Category: Claims

Nemean Meteor?

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 1 Comment
Length: 550 cm. Width: 450 cm. (whole mosaic).
Image via Wikipedia

An item up at Fortean Times about Ernst Chladni caught my eye a couple of days ago because it included this paragraph:

In fairness to the Age of Reason’s meteor­ite debunkers, an awful lot of superstition and folk tales fell from the sky. The large meteor that came down on Ensisheim, Alsace, in 1492 was housed in the local church as an example of the “wrath of God”, while practically any stones that looked odd – from fossil shark’s teeth to prehistoric flint tools – were touted as “thunderstones” that had fallen during thunderstorms. The statue of the goddess Diana at Ephesus (probably carved from a meteorite) “fell from the sky”, as did the Nemean Lion, which Hercules had to defeat as the first of his 12 Labours (an association preserved in the constell­ation of Leo and the Leonid meteor shower). The Council of Claremont in France, which proclaimed the First Crusade in 1095, was preceded by portents including an ominous shower of meteors.

We should point out that the claim about the image of Diana ‘falling from the sky’ only appears in the Acts of the Apostles (19.35), as far as I’m aware, and otherwise I think the image most of us associate with Ephesus was originally made of wood. The second assertion made above — about the Nemean Lion somehow being associated with a meteor shower — is a new one to me, although one can follow a line of thinking which would go something like: Constellation Leo (which the Greeks associated with the Nemean Lion) -> Leonid meteor shower -> Nemean Lion as meteorite. Fred Schaff’s The Starry Room mentions in passing:

Gertrude and James Jobes mention a version of the tale of Hercules in which his foe the Nemean Lion is said to have fallen from the moon (“in the form of a meteor”, the Jobeses write).

This is presumably from the Jobes’ Outer Space: Myths, Names, Meanings, Calendars, which I do not have access to. Has anyone read of a version of the Nemean Lion tale which does make this lion-meteorite connection?

First Elephant in Britain?

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 4 Comments
Lisa the Iconoclast
Image via Wikipedia

As I dig deeper into my pile of things I’ve marked with little purple question marks, I find an interesting item I first came across toward the end of May. Something called the Londonist had a feature called An Historic London Elephant Parade which included this in its timeline:

43 AD: Emperor Claudius brings the first recorded elephant to England during the Roman conquest. It journeys to Colchester but would have probably passed through the London area.

I thought it was interesting, and checked what Wikipedia had to say:

The first historically recorded elephant in northern Europe was the animal brought by emperor Claudius, during the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43, to the British capital of Colchester. At least one elephant skeleton with flint weapons that has been found in England was initially misidentified as this elephant, but later dating proved it to be a mammoth skeleton from the stone age.[1]

Now one expects touristy type sites to take this to some extreme, e.g.:

Visit Colchester, Britain’s oldest recorded town and soak up its history. Discover the secrets of William the Conqueror’s impressive castle, which lay hidden for centuries. Walk through the Roman streets where Emperor Claudius once rode triumphantly in on an elephant.

But let’s see what the pros do … the Colchester Castle Museum includes this on their FAQ page:

6. Did Claudius really bring elephants with him when he invaded?

Yes he did, we are told that elephants were involved in his triumphal entry into Colchester or Camulodunum as it was called. Imagine being a Briton and watching those enormous animals marching past you.

Okay … we’ve gone from bringing elephants to having a ‘triumphal entry’. The Time Team folks echo something that is seen on several other sites, however:

Colchester is the oldest garrison town in Britain, the site of the most famous event during the Roman invasion, where Claudius rode in on the back of an elephant.

Similiter, the Colchester Archaeological Trust:

Fund-raising events in the pipeline include a reception at the Mayor’s Parlour, and Mrs Bailey said she would also like to recreate Claudius’ entrance to Colchester with elephants in an effort to raise awareness of the campaign.

So we’ve gone from Claudius being the first to bring elephants to Britain, to him including them in some ‘triumphal’ procession, to him — despite his famous disabilities — actually riding into Colchester on one.

