Exhibiting Representations: The Use of Reception Histories in a Museum Context

(1)

EXHIBITING REPRESENTATIONS

the use of reception histories in a museum context

this thesis for the MA program Museumstudies was written by Inge Kalle-‐den Oudsten #10640125

for the University of Amsterdam, the Graduate School of Humanities it was supervised by Dr. M. Hoijtink and Prof. dr. P. ter Keurs

and submitted on 27 July 2015 it contains 20.658 words

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dear reader, before embarking upon reading this MA thesis, I would like to have your attention for just a few moments. Because, before you begin reading this project, it is important to acknowledge those who have had a hand in its creation.

First, and foremost, I would like to extend my gratitude to both my supervisors: Mirjam and Pieter. Ever since I have met her, Mirjam has been an inspiration through her work and critical attitude. It was she who has gotten me interested in reception studies, and for that I am grateful. I am also sincerely thankful to Pieter. Having been able to work with him on the Carthage exhibition was a privilege. I can certainly say that I have never met a Prof. dr. who is quite as much fun as Pieter, and who is as kind and inspirational as he is.

I would also like to extend my thanks to all other staff members at the National Museum of Antiquities, for allowing me to learn from your experiences and giving me wonderful opportunities in creating the Carthage exhibition as part of my internship. Next to that, I would like to thank both Dr. Curtis and Dr. Finkel from the British Museum with regards to the interviews. It would not have been possible for me to include the Babylon exhibition in my analyses without these brief but inspirational visits.

Special thanks must also go to Helle – who has been my ultimate inspiration ever since I came to Middelburg, almost five years ago now. Without her, I would have never entered the world of museums, and for that I am unendingly grateful. She has always been honest and kind towards me, a rare combination that I cherish.

Last but not least, I am very grateful towards those who stand closest to me. My parents, though they may not always understand what exactly I write about, have always supported and encouraged me. Much encouragement has also been received from my three musketeers, Van Gent, Zwetsloot and Maaskant – what would I do without you? And finally, all praise to my beloved husband for his unending love and support. It is to you that I dedicate these 86 pages, I hope you will someday have time to enjoy reading them.

(4)

INTRODUCTION

“Tunis attack: Gunmen kill tourists in museum rampage”

“ISIS closes in on Damascus after seizing Yarmouk refugee camp” “ISIS video shows destruction of ancient Assyrian city in Iraq” “ISIS destroys Palmyra shrines in Syria”

This list shows only a few of the articles that were shown on the website of The Guardian, when searching for “Middle East”. Rampage, bombs, killings and destructions of heritage. This is the image of the Middle East, of North Africa, in the media, today. It is hard to imagine that this current stream of negativity does not influence our own image of these regions. Although true, these messages are polarising, stereotyping. Tunis, the Middle East and North Africa are being represented mainly as violent, unsafe, dangerous.

Yet, more than two thousand years ago, Tunis was home to one of the world’s most flourishing trade-‐empires: the ancient city of Carthage. Carthage was a city filled with beautiful works of art, a library full of learned manuscripts, impressive state buildings and many, many ships. A similar story can be told of Damascus, Nimrud and Palmyra. Looking at the Middle East and North Africa then, it was a flourishing, rich and culturally developed region.

HETEROTOPIA

These two images, although differing in time, do refer back to the same places. They are different representations of the same spaces. If we view these ancient sites through the eyes of Foucault, we could characterise them as heterotopia.1_{Dian
Kriz,} when writing on Carthage, indeed suggests that we must view these spaces as such: “a physical site in which diverse, discontinuous, and ambiguous slices of time and space can be accommodated.”2_{In
other
words,
a
heterotopia
is
a
physical
space
to
which} different meanings can be attached.

Foucault himself offers the cemetery as an example.3_{During
antiquity,
these} spaces were located on the outskirts of towns because of their association with miasma, pollution. During the Middle Ages, however, the cemetery moves to the centre of the city. Little attention is given to the deceased body in this time of fervent belief in a

1_{Foucault
(1984)}

2_{Kriz
(1995)
118.}

(5)

spiritual afterlife. Next to that, the social functions surrounding the ritual of burial, place the cemetery in the centre of town. However, during the nineteenth century, the

meaning of the site changes again, and the cemetery moves back outside the borders of the city. Foucault writes that “the cemeteries then came to constitute, no longer the sacred and immortal heart of the city, but the other city, where each family possesses its dark resting place.”4

This example shows that, over time, the meaning of the same, physical, site can change. This is what characterises a heterotopia. It is also what makes this concept relevant for this thesis. Ancient sites, such as Carthage and Babylon, function as a heterotopia through the ages. Different meanings are attached to these same spaces, resulting in different representations of these spaces.

