Book contents
- Body and Machine in Classical Antiquity
- Body and Machine in Classical Antiquity
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- An Introduction to Body–Machine Intersections
- Part I Blended Bodies
- Chapter 1 More Than a Thing
- Chapter 2 Automata, Cyborgs, and Hybrids
- Chapter 3 Not Yet the Android
- Part II The Technological Body
- Part III Towards the Mechanization of the Human Body
- Index of Passages
- General Index
- References
Chapter 2 - Automata, Cyborgs, and Hybrids
Bodies and Machines in Antiquity
from Part I - Blended Bodies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2023
Book contents
- Body and Machine in Classical Antiquity
- Body and Machine in Classical Antiquity
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- An Introduction to Body–Machine Intersections
- Part I Blended Bodies
- Chapter 1 More Than a Thing
- Chapter 2 Automata, Cyborgs, and Hybrids
- Chapter 3 Not Yet the Android
- Part II The Technological Body
- Part III Towards the Mechanization of the Human Body
- Index of Passages
- General Index
- References
Summary
This chapter proposes that the myths of Hephaistos, the ancient Greek god of metalwork and the only physically impaired member of the Olympic pantheon, can provide insights into ancient inspirations for and understandings of assistive technology. It explores the range of different types of assistive technology that impaired and disabled individuals used in classical antiquity to facilitate their physical mobility, covering staffs, sticks, crutches, corrective footwear, extremity prostheses, conveyances, equids, bearers, and caregivers. It notes the frequent association of impairment and technology in classical antiquity. It argues for a reassessment of the suitability of the Medical Model for use in relation to impairment and disability in classical antiquity under certain circumstances.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Body and Machine in Classical Antiquity , pp. 48 - 69Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Abrams, J. Z. 1998. Judaism and Disability: Portrayals in Ancient Texts from the Tanach through the Bavli (Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Avalos, H., Melcher, S., and Schipper, J., eds. 2007. This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Atlanta).Google Scholar
Brandon, R. 2004. ‘Myth and Metallurgy: Some Cross-Cultural Reflections on the Social Identity of Smiths’, in Andren, A., Jennbery, K., and Raudvere, C., eds., Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (Lund), 99–103.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2009. The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Natural Greek Philosophy (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Bliquez, L. J. 1996. ‘Prosthetics in Classical Antiquity: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Prosthetics’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ii 37.3: 2640–76.Google Scholar
Breitwieser, R., ed. 2012. Behinderungen und Beeinträchtigungen/Disability and Impairment in Antiquity (Oxford).Google Scholar
Bremmer, J. N. 2010. ‘Hephaestus Sweats or How to Construct an Ambivalent God’, in Bremmer, J. N. and Erskine, A., eds., The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations (Edinburgh), 193–208.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. 2016. ‘Lame Hephaestus’, Annual of the British School at Athens, 111: 163–81.Google Scholar
Brule, P. 2006. ‘Bâtons et bâton du mâle, adulte, citoyen’, in Bodiou, L., Frère, D., and Mehl, V., eds., L’expression des corps: gestes, attitudes, regards dans l’iconographie antique (Rennes), 75–83.Google Scholar
Capdeville, G. 1995. Volcanus: recherches comparistes sur les origins du culte de Vulcain (Rome).Google Scholar
Clynes, M. E. and Kline, N. S.. 1960. ‘Cyborgs and Space’, Astronautics, September, 26–7, 74–6.Google Scholar
Couvret, S. 1994. ‘L’homme au bâton: statique et statut dans la céramique attique’, Metis, 9–10: 257–81.Google Scholar
Craddock, P. T. 1976. ‘The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 1: The Greeks before the Archaic Period’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 3.2: 93–113.Google Scholar
Craddock, P. T. 1977. ‘The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 2. The Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greeks’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 4.2: 103–23.Google Scholar
