Gaius Octavius Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I often wonder if the Romans (or any other ancient people) treated their 'ancient' materials as we moderns treat theirs? I am aware of only two (I am sure this is no big surprise hereabouts.); the Rostra and a hut in Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Well the relationship between the ancient men and their past was most different. The first archaeological-like reasoning appears in Grece when Athenians lands on Delos, emptied graves and collect the bones to purify the island. Following the description of the event Herodote ( or is it Thucydide ? ) explain who the dead were through analysis of the grave material and history of the area and deduce that the bones are those of Carian pirates. Other than that there is no know attempt to dig in order to find ancient material and study of it. But the greek and the romans do have a tendency to re-use ancient material or keep ancient material for as long as possible : the old wooden statue of Athena in the Erechteion temple in Athene is one example. They also try to keep the trace of their victories : trophy are kept in temples long after the dead of the warrior who took them and sometime they are restored as was the trophy of Romulus in the temple of Jupiter at Rome under Augustus as recounted by Livy ( whether this was not a fiction made by Augustus is still in debate ). The ancient also re-used buildings from the past to serve present needs, often religious ones. The best example is all the mycenian tombs converted into heroes' shrines during the archaic and classical periods. We also see numerous cases of old greek statues taken as prize by the romans, including 4 or 5 centuries old pieces. So one could say no the ancient did not have the same approach than us regarding objects from the past but what they kept they tried to keep as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I often wonder if the Romans (or any other ancient people) treated their 'ancient' materials as we moderns treat theirs? I am aware of only two (I am sure this is no big surprise hereabouts.); the Rostra and a hut in Rome. Octavius - is one of these buildings the so-called 'Regia' in the forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I often wonder if the Romans (or any other ancient people) treated their 'ancient' materials as we moderns treat theirs? I am aware of only two (I am sure this is no big surprise hereabouts.); the Rostra and a hut in Rome. Octavius - is one of these buildings the so-called 'Regia' in the forum? I don't know what the 'Regia' is. But the Rostra (I am pretty sure) is the podium where speakers spoke to the people from in the Forum. It had the prow (or beak) of an ancient ship on it. The 'hut' was supposedly from the founding of Rome. I hope that I have this right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Most of the examples that Bryaxis Hecatee cites in his post are religious in nature, and I think this is the key to understanding the Roman mentality. When it came to other cultures, the aspect the Romans had the most reverence for was religion. This grew out of the Roman superstition to not do anything that might incite the wrath of a deity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Octavius - is one of these buildings the so-called 'Regia' in the forum? I am certain that you know what the 'Regia' is, but for we uninitiated: http://www.vroma.org/~forum/regia.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 ancient object that were linked to heroes were reviered, such as Alexander and his panoply that belonged to Achilles. Then again the Achilles panoply was almost certainly a fake added to the collection at Illios. It's strange considering how the Greeks and Romans turned many old sites to toursit attractions. I believe that Troy, the Pyramids and other sites remained as tourist attractions throughout the Roman era. I've heard how the Greeks or Romans built a staircase on Illion, leading up to a courtyard where tourists could touch a building or stone that dated back to the Trojan Wars. That would probably not be allowed in modern museums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Roman archaeology? I doubt it. Ancient artifacts either had curiosity value or were treated with religious reverence. There wouldn't have been any attempt to understand what the artifact actually was, nor to adjust history in the light of its discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.