REPRESENTATIONS

So ultimately, the issue at hand is representation. In the beginning of this

chapter, two different stories were told about the Middle East and North Africa. Neither the version of the media, nor my characterisation of the ancient Mediterranean, can be read as a one-‐on-‐one report of the truth. Such an image is only one image; it is only one perception of reality. The truth is not simply presented, instead, it is re-‐presented.

O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, in their handbook Media and Society, indeed define representation in this manner, “to present a second time, to re-‐present”.5_{This
re-‐} presenting is not a simple one-‐on-‐one relationship. Another element comes into play: who is representing? Someone views reality, and then creates a representation of it. It is not a second version of reality, it is a second version seen from the creator’s perspective. Stuart Hall, in his book Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, writes that representation is “to stand for or represent to other people our concepts, ideas and feelings.”6_{In
conveying
the
message,
a
“representational
system”
is
used:} sounds, written words, images or objects. The final goal is to produce meaning. However, as became clear from O’Shaughnessy and Stadler, the meaning, or re-‐

presentation, is not exactly the same as the original idea or thought. The process moves from an actor, who, through the representational system, conveys meaning, and creates a re-‐presentation. So, studying representations must always mean to study the creator

4_{Foucault
6}

5_{O’Shaughnessy
and
Stadler
(2005).}

(6)

and the medium, since they have influenced the meaning to a large extent. Once this is taken into account, the true meaning of a re-‐presentation is fully understood. Through this awareness of the processes of representation, we should be able to nuance our views and avoid polarised, stereotypical perceptions.

RECEPTION STUDIES

The underlying goal of this thesis is to find a way in which museum visitors are challenged to adopt a less stereotypical, more nuanced view of ancient sites, such as Carthage. One of the ways in which this can be achieved is through looking at the reception of such ancient sites in later times.

The field of reception studies, so writes De Pourcq, is only a relatively new direction in the humanities.7_{Although
the
practice
to
study
the
reception
of
classical} antiquity already existed in various disciplines such as art history and philosophy, the field of classical reception studies as such was only institutionalised in the last decade. Reception studies can be defined as a study into “the various forms, meanings and values, which the material from the ancient Greek and Roman empires has taken on in later times”.8_{It
discusses
how,
in
this
case,
classical
antiquity
has
been
received
in
later} ages. These later receptions are often expressed through representations: re-‐

presentations of an ancient historical reality. These representations can tell us how the classical world was received in that particular context.

What becomes clear from this approach is that a discussion of the reception history of a site automatically highlights issues surrounding representation. Inherent in the concept of reception histories lies the ability to discuss the dynamics of

representation. If dealt with properly, reception studies can create an awareness of the processes of representation.

RECEPTION STUDIES IN THE MUSEUM CONTEXT

Reception studies, though a relatively young discipline, has already moved beyond the academic discourse. One platform in which it can play a role is that of the museum. In exhibitions all over the world, later representations of the subject under discussion are being included in the museum display. In the Tiraz Centre in Amman, Jordan, the latest exhibition focuses on traditional costume in Bethlehem. This small exhibit includes nineteenth-‐century postcards and prints, as well as references to songs

7_{De
Pourcq
(2012)
220.}

(7)

and poems related to Bethlehem.9_{Often,
pictorial
representations
of
later
ages
are} included, such as in the case of Leiden’s National Museum of Antiquities’ exhibition on the Middle Ages, where large paintings by Alma Tadema were included in the exhibit.10 The practice is not only limited to ethnographic and archaeological museums, also art museums often use this device. An example of this is the Royal Academy of Arts’ recent exhibition on “Rubens and His Legacy”.11

What interests us here is the role of these reception histories in the museum exhibitions. Why are they included? Can they also contribute to a better understanding of the processes of representation?

REPRESENTATIONS, RECEPTION HISTORIES, MUSEUMS

At this point, the three main concepts that form the basis of this thesis have been introduced: representations, reception histories and the museum context. The

relevance of this paper, as discussed in the first paragraphs of this introduction,

becomes clear through the combination of these three concepts. Put rather simply, the combination of these three concepts constitutes the formula for the main question that this thesis addresses: How can the incorporation of reception histories in the museum context contribute to a better understanding of the processes of representation?

