"The blue monkeys painted on the walls of Akrotiri on the Greek island of Santorini are among many animals found in the frescoes of this 3,600-year-old city. Historians have studied the murals for decades since they were unearthed in the 1960s and 1970s on the island, which was once known as Thera. But when we and a team of other primatologists recently examined the paintings, we realized the monkeys could provide a clue that the Bronze Age world was much more globalized than previously thought." Source: Phys.org.
"Archaeologists had assumed the monkeys were an African species, with which the Aegean people that built Akrotiri probably came into contact via trade links with Egypt. But we think the paintings actually depict Hanuman langurs, a species from the Indian subcontinent. This suggests the Aegean people, who came from Crete and the Cycladic islands in the Aegean Sea, may have had trade routes that reached over 2,500 miles."
The prehistoric town of Akrotiri, Greece.
Note: "Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3500–1100 B.C.) wall paintings from the islands of Crete and Thera depict monkeys in a variety of roles such as running wild in nature, possibly following (trained) commands, and participating in sacred activities. These images, while stylistically Aegean, are traditionally considered closely related to—and descendant from—Egyptian, Near Eastern, and Mesopotamian monkey imagery. While monkey depictions in the latter regions may provide species-specific characteristics, Aegean wall paintings typically lack this level of detail." Source: A new identification of the monkeys depicted in a Bronze Age wall painting from Akrotiri, Thera.
"Japanese researchers plan to bombard the Great Pyramid of Giza outside Cairo with cosmic rays to confirm if there is a mysterious internal 'chamber' that a previous survey detected." Source: Archaeology News Network.
"The team from Kyushu University expects to arrive in Egypt soon to scan the massive structure, built around 2500 B.C. and believed to be the tomb for the pharaoh Khufu.
"'The previously discovered cavity is way too large from an archaeological perspective,' said Sakuji Yoshimura, who heads the overall research project involving other universities. 'We are very keen to verify the findings.'"
Note: This hidden chamber is the so-called Big Void discovered in 2017. According to Wikipedia, "its existence was confirmed by independent detection with three different technologies: nuclear emulsion films, scintillatorhodoscopes, and gas detectors." The Japanese team disputes the theory that the Void is some kind of construction space left behind when the pyramid was built and plan to confirm its existence using "a newly developed muon detector."
Notes: Cybele may have evolved from an even older fertility goddess in the proto-city of Catalhoyuk (7500-5700 BC), also located in ancient Anatolia. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD, 3rd ed. revised), Cybele was "the great mother-goddess of Anatolia, associated in myth, and later at least in cult, with her youthful lover Attis. Pessinus in Phyrgia was her chief sanctuary, and the cult appears at an early date in Lydia."
According to Theoi Greek Mythology, "Kybele (Cybele) was the ancient Phrygian Mother of the Gods, a primal nature goddess worshiped with orgiastic rites in the mountains of central and western Anatolia. The Greeks identified her with their own mother of the gods--the Titaness Rhea."
The cult of Cybele was apparently introduced fairly early (3rd cent. BC) in Rome. "Thanks to its official status and early naturalization in Rome and in Ostia, the cult spread rapidly through the provinces, especially in Gaul and Africa, and was readily accepted as a municipal cult. Its agrarian character made it more popular with the fixed populations than with the soldiers, and it was especially favored by women." (OCD)
Cybele was also known as the Magna Mater or Great Mother (1). According to The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Ancient Texts, edited by Marvin W. Meyer (p.113), "she was honored as the mother goddess of fertility, but her particular power was evidenced in the wilds of the untamed forests and mountains." After Cybele entered the official Roman pantheon, "she was to function practically as a Roman national goddess" and enjoyed great favor with the emperors starting with Claudius in the first century.
(1) Several other goddesses were also referred to as "Great Mother."
"The most well-known Roman festival in honor of the Anatolian deities [Cybele and her consort Attis] was celebrated in the spring, during March," according to The Ancient Mysteries (p.114). These rites were associated with violent religious frenzy. "March 24 was aptly named The Day of Blood. On this day some of the fanatical celebrants flogged themselves until they bled and sprinkled their blood upon the image and altars in the sanctuary, while others are said to have imitated Attis by castrating themselves." (Ibid) Bulls were also sacrificed in honor of the Great Mother of the Gods.
