Women in Roman Religious Life

Lefkowitz and Fant assert that the politically oppressed often turn to ecstasy as a temporary means of possessing the power they otherwise lack.  In relation to this assertion we see from a number of ancient texts and archaeological evidence that Roman women had an important place in the religious life of the empire and had a number of important roles. So here is a brief overview for you in light of the Roman religious festival of Saturnalia.

One of the most significant roles of women in Roman religion is found in the Roman cults and festivals.  Several of these were confined to women and were used to enlist divine aid and designed to uphold ideals of female conduct.  Pomeroy outlines that cults and festivals involving Fortuna were an important part of women’s religious life and roles.  Fortuna Virginalis, for instance, protected adolescent girls who ceremonially dedicated their small togas to her when they came of age and donned a stola while transferring to the protection of Fortuna primigenia.  This is just one example of how females interwove with religious activities as through the worship of these goddesses ensured the protection of those who would go on to produce the children of the state.  Women also played a role in the commendation of relatives to the divine powers.  For instance, the commendation of nieces and nephews at the Matralia which was only attended to by respectable women.  The role of women in the worship of goddesses and festivals was a significant part of state interests such as with the worship by women of the verticordia which was associated with domestic harmony, virtue and marital fidelity.  Augustus often emphasized such cults to do with women in the interest of the state.  Juvenal on the other hand, condemned many of these cults and practices and presents a more distorted picture based on women neglecting the cults designed for them.

From the statue in Rome. Costume of a chief vestal

The roles of women were not just confined to Roman cults, but also associated with a number of foreign cults that had made their way into the body of Roman religious importance.  Pomeroy explains that one such cult was the cult of Isis which made its way throughout the Roman Empire and while in often dramatic contrast to many of the traditional cults was especially attractive.  This attraction was caused by the way that anyone could relate to Isis and this was particular the case with women who had a massive role to play in its upkeep.  Archaeology and written evidence from Pompeii illustrates that many women were affiliated with this cult, such as one so called Julia who was a public priestess of the cult at Pompeii.  This individual woman also shows us that such women could hold a certain authority in their localities, as Julia while holding this title of Priestess of Isis also had a number of businesses and authority over her own estates and income, as well as being a prominent member of society.  This illustrates Pomeroy’s assertion that religion afforded an outlet for those whos lives were circumcised in other ways.

Imperial and ordinary women also held a large role in Roman religious activity even outside the priesthood.  Cicero, while often oversimplifying the association between women and religion, shows that women had a significant sense of obligation and participation in relation to religion.  This is seen in accounts of how his wife Terentia would associate herself with religion and take part in a number of religious ceremonies and practices as an obligation to the divine and state.  Plutarch also describes such roles of women in religious activities such as with the Bona Dea (the good goddess) when sacrifice was offered to the goddess annually in the house of the consul by either his wife or mother.  Plutarch also tells of certain festivals where women had roles even in earlier times, such as the Agrionia where the daughters of Minyas were chased by a priest ceremonially.

One of the most significant roles that a woman could have in Roman religion was that of a Vestal virgin.  Wildfang tells us that the vestals were inseparable from the Roman’s view of themselves and the state, which illustrates just how important the Vestals were to the state.  This in itself is indicative of the kind of power that the vestals held in the minds of the Romans and the kind of authority.  Juvenal would not even go as far to criticise the vestals.  These virgin priestesses belonged to no man and could incarnate the collective, the city itself.  And the hearth they tended with its undying flame was symbolic of the continuation of both family and community, as Pomeroy explains.  Their role was so entwined with the interests of the state that, as Livy explains, vestals often came under suspicion for it was conceivable that their misconduct had contributed to the misfortunes of the state.  This is a specific example of the firmly established principle of Greek and Roman thought connecting the virtue of women and the welfare of the state.  Aristotle also alludes to this ideology blaming Spartan women for the deterioration of Sparta; as does the Emperor Domitian who perceived a connection between popular morality and female degeneracy.  While the lives of vestals were severely regulated they held an emancipation and authority which other women did not.  The XII Tables show this, telling of how the vestals were to be freed from the power of their pater familias and the Vestals looked after a fire whose quenching threatened the very fundament of the city’s existence, the pax decorum.  Augustus tells of how the vestals had increased privileges like all ‘priests’, which could be taken to mean that they had the same authority as their male counterparts in the priesthood.  Suetonius and Vetruvius also indicate the privilege and authority of these women, telling us that they alone of women held seats in the imperial podium.