In order to investigate this statement, two case studies will be employed. The first is Babylon, once a great city, now reduced to ruin, located in what is now Iraq. This ancient site has an incredible history of representations featuring familiar names such as Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel in the Lion’s Den and the Tower of Babel. Yet, more

importantly, in 2008/2009, the British Museum has organised an exhibition on Babylon, which focused to a large extent on its reception history. The second case study is a very recent exhibition by the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden. This exhibition focuses on the ancient civilisation of Carthage. The three key concepts and the two case-‐ studies are also visible in the structure of this thesis.

9_{Tiraz
(2015).}

10_{Rijksmuseum
van
Oudheden
(2014).}

(8)

CHAPTER 1 – RECEPTION HISTORIES: BABYLON & CARTHAGE

The first chapter, Reception Histories: Babylon & Carthage, aims at giving a first impression of the large amount of representations that have come into existence on Babylon and Carthage. Working from an initial description of these two heterotopia, the different subchapters will elaborate on the different representations through the ages.

Of course, it must be noted that this survey is nowhere near exhaustive. The choice of a chronological approach does not mean that each period will be discussed in detail, or discussed at all: some periods may have been left out entirely. The attempt is to focus on those periods in which the representations were so poignant that they survived up until this day. It is for this reason that this chapter is divided up in arbitrary and generalised periods, such as ‘Antiquity’ or ‘the Middle Ages until the Renaissance’. Due to the constraints of this thesis, only the most important and

illuminating examples will be discussed, while there are, of course, many more. It is for this reason, for example, that the medieval Dido receives a large amount of attention whilst the story of Scipio Africanus is not dealt with in this context.

In this chapter, Carthage also receives far more attention than the city of

Babylon. In a sense, Babylon will, in this chapter, serve to complement the Carthaginian case. It will provide a comparable perspective on the image of an ancient, lost, city. The second reason for not extensively dealing with Babylon is that this, essentially, has already been done. Whereas the discussion of a history of representation of Carthage is fairly new, this history has been studied extensively for the Babylonian case.12

In the first place, this chapter serves as case study, which will be utilised in the second part of this thesis. However, it is also valuable in its own right. No exhaustive survey of the reception history of Carthage is currently in existence. Although parts of this rich history have been discussed, this is the first attempt at a chronological survey of Carthage’s representations. The survey starts in antiquity, one of the areas of

Carthage’s reception history that has been discussed in quite some detail. I have,

therefore, relied mostly on two secondary texts: The Invention of Racism in Antiquity, by Benjamin Isaac, as well as Rethinking the Other in Antiquity by Erich Gruen. Isaac and Gruen are the basis of my selection on the authors that will be discussed in the first part of this chapter. Since all later representations refer back to these texts, I have decided

12_{Michael
Seymour’s
Babylon:
Legend,
History
and
the
Ancient
City
and
Babylon:
Myth
and
Reality,
the}

catalogue for the 2008/2009 London exhibition by the curators Michael Seymour and Irving Finkel, are good resources for those interested in the reception history of Babylon.

(9)

to discuss them quite extensively. The survey is nearly exhaustive; I have only excluded a small number of authors, whose main contribution is a repetition of earlier writers. The main secondary texts, Isaac and Gruen, are complementary in their discussion of these ancient sources: Isaac fits them in the framework of early racism, whilst Gruen actually tries to prove otherwise. I have complemented their analyses with a selection of other authors who focus on particular aspects of the discussion, such as Devallet and Dubuisson when it concerns the Roman sources, and Barceló, Hexter, Mazza on the Greek image of the Phoenicians.

The second subchapter discusses the medieval and Renaissance reception of Carthage. Here, the focus lies on one particularly poignant aspect of these

representations: the figure of Dido. In this context, the 2007 lexicon on important characters from classical antiquity by Eric Moormann and Wilfried Uitterhoeve has proven extremely useful. It contains an extensive list of representations of Dido, serving as an excellent starting point for further research. This handy reference work lacks the in-‐depth discussion of these representations, which was then found mainly in articles that analyse specific representations of Dido. Examples of these are the art historical discussions on particular Dido paintings by, for example, Jan de Jong and Margaret Franklin. Secondary literature regarding Dido in other media was found in the work of Mary Lord, Janet Schmalfeldt, Roger Savage and Don Cameron Allen. Through piecing together the conclusions from these fairly specific articles, it is attempted to create an overview of the most important representations of Dido.

