Accessing images of monuments and inscriptions of Mithras

Anyone who searches for “Mithras” in Google images is confronted with a mass of photographs by all sorts of people from all sorts of sites across the web.  There’s a lot of good images there, clear and useful … but the site owners rarely give the CIMRM reference number, and usually have no real information on what you’re looking at.

I’ve started to address this on my new Mithras site.  I’ve created a gallery of selected monuments, and an upload wizard that allows me to create new entries fairly easily.  Each monument has a page with an image or two, the CIMRM text, and whatever else is to hand.

The idea, simply, is that if you find a reference in the scholarly literature to “CIMRM 593”, you don’t just sigh and rub your eyes.  Instead you can go to the gallery, find out what it looks like, find links to a couple of images, and then, if need me, hunt down some more photos yourself.

CIMRM 593 is a good example.  That’s it, on the right.  It’s an item which must be photographed dozens of times every day, because it lives in the British Museum in London, on public display.

What makes it important is that it seems to be one of the very earliest tauroctonies – monuments of Mithras killing the bull.  The two chaps at the back are Cautes and Cautopates, the torch bears, in an unusual position.  Unfortunately the statue was restored at some remote date.  Various bits are not original: the head should be facing towards us, and there are other bits that are not right.  But now … you can get details of what is not authentic from my page above.

And suddenly, you don’t have to be a specialist in order to know anything about the monument.  We can all look, even if we don’t have the training of a professional, once we know what those images on Google Images are.  We can all see what the argument is about, at least.

Which is what I want to make possible.

Share

Ezquerra, Romanising Oriental Gods – freely accessible online!

Just discovered that Jaime Alvar Ezquerra and his publisher Brill have done something marvellous with Richard Gordon’s translation of his book Romanising oriental gods: Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras (2008).  I needed to consult it, and Google books gave me so very little with which to do so.

They put the thing online.  In PDF form.  Here:

http://archive.org/details/RomanisingOrientalGods

I could have wept!  How amazing!  How useful!

Thank you, gentlemen.

UPDATE: Oh rats! They omitted the plates!

Share

Wikipedia and the hoax articles

You learn a great deal from a forum like Wikipediocracy.  A correspondent reminded me of this article today.  The Daily Dot gives the story in less abbreviated form here:

From 1640 to 1641 the might of colonial Portugal clashed with India’s massive Maratha Empire in an undeclared war that would later be known as the Bicholim Conflict. Named after the northern Indian region where most of the fighting took place, the conflict ended with a peace treaty that would later help cement Goa as an independent Indian state.

Except none of this ever actually happened.

What actually happened is that some anonymous person in July 2007 wrote an article on Wikipedia about it, complete with fake references.  It was rated as a “good article”, and nearly became a featured article.  And it was all fake.

The hoax was unmasked by another anonymous user in December 2012, who for some undisclosed reason started to verify the references, and found that none of them were real.  He nominated it for deletion, six other random people agreed, and it was deleted.  Which, somehow, is just as troubling as the manner in which it was created.

The Daily Dot also have another one.  Wikipedia told us:

Gaius Flavius Antoninus
(88 BC – 44 BC) was a Roman general who helped in the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. He was later murdered by a male prostitute hired by Mark Antony.

This too is apparently a hoax.  Deleted, therefore, based on … erm, some bunch of nobodies’ opinion that they don’t know for sure.

Now it would be easy to overreact.  The criminal element is well and truly busy on the internet these days.  Vandalism and hoaxes are normal now.  Any crowd-sourced project must expect these, and must handle them.

But a delay of 6 years, before someone able to perform a 5 minute sanity check does so, just isn’t good enough.  Wikipedia is too important a part of the web for this to be acceptable.  In 2004, perhaps it would have been considered unavoidable.  But now?

Wikipedia needs to have some professional reviewers.  There seems no obvious reason why it couldn’t hire a few.  Most journals manage to do this.  But professionals would probably volunteer; except that they are treated like dirt if they do.  At the moment any professional will find himself run out of the project by “Randy from Boise” or some other child.  The project needs to create a cadre of contributors who are named, and known, and valued, and who have the backing of the Wikipedia board if they find themselves being harassed by Randy or his chums.  It’s not hard to do this.  But the will is lacking.

Share

From my diary

A correspondent reminds me that letter 100 in the Collectio Avellana, a medieval collection of papal letters, is a letter by Pope Gelasius to the senator Andromachus, justifying the abolition of the ancient Roman festival of the Lupercalia.  I mentioned it here, but then forgot all about it.  By chance another correspondent wrote on a different issue today, and from his role, he may know of someone competent to do the job and who might be glad of the money.  I’d do it myself if I ever had any time away from working.

The letter is interesting, not just for itself, but also because it quotes from the lost 2nd decade of Livy, on the origins of the Lupercalia.  Which is something that should be made more widely available, all for itself.

In other news, the vandal attacking the Mithras pages made another attempt yesterday, but not today.  I infer that the wretch has had to go back to work.  I wonder who he really is, and where from?

Share