Now here’s what I don’t get … as far as I’m aware, the ONLY statement about Claudius bringing elephants in his invasion of Britain comes from Cassius Dio 60.21 (via Lacus Curtius):

Shortly afterwards Togodumnus perished, but the Britons, so far from yielding, united all the more firmly to avenge his death. Because of this fact and because of the difficulties he had encountered at the Thames, Plautius became afraid, and instead of advancing any farther, proceeded to guard what he had already won, and sent for Claudius. For he had been instructed to do this in case he met with any particularly stubborn resistance, and, in fact, extensive equipment, including elephants, had already been got together for the expedition.

That’s all that is said about Claudius’ elephant(s), as far as I’m aware and it has clearly been witness to some ‘expansion’. But even the claims about this being the ‘first’ seem to be challengeable … In Polyaenus’ Stratagems 8.23.5 we read (via Attalus):

When Caesar’s passage over a large river in Britain was disputed by the British king Cassivellaunus, at the head of a strong body of cavalry and a great number of chariots, he ordered an elephant, an animal till then unknown to the Britons, to enter the river first, mailed in scales of iron, with a tower on its back, on which archers and slingers were stationed. If the Britons were terrified at so extraordinary a spectacle, what shall I say of their horses? Amongst the Greeks, the horses fly at the sight of an unarmed elephant; but armoured, and with a tower on its back, from which missiles and stones are continually hurled, it is a sight too formidable to be borne. The Britons accordingly with their cavalry and chariots abandoned themselves to flight, leaving the Romans to pass the river unmolested, after the enemy had been routed by the appearance of a single beast.

Polyaenus was writing during the time of Marcus Aurelius … Cassius Dio was writing in the first couple of decades of the third century. Both were very far removed from their subject matter, so you can take either claim with as many grains of salt that you care to. And just in case you were curious about ‘elephant fossils’ mentioned in the Wikipedia article, one of the (many) references to same that I came across was in The Monthly Review from May-August of 1826:

Now normally I’d put this sort of thing — especially considering the ongoing campaign to raise awareness of Colchester Roman Circus — in the same category as Lisa Simpson (in Lisa the Iconoclast) eventually put the Jebediah Springfield/Hans Sprungfeld revelation that the ‘myth brought out the good in everyone’, but since the folks in Colchester seem themselves to have been angry at the British Museum for suggesting no Roman circus had ever been found in Britain, I’m not so charitable … come on … elephants in the invasion are amazing enough; no need to claim priority (especially when there is competing evidence of equal weight) nor force us to imagine the physically disabled Claudius somehow getting up on the back of a pachyderm …

Paris (?) Sarcophagus … and Biblical Archaeology Review

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

I don’t know why this happens to me so often … I take a break from my news feed to run some errands and then I get a notice via Twitter from the folks at Biblical Archaeology Review pointing me to an article with the headline screaming: Has the Sarcophagus of Paris, Prince of Troy, Been Found? Of course, I’m looking at this on my iPod while sitting in a parking lot somewhere and can’t check things out fast enough. Whatever the case, the coverage at BAR mentions the Balkan Travellers site as a source so, of course, my instincts are that something has simply been lost in translation, as often seems to happen. But no! The summary from BAR (which is simply their daily news page; this item might scroll off) includes this as the incipit:

Archaeological excavations at the ancient city of Parion in northwest Turkey have revealed the sarcophagus of an ancient warrior. The sarcophagus contains an inscription of a warrior pictured saying goodbye to his family as he leaves for war. It is believed that the sarcophagus could belong to Paris, the prince of Troy who triggered the Trojan War.

Here’s the actual Balkan Travellers item … there do seem to be some possible translation problems, but I’ve highlighted an important passage:

A sarcophagus of a warrior was recently discovered during archaeological excavations of the ancient city of Parion, located in Turkey’s north-western province of Canakkale, near Troy.

The sarcophagus was unearthed in the ancient city’s necropolis, Professor Cevat Basaran, head of the excavation team in Parion ancient city in the village of Kemer near the town of Biga, told national media.

According to the archaeologist, the newly found sarcophagus had an inscription of a warrior saying goodbye to his family as he left for a war. The warrior in the inscription, he added, could be Paris who caused the Trojan War.