The vestals were not though the only public priestesses to hold authority in the Roman Empire.  The priestesses of Ceres, for instance, along with those of Fortuna were also entwined with the interests of the state and held the prestigious duty of administering a state cult.  Pomeroy tells that the cult of the Hellenized Ceres was exclusively in the hands of women and excluded men and those of low birth.  The Priestesses of these cults and other had the exclusive privilege of representing the city in the performance of holy rites.  Miletus explains that it was the role of the priestesses to throw meat on behalf of the city and no one else was to do so before them.  This indicates a certain control over religious matters on the part of the female.  Other evidence also pertains to the role of the priestess in religious practices.  An epitaph for a priestess from Rome around the end of the third century explains that such women were in charge of sacred objects and implements and marched in processions of religious significance before the whole city.  The authority of such Priestesses is again seen in example like from Pompeii with the Genius of Augustus dedicated by the Priestess Mamia with the use of her own funds and land.

Related articles

• Roman Culture in Etrurian and Campanian Archaeology (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• A New Female Pharaoh for Ancient Egypt? (history.com)

Roman Culture in Etrurian and Campanian Archaeology

Roman culture is detectable archaeologically throughout Etruria and Campania in the cities and landscapes of the regions.  We still see Roman roads in use today! But what can these and other archaeological evidence tell us about the Romans expansion throughout Italy? Frankly, way too much to cover in one article, so let us look briefly at an area of really interesting archaeology, Etruria and Campania in what is now Modern Italy.

Map of Ancient Campania

With the development of modern survey techniques the introduction and distribution of Roman road systems, throughout the landscape of Etruria and Campania, illustrates the expansion of Roman culture within this landscape.  The road systems acted as a stamp of Roman authority and new order in the locality and their distribution maps out the movement and expansion of Roman influence and culture.[1] These Roman highways often left a clear cutting which can still be seen near to modern roads in many places throughout Italy.[2]  Basaltic paving blocks are also frequently uncovered by modern excavations, and accidently, and are indicative of a Roman road being situated nearby.[3]  The Via Amerina has been noted as the earliest of these archaeological features, dating to approximately 241BC and is detectably archaeologically cutting through the Faliscan territory and into southern Umbria.[4]  The Via Amerina was later joined by other roads cutting through the landscape such as the Via Flaminia and the Via Aurelia, constructed in 220BC and c.144BC respectively.[5]  Each of these serving new colonies and often bypassing old Etruscan towns providing a map of the pathways Roman culture followed into Etruria and Campania in the late centuries BC.

Several ground surveys, such as that done by Ward-Perkins in the early 1950s, have established many of these road networks as adaptations of existing roadways, serving the needs of a highly decentralised population.[6]  The colony of Nepi was quickly connected with Rome by means of the Via Amerina, establishing not just a colonial but a physical link to Roman influence.[7]  When assessed in terms of the location of these valuable archaeological features, [8]  we can also see which Etruscan towns were likely to have suffered Roman influence on a lesser scale, for instance, Veii which was left to the backwater after its initial destruction and restructure.[9] Or alternatively where the Roman culture was more prevalent where towns were joined to the road system, such as Volsini.

The area has been subject to various field surveys over the years which have a primary basis in exploring the changing pottery tradition, illustrating the rise of Roman wares in the region as the culture fanned out of Rome.[10]  And despite the difficulties in dating, the information gathered from ceramics can show changes in occupation, and maps of pottery distribution can give consistent patterns illustrating cultural variations.[11]  Ward-Perkins’ ground survey of around 2000 archaeological sites in Campania has allowed for analysis on the changing tradition from pre-Roman Etruscan wares and bucchero[12] to Roman black-glazed wares, indicative of the third to first centuries BC.[13]

The change of abundance of different pottery types throughout Etruria and Campania are indicative of the expansion and distribution of Roman influence and culture.  It has been used in recent years to illustrate occupational patterns even though the common black glazed ware has been subject to dating issues.[14]  This expansion and change of occupation is seen fanning out from Rome to a vast number of sites such as Roselle, in the territory of Volsinii, where an abundance of black-glazed pottery was uncovered dating to the Roman conquest and Late Etruscan Period.  Veii has also been subject to field walking and this archaeological technique has brought to light a considerable amount of black glazed ware and late almond rim ceramic indicative of the links with Roman culture and its expansion with the conquest of Italy.[15]

Street in Pompeii

Numismatic evidence provides an excellent point by which the introduction of Roman culture can be dated as coinage allows exact dates to be given and the earliest of these dates can be used to some degree to determine the earliest movement into the area.  Coin hoards found throughout Etruria and Campania such as at Cosa where 2004 Roman Denarii among other numismatic assemblages.[17]  The mint at Cosa also indicates that Roman coinage styles were adopted by the population of Cosa itself rather than just being imported.[18]

Survey work and archaeological exploration has uncovered that colonization was a significant part of the expansion of Roman power and influence in that it secured a rational exploitation of resources.[19]  The Latin colony of Cosa is a prime example of a site in Etruria which contains a complex body of material evidence illustrating the expansion and implementation of Roman culture away from Rome.[20]  Archaeological excavations have determined that Cosa was built almost entirely on a purely Roman foundation.[21]  Cosa has been assessed by archaeologists as being mutatis mutandis, made in the image of Rome.[22]

