Page 317 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 317 of 348 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
299
were a lack of attention to the eardrum, which he did not credit with a role in hearing,427
and complete ignorance of the ossicles, the small bones of the middle ear which we now
know are responsible for the act of hearing because they conduct vibrations to the inner
ear.428 He identified the actual sensory organ as being located in the inner ear, within the
bone of the head itself. Like Aristotle, he commented on the importance of the air in the
inner ear (which he also called a pneuma), but he specifically stated that it was the same
substance as the outside air.429 Also like Aristotle, he compared the sense of hearing with
the sense of vision, though in a manner based on his careful anatomical experimentations.
He correctly explained that the spreading out of the acoustic nerve in the ear’s helix is
comparable to the spread of the optic nerve in the retina of the eye.430
When Galen reached the point of explaining how sound perception functioned, he
weighed the possibilities suggested by the Greek philosophers. He agreed with earlier
thinkers that a disturbance of the air was in some way responsible for the phenomenon of
sound. Based on his hypothesis that the auditory organ was buried deep within the bone
of the skull, he thought it unlikely that a column of air could pass through the channels of
the ear and reach it. This led him to agree with Aristotle in claiming that an actual
change in the air was responsible for sound, rather than simply a movement of air
427 Galen admitted that he could not discern the function of the eardrum. He dismissed the theory that it
was a protective membrane, reasoning that if it were sturdy enough to stop the flow of air into the ear, it
would interfere with the ability to hear. Siegel 1970, 128.
428 Siegel 1970, 127. Galen also failed to recognize the role of the inner ear in providing balance and
equilibrium, though he did discuss the relationship between vertigo and arteries located behind the ear.
Siegel 1970, 138.
429 Siegel 1970, 136.
430 Siegel 1970, 130.
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 317 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 299 were a lack of attention to the eardrum, which he did not credit with a role in hearing,427 and complete ignorance of the ossicles, the small bones of the middle ear which we now know are responsible for the act of hearing because they conduct vibrations to the inner ear.428 He identified the actual sensory organ as being located in the inner ear, within the bone of the head itself. Like Aristotle, he commented on the importance of the air in the inner ear (which he also called a pneuma), but he specifically stated that it was the same substance as the outside air.429 Also like Aristotle, he compared the sense of hearing with the sense of vision, though in a manner based on his careful anatomical experimentations. He correctly explained that the spreading out of the acoustic nerve in the ear’s helix is comparable to the spread of the optic nerve in the retina of the eye.430 When Galen reached the point of explaining how sound perception functioned, he weighed the possibilities suggested by the Greek philosophers. He agreed with earlier thinkers that a disturbance of the air was in some way responsible for the phenomenon of sound. Based on his hypothesis that the auditory organ was buried deep within the bone of the skull, he thought it unlikely that a column of air could pass through the channels of the ear and reach it. This led him to agree with Aristotle in claiming that an actual change in the air was responsible for sound, rather than simply a movement of air 427 Galen admitted that he could not discern the function of the eardrum. He dismissed the theory that it was a protective membrane, reasoning that if it were sturdy enough to stop the flow of air into the ear, it would interfere with the ability to hear. Siegel 1970, 128. 428 Siegel 1970, 127. Galen also failed to recognize the role of the inner ear in providing balance and equilibrium, though he did discuss the relationship between vertigo and arteries located behind the ear. Siegel 1970, 138. 429 Siegel 1970, 136. 430 Siegel 1970, 130. |
