ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission. This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the "barbarians" beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity-a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.
Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2010. 8(3): 376-389
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article
The Roman State and Genetic Pacification
Peter Frost, c/o Bernard Saladin d’Anglure, Department of Anthropology, Université Laval, Quebec City,
Canada. Email: peter_frost61z@globetrotter.qc.ca (Corresponding author).
Abstract: Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating
rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise
of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act
violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such
behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high
heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from
the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission. This
perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the
general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans
saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders.
By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the
spread of Christianity—a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state
imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus
facilitating a subsequent ideological change.
Keywords: aggression, Baldwinian selection, Christianity, state formation, violence
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Introduction
Natural selection has altered at least 7% of our genome over the last 40 thousand
years. And it has been doing so at an accelerating rate, particularly after agriculture
replaced hunting and gathering less than ten thousand years ago. At that time, the rate of
genetic change may have risen over a hundred-fold (Hawks, Wang, Cochran, Harpending,
and Moyzis, 2007).
By then, our species had colonized almost every biome on the planet: savanna,
tropical rain forest, temperate woodland, boreal forest, and arctic tundra. It was not because
we were adapting to new ecological environments that genetic change sped up. Rather, the
cause was a proliferation of new social environments.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -377-
Many of these new social environments limited male behavior, particularly violent
behavior. Previously, men could use violence more freely for self-advancement, notably to
attract women and to sire children. This is still the path to male reproductive success among
the Yanomamö, a horticulturalist people of Amazonia, among whom significantly more
children are fathered by men who have committed homicide than by those who have not
(Chagnon, 1988). Among the Ache, a hunter-gatherer people of Paraguay, “homicidal”
men do not have more offspring but more of their offspring survive, either because strong
fathers better protect their children or because some other factor makes both father and
offspring healthier than average (Hill and Magdalena Hurtado, 1996, p. 445).
This situation reversed with the rise of State societies. Over circumscribed
territories, power fell into the hands of a few “big men”, often only one, and violence
became a privileged instrument of power. In such societies, reproductive success required
compliance with the State, including its monopoly on violence. Successful men tended to
have higher thresholds for violent behavior when acting on their own and relatively lower
ones when acting under the command of authority (Milgram, 1974).
Initially, men complied by changing their behavior within the limits of phenotypic
plasticity. This shift in the mean phenotype created a more peaceful society where violent
males were less often imitated, celebrated, and accommodated. The more placid males
were now the ones who enjoyed reproductive success, the result being a parallel shift in the
mean genotype. In sum, once the State began to enforce its monopoly on violence, it
favored not only certain phenotypes but also, indirectly, certain genotypes. Cultural
evolution led the way for biological evolution, a process called Baldwinian selection.
Such selection was possible because male aggressiveness is moderately to strongly
heritable. A heritability of 40% is suggested by a meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption
studies (Rhee and Waldman, 2002). A later twin study indicates a heritability of 96%, the
subjects being 9-10 year-olds from diverse ethnic backgrounds (Baker, Jacobson, Raine,
Lozano, and Bezdjian, 2007). This higher figure reflects the closer ages of the subjects and
the use of a panel of evaluators to rate each of them. According to the latest twin study,
heritability is 40% when the twins have different evaluators and 69% when they have the
same evaluator (Barker, et al., 2009).
The historical economist Gregory Clark argues that this kind of behavioral selection
shaped the English population. Once central authority had become established, male
homicide fell steadily from the twelfth century to the early nineteenth. Meanwhile, there
was a parallel decline in blood sports and other forms of exhibitionist violence (cock
fighting, bear and bull baiting, public executions) that nonetheless remained legal
throughout this period. Clark ascribes the behavioral change to the reproductive success of
upper- and middle-class individuals who differed statistically in temperament from the
much larger lower class. Although they were initially a small minority in medieval
England, their descendants grew in number and gradually replaced the lower class through
downward mobility. By the nineteenth century, such lineages accounted for most of the
English population (Clark, 2007, pp. 124-129, 182-183; Clark, 2009). They now had the
numbers to make their behavioral mean the norm for English society.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -378-
Formation of the Roman state
Like its English counterpart, the Roman state created a central authority,
monopolized the use of violence, expanded through military conquest, and enjoyed lengthy
periods of internal peace.
In the Roman view, the State emerged from a loose group of individuals called
latrones (singular latro, usually translated by “bandits”) who commanded respect through
their charisma, access to prized resources, and ability to inflict violence (Shaw, 1984). To
the extent that they gained control over a population and its territory, they also gained a
stake in its well-being and ceased to be purely parasitic. An incipient state would take
shape. As Augustine wrote in the fifth century:
And so if justice is left out, what are kingdoms except great robber
bands? For what are robber bands except little kingdoms? The band also
is a group of men governed by the orders of a leader, bound by a social
compact, and its booty is divided according to a law agreed upon. If by
repeatedly adding desperate men this plague grows to the point where it
holds territory and establishes a fixed seat, seizes cities and subdues
peoples, then it more conspicuously assumes the name of kingdom …
[Augustine. De civitate dei 4.4]
Just as yesterday’s bandits could become tomorrow’s monarchs, the reverse was
also true. Following a struggle for succession, the defeated factions would lose not only
their legitimacy but also their sources of pay and provisioning. Many would turn to
brigandage to support themselves (Shaw, 1984, p. 30).
The Pax Romana
The Roman state was supposedly founded by two bandit brothers, Romulus and
Remus [Livy. 1.4.9, 1.5.4]. The next six centuries saw it expand from a small core to the
limits of the Mediterranean world. As conquest gave way to pacification, the State sought
to change the behavior of the newly conquered and even their character:
By humanitas the Romans meant two things: the adoption of the customs
and the value system of the Roman people and material prosperity. The
first was to be achieved by pacification, subjugation, and
“Romanization”; the second was provided under the umbrella of the Pax
Romana. By pacifying unruly elements, the Pax Romana allowed for
their integration into civilization itself: it promised urbanization, cultural
refinement, and in some instances, even enfranchisement. (Parchami,
2009, p. 28)
The Pax Romana did not mean peace with rival empires. Nor did it really mean
peace within the empire. Indeed, it meant regular use of State violence to quash revolts by
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -379-
slaves or the newly conquered and to fight brigands, bandits, pirates, and the like. Violence
had become a state monopoly and any transgressors became enemies of the State.
Thus, pax did not exclude State violence, as Weinstock (1960) explains. “Pax, the
root-noun of the verb pacisci, did not originally mean “peace” but a “pact” which ended a
war and led to submission, friendship, or alliance.” With the establishment of empire, this
meaning narrowed: “pax was no longer a pact among equals or peace but submission to
Rome, just as pacare began to refer to conquest.” In short, pax was not the absence of war.
It was the outcome of war. It was submission to a single authority, i.e., the State.
The Pax Romana was far more lasting and widespread than any previous pax. As
Aristides, a second-century philosopher, observed: “Now total security, universal and clear
to all, has been given to the earth itself and those who inhabit it” [Regarding Rome 104]
(Parchami, 2009, p. 33). This pax did not simply benefit the elites by eliminating potential
rivals. It made everyone wealthier by protecting life and property, by allowing traders to
travel freely, and by keeping disputes between individuals or communities from erupting
into violence.
But these benefits incurred a social contradiction. Whereas the State could achieve
its ends violently, simple citizens had to achieve theirs peacefully. What was legitimate and
even noble in one case was illegitimate and despicable in all the others. Initially, this
situation seemed normal. It certainly seemed so to the ruling elites, particularly during the
early years of empire when their subjects were mostly “objects”—the spoils of recent
conquests. Nor did the general population see any hypocrisy. Were not the Gods
themselves above the law?
A new set of selection pressures
The Pax Romana punished those men who had previously enjoyed high
reproductive fitness, i.e., the latrones. First, their access to resources, including women,
was cut off through ostracism. They became non-persons without the rights of other
lawbreakers. “The person stigmatized with the label of bandit did not have normal access to
courts for judgements, a marriage was declared to be null and void if one of the partners
was discovered to be a latro, and so on” (Shaw, 1984, pp. 22-23). The stigma even
survived death, as indicated by Galen, a second-century physician:
On another occasion we saw the skeleton of a bandit lying on rising
ground by the roadside. He had been killed by some traveller repelling his
attack. None of the local inhabitants would bury him, but in their hatred
of him were glad enough to see his body consumed by the birds which, in
a couple of days, ate his flesh, leaving the skeleton as if for medical
demonstration.[Galen. De anatomicis administrationibus 1.2] (Shaw,
1984, p. 5)
Second, the Roman state made violence against individuals an offense against the
community. All citizens were given access to law courts and, more importantly, the courts
could enforce their decisions (Liebeschuetz, 2006, p. 40). In the case of latrones, justice
was summary and procedure minimal. Punishment likewise set them apart from other
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -380-
criminals, being typically a death sentence by one of the brutal methods allowed: throwing
to the beasts, burning alive, and crucifixion (Shaw, 1984, p. 20).
Third, the State hunted down such people. In military districts, this function fell to
the army (Shaw, 1984, p. 18). Indeed, the frontier defenses served not only to stop external
enemies but also to police the semi-pacified local population (Shaw, 1984, p. 12). Areas
under civil rule had stationes (guards, posts) and viatores (road patrols), but the bulk of
policing was done by vigilantes in the pay of landowners or simply by private individuals.
Here, the State mobilized the general population in the fight against latrones:
The laws also stress that it is the duty of private individuals to detect, to
pursue and to betray bandits to local authorities. In the pursuit of this
obligation the private individual was authorized to use force, to injure and
even to kill such men. And they were also exempted, in doing this, from
normal laws on iniuria and homicide. (Shaw, 1984, p. 19)
Pacified versus unpacified peoples
This legal environment stood in contrast to the one beyond the northern borders of
the Roman state. “Barbarians” took the law into their own hands. Law courts did exist but
their rulings had to be enforced by the aggrieved party. There was no State enforcement:
The injury was treated as an offense against the injured and his kin and it
was left to the injured and/or his kin, not to the community, to compel the
person who had caused the injury to give compensation for the damage he
had inflicted. Unless the perpetrator or his kin paid compensation, it was
the duty of the victim or his kin to take vengeance on the perpetrator or
his kin. But the use of force was likely to start a chain of retaliation, in
fact a feud. (Liebeschuetz, 2006, p. 39)
Feuding began easily and lasted indefinitely because of the readiness to meet violence with
violence. For all these reasons, a private individual was much likelier to kill or be killed in
barbarian society than under Roman administration (Liebeschuetz, 2006, p. 46).
This societal difference was commented on at the time. Barbarians were said to be
inherently violent:
Both explicitly and implicitly late antique writers created a generic
barbarian identity that was intimately associated with violent behavior.
This was only consistent with a classical literary tradition in which
barbarians were associated with several violence-related traits, including
crudelitas (cruelty), feritas (wildness), immanitas (savagery),
inhumanitas (inhumanity), impietas (impiety), ferocitas (ferocity), furor
(fury), and discordia (discord). (Mathisen, 2006, p. 28)
Today, we might attribute such traits to external circumstances and not to internal
predispositions. After all, these people were ancestral to today’s civilized Europeans. The
picture is less clear if we read the Roman literature of the time.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -381-
Their violent nature also meant that barbarians were thought to be
governed by their emotions rather than by their intellect. Seneca could
claim that grief particularly affected “barbarians more than persons of a
peaceful and learned people” and that barbarians were more likely to
become angry. He also commented on barbarian lack of self-control:
“Whom does one admire more than one who controls himself, who has
himself under control? It is easier to rule barbarian nations and those
impatient of alien rule than to contain and control one’s own mind.”
Finally, Libanius suggested, “In this regard in particular I find the Greeks
also to be superior to barbarians. The latter are akin to beasts in despising
pity, while the Greeks are quick to pity and get over their wrath.”
(Mathisen, 2006, p. 30)
Although barbarians were thought to be violent by nature, this predisposition was
not understood in terms of selection for certain heritable traits. Instead, the cause was said
to be the climate, i.e., if a country is too hot or too cold, its people will have a less balanced
temperament (Goldenberg, 1999; Thompson, 1989, pp. 100-103). Furthermore, the Romans
hoped to build a world empire and were thus inclined to believe in a single human nature.
Is it likely, then, that Romans and barbarians had differing temperaments because of
differing selection pressures? To create and maintain a mean difference in temperament,
such pressures need a barrier to the flow of individuals, and hence genes, between the two
populations. Barbarians did enter the Roman world as mercenaries or foederati (allies who
had to provide military forces for the emperor on demand), but this inflow was not
substantial until the fourth century, when the army could no longer recruit enough soldiers
within the empire (Swain and Edwards, 2004, pp. 156-157). Even as late as 350 AD, only
10-15% of the empire’s population seems to have been of external barbarian origin
(Williams and Friell, 1994, pp. 37-38). Barbarians also entered the Roman world as slaves,
but this source too seems to have been relatively minor. Slaves came mainly from two
regions within the empire, one being Asia Minor and Syria and the other the lower Danube
and the northern Black Sea coast (Gordon, 1924). Beginning around the time of Christ,
there was a gradual increase in the flow of slaves from sub-Saharan Africa, particularly into
the eastern provinces, but this inflow seems to have become substantial only in late
antiquity (Goldenberg, 2003, pp. 131-138).
Thus, while the empire was not a closed system, there was relatively little gene flow
from outside until the century before the fall of Rome. Long before then, observers were
already commenting on the differing temperaments of Romans and barbarians.
Pacification and the shift to a new ideological environment
To maintain control, Rome had to preserve its martial values while instilling
pacifism and submissiveness in its new subjects. This social contradiction would eventually
become unsustainable.
First, the conquered assimilated into Roman society. Many became citizens and, as
such, enjoyed certain rights and protections. Second, the State no longer had to be so
violent with its subjects. Piracy largely disappeared following the battle of Actium in 31
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -382-
BC. After the emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), there were no new provinces to pacify and
fewer rebellions in the older ones. The social climate had become so calm by the first
century that Plutarch could write: “so far as peace is concerned the peoples have no need of
statesmanship at present; for all war, both Greek and foreign, has been banished from
among us and has disappeared” [Praecepta gerendae reipublicae 32].
Third, a profound behavioral change was spreading through the population. People
were less willing to become soldiers than earlier generations had been, and many would
pay gold or cut off their thumbs to avoid military service (Swain and Edwards, 2004, pp.
156-157; Williams and Friell, 1994, p. 37). A new kind of Roman was emerging, one less
interested in violence and more submissive to authority. In fact, the new Romans were
coming to see arrogant, aggressive conduct as wrong, even wicked. Yet this was how the
Gods themselves behaved. Increasingly, people looked elsewhere for spiritual comfort.
Into this new behavioral environment came Christianity. Indeed, one of the early
Church fathers, Origen (185-254 AD), explicitly linked the success of his faith to the Pax
Romana:
God was preparing the nations for his teaching, that they might be under
one Roman Emperor, so that the unfriendly attitude of the nations to one
another, caused by the existence of a large number of kingdoms, might
not make it more difficult for Jesus’ apostles to do what he commanded
them when he said, “Go and teach all nations”. It is quite clear that Jesus
was born during the reign of Augustus, the one who reduced to
uniformity, so to speak, the many kingdoms on earth so that he had a
single empire. It would have hindered Jesus’ teaching from being spread
through the whole world if there had been many kingdoms, not only for
the reasons just stated, but also because men everywhere would have
been compelled to do military service and to fight in defence of their own
land. This used to happen before the times of Augustus and even earlier
still when a war was necessary, such as that between the Peloponnesians
and the Athenians, and similarly in the case of the other nations which
fought one another. Accordingly, how could this teaching, which
preaches peace and does not even allow men to take vengeance on their
enemies, have had any success unless the international situation had
everywhere been changed and a milder spirit prevailed at the advent of
Jesus? [Origen. Contra Celsum 2.30]
For the church father Eusebius writing in the fourth century, it “was not by mere
human accident” but “of God’s arrangement” that the universal empire of peace came in
time for the universal religion of peace (Mommsen, 1951, p. 361). Both strove to unify and
pacify the world’s peoples:
Two great powers sprang up fully as out of one stream and they gave
peace to all and brought all together to a state of friendship: the Roman
empire, which from that time appeared as one kingdom, and the power of
the Saviour of all, whose aid was at once extended to and established with
everyone. [Eusebius. Theophania 3.2] (Mommsen, 1951, pp. 361-362)
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -383-
Immediately after Augustus had established his sole rule, at the time of
our Saviour’s appearance, the rule by the many became abolished among
the Romans. And from that time to the present you cannot see, as before,
cities at war with cities, nor nation fighting with nation, nor life being
worn away in the confusion of everything.
[Eusebius. Praeparatio Evangelica 1.4] (Mommsen, 1951, pp. 361)
This peace, however, was sustained by violence—a contradiction that Christians
wished to end. Origen felt that Rome’s enemies were better fought through prayer [Contra
Celsum 8.73]. Arnobius of Sicca thought it preferable to convert them. If everyone lent an
ear to Christ’s commandments, the terms of peace treaties would be kept unbroken and “the
whole world, long since having diverted the use of iron to more gentle pursuits, would be
passing its days in the most placid tranquillity and would come together in wholesome
harmony” [Arnobius, 1949Adversus nationes 1.6].
Christians thus sought to demilitarize the concept of pax, by giving it a meaning
closer to the one we now give to “peace” (Theissen, 1992).
Christianization of the Roman State
This question would no longer be semantic in the fourth century. In 313,
Christianity was placed on a par with Roman paganism; then, gradually, it became the sole
official religion. With its newfound power, the Church could now limit State violence.
The limits were spelled out by Ambrose, bishop of Milan (374-397). Christians
could wage war only if it is defensive in nature, if no unfair advantage is taken of the
enemy, and if mercy is shown to the defeated. Christians must nonetheless accept the
inevitability of war with barbarians, who are to be treated as natural enemies (Swift, 1970,
pp. 534-535). In all this, he was restating the concept of “just war” that pagan writers had
earlier formulated.
Nonetheless, these limits now came from a higher spiritual authority that everyone
had to obey, including the emperor. Barbarians would also be treated as being one with
humankind, “sprung from the same womb of nature and bound by a single tie of blood”
(Swift, 1970, p. 535). They were natural enemies only in a political sense. When the
Visigoths revolted in 395, they did so not as barbarians but as mistreated foederati and,
hence, as fellow Romans who deserve fair play.
Moreover, a true Christian could use violence only to defend others, and not for
self-defense. This is made clear by Ambrose:
… a Christian man, a just and a wise man, ought never to try to save his
own life at the cost of death to someone else. Indeed, even if he
encounters an armed robber [latronem], he is not at liberty to hit back
when his assailant hits him, lest in his anxiety to defend his own life he
mar the sense of obligation he ought to feel towards the man. The
principle given to us about this in the gospel records is crystal clear: “Put
away your sword: for everyone who strikes with the sword shall perish by
the sword.” Could any robber ever be more loathsome than the persecutor
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -384-
who had come to slay Christ? Yet Christ would not let anyone defend
him by inflicting wounds on those who persecuted him: his desire was to
heal all by being wounded himself. [Ambrose, 2001 De officiis 3.4.27]
Finally, Ambrose felt that the Church should remain aloof from war, however
legitimate such action might be for individual Christians (Swift, 1970, pp. 537-538). This
was a radical departure from pagan Rome, where religion had been key to rallying the
people for war.
It is thus wrong to assume that Christianity ceased to be pacifist when it became the
official religion. As Swift (1970, p. 538) observes, “if the realities of political and social
development prevented Christians from maintaining the pacifist emphases of earlier
centuries, pacifist arguments retained much of their old vigor.” There was likely a range of
attitudes among Christians, with many interpreting their pacifism broadly. It is perhaps
significant that when the Visigoths invaded Italy in 401 the Roman army responded not by
conscripting civilians but by enrolling recently defeated barbarians (Liebeschuetz, 1993).
Nor can we assume that this pacifism was limited to the general population and did
not penetrate the State administration. Ambrose himself had been governor of Northern
Italy before becoming Bishop of Milan. Undoubtedly, other functionaries wished to bring
their duties into line with Christian principles. This is apparent in a letter from a Roman
magistrate who felt troubled by the death penalty and asked Ambrose for advice. In a long
reply, the bishop defended this punishment, but then went on to argue that those who
refrain from it deserve praise. In fact, most of his reply was an appeal for mercy on the
grounds that the wrongdoer may end up repenting (Swift, 1970, p. 542).
Ambrose openly challenged State violence in 390 when a mob killed a Roman
general in Thessalonica and thousands were slain in retaliation. The bishop denounced the
massacre and forced the emperor, Theodosius I, to do public penance (Lenox-Conyngham,
2005). Through this gesture, what had once been simply the State’s prerogative—its
monopoly on violence to ensure its monopoly of power—was raised to a moral principle
that constrained not only the common people but also the State itself.
Interestingly, while Ambrose sought to limit State violence, he did not condemn the
growing wave of violence by Christian individuals against pagan or Jewish places of
worship. When a mob burned down a synagogue in 388, Theodosius I moved to have the
wrongdoers punished and the synagogue rebuilt at the expense of the local bishop who had
instigated the riot. This attempt at restitution was denounced by Ambrose in a long letter
(Swift, 1970, p. 536).
The Church thus increasingly became a partner in the making of public policy, a
partner that seemed to gain strength and vitality as the State declined. This was especially
so in the western half of the empire, where the barbarian threat would weaken and
ultimately overwhelm the Roman state.
The Christianized State and the barbarian threat
The fourth century saw many barbarians enter the empire. They were let in largely
out of expediency: they helped meet the army’s manpower needs and it was considered
better to have them as allies on the inside than as enemies on the outside. Although some
Romans feared the growing barbarian presence, others felt no cause for concern. The late
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -385-
pagan philosopher Themistius wrote in 383 that the Goths of Thrace “are now converting
the iron from their swords and cuirasses into mattocks and scythes.” These sentiments were
echoed in 417 by the Christian theologian Orosius: “the barbarians [in Spain], having
forsworn their swords, have turned to the plow, and now nurture the surviving Romans as
allies and friends” (Mathisen, 2006, p. 33).
During the same period, paganism lost all official status after one last clash with
Christianity: the controversy over the Altar of Victory. “Victory” was a Roman goddess
and incense was burnt at her altar whenever the Senate met. She represented not so much a
divine being as a divine principle: the imperative to triumph over all enemies. The altar was
removed in the mid-fourth century under Constantius II but then put back by Julian the
Apostate. It was removed a second time, in 382, following an edict that made Christianity
the sole official religion. Pagan senators pleaded for its return, arguing that it had helped
make Rome a great empire. After the death of Valentinian II (392), the altar was restored
on the condition of being treated as a work of art and not as an idol.
This controversy inspired the poet Prudentius to proclaim the true reason for the
Roman Empire:
Shall I tell you, Roman, what cause it was that so exalted your labours,
what it was that nursed your glory to such a height of fame that it has put
rein and bridle on the world? God, wishing to bring into partnership
peoples of different speech and realms of discordant manners, determined
that all the civilised world should be harnessed to one ruling power …
The untroubled harmony of human union wins his favour for the world;
by division it drives Him away, with cruel warfare it makes Him wroth; it
satisfies Him with the offering of peace and holds Him fast with quietness
and brotherly love. [Prudentius. Contra Symmachum 2.583-597]
The poem portrays the empire as a woman, Roma, who dismisses fears of barbarian
conquest:
Let those who din into my ears once more the story of past disasters and
ancient sorrows observe that in your time I suffer such things no longer.
No barbarian foe shatters my bars with his spear, nor with strange arms
and dress and hair goes roving through my captured city, carrying off my
young men to bondage across the Alps.
[Prudentius. Contra Symmachum 2.690-95]
Those words were written in 403. Seven years later, the Visigoths entered Rome unopposed
and sacked the city. The empire then imploded as one barbarian nation after another moved
in. In 455, Rome was sacked by the Vandals, who likewise entered unopposed after
promising not to kill anyone. With the return of piracy and brigandage, trade fell off, as did
food production and maintenance of roads, ports, and aqueducts. Neither life nor property
was safe. Urban life shriveled in the wake of disorder, pandemics, dwindling trade, and
disruption of food provisioning. The weakened populace was then hit in the 6th and 7th
centuries by plagues that killed three out of ten people (Seccombe, 1992, p. 57). So ended
the Pax Romana.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -386-
Discussion
Did Christianity destroy Rome? Or did Rome destroy itself by pacifying its subjects
while more and more unpacified barbarians pressed on its borders? The answer probably
lies somewhere in-between.
All State societies are prone to collapse because their existence depends on the
State’s ability to repress individual and communal violence. Such repression permits a
higher level of economic output and ultimately a larger population. It also alters the mix of
behavioral genotypes by selecting out aggressiveness and selecting in submissiveness. If,
however, the State falters, there will be a resurgence of both individual and communal
violence. On the one hand, the State can no longer hold down the potential for violence that
still exists among its citizenry. On the other, it can no longer keep out unpacified
populations that lie beyond its borders. This new social environment reduces economic
output, thus worsening the initial instability and causing a downward spiral that may spin
out of control.
Nonetheless, when Rome faltered in the fifth century it did so as never before.
Earlier, the third century had seen a similar crisis: civil war, foreign invasion, return of
brigandage, and steep economic decline. Yet Rome fought its way back and reasserted its
authority. There was no such response in the fifth century. Instead, the crisis was met with
a strange mixture of complacency and willful naiveté.
We cannot understand this change without considering the ideology that now
shaped the Roman worldview, i.e., all humans share the same potential for peaceful and
submissive behavior. This was largely true among the pacified populations inside the
empire’s borders. Outside, it was largely false. Tragically so.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -387-
Table 1. Timeline of the Roman State
c. 509 BC Founding of the Roman republic.
to 290 BC Incorporation of most of the Italian peninsula into the Roman state.
to 238 BC Annexation of Sicily.
to 133 BC Annexation of Spain, Cisalpine Gaul, Carthage, Greece, part of Asia
Minor.
31 BC Suppression of piracy (Battle of Actium).
to 14 AD Annexation of Gaul, alpine provinces, most of the Balkans, rest of North
Africa and Egypt, much of Asia Minor and Syria.
c. 30 AD Beginnings of Christianity.
to 70 AD Annexation of Britain, rest of the Balkans and Asia Minor.
117-138 AD Stabilization of empire’s borders under the emperor Hadrian.
c. 300 AD Army can no longer recruit enough soldiers from within the Empire.
Beginning of influx of barbarian mercenaries and foederati.
313 AD Christianity becomes an official state religion on a par with Roman
paganism.
c. 350-392 AD Altar of Victory is removed from the Roman Senate by Constantius II,
put back by Julian the Apostate, and then removed a second time. It is
eventually returned on the condition of being treated only as a work of
art.
380 AD Christianity becomes the sole official religion.
390 AD A mob kills a Roman general in Thessalonica and thousands are
massacred in retaliation. The Church forces the emperor, Theodosius I, to
do public penance.
395 AD Visigoth foederati revolt against the Roman Empire.
406 AD Vandals, Suebi, and Alani cross into Gaul, followed by Burgundians and
bands of Alemanni.
410 AD Rome sacked by Visigoths.
455 AD Rome sacked by Vandals.
References
Ambrose. (2001). De officiis (I.J. Davidson, Trans.). The Oxford Early Christian Studies,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnobius of Sicca (1949). Arnobius of Sicca. The Case against the Pagans, Ancient
Christian Writers No. 7 (G.E. McGracken, Trans.). New York: Newman Press.
Augustine (1963). The City of God against the Pagans, (W.H. Green, Trans.). Loeb
Classical Library, London: William Heinemann.
Baker, L.A., Jacobson, K.C., Raine, A., Lozano, D.I., and Bezdjian, S. (2007). Genetic and
environmental bases of childhood antisocial behavior: a multi-informant twin study.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 219-235.
Barker, E.D., Larson, H., Viding, E., Maughan, B., Rijsdijk, F., Fontaine, N. and Plomin,
R. (2009). Common genetic but specific environmental influences for aggressive
and deceitful behaviors in preadolescent males. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 31, 299-308.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -388-
Chagnon, N.A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population.
Science, 239, 985-992.
Clark, G. (2009). The indicted and the wealthy: surnames, reproductive success, genetic
selection and social class in pre-industrial England,
http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell%20to%20Alms/Clark%20-
Surnames.pdf
Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton
and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Goldenberg, D.M. (2003), The Curse of Ham. Race and Slavery in Early Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goldenberg, D.M. (1999). The development of the idea of race: Classical paradigms and
medieval elaborations. International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 5, 561-570.
Gordon, M.L. (1924). The nationality of slaves under the early Roman Empire. The Journal
of Roman Studies, 14, 93-111.
Hawks, J., Wang, E.T., Cochran, G.M., Harpending, H.C., and Moyzis, R.K. (2007).
Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (USA), 104, 20753-20758.
Hill, K., and Magdalena Hurtado, A. (1996). Ache Life History: The Ecology and
Demography of a Foraging People, Foundations of Human Behavior. Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Lenox-Conyngham, A. (2005). The Church in St. Ambrose of Milan. International Journal
for the Study of the Christian Church, 5, 211-225.
Liebeschuetz, W. (2006). Violence in the barbarian successor kingdoms, In H.A. Drake,
(Ed.), Violence in Late Antiquity. Perceptions and Practices (pp. 37-46). Burlington
(Vermont) and Aldershot: Absgate.
Liebeschuetz, W. (1993). The end of the Roman army in the western empire, In J. Rich and
G. Shipley (Eds.), War and Society in the Roman World (pp. 265-276). Leicester-
Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society, Vol. 5, London: Routledge.
Livy. (1957). Books I and II (B.O. Foster, Trans.), Loeb Classical Library, London:
William Heinemann.
Mathisen, R.W. (2006). Violent behavior and the construction of barbarian identity in Late
Antiquity, In H.A. Drake (Ed.) Violence in Late Antiquity. Perceptions and
Practices (pp. 27-35). Burlington (Vermont) and Aldershot: Absgate.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper and Row.
Mommsen, T.E. (1951). St. Augustine and the Christian idea of progress: The background
of the City of God. Journal of the History of Ideas, 12, 346-374.
Origen (1965). Origen: Contra Celsum (H. Chadwick, Trans.). London: Cambridge
University Press.
Parchami, A. (2009). Hegemonic Peace and Empire: The Pax Romana. Britannica and
Americana: Routledge.
Plutarch. (1949). Precepts of Statecraft, in Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol. X (H.N. Fowler,
Trans.). Loeb Classical Library, London: William Heinemann.
Prudentius. (1953). Prudentius, Vol. II (H.J. Thomson, Trans.). Loeb Classical Library,
London: William Heinemann.
The Roman state and genetic pacification
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 8(3). 2010. -389-
Rhee, S.H., and Waldman, I.D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial
behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies, Psychological Bulletin,
128, 490-529.
Seccombe, W. (1992). A Millennium of Family Change, London: Verso.
Shaw, B.D. (1984). Bandits in the Roman Empire, Past and Present, 105, 3-52.
Swain, S., and Edwards, M.J. (2004). Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation
from Early to Late Empire. New York: Oxford University Press.
Swift, L.J. (1970). St. Ambrose on violence and war. Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association, 101, 533-543.
Theissen, G. (1992). Pax Romana et Pax Christi. Le christianisme primitif et l’idée de paix.
Revue de théologie et de philosophie, 124, 61-84.
Thompson, L.A. (1989). Romans and Blacks. London: University of Oklahoma Press.
Weinstock, S. (1960). Pax and the “Ara Pacis. The Journal of Roman Studies, 50, 44-58.
Williams, S., and Friell, G. (1994). Friends, Romans or countrymen? Barbarians in the
empire. History Today, 44, 34-40.
... Second, states were formed at a much earlier date, particularly within a zone stretching from the Mediterranean, through the Middle East, and into South and East Asia. Those states sought to monopolize the use of violence, seeing the aggressive male as a threat not only to society but also to their power [70][71][72]. A man no longer had the right to act aggressively at will, except to defend himself and his family. ...
Article
Full-text available
As hunter-gatherers, humans used their sense of smell to identify plants and animals, to find their way within a foraging area, or to distinguish each other by gender, age, kinship, or social dominance. Because women gathered while men hunted, the sexes evolved different sensitivities to plant and animal odors. They also ended up emitting different odors. Male odors served to intimidate rival males or assert dominance. With the rise of farming and sedentism, humans no longer needed their sense of smell to find elusive food sources or to orient themselves within a large area. Odors now came from a narrower range of plants and animals. Meanwhile, body odor was removed through bathing to facilitate interactions in enclosed spaces. This new phenotype became the template for the evolution of a new genotype: less sensitivity to odors of wild plants and animals, lower emissions of male odors, and a more negative response to them. Further change came with the development of fragrances to reodorize the body and the home. This new olfactory environment coevolved with the ability to represent odors in the mind, notably for storage in memory, for vicarious re-experiencing, or for sharing with other people through speech and writing.
... Retaliation is possible, but the wrongdoer's family will likely counter-retaliate, the result being a vendetta that may last indefinitely and cause much more harm than the initial wrong. So a peaceful alternative is needed; hence the State monopoly on violence (Frost, 2010;Frost & Harpending, 2015); hence the codification of law and the establishment of courts. ...
Article
Full-text available
Kinship was the organizing principle of early societies, defining how people should behave toward each other. Social and economic activity was thus organized mostly among closely related individuals, a limitation that would keep societies from realizing their full potential as they grew larger. The “large society problem” has not been fully solved anywhere, but Northwest Europeans and East Asians have gone the farthest toward a solution. In general, the solution has been to weaken the relative importance of kinship and strengthen forms of sociality that can include everyone, and not just close kin. In particular, one must think and feel in certain ways, i.e., be susceptible to social norms that are absolute, universal, and independent of kinship; feel guilty after breaking social norms; feel empathy for non-kin; and orient one-self toward society. This mindset shows similarities and differences between Northwest Europeans and East Asians. Both groups adapted to a larger social environment by becoming more empathetic toward non-kin and more susceptible to universal social norms. Northwest Europeans became more individualistic while acquiring stronger internal controls of behavior (affective empathy, guilt proneness). East Asians became more collectivistic while acquiring stronger internal controls (cognitive empathy) and stronger external controls (shaming, family-community surveillance, inculcation of normative behavior).
... During the Late Modern Era, populations in the West also became both genetically and epigenetically pacified in response to massive improvements in environmental quality that increasing global temperatures initiated. Some researchers have traced such genetic pacifications of Western populations to as far back as Imperial Roman times (Frost, 2010). Pinker (2011) documents many of the social corollaries of this process. ...
... Because cognitive and affective proclivities are every bit as crucial as anatomical and physiological structures and processes for adaptively responding to the world (including to other people). The invention of agriculture and the rise of early civilizations, for example, created selective regimes that shaped existing cognitive traits, possibly including self-control and general intelligence (Frost 2010;Frost and Harpending 2015;Rindermann et al. 2012;Wade 2014). An agricultural lifestyle might favor planning for the future and inhibiting impulses more than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (not killing a cow today so that one can get cheese, yogurt, milk, and more meat tomorrow; Cochran and Harpending 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
Many evolutionary psychologists have asserted that there is a panhuman nature, a species typical psychological structure that is invariant across human populations. Although many social scientists dispute the basic assumptions of evolutionary psychology, they seem widely to agree with this hypothesis. Psychological differences among human populations (demes, ethnic groups, races) are almost always attributed to cultural and sociological forces in the relevant literatures. However, there are strong reasons to suspect that the hypothesis of a panhuman nature is incorrect. Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people. Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.
... Because cognitive and affective proclivities are every bit as crucial as anatomical and physiological structures and processes for adaptively responding to the world (including to other people). The invention of agriculture and the rise of early civilizations, for example, created selective regimes that shaped existing cognitive traits, possibly including self-control and general intelligence (Frost 2010;Frost and Harpending 2015;Rindermann et al. 2012;Wade 2014). An agricultural lifestyle might favor planning for the future and inhibiting impulses more than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (not killing a cow today so that one can get cheese, yogurt, milk, and more meat tomorrow; Cochran and Harpending 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
Many evolutionary psychologists have asserted that there is a panhuman nature, a species typical psychological structure that is invariant across human populations. Although many social scientists dispute the basic assumptions of evolutionary psychology, they seem widely to agree with this hypothesis. Psychological differences among human populations (demes, ethnic groups, races) are almost always attributed to cultural and sociological forces in the relevant literatures. However, there are strong reasons to suspect that the hypothesis of a panhuman nature is incorrect. Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people. Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.
... The only other center of authority, the Church, opposed the use of violence, but its opposition was so systematic that the judiciary could not easily use violent means to curb violence. This stance was already taking shape in the late Roman period, as seen in a letter by Ambrose, the bishop of Milan (374–397) who, while defending the death penalty, praised judges who refrained from it (Frost, 2010; Swift, 1970). After the Empire's collapse, the bishops of France decided in 511 that an accused murderer could ask for and receive sanctuary in any holy place. ...
Article
Full-text available
Through its monopoly on violence, the State tends to pacify social relations. Such pacification proceeded slowly in Western Europe between the 5th and 11th centuries, being hindered by the rudimentary nature of law enforcement, the belief in a man's right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church's opposition to the death penalty. These hindrances began to dissolve in the 11th century with a consensus by Church and State that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress. The decline in personal violence is usually attributed to harsher punishment and the longer-term effects of cultural conditioning. It may also be, however, that this new cultural environment selected against propensities for violence.
... Christianity, however, may not have always been a positive influence on the genetic success of populations. For example, Christianity may have indirectly led to the fall of the Roman Empire by pacifying its population into submission to the Vandals (Frost, 2010), as well as the fall of the early Viking settlers in Greenland to "pagan" Inuit invaders (Diamond, 2005)-two outcomes that collectively highlight the occasional inefficiency (from a gene's perspective) of cultural evolution. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this article, we advance the concept of “evolutionary awareness,” a metacognitive framework that examines human thought and emotion from a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective. We begin by discussing the evolution and current functioning of the moral foundations on which our framework rests. Next, we discuss the possible applications of such an evolutionarily-informed ethical framework to several domains of human behavior, namely: sexual maturation, mate attraction, intrasexual competition, culture, and the separation between various academic disciplines. Finally, we discuss ways in which an evolutionary awareness can inform our cross-generational activities—which we refer to as “intergenerational extended phenotypes”—by helping us to construct a better future for ourselves, for other sentient beings, and for our environment.
Article
Countries differ with respect to human rights. Using the cross-country CIRI data (Cingranelli & Richards), the authors tested two theories. The cognitive-moral enlightenment theory going back to Piaget and Socrates postulates that individuals and nations with higher levels of cognitive ability think and behave in a way more conducive to human rights. The culture-religion theory going back to Weber, Sombart and Voltaire postulates that different religious beliefs shape attitudes, and propel societies toward institutions that are more or less supportive of human rights. Cognitive ability had a positive impact on human rights but its effect varied depending on the country sample. More important was religion, both in cross-sectional and longitudinal models. Percentage of Christians had a positive impact (r = .62, total effect β = .63), percentage of Muslima negative one (r = -.57, total effect β = -.59). Political institutions are highly correlated with human rights, but religion is the decisive background factor.
Chapter
In this chapter, we advance the concept of “evolutionary awareness,” a metacognitive framework that examines human thought and emotion from a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective. We begin by discussing the evolution and current functioning of the moral foundations on which our framework rests. Next, we discuss the possible applications of such an evolutionarily informed ethical framework to several domains of human behavior: sexual maturation, mate attraction, intrasexual competition, culture, and the separation between various academic disciplines. Finally, we discuss ways in which an evolutionary awareness can inform our cross-generational activities—which we refer to as “intergenerational extended phenotypes”—by helping us to construct a better future for ourselves, for other sentient beings, and for our environment.
Book
This book examines the language and the ideology of the Pax Romana, the Pax Britannica and the Pax Americana within the broader contexts of 'hegemony' and 'empire'. It addresses three main themes: a conceptual examination of the way in which hegemony has been justified; a linguistic study of how the notion of pax (usually translated as peace) has been used in ancient and modern times and a study of the international orders created by Rome and Britain. Using an historiographical approach, the book draws upon texts from Greco-Roman antiquity, and sources from the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries to show how the pax ideology has served as a justification for hegemonic foreign policy, and as an intellectual exercise in power projection. From Tacitus' condemnation of what he described as 'creating a wilderness and calling it peace', to debates about the establishment of a Pax Americana in post-Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the book shows not only how the governing elite in each of the three hegemonic orders prescribed to a loose interpretation of the pax ideology, but also how their internal disagreements and different conceptualisations of pax have affected the process of 'empire-building'. This book will be of interest to students of international history, empire, and International Relations in general.
Article
What factors already present in the society of the High Roman Empire developed and expanded into the world of Late Antiquity? What was distinct in this period from what went before? The answers to these questions embrace the fields of cultural history, politics, ideas, art, philosophy, pagan religion, Christian church, Greek and Latin literature, the army, the law, the provinces, settlement, and the economy. This book is an illustrated collection of fifteen essays on the later Roman world, and each study focuses on the two centuries from AD 200 to 400. The book challenges orthodoxies (for example, Honore on law, Whitby on military life, Edwards on monotheism), gives coverage (Duncan-Jones on economy, Cameron on poetry, Elsner on art), and discusses the general issues and problems through major examples (McLynn on emperors in church, Papi on Italian towns, Adams on governing Egypt, Swain on Libanius, Garnsey on citizens, Dillon on philosophers, Walker on mummy portraits). The authors have set their contributions in the light of current approaches and bibliography, and the volume is a reference work in its own right.
Book
How old is prejudice against black people? Were the racist attitudes that fueled the Atlantic slave trade firmly in place 700 years before the European discovery of sub-Saharan Africa? In this groundbreaking book, David Goldenberg seeks to discover how dark-skinned peoples, especially black Africans, were portrayed in the Bible and by those who interpreted the Bible--Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Unprecedented in rigor and breadth, his investigation covers a 1,500-year period, from ancient Israel (around 800 B.C.E.) to the eighth century C.E., after the birth of Islam. By tracing the development of anti-Black sentiment during this time, Goldenberg uncovers views about race, color, and slavery that took shape over the centuries--most centrally, the belief that the biblical Ham and his descendants, the black Africans, had been cursed by God with eternal slavery. Goldenberg begins by examining a host of references to black Africans in biblical and postbiblical Jewish literature. From there he moves the inquiry from Black as an ethnic group to black as color, and early Jewish attitudes toward dark skin color. He goes on to ask when the black African first became identified as slave in the Near East, and, in a powerful culmination, discusses the resounding influence of this identification on Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinking, noting each tradition's exegetical treatment of pertinent biblical passages. Authoritative, fluidly written, and situated at a richly illuminating nexus of images, attitudes, and history,The Curse of Hamis sure to have a profound and lasting impact on the perennial debate over the roots of racism and slavery, and on the study of early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Article
We call a monument Ara Pacis without any support from ancient tradition. It was Friedrich von Duhn who first so called it in 1879 and he justified it in the briefest fashion. He considered three sacrificial slabs and three processional slabs. He did not produce any analysis but based his case on the fact that some of those reliefs were discovered in the grounds of the Palazzo Fiano, that is on the Campus Martius, and that the Ara Pacis was built on the Campus Martius. That was all. Nevertheless, his conjecture was enthusiastically received: it was the golden age of classical archaeology, when numberless monuments were assigned to great Greek artists and great historical events and thus the foundations were laid for a more critical and sceptical study of Greek art. This scepticism destroyed many identifications but it never reached the Ara Pacis, and that I believe for special reasons. There was great excitement in the years after 1873 when Carl Humann discovered the great altar of Pergamum ; excavations began in 1878 with sensational results. Friedrich von Duhn made his ‘discovery’ in the following year and it concerned another great altar, but this time in Rome. He was clearly spellbound and so were his contemporaries. They did not ask for proof. In that atmosphere such credulity was natural. Yet however much the altar has been studied during the last eighty years the question has never been asked why it should be the Ara Pacis. My answer is that it is not. My first task, however, is to reconsider the evidence about Pax and I shall do this as if our altar did not exist. I shall return to it in the second part of my paper and end with the interpretation of a specimen relief, the sacrifice of Aeneas which seems to me the most revealing of the reliefs.