#roman society & culture

[thesilicontribesman]

Roman Jet Bracelets and Bangles, The Yorkshire Museum, York

[leroibobo]

cahokia was a city located across what's today the mississippi river, lasting between about 1050-1350 ce, after which it was abandoned until about 1500. due to its inhabitants leaving little-no written records and no oral histories of it existing, the city's original name is unknown - it was named posthumously for the cahokia people who were living in the area at the time of french contact.

at its peak in the 11th and 12th centuries, cahokia was the largest city north of mesoamerica and the largest settlement of the mississippian culture with a population of 15-20,000. it served as both an economic and cultural center; the city's main trades included farming, logging, hunting, pottery, weaving, and trading. the exact reason for its decline in the 13th and 14th centuries is unknown, with theories including war, political fragmentation, disease, and flooding among others being proposed.

like other mississippian settlements, cahokia is best known for its diligent city planning and extensive earthworks. its basic layout - thought to be inspired by the creators' view of the heavens - consists of four quarters and several soil and clay-constructed mounds oriented in the cardinal directions. all of them are centered on monks mound, the tallest of the earthworks, which may have housed the city's rulers. most residents lived on farmlands surrounding this main area. the city also includes the "woodhenge", an astronomical observatory consisting of wood posts aligned with the positions of the sun throughout the year, which is thought to have been relocated several times throughout the city's history. evidence of a copper workshop and a mass burial site have also been found in some of the city's mounds.

some siouan-speaking nations further west like the osage, kaw, ponca, quapaw, and omaha have preserved some elements present in cahokian culture such as chunkey and their meticulous urban planning. it's been suggested that these nations are a result of former cahokian people or other mississippians in the cahokian sphere of influence gradually migrating elsewhere. though cahokia had great influence, that practically no oral histories of the city exist indicates that former residents either didn't think it important enough to memorialize or didn't want to memorialize it.

[ciderjacks]

Some ocs.

[mytortoisegotstuckinatupperware]

[jameslmartello]

Not Woke, but Catholic.

#livingdivinemercy #frchrisalar #socialjustice #jesus #marx #nietzsche" on YouTube

[zumer-feygele]

I'm listening to the last podcast on the left episode on la llorona and they've gotten into the mesoamerican mythos and history behind the story and I keep wincing because they keep getting shit wrong

[claraetoile]

The library of alexandria didn't burn down in one day.

And it was deeming its knowledge unworthy that fueled the flames.

I love you people going into "useless" fields I love you classics majors I love you cultural studies majors I love you comparative literature majors I love you film studies majors I love you near eastern religions majors I love you Greek, Latin, and Hebrew majors I love you ethnic studies I love you people going into any and all small field that isn't considered lucrative in our rotting capitalist society please never stop keeping the sacred flame of knowledge for the sake of knowledge and understanding humanity and not merely for the sake of money alive

[thesilicontribesman]

Chesters Roman Fort Headquarters Courtyard and Roman Phallus Relief, Chesters Roman Fort, Hadrian's Wall, Northumberland

[poetry-lair]

Dolce è il profumo dei fiori

mentre mi risveglio

dopo un sonno di tedio

e gelida paralisi.

E dopo aver visto

schiudersi i boccioli fiorenti,

lascio che il sole di Maggio

attraversi il mio corpo

e sciolga le mie paure

“Flora (Fresco)” (C): Anonymous

“Spring ” (C): Lawrence Alma-Tadema

“ Nus près d'une fontaine dans un jardin méditerranéen” (C): Paul Jean Gervais

“Floralia” (C): Hobbe Smith

Poem (C): Me

[xartus]

My Roman Empire is actually the Roman Empire

[dionysus-complex]

Re: my observation that the average undergraduate now seems to have much greater familiarity with Homeric epic and at least some Greek literature (esp. tragedy) than with the Aeneid or any Roman material, I think there’s a myriad of things at work here but at least one is that we’ve reverted to this weird cultural construct where ancient Greek myth and literature is viewed as universal while Roman literature is viewed as particular and this affects what books are taught e.g. in high school and college English classes but also what gets mined for retellings. and I also think Roman material is often imagined as being more deeply implicated in the ideological framework of patriarchal western imperial society and like, in some cases perhaps that’s fair, but I would argue as a literary historian that Roman poetry is precisely where we see the cracks forming in Roman gendered imperialism just like Greek tragedy is where we see the cracks forming in Athenian gendered imperialism. whether we want to commit to any idea of authorial intent is a different question but imo it’s impossible to read e.g. Roman elegy or pastoral or even Lucan and come away with the pop-culture idea of the iconic masculine Roman subject (hell, I think even the Aeneid questions the conventional notion of masculine Roman virtus that Lucan absolutely shatters, but that’s another discussion)

anyways this also gets combined with a dynamic that’s really maddening to me as a classicist where anything Roman is almost exclusively gendered as masculine in popular culture (see the Roman Empire meme, but also the subculture of Jordan Peterson bros roleplaying as stoics and reading or pretending to read Marcus Aurelius) whereas on the Greek side we have Anne Carson’s Sappho translations and a total saturation of feminist rewritings of Greek myth, Homeric epic, and tragedy. this is actually really weird from the perspective of a Roman social historian, given that women are far more visible in Roman material (esp. from the 1st century CE onward) than they are anywhere in classical Greek society, and it has the consequence that Roman poetry (except, like, Lucretius I guess) gets sidelined because the types of dudes that are going to maybe read Marcus Aurelius or Tacitus are definitely not going to read Catullus or Vergil’s Eclogues or even the Aeneid given that poetry itself is often gendered as feminine in the 21st century popular imagination, and the types of non-classicists who like Anne Carson’s Sappho and feminist approaches to Greek myth are also probably not going to read Roman poetry

[what-even-is-thiss]

People acting like slavery was good at literally any point in history kinda drive me crazy. There's been many different types of slavery and indentured servitude all throughout human history all with a lot of difference and nuance to all of them and all of them have been bad. Like it's fundamentally wrong to take a person's personal ownership of their own body and life away from them and/or to make them work for no compensation against their will.

Slavery has been a bit different in every society that has practiced it and it is always a different kind of bad with that core immorality of stealing a person's personal autonomy from them at the center of it. People throughout history have always preferred owning themselves to being owned by others. There's no ethical way to own another human being.

Like people talk about slavery in ancient times like more modern examples of slavery should've been more like that. No, they shouldn't have. Because they shouldn't have been practicing slavery at all. Perhaps a third of the Roman Empire's population was enslaved. It was incredibly normalized. Did that make it right? No. That was a third of the population that could legally be killed or sold or raped by their enslavers at any time for no reason. That had no ownership of themselves or their labor.

And to be clear, slavery still exists and it's still bad. The excuse now is just that it's only being done to prisoners. Like all the forms of slavery before it, this justification does not make it right. People being punished for their crimes, whether you think prison time is a justifiable punishment or not, are still people. They need to be given control over what work they apply to do and be paid for their work. This is basic stuff and yet. Forced unpaid labor is still happening. It's all bad. It's all nuanced and and complicated and different and changes with culture and time and it's bad.

Like as someone who loves studying history I hate watching other people who study history try to justify these things. Face your actual history. There's a lot of bad in it. We can't change the past but we sure as hell can stop ignoring it.

[novelemporiumonline]

Ancient Indian Coins of Foreign Rulers

[greco-roman-jewess]

Hey Jumblr I want to let you in on a secret that has made some of my worst days bearable

Blame the Romans

Have some freakish Ashkenazi malady…

Blame the Romans- you wouldn’t be a lactose intolerant with terrible sinuses if it weren’t for genetic bottlenecking caused by Roman slavery

Can’t eat fava beans…

That’s probably the Babylonians fault but YOU KNOW WHAT if the Romans hadn’t destroyed the temples then maybe your ancestors would have returned home and not developed a genetic mutation that causes deadly intolerance to a bean

Your boyfriend turned out to be an antisemitic weirdo and took all your friends in the break up by telling them you were an evil Zionist…

Those people were never your friends AND blame the Romans for renaming the land Syria Palestinina and confusing defiantly very anti colonial college students the world over

You feel like you have no sense of unique culture or identity and your antisemitic brain worms are tell you that you are a leech that produces nothing for society but CO2…

Blame the Romans for intentionally killing and robbing your ancestors of their indigenous land and disrupting cultural transmission

That hot Israeli girl won’t text you back because you don’t know enough about winter barley cultivation…

If it weren’t for the ROMANS you would be disappointed that a HOT JUDEAN GIRL wasn’t texted you back and you might know more about barley if Jewish society had remained agrarian in nature

[cursecuelebre]

Top Recommendations for Norse Pagans that aren’t Problematic.

