• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Roman Resources

Go to CruxDreams.com
Indeed, roman justice had no concept of 'civil rights.'
While a citizen could appeal to the emperor, not sure how far that went or if it did much good!
A nice short treatment of the appeals in Imperial Rome can be found here. From the Garnsey article mentioned in a footnote:

The theory that in the last resort the right of appeal was unavailable to all citizens can be accepted. This does not commit us to the further assertion that the right was formally curtailed or abridged by law. In practice, the efficacy of appeal depended on the discretion of the governor. In effect, the man who gave judgement in the provinces in criminal cases had the power, but not the right, to refuse an appeal against his own sentence.​
 
This came to my notice today in a catalogue, published 2014 but now in paperback:

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academi...itecture/material-life-roman-slaves?format=HB

The Material Life of Roman Slaves is a major contribution to scholarly debates on the archaeology of Roman slavery. Rather than regarding slaves as irretrievable in archaeological remains, the book takes the archaeological record as a key form of evidence for reconstructing slaves' lives and experiences. Interweaving literature, law, and material evidence, the book searches for ways to see slaves in the various contexts - to make them visible where evidence tells us they were in fact present. Part of this project involves understanding how slaves seem irretrievable in the archaeological record and how they are often actively, if unwittingly, left out of guidebooks and scholarly literature. Individual chapters explore the dichotomy between visibility and invisibility and between appearance and disappearance in four physical and social locations - urban houses, city streets and neighborhoods, workshops, and villas.
 
“Martyrology and the Prurient Gaze” [PDF] Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (2009) 215–45.

This paper uses a range of early (100-400 CE.) martyrological narratives, in association with novels and apocalyptic discourses of the same era, to show the appeal of such narratives to early Christian audiences' prurience into sado-erotic violence.​

No way! :devil:

There's some fashionable humanitarian jargon ('these materials in their cultural context become boundary-reifying rather than -transcendent', uh-huh), but otherwise the article is pretty good.
 
Around the year 83 CE, the Roman's built a fort at Inchtuthil on the River Tay in Scotland. It was one of the furthest points north in the Roman occupation of Britannia. The fort only lasted for 3 or 4 years. When the Romans abandoned the location, the removed or destroyed everything that could be of use to their enemies. However, they apparently couldn't transport about 10 tonnes of iron objects. So, they dug a pit and buried all of it. They remained there until the 1950s when archaeologist uncovered the hoard.
Why is this of interest to us? Because the hoard included around 750,000 nails. The attached article gives a very good description of these nails which would have been the type used in crucifixions.
https://slll.anu.edu.au/sites/slll....ges/McConchie_Classics_Occasional_Paper_1.pdf
 
That's right, a plateau on a promontory overlooking a big bend in the Tay
downstream of Dunkeld (and Birnam Wood that came to Dunsinane ;)),
an ideal spot for a Roman Fort.

https://canmore.org.uk/site/28592/inchtuthil
 
Last edited:
Meditating (as one should on Good Friday afternoon) on the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus,
I’ve put together a few notes on the terms used by the Evangelists for the ‘notice’ written by Pilate and posted on the cross.

Matthew 27:37 uses the Greek word aitían, the Latin Vulgate has causam, the AV/KJV has ‘accusation’, the NRVS ‘charge’;

Mark 15:26 has epigraphē tēs aitías, Vulgate titulus causae, AV ‘superscription of his accusation’, NRSV ‘inscription of the charge’;

Luke 23:38 says epigraphē ep’autōi, Vulgate superscriptio super eum, AV ‘superscription...over him’, NRSV ‘inscription over him’

John 19:20 títlon, Vulgate titulum, AV ‘inscription’, NRSV ‘inscription’.

In Matthew and John the word is in the accusative case, in Mark and Luke epigraphē is nominative, aitías in Luke is genitive.

Note that only John used the Greek títlon, although Jerome also used titulus to translate Mark’s epigraphē. Títlos/ titulus simply meant ‘a small notice’ of any kind, not necessary a sign of disgrace; it was used by extension, much as our ‘title’ still is, for titles of honour, legal entitlements, headings of chapters etc. By Jerome’s time (4th century), the irony of this ‘notice of accusation’ being also a ‘title of honour’ would have been obvious. But it’s a mistake to assume that this word would necessarily have been associated by Greek or Latin speakers with crucifixions, at least not until the triumph of Christianity in the late Empire.

