Museum displays of Roman building material tend to be badly labelled and quickly walked past. A broken lump of wall behind glass with a card reading “concrete, 2nd century AD” gives a visitor nothing. Which is a shame, because the cut face of that lump contains most of the answer to why Roman structures are still standing.

Here is what to look for when you find one.

The wall is a sandwich, and the pretty part is the formwork

The single most common misreading is treating the visible facing as the wall. It is not. Roman walls of this type consist of a thick core of mortar and rubble, faced on both sides with a thinner skin of stone or brick that served as permanent shuttering during construction and as a finished surface afterwards.

A blacksmith, a stable boy, a soldier, a slave. These are the sort of people who almost never survive in the historical record — no monuments, no inscriptions, no chroniclers. A new exhibition at the Aquincum Museum in Budapest gives them their faces back. Titled “Once we were like you,” it runs until October 31 and puts visitors eye-to-eye with the ordinary inhabitants of a Roman city that stood on the empire’s northern edge nearly two thousand years ago.

The Roman public latrine is one of the few structures from antiquity that still makes modern visitors physically uncomfortable. A long stone bench, twenty or more keyhole-shaped openings cut into it at close intervals, no partitions, no doors, and a shallow water channel running along the floor at the feet of everyone seated. It looks less like a bathroom than like a piece of civic furniture — which is precisely what it was.

There is a moment, approaching the Pont du Gard from the riverbank below, when the structure stops looking ancient and starts looking inevitable. Three tiers of limestone arches rising 49 meters above the Gardon river in southern France, built without mortar, without iron clamps, without any binding agent beyond the weight of precisely cut stone on stone. It was constructed around 50 CE to carry water 50 kilometers from springs near Uzès to the Roman colony of Nemausus — modern Nîmes. It has been standing for nearly two thousand years. It looks like it intends to stand for two thousand more.

Rome’s reputation for hydraulic sophistication rests almost entirely on what came in. The aqueducts are celebrated, documented, still standing in fragments across three continents. What went out receives less attention — which is itself a Roman attitude, one the city encoded in both its architecture and its social hierarchy. The removal of waste was essential, constant, and largely invisible, performed by people the Latin sources named only when something went wrong.

The Starz series Spartacus arrived in 2010 with a visual style so aggressively stylized — slow-motion combat, digitally saturated color, blood that moves through the air with the deliberate beauty of a special effect — that critics spent their first reviews debating whether it was art or exploitation before most of them had noticed what was actually happening in the story. What was happening was more interesting than the style wars suggested: a show about Roman slavery that took the institution seriously, a gladiatorial drama that understood what the arena was and what it cost, and a protagonist whose journey from Thracian warrior to rebel general was built on genuine dramatic logic rather than franchise mechanics.

The Starz series Spartacus: Blood and Sand, which premiered in 2010 and ran for three seasons plus a prequel miniseries, was not trying to be HBO’s Rome. It was trying to be 300 with a continuing narrative, and within those self-defined limits it largely succeeded. The historical record of the Third Servile War provided the scaffolding; everything else was constructed from the materials of a production that prioritized stylized violence, explicit sexuality, and operatic emotion over archaeological fidelity. The question is whether that constitutes a failure, and the answer depends on what you expected the show to be.