Genocide is often viewed as a particular feature of our own current age. This perception largely stems from the terrible events which took place during World War Two in the 20th century CE in the parts of Europe occupied by the Nazis. However, there are certain occasions in the ancient world which could also be possibly considered as genocide. In considering genocide from an historical perspective, it is necessary to firstly ask what exactly is genocide? The concept is one which most people can agree did happen but which remains very hard to define precisely.

? ? ? ? ? 種族滅絕通常被視為我們當(dāng)今時(shí)代的一個(gè)特殊特征。這種看法很大程度上源于20世紀(jì)第二次世界大戰(zhàn)期間在納粹占領(lǐng)的歐洲部分地區(qū)發(fā)生的可怕事件。然而，古代世界的某些事件也有可能被視為種族滅絕。從歷史的角度思考種族滅絕，首先要問(wèn)種族滅絕到底是什么？大多數(shù)人都認(rèn)為種族滅絕確實(shí)發(fā)生過(guò)，但這一概念卻很難準(zhǔn)確界定。

The word itself was first coined in 1944 CE by the Polish writer Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) who constructed the word by combining 'geno-', from the Greek word for race or tribe, with '-cide', from the Latin word for killing. The modern notion of genocide owes a great deal to Lemkin's work who developed his ideas during his youth in Eastern Europe and as a resistance fighter against the German army during World War Two (Elder 2005; McDonnell and Moses 2005). In his key work published in 1944 CE, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin described genocide as signifying 'a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves' (Jones 2006: 10-11). The second most influential document in laying out the modern legal notion of genocide was the 1948 United Nations adoption of the 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' wherein Article II of the convention defined genocide as the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'.

? ? ? ? ? “Genocide”（種族滅絕）一詞由波蘭作家拉斐爾·萊姆金（Raphael Lemkin，1900-1959 年）于1944年首次創(chuàng)造，他將希臘語(yǔ)中代表種族或部落的“geno-”與拉丁語(yǔ)中代表殺戮的“-cide”組合在一起。現(xiàn)代種族滅絕的概念在很大程度上要?dú)w功于萊姆金的著作，他在東歐度過(guò)青年時(shí)代，并在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)期間作為抵抗德軍的戰(zhàn)士完善了自我思想（Elder 2005；McDonnell 和 Moses 2005 ）。萊姆金在1944年出版的重要著作《軸心國(guó)在其占領(lǐng)歐洲的統(tǒng)治》（Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (Foundations of the Laws of War)）中，將種族滅絕描述為“旨在破壞民族群體生活的重要基礎(chǔ)的不同行動(dòng)的協(xié)調(diào)計(jì)劃，其目的是消滅這些群體本身”（Jones 2006: 10-11）。在闡述現(xiàn)代種族滅絕法律概念方面第二個(gè)最有影響力的文件是 1948 年聯(lián)合國(guó)通過(guò)的《防止及懲治種族滅絕罪公約》，其中該公約第二條將種族滅絕定義為“意圖全部或部分摧毀某一民族、人種、種族或宗教團(tuán)體”。 ?

The exact explanation of what constitutes genocide resulting from these two landmark works has been extensively debated by academics ever since. However, it can be observed that there are two main elements needed for an event to be considered as genocide, namely: there is a clear intent on the behalf of the perpetrators to carry out the action and the resulting annihilation of a particular political, social or cultural group. Keeping this in mind, it may be possible to identify two possible cases of genocide in the ancient world: the Roman destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE and the Athenian massacre at Melos in 416 BCE.

? ? ? ? ? 從那時(shí)起，對(duì)這兩部里程碑式著作所造成的種族滅絕的確切解釋一直受到學(xué)術(shù)界的廣泛爭(zhēng)論。不過(guò)，我們可以看到，一個(gè)事件要被視為種族滅絕，需要具備兩個(gè)主要要素，即：犯罪者有實(shí)施該行動(dòng)的明確意圖，以及由此導(dǎo)致特定政治、社會(huì)或文化群體被毀滅?？紤]到這一點(diǎn)，或許可以確定古代世界可能發(fā)生的兩起種族滅絕事件：公元前146年羅馬人對(duì)迦太基的毀滅、公元前416年雅典人在米洛斯的大屠殺。 ?

羅馬對(duì)迦太基的種族滅絕

Carthage was located in Africa on the Mediterranean Sea, roughly where the modern city of Tunis is today, some 400 miles from Rome. The principal sources for the destruction of Carthage are the historians Appian and Polybius. Carthage was founded as a Phoenician colony. Unlike the Roman Empire, which expanded by conquering its neighbours, Carthage grew by setting up trading contacts to places as far-flung as Britain to the north and modern-day Gabon in Africa to the south (Braudel 2001: 218). The Phoenician origin of Carthage meant that the city contrasted considerably from Rome in areas such as its government which was more openly aristocratic in nature than the supposedly democratic Rome, its religion which was a strange mystery to the Romans and its overall outlook on life which was guided by both eastern Greek and African influences (Braudel 2001).

? ? ? ? ? ?迦太基位于非洲地中海沿岸，大致在今天突尼斯市的位置，距離羅馬約400英里。歷史學(xué)家阿庇安（Appian）和波里比烏斯（Polybius）為我們提供了迦太基毀滅的主要資料來(lái)源。迦太基是腓尼基人建立的殖民地。與通過(guò)征服鄰國(guó)來(lái)擴(kuò)張的羅馬帝國(guó)不同，迦太基是通過(guò)與遙遠(yuǎn)的地方建立貿(mào)易聯(lián)系而發(fā)展起來(lái)的，如北部的不列顛和南部的（現(xiàn)代）加蓬（Braudel 2001：218）。迦太基起源于腓尼基，這意味著該城在許多方面與羅馬形成了巨大反差，例如其政府比所謂的民主羅馬更具公開(kāi)的貴族性質(zhì)，其宗教對(duì)羅馬人來(lái)說(shuō)神秘莫測(cè)，其整體生活觀同時(shí)受到東希臘和非洲的影響(Braudel 2001)。

Rome and Carthage grew to become true superpowers on either side of the Mediterranean Sea so it was perhaps inevitable that they would fight each other. This occurred during the three Punic Wars, so-called because the Romans used the Latin Punicus term to refer to the Carthaginians' Phoenician ancestry, which began in 264 BCE and ended with the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE. The First and Second Punic Wars saw Rome gain control of Sicily, Spain and much of the western Mediterranean. The Third Punic war broke out in 149 BCE when Carthage launched a disastrous invasion of the Kingdom of Numidia in modern-day Algeria. In 149 BCE, in response to this war, a massive Roman army under the command of Scipio Africanus the Younger landed in Africa and began to lay siege to the city. At first, the Carthaginians tried to come to peace with the Romans who announced a series of difficult conditions for them to fulfil. Rome initially demanded hostages and that all the city's arms be turned over. When all of these demands were fulfilled, Rome then ordered that the city be pulled down and built further inland. At this stage, with their backs to the wall, the Carthaginians had little choice but to fight.

? ? ? ? ? 羅馬和迦太基逐漸成為地中海兩岸真正的超級(jí)大國(guó)，因此他們之間的爭(zhēng)斗也許是不可避免的。雙方打了三次布匿戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，之所以如此稱呼，是因?yàn)榱_馬人使用拉丁語(yǔ) “Punicus”（布匿）一詞來(lái)指代迦太基人的腓尼基血統(tǒng)。這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)始于公元前264年，結(jié)束于公元前146年迦太基的毀滅。在第一次和第二次布匿戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，羅馬控制了西西里島、西班牙和地中海西部的大部分地區(qū)。公元前149年，迦太基發(fā)動(dòng)了對(duì)努米底亞王國(guó)（今阿爾及利亞）的災(zāi)難性入侵，第三次布匿戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)爆發(fā)。公元前149年，作為對(duì)這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的回應(yīng)，一支由小西庇阿（Scipio Africanus the Younger）指揮的龐大羅馬軍隊(duì)在非洲登陸，并開(kāi)始圍攻這座城市。起初，迦太基人試圖與羅馬人講和，羅馬人宣布了一系列艱難的條件讓他們滿足。羅馬最初要求他們交出人質(zhì)和城中的所有武器。當(dāng)所有要求都得到滿足后，羅馬又下令將該城拆除，并在更遠(yuǎn)的內(nèi)陸建造新城。在這一階段，迦太基人已經(jīng)陷入了絕境，除了戰(zhàn)斗之外別無(wú)選擇。

In spite of the superior Roman military power, the city managed to hold out for another three years until finally, in 146 BCE, the defences failed and the Romans poured in. The inhabitants of the city were massacred by the disciplined legions who systematically moved from house to house. Lloyd (1977: 178) suggested that the city may have held up to 200,000 inhabitants while Braudel (2001: 225) put the population at a lower scale of around 100,000 people. Even at this lower end, the slaughter in the city was, however, substantial and probably unprecedented in the European world up to that time. The survivors, possibly numbering anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 people, were sold as slaves. On direct orders from Rome, the city was subsequently set alight and, after ten days of burning, demolished stone by stone. Polybius in his Histories, Book XXXVIII, Chapters 3-11, noted that 'the destruction of the Carthaginians was immediate and total' so much so that there were no Carthaginians left to even express their remorse.

? ? ? ? ? ?盡管羅馬人擁有強(qiáng)大的軍事實(shí)力，但這座城市還是堅(jiān)守了三年，直到公元前 146 年，城市防御終于失效，羅馬人傾巢而入。紀(jì)律嚴(yán)明的羅馬軍團(tuán)有條不紊地挨家挨戶屠殺城中居民。勞埃德（Lloyd (1977: 178)）認(rèn)為該城市可能容納了多達(dá)20萬(wàn)名居民，而布勞德?tīng)枺˙raudel (2001: 225)）則認(rèn)為該城的人口規(guī)模較小，約為10萬(wàn)人。然而，即使是在人口較低的判斷上，城市中的屠殺規(guī)模也是巨大的，且在當(dāng)時(shí)的歐洲世界可能是史無(wú)前例的。幸存者可能有3萬(wàn)到5萬(wàn)人，他們被賣(mài)為奴隸。在羅馬的直接命令下，這座城市隨后被點(diǎn)燃，經(jīng)過(guò)十天的焚燒，一座座石基被拆毀。波里比烏斯在其《歷史》第 38 卷第 3-11 章中指出，“迦太基人的毀滅是直接且徹底的"，以至于沒(méi)有迦太基人留下表達(dá)他們悔恨的記載”。

The killing of all the inhabitants of a city-state whose inhabitants had refused to surrender was quite frequent in the ancient world so labelling this particular incident as genocide needs careful examination. A key element in this case, and one which would be in line with Lemkin's notion of genocide, was Rome's apparent intention to destroy Carthage, its people and culture, no matter what. This underlying aim can be seen in Rome's increasingly impossible-to-satisfy demands placed on Carthage before the outbreak of war. When Carthage could no longer realistically satisfy the demands, this gave the Romans a legitimate excuse for their actions. In addition, in the ruling elite and population of Rome, there was a feeling that Carthage had to be destroyed to secure the political and cultural dominance of Rome. This is best summed up by the Roman statesman Cato the Elder's personal motto Carthago delenda est meaning 'Carthage must be destroyed' which he used to end all public speeches (Radice 1973: 85).

? ? ? ? ? 在古代世界，對(duì)拒絕投降的城邦的所有居民進(jìn)行殺害的情況相當(dāng)頻繁，因此將這一特殊事件標(biāo)記為種族滅絕需要仔細(xì)研究。這一事件中的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵因素，也是與萊姆金的種族滅絕概念相一致的因素，就是羅馬顯然打算不惜一切代價(jià)摧毀迦太基、其人民和文化。從戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)爆發(fā)前羅馬對(duì)迦太基提出的越來(lái)越難以滿足的要求中就可以看出這一根本目的。當(dāng)迦太基無(wú)法再滿足這些要求時(shí)，這就給了羅馬人采取行動(dòng)的“合法”借口。此外，羅馬的統(tǒng)治精英和民眾都認(rèn)為，必須摧毀迦太基才能確保羅馬在政治和文化上的統(tǒng)治地位。羅馬政治家老卡托（Cato the Elder）的個(gè)人格言Carthago delenda est（意為“迦太基必須被摧毀”）就是最好的概括，他用這句話作為所有公開(kāi)演講的結(jié)束語(yǔ)（Radice 1973：85）。

雅典人在米洛斯的種族滅絕

Another state-backed genocide may be found in the destruction of the Greek island city-state and culture of Melos by the Athenian Empire in 416 BCE during the grinding Peloponnesian war with Sparta which lasted from 431 BCE to the Athenian's eventual defeat in 404 BCE. The fighting took place all over the Greek world and was regarded by the contemporary historian Thucydides as a war of world importance. In the summer of 416 BCE, during a break in the fighting, Athens turned her attention to the nearby island of Melos whose people, although claiming descent from a Spartan colony, had so far remained neutral in the war. The Athenians felt, however, that they could no longer tolerate the presence of an impartial state in the Aegean Sea and therefore sent representatives to the island to demand their surrender.

? ? ? ? ? 另一個(gè)國(guó)家造成的種族滅絕可能是公元前 416 年雅典帝國(guó)與斯巴達(dá)的伯羅奔尼撒戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間，對(duì)希臘島嶼城邦和米洛斯文化的破壞。這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)從公元前 431 年持續(xù)到公元前 404 年雅典最終戰(zhàn)敗，戰(zhàn)火遍及整個(gè)希臘世界，被當(dāng)時(shí)的歷史學(xué)家修昔底德視為一場(chǎng)具有世界意義的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。公元前 416 年夏天，在戰(zhàn)事間歇期，雅典人將注意力轉(zhuǎn)向了附近的米洛斯島，雖然米洛斯島上的居民聲稱自己是斯巴達(dá)殖民地的后裔，但迄今為止一直在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中保持中立。然而，雅典人認(rèn)為他們不能再容忍愛(ài)琴海上存在一個(gè)不偏不倚的國(guó)家，因此派代表前往該島要求他們歸順。

In Thucydides' account of the war, there then followed a celebrated debate between the two sides, called The Melian Dialogue (Warner 1985). During this debate, the Athenians were quite open about their intentions such as calling on the Melians to surrender in order to 'save your city from destruction'. The Athenians were also evidently aware that the Melians were a feeble military power compared to them referring to the Melians as 'weak' and 'inferior' and observing that 'this is not a fair fight'. After this lengthy discussion, the Melians still refused to surrender. Constantakopoulou (2012: 50) noted that in antiquity, Greek islands, such as Melos, often sustained unique distinct island cultures which were very proud of their independence. Thucydides records that after their refusal to surrender to the Athenians 'siege operations were now carried on vigorously and, as there was also some treachery from inside, the Melians surrendered unconditionally to the Athenians, who put to death all the men of military age whom they took, and sold the women and children as slaves' (Warner 1985: 408). Meier (1999: 524-525) suggested that this action, which was approved by the popular assembly in Athens, involved the murder of approximately 1,500 men. Furthermore, rather than seeing the decision to spare the lives of the women and children, by selling them as slaves, as an act of mercy, this may have been intended to complement the massacre of the men to uproot and destroy the Melian society and culture.

? ? ? ? ? 在修昔底德關(guān)于戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的記載中，雙方隨后進(jìn)行了一場(chǎng)著名的辯論，名為“米洛斯對(duì)話（The Melian dialogue）”。在這場(chǎng)辯論中，雅典人相當(dāng)坦率地表達(dá)了他們的意圖，如呼吁米洛斯人投降，以“拯救你們的城市免遭毀滅”。雅典人顯然也意識(shí)到，與他們相比，米洛斯人的軍事實(shí)力很弱，他們稱米洛斯人為“弱者”和“下等人”，并指出“這不是一場(chǎng)公平的戰(zhàn)斗”。經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的討論，米洛斯人仍然拒絕歸順。Constantakopoulou（2012: 50）指出，在古代，希臘島嶼（如米洛斯）往往保持著獨(dú)特的島嶼文化，這些文化對(duì)其獨(dú)立性感到非常自豪。根據(jù)修昔底德的記載，在拒絕向雅典人投降后，“圍攻行動(dòng)繼續(xù)進(jìn)行，由于內(nèi)部出現(xiàn)了一些背叛行為，米洛斯人無(wú)條件地向雅典人投降，雅典人處死了所有被俘的適齡男子，并將婦女和兒童賣(mài)為奴隸”（Warner 1985: 408）。Meier（1999：524-525）認(rèn)為，雅典民眾大會(huì)批準(zhǔn)的這一行動(dòng)涉及謀殺約1500名男子。此外，通過(guò)將婦女和兒童賣(mài)為奴隸來(lái)饒恕婦女和兒童的生命的決定，與其說(shuō)是一種仁慈的行為，不如說(shuō)是為了配合對(duì)男子的屠殺，以連根拔起并摧毀米洛斯的社會(huì)與文化。

As in the last example, there appears to have been a clear intention on the behalf of the Athenians to destroy the Melians as a group and a culture. This was meant as a warning to Athens' allies throughout Greece to remain loyal during the war with Sparta. The massacre of Melos was noted at the time as being out of the ordinary which is surprising given that the brutal war between the two states had being going on for 15 years. A few months after the massacre, the Athenian playwright Euripides produced the powerful drama Trojan Women which may have drawn directly on the massacre at Melos to epitomize and condemn the barbaric cruelties of war. The play, which is set during the period immediately after the taking of Troy, moves away from the gallant view of a heroic war to consider rather the sufferings of the wives and children of the city's defeated leaders who are carried off to the ships to face slavery in Greece (Murray 2011).

? ? ? ? ? 與上個(gè)例子一樣，雅典人似乎有一個(gè)明確的意圖，那就是摧毀作為一個(gè)群體或一種文化的米洛斯人。這是為了警告雅典在希臘各地的盟友在與斯巴達(dá)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中保持忠誠(chéng)。米洛斯大屠殺在當(dāng)時(shí)被認(rèn)為是不尋常的，因?yàn)閮蓚€(gè)國(guó)家之間的殘酷戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)已經(jīng)持續(xù)了 15 年之久。屠殺發(fā)生幾個(gè)月后，雅典劇作家歐里庇得斯創(chuàng)作了震撼人心的戲劇《特洛伊婦女》，該劇可能直接取材于美洛斯的屠殺事件，對(duì)野蠻殘酷的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)進(jìn)行了縮影和譴責(zé)。該劇以攻占特洛伊城后不久的時(shí)期為背景，從英勇善戰(zhàn)的視角出發(fā)，更多考慮的是戰(zhàn)敗城市領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的妻子和孩子所遭受的苦難，她們被帶到運(yùn)輸船上，成為希臘的奴隸（Murray 2011）。

結(jié)? ? ?語(yǔ)

In conclusion, we have examined how the notion of genocide was defined in the years during and after World War Two. We noted that genocide must include two clear elements: a clear intent to carry out the action and the resulting destruction of a whole unique group. We then explored how this definition could be applied to two important events in the ancient world, the Roman capture of Carthage and the Athenian massacre at Melos, to argue that these events may have constituted genocide.

? ? ? ? ? ?上文概述了第二次世界大戰(zhàn)期間和之后如何界定種族滅絕的概念。要注意，種族滅絕必須包括兩個(gè)明確的要素：實(shí)施行動(dòng)的明確意圖以及由此造成的對(duì)整個(gè)獨(dú)特群體的毀滅。緊接著，我們探討了如何將這一定義應(yīng)用于古代世界的兩個(gè)重要事件，即羅馬攻占迦太基和雅典人在米洛斯的大屠殺，以論證這些事件放在當(dāng)今可能構(gòu)成了種族滅絕罪。

參考書(shū)目：

Adam Jones. Genocide A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge, New York, 2006.

Alan Lloyd. Destroy Carthage. Souvenir Press Ltd, 1977.

B. Radice. Whoa€?s who in the Ancient World. Penguin, London, 1973

Christian Meier. Athens, a Portrait of the City in Its Golden Age. John Murray, London, 1999.

Christy Constantakopoulou. "Identity and resistance: The Islandersa€? League, the Aegean islands and the Hellenistic kings." Mediterranean Historical Review., 27/1/2012, pp. 49-70.

Fernand Braudel. The Mediterranean in the Ancient World. Penguin Books, Limited (UK), 2001.

Gilbert Murray. The Trojan Women by Euripides (Author). Seattle, Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011

Michael A. McDonnell and A. Dirk Moses. "Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas." Journal of Genocide Research., 7/4/2005, pp. 501-529.

Raphael Lemkin. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. The Lawbook Exchange, 2005.

Rex Warner. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War. Penguin, Suffolk, 1985

Tanya Elder. "What you see before your eyes: documenting Raphael Lemkina€?s life by exploring his archival Papers, 1900a€“1959." Journal of Genocide Research., 7/4/2005, pp. 469-499.

原文網(wǎng)址:?https://www.worldhistory.org/article/485/genocide-in-the-ancient-world/

資源推薦：《A Cultural?History of Genocide in the Ancient World》

（古代世界種族滅絕的文化史）

作者：Tristan S. Taylor（特里斯坦·泰勒）