Roman priest’s exceptionally well-preserved remains found in Pompeii(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Roman priest’s exceptionally well-preserved remains found in Pompeii
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/archaeologists-uncover-most-well-preserved-human-remains-pompeii-date-180978455/
49 comments
The original announcement from the Archaeological Park of Pompeii has more and larger pics as well as a video: http://pompeiisites.org/en/comunicati/the-tomb-of-marcus-ven...
What a nice font! On the plaque seen in that video around 56 second mark. Serifs are all uniformly oblique and rhymed with the top of "s", while main strokes are mostly vertical and ever so gently curved. Almost gothic, and at the same time unmistakably classical. I really like it.
Is it just me or is the placement of the body in the tomb strange? A dark thought, but the first thing that came to mind is it looks like he was alive when he was sealed up in there...
Roman burial practices for their clergy are pretty obscure. Maybe it was a sect?
Maybe an earthquake moved his body to one side of the tomb?
Every place I visited that had a volcano, has been an amazing place filled with natural beauty. Hawaii and Costa Rica, and Washington. I can see why people want to live close to them.
The meadows of Mount Rainier, The hot springs of Arenal Volcano, and Haleakala in Maui really stand out in my mind to this day.
> Marcus Venerius Secundio, a formerly enslaved individual who later became a priest
If he was a libertus, I wonder if he came from some remote part from the empire, possibly with different funerary customs.
If he was a libertus, I wonder if he came from some remote part from the empire, possibly with different funerary customs.
Folks interested in this might be interested in the Told in Stone YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/toldinstone
https://www.youtube.com/c/toldinstone
> Roman priest’s exceptionally well-preserved remains found in Pompeii
As someone not familiar with how frequently a situation like this occurs, the phrasing of the article title made me think they found another Otzi[0] or Lady of Dai[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xin_Zhui
As someone not familiar with how frequently a situation like this occurs, the phrasing of the article title made me think they found another Otzi[0] or Lady of Dai[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xin_Zhui
Those are really cool thanks for linking.
He was born when Christ was just 10 to 15 years old. Not sure why, but this somehow fascinates me.
It's amazing how those few strings of hair turned the skeleton bones back into a real person for me. Thanks, nice post !
This just shows that Zeus is the one true god! /s
Definitely don't take any close up pictures, I'm here for the words!
> If he chose this manner of burial himself, that “could mean … there was a certain ideological freedom [in Pompeii],” Llorenç Alapont, an archaeologist at Universidad Europea de Valencia who participated in the excavation, tells ANSA, per Google Translate.
Maybe if you want to report on something someone said in another language, have your translation checked by someone who can understand that language.
Maybe if you want to report on something someone said in another language, have your translation checked by someone who can understand that language.
Please don't pick the most irritating detail in an article and then copy it into the thread to complain about it. This leads to significantly lower-quality discussion, especially when the detail is off topic.
HN threads are sensitive to initial conditions, so this is particularly important when there aren't many comments yet.
One thing we're working on learning as a community is how to respond to the interesting parts of an article or situation and leave superficial provocations alone. Not easy, but important for curious conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
HN threads are sensitive to initial conditions, so this is particularly important when there aren't many comments yet.
One thing we're working on learning as a community is how to respond to the interesting parts of an article or situation and leave superficial provocations alone. Not easy, but important for curious conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Interesting detail. Assuming the original was Catalan or Castilian or some other Latin language, I think a machine translation of a short phrase about "ideological freedom" is likely to be accurate. Most of Europe uses the same handful of Greek and Latin roots to express that. (In English we have "freedom" from a Germanic root, but you get the idea.)
I agree - in this case, the Google Translate translation is very likely to be correct without problems. But I see two problems anyway:
1. This is the kind of thing where if there is a problem, it can easily be a huge problem. One of the simplest translation mistakes you can make, for example, is to come up with exactly the opposite meaning of what the original said.
2. Smithsonian Magazine is literally adding a tag to their article that says we do not stand by our reporting. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false; they don't know and they don't care. If it's false, that is, according to them, Google's problem, not theirs. This cannot meet even the bare minimum standard of acceptable journalism.
