Archaeology and Artifacts in the National Museum of Beirut

We talk often about the archaeology and artifacts, excavations and publications, but little do we hear about the museums that house these wonderful pieces of history. A Lebanese friend of mine recently told me of a restoration effort that I had never even heard of before and is an interesting story of what can be achieved even after devastation and vandalism.

The Beirut National Museum has been through a lot in its relatively short history. This museum is the principal museum of archaeology in Lebanon and is one of the most significant Near Eastern museums of archaeology because of its rich collection which is even more impressive because of the trials this collection has suffered. The idea for the museum was conceived in 1919 with its foundations in the collection of the French officer Raymond Weill who was stationed in Lebanon. In 1923 an official founding commitee was set up called the ‘friends of the museum committee’ which was headed by the then Prime Minister and Minister of Education and Fine Arts, Bechara El Khory. Work began with the work of architects Antoine Nahas and Pierre Leprince Ringuet and the building was completed in 1937 in the area of the Beirut Hippodrome.

While the opening was postponed because of the lead-up to WW2, the museum was finally opened in May 1942 by President Alfred Naqqache. It housed objects from prehistory all the way to the 19th century AD including large sarcophagi, mosaics and smaller collections of artifacts including jewelry, coins and ceramics. For the first 30 years of its operation, the museum added extensively to the collections through excavations undertaken under the direction of the Directorate General of Antiquities.

With the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War, the museum closed its doors in 1975 with the situation in decline and the buildings located on the demarcation line which had divided Beirut. The museum and its antiquities thus became a victim of the raging war. Originally the authorities intended the closure to be temporary but this closure ended up being full term. But instead of allowing the antiquities to fall victim to total destruction, the authorities took action.

The first protection measures were undertaken in the periods of truce which alternated with the destruction. Firstly the smaller finds and most vulnerable objects were removed and placed in storerooms in the museum’s basements and were walled up so that no access was possible to the lower underground floors. The mosaics in the floors of the museum were also covered in a layer of concrete and large unmovable objects such as sarcophagi and statues were protected by sandbags. However, with the situation further worsening, in 1982 these sandbags were replaced by concrete cases which were built around wooden structures that surrounded the monuments. It was measures such as these which eventually saved a vast majority of the artifacts and monuments in the museum.

When cease-fire was announced in 1991 the museum was in a state of extraordinary destruction. Water flooded the basement levels and poured from the roofs and windows. The outer walls were covered in shots and shell-holes and the inner walls were covered in graffiti left by the militia who used the museum as a barracks. The flooded basements left many artifacts beyond repair, and shellfire had left many documents and 45 boxes of archaeological objects destroyed alongside all the lab equipment. In 1992 the first plans to restore the museum were set out by Michel Edde the then Minister of Culture and Higher Education. But the initial proposal was turned down because of the state of the building leaving it in danger of looting. But once the doors and windows were put in with the help of private donations, the concrete barring the basement was removed and the restoration could begin.

The restoration work continued through 1995 to 2000, starting on the building itself and inventory, recording and restoration of objects. This was made possible through the work of the Ministry of Culture, the Directorate General of Antiquities and the National Heritage Foundation. In 1997 the doors reopened to the ground floors but then closed again in 1998 for modifications and modernisation. The museum reopened again in 1999 with over 1300 archaeological artifacts on display. The rehabilitation continued on the underground galleries but already the museum was returning to its former significance especially as a leading collector of Ancient Phoenician objects. The museum is now under the directorship of Anne-Marie Ofeish and retains many of the artifacts which were originally packed away and successfully saved.

Human history is full of wars and conflicts and artifacts and archaeology often suffer in the process which is a great shame. Through efforts such as those undertaken in this case we are lucky to see such wonderful artifacts survive.

For further information:

http://www.beirutnationalmuseum.com/e-histoire.htm

Short Documentary - ”Beirut National Museum;Rebirth”

Related articles

• U.S. returns 4,000 archaeological relics to Mexico (cbc.ca)
• New archaeology museum at the University of South Alabama peers into the area’s past. (al.com)
• Stray cat discovers ancient Roman catacomb in a residential neighborhood (slashgear.com)
• On Display at New Orleans Baptist Seminary (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

GraecoMuse Turns One

The Bases of Zanes at Olympia, Greece. Statues of Zeus were erected on these bases, paid for by fines imposed on those who were found to be cheating at the Olympic Games. The names of the athletes were inscribed on the base of each statue to serve as a warning to all.

