This is an extract from my notes made at the second seminar in the series ('Representations of Carthage'), held on the 25th January 1990 in the Institute of Archaeology at UCL. There is a full set of notes for the entire seminar series, except for the first, which I missed because I didn't catch sight of the poster in time (no web in those days). The volume (Around Black Athena: the Origins of Graeco-Roman Culture) is under pressure from other work in progress, but it will eventually arrive. TY.
***
[Introductory preamble: Last week set up the central themes of this conference and
on Martin Bernal’s book. Bernal has set the agenda. Now we explore different
directions, and try to explain the pressures on our understanding, and on
historiography].
Tim Cornell began by saying that he was not speaking as an
expert on Carthage. After reading Bernal’s book he wondered if there was a
hidden truth in it. Perhaps there was an unconscious and systematic attempt to
overlook Carthaginian culture. It is definitely a neglected area. Within the
format of the study of the ancient world, there are few general books on
Carthage.
Cornell mentioned the names of a few authors (Warmington,
Picard), who use a standard sort of treatment of their subject. Like books on
the Etruscans, there is a standard menu – an outline of the format: date,
colonizations and contacts, wars in Sicily with the Greeks. And then the Punic
Wars, and the final destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE. This format indicates
that Carthage is of interest insofar as the Carthaginians had dealings with the
Graeco-Roman world. I.e., Carthaginian culture is somebody else’s problem.
Carthage is an earlier foundation than the Greek colonies. Timaeus argued that
Carthage and Rome were founded in the same year (i.e., the Dido story). Punic
war seen as war against the Carthaginians.
Modern scholars identify with the Romans. A product of the sources being
from outside, and hostile. Is there a hidden programme here? Archaeology,
especially since the end of WW2, has done little to redress the balance.
Especially concerning the Punic Wars. Stresses an impoverished culture. Often
the evidence is interpreted in the light of literary sources.
The Carthage we have is a stereotype. Aristotle is an
ancient exception – in his Politics he admired their constitution, but the
account of this is lost. Polybius also regarded it well, though he was critical
of it. We know that there were pro-Carthaginian accounts also written in
antiquity. Now lost. Plautus wrote on the subject of Carthage, shortly after
the Hannibalic War, but it presents the Carthaginians in a most unsympathetic
way. In general they got a hostile press, and this is also true of modern
works. Stereotypes in modern works include (1) racism and antisemitism, and (2)
orientalism (as discussed by Said).
For (1) the ancient prejudices involve the stereotype of the
Carthaginians as intelligent, but in a mean and self-serving way. Expressed in
terms of cunning and trickery. They were notorious to the Romans for treachery.
For ( 2), they were dependent on trade, and are shown as greedy and corrupt by
Polybius, who contrasted the Romans and the Carthaginians, and attributes a
leaning to bribery and corruption to the latter.
They were also depicted as capable of great courage in
certain circumstances, but essentially unwarlike, which was seen as a weakness.
They failed to press their advantage. (Diodorus). They were interested in
commerce rather than war. Cicero said that this destroyed their will to fight.
This was illustrated by their use of mercenaries. Note the contrast between
Hannibal and the opposition and lack of support from the government at home.
The Romans thought of him as a worthy enemy (this view is presented more by
modern writers than in antiquity).
Some writers suggest that the Carthaginians were not
actually Phoenician. This racism was not in the ancients for they treated
subject peoples harshly (Spaniards). [Bk10.36]. Polybius says harsh on subject
people in North Africa – they doubled city taxes, and took half the crop
[Whitaker – Carthaginians land imperialism late 4th century]. No
tribute from Sicily until quite late.
Carthage was not interested in imperialism
abroad in the 6th and 5th centuries, but they were
interested in alliances (Etruria, and Rome). Protection for trade. Warfare in
Sicily was perhaps originated by the Phoenicians and was prosecuted together
(hence mercenaries). They did not use coinage till late. Not specifically
Carthaginian. Hence perhaps a failure to follow up this advantage. Only in the
third century did they carve out provinces, coinage, tax and mercenaries – the
harshness of the Carthaginians noted in Polybius is to this period and
circumstances, and is not seen as a racial characteristic.
They were servile to those who were stronger (college
porter obsequiousness and arrogance). Plutarch said they were ”a hard and
gloomy people”, etc. Cruelty was a frequent charge - punishments included crucifixion (the torture
of Regulus, etc). Their cruelty was demonstrated by their regular holocausts of
children and the killing of prisoners in a sacrificial manner. There is a
brutal account in Diodorus of indiscriminate killing – severed heads on
javelins, etc.
The vices are seized on by modern detractors, who add others
which are modern. There is some basis in the sources, but the tone of the
passages is misleading – antisemitism and vulgar orientalism. The sources show
no disgust at the physical appearance of the Carthaginians among the
ancients. Other modern notions arise
from modern passages with no source warrants. It is a feature of
orientalism that orientals are specifically given to religious fanaticism –
Hindus, Etruscans, etc. It is taken as a sign of the eastern character {See
Warmington). However there is no evidence in the sources for an especial
religiosity among the Carthaginians (quantification of religiosity is
meaningless anyway). There is a christianizing evaluation of oriental
religiosity in some of the sources. Observers (Philo of Byblos, Tertullian) had
their own axe to grind. Cult practice is prominent in surviving sources, but
there may be a bias in the survivals.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment