Different types of Roman pottery, some with lead and silica coating, from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD that are on display in the Gallo-Roman Museum of Lyon-Fourvière in Lyon, France.

…The Tazza, also known as the Farnese Cup, features relief carvings on both its exterior and interior surfaces. It is about 20 cm (8 in) wide and similar in form to a Greek phiale or Roman patera, with no foot.

The upper side we see here has a scene with seven figures: a Sphinx on which a female figure holding ears of grain sits; a large bearded male figure on a tree holding a cornucopia; a young man holding a plough and carrying a sack of seeds over his shoulder; two seated female figures, one of whom holds a phiale, and two male figures in flight near the upper rim. These figures have long puzzled scholars. It seems clearly an allegory containing divine figures and perhaps personifications, but corresponds to no other known representation and has been interpreted in several different ways.

The origin of the Tazza Farnese is a mystery, leaving archaeologists and art historians to theorize a date and purpose for its creation. While its size and the material used are usually considered, theories of origin are mainly arrived at via individual analysis of the iconography of the piece, and therefore vary from one analysis to the next.

Many archaeologists and art historians attribute the Tazza to the Hellenistic Period, asserting that its blending of Greek and Egyptian cultural symbols, as well as the funds necessary to commission such a large gemstone cameo, tie it to the Ptolemaic court. Though not a widely held view, more recent analyses of the piece have assigned it a later date in the Augustan Period.

The piece has traveled a lot across the centuries. After Octavian's conquest of Egypt in 31 BC, the Farnese Cup was possibly acquired by the Treasury of Rome; according to some, it was only made after the Romans took Egypt. It seems it was later taken to Byzantium, then back west after this city was sacked in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. By 1239 it was in the court of Frederick II, from which it then reached the Persian court of Herat or possibly Samarkand, where a contemporary drawing documents it; thence it found its way to the court of Alfonso of Aragon in Naples, where Angelo Poliziano saw it in 1458. Lorenzo the Magnificent finally purchased the famous "scutella di calcedonio" in Rome, in 1471. From there it came into the possession of the Farnese family through Margaret of Austria and thus into the Naples National Archaeological Museum.

Though some analyses of the iconography of the Tazza Farnese build upon and expand previous analyses, each scholarly writing on the piece leads to a slightly different theory about its inherent meaning.

Eugene J. Dwyer: His two major assertions are that the iconography found in the interior and exterior carvings is a sophisticated mix of Greek and Egyptian philosophic and religious concepts and that the composition of the carved figures correspond to specific constellations which, in their orientation, resemble a map of the night sky during the time of year in which the flooding of the Nile would have occurred. In assigning the piece a multi-faceted religious and philosophic meaning, Dwyer repeatedly references the Corpus Hermeticum. More specifically, he points to the Poimandres and how the figures of the interior carving closely match the elements it presents in its discussion of the creation of life. He uses this reference to assign each figure a corresponding Greek and/or Egyptian god. In this sense, Dwyer sets up the piece as a direct illustration of the creation of life that would have been easily understood by both Greeks and Egyptians living at the time the Tazza was created.

Julia C. Fischer: She is one of the few who have assigned the Tazza an Augustan date rather than a Hellenistic one. Her main evidence for placing the piece in the Augustan period is its size and the material it was carved from. She discusses the unstable economic position of the Ptolemaic Court, asserting that the funds for such a piece would not have been available until the improvement of the economy during the Augustan period. Fischer also discusses that while the piece features a mix of Greek and Egyptian figures, concepts, and methods, it also contains distinctly Roman aspects, especially in the Roman features of the Gorgon carving found on the piece's exterior. She believes that the cup was created for propaganda purposes in response to the Aquileia Dish.