Hello Everyone! This month this website turns one year old. Thank you everyone for reading and continuing to do so! GraecoMuse has now had over 40,000 views and has 528 subscribers.

So incase you missed some of the entries and are interested in having a read, here are all the entries for the last year. Hope you all enjoy, keep reading, and most of all learn new things.

Also remember that there is now a facebook page for archaeology and history news and comments. At  https://www.facebook.com/GraecoMuse.

Simple Musings – 26/10/11

Review: Betz, H.D., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago, 1986) – 26/10/11

Confessions of an Archaeologist: Live Free and Dig Hard! - 27/10/11

The (not so) True History – Lucian of Samosata - 29/10/11

Kepler’s Somnium (The Dream) - 30/10/11

Survivor PhD: Close Encounters of the First Kind - 01/11/11

Lost in Translation: It’s all Greek to Us - 07/11/11

Recommended Reading: Blum and Blum, Health and Healing in Rural Greece - 11/11/11

Back to the Future: The Significance of Studying Ancient History - 14/11/11

Relic Hunter: Common Misconceptions of Archaeology - 22/11/11

To Pass Knowledge on to the Younger Generations - 08/12/11

Wilde/Chase Books 1-4: Andy McDermott - 22/12/11

Santa Claus Before Coca Cola - 25/12/11

Felix sit annus novus! Happy New Year! - 31/12/11

Important Rules to Remember When Learning Ancient Greek Part 1 - 11/01/12

Ancient Greek helmets

Important Rules to Remember When Learning Ancient Greek Part 2 - 20/01/12

War Minus the Shooting: Ideals behind the Ancient Olympic Games - 28/01/12

Traditional and Historical Origins of Certain Supernatural Ideologies - 29/01/12

Female Heroism in Ancient Greek Literature - 04/02/12

A Shaky Beginning: Parkinson’s Disease in Ancient History - 09/02/12

The Fall of the Ancient Olympics: The Theodosian Code - 17/02/12

Basic Numismatics: A Quick Guide to the Study of Ancient Coinage - 23/02/12

Ancient Scripts of Egypt: An Introduction - 02/03/12

Poetic License: An Introduction to Greek (and Latin) Meter - 08/03/12

Tools of the Trade: Archaeology - 18/03/12

Ammianus Marcellinus: Biographical Record in the Res Gestae - 23/03/12

The Language of Trees: Ogham (Archaic Irish Script) - 26/03/12

Holey Cranium Batman! The Archaeology of Trephination - 10/04/12

In the Beginning: Biblical Creation Myths vs. Others Around the Mediterranean - 14/04/12

Cuneiform: An Introduction to One of the Earliest Scripts - 28/04/12

Ancient Sites of Cilicia, Anatolia: Part 1 - 08/05/12

Ancient Sites of Cilicia, Anatolia: Part 2 - 08/05/12

Isthmia: Roman Baths and Muscular Men - 16/05/12

Runic Scripts – Elder and Younger Futhark - 19/05/12Piracy in the Ancient Mediterranean - 01/06/12

Important Rules to Remember When Learning Ancient Greek Part 3! - 10/06/12

The Cave of Letters - 20/06/12

From Pole to Pole: The History of Pole Dancing and Fitness - 23/06/12

Hoplitodromos (armoured race); on the right some tripods as winning prizes. Side A of an Attic black-figure neck-amphora, ca. 550 BC. From Vulci.

Graecomuse and Parkinson’s Disease - 01/07/12

The Valley of the Dawn – Made-up religion of 32,000 years? - 08/07/12

Important Rules to Remember When Learning Ancient Greek Part 4 - 09/07/12

Archaeology Travel Blog: Istanbul pt. 1 - 18/07/12

Archaeological Travel Blog: Istanbul Part 2 - 27/07/12

Archaeology Travel Blog: Selinus and Antiochia ad Cragum! - 03/08/12

Archaeology Travel Blog: Ancient Side - 04/08/12

I Have My Eye On You: The Evil Eye in Antiquity - 29/08/12

Curses and Fines on Greek Grave Stele - 06/09/12

Theodora of Justinian: The Protectress of the Poor! - 28/09/12

Neodamodeis – The Freed Helots of Sparta - 07/10/12

A Source-Critical Analysis of the Parable of the Mustard Seed - 08/10/12

Piracy in the Ancient Mediterranean

Ancient Roman Shipwreck

Next month I am participating in an archaeological excavation in Cilicia in Anatolia which has an ancient history involving pirates and plunder; though likely no pirates like Johnny Depp. Mores the pity. So let us continue my research into the area by having a look at piracy in the Ancient Mediterranean.

