archaeological research brought to light interesting details about the harbor buildings, showing all the skillful knowledge the Carthaginians had in nautical matters.
They took full advantage of their environment and continued to improvise, adapt and overcome allowing them to be an elite navy compared to their neighbors
The site of such cruelty was finally discovered in 1921, although modern archaeological research shows that the reported child sacrifices are fantastic fairy tales rather than his-torical events.
The importance of fact checking and using multiple sources of legends and myths and now with the advantage of cutting edge modern day technology to almost verify such such events is implied heavily in historical research. This false tale of child sacrifices has spread from generation to generation up until the 20th century.
besides making it difficult to grasp the material culture of these people.
It is sad to see the evidence of only one side of the story here. They could've even been more well off than the Carthaginians. However, the only evidences we have that are accurate to report on are from imported goods from Carthage. They were common and plain handmade wears for multiple uses.
Numidian coins have been found all around the Mediterranean, as far away as Delos, Rhodes, and other places in the eastern regions where they are a common occurrence,
Coins have always been a form of capsulizing history as they tell different stories and can almost help us distinguish the type of society they were and what kind of influence they have. For the coins to be commonly found spread out. Interesting enough, there are still mint grade coins to this day in collections.
Numidian architecture was built over during Roman times and still remains mostly undiscovered under the Roman ruins.
As mentioned previously, little is known about Numidian architecture due it being mostly undiscovered. I wonder though how much more advanced or how much little they were compared to their neighboring enemies over the same body of water.
Carthage has been under the spotlight of archae-ological studies for a long time
I find it interesting that so much light was shed upon Carthage and how the society carried themselves. Wealth was starting to be concerning because Aristotle commented on Carthage: "that such a preoccupation with wealth would lead inevitably to a self-interested oligarchy dominating society."
Although we have to assume that Carthage was superior to its Numidian neighbours in many respects
From this line, we can see the Carthaginians were superior. Evidences such as them being much better in trade and finances because of knowledge of routes while dominating the Mediterranean trade. They had a better fleet with better ships, skilled sailors which led to better discoveries.
suffered badly from famine and diseases
Known as the Numantine War, there were many deaths but I want to focus on the ones that are unrelated to physical warfare. Famine and disease started to spread throughout and many even went to the point of suicide rather than surrendering to Rome.
started their research from the well-known literary sources, setting out to prove or illustrate what they could read.
I think it is important that the mentioning of the neglect is important because the amount of social development they achieved over time. Numidian soldiers were often found in the Carthaginian armies and seen as just warriors and not the type that were educated. Interesting enough, Numidian horsemanship, cavalry tactics and methods influenced the Roman cavalry and how they went about their methods.
Rome could not forget the fear and distress Carthage had once imposed on the city
The fear that is spoken about here refers to Carthage because it was in North Africa, not too far from Italy. Carthage sent out a fleet of ships and soldiers to different parts of the Mediterranean to alert everyone of their presence. When they had conquered three islands off the coast of modern day Italy, Rome was shaken to the core from their leadership to citizens.
After Carthage’s defeat many of its citizens fled to Numidian cities and legend has it that the libraries of Carthage were handed over to the Numidian kings
This was yet another crucial example of the rise and fall of an empire. Carthage was one of the most powerful cities in the area due to their extensive knowledge of the trade routes and the Mediterranean harbors. They were seen as a threat to the Romans and were taken out of the equation in a sense because they were breached, taken over and added as another collection to the vast Roman Empire.
To the Greeks, the Babylonians were ‘barbarians’, a notion which could accommodate respect for their esoteric wisdom but otherwise left little room for cultural rapprochement
So my earlier point seems to be wrong in that the Greeks actually did not consider any Babylonian writing to be true and therefore probably were not affected by the comparison. This is a bit ignorant in my opinion. I understand that prejudice was obviously rampant during this time but to completely disregard the literature and art that comes out of a culture simply because you believe it is barbaric is a bit extreme.
If we follow him, we can say, with only slight simplification, that according to him, the role of Antiochus’ Greek elites was to take charge of political and military matters around the empire, whereas the Chaldeans guaranteed dynastic continuity
Since Berossos writes like this, it creates a divide between who the elites actually were and how they were depicted. Berossos depiction may actually be historically correct and this may make them more entitled to not want to include him in their circle. The Chaldeans are displayed in a better light.
the king’s officials – his ‘friends’ in Seleucid parlance – are at the forefront of imperial expansion
This may have led to his inability to integrate into the Greek masses. Since it is a historical retelling, people may have been offended or hurt by the language and traits he uses in the writing. Because they are seen as favored or unnecessarily involved in affairs, this could have caused some bad blood.
Non-Greeks were not normally admitted to this network. It is possible that Berossos was an exception, but his own work suggests otherwise.22 For the Babyloniaca does not attempt to merge Babylonian culture with Greek to the point where the former can simply become part of the latter. Rather, it suggests that there were elite networks outside cosmopolitan Hellenism that mattered to the long-term success of the empire.
This is interesting because he wrote a lot about Greek matters even though they never fully accepted him into their "friend" circle. I feel like it would make more sense to admit people who are not Greek because it gives more outlooks when making decisions. It helps create meaningful conversations that would otherwise be difficult to have.
they formed a supra-local aristocracy which maintained itself with reference to specifically Greek cultural practices and ideals:
There is again this close-knitness and segregation of people who do not fit in with these ideals. It is an elitist ideal but it was probably the norm at the time. I think this is what makes it a little difficult when studying history because we cannot be sure if what we are reading is accurate or just written by those who have the actual luxury of being literate and writing.
erossos were free to knock on the door of elite Greek culture, but they gained only very limited access to it. Berossos failed to break into the canon of Greek παιδεία, and it is unlikely that he secured for himself, or his Babylonian peers, the status of royal ‘friend’, φίλος.
This is an example of the author touching one of his main points. This really helps me understand what he means by universal but exclusive. It illustrates that even when he catered to Greek minds, it was still the question of ethnicity and origin.
He too aimed to insert himself and his peers into the dominant discourse of Greek cosmopolitan elites
He did seem to become somewhat successful. His writing being in Greek and tailored to Greek mindsets was definitely one of the components that helped him become noteworthy. For it to still be a point of discourse today shows that he did make it seem very close to Greek literature and did deserve a place.
but there can be no doubt that for Berossos the point of human creation was to make us like the gods.
This is different from Greek myhtology I think. Greek mythology tends to separate the gods and the mortals through their character traits and their relationships to each other. Also in Greek mythology, humans were esentially created just to worship the gods, not be like them.
What we do know is that he wrote in Greek and made an effort to address a Greek readership
This is most likely to get across a larger audience. Many people in Babylon probably were not literate or he does not consider any other languages to be academically useful. There could be some sort of Greek superiority complex that makes people ,more inclined to print texts in the language.
The work seems to have concluded with the conquests of Alexander (Abydenos BNJ 685 F 7; cf. F 1)
The rest of the books seem to be more about retelling history. Since the creation of man is not as evidence supported, it would make it seem like the book is about myths but after you go past that one, it is all really just someone's accounts of the time period. Would be interesting to read more direct quotes.
book 1 described the creation of the world, and of man.
This is similar to a religious text. Most religious texts try to describe how the world came about and where man comes from. It is similar to books such as the Quran or the Bible.
acquired Greek names and, we presume, a Greek identity of sorts, but their writings in Akkadian remained firmly grounded in local Mesopotamian tradition.
Why change part of their physical identity but keep the culture alive? Writing is how we keep track of history so it would be interesting to know why they decided to keep the language instead of writing in Greek. It could be because of the views of Greek people being more well of and established.
what models of integration and participation were available to local elites in states that were universal in aspiration but exclusive in practice.
The use of the words universal and exclusive are extremely opposite to each other so it is a bit weird to see it in this context. How can something be universal but exclusive? Hopefully the rest of the article is able to clear this up a bit.
non-Greeks could join in, but only up to a point
It is interesting to see this type of separation even back then between people who may not have been much different from each other. Their real only difference was ethnicity and/or religion. However, they still took into account the way they acted and their mannerisms.
Hellenism, a badge of nobility, produced a cosmopolitan and transregional aristocratic culture tying together elite groups across culturally and linguistically very diverse regions.
I wonder how they may define elite in this statement. When I think of elite, I think of a group of people who are better or think they are better than more people and have access to resources others don't have. Maybe in this statement they may mean people who are physically superior as well as more educated and trained.
ll lead-ers, however great, are always also a product of their environment and there-fore I also wish to shed some light on the broader background of the time.
I think this is a really important point to make. Almost like "nature vs nurture". If he had been a king during our current time, he could have been a completely different ruler and may not have been powerful at all. The history of Numidia helps shape who he is as a ruler and why the people followed him.
the fact that Carthage has been continuously populated from antiq-uity to the present day has had a disastrous impact on the survival of buildings.
When we compare this to most Roman and Greek structures it is interesting to see that there are not many remains of this civilization. Rome and Greece were generally populated by a lot of people and hustle and bustle but there are still some standing structures and statues and archaeological sites. Something must make Carthage different because of its population and time period?
the literary sources present us with a rather uncivilized picture of the Numidian tribes before and outside Masinissa’s sphere of influence
I always think the word "uncivilized" is only just an impact of colonization. The fact that it is missing info about daily life and social and economic affairs gives us enough info to not jump to conclusions like these. It is also not our place to say whether or not an ancient civilization is civil or not.
However, at some point during the war in Iberia it must have dawned on him that an alliance with Scipio would turn out to be more advantageous and he switched sides
What could have changed his mind? How did the Carthaginians react? Just how strong was this alliance to begin with?
I kind of wonder how exactly a marriage strengthens alliances. I know it has been going on for centuries but I feel like just bringing two different families together does not actually unify two countries or cities just because of the vastness of the places. Also, marriages may not always work out so that may create more tension for both sides.
Carthage’s main weakness was a shortage of loyal men willing to fight for their city at any cost. Instead, the Carthaginian commanders had to rely largely on the support of allies and mercenaries, often loyal to whoever prom-ised them the prospect of the largest profits or best advancement of their own interests.1
This is interesting that the people in the city did not want to fight for their city. At this time, nationalism was obviously very important in terms of your social status and wealth so it must have been necessary to fight. I would like to know what it is that kept these men from wanting to fight for their city that the commanders had to look elsewhere. Is it because they did not want to or was there a literal shortage of men in general?
A page with the translations of three passages from ancient Greek or Roman authors describing or discussing the region or culture
What if translations are different from one another and have different interpretations of certain words?