While there has been some debate that archaeologists and scholars may be pushing the image of Rome on these colonies, there is still a vast number of similarities that display the expansion of Roman culture.  The immigrants to colonies were Latin speakers and the towns they populated were fashioned to reflect their own expectations.  Not only was the layout often fashioned with links to that of Rome, but many of the buildings and architecture is seen to have reflected Rome’s.  The temple of Concordia at Cosa, identified by the inscription ‘Concordiae’, displays the expansion of this.[23]  Buildings such as the Comitium excavated at Cosa also display links and similarities to the Comitium at Rome, and it is almost identical to those at Paestum, Fregallae and Alba Fucens as well.[24]

Sites at Campania also show this link to Rome, and the relative dates of material and architectural features within these sites allow us to map over time the expansion of Roman culture throughout both Campania and Etruria.  The most significant and well known of these examples in Campania is Pompeii.  Unlike the example of Cosa, this site represents a number of towns that had Roman culture thrust upon an already established urban site.  Pompeii was colonised by the Romans c.80BC leading to major work upon the city’s public architecture.[25]  The archaeology of Pompeii includes a covered theatre and an amphitheatre dedicated by C.Quinctius Valgus and M.Porcius.[26]  The expansion of Roman culture is also detectable in the use of materials such as yellow turf from the Campi Phlegraei and baked terracotta at Pompeii and techniques such as opus reticulatun.[27]  Architectural features such as the vaulted ceilings of the first century BC among other examples are also indicative of the expanding contribution of Roman architecture.[28]

Wallace-Hadrill and Fulford following their excavations of Insula I,9 in Pompeii and the House of Menander have explicitly questioned the use of materials to date architectural features, and the limitations of stone and architectural typologies.[29] While debates rise on the usefulness of materials to establish dates of certain features and their inclusion over time into settlement and building structure, they remain a means to detect the incorporation of Roman culture and styles into sites.[30] The use of stratigraphy, can be used to make up for the limitations of typological analysis to display the movement of Roman culture into an area over time, such as the policy of stratigraphical policy and exploration developed by Maiuri at Pompeii surrounding the excavation of the House of the Surgeon.[31]

The addition of typically Roman features such as their complex array of water systems, established in the last centuries BC throughout Campania and Etruria, also provide a means by which the expansion of Roman culture is detectable through the ability to add to urban infrastructure.  There appears to have been no clearer example of the adoption of Roman lifestyle and values than bath-building and the adoption of Roman water systems.  Examples of this adoption are seen at Musarna near Tuscania with the building of Roman style baths around 100BC to cater for a growing Roman influence and population.[32]  The most prominent examples are seen though within the archaeology of the Vesuvian cities of Campania, such as at Pompeii and Herculaneum.  Both in the private sector and the public sector of urban life appears to have been affected by Roman inclusions as seen in the archaeology.

Like the architectural features explored briefly above, the water systems provided for the needs and demands of Roman citizens in occupied areas.  One prime example of these systems in the archaeology is at Pompeii in first century residences after the colonization by Rome, especially seen in the archaeology of the House of the Vestals.  Extensive excavations undertaken by the Anglo-American Project in Pompeii in the House of the Vestals has enabled the vast majority of these Roman water systems to be analysed and mapped, and in turn has allowed for analysis of temporal development and cultural implications.[33]  Excavations have uncovered the addition of pressurized water from the newly formed aqueduct along with numerous pipes, cisterns and cesspits attached to fountains, baths and pools throughout the property.[34]  The House of the Vestals is just one such example of how water features were central to structural changes and indicative of the expansion of Roman culture and values.

The scholarly assessments of the Romanization of Italy pay the majority of attention to urban centres and public spaces, but the expansion of Roman culture is also detectable through the analysis of funerary archaeology and inscriptions.[35]  This is seen at Volaterrae, where funerary inscriptions are almost exclusively Latinised as well as the names on these inscriptions by the end of the first century BC.[36]  These along with the appearance of Latin cults and religious centres, alongside Etruscan ones, is also indicative of the expanding Roman culture and religion in the periods of conquest.  The Temple of the Capitoline hill at Cosa is a prime example of the expansion of religious aspects, and its stratigraphy illustrates the increasing religious importance and development.[37]  Excavations at the centre of the structure have revealed layers of carbonized earth suggesting a ritual space and centre which continued in use and significance from the first years of colonization.[38]

Ancient roman road which leaded from Savaria to the imperial Rome.

The rural areas of Etruria and Campania also contain archaeological materials and evidence that are characteristic of the expansion of Roman culture in a rural context.  Excavations and surveys of a number of small farm complexes in both northern and southern Etruria display this as the Romans expanded their influence into the area taking advantage of the fertile landscape.[40]  The farms in Southern Etruria appear more so to show Roman influence as they many were probably built to Roman standards.[41]  The South Etruria survey provides a view into rural areas such as Ager Faliscus, where eighty percent of farm sites from the period of Romanization appear to have been abandoned after the 241BC defeat.[42]  The material evidence from the remaining twenty percent of sites show a strong inclination towards Roman standards.

