Conceptual illustration of the legend of a stone falling from Lucifer’s crown. AI-generated, not a historical artifact or reconstruction. Source: Manus, original generated image (AI-generated).

The appearance of the Holy Grail was one of the great literary achievements of Medieval Europe and concerns one of the most fascinating, intriguing and enduring motifs of all time in Western thought. One of the great enigmas surrounding the Grail is what it actually pertains to and points at. Another closely related enigma concerns the fact that the Grail is in some instances, more particularly in the German version of the story, closely connected to the fall of Lucifer and his host of angels. The question is what does this mean and what are its implications.

In this essay the High Secrets of the Holy Grail associated with this Stone will be explored, secrets that were carefully hidden away and kept from prying eyes. The essence of this apparent dark and ominous mystery associated with the Grail involves a Stone and what it symbolizes, the so-called Grail Stone. According to a German tradition preserved in Der Wartburgkrieg this Stone once fell from Lucifer’s crown, a theme recently looked into by Dr Willem McLoud in his new book, A STONE FALLEN FROM LUCIFER’S CROWN: HIGH SECRETS OF THE HOLY GRAIL (Creative Texts, 2026). To gain a better understanding of this captivating issue, we have to more closely engage with the German tradition and literary accounts of the Grail.

Read more

In this interview, I speak with writer Oren Ben-Yosef, author of Demonology as Devourment Without a Devourer, about the connections between ancient demonology and modern life.

Rather than arguing for the existence of supernatural beings, Oren explores the “demonic” as a philosophical idea: impersonal forces that can consume our attention, influence our behaviour, and weaken our control over our own lives without consciously intending to harm us.

Our conversation moves from ancient accounts of possession to artificial intelligence, social media, and the algorithms competing for our attention. When a few minutes of scrolling become a lost evening, or an online argument takes over our emotions, are we still using the system or has the system started using us?

Read more

The Apocalypse of Peter was one of the most popular Christian visions of the afterlife in the centuries before the canon of the Bible settled into the form most churches know today. The scholar M. R. James, who translated it in 1924, described it as a book that “ranked next in popularity and probably also in date to the Canonical Apocalypse of St. John.”

In it, Peter is shown the fate of souls after death. The righteous live in a country of light and blossoms that never fade, while sinners suffer punishments matched to their sins. Blasphemers hang by their tongues above fire, persecutors are burned up to their middle while worms devour their entrails, and the souls of murder victims look on and declare the judgment of God righteous.

For a time, the book seems to have stood close to Scripture in some places. Clement of Alexandria, writing around 200 AD, quoted it with the words “Wherefore also Peter in the Apocalypse saith.” The Muratorian fragment, a Latin list of accepted books usually dated to the late second century, names it directly after the Revelation of John, though with a telling reservation that is quoted in full below.

In the fifth century, the church historian Sozomen reported that it was “still read in some of the churches of Palestine” on the day of the Lord’s passion. However, the same writer also said it had been “considered altogether spurious by the ancients.” Between those two statements lies most of the book’s history.

For centuries, readers knew the text mainly through scattered quotations in early Christian writers. Then, in the 1880s and in the early 20th century, Greek and Ethiopic copies came to light in Egypt and in European libraries. They allowed scholars to read the vision itself and to see why it impressed some readers and troubled others.

So how close did this vision of heaven and hell really come to sitting in the Bible, and why did the churches finally leave it out?

Read more

Matthew Hopkins, the self-styled Witchfinder General, with two accused women naming their animal familiars. Etching published by J. Caulfield in London in 1792, after an earlier woodcut. Wellcome Collection, Public Domain Mark.

The great European witch hunt was one of the most lethal episodes of persecution in the early modern world, and few images sum it up as neatly as a map. On October 17, 2026, the public X account of Simon Kuestenmacher, @simongerman600, posted one, and the post has since drawn more than 54,000 impressions.

The map, headed “Major areas of witchcraft persecution in western, central and northern Europe,” shades the Holy Roman Empire, the Swiss Confederation, Scotland and parts of France in alarming reds and yellows, while Italy, Spain and Ireland sit almost untouched.

The caption on the post drew a simple lesson from the colors, presenting Italy, Spain and Ireland as more enlightened than central Europe. The idea appeals because it fits a familiar picture of reason spreading unevenly across the continent. It also raises a question that historians and economists have been arguing over for decades, one that a large dataset of 43,240 prosecutions now makes it possible to test.

Did people in the pale parts of the map really stop believing in witches?

A Map of Persecution, and a Dataset to Check It

The map in the post is an older printed map with a three-step legend, running from areas of “sustained and heavy persecution” through moderate persecution to areas of “relatively light but not insignificant persecution.” The post links to a Reddit thread in the MapPorn forum rather than to the book or atlas that first printed it, and the original publication has not been identified. The map’s origin is therefore Unverified, and the article that follows does not rely on its shading.

The most reliable numbers for testing the caption come from a very different kind of source. The economists Peter T. Leeson of George Mason University and Jacob W. Russ published “Witch Trials” in The Economic Journal in August 2018.

They compiled records from 37 sources and, in their words, built a dataset that “provides dates and locations for 43,240 people prosecuted for witchcraft in no fewer than 10,805 separate trials.” The records cover 21 European countries between 1300 and 1850, and 16,333 of the people in them were put to death.

Their Table 1 breaks those prosecutions down by country, and the bare totals look a great deal like the viral map. Germany leads with 16,474 people tried, 38.1 percent of the whole dataset, followed by Switzerland with 9,796, France with 4,159 and Scotland with 3,563. Spain follows with 1,949, while Italy records just 604, Ireland 52 and Poland a mere 12.

The geography is even more lopsided than those figures suggest. Leeson and Russ write that 60 percent of the accused were prosecuted between 1560 and 1630, the period known as the Great Hunt, and that more than half were tried within a 300-mile radius (about 480 km) of Strasbourg. Nearly 75 percent of the people tried in their data came from just five countries, which they list as Germany, Switzerland, France, England and the Netherlands.

Subscribe now

As counts within that dataset, these numbers are Established. They are drawn directly from the published table, and anyone can check them against the paper. What they mean is a separate matter, and that is where the caption runs into trouble.

Widespread Belief and Doubting Inquisitors

The first problem is that the map records prosecutions, and prosecutions are a poor guide to what people believed. Leeson and Russ open their paper by pointing out that the medieval Church at first held back from trials, even though belief in witches was widespread. They write that “Belief in witches was common in medieval Europe” and that in 1258 Pope Alexander IV had to issue a canon to prevent prosecutions for witchcraft.

The official attitude then reversed over the course of the next century and a half. Church scholars at the University of Paris declared in 1398 that witchcraft was the result of contracts with Satan, and in 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull Summis desiderantes affectibus, which the paper describes as authorizing violence against witches. Leeson and Russ sum up the turnaround in a single line: “By 1550, Christian authorities had reversed their position entirely.”

The handbook that did more than any other to spread the new thinking was the Malleus Maleficarum, or Hammer of Witches. According to a 2024 study by the researchers Kerice Doten-Snitker of the Santa Fe Institute, Steven Pfaff of Chapman University and Yuan Hsiao of Yale University, Heinrich Kramer first published it at Speyer in 1487, and another 13 editions appeared by 1520 with a further 15 between 1574 and 1620.

The authors stress that this was a new kind of fear layered on top of an old one, writing that “belief in witchcraft had existed for centuries, but large-scale witch-hunting appeared rather abruptly.”

Subscribe now

Leeson and Russ make the same point about the spread of belief across the continent. Drawing on earlier historians of witchcraft, they argue that suspected witches seem to have existed in every community, whether or not anyone was ever put on trial. Their conclusion turns the viral caption on its head: “What varied was not so much the supply of witches as the supply of witch prosecutions.”

Catholic Europe certainly did not lack anxiety about magic. Reviewing a 1986 volume on Inquisition records in 1988, Alan Macfarlane summarized a study by William Monter and John Tedeschi of about 12,000 cases from four Italian tribunals. Monter and Tedeschi found that the Italian Inquisition became preoccupied with witchcraft and magic, and that illicit magic made up more than 40 percent of all cases in Venice and in Friuli. Yet the same review reports Monter and Tedeschi’s finding that only a very small share of those cases ended in a death sentence.

If Italians and Spaniards feared witchcraft too, why were so few of them executed for it? Part of the answer lies in who held the courts.

Leeson and Russ explain that the Roman, Venetian, Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions were set up to pursue Lutherans, false converts and other religious rivals, and that they did prosecute magic but showed little appetite for full-scale witch trials. The paper cites the historian William Monter for the figures, and by Monter’s count Portugal executed only seven witches, while the Spanish Inquisition allowed barely two dozen executions for harmful witchcraft.

However, the Spanish record shows how fragile the enlightened label becomes once individual cases are examined. In December 1608, according to the historian Lu Ann Homza of William & Mary, a young woman named María de Ximildegui returned to the village of Zugarramurdi in northern Navarre and began naming her neighbors as members of a witches’ coven. The Inquisition tribunal at Logroño took up the case, and the panic spread from village to village across the Basque borderlands.

Rather strangely, the viral map itself shades the Basque borderland at the corner of the Bay of Biscay in the darkest red, the color reserved for heavy persecution, although at that scale it is hard to tell which side of the border is meant. Homza writes that at a public auto de fe in November 1610, the tribunal sentenced 31 people convicted of the heresy of witchcraft. Eleven were burned at the stake, five of them in effigy because they had already died in prison, while the other 20 were reconciled to the Church and given penances of imprisonment and exile.

What followed was remarkable. The tribunal’s junior inquisitor, Alonso de Salazar Frías, spent the months from May 1611 to January 1612 touring the affected villages, and Homza reports that he resolved 1,802 cases, absolving 1,384 children as a precaution. While on the road he learned how local bribery, coercion and even torture had produced confessions, and he came back convinced that his tribunal lacked the proof to put further suspects on trial.

In an English translation of his 1612 report to the Suprema, the Inquisition’s ruling council in Madrid, Salazar made it clear that his doubts concerned evidence rather than the Devil:

“nor is it useful to keep saying that the learned doctors of the church state that the existence of witchcraft is certain. Nobody doubts this.”

The difference lay in how the court weighed a witch’s word. Salazar went on to argue that judges should pass sentence on no one “unless the case can be proven by external and objective evidence sufficient to convince everyone who hears it.” His colleagues were furious, and the dispute rumbled on until 1614, when the Suprema endorsed new instructions that urged inquisitors to separate reality from illusion and allowed confessions to be withdrawn.

Homza notes that the sentences of those punished in 1610 were lifted, and that modern scholars have long believed the Spanish Inquisition basically never prosecuted witches again.

Salazar’s story has since done a great deal to shape the picture of a calm, skeptical south. Homza traces how historians came to admire him as a rational voice who appeared ahead of his time, and how that image fed national pride in a country long tarred by the so-called Black Legend of Spanish atrocities, created by Dutch and British Protestants in the sixteenth century. She describes the effect bluntly:

“Finding a Spaniard, and an inquisitor, who appeared to dismiss witches as an invention of the imagination allowed the country figuratively to jump ahead of supposedly more progressive countries that experienced severe witch-hunting, such as Germany.”

Her own research complicates that heroic version. Homza notes that earlier scholars, including the folklorist Gustav Henningsen and the anthropologist Julio Caro Baroja, believed they had to rely on the documents Logroño’s inquisitors happened to send to Madrid. She draws instead on Navarrese notarial records and trials in other courts. The Navarre panic, in her account, involved desperate parents, village officials and the bishop of Pamplona as well as inquisitors, and she presents the tribunal’s own notaries, whose duty was to transcribe trial testimony, as rogue agents whom the inquisitors declined to control.

Clearly, a caption that ranks whole nations as more or less enlightened misses the people who actually believed, accused and judged. The Spanish case shows a society steeped in belief in witches, where one court system happened to demand harder evidence than its neighbors at a critical moment. That is a story about legal procedure and institutional caution, and it says little about whether ordinary Spaniards were more rational than ordinary Germans.

Counting Heads and Counting Paper

The second problem with the map is arithmetic. Raw totals favor large, populous regions, and Leeson and Russ adjust for this by dividing each country’s trials by its estimated population in 1600, using figures from the 1978 Atlas of World Population History by McEvedy and Jones. Their Table 1 shows how much the picture shifts once that is done.

Switzerland, with an estimated population of one million, tried 9,796 people per million inhabitants, by far the highest rate in the dataset. Scotland follows at 5,090 per million, ahead of Germany at 1,373. Spain, with 229 people tried per million, actually sits slightly above France at 225, though the death toll tells a very different story, with France recording 1,663 deaths and Spain just one. Italy and Ireland each come in at 50 per million.

That single Spanish death in the dataset is a useful warning. Homza’s account of Logroño alone describes 11 people burned in person or in effigy in 1610, and Monter’s estimate, as cited by Leeson and Russ, runs to about two dozen executions across the Spanish Inquisition. The gap suggests that the dataset reflects the sources its compilers could gather, and that any map built from such sources is only as complete as the archives behind it.

Leeson and Russ are open about this limitation. They write that “The precise number of Europeans tried and executed for witchcraft is unknown,” and they note that historians’ consensus puts the total at roughly 100,000 to 110,000 people tried between about 1400 and 1750. Their 43,240 recorded prosecutions therefore represent fewer than half of the trials that historians believe took place, and they describe the figure of 80,000 people tried during the main era of the hunt as a conservative estimate.

Surviving paper matters just as much as population. Homza writes that none of the trial records of the Zugarramurdi witches survived “because Napoleon’s troops burned down the Logroño inquisition tribunal as they invaded Spain in 1808.” Historians have had to rebuild that episode from the summaries and letters that happened to be sent to Madrid.

Macfarlane’s review likewise notes that the Inquisition archives suffered massive losses, and that few of the original Spanish trial dossiers remain, so scholars depend on the case summaries sent up from individual tribunals.

The coverage of the trial data is also uneven within the worst-hit regions. Doten-Snitker, Pfaff and Hsiao, who used Leeson and Russ’s trial records for their 2024 study, caution that the spatial spread of those records is patchy, adding that “the Rhineland may be overrepresented, based on the geographic scopes of the underlying source studies.” In other words, the darkest patches on a witch trial map can partly reflect where historians have dug hardest.

The Confessional Competition Theory and Its Critics

Leeson and Russ do more than count the accused, since their paper also offers an economic explanation for why the trials clustered where they did. It opens with a line attributed to Martin Luther that captures the mood of the Reformation:

“For, where God built a church there the Devil would also build a chapel.”

Their argument is that Catholic and Protestant churches were competing for followers, much as firms compete for customers. In regions where neither side was secure, they suggest, prosecuting witches was a way of advertising which church could best protect ordinary people from Satan. They put the comparison in modern political terms: “Similar to how contemporary Republican and Democrat candidates focus campaign activity in political battlegrounds during elections to attract the loyalty of undecided voters,” Catholic and Protestant officials focused witch trials in confessional battlegrounds.

To test this, the authors built a second dataset of 424 religious conflicts fought between 1522 and 1654, the Catholic and Protestant clashes that made up Europe’s wars of religion. Germany hosted 104 of them, nearly a quarter of the total, and it also produced the largest number of witch trials. According to the paper, “More intense religious-market contestation led to more intense witch-trial activity,” while weather, income and state capacity mattered far less by comparison.

On this reading, the quieter south was quiet because the Church faced few rivals there. Leeson and Russ argue that where Protestantism never took hold, the Church could deal with challengers through inquisitions and coercion, so it had little reason to stage witch trials. That is a long way from saying Italians and Spaniards were more enlightened. If the theory is right, their neighbors were simply caught up in a far fiercer religious contest.

However, the confessional competition theory has drawn criticism, and it is far from the last word on the subject. Writing in the folklore journal Incantatio in 2019, Annabel Macpherson called the approach novel, but she warned that “it is entirely ‘top-down’ with little consideration for the cultural contexts and the source of accusations in the diverse areas.”

She also argued that the paper’s account of the decline of the trials wrongly assumes that the end of the trials meant the end of popular belief in witches.

That criticism strikes at the heart of the viral caption as well. Macpherson cites work by the scholar Davies on so-called reverse witch trials in nineteenth and early twentieth century England, along with the continuing research of folklorists, as evidence that belief in witchcraft outlived the courts that once tried witches. If belief outlived the trials in England, there is little reason to assume that the absence of trials in Italy or Ireland marks its absence there.

A second challenge comes from the 2024 study by Doten-Snitker, Pfaff and Hsiao, published in Theory and Society. Using 553 cities in Central Europe between 1400 and 1679, they found that witch trials spread after the Malleus Maleficarum was printed, and that cities were more likely to begin trials once their neighbors had done so.

They also found some support for Leeson and Russ, since direct exposure to religious conflict raised the odds of trials. However, they report that nearby confessional battles actually lowered the chance of a trial, and they conclude that “the countervailing trend for distance to confessional battles calls the strong form of this argument into question.”

The two sides are closer than they first appear. Both studies treat witch trials as organized acts of authority and see the willingness of officials to prosecute as the decisive variable. The disagreement lies in why those officials acted, whether to win souls in a religious contest or because new ideas about witchcraft, carried by print and trade, persuaded them that the threat was real and urgent.

A reader of the paper’s own tables may notice another awkward fit. Table 2 credits Ireland with 22 confessional battles, or 21.1 per million people, a higher rate than Germany’s 8.7, and the paper notes that the Irish conflicts were fought between Catholics and Protestants.

Yet Ireland’s trial rate in Table 1 is just 50 per million. Leeson and Russ group Ireland with Spain, Italy and Portugal as Catholic strongholds, and the theory may yet account for it, but the case shows how much depends on how contestation is measured.

Where This Leaves the Map

The numbers themselves are solid as far as they go. Ancient Origins rates the trial counts as Established, in the sense that they are exactly what the Leeson and Russ dataset records, from 16,474 people tried in Germany to 52 in Ireland. The true total of Europe’s witch trials remains Unverified, since the authors themselves state that the precise number is unknown, and records from places such as Logroño did not survive.

The explanations for those numbers are a different and far less settled matter. The confessional competition theory is supported by the authors’ statistics but challenged by later work, so Ancient Origins rates it as Disputed.

The caption’s claim that Italy, Spain and Ireland escaped because they were more enlightened is also a claim about cause, and it is Unverified. None of the sources consulted for this article supports it, and several point the other way, toward widespread belief, cautious courts and gaps in the paperwork.

Today, the witch trial map still circulates because it seems to explain something at a glance. Whether or not the confessional competition theory survives its critics, the pale patches on the map mark places where courts tried and executed fewer people, and the sources gathered here suggest that belief in witches ran deep there too. Why some courts held back while others did not is a question with more than one answer, and there is still much to learn.

By Aris Manus

Sources

• Leeson, P. T. and Russ, J. W. (2018). Witch Trials. The Economic Journal 128(613), 2066 to 2105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12498 (author PDF: peterleeson.com)

• Leeson, P. T. and Russ, J. W. Witch Trials data and code repository. https://github.com/JakeRuss/witch-trials

• Doten-Snitker, K., Pfaff, S. and Hsiao, Y. (2024). Ideational diffusion and the great witch hunt in Central Europe. Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-024-09576-1

• Macpherson, A. (2019). Medicine and Magic During the English Witch-Trials: Negotiating Legality Between Religion and Practice. Incantatio 8. https://doi.org/10.7592/Incantatio2019_8_Macpherson

• Homza, L. A. (2022). Village Infernos and Witches’ Advocates: Witch-Hunting in Navarre, 1608 to 1614. Penn State University Press. Introduction. psupress.org

• Salazar Frías, A. de (1612). Report to the Suprema on the Logroño witchcraft (English translation, excerpts). University of Washington course reader. courses.washington.edu

• Macfarlane, A. (1988). Review of Henningsen, G. and Tedeschi, J. (eds.), The Inquisition in Early Modern Europe: Studies on Sources and Methods. Temenos 24, 167 to 170. alanmacfarlane.com

• Kuestenmacher, S. (2026). Post on X, October 17, 2026. x.com

The drill bit snapped four or five metres down. It had struck something hard inside a boat-shaped hill in eastern Türkiye and nobody yet knows what it was.

The hill sits at roughly 1,980 metres, about 29 kilometres south of Mount Ararat, in Üzengili village above Doğubayazıt. Since 1959, people have hoped it holds Noah’s Ark. In September 2026 a team led by a Turkish university cored into it.

Andrew Mark Jones of Noah’s Ark Scans said it could be petrified or mineralised wood. It could also be a hard block of rock. The first lab results are not out yet.

The ridge itself has been argued over for decades. It was picked out of a Turkish Air Force aerial photograph taken during a NATO mapping mission in October 1959 by Captain İlhan Durupınar, whose name it carries. Snopes notes it was reportedly exposed by heavy rains and earthquakes in 1948. Life magazine published photographs in 1960, and an expedition that September found nothing man-made. From 1977 the American amateur explorer Ron Wyatt promoted it as Noah’s Ark. That much of the record is established.

Read more

Off Turkey’s Kekova Island, a Bronze Age trader left behind more than 30 jars, three stone anchors and one vessel that may have been made for churning butter or cheese!

Divers found some old clay jars off the Turkish coast, that they looked a century or two old. In reality, they were more than 4,000 years older than that and not only that, some still had residue inside, and one of them may not have been made for shipping at all.

On 14 October 2026, Turkey’s Culture Minister Mehmet Nuri Ersoy announced on X that the jars came from what he called “the world’s oldest shipwreck”. It dates to the Early Bronze Age, around the time the Great Pyramid was being built in Egypt.

Most coverage has focused on the cargo, and yes the cargo is remarkable. But one object on the seabed doesn’t fit the story of a simple trading voyage. So, let’s get into it.

Read more

Few people know that Numidian cavalry played a decisive role in breaking Hannibal at Zama, fighting alongside Roman cavalry. That kingdom was Numidia, and for roughly two centuries it occupied what’s now Algeria, playing Rome and Carthage off each other with real nerve.

Poisoned queens, bribed senators, and a king who married Cleopatra’s daughter. It’s all in there, and almost none of it survives into the standard textbook version of the ancient Mediterranean, which treats North Africa as scenery for the Punic Wars rather than a place with its own politics and its own body count.

Here are ten reasons that need fixing.

1. Its First King Switched Sides Mid-War, and It Paid Off Enormously

Masinissa grew up in Carthage, not Numidia - his father Gaia, an ally of the city, sent him there as a mark of that alliance. By 212 BC, Masinissa was already commanding a Numidian cavalry unit in the Carthaginian army in Spain.

That mattered, because Gaia’s death in 206 BC triggered a succession crisis. Numidian kingship passed from brother to brother before reverting to the eldest son of the deceased king, rather than directly from father to son, so Masinissa’s uncle took the throne instead, and a chaotic scramble of short reigns and a murder followed. Masinissa, off fighting for Carthage in Spain the whole time, came home to find the kingdom had burned through four rulers without him.

He fought his way onto the throne instead of inheriting it - defeating the regent Mazaetullus and reclaiming his father’s kingdom. He would soon face a much bigger threat in Syphax. Somewhere in that scramble, Masinissa decided Rome was winning the war, and switched sides, trading his cavalry for Roman backing to reclaim and unify Numidia for good.

The gamble paid off. At Zama in 202 BC, his cavalry helped Scipio Africanus deliver Hannibal’s final defeat. Rome rewarded him generously, backing him to weld Numidia’s fractured tribes into one state. He ruled it for roughly fifty years, reportedly still leading troops into his eighties.

2. His New Wife Chose Poison Over a Roman Victory Parade

Consider Sophonisba: a Carthaginian noblewoman married off to a rival Numidian king, Syphax, to keep him loyal to Carthage. When Masinissa defeated Syphax, he married Sophonisba himself - according to Livy, the same day he captured her at Cirta.

Scipio, wary that her loyalties hadn’t changed with her husband, insisted she be surrendered to Rome. Masinissa couldn’t refuse outright, so he sent her a cup of poison instead. According to Livy’s account, she drank it without protest, remarking only that she “should have died more happily had not her marriage bed stood so near her grave” - though since Livy wrote over a century after the events, historians treat this line as literary tradition rather than a verified quotation.

Nobody doubts she died by poison rather than face Rome - only the exact wording of her final words is treated as literary tradition.

Subscribe now

3. Its Cavalry Rode With No Saddles, No Bridles, and Basically No Equipment at All

Picture it: Numidian horsemen riding into battle on small, unarmoured horses with no bridles, controlling them with nothing more than voice and a light touch. By the standards of the time, it looked like madness.

It wasn’t reckless - it was a different philosophy of cavalry entirely, built for speed rather than collision. Small, hardy horses turned on a dime while riders threw javelins from a gallop and peeled away before an enemy line could close, wearing an army down in pieces. Historians generally describe this style as suited to scouting and harassment, but poorly suited to siege warfare.

This same cavalry proved itself on both sides of the same war. Numidian horsemen fighting for Hannibal helped make Cannae, in 216 BC, one of Rome’s worst defeats ever. A decade later, Masinissa commanded Numidian cavalry for Carthage in Spain, running a guerrilla campaign against the future Scipio Africanus - the identical skill set, aimed in opposite directions.

At Zama, that skill set turned on Hannibal instead. Masinissa’s cavalry took Scipio’s flank, rolled up the Carthaginian horsemen, then wheeled around behind Hannibal’s own infantry - one of the more decisive maneuvers of the battle, and a bitter irony for a general once protected by the very same tactics.

4. Its Most Notorious King Once Called Rome “a City for Sale”

Few remember that Jugurtha, Masinissa’s grandson, grabbed the throne by murdering a rival heir and bribing his way past everyone else - and that Rome let him get away with it for years.

Jugurtha understood something uncomfortable about the Republic: enough gold could buy a senator’s silence as easily as a soldier’s loyalty. What followed became the Jugurthine War, dragging on from roughly 112 to 105 BC - seven years of a supposedly minor client king humiliating one Roman commander after another.

The early campaigns went badly for Rome. In 110 BC, a Roman army marched on the Numidian treasury town of Suthul in midwinter, got ambushed, and was forced under the yoke, a ritual humiliation for the defeated. The commander sent to fix things fared better but still couldn’t finish the job: he beat Jugurtha in open battle and took town after town, but never caught the king, who’d switched to guerrilla warfare, vanishing into the desert wherever the Romans were thinnest.

It took Gaius Marius, one of that commander’s own officers, to end it - winning the consulship back in Rome to take over the war himself in 107 BC. Even then, the finish came down to politics: his subordinate Sulla talked Jugurtha’s own father-in-law into betraying him. Jugurtha was seized in chains in December 106 BC.

According to Sallust, when Jugurtha was forced out of Rome years earlier after a bribery scheme collapsed, he’d turned at the gates and called the city “for sale, and doomed to speedy destruction if it can only find a purchaser” - a sharp line, sharper still since he was losing at that exact moment. He was paraded through Rome in Marius’s triumph, then thrown into a cold cell beneath the city, where he’s said to have starved to death.

Sallust had his own scores to settle with Rome’s elite when he wrote this decades later, so the quote may be more legend than transcript.

5. It Helped Keep Rome Fed

Numidia had been “utterly barren” before Masinissa’s reign, according to the Greek historian Polybius, who credited him with being the first to show it could produce cultivated crops as well as any land.

Subscribe now

Historians note that this agricultural transformation gave Numidia real strategic value to Rome - though whether it was the deciding factor in Rome’s long tolerance of Numidian independence remains a matter of interpretation rather than settled fact.

6. Its Capital Is Now One of Algeria’s Biggest Cities

The kingdom’s capital, Cirta, sat on a rocky plateau ringed by deep river gorges - a nightmare to besiege, easy to defend from any direction.

Under Masinissa and his heirs, it became a major trading hub anchoring the coast to the interior.

It had a darker side too: Jugurtha’s rebellion began with a massacre at Cirta, when he captured the city and slaughtered the Roman and Italian residents there, along with his rival claimant to the throne.

Today it’s the Algerian city of Constantine, still perched over the same gorge, just with a few more bridges strung across it.

7. A Later King Chose the Wrong Side in a Roman Civil War

Not every Numidian king shared Masinissa’s talent for picking winners. When Caesar and Pompey went to war, King Juba I backed Pompey, partly out of a personal grudge against Caesar, who had once insulted him by pulling his beard during a Roman trial.

Caesar crushed the Pompeian forces, Numidian army included, at Thapsus in 46 BC. Cut off from his capital with nowhere to run, Juba I fought a Roman ally, Marcus Petreius, in single combat rather than be captured - both men died in the duel, and Juba had one of his own slaves finish the job rather than live as anyone’s prisoner. Numidia lost its independence outright, annexed as a Roman province.

8. His Son Was Marched Through Rome as a Child Prisoner, Then Grew Up to Rule Anyway

Juba II arrived in Rome as a small child, paraded through the streets as living proof of his father’s defeat.

It’s a grim start, but not where the story ends. Raised in Roman households, well educated, and close to the future emperor Augustus, Juba II was installed as king of Numidia around 29 BC, then made ruler of Mauretania in 25 BC after Numidia was absorbed into the Roman province of Africa. He became one of Rome’s more genuinely respected scholar-kings, writing on geography, history, and natural science, with later Roman authors citing his work for generations.

9. He Married Cleopatra’s Daughter

This detail is genuine, however unlikely it seems: Augustus arranged a marriage between Juba II and Cleopatra Selene II, daughter of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, sometime between 26 and 20 BC. Like Juba, she’d been paraded through Rome as a child in Augustus’s triumph after her parents’ defeat at Actium.

Their marriage stitched together the political leftovers of two defeated dynasties into one Rome-approved household. The couple ruled Mauretania jointly, renaming their capital Caesarea in Augustus’s honor - the site survives today as the Algerian coastal town of Cherchell.

10. Its Kings Built Stone Monuments That Are Still Standing

Consider the Medracen: a cylindrical stone tomb near Batna, roughly 59 meters across and 18.5 meters tall.

Its design is a genuine hybrid: a circular base ringed by sixty engaged Doric columns, topped with an Egyptian-style cornice, crowned by a cone built in twenty-three narrow steps. A Numidian tomb dressed in Greek and Egyptian clothing, proof its builders had seen architecture far from home. A radiocarbon date suggests the tomb was built for an unknown Numidian king who lived in the fourth century BC - centuries before Masinissa’s reign, and long before any of the Numidian kings named elsewhere in this article.

Nobody knows for certain which king is buried inside, which somehow makes it more impressive rather than less. Nineteenth-century excavators found the burial chamber already looted, empty long before archaeologists arrived. A similar, larger version was later built for Juba II and Cleopatra Selene II near their capital.

Both have outlasted two thousand years of weather, war, and looters - and they’re still standing today.

By Sedik Azzouz

References

1. Britannica, “Masinissa” — https://www.britannica.com/biography/Masinissa

2. Livius.org, “Massinissa” — https://www.livius.org/articles/person/massinissa/

3. Livy, History of Rome, 29.29–30 (Perseus) — https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0144:book=29:chapter=29

4. Livy, History of Rome, 30.12–15 (Perseus) — https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0144:book=30:chapter=12

5. Livy, History of Rome, 21 & 35.11 (Perseus) — https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0144:book=35:chapter=11

6. Polybius, Histories, 3.116 & 15.14 (Perseus) — https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book=3:chapter=116

7. Sallust, The Jugurthine War, chs. 12, 26, 35, 38, 54, 84, 113 (Perseus) — https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0126:chapter=35

8. Plutarch, Life of Marius, 12 (Lexundria) — https://lexundria.com/plut_mar/12/prr

9. Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar, 71 (Penelope/Univ. of Chicago) — https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#71

10. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 43.8.4 (Lexundria) — https://lexundria.com/dio/43.8.4/cy

11. Britannica, “Juba II” — https://www.britannica.com/biography/Juba-II

12. CoinWeek, “Juba II: A North African Prince...” — https://coinweek.com/juba-ii-a-north-african-prince-at-the-nexus-of-the-roman-world/

13. Numisview, “Cleopatra Selene II” — https://numisview.com/reference/people/cleopatra-selene-ii

14. Suda On Line, “Massanasses” (Polybius 36.16) — https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-entries/mu/245

15. ArchNet, “Medrassen” — https://archnet.org/sites/18896

16. Livius.org, “Madghacen” — https://livius.org/articles/place/madghacen

On the morning of 13 October 1307, royal officers across France opened sealed orders from King Philip IV. Their instructions were blunt: arrest the Knights Templar in the king’s realm, seize their property, and prevent them from warning one another.

The operation was devastatingly effective. Templar houses were entered, brothers were detained, their leaders, including Grand Master Jacques de Molay, were taken into custody. The order that had once protected pilgrims in the Holy Land and moved wealth across Europe now faced accusations so shocking that they could turn public opinion against it almost overnight.

The charges included denial of Christ, spitting on the cross, obscenity during initiation, idol worship, and secret rites. Eventually, the accusations multiplied into an immense catalogue of alleged heresies.

It sounds like the beginning of a supernatural legend, right? It is often told that way. The date was a Friday the 13th, and modern retellings regularly claim that this was the day that cursed the number forever…

But Friday the 13th did not become an unlucky date because of the Templars. That connection is much later. The real horror was more recognisable, a powerful ruler moved against a wealthy institution when that institution had become politically inconvenient, financially tempting, and difficult to control.

Read more

Halloween has a ready-made origin story. Long before children dressed as vampires and superheroes, the Celts supposedly gathered around fires on a night called Samhain. It was then, when the boundary between the living and the dead dissolved and the spirits crossed into the human world. So, people wore disguises to avoid them.

Centuries later, that pagan ritual survived as Halloween. It is a superb story but it is too neat, right?

Yes, Samhain was real, it marked the turning of the Irish year from summer toward winter, with the night before 1 November carrying particular weight. It was a time for food, games, disguises, household protection, and stories of a world beyond ordinary human sight. Yet the modern Halloween of pumpkins, trick-or-treating, witches, and consumer excess did not emerge from a single surviving ritual. It was assembled over centuries from Irish seasonal tradition, medieval Christian observance, British and Scottish customs, folk tales, migration, and American reinvention.

The simplification has hidden the most interesting part, that Samhain was not a prehistoric “festival of the dead.” In Irish storytelling, it was a moment when the world became porous. The other side was not always a place of devils and terror, it could be a place of beauty, danger, temptation, and impossible abundance.

Read more

The Etruscan civilization flourished from the eighth to the first centuries BCE. Centered primarily in what are now Tuscany, western Umbria, and northern Lazio, its settlements extended north into the Po Valley and south into Campania. Fertile farmland, rich mineral resources, and skilled manufacturing powered a thriving Mediterranean trade, making the Etruscans a major cultural and political force within Italy and across the wider sea. Their prosperity peaked between the eighth and fifth centuries BCE, when Etruscan city-states controlled mines, ports, and trade routes linking central Italy with Greeks, Phoenicians, Sardinians, Celts, and other Italic peoples.

Within a few hundred years, however, the civilization entered a deep decline as Rome tightened its grip on central Italy. The Etruscans had a written language, but no historical, mythological, or literary narratives in it have survived. The dominance of Greek and Roman traditions in the sources available to us has left the Etruscans almost silent in the standard history of the ancient world.

The loss is partly a matter of survival, not simply silence. Texts written on perishable materials such as linen or wax tablets were unlikely to endure, leaving Greek and Roman accounts, with their inherent biases, as the only extended narratives about Etruscan society. Most surviving Etruscan written evidence consists of fragments, notably inscriptions on tombs, funerary ceramics, and other durable objects.

Yet the Etruscans were a compelling civilization that contributed greatly to Rome’s rise. This article explores their background and accomplishments, asking where they came from, who they were, and what happened to their enigmatic civilization. Although we know where the Etruscans lived, many aspects of their way of life remain the subject of debate.

Origins: Lydia, Italy, and the Villanovan World

The ostensible Greek “father of history” Herodotus (484-425 BCE), wrote that the Etruscans came from Lydia, in western Asia Minor (in today’s Turkey). Because of a long famine Lydia’s King Atys divided the people into two groups. The first group would stay in Lydia while the second, led by the king’s son Tyrrhenos—eventually settled in the area known as Umbria. The migrants called themselves the Tyrrhenians—named after the king’s son. The Greek historian Strabo, and many Roman writers including Horace, Ovid and Virgil supported Herodotus’s theory.

But in the first century BCE, Dionysus of Halicarnassus disagreed and argued that the Etruscans were “autochthonous,” indicating they originated from the soil itself and were native to the area. Dionysus contended that the dissimilarity in language between the Etruscans and the Lydians was a chief factor supporting his argument.

Current analysis of Dionysus’ theory has concluded that the Etruscan language is not of proto-Indo-European origin. In contrast to Greek, Latin, and Anatolian (Lydian), which all originate from Indo-European, the Etruscan language is regarded as a “language isolate” with no established genealogical ties to any extant language family and lacks modern descendants because it was ultimately supplanted by Latin. The nearest known relatives of Etruscan are the defunct dialects of ancient Raetic from the eastern Alpine area and Lemnian from the northeastern Aegean, rather than any contemporary language.

Beyond language, Dionysus claimed that the Etruscans have none of Lydian’s customs, beliefs, or mythological narratives. He argues that another meaning for the word “Tyrrhenians” stems from the term the Etruscans employed for towers or fortresses. Dionysus concludes that the Etruscans constitute a unique and distinctive culture, which is exceedingly old even by ancient standards.

Subscribe now

Although earlier genetic studies cautiously considered supporting Herodotus’s narrative of a link between Anatolia and Etruria more recent genome-wide examinations of ancient Etruscan remains do not substantiate a migration from Anatolia to Etruria during the Iron Age. The prevailing consensus among most of today’s archeologists aligns with Dionysus’s hypothesis, asserting that the Etruscans predominantly developed from native Italian populations demonstrating genetic continuity, rather than migrating in large numbers from Lydia or Anatolia.

The Etruscans traced their archaeological lineage back to the prehistoric later Bronze Age Proto-Villanovan culture which was named after a region in Bologna that existed from 1200 to 900 BCE and developed into the early Iron Age Villanovan culture (900 to 720 BCE). The Villanovan culture laid the archaeological groundwork for Etruscan urban civilization, which began around 800-700 BCE. The term “Villanovan” refers to an archaeological classification rather than a genetically uniform group. Archaeological artifacts from the Villanovan culture indicate substantial continuity between the Villanovans and the later Etruscans.

Because the Villanovans performed cremation archaeologists’ attempts to obtain DNA sequences have been complicated, as cremation destroys DNA. While most scholars assert that the Villanovan culture emerged on the Italian peninsula because of cultural similarities with adjacent Italic societies, the genetic traits of the Villanovan populace remain largely unidentified, preventing experts from definitively establishing their place of origin.

Roman Voices and Etruscan City-States

While the Greeks provide foundational theories about the Etruscans, whom they referred to as the Tyrrhenians, it is from the Romans—their neighbors and vanquishers—that we gain the most substantial information about them. Despite being composed more than five centuries after the events, Livy (Titus Livius 59 BCE-17 CE) addresses the decline of Veii—one of the wealthiest among Etruscan’s twelve city-states—in the fifth book of his extensive 142-volume work, Ab Urbe Condita (“Founding of the City”). Veii was located merely ten miles or sixteen kilometers northwest of today’s Rome.

Livy depicts the Etruscan League as a pan-Etruscan consortium of twelve city-states that were unified by language, culture, and religious practices but argues they were not allied militarily. The Etruscan system of governance was entirely decentralized and governed independently within each city-state, in contrast to Rome’s governance, which was centralized and emanated from Rome as its core. According to him, the Etruscan city-states did not unite behind Veii because they did not approve of their king, whose political and religious conduct estranged the other members. When Veii appealed for help from the consortium, the other Etruscan communities refused; Veii was then left to face Rome largely alone and fell in 396 BCE. Livy paints their defeat as due to illegitimate kingship, sacrilegious offense, and a fragmented military and civic governance.

In additional volumes of his work, Livy critically examines the Etruscan kings of Rome linked to the Tarquin dynasty. In his final analysis, Livy contends that the last three kings of Rome, who were all of Etruscan origin, were tyrannical, which ultimately led to the downfall of the monarchy and the emergence of the Roman Republic. Reports of the autocratic Etruscan kingship may also have led to the Romans’ notorious disdain for monarchy.

Subscribe now

Cicero (106 BCE-43 BCE) is yet another Roman author who documented the Etruscans with some detail. In his work De Divinatione (“On Divination”), he examines the Etruscans’ sacred, religious, and divinatory texts that clarified the will of the gods; the book was called Etrusca Disciplina by the Romans. The original Etruscan title, however, has not endured the passage of time

The Etruscans’ ability to predict the future was legendary among Romans. Even the Sybil who warned Julius Caesar about the Ides of March is said to have been of Etruscan descent. Cicero notes that the Romans considered Etruscan divinatory knowledge authoritative enough to seek the counsel of haruspices (“those who observed entrails of sacrificed animals”), as well as practitioners of reading lightning and other marvels upon issues within the public sphere.

Organized into two volumes, in the first volume, Cicero’s younger brother endorses the art of divination, while in the second volume, Cicero expresses doubt about its credibility. The conversation between the two siblings illustrates a discord in late Republican Roman society: traditional state religion and its Etruscan diviners received political respect, although intellectual opponents challenged their plausibility.

Beyond Livy and Cicero, the single most authoritative work from a Roman was titled Tyrrhenika (“Etruscan History”)—a twenty-volume discourse written in Greek by the Emperor Claudius, who had married an Etruscan and was also fluent in Etruscan. Suetonius reports that it achieved considerable regard, as seen by its circulation in Alexandria, the intellectual center of the Greco-Roman world. Disappointingly for posterity, it has not survived. While the negligence of ancient writers toward the Etruscans may explain the lack of information about their civilization, in this case, the traditions meant to preserve the work actually contributed to its perishability.

But these were not the only Roman writers to chronicle the Etruscans. Etruscan culture was so influential to the culture we identity as Rome’s that Roman writers from Varro and Virgil to Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Tacitus, and Servius each preserved a bit of Etruscan history, ritual expertise, cultural practices, and local traditions in their works—demonstrating that even after Rome conquered Etruria politically, the Etruscans remained a powerful presence in Roman memory and culture.

The Etruscan Language: Texts, Tablets, and Memory

Neverthelesst, how did the Etruscans describe themselves? The longest surviving Etruscan text, which is roughly 1200 words long, came to us accidentally during a collecting episode in the 19th century. The “Zagreb Mummy,” an ancient Egyptian woman preserved in reused wrappings, unwittingly preserved the most extensive Etruscan text that we know of today. The Liber Linteus (”Linen Book”), which was originally written on linen cloth, is significant because it indicates that the Etruscans had ritual traditions that were documented. The bulk of the text seems to be a religious calendar detailing events, sacrifices, prayers, and ceremonies; the Etruscans wrote right to left, unlike left to right as in Greek and Latin.

One of the translated segments of Liber Linteus refers to a specific date (September 26th); most likely a cultic observance or sacrificial rite. The segment reads that gifts should be given to the sea god, Nethyns (Roman Neptune) and the offerings should be of wine. Like most ancient religious texts, the book would have organized the lives of the Etruscan community naming the seasons and the festivals pertaining to them that would ensure a healthy, vibrant, and long life.

Although the Phoenician script has been largely deciphered, as a “language isolate,” the Etruscan language—its vocabulary and grammar—remains only partially understood. As previously mentioned, unlike Greek and Latin, Etruscan does not belong to the Indo-European language family. Nevertheless, the scripts of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans evolved from one another. The Greeks had previously adopted and adapted the Phoenician script, while the Etruscans utilized the western variant of the Greek alphabet. Due to close contact with the Romans, the Etruscan writing system contributed greatly to the development of other Italic alphabets, including Latin, in which twenty-one of the twenty-six letters have Etruscan origins.

A further archeological finding from the Etruscan port settlement of Pyrgi (within the ancient city-state of Caere, today’s Cerveteri) from 500 BCE has illuminated aspects of the mysterious Etruscan language. Pyrgi served as a global center for trade, diplomacy, and religious exchanges with the Phoenicians, especially the Carthaginians. Three gilded tablets were discovered inscribed with the writings of two languages: Phoenician and Etruscan. Unlike the Etruscan language, the Phoenician language is largely translatable; hence, the discovery holds significance due to the contextual relationship between the two inscriptions. The inscriptions are bilingual proclamatory texts affixed to the walls of the sanctuary complex at the port. While they may not be direct translations, the meaning is similar. Consequently, examining the Etruscan alongside the Phoenician has provided linguists with insights into the semantics of the Etruscan language.

The inscription reads: “For the Lady, for Astarte: this hallowed site was created and bestowed by Thefarie Velianas, sovereign of Caere.” Astarte is recognized as the deity of fertility within the Phoenician pantheon; in Etruscan culture, she was referred to as “Uni.” The leader, Thefarie Velianas, wishes to announce his commitment to establishing a shrine for the goddess of fertility and has designated a date for the occasion. The existence of a public bulletin in Pyrgi suggests that the populace was predominantly literate in Etruscan, although this condition would soon change.

Following the defeat of the Etruscan forces by the Greeks in the battle of Cumae in 474 BCE, Etruscan control of Campania became unsteady; trade routes were broken, and the prosperity of the Etruscans was under siege. Not long after, in the early fourth century BCE, upstart Rome began to flex its military muscle, and the Etruscan tongue would compete with the growing influence of Latin. This dichotomy can be seen in the funeral inscriptions of many Etruscans during this time, where the languages of the two cultures begin to reside side by side.

When the Liber Linteus was being transcribed between 200 and 150 BCE, the Etruscan language was already in a steady decline. The increasing insignificance of the once respected Etruscan culture and language is reflective in a religious calendar that was used as recycled waste for the wrappings of an Egyptian mummy.

Tombs, Inscriptions, and the Etruscan Afterlife

Burial inscriptions make up the vast majority of surviving Etruscan writing, accounting for 90% of the Etruscan epigraphic corpus. This endurance is due to the permanent nature of the artifacts, as the inscriptions were cut, painted, or molded onto durable objects such as sarcophagi, cinerary urns, stone stelae, tomb walls, and other grave goods.

From the eighth century BCE until the first century CE, there are tens of thousands of Etruscan inscriptions. Inscriptions are often brief, the stone would bear the name of the deceased, the date of their passing, and any relevant social or legal information about them. The tombstones also include information about their parentage, including maternal descent–unlike many contemporary Greek or Roman epitaphs. That the tombstones include information about the mothers’ birth families may indicate the significance of women in society according to many archaeologists.

Engraved into rock and cut from stone, the funereal culture has survived remarkably well for the Etruscans not only because the artifacts are more durable but also because some of the earliest tombs (tumuli) were built to last for several generations by the wealthiest residents. While their homes, temples, and public buildings were constructed from wood, mudbrick, plaster, thatch, or tile and vulnerable to the effects of time, weather, and Rome’s subsequent transformations, today the only surviving Etruscan cities are those of the dead.

Famous for its well-preserved, brightly colored funereal wall paintings of humans and animals, the necropolis of Tarquinia (in the city/state of ancient Tarquinii) dates back to the sixth century BCE. Murals showcasing feasts and drinking parties, music and dancing, sporting events, hunting and fishing scenes, and other lively events add an unexpected burst of life to the lavish and majestic graves.

Besides inscriptions of the maternal line on tombstones, another indication that Etruscan women had more agency in their lives than their Greek counterparts is the paintings depicting women who participated as equals in the banquet scenes, reclining and drinking alongside men. This would have been considered scandalous behavior in the contemporaneous Greek world where respectable married women were expressly forbidden to participate in the male dominated symposium (“male drinking party”). In fact, late Republic and Imperial era Roman women could thank their Etruscan counterparts for the convivium, Rome’s answer to the Greeks’ symposium. Unlike the symposium, the convivium allowed respectable married women into its gatherings.

Grave goods indicate that women played an important role in society, both within their families and in the social life of the aristocracy. Frequently, their mausoleums openly displayed their affluence, lineage, banqueting, and relationships with males.

The elaborate and lively nature of their tombs suggests that the Etruscans viewed death as a means of maintaining continuity with an active social life in contrast to the famously grim portrayal of the deceased as seen in the Hades or Underworld of the Greeks and Romans. For the Etruscans, life continued into the next world; the tombs resembled houses and provided burial furniture, benches, and platforms with carved beds. The necropolis appears to have been a liminal space between the living and the dead and full of terrestrial energy.

However, as their civilization began to decline, around the fourth century BCE and culminating in the first century BCE, the vibrant motifs of their tombs transformed into darker aspects of the Underworld, populated by demons and other dark forces.

Today the Etruscans are mostly recognized for their funerary monuments, which have withstood the erosive effects of time. Was this civilization formerly esteemed for its lavish banquets and festive feasts—vividly illustrated in the landscape paintings that embellish their necropolises—preoccupied with the concept of death? Or is it simply that their burial customs endure at the cost of their richly lived ones? As with much else about the Etruscan civilization, this remains a topic of dispute to this day.

Rome’s Conquest and the Etruscan Legacy

Notwithstanding their unfortunate destiny, what became of the Etruscans? The answer is simple, they stayed. As Rome’s dominance expanded, the influence of Etruria diminished; unfortunately, there was only room for one superpower in central Italy. The Etruscans fell under the iron grip of Roman rule as Rome vanquished their city-states. The full integration into the Roman political framework of the Etruscan communities occurred in the years 90-89 BCE. But the Etruscan language, cultural practices, and religious customs endured throughout the early Roman Empire, and much beyond.

Although the Etruscan civilization came to an end in the first century BCE, its legacy lives on. Many of the inventions commonly associated with Rome originated with their northern neighbors. Among the countless innovations brought to Rome by the Etruscans, the ones listed below are only a fraction. Notably, the city that calls itself Rome was formerly Etruscan, and the area known as the Roman Forum was drained when the Etruscans were in charge.

Items such as the purple bordered toga, Roman numerals—which evolved from tally marks carved into wood, bone, or stone by the Etruscans, Rome’s celebrated atrium, tiled roofs, various civic rites and regalia showcased in the Roman Triumph, and gladiatorial contests themselves— which were adopted from Etruscan funerary practices. Even the word for “person” comes from the Etruscan phersu, the “fasces” —a symbol of the iron will of state power and where the term “fascist” originates, and Roman religion (especially in the realm of divination).

Moreover, the Etruscans were crackerjack engineers. Under Etruscan kingship the significant sewer system in Rome known as the Cloaca Maxima (“the greatest drain”) was developed, allowing Rome to evolve from a loose collection of settlements into an urban center responsible for building aqueducts, roads, forums, temples, and civic spaces all by borrowing techniques used by their ill-fated neighbors. The Etruscans even provided the groundwork for Rome’s celebrated arch, which the Romans refined and expanded upon.

Rome may have won the war against Etruria, but the cultural heritage of the Etruscans would prove mightier than that of their conquerors. The Romans adopted engineering, architectural, cultural and religious traditions from their, sometimes, forgotten northern neighbors. These traditions became an enduring cultural legacy and had a tremendous influence on both Roman identity and the broader impact of the Roman Empire on the Western world.

By Mary Naples

References

Barker, G., and T. Rasmussen. 1998. The Peoples of Europe: The Etruscans. Blackwell Publishers.

Bonfante, L. 2016. “Human Sacrifices and Taboos in Antiquity: Notes on an Etruscan Funerary Urn.” Notes in the History of Art 35, nos. 1–2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/sournotehistart.35.1-2.156

Hall, J. 2018. “Etruscan Women: Ostentatious Display and Social Power.” Ancient World Magazine. http://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/etruscan-women-ostentatious-display-social-power/

Lorenzi, R. 2010. “Unraveling the Etruscan Enigma.” Archaeological Institute of America 63, no. 6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41780629

Nagy, H. 2008. “Searching for Etruscan Identity.” Archaeological Institute of America 112, no. 3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20627479

Shipley, L. 2017. The Etruscans. Reaktion Books.

Tuck, S. 2016. “Video: The Mysterious Etruscans.” The Great Courses. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/the-mysterious-etruscans

The Shepherd of Hermas was read with serious attention in early Christianity, yet the Muratorian Fragment says it could not be read publicly to the people in church.

That formula records a distinction that modern talk of “included” and “excluded” can easily flatten. A work might be worthy of reading and instruction, yet not authorized for public proclamation among the writings assigned to prophets or apostles. The Shepherd’s long afterlife, visible in major manuscripts and in later catalogues, makes the distinction more important.

A Text That Travelled Widely

The Shepherd is a large early Christian work presented through visions, commands (often called Mandates), and parables or Similitudes. Its voice is practical but also urgent: repentance, moral repair, communal discipline, and the Church imagined as a structure still being built. Whatever one concludes about its precise date or authorship, the work’s survival and circulation show that it was important to readers across several centuries.

One striking witness is Codex Sinaiticus, the fourth-century Greek Bible manuscript. The Shepherd appears after the Epistle of Barnabas in the codex’s later leaves. Its presence does not, by itself, settle a canon list; it does, however, make visible a world in which a book’s devotional, instructional, and manuscript life could be substantial without fitting every later boundary in the same way.

The Sentence That Governs the Debate

The most famous ancient ruling on the Shepherd occurs in the Muratorian Fragment, a damaged Latin list of books and authors. The following Latin text preserves the lineation and odd spellings in Henry M. Gwatkin’s printed transcription: spaces within words such as “nuperrim e,” “cathe / dra,” and “se pu / blicare” must not all be treated alike. The first and last examples reproduce breaks in the print; the middle of a word in “nuperrim e” is itself printed with a space.

pastorem vero
nuperrim e temporibus nostris in urbe
roma herma conscripsit sedente cathe
dra urbis romae aecclesiae pio eps fratre
eius et ideo legi eum quide oportet se pu
blicare vero in eclesia populo neque inter
profetas completum numero neque inter
apostolos in fine temporum potest

Lines 73–80. Spelling and division are retained; this is a transcriptional witness, not a normalized critical text.

English translation of the Fragment, lines 77–80.

The crucial contrast is built into the sentence itself. Legi… oportet allows reading; publicare… in eclesia populo denies a public ecclesial use. The ruling then gives two limits: the Shepherd is not to be placed among the Prophets, “whose number is complete,” or among the Apostles, because it comes after their time. In other words, the text is treated as useful, but its usefulness is not made identical with apostolic or prophetic status.

Subscribe now

Read, but Not Publicly Proclaimed

Later fourth-century witnesses preserve similarly graded categories, though they are not simply paraphrases of the Muratorian sentence. Eusebius says the Shepherd had been disputed by some, was considered useful for elementary instruction by others, and had been publicly read in churches; in his summary classification, he places it among writings he calls “rejected,” while distinguishing them from works he dismisses as heretical inventions.

Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter (367) makes the same sort of distinction in a different register. After listing books “included in the Canon,” he names the Shepherd among works “appointed by the Fathers to be read” by those newly joining and seeking instruction. The point is not that every community used identical labels. It is that “to be read” could be a positive category without being the same as “canonical.”

This is why the phrase “a book read and a reading refused” is more precise than saying the Shepherd was simply rejected. The surviving language speaks of a boundary around one form of use, public reading to the congregation, not a blanket instruction to avoid the work.

The Manuscript Is Not the List

Another distinction is essential. The surviving Latin copy is not automatically the date of the list it transmits. The Biblioteca Ambrosiana catalogue identifies the manuscript as I 101 sup., a parchment codex of IV + 77 + I leaves, and gives an uncertain catalogue date of 676–750. The shelfmark is sometimes printed with J rather than I in older references; the Ambrosiana record itself uses I 101 sup.

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles described the fragment’s extent as the two sides of folio 10 and the first twenty-three lines of folio 11 recto. That is a nineteenth-century report about the location of the fragment in the codex. It should not be confused with a date for the underlying list.

The photograph reproduced here must therefore be named carefully: it is a photograph of a medieval copy containing a disputed ancient list, not a photograph of the original moment when that list was first composed. The difference is basic textual criticism, but it is frequently obscured in popular retellings.

Why It Does Not Settle the Date?

The Shepherd notice is often enlisted in arguments for a late-second-century date for the Muratorian Fragment. Its wording says that Hermas wrote the work “very recently, in our times” in Rome while Pius, identified as his brother, occupied the episcopal chair. If that notice is taken at face value as a near-contemporary recollection, it has obvious chronological force.

But the language is not a numbered date, and the Latin is transmitted in a notoriously difficult form. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman’s 1987 Oxford D.Phil. thesis presses this problem hard. On p. 296 he argues that the cumulative evidence makes it more reasonable to redate the list as a fourth-century Eastern document, possibly from Palestine or western Syria; on p. 300 he proposes that it most probably derives from sometime after Eusebius.

Those claims should be reported as an argument, not smuggled back into the transcription as though the Latin itself said “fourth century,” “Palestine,” “western Syria,” or “after Eusebius.” The connective et ideo leads from the notice about Hermas to the rule about reading; it does not turn the sentence into a precise year. The conventional early date and revisionist proposals must remain distinct from the date of the surviving copy.

What the Shepherd Still Reveals

The Shepherd’s reception is evidence for the process by which Christian communities weighed authority, usefulness, and public reading. A book could be cherished for moral formation, copied beside highly valued texts, and still encounter limits in liturgical or public use. That layered reception is the historical fact worth recovering.

The Muratorian Fragment makes the tension unusually explicit: “it ought indeed to be read,” yet it cannot be read publicly among the prophets or apostles. The result is a reading permitted, preserved, and debated, precisely the kind of reading that keeps the Shepherd important for the history of early Christianity.

By Aris Manus

References

Bible Researcher. The Muratorian Fragment. Includes Bruce M. Metzger’s English translation and the Latin transcription from Henry M. Gwatkin, ed., Selections from Early Writers Illustrative of Church History to the Time of Constantine (London: Macmillan, 1937), pp. 82–88. Accessed 4 October 2026. https://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

Codex Sinaiticus Project. See the Manuscript | Shepherd of Hermas. Digital manuscript page, including BL f.341r. Accessed 4 October 2026. https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?__VIEWSTATEGENERATOR=01FB804F&book=61&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Manoscritti antichi: I 101 sup. Catalogue record: IV + 77 + I leaves; parchment; uncertain date 676–750. Accessed 4 October 2026. https://ambrosiana.comperio.it/opac/detail/view/ambro:catalog:76502

Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux, ed. Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867. See the description of the fragment’s placement on folio 10 and folio 11 recto.

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 3.3.6 and 3.25. Trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 1. Digital text accessed 4 October 2026. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Athanasius of Alexandria. Festal Letter 39 (367), §§5–7. Trans. R. Payne-Smith, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 4. Digital text accessed 4 October 2026. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. D.Phil. thesis, Christ Church, University of Oxford, Trinity Term 1987, pp. 296, 300. Digitized record in Oxford University Research Archive; the record carries a 1989 publication date. Accessed 4 October 2026. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cdc17076-98b3-4085-9c49-022041e9bd29

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, pp. 191–201, 305–307.

Could a dream written nearly two millennia ago be a prediction of the future? The question returns whenever readers encounter the eagle in 4 Ezra: a creature rising from the sea with twelve feathered wings and three heads, ruling the earth before a lion comes from the forest to pronounce its end.

The scene belongs to the Eagle Vision in 4 Ezra 11–12, the Jewish apocalypse that appears as 2 Esdras 3–14 in many English Apocrypha editions.

That setting makes the future question more interesting. Does the vision speak only to its first historical moment, or does its account of rule, rivalry and judgment reveal a pattern readers recognise in later ages?

The text itself eventually interprets the eagle, the wings and the lion. Before that explanation arrives, however, the dream slows the reader down. Every wing that rises, every head that wakes and every command issued from the eagle’s body helps build a vision of authority that is sprawling, violent and ultimately unstable.

Read more

Could the Golden Fleece be more than a myth? On a wind-cut boulder above the Caspian, an ancient carving may preserve the voyage that Greek poets later transformed into the story of Jason and the Argonauts.

Stand on the upper terrace of Böyükdaş at Gobustan, Azerbaijan, and look across the broken limestone landscape toward the Caspian lowlands. Around you are massive rocks covered with images left by people who occupied this place for thousands of years. On Rock 29 is a composition that may preserve something far more specific than a generic scene of prehistoric life: a large oared vessel, water-like markings, armed figures moving across rough ground, and an unusual raised terminal at one end of the boat.

Taken together, those details raise a tantalising question: was the original expedition carved into stone thousands of years before it became Greece’s most famous adventure?

The evidence is provocative and it leads from a cave behind the engraving to a transformed Caspian shoreline and a possible route across the Caucasus.

Read more

In 1971, a Danish naval ship returned two medieval manuscripts that Iceland had pursued for decades. The harbour erupted in celebration. Yet one of the books at the center of the ceremony, the manuscript that preserves much of the Poetic Edda, was already missing a crucial section of its text.

The morning a nation waited for books

On 21 April 1971, a Danish naval inspection ship, Vædderen, tied up at Miðbakki in Reykjavík harbour. Three uniformed officers stepped ashore with three plain brown-paper parcels: one small and two large.

The crowd had not come for a monarch, a military victory, or a visiting celebrity. It was there for the parcels.

According to Morgunblaðið, about 15,000 people gathered at the harbour. Even primary schools closed for the occasion; children lined the route with Icelandic and Danish flags, and radio and television carried the arrival across the country. In Reykjavík, Prime Minister Jóhann Hafstein captured the moment in a line that has lasted almost as long as the photographs:

This line worked, because these were not just books. They were two of the most potent surviving vessels of Iceland’s medieval memory:

Flateyjarbók and the Codex Regius of the Poetic Edda, known in Icelandic as Konungsbók, or “the King’s Book.”

What was inside the parcels?

Flateyjarbók, copied in the late 14th century and later expanded, is the largest of Iceland’s medieval vellum manuscripts. Its core is a lavish collection of Norwegian kings’ sagas, but it also preserves the Saga of the Greenlanders, one of the earliest surviving written accounts of Norse journeys to Vinland.

The other manuscript carried a different kind of weight. It was copied in Iceland in the 13th century, the Codex Regius is the principal medieval witness for the poems now grouped as the Poetic Edda. Without it, much of what modern readers think of as Norse myth would be thinner, stranger, or simply gone. The manuscript preserves poems about Odin, Thor, Loki, cosmic disaster, legendary heroes, and the tragic world of Sigurd the dragon-slayer. For many of its poems, it is the only surviving medieval copy.

At four that afternoon, the ceremony moved to Háskólabíó, the university cinema. The Iceland Symphony Orchestra opened with Carl Nielsen’s Saga-Dream. Denmark’s education minister, Helge Larsen, handed over the two volumes of Flateyjarbók to Gylfi Þ. Gíslason, Iceland’s education minister, saying: “Vær så god, Flatøbogen”, “Here you are, the Flatey Book.” The Codex Regius followed immediately. Of course the audience rose and applauded for a long time.

Subscribe now

Why were Iceland’s manuscripts in Copenhagen?

The answer lies in a 17th-century chain of gifts. The Codex Regius came into the hands of Brynjólfur Sveinsson, Bishop of Skálholt, in 1643. In 1662, he sent it to King Frederick III of Denmark. Flateyjarbók followed a similar route: Jón Finnsson of Flatey gave it to Brynjólfur in 1647, and the bishop sent it to the king in 1656.

At the time, Iceland was under the Danish crown. A gift to the king entered the royal collection in Copenhagen. For more than three centuries, the two manuscripts remained there.

When Iceland became a republic in 1944, and the question arised: should works written in Icelandic, in Iceland, and central to Icelandic history remain in Denmark? Denmark passed legislation on the manuscripts in 1961, but opposition led to a court fight. The Danish Supreme Court settled the case on 19 March 1971. A treaty between the two countries followed on 1 April, clearing the way for the April ceremony.

But, there was an important twist. The normal rule for transfer covered works written or translated by Icelanders and chiefly concerned with Iceland. By that definition, the University of Copenhagen notes, neither the Codex Regius nor Flateyjarbók would have qualified. They returned under a special clause, an exception written for the two manuscripts everyone recognized as exceptional.

A homecoming that took 26 years

The harbour celebration was only the opening move. Transfers continued until 1997. The University of Copenhagen records 1,666 manuscripts from the Arnamagnæan Collection and 141 manuscripts from the Royal Library sent to Reykjavík; the final two arrived in June 1997.

The result was not a simple winner-takes-all division. Around 1,400 manuscripts and fragments remain in Copenhagen, about half of Icelandic provenance. The two Árni Magnússon institutes in Copenhagen and Reykjavík continue to cooperate over a collection whose history belongs to both countries.

The mystery inside the King’s Book

The cheering crowd on the quay could not see the most unsettling fact about the Codex Regius through its brown wrapping: the manuscript is incomplete.

The surviving book has 45 vellum leaves, but it once had a further quire, normally counted as eight leaves, or 16 written sides. The gap falls after Sigrdrífumál, in the middle of the heroic material surrounding Sigurd. The text resumes with a fragment so damaged by the loss that its conventional title announces the problem: Brot af Sigurðarkviðu, “the broken-off poem of Sigurd.”

No one knows when the missing quire disappeared, who removed it, or what exactly stood on every lost line. Related prose narratives and other poetic witnesses can illuminate parts of the story, but they cannot restore the vanished gathering leaf by leaf.

That is the paradox at the heart of the 1971 homecoming. Iceland celebrated the return of a manuscript that safeguards some of the most familiar voices in Norse myth, Hávamál, Lokasenna, Þrymskviða, while the book itself carries a conspicuous wound.

The question though that remains: What happened in the missing leaves, and how much of their lost world can still be recovered?

By Aris Manus

References

• Government of Iceland, “Einsdæmi í mannkynssögunni” (25 August 2020). Harbour arrival, crowd account, school closures, flags, and live broadcast.

• Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, “Flateyjarbók” (Icelandic). Manuscript history, contents, 1647/1656 transfers, and the 1971 handover wording.

• University of Copenhagen, “Transfer to Iceland”. Special clause for the Codex Regius and Flateyjarbók, transfer totals, and collection context.

• Morgunblaðið, 22 April 1971, front page. Contemporary report of the Háskólabíó ceremony, Saga-Dream, and sustained applause.

• Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies, “The History of the Árni Magnússon Collection”. Legislation, court settlement, treaty, ceremony, and the remaining manuscripts in Copenhagen.

• The Codex Regius of the Poetic Edda — Konungsbók eddukvæða GKS 2365 4to, Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Electronicæ, 2024; see also the digital manuscript record at Handrit.is. Scholarly edition and digitized record for the codex and its missing quire.

• Wikimedia Commons, “Codex Regius of Eddaic Poems”. Public-domain image used in the article.

• Wikimedia Commons, “Flateyjarbok Haraldr Halfdan”. Public-domain medieval illumination used in the article.

In 367, Alexandria’s bishop Athanasius sent churches in Egypt a list of books for public reading. The Book of Enoch was not on it. Yet Jude, a letter preserved in the New Testament, calls words attributed to Enoch a prophecy. The wording closely follows 1 Enoch 1:9.

That missing book tells of two hundred angels descending on Mount Hermon. It survives in fragments from Qumran. Ethiopian churches still receive it as Scripture.

Why did a text that shaped early Jewish and Christian thought remain outside most biblical canons? The answer has no single villain. Communities copied, read, disputed, and ranked books across many generations. Some loved the Watchers story. Some cited it. Some refused to bind it for public reading. The Book of the Watchers, the oldest major part of 1 Enoch, was caught inside that long argument.

Read more

In a dream that survives on cracked Aramaic leather, a garden burns and floods until almost nothing stands. One tree is left and it has three shoots. No, the dreamer is not Noah. As scholars usually reconstruct the column, he is a giant, and his brother has a second vision the same night: a heavenly court with books opened and judgment is spoken. Their companions of course panic and they send another giant to find Enoch and ask what the dreams mean.

And if you wonder, that scene is not a podcast invention... It is what researchers rebuild from a named Dead Sea manuscript: 4Q530, also called 4QEnGiantsᵇ, a Cave 4 Aramaic copy of the Book of Giants.

Now, if you open a Protestant Bible to Genesis 6, humanity multiplies and the “Sons of God” take wives. The LORD then caps human days and almost as an aside, the Nephilim appear, “the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown”, and the text goes straight to grief, violence, and the flood.

And that is the whole prelude! Four verses of mythic density; and then we have … the ark. So, basically, Genesis names the disturbance and then moves on. However, Qumran kept reading the indictment ...

Read more

The Norse mythology we think you know may never have existed as a single story. It survives today as a confident, cinematic arc, but no Viking Age author left behind the volume that tells it from beginning to end.

Ginnungagap opens and the first beings appear. Odin and his brothers shape the world, while the Norns govern fate beneath Yggdrasil. Ragnarök consumes the gods, and a renewed earth rises from the sea.

The problem is that no authorized Viking Age book preserves this plot. The modern “canon” is a reconstruction, assembled from anonymous poems, skaldic verses quoted in later prose, brief allusions, images, place-names, archaeological objects, and accounts written by Christian authors. The sources overlap, but they do not always agree.

Those fault lines are not flaws to be explained away but the real story: clues to how myths travelled, changed shape, and were later woven into the version we think we know. But if we follow them, the familiar Norse cosmos becomes stranger, richer, and far more alive.

Read more

“The Romans left Britain” is one of those sentences that sounds clearer than the event it describes. Rome did leave, if by Rome we mean the western imperial state: its tax system, military command, regular coin supply and the administrative machinery that had governed much of Britain for centuries. By the early fifth century, towns and local elites were being forced to organise without the apparatus of the province. But the phrase becomes misleading when it quietly turns an administrative collapse into a population disappearance.

The people did not leave with the government.

Roman Britain had never been a sealed ethnic block. It contained communities rooted in Britain long before the conquest, families shaped by almost four centuries of imperial rule, soldiers and officials posted from other provinces, merchants, craftspeople, enslaved people, freed people and migrants from across Europe, North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. The British Museum describes Romano-British society as the product of local Iron Age societies meeting Roman law, administration, engineering, religion, art and imported populations. When imperial authority fractured around AD 410, that mixture did not revert to an imagined pre-Roman purity. Nor did it vanish and wait for a new people to arrive.

What happened instead was harder to narrate and therefore more interesting: continuity, migration, political fragmentation and cultural reinvention happened at the same time.

Read more

A Roman man lost a gold ring. Another man wore a ring bearing the name of the suspected thief. And then a curse asked a god to deny that thief his health.

Time forward to more than fifteen centuries later, and the story reached J. R. R. Tolkien.

That sequence sounds almost too perfect. It contains a stolen ring, an inscription, a curse, an ancient sanctuary, and the scholar who later created the most famous ring in modern literature. It is easy to understand why the object at The Vyne in Hampshire has been called a possible source for the One Ring.

The evidence proves that Tolkien studied the temple and its mysterious god, but it does not prove that this particular ring inspired his fiction. The real story though is more uncertain, and perhaps more interesting, than the legend that grew around it.

The Ring in the Field

Around 1785, a farmer ploughing near the abandoned Roman town of Silchester uncovered a large gold ring. It eventually entered the collection of the Chute family at The Vyne, where it remains today.

The ring is a bit unusual. It weighs about twelve grams and has a ten sided hoop attached to a square bezel. The bezel carries an engraved profile surrounded by the word VENVS. Around the hoop is a second Latin inscription: Seniciane vivas in Deo. It is normally understood as a wish that Senicianus should live in God.

Now, what is weird, is that Venus belongs to the older Roman religious world, while the phrase on the band is associated with early Christianity. The National Trust dates the ring to roughly AD 350 to 450, a period when both traditions existed beside one another in Britain.

But the name Senicianus would eventually pull the ring into a much darker story.

A Curse One Hundred Miles Away

At Lydney Park in Gloucestershire, archaeologists found a thin sheet of lead at a Roman sanctuary dedicated to the god Nodens. The writing records the anger of a man named Silvianus. His ring was gone, and he believed someone called Senicianus was responsible.

The message asks Nodens to deny health to anyone named Senicianus until the ring is returned to the temple. Silvianus promises the god half the value of the missing object.

But this was not a private diary entry. It appears to be an appeal to supernatural justice! In a world without modern police or insurance, a victim could hand a grievance to a god and ask for punishment. Convenient, isn’t it?

Once antiquarians noticed the same name on the Lydney tablet and the Silchester ring, an irresistible story formed. Senicianus had stolen the ring, worn it despite the curse, and lost it near Silchester. The object in Hampshire was therefore the very treasure named on the tablet in Gloucestershire.

Subscribe now

Tolkien Enters the Story

The connection to Tolkien is real, but narrower than the popular version suggests.

Archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler worked at Lydney Park and asked Tolkien, then an Oxford scholar of language, to investigate the name Nodens. Tolkien contributed a specialist note to the excavation report published in 1932. His task was linguistic, and he examined the name of the god and its possible roots.

This places Tolkien directly inside the scholarly history of the Lydney site. He knew about the sanctuary, the inscriptions, and the strange world surrounding Nodens. Later accounts also suggest that Wheeler discussed the possible ring connection with him.

The timing though encouraged speculation. Tolkien was developing the stories that became The Hobbit during the same general period. A cursed gold ring connected to a place called Dwarf Hill seems almost designed to invite comparison with Middle Earth, isn’t it?

Did It Inspire the One Ring?

No surviving letter, notebook, or statement from Tolkien identifies the Senicianus ring as his inspiration. The National Trust now warns that the object has previously been wrongly presented as the source of The Lord of the Rings.

There is also uncertainty at the beginning of the story. The National Trust considers a direct connection between the ring and the curse tablet unlikely. The two objects were found far apart, and Senicianus was not a unique name. The ring itself names Senicianus, not Silvianus, which creates another difficulty if it was the stolen object described at Lydney.

Tolkien unquestionably studied Nodens and the Lydney material. He may have encountered the dramatic story that antiquarians built around the gold ring. That story could have then joined the many myths, languages, objects, and legends that nourished his imagination. Yet the claim cannot be demonstrated, although it makes sense.

The Ring Controversy Still Alive

The object does not need Tolkien to be remarkable. It survives from a moment when Roman Britain was changing, old gods remained present, and Christian language was becoming more visible. Its inscriptions preserve that complicated world in a single piece of gold.

The curse tablet is equally human. It records loss, suspicion, anger, and the hope that a divine power might succeed where ordinary justice had failed. Whether or not the two objects belonged to the same quarrel, each reveals how people tried to protect property and make sense of misfortune.

The Tolkien connection adds one final layer. It shows how an ancient artifact can acquire a second life through modern storytelling. A ring found in a field became connected to a curse found at a temple, then to a scholar studying an unfamiliar god, and finally to a literary legend known around the world.

It is possible that this ring helped inspire Tolkien. Whether we will know for sure or not, we do not know. What we can say though with confidence is that the story surrounding it has become powerful enough to resemble one of his own: an object passes through time, gathers meanings, and becomes far larger than the person who first wore it.

Top Image: The Ring of Senicianus, a late Roman gold signet ring found near Silchester. Its inscription asks that Senicianus live in God. Source: Photograph by Simon Q, via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 2.0.

By Aris Manus

References

National Trust Collections. Ring of Senicianus, inventory 719789. https://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/719789

Roman Inscriptions of Britain. RIB 306, Curse upon Senicianus. https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/306

BBC News. J. R. R. Tolkien ring goes on display at The Vyne exhibition. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-22008746

The Guardian. The Hobbit ring that may have inspired Tolkien put on show. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/02/hobbit-tolkien-ring-exhibition

Rome did not keep its most important prophecies for curious citizens. Instead, it locked them inside a temple and allowed them to be opened only when the state was afraid.

A plague that would not end or an enemy army destroying Roman legions or reports of blood falling from the sky. It is in such moments, when the Senate could order a small priestly college to consult the Sibylline Books, a secret collection that Romans believed contained divine guidance for the survival of their city.

The priests would then enter the archive, examine verses written in Greek, and return with instructions. The public might be told to honour unfamiliar gods, stage an extraordinary ritual, or bring a foreign cult to Rome. What the public did not know was the text itself. Rome revealed the remedy while guarding the words that supposedly required it.

That secrecy makes the collection one of the great lost archives of the ancient world. The books survived changes of government, military catastrophe, religious conflict, and one devastating fire. An emperor later burned more than two thousand rival prophecies while preserving a selected Sibylline collection beneath the statue of Apollo. And then the official books disappeared!

The mystery is what powerful officials read when the doors closed, how much those hidden words shaped public policy, and whether the final collection was destroyed by one of the most hated men in the dying western empire?

Read more