The Olmec Tribe

17 Oct 2024•4 min read

The Olmec Tribe was one of the first major civilisations in Mesoamerica, specifically near the tropical lowlands of the Gulf of Mexico. Throughout all of Mesoamerica, the Olmec Tribe made and traded rubber, as well as other material such as obsidian, jade, and serpentine. In fact, according to the National Geographic the name for the Olmec was derived from the Nahuatl (Aztec) word “Olmecatl”, meaning the “inhabitant of the rubber country”. They were additionally known for their interesting art and peculiar statues. In this essay we will delve into the culture and society of the Olmec civilisation, examining their potential influence on subsequent civilisations.  This map above shows the early settlements of the Olmec civilisation. Some of the major cities shown here have been discovered by archaeologists. One example of which is La Venta, located in the present-day Mexican state of Tabasco. It was well renowned for its complex architecture, including large earthen mounds, pyramids, and a distinctive raised platform known as the Great Pyramid. The site also served as a religious and ceremonial centre for the Olmec elite. Other notable cities include Tres Zapotes, where the earliest known Mesoamerican inscription, the Tres Zapotes Stela C, was discovered, which featured the Long Count calendar date (count of days since a mythological starting-point), corresponding to 31 BCE. These architectural structures, also discovered in Laguna de los Cerros, highlight both the creativity and constructional expertise of the Olmec Tribe. The Olmecs were gifted both in art and literature. Most of their works were carved from stones, such as creating very large heads, out of stones such as basalt and jadeite. In fact, the biggest stone head found is 11 foot tall! This is truly remarkable, given the primitive tools available to them, and highlights the time and effort put into crafting these magnificent structures (as shown in the image below). In addition, they created interesting masks, which did not necessarily have to go on the face but also served as a belt ornament, pectoral or headdress, according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. According to the Dallas Museum of Art, masks were designed to reflect the true inner self of those who wore them. The masks could also depict images and characteristics of their gods, such as the Olmec Maize God. Olmec literature was very advanced, with some clues suggesting that their literature was a foundation for subsequent civilisations such as the Mayas. Used from around 900 BC to 450 AD, their writing system contained a combination of hieroglyphics and syllabics. Their hieroglyphics were Olmec signs similar to symbols and pictures. Their hieroglyphs resembled that of the Egyptians. A common numerical system was also found in Olmec as well as other Mesoamerican writing systems. When the numbers were less than 20, all scripts used a bar and dot notation, where a dot represented ‘1’, and a bar represented ‘5’. The Olmecs were polytheistic, believing in many different kinds of hods. They practised animism, the belief that animals have a spiritual essence inside of them, such as a feathered serpent. Olmec art often featured zoomorphic representations of deities and gods, such as the jaguar. In a study conducted by the University of Essex, there were three theories presented as to what the jaguar could represent. One finding was that it was a symbol of the dominance of the ruling class. There was also the idea that it was a ‘power animal’ of a shaman caste. It was also possible that the Olmecs may have believed that they descended from the jaguars. There is evidence to suggest that the Olmecs had developed ideas about the cosmos and the afterlife, believing there to exist an underworld, as well as the world they inhabit, and a sky realm of some sort. In addition, there were eight different androgynous (possessing male and female characteristics) Olmec deities, each with their own different features. For example, a certain god known as ‘the Bird Monster’ was depicted as a harpy eagle, associated with rulership. Furthermore, the Olmecs are likely to have conducted ritual ceremonies, in which they made offerings to their gods. The Olmecs built ceremonial cities such as La Venta, San Lorenzo, and Tres Zapotes, which were likely used for religious ceremonies, rituals, and gatherings. These featured large earthen platforms, pyramids, and stone monuments, including altars and stelae which were likely used in religious ceremonies and rituals. As aforementioned, the Olmecs were heavily involved in trade. Their trade extended well into present-day Central America; evidence suggests that local societies made contact with the Olmecs in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Since they were very crafty artisans, their potteries, moulds and sculptures were popular in commerce. Their merchants traded for different wares: stone material such as basalt, obsidian, serpentine and jadeite; food merchandise such as salt; and animal products such as pelts, bright feathers, and seashells. It is also important to note that the Olmec cities were placed strategically to boost their market. The Olmec needed both basic goods, such as food and pottery, and luxury items such as jadeite and feathers, for making ornaments for rulers or religious rituals. The Mokaya civilisation of the Soconusco region (present-day Chiapa state in Mexico) were consistent traders with the Olmecs. They were of close proximity to each other, and were not separated by disruptive geographical obstacles, so it was natural for them to trade. The Mokaya civilisation adopted similar artistic styles in sculpture and pottery, and a lot of Olmec ornaments were popular in Mokayan towns. By trading with the Mokayas, the Olmecs gained access to cacao, salt, feathers, crocodile skins, jaguar pelts and desirable stones from Guatemala such as jadeite and serpentine. Though the reason for their decline is unknown, the Olmec civilisation was certainly a powerful influence for subsequent civilisations, with their large trade network and abundance of artwork. They have often been considered the parent culture of many of the Mesoamerican cultures that came after, including the Aztecs and the Maya.

17 Oct 2024•8 min read

Plato is known throughout the world as one of the most accomplished and influential thinkers of all time. However, there was another aspect of his for which he would have been equally admired for in his time: his physique. There is absolute certainty in my mind that this contributed to his influence as a philosopher, specifically amongst his contemporaries, because they believed his mind to be as good as his body, which therefore strengthened his influence in later times. According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato was born ‘Aristocles’, after his grandfather. ‘Plato’ was simply a nickname, which was gained due to his physical appearance. There are several different reasons as to why this might be. Plato literally means broad. Diogenes said that Plato’s wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, gave him the nickname ‘broad’ due to his large chest and shoulders. Seneca also affirms this in saying: ‘his very name was given him because of his broad chest.’ Some affirm this by saying that Plato was his wrestling name, as Dwayne Johnson is the Rock. Evidently, when one’s very name is a reference to one’s extreme muscularity, it would cause great admiration among his contemporaries. Perhaps if they did not admire him, they would be jealous. This jealousy would have an unconscious effect on how they viewed him intellectually as well. Due to his impressive physique, other philosophers would look with admiration on his craft of a particular aspect, and assume, naturally, that he put as much care and time into his philosophy as well. There are other claims that Plato obtained his name from his breadth of knowledge or possibly his wide forehead. There are also claims that Plato was simply born with the name Plato, with William Keith Chambers Guthrie claiming that the name ‘Plato’ was attributed 31 times to people in Athens. However, based on the overwhelming support for Plato as a nickname, it seems most probable that he gained his name through his physical appearance, in some way. Epictetus, the renowned Stoic philosopher, although not one of Plato’s contemporaries, is said to have described Plato as ‘καλος και ισχυρος’-’fine-looking and strong’. Simplicius of Cilicia, an influential commentator of Aristotle, writing centuries after Plato’s time, described him as ‘ευοπθαλμος’-meaning ‘having beautiful eyes’ or ‘endowed with good vision’. It is therefore evident that there are several pieces of evidence for Plato’s admirable appearance and it was clearly something that he was renowned and respected for. Whilst we don’t know Plato’s waist to shoulder ratio or how big his biceps were, it is clear that he had a very respectable physique. There is a bizarre claim on the internet circulating at the moment: that there are recorded instances in Aristotle’s notes of Plato settling debates by standing up and flexing. Whilst this may be quasi-authentic, implying the possibility that Plato affirmed his ideas with his muscular stature, there are certainly no works of Aristotle that make this claim. Some claim that Plato used his physique to intimidate or perhaps undermine his opponent’s inferior body, leading to his greater acclaim for his ideas. Supporters of Diogenes, who had nothing but disdain for Plato and his abstract philosophies, and viewed Antisthenes as the true heir to Socrates, rather than Plato, would say that Plato used his impressive physique to compensate for his lack of compelling arguments, through perhaps physical intimidation. Alternatively, perhaps those debating with him were merely subconsciously influenced by his respectable physique and decided that if his physical form was superior to theirs, then so must his mental form: his ideas. These recurring descriptions of Plato’s appearance, along with the modern idea of Plato flexing to beat his opponent into intellectual submission gives me grounds to claim that his appearance certainly gave him great authority, and must have influenced his contemporaries, causing them, in some way or another, to find his ideas more reasonable. One cannot talk about Plato outside of philosophy without mentioning his wrestling career. He competed in the Isthmian Games: a competition comparable to the modern-day Olympics. According to Richard Eva, who graduated from Princeton University with Honours in Philosophy, Plato likely sparred with pupils between his lectures. Socrates is said to have undertaken many of his Socratic dialogues right there at the edge of the wrestling mat. Plato’s love of wrestling had its influence on his work as well. In the Theaetetus, Socrates says to a young boy: ‘Try a fall with me and we shall both be the better.’ This means that wrestling and intellectual discussion benefit both who partake in it. Both Plato and Socrates called leading debaters into contradictions as ‘pinning them down’. There is thus an evident similarity between the language of philosophy and wrestling. Furthermore, in both pursuits, when presented with a valid and strong challenge from an opponent, one is forced to improve their argument to attempt to gain the upper hand again. Plato’s illustrious wrestling career led him to incorporate this into his intellectual work. In both philosophical discussion and wrestling, one must have the opponent’s cooperation and resistance: lest the competition becomes improper: which results in injury in wrestling and ad hominem attacks in discussion. Wrestling helps inform Socratic dialogues, as when one is challenged, they must reevaluate their ideas and strengthen them again. There is no doubt in my mind that the lessons Plato learned from wrestling, of resilience, hard work, and flexibility, helped him to become a better interlocutor and philosopher, which in turn helped his ideas become more impactful and his legacy more memorable. Plato’s physique would have had a great impact on his fellow philosophers and their own works. His teacher Socrates is famously known to have said: ‘No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.’ With Plato’s impressive stature, he must have gained extra favour with Socrates, leading to increased respect from him. Socrates’ fondness for Plato could have led to allowing him to write down his conversations with strangers. Plato’s Republic, which is a Socratic dialogue in its entirety, would have only been made possible by Plato spending lots of time around Socrates. As the Republic was written approximately 25 years after Socrates’ death, Plato and Socrates’ relationship was clearly very dear; that he could so clearly and eloquently express his teacher’s opinions. Plato remembered his teacher’s ideas and produced them in his own way. Not any one of Socrates’ students could do this, so long after his passing, unless they had a clear grasp of Socrates’ thoughts and nature. It could be argued that Socrates respected Plato for his attitude towards self-improvement and thus kept him close and shared his ideas with him, leading to the production of Plato’s magnum opus. Indeed, their relationship could have been strengthened by Socrates’ admiration and perhaps jealousy of Plato’s physique. Socrates was roughly 40 years older than Plato. By the time Plato was an adult, Socrates would have been in the twilight of his life, with his strength failing. Socrates himself, from snippets of Xenophon’s writing, who was a student of Socrates, was described as pot-bellied, ugly, and dirty. Perhaps Socrates saw Plato as a younger version of himself; one who had achieved his body’s capability for strength and beauty. This would have caused great admiration and perhaps a deeply personal connection with Plato, as a vision of his younger self, leading to a closer relationship and greater sharing of his knowledge. Contrastingly, Plato and Aristotle’s relationship was less intimate. Aristotle is supposed to have said: ‘Plato is dear to me, but the truth is dearer still.’ There certainly seems to be more tension between Plato and Aristotle than Plato and Socrates. This may be because none of Socrates’ beliefs and ideas were really written down, and so there can be therefore no disagreement possible between their ideas. Whereas, Aristotle’s ideas were written down, creating scope for disagreement. The acclaimed Renaissance painter Raphael painted the School of Athens, in which this incongruity between Plato and Aristotle was given centre stage. Plato, with a grey beard and wrapped in red robes is pointing upwards, whereas Aristotle, with a brown beard and wrapped in blue robes is gesturing towards the Earth. According to Frederick Dolan, a professor at UC Berkeley, Plato is pointing towards the timelessly True, Beautiful, and Good, which the mind can know, but not the senses. Aristotle is gesturing towards the Earth, indicating the importance of acquiring knowledge of the real world of nature as we observe it. They are also both carrying books. Plato is carrying a copy of his Timaeus, which presents a metaphysical, speculative theory of the cosmos. Aristotle holds a copy of his Ethics, which is devoted to the characteristics of the good life for humankind. Plato was an Idealist (Platonic Idealism). According to him, each object has an essence attached to it (e.g. quality, property, characteristic). He calls this essence ‘Form’. Aristotle agrees with Plato in that objects have Forms associated with them and the Forms are eternal, but he disregards Plato’s claims that Forms are independent of matter (objects). This was a great source of tension between them, such that Plato did not choose Aristotle to succeed him in running the Academy in Athens, but instead chose his own nephew Speusippus to be his successor. Aristotle thought Plato’s ideas were flawed, and so developed his own philosophical method. Of course, there are various intellectual and academic reasons as to why Aristotle decided to stray from his teacher, but I believe that Plato’s physique played a large role, subconsciously, in the development of Aristotelianism. Diogenes Laertius writes quite unflatteringly about Aristotle: ‘his calves were slender and his eyes small’, far from the muscular and broad Plato that was presented in Diogenes’ other works. It is thus true that Aristotle seemed less physically imposing and impressive than Plato. We have already discussed the notion that others were in awe of Plato’s physique and thus his ideas, but it seems that it had the opposite effect on Aristotle. His fear of Plato; the wariness that, just as he could not live up to his master in his physique, similarly he might not have been able to in his ideas, could have led him to decide to take a different path entirely. He rejected Plato’s ideas and carved out his own path, due to his fear of failure in living up to Plato physically, which may have subconsciously spilled over into his intellectual activities. One could say that Aristotle’s fear of not achieving Plato’s physique led to him deciding to form his own opinions entirely. In conclusion, Plato’s physique was instrumental in the widespread popularity of his works. His very name came from his appearance, and his appearance was often described in admiration. An impressive physical aspect implies an impressive mental aspect, leading people to think his philosophy to be just as great. Through observing and practising Socrates’ teachings on self-improvement, he gained his favour, and intimidated Aristotle so much that he strayed from his teachings. With a successful wrestling career alongside his philosophy, he gained transferable skills that helped him become a great philosopher; one whose ideas have been at the forefront of Western thought for thousands of years.

17 Oct 2024•7 min read

Ostensibly, Virgil’s Aeneid is an epic effusive in its praise and admiration for Emperor Augustus and it has been regarded thus by most readers since. Virgil primarily achieves this through the parallels drawn between Augustus and the protagonist hero Aeneas. These are shown most explicitly with Jupiter’s Prophecy in Book I which predicted that Julius Caesar and subsequently Augustus Caesar would usher in an age of peace for the Roman people; and also in Book VIII with the depictions of Octavian’s victory over Marc Antony and Cleopatra on the face of the Shield of Aeneas. This was a necessary measure for Virgil to take, as he was working under the patronage of Maecenas who was a close friend of Augustus. However, below the surface it is apparent that Virgil managed to find a balance of portraying his loyalty to the emperor while making suggestions at his own personal views. The Aeneid is packed with themes of war, youth and loss which could serve as a reflection of the consequences of Augustus’ actions: epitomised by the epic’s conclusion when it is so shockingly easy for pious Aeneas to be overcome by _furor_. There were many examples of Augustinian propaganda in the Aeneid which earn Aeneas the introduction from Virgil of a man “famous for his devotion”. To appreciate the importance of linking Aeneas with Augustus, it is crucial to understand the importance of lineage in Roman culture. This concept is emphasised at the start of the epic in Book I by Virgil within the epic itself when he stresses the titular hero’s divine lineage having encountered his mother Venus soon after landing at Carthage. This encourages the reader to apply the same importance of Aeneas’ lineage in the epic to the lineage from Aeneas to Augustus. Hence, Virgil writes Jupiter’s prophecy which contains the line “From this noble stock will be born a Trojan Caesar”. In this way, Julius Caesar’s (who himself was deified post-mortem) divinity is confirmed; as he is Augustus’ adoptive father, this illustrates to the reader that they ought to make comparisons between Augustus and Aeneas as the events of the epic unfold and are revealed. Moreover, this is continued in Book VIII where a shield is newly made for Aeneas, a shield rife with Augustan imagery, “On one side was Augustus Caesar…from his radiant forehead there steamed a double flame and his father’s star shone above his head”. This introduces a new theme, developing upon the aforementioned lineage: Virgil professing the greatness of Augustus himself, rather than merely his greatness due to his descendants. With these links established, Virgil conveys the previously-attested-to piety of Aeneas which is vividly portrayed in Book II at The Fall of Troy. He rejects Hector’s attractive offer, “You must escape, son of the goddess. You must save yourself … you have given enough”, instead choosing to stay and defend his city until its very last breath. Eventually, Aeneas unwillingly flees to fulfil his fate, at which point Virgil divulges his inner thoughts, “so anxious I was, so afraid for both the man I carried and for the child at my side”. This nobility amid such destruction and misery separates him from most others and mirrors the image Augustus was attempting to project of himself and his nation. As observed in his commissioned _Ara Pacis Augustae_ in which he promotes Roman familial ideals and piety, just as the Aeneid does. Virgil shows Aeneas taking particular care of his men which displays another element of Augustan piety, reinforcing the links between Aeneas’ piety and Augustan values. In Book I, Virgil writes, “he succeeded in stretching seven huge carcasses on the ground, one for each of the seven ships…then gave them out to all his men”. Here, his first instinct is to provide for his men, who have just survived a turbulent sea journey, before doing anything else. Virgil effectively paints the picture of a pious man which is evidently intended to be propagandistic given the many links and comparisons made between Aeneas and Augustus. This is the most widely held view of the Aeneid, along with the idea that its purposes are to show Roman greatness and to consolidate its firm foundation; and more importantly to solidify the Empire that Augustus has just created by creating a divine lineage (other than deifying his father Julius Caesar) thus confirming his right to absolute power after a tumultuous few year of Civil War. However, Virgil is not always positive about the first Emperor of Rome and readily criticises him with subtlety and conviction where he sees fit. A key theme of the epic is the wastefulness of war, often exemplified by the lost lives of youths. This is seen in Book IX when Virgil places much pathos on the death of the relatively minor, but young, characters _Nisus_ and _Euryalus_; then again in Book XI with the death of Pallas. In an emotive scene depicting _Euryalus_’ death, Virgil uses colourful imagery to contrast his innocence – with his “white breast” and “beautiful body” – which contrasts with the vivid depiction of his death, “scarlet flower languishing, as if it had been cut by a plough”. These untimely and unnatural deaths mirror the destruction brought upon the youth by war, perhaps a warning directed at Augustus over his ruthless imperialism. It could also be interpreted as a criticism of bloodshed already committed by Augustus in order to secure power. Nonetheless, it is important to be wary of anachronizing our peaceful ideals and applying them to the Romans, who were far more assured of the necessity of war than we are. Augustus and the Empire’s knowledge of the importance of war is evidenced by the Statue of Augustus of Prima Porta. There he is depicted as wearing a cuirass which has some fascinating features: particularly striking is the image of the retrieval of the Aquilla, allegedly, by Tiberius (Augustus’ son). In his lifetime, Augustus successfully utilised this bold retrieval of the Roman Standard as a measure to restore militaristic pride among the Roman people. This statue is significant as it appears to have been built at a similar time to the Aeneid’s publication, while portraying similar themes to it, as well. Through the statue’s description of Augustus as a belligerent military leader, it could be suggested that Virgil’s depictions of war and desolation still align with Augustan values, in adherence of Rome’s military tradition. The most damning criticism of Augustus come through the displays of impiety by the ever-associated Aeneas. His most despicable actions take place after the death of Pallas (Book X), wherein Aeneas’ disgraceful descent into furor, for the pursuit of revenge, comes more easily to him than it had to any other character in the epic. He is described as “burning with rage looking for Turnus” [the murderous Rutulian]. This fire imagery is reminiscent of Homeric heroes from whom Augustus was so keen to separate himself and his Empire, this link would have certainly been picked up by the contemporary educated classes. This drives Aeneas to commit a shocking human sacrifice, “four warrior sons of Sulmo he now captured alive and four reared by Ulfens, to sacrifice them”. While it could be interpreted as evidence of the dangers of furor that Aeneas has so adeptly avoided for most of the epic, the obvious links made to Augustus mean that his fiery furor and the devastation that it caused could serve as a reminder of the bloodshed of the civil wars in which Augustus took power. Virgil avoids ending his epic, the magnum opus of Latin literature, with a positive but instead ends it on a rather sour note. It could have been victorious and jubilant: the win over the Rutulians being a cause for celebration and serving as a prelude to all the great Roman military battles to come. However, it ends with Aeneas’ immensely improper impiety as he murders a suppliant. The sought after Turnus says to Aeneas while on his knees, “you have seen me defeated and stretching out my hands to you”, before Aeneas proceeds to kill him. This shows a complete lack of clemency and an absolute disregard for the sanctity of supplication which subverts the idea of Aeneas’ piety that is so often attributed to him. Clemency was an ideal Augustus was fervent in his support for, hence this could be perceived as an intentional slight on Augustus, by demonstrating just how easily Aeneas is corrupted by furor and vulnerable to his own anger. Furthermore, this creates a cyclical structure to the epic which started with a description of Pyrrhus whom Priam lambasts for his lack of respect for suppliants. Aeneas’ actions could be justified as it was necessary for Turnus to die for the Trojan people to settle in Italy, however, this too could be interpreted as representing the injustice upon which the Empire was built. Linking Aeneas to Pyrrhus, therefore, associates Augustus with murder, far from the pious man he wishes to project. It is hugely significant that Virgil ends his epic this way as the lasting impression of the readers would be the violence, death and impiety from the hero, who is so closely linked to their Emperor. In summary, Virgil’s Aeneid is multi-faceted: neither total praise nor critical of Augustus Caesar. The epic is thoughtful and nuanced, a kind outer layer promoting lineage and the princeps’ piety, with a recurring cautionary undertone. It is critical that Virgil ends the epic on a tone of distrust for the leader, which could be interpreted as ensuring that people are wary of how this regime has come to be, that they might be cautious of where it may go.