The abandonment and redistribution of rural sites as seen in the archaeology also shows the movement of Roman colonists and culture throughout the areas in question.  The area of Cosa again provides a prime example of this movement of Roman influence into Etruria.  An analysis of surveyed farm sites in the area dating to the time of Romanization shows that of the fifty-eight Etruscan farms in the fourth century BC only 16 farms survived after the mid third.[43]  This is also evident at Vulci and the territory of Saturnia where the majority of lands were redistributed between Roman colonists after the areas defeat.[44]  The South Etruria survey also revealed that Ager Faliscus’ rural areas suffered the same fate with 80% of surveyed sites appearing to be abandoned by Etruscan culture after the defeat of 241BC.[45] By surveying and mapping these sites and analysing material evidence, archaeologists can determine the spread of Roman colonisation and in turn their culture.  For instance, the areas noted before appear to have suffered a considerable change in ownership with the expansion of Roman influence and power, on the other hand, areas such as Veii and Bracciano have a far higher percentage of surviving Etruscan sites.

The Romanization of Etruria and Campania in the last few centuries has been thoroughly examined my scholars and archaeologists for many years and the expansion of Roman Culture is indeed detectable through many aspects of the archaeology and landscape of the areas.  Urban centres appear to provide the most bountiful assemblages of artefacts and architectural features which can be used to map out the distribution and development of Roman culture.  One of the most explicitly visual ways that Roman culture is detectable is with the mapping out of and analysis of Roman road routes and the path of influence with colonization and trade.

J.I 2012

---

[1] Potter, T.W., Towns and Territories in Southern Etruria in Rich, J., and Wallace-Hadrill, A., City and Country in the Ancient World (London), p.199 – Roman roads were essential to the expansion of the empire.  Through them archaeologists can track the movement of Roman influence.  Way stations, mile stones and other material evidence also provide archaeological indicators by which to track the expansion.

[2] Hemphill, P., An Archaeological Survey of Southern Etruria (1970), p.35

[3] Ibid., p.35

[4] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T., The Etruscans (Oxford, 2000), p.267

[5] Ibid., p.297

[6] Blake, H., Potter, T.W., and Whitehouse, D.B., Papers in Italian Archaeology I: The Lancaster Seminar, Recent Research in Prehistoric, Classical and Medieval Archaeology Part I (1978), p.99 & 107

[7] Potter, op.cit., p.197

[8] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T., op.cit., p.267 – These roads also served to suit Roman needs such as military movements into Etruria and beyond, and are important to the archaeological record as conveying the expansion of Roman culture through such mediums as the movements of the army and the connection of new colonies to Rome itself.

[9] Ibid., p.268

[10] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T.,op.cit., p.269

[11] Hemhill, op.cit., p.36

[12][12] Bucchero is a grey to black fabric with a burnished finish and appears in small quantities through sites of the Etruscan period.

[13] Blake, H., Potter, T.W., and Whitehouse, D.B., op.cit., p.102

[14] Hemhill, op.cit., p.35

[15] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T.,op.cit., p.275 – Veii offers a typical example of the development of an Italic settlements probably the most famous of towns in Southern Etruria. See Owens, E.J., The City in the Greek and Roman World, pp.97-120

[17] Buttrey, T.V., Cosa: The Coins, in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol.34 (1980), p.5

[18] Ibid., p.17

[19] Torelli, M., Tota Italia – Essays in the Cultural Formation of Roman Italy (Oxford, 1999), p.3

[20] Cosa – is a Latin colony situated in modern Tuscany.  It was perhaps confiscated land from the Etruscans but archaeology points more towards it being a new colony.

[21] Brown in Fentress, E., Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations and Failures (1998), p.11

[22] Ibid., p.11

[23] Brown in Fentress, E., op.cit., p.20

[24] Ibid., p.22 – The Comitium is recognised as a centre of judicial and political activities in a Roman Forum.  The placement of this type of building in colonies indicates a movement of the Roman culture to sites around Italy, namely in Etruria and Campania.

[25] Ling, R., Pompeii – History, Life and Afterlife (Gloucestershire, 2007), p.53

[26] Ibid., p.54

[27] Ling, op.cit., p.61

[28] Ibid., p.61

[29] Jones, R., and Robinson, D., The Making of an Elite House: The House of the Vestals at Pompeii in Journal of Roman Archaeology, Vol.17 (2004), p.107

[30] This can be asserted, even though a temporal record of incorporation can not fully be established by means of typologies.