The ancient origins of piracy are still seen clearly in the modern world. The term ‘pirate’ has its roots in the Greek word πειράομαι meaning ‘I attempt’ which developed into πειρατής meaning ‘Brigand’ (LSJ: brigand, Plb.4.3.8, LXX Jb. 16.10(9); esp. pirate, Plb.4.6.1, Supp.Epigr.3.378B11 (Delph., ii/i B.C.), Str. 14.3.2, Plu.Luc.2,13). πειρατής developed into the Latin term ‘pirata’ and then into the English term ‘pirate’. But while the modern view of pirates is quite romanticised the reality was quite different in the beginning.

Piracy in the ancient Mediterranean stemmed from a necessity based on conditions of the coastlines of Anatolia. The shorelines were unsuitable for agriculture and large populations and the people who did live there were of humble means. These peoples turned to fishing as a primary industry and when this wasn’t enough to support them, the men turned to piracy. As such, piracy was often ambiguously differentiated from trade industries; it was the industry of the ancient Mediterranean. The earliest documents detailing the turn to piracy are in reference to the notorious Sea Peoples who threatened the Aegean and the Mediterranean in around the fourteenth century BC.

Queen Teuta – Queen of the Illyrian Pirates

The most famous of these pirates were the Illyrians and the Tyrrhenians who were often generalised as races of pirates. These were accompanied by the Greek and Roman pirates who appear around Cilicia. The Illyrians raided the Adriatic Sea frequently and caused multiple conflicts in the time of the Roman Republic. The Phoenicians were also known to commit acts of piracy in connection to the Slave trade. With time, the pirates of the Mediterranean became more organised and formed companies derived from their ancient seafaring traditions. The Egyptians often had clashes with these Sea Peoples who they referred to as the ‘Nine Bows’. Some of these pirates were Egyptian subordinates such as escaped Hebrews who were known as the Habiru. The Egyptians also dealt with the Tjeker people from Crete and the earliest known pirate companies, the Lukka and the Sherden. The Lukka and Sherden are mentioned in the Amarna letters detailing the correspondence between the king of Babylon to Pharaoh Amenhotep.

The Hellenistic period saw a rise in piracy following the death of Alexander Great and the issues that followed concerning succession. This created what could be deemed as endemic in Cilicia and the rest of the Southern Anatolia of piracy. During this period there was a popular use of a boat called the Lembus among pirates which was a small and fast ship built to zip in and out of small inlets and attack bigger vessels before disappearing before they could be caught. In the third century BC there was a pirate attack on Olympos in Anatolia which caused much devastating.

The second century BC saw the Roman’s ending the threat of the Illyrians by finally conquering Illyria and making it a Roman province. But piracy continued along the Anatolian coastline into the first century BC. Plutarch tells the story in his Parallel Lives that in 75 BC Julius Caesar was kidnapped for thirty-eight days by Cilician pirates and held in the Dodecanese islet of Pharmacusa to the south west of Anatolia. The Cilician pirates originally are said to have demanded a ransom of twenty talents of gold but this was raised to fifty talents on the word of Caesar himself that he was worth at least Fifty. This ransom was payed and Caesar was released but then he turned on the pirates, pursued and crucified them.

The Roman period saw several changes in the history of Mediterranean piracy starting in 67 BC when Rome’s port of Ostia was attacked and set on fire by pirates and two of its most prominent senators were kidnapped. By the Roman period the general feeling towards pirates was of fear and distrust and this event was the final straw and Rome started to fight seriously against them. This led to piracy being completely outlawed so the pirates could no longer benefit from the slave trade and instead turned to heavy ransoming. An anti-piracy law was proposed by Aulus Gabinius and pirates were declared communes hostes gentium ‘enemies of all mankind’. And the Lex Gabinia granted Pompey the Great unprecedented authority which was a conflicting decision as it allowed Pompey full access to the Roman treasury.

Cilician Ancient Pirate Cove

Pompey the Great organised the raiding of the remaining pirate strongholds in the Mediterranean including in Cilicia, Crete, Illyria and Delos. The most interesting act that Pompey implemented was one of clemency. Though thousands of pirates died in the raids, those that surrendered were given pardon and reward. Reward involves the movement of the pirates from the sea to the land and the establishment of them in honest and innocent courses of life. This was the most successful method of fighting against piracy in the Roman period but piracy never completely died out. In fact, in the first century AD it morphed into an idea close to privateering in some areas.

