MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301271422 · doi:10.1353/phx.2012.0000

Writing Authority: Elite Competition and Written Law in Early Greece

2012· article· en· W4301271422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Domingo Avilés

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAncient Near East History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentimentalityKinshipEliteHuman animalSubject (documents)AestheticsLiteratureSociologyHistoryArtLawAnthropologyGeographyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

446 PHOENIX “sentimentality.” Here she mingles, to a degree not encountered in her earlier, more artifact-driven chapters, archaeological analysis with philosophical speculation. She observes that the Greeks, in common with all other pet-keeping cultures, used companion animals like cats and dogs to fill human needs for love and attachment, and one might label as “sentimentality” such practices, observable on Greek pottery remains, as portraying dogs and goats with apparent smiles on their faces or with humanlike eyebrows. Calder maintains that this bizarre practice may reflect deliberate anthropomorphization since Greek painters were otherwise “acute observers of animals” (82). Painters may have sought thereby to remove the distance between themselves and their animals and to hint at some degree of interspecies kinship. The difficulties that Calder, as an archaeologist, experiences when she addresses theoretical aspects of the human-animal encounter are particularly evident in her sixth and final chapter (99–115), which is devoted to philosophical and ethical topics, what she terms “animals in the abstract” (99). Only a few artifacts are referenced in this chapter, which takes up such thorny issues as the question of rationality in non-human species, philosophical justifications for the vegetarian lifestyle, and the complex and much-studied concept of “kinship” (oikeiosis) between human and non-human animals that was used by Greek philosophical schools to debate whether non-human animals are “like” enough to human beings to merit inclusion in the sphere of human justice.4 Highly theoretical subject matter of this sort feels out of place in a volume otherwise distinguished by its meticulous discussions of artistic remains supplemented by citation of practical-minded agricultural authorities, giving Calder’s final chapter a somewhat “tacked on” feeling. The reader will at least come away from Calder’s volume with an appreciation for the fact that the Greeks had no concept of “animal rights” (116), and that many of their interactions with animals reflected a deep conviction of the “otherness” of non-human species which generally arose from a belief in the innate intellectual inferiority of animals. While readers whose acquaintance with Greek views of human-animal interactions is conditioned by the study of philosophical authorities such as Aristotle, Plutarch, and Porphyry are not likely to find Calder’s treatment of more theoretical issues enlightening, all readers will find much of interest in her analysis of the astonishingly abundant and varied artistic treasures that depict human-animal interactions in Greek antiquity. Duquesne University Stephen T. Newmyer Writing Authority: Elite Competition and Written Law in Early Greece. By Jason Hawke. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2011. Pp. x, 285. The greatest challenge for students of archaic Greek law is the scantiness of extant contemporary sources. It is no surprise, then, that scholars often base their theories on 4 The concept of oikeiosis is much more sophisticated than Calder’s brief discussion suggests. It was used, especially by the Stoics, whom Calder does not mention, to argue that humans were intellectually so unlike other animal species that they had nothing in common with them and that humans could therefore use animals as they pleased, an idea that survived Greek antiquity and has had devastating consequences for human treatment of non-human species. The literature on oikeiosis is vast. Excellent studies include S. J. Pembroke, “Oikeiosis,” in A. A. Long, Problems in Stoicism (London 1971) 114–149 and G. Striker, “The Role of Oikeiosis in Stoic Ethics,” OSAPh 1 (1983) 145–167. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 447 their reading of classical or later sources such as Aristotle and Plutarch. This, Hawke argues, has led them astray by making them generally assume that archaic written law was a response by the lower classes to judicial abuse perpetrated by the elite, a means for simple people to protect their rights against wealthier and more powerful citizens. Such ideas, frequent in classical Athenian sources, are anachronistically projected back into the archaic era. Instead, Hawke argues that in the beginning written law was devised by the elites only and reflects their concerns, not those of lower classes: “[W]e should understand the appearance of written law as a means by which elites attempted to regulate their own competition for prominence and sought...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.040
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicAncient Near East HistoryFrench-language works237,207