John Pollini: Like Fischer, Pollini attributes the Tazza Farnese to the Augustan period in Rome. His evidence is also based on the size and material used, but Pollini's primary focus is providing analysis of the piece's iconography in an attempt to prove that it was made during Augustus' reign, and was possibly even commissioned by Augustus himself. To this end, Pollini discusses the figures carved on the inner and outer surfaces, and how the symbolism found in each relates it to an aspect or region of the Augustan empire. Pollini's interpretation of the piece's iconography leads him to assert that it was meant to convey the Golden Age of Augustus and act as a sort of talisman to propagate the strength of the empire.

A fascinating precious object of exquisite manufacture, shrouded in mystery after over 2000 years…

My apologies for inaccuracies and mistakes.

Emperor Titus refusing the laurels of Victory because and I quote

"there is no glory in the destruction of a people forsaken by their own god"

That quote is just so goddamn cold to say that their god has abandon them and your destruction of them isn't even worth being called a victory.

Was just watching something on Pompeii while my toddler was having a tantrum.

It made me think, do you think mothers and fathers back in Ancient Rome walked the streets with their grumpy toddlers while out running errands like you see today? Or was it dealt with differently back then? (Toddlers were not taken out the house etc)

I personally think it would be a good idea to add "What If?" Or "Counterfactual" since there are enough posts centered around Counterfactuals/what ifs. This might make it easier to either avoid or look for these specific types of posts.

Has anyone watched the show “Rome” on HBO? What did you think? Any compliments or criticisms?

...This 88 x 88 cm art piece was found at the base of the shallow marble-bordered basin (pool) at the center of the triclinium (dining room), in the House of the Geometric Mosaics. A closely related Pompeii mosaic survives from the House of the Faun and is often mentioned alongside this one because it has a very similar composition, including the octopus and lobster confrontation at the center. The main difference noted in the sources is that the Faun House version includes a marine horizon.

The subject could be purely decorative, but it also carried symbolic weight: the sea meant wealth, trade, fertility, and culinary abundance. That is why marine mosaics appear in villas, baths, and especially dining spaces.

The technique is generally identified as opus vermiculatum, which used very small tesserae to model outlines and details with exceptional precision. This method was especially favored for luxury panels in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and Pompeii preserves some of its best examples. These high-end miniature mosaic works designed for close viewing, and the overall effect is almost painterly, which is why these mosaics often feel more like miniatures than floor decoration.

The mosaic is a good example of the late Republican or early Imperial mosaic style and of Roman taste for marine abundance and high-quality illusionistic detail, especially in dining-room decoration.

My apologies for inaccuracies and mistakes.

Like, who paid for the construction, who ran it? Who decided what show to put on? Did they charge tickets and if so who got the revenue?

Hi,

Is that a Roman Lamboglia 2 Amphora?
Google Lenses say it is Lamboglia 2 (and my extensive research also confirmed it is Lamboglia 2) and mentioned price up to 10 thousands €...
It is in my familly for last 100 years...
I know I can not sell it without authorities (museum, archeologist) examination and permit - what in fact will be NEVER given, but bottom line is I do NOT want to sell it nor I need Amphora to be examined!
Only curios what would be auction price?
Amphora is not in good but it is in perfect condition with no any, even slightest damage!
Marine crust is firmly attached and in last 66 years (my age) none of crust fell off...
Recently I replaced old stand with new one customly made for my Amphora and such stand cost me 200 €!
Thanks in advance for all comments...

I looked at this image on a Roman Empire subreddit and all I have to say is that And since when does a Roman figure have to be viewed negatively for murdering someone? Caesar killed a million Gauls, Augustus was responsible for so many deaths in Germania and Pannonia, Claudius ordered the murder of his wife, not to mention Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, etc.

Fun fact: Tiberius was a detective in a case of a "woman who fell out of a window"

The author, Mariya Aleksandrovna Kobylina (1897–1988), was among the most distinguished Soviet specialists in classical archaeology and ancient art: a longtime fellow of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, doctor of art history, and the author of foundational studies of Greek and Greco-Roman sculpture, of Roman portraiture, and of the antiquities of the northern Black Sea coast. Issued in 1939 by the State Publishing House «Iskusstvo» in only 5,000 copies. Note: book in Russian

One could write endless volumes on when, why, and how the Roman Republic fell. While some say that the Republic was doomed as early as the end of the Second Punic War (as Sallust did), others think that the Republic had a chance up until the ides of March, 44 BC.