The third subchapter, on Salammbô, relies almost entirely upon the original text by Flaubert. Analyses of paintings and other artistic representations of Salammbô form the basis of this chapter. Finally, Vanessa Boschloos’ article, from the Carthage

exhibition catalogue, offers a good introduction to the representations of Carthage in the twentieth-‐ and twenty-‐first centuries in other media.

CHAPTER 2 – EXHIBITING RECEPTION HISTORIES: LONDON & LEIDEN The second chapter, Exhibiting Reception Histories: London & Leiden, focuses on the use of these reception histories in the museum exhibition. Here, an analysis will be presented of the inclusion of representations in both the London and Leiden

exhibitions. Because I was unable to visit the London exhibition at the time, the analysis will be based on photographs, reviews, and interviews. I was able to analyse the Leiden

(10)

exhibit in person, and I have complemented this discussion with reviews and an interview as well.

CHAPTER 3 – RECEPTION HISTORIES, MUSEUMS AND REPRESENTATIONS The third and final chapter complements the second. In this chapter the concept of representation will be added to the mix. This combination offers an alternative manner in which these reception histories can be incorporated in the museum context. The material from the first chapter will be used to exemplify that the use of these reception histories can indeed contribute to creating an awareness of the processes of representation.

(11)

1 RECEPTION HISTORIES: BABYLON & CARTHAGE

1.1 RECEPTION HISTORIES IN ANTIQUITY

CONTEXT

The narrative of the ancient city of Carthage begins in antiquity, somewhere around 800 BC, on the shores of the Mediterranean. Here, we find the Phoenicians, a small people, living in cities such as Tyre and Sidon, and famed for their skills in crafts and trades.13_{The
Phoenicians
are
tradesmen,
in
the
business
of
creating
colonies.
One} of these was built on the North African shore: Qart-‐Hadast, the New City, or, Carthage. Carthage grew quickly, and turned into an important and flourishing trade centre in the Mediterranean. It became a diverse civilisation, filled with rites and customs from the areas around the Mediterranean. The Tyrian deity Melqart, the Egyptian god Bes and the Near-‐Eastern Astarte were assimilated into a rich Phoenician culture. Glass-‐beads, purple dye and manuscripts on farming: the Carthaginians were a prolific people.

Yet around the third century BC, the city of Rome has risen too, and grown into a large empire. Naturally, tensions arise between the two nations, and wars ensue. These Punic Wars are famous, most notably the one where the Carthaginian general Hannibal crossed the Alps, allegedly, with his elephants. Yet the wars end badly for the

Carthaginians, and their city is utterly destroyed in 146 BC. Some turbulent centuries later, the Roman Empire enters into a period of peace and rehabilitation. Its archenemy Carthage is being rebuilt, and again flourishes, but now under Roman rule.14

This, in a nutshell, is the history of the ancient civilisation of Carthage. In a sense, it is the most important part of the city’s history, since the largest part of its later

representations refer to this historical period. It is also an important time, because the first sources on the city of Carthage also date to antiquity. These first representations were written by the contemporaries of the Carthaginians. Due to the destruction of the city of Carthage and its library, there are hardly any sources on Carthage that are not written by outsiders.15

Many years before Carthage was a flourishing trade-‐hub, the Near-‐East was ruled by another large empire: that of Babylon. Around the second millennium BC, a small

13_{In
this
thesis,
the
terms
Phoenicians
and
Carthaginians
will
be
used
interchangeably.
Although
they}

were a distinct people, the Phoenician culture survived largely in their Carthaginian colony. Much of what has been written on the Phoenicians can thus be applied to the Carthaginians.

14_{For
an
elaborate
discussion
of
the
history
of
Carthage,
I
refer
to
Miles
(2010)
as
well
as
Hoyos
(2010).}

(12)

Akkadian city started gaining independence, and eventually grew into the capital of the Babylonian Empire. It is important to note that, although the representations of

Carthage and Babylon in later ages may be comparable, the ancient civilisation of Babylon was thus far more ancient than that of Carthage. Also, for Babylon,

contemporary sources by inhabitants do exist. These sources, however, are written in cuneiform, and the ability to decipher this language was lost in the first century AD. Up until the nineteenth century, contemporary descriptions of Babylon would be

inaccessible. Before that time, the main image of Babylon was shaped by the sources that were written in classical antiquity. Like the sources on Carthage, they were written by outsiders. Unlike the Carthaginian sources, however, they were, for the largest part, written down after the rule of the Babylonian empire, which began around 2000BC and ended around 500BC.16

