Search Results

Triumphal arch is the term generally used for an honorific arch (fornix, arcus; ἁψίς, πύλη), one of the most identifiably Roman of building forms. The descriptor is misleading: while arches frequently commemorated military achievements, not all can be linked with triumphs. These memorials also marked the territorial boundaries of cities and provinces, celebrated infrastructure projects such as roads and harbours, and memorialized the achievements of ambitious individuals. Votive associations with temples have been postulated but generally discounted. Simple in form, with one or more arched openings for passage flanked by sturdy piers and topped with a large attic, the honorific arch offered ample space for reliefs, sculptures, and inscriptions conveying directed messages with many, but not all, tied to military achievements. Honorific arches first appeared at Rome in the form of fornices connected with successful generals. Renamed arcus under Augustus, they were applied to the promotion of state values and military expansion as well as the accomplishments of the imperial family. Civic and private examples proliferated, as did particular architectural features: more openings for pedestrian traffic, more lavish embellishments, and a greater range of sizes. Spreading first through Italy, Gaul, and Spain, the form ultimately appeared in every Roman province. Honorific arches were especially popular in North Africa and the eastern provinces, where they served as gates and enriched the experience of urban streets. Punctuating highways in the countryside and harbour works at the shores, arches both explicitly marked regional boundaries and emphasized the Roman ordering of territory and peoples.

People’s life courses are shaped by the complex interactions of contextual factors, of individual behavior, and of opportunities and constraints operating at the macro level. Demography studies these processes with a focus on particular transitions in the life course: birth, leaving home, marriage, and other transitions in civil status (divorce, remarriage, and transitions into widowhood), the birth and survival of offspring, migration, and finally the end of the life cycle—death.

Initial work on the ancient world focussed primarily on macro-level data, trying to establish overall trends in population development on the basis of census figures and other population estimates. This approach has received further impetus with the advent of survey demography (see Population Trends). More recently, attention has turned to single events in the life course. Core demographic studies have attempted to establish patterns and rates of marriage, fertility, migration, and mortality. Others have taken a complementary approach with a stronger focus on qualitative data. These support investigation of sociological, cultural, and economic aspects of demographic phenomena. The remainder of this article focusses on a concise evaluation of current understanding of marriage, fertility, migration, mortality, and population trends in the ancient Greco-Roman world.

Those who owned property in the Greek world enjoyed all the basic rights and duties recognized in all legal systems. They had the right to security against arbitrary confiscation and theft, the right to enjoy the fruits, the right to alienate, the right to manage, and the right to pass on their property to their heirs. Their property could also be seized by the state as a penalty or to pay for fines or by private lenders in satisfaction of debts or other obligations. Property could be owned by private individuals, by private groups, by the state or by subdivisions of the state. In certain cases women had the right to own property, but their rights might be restricted by law. Most Greek communities only allowed citizens to own land unless they obtained permission to acquire land from the Assembly.

Secure property rights are crucial for economic prosperity.¹ If owners of land cannot rest assured that their control over their property will not be threatened, they will have no incentive to build or make improvements. If they fear that someone may take their land at any moment, there will be no reason to invest in crops such as olives that will not produce immediate returns. If their title to the land is not secure, lenders will not be willing to accept the farm as security for a loan. If the threat of arbitrary confiscation hangs over owners, it becomes impossible to make any plans for the future. Finally, if the state does not protect the rights of owners, it is very difficult for individuals to buy and sell movable and immovable property in ways that lead to a better allocation of resources.

Rome’s political history from 31 bce to 192 ce was dominated by an imperial system controlled by large, interconnected families. Although power transitioned through three separate dynasties, this period proved to be remarkably stable, allowing for flourishing artistic and literary production, grand military successes (as well as some defeats), and relative economic security. Political power that, during the Republic, was achieved through family influence, campaigning for office, military achievements, and successfully navigating the cursus honorum, underwent several modifications, although many conventions persisted. Family influence continued to play an important role in legitimizing the position of the emperor and power was largely in the hands of a few select families. The increased influence and authority of the elite women of the Late Republic continued to develop and expand under the principate. The power of soldiers and their commanders, which dominated the political landscape in the 1st century bce, continued, with emperors relying heavily on the loyalty of their troops to preserve and legitimize their power. Roman imperialism and expansion through military and diplomatic means continued to increase the territory and population under Roman control. Likewise, the Republican social order of senators, equestrians, and plebs was expanded to incorporate new provincial elites, placed in the social hierarchy between the equestrians and everyone else. This expansion involved political, institutional, and cultural change, even if this change was not uniform throughout the Mediterranean. The sense of “becoming Roman” varied both over time and geographically. Likewise, “Roman” identity was not the only identity expressed by individuals living under Roman control.