Roman gladiator cemetery discovered?

[Melvadius]

In German I would say to your above statement "da bei

[Viggen]

In German I would say to your above statement "da bei

[caldrail]

That's not what I meant. Statistics gathered from archaeological sources vary a little but the best figures I have suggest that a gladiator had around a one third chance of dying in his first match. Only if he survived did his increasing skill and experience lower that risk to around 1 in 9 or 1 in 10. The average life expectancy appears to have been something like four years. It took a capable individual to survive for any length of time.

 

Some did of course. In that recent Channel 4 documentary discussing the remains found at York, one fighter, a retiarius, was showing signs of intensive training at a very early age - earlier than most gladiators - and he died of his injuries around the age of forty, which makes him something of a survival expert in the arena.

 

You say the training was aimed at producing a good fighter. I agree completely. However, not everyone makes a good fighter and only a small section of society have the necessary physical and mental capabilities to become a top class fighter. Talent is everything. Not everyone has that. For a man who demonstrates this talent I would have expected he received the full attention of his Lanista. For most, they rreceived enough training to put on a good show. Whether they knew how slim their chances were or not I can't say, but I'm sure their trainer wasn't under any illusions, and was he really going to give everyone in his ownership the same care and attention as a top class fighter? You say the money was important - again I agree - but I see it as a matter of investment. What's the point of training to the nth degree a man who couldn't fight off his mother-in-law?

 

In any case, they didn't breed cannon-fodder. It was more of a case of okay, lets try this new recruit... Oh dear... He isn't very good is he? No matter. Cassius the Castrator is appearing in the games announced by our local magistrate next week. We'll use him for that. But in order to satisfy the Roman audience that this was a 'fair' fight, he needs to look like he can fight. That can be done without a huge investment. newbies weren't given chances to build a career as a gladiator. They had to prove they were worthy. That meant winning.

 

Don't forget, not all lanistas operated from fixed sites. Many could not afford the large ludii. If I remember right, there are mentions of itinerant troupes of gladiators with no fixed abode, just a group of fighters wandering from town to town putting on shows for a living. You might argue it was in their interest not to suffer a casualty - I can see that point - yet this was a contact sport. A very dangerous contact sport. It was accepted that an entrant to the arena ran the risk of death or disability.

[Melvadius]

In German I would say to your above statement "da bei

[Medusa]

i watched now the dvd of the documentary which ghost of clayton was so kind to send me. i would like to share with you guys also the comments i have made at roman army talk:

 

after i received a copy of this tv show quite some time ago i finally had time to watch it yesterday taking some notes to the following points (some of them already mentioned by others here):

 

1) junkelmann defines the bestiarius as the animal keeper, the actual beast fighter would be named venator.hoewever, it is wrong to say that the beast fighter was untrained and therefore most likely condemned to death. although not as popular as gladiators they were also trained. in rome they had their own school, the ludus matutinus ("the morning school" as beast fights usually took place in the morning).

 

2) as was already pointed out by conal, i, too wondered when they referred to the alleged murmillo if he did wear a manica or if a sword could cut through it under certain circumstances. they did not say anything about it. then they said the blunt wound come from a scutum crashing down on the arm of the man lying on the floor. the movie scene showed a murmillo causing these injuries to a thraex, so why do they say it the other way around? in my opinion its very thin to conclude from injuries the exact gladiator type.

 

3) the alleged thraex died thruogh the hammer blow of the arena attendant dressed as charun. the roblem is that only noxii (condemned criminals) were killed like that. fallen gladiators were carried out on a stretcher from the arena and their throat was slit behind the scenes to make sure they are not feigning their death.

 

4) it didn't make sense to me that esp. secutores were recruited from slaves and had to wear foot shackle even when fighting in the arena.

 

5) thinking that young man from the equestrian order (called equites) signing up as gladiators fighting on horseback (also called equites) seems very far-stretched. it was disgraceful esp. for members of the senatorial and equestrian class to appear publicly as gladiators, they would lose all their rights to run for office etc. the movie scene showed on gladiator already dismounted while the other one still sat on horseback. presumably the equites started their fight on horseback and then both dismounted to continue fighting on foot.

 

6) imho all gladiators need their right and left arms more or less equally, also the retiarius who switches the trident from left to right after the net is thrown, so that a young net fighter has one longer arm is also far-stretched. also gladiators were killed honorably this means they would never be beheaded.

 

after watching this documentary i see my previously stated doubts confirmed. saying that they found graves of gladiators is more attractive to the media than roman mass graves of criminals were found.

 

and two links:

 

http://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/headless-romans/index.htm

 

http://www.iadb.co.uk/driffield6/driffield6.php

[Maty]

All these are valid points - though I understand the original archaeological reports were more qualified, and the press reports removed the 'indicative of ...' or 'could have been' and jumped to the conclusion they wanted.