[31] Ibid., p.107

[32] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T., op.cit., p.292

[33] Jones, R., and Robinson, D., Water, Wealth and Social Status at Pompeii: The House of the Vestals in the First Century in American Journal of Archaeology, Vol.109 (2005), p.696

[34] Ibid., p.697

[35] Terrenato, N., Tam Firmum Municipium: The Romanization of Volaterrae and Its Cultural Implications, in The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol.88 (1998), p.105

[36] Ibid., p.105 – Volaterrae was an important Etruscan centre which became a municipium after the Roman conquest.  This information comes from the results of a field survey providing major additions to a subject previously vague launched in 1987, calling for a radical rethinking of local history. Involving a large scattering of material evidence of funerary culture and settlement culture.  Often in contrast to more southerly surveys in Etruria which are known to be used to represent the region as a whole.  Saying this, the surveys surrounding Volaterrae still provide essential indication of the latinisation of Etruscan metropolises.

[37] Fentress, op.cit., p.23 – the Capitoline hill was the arx of Cosa and received a vast amount of attention by Frank.E.Brown

[38] Fentress, op.cit., p.23

[40] Terranato, op.cit., p.102 – South Etruria Survey plus numerous others between 1960 and the present day

[41] Ibid., p.104

[42] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T., op.cit., p.269

[43] Fentress, op.cit., p.12 – work of Frank Brown published in Fentress

[44] Ibid., p.12

[45] Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T., op.cit., p.270

Related articles

• Differences Between Etruscans and Romans (differencebetween.net)
• Girl Possibly Murdered During Roman Invasion Found in England (history.com)

The Understanding of Hieroglyphs from Roman Times Onwards: An Overview

Egyptian hieroglyphics have always been seen as a mysterious and exotic script that has captured the interest of society from the Roman occupation of Egypt, right down to the present day.  Though they have always been a subject of interest, people’s understandings of this ancient script have been forever influenced by aspects that limited their understanding.  This report looks into those influences passed down from generation to generation of scholars and within everyday society, from the days of the Roman tourists in Egypt, where Egyptian guides purposely gave the Romans misinformation, and the interpretation of hieroglyphs was mistaken by the Roman views. Through the renaissance and classical periods, scholars were still influenced by early writings and the society,  right down to the eighteen hundreds, until Champollion decided to take a different view. But before this sudden change, he, like hundreds of others was unable to accept any other possibilities.  These early influences included the effects of Hor-Apollo’s writings, Kircher and Young, plus many others.  There are however some historians who don’t believe these writings were major influence.

The scholarship associated with the translation of hieroglyphs have greatly influenced the general interpretation of their meanings even in the Roman times.  Hilary Wilson demonstrates that the writings of early translators influenced the understanding of the script until the nineteenth century AD.  Robinson evaluates that the understanding of the Romans was misguided by an Egyptian priest by the name of Hor-Apollo.  Hor-Apollo wrote a book in Coptic which had a dramatic effect on the study of Hieroglyphs.  Hor-Apollo’s work insisted that each sign had a single pictorial or symbolic meaning, this indicates that he completely misunderstood the writing system used by his ancestors.  Unfortunately, because it was considered to have been written by someone informed, Hor-Apollo’s work was used as a guide for all future students of hieroglyphs.

Though the translations of Hor-Apollo were meant to be correct and did not intentionally lead people into thinking incorrectly, there were other influences on the Roman understanding of hieroglyphs that were purposely trying to lead them astray. Montet asserts that in the Graeco-Roman period it gave the Egyptian community great satisfaction to mislead foreigners.  They did this by concocting unintelligible documents, of which the foreigners could make nothing.  Perrottet explains that because of this misinformation; it was misguidedly thought that hieroglyphs were only magical riddles, enchantments and spells.  Perrottet however disagrees with Hor-Apollo being the original major source of the misinterpretation.  He assesses that the Roman tourists were misled by spell books supposedly written ten thousand years earlier by Hermes Trismegistus.  These writings however were nothing more than items to entice tourists. With the Roman’s great depth of superstition and with nobody to contradict the Egyptian guides’ explanations; they had no reason to doubt what they were being told.

Hoijer is one of a group of historians who believe differently.  Hoijer evaluates that the Romans were not influenced by the writings and misinterpretations of others, but by the fact that like the majority of historians and society, they viewed the land and its culture through the distorted prism of their own culture.  Due to this, we can evaluate that as a result they misinterpreted almost everything.  Parkinson agrees with the point relating to culture, but also attributes the misinterpretation to the before-mentioned point concerning historians in the ancient world fueling the beliefs of the Romans, mentioning that the Egyptians also contributed to this, by fueling the disinformation.