Parion is among the most important of the dozens of ancient settlements in the region of Troad, in which the city of Troy was the focus. Parion was first found by archaeologists in 2005. Many precious artefacts, including gold crowns and sarcophagi, have been unearthed at the site since, suggesting the city’s importance during the Hellenistic and Roman Age.

via: Archaeologists Unearth Warrior Sarcophagus at Ancient City of Parion, Turkey

That is to say, they’re NOT claiming this sarcophagus BELONGS to PARIS but rather, that it possibly DEPICTS Paris. Now there isn’t a picture of this sarcophagus included but I’m willing to put big bucks on the likelihood that this is actually something Hellenistic/Roman as might be hinted at in the article’s final paragraph … that pretty much nixes the ‘actual sarcophagus of Paris’ possibility right there.  And just so we’re not confining our criticism to BAR,  we should also point out that ‘Paris departing for the Trojan War’ really isn’t a common motif (if I’m wrong, please correct me) — Paris CAUSED the Trojan War by taking that thousand-ships-launching beauty away; I really can’t think of a depiction of the “Bye folks … I’m off to kidnap-Helen-and-give-Homer-something-to-poetize-about” genre …

Whatever the case, the folks at Biblical Archaeology Review really should know better than to describe things as they did … source notwithstanding.

Has the Sarcophagus of Paris, Prince of Troy, Been Found?

UPDATE (07/19/10): we now note that BAR has made corrections to their text …

Roman Aqueducts and Bamboo?

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ 1 Comment
The Pont Du Gard
Image via Wikipedia

Francesca Tronchin and I have been virtually shaking our heads at an item in the Guardian which includes a headlinish sort of thing:

Ecce:

The Romans built a 50km aqueduct from Uzès to Nîmes in France with an overall fall of about 17 metres and an average gradient of 1/3000. How did they determine the fall, and maintain the gradient during building?

In one word, the answer is probably . . . bamboo! A length of bamboo about 10-20cm diameter would make an accurate, jumbo-sized spirit level-come-theodolite.

Half-filled with water, it could be laid horizontally on trestles and used to lay out a levelling survey, all the way from Uzès to Nîmes. Using it like a telescope, they could use little buoys floating in the water at each end to sight a point a short way off. Stakes hammered into the ground would record the level at a given point, before the bamboo is moved to sight the next section.

Before doing this, the Romans would have had no way of knowing whether the planned route would be uphill or downhill. A team would have set out from both Uzès and Nîmes, each using a bamboo tube to sight a reasonably accurate contour along the sides of the valleys. When the teams met up they would see the elevation difference. Then the operation would be repeated, this time allowing a gradient deduced from the horizontal distance and the fall.

During the surveys the Romans would have spotted that an aqueduct at Pont du Gard would save a long detour. They knew the earth was a sphere, so the levelling operation (similar to those of the canal “navvies” in England during the 18th century) would need a correction to allow for the curvature of the earth to prevent the levelling measurement climbing slightly in both directions.

via: Notes and queries Did the Romans build their aqueduct with bamboo?

… first of all, bamboo didn’t exist in Europe at the time (tip o’ the pileus to FT for confirming that from her own research into exotic building materials and the referenceable item in Wikipedia). Second of all, the Roman surveyors (gromatici) actually had an instrument for such situations called a chorobates which Vitruvius describes in 8.5 of his de Architectura (via Lacus Curtius):

1. I shall now describe how water is to be conveyed to houses and cities, for which purpose levelling is necessary. This is performed either with the dioptra, the level (libra aquaria), or the chorobates. The latter instrument is however the best, inasmuch as the dioptra and level are often found to be incorrect. The chorobates is a rod about twenty feet in length, having two legs at its extremities of equal length and dimensions, and fastened to the ends of the rod at right angles with it; between the rod and the legs are cross pieces fastened with tenons, whereon vertical lines are correctly marked, through which correspondent plumb lines hang down from the rod. When the rod is set, these will coincide with the lines marked, and shew that the instrument stands level.

2. But if the wind obstructs the operation, and the lines are put in motion, so that one cannot judge by them, let a channel be cut on top of the rod five feet long, one inch wide, and half an inch high, and let water be poured into it; if the water touches each extremity of the channel equally, it is known to be level. When the chorobates is thus adjusted level, the declivity may be ascertained.