There were a number of pirate threats in later centuries including the attacks of the Gothic-Herulic fleet which ravaged the coast of the Black sea and the Sea of Marmara around 258 AD. And there were attacks by the Goths around 264 AD also in Galatia and Cappadocia, Cyprus and Crete. The fall of the Roman Empire around the fifth century AD saw a renewal of pirate activity which continued through to the middle ages.

While piracy is generally viewed as malevolent, several ancient texts were in part sympathetic to it and describe it in a way that deemed it almost honourable. Homer for instance makes it a normal occurrence in his Iliad and Odyssey. And Plutarch tells us that piracy became not just an occupation of poor and desperate men but rather a glorious expedition for those of high status seeking further advancement and adventure. It seems in part that the ancients romanticised the concept of piracy as much as the modern mind does.

Note that this website can be followed by pressing the ‘Follow by Email’ option on the right hand side of the screen 

Additional Reading

Gabbert, Janice J. “Piracy in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Career Open to Talents”, Greece & Rome 33.2) (October 1986)): 156-63.

DeSouza, Philip. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Semple, Ellen Churchill. ‘”Pirate Coasts of the Mediterranean Sea”. Geographical Review 2.2 (August 1916): 134-51. 135.

Kitchen, Kenneth. “Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt.” Aris & Phillips, 1982: 40-41.

MØller, BjØrn. “Piracy, Maritime Terrorism and Naval Strategy.” Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, November 16, 2008. 10.

Woudhuizen, Frederik Christiaan. “The Ethnicity of Sea Peoples.” dissertation; Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, April 2006. 107.

Dell, Harry J. 1967. The Origin and Nature of Illyrian Piracy. Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 16, (3) (Jul.): 344-58. 345.

Related articles

• Ancient Sites of Cilicia, Anatolia: Part 1 (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Ancient Sites of Cilicia, Anatolia: Part 2 (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Travelling the Ancient Mediterranean (wonderingpilgrim.com)
• Ancient Roman Shipwrecks: Greece Says Mediterranean’s Deepest Rome-Era Wrecks Found (huffingtonpost.com)
• Officials: 2 Roman wrecks found nearly a mile deep off western Greece (foxnews.com)

Runic Scripts – Elder and Younger Futhark

Elder Futhark

The oldest form of runic scripts, Elder Futhark is named for the first six runes in its alphabet, F, U, Th, A,R, and K. It was used in the North West of Europe from around the second to the eighth centuries AD and has been found on numerous artefacts ranging from jewellry and amulets to tools, weapons and the ever-popular runestone. From the sixth century, Younger Futhark began to develop out of the Elder form before it became prominent in scandinavia from the late eighth century. Later still the Anglo-Saxons and the Frisians developed it further into Anglo-Saxon Futhark. Unlike other forms of runes, the skill of reading Elder Futhark was lost overtime until it was rediscovered with its decipherment in 1865 by the Norwegian Sophus Bugge.

Format:

The Elder Futhark alphabet consists of twenty-four runes which are traditionally set out in three groups known as aett. The alphabetic order which gives the script its name is first attested from around 400 AD. The direction of the text tends to vary in the earliest inscriptions but it later appears to settle into running from left to right. There are no word divisions in the majority of inscriptions except in a few cases where a series of dots were used to separate words. The angular shapes that the runes are formed by are probably the result of the original incisions make by writing materials like those made by the reed implements to form cuneiform.

Derivation:

The alphabet itself is believed to be a derivation from Italic alphabets, possibly a form of Etruscan or Raetic or even Latin. There was a popular theory previously that the alphabet was derived from the Greek alphabet via the Gothic. However, the date of early inscriptions predates the Gothic communications with the Greeks and so this theory has been ruled out. It is believed that development of Elder Futhark was composed by a single person or group around the first century AD. The definite purpose for its invention is unknown but epigraphic purposes have been suggested alongside the magical, practical and the playful. Baeksted (1952) suggests use in graffiti.

The runes for F, A, G, T, M, and L appear to be identical to old Italic or Latin alphabetic forms. There is also some correspondence in the runes for U, R, K, H, S, B, and O. The rest of the runes are likely adaptations from other sources or original innovations with the creation of the scripts. The rune names are based on the sounds of the runes themselves but also have a basis in mythology, nature and the environment, daily life and the human condition.

