Roman gladiator cemetery discovered?

[Maty]

Just to clear up any misunderstanding - as Caldrail or Medusa both know, but some others might not - Charun here is not Charon the ferryman, but a winged Etruscan deity whose role, rather like part of the portfolio of Hermes, is to be a psychopompus. That is someone who leads the souls of the dead to the underworld, where Charon the boatman takes them onward. The role of the person who depicts him in the in the arena is (as we can see) considerably more ambiguous.

 

I mention this as an amicus curiae, and will now step back to join the other spectators in this very enjoyable discussion.

[caldrail]

I apologise to the Senate for my clumsiness in spelling. Rest assured the slave responsible will be flogged and the mistake will not occur again.

 

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

[Medusa]

You may well be right. However, the remains with head injuries caused by hammers were buried at the same site as skeletons identified with features consistent with trained gladiators. Since the two would not be mixed, the conclusion that Charun was used as an execution figure publicly in connection with gladiators - in the area of York for a while at least - is hard to deny.

 

if you had followed my previous post you will surely have noticed that i doubt than any of the bones found in york were of gladiators. i strongly believe that all of them belong to condemned criminals. this means there would have been no mixture between gladiator graves and those of noxii at all.

[caldrail]

Forensic examination of the finds shows evidence of gladiatorial lifestyles. Healed injuries, wide feet, large size, unequal arm length, and so forth.

 

I also understand that similar evidence of a hammer coup de gras has been found at Ephesus, Turkey. Further, the bodies were buried with care which is inconsistent with treatment of criminals. One had substantial grave goods.

 

Since York was a major Roman station, it does seem odd that some sort of permanent amphitheatre wasn't present, even at that far flung part of the empire. Such places weren't particularly big in Roman Britain. The one in Cirencester, one of the largest towns of that period, is quite modest. The amphitheatre in Londinium was discovered by accident only recently, so there's hope for York yet.

Edited July 26, 2010 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

Forensic examination of the finds shows evidence of gladiatorial lifestyles. Healed injuries, wide feet, large size, unequal arm length, and so forth.

 

I'm sorry but that does not necessarily follow. I don't know where you got the idea that wide feet is a gladiatorial indicator - size of feet (with the exception of the old Japanese habit of binding girls feet to keep them small) like many other physical attributes is inherited and not something you can 'train' for.

 

To play the Devil

[Medusa]

Forensic examination of the finds shows evidence of gladiatorial lifestyles. Healed injuries, wide feet, large size, unequal arm length, and so forth.

 

i guess i have to repeat myself again: the uneqal arm length DOES NOT point to gladiators as i can tell you from my own training. in one hand i carry a heavy scutum in the other a sword. even for the other types of gladiators, you definitely train both arms.

 

wide feet may point to persons running around barefoot a lot, but gladiators weren't the only ones with barefeet, what about slaves, poor people...?

 

large size points to a non-italic origin, but we are talking about britain and not the italian motherland. also many of the conquered peoples like celts and germanic peoples were sold as slaves. also the people inn the gaulish and germanic provinces remained taller than italians even though they adopted the roman life style. also there were some roman volunteers signing up as gladiators. there was no minimum size to become gladiator, unlike modern boxing and martial arts there were no weight categories. so the size of a person does not tell you anything about his or her profession.

 

good healed injuries may point to gladiators or the military but a beheaded person coul have been a deserter having been catched and put to death in a spectacle warning all soldiers better not to desert...

[Medusa]

Since York was a major Roman station, it does seem odd that some sort of permanent amphitheatre wasn't present, even at that far flung part of the empire. Such places weren't particularly big in Roman Britain. The one in Cirencester, one of the largest towns of that period, is quite modest. The amphitheatre in Londinium was discovered by accident only recently, so there's hope for York yet.

 

this is the only point where i agree with you: it's very much likely that a place like york had an amphitheater like cologne and mainz whose amphitheaters also still remain undiscovered. nonetheless we should always bear in mind that spectacles in the provinces were always on a much smaller scale than the emperor's games as i have already pointed out.

[caldrail]

In answer to criticism of points raised earlier - I'm relying on the opinions put forward by people better qualified than me, since I have no personal experience of forensic archaeology. Wide feet suggest someone who has spent most of their time bare foot - it's a known characteristic in human beings. Also, not all gladiators were taught to fight with either hand - that's myth. Otherwise, why would Commodus have been so proud of fighting in the left handed style, mentioned as being very rare? Large size might point to a diet of barley which has this effect on growth patterns. It doesn't necessarily indicate foreign extraction, although many of the remains at York did come from eastern europe (their data, not mine).

[Medusa]

Also, not all gladiators were taught to fight with either hand - that's myth. Otherwise, why would Commodus have been so proud of fighting in the left handed style, mentioned as being very rare? Large size might point to a diet of barley which has this effect on growth patterns. It doesn't necessarily indicate foreign extraction, although many of the remains at York did come from eastern europe (their data, not mine).

 

You did not understand what I was saying: I said the handling of sword and shield involves both hands to a nearly equal basis as I can tell you from my own training. I as a right hander hold the sword in the right hand and the shield in the left one. I do not mix this around not even for training purposes. But I have to use both hands.

 

If you have a look on immages of gladiators you will see that all types of gladiators hold a weapon in one hand and something as a defence in the other hand. In the case of the retiarius he wields the tridents with both hands once the net is thrown. Before that he usually holds and throws the net with his fighting hand (i.e. right hand when a right hander, left hand when a south paw) and holds the trident in the other so that he is still able to at least block attacks by the secutor with the trident.

 

The people so called experts who claim that the gladiatura requires the strength of only the weapon hand and that therefore this arm is more developed simply DO NOT know what they are talking about and you parrot them. In connection with my impression as gladiatrix I've read tons of books about gladiators and practise beside the gladiatura as reenactment other Martial Arts. So I know what I'm talking about. One kind advise: Please read carefully what I've written before so we do not repeat certain points of the discussion again and again. Thanks.

[Medusa]

In answer to criticism of points raised earlier - I'm relying on the opinions put forward by people better qualified than me, since I have no personal experience of forensic archaeology. Wide feet suggest someone who has spent most of their time bare foot -

 

This is another point where you parrot the so called experts. As I've said earlier, where you mentioned the wide feet, I said that not only gladiators ran around bare feet but others as well. These groups, e.g. slaves were not mentioned by those "experts" because that does not sell so good in the media as "gladiators". The online newspaper article which started this discussion was of course focused on "gladiators" instead of other groups to make the article more lurid. I had already back then pointed out my doubts. The TV documentation was on the same leve, LURID. The most neutral website which goes very much into detail about the excavation is by York Archaeological Trust which I state here once more:

 

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

 

They mention the theory about gladiators but only among others. These other theories are not quoted by your "experts" on which you like to rely so much and hence parrot. I kindly ask you to think before you parrot any one. Thanks

Edited July 28, 2010 by Medusa

[caldrail]

Parrot? In a sense, Med, but then how many of us are finding original remains and sources? We're all acting as parrots to some degree, because we have to rely on data collated by others. Also bear in mind that whilst I'm accepting the results of archaeological digs at York and Ephesus at face value, I'm also prepared to accept findings that differ from the possible explanations given so far. However, that doesn't change my stance for the moment. I thought about it that far at least, and tried to enlarge on a possible explanation that is consistent with the published findings.

 

Now, as for thinking, since you kindly asked me to, I shall. We've already had a debate on the nature of theatre in connection with gladiatorial combat. Seneca provides us with a quotation that at first glance appears to confirm that. I don't have the correct wording, but he says something along the lines of "I stopped off at the arena hoping to see some entertainment, but it was sheer murder out there". You know the quote?

 

So why is the meaning in doubt? It depends on how you interpret what Seneca means. Firstly, he expects the same sort of entertainment he usually gets at such events, and as we've agreed, the fights in his day were conducted with some seriousness. To him, that was entertainment. A swordfight. But also a swordfight conducted in a familiar manner. Now he describes the fights he saw that day as 'sheer murder'. Why? He was already accustomed to the reality of fighting and dying in the arena, and indeed, had gone there specifically for that.

 

My own consideration (and since this isn't something I've seen written anywhere else, it falls within your definition of thought) is that the referee(s) had lost control. The fights had gotten ugly for some reason. Gladiators were pulling tricks and foul moves, largely ignoring the hapless referee. As a result, Seneca witnesses a nasty 'no-holds-barred' fight. Sheer murder out there.

[Medusa]

Now, as for thinking, since you kindly asked me to, I shall. We've already had a debate on the nature of theatre in connection with gladiatorial combat. Seneca provides us with a quotation that at first glance appears to confirm that. I don't have the correct wording, but he says something along the lines of "I stopped off at the arena hoping to see some entertainment, but it was sheer murder out there". You know the quote?

 

I very well know this lines of Seneca and interpret them that he went at the noon time to the AMPHItheatre and that he saw some mass executions and no gladiator fights and that he didn't like the way these souls were executed.

[caldrail]

Yes, you could see it that way, but notice he was expecting something ordinary and saw something different. Further, his comment is not disparaging toward whoever was taking part nor does he infer any sense of justice. Also, if Seneca came in and saw executions, why was he expecting entertainment? If that was the case, surely he wouldn't be especially bothered by any bloodiness involved? Since when were Roman public executions swift and painless? They were always conducted in a manner to inspire fear of the consequences of misbehaviour and to demonstrate power. that last attribute is absent from Seneca's quote. In no way was he impressed. Then of course you could see it another way.

 

What if the fights were deliberately bloody? Normally an editor would make a big deal of fights to held to the death with prior advertising and gossip, because that would draw in the crowd. However, Augustus had banned fights sine missione and thus it was likely that Seneca was looking at a fight conducted in an illegal manner. In that case, he would be hoping that the extra blood and aggression would make his games memorable even if he couldn't get away with blowing his own trumpet. If that's the case, then in a way he succeeded.

[Medusa]

Yes, you could see it that way, but notice he was expecting something ordinary and saw something different. Further, his comment is not disparaging toward whoever was taking part nor does he infer any sense of justice. Also, if Seneca came in and saw executions, why was he expecting entertainment? If that was the case, surely he wouldn't be especially bothered by any bloodiness involved? Since when were Roman public executions swift and painless? They were always conducted in a manner to inspire fear of the consequences of misbehaviour and to demonstrate power. that last attribute is absent from Seneca's quote. In no way was he impressed. Then of course you could see it another way.

 

He went there at the wrong time of the day or was hoping that the display would have been more interesting but at that certain show it was just simply killing without being set in a mythological context etc.

 

What if the fights were deliberately bloody? Normally an editor would make a big deal of fights to held to the death with prior advertising and gossip, because that would draw in the crowd. However, Augustus had banned fights sine missione and thus it was likely that Seneca was looking at a fight conducted in an illegal manner. In that case, he would be hoping that the extra blood and aggression would make his games memorable even if he couldn't get away with blowing his own trumpet. If that's the case, then in a way he succeeded.

 

The ban of sine missione fights does not mean that a gladiator could not lose his life in a fight either by being killed directly during combat or by putting to death due to a bad performance. It was only forbidden to have fights which from the beginning implied that one of the combatants has to die that the fight has to go to the bitter end or that the one who surrenders knows that his life will be finished by surrendering.

 

I guess we should come back after this digression about Seneca's quote back to the actual point of discussion that is the discovery of a Roman time cemetary in York. I say it once more that the media (paper and TV) focused on this theory that the bones are those of gladiators and you, caldrail, seemed to like this theory only (because for it lurid part ), without having a look at the other theories which I had pointed out here and which are also in a much wider detail are listed on the website of the York Archaeological Trust. For all who have read only the online newspaper article or even have seen this TV documentary have a look here where different theories are presented:

 

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

 

Since this discussion which we had here was led by me and caldrail only I would say one last word: When reading the website of YAT it surely becomes clear that we do not know for certain to which kind of persons the bones belongs. Despite all aspects I have pointed out here, and that not by parroting the YAT site but by simply thinking about possibilies Caldrail wants them to be gladiator bones and nothing else while I favor that they were bones of noxii.