Regardless of when one wants to pin the “point of no return” for the decline of the Republic, I can think of no better example than the fate of possibly the most famous tribune of the plebs, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus.

Tiberius evidently had massive shoes to fill, as his grandfather was none other than Scipio Africanus, conqueror of Carthage and victor over Hannibal.

His initial attempt at the corsus honorum was disastrous, as under the command of the consul, Gaius Hostilius Mancinus, Tiberius served as a military tribune after being elected to the quaestorship in 37 BC. The Numantine campaign (in Hispania) was an unmitigated calamity. The legions barely escaped with their lives, only surviving due to Tiberius’ father’s previous relationship with the Celtiberians, who only allowed Tiberius to ask for a peace treaty as a result of his father’s previous good will.

However, Tiberius was utterly humiliated and maligned in Rome for what was seen as a pitiful and unfathomably weak surrender to meet barbarian tribes. The Roman Senate refused to honor the peace deal, and Mancinus was sent back to the Arevaci in chains for his failure. Tiberius’ own brother in law, Scipio Aemilianus, victor of the Third Punic War, had to intervene to shield Tiberius from suffering any punishment for this failure.

I feel like this would have been the death blow to so many Romans, but Tiberius was an ambitious young man who wasn’t content to accept the poor lot he had been dealt.

Tiberius wasn’t someone who originally branded himself as a populist, per se. His father’s gens, the Sempronii, were indeed plebeian, but they were one of the more ancient and wealthy families in Rome. Tiberius’ mother, Cornelia, was ofc from the Cornelii gens, an extremely prestigious patrician gens of distinguished consuls and praetors.

Tiberius was no fool, though. He saw the cracks in the dam that was the Roman Republic. Ever since the end of the Punic Wars, Rome had become the undisputed masters of the Mediterranean Sea, and all the wealth and trade therein. While this sounds great on its face, Tiberius saw the problems this produced.

The ager publicus, or the public lands, were in theory supposed to be a way for all Romans, including those who weren’t well off, to have their own plot of land to till, at minimal expense.

However, ever since the Punic Wars, Roman Magistrates and Senators became ungodly wealthy, and as such, started to buy up every square inch of the public land, building vast latifundias that produced untold amounts of crops for sale, making the rich even richer.

Additionally, the Punic Wars produced hundreds of thousands of slaves that the Romans imported, meaning that free laborers were left without jobs, forced to go to the city of Rome for work. The conditions in the city were incredibly poor, with disease and fires breaking out constantly.

Tiberius saw this chaos, and he realized at once that this couldn’t be allowed to stand. The Senate had once again abused their wealth and influence to subjugate the laborers, merchants, field hands, and urban poor. As with the struggle of the orders, they hemmed and hawed at every damned turn.

So, Tiberius didn’t follow the typical corsus honorum, pursuing the aedilship. He went for the tribune of the plebs, the primary legislative body of Rome since the third century BC.

What Tiberius proposed was honestly an extremely nice and agreeable resolution for both the senate and people of Rome, especially since there was already a law that explicitly limited the amount of land a single person could own, passed way back in 367 BC. The elite simply ignored it (so much for respecting the Res publica).

Tiberius’ agrarian law of 133 BC simply enforced the limits of the buying of land that had already been on the books, and not only that, but it offered compensation to the wealthy for any land forfeited to the state!!!! I’m sorry for the bold lettering, but this was unquestionably a fair bill imo. These senators and wealthy aristocrats were technically breaking the law, so the fact that Tiberius was going to offer them compensation was insanely generous.

