Running head: PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

The Past and Present of Adoption:

Evidence from a Comparison Study of U.S. and Ancient Roman Adoption Practices
Amy L. McCurdy
Elon University

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

Abstract
Creating a family through adoption usually involves a reimagining of the family unit as
connected through social and legal ties, rather than through biological means (Daniluk, HurtigMitchell, 2003). Although it has been practiced throughout large periods in history,
conceptualizations of adoption have not remained consistant. Through a comparison of three
adoption case studies, it is argued that the disappearance and subsequent reappearance of world
adoption practices coincides with a cultural imagining and reimagining of family. Adoption
continues to exist, from the ancient to the contemporary eras, because it fulfills certain societal
needs; the need for successors, desire to build or expand the family, and concern for the welfare
of children who are orphaned or whose biological parents cannot effectively care for their
offspring. The inability to create a family through biological means is found to contribute
towards adoption practices in both eras.

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

Introduction
Adoption is a widely-practiced, yet ever-changing phenomenon. Conceptually, the term
adoption employs no single definition, and can be described as an evolving construction across
time and culture. Although significant scholarship exists concerning the semantics of adoption,
changes in the formal process, purpose, and rituals surrounding adoption are reflected in few
studies. The city of Rome provides a unique longitudinal context to a discussion of adoption
shifts, since adoption practice has been recorded since the founding of Rome in 753 B.C.E.
According to ancient tradition, the mythical Roman founders Romulus and Remus were set adrift
on the Tiber river as infants, but were rescued and raised by a shepherd and his wife after the
twins eventually washed ashore (Cavendish, 2003). Whether or not this story is accepted as truth,
it does reflect the acceptance of adoption in the ancient world. Although contemporary
definitions of adoption describe a specific concept, Roman conceptions of adoption varied
drastically; Adoption could be formally recognized by the law, reflected in practices such as
adrogatio or adoptio, or informal arrangements, such as alumni, foster-parenting, or quasiadoptions (Bernstein, 2005; Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011; Dixon, 1992; Rawson, 1986). Just as
ancient Rome was instrumental in expanding the definition and practice of adoption, the presentday United States has become a substantial entity in further shaping modern adoption practices.
An analysis of adoption practices during both the ancient and contemporary eras is useful to
reveal how adoption changes over time. This study explores how men and women in both
ancient Rome and present-day U.S. decide to adopt, the primary purpose of the adoption,
procedural aspects, and any psychological or emotional effects accompanying the adoption.
Additional demographic information, including gender, age, and socioeconomic status, is
provided as points of comparison.

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

Literature Review
Family structures in ancient Rome appear to have been remarkably flexible. Frequent
divorces, deaths, and remarriages created a cultural conception of the family unit as a constantly
shifting entity; in this way, adoption was a natural extension of the nuclear family (Dixon, 1992).
In contrast, the family unit in U.S. culture has historically portrayed family as biologically
connected, and non-kinship adoption has been challenged and questioned on the basis of the
strength between adoptive parent and adoptee (March & Miall, 2000). A cultural context that
views families bound by legal and social ties, rather than blood relations, as second-rate or
inferior holds unique challenges. Although ancient Romans construction of family was viewed
as an elastic structure, constantly changing through biological and social expansions (Dixon,
1992), the contemporary U.S. family uses blood to symbolize membership and identity within
the unit. The overview of social implications relevant in contemporary U.S. adoptions provides
an opportunity to compare those present in ancient Roman adoptions.
Adoption in Ancient Rome
Ancient adoptions functionally comprise two categories formal and informal which
differ in terms of the purpose and demographic characteristics of members involved. Formal
adoptions were not created with the welfare of the adoptee in mind, but were generally motivated
by childless males need for a successor or heir (Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011). Two subcategories of
formal adoption include adoptio, which was used to describe the practice of adopting a minor,
and adrogatio, which describes the adoption of an independent Roman citizen (Grubbs &
Lindsay, 2011). Many sources present formal adoption as a politically and economically-

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

motivated practice, utilized most by the Roman elite (Simpson, 1996; Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011;
Dixon, 1992).
Much less information is available about informal adoption practices, which involved no
legal exchange of parental rights or other legal documentation. Phrases used to describe this
phenomenon refer to the practice as either quasi-adoptions, foster-parenting, or the system of
raising alumni. Similar to ancient formal adoptions, informal adoptions may have developed to
in response to childless citizens need for an heir. But since the process was not legally
recognized, inheritance may not have been as important a motivating factor as was providing a
home to a child in need or a psychological desire to expand the family (Bernstein, 2005).
Demographic characteristics of those in the ancient adoption triad (adoptive parents,
birth/biological parents, and adoptees) provide important background information and offer
suggestions about the possible purpose of the adoption. According to Dixon (1992), children
within the family unit were seen as an economic investment; they would provide care to elderly
parents, commemorate them after death, and be their parents successors (receive their
inheritance). However, none of these purposes required that the children be brought into the
family through biological means, so formal adoption was frequently utilized.
Dixon (1992) posits that all involved members of the formal adoption triad were
generally adults, educated, and male. Adoption entailed that a male heir could be transferred
from the power from the pater familias to an adoptive household. Specifically, ancient adoptees
were often young adult males, since high child mortality rates made adoption of children a risky
investment (Dixon, 1992; Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011). Adoptive parents were often childless male
relatives of the adoptees (Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011). Women were mostly excluded from the

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

practice of adoption, and were not legally required to be consulted about either accepting or
surrendering a male heir (Dixon, 1992). Females comprised only a small minority of adoptees,
since they did not hold important economic and political advantages that male heirs did (Grubbs
& Lindsay, 2011).
In contrast, members of the ancient informal adoption triad were often quite different
from those in the formal adoption triad in terms of demographic characteristics. Adoptees were
often born to parents of low socioeconomic status, and who may have been facing an unintended
pregnancy, and/or who found themselves unable to support or care for their biological offspring
(Rawson, 1986). Family planning methods in the classical world included contraceptive and
abortifacient methods, but access to these supplies was limited and often expensive (Lipsey,
Carlaw, & Bekar, 2005). As a result, infanticide was utilized in family planning decisions
(Lipsey, Carlaw, & Bekar, 2005). Rawson (1986) describes the practice of exposing a child to
the elements to either perish or to be found by foster-parents. Children who were found would be
raised with the assumption that they were foster children, but their biological parents might
return and pay the foster-parent a fee for the cost of raising the child (Rawson, 1986). In this
informal practice, adoptees are children, usually infants, who are taken in by older Roman
citizens. It is also important to note that the birth parents presumably are less prepared or able to
raise the child themselves than is the adoptive foster-parent, implying an economic, social, or
other disparity between birth and adoptive parent.
The ancient Roman practice of raising children know as alumni is also related to informal
adoption practice. Although information about alumni varies, Rawson (1986) presents this
population as minors who were raised by an older Roman citizen(s). Evidence suggests that
alumni could have been either free-born or slave children, either female or male, and who

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

benefitted from a parental relationship (although not legally recognized as such) with an older
adult (Rawson, 1986). Information about the birth parents of these children is scarce. For
children born to parents in slavery, biological heritage appears to be irrelevant since they become
the masters property upon birth (Rawson, 1986). In most forms of informal adoption, the
adoptee does not share a biological connection with the adoptive/foster-parent(s).
Following the decline of the Roman Empire, the practice of formal adoption
conspicuously disappeared. In Europe, pressure from religious and legal authorities cemented the
importance of biological lineage over socially constructed ones (Gager, 2014). The increasing
importance of bloodlines and biological connections coincided with the decline of formal
adoptions, which had been used by the Roman elite in order to appoint a successor (Dixon, 1992;
Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011). During this time, the incidence of abandoned children rose
considerably (Horn, 2004). In response, many churches opened their doors to orphans or
abandoned children, and bishops and priests fell into the role of caretaker for these children.
Institutions were established and expanded to meet the need of a burgeoning population of
abandoned children, for whom there was no other structural support systems (Gavitt, 2006; Horn,
2004). But, adoption practices were only temporarily dormant, and resurfaced in the United
States.
Adoption in Contemporary United States
Census information from 2010 revealed that adopted children comprise about 2.4% of the
total number of children 18 years and younger living in U.S. households (Kreider & Loftquist,
2014). Unlike ancient adoptions, when the formal adoption of extended family members was
practiced among the Roman elite (Grubbs & Lindsay 2011), formal U.S. adoptions rely heavily

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

on the adoption of non-biologically related individuals (March & Miall, 2000). Conversely,
informal adoption is still practiced in contemporary U.S., which usually includes biological
relatives (not the biological parents) taking on the parental role of a minor(s) without legal
recognition of that relationship and no formal guardianship assumed (Vandivere, Malm, & Radel,
2007; Stoley, 1993). But, resources documenting contemporary informal adoption are scarce, and
further discussion of U.S. adoption will include only formal, legally recognized adoptions.
Adoptees can be minors or adults, either male or female, who usually do not share
biological connections with their adoptive parents (Kreider & Loftquist, 2014). Adoptive parents
are more likely to have higher educational attainment and household income as compared to the
national averages (Kreider & Loftquist, 2014; Vandivere, Malm, & Radel, 2009). Adoption is
most commonly pursued by individuals ages 35 44, and adoptions by parents under 30 years of
age is relatively uncommon (United Nations, 2010). Similar to ancient informal adoptions,
demographic characteristics of birth parents who voluntarily relinquish are difficult to obtain.
Available evidence suggests that birth mothers are likely to be young (under the age of 21),
unmarried, and lack financial or social support from their partner or family (United Nations,
2010). Like ancient informal adoptions, there is often an economic and social disparity between
adoptive and birth parents.
The reasons for pursuing the adoption also differs in contemporary U.S. adoptions. The
three most commonly reported reasons for pursuing an adoption includes: desire to provide a
permanent home for a child in need, wish to expand family, and infertility (Vandivere, Malm, &
Radel, 2009). Given that U.S. culture has historically portrayed family as biologically connected,
non-kinship adoption has been challenged and questioned on the basis of strength and social
connectedness.

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

Method
Three case studies, representing formal and informal adoptions from the ancient era and
formal adoption in the contemporary era, will be presented and compared. This study takes an
intensive approach to comparative analysis using events that form historical patterns. Cases were
selected using a convenience sample of secondary resources, and case study information is both
easily accessible and thought to be representative of the type of adoption embodied. Particular
attention is paid to the meaning of the adoption in regards to the adoptive parent, procedural
aspects, psychological or emotional feelings towards the adopted child, and key demographic
considerations (age, SES, and gender).
Augustus adoption of Gaius and Lucius Caesar
At the age of 46, Augustus had parented only one biological child, Julia, and now needed
a male successor to whom he could entrust his empire. Like many Roman elite, Augustus chose
to expand his family through adoption, and in doing so, handpick his successor. These successors
came in the form of two sons born to Marcus Agrippa and Julia: Gaius Caesar and Lucius
Caesar, who were adopted by their maternal grandfather in the year 17 B.C.E. At the time of the
adoption, Gaius was three years old and Lucius would have been only an infant.
Scholars have remarked how unusual the adoption was for two reasons: a) the young age
of the children and b) the decision to adopt Agrippas sons instead of Agrippa himself. Some
sources posit that the adoption was used as a politically motivated slight, where Agrippa was
eliminated as a potential successor and also ended his lineage (Simpson, 1996). Simpson (1996)
argues that Augustuss adoption of both of Agrippas young sons was a politically motivated

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

10

decision to ensure that Agrippas lineage would never threaten his own. In doing so, Agrippa was
left without a male heir.
Simpson (1996) rests his argument on the fact that both of Agrippas heirs were adopted,
which appears a mean-spirited attempt to dismantle the gens Vipsania lineage. Other scholars
assert that the adoption would have honored Agrippa, rather than diminish him (Stevenson,
2013). Stevenson (2013) posits that Augustuss adoption of his two grandchildren was not
performed to prevent Agrippa from achieving greater political power, but instead brought him
closer to Augustus.
Sadly, both adoptees died in young adulthood; Lucius in 2 C.E. and Gaius in 4 C.E.
(Simpson, 1996). In the same year that Gaius passed away, Augustus chose to adopt the last
living heir of Agrippa, Agrippa Postumus, who was then 16 years old. But, Postumus was
strongly disliked by many and exiled within four years of the adoption for unspecified reasons.
Tiberius, Augustus step-son through his second wife, was adopted and became the alternative
plan for successor. But according to Augustus will, Tiberius was not the preferred heir. Augustus
wrote, Since cruel fortune has deprived me of my grandsons Gaius and Lucius, Tiberius shall be
my heir (cited in Simpson, 1996). This sentiment reflects his sadness at the loss of his presumed
successors and acknowledges them by their blood relation to him instead of legal relations (use
of grandsons instead of sons). It is also important to note that Postumus was passed over as heir
because of his unpleasant behavior, although he was biologically related to Augustus, in favor of
a non-biologically related successor.
The adoptions of Gaius, Lucius, and Agrippa Postumus were representative of ancient
formal adoptions in many ways: both families were among the wealthy and powerful elite, the

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

11

arrangement involved only males (Dixon, 1992), and was incited by the need for a male heir
(Grubbs & Lindsay, 2011). The adoptions of Gaius and Lucius were considered unusual in that
both were young children at the time of the adoption; the adoption of Agrippa Postumus at age
16 would have been more typical. The relationship between blood lineage and succession is
revealed to be a complicated structure; although kinship succession appears to be preferred,
social factors are also considered.
Atedius Meliors adoption of Glaucias
In Statius Silvae 2.1, a Roman citizen, Atedius Melior, freed and informally adopted a
slave child, Glaucias, whom he raised and referred to as his own son. When Glaucias passed
away unexpectedly at the young age of 12, Melior responds with grief and chronicles the great
love and closeness he felt with his alumnus and adopted son. Melior had raised Glaucias from
the time of his birth, and even provided him with an education. Statius writes,
As soon as you [Glaucias] were snatched from the womb and saluted the bright stars
with your first cry, the exultant master [Melior] raised you up and in his mind he sealed
you for his own and embraced you to his breast and credited himself with having
engendered you. cited in Bernstein, 2005
Glaucias funeral is lavishly ornamented and expensively decorated, a testament to the
high economic and social status Melior possessed. Melior had no other children, and Bernstein
(2005) speculates that Melior might have named Glaucias as his successor if he had outlived
him.
Although Glaucias was formerly named as Meliors alumnus, the loving nature of their
relationship have prompted some scholars to coin the term quasi-adoption to define the Roman

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

12

bond in which affection and familial connections are made between an unrelated parent-figure
and child, yet no formal, legal adoption act has taken place (Bernstein, 2005). Quasi-adoptions
were often pursued in order to fulfill a need for family relationships and a desire to expand the
family through adoption (Bernstein, 2005). In this instance, Melior had no children (biological or
adopted) of his own, and presumably adopted Glaucias out of the desire to become a parent.
In many ways, the tale is descriptive of typical ancient informal adoptions. Adoption of
alumni usually occurred between two unrelated individuals, where the adoptee was younger and
of a lower economic and social status than the adoptive parent (Rawson, 1986). While it is
briefly mentioned that Glaucias birth parents are alive and among Meliors other freedmen, they
are missing from most of the narrative and somewhat treated as irrelevant entities (Bernstein,
2005). Although the needs and desires of the adoptive father are presented as paramount to those
of the adopted child and his birth parents, the economic and social status of Glaucias undeniably
improved upon the adoption. Unlike formal adoptions, this quasi-adoption considered the
welfare of the child in an indirect way.
Jim and Dianas adoption of Hayley
U.S. couple Jim and Diana first considered adoption after concerns with infertility (Harm,
2004). After completing a battery of fertility drugs and treatments, the couple faced a critical
decision: whether to pursue artificial insemination, adoption, or to remain childless. Both felt a
sense of loss and grief over the probability that they would never parent biological children. Over
time, their desire to have children grew, and initial fears about adoption (e.g., uncertainty,
financial cost, parental insecurity) were slowly outweighed by this desire. Adoption was pursued

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

13

as a means to achieving the goal of becoming parents. According to Harm (2004), Diana said,
There's more to life than having children, but being a mom was simply what I wanted to do.
An Internet search revealed an adoption agency in their home state, who handled the
adoption process. Part of this process involved conducting a home study, which was undertaken
by the agency to ensure that the prospective parents could provide a safe and loving environment
for a child. They also created a profile, detailing their reasons for pursuing adoption and
biographical information about their family, which would be viewed by birth parents (i.e.,
parents who relinquish parental rights). Jim and Diana reported that the period between the home
study and being matched with a child was emotionally challenging, due in part to the uncertainty
of when and if they would be selected. This wait lasted 10 months. Even after being selected, the
couple experienced anxiety that the birth mother would change her mind and decide to parent.
One month later their daughter, Hayley, was born. Jim and Diana came to visit her in the
hospital just hours after her birth. Reported by Harm (2004), Diana says, I took one look at her
and knew immediately she was ours. While Jim and Dianas adoption process was filled with
challenges and held negative psychological effects, the end result brought relief and joy. The
couple agreed to maintain contact with the birth mother, which included sending letters, pictures,
and yearly visits.
Jim and Dianas story follows typical narratives of adoption in the U.S. The couple
decides the pursue adoption after fertility concerns. Although biological expansion is impossible,
the desire to become parents is paramount, and adoption is a means to achieve that goal
(Vandivere, Malm, & Radel, 2009). Unlike ancient adoptions, the welfare of the adopted child is
directly considered through moderation by an adoption agency. Similar to Daniluk & Hurtig-

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

14

Mitchell (2003), the expectant parents reported psychological distress in response to uncertainty
and powerlessness in the adoption process, followed by relief and pride in the family they had
created.
Findings
Ancient formal and Contemporary formal
Results of a comparison analysis using Augustus adoption of his grandsons and Jim and
Dianas adoption of Hayley reveal some expected and some unexpected findings. The primary
purpose of the adoptions differed in each case: while Augustus adoptions were most likely
motivated by political or economic reasons, Jim and Diana pursued adoption out of a desire to
expand their family. Procedural aspects were similar in that both households of the adoptive and
birth parents came to an agreement regarding the transfer of parental rights, but differed in that
an adoption agency was involved with the contemporary adoption, which ensured the future
welfare of the adopted child. Psychological effects directly related to the adoption were much
more evident in the contemporary adoption, and included distress during the process but relief
and pride after finalization. In his will, Augustus expresses grief at the untimely death of his
heirs, Gaius and Lucius, but it is unclear whether his dismay is due to the loss of his potential
successors or the loss of loved ones. The lack of psychological effects observed in the formal
adoption case study might be due to a paucity of information about these intimate details into
Augustuss life.
Demographic items for each case study are also revealing of the adoptions purpose. The
ancient formal adoptions included only males; the male adoptees passed from the power of one
father (Agrippa) into the power of another (Augustus) without necessary interventions by women

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

15

of either household. The fact that Augustus chose to adopt boys an young men was indicative of
the purpose of the adoption as a method of choosing a successor. Since women could not hold
political office during this period (Frier & McGinn, 2004), there would be no need to adopt
females for reasons of political succession or inheritance.
In contrast, females play an instrumental role in the contemporary adoption: both
husband and wife work in tandem to pursue the adoption, the birth mother is able to select the
parent(s) of her choosing, and the adoptee is also female. The gender distribution of adoptees in
the U.S. is almost equally divided (males = 49%; Vandivere, Malm, & Radel, 2009). Unlike
ancient Rome, females living in the U.S. contemporary period are afforded greater individual
rights, allowing for political and economic freedoms and possibly contributing towards increased
participation in adoption practices. The age of adoptee at time of the adoption was similar across
both case studies, but, as Simpson (1996) notes, the young age of Gaius and Lucius was atypical
of ancient formal adoptions. A high infant mortality rate and maturity/readiness to assume
expected duties were among the reasons for delaying adoption. Age at time of adoption can also
be linked to the purpose for the adoption: since the purpose of the contemporary case study was
to parent, adopting an individual as an infant maximizes parenting years.
Ancient informal and Contemporary formal
Comparative analysis results using the stories of Melior and Glaucias and Jim, Diana, and
Hayley reveal striking similarities, despite different legal recognitions of the adoption. The
primary purpose for the adoptions were quite alike, and included the inability to produce
biological children (due to circumstance or infertility) and desire to parent. Since Meliors
adoption was not legally recognized, scholars speculate whether Glaucias could inherit his

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

16

adoptive fathers estate. In Meliors case, the lack of legally recognized guardianship gave
greater importance to the social connection between himself and Glaucias. In both stories, the
parents referred to the adopted child as their son or daughter. The immediate emotional
connection between parent and child upon first meeting is remarkably similar in both cases.
Differences in psychological effects due to the adoption process may reflect differences in
adoption procedures: unlike Jim and Dianas process, the highly informal process Melior
experienced did not involve assessment procedures or a waiting period which proved to be a
cause of psychological distress and anxiety in the contemporary adoption model. Overall, both
adoptions engendered feelings of parenthood and love for the child.
Both children were adopted their children as newborns. Since the purpose of both
adoptions were similar in that parenthood was a goal, infant adoption allowed the adoptive
parents to have more time with their children. The gender of the adopted children differed, and
females were included in the contemporary adoption. Socioeconomic status differed greatly
between Melior and Glaucias, but welfare for the adopted child did not appear to be a prominent
motivating factor for the adoption. Socioeconomic status was not directly reported in the
contemporary adoption case, so it cannot be compared to the ancient case study. But, since the
birth parents in this case chose to surrender parental rights, it can be inferred that they lacked
some resource(s) instrumental to raising the child (e.g., time, financial resources, social support,
desire to parent, etc.) that the adoptive parents possessed.
Discussion
This study sought to investigate how the construct of adoption changes and remains static
over time. Three case studies were presented, representing stories of formal and informal

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

17

adoption in the ancient period, and formal adoption in the contemporary period. The cases from
each period were selected through a convenience sample of secondary sources, which include
scholarly articles and magazine articles. Findings from this study indicate striking resemblances
between ancient informal and contemporary formal adoptions in regards to purpose for the
adoption, emotional and psychological effects after the adoption, and age demographic
characteristics. Ancient formal and contemporary formal adoptions were similar only in the
legality of the adoption procedure and ongoing connection with the childs family of origin.
In light of this evidence, it is suggested that one of the purposes for pursing adoption in the
ancient era is still relevant to contemporary adoptions. Although the development of reproductive
technologies such as in-vitro fertilization, embryo surrogacy, and artificial insemination increase
options for individuals or couples experiencing difficulty or inability to conceive, adoption
continues to be utilized as a remedy to involuntary childlessness (Daniluk & Hurtig-Mitchell,
2003). The desire to create or expand a family and experience parenthood is a relevant
phenomenon in the contemporary period. But, the legal recognition of parenthood through
adoption in the modern era has been implemented only in the past 150 years (Herman, 2012).
Future research might investigate the role of social context on legal recognition of parenthood.

In the ancient period, adoption was needed to supply childless males with male heirs to
inherit political or economic benefits. In the contemporary era, U.S. political systems are not
formally based on familial inheritance, decreasing the need for adoptions inspired by reasons of
succession. The increase in female participation in contemporary adoption practices might reflect
greater individual rights and freedoms.

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

18

Several important limitations on the current study should be discussed. First, the brevity of
ancient sources leaves much to be interpreted. These interpretations are influenced by cultural
and social factors of the reader, leading to multiple interpretations over time. For the same
reason, contemporary adoption practices may be more approachable since the cultural context is
familiar. Finally, a limited sample size reduces generalizability. As noted, each of the case studies
was found to be representative of the type of adoption it embodied, but no adoption is exactly
identical. Therefore, each was unique in some way.

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

19

References
Bernstein, N. W. (2005). Mourning the puer delicatus: Status inconsistency and the ethical value
of fostering in statius, silvae 2.1. American Journal of Philology, 126(2), 257-280.
Cavendish, R. (2003). The foundation of rome. History Today, 53(4), 54-55.
Daniluk, J. C. & Hurtig-Mitchell, J. (2003). Themes of hope and healing: Infertile couples
experiences of adoption. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(4): 389 399.
Dixon, S. (1992). The roman family. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frier, B. W. & McGinn, T. A. J. (2004). A casebook on roman family law. Oxford University
Press: American Philological Association.
Gager, K. E. (2014). Blood ties and fictive ties: Adoption and family life in early modern france.
Princeton University Press.
Gavitt, P. (2006). Abandoned children of the italian renaissance: Orphan care in florence and
bologna. Renaissance Quarterly,59(3), 849-851.
Grubbs, J. E., & Lindsay, H. (2011). Adoption in the roman world. The Classical Review, 61(1),
229-231.
Harm, L. S. (2004, June). A simple adoption story. American Baby, n.p.
Herman, E. (2012). Timeling of adoption history. Retrieved from
http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/timeline.html
Horn, C. B. (2004). The orphans of byzantium: Child welfare in the christian empire. Journal of
Early Christian Studies, 12(1), 135-137.

PAST AND PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF ADOPTION

20

Kreider, R. M., & Lofquist, D. A. (2014). Adopted children and step-children: 2010. Retrieved
from www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf
Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K., & Bekar, C. (2005). Historical record on the control of family size.
Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic
Growth. Oxford University Press.
March, K., & Miall, C. (2000). Adoption as a family form. Family Relations, 49(4), 359.
Rawson, B. (1986). Children in the roman familia. In B. Rawson (Ed.) The family in ancient
rome new perspectives (170 200). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Simpson, C. J. (1996). Legal restriction and excusable elitism. Brief comments on the adoptions
of 17 BC and AD 4. Mnemosyne, 4(49), 328 334.
Stevenson, T. (2013). The succession planning of augustus. Antichthon, 47, 118 139.
Stolley, K. S. (1993). Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children, 3(1), 26
42.
United Nations (2010). Child adoption: Trends and policies. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/adoption2010/child_adoption.pdf
Vandivere, S., Malm, K., & Radel, L. (2009). Adoption USA: A chartbook based on the 2007
national survey of adoptive parents. Washington, D.C.: The U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.