Used with permission
The discovery of 30 decapitated Romans found in York has kicked-off an intense archaeological investigation. From the moment they were found archaeologists knew there was something strange about these skeletons. When they were buried their heads were removed and placed in some odd positions; between knees, on chests or down by their feet – why? There are a number of theories to explore.
It turned out that where they were buried was once a huge Roman cemetery. The first theory centred on the idea of a burial site. The Romans were a very superstitious people so burying a person properly was important. Bizarrely, sometimes the dead would have their heads removed to ensure they didn’t return to haunt the living. It was believed removing the head helped the deceased enter the ‘other world’ or ‘afterlife’.
The second theory focussed on the decapitated bodies as being casualties of war. This idea was advanced by further examination of the skeletons which revealed they were all young men - aged 20-40, the right age for warriors. The pottery found in the graves provided a breakthrough. It dated the bodies to the early third century – the time Emperor Septimius Severus was in power. Severus came to Britain in 208AD to wage war on the so called ‘Barbarians’ north of Hadrian’s Wall. He made York his headquarters and for three years ‘Eboracum’ as it was known was the centre of the Roman empire, during which time the town grew and prospered to become a major Roman city.
Severus had been a very successful and ruthless emperor, he’d united the empire and brought the Parthian’s in the east to submission. Though in his 60s he still wanted another victory so he turned his attention on the tribes of Scotland, the Maetae and the Caledonians. To help him in these campaigns he brought his two quarrelsome sons, Caracalla and Geta, both of whom hated each other. He also brought a huge army from all over the empire. The tactics of the Romans was one of scorched earth, Severus was merciless in his treatment of the tribes, killing, burning and destroying everything he could find - it was a brutal campaign.
So are these skeletons the bodies of men who fell in battle? If so, are they Romans or Caledonians? To explain this new theory, human bone specialists suggest these injuries were not caused by warfare - but was a case of decapitation by execution. So who were they and what happened to them? Historian Anthony Birley reveals these men were the victims of a Roman purge. The Emperor Severus died in York 211AD after three years of fighting the Caledonians. His death sparked a blood feud between his sons Caracalla and Geta, both of whom wanted to be Caesar.
Birley notes that according to the Roman historian Cassius Dio, Caracalla went on a killing spree, executing all those that had opposed him and even key members of the royal household including Severus’s doctors, his chamberlain and the family tutor. The decapitated bodies in York were the first victims of this killing spree.
Geta fled to Rome to rally his own supporters, but when Caracalla finished his killing in York he went after his brother. Caracalla was obsessed with becoming Emperor and murdered his younger brother Geta who died in their mothers’ arms. Caracalla lasted as Emperor for five years before he too was murdered.
Timewatch brings together an expert team of archaeologists, scientists and historians in a detective story that goes right to the heart of Roman world.
Login or Register to post comments
Murderous Romans
I cannot for the life of me see why people try to glorify this murderous power. Wherever it went it subdued indigenous peoples and slaughtered them. It was ultimately not democratic and cared not one bit for what ordinary people thought. It operated on terror. It had sports culminating in human injury and death and it had human sacrifices as entertainment. It robbed from other civilisations and spread its vicious and contaminated hierarchal management system around the world. I accept that it is not the only order to have done this but it should not be glorified.
Re: Murderous Romans
I think Craig has got a valid point. I think GuitarheroAndy is, with due respect, missing the point.
The spread of Rome's hierarchical ideals is not the problem: the problem is the opposite to what GuitarheroAndy believes that the Roman Empire did, that is, the spreading of fantastic ideas as well as advanced technology. If one looks at the technology and ideals of the non-Roman cultures of Europe and Asia, one finds many things that either rival that of Rome or is more advanced than Rome's. The Greeks, for instance, with the help of Achimedes, were on the verge of an industrial revolution. The Roman invasion of Syracuse and the murder of Achimedes by a Roman soldier put mankind more than a millenium behind in terms of technology. Let us compare the legacy left behind by Britain and Rome when they 'fell': in the mid-20th century, Britain left its old subjects with their cultures, language and ways of life virtually intact, apart from the odd English corner here and there. When Rome melted away in the 5th century AD, nearly all its old subjects, especially Dacia (modern-day Romania), were left with a Romanised culture: their old languages and cultures obliterated.