Vimose Comb

Inscriptions:

As mentioned, inscriptions are found on a range of artefacts between the Carpathians and Lappland with the majority of examples hailing from Denmark. The oldest inscription found dates to 160 AD and is found on the Vimose Comb reading simply HARJA. The longest inscription found consists of 200 characters and dates to the eighth century Eggjum stone containing a stanza of Norse poetry.

Younger Futhark

Younger Futhark developed out of Elder Futhark in a transitional phase dating from around 650-800 AD. It is also known as Scandinavian runes and is referred to in the Book of Ballymore as the ‘Ogham of the Scandinavians’. It is a reduced form of Elder Futhark and is found in inscriptions from Scandinavia and Viking Age settlements. Younger Futhark is also known as the alphabet of the Norsemen and is believed to have been developed for use in trade and diplomatic contracts.

Format:

The alphabet consists of only sixteen characters which were in use from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. Its format consisted of distinct sounds and minimal pairs. One key rule in the younger Futhark texts is the avoidance of having the same rune twice in consecutive order.

Younger Futhark
Top Row = Long-Branch Runes
Bottom Row = Short-Twig Runes

Younger Futhark actual includes two scripts. The first is made up of long-branch runes which are believed to have been used for documentation on stone. The second script is made up of short-twig runes which were likely used for everyday uses, for private and official messages on wood. The short-twig forms include nine runes which appear as simplified variants of the long branch runes.

Derivations:

The Younger Futhark developed later into a range of additional scripts including Halsinge Runes, Middle Age Runes, and Latinised Dalecarlian Futhark.

Some Examples of Futhark Inscriptions:

Kalleby Runestone - The Kalleby Runestone dates to the Iron Age and includes a short text. It was found in Sweden in the region of Bohuslan and is believed to have been produced in the fifth century AD. It is an example of Period I Elder Futhark (150-550 AD). It reads:

þrawijan * haitinaz was

Yearning was imposed (on him). / Þrawija’s (monument). (I/he) was commanded/called. / (I/He) was promised to þrawija

Kalleby Runestone

Vadstena Bracteate - The Vadstena Bracteate is a gold C-bracteate found in Sweden dating to around 500AD.  It consists of an image of a four-legged animals with a man’s head above it with a bird separated by a line. This image is commonly associated with the Norse God Odin. The inscription reads:

tuwatuwa; fuþarkgw; hnijïpzs; tbemlŋo[d]

The translation is highly debated

Skåäng Runestone- The Skåäng Runestone is an elaborate stone dating to around the sixth century. It hails from Sweden and contains two inscriptions. The first inscription consists of Younger Futhark while the second is of Elder Futhark. The inscriptions reads:

§A Harja, Leugaz

§B Skammhals ok Olof þau letu gæra mærki þausi æftiR Svæin, faður sinn. Guð hialpi salu hans

§A Harja, Leugaz

§B Skammhals and Ólôf, they had these landmarks made in memory of Sveinn, their father. May God help his soul

Skaang Runestone

Istaby Runestone - The Istaby Runestone is found amoung the Rundata catalog (DR 359) and is a proto-Norse runestone found in Sweden dating to the Vendel era. It is currently located in the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm. It is an example of Period II Elder Futhark (550-700 AD). It reads:

AP Aftr Hariwulfa. Haþuwulfz HeruwulfizAQ Haþuwulfz Heruwulfiz aftr HariwulfaB wrait runaz þaiaz

AP In memory of Hariwulfar. Haþuwulfar, Heruwulfar’s son,AQ Haþuwulf(a)r, Heruwulfar’s son, in memory of HariwulfarB wrote these runes.

Istaby Runestone

Spearhead of Kovel - The Spearhead of Kovel is the head of a lance found in 1858 in Ukraine. It dates to around the third century AD and measures 15.5cm. The inscription on its blade reads from right to left TILARIDS meaning ‘thither rider’, which is interpreted as either the name of a warrior or of the spear itself. It is believed to be Gothic in origin.