Several Roman historians and poets described the cult of Cybele in detail. Livy, for instance, described how the cult was first brought to Rome in his History of Rome (Book 29.10-14):
"About this time a sudden wave of superstition swept over Rome. The Sibylline Books had been consulted because it had rained stones that year more than usual [!], and in the Books a prophecy was found that if ever a foreign enemy should invade Italy, he could be defeated and driven out if Cybele, The Idaean Mother of the Gods, were brought from Pessinus to Rome." (Ibid, p. 121).
Christian writers denounced the cult of Cybele and the church banned it altogether when they gained the secular power required to force their intolerant monotheism on the pagan world, but the tradition of the Great Mother still survives in the figure of the Virgin Mary.
Was Nero the victim of an ancient smear campaign? Of course he was. Just to take one example, the famous story that he set fire to Rome and then played the lyre while watching the city burn is an obvious fabrication.
Here's the Roman historian Suetonius's description of what happened:
"Pretending to be disgusted by the drab old buildings and narrow, winding streets of Rome, he brazenly set fire to the city; and though a group of ex-consuls caught his attendants, armed with tow and blazing torches, trespassing on their property, they dared not interfere. He also coveted the sites of several granaries, solidly built in stone, near the Golden House; having knocked down their walls with siege-engines, he set the interiors ablaze. This terror lasted for six days and seven nights, causing many people to take shelter in monuments and tombs. Nero's men destroyed not only a vast number of apartment blocks, but mansions which had belonged to famous generals and were still decorated with their triumphal trophies; temples, too, vowed and dedicated by the kings, and others during the Punic and Gallic wars -- in fact, every ancient monument of historical interest that had hitherto survived. Nero watched the conflagration from the Tower of Maecenas, enraptured by what he called 'the beauty of the flames'; then put on his tragedian's costume and sang The Sack of Ilium from beginning to end." -- from "Nero", paragraph 38, Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars.
This is an entertaining story, but it's pure fiction. In fact, this account of Nero's crime is so outlandish that it's almost comical.
Just think about it. According to Suetonius and other sources, Nero sent his flunkies out to burn the city because he wanted to clear land to build his Golden Palace, aka the Domus Aurea, a "vast landscaped palace ... in the heart of Rome." (Wikipedia) This would be like an American president sending out his personal staff to burn down the neighborhoods around the White House so he could build a gigantic complex of mansions and pleasure gardens.
Nero's men weren't subtle about their arson, either. If Suetonius is to be believed, they ran completely amok for six days and seven nights, using siege engines to knock down walls and torching apartment blocks and other buildings that were presumably swarming with people. The chaos and panic this would have caused can easily be imagined. That would be bad enough, of course, but Nero also destroyed monuments and tombs and temples and "mansions which had belonged to famous generals."
This wholesale destruction would attract some attention, to say the least.
Rome was a big city at the time, but it wasn't that big and Nero's orgy of destruction supposedly went on for an entire week, right out in the open. Everybody would have known what was happening and who was responsible. According to Suetonius, a group of ex-consuls, no less, caught Nero's men setting fires but were afraid to do anything about it. In other words, they knew who the arsonists worked for.
The point is that none of this was a secret. When it was all over, everyone from the patricians in the Roman government to the ordinary plebs on the street would have known that Nero was responsible. He would have been universally condemned, but that isn't what happened:
"The Great Fire of Rome was an urban fire in July of the year AD 64. It caused widespread devastation in the city on 19 July, before being brought under control after six days. Differing accounts [emphasis added] either blame Emperor Nero for initiating the fire or credit him with organizing measures to contain it and provide relief for refugees." Wikipedia.
Why would there be differing accounts of what happened if Suetonius's version of events is correct? Remember, some of Nero's arsonists were supposedly caught in the act. This wasn't a covert operation. If Nero really did order his people to "brazenly" attack and burn his own city, it wasn't exactly deniable.
Nero himself was in Antium when the fire started. According to Wikipedia, "[h]e returned to the city and took measures to bring in food supplies and open gardens and public buildings to accommodate refugees." Curiously, he wasn't lynched on the spot after committing such an atrocity. On the contrary, he was given credit, at least in some sources, for his relief efforts.
Nero, like Caligula, was the victim of an ancient smear campaign, but that doesn't mean he was a particularly good emperor. He wasn't, but even though Rome apparently rejoiced at his death (according to Suetonius), he was still popular with part of the population when he was finally overthrown and murdered during the revolt of Vindex and Galba in 68 AD. Even Seutonius concedes as much:
"...there were people who used to lay spring and summer flowers on his grave for a long time, and had statues made of him, wearing his fringed toga, which they put up on the Rostra; they even continued to circulate his edicts, pretending he was still alive and would soon return to confound his enemies. What is more, King Vologaesus of Parthia, on sending ambassadors to ratify his alliance with Rome, particularly requested the Senate to honor Nero's memory. In fact, twenty years later, when I was a young man, a mysterious individual came forward claiming to be Nero; and so magical was the sound of his name in the Parthians' ears that they supported him to the best of their ability, and only handed him over with great reluctance." -- "Nero," from paragraph 57.
People don't usually put up statues to honor deranged lunatics who attack and burn their own capital cities. For the real story, at least as far as it can be reconstructed, check out The Great Fire of Rome by Stephen Dando-Collins. Highly recommended.
The Arch Of Titus is a classic example of ancient Roman propaganda. The arch, with its scenes of Roman legions triumphing over Jewish rebels, was designed to glorify not only Titus, but the empire itself and by extension it's rulers. Titus, an effective and popular leader, didn't live very long and was succeeded by his brother Domitian, who was widely despised as a tyrant (the historian Tacitus hated him). By completing the Arch of Titus, Domitian was probably making an attempt to share in his brother's reflected glory.
The arch is an example of visual propaganda. The use of monumental architecture, inscriptions, sculptures, public spectacles and so on was necessary in a society where most people were illiterate. Literacy rates are higher today, but most people don't read so the use of imagery is still critical for controlling the masses.
Modern governments use various techniques to spread their message, but video is probably the most important. Some examples would be the release of "smart bomb" videos during the Gulf Wars and the staged footage of American soldiers toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein. The Romans didn't have TV or film, so they used sculpture and monuments instead. The effect, however, would have been about the same.
If immortality means that people remember your name, then the "mad Roman emperor" Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, more commonly known as Caligula, is definitely immortal. Everybody's heard of him even if they've never cracked a history book, which just goes to show that being a "good ruler" doesn't necessarily guarantee that your name will go down in posterity. Moral, competent leaders come and go, fading into obscurity, but villains like Caligula live on forever in movies, plays, novels and TV productions. The only problem is that most of what we think we know about Caligula -- the long litany of crimes that make him so famous -- probably isn't true.
Caligula is the most notorious Roman emperor, with a reputation for insanity, cruelty and sexual depravity based almost completely on his depiction in the media and in absurd sensationalized films like Bob Guccione's pornographic Caligula, one of the vilest, most degenerate and unhistorical movies I've ever seen. This image of Caligula as an insane emperor is so ingrained in popular culture that most people would automatically reject the idea that it's probably not accurate.
If you're interested in actual history instead of lurid Hollywood pseudo-history, you should read "Caligula: The Corruption of Power" by Anthony A. Barrett. One of the interesting things you'll learn from this fantastic revisionist biography is that everything we know about Caligula is based on just a few biased and generally unreliable ancient sources:
"The quintessential mad despot, Caligula had inspired plays, films, several series for television. Yet while the public at large seems to find him irresistible, academic biographers have tended to give him a wide berth. Nor is this surprising. The loss of the relevant books of the most important ancient commentator on the Julio-Claudian period, the historian Tacitus, means that we have to rely for our information on markedly inferior sources, in particular the late historian Dio and the biographer Suetonius." -- Caligula: The Corruption of Power, Barrett, 1989, p. xv, Forward.
In other words, we don't know nearly as much about Caligula as we think we do. Most of his image is a masturbatory Hollywood concoction based very loosely on a few unreliable ancient sources. If you read those sources, then read Barrett, a hazy but very different picture of who he actually was starts to emerge.
Image based on period portraits and sculpture.
