Roman gladiator cemetery discovered?

[Medusa]

@Mods: Please seperate the discussion about Senecas saying and this post now from the actual thread as this has nothing to do directly with the discussion about what the bones of the cemetary in York might be:

 

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.

 

As you like to keep on discussing the matter of Senecas quotes and other things related to gladiatorial things, OK then, here we go...

 

It is true that the limbs of gladiators were protected by some kind of body armor while the vital parts of the torso were not. This was to avoid to get invalids. The training and catering etc. of a gladiator was expensive. The aim was either to kill or to fight in a manner that one of the opponents might surrender. You do not need to be severely wounded to surrender but maybe also the lost of a shield or the entanglement in the net of the retiarius could think you of surrendering esp. if you would face the sure death if you do not surrender. When your show was good the chance was at least in the 1st century AD that the audience appreciated your display and the editor hence granted you the missio so you might have a chance to fight another day and then win.

 

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.

 

I regret having to repeat myself again: I have said that Seneca might have watched an execution which was not as fantasyful as expected and that the noxii just didn't defend themselves but were passive and hence were just slaughtered.

[Medusa]

@Mods: If possible, this post should stay in the actual thread about the York Cemetary.

 

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

 

No need to ask you via PM it became all very clear by your posts

 

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.

 

Yes, it all is speculation so far, but speculation should include several options. You jumped always on the point that it must be gladiators without taking other options into consideration. In the media they said wide feet point to gladiators because they fought barefoot. You said yes, surely that must be a strong indication that those bones belonged to gladiators. You did not even think about other groups of people like slaves etc. like I did. If you have a look at the discussion which we led so far you always said that this or that points to gladiators but I pointed out that it could be also something else.

 

You said above that you want to know the truth. We might never know it in this case for certain but why don't you like to take other possibilities into consideration as well? Why are you so focused on these bones being those of gladiators and not of anyone else? This I now want to know from you because this does not become clear from your posts. Is it the sensationalist point against a "boring" point?

[caldrail]

No. The object of this thread was discuss a possible gladiator graveyard so I've dicussed it from that perspective. I also think you miss the point of speculation. It's common in such fields of knowledge for people to become very conservative, to value what they've learned, and in some cases become overly proud of their accumulated knowledge that they become very dismissive of anything that disagrees with them. This usually happens in areas where nothing is known for certain, and individuals push their opinions forward not so that people understand the subject, but that they understand the speaker is more knowledgable than them. Social status in other words. We humans indulge in that rather a lot.

 

I was reading in our local library this morningabout a meeting held by a natural history society in Swindon way back in 1873. Learned gentlemen gave lectures and various finds were set out for the perusal of the gathered members. A large tooth recovered from the clay beds for instance, described as from a 'Sea Dragon'. This was a period when paleontology was in its infancy, caught between darwinist and christian thinking. Although the species of sea dragon had by then received an official name, no-one really understood what these creatures were. So learned gentlemen gave their opinion.

 

These victorian speculations are quite laughable these days. Back in 1873, they'd reached the conclusions that Swindon had once been the home of the first true frog, and a species of small kangaroo. Wrong on both counts, but they hadn't connected all the dots back then, and in any event, weren't aware of many of them. These days we draw on the accumulated data and even other disciplines to shed light on our understanding.

 

Is history any different?

 

I regret having to repeat myself again: I have said that Seneca might have watched an execution which was not as fantasyful as expected and that the noxii just didn't defend themselves but were passive and hence were just slaughtered.

To me that seems a rather glib explanation. Seneca knew what executions were. He knew what part of day they took place. He may well have known if criminal execustions were advertised as part of the proceedings. He knew the various formats of events taking place at munera. That wouldn't suprise him.

 

The phrase 'sheer murder' is, as I mentioned before, the important point. It describes killing without the usual restrictions. Since executions represent the rules, as it were, it can hardly be credible that rules were being set aside for a public condemnation and death of a convicted criminal when it's the state that creates the rules of that killing.

Edited July 31, 2010 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

Personally I have no objection to reasoned extrapolation BUT I strongly believe that the sources used for such an exercises need to be precisely quoted and any discussion really needs to move beyond apparently the same two or three points, which cannot be completely proven one way or the other, being repeated ad infinitum.

 

Without new evidence being presented to support any of the suggestions made about these bodies it may be time to draw this thread to a close.

[Medusa]

No. The object of this thread was discuss a possible gladiator graveyard so I've dicussed it from that perspective. I also think you miss the point of speculation. It's common in such fields of knowledge for people to become very conservative, to value what they've learned, and in some cases become overly proud of their accumulated knowledge that they become very dismissive of anything that disagrees with them. This usually happens in areas where nothing is known for certain, and individuals push their opinions forward not so that people understand the subject, but that they understand the speaker is more knowledgable than them. Social status in other words. We humans indulge in that rather a lot.

 

You focused on one point only in this discussion but did not see the other options which I have pointed out. I did not miss the point of speculation, instead I throw more options into the ring which you constantly ignored.

 

I agree with Melvadius to close this thread for now since there might be news re this cemetary.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Medusa