The Last Poppy

Amazons and Warrior Women

The Battle of the Amazons (1600).  Peter Paul Rubens.

1.  Introduction

The Amazons were a fabled nation of warrior women, a fabulous race of warlike women who were always located on the borders of the known ancient world. The Amazons were eventually associated with a number of historical peoples in Late Antiquity. They were called androktones or ‘killers of men’ by Herodotus and he also stated they were called oiorpata or ‘killers of men’ in the Scythian language. Onwards from the Early Modern Period their name has become synonymous with women warriors in general. In Scythia the existence of women warriors has been confirmed archaeologically.

The Amazons were regarded by the Greeks as inhabiting the regions around Scythia or modern Turkey. The Amazons lived therefore on the north coast of Asia. According to Herodotus , who described the Amazons in the 5th century BC, their capital was Themiscyra from whence they invaded Thrace, the Aegean islands, Greece, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, Libya at various times. Aeschylus located them at Themiscyra on the Thermoda  (now modern Terme in Turkey), whereas Pliny placed them on the Tanais (River Don), and Strabo had them at the Carpathian Gates. The legendary gates were allegedly built by Alexander the Great as a barrier at Derbent in the Russian Caucasus. Alternatively there is Alexander’s Wall on the southeast shore of the Caspian Sea.

2.  Etymology

The common explanation of the word Amazon is of doubtful etymology. The usual explanation is ‘without breasts’ from the Greek a ‘without’ and mazos or ‘breasts’. According to legend each girl had he right breast amputated or burned off to facilitate the handling of weapons. From this mistaken interpretation arose the common and ancient fallacy of the name a-mazos. No early artwork or representation supports the claim. The word is derived possibly from the ancient Iranian term ha-mazam which means warriors. The word in Persia ‘to make war’ is hamazakaram and is probably connected to its etymology. This view comes from Heschius of Alexandria. Certainly the term contains the Indo-Iranian root kar which means ‘to make’. This indicates the naivete of the ancient Greek etymology as meaning a-mazos, without breasts. Purportedly breast removal was assumed to facilitate the use of the bow but no contemporary representation of Amazons supports this view.

3.  Historiography

The ancient Greeks knew of two Asian localities for the Amazons which were separated from Europe by the River Don. Firstly, the Amazons were located on the banks of the River Thermodon near Sinope. Secondly on the isthmus north of the great Caucasus mountain chain. Hippocrates also placed the Amazons in Europe west of the Don and the Sea of Azov. Three localities were given by Strabo. Firstly in the mountains above Albania where they were separated from the Albanians by the Scythian tribes known as the Gelai and Degai. In essence separated by the Mermadalis River (the modern Terek). Secondly, the Amazons bordering the Gargarenses located at the northern foot of the Caucasus mountains. Thirdly, the land of the Amazons and the Siracene tribe was transversed by the torrent of a river called the Mermodas which discharged into the Sea of Azov. For Herodotus the Amazons could be found northeast of the upper region of the Sea of Azov, among a tribe called the Sauromati.

The Amazons founded many settlements in Asia Minor including Amastis, Sinope (Turkish Synop), Cyme (modern Nemrut Limani), Pitano, Mytilene (Lesbos), Ephesus (west coast of Turkey), and Smyrna (modern Izmir in Aegean Anatolia). In Greek mythology the Amazons were situated on the Pontus which is part of modern day Turkey. They were, therefore, located on the shore of the Euxine Sea (Black Sea). Amazons forms an independent kingdom rules by a queen, often named Hippolyta or ‘loose, unbridle mare’. For Aeschylus they lived in the distant past in Scythia at Palus Maeotis which, as Lake Maeotis, is the Sea of Azov. At a later date they migrated and relocated to Themiscyra on the River Thermodon (modern Terek in northern Turkey) their usual home on Pontic Asia Minor.

Herodotus affirms that the Samatians were descended from Amazons and Scythians, and that Sarmatian females continued to observe their ancient maternal customs. It is thought that a Amazon group was blown across the Sea of Azov into the Scythian lands situated in the modern south-western Crimea. On the condition they did not follow Scythian female customs they agreed to marry Scythian men. Thence they migrated north-west, and settled beyond the Tanais (Don) river thereby becoming the progenitors of the Sauromatians. The Amazon queen Thalestris visited Alexander and became a mother by him. The Volscian warrior maiden Camilla is characterised by Virgil who refers to the Amazon myths. Again, according to Herodotus, Sarmatian women fought alongside Scythians against Darius the Great in the 5th century BCE.

Roman historiographical records concerning the Amazons have Caesar stressing to the Senate the Amazon conquests of large areas of Asia by the Amazons. Moreover, Amazon raids against Lycia and Cilicia were confirmed. Philostratus located the Amazons in the Taurus Mountains, and Ammianus placed them east of the Tanais (Don) and neighbouring Alans. In addition Procopius put them in the Caucasus whilst ompey affirmed he found Amazons in the army of Mithridates, king of Pontus, who campaigned against Rome. In the 2nd century BC a concubine called Hypsicratea fought in battles alongside Mithridates VI of Pontus. In 271 BC a group of Gothic women, captured by Romans while fighting in the same attire as their men, were paraded through Rome wearing signs that said ‘Amazons’. In 138 BC the Roman Sextus Junius found in Lusitania  (part of Portugal and Spain) women who fought and died bravely in the company of their men. Sextus in 138 BC also noted that the women of the Bracari (a Celtic tribe in Portugal) also bore arms alongside their men without turning their backs.

Statue of Wounded Amazon.  After Phidias.

In 102 BC a battle between the Romans and the Teutonic Ambrones (of Jutland possibly) at Aquae Sextae, was described by Plutarch as a fight no less firce with the women as the men. The women charging the Roman troops with swords. In 101 BC the Roman general Marius fought the Teutonic Cimbrians of Jutland origin. The Cimbrian women fought by shooting arrows from ‘waggon castles’ and in the field with swords. After the death of all the Cimbrian men the women continued to fight to the death. In the 1st century AD Tacitus wrote that Triaria, wife of Lucius Vitellus, armed herself with a sword and behaved with arrogance and cruelty at the captured city of Tarracina (southeast of Rome). in 63 AD Tacitus recorded in his Annals that women of rank had entered the gladiatorial arena. Moreover, in 100 AD Juvenal wrote that a gladiatrix called Eppia of southern Syria battled with the Romans. In 378 the Roman Empress Albia Dominica organised the defence of Rome against the invading Goths.