 

Maybe we should vote But as long as we do not have a poll here you could cast your vote on this site:

 

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

[caldrail]

He went there at the wrong time of the day or was hoping that the display would have been more interesting but at that certain show it was just simply killing without being set in a mythological context etc.

Then why did he not emphasise his own error? Clearly what he was seeing was what the sort of thing he expected - but far bloodier. The mythological context is irreelevant in this respect.

 

The ban of sine missione fights does not mean that a gladiator could not lose his life in a fight either by being killed directly during combat or by putting to death due to a bad performance. It was only forbidden to have fights which from the beginning implied that one of the combatants has to die that the fight has to go to the bitter end or that the one who surrenders knows that his life will be finished by surrendering.

Precisely. We do need to understand though that fifteen hundred years of swordplay leaves us with a body of experience to fall back on in studying the results of fighting. Whilst the gladiators were usually equipped with armour of some sort, that protection was designed to minimise injuries, not deaths. Some of their protection, such as the padding on the sword arm, is designed to prevent bruising against the shield edge and has nothing to do with combat injuries at all. What the Romans were doing was trying to ensure that if a debilitating strike was made, then it would be final. One thrust, one death.

 

In reality of course the injuries from swordplay far outweigh the deaths, which is why the Romans evolved the ritual of asking for clemency if the wounded (or exhausted) gladiator could not continue. Seneca would have observed this phenomenon as a matter of course. Please bear in mind he was not a naive innocent. He lived in Rome and obviously enjoyed the spectacle as much as anyone else, and he did choose to visit the arena that rather than being obliged to attend. For him to describe the event as 'sheer murder' is significant. Now I agree that doesn't mean that the gladiators on that particular day weren't thrusting with lethal precision, but given the average size of events and skill levels of Roman munera, it would be an unusual day indeed if the death rate scored a huge blip.

 

Seneca however is unlikely to be describing executions. Those were not regarded as 'murder' by the population in any sense, and for that matter, neither were ritual coup de graces. These were deaths conducted in an expected manner, either as bloody or painful as possible in the first case, or with respectful immediacy in the second.

 

So if the fights were conducted according the accepted rules of the time, bearing in mind the compensation payments you've already stressed, then a good number would be granted missio. But that leaves us with a quandary, because Seneca is specifically that event as bloodier than expected. Of course that doesn't describe whether missio was being granted or not, but at the same time it does imply a far less merciful scene, which is why I suggested the two alternative explanations.

 

Since this discussion which we had here was led by me and caldrail only I would say one last word: When reading the website of YAT it surely becomes clear that we do not know for certain to which kind of persons the bones belongs. Despite all aspects I have pointed out here, and that not by parroting the YAT site but by simply thinking about possibilies Caldrail wants them to be gladiator bones and nothing else while I favor that they were bones of noxii.

If you want to know want Caldrail wants, perhaps you should ask him

 

What I want is to know the truth. I don't have the prvilege of access to original data nor the experience of forensic archaeology to make a definitive explanation. Therefore I must simply take what I understand to be the case at face value. If indeed the bones turn out to be noxii, then fine, that's how it was. I have absolutely no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is explanations that are a little too convenient or dismissive. In any case, speculation is good for history. It really is. If all we do is repeat 'parrot fashion' everything we've learned, then we've understood nothing, and instead turn history into some form of religion where saying anything different is sacrilege. As long as speculation is seen for what it is, we can use the ideas to search for explanations of previous events in a new light.

 

That all sounds a bit imprecise. It is. Because unless you place those speculations within context, they remain nothing more and may even distract us from accuracy. Ask any archaeologist. Context is vital to understanding remains discovered. And I notice the context of the remains at York does not conform to noxii at all.

Edited July 31, 2010 by caldrail