Talk:Slavery in ancient Rome/Archive 2

Mine slavery only for convicts?
This article strongly suggests that mine slavery was only for convicts. Yet in this BBC TV show classicist Mary Beard talks about children, as young as four, being used in the mines (and dying there). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzIWYI_zrBY Surely they were not convicts, and if they are sending kids down there who were not convicts, surely they did not exempt adults? LastDodo (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Slavery in Italy
"Slavery in Italy" redirects here, and the Wikipedia article on the timeline of abolition of slavery leaves Italy blank. This article by Medium claims there were slaves in Italy in the medieval period: https://medium.com/the-history-buff/slavery-in-medieval-italy-cb189ae45933. Anyone have enough information to start an article about Italy and not just ancient Rome? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Uncited "Emancipation" paragraph resembles close paraphrasing
In reading the section on "Emancipation," the first paragraph caught my eye as being uncomfortably close to a paragraph from the textbook Cambridge Latin Course: Unit 1 (Fifth Ed.). The paragraph in question, which currently lacks citation in this article, is:

"Freeing a slave was called manumissio, which literally means "sending out from the hand". The freeing of the slave was a public ceremony, performed before some sort of public official, usually a judge. The owner touched the slave on the head with a staff and he was free to go. Simpler methods were sometimes used, usually with the owner proclaiming a slave's freedom in front of friends and family, or just a simple invitation to recline with the family at dinner."

Mirlita (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Anti-slavery views
There are several problems with the text about "Anti-slavery views" I deleted. The first problem regards the author: The text was inserted into Abolitionism by user who was later (on Feb 21) blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. On 4 March the text was copied to this article by IP 142.120.69.72. The same address is mentioned at User_talk:Doug_Weller, with Doug Weller (the same admin who blocked Editshmedt) responding: I'm convinced. Blocked the latest one, all the edits by the addresses above can be reverted as sock edits.

The other problems refer to the content: The section "Insurrection ..." is sourced to The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:8–22, which deals with an event that happened during the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians around 590 BC - not exactly "ancient Rome". The whole text treats biblical authors and Christian theologians in detail, giving them an undue covering (given the fact that Christians didn't become influential in the Roman empire before the 4th century AD). --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius
Pompeii 315 I will also be working on this page in the coming weeks. The section on Freedmen in particular needs a major overhaul. If this is a topic you are covering in detail, please get in touch. NChapman98 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @NChapman98 The Freedmen section is a topic I am covering because as you may have noticed it needs a lot of work. As of now I am both trying to add more sources and rewording a lot of it so it has a little more flow and makes more sense. Pompeii 315 (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pompeii 315 I had noticed that. Ultimately, I chose to write an entirely new article for Roman Freedmen, but the section in the main article still needs attention. Should you be looking for sources, my bibliography from the new article may prove useful. Best of luck! NChapman98 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Illustrating the article
I'm reluctant to intrude since the article has been developed as an educational project and I haven't been editing WP much the last few years. But the two modern images that are in the article are problematic as illustrations of the topic historically. I'm all for illustrating the classical tradition in articles about Greece and Rome, if the actual content of the article supports and contextualizes these representations. But currently there is no section, as there well could be, on the intellectual and artistic purposes to which notions of slavery in ancient Rome were put, especially in the US. If you skim through the article on Jean-Léon Gérôme, you'll see that the painter has a number of paintings showing his preoccupation with the shapely, luminously white-skinned lone woman standing naked in public and gazed upon by fully clothed, more darkly shaded men. What he seems interested in is locating scenarios that lend a veneer of narrative plausibility and variety to a scene he wants to paint over and over. Compositionally, the image of the supposed Roman slave market chosen here is scarcely to be distinguished from several other of his paintings, and that lack of specificity is part of what makes it not useful here. If there were a section on later depictions, I would have no objection to the image if it were related to the content. The other painting by Charles W. Bartlett has more utility. The architecture says Rome. Although women and children are foregrounded, perhaps for pathos, the painter includes stripped men as well. The central image is the kindly (!) Roman soldier handing fruit to the child about to be sold into slavery. He stands in contrast to the spear-bearing soldier pushing that poor fellow along at the top of the stairs. There are many ways to interpret this; perhaps the painter is saying that even when we live in times when our livelihood depends on atrocity as daily commerce, there's redemption in a moment of kindness. The contemporary viewer's response is likely to be more complicated. Those are my views on why neither of these images belongs near the top of the article. I'm intending to delete Gérôme's and move Bartlett's to that position. There are extensive options for illustrating the article with Roman art and inscriptions. And an even more interesting point is that while visual art in antiquity was commissioned by the ruling class or bought by the well-to-do, many if not most artists and artisans were slaves or freedmen creating images of themselves, as in possibly the mosaic at the top. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that and for the clear and compelling explanation – welcome back! If it's any reassurance or encouragement, the 2022 educational projects resulted in two edits here, this to the text and references of the section on freedmen and this linking to a new article Ancient Roman freedmen.
 * NebY (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm quite out of practice editing at WP. There's one other point I hope to address, the recent addition of a sentence stating that it was against the law to erect a funerary stone for slaves, when in fact we have an image of an actual inscription commemorating Eros the cook—explicitly a servus, not even a libertinus or libertus. I don't think the source is quite as emphatic as the assertion placed in the article, but burial practice with commemoration is a terrific question to raise. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It surprised me too (but only after you pointed it out) and I qualified it per the quote from the source "no siempre respetada, es cierto". I'm wondering when it was in force, if it applied in Rome as well as that part of Hispania, whether it applied to columbaria inscriptions, which I'd thought a major source and object of study – but I'm basically ignorant. Still I know who has done a lot of careful work here on Roman funerary practices – pinging ! NebY (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, though I can't offer much, as I've limited access to relevant works I used in the Roman funerary practices article (see that article's sources). Off the top of my head, however, I've come across no support at all for a legal or customary prohibition of monuments to slaves, many of whom seem to have had better funerary treatments and memorials than the poorest of their urban citizen counterparts, with access to Columbaria and other mausolea.
 * It seems possible to me that whoever inserted the "no monuments" claim has based it on a misreading of contracts between undertakers and town councils at Puteoli and Lanuvium. They were obliged to remove and dispose of any corpses of slaves, the poorest citizens, or the indigent who had been dumped on the streets, within two hours of discovery (or daylight). They were disposed as garbage (a public nuisance), without ceremony or memorial. If at all possible, the responsible owners or relatives were fined.
 * Cicero confirms that funerals for most non-elite citizen corpses were carried out over 24 hours. Many of these would have been funded by burial associations, who were able to take slaves as members, with permission of their owners, and give their members burial with an image (in other words, a memorial) even as slaves.
 * In many cases, families and deceased patrons of deceased slaves and freedmen who were considered loyal could add their names to existing memorial inscriptions; good examples survive in Aquilea.
 * Graham, Emma-Jayne, The burial of the urban poor in Italy in the late Roman Republic and early Empire. BAR Int. Series 1565. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2006
 * Bendlin, Andreas, "Associations, funerals, sociality, and Roman law: The collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) reconsidered", 2011
 * (Huge numbers of rural slaves would have been buried by fellow slaves with only a perishable monument, such as a name scratched into an amphora that covered their corpse or ashes. Eros the cook is by no means exceptional; lots more where that came from). There are variations in local municipal law, but if this is one, the source should describe it as such, with reference to a primary source. Haploidavey (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All things considered, I don't think we should accept the offered source as reliable or accurate: Arturo Pérez (2006). Balcells, Albert (ed.). Historia de Cataluña (in Spanish) (1.ª ed.). Madrid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haploidavey (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! "Can't offer much", indeed. I'm reassured that all in all, if there is some narrow sense in which "forbidden to place a tombstone at a slave's grave" is true, it's still too much of a potentially misleading statement and that source simply isn't sufficient for a general statement here. NebY (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * So I thought. For further relevant, sourced material in support of our arguments, here's a courtesy link to Wikipedia's article on Roman funerary practices. Haploidavey (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The contracts between undertakers and town councils at Puteoli and Lanuvium (an amazing thing to learn of!) in fact would seem to indicate expectations that slaveholders bore responsibility for at least handling the remains appropriately. Those subject to damnatio of whatever kind are always going to be a special case, whether it's one condemned to the mines or Mark Antony. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Selling your children
We have "There were also many cases of poor people selling their children to richer neighbours as slaves in times of hardship. " in the lead, but nothing of the sort in the body. The ref was added recently in response to Cynwolfe's citation-needed tag; it's to a PBS page that cites no sources and may post-date this statement being in this article. The phrasing is a bit off, making me think of taking the kid round to the Joneses next door, but we could fix that if we had a good source. I couldn't find anything in the odd bits and pieces I've got on ancient slavery, and I'm not convinced it was even legal after nexum (which wasn't exactly slavery anyway). A quick online search threw up this on Stackexchange, where the extended answer (not the brief footnoted ones) presents modern RSs that Roman liberty was inalienable, even under potestas, but goes on to assert without sources that parents did often put their children to work like slaves. I don't know what the economic value of child slaves in pre-industrial societies is, let alone ones that might reclaim their liberty. Surely if everyone knows this was common, we must have better sources than PBS. NebY (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be in the lead in any case, as the lead should summarise the main and not have novel information. If a proper summary, the lead would also not need references. It is not at all clear why the statement is lead worthy. Regarding the veracity of the statement, it doesn't seem obviously true, for the reasons you have stated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good points about the lede and about nexum. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * After a quick look into this, I think what's needed is a section on child slavery, which would explain how children became slaves and the difference between being born into slavery and becoming a slave. It doesn't appear that children under five were expected to be used as slaves, but it also isn't clear to me how childcare was handled if the mother was enslaved. And if a free woman or a household couldn't afford that extra mouth to feed, child abandonment seems more likely? But children from the ages of 7 to 14 did do work if they couldn't be in school. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a WP:RS (PBS), and yet the opinions of wikipedia editors I'm not convinced and it doesn't seem obviously true are to outweigh the RS? Amusing.  Agree that a section is needed; I've started adding extra sources for when the subject is moved into main text.XavierItzm (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerning the sale of children, your quote from Harris ("infants […] would have been sold. Sometimes in fact they were […despite…] inhibition in the way of selling a child of citizen") doesn't fully convey Harris's caution:
 * "It has been objected that infants would not have been exposed in great numbers if they were valuable as potential recruits to the slave market; they would have been sold. Sometimes in fact they were. But at times demand must have been weak or non-existent. However even when children did possess some commercial value, there was a powerful inhibition in the way of selling a child of citizen parents. That was precisely what could not be allowed to happen to a member of the citizen community. At least some Greeks felt that the selling of children was more abhorrent than exposing them."
 * It's good to see a better source; that PBS page doesn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. NebY (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Three things. (1) Can we remove PBS since we have a more reliable source? So as not to encourage this kind of sourcing? (2) And in my opinion, a reasonable place to add a heading "Child slavery" would be after "Debt slavery," because tied to poverty. (3) And a talk page is a talk page—a place to brainstorm. None of us added our opinions to the article. My "quick look into" this topic was a survey of abstracts of several articles on JSTOR from journals on ancient history and classical studies. A little good faith, please. Though I'm always glad to bring amusement to the world. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not saying that PBS isn't RS! It certainly is on current affairs. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the PBS source. As NebY says, that source does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and the Harris source is better (although it pretty much gives the lie to the old text). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. On the first page of the article, Harris says, "After the sale of infants was authorized by Constantine in A.D. 313, the need for child-exposure somewhat diminished, and at last—probably in 374—it was subjected to legal prohibition. But of course it did not cease." That's a rather late date—AD 313, and notably under the first Christian emperor (post-"conversion," even)—to support a claim that selling your own children was recognized or accepted as standard practice in "ancient Rome" and all the preceding centuries we mean by that. The selling of your own children into slavery would seem to have become palatable as a matter of law only when the empire began to be fully Christianized. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is so startling. Isn't ancient history great?
 * Meanwhile, I'll replace "Poor citizens might sell their children as slaves, or, more frequently, abandon them for slave traders to pick up" with "Abandoned infants who survived exposure were usually enslaved" as that's what Harris is telling us so clearly and directly that we don't even need to assemble a quotation from him to support it.
 * To explain at tedious length (sorry!): Harris's "sometimes they were [sold]" doesn't indicate that selling one's own children was so common as to be worth noting here; indeed, he argues that it was not be a common choice instead of exposure. He doesn't say parents exposed children in order that they could be enslaved; rather (p9) "enslavement was much the commonest fate of foundlings" (only foundlings, not all the abandoned) but (p10) "the majority of the victims [of exposure] probably died", "even the rescued were in great danger, for like the inmates of the old foundling hospitals they must often have died within a few days", "[a]t all events, it was widely assumed that most exposed infants died", and more. NebY (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)