4.  Women in Ancient Warfare

Women warriors are known from the archaeological record. In 1997 the earliest known female warrior burial mounds were excavated in southern Russia. They were buried with swords, daggers, saddles and arrowheads. From the 6th century BC to the 4th century BC women buried with weapons have been found located on the Kazakhstan and Russian border. Graves of women warriors dating from the 3rd century BC have been found near the Sea of Azov. In 2004 the 2000 year old remains (1st century AD) of an Iranian female warrior with a sword were found in the north-western city of Tabriz. Moreover, some 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian ‘warrior graves’ on the Lower Don and Lower Volga contained females dressed for battle in the same manner as men. Elsewhere, in 2006, a Moche woman was buried with two ceremonial war clubs and twenty-eight spear throwers. This south American grave from Peru was the first known burial of a Moche woman to contain weapons.

Departure of the Amazons (1620).  Claude Deruet.

Women warriors are found among the myths and folktales of the peoples of India. King Vikramaditiya dreams of the man-hating princess Matiayavati. There are warrior women examples from Arabia, England, and among the Makurep of upper Guapore River in Brazil. On Kodiak Island in Alaska the Konig Inuit have many tales of warrior women. The Dahomey Amazons or Mino are all an female regiment in the Kingdom of Dahomey (now Benin) which lasted until the end of the 19th century, and were founded around 1645 to 1685. The Shield Maidens were warrior women in Scandinavian folklore and often mentioned in sagas. The Valkyries may have been based on the Shield maidens. In the Greek epics Amazons exist in order to be fought and defeated my men in the Amazon-battle or Amazonamachy. Amazons of Greek tradition are briefly mentioned in the Irish Labor Gabala or Book of Invasions. The characters cited are more often in the role of female martial arts teachers such as Aife, Scathach and Buanann. In Russia there were the Slavic Polenitsa or the female warriors led by Vlasta.

A Mino female warrior from Dahomey

Women warriors, or Amazons, are a characteristic feature of Sarmatian culture. Herodotus and Hippocrates both claimed that they were the descendants of Amazons who mated with Scythians and that it was the Sarmatians who turned their women into warriors and huntresses. Sarmatian women were active in military campaigns as well as social life. Archaeological evidence shows the burial of armed Sarmatian women in 25% of excavations, usually with their bows. Warrior maiden burials are found in Scythia under kurgans in the Altay mountain region and Sarmatia. From 460 to 370 BC was the time of Hippocrates who wrote of the Sauromati and Scythian women fighting battles. For example, in the 4th century Amage, a Sauromatian queen, attacked a Scythian prince who was making incursions into her protectorates. She rode to Scythia with 120 female warriors whereupon she killed him, his guards, family and children. The Sauromati and Sarmati can be identified with some of the tribes in the Caucasus. Again, it was Herodotus who distinguished between the Scythians west of the Don and the non-Scythians to the east. These Scythians were the main Caucasus chain tribes, the Gelai and Legai. The northern slope tribes are the Legasians and possibly Chechents.

Queen Penthesilea with her bow.

5.  Religious Cults and the Amazons

In central Greece the tombs of Amazons are frequent. They are found in Megara, Athens, Chaeronea, Chalais, Thessaly at Scotussa, and Cynocephalia. Moreover, in Athens, there was an annual sacrifice to the Amazons, on the day before the Thesea. It is possible that the Amazons who overran Asia Minor were also priestesses of the Great Goddess as well as the celebrants and initiates of her cults. Whether they belong to the realm of mythology or represent literal history, most likely both, the Amazons bequeathed an indisputable effect on classical literature. The ancient and primitive form of worship was the aniconic reference to idols and symbols not in human or animal form. This preceded the worship of anthropomorphic deities. For example, the worship of Cybele in the form of a black stone at Pessinus in Phrygia is an aniconic survival. Indeed, in later mythology, Aphrodite is a love goddess but originally a war goddess.

The worship of the Great Mother of Phrygia as Cybele is germane to the study of Amazon religion. The Amazons were worshippers of the Mother known both as Rhea and Cybele. In Phrygia (west central Anatolia) the rites of the Cretan Mother were introduced and established at Pessinus where she was known as Dindymene. Appollonius showed the Amazons practising a ritual that was similar to that at Pessinus where they venerated a black stone in an open temple on an island of Samothrace off the coast off the coast of Colchis (modern western Georgia). The Amazons consecrated the island of Samothrace to the Mother of the Gods. The worship of Phrygian Cybele was in Samothrace. The goddess in Samothrace is closely allied to the form of Cybele – hence the consecration. In Lemnos the Great Goddess is the Thracian bendis, the fierce huntress of two spears who entered the Greek pantheon as the Thracian Artemis being closely allied to Cybele and Hecate. The cult of Cybele seems to have been indigenous in Phyrygia and Lydia. Hippolyte and her Amazons set up a bretas (old wooden effigy of Artemis) at Ephesus. They then established a an annual circular dance with weapons and shields.

6.  Amazon Matriarchy and Social Life

Matriarchy and its message were used by Bachofen (1815-1887) to prove the existence of prehistoric matriarchy. It is known that women hunters and warriors are frequently found in folktale and myth. The Amazons accepted the leadership of an elected Queen, Hippolyta among them, whilst they conducted raids in Asia Minor and nearby islands (which indicates a seafaring capability). As such they were accomplished horse riders and skilled archers. In peaceful times these warrior women built their gracious capital of Themiscyra as well as cultivating their lands and hunting. Sarmatian warrior women hunted on horseback alongside their husbands and took to the battlefield in times of war. They wore the same attire as their men and adopted the maxim that no girl shall marry until she has killed a man in battle.

These Amazon women displayed the cultural and social practices consistent among Sauro-Sarmatian nomads. Their main occupations were hunting and fighting with their bows and their Amazonian crescent -shaped shields, axes and spears. All were skilled horse riders. According to Herodotus the women of the Sauromati did not constitute a separate people like the Thermodon Amazons. As nomads the Sarmatians had no fixed habitation. Nonetheless, they still had a defined social organisation that divided them into nobles, vassals, and many slaves. Social stratification is evident in the Ural burial sites. The domestic status of Sarmatian women was reduced and they were little better than slaves in the matrimonial home. With regard to marriage they were divided into exogamous tribes for marriage purposes, with marriage within the tribe seen as incestuous. Despite their ferocious warlike attitudes to tribal enemies these Sarmatian women did all the outdoor work. They tended the sheep, ploughed and reaped the land, herded the cattle, but when attacked they fought as savagely as the men.

The Sauro-Sarmatian warrior nomads practised the typical clan and tribal cults of pre-Zoroastrian Iran. Their personified deities were those of nature, the sky, the earth, and fire. Some of the cult practices may have been inversions (reversal of gender roles) of ritual initiations reserved for maidens. Their deities were related to social concepts pertaining to war or the domestic hearth. With regard to burials fire cult practices are in evidence, and Sarmatian graves are representative of a military oriented nomadic existence. Social stratification and a more defined class structure developed and was accelerated by contact with Greek and Roman trade, industry, and agriculture.