As Rome spread, the achievements of other civilisations were deemed barbaric - i.e. not Roman - and were snuffed out. However, Britain went forth in to the world and, despite (admitedly) commiting some atrocities, gave their subjects technological advancement. Moreover, the British Empire incorporated the better aspects of other cultures that it ruled - whereas Rome claimed cultural elements 'worthy of Rome' and made them Roman. As the years progressed, the general British public grew sympathetic towards their empire's subjects, something that cannot be said of the public of Rome.
The British Empire cannot be hailed as the greatest example of society or civilisation, but it is a far greater example than Rome. Britain went out and gave the world back something in return, Rome took advantage of other cultures and left their ex-subjects in the 5th century AD with nothing. On an ending note, the greatest problem about Rome was not the fact that they did it in the first place: it is the fact that we can some how justify what they did. When one nowadays can condemn what the British did in Africa or India and yet, at the same time, praise Rome and poke fun at the naked Celts, the savage Germanic people and the pitiful others is paradoxical.
JMH
Re: Murderous Romans
If you complain about "glorification" of the Romans, then you might as well stop reading papers/magazines and listening to TV/radio, as their livelihood seems to be solely driven by glorifying a people who, from their violent inception, have seen themselves as nothing less that the new Romans
I mean, of course, the ineffable/unspeakable Yanks.
Re: Murderous Romans
What a silly discussion! The Roman Empire lasted for over 2000 years ending in either 1453, 1460, 1805, 1914 or 1917 depending on how you define it. As we all know it split into two parts the east and the west and bit dropped off from time to time and the last ruler to use the Title Emporer of the Romans with some sort of legal justification was the Ottoman Sulltan Mohamed VI who was removed from power in 1921. The Empire was founded about 10 BC, so it lasted almost 2000 years in some guise or another and longer if you include the Roman Republic before it. It could not have done that without the basic backing of it subjects and it is this last that is my specialist interest in this matter.
Roman stature & food
I have read that Roman soldiers' average height was 4' 11" and they had a diet of some 3000 calories per day. Modern soldiers are, on average, 5' 11" and have a diet of some 3600 calories per day. In both cases the difference between the two is 1/the.
Given that the Recommended Daily Allowance for civilians is today 2400 calories is it sound to suggest that the civilian allowance in Roman times was close to 1800 calories per day?
Re: Murderous Romans
Come on George...I think "glorifying it" is a bit strong.
With respect you are viewing this as many do....in our current western civilisation social attitudes context.
Also, the programmes I've seen on the Romans just inform us as it was, I've certainly not seen any presenter getting all excited about the negative aspect of their conduct.
In addition to GuitarHeroAndy's comments, another example that can be added to his British Empire comments is the genocide of the native American indians by the USA in the 19th century.....at least the Italians recognise what their ancestors did.....not like the 'sweeping it under the carpet' antics of the Americans.
Re: Murderous Romans
I think that you are missing the point. The British Empire itself has been responsible for many of the same things you list in your post, as have many others (as you rightly point out). Ultimately, the Romans were responsible for some stunning achievements and it is these that we should celebrate. How can anyone not be amazed by the engineering works of such a people, by the architecture (allbeit lots stolen from the Greeks), by the military genius and technology of the Roman war machine...etc, etc?
Similarly, we should indeed be appalled by the genocide caused by Caesar in Gaul, by Gladiatorial combat, persecution of the Christians, etc...
It also should not be forgotten that many of the countries that ultimately succeeded the Roman Empire looked back on Rome as a 'golden age'. The Germanic successor kingdoms in Europe in the 6th - 11th century did their best to look as Roman as possible, the Visigoths even stealing Roman law practices for their own 'Gothic law', for example. In the 7th century, Saxon historias spoke in awe of the Roman baths and fountains in British cities, etc...
The challenge for all historians is in building a balanced picture of history, ensuring that everybody can access the good and bad about the past so that we may learn from it today.
Without the Roman intervention in our past, Britain would be a vastly different place now. Better or worse? None can say.
In my view, not celebrating the achievements of any people just because they had some elements that we in the 21st century find unpalatable, is wrong. However, glossing over the unpalatable parts is also wrong.
The purpose of the Timewatch Hadrian's Wall episode was to inform us about that element of Roman rule in Britain, nothing more or less. In that respect, I thought it succeeded admirably.