The first sources that significantly influenced the later image of Carthage and Babylon originated in classical antiquity. These sources can be divided up in two main categories: the biblical texts and the classical (Greek and Roman) texts. Although these sources differ considerably, they are, as Seymour writes, “the building blocks from which the entirety of European tradition” is ultimately derived.17

BIBLICAL RECEPTIONS: BABYLON

The biblical stories that focus on Babylon can be found in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament book of Revelation. It can be attempted to place the Old

Testament stories concerning the Tower of Babel and the city of Babylon in a historical context. When looking at extra-‐biblical sources, the story of Babel might be dated to around 2000 BC, and the exile to Babylon can be placed around 700-‐600 BC.18_{Next
to} that, it is also important to know when these narratives were written down. As Seymour writes “this is a hugely complicated and multi-‐faceted question on which there is no scholarly consensus”, however, “there is some reason for considering the sixth century BC as a natural candidate for the crucial period during which many legends drawn from or influenced by the Babylonian world entered Judean religion and ultimately the Old

16_{This
spans
from
the
earliest
empire
that
can
be
called
Babylonian
around
2000BC,
then
the
Neo-‐}

Assyrian Empire, and ending with the Neo-‐Babylonian Empire, which ended in 539 BC when the Persians take over.

17_{Seymour
(2014)
36.}

(13)

Testament.”19_{So,
put
very
bluntly,
it
may
be
said
that
the
Old
Testament
stories
were} crystallized, compiled and written down in the sixth century BC.20_{The
context
for
these} stories is thus not only the Middle East in the Bronze Age, we must also take the sixth century Babylonian court into account. The fact that this was written when the

Babylonians exiled the Judeans from their homes, may add an interesting perspective to the negative portrayal of Babylon.

Seymour summarises the most important and influential themes that originate from the biblical account of Babylon. This enumeration begins with the image of

Babylon that has probably resonated most through the ages: the Tower of Babel. Found in the book of Genesis, in short, this is “the tale of a city whose great size and pride have led to hubris, decay, fragmentation and confusion.”21_{This
is
clearly
a
very
negative} image of Babylon, which is continued in the second important theme: the exile. As mentioned before, in the sixth century BC, the Jewish people were uprooted from their lands and brought to Babylon as prisoners. Psalm 137 beautifully captures how this traumatic experience has been presented ever-‐since, as a “communal lament”22_:

“By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion. There on the poplars we hung our harps, for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land? If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill. May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy. Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”23

19_{Seymour
(2014)
39.}

20_{For
further
discussion,
I
refer
to
Finkel
(2010),
Sweeney
(2007)
and
Emerton
(2005).}

21_{Seymour
(2014)
37;
Genesis
11.}

All references to the Bible are taken from the Contemporary English Version, the 1999 translation. It can be found online – biblija.net.

22_{Ahn
(2008)
267.}

(14)

As Seymour writes, because of this act, “Babylon and its earlier kings […] are subject to some of the most fiery condemnations of Jeremiah and Isaiah”, who portray Babylon in a very negative way.24_{The
time
that
the
Israeli
people
spent
in
Babylon
is} described most clearly in the narratives surrounding the figure of Daniel, “a Judean interpreter of dreams in the courts of successive kings of Babylon”. The Babylonian court at the time of Daniel is the setting for many well-‐known biblical stories. One example is the story of the Fiery Furnace, in which Daniel and his three friends survive being thrown in a fire because they refused to worship the Babylonian gods. Another is that of King Nebuchadnezzar who is transformed into a madman and lives in the

wilderness for seven years. Finally, we can also find the story of Belshazzar and the writing on the wall in Daniel.25_{With
few
exceptions,
most
Babylonian
characters
in} these stories are portrayed in a negative manner. This negativity culminates in the, much later, New Testament image of Babylon, found in the book of Revelation, which is usually dated to the late first century AD.26_{As
Seymour
points
out,
the
goal
of}

Revelation is very different from that of the Old Testament books, although it uses images that are similar.27_{The
essence
of
this
image
is
the
Whore
of
Babylon:}

“I saw a woman mounted on a scarlet beast which was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and decked out with gold and precious stones and pearls. In her hand she held a gold cup full of obscenities and the foulness of her fornication. Written on her forehead was a name with a secret meaning: ‘Babylon the great, the mother of whores and of every obscenity on earth.’”28

