Colosseum Lift That Carried Wild Animals Into Arena Rebuilt

An anonymous reader writes: Archaeologists have built a replica of the lift that was used to move lions and other wild animals into the Colosseum 1,500 years ago. It is estimated that a million animals may have been killed in the history of the arena. It took a year and a half for the archaeologists and engineers to build the 23ft-high timber lift, using only materials that would have been available to the ancient Romans. Gary Glassman, a director who made a documentary about the project said, "One of the reasons we are attracted to the Colosseum is because of the incredible violence that went on here. The question it poses is, how could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles? The Colosseum is a snapshot in stone, a physical embodiment of the culture of Rome."

Comments

Let me answer this question:

[iamwhoiamtoday]

"How could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"

Because however you doll up humanity..... people are very primal under the surface, and are capable of a great many violent things.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, the question should be "how could a less advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"

All kinds of engineering talent, organizational expertise, a logistics and trade network that spanned the Mediterranean world; were necessary to run something like the Colosseum. Those loads of wild animals(some pretty exotic) and ample supplies of variously trained gladiators don't just deliver themselves, you know; nor is building that much stadium seating with rocks and manual labor exactly trivial.(Never mind the 'let's flood the place and have a lethal naval battle' days, those are a huge pain.)

Any mangy barbarian can enjoy drunken brawling, hunting, and the occasional duel or dog fight; but bloody spectacle is something best left to the experts.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[geekmux]

"How could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"

Because however you doll up humanity..... people are very primal under the surface, and are capable of a great many violent things.

And however you doll up humanity today, it is merely an illusion that anything has changed since then.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[jellomizer]

While advanced culture, there is the human worry that they are not tough enough to handle the world. Watching gladiators kill lions and elephants is the same as use watching Zombie movies. Half of the interest is what is going on in your head, you try to figure out what you would do in their place.
Then the outcome will normally please you.
The gladiator dies, validating that your different approach is better
The animal dies when the gladiator does what you would do, validating your idea.
The animal died with a different method, then you learned a new survival idea.

The moral issue of human and animal life, can so easily be shoved away with propaganda (still today) that for most of the population it doesn't even occur to them.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[Anonymous Coward]

"How could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"

Easily. Because being "advanced" do not in any way imply that a culture abstain from killing and violence. A culture may excel in various technologies, military power, and arts. It may or may not value nice behaviour - that is orthogonal!

Romans had their period of glory - and violent entertainment. Later governments organized witch hunts & public burnings. Then a colonial era with lots of unnecessary violence, done by 'advanced cultures of the time.' Then a certain advanced culture arranged the holocaust.

I am not even counting the various wars - wars are necessarily bloody and violent. We are lucky to live in times where the leading cultures value life for its own sake - to some extent.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[Bongo]

And however you doll up humanity today, it is merely an illusion that anything has changed since then.

Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature makes a case that, however bad things look today, the past was much much more violent. Actually his book tries to ask why things have improved so much. Part of our modern feeling that today is terrible, is because we are more sensitive and more empathetic than we've ever been before, so we notice stuff more than we used to. Of course, caveats, not all the planet is living in the 21st Century today, but there is a trend. And we hope it continues. So yes, we are still pretty crappy as humans, but let's not start believing that we are irredeemable—we have made a lot of progress and that means we can make more progress in universal empathy and care and compassion.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[antiperimetaparalogo]

"How could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"

Because however you doll up humanity..... people are very primal under the surface, and are capable of a great many violent things.

And however you doll up humanity today, it is merely an illusion that anything has changed since then.

Almost half a *millenium* before the Romans built Colosseum (and had their bloody spectacles in it - including killing Christians!), (we) Greeks had fought the Persian invadors and won - one of those Greeks fighting against them, Aeschylus (who was so proud for this that asked to be the only thing mentioned in his grave), wrote a tragedy called "The Persians": instead of writing "Greece... fuck yeah... we fucked you barbarians!", he mostly wrote about the psychological drama experienced by the Persians back home, in a way that... well, i watched this tragedy performed in one of our ancient Greek theaters, and i felt pity for the Persians!

My point is that "Humanity" it too "big" of a word to make such statements about how it is an illusion that has changed - it is surely better today than what it was at the Colosseum times (but at that time it was worse than what it was when Greeks were "in charge" of humanity!). BUT today we have the "Muslim world" (doing what we all know) against the Western (Greek-Roman AND Christian) Civilization.

Humanity must choose its civilization.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I seriously fail to understand how we, the Western (Greek-Roman AND Christian) Civilization, "provoke the Muslims" (and "in a way that it has never done to us"?!), plus, that (general) Western (Greek-Roman AND Christian) Civilization can be adopted by anyone who wants to be civilized* (and since i am a Greek that mentioned the Persians: Persians, who had a civilized enough culture before they were forced to become Muslims, have done it in some extend, so, excluding their current barbaric Muslim religion, they are civilized enough "barbarians", surely more than any Arab for example - take it from a Greek, a couple of milleniums "old enemy" of the Persians!). If we stop interacting with the "Muslim world" (something that many Muslim want, BUT MANY WESTERNERS WANT ALSO!), what you think will be the outcome for the Muslims? And did you know that it is Muslims those who ask from us, Westerners, to "interact", and then, the same people, call that a "provocation" - i surely don't understand why it is our fault!

* Let's not start a "relevitism" of the "what you mean civilized?" type.

Re:Let me answer this question:

[AmiMoJo]

It's more fundamental than that. In those days a lot of people died from things that are unimaginable in modern developed nations. Starvation, lack of clean water, lack of basic medicines, war and lawlessness. Most people didn't live much beyond 30 anyway, and by that age tended to have severe "disabilities", for want of a better word (even poor eyesight was uncorrectable and could prevent someone working effectively).

So life was cheap. Rome needed big armies and needed a system that would integrate the less civilized people it subjugated into its society. Thus the Roman system, where anyone could become a citizen by serving the empire, was created. Equally those who were not citizens didn't have rights or legal protections (a bit like how the US treats non-US citizens today), and really were seen as property and somewhat sub-human, or at least sub-citizen, in the same way that for example black people were at times in the last few hundred years. So lacking any useful entertainment skills and otherwise being of little use, literally throwing them to the lions made a kind of sense.

There was also the punishment aspect. Some parts of the world still kill people convicted of crimes, and allow others to watch (although they would say it isn't for entertainment). Fear helped keep people in line, much like how these days fear of terrorism is used for the same purpose. Do as we say, or die (in the arena / in a terrorist attack).

Re:Let me answer this question:

[CrimsonAvenger]

Rome needed big armies and needed a system that would integrate the less civilized people it subjugated into its society.

Umm, no. Rome had a miniscule army for most of its history, when compared to its population. That's the advantage of an Empire as opposed to a city-state or similar flyspeck "nation".

How is it

[SuperKendall]

The question it poses is, how could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?

So I take it you've not seen a movie made in the last 20 years?

Re: How is it

[viperidaenz]

No, but we like to watch people get killed in movies.
The Romans didn't have the technology to fake it like we do.

Re: How is it

[martin-boundary]

That depends. This may be an unpopular point of view to some here, but the value of people depends on supply and demand, just like the value of goods. To lower the value of people in a country, all it takes is a large increase in population way beyond the required workforce and the available resources. Below a certain value, people will become disposable entities just like the slaves in Roman times. In some of the poorest countries around the world, this is partially happening. In the richer countries around the globe, this could also happen, either because our mix of resources and work changes too radically for our population at some point, or because the poor from other countries flee their homes in extreme numbers at some point.

We can't assume that human life will always be valued in the future like it is now.

think of advanced civilisations in fiction

[ihtoit]

the Triskelions in Star Trek - got off on blood sports.
The Running Man - Bread and Circuses for a collapsed US economy.
Rollerball - street hockey and motorcycles.
Death Race 2000 - Cannonball Run with real cannonballs.
Death Race - like the preceding, but laps around a prison island and the entire country's putting bets on. Kinda like The Running Man but with miniguns. And Tombstones. Gotta love those Tombstones.

The first King novel I ever read was his masterpiece "The Long Walk". Death Race 2000 but without the cars. Published as part of the Bachman anthology in 1985.

More recently, we have Battle Royale and its Hollywood ripoff, The Hunger Games.

See, the Romans had it right. Give the plebs just enough food to survive and keep them entertained, they stay compliant and content. Hence, "Bread and Circuses".

Re:think of advanced civilisations in fiction

[ljw1004]

Think of advance civilizations in fiction... See, the Romans had it right. Give the plebs just enough food to survive and keep them entertained, they stay compliant and content. Hence, "Bread and Circuses".

Don't you think the fiction *copied* from past human cultures, particularly the Romans?

Been living under a rock?

[fahrbot-bot]

That was on the PBS series NOVA on Feb 11, 2015 - I saw it then. Way to be current anon.

Stupid question

[viperidaenz]

how could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?

We're the dominant predator on the planet. We didn't get here by being friendly.
We don't have large teeth.
We don't have claws.
We're not overly big or strong.
We use our brains to figure out how to hunt and kill prey.

Pretty much all reasonably intelligent animal kill for entertainment.

Re:Stupid question

[Maxo-Texas]

I don't know about the eskimos but if you think native american indians didn't kill for entertainment you are sadly mistaken.

Native americans tortured captives for sport long before europeans landed in the americas.

Native americans practiced human sacrifice, infanticide, rape, as well as leisurely and creative torture such as roasting people alive and stopping to wait for victims to recover consciousness before continuing. They didn't do it because they were angry or evil (in their context)-- they did it because they enjoyed doing it. It was entertaining. It was fun.

They were no better- nor any worse- than the Europeans. Europeans also had a long history of enjoying torture- watching bears being torn apart by dogs- watching humans being "drawn and quartered" or burned alive. The religious ones were especially creative towards heretics and homosexuals.

Some particular tribes were friendlier than other tribes and didn't practice torture or practiced it less. Here I venture into speculation and speculate that they were less common. There's ample evidence that most native american tribes were constantly at war with other native american tribes.

I'm not dissing them- I have choctaw and cherokee blood. I'm just relating reality.

Re:Still in sad condition

[m.alessandrini]

What do you mean? Rebuilding it as it was originally? But then it would not be original anymore! There's a reason ancient monuments are kept as they are. Yes of course all monuments desperately need to be better preserved, especially here in Italy. But the Colosseum, for example, lacks much of its external walls because in the centuries after Romans its stone blocks were "stolen" to build other things, before a culture of preserving the past was fully developed. Anyway, nobody would think of rebuilding it, because even as it is, it is a testament of the past history.

Re:Still in sad condition

[phantomfive]

If you're not too picky, you can still check out the Verona Arena, which is still very large and remains in use for concerts today.

Maybe cause and effect are reversed?

[Swoopy]

Has anyone given a thought to the possibility that the Roman civilisation could get "so advanced" BECAUSE they had such violent entertainment, providing both an 'escape valve' / release mechanism for violent tendencies, as well as a demonstration of how bad things can get when violence is let loose rampant in society in general?
Think of American Football in comparison - fake / controlled violence of two teams head-butting a ball across a field for the sake of sport ... then extrapolate.
(And if you hold the position that American Football isn't violent, then why do players need more body armour than any in other team sport in existence?)
The abhorrence for violence is a rather newly developed cultural trait in western 'civilised' society and the way that question is being framed is a judgemental way of projecting that cultural value onto the ancient Romans:
"how could such an advanced culture have staged such bloody spectacles?"
It's a rather emotional way of asking, unless taken literally, when the answer is "by using slaves and wild animals and staging violent scenes in a controlled environment such as a theatre" - duh ...

Re:Still in sad condition

[Anonymous Coward]

You're completely uninformed. Firstly, Italy IS restoring the Colosseum, the arena in particular, recently they polished the external walls too, and I'm quite astonished that the /. article doesn't mention it:

http://roma.repubblica.it/cron...

Obviously you cannot rebuild it exactly as it was, not because of lack of money, which is not a problem for the Italians (see next paragraph), but because they should use the very same marble which was used by their Ancestors, and get it from the same mountains. It would cause an environmental disaster.

Secondly, Italy hasn't received any money from the EU or the IMF, actually its 10-year sovereign bonds yield LESS than the US treasuries with the same maturity, which means that markets technically consider the Italian debt less risky than the american, for how unbelievable it might seem to you:

http://www.marketwatch.com/

(click on "rates").

So they really don't need any "help", let alone from some random american internet billionaires whose main concern would be the wifi coverage rather than rebuilding the Colosseum as it was.

Re:Still in sad condition

[greatpatton]

And if you want to move to France, you still get roman arena (quite well preserved) in use and where animal still get killed: * Arles Amphitheatre (built 10 year after Collessum) where Bullfight still take place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... * Arena of Nîmes (90-120AD), also used for bullfight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...