De Ciantis, C. 2005. ‘The Return of Hephaestus: Reconstructing the Fragmented Mythos of the Maker’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Pacifica Graduate Institute. Available online: www.academia.edu/749603/The_Return_of_Hephaestus_Reconstructing_the_Fragmented_Mythos_of_the_Maker (accessed October 2018).Google Scholar
Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P.. 1974. Les ruses de l’intelligence: la mètis des Grecs (Paris).Google Scholar
Devecka, M. 2013. ‘Did the Ancient Greeks Believe in Their Robots?’, Cambridge Classical Journal, 59: 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillery, J. 2005. ‘Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners and the Problem of Authority’, in Jonston, S. L. and Struck, P. T., eds., Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination (Leiden), 167–232.Google Scholar
Draycott, J. 2015. ‘The Lived Experience of Disability in Antiquity: A Case Study from Roman Egypt’, Greece & Rome, 62.2: 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, J. 2018b. ‘Introduction’, in Draycott, J., ed., Prostheses in Antiquity (London), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, J. (in preparation). ‘Staff or Stick? Cane or Crutch? Mobility Aids in Ancient Greece and Rome’, in I. Bonati, ed., Words of Medicine: Technical Terminology in Material and Textual Evidence from the Greco-Roman World (Berlin).Google Scholar
Edwards, M. L. 1997. ‘Constructions of Physical Disability in the Ancient Greek World: The Community Concept’ in Mitchell, D. and Snyder, S., eds., The Body and Physical Difference: Discourses of Disability (Ann Arbor, MI), 35–50.Google Scholar
Emery, P. B. 1999. ‘Old-Age Iconography in Archaic Greek Art’, Mediterranean Archaeology, 12: 17–28.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. 1987. ‘Hephaestus the Magician and Near Eastern Parallels for Alcinous’ Watchdogs’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28.3: 257–80.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual (Oxford).Google Scholar
Finch, J. 2018. ‘The Complex Aspects of Experimental Archaeology: The Design of Working Models of Two Ancient Egyptian Great Toe Prostheses’ in Draycott, J., ed., Prostheses in Antiquity (London), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbane, S. 2007. Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature: A Collection of Socio-Anthropological Essays (Leiden).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, R. 1994. ‘The Mockery of the Deformed and the Disabled in Graeco-Roman Culture’ in Jäkel, S. and Timonen, A., eds., Laughter Down the Centuries (Turku), 71–84.Google Scholar
Garland, R. 1995, reissued 2010. The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (London).Google Scholar
George, M. 2006. ‘Social Identity and the Dignity of Work in Freedmen’s Reliefs’, in D’Ambra, E. and Metraux, G. P. R., eds., The Art of Citizens, Soldiers and Freedmen in the Roman World (Oxford), 19–29.Google Scholar
Greene, E. M. 2019. ‘Metal Fittings on the Vindolanda Shoes: Footwear and Evidence for Podiatric Knowledge in the Roman World’ in Pickup, S. and Waite, S., eds., Shoes, Slippers, and Sandals: Feet and Footwear in Classical Antiquity (London), 328–42.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. 2006. ‘Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination. Part Two’, Classical Philology, 101.4: 307–58.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2008. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Harper, M. 1987. ‘Possible Toxic Metal Exposure of Prehistoric Bronze Workers’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44.10: 652–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedreen, G. 2004. ‘The Return of Hephaestus, Dionysiac Ritual and the Creation of a Visual Narrative’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 124: 38–64.Google Scholar
Hermary, A. and Jacquemin, A.. 1988. ‘Hephaestos’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae iv.1: 627–54.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. 2010. ‘Dissecting the Classics Hybrid’, in Rebay-Salisbury, K., Sorensen, M. L. S., and Hughes, J., eds., Body Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings (Oxford), 101–10.Google Scholar
Kalligeropoulos, D. and Vasileiadou, S.. 2008. ‘The Homeric Automata and Their Implementation’, in Paipetis, S., ed., Science and Technology in the Homeric Epics (Dordrecht), 77–84.Google Scholar
Kelley, N. 2007. ‘Deformity and Disability in Greece and Rome’, in Avalos, H., Melcher, S., and Schipper, J., eds., This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Atlanta), 31–45.Google Scholar
Krötzl, C., Mustakallio, M., and Kuuliala, J.. 2015. Infirmity in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Social and Cultural Approaches to Health, Weakness and Care (Farnham).Google Scholar
Laes, C. 2018. Disabilities and the Disabled in the Roman World: A Social and Cultural History (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laes, C., Goodey, C., and Rose, M.. 2013. Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies a Capite ad Calcem (Leiden).Google Scholar
LaGrandeur, K. 2011. ‘The Persistent Peril of the Artificial Slave’, Science Fiction Studies, 38.2: 232–52.Google Scholar
Loebl, W. Y. and Nunn, J. F.. 1997. ‘Staffs as Walking Aids in Ancient Egypt and Palestine’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90.8: 450–4.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D. R. 2015. The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts (Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
Malten, L. 1912. ‘Hephaestus’, Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 27: 232–64.Google Scholar
Malten, L. 1913. ‘Hephaestus’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 8: 311–66.Google Scholar
Mayor, A. 2014. The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Michler, M. 1963. ‘Die Krüppelleiden in “De morbo sacro” und “De articulis”’, Sudhoffs Archiv, 45: 303–28.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 2013. ‘Disparate Bodies in Ancient Artefacts: The Function of Caricature and Pathological Grotesques among Roman Terracotta Figurines’, in Laes, C., Goodey, C. F., and Rose, M. L., eds., Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies a Capite ad Calcem (Leiden), 275–97.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 2017. ‘The Hellenistic Turn in Bodily Representations: Venting Anxiety in the Terracotta Figurines’, in Laes, C., ed., Disability in Antiquity (London), 182–96.Google Scholar
Nriagu, J. O. 1983. ‘Occupational Exposure to Lead in Ancient Times’, Science of the Total Environment, 31.2: 105–16.Google Scholar
Ohry, A. and Dolev, E.. 1982. ‘Disabilities and Handicapped People in the Bible’, Koroth, 8.5–6: 63–7.Google Scholar
Olyan, S. M. 2008. Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Knusel, C. J., and Race, L.. 2004. ‘A Foot Deformity from a Romano-British Cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the Current Evidence for Talipes in Palaeopathology’, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 14: 389–403.Google Scholar
Rose, M. 2003, reissued 2013. The Staff of Oedipus: Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece (Ann Arbor, MI).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosner, E. 1955. ‘Die Lahmheit des Hephaestus’, Forschungen und Fortschritte, 29: 362–3.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M. J. 2007. ‘Art and Nature in Ancient Mechanics’, in Bensaude-Vincent, B. and Newman, W. R., eds., The Artificial and the Natural: An Evolving Polarity (Cambridge, MA), 67–108.Google Scholar
Trentin, L. 2017. ‘The “Other Romans”: Deformed Bodies in the Visual Arts of Rome’, in Laes, C., ed., Disabilities in Antiquity (London), 233–47.Google Scholar
Van Schaik, K. 2018. ‘Living Prostheses’, in Draycott, J., ed., Prostheses in Antiquity (London), 140–58.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 1990. ‘Incurability and Hopelessness: The Hippocratic Corpus’, in Potter, P., Maloney, G., and Désautels, J., eds., La maladie et les malades dans la Collection hippocratique: actes du vie Colloque international hippocratique (Québec, du 28 septembre au 3 octobre 1987) (Quebec), 75–112.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 2007. ‘Physis and Technē in Greek Medicine’, in Bensaude-Vincent, B. and Newman, W. R., eds., The Artificial and the Natural: An Evolving Polarity (Cambridge, MA), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickkiser, B. 2008. Asklepios, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-Century Greece (Baltimore, MD).Google Scholar
Withington, E. T. 1928. Hippocrates: On Wounds in the Head. In the Surgery. On Fractures. On Joints. Mochlicon (Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Ziskowski, A. 2012. ‘Clubfeet and Kypselids: Contextualising Corinthian Padded Dancers in the Archaic Period’, Annual of the British School at Athens, 111: 211–32.Google Scholar