Ancient Rome Refocused | Classicists are smart I knew it!

May 14, 2013 ~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

Classicists are smart I knew it!

via Ancient Rome Refocused.

CJ Online Review | Belozerskaya, Medusa’s Gaze

May 13, 2013May 12, 2013 ~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

Posted with permission:

Medusa’s Gaze: The Extraordinary Journey of the Tazza Farnese. Emblems of Antiquity. By Marina Belozerskaya. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp. xvii + 292. $24.95/£14.99. ISBN 978-0-19-973931-8.

Reviewed by Duane W. Roller, The Ohio State University

The Tazza Farnese is a sardonyx cameo made from a geode, 21.7 cm. in diameter, carved into the form of a shallow bowl. On the inside are representations of Isis, her son Horus, and a personification of the Nile: the entire scene is open to various interpretations but seems to relate to the abundance of the river. On the outside is the head of Medusa. Of exceptionally high artistic quality, it belongs in the flourishing Hellenistic/Roman tradition of carved stones, and is the largest of its genre to survive. It seems to have originated in the Ptolemaic court, and since the eighteenth century (with some exceptions due to warfare) has resided in the Naples archaeological museum. It acquired its modern name when in the possession of the Farnese family.

This intriguing book is, interestingly, not really about the Tazza Farnese. Rather it is a fascinating account of how one piece of ancient art survived the vicissitudes of over 2000 years to be visible in a museum today. Information about the Tazza itself, at least before the Renaissance, is exceedingly sparse and speculative. Although it can confidently be said that it was carved in late Hellenistic times, the piece is not documented until a drawing was made at the beginning of the fifteenth century by a calligrapher at the court of the Mongol leader Timur (or Tamurlane), perhaps in Samarkand (99). Samarkand is a long way from Alexandria, and how the Tazza got there is the focus of the first half of the book.

Belozerskaya’s account of this extraordinary journey is almost totally speculative, but somehow that does not matter, as she has presented a rich and thoroughly absorbing account of plausibilities, with solid attention to the environment of the art collecting world. Since there is no documentation of the piece before the fifteenth century, when and how it left the Ptolemaic court is its first mystery. Belozerskaya may certainly be excused for fixating on the most famous Ptolemy, Kleopatra VII, but the only hint that the Tazza may have belonged to her is its subject matter, as Isis was the queen’s alter ego. It may have been among the spoils that