Posted on 02/29/2004 4:36:28 PM PST by blam
Analysis of Roman epitaphs alters concept of 'family'
February 11, 2004
If ancient Romans observed Family Day, their celebrations would have included wet nurses, slaves and possibly many others who had no blood relationship, according to new University of Calgary research.
A landmark analysis by classicist Dr. Hanne Sigismund Nielsen of more than 4,500 inscriptions on Roman tombstones shows that our concept of the Roman family needs to be broadened to include much more than just parents, grandparents and children.
"Roman families did not at all look like our family structure today," says Nielsen, who spent more than 10 years examining the Latin inscriptions. "Quite a few family relationships existed by choice and were not at all contained in the biological family." For example, slaves were often related to their masters by choice, families frequently included foster parents or children, and wet nurses were especially honoured.
"Whereas we might say, 'He has a face only a mother could love,' the Romans would have said, 'He has a face only his wet nurse could love'," Nielsen says. The bond was so strong with wet nurses because mothers surrendered their children to them for the first three years of a child's life.
Nielsen has written a book about her research titled Roman Relationships: The Evidence of the Epitaphs, which is currently under review for publication. Although the epitaphs have been documented and compiled in reference books, until now nobody has comprehensively described and analyzed them. Nielsen assembled a database of 4,500 complete inscriptions out of a total of 40,000 epitaphs, many of which are only fragmentary.
"It's not just accidental that you put up a tombstone for someone," she points out. "These people weren't millionaires and the stonecutter charged for each letter. I think it reflects real emotions and real attachment." The reason Roman families probably included so many individuals who were unrelated by birth was because the mortality rate was extremely high. With a life expectancy of not much beyond 45, a small family unit could not have survived.
"If you were a woman and you were 15 years old, you would be married to a man who was 10-15 years older than you. Then, because you had actually succeeded in living that long, you stood a good chance of living until you were 45. In that period you would give birth to five or six children, and half of them would die."
Nielsen says the most affecting inscriptions were always related to young children. "The grief is tangible: 'Here lies So-and-so, He was such a sweet little boy.' The proximity of death was so close in those times and these families probably had other children who died - it is always very touching."
Although it's expected Nielsen's book will have a major impact within the discipline by dispelling commonly held assumptions about the epitaphs, her research also tells us something about who we are now." Because our way of understanding the world is in many ways derived from the Romans, it's important that we know something about their culture. Even if we don't care about history, we can learn something about ourselves by looking at a culture where they did some things differently."
There are comparatively few researchers specializing in Roman social history, and even fewer who work with the epitaphs. One of the assumptions that Nielsen's research dispels relates to women and marriage. "Most of the textbooks we have on Roman social history will say it was normal to demand chastity from wives and that it was generally praised everywhere in the epitaphs. But the evidence points to a different conclusion."
It wasn't until about 300 CE when Christianity began to dominate that the idea of chasteness was cited in the inscriptions. Although Roman marriages before that time were monogamous, it wasn't something that was memorialized. Before then, up to about the middle of the 3rd century, wives tended to be described as 'very dear'.
To say the average Roman was any more decadent than the average American is ignorant. Orgies and uber-decadence were the province of the incredibly rich layabout class. For the average man on the street, life consisted of hard work and a fairly boring family life.
When was Roman society on the verge of collapse due to decadence? If anything, one of the main causes of collapse of the Western Empire was the spread of Christianity.
It's even worse than that. If it were important to know the exact date of Jesus' birth there would be some Biblical authority on it. There isn't any mention of the year or the day.
His birthday isn't important. That's a "So what?", everyone has a birthday.
He's different. He rose from the dead. That's unique. AND The Bible records the exact day and provides enough information to extract the year.
Our calendar is off by about 33 years and 4 months...
Living with an exwife? Yes. Very.
Too recent. We'd have to be dealing with all those pesky negative years.
It might make more sense to pick the earliest known date. IIRC, this was a battle interrupted by a solar eclipse wayyyy back when...
You're right. It began three days later with the resurrection, death having been conquered and the penalty of for our sin being fully paid. This was the pivotal moment in human history.
I recall reading in one of my books (I have many) that as recently as the late '50s, people 75+ usually lived with or near one of their children. I assume that it was out of necessity -- Social Security didn't pay much (and many of the elderly at the time were ineligible to collect) and the supplemental services available to the elderly today didn't exist. Up until the 1960s, the family was the primary provider of health and welfare services.
In this country, it was also unacceptable for a young unmarried person to live by his or herself until the 19th century.
The Empire wouldn't have lasted as long as it did if they were all a bunch "wine slushing hedonists."
It is our time in which we entertain this idiocy- not theirs.
You got that right.
Didn't Nero "marry" one his boytoys -- I can't remember the if this is true or the details.
The use of "C.E." - "common era" - has been used for some time, especially by the Europeans. Go figure :-)
Even amongst the upper class, the men who spent their evenings quietly at home with their families were ignored by the writers -- the playboys attracted their attention.
This was true for aproximately the first 400 years of the empire. You can systematically document the decline and fall of the Pagan Roman Empire through (1) introduction of "new age" eastern religions, specifically the Isis - goddess cults, replacing the traditional roman religion of the "state" (2) feminisation of the society at large and (3) acceptance of "alternative lifestyles," including pedophillia. "Gay Marrige" is NOT a new concept. In fact by the third century AD so many people were enjoying their "alternative lifestyles" that birth rates had dropped off by as much as 30-50% throughout the empire.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
IMHO, I think you miss the bigger point. In a controlling society like Roman society was - a police state, albeit "fun" police state (bread and circuses?) - it didn't matter what the views of the "common man" were. Those who were in control were hedons - lovers of themselves and pleasures - this lead by and large to the decline of the Empire as a whole.
"Historians" have been making a profession of misinterpreting the role of family structure for the past 30 or so years. Ditto your observation on the Southern family. Actually, the similarity to middle and planter class antebellum Southern families is striking.
The event surrounding Jesus death did not become pivotal moments in human history until enough people were Christian. That is to say, Jesus only became historically important when enough people became Christians to make the sect relevant. That didn't happen in the Roman Empire until at least two centuries after Jesus' death.
The pivotal moment in history is the fact of the ressurection. It's relavance is neither enhanced nor deminished by the number of believers or lack thereof. The pivotal moment in an explosion is when it starts, not when it's noticed.
Rome was not really a "police state." Certainly, it wasn't a representative democracy. However, the government did not really intrude into the daily lives of citizens to a great degree, probably less than in America today. Furthermore, the views of the common man were important to the authorities, especally in Rome itself, where fear of the Mob tempered the decisions of the Emperor himself.
Those who were in control were hedons - lovers of themselves and pleasures - this lead by and large to the decline of the Empire as a whole.
Again, this view of the ruling classes in Rome is based on the decadent excess of a very few. Scandalous behavior by a few at the top of a society is not an accurate gauge of the morals of a society. If you only judged the morality of American society by looking at rich NY socialites, corrupt DC politicians and libertine Hollywood celebrities, you'd conclude that America was rapidly sliding into moral collapse, too.
And, if anything, the two main causes of Roman decline were Christianity and lead pipes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.