 

A couple of observations on the press reports - I'm not sure why anyone would be buried in shackles unless to make a point. Worked metal was expensive, so my guess was that the person buried was enough in disgrace that the people who did the burying wanted to make that shame eternal. It certainly was not routine to bury a criminal in his shackles.

 

Secondly I know of only one reference of someone being trained as a gladiator from childhood (viz; the son of Arminius) so if someone has formed specifically unilateral musculature as a juvenile, this is highly indicative that he was NOT a gladiator.

 

Finally, and this is a request for information, not disagreement - since some gladiators were criminals condemned to death ad gladium, did they qualify for Charun's attention? I'd assume that the crowd knew if the fighters were auctorati or condemned, and so would have no problem with seeing a damnatus finished off with the hammer, whether a gladiator or not?

[caldrail]

I disagree with Medusa on a minor point since the hammer blow from the Charon character was designed for people who weren't apparently dead already. If a gladiator was laying prone, seemingly lifeless, then indeed he would be carried off and dealt a cut to the throat behind the scenes in order to verify death. But a severely wounded man? Unable to continue and condemned by the editor to die in the arena? He's not going to get carried off.

 

Now under normal circumstances the opposing gladiator deals a mortal strike and the game is over. Consider this though. What if the editor wants more entertainment from a highly publicised fight? Instead of a quick clean kill as you'd expect in republican times, imagine the crowd watching that dark figure emerge from the gate, walking slowly across the sand to claim the dying man - it's far more dramatic. In any case, it's just as likely there were variations from time to time, and in different regions, about how they handle dying gladiators. After all, the documentary did point at the beheading of gladiators which was a brutal and uncharacteristic methopd of dispatching fallen opponents - it took six or seven strokes to seperate these mens heads and they were breathing when the process began.

[Medusa]

I disagree with Medusa on a minor point since the hammer blow from the Charon character was designed for people who weren't apparently dead already. If a gladiator was laying prone, seemingly lifeless, then indeed he would be carried off and dealt a cut to the throat behind the scenes in order to verify death. But a severely wounded man? Unable to continue and condemned by the editor to die in the arena? He's not going to get carried off.

 

Now under normal circumstances the opposing gladiator deals a mortal strike and the game is over. Consider this though. What if the editor wants more entertainment from a highly publicised fight? Instead of a quick clean kill as you'd expect in republican times, imagine the crowd watching that dark figure emerge from the gate, walking slowly across the sand to claim the dying man - it's far more dramatic. In any case, it's just as likely there were variations from time to time, and in different regions, about how they handle dying gladiators. After all, the documentary did point at the beheading of gladiators which was a brutal and uncharacteristic methopd of dispatching fallen opponents - it took six or seven strokes to seperate these mens heads and they were breathing when the process began.

 

A gladiator who surrendered gave a sign of surrender by dropping the shield if he had one and raised the left hand. the summa rudis (referee) interupted the fight immediately and now all waited for the final signal from the editor of the games if this gladiator had fought bravely and hence received mercy. if he was so heavily wounded that he could not he surely would be carried out of the arena. it is attested from inscriptions that gladiators that they left the arena alive but died afterwards of their wounds.

 

if the editor decided that the man who surrendered should die it was expected from the gladiator to receive the coup de gr

[caldrail]

yes, I agree, that was the standard practice. But we know there were local variations to the rules at times, mostly in provincial arenas. Bear in mind this documentary was desribing finds from one arena in Roman Britain. They wouldn't have had all the stage equipment like you might see at the Colosseumk at Rome, thus to add to the theatre of a performance, they needed to find other ways.

 

Now whilst one on one professional bouts were a matter of some seriousness (obviously, but also for the crowd) I want to suggest a possibility. Perhaps the fight was dull. Or perhaps something had been prearranged. But imagine that at one particular show a gladiator is wounded and cannot continue. The winner stands above him, sword at the ready, awaiting the editors decision to despatch or spare the loser. But instead of that expected signal, and to the suprise of the audience, the doors to the arena open. A dark figure walks in - and a paid voice cries out "Look! It's Charon! God of the Underworld!"

 

So my hypothetical diversion is a piece of drama. The winning gladiator is pushed away by the referee to make way for the supernatural visitor, who approaches the loser remorselessly. Will the fallen fighter beg for his life, or meet his end stoically? In fact, the decision would still be the editors, but it would appear to the crowd that the god of the underworld had decided whether this man would live or die.

 

This would still fit the facts I believe? Also, since the shock value would ebb after a few appearances, Charon would have been a fashionable theatrical part of the event for a while and then fall into disuse.

[Melvadius]

<Snip>....

 

So my hypothetical diversion is a piece of drama. The winning gladiator is pushed away by the referee to make way for the supernatural visitor, who approaches the loser remorselessly. Will the fallen fighter beg for his life, or meet his end stoically? In fact, the decision would still be the editors, but it would appear to the crowd that the god of the underworld had decided whether this man would live or die.

 

This would still fit the facts I believe? Also, since the shock value would ebb after a few appearances, Charon would have been a fashionable theatrical part of the event for a while and then fall into disuse.