She functions as an embodiment of, in the first place, the corruption of Babylon, as a metaphor for Rome, and secondly, “of all human worldliness and wickedness, the site of crisis at which the great battle of the Apocalypse would take place and from whose destruction the New Jerusalem would finally emerge.”29_{It
can
thus
be
concluded} that the biblical image of Babylon can be seen as extremely negative. The name becomes 24_{Seymour
(2014)
43,
45,
48.} 25_{Daniel
5.} 26_{Seymour
(2014)
50.} 27_{Seymour
(2014)
50.} 28_{Revelation
17:1-‐6.} 29_{Boiy
(2010)
92;
Seymour
(2014)
50-‐51.}

(15)

synonymous for anything sinful and immoral, for pride and the decay to which this ultimately leads. In the context of the Judean writings, Babylon embodies the enemy that uprooted them from their homes, and in the end turns into a symbol of the ultimate enemy.

BIBLICAL RECEPTIONS: CARTHAGE

Although the biblical accounts of the Phoenicians are not as negative as those regarding the Babylonians, something similar may be at stake here. The stories that feature the Phoenicians come mainly from the historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and the more prophetic books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. These historical books are set in a time in which the Jewish people have returned from Egypt, and are beginning to form their own people in a land surrounded by other peoples. It might be said that they are defining themselves by focusing on their differences with these other peoples. To define themselves as an avant la lettre nation, the Israelites had to focus on what separated them from the other peoples; their Monotheism. This may explain why, as we shall see in the following discussion, some customs of the Phoenicians are represented in a very negative manner.

When focusing mainly on their skills and crafts, the Phoenicians are praised and admired.30_{In
the
book
of
Kings
we
can
read
of
the
help
the
King
of
Tyre
gave
to}

Solomon when he was building the temple.31_{The
largest
part
of
the
seventh
chapter
of
1} Kings is dedicated to a long description of the result of the skilfulness of a particular competent bronze worker from Tyre.32_{Also
their
skill
in
seafaring
and
trading
is
of
help} to the Biblical King Solomon, as he hires some of King Hiram of Tyre’s “experienced sailors” to bring him gold.33_{Beitzel
shows
that
there
is
definite
historical
truth
in
these} biblical accounts.34

Yet the Phoenicians are not only praised in the Old Testament. Although their seafaring and trading skills may be lauded, when it comes to their religion, the biblical image is a very negative one. Boehm argues that, as early as the story of Abraham, we can see the Bible reacting against the Phoenician religion.35_{Furthermore,
the
main} Phoenician deities: Melqart (or Molech), Baal and Astarte, are often mentioned in the 30_{Moscati
(1988)
352.} 31_{1
Kings
5.} 32_{1
Kings
7.} 33_{1
Kings
9:27-‐28.} 34_{Beitzel
(2010)
38.} 35_{Boehm
(2004).}

(16)

Bible in a very negative manner. For example, in Leviticus chapter 20 we can already see a reference to the later allegations that the Carthaginians were sacrificing their children: “Death by stoning is the penalty for any citizens or foreigners in the country who sacrifice their children to the god Molech.”36_{In
Numbers
we
can
read
of
a
similar} hatred towards the gods of the Phoenicians: “Moses told Israel's officials, ‘Each of you must put to death any of your men who worshiped Baal.’ ”37_{And
once
more
in
2
Kings:} “After that, he closed down the shrines that Solomon had built east of Jerusalem and south of Spoil Hill to honour Astarte the disgusting goddess of Sidon, Chemosh the disgusting god of Moab, and Milcom the disgusting god of Ammon.”38_{Some
apostate} Israeli kings went very far in their worship of Baal, and also sacrificed their own children. An example of such a king was Ahaz, of whom we can read in 2 Chronicles: “Ahaz disobeyed the Lord and was as sinful as the kings of Israel. He made idols of the god Baal, and he offered sacrifices in Hinnom Valley. Worst of all, Ahaz sacrificed his own sons, which was a disgusting custom of the nations that the Lord had forced out of Israel.”39

It is interesting to note that the negativity surrounding the Phoenicians in the Bible is limited to their religion, whilst their other customs actually receive praise. This may lend some credibility to the hypothesis that the Jewish people may have been using the Phoenicians as an Other to strengthen their own nation.

GREEK RECEPTIONS: BABYLON

The biblical representations of the Babylonians are uncompromisingly negative. The Phoenicians receive a slightly more positive judgement: whilst their religion is condemned, their skills are lauded. How did the Greeks view these same peoples: what is their image of the heterotopia of Babylon and Carthage?