Spearhead

Additional Reading

• Futhark, a Handbook of Rune Magic
• Elder Futhark
• Runes: An Introduction
• A practical guide to the runes: their uses in divination and magick
• Norwegian runes and runic inscriptions
• Runes and runic inscriptions: collected essays
• Runes and Germanic Linguistics

Related articles

• The Magick of Runes (ankhafnakhonsu.net)
• The Language of Trees: Ogham (Archaic Irish Script) (graecomuse.wordpress.com)
• Runes in Christian Contexts (wolfslair88.wordpress.com)
• Swedish Runic Corpus On-line (scienceblogs.com)
• Surviving Material Evidence (wolfslair88.wordpress.com)
• Runes in Manuscripts (wolfslair88.wordpress.com)

Note that this website can be followed by pressing the ‘Follow by Email’ option on the right hand side of the screen 

Ammianus Marcellinus: Biographical Record in the Res Gestae

Ammianus Marcellinus is often proclaimed as the ‘last great Roman historian’ and his Res Gestae (history from AD354-378) as an accurate and objective account of events in the fourth century.  But just how useful and reliable is this text in relation to the recounting of events? How does the author himself affect the way these events are portrayed in the Res Gestae?  And how does it stand as an autobiographical text?

The Res Gestae is often acclaimed as a reliable history as told by its author, Ammianus Marcellinus; but can this interpretation really be upheld? Matthews asserts that Ammianus’ depiction of the period from Nerva to the battle of Adrianoplein in 378 is an accurate representation of the authors own times.[1] An assessment of the Res Gestae could also suggest a different view.  Ammianus’ works are recognised as our fullest source for the period of the fourth century but their objectivity is also questioned.  Barnes maintains a conviction quite opposite to Matthews and states that “Ammianus failed in his obligation as a historian to strive to transcend personal bias.”[2]

Click Image for Book Information

Ammianus belonging to a select canon of great historians, who are known for reliability, immediately has an affect on the assessment of the Res Gestae.[3]  One is tempted to believe that Ammianus’ history is truly an objective account.  But how can any author really create a work, factual or fictional, that does not contain any amount of bias? When Gibbon examines the ecclesiastical politics of Constantius’ reign, he gives Ammianus praise as an ‘unbiased witness’[4].  This view of Ammianus and his Res Gestae is debatable because no writing can ever be free of the author’s own bias and self-involvement.

An analysis of the Res Gestae as a historical account of events suggests that it is highly subjective.  Barnes asserts that Ammianus writes with unusual violence and ferocity indicating a subjective view of depicted events.[5]  This is in contrast to the ideas of Gibbons and Matthews.  Matthews does not appear to regard Ammianus as a historian but as a writer of the present period.[6] Gibbons praises Ammianus as the author of an ‘objective history’. Matthews views the Res Gestae more as a narrative that accurately depicted the period of Ammianus through the eyes of the author and the ideologies of the time.  The Res Gestae has been critically discussed in two dimensions, one portraying it as a purely historical work and another as a narrative depicting the times as viewed by the author.

The Res Gestae in modern analyses is seen as a “work of imaginative literature” which “exhibits the creative and imaginative powers of a novelist.”[7]  Matthews even likens the author’s writing to scenes from a play.  The confrontation, for instance, between Leonitus and Peter Valvomeres[8] exhibits “contrasting emotions and postures” leading to “ritual violence.”[9]  This suggests that the Res Gestae was created in part as an entertainment piece, written for a certain audience.  In order to formulate this type of work the author has clearly emphasised and omitted several events.  This assessment indicates that as an account of the times, the Res Gestae may well be incomplete and inaccurate, more to the likening of a narrative than a distinctly objective work.When critically assessing the Res Gestae as an account of the author’s times one notices several inconsistencies within the text in comparison to contemporary works suggesting that the Res Gestae does not fully incorporate the most significant events and issues but more so those that concerned the mind of its author.  With this in mind, it is indicative that the Res Gestae does not serve the purpose of a history due to its inability to present events in an objective manner.  For instance, the lack of references to the uprising Christian values could be seen as a failing on behalf of Ammianus.  Ammianus leaves out the majority of ecclesiastical events and affairs such as those that occupied Constantius’ reign.  Elliot describes Ammianus as a pagan apologist who treats Christianity unfairly and it appears that there is an irremovable inconsistency in what the author does say about Christianity.[10] Despite the debates, the Res Gestae still is the fullest account of the fourth century that survives to the present day.  The surviving half of Ammianus’ works provides an overview of events and subjects from the Caesar Gallus to the siege of Adrianople.[11]  Particularly significant is its use as a source for Roman policy.  Seager examines the account of events on the Rhine and the Danube, asserting that such accounts show that policy was “fundamentally defensive” with a priority of keeping out barbarians or to drive them out.[12]  This theme of action in response to barbarian frontier violations is a constant throughout the narrative.

Ammianus also appears to manipulate events subtlety to imply alternate motives of those concerned.  This is seen in the account of Constantius on the Rhine against the Alamanni in 354; where Constantius took responsibility in the new found peace.[13]  Ammianus recounts that the peace was in fact a result of a fluke and offers religious grounds for the Alamanni seeking peace rather than the actions of Constantius.[14]  What Ammianus thought of those concerned shaped his narrative, such as his favourable tone with the emperor Julian and unfavourable tone in reference to Constantius.  This while showing the great bias, within the writings which would be unsuitable for a historian, gives the reader an important look at the character of important figures through the eyes of someone who lived under their influence.

Julian

The Res Gestae provides a look into the character of the empires and important people of the times.  This shows a biographical streak to the writing which is often not so closely associated with the writing of a history.  For example, Ammianus gives us an overview of Julian which is almost unrivalled.  Ammianus both praises and criticises Julian and provides a unique look into his personality. Ammianus tells us that Julian had an inclination towards pagan practices and gods from a young age but kept up the pretence that he was a Christian for survivals sake, and later his Christian education influenced his take on paganism.[15] This is a view which is in contrast with many others such as Browning’s who asserts that Julian broke completely away from Christianity.[16]  Ammianus in regards to this biographical theme discloses both his likes and dislikes of the individuals concerned with an unusual vigor.  The Res Gestae in terms of this could be seen as more a record of personalities and critics of them, rather than a history of the author’s times.

The question still remains whether or not Ammianus faithfully reflects the world that he describes or a completely subjective view.  Auerbach analyses Ammianus as portraying a highly grim view of the events of the fourth century and failing to adequately indicate historical and social contexts.[18]  This idea is criticised by Matthews who believes that scholars are purely being evasive and that the Res Gestae can not be judged in this manner.[19]  Ammianus should instead be seen as a writer of his own times; it will of course have been subject to Ammianus’ pessimistic and optimistic views on certain events which he himself witnessed and was affected by.

While the events of the Res Gestae are open to interpretation, Ammianus’ writing does give us a rare look into the attitudes of certain social groups.  Firstly, Ammianus was a military man and his writings were subject to the attitudes that accompanied this status.  One could assert that the Res Gestae can be used as a source for Military attitudes, especially those of the common soldier with which Ammianus was acutely conscious of.[20]  The use of the first person in the text within the campaigns he describes indicates that Ammianus had indeed lived and worked hard throughout his life and understood the workings of the military and war.[21]  Ammianus’ direct involvement in the events of the fourth century provides a rare outlook.  Matthews clearly defines this assessment, stating that “Ammianus deserves to be treated as the living product of time, place and memory.”[22]  With this in mind, the account of the author’s times in the Res Gestae regains ground as a significant fourth century text.

From the Res Gestae the reader also gets a look into the priorities and attitudes of the Roman upper classes from Ammianus’ treatment of them. One of the most defined of these is their attitude towards foreigners.  Thompson states that Ammianus doubted the existence of “sincere friendship at Rome.”[23]  The Res Gestae accounts several incidents where the attitude towards foreigners is severely negative in the minds of the Roman citizens.  Often Ammianus finds significant fault with the Upper classes and their prizing of pride, popularity, wealth and superstition over the intimacy of their fellows, lower classes and foreigners.[24] He also brings particular attention to how they quickly lost interest in new comers when they did greet them.

In the surviving books of the Res Gestae, Ammianus only makes one clear reference to his background.  This appears in the closing statements when he reveals ‘haec ut miles quondam et Graecus…pro virium explicavi mensura’[25] that he is writing as a soldier and a Greek.  Apart from this statement, the life of Ammianus must be interpreted through the many indirect references and the grammar used in the Res Gestae, which holds a strong autobiographical tone. This is firstly illustrated by the author’s use of the first person plural with the events of 363 onwards.[26]  The assessment that Ammianus was a military man who served in Julian’s expeditions is noted from his account of the crossing of the Khabur at Cercusium during Julian’s advance in book 23.[27] Here, Ammianus changes his writing to include first person plurals opposed to the third person plurals he had been using in previous books. The Res Gestae provides us with a fair timeline of the author’s life through his associations with the military campaigns he recounts, and an overview of his status and background.  Ammianus first appears on the staff of Ursicinus in 354 as it clearly states “…Ursicinus, to whose staff I had been attached by the Emperor’s order, was summoned from Nisibis…”[28] Ammianus’ personal involvement in events becomes more pronounced in progressing Books.  He often associates himself with the trials and tribulations of Ursicinus to whom he had great loyalty, as well as indicating his involvement in campaigns of Julian and events close toAntioch, where he may have originated from.  Ammianus’ on occasion seems to omit himself from the text where one may expect to see him.  This suggests that in the intervening years in Julian’s reign he was not himself held highly-regarded.  What the reader gathers from the Res Gestae about the life of Ammianus is itself bias material which is subject to the author’s own wish to glorify himself and his peers and proclaim his own ideas.

Scholars have made reference to a letter of Libanius to a Marcellinus residing in Rome, and regard it as a strong standpoint as to which one can reconstruct the background of Ammianus Marcellinus.  There is however argument for and against this Marcellinus being the Marcellinus who penned the Res Gestae.  Where Matthews asserts that this Marcellinus is indisputably the author of the Res Gestae, other scholars have critically analysed it with the belief that this letter could have been penned to another with a similar name.  Fornara, Bowerstock and Barnes are three such scholar that in recent years have challenged the traditional identification of the recipient.[29]  These three scholars have brought to light disputes concerning the place of origin for the recipient being Antioch, however in more recent debates Barnes has moved slightly towards Matthews’ view.

With this in mind the modern scholar should turn their attention back to the writing of the author himself and the indications that he personally makes to his life.  Barnes asserts that it is necessary to use both indirect indications within a text and any explicit external evidence to recreate the author’s life.[30]  While this is indeed an important way of exploring evidence and interpretation, in the case of Ammianus where the most accessible external reference is in dispute, the Res Gestae becomes the most significant source of information for the author’s own life. 

Ammianus Marcellinus’ Res Gestae can be assessed from several standpoints.  As a historical account it is full of bias and subjectivity that many scholars believe is a failing on the part of the author.  But when seen as an account of the author’s own life and times, as an account of the present day rather than a historical work these failings emerge as a unique eyewitness view of events.  In critically analysing the Res Gestae one sees that the inconsistencies in the text obscure much of the history and as an account of events may be seen as unreliable.  The Res Gestae on the other hand provides a record of social ideologies and caricatures, as well as an autobiographical streak that allows for a fair account of the life of the author through indirect references.  Ammianus is by no means an objective historian and his works are subject to fault and omission but as an account of his life and times they are invaluable.

---

[1] Matthews, J., ‘Ammianus’ (1989), p.228

[2] Barnes, T.D., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality’ (London, 1998), p.viii

[3] Such authors in this canon include Tacitus and Livy which Ammianus’ works are often read in relation and comparison to

[4] Gibbon, E., ‘A Vindication of Some Passages in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ (London, 1779), p.110-111; ‘The English Essays of Edward Gibbon’ ed. Craddock, P.A., (Oxford, 1972), p.299

[5] Barnes, op.cit., p.8

[6] Matthews, op.cit, p.28

[7] Barnes, op.cit., p.198

[8] Ammianus, op.cit., 14.11

[9] Matthews, J., ‘Homo Victor. Classical Essays for John Bramble’ (Bristol, 1987), p.279

[10] Barnes, op.cit., p.18

[11] Ammianus, op.cit, 15

[12] Seager, R., ‘Roman Policy on the Rhine and the Danube in Ammianus’ The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol.49, No.2 (1999), p.579

[13] Ammianus, op.cit., 10

[14] Seager, op.cit., p.580

[15] Ammianus, op.cit., 25.3-7

[16] Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, 1978), p.109

[17] Ammianus, op.cit., p.248 – Julian’s extensive sacrifice made even the pagans uneasy, Ammianus’ criticism as a pagan scholar illustrates this uneasiness

[18] Auerbach, ‘Mimesis’ (1953), p.53-60

[19] Barnes, op.cit., p.14

[20] Thompson, E.A., ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and the Romans’Greece andRome, Vol.11, No.33 (1942), p.132

[21] ibid.134

[22] Matthews, J., ‘The Roman Empire of Ammianus’ (Baltimore, 1989), p.7

[23] Thompson, op.cit., p.133

[24] ibid.132

[25] Ammianus, op.cit., 31.16.9

[26] Barnes, op.cit., p.1, Ammianus, op.cit., 23.5.7

[27] Ammianus, op.cit., 23.5.7

[28] Ibid., 14.9

[29] Barnes, op.cit., p.56

[30] Ibid., p.55