Were ancient sailors buried at sea or taken to the nearest port for burial on land?

Detail from a relief from the palace of Sargon II (722–705 BCE) at Dur Sharrukin, showing the transport of Lebanese cedars in boats with horse-headed prows. Photo: Public Domain.

I recently read the following article about the religious practices and mortuary rituals of ancient Levantine sailors: https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2023/09/maritime-viewscapes 

In it, the author, Aaron Brody, Director of the Bade Museum of Biblical Archaeology and Professor at the Pacific School of Religion, says:

"Many perished at sea. The only detailed mourning rites of Phoenician mariners are found in Ezekiel 27, which indicates that mortuary rituals were not performed aboard ship, which may represent a taboo common among traditional seafarers."

He also described probable tombs of seafarers that contained votive offerings of a seafaring nature such as stone anchors, model ships, and graffiti of ships on their walls indicating the individuals may have died at sea and were returned to land for burial.

This intrigued me so I asked Bard about the burial practices of ancient seafaring cultures.

Mary: If a death occurred on board an ancient ship was the deceased buried at sea or did the captain change course to the nearest port to allow the deceased to be buried on land?

Bard:

"Whether a deceased person was buried at sea or brought to land for burial on an ancient ship depended on a number of factors, including the ship's destination, the religion of the deceased, and the captain's discretion.

"Burial at sea was the most common practice, especially for long voyages where it was impractical to bring the body to land. It was also the preferred practice for many seafaring cultures, who believed that the sea was a sacred place for the dead.

"Burial on land was more common for short voyages or when the ship was already close to port. It was also the preferred practice for some religions, such as Christianity and Judaism.

"In some cases, the captain might change course to the nearest port if the deceased was a high-ranking person or if the family requested it. However, this was not always possible, especially in bad weather or if the ship was far from land.

"Here are some specific examples of burial practices on ancient ships:

"Vikings: The Vikings often practiced ship burials, in which the deceased was placed in a ship with their grave goods and then set adrift at sea. This was considered to be a prestigious burial method, and it was reserved for high-ranking members of society.

"Romans: The Romans typically buried their dead on land, even when they were at sea. However, they would sometimes bury their dead at sea if they were sailing in hostile territory or if the ship was carrying a plague.

"Greeks: The Greeks also typically buried their dead on land. However, they would sometimes bury their dead at sea if the deceased was a sailor or if the death occurred during a long voyage.

"In general, it is safe to say that burial at sea was the most common practice for deaths on ancient ships. However, there were a number of factors that could influence the captain's decision, and there were also some cultures that preferred burial on land.

Since the article was discussing ancient Levantine maritime practices I asked more specifically about that region:

Mary: Were ancient Levantine sailors who died subsequently buried at sea?

Bard:

"There is no definitive answer to the question of whether ancient Levantine sailors who died at sea were buried at sea or brought to land for burial. The evidence is inconclusive, and there is likely to have been variation in practice depending on a number of factors, such as the specific Levantine culture, the religion of the deceased, and the circumstances of the death.

"Some experts believe that burial at sea was the most common practice for ancient Levantine sailors, especially for long voyages where it was impractical to bring the body to land. They point to the fact that the sea was considered to be a sacred place for the dead in many Levantine cultures. Additionally, there is archaeological evidence for ship burials from this region, dating back to the Bronze Age.

"Other experts believe that burial on land was more common for ancient Levantine sailors, especially for short voyages or when the ship was already close to port. They point to the fact that many Levantine cultures had a strong tradition of burying their dead on land, even when they were at sea. Additionally, there is archaeological evidence for cemeteries near ancient Levantine ports, which suggests that sailors were often buried on land.

"It is also possible that both burial at sea and burial on land were practiced by ancient Levantine sailors, depending on the specific circumstances. For example, a sailor who died during a long voyage may have been buried at sea, while a sailor who died near a port may have been buried on land.

"Ultimately, the question of whether ancient Levantine sailors were buried at sea or brought to land for burial is a complex one that cannot be definitively answered. The evidence is inconclusive, and there is likely to have been variation in practice depending on a number of factors."

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Was the Bona Dea scandal contrived between Clodius Pulcher and Julius Caesar?

 An AI-assisted investigation by Mary Harrsch © 2023

Fresco from Herculaneum, insula orientalis II, palaestra, room III courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor ArchaiOptix.

Marc Antony was married to the politically powerful woman Fulvia, daughter of Marcus Fulvius Bambalio and Sempronia. Her previous husbands included Clodius Pulcher and Gaius Scribonius Curio. Antony and Curio were both solidly Caesar's men but what about Clodius Pulcher. Pulcher was, of course, rather infamous for his perceived immoral behavior, but how much of it was really that immoral or proclaimed as such by his political enemies? To explore this question, I used Google's Bard AI utility to examine the relationship between Caesar and Pulcher and the political ramifications of it.

First, I asked Bard about Pulcher's relationship with the Optimates, the political faction that opposed the Populares, the political faction supported by Julius Caesar:

Bard: 

"Clodius Pulcher's relationship with the Optimates was complex and often hostile. He was born into a patrician family, but his political views were more aligned with the Populares, a faction that supported the rights of the common people. Clodius was also a political rival of many leading Optimates, including Cicero.

"In 62 BC, Clodius was accused of sacrilege for allegedly disguising himself as a woman and attending the Bona Dea festival, which was reserved for women only. The Optimates saw this as an opportunity to discredit Clodius and his Populist allies. However, Clodius was acquitted of the charges, and he used this as a springboard to launch his political career.

"In 59 BC, Clodius was elected tribune of the plebs. He used his position to pass a number of laws that were unpopular with the Optimates, including a law that restricted the power of the Senate and a law that distributed land to the poor. Clodius also exiled Cicero, one of the leading Optimates.

"Clodius's relationship with the Optimates continued to deteriorate after he was elected tribune. He was constantly attacking the Optimates in public speeches and writings. He also led a gang of thugs who intimidated and assaulted Optimates.

"In 52 BC, Clodius was killed in a street brawl with his rival, Milo. The Optimates were overjoyed at his death, and they celebrated by tearing down his house.

"Overall, Clodius Pulcher's relationship with the Optimates was one of constant conflict. He was a thorn in their side, and they did everything they could to destroy him."

Observation: This would indicate Pulcher would have supported many of the same political objectives of the Populares, also supported by Julius Caesar. So what relationship did Pulcher have with Caesar?

Bard:

"Clodius Pulcher and Julius Caesar had a complex and often shifting relationship. They were initially political rivals, but Clodius later became a valuable ally to Caesar.

"In 62 BC, Clodius was accused of sacrilege for allegedly attending the Bona Dea festival, which was reserved for women only. Caesar was then the Pontifex Maximus, the chief religious official in Rome. He presided over Clodius's trial, but he refused to testify against him. This led to speculation that Caesar was involved in the scandal, or that he was at least sympathetic to Clodius.

"In 59 BC, Clodius was elected tribune of the plebs. He used his position to pass a number of laws that were beneficial to Caesar, such as a law that granted land to Caesar's veterans and a law that gave Caesar command of the provinces of Gaul and Illyricum for five years. Clodius also exiled Cicero, who was one of Caesar's political rivals.

"In 52 BC, Clodius was killed in a street brawl with his rival, Milo. Caesar was then in Gaul, but he returned to Rome shortly after Clodius's death. He prosecuted Milo for Clodius's murder, but Milo was acquitted.

"It is difficult to say definitively what motivated Clodius's alliance with Caesar. It is possible that Clodius was simply grateful to Caesar for not testifying against him at his trial. It is also possible that Clodius saw Caesar as a powerful ally who could help him achieve his own political goals.

"Whatever the reason, Clodius Pulcher's alliance with Julius Caesar was a significant event in Roman history. It helped to pave the way for Caesar's rise to power and the eventual collapse of the Roman Republic."

Observation: Much as been made of Pulcher's sacriligeous violation of the Bona Dea's religious rites held at the house of Julius Caesar in 62 BCE. But I couldn't help but wonder what else was going on that year that may have prompted Pulcher to participate in such an act. According to the Bard, Pompeius Magnus, who had defeated pirates in the eastern Mediterranean after raising a large army, proposed to return to Rome in 62 BC.

Bard:

"Pompey had been campaigning in the East for several years, and he had amassed a large army and a great deal of wealth. Clodius feared that Pompey would use his power and influence to seize control of the Roman government.

"Clodius's opposition to Pompey was motivated by a combination of political and personal factors. Clodius was a member of the Populares faction, while Pompey was a member of the Optimates faction. 

"Despite Clodius's opposition, Pompey's legislation was passed by the Roman Senate and he was eventually allowed to return to Rome." 

So, Did Julius Caesar oppose Pompey's return to Rome in 62 BCE?

Bard:

"There is no clear evidence that Julius Caesar opposed Pompey's return to Rome in 62 BC. However, it is possible that he had some reservations about Pompey's return, given the growing political tensions between the two men.

"Pompey had been campaigning in the East for several years, and he had amassed a large army and a great deal of wealth. Caesar feared that Pompey would use his power and influence to seize control of the Roman government.

"In addition, Caesar and Pompey had different political views. Caesar was a member of the Populares faction, which supported the common people and opposed the traditional Roman aristocracy. Pompey was a member of the Optimates faction, which supported the traditional Roman aristocracy and opposed the common people.

"Despite these concerns, Caesar did not publicly oppose Pompey's return to Rome. He may have done this for a number of reasons. First, he may have wanted to avoid a direct confrontation with Pompey. Second, he may have believed that Pompey could be a useful ally in his own political ambitions. Third, he may have simply believed that it was in the best interests of the Roman Republic to allow Pompey to return.

"Ultimately, Pompey was allowed to return to Rome in 62 BC. Caesar's decision to support Pompey's return is one of the most debated moments in his career. Some historians believe that Caesar was naive and that he underestimated Pompey's ambition. Others believe that Caesar was playing a long game and that he saw Pompey's return as an opportunity to further his own political ambitions.

"Whatever Caesar's motivations, his decision to support Pompey's return had a profound impact on the course of Roman history. It helped to fuel the political instability and violence that ultimately led to the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire."

So, would the Bona Dea incident impact Pompeius Magnus' political standing upon his return to Rome?

Bard: 

"It is possible that the Bona Dea incident in 62 BC was contrived by Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher to diminish the power of Pompey. However, there is no definitive proof to support this claim.

"The Bona Dea incident was a religious scandal that involved Clodius Pulcher, a member of the Populares faction in the Roman Senate. Clodius was accused of sacrilege for profaning the mysteries of the Bona Dea, a women's-only religious ritual. Caesar's wife, Pompeia Sabina, was one of the women who participated in the ritual, and there were rumors that Clodius had disguised himself as a woman and snuck into the event in order to seduce her. 

[In another query Bard points out "Poppaea Sabina was the daughter of Quintus Poppaeus Sabinus, a close ally of Pompey's."]

"Clodius was ultimately acquitted. However, the scandal damaged Pompeia's reputation, and Caesar divorced her soon after.

"Some historians believe that the Bona Dea incident was a plot by Caesar and Clodius to discredit Pompey and weaken his position in the Roman Senate. Pompey was a popular and powerful politician, and Caesar and Clodius may have seen him as a threat to their own political ambitions.

"There is some evidence to support this claim. For example, Clodius was a known associate of Caesar, and he had benefited from Caesar's political support in the past. Additionally, Caesar's decision to divorce Pompeia after the Bona Dea scandal may have been motivated by a desire to distance himself from Pompey and to avoid being associated with the scandal.

"However, there is also evidence to suggest that the Bona Dea incident was not a contrived plot. For example, Clodius had a history of reckless and impulsive behavior, and it is possible that he simply made a mistake. Additionally, there is no evidence that Caesar was directly involved in the planning or execution of the plot.

"Ultimately, it is impossible to say for sure whether or not the Bona Dea incident was contrived by Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher to diminish the power of Pompey. However, it is a possibility that should not be discounted.

"In conclusion, it is possible that the Bona Dea incident in 62 BC was contrived by Julius Caesar and Clodius Pulcher to diminish the power of Pompey. However, there is no definitive proof to support this claim. The evidence is inconclusive, and there are multiple interpretations of the events that took place."

Observation: Although this incident may have served as a temporary reminder to Pompey that he faced some formidable opposition in Rome, it may have ultimately led Pompey to engage with Caesar in the First Triumvirate, a deal sweetened by the marriage of Pompey to Caesar's daughter, Julia. Caesar took advantage of the incident to divorce Pompeia and marry Calpurnia Piso, daughter of a staunch Optimate, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso. So why would Piso agree to such a marriage?

Bard:

"Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Calpurnia's father, was a member of the Optimate faction, which was opposed to the Populares faction led by Julius Caesar. However, he agreed to the marriage between his daughter and Caesar for a number of reasons.

"First, Caesar was a very powerful and influential man. He had served as consul and proconsul, and he was one of the most successful generals in Roman history. Calpurnius Piso may have believed that marrying his daughter to Caesar would advance his own political career.

[Caesar won the civic crown for saving the life of a fellow citizen in battle at the siege of Mytilene in 81 BCE. He also led troops successfully in engagements during the Third Mithridatic War during 75-74 BCE. Later after his praetorship, he was given the governorship of Hispania Ulterior where he campaigned against the Callaeci and Lusitani and seized the Callaeci capital in northwestern Spain, bringing Roman troops to the Atlantic and seizing enough plunder to pay his debts and was hailed imperator. However, the conquest of Gaul had not yet occurred at the time of his marriage to Calpurnia.]

"Second, Caesar was a wealthy man. He had amassed a great deal of wealth from his military campaigns and his political connections. Calpurnius Piso may have been attracted to Caesar's wealth and the prospect of improving his own financial situation.

[I am skeptical about the above paragraph, however. Caesar was deeply in debt until his campaigns in Hispania Ulterior and he negotiated the formation of the First Triumvirate in 60 BCE and had the financial backing of Crassus. Caesar later proved to be a "good investment" for Crassus when he gained so much wealth sacking Gaul. Piso himself, on the other hand, was already extremely wealthy as evidenced by the Villa dei Papyri in Herculaneum.]

"Third, Caesar was a member of the patrician class, the highest social class in Roman society. Calpurnius Piso was a member of the equestrian class, the second-highest social class. Marrying his daughter to Caesar would have elevated Calpurnius Piso's social status and the status of his family.

[This is, in my opinion, the ultimate reason Piso would agree to such a match - the elevation in social status the marriage represented.]

"Finally, Calpurnia was a beautiful and intelligent woman. Caesar was known to be attracted to beautiful women, and he may have been drawn to Calpurnia's beauty and intelligence.

"In conclusion, Calpurnius Piso agreed to the marriage between his daughter and Caesar for a number of reasons, including Caesar's power, wealth, social status, and Calpurnia's own beauty and intelligence. It is important to note that the marriage was arranged by the two men, and there is no evidence to suggest that Calpurnia herself had any say in the matter."

Observation: But why would Pulcher agree to such obvious sacrilege? The ensuing trial helped Clodius forge alliances with his benefactors. He regarded Crassus as his chief patron, who bribed the majority of jurors to the tune of between 300,000 - 400,000 sesterces, and was grateful to Caesar for disclaiming any direct knowledge of the events. He sought no retribution against those who had led his prosecution, apparently considering it fair repayment for the wrongs he had done them. However, he was greatly affronted by Cicero, who had attempted to bring about his downfall by testifying against him not realizing his sister's attempt to seduce Cicero would have caused backlash from Cicero's formidable wife Terentia. He also regarded the antipathy shown toward him by Pompeius Magnus as a betrayal. When Clodius had stirred disaffection amongst his former brother-in law Lucullus' troops in the east, it had been to Pompeius' advantage, and the latter's rivalry with both Lucullus and Cicero would seem to have made him Clodius' natural ally; yet Pompeius had not lifted a finger to help him during the trial. Perhaps Clodius foresaw this lack of support so any discomfort the incident would have caused Pompeius Magnus would have been viewed as justified.

So, was Clodius Pulcher an ally of Julius Caesar?

Bard: 

"On the one hand, they were both members of the Populares faction, which supported the common people and opposed the traditional Roman aristocracy. They also had some common political interests, such as expanding the power of the tribunes of the plebs and reforming the Roman land distribution system.

"However, Clodius was also a volatile and unpredictable individual, and he was often at odds with Caesar. For example, in 61 BC, Clodius accused Caesar of participating in the Catiline Conspiracy, which was a plot to overthrow the Roman government. Caesar was eventually acquitted of the charge, but the incident damaged his relationship with Clodius.

"Despite their differences, however, Clodius and Caesar eventually reconciled. In 56 BC, Clodius helped Caesar to secure the position of proconsul of Gaul. Caesar, in turn, helped Clodius to become praetor in 53 BC.

"The relationship between Clodius and Caesar was a complex one, marked by both cooperation and conflict. However, their alliance was ultimately beneficial to both men. Clodius helped Caesar to rise to power, and Caesar helped Clodius to achieve his own political goals."

Note: I have omitted some of Bard's comments that I deemed incorrect from traditional research. Bard seems to have a bit of a problem interpreting events with BC dates as before or after each other. Bard also seems to confuse events in the order they occurred. For example, the above comment about Caesar's personal wealth really only applied after his service in Hispania Ulterior and subsequent conquest of Gaul. Before that time Caesar was deeply in debt from climbing the cursus honorum and obtained the backing of Crassus after the formation of the First Triumvirate. Bard provides some interesting background material but it must be augmented or, in some cases, supplanted by information from traditional research to provide context. 

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!