Seymour discusses two main sources with regards to the classical reception of Babylon: Herodotus and Ctesis of Cnidus through Diodorus. His findings are

summarised briefly here.40_{Herodotus
can
be
considered
one
of
the
first
historians
who} is actually aiming for objectivity. His texts consist mainly of literal descriptions of sites and customs. However, his account is not fully objective or a-‐political. Herodotus and 36_{Leviticus
20:2.} 37_{Numbers
25:5.} 38_{2
Kings
23:13.} 39_{2
Chronicles
1-‐4.} 40_{Seymour
(2014),
page
50-‐60.}

(17)

the other Greeks were fascinated by this other, exotic, culture. His aim was to “use the distant east both as a site for fantasies and as a negative ‘other’ against which the merits of the Greek culture could be defined”.41_{Working
from
this
perspective,
Herodotus} describes the aspects of Babylon that are most fascinating and interesting for outsiders, such as the gigantic and awe-‐inspiring walls, the marriage market and ritual

prostitution in the temple of Aphrodite. On the whole, Herodotus’ image of Babylon is one of awe, he writes that Babylon “surpasses in splendour any city in the known world.”42

The second main author who writes on Babylon is Ctesias of Cnidus, a doctor at the Persian court, whose Persica survives in Diodorus Silicus’ Bibliotheke Historica.43 This work is a combination of information that Ctesias learnt from the oral traditions at the Persian court, “and a healthy dose of Greek inquisitiveness about their eastern neighbours wrapped up, undoubtedly, in some semi-‐mythology too.”44_{In
this
mix
of} fantasy and historical facts, we come across the familiar names of Ninus, Semiramis and Sardanapallus. Their mythological stories, probably partly based in history, show us how the Greeks looked at the Babylonian court: as the perfect opposite of their own “values of austerity and the public forum”: this “decadent hedonism” is characterised by luxury, softness, and an unmanly retreat from the world of war: it is the, for us very familiar, world of Oriental corruption.45

GREEK RECEPTIONS: CARTHAGE

Thus, a double image exists in the classical texts on Babylon. On the one hand, we see awe for the grandeur of this once great civilisation, and on the other hand there is a lower regard towards their ‘oriental’ way of living.46_{This
dichotomy
is
something
that
is} resonated in the Greek sources on the Phoenicians and Carthage. The first of the Greek authors to comment on the Phoenicians is Homer, whose image of the Phoenicians is not a uniform image. They are introduced in the Iliad as merchants and renowned for their richly broidered robes, and beautiful ceramic ware.47_{In
the
Odyssey,
the}

Phoenicians are first introduced as “noble Phoenicians”, and later as “men famed for 41_{Seymour
(2014)
59.} 42_{Herodotus,
Histories
1.178.} 43_{Seymour
(2014)
59.} 44_{Seymour
(2014)
60.} 45_{Seymour
(2014)
64-‐65.} 46_{Boiy
(2010)
59,
61,
71.} 47_{Homer,
Illiad
23.740;
6.288;
23.740-‐743.}

(18)

their ships”. 48_{Yet,
a
little
later,
a
man
of
Phoenicia
is
described
as
“well
versed
in
guile,} a greedy knave.”49_{This
contradictory
image
is
very
well
encapsulated
in
a
single}

passage: “Thither came Phoenicians, men famed for their ships, greedy knaves, bringing countless trinkets in their black ship. Now there was in my father's house a Phoenician woman, comely and tall, and skilled in glorious handiwork.”50_{In
these
two
successive} sentences Phoenicians are at once shown to be “greedy knaves”, as well as “comely and tall, and skilled in glorious handiwork.” Moscati summarises these characteristics as follows: “their skill as craftsmen, considered supreme in many fields, and their undisputed fame as great navigators; but also their notoriety and cunning, dishonest merchants, sometimes even unscrupulous kidnappers and slave traders.”51

Herodotus also writes on the Phoenicians, in his Histories. Gruen summarises his attitude as a neutral one: “Phoenicians appear frequently in his pages as merchantmen, shippers, and widespread settlers in the Mediterranean. But we hear nothing of them as wily, avaricious, and deceitful traders.”52_{The
Phoenicians
are
those
who
“carry
goods
to} Hellas” and “set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea”. 53_{It
is
as
Barceló} notes, “We cannot detect any negative depiction or prejudice.”54