There is a lot of books by people who are racist and part of far right side of Heathenry and I’m going to try my best and list the books I have that helped me on my path that isn’t problematic and have questionable intentions. Books and YouTube channels.

Anglo Saxon Socerery and Magic by Alaric Albertson. He is very knowledgeable in his work and path especially on runes which includes the rune poem to make your own interpretation and witchcraft side of things. He even talks about the Elves which I appreciate because not a lot of Norse authors talk about them. It’s more Germanic than Norse but I can’t see any problem adopting certain aspects since they are very similar. I will say he does take himself a bit serious at times but his information is so good and worthwhile. I have not read his first book on Travels through middle earth but it focus on more the pagan side.

Poetic Edda and Prose Edda: it’s what every Norse pagan needs. It’s the foundation of Norse paganism not bibles but myths and tales that can help along our journey. There is tons of translations, but my favorites are Dr. Jackson Crawford Poetic Edda and Anthony Fawkes Prose Edda. But look into other sagas as well like Volsung which Dr Jackson Crawford also wrote about.

Beowulf. More of a Germanic tale but again includes it has roots of Germanic sorcery, traditions, religion like the concept of Wyrd (Fate), the runes, and values within his society like loyalty and mythical creatures. Again there is many translations even Jrr Tolkien did a incompleted version of Beowulf but I think Tom Shippey finished that version I could be wrong. Nonetheless explore more than one, the oneI have is by Seamus Heaney.

Grimm Fairy Tales this mostly German Folklore but it’s still quite important to learn about in German folk magic, creatures and entities in German folklore tends to be very real to the practitioner in their spellwork.

The Way of Fire and Ice by Ryan Smith a very progressive outlook in Norse paganism, he talks about creating communities in Norse paganism and calling out and denouncing Nazis in the community how Norse Paganism is inclusive and how to be open to all types of people. But he has a beginner approach to the deities, beliefs, values within Norse paganism.

Look into a lot of academic sources that’s where you will find a lot of information on Norse paganism and religions.

Tacitus Germania - A Roman historian talking about the Germanic tribes their culture and customs.

Saxo Grammaticus history of the Danes

The Viking Way by Neil Price it goes good in depths about magic in Scandinavia like Seidh

Dictionary of Norse Mythology a quick guide to northern myths, if you are trying to find a specific god and you don’t have time to look up in a book it’s in there with great information to each one.

Children of Ask and Elm: History of Vikings by Neil Price on Scandinavian culture during the Viking age

Some YouTube Channels

The Norse Witch: Bente lives in Germany and their channel encompasses all of Norse paganism more around magic. They do interviews with other Norse witches of folk magic like Icelandic and Danish. Even gives good book recommendations and advice on general spellwork as well!.

Dr Jackson Crawford he is an author but he also has a YouTube channel. He was a professor in Colorado on Norse culture, mythology, and language and now is a full time YouTuber. He did a series of videos on the runes which are more historically accurate. Discusses the myths and the language and what do they mean. Jackson Crawford isn’t a Norse pagan nor he doesn’t care if you are one but just letting you know he isn’t coming from a pagan perspective.

The Welsh Viking also like Jackson Crawford but still has really great knowledge on Viking culture.

De Spökenkyker who is a channel that focus on German Folk magic living in Germany who is a practicing German Folk Witch.

Please feel free to add on any recommendations that are helpful and useful to the Norse pagan Community!

Update:

Just adding new sources from the comments that I really enjoy I have been notfied that some YouTubers aren’t that great after all. You may find other people’s reblogs with their names but I have edited them out. But here’s some more reminder these are good perspectives and ideas as well in the community that aren’t problematic it’s okay to listen to these folks and gain some perspective or historical insights of course let me know if I’m mistaken or they are problematic that I didn’t know about.

- Welsh Viking (YouTube) and his more historical like Jackson Crawford in that sense

- Mathias Nordvig (Author) - Notably Astaru for Beginners

- Arith Harger (YouTube)

- Call of The Runes by Walter McGrory (his teaching of the runes is really great and includes the rune poems)

- Elves, Witches, and Gods by Cat Heath - If your interested in magic especially Seidr Cat does a great job of explaining her practice again HER practice it’s following someone’s example but you can adapt into your own practice of course.

