Page 309 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 309 of 348 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
291
also made inquiries into the nature of vision and its variances between individuals,
suggesting that the human animal was the only animal whose eyes were “liable to
distortion,” and that such difficulties with vision had led to the development of the
surnames “Squint-eye” (Strabonum) and “Blinky” (Paetorum).408 He identified the
phenomena of near- and far-sightedness, as well as the ability of some to see clearly in
the dark while others had keen sight only in the light of day.409 Pliny also remarked on
the interconnectedness of the eye with other areas of the body, noting that his learned
contemporaries hypothesized that the eyes were connected directly to the brain. Pliny
went further, writing “I believe they are also connected to the stomach: certainly no one
has an eye knocked out without vomiting.”410 Though his suggestion is humorous in
light of a modern understanding of human anatomy, it is interesting that he ascribed to
the organ of sight the ability to set off a reaction in another part of the body.
Two of the most important Roman-era thinkers who were concerned with the
process of vision were the contemporaries Ptolemy (wrote between 148 and c. 170 C.E.)
and Galen (c. 129-?199/216 C.E.). Ptolemy, who produced Optics in five Greek books
that survive only in a Latin translation (of which the first book and the end of the fifth
knowledge was available only to the soul. The latter he conceived of as “greater…and more
beautiful…[and] beyond the power of vision” (Q Nat 1, Praefatio). maius…ac pulchrius…[ac] extra
conspectum). He considered the first type to be obvious to everyone, and therefore publica, while the
other was secretiora and available only to those who penetrated the mysteries of the universe.
408 HN 11.55.150.
409 HN 11.54.142.
410 HN 11.55.149-150. …ego et ad stomachum crediderim [tradunt]: certe nulli sine redundatione eius
eruitur oculus.
Object Description
| Title | Making sense of sacrifice: Sensory experience in Greco-Roman cult |
| Author | Weddle, Candace Cherie |
| Author email | candaceweddle@gmail.com; weddle@usc.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Art History |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-04 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-27 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Pollini, John |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Yasin, Ann Marie Bitel, Lisa |
| Abstract | Performing a sacrifice was one of the most sensorially full actions undertaken in the Greco-Roman world. The production and control of the correct movements, scents and sounds were prerequisites for summoning, communicating with and propitiating deities. Sacrifice was also ubiquitous, occurring on an almost continual basis as a range of sacrificial activities were celebrated publicly and privately in a variety of locations in urban areas. Cultivating a multi-sensory understanding of the full range of sensory elements that accompanied ancient cult rites – visual and auditory cues, things smelled, tasted and touched - provides a platform for achieving a more thorough knowledge of the meanings of the rites.; This dissertation examines the archaeological, literary and epigraphical evidence for the role of the senses in Greek and Roman sacrifice in order to analyze the social and ritual importance of the senses, the impact of sacrificial rituals within ancient urban spaces, and the sensory experience of the ancient worshiper. Given the ephemeral nature of much of the evidence for sensory elements of worship, as well as the subjectivity inherent in representations of sensory experience in literature and art, this dissertation argues for the necessity of crossing disciplinary boundaries in order to appreciate the sensory impact of ancient sacrifice. Therefore, in addition to utilizing traditional historical and art historical approaches, methodological tools from the field of anthropology and evidence from studies in the animal behavioral sciences and consumer sciences are employed. For example, I suggest that greater understanding of the experience of ancient sacrifice may be acquired through an autoethnographic investigation of modern religious sacrifice. To that end, I analyze my experience of the slaughter of large numbers of bovines during the Islamic Kurban Bayram sacrifices in Istanbul to make suggestions concerning certain elements of the sensory experience of ancient blood sacrifice. I focus not only on the sensory experience of humans participating in (or within range of) sacrifices, but also on that of the animal victims. Given the immense ritual importance of the behavior of sacrificial animals in antiquity, I suggest that it is possible to identify some sensory aspects of the sacrificial process that may have been intentionally manipulated in order to control the reactions of the victims as far as possible.; Particular attention is paid to mundane aspects of the process of sacrifice not often addressed in ancient literary sources or represented in art that would have resulted in notable sensory impacts on areas surrounding urban temples, for example the removal of sacrificial refuse. I conclude not only that these elements of sacrifice formed an important part of the sensory experience of Greco-Roman cult, but also that their effects were more far-reaching – in terms both of how great an area they affected and how long they lasted – than has previously been recognized. Using fresh interdisciplinary approaches to well-known examples of texts and images, this dissertation employs a more visceral approach to the study of the sensory experience of ancient sacrifice than is possible when considering textual and archaeological evidence alone. |
| Keyword | archaeology; autoethnography; cult; Greece; religion; Rome; sacrifice; senses |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Rome |
| Geographic subject (country) | Italy; Greece |
| Coverage date | circa -0600/0600 |
| Coverage era | Greco Roman |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3788 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Weddle, Candace Cherie |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Weddle-4363 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume48/etd-Weddle-4363.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 309 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 291 also made inquiries into the nature of vision and its variances between individuals, suggesting that the human animal was the only animal whose eyes were “liable to distortion,” and that such difficulties with vision had led to the development of the surnames “Squint-eye” (Strabonum) and “Blinky” (Paetorum).408 He identified the phenomena of near- and far-sightedness, as well as the ability of some to see clearly in the dark while others had keen sight only in the light of day.409 Pliny also remarked on the interconnectedness of the eye with other areas of the body, noting that his learned contemporaries hypothesized that the eyes were connected directly to the brain. Pliny went further, writing “I believe they are also connected to the stomach: certainly no one has an eye knocked out without vomiting.”410 Though his suggestion is humorous in light of a modern understanding of human anatomy, it is interesting that he ascribed to the organ of sight the ability to set off a reaction in another part of the body. Two of the most important Roman-era thinkers who were concerned with the process of vision were the contemporaries Ptolemy (wrote between 148 and c. 170 C.E.) and Galen (c. 129-?199/216 C.E.). Ptolemy, who produced Optics in five Greek books that survive only in a Latin translation (of which the first book and the end of the fifth knowledge was available only to the soul. The latter he conceived of as “greater…and more beautiful…[and] beyond the power of vision” (Q Nat 1, Praefatio). maius…ac pulchrius…[ac] extra conspectum). He considered the first type to be obvious to everyone, and therefore publica, while the other was secretiora and available only to those who penetrated the mysteries of the universe. 408 HN 11.55.150. 409 HN 11.54.142. 410 HN 11.55.149-150. …ego et ad stomachum crediderim [tradunt]: certe nulli sine redundatione eius eruitur oculus. |