Annually, due to biological necessity, Amazon virgin maidens would visit the nearby Gargareans. They mated with the men and returned home to bear their children. This was to prevent the extinction of the Amazon nation. Female offspring were brought up and trained in the martial arts, riding, hunting, and agriculture. Males were either returned to the Gargareans, slaughtered, maimed, or blinded. Greek mythology has versions that aver that no men were allowed to have either sexual encounters or live in Amazon territory. This explains the Amazon custom to obtain offspring by meetings at certain seasons with men of another tribe.

7.  Amazons in Mythology and Folklore

In Homer’s Iliad the Amazons were called Antineira or those who fight like men. Amazons appear during the Greek Archaic period in representative art connected to several legends. Also in the Iliad amazons are killed in combat by Bellerophon after invading Lycia, the defeat occurring at the river of Sangerias (near Pessinus). Queen Myrine led her Amazons to victory in Libya and Gorgon but her tomb is outside Troy. Amazons attacked the Phrygians who were aided by Priam, which did not prevent them taking his side against the Greeks at Troy. Antiope died fighting alongside Theseus after which he marries the Amazon Queen Hippolyta. The Amazons also mounted an expedition against the island of Leuke, at the mouth of the Danube, where the ashes of Achilles were placed by Thetis. There are numerous legends that connect the Amazons with founding places in Ionia.

Amazon and Centaur (1901).  Franz Stuck.

In ancient Greek mythology there are a number of conflicting lists of Amazons. There are the warriors attendant on Queen Penthesilea which include Clonie, Derinoe, Polemusa, Thermodora, Evandre, Atandre, Antilorote, Bremusa, Alcibe, Hippothoe, Derimacheia, and Homothoe. Other Amazons include Ainaan (or ‘swiftness’) and one of the twelve who went to the Trojan War. Antibrote was another at Troy, as was Cleite, whose ship was blown off course and she landed in Italy to found Clete. Another Amazon was ntiope, and Antinera, the successor to Queen Penthesilea and who is known for ordering the crippling and castration of her male servant on the basis that the lame best perform the sex act. It was Queen Hippolyta who owned the magic girdle given to her by her father Ares. Queen Thalestris is the Amazon mentioned in the Alexander the Great legend. Asteria was another and the sixth killed by Heracles. Another, Helene, the daughter of Tityrus, fought Achilles and died of wounds inflicted. Otera was an Amazon who, as the consort of Ares, was the mother of both Hippolyta and Penthesilea. Melanippe was also a sister of Hippolyta who was captured by Heracles who then demanded Hippolyta’s magic girdle in return for her freedom, whereupon she complied.

Penthesilea.  Arturo Michelena

The Amazons were said to have come into contact with the Argonauts of Jason who landed at Lemnos on their ay to Cholchis. They found Lemnos inhabited entirely by women with Queen Hypsipyle. They called the island Gynaekokratume which means ‘reigned by women’. The Amazons met Jason and his crew in full battle array as they were wont to kill male visitors.

One of the tasks or labours imposed on Heracles by Eurystheus was to obtain the magic girdle of the Amazon queen Hippolyta. This ninth labour resulted in another Amazonomachy whereby the Amazons attacked Heracles in force, thereby reaching Attica and besieged him at Athens. Heracles was joined by Theseus who came to help defeat the Amazon invasion as told in 6th century BC. A great battle took place on the date of the later festival called the Boedromia where the Amazons were defeated. A ritual ceremony in Pyanopsion has been interpreted as a sacrifice to Amazon dead. Theseus carried off princess Antiope, sister of Hippolyta, after the battle. In a poem in the Epic Cycle the Amazons, led by their queen Penthesilea who, according to Quintus Smynaeus, was of Thracian birth, came to aid Priam in the Trojan War after the death of Hector. This Penthesilea was a daughter of Ares, the Amazon deities being Ares and Artemis, but she was killed by Achilles. Achilles also kills Thyrsites because he alleged Achilles loved Penthesilea.

The Death of Penthesilea. (1828). J. H. W. Tischbein

8.  A Chronology of Female Warriors

There are numerous and world wide examples of Amazons and women warriors both historically as well as in mythology, legend and folklore. Many goddesses have mythological origins portraying them as warriors and huntresses. Today the role of these women warriors or Amazons often remains embedded in many cultures even if disguised by the passage of time. Despite added layers of new legends the ideals and myths still cannot be obscured totally. From this palimpsest it is possible to create a timeline and geographical origin of Amazons and women warriors as characters and individuals in myth, legend, folklore and history.

Wounded Amazon (1903).  Franz Stuck

In ancient Egypt circa 1600 BC Ahh0tep battled with the Hyksos thereby facilitating the re-unification of Egypt and thereupon founded a matriarchal lineage and dynasty. She was buried with military medals symbolising her valour in battle. In mythology Sekhmet was a warrior goddess depicted as a lioness. In the 3rd century BC Queen Berenice I of Egypt fought alongside Ptolemy. Berenice II participated in a battle and killed several enemies, and Ladodice I fought Ptolemy III Eurgetes. In 48 BC Arsinoe IV fought Cleopatra VII.

Berenice

In China during the 1200’s BC Lady Fu Hao consort of W Ding, king of China, led 3000 men into battle. Further campaigns with 13,000 troops and important generals under her command, she became the most powerful military leader of her time. Many weapons were unearthed from her tomb. In the 5th century BC the Lady of Yue trained soldiers of the army of King Goujian of Yue. During the early 3rd century BC  Huang Guigu acted as a military official under Qin Shi Huang and led military campaigns against people of northern China. Between 14 and 18 AD Lu Mu led a rebellion against Wang Mang, and during the 4th century AD Li Xiu took her father’s place as military commander and defeated a rebellion. Hua Mulan was a legendary Chinese woman who went to war disguised as a man and was ta war for years without being found out.

Hua Mulan

Trieu Au has been described as the Vietnamese Joan of Arc and her female general was Le Chan, whereas the woman Bui Thi Xuan was a general who died in 1802. In India between 1200 and 1000 BC the Rig Veda mentions a female warrior named Vishpala, who lost a leg in battle, had an iron prosthesis made and returned to warfare. Chand Bibi (1550-1599) was an Indian Muslim woman warrior, and Bibi Dalair Kaur was a 17th century Sikh woman who fought against the Moghuls. Mai Bhago was a Sikh woman warrior who fought against the Moghuls in 1294. In Aztec mythology Izpapalotl is a fearsome skeletal warrior goddess. In Brazil Maria Quiteria dressed as a man and enlisted in the ndependence forces. Anna Garibaldi fought in the Farrupilla revolution , and Maria Rosa, a 15 year old girl fought in the Contestado War. In Arabia, circa 740 BC, Zabibe was a queen who led armies as did Samsi her possible successor who revolted against Liglath-Pilesor around 720 BC. In the early 7th century AD al-Kahina was a female Berber religious and military leader and led the resistance to Arab expansionism in Numidia (north west Africa) and died in modern day Algeria.

