Juvenilia ✔/ a Nonfiction Undergraduate University Collection

Interpreting Sources from Antiquity

CLASSICS 3034

Roman History

October 16th, 2020

Interpreting Sources from Antiquity

Rome's beginnings are highly mythological in nature. No written sources from the foundation (753 BCE) or Regal period (753-509 BCE) have survived, if ever such an account ever existed. As a result, what we have is written records that paint a narrative from centuries after the fact. Therefore, being mindful of fabrication and inaccuracy, these sources can still be useful in our understanding of how Romans began, and we can cross-reference the literary sources we do possess to add context to the beginnings of Rome. Virgil's (70-21 BCE) Aeneid is an epic in the style of Homer offering a narrative about a survivor of the Trojan war and descendant of Aphrodite (Roman Venus) who settles Rome. Alternatively, however, legend speaks of two brothers, descendants of Aeneis, Romulus and Remus, who also founded Rome (Mathisen, 68). Reconciling these events is difficult because it is said that both groups founded Rome and thus, the reconciliation of contrary fact begins with both groups founding Rome, usually with Aeneis establishing a parent colony or an early version, and then generations later, Romulus and Remus restoring it and bringing it to a new level. The fact that they are descendent from Aeneis is important because people in power would claim lineage to give them a divine right to rule. Julius Caesar claimed descent from Aeneis's son, Ascanius/Iulus thus there is a motive for such an epic tale regarding Rome's foundation (Sears, 14th).

Further sources that tap into the Regal period include Justin's Philippic Histories (279-277 BCE) concerning the Gauls, Aristotle's Politics which discusses the Constitution of Carthage, and Herodotus's The Histories (513 BCE) who discusses the Scythian's, though it is important to note Herodotus was Greek and therefore not necessarily correct in his assessments. These texts from places outside of Rome are important because Rome took on selective bits of the cultures they interacted with. Therefore, in order to understand Rome, one must also understand the geographic context of those surrounding Rome to trace how they evolved as they expanded into other regions. It is important to note that any texts concerning Gauls, Phoenicians, and Etruscans are not coming from those people themselves, but from an outsider perspective. The Etruscans did have a written record and we have some of it, but it is mostly indiscernible (Sears, 11th).

There is not an abundance of archaeological evidence that survives from the Regal period, but that being said, there is more in archaeology than in literature. The best shot we have at understanding early Rome comes from what we can gather through archaeology as the literary sources appear fictional at best. The Lapis Niger (Mathisen, 65, 72), a sixth century BCE monument has an inscription indicating Etruscan Kingship, though it is fragmented and difficult to discern much more than that. Through further excavations on Palatine Hill, artifacts and foundations have been found that offer insight into how the early Romans lived. Holes in the ground for poles tell us the size of Roman huts. One artifact in particular tells us what the homes may have looked like. Dug up from a cemetery, pottery urns in the likeness of huts have been found that held bones and ashes (Mathisen, 63) and by using these, it has been suggested that they were replicas of the homes of the individual within. By combining these findings, a reconstruction of early Rome has been made.

We know a great deal more about the early Republic (509-350 BCE) than we do about the foundation or Regal period. Lacking the ability to take most works at face value, we can still come to understand how the Romans thought, how they wanted to be perceived—thus understanding what traits and beliefs they valued—and understand the context of how they changed over time as they blended with other cultures as opposed to destroying them, something very unique. Livy (Titus Livius, 1st c. BCE - 1st c. CE) writes about The Violation of Lucretia (Mathisen, 73) an incident that aided in the end of the Regal period and the start of the Republic as the last King, Tarquinius Superbus, is overthrown. Polybius (200-118 BCE) is a unique writer of the time as he was a prisoner of Rome, though he praised Rome and its government in his selections on why the Republic is the best form of Government. Although he speaks highly of Rome, there is the fact that he was a prisoner and to speak ill of the Romans may not have been in his best interest. That being said, he raised some legitimate points on why a Republic is the best of governments and he offers a unique perspective as someone who was an outsider. In addition, he wrote about military structure.

When attempting to interpret the evidence that we do have, many challenges are presented on both in literature and archaeology. In terms of the literary sources, there is the glaringly obvious fact that none of the writers are writing about events from their own lifetimes let alone events they themselves witnessed (apart from Polybius). Often times, there was an agenda with written work to be used as a tool for advancement in society either in politics or social standing, or in some cases both. In the case of trying to claim divine lineage, that would increase both standings as in Julius Caesar's case (Sears, 14th). There are conflicting accounts of events, forced reconciliation of contrary facts, and multiple versions of origin stories as with Romulus and Remus.

Additionally, there are logistical issues with taking the victor's account as the record could have been manipulated with victories being exaggerated, and defeats being either downplayed or omitted all together. When writing about non-Roman's, it must be taken into account that for many works on the subject of other cultures from this time, it is not usually a person of that culture who has an innate understanding of the subject writing it, but an outsider looking in from many years later, and so it may very well be a skewed interpretation or perception, and could thus either be partially or entirely incorrect. Not only this, but those whose works that have survived have an elite perspective leaving out the point of view of the average people who did not have the opportunity to write or speak out.

The elite issue also transcends into the archaeological record because those who were rich were ones that typically had ornate and expensive things and could afford expensive funerals. Those who were not well off would not have many belongings and the likelihood of those objects surviving are not great especially given that cloth and wood does not typically last unless it is buried with metal. The weakness of archaeology is that fact that not everything survives. Some materials just don't last and decompose, and other artifacts and structures get destroyed. Although archaeology is a lot more fact based as it is a science, there is still a rather large margin for human error in actually interpreting the evidence presented. One must be mindful that they are not playing into confirmation bias and coming to unreasonable conclusions off of circumstance. Finally, we are at the mercy of actually being able to find what has survived. There may be lots of evidence we just have not yet found, and that is an especially exciting prospect.

In conclusion, understanding Rome is a complex process with many intricate components to be mindful of. The interpretation of evidence now versus how it was done in the past is starkly different. The people of antiquity had a lot less at their disposal for determining fact versus fiction. We have technology and specific roles for determining facts. Back then, one had to simply rely on what was written on paper wherever they were. The travel that would have been required to get to other cities where paper copies existed would have been outrageous.

Today, someone can take a picture and send it anywhere in the world. From that standpoint, they were severely limited to the access they had to information, and due to this, there may have been a tendency to take written word as fact. Today, if something is written down, we question and cross-reference. That would have been extremely difficult to do in ancient times, and therefore, it is even more essential that when we look at surviving texts and artifacts that we really question it. Who wrote it? Why did they write it? Where did they live? Who would have disagreed? Why? These are questions that should not be neglected because if something is left out, a startlingly different conclusion could be made.

[WORKS CITED]

Mathisen, Ralph W. Ancient Roman Civilization: History and Sources, 753 BCE to 640 CE. Oxford University Press, 2019.