The understanding of the Romans set groundwork for future scholars.  Robinson outlines that with the renaissance, the revival of classical learning, came a revival of the Roman belief in Egyptian hieroglyphic wisdom.  Due to this revival, renaissance writers continued to write and translate hieroglyphs to the standards set out by the Roman beliefs.  This led to the first book, written in the sixteenth century by Pierius Valerianus, on hieroglyphs, being basically fictitious.  This is because Valerianus took a narrow-minded view in his translations, taking his cue directly from Hor-Apollo’s incorrect translations and not attempting to look at them in any other way.  Sacks assesses that because the translations of text were flawed and made no logical sense, classical scholars continued to believe long after the time of the Romans, that hieroglyphs were nothing more than riddles and enchantments.

Scholars and philosophers continued to attempt to translate the hieroglyphs as they believed they would find ancient wisdom and long-forgotten truths, confirmation of biblical stories and some proof of the existence of figures such as Abraham, Joseph and Moses.  This is another example of how the writing of history affected the understandings of hieroglyphs.  In this case, the religious scholars were taking their experience and trying to link it to the translation of the hieroglyphs.  This was mainly because of the Egyptian connection to the biblical stories; so scholars alleged that the Bible would be confirmed by the ancient script.

In the late seventeenth century, the Coptic language was revived and would later be essential in the deciphering of the hieroglyphs.  But scholars were still under the impression that the writing of Hor-Apollo and Valerianus held the key to translating the hieroglyphs.  In the renaissance, scholars were interested in Egypt and were anxious to discover the meaning of the hieroglyphic writing.  The Jesuit, Kircher, was the best known of these pioneers. Kircher outlined that Egyptian hieroglyphs only expressed ideas rather than sounds and ideas.  Due to this misinterpretation, Champollion was still possessed by this idea in the nineteenth century. In the mid seventeenth century, Athanasius translated a cartouche for a priest and came out with a long rambling paragraph, however the cartouche really only read the name ‘Psamtik’ spelt phonetically. This mistake is an example of how the ideas and experiences of others have caused distortion.

Robinson evaluates that it was only later that the enlightenment made by the revival of the Coptic language brought about questions of the classical views of hieroglyphs.  Though the views did start to be questioned by the few, the original views were still held by the majority.  It was the few who made progress towards the actual deciphering of hieroglyphs.  This shows progress could only be made by those who took a more impartial view over their work.  For instance, Barthélemy discovered that the cartouches contained the names of Egyptian Kings and Queens only by looking outside society’s understandings and beliefs drawn from Hor-Apollo’s writings.  However it was Zoëga who finally commented that some hieroglyphs might be phonetic signs.  This was only because, unlike other academics, Zoëga thought more on his own terms.

The demotic language scripts on the Rosetta Stone, year 196 BC.

Napoleon Bonaparte played a large role leading up to decipherment.  When he traveled to Egypt he took with him a large number of scholars.  These scholars studied and measured every site and every visible monument, finally publishing their findings in ‘La Description de l’Egypt’.  However the influence of past work in the decipherment of hieroglyphs prevented them from deciphering the elements they studied.  Scholars in the case of the Rosetta stone immediately concluded that the inscription was wholly non-phonetic, its symbols expressing ideas in the manner of Hor-Apollo.

In the decipherment efforts in the early nineteenth century, it was noted that there was a difference between the hieroglyphic and the Egyptian Demotic writings found on the Rosetta stone.  It was Thomas Young who first noted a striking resemblance between some demotic symbols and the corresponding hieroglyphs, he noted that ‘none of these characters could be reconciled, without inconceivable violence, to the forms of any imaginable alphabet’.  Young put a step forward but came unstuck.  The influence of the early work of Hor-Apollo and Young’s experience and teachings, made Young unable to accept anything but that all hieroglyphs (apart from foreign names) were non-phonetic.

Even Jean-Francois Champollion, the final decipherer of the hieroglyphic script, at first continued to believe that the hieroglyphs were entirely non-phonetic.  Champollion was not only influenced by Hor-Apollo and other past historians and translators, but also by the scholars of his own time.  He was mostly influenced by Young’s work.  Unlike Young, Champollion had an originality and rigour, which was based on a knowledge of Egypt and its languages far superior to his predecessors.  This was a key component in translating hieroglyphs, as it allowed Champollion to look at a far bigger picture, yet he was still caught in the webs of disinformation from the past.  Robinson outlines that the early efforts of Champollion in 1822 were based on the premise that only non-Egyptian names and words in both demotic and hieroglyphic were spelt alphabetically. Champollion did not expect that this decipherment would apply to the entire hieroglyphic system.

Champollion, though for unknown reasons, later changed his mind about the phonetic issues with hieroglyphs, this was most likely due to yet another outside influence.  A contemporary French scholar of the Chinese language suggested that there were phonetic elements even in the indigenous spellings of the Chinese script with its thousands of characters.  This outside influence, though not directed at hieroglyphs, could have made Champollion wonder whether the same philosophy could be assumed for deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Champollion also realized that among the one thousand four hundred and nineteen signs in hieroglyphs on the Rosetta stone it contained only sixty-six different signs.   His experience told him that if the signs were truly and only semantic symbols, there would logically expected to be more than sixty six signs on the Rosetta stone, each one representing a different word as they would have been logograms.  It was only through Champollion’s change of mind that we today understand the true nature of hieroglyphics, that the writing system is a mixture of semantic symbols, phonetic signs, phonograms and determinatives.