- A Practical Guide to Asatru by Patricia M Lafayllve - She has interesting points and a good read.

These some of these authors utilise their knowledge based on history and their own practice and I think it’s okay to read or listen to them.

[vaspider]

In defense of retellings & reimaginings

I'm not going to respond to the post that sparked this, because honestly, I don't really feel like getting in an argument, and because it's only vaguely even about the particular story that the other post discussed. The post in question objected to retellings of the Rape of Persephone which changed important elements of the story -- specifically, Persephone's level of agency, whether she was kidnapped, whether she ate seeds out of hunger, and so on. It is permissible, according to this thesis, to 'fill in empty spaces,' but not to change story elements, because 'those were important to the original tellers.' (These are acknowledged paraphrases, and I will launch you into the sun if you nitpick this paragraph.)

I understand why to the person writing that, that perspective is important, and why they -- especially as a self-described devotee of Persephone -- feel like they should proscribe boundaries around the myth. It's a perfectly valid perspective to use when sorting -- for example -- which things you choose to read. If you choose not to read anything which changes the elements which you feel are important, I applaud you.

However, the idea that one should only 'color in missing pieces,' especially when dealing with stories as old, multi-sourced, and fractional as ancient myths, and doing so with the argument that you shouldn't change things because those base elements were important to the people who originally crafted the stories, misses -- in my opinion -- the fundamental reason we tell stories and create myths in the first place.

Forgive me as I get super fucking nerdy about this. I've spent the last several years of my life wrestling with the concept of myths as storytelling devices, universality of myths, and why myths are even important at all as part of writing on something like a dozen books (a bunch of which aren't out yet) for a game centered around mythology. A lot of the stuff I've written has had to wrestle with exactly this concept -- that there is a Sacred Canon which cannot be disrupted, and that any disregard of [specific story elements] is an inexcusable betrayal.

Myths are stories we tell ourselves to understand who we are and what's important to us as individuals, as social groups, and as a society. The elements we utilize or change, those things we choose to include and exclude when telling and retelling a story, tell us what's important to us.

I could sit down and argue over the specific details which change over the -- at minimum -- 1700 years where Persephone/Kore/Proserpina was actively worshiped in Greek and Roman mystery cults, but I actually don't think those variations in specific are very important. What I think is important, however, is both the duration of her cults -- at minimum from 1500 BCE to 200CE -- and the concept that myths are stories we tell ourselves to understand who we are and what's important to us.

The idea that there was one, or even a small handful, of things that were most important to even a large swath of the people who 'originally' told the store of the Rape of Persephone or any other 'foundational' myth of what is broadly considered 'Western Culture,' when those myths were told and retold in active cultic worship for 1700 years... that seems kind of absurd to me on its face. Do we have the same broad cultural values as the original tellers of Beowulf, which is only (heh) between 1k-1.3k years old? How different are our marital traditions, our family traditions, and even our language? We can, at best, make broad statements, and of inclusive necessity, those statements must be broad enough as to lose incredible amounts of specificity. In order to make definitive, specific statements, we must leave out large swaths of the people to whom this story, or any like it, was important.

To move away from the specific story brought up by the poster whose words spun this off, because it really isn't about that story in particular, let's use The Matter of Britain/Arthuriana as our framing for the rest of this discussion. If you ask a random nerd on Tumblr, they'd probably cite a handful of story elements as essential -- though of course which ones they find most essential undoubtedly vary from nerd to nerd -- from the concept that Camelot Always Falls to Gawain and the Green Knight, Percival and the grail, Lancelot and Guinevere...

... but Lancelot/Guinevere and Percival are from Chrétien de Troyes in the 12th century, some ~500 years after Taliesin's first verses. Lancelot doesn't appear as a main character at all before de Troyes, and we can only potentially link him to characters from an 11th century story (Culhwch and Olwen) for which we don't have any extant manuscripts before the 15th century. Gawain's various roles in his numerous appearances are... conflicting characterizations at best.

The point here is not just that 'the things you think are essential parts of the story are not necessarily original,' or that 'there are a lot of different versions of this story over the centuries,' but also 'what you think of as essential is going to come back to that first thesis statement above.' What you find important about The Matter of Britain, and which story elements you think can be altered, filed off or filled in, will depend on what that story needs to tell you about yourself and what's important to you.