According to the legendary history of Britain Queen Gwendolen, in 1000 BC, fought her husband Locrinus for the throne of Britain and defeated him. In 700 BC the legendary Queen Cordelia fought her nephews for control of her kingdom and personally fought in battle. In the 1st century AD Cartamandua, queen of the Brigantes allied with the Romans and battled other Britons. Also in the 1st century AD Agrippina the Younger, wife of the Emperor Claudius commanded Roman legions in Britain. In AD 61 Boudicca led a massive uprising against occupying Roman forces who rallied their men saying there were more women than men in her army. Boudicca (Boadicea) was also referred to, according to Holinshed’s Chronicles of 1577, as Bonduca. In the 3rd century AD two women warriors from the Danube

Boudicca in her Chariot

region, described as Amazons , served in a Roman military unit and are buried in Britain. Scathach (‘The Shadowy One’) was the legendary Scottish woman warrior, magician, and prophetess, daughter of Ardgamm, who ran a warrior academy in Ulster. In the Ulster Cycle she trained young heroes including Cuchulain in the arts of combat and fighting. Aife was a similar warrior. She was also known as or called Scathach n Aanaind, as well as Scathach Buanand – which means ‘victorious’, as well as Skatha. Cuchalain was trained by her in Alba in northwest Britain opposite Ireland. The Celts held to the view that only women could teach the skills of battle to men effectively.

Scathach on the Isle of Skye

A number of women warriors clashed with Alexander the Great during his campaigns. In the 4th century BC his half-sister accompanied her father on a military campaign and killed the Ilyrian leader named Caeria in hand-to-hand combat. Also in the 4th century BC Roxana was captured during a battle by Alexander and eventually married him. In 334 BC Ada of Caria allied with Alexander and led the siege to reclaim her throne, and in 333 BC Queen Stateira and her family were captured by Alexander at the battle of Issus. She eventually married him. In 334 BC Herodotus recorded the Iranian queen Tomyris of the Massegetae fighting and defeating Cyrus the Great.

In 480 BC Artemisia of Caria and queen of the Halicarnassus participated in the Battle of Salamis and in the same year the Greek diver Hydna and her father sabotaged enemy ships before a critical battle. In 318 BC Eurydice III of Macedon fought Polyperchon and Olympias. Between 315 and 308 BC Cratespolis commanded an army of mercenaries and forced cities to surrender to her, whilst in the late 4th century BC  through to the early 3rd Amastris, wife of Dionysus of Heraclea, conquered four settlements and named them as a new city state. In the 3rd century BC the Spartan princess Arachidamia acted as captain to s group of women warriors who fought Pyrrhus during his siege of Lacedaemon. In 280 BC Chelidonis, another Spartan princess, commanded her women warriors on the walls of Sparta during a siege. She fought with a rope around her neck so she could not be taken alive. In the 2nd century BC Queen Stratonice convinced Docimus to leave his stronghold and her forces took him captive.

According to legend the Nubian queen Candace of Meroe, or Kandake or Candace Amanitore, intimidated Alexander the Great with her armies and her strategy while confronting and making him avoid Nubia. In reality Alexander never got as far south as Nubia. In 170 BC the Meroitic queen Candace Shenakdahkete ruled Nubia and a wall painting in a

A Relief of Candace of Meroe

chapel in Meroe depicts her wearing a helmet and spearing her enemies. In the 1st century BC the Nubian queen Amanishabheto reigned over Kush or Nubia. A depiction of her pylon tower of a chapel shows her striking the shoulders of prisoners with he lance. In 1900 Yaa Asantewaa, Queen Mother of Ejisu, the Asante Confederacy and now part of Ghana, led the rebellion known as the War of the Golden Stool against British colonialism. In Hausa (Nigeria) history Amina Sukhera (also called Aminatu) was a Muslim princess (circa 1533-1610) in northeast Nigeria who had many military achievements. Oya is the warrior Undergoddess of the Niger River and is a warrior spirit of the wind, lightening, fire and magic.

An artistic illustration of Amina Sukhera (Aminatu)

In the early 3rd century BC the legendary Empress Jingu of Japan may have led an invasion of Korea, but this may also be a fictional story. In 40 to 43 AD the Trung sisters and Phung Thi Chinh fought against the Chinese in Vietnam. In 248 AD Trieu Thi Trinh also fought the Chinese in Vietnam. Her army contained several thousand men and women warriors. Hangaku Gozen was an onna bugeisha or woman warrior, as was Tomoe Gozen (1157-1247). One Kaihime (born 1572) was said to have fought at the Seige of Odawara and have crushed a rebellion.

In the 3rd century BC Queen Teuta began piracy against Rome and eventually fought against Rome when they attempted to stop the piracy. Sophonisba, a Carthaginian, committed suicide rather than be handed over to the Romans as a prisoner of war. In 186 BC Chiomara, a princess of Gaul, was captured in battle between Rome and Gaul and was raped by a centurion. After a reversal she later ordered her assailant beheaded by her companions and delivered his head to her husband in recompense. In the 2nd century BC a Queen

The Death of Sophonisba by Giambattista Pittoni (1730’s)

Rhodogune of Parthia was informed of a rebellion and waged a war to suppress it. In the 2nd century AD Queen Tania of Dardania took over the throne after the death of her husband and went into battle riding in a chariot. Joanna of Flanders (1295-1374) known also as Jehanne de Montfort and Jeanne La Flamme  organised the defence and fought

Jeanne Hachette or Joan the Hatchet.

in the siege of Hennebont.  Jeanne Hachette (b 1456( was a French herine known as Joan the Hachet. Joan of Arc was militarily engaged during the Hundred Years war in France. In the 19th century Emilia Plater was the Polish-Lithuanian commander in the uprising against Russia.

Sources consulted

Abercromby, J.  (1891).  An Amazonian Custom in the Caucasus.  Folklore.  Vol II (2).

Bennet, F. M.  (1912).  Religious Cults Associated with the Amazons.

Carpenter, T. H.  (1996).  Art and Myth in Ancient Greece.  Thames & Hudson, London.

Davis-Kimball, J.  (2007).  Warrior women of Eurasia.  Archaeology, 50 (1).

Kirk, I.  (1987).  Images of Amazons: marriage and matriarchy.  In Macdonald, S. et al.

Macdonald, S. et al. (1987).  Images of Women in Peace and War.  Macmillan, Oxford.

Rothery, G. C.  (1915).  The Amazons.  Senate Books, London. New Edition (1995).