Related articles

• Ancient Princess’ Tomb Discovered In Egypt (news.sky.com)
• The History of Hieroglyphics (socyberty.com)
• The Decipherment of Hieroglyphs and The Rosetta Stone (circa71.wordpress.com)
• Demotic Dictionary Translates Life in Ancient Egypt (theepochtimes.com)
• The Origin of Writing (espliego.wordpress.com)
• Daily Lives of Ancient Egyptians Translated in New Dictionary (livescience.com)

Curses and Fines on Greek Grave Stele

Inv. 1225 T

In antiquity, apart from thieves, tombs were also damaged by people of low economic conditions. While thieves damaged tombs for burial gifts and the clothing of the dead, some people opened tombs of strangers to bury members of their own families or dismantled them in order to use pieces to make a new tomb. Grave monuments were also damaged to make milestones and to use in constructing walls, especially in late antiquity. There were two ways in antiquity to prevent violations of graves: fining and cursing.

To discourage people from violating tombs, fines were determined to be paid to the treasury of the city. To enhance the discouragement, the amount would be high, and it was legally determined to pay a part of it to the informer who reported the culprit to the authorities.

On the other hand, curses were common maledictions used by the public, addressing the person with the potential of damaging the tomb, warning the violator of the misfortunes that would happen to him. These curses were added to the end of the grave inscriptions by the owner of the tomb. Protecting graves via curses has a long history in the Near East and Anatolia. According to the religious beliefs of Anatolians on death and the afterlife, the body of the dead person that has said good bye to this world physically continued to live in the other world, and for his feelings and desires which continue also in this afterlife he needs a refuge that he would not want to share with others.

In the curses it is wished that the wraith of the gods should be directed onto the violator through disasters such as painful or untimely death, living pain because of family perishing, the house perishing as a result of fire, the children becoming orphans, epidemics, blindness, becoming disabled, etc. The power of the mechanism of punishment that starts after the violation is committed is hidden in the words incised on the grave monument.

Inv. 1225 T from the Istanbul Archaeological Museums reads:

“Nicephoros, son of Moschion (made) (this grave) for his wife Glyconis and in his own memory while still alive: if anyone buries another body (here) without my permission, he will pay 2500 denarii to the city and will be responsible for the crime of grave robbery.”

(GRAVE STELE OF NICEPHOROS AND GLYCONIS, Marble, Conane (Gonen, Bahkesir), Roman Period, end of 2^nd , beginning of 3^rd C AD)

When we geographically proportion the grave inscriptions with curses, it is observed that the majority are from Phrygia, especially in the provincial areas of the region, where Phrygians, who had been away from the influence of Hellenization, lived. Comparing Phrygia with the other areas of Anatolia, it is observed that such curses diminish in number in those areas.

As a result of the hardships felt in the lives of the public through the crises of the 3^rd century AD and in relation with the decrease in the trust for the establishment of justice because of these crises, especially effected Anatolian villages had an increased need for grave curses under this negative socio-economic condition.  It is observed that curses on the grave stelae and sarcophagi with rich and large decorations were mostly used by people who had affluence in society, especially Roman citizens. Rather insignificant in number, there are also a few examples belonging to slaves and intellectuals. Such protective precautions of pagan origin have also been adopted by Christian and Jewish communities and found place on their grave stelae as well.

(Thank you to Istanbul Archaeological Museum for input and photos on recent expedition)

Related articles

• A Roman Curse Tablet from Kent (and a Phylactery from West Deeping) (rogueclassicism.com)
• Roman Curse Scroll Unearthed (socyberty.com)
• Roman Curses Appear on Ancient Tablet (news.discovery.com)
• Roman Curse Tablet from Kent Followup (rogueclassicism.com)
• Roman Curses Appear on Ancient Tablet (sott.net)

Archaeology Travel Blog: Selinus and Antiochia ad Cragum!

So it is about time I told you all about this archaeological dig I am on. Welcome all to the wonderful world of Gazipasa and Antiochia ad Cragum!

Arrived in Gazipasa after a long bus trip from Antalya and several lessons: Lesson number one, learn more Turkish; two, people lie; three, people don’t know their own country. After many hours and help from a lovely Swedish woman who explained that the Turkish men were having fun confusing us, grrrr, we are now in a lovely town with lovely people and excellent food.

Gazipasa is located in the south of Turkey and is associated with the ancient city of Selinus. Selinus has settlement evidence from as far back as the Hittites in 2000 BC. Selinus was established on the River Kestros and is now called Hacimusa and was incorporated into Cilicia in 628 BC. It is located about 180 km to the East of Antalya on the Southern coast of Anatolia.