Does creating a new incarnation of Arthur in which she is a diasporic lesbian in outer space ruin a story originally about Welsh national identity and chivalric love? Does that disrespect the original stories? How about if Arthur is a 13th century Italian Jew? Does it disrespect the original stories if the author draws deliberate parallels between the seduction of Igerne and the story of David and Bathsheba?

Well. That depends on what's important to you.

Insisting that the core elements of a myth -- whichever elements you believe those to be -- must remain static essentially means 'I want this myth to stagnate and die.' Maybe it's because I am Jewish, and we constantly re-evaluate every word in Torah, over and over again, every single year, or maybe it's because I spend way, way too much time thinking about what's valuable in stories specifically because I write words about these concepts for money, but I don't find these arguments compelling at all, especially not when it comes to core, 'mainstream' mythologies. These are tools in the common toolbox, and everybody has access to them.

More important to me than the idea that these core elements of any given story must remain constant is, to paraphrase Dolly Parton, that a story knows what it is and does it on purpose. Should authors present retellings or reimaginings of the Rape of Persephone or The Matter of Britain which significantly alter historically-known story elements as 'uncovered' myths or present them as 'the real and original' story? Absolutely not. If someone handed me a book in which the new Grail was a limited edition Macklemore Taco Bell Baja Blast cup and told me this comes directly from recently-discovered 6th century writings of Taliesin, I would bonk them on the head with my hardcover The Once & Future King. Of course that's not the case, right?

But the concept of canon, historically, in these foundational myths has not been anything like our concept of canon today. Canon should function like a properly-fitted corset, in that it should support, not constrict, the breath in the story's lungs. If it does otherwise, authors should feel free to discard it in part or in whole.

Concepts of familial duty and the obligation of marriage don't necessarily resonate with modern audiences the way that the concept of self-determination, subversion of unreasonable and unjustified authority, and consent do. That is not what we, as a general society, value now. If the latter values are the values important to the author -- the story that the author needs to tell in order to express who they are individually and culturally and what values are important to them* -- then of course they should retell the story with those changed values. That is the point of myths, and always has been.

Common threads remain -- many of us move away from family support regardless of the consent involved in our relationships, and life can be terrifying when you're suddenly out of the immediate reach and support of your family -- because no matter how different some values are, essential human elements remain in every story. It's scary to be away from your mother for the first time. It's scary to live with someone new, in a new place. It's intimidating to find out that other people think you have a Purpose in life that you need to fulfill. It's hard to negotiate between the needs of your birth family and your chosen family.

None of this, to be clear, is to say that any particular person should feel that they need to read, enjoy, or appreciate any particular retelling, or that it's cool, hip and groovy to misrepresent your reworking of a myth as a 'new secret truth which has always been there.' If you're reworking a myth, be truthful about it, and if somebody told you 'hey did you know that it really -- ' and you ran with that and find out later you were wrong, well, correct the record. It's okay to not want to read or to not enjoy a retelling in which Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere negotiate a triad and live happily ever after; it's not really okay to say 'you can't do that because you changed a story element which I feel is non-negotiable.' It's okay to say 'I don't think this works because -- ' because part of writing a story is that people are going to have opinions on it. It's kind of weird to say 'you're only allowed to color inside these lines.'

That's not true, and it never has been. Greek myths are not from a closed culture. Roman myths are not sacrosanct. There are plenty of stories which outsiders should leave the hell alone, but Greek and Roman myths are simply not on that list. There is just no world in which you can make an argument that the stories of the Greek and Roman Empires are somehow not open season to the entire English-speaking world. They are the public-est of domain.

You don't have to like what people do with it, but that doesn't make people wrong for writing it, and they certainly don't have to color within the lines you or anyone else draws. Critique how they tell the story, but they haven't committed some sort of cultural treachery by telling the stories which are important to them rather than the stories important to someone 2500 years dead.

****

*These are not the only reasons to tell a story and I am not in any way saying that an author is only permitted to retell a story to express their own values. There are as many reasons to tell a story as there are stories, and I don't really think any reason to create fiction is more or less valid than any other. I am discussing, specifically, the concept of myths as conveyors of essential cultural truths.