Epigraphē/ superscriptio is literally ‘something written on or above’, and Luke seems to emphasis the point by adding ep’autōi ‘above him’, presumably meaning it was placed physically above Jesus (a matter we’ve been debating, as it implies a stauros/stipēs extending above the patibulum). Again, the word is neutral in meaning, just something written in a prominent place.

Only aitía used by itself by Matthew, and qualifying epigraphē by Mark, carries connotations of criminality, though only by implication, it’s literally, like Jerome’s Latin causa, the ‘cause’, the reason why Jesus is being crucified. Nevertheless, although the Evangelists use different terms, they all write as if posting such a notice was a reasonably common practice, not perhaps in all cases (there’s no mention of the two thieves having such explanations posted for their executions), but at least in unusual, ‘celebrity’ cases or where the authorities wanted to make an example of the victim.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a well-organised review of the evidence for the range of instruments of chastisement -
fascinating to this girl as a lover of ancient history, and as a lover of the Whip,
a slavegirl - imagining the feel of each of those torture-tools on her bare skin!
 
As I posted elsewhere; I am currently writing a story about a mass crucifixion of Christians along side one the roads leading to Rome. I decided the bodies of those who died would be removed each day and dumped somewhere. But, I'm not sure where.
Does anyone know if there was a landfill or some other place outside of Rome where garbage - and the bodies of those unworthy of or unable to afford proper burial - would be dumped? I'm think of something like Gehenna, the valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned.
All I've been able to learn is that most garbage was simply dumped in the streets and washed into the sewers by rain. While this might have been fine for ordinary household refuse, it wouldn't do for something large like a the carcass of a dead horse. Or a dead human. I've have learned that there is a large hill south of Rome, Monte Testaccio, that is actually a pile of broken amphorae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio
So, does anyone have any knowledge on this subject?
 
As I posted elsewhere; I am currently writing a story about a mass crucifixion of Christians along side one the roads leading to Rome. I decided the bodies of those who died would be removed each day and dumped somewhere. But, I'm not sure where.
Does anyone know if there was a landfill or some other place outside of Rome where garbage - and the bodies of those unworthy of or unable to afford proper burial - would be dumped? I'm think of something like Gehenna, the valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned.
All I've been able to learn is that most garbage was simply dumped in the streets and washed into the sewers by rain. While this might have been fine for ordinary household refuse, it wouldn't do for something large like a the carcass of a dead horse. Or a dead human. I've have learned that there is a large hill south of Rome, Monte Testaccio, that is actually a pile of broken amphorae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio
So, does anyone have any knowledge on this subject?
Interesting question. I have been to Rome and visited Monte Trestaccio. Definitely not suitable for your purposes. It is just a humongous pile of broken amphorae. It's a challenge. I'll do some research. :)
 
All I've been able to learn is that most garbage was simply dumped in the streets and washed into the sewers by rain. While this might have been fine for ordinary household refuse, it wouldn't do for something large like a the carcass of a dead horse. Or a dead human.
On the other hand I came across an article that said this:
"In Rome and Pompeii, trash was sometimes disposed of in the sewage system, which was commonly used to get rid of anything undesirable. Even the bodies of the third-century emperor Heliogabalus, who was murdered by his guards, and of the Christian martyr Saint Sebastian were dumped in Rome’s main sewer, the Cloaca Maxima."
Probably not a solution for disposal of several bodies at once.
 
On the other hand I came across an article that said this:
"In Rome and Pompeii, trash was sometimes disposed of in the sewage system, which was commonly used to get rid of anything undesirable. Even the bodies of the third-century emperor Heliogabalus, who was murdered by his guards, and of the Christian martyr Saint Sebastian were dumped in Rome’s main sewer, the Cloaca Maxima."
Probably not a solution for disposal of several bodies at once.
I came across those example too and had the same thought: one body is fine, but 50 or 60 would create a major blockage...
...unless there were alligators in the Roman sewers.:D
 
I came across those example too and had the same thought: one body is fine, but 50 or 60 would create a major blockage...
...unless there were alligators in the Roman sewers.:D
Maybe you just float them down the Tiber and out to sea. The Mediterranean has been a garbage dump for centuries (sadly).
 
Back
Top Bottom