Beach side of Gazipasa

Selinus became part of the Roman Empire in 197 BC and became particularly famous in the first century AD when the Emperor Trajan died there. As a consequence, for some time Selinus was known as Traianapolis. Selinus later became part of the Byzantine Empire alongside the rest of Cilicia before falling into the hands of the Turks in 1225 AD. It is listed among the castles of Gazipasa alongside Iotape, Lamus, Nephelis and Antiochia ad Cragum and is still subject to archaeological research by a team from Florida State University. The archaeological artefacts from Selinus are now mostly housed in the museum of Alanya.

The dig site itself is located about 7 miles the east of Gazipasa. Antiochia ad Cragum has also been called Antiochetta and Antiohia Parva which basically translate to ‘little Antiochia’. Its name ‘Cragum’ comes from its position on the Cragus mountain overlooking the coast. It is located in the area of modern Guney about 12km from the modern City of Gazipasa. The city was officially founded by Antiochis IV around 170 BC when he came to rule over Rough Cilicia. The site covers an area of around three hectares and contains the remains of baths, market places, colonnaded streets with a gateway, an early Christian basilica, monumental tombs, a Temple and several structures which are yet to be identified. Excavations are currently being undertaken by the Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project headed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

The site and its harbour likely served as one of the many havens for Cilician pirates along the South Anatolian coast, likely because of its small coves and hidden inlets. Unfortunately no definite pirate remains are visible in the modern day. Its pirate past ended with Pompey’s victory in the first century BC and the take over by Antiochis IV. Initial occupation appears to have occurred in the Classical and Hellenistic periods followed by a surge of activity in these Roman periods. The city itself was built on the sloping ground that comes down from the Taurus mountain range which terminates at the shore creating steep cliffs; in some places several hundred metres high. The temple complex is situated on the highest point of the city and most of the building material remains though in a collapsed state. There is also evidence of a gymnasium complex nearby.

Side of Temple at Antiochia ad Cragum

The harbour at Antiochia ad Cragum measures about 250,000m squared and is one of the few large, safe harbours along the coast between Alanya and Selinus. On its Eastern side are two small coves suitable for one or two ships but with limited opportunity for shipping and fishing due to wave activities. The area is well situated as a defensible position against invaders. Recent Terrestrial survey at Antiochia ad Cragum has had emphasis on finding evidence of pirate activity which has been limited, but it has turned up Pottery principally from the Byzantine Period with additional pottery from the late Bronze Age, the Hellenistic and some from the Roman periods. There is little evidence of pre-Roman occupation at the fortress or pirate’s cove at Antiochia ad Cragum. Banana terracing may have caused much of the evidence to have been erased. The maritime survey has turned up shipping jars, transport Amphoraes and anchors from the Byzantine, Roman and Hellenistic periods as well as a range of miscellaneous items. The assemblage appears to indicate early activity to the West of the harbour moving East over time.

Part of Mosaic in Bath Complex at Antiochia ad Cragum

So that’s the site. Now to what I am doing because this is my blog! We have started a new trench at the back of the temple which is abutted by the temple wall and a neighbouring trench. So far we have uncovered all the steps down to the base of the temple, which isn’t bad for a week or so’s work if i do say so myself. We have a wall running oddly through the middle of the trench with a channel situated about two thirds down. Tomorrow I intend to investigate this channel but it looks like some form of drainage system. We also have stone and mortar strangely situated alongside the south edge of the trench which we can see also in the abutting trench but here it seems to lose uniformity. MMMM, questions arise. Well we continue in the hope of answering them!

My Trench on Day 2 at Back of Temple

Elsewhere we have two of the boys excavating the West side of the temple and the some others starting a new trench in which we have thus far found a snake, a frog and several snake eggs. A goat was also found in my trench but that was cheekily put there by the site foreman while I wasn’t looking! Sufficed to say I got a bit of a fright…

We have found several coins and a mountain of pottery as usual in addition to glass and tiles. We also have a Turkish team restoring the mosaic down the hill which is probably the largest mosaic in Turkey. And a team from Clark university drawing and recording the huge number of marble blocks in our block field so that one day work can begin on restoring the temple! Very exciting.

That’s the start of it. More soon. Now though it is time for dinner at a lovely little restaurant and bar owned by an English Expat which acts as our home away from home. Dig Hard and Live Free!

My Trench on Day 10

Related articles

• Archaeology Travel Blog: Istanbul pt. 1 (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Archaeological Travel Blog: Istanbul Part 2 (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Piracy in the Ancient Mediterranean (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Silchester Iron Age finds reveal secrets of pre-Roman Britain (guardian.co.uk)
• You Must See Aphrodisias, Turkey (daydreamtourist.com)