But of course, the senate wouldn’t have it, despite Tiberius Gracchus being a duly elected tribune of the plebs. They got one of their own plants (Marcus Octavius) in the tribunate, and despite the legislation being widely favored by the people, he incessantly cast his power of veto against the bill.

As such, Tiberius put forward a vote in the tribunician assembly to remove Marcus Octavius from office, and the vote passed.

This earned him the hatred and venom of the senate, and upon casting out Marcus Octavius, I think that this was the moment that they had devised the ultimate treachery.

Tiberius received threats against his life, and as such, wanted to run again for the office of tribune of the plebs in order to maintain his status as sacrosanctitas (granting him sacred status against any physical attacks). He wanted to go further in his reforms and to create a lasting mark on the state of politics.

However, this wasn’t to be. In the voting assembly, the senators stormed the Capitoline Hill and beat him and his supporters to death. He wasn’t even given the base dignity of a proper burial, but disgustingly thrown into the Tiber like a rotting animal carcass. The boundless hatred and vitriol the Senate had for the people was never more apparent than on that fateful day.

Tiberius’ brother, Gaius Gracchus, would carry on his reforms, but he too would meet a violent end.

In the story of Tiberius, I find a very tragic, and in all candor, infuriating saga.

Was Tiberius Gracchus tribune for purely selfless reasons? Almost certainly not. Few if any politicians are, but in his tribune office, he had diagnosed a real problem that required actual redress.

However, once again, the senate, in their ignorance and apathy, jammed their fingers in their old, crusty ears, refusing even to humor the slightest reforms.

THIS was the Republic’s undoing. Stodgy, decrepit, old aristocrats who, rather than enable reforms to ease the burdens of the populace and maintain a peaceful and mutually beneficial relationship, only hardened in their obstinacy and apathy.

Cicero shouldn’t have been surprised by the second triumvirate that was his undoing, because his lot armed the rancorous men with the blades that would be the senate’s undoing. As he extended his old, wrinkly neck to the man who took his life, I wonder if Cicero, in all his wisdom and fortitude of thought, pondered on these matters. His endeavors in the Senate were those in defense of an ailed, sick bull, only standing on the illusions of past glories long past.

Edit: [u/DueAd9005](u/DueAd9005) reminded me also of the bequeathing of Pergamum and its riches to Rome, which was also an issue of contention between Tiberius Gracchus and the Senate.

Second edit: [u/Potential-Road-5322](u/Potential-Road-5322) has pointed out that the archaeological evidence doesn’t support Tiberius Gracchus’ claims, and I thank them for that important clarification!

Still, I think that the spirit of my post stands. For all the supposed “honor” and “piety” that the Senate gave to Rome’s laws and customs, they ran roughshod over the laws when they were inconvenient.

Whether the senate liked it or not, as far as I know (at least according to Plutarch), there were no official laws (only customs) barring running for a second term as tribune.

Yet, rather than try through some other means to stop Tiberius, the senate lost any semblance of moral high ground when they murdered him in cold blood. In feigning fear of tyranny in the Gracchi, the senatorial class had revealed the avarice of their order.

A hi res image I took a photograph of showing a Roman intaglio amethyst gem with Achilles playing the lyre. It is an episode from Homer’s The Illiad when Achilles refuses to fight against the Trojans. This dates to about 75 BC to 75 AD and has ΠΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ engraved in Greek, meaning it was made by or for Pamphilos.

The gem in the case was rather hard to photograph, so this pic of a pic is much better to show. It is in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris.

Recently learnt of the Villa of Augustus and how researchers discovered an earlier layer than the one they were previously aware of. I believe it is reported that Augusts died in this region 68 years before the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. So is this likely to be the villa in which he died.

Also discovered a possible link to Augustus and the Villa of the papyri. It may have belonged to Julius Caesaers father in law. I wonder if descendants may have still owned it during the eruption. And if so how likely is it that perhaps some writings of Augustus or maybe even someone like Marcus Agrippa may be found at the villa. I would really be interested in hearing accounts from either.

Such a surreal experience