1. This is the kind of thing where if there is a problem, it can easily be a huge problem. One of the simplest translation mistakes you can make, for example, is to come up with exactly the opposite meaning of what the original said.
2. Smithsonian Magazine is literally adding a tag to their article that says we do not stand by our reporting. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false; they don't know and they don't care. If it's false, that is, according to them, Google's problem, not theirs. This cannot meet even the bare minimum standard of acceptable journalism.
I wonder what the priest would think if he knew his bones were discovered so far into the future…
Thinking about death, as in complete anihilation is something both awe inspiring and frightening to all, isn't it?
I recently visited a salt mine/museum; as soon as I entered the enormous chamber with the low-rumbling noises, beautiful geological patterns on the wall, I was struck by the feeling that this is an inescapable tomb, our fate is sealed, an eternity passed before us and an eternity will pass after us, billuons upon billions of years and we won't get to experience them, we are both so dumb and so lucky not to think about it every day.
I recently visited a salt mine/museum; as soon as I entered the enormous chamber with the low-rumbling noises, beautiful geological patterns on the wall, I was struck by the feeling that this is an inescapable tomb, our fate is sealed, an eternity passed before us and an eternity will pass after us, billuons upon billions of years and we won't get to experience them, we are both so dumb and so lucky not to think about it every day.
Eh? From our perspective the world may well have sprung into being the moment we were born, and will cease to exist a moment after we die.
A bit like starting a game of dwarf fortress.
A bit like starting a game of dwarf fortress.
I would be more interested in the method by which he obtained that information.
5th level necromancy. A cleric or paladin can cast Raise Dead, takes an hour, consumes a diamond worth 500gp. I mean, if we can transport people to other celestial bodies and transform the light of the sun into the power of 100 horses, should be kinda easy in the scheme of things, no?
listen to and practice his teachings and perhaps you'll be able to ask him yourself
> The fact that Secundio was buried rather than cremated contradicts the long-held idea that Roman funeral rites were followed strictly for fear of incurring the wrath of the gods.
> Mount Vesuvius’ pyroclastic flows and poisonous fumes killed around 2,000 people in Pompeii and the neighboring city of Herculaneum.
> Mount Vesuvius’ pyroclastic flows and poisonous fumes killed around 2,000 people in Pompeii and the neighboring city of Herculaneum.
I don't think strict beliefs and Rome were really a thing until a certain Eastern religion took over.
Historically false. Christians were persecuted in Rome because they refused to sacrifice to Divine Ceasar.
Rome was very serious about worshiping Ceasar; the rest was optional.
(Rome didn't have a "civil society" or "social contract" in any sense we'd recognize. Their laws were supposed to be divinely ordained, and refusing to acknowledge this was grounds for the death penalty. If you're imagining Rome as some sort of freedom of religion place like America with the First Amendment then you're sorely mistaken; think Soviet communism or China instead.)
Rome was very serious about worshiping Ceasar; the rest was optional.
(Rome didn't have a "civil society" or "social contract" in any sense we'd recognize. Their laws were supposed to be divinely ordained, and refusing to acknowledge this was grounds for the death penalty. If you're imagining Rome as some sort of freedom of religion place like America with the First Amendment then you're sorely mistaken; think Soviet communism or China instead.)
How do you reconcile that claim with the polytheistic nature of religion in Rome, and it's practice of folding other religions into it, as it absorbed conquered cultures?
Your parallels to 20th century governments miss the mark as much as the claims you are criticizing.
Your parallels to 20th century governments miss the mark as much as the claims you are criticizing.
Christianity wasn't granted legal protection until ~300AD. Prior to that, you could say that it was a strict belief that Christianity was verboten and its members subject to persecution (lions, crosses, etc). It would be another half-century before the empire started to codify what "Christianity" was in a "strict" sense (Nicaean creed, right?).
The time period of Secundio's tomb is around AD 60 or so. As the article at pompeiisites.org says, "During the Roman period at Pompeii, funeral rites usually involved cremation, while only small children were buried." This burial of a 60 year old man stands out for a few reasons, but one of which is that it even exists at all given that it's contrary to custom of the pre-Christian age.