3. Perhaps some one who may have read the works of Archimedes will say that a true level cannot be obtained by means of water, because that author says, that water is not level, but takes the form of a spheroid, whose centre is the same as that of the earth.e Whether the water have a plane or spheroidal surface, the two ends of the channel on the rod right and left, when the rod is level, will nevertheless sustain an equal height of water. If it be inclined towards one side, that end which is highest will not suffer the water to reach to the edge of the channel on the rule. Hence it follows, that though water poured in may have a swelling and curve in the middle, yet its extremities to the right and left will be level. The figure of the chorobates will be given at the end of the book. If there be much fall, the water will be easily conducted, but if there be intervals of uneven ground, use must be made of substructions.

A sort of ‘summary version’ can be found on a page about Roman surveying … here’s a page with a useful diagram of how it might have been used …

Latest Arthurian Round Table with a Roman Connection?

~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table...
Image via Wikipedia

An item  in the Daily Mail (hyping a television program, as often)  seems to be causing some excitement:

His is among the most enduring ­legends in our island’s history.

King Arthur, the gallant warrior who gathered his knights around the Round Table at Camelot and rallied Christian Britons against the invading pagan Saxons, has always been an enigma.

But now historians believe they have uncovered the precise location of Arthur’s stronghold, finally solving the riddle of whether the Round Table really existed.

And far from pinpointing a piece of furniture, they claim the ‘table’ was in fact the circular space inside a former Roman amphitheatre.

The experts believe that Camelot could in fact have been Chester Amphitheatre, a huge stone-and-wood structure capable of holding up to 10,000 people.

They say that Arthur would have reinforced the building’s 40ft walls to create an imposing and well fortified base.

The king’s regional noblemen would have sat in the central arena’s front row, with lower-ranked subjects in the outer stone benches.

Arthur has been the subject of much historical debate, but many scholars believe him to have been a 5th or 6th Century leader.

The legend links him to 12 major battles fought over 40 years from the Scottish Borders to the West Country. One of the principal victories was said to have been at Chester.

Rather than create a purpose-built Camelot, historian Chris Gidlow says Arthur would have logically chosen a structure left by the Romans.

‘The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time,’ he said.

‘And we know that one of Arthur’s two main battles was fought at a town referred to as the City of the Legions. There were only two places with this title. One was St Albans, but the location of the other has remained a mystery.’

Researchers, who will reveal their evidence in a television documentary this month, say the recent discovery at the amphitheatre of an execution stone and a wooden memorial to Christian martyrs suggests the missing city is Chester.

Mr Gidlow said: ‘In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred both to the City of the Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it.

‘That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court – and his legendary Round Table.’

An interesting idea, but not exactly ‘new’. We recall that the Roman amphitheatre at Caerleon has long been similarly claimed to be the prototype for this ’round table’ of the Arthur King. Indeed, the National Museum of Wales seems to take it as a fact (if this page is associated with them).  And before we get too excited, back in 2000 someone was suggesting a round building in Scotland. And a decade before that, the same round building location (Stenhouse) in Scotland was being cited by no less than Burke’s Peerage (and connected, sort of, to the Kennedy clan).

That said, if we think an ‘amphitheatre’ can be taken as a ‘table’ (I guess “knights of the amphitheatre” gives the wrong impression?),  we can look at  a list of amphitheater remains in the UK (besides Caerleon and Chester) we see there’s one at Cirencester … Arthur was supposedly crowned there (at Cirencester; not necessarily the amphitheatre); that seems to have a potential claim too. There’s one at Colchester, and Colchester is a Camelot candidate; that seems to have a potential claim too. There’s one at Wroxeter, and Arthur may have had a ‘base’ there; that seems to have a potential claim too. There’s probably more, but you get the picture … plenty o’ places are connected with Arthur (who may or may not have been an historical figure, of course … I won’t get into that here) and plenty o’ those places have remains of an amphitheatre of some sort. At best, though, I think we can charitably put this in the ‘imaginative suggestion’ category.

More coverage: