Archaeolog

Figurines are a ubiquitous class of archaeological artifact. As a result, much has been written about them and, more importantly, what, if anything, they can tell us about the cultures that produced them. Anthropomorphic figurines, in particular, entice us with a promise of human self-awareness, encoding cognition in the modeling and representation of the human form (Hamilton 1996). In recent decades, since Ucko’s (1962) seminal article refuting the traditional interpretation of all female figurines in relation to a universal “Mother Goddess”, many scholars have addressed the issue of understanding figurines in their specific cultural-historical context. Indeed, as Bailey has written, “seen in terms of the relationship between humanity and the world, figurines are an institution for defining, expressing, claiming and legitimating one’s own identity or for suggesting and realigning the identity of others” (1996: 294). Most scholars, however, have focused on one or two aspects of figurine studies: the importance of specific contexts or their site-specificity (e.g. Marcus’ work with Oaxacan Formative period figurines (1996, 1998)), or issues related to the body, gender, identity, etc. What is left, though, when these approaches cannot take into account the associations with other data and the contingencies of recovery? My concern is with anthropomorphic figurines from extra-urban ritual sites on Crete in the Bronze Age. My question, given issues of associations and contingency in retrieval, is what can we do with them?

Continue reading "What to Do with Figurines? A case from Crete" »

Posted by Elissa Z. Faro at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Fig. 1 Ba'al stela from Ugarit-Ras Shamra, H. 142 cm, c. 18th-15th c. BCE, Musee du Louvre, AO 15775

That Hannibal was a great strategist, unpredictable himself yet often able to predict his enemies’ actions, has been long appreciated. This is usually all one needs to know as an answer to why Hannibal crossed the Alps. Because the Romans under Publius Cornelius Scipio at Massalia guarded the coastal route to Italy hemmed in by the Alpes Maritimes, Hannibal did the one thing for which the Romans were most unprepared, not being fond of mountains themselves as Hyde maintained, (1) and thinking themselves protected from such unlikely incursions such as Hannibal and his army made, entering Italy through the “fortress” Alps. Naturally, the Celts allied to Hannibal in and around the Alps would also be more useful if he avoided the narrow coastal corridor where Roman might and influence held sway.

But are these the only background reasons to consider when asking why Hannibal would cross the Alps? I would argue that Hannibal was predisposed to crossing the Alps for added possible philosophical reasons the practical Romans would have barely understood, hence their likely silence on this because their own names were not generally theophoric, and usually unrelated to their gods, unlike the Carthaginians and many other cultures in the Ancient Near East. Here it is important to consider Hannibal’s very name and personal history to be important as a more subtle but nonetheless substantial incentive or at least mitigating factor for crossing the Alps. There are also connections to Punic religious tradition that make more sense in reference to this possibility.

Continue reading "Hannibal Barca's Theophoric Destiny and the Alps " »

Posted by Patrick Hunt at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)