 

An interesting piece of speculation but I suspect you really need to provide specific evidence to back it up as you seem to be going against our resident 'experts' opinion.

[Medusa]

So my hypothetical diversion is a piece of drama. The winning gladiator is pushed away by the referee to make way for the supernatural visitor, who approaches the loser remorselessly. Will the fallen fighter beg for his life, or meet his end stoically? In fact, the decision would still be the editors, but it would appear to the crowd that the god of the underworld had decided whether this man would live or die.

 

sure there might be local variations esp. when it comes to the pairings of gladiators.

 

but a scene which you describe something like a drama sounds to me also to a condemnation of criminals which are known to have been set in kind of dramas.

 

please bear also in mind that the editor of the games had to pay the lanista who rented the gladiators to him for the show an extra fee fo each fallen gladiator. the lanista needed this as a compensation for all the time he had put into the training etc. of the gladiator. therefore it was also a matter of available funds if to send a surrendered gladiator to death or not.

 

i still disagree with you that charun with the hammer was connected to gladiators.

[caldrail]

Your point about compensation is well made, but mine was that since the hypothetical fight had reached that point anyway, and that a good review from the public might be worth paying off the dying gladiators owner, and that the actual method of dispatching him isn't all that important aside from observing tradition - he was after all the loser of a fight, and the most important thing right then and there was how he faced his potential death - then extracting more reaction from the audience via an extended piece of drama associated with the act of death or mercy is a useful asset for the editor concerned.

 

Also, it should be borne in mind that Romans did sometimes risk debt to achieve their ends. In a somewhat different sphere is the anecdote of one roman who bankrupted himself holding lavish dinners to impress his peers and ultimately committed suicide. In the political sphere, the games were risky. In order to entertain your audience, you might be obliged to condemn a man to death even if you can't afford the price. The alternative is to defy the mood of the audience - and that's contrary to the entire rationale of holding the games to begin with.

 

As regards Charon and his hammer - we already know it was connected with gladiators to some degree because the archaeological evidence of that particular graveyard demonstrates the use of the weapon. That doesn't mean I'm right - I'm only suggesting an alternative explanation.

[Medusa]

As regards Charon and his hammer - we already know it was connected with gladiators to some degree because the archaeological evidence of that particular graveyard demonstrates the use of the weapon. That doesn't mean I'm right - I'm only suggesting an alternative explanation.

 

And that and also other points which i have listed above therefore point strongly in the direction that they found a graveyard of condemned criminals and not of gladiators e.g. trained fighters.

 

the harvard professor kathleen coleman dedicated an article to midday executions called "fatal charades: roman executions staged as mythological enactments" published THE JOURNAL OF ROMAN STUDIES 80, 44-73, 1990.

 

the afternoon part of the munus were the gladiator fights which should be seen as kind of displays of swordmanship, kind of martial *art* and not senseless hacking to death. as unathentic the film "gladiator" is in one point it was right, when the audience was dipleased when maximus killed his opponents too quickly. gladiators should entertain but not by any kind of senseless hacking to death in a drama setting but by their fight to skill. so any kind of theatrical parts of the show were reserved for the executions.

[caldrail]

I've already agreed the point about professional bouts. I would point out however that was not unformily the case. In the earlier half of gladiatorial history things were pretty much as you describe them. During the later half of the pax romana we see trend toward 'entertainment' fights. Although staged in the same way, the weapons are more fanciful or designed to inflict wounds rather that killing strokes and thrusts.

 

Whereas before the skill and agression element was paramouint, and so a quick clean kill in combat desirable for honourable conduct, in the latter half the idea is to dramatise the combat. Instead of a sword thrust past a mans defenses ending the fight rather quickly, now it was a slogging match, where two men wore each other down, the drama emerging in whether either of the fighters can carry on and deliver that winning blow, rather like watching two apparently exhausted wrestlers on television today.

 

As much as gladiators were supposed to be highly skilled fighters, the truth is that not all were. It took time and experience to reach a peak of effectiveness and not all fighters were talented enough to reach the pinnacle of the sport. Suetonius for instance relates an anecdote of Caligula being hugely disappointed at the lacklustre performance of gladiators fighting before him. And also, we must remember that the fact fallen gladiators had their throats cut afterward to ensure death was something of a sign that professional fighters weren't always as honourable as the mythos suggests.

 

Also, since the gladiators were trained to fight in a manner that could be described as 'crowd-pleasing', the inference that theatre took no part in it is hard to justify. Why else were gladiators given stage names describing them as fierce animals, mythic heroes, or in some cases, poofs? Why else is the name 'Spartacus' daubed on an archway in Pompeii? the original rebel of republican times almost certainly never fought there.

 

In the end, it was entertainment that eroded the professional aspect of gladiatorial combat by the late empire and I suspect one reason why it lost popularity.

[Medusa]

what do you consider as late empire? i would say the fourth century was a time when for the losing gladiator it became more likely to receive the coup de gr