I don't have the time or space to get into all the details here, but if Barrett is correct, it would appear that Caligula was the victim of an ancient smear campaign designed to justify his assassination to the masses and bolster the reputation of his successor, Claudius. (Note: that's my own conclusion, not Barrett's). For instance, Suetonius' admittedly entertaining biography of Caligula is an obvious hit piece accusing him of the most outlandish crimes and atrocities, including incest with his sister, but as far as that last charge goes, it was common in Roman politics to accuse your political enemies of all kinds of sexual degeneracy. Spreading malicious rumors for political purposes isn't a modern invention.
Even Suetonius' biography isn't completely negative, however. Caligula is described as a fairly competent, though inexperienced, ruler who later turned into a "monster" for some unknown reason. The impression I get from reading Barrett and Suetonius is that Caligula wasn't really interested in running the empire; like Nero, he was much more interested in the arts, especially acting, music and singing, tastes which would have made him appear effeminate and decadent in the eyes of the elite. Early in his reign, he became seriously ill and Suetonius implies that his sickness may have unhinged his mind. Even if that's true, however, many of the crimes he is accused of are unbelievable and almost certainly never happened.
Caligula had his vices, no doubt, but even if they were exaggerated (or concocted) by ancient propagandists like Suetonius, that doesn't mean that he was actually a good emperor living a chaste and moral life. He wasn't, but it's doubtful if he would have been smeared so viciously if something else hadn't been going on. The fact that he was brutally assassinated by his own Praetorians after a few short years in power shows that he had made powerful enemies among the ruling elites.
A coin depicting Gaius Caligula.
Caligula was the victim of a political conspiracy. That's a historical fact. We'll never know for sure because of the scarcity and anecdotal nature of the sources, but it appears that he was murdered because he tried to eliminate the political enemies he suspected (with justification) were trying to get rid of him. In other words, they killed him before he could kill them, a common scenario in ancient and medieval monarchies. If Caligula was paranoid, he probably had good reason.
After his murder, his enemies had to justify his assassination to the people, who apparently had a great deal of affection for this "cruel tyrant:"
"Caligula began his reign as the darling of the masses--Suetonius speaks of the immensus civium amor ('the massive affection of his fellow-citizens'). It also seems clear that he stayed popular with the ordinary people right up to the end, and indeed their reaction to the news of his death seems to have caused the sources some embarrassment." -- Caligula: The Corruption Of Power, Barrett, p. 229
Caligula was popular with the masses (1). This is critical. His murder--and the murder of his family--had to be justified to the people and the best way to do that was to portray him as an insane monster who had to be put down like any mad dog. Politics back then wasn't so different than it is now. For example, look at the way Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi were demonized or the way the Germans were portrayed as inhuman baby killers during World War I. These days, the mass media handles the propaganda. Back in ancient Rome, they didn't have television or radio, but that's the only real difference.
(1) "Gaius' accession was greeted with widespread joy and relief, and his civility promised well." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. revised).
The popular image of Caligula isn't historical. His reputation as an insane monster was first created by ancient writers with a murder to justify and a talent for pandering to the decadent tastes of the mob, tastes that apparently haven't changed at all since the days of ancient Rome. The real Caligula, whoever he was, has been transformed into a sensationalized tabloid demon by the modern media and the mob laps it up, just like it did two thousand years ago.
The ironic thing is that if it weren't for this sensationalized image, most people wouldn't even know Caligula's name. It's one of those bizarre twists of history that his enemies, the very people who worked so hard to destroy him, ended up making him immortal.
"Archaeologists have uncovered what may be the graves of 50 enslaved workers who labored at an elite Roman villa just under 2,000 years ago in what is now southern England." Source: Live Science.
"These burials date to the Roman period in the United Kingdom, from about A.D. 43 to A.D. 410. Many of the deceased were buried with grave goods, such as pottery and brooches, in what is now Somerset, a county in southwest England."
These people probably weren't paid for their work, but they may not have been slaves:
"'They are most likely household servants, agricultural workers, and many may have technically been slaves,'" according to one expert. "'So, this is a rare opportunity to study a sample of a community.'"
Note: These finds were made at a site in Somerset where a new school is being constructed. According to Wessex Archaeology, "This site is a significant discovery - the most comprehensive modern excavation of a Roman cemetery in Somerset."