Plato and Aristotle are not consistent with their opinions on the Phoenicians. Aristotle, for example, admires the Carthaginians for the organisation of their state.55 Together with Sparta and Crete, the Carthaginian system of governance deserves praise for its stability, and lack of civil war or tyranny.56_{Yet,
on
the
other
hand,
Plato
seems
to} offer a more negative portrayal of the Phoenicians. According to him, they are illiberal, prone to avarice and love money.57

Erich Gruen, in Rethinking the Other in Antiquity, interprets this inconsistent image seen in these Greek writings in the light of the double role of Phoenicians as ‘ethnic Phoenicians’ and as ‘traders’.58_{He
proposes
that
the
negative
connotations}

48_{Homer,
Oddysey
13.272;
15.415.}

49_{Homer,
Oddysey14.287-‐297.}

50_{Homer,
Odyssey
15.415-‐418.}

51_{Moscati
(1988)
352.
See
also
Barceló
(1994)
1.}

52_{Gruen
(2011)
117.}

53_{Herodotus,
Histories
3.107;
4.42.}

54_{Barceló
(1994)
5.}

55_{Gruen
(2011)
120;
Isaac
(2004)
327.}

56_{It
is
quite
remarkable
that
Aristotle
merits
the
Carthaginians
a
place
in
his
list
of
city-‐states,
since
the}

Greeks believed that they were the only ones who could form poleis. See Barceló (1994) 8.

57_{Plato,
Laws
5.747b;
Plato
Republic
436a.}

(19)

associated with Phoenicians such as “greedy knaves” are not so much linked to the Phoenicians as they are to their profession – the pejorative terms are associated with the Phoenicians because they are “men of commerce”.59_{This
might
be
a
fitting}

explanation for these contradictions.60_{We
can
conclude,
as
does
Gruen,
that
the
image} of the Phoenicians in Greek writing was not solely hostile, and thus does not provide a uniform basis for the later Roman image.61

Richard Miles seems to disagree with this statement in the introduction of his book on the history of Carthage, Carthage Must Be Destroyed.62_{He
writes:
“As
with} many aspects of Roman culture, the hostile ethnic profiling of the Carthaginians originated with the Greeks: in particular, with those Greeks who had settled on the island of Sicily and had, before the rise of Rome, been Carthage’s main rivals for commercial and political supremacy in the region.”63_{One
of
these
Sicilian
Greeks
was} Timaeus of Tauromenium who wrote a history of Sicily up until the First Punic War. In his writings we can clearly see a very negative image of Carthage and the Phoenicians.64 Timaeus, for example, mentions the alleged Carthaginian practice of child sacrifice several times, thus portraying the Carthaginians as inhumane and barbaric.65_According to him, the Carthaginians are also savage and cruel: “For among them there was no sparing their captives, but they were without compassion for the victims of Fortune of whom they would crucify some and upon others inflict unbearable outrages.”66_Also: “They mutilated even the dead according to the practice of their people, some carrying bunches of hands about their bodies and others heads which they had spitted upon their javelins and spears.”67_{Child-‐sacrificing,
barbaric,
inhumane,
savage
and
cruel
–
as}

59_{Gruen
(2011)
121.}

60_{Gruen’s
explanation
is
noteworthy
indeed,
since
it
has
remarkable
consequences
for
the
origins
of
the}

Phoenician stereotype. It would mean that the negative connotations never originated from the Phoenicians as an ethnic group, but rather from their profession as traders. Through time these stereotypes linked to Phoenician traders became attached to the entire ethnic Phoenician group, which thus resulted in the Phoenician stereotype. Before accepting such a thesis, however, further research must be conducted – it is necessary, for example, to look at the portrayal of merchants from other ethnic groups in these early writings and see if this negative image also exists there.

61_{Gruen
(2011)
122.}

62_{Miles
(2010).}

63_{Miles
(2010)
7.}

64_{Sadly,
very
little
of
Timaeus’
original
work
survives.
However,
he
became
very
influential
among
later}

historians, who sometimes literately copied his work. Especially another Sicilian Greek, Diodorus Siculus, used much of Timaeus’ writing. References to Diodorus in this paper can therefore be seen as references to Timaeus.

65_{Diodorus,
Library
13.86.3;
20.14.1-‐7;
20.65.1.}

66_{Diodorus,
Library
3.111.}

Exhibiting Representations: The Use of Reception Histories in a Museum Context