http://www.jstor.orgRoman Board Games. IAuthor(s): R. G. AustinSource: Greece & Rome, Vol. 4, No. 10, (Oct., 1934), pp. 24-34Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/641231Accessed: 24/05/2008 19:49Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.ROMAN BOARD GAMES. I By R.G. AUSTIN tHEstudy ofclassicalboardgames offers a most fertile 1fieldfor conjecture,yet at the sametime yields a distress- ing paucityof certainfact. Hastyconclusionsof all kindshave been drawnfromthe sourcesavailable,both as to the natureof the gamesand as to methodsof playingthem; encouragedby the cheerfulambiguitiesof our authorities,Iinvestigatorshave not hesitated toequate Greek games with Roman, or both with those of Egypt and the Orientif occasionsuited, and to lay down rules for the one deducedentirelyfrom the other. Actually, the most sober caution isnecessary. We are not justified in derivingthe games ofone countryfrom those of another; but when a game obviouslyconformstoa definite type as playedthroughoutthe agesin variouspartsof the world, then we may justifiablymake certainassumptionsconcerning it; for example,in the case of those Romangameswhich are of the backgammontype we may reasonablyinfer that they were played in Zcertainway.Beyond that we cannotgo, and the utmost care is rleeded1lot to pervertthe traditionof ancient authors,vague and obscureas it so often is.Itisespecially importantto note that none of these games, either Greek or Roman,had any connexionwith chess. There is no proofthat the latterwas derivedeitherfrom the Tr?VT?ypoC"pCior fromthe luduslatrunculorum;any such claimis quite invalidatedby the anachronismsandimpossibilitiesinvolved.2Thus'chess', even as a loose translationofa term such as rr?rr?ia,3so com- monlyfound,is inaccurateand misleading. If this paperis less inconclusivethan manypreviousaccounts,it is due to the help freely given me by Mr. H. J. R. Murray,who has put at my disposalhis own notes and suggestions,backedby his expert practicalunderstarldingof boardgamesand his uniqueknow- ledge of their comparativehistory. ICompare,for example,the variousmeaningsof o?cr:6Sor Kluposas given by Pollux.2See H. J. R. Murray,Historyof Chess,p. I6I. 3'This bore no strongerresemblanceto Chess than a coal barge does to the Great Eastern'(Forbes, Historyof Chess,p.I84). ROMANBOARDGAMES.I25 Romanboardgames differfrom those of Greecein having a muchless confusingtradition:thereis no RomanPollux. Our evidencefor them comes chieflyfrom certainpassagesin Ovid and Martial;and, for the luduslatrunculorumonly, there is an elaborateand obscure account inthe poem known as Laus Pisonis(referredto henceforwardas L. P.), whichmaybe slated to the middleof the firstcenturyA.D.To these must be added an importantbut much misused passage intheOriginesof Isidore(xviii. 60 ff.).These literarysourcesare supplemented FIG. I (By courtesyof the British Museum.) by, or ratherthemselvessupplement,many actualboardsor diagramsfor boardsfound in Rome and other Italiantowns, as well as in severalsites in England;andit is clearthatthe only reliablemethodof investigationmust keep these finds in view. So much isobscure in the literaryevidence that, while any definite conclusion canonlybedeemed probable and not certain,it seems but reasonableto take such boards as exist and try to relatethem to the gamesmentionedby our authors. Neglect of this principlehas caused much ofthe confusion apparentin more modernaccounts. The use of dice was almostinvariablein these games,as in our backgammon.The only importantRoman game in con- nexion withwhichdiceare never mentioned wasthatof latrunculi,Iand itmay therefore convenientlybeexamined first. The namemeanssimply'the soldier-game'(latroorigin- ally meant 'soldier'; cf.Plaut. Mil. 76, Varro,L. L. vii.52), a fact confirmedby the terminologyof Ovid and of the autWor IHencethe commonidentificationwith the GreeklToR?lsTrai3?1vis impossible. The fact thatno dicewereusedshouldalonehavepreventedIsidore'sinformation from being referredto latrunculi (see later). 26ROMANBOARDGAMES.I of L.P.; thus it is to be thoughtof ratheras a battlethan as a game of hlockade. It is first specificallymentionedby Varro, but is probablymuch older; he implies that it was playedon a board markedwith lines and spaces.IThe pieces (cakuli, latroxes,milites)were of glass of differentcolours(Ovid,A.A. ii.208, Trist.ii.477),sometimeseven of jewels or precious stones.Ovid tells us (A.A. iii. 358; cf. Mart. xier.I7)that a piecewas taken(perire)by beingsurroundedby two enemiesir rank or file,2 and that backwardmoves were allowed;this is supportedby L.P., where retreatingis shown as a ruse 'pour mieux sauter' (I98,'dum fugit, ipserapit').A'blocking' manceuvrewasalso employed (L.P. 20I,'similisque ligato obligatipse duos'), but a man so blocked(alligatus,Sen. Epp. cxvii. 30) couldbe extricatedby a skilfulplayer. The gamewas won by the playerwho succeededin removingmost pieces (cf. Sen. Dial. ix. I4.7); thesewerecollectedin the hand(L.P.208), or perhapsheld inabag;3 and accordingtoVopiscus, the winnerwas hailedimperator(Procul.I3.2?), anotherindication of the militarycolourof the game.4 With these facts before us,letusturn toarchaeological evidence. Anumber ofstone 'boards'have been found in Romansites in Britain,with squaredmarkings,generallyshow- ing8x8squares, although themeasurementsvary.Their frequencysuggestsa populargame. Serreralof these findshave been madealongthe line of Hadrian'sWall, and one specimen at least is now in the museumat Chesters;others have been discoveredat Corbridge,Richborough,and Chedworth.5Near IL.L.x.z2