The Roman circus at Colchester is apparently the only known circus in Britain. It first came to light in 2000 when the Colchester Archaeological Trust "observed three parts of one or two Roman foundations in the sides of a narrow trench which was dug for electric cables to provide new lighting" around a football pitch. More remains were uncovered over the following years and the discovery was confirmed in 2004.
Background: Colchester was occupied by the Romans after they conquered Britain under Claudius in a gradual process that began around 43 AD. People were living in the town as far back as the Stone Age and I'm not sure what it was called before the Romans took over and named it Camulodunum.
According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed. revised), the Romans built a fortress for Legio XX Valeria beside the town and founded a colony on the site in 49 AD. "This became the first provincial capital, with the temple of Divus [Deified] Claudius and a theater with an adjacent forum."(The legionary fortress was decommissioned when the Romans turned the town into a colony).
Camulodunum was sacked and burned during the relatively short-lived Boudican Revolt in 60/61 AD, a revolt which was triggered in large part by a heavy-handed Roman tax-collector. The brilliant Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, crushed the revolt that same year and Camulodunum was rebuilt.
Around 70-85 AD, a "defensive town wall [was] built around the town" and the Roman circus was constructed outside the wall," according to the Colchester Archaeological Trust. The circus was in use until the "end of the 3rd century" when it "went out of use and deteriorated. During the following centuries, [it] was demolished and people removed its materials for re-use in other buildings, even digging trenches to 'rob' the stone of its foundations below ground."
"The programme, 'Bone Detectives: Britain’s Buried Secrets', is a new 8-part series presented by palaeontologist Tori Herridge, mortuary technician Carla Valentine and archaeologist Raksha Dave. The series kicks off on Saturday evening [Jan. 11, 2020] with the fascinating case study of a Wessex Archaeology site on the Isle of Thanet which revealed a startling arrangement of human and animal remains." Source: Wessex Archaeology.
"The site includes evidence for a range of mortuary rites, including exposure, excarnation [defleshing] and curation. A Late Bronze Age burial pit containing the articulated skeletal remains of five individuals provides the key focus for the episode.
"One of these individuals, an elderly woman, had head wounds indicating a deliberate killing. This evidence, supported by her unusual burial posture, suggests that she may have been sacrificed."
"A research team has discovered the first conclusive evidence that selection may also occur at the level of the epigenome -- a term that refers to an assortment of chemical 'annotations' to the genome that determine whether, when and to what extent genes are activated -- and has done so for tens of millions of years." Source: Science Daily.
"... a UC San Francisco-led research team has discovered the first conclusive evidence that selection may also occur at the level of the epigenome ... This unprecedented finding subverts the widely accepted notion that over geologic timescales, natural selection acts exclusively on variation in the genome sequence itself."
Note: According to Wikipedia, "an epigenome consists of a record of the chemical changes to the DNA and histone proteins of an organism; these changes can be passed down to an organism's offspring via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Changes to the epigenome can result in changes to the structure of chromatin and changes to the function of the genome."
Comment: I'm not sure what an epigenome is, but this story shows that scientists still don't understand how evolution actually works. If they did, we wouldn't get discoveries like this that "subvert the widely accepted notions" of evolutionary theory.
Roman Propaganda: The Arch Of Titus
The Arch Of Titus is a classic example of ancient Roman propaganda. The arch, with its scenes of Roman legions triumphing over Jewish rebels, was designed to glorify not only Titus, but the empire itself and by extension it's rulers. Titus, an effective and popular leader, didn't live very long and was succeeded by his brother Domitian, who was widely despised as a tyrant (the historian Tacitus hated him). By completing the Arch of Titus, Domitian was probably making an attempt to share in his brother's reflected glory.
The arch is an example of visual propaganda. The use of monumental architecture, inscriptions, sculptures, public spectacles and so on was necessary in a society where most people were illiterate. Literacy rates are higher today, but most people don't read so the use of imagery is still critical for controlling the masses.
Modern governments use various techniques to spread their message, but video is probably the most important. Some examples would be the release of "smart bomb" videos during the Gulf Wars and the staged footage of American soldiers toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein. The Romans didn't have TV or film, so they used sculpture and monuments instead. The effect, however, would have been about the same.
Posted at 06:59 AM in Architecture, Art, Commentary, Culture, Roman Legions, Rome, Videos | Permalink