Maladict

Yes, Apparently in the Thirteenth year of Justinian's reign I believe it wasn't actually abolished, but given exclusively to the emperor from 541 onward. Merely a formality of course, but I don't believe the office was abolished (by decree).

I think that's pushing it a bit. There isn't a single point in time, or even a single reign, during which it happened, if indeed it happened at all. Heraclius' empire was further removed from the Republic than from the Palaeologi at that time. But yes, it was still recognizably Roman, I'd choose Heraclius as well.

I'm going with Boethius, but if we're including the Byzantine period I'd have to change my vote to Plethon.

There should be a few references in the Codex Theodosianus and Justinian's codices. And the papyrii of course, as was already mentioned.

No help there, sorry

Interesting, thanks. That Bosnian pyramid stuff really has to stop, though :bash:

I've never seen one with (s)red tiles. Based on the dozen or so I've seen there seem to be very strict conventions on how they look, one of them being that the roof tiles are grey (limestone iirc). But I could be wrong.

I'm guessing you're talking about Trulli. They're found in Puglia, not Calabria.

Sounds fine to me. Since this thread started with a question on ancient sources I'd have to warn you that there aren't a whole lot of them on this particular subject. Answering this question, as of course has been attempted before, usually involves a lot of conjecturing, which is fine but if you want your work to be solidly grounded in (and backed up by) the ancient authors you'd better move it elsewhere. Still, I'd say go for it, it's a great, if complicated, subject

I'm going to 'vote' against Constantine. The body of scientific work written on him will completely overwhelm you when you have a relatively small assignment. You simply won't have the time to take it all in, nor will you have the space to fit it into your own hypotheses. Unless you really narrow it down you'll end up with either gross generalizations or presenting a premise of your own without acknowledging previous research, which will make you look sloppy or arrogant. Why not give us the specific question you'd like to answer for both Constantine and Theodosius, so we'd getter a better idea? p.s. Lose the sensationalist subtitels, it makes your work look shallow.

I agree on Pompeii and Herculaneum, and Nimes. Ephesus however was the main metropolis of Asia, and Arles was quite important in the fourth century, as was Trier (likely the largest city north of the Alps at that time). Leptis Magna is harder, because so much money was lavished upon it by a single emperor for nostalgic reasons. It's hard to say whether the city merited these investments, or if it grew in importance because of them.

Been living under a rock then? It made quite a stir throughout Europe (and beyond, I'd imagine) when it came out a few years ago. And yes, it's an excellent movie

The Capuan gate has not yet been excavated, there are only indications that it's there. That's why some maps show seven gates and others eight.

There are dozens of ongoing archaeological projects in the area, most of them financed by American and European institutions. Apart from the actual war zones, the only major problems would be uncooperative and/or corrupt officials (who can be found abundantly outside the region too) and political pressure to generate certain kinds of results. The latter can be a major problem, but generally I think it isn't as bad as it used to be.

During the late empire it would generally be colder than it is today. The Danube, for example, would frequently freeze in winter. Perhaps it would be a reason for the adoption of 'barbarian clothes'?

I know him from another history forum. He's just a troll, and I'm very glad this board takes a harder line with his kind. Good job, mods!

Good choice, but not an easy one. The MA thesis I'm writing partly revolves around 410, so I may be of some help. PM me if you need anything.

So what happened to the Bronze Age Pompeii that was found about a year ago?

Just finished reading Count Belisarius by Robert Graves. Highly recommended.

What are you talking about? Three religions? The Roman Empire of the seventh century was thoroughly Christian.

Yes of course, GIS, how could I forget? It should be mandatory for students. Perhaps some elementary grasp of statistical analysis is useful too, it's something most archaeologists try to avoid having to use.

Well most of the sources I'd mention are in PP's second link, which leaves me with just a few: - Zonaras (not contemporary but he draws on (now lost) ancient sources.) - Zosimus (mind you, the last part, sack of rome, was lost and 'restored' during the Renaissance). - Liber Pontificalis, an excellent source if somewhat hard to find I'll probably come up with a few more, my memory is slow today

Can you give us some cut-off points, chronologically? That would make it easier.

I agree, specialization is the way to go (Paleobotany, archaeozoology, ceramic studies, conservation, DNA studies etc). If you have a knack for 'hard science', try getting some of that into your curriculum (physics, chemistry, physical geography), you'll beat the competition easily. If it's classical archaeology you're interested in, as opposed to ancient history, forget about ancient Greek and Latin, you won't need them. Italian, German and French is what you need to read 95% of the scientific output, probably in that order if it's Roman archaeology.

For the High Empire, deginately. But in the late empire only a small part of Egyptian grain reached Rome, Constantinople taking precedence. It was Africa that provided Rome's grain and therefore of crucial importance, as Ursus said. So, for the late empire, I'd say Africa and Gaul were the most important in the West, and in the East Asia minor and Egypt.