right chance to discover and study them.

Can't agree more with your parents' team. Even if only 1% of the metal detectorists would act without integrity, the damage would be (and presumably is) irreversible. If the potential discoveries remain hidden, that only means that they will be eventually discovered by professional archaeologists in their right context; context is at least half of the relevance of any archaeological finding, and often even more. And of course, virtually anytime an amateur recovers a gold coin or artifact, a bunch of non-precious (for the amateurs) archaeological remains are destroyed or at least contaminated in the process; more or less analogous to the capture of baby gorillas, where the mother and many other adults are killed each time any baby is "recovered".

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Italy eventually became the richest and the most developed part of Europe by the late Middle Ages without enjoying too much peace. Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

And if the Lombards had been left undisturbed under rulers like Liutprand, they could well have developed a stable and prosperous state. There are infinite possibilities, but we can be reasonably sure that what Italy mostly required was long-standing peace; any peace; a good reminder that the worst peace is usually better than the best war.

Amphitheater is already a Greek word (Αμφιθέατρο = Amphitheatron), and it was regularly used for these buildings, eg. by Josephus. Dio almost always used simply "Theatron" for our Colosseum. Latin authors also tended to indistinctly use either theatrum or amphiteatrum, eg. Pliny Major. As far as I can tell, "hunting theatre" (Kynegeticon Theatron) was used only once by Dio (66:21:2), and even there in a most metaphorical way, to describe the crater of the Vesubius. That was indeed the case, for example Augustus in his Res Gestae; as usual, the Romans seem to have been rather pragmatic, naming things only when they had no other choice. Not exactly; Suetonius mentioned this amphitheater more than once, certainly in the context of its builder within his Divus Augustus, but not so in other biographies; at least in his Caius (aka Caligula 18:1), this building was also called amphitheatro Tauri as one of the places for his gladiatorial games. This denomination was used by historians at least since Gibbon in the late XVIII century; the latter however preferred to more properly call it the "amphiteatrum of Titus"; my guess is that it was indeed used as a technical term since the very beginning.

Both however could possibly be blamed for leaving Italy too weak to resist the Lombard invasions, which destroyed Roman material culture for good. Justinian could be the more culpable of the two in this respect. It's the never-ending story; under the same logic, any war could be blamed for leaving any country too weak to resist any further invansion ever, so arguably we may even blame the Neanderthals for the Gulf War. Naturally, the goal of any invader has always been his own victory, not making the things easier for any third party; the latter is just a professional risk. Besides, for the Gothic or for any other real war, one army is not enough; two opponents are required as a minimum. Under the previous stated rationale, both sides might be equally blamed. For example, if the Goths had not fought back against Justinian, Italy would have not been weakened against the Lombards.

Or like calling Augustus' family "the Julio-Claudian dynasty"; technical terms tend to be used by the historians, not the historic people. The difference is that the Flavian Amphitheater is used as if it was an ancient term. It is even directly stated that it is, in a book from my first course in ancient history. Point taken. It seems no proper name was used for this building, possibly because it was essentially the only amphitheater of Rome (leaving aside the relatively little Amphiteatrum Castrense). Cassius Dio actually called it the "hunting theatre" (in Greek, of course).

Or like calling Augustus' family "the Julio-Claudian dynasty"; technical terms tend to be used by the historians, not the historic people.

Really bad press?

I couldn't comment on that suggestion however I believe that the recovery of fragments from the original structure took several years with the last sections finally being lifted from where they were found much below current ground level and moved to their current location at Mussolini's order. Subsequently it was enclosed in a specially built museum - the latest incarnation of which has received a lot of criticism. I suppose that on that basis someone who was being totally pedantic could probably raise an argument that it is not the 'real' Ara Pacis as it is not in its 'original' position or condition following re-erection. However, I wouldn't personally subscribe to that view. As stated, the location was selected by Mussolini; of course it did and will receive a lot of criticism from the media. For them, it is a sure bet.

That's indeed an interesting entry, Aurelia. The episode in itself seems to be exact but the quoted figures (eg, [sIC]"by 1180, it is estimated that up to 60,000 Latins lived in Constantinople") seem to me to be absurdly high; that would have been roughly like half the population of Venice, the entire Genoa or two times Paris by the late XII century. The article quoted no primary sources; all in all, it seems suspiciously apologetic for the forthcoming IV Crusade. In any case, I don't think this is what Ludovicus had in mind; these unfortunate Italians were "Latins" for their Christian rite; they surely spoke some contemporary romance language(s), not any real Latin.

All that said, it seems to me that O'Donnell's book is heavily one-sided and probably unfair to both rulers, to say the least. The more I read and think about it, the more I agree that the "Great" title was well-earned by both rulers; they were both exceptionally strong characters with impressive deeds in military as well as civilian affairs. In fact, Theodoric might well have been a model for Justinian, as the former died just a year before the latter got his throne. From the perspective of their respective nations, almost all the good and bad points stated for one of them can be said about the other. For their own agendas, their personal ambition was clearly first, their dynasty was later, their nations next and the well-being of the average Italian (related as it was to the local peaceful conditions) was evidently far, far, far behind anything else. Our sources are scarce and in general terms heavily biased for or against any or both of them; it's indeed hard (maybe impossible) to determine which despot would have been considered more alien by the average Italian peasant, the German Arrian or the Greek from the remote Constantinople. As stated by Kosmo, the political evolution of Italy centuries later was a complex issue and neither Theodoric nor Justinian could be blamed for it (or maybe thanked, because that same evolution was the motor of the Renaissance).