The time period of Secundio's tomb is around AD 60 or so. As the article at pompeiisites.org says, "During the Roman period at Pompeii, funeral rites usually involved cremation, while only small children were buried." This burial of a 60 year old man stands out for a few reasons, but one of which is that it even exists at all given that it's contrary to custom of the pre-Christian age.
> It would be another half-century before the empire started to codify what "Christianity" was in a "strict" sense (Nicaean creed, right?).
The Roman Empire didn't codify anything. The Nicene Creed was composed by the Church in response to the Arian crisis. That the empire (through Constantine) had an interest in peace does not mean the empire performed the clarification.
The Roman Empire didn't codify anything. The Nicene Creed was composed by the Church in response to the Arian crisis. That the empire (through Constantine) had an interest in peace does not mean the empire performed the clarification.
That’s not quite true. It’s really hard to draw a line between these two instituons at Nicaea, because that was an explicitly symbiotic process.
First of all, the council was summoned by the emperor, organized by him, paid for by him, facilitated using public infrastructure, and personally attended by him. He might have “deferred” to the decisions of the bishops, but only happens when everyone recognizes his power to just declare things. He also banished some of the losing bishops into exile using his personal power. Whether or not it’s the “empire” or the dictatorial emperor declaring a thing is a fuzzy line, but a lot of state power was involved.
Secondly it wasn’t “the church” who declared anything, because no such singular institution actually existed to speak with one voice. Rather, the council was a self-conscious effort by Constantine to actually create a unified church, since he worried that the existing discord threatened spiritual safety of the church. Remember that Christianity had been legal for only a decade or so and it would take a while before the more underground organization could organize and finish settling old scores. Whether or not the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the leader of the church is still a hotly debated subject; he however did not actually chair the council of Nicaea. At Nicaea we’re still a century or two out from the first papal bull, 400 years or so from the first cardinals, and 700 years from the first recognizably modern papal conclave. In any case, only 300 or so of the 1,800 bishops of the empire attended.
In many ways the church became The Church by taking over the mantle of imperial authority as the Roman Empire receded from Western Europe. This is the process that gives it the power, organization, and bureaucracy to set religious policy and speak in one voice, and none of that is in place by Nicaea.
First of all, the council was summoned by the emperor, organized by him, paid for by him, facilitated using public infrastructure, and personally attended by him. He might have “deferred” to the decisions of the bishops, but only happens when everyone recognizes his power to just declare things. He also banished some of the losing bishops into exile using his personal power. Whether or not it’s the “empire” or the dictatorial emperor declaring a thing is a fuzzy line, but a lot of state power was involved.
Secondly it wasn’t “the church” who declared anything, because no such singular institution actually existed to speak with one voice. Rather, the council was a self-conscious effort by Constantine to actually create a unified church, since he worried that the existing discord threatened spiritual safety of the church. Remember that Christianity had been legal for only a decade or so and it would take a while before the more underground organization could organize and finish settling old scores. Whether or not the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the leader of the church is still a hotly debated subject; he however did not actually chair the council of Nicaea. At Nicaea we’re still a century or two out from the first papal bull, 400 years or so from the first cardinals, and 700 years from the first recognizably modern papal conclave. In any case, only 300 or so of the 1,800 bishops of the empire attended.
In many ways the church became The Church by taking over the mantle of imperial authority as the Roman Empire receded from Western Europe. This is the process that gives it the power, organization, and bureaucracy to set religious policy and speak in one voice, and none of that is in place by Nicaea.
[deleted]
tus89(4)
[deleted]
The joke is on you. Correlation does not imply causation.
On a more serious note, I wonder how people reacted to his decision to forgo cremation at the time, especially since he is a priest himself; and if there were any discussions, even privately among his relatives, on how he can get away with it because of his status (if this was really the case).
It's for moment like these, not the ones immortalized by historians, that I wish there is/was (does it even matter what tense to use) a time machine.
On a more serious note, I wonder how people reacted to his decision to forgo cremation at the time, especially since he is a priest himself; and if there were any discussions, even privately among his relatives, on how he can get away with it because of his status (if this was really the case).
It's for moment like these, not the ones immortalized by historians, that I wish there is/was (does it even matter what tense to use) a time machine.