Continuous Variation and Intelligence

Heredity refers to the transmission of characteristics from parents to offspring, and in that transmission process the primary biological functional unit is the gene. The human genome is thought to consist of between five and ten million genes. Intelligence is an example of the inheritance of a complex or quantitative character. The nature of intelligence is composite and complex, and its expression is dependent upon a combination of environmental effects and the products of a great number of genes. Those characteristics that are determined by the joint action of many genes, and intelligence and stature are two examples, are called quantitative characters because they are measured on a continuous scale. Such characters are more susceptible to environmental influences than are the polymorphisms. Therefore, because the contributions of individual genes cannot be recognised, there is need to resort to complex statistical analyses to sort out the relative contributions of the environment and heredity.

In order to understand the distribution of such an ill-defined concept as intelligence in the human population it is necessary to consider the process of natural selection and the development of the mental capacities of humankind. Biological heredity is transmitted by the four following mechanisms: mutation, selection; genetic drift; and hybridisation. Humans are the unique product of their environment, their social environment, and it is this social environment that is an important point in human evolution. Human biological nature can have no clarity, no understanding, without a correct knowledge of the social and cultural factors in the development of the human species. For M. F. Ashley Montagu the “…system of genes which permitted the development of specifically human mental capacities has thus become the foundation and the paramount influence in all subsequent evolution of the human stock.”

Biological adaptation is of two types. Firstly genetic specialisation, with genetically controlled fixity of traits. Secondly, the ability to respond to a range of environmental situations, and this is achieved by evolving traits that are favourable in those situations. This latter process is termed genetically determined plasticity. Human adjustment in the social environment which is complex, rapidly changing, necessitates immediate adjustments, which occur chiefly in the mental realm not the physical. Genetic fixation of mental traits in humans would obviously be unfavourable for the survival of both individuals and the species. From this it can be concluded that genetically controlled plasticity of mental traits is a uniquely human characteristic. The process of natural selection in all times and in all climes has favoured those genotypes which allow for greater and greater educability, coupled with plasticity of mental traits. This process has taken place under the uniquely social environments to which humans have continuously been exposed. Humans may differ from one another in many characters, and as these characters can be influenced by many genes humans will always differ, but these differences will be more so within groups than between groups. If the human race differs on its structural traits, it does not necessarily follow that they must necessarily differ in mental traits. Conditions in human societies have neither been rigid enough or stable enough to permit the selective breeding of those types genetically adapted to different statuses or forms of social organisation. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said “The capacity to modify one’s behaviour under the influence of experience and reasoning…” has had the effect of “…bringing all human groups up to pretty much the same level.”

To date available scientific knowledge has provided no basis for believing that the different groups of humankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development. With the genetic determination of human behaviour there is no scientific evidence to justify the erroneous conclusion that inherited genetic differences are the major factor in producing variations between the cultures and cultural achievements of different peoples.

In 1952 , under the auspices of UNESCO, a conference of anthropologists and geneticists issued the following statement on The Nature of Race and Race Differences, which said “…historical and sociological studies…support the view that genetic differences are of little significance in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of men.”  That which determines the diversification of human behaviour patterns is not the genetical factor but those cultural and social experiences each group has undergone. The intellectual and moral life of individuals and groups being conditioned by training and the particular social environment. In the man-culture relationship over the period of a million years, or even the period up to about one hundred thousand years ago, we could safely assume that there was some absolute increase in the magnitude of the biological factor in human evolution.

During the last hundred or fifty thousand years we have no evidence of an appreciable increase in mental ability. The assumption is that the psychic unity, or even uniformity,  of humankind is now probably pivotal in the working philosophy of the majority of anthropologists, sociologists and some biologists. It is maintained that biological evolution has run its course, that the genetic basis of culture has been achieved, and this is now a matter of evolutionary history, and as a result the genetic basis of culture is uniform in its distribution and that cultural evolution has long since taken over.

There is no evidence that, among the ethnic groups of mankind that any process of mental selection has ever been operative, especially one that could act differentially upon mankind to produce different types of mind. It is of significance that innately determined mental differences between the varieties of mankind have thus so far not been demonstrable. However, it may be that some differences do exist. If they do then so far they have eluded all detection or proof of their existence. There is every reason to believe that such mental differences that are observed to exist between varieties of mankind are due primarily to factors of a cultural nature.  This being especially so in so far as they are, in no demonstrable significant way, connected to biological factors. Hence, it should be clearly pointed out that while mind is an aspect of the body’s functioning. It is also a great deal more than that. In man it is at least as much a product of the cultural environment as of the genes.

In 1940 the American anthropologist Franz Boas came to the honest conclusion that “…the claim to biologically determined mental qualities of races is not tenable. Much less have we the right to speak of biologically determined superiority of one race over another. Every race contains so many genetically distinct strains, and the social behaviour is so entirely dependent on the life experiences to which every individual is exposed, that individuals of the same type when exposed to different surroundings will react quite differently, while individuals of the same type when exposed to the same environment may react the same way.” In a more modern context and reflecting developments John Lewis and Bernard Towers [Naked Ape or Homo Sapiens?  Garnstone, 1969]  in a critique of the ‘Naked Ape’ of Desmond Morris, wrote that “The belief that racial difference indicating both superiority and inferiority, and also natural differences, which may indicate aggressiveness, a militaristic nature, laziness, lethargy, and initiative, are innate in various nations, tribes, races, is now entirely obsolete among geneticists and anthropologists. These characteristics are now regarded, as we have seen, as basically cultural.”

It is useful to examine the concept of the superficiality of physical traits. From the point of view of anatomy and morphological considerations there are already elementary observations on the physical anthropology of race. As W. G. Le Gros Clark pointed out, a close anatomical study seems to show that physical differences are confined to quite superficial characters, and that this does suggest that the somatic differences of race are of a very fundamental nature only. In spite of statements made to the contrary, there is no microscopic or macroscopic difference which allow the anatomist to distinguish he brains of individuals from different ethnic groups. It has been asserted that there is every reason to believe that in certain parts of the human nervous system new connections can be established through education.

The neurons that make up the nervous system of an adult human are arranged in a system the larger outlines of which are hereditary, but many of the details of which are shaped by the experiences of the individual. The material bases of those structures which are eventually organised to function as mind are to a large part inherited just the same as all other structures of the body. In humans however the nervous system continues to develop long after birth, and as a result is appreciably influenced in its development by the experience of the individual.

The brain is essentially that organ that co-ordinates and integrates nervous activities, and to a large extent it performs those functions according to the pattern of education that is offered to it. That pattern, as we have seen, is always culturally determined and conditioned. Therefore an individual is capable of functioning at the necessary integrative level according to the extent and sort of cultural experience to which he has been exposed, and been thus caused to co-ordinate  and integrate within his nervous system. Brain function then has determinants that are environmental. We recognise that certain basic brain mechanisms are obviously genetically determined, but that at a critical period that follows birth environmental effects are very important. Malnutrition at this period can result in permanent deficits in brain structure and thus the inter-relationships between brain cells. Less extreme deprivation can also cause deficits in function, and thus lead to behavioural effects. In humans the childhood pattern of one generation influences the way in which that generation rears its offspring. Hence environmental effects in one generation can cause trans-generational results in the following generation. These effects may be substantial, without any genetic factors being involved.

