Originally Posted on FeminismandReligion.com on January 22, 2015
History is written by the victors – this is something that we all know, or at least should know. I apologize in advance for being elementary in my discussion, but I think one thing that scholars tend to do too often is assume our readers or audience has a firm grasp on what we are talking about. With this topic, I am not assuming.
When studying artifacts from past civilizations, an interesting phenomenon of using spolia as a demonstration of conquest is commonplace. If a conquered country’s deity is placed on the bottom of a column, or even turned a different direction, the significance usually means that deity is demoted or inferior – this is found in the Hagia Sophia (especially under the structure). If spolia is found whereby a country adds their deity (even if that deity is their ruler) to another country’s monument, then there is a coexistence or combining of empires with the conquesting ruler in prominent view, even substituting past rulers. This is best demonstrated on the Arch of Constantinople whereby Christian symbols and the likeness of Constantine was incorporated into an arch that once displayed the victories of Marcus Aurelius and Domitian. If you are interested in this topic, please see my article “Hagia Sophia: Political Symbolism in Stones and Spolia” in Popular Archaeology magazine.
As I study cultural syncretism and archaeology as part of my dissertation research, I continually see goddesses and learn about their many manifestations or adaptations in neighboring culture. While this is definitely known–and knowing that–part of my methodology is trying to look at history as a means of reclaiming the feminine voice that was erased or subordinated in the biblical text. I had an epiphany that collided with this notion of spolia and conquest. I saw that I can use archaeology and artifacts along with history (and anthropology) to enhance my work and research when looking at oppressed groups, especially women. Again, this may seem like a very simple leap, but the point of even going through this exercise is to make a point: sometimes we get so caught up in the complexities of our research, linguistic and narrative analysis, and other exegetical tools that we fail to see the very obvious. Sometimes the simplest answers can be staring us in the face and we forget to look there first. It is, I guess, more about getting back to basics.
While I am not ready to disclose specifics about my dissertation, I will say that in my quest to look at an oddity in the text, I began to spend a tremendous about of time looking at various cultures from the Babylonian exile to Second Temple period – burials, epitaphs, funerary inscriptions, writings, etc. Yet I failed to start at the most obvious place – Babylon. It was there that I found a unique goddess, one new to me anyway, and that discovery may transform the way I look at the particular topic I considering. It is an exciting possibility and, if relevant, could bring to light another feminine figure that was rewritten into the text as a man. I guess with regard to my findings and discovery, we will see so stay tuned!