你在这里

In 搜索 of the 腓尼基人s

In 搜索 of the 腓尼基人s

约瑟芬·奎因(Josephine C. Pp。 xxv​​iii + 335.普林斯顿大学出版社,普林斯顿,2017年,35美元。 ISBN 978-0-691-17527-0(布)。

评论者

This book is the latest in a series of contributions 上 the subject of 腓尼基人 identity. The first to launch the trend was S. Moscati, who introduced, in the 1960s, what he called the “Phoenician question,”尽管他的主要兴趣在于承认和欣赏起源于黎凡特城市(例如Arwad,Byblos,Sidon和Tyre等)的特定文化。奎因’这本书解决了这个问题,并希望提供一个明确的答案:我们认为自己是“the 腓尼基人s”没有考虑自己“Phoenicians”而是特定城市的居民(41–3)。作为推论,诸如“Phoenicia” and “Phoenicians”应该被视为主要由希腊人精心制作的外部标签,这些标签与种族群体不符。

对于非专业人士来说,这似乎是革命性的,但是对于专家而言,这听起来像是一个熟悉的论点,因为它是多年前提出的,正如奎因(xxiv)所承认的那样。实际上,这本书是针对普通大众的,就像作者在2012年塔夫茨大学巴尔穆斯讲座上介绍该材料时一样。因此,这本书可以看作是可以从屋顶上喊出来的东西。 Quinn远非开创性的’该论文可能确实需要在我们的走廊外呼应,以达到(大部分)认为“Phoenicians”成为一个确定而统一的人。

The book is composed of nine chapters divided into three parts and includes a brief introduction and conclusion and, 上 a general level, aims to embrace the problem of 腓尼基人s from a broad perspective, from antiquity to the present day. Given such a perspective, which constitutes an appreciable aspect of the book, it can sometimes be lacking in detail. 第一部分,“Phantom 腓尼基人s” (chs. 1–3)介绍了问题的背景,从对腓尼基人的理解开始,从文艺复兴时期到黎巴嫩或突尼斯的现代腓尼基人或布匿人民族主义。然后,分析分别移至普遍不存在该词的地方“Phoenician” in direct sources by individuals that we consider to be 腓尼基人s themselves, and to the fact that the label “Phoenician”在古代已经是外部的,尤其是在古希腊罗马文学中已经建立。第二部分“Many Worlds” (chs. 4–6), deconstructs the way material culture (numismatic and iconographic in particular) and some ritual elements (such as the Tophet and the spread of the cult of Melqart) contributed to the scholarly creation of a 腓尼基人 identity. The third part, “Imperial Identities” (chs. 7–9),分析现象“Phoenicianism,” or the “vivid afterlife of these phantom 腓尼基人s” (xxiii). Quinn’s的分析始于古代黎凡特,认为“colonial world”或西方(尤其是迦太基的政治合法化),然后以欧洲国家(尤其是对英语和爱尔兰知识分子的案例研究)为结尾。该卷充斥着地图和许多图像,以一组注释,参考书目和索引结尾。

A few general concerns can be raised. The first is how Quinn uses archaeological data against the idea of a collective 腓尼基人 identity. Following the general trend that dismisses the “pots and people”她正确地说明了范式,宗教传统和实践可以用不同的方式来解释(例如,不仅在连续性和派生方面,而且在解体和后来的合法化方面都可以)68–73)。尽管该书未包括对大量物质文化的详细分析,但尤其值得注意的是陶器。作者’s major contribution is in proposing a shift in perspective from a global identity (the 腓尼基人s as a whole) to smaller identities (such as the central Mediterranean area and Carthage’s network). However, two interpretations raised by Quinn signal the need for caution. First, the lack of any form of 腓尼基人 literature is interpreted as the complete absence of any literary production whatsoever (59–62)。这种考虑不仅低估了口头传统的作用以及存在易腐材料的可能性,而且引起了广泛的争论。奎因正确地强调,几个世纪以来,许多人(例如希腊人和以色列人)从那里传承了许多书面文本, 在他们的文学作品中发展了集体身份的意识(59–62). Although she is correct in pointing out that literature plays a pivotal role in shaping identities, she probably goes too far in suggesting that the lack of literature in 腓尼基人 culture portrays a different 形式心理,对叙事身份的概念一无所知。其次,仅在地中海中部发现的先知被解释为一种迫使不同的黎凡特集团向西迁移的异端习俗。“因为当地不赞成他们的宗教习俗”(100)。奎因认为,与先知有关的宗教习俗包括牺牲儿童。无需进一步研究这个有争议的问题,因为它还没有被广泛接受,因此存在“ritual communities”(102)出于文化原因而迁移,尽管不完整,但它并不适合多神论和杂色的宗教图景,尽管我们对于古代近东地区了解得如此,但它回想起了其他历史时期和不同的宗教制度。总而言之,根据我们目前的知识,所有这些假设都不能得到任何证据的支持。然而,关于特定主题的可能争议并没有削弱奎因’s major thesis, which regards the 腓尼基人s as a network of dynamic and overlapping communities and not as a people.

第二个普遍关注的问题是理论上的。人们应该祝贺奎因勇于直言不讳地表达以下观念:“identity,” which is a very tricky word that can be understood, misunderstood, and used in many ways. Although Quinn tackles the notion mainly from the perspective of ethnic 身份 she is well aware that criticizing the notion of “Phoenicians”作为一个统一的人并不意味着没有任何其他形式的集体身份。尤其是,本书第二部分的全部内容都是针对嵌入式身份和小规模身份的。除了这种观点上的关键变化之外,为了公平起见,人们还可以注意到,尽管她解构了“Phoenician 身份 ” the author is not equally attentive to foreign identities. For instance, in order to highlight the eclectic and cosmopolitan character of 腓尼基人 culture (esp. in ch. 4), she draws heavily 上 a rich and traditional reservoir of ethnic labels, such as 以色列ite, Egyptian, Greek, Cypriot, Italian, and Persian, without criticism or qualification.

这导致了最后的反思。从总体上讲,这本书主要面向古典资源和迦太基市,反映了作者’s background and interests. In this regard, the deconstruction of the 腓尼基人s is mainly carried out from a late and Western perspective, far from the Levantine coast. However, clues and comparisons to solve the 腓尼基人 puzzle must also be found in the Orient. For this reason, the book, at least in part, misses out 上 an opportunity to address the problem in a Levantine context.

For the sake of comparison, 以色列ite studies could have supported and fostered Quinn’s research, but the absence of significant titles concerning ancient 以色列 highlights the problem of insufficient dialogue among disciplines. Moreover, discussion of the contemporary construction of “Phoenicianism” has direct parallels with studies 上 the notion of 以色列 in the diaspora, such as those carried out by Sand in 犹太人的发明 (伦敦,2009年)和 The Invention of the Land of 以色列: From Holy Land to 首页land (伦敦,2012年)。仔细研究以色列人目前的研究全景,不再是道歉的和以圣经为导向的,它为古代历史学家提供了支持性的解释。例如,关于以色列人愿意接受不同级别的集体身份的论点,尤其是在侨民中,这样的论点完全可以回避奎因’强调嵌入式身份或较小规模的身份。这种情况与语言和观点相交,例如“Israel”和希腊之一“ioudaioi,”最好将其翻译为“Judeans” than as “Jews.” In other words, a consensus is growing to reappraise the ethnic-religious identity of ancient 以色列ites in terms of geographic origin. One could ask 上 eself, for example, whether a geographic understanding of the term “Phoenician”最适合我们的文档而不是民族文档。毕竟,“phoinikes”是描述一种红皮人的通用术语(作者从未提供过词源,但对非专业读者而言可能很重要),而且很早以前,腓尼基成为在黎凡特海岸一直使用的名称。

这种比较主义的实践表明奎因在多大程度上’s approach is relevant 上 a broader level, not 上 ly for 腓尼基人 studies. Indeed, this book can be profitably read by a wide public of readers. On a methodological level, its main merit is to have shown how deeply ancient and modern political propaganda affects collective memories. Quinn perfectly demonstrates how much our current disciplines are not 上 ly indebted to but also shaped by a long sedimentation of stereotypes, images, and expressions that we innocently reproduce. Finally, this highly valuable book is a product of a relatively recently evolved discipline—腓尼基人和布匿研究—仍然需要澄清其议程及其与相邻研究领域的关系,最重要的是,这需要学术认可。

法比奥·波兹亚(Fabio Porzia)
Université de Toulouse–Jean Jaurès
fabio.porzia@hotmail.com

的书评 In 搜索 of the 腓尼基人s,由Josephine C. Quinn撰写

法比奥·波兹亚(Fabio Porzia)评论

美国考古学杂志 卷123,No.3(2019年7月)

在线发布于 www.ajaonline.org/book-review/3893

DOI:10.3764 / ajaonline1233.porzia

添加新评论

纯文本

  • 网页地址和电子邮件地址自动变为链接。
  • 行和段被自动切分。