Environmental effects have been shown quite undeniably to result in a whole series of well defined changes in brain structure and thus performance. That behaviour and performance can be altered by the environment of the individual child is underlined by the fact that quite subtle changes can produce pronounced effects, hence the fact that the period of childhood is of critical importance, and has to be borne in mind when the question of intellectual performance is discussed.

To return to the position regarding race and intellectual capacity it can be stated that there is  no more rationale in liking race and intellect than there is in liking race and culture. Every individual is born with a certain heredity, and a genetic potential. A potential which is dependent on his or her familial genes and not race. Whether or not this potential is fully realised depends upon the experience of the individual. Especially with regards to what is offered by culture and education. A so fluctuating concept such as intelligence, which is related to learned behaviour cannot be reduced to the same sort of genetic explanation for a character such as eye colour for example.

The measurable mental characters of different human groups suggest that there are few if any mental differences that can be attributed to the nervous system alone. The mental differences which allegedly exist between human groups would thus appear to be less considerable than those that are found to exist between individuals within the same group. Mental functions as they so dependent upon social, cultural variables, are not in a position where any conclusions can be drawn as to the equivalence or non-equivalence of their existing between groups. This is especially so when cultural conditions are not strictly comparable. In short, no statement about the intellectual capacity of an individual or grop is of any value without it being accompanied by specific statements about the conditions of the cultural environment in which the particular mentality in question has developed.

No discussion of ‘racial’ mental characters can be considered that ignores full consideration of all the associated social variables. It is these cultural and social variations that are precisely the most significant aspect in the creation of mental differences between different groups. From this statement we can surely conclude that cultural achievements represent the outcome of cultural experience, not the expression of biological potentiality.

No discussion about variations in mental capacities is of any use without analysis of what intelligence is, or the tests which claim to measure it. To most people the word ‘intelligence’ implies a functional capacity, that is revealed in the course of action. The practice of psychometry or mental testing excludes the exercise of what might be called functional intelligence. Group intelligence tests isolate the individual from all his or her social relations, and thus from a real life situation. They are presented with a set of symbols to manipulate, items of a restricted and artificial nature. Therefore the test situation is different from those situations with which the individual is faced with in the everyday process of living. The questions exclude, or attempt to exclude, any emotional responses. In a real life situation an individual’s feelings and emotional responses play an important and essential part in their total response. Intelligence tests are deliberately constructed so that the questions are remote from real life situations.

Some people regard intelligence as a quality of mind, a kind of essence that is inherited by a child at birth. This was said by Sir Cyril Burt as “innate general cognitive ability.”. Yet amongst psychologists there is no agreement as to what intelligence is, or how it is measured correctly. Whatever it is that tests measure, it is not something that can be defined in a way that both commands general agreement, and is at the same time precise. As intelligence cannot be defined but we nonetheless believe that it does exist, we can only conclude that intelligence is that which is measured by the tests, or the ability to do them. How can one call something innate that you can be taught to do?

Tests are not an objective phenomenon, they contain a subjective element, which is the personal judgement of the tester. As P. E. Vernon has stated “All the test items or sub-tests are selected in the first place on the basis of the subjective opinion; they must appear to the tester to involve the exercise of intellect.” Intelligence tests do not measure mechanical or mathematical ability, or emotional stability, initiative, imagination or moral outlook. IQ is affected by illness, malnutrition, and accident, and the crucial variable is the environment. The IQ tests most widely used are culture bound, and their successful performance depends upon participation in a particular culture. This culture contains within it methods of socialisation and education. Evidence is ignored which shows that we all have to learn to learn. Culture bound tests therefore favour those individuals from that particular cultural environment. What is overlooked is the fact that various class, occupational, and other types of groups often have different sub-cultures. Most tests are standardised to the values current amongst the middle class.

What is the nature of the distribution of intelligence. It is plotted on a graph when all the scores have been collected, and a certain pattern is seen to emerge. The distribution of intelligence in a population displays a normal Gaussian distribution. Statistical observations are abstract and tend to lose sight of the individual case in a mass of observations. What is obvious though is the fact that if we cannot define intelligence how on earth can any conclusions be drawn as to its distribution?

The purpose of tests in a class society is to assist in this provision of different ‘types’ of school for different ‘levels’ of education, with its attendant selection processes and streaming. Tests must involve a great deal of acquired knowledge, and as such the tests are used to discriminate against working class children. With the so-called fair or culture free tests, which are non-verbal and involve symbols etc, the results are still dependent upon educational opportunity. There is a definite difference of opportunity between working class and middle class children. Just as there is a close relationship between test results and educational attainment then there is a close relationship between test results and social class.

Test questions inevitably favour the middle class child. The questions, and only the questions, determine and define the kind of intelligence that is being measured. Intelligence as is measured by intelligence tests is anything but pure intellectual power, hence the test evidently comprehends what can only be described as a class element. Intelligence as measured by tests concludes fallaciously that the working class is less intelligent than the middle class, this is understandable in view of the fact that the intelligence as measured by the test is a class conditioned attribute.

These processes militate against the culturally deprived sections of the community, but the reverse is the case when ‘soap box’ tests are employed. With these tests working class children demonstrated a resourcefulness of a kind seldom shown by those more fortunate children used to receiving their toys as presents. It is obvious also that verbal tests discriminate against working class children. Culture free tests in a class society where there is no common culture is the same as the search for the ‘will o’ the wisp’. Further to this is the comparison of the tests on racial and ethnic groups. There are four main reasons for their unreliability. These are socio-economic background, schooling, language and motivation. With the socio-economic background and its cultural deprivation, which is pervasive and enduring, there is little to make them want to be concerned with intellectual activity and education.

In so far as schooling is concerned, intelligence scores are influenced by the length and quality of that schooling, As well as inadequate facilities, overcrowding and lack of motivation. Language is also a problem because many tests are based upon verbal ability, and minority groups have linguistic handicaps. Motivation is the final aspect, not all are equally interested in tests, there often being caution, diffidence, and alienation felt towards the tester. Where anxiety is provoked and suspicion is aroused performance often deteriorates. In relation to Black studies in the USA it is seen that in the ghetto schools, the under-privileged status of the children produced harmful teaching attitudes, these attitudes declaring that the children are ‘un-teachable’. Hence the children are evaluated as inferior and this limits the effectiveness of any subject matter in creating confidence and self-esteem.

The whole situation was further exacerbated in past by the scientific racism as postulated by Jensen and Eysenck. In the USA Jensen published his conclusions in the Harvard Educational Review of Winter, 1969. His views were as follows. Owing to their genetic endowment blacks in the USA are less intelligent than whites. Also that working class whites are less intelligent than are the middle and upper class whites. Jensen’s evidence is derived from psychometry. Claiming to indicate that both racial and class differences in intelligence are inherited, being impervious to change by way of social or educational policies. To quote him he writes “…these genetic differences are manifested in virtually every anatomical, physiological, and biochemical comparison…one can make between representative samples of identifiable racial groups…there is no reason to suppose that the brain should be exempt from this generalisation.”

Jensen can be exposed on several points. He employs a social concept of race, and proceeds to treat this group as a biological entity, with the validity of a race. He expresses his results in ways that provide ammunition for the racists. He fails almost totally to meet the minimum requirements for scientifically acceptable intergroup comparisons. Furthermore he overlooks the social functions of schools as institutions, as apart from the educational functions.

In Britain the issue was reiterated by Hans Eysenck of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. Famous as a Black Paper pundit, Eysenck took up the defence of Jensen’s conclusions. In the Black Paper No 2 in 1969 Eysenck displayed his concepts regarding education and its class nature. In his contribution entitled ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’ he said “…an elite, pre-destined and predisposed to intellectual leadership and to the enjoyment of the fruits of education…” had to be concentrated on, and that these qualities were inherited. Eysenck associated on the Black Papers with Kingsley Amis, Robert Conquest, and Sir Cyril Burt. The main theme of these papers was: opposition to free play and discovery methods in primary schools; opposition to comprehensive education; opposition to expansion of higher education; opposition to expenditure of funds on deprived educational areas. Further from this the Black Paper Group supported eleven plus selection, streaming and IQ tests, grammar schools, and traditional examinations.

Hans Eysenck and Sir Cyril Burt were deeply committed to psychometry, and both were well known for their outright support for the now minority hereditarian view. Eysenck took the stand whereby he asserted Jensen’s views were a service to humanity and he stressed that the educational implications of Jensen’s theories indicate the necessity for selection and streaming. Eysenck also argued that those compensatory policies for the deprived will be no good, but will only do harm, because as he says in his own words “…with initial resources available for all of education, special help to some means less education for others.”

In 1971 Eysenck published a polemical book in support of Jensen’s theories, which was entitled ‘Race, Intelligence and Education’. In this book he demonstrated, in a very loose and unscientific manner, that he has no concrete evidence for any of his theories. In regards anthropology he can only make pathetic comparisons, for example he writes “The constant discovery of new blood genes has forced experts to increase the number of races so recognised.” Since when it has been claimed that race is dependent upon the sole criteria of the genetic nature of one’s blood group? With equal conviction Eysenck states that “North American negroes are certainly hybrids. It can be safely assumed also that the North American whites are also hybrids, by Eysenck conveniently overlooks that point.

However, with reference to the work of Shuey in the USA Eysenck goes on to assert a further absurdity, one that if it is analysed statistically proves to be complete nonsense, he writes “…if whites are superior to blacks in IQ genetically, then an admixture of white ancestry should produce offspring with higher IQ’s, on the average, than would be found in the offspring of pure black ancestry.” Assuming this to be so a closer look would show that admixture of an increasing number of genes on a gradient from black to white would produce a mulatto of genius standards, with the IQ’s of quadroons and octoroons being even higher. Conversely, if the gradient is from white to black, surely by the time a mulatto was produced he would be a congenital idiot? How can a half-caste be both a genius and an idiot, although on a flippant aside many so-called clever men have been fools!

In conclusion one cannot get to an all round understanding of the problem unless all the factors involved are considered. A purely genetic refutation of Jensen et al is only of little value as would be a purely sociological refutation. Evident in the whole polemic is the revival of ‘biologism’ and elements, though much more sophisticated, of the obsolete doctrine of Social Darwinism. This cannot, without unfortunate consequences, be separated from the socio-economic problems of those societies concerned. Biologism  attempts to describe and interpret the activity of human beings in society in terms of animal behaviour and biological urges. Examples can be seen in the polemical pseudo-science of Desmond Morris and Robert Ardrey. Also fitting into this bracket one can mention C. D. Darlington’s ‘Evolution of Man and Society’ which attempted to rewrite history in terms of the so-called key role of genetics. Hence it can be seen that the theory of intelligence fits very neatly into the above ideology, an attempt to ascribe human development largely to biological factors, if not primarily to the inheritance of key mental powers. The outcome has been to reintroduce into research and knowledge the concept of scientific racism thinly disguised as objectivity.

 

 

 

 

Irish Bronze Brooch

In the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, on the Middle Gallery in case 98a there is an early medieval clothes fastener described as a penannular bronze ring brooch with a long pin (1884.79.13). Of northern Irish provenance it is part of the Pitt Rivers founding collection(142-1649), and was originally displayed at the Bethnal Green Museum. It is an example of the wide-ranging nature of the collection of General Pitt Rivers. This zoomorphic brooch is described having continuous coarse ribbing along its 4.6cm diameter hoop and is complete with its 10.5cm pin. Its splayed terminals are plain enamel decorated, have no ears, and with rounded eyes. The pinched-in snouts are also enamelled with prominent upturned tips. There is side hatching on the more or less formless pin-head. Such brooches are thus made with a “…pin which swivels round a hoop with a break to enable the pin to be inserted in the cloth (Laing, 1996). Beside this brooch is a much larger and donated, and collected by General Pitt Rivers, which comes from Lough Neagh in Ireland (the largest lake in the British Isles) and is labelled P.R.Coll [1728] (403 Blue).

Penannular open ring brooches start in pre-Roman Britain and probably originate from provincial Roman prototypes. In 4th to 6th century Ireland the zoomorphic penannular brooch was the main form found, though the type has been found from the 2nd century onwards. The term derives from the fact that the brooch terminals simulate animal heads because “…the terminals bore a faint resemblance to a backward turns animal head…” (Laing, 1996). In fully developed brooch types the snout, eyes and ears are all present. These brooches show both regional and chronological variations in style and comprise a circular hoop of metal flattened at the ends – the terminals. Attached to the hoop is a movable pin, the loop of which runs along the hoop. The rings is incomplete in order to allow passage of the pin between the terminals. These brooches exhibit great variation from crudely alloyed simple rings to creatively elaborate examples decorated with enamelling, glass, and gold filigree.

The zoomorphic brooch originated through the combined efforts of the Brigantes and their allies the Votadini, being derived from a Brigantian bangle. From this the Votadini created a new motif unlike other representations of animals, it was an abstraction. This new stylised form had, unlike previous examples, the animal facing inwards. The Brigantian bangle was penannular, square ended and lightweight. The Votadini occupied the region from the Forth to the Tyne. The Brigantes, the only tribe to exist in Ireland as well, occupied much of northern Britain.

Most Irish penannular pins are unprovenanced but they were producing proto-zoomorphic Votadini type pins in the second century. Refugee craftsmen may have sought sanctuary in Ireland after the abandonment of the Antonine Wall in 196 AD. Many examples of zoomorphic brooches date from before the Roman occupation. However, only the early forms have been found in Britain whilst later development was peculiar to Ireland. The terminal types are characteristic of these islands. Some found in Wales, Scotland and England but most numerous in Ireland. One of the early metal working centres in Ireland was at Fort Clogher, County Tyrone. Examples of penannular brooches similar to those collected by General Pitt Rivers were found at crannog 2 at Ballindery, County Offaly, and at the River Shannon near Athlone, County Westmeath. The Shannon example is charteriesd by being decorated with triskels (Celtic symbol of three legs radiating from a centre) and double spirals, whereas the Ballindery brooch is animal headed with a fine ribbed ring.

These brooches were more than mundane clothes fasteners. They had secular and religious significance in Celtic society. Their greater purpose was to serve as, often personalised, symbols of wealth, rank and status. Not only were the most expensive and elegant examples the preserve of the rich. They functioned as portable wealth for payment and gift giving amongst the upper echelons. They indicated sexual equality because women possessed as elaborate brooches as men. These brooches show forms fixed and adopted by the ancient Britons before the Roman invasion, and furthermore their development involved both the British and the Irish. Indeed, open-ring brooches were being made at Clogher by the 6th century. At this time “…distinctively Irish forms of pennanular were in vogue across the country and were occasionally taken over to Britain.” (Laing, 1996). The long and increasingly elaborate development of the penannular brooch ensured their survival into the Dark Ages where their continued use illuminates conditions in England, though most brooches found in Anglo-Saxon graves were re-used Roman examples.

References and Sources Consulted

Campbell, E.  (2001). Were the Scots Irish?  Antiquity (75) 285-92.

Kilbride-Jones, H. E.  (1935-36).  Scots zoomorphic penannular brooches.  Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scotland. LXX 123-38

Kilbride-Jones, H. E.  (1980).  Zoomorphic penannular brooches.  Report XXXIX, Society of Antiquaries.  Thames & Hudson.

Laing, L. & J.  (1996).  Art of the Celts.  Thames and Hudson, London.

Lewis, J. M.  (1982).  Recent finds of penannular brooches from Wales.  Medieval Archaeology. 25.  151-54.

Megaw, R. & V.  (2001).  Celtic Art.  Thames & Hudson, London.

Smith, R. A.  (1914).  Irish brooches of five centuries.  Archaeologia, 65, 223-250.

Romanticism and ‘The Raft of the Medusa’.

The Romantic Revival of the early 19th century was an international phenomenon and affected all arts alike. As a movement in the arts it lasted from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. Romanticism inspired the revival of Gothic style architecture and in literature the novels of Sir Walter Scott, Lord Byron’s poetry, and the music of Schumann. It has been said that Romanticism lent itself more to literary and musical expression rather than through the visual arts.

By 1830  in France the Romantic movement in painting was rapidly displacing that of the Neoclassical movement. Romanticism was in effect in complete opposition to classicism. The Neo-classicists, the champions of David’s heritage, claimed to defend order and accused the Romantics of being revolutionaries and having introduced anarchy into art. An example being Ingres, a Neo-classicist becoming an unswerving adversary of the Romantic Eugene Delacroix. However, Romanticism came to prevail everywhere in the atmosphere of the time, especially as an inspiration of liberty, poetry, and lyricism.

It is difficult to singularly define Romanticism because of its varied manifestations – it is a movement not a style. Romantic artists attempted to transfer their personality, their most intimate emotional and secret aspects to their work. For Romanticism the main basis of their art was the belief in the value of individual experience. Romanticism came therefore to represent an attitude of mind. French artists were the first to give expression to Romanticism in painting. The most conspicuous was Eugene Delacroix, considered the master of the movement, so little did his work conform to the classical traditions in both content and theme. Delacroix’s work cab be seen as a comment on the passions that characterise humanity in its life struggles. In Delacroix’s work can be seen the sense of the infinite and the transcendental, and Romanticism’s insistence on the primary role played by imagination in artistic expression.

As an example of a powerful Romantic work one can consider the Raft of the Medusa by Theodore Gericault, who had the makings of a truly great artist. Gericault took the classicism of David and infused it with passion and life. The Raft of the Medusa was at the same time romantic and realist and one of the finest paintings of the first half of the 19th century. The picture dealt with a contemporary event, the  circumstances of which shocked France, and is strained and yet intense in its emotional power. The Medusa was a French frigate wrecked in 1816 on the Arguin Banks, off Cape Blanco, Senegal. In order to escape the stricken vessel the ship’s boats were launched but were not enough to take everybody aboard. A raft was constructed and set in the sea. The raft was below the waves with the weight of the first 50 aboard. Eventually an estimated 149 persons, both men and women, were on the raft which had sunk so low that they were up to their waists in the sea. After severe and horrific privations and even cannibalism, the few remaining survivors were rescued. The horrendous episode became the theme of Gericault’s masterpiece. he began work in 1818.

Gericault consulted two raft survivors, authors of a book about the raft episode. These were J. B. Henry Savigny (the junior surgeon) and Alexander Correard (a geographical engineer). Then he got the ship’s carpenter of the Medusa to make him a plan of the raft and then a scale model. Gericault visited hospitals to study the sick, the dying, and the dead. He borrowed severed limbs of corpses, sometimes complete cadavers, and took them to his studio for drawing. He surrounded himself with all that would impress upon him the experience of the raft. The preliminary stages took him ten months. The painting of the canvas took eight months. The castaways were panted from models – some professional, some were friends, and Savigny and Correard posed as themselves.

The picture received severe criticisms on exhibition. But, much praise also, and many with mixed feelings. Louis XVIII viewed the canvas and spoke pleasantly to Gericault, his comments now conceived as meaning that Gericault had painted a picture that compelled the viewer to share an experience not to his liking. Gericault had thus evoked the romantic spirit in terms of experience, an empirical sharing in contrast to the rationalism of the previous century’s enlightenment.

Gericault died aged thirty three in 1824. He never really recovered from the despair generated by the exhausting eighteen months work on the Raft of the Medusa. The picture personified despair and suffering. On his death the king bought the picture for the nation. The Raft of the Medusa proved to be a key work in the history of art. It ended one tradition and began another. Everything about the work, its history, its sketches, its final form, are important. Despite Gericault’s frustration at living so short a life, and not having produced many works, the painting shows that not only would he have been capable of the highest achievements, but his Raft has a chilling relevance for today.