Klingan

Getting reliable information on what an inscription really say can be tricky. Most photographs are taken head on with no side lightning (which would create great shadows that reveal the inscription) and some letters may be very difficult to make out. The only really good way to cover your back when working with inscriptions is therefore to use CIL or ILS (there are also other minor works, but I cannot go through them all). Here's a trick to help you out if you're looking for a fairly known inscription (remember that the Wikipedia copies are wrong all the time, I've corrected more than one): First of all, for everyone not familiar with CIL and ILS. CIL stand for Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum and it's, as the name indicate, a collection of inscription which is gathered by the Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. The work began in 1853 and contain around 180.000 inscription at present, many which have been destroyed since they were recorded (this is especially true about the volumes containing a lot of graffiti). The physical form (i.e. books) are very expensive, most libraries cannot afford buying them and if they do buy them, they'll be very protective about them. Any inscription in CIL will be identified by two numbers, volume and id (e.g.: CIL VI 1188). Remember that CIL is written in Latin. ILS (inscriptiones latinae selectae) is a more selective publication series. They take up specific example - far fewer than CIL (never the less a great number). ILS inscriptions are simply identified by an ILS number (e.g. ILS 797). Now to the real deal here: How to find the inscription youre looking for without the physical books (which are tremendously difficult to find a specific inscription in, indices are all but nonexistent). First of all you need to find a CIL or ILS number, this is the really tricky part. If you have a random tombstone, milestone or instrumentum domesticum, quit reading here. If it's something a little bit more famous google it. I'm going to use a fairly unknown 4th century inscription as an example - what I'm looking for was a added to the Porta Maggiore by Honarius and its records the walls and gates being restored. Now I start of by googling Porta Maggiore, then I go to Wikipedia where I find a picture of the object but no reference. Now I can't read the inscription here, but even if I could I'd want the CIL or ILS edition. Now, the English Wikipedia is much better than the other wikis in most fields - Roman history is unfortunately not one of them. If it's not there always try the Italian version. Notice that 3 of the inscriptions on this page contained typos earlier on. Here I find a reference to CIL (CIL VI 1188). Bingo. When you have a CIL or ILS number it'll all get very easy, especially if it's a ILS number (if so simply ignore the following step). Now go to CIL's homepage (http://cil.bbaw.de/cil_en/index_en.html). It's only partly translated from German to English and generally a miserable corner or the internet. There is however a search function (Database). This seems great, but the function really doesn't work very well at all. I have yet to find one single inscription that actually will show up. The normal answer to your search is something like: "No photographs of this inscription are available in the database. No squeezes of this inscription are available in the database. Please send any suggestions and comments to the CIL." and an invaluable " VI 1188 = VI partis I p. XIX n. 16 cf. VI 31257 et VI p. 3778 et VI p. 4334 cf. ILS 797 = Fiebiger - Schmidt 23 = Fiebiger - Schmidt 242". Bingo! You`ll now know that CIL VI 1188 = ILS 797. This is the really important part: ILS has a working homepage. Or at least semi working one. ILS have two functions, a search engine (which is completely useless in my opinion, but I've never really tried it out seriously) and a "show the inscription function". The later is magical if you know how to handle it. Here's a link: (http://oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epieinzel_en?p_belegstelle=D+05932&r_sortierung=Belegstelle) (this link lead you to a random inscription, simply the first one I used like this). Notice the highlighted numbers. These are the ILS identification numbers. You now know that the 4th century AD Porta Maggiore inscription is refered to as CIL VI 1188 which equals ILS 797 and that you can simply insert the ILS number in the adress like this: (http://oracle-vm.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/epigr/epieinzel_en?p_belegstelle=D+00797&r_sortierung=Belegstelle). Remember that the number is always five digits (add zeros if needed). Voila, you've found the inscription in a reliable source and can now use it. Now I just hope that someone actually will have some use for this guide.

15,000 crocodiles escape from South African farm. This could be bad...

We apologize of the downtime the last couple of days. The exact cause behind the failure is not known to me at this moment, but I will make sure you give you all the information I get as soon as I ever can. Further on, it is our hope that it has caused no inconvenience beyond a slight UNRV abstinence. The Legatii

And Parthia is out!

Those are excellent suggestions!

He should be around now, I will send him a link to this thread in a PM.

Well, I'd say that there are a lot of problems with the article. 1: The battle of Lysimachia is seldom mentioned in modern literature as one of the more important ones in antiquity, at least as far as I know. Sure it had importance, but it just fades a little compared to the battle of Ipsos (301) or Battle of Corupedium (281). What I'm trying to say here though, is primarily that the importance of the battle of Lysimachia has been somewhat blown up to make the theory more sensational. 2: Justinian is a very late source and should hardly be considered trustworthy in the details - the arguments regarding the sailors and the elephants are therefore very weak in my opinion. Further on:

I am so happy that you guys are doing this and wish that I could help!

You've got it, great work! It's a fascinating place and it is promising some very important finds within the next couple of years - my department is excavating there so I'mm let everyone know in good time Your turn!

That would be great to know. And doesn't he wear shoes? I'm thinking Hermes

Unfortunately not - this place is not connected to a Roman dynasty.

Ok, time for a hint! This place has been strongly associated with a dynasty.

I'm impressed Auris! It's an excellent identification that sounds completely reasonable to me!

Can someone correct the incorrect entries to that page please? The site should be base on historical facts not fiction!!! Can the Forum administrator forward my reply to relevant people please? Our Admin is unfortunately away at the moment, but I will bring it up with him and I assure you that I do not accept anything that can be proven wrong.

I bet Sherlock Holmes is happy that he did not try to investigate run away roman sites cause he would be up for some though competition with you around. You're right again!

So far so good!

Morgantina was a city in east-central Sicily, built on the Serra Orlando ridge - the modern identification is almost certain. Archaeological remains first appear around the 10th century BC, but Greek pottery and terracottas show up only from around 560 BC. The city, however, soon came under the influence of other cities and it remains under in the Syracusan orbit for most of the 5th c. BC and until the city decided to support Carthage rather than Rome in the second punic war. This was, as we know today, a little bit of a mistake and Morgantina was besieged and taken by M. Claudius Marcellus after which the city was handed over to some of Romes Spanish mercenaries. By the end of the republic the city had lapsed into decay and we hear almost nothing more about it (I cannot help but comparing the fate of Margantine to that of Metaponto which also sided with Carthage). It was most likely completely abandoned by the first century AD. The city is most famous for it's impressive house remains with splendid mosaics. ...but it's not the city we're looking for today and my photo was not taken in Greece!

Nobody wants to know where to find this beautiful view?

Finally!

Here we go again! I hope this one will be able to confuse Maladict!

Haha, I actually like seeing how good you are at this! But sure, I can post a new picture tonight unless you get around to it?

Damn it Maladict, ruining the fun already? I was just getting started. Well played! What gave it away? Metapontum was a Greek Achean colony founded at the mouth of the river Basento. It prospered for a long time, competing with Siris and Tarentum, until it started declining in the 4th c. BC as both Dionysios I and the Lucanians captured it in the 390's BC. Two decades later it was dominated by Tarentum. Another capture, this time by the Spartan Cleonymus of Sparta in 302/1 probably did it no good and supporting Phyrrus against Rome turned out to be a mistake as the Romans took the city in 272 - but it did gain the status of a socii at the same time. Metapontum was however one of rather few cities in Italy that decided to support Hannibal and it simply dispersal from the records after the Roman victory in the second Punic war (anyone want to play guess what happened?), although a Roman municipium continued to exist on the site. It is important to modern archaeologists as a lot of rural survey work has been done in the area, tracing the land division of a Greek colony.

I would certainly consider it to have been coastal.

5 english miles? I have a very basic understanding of how far that is but I am, even so, pretty sure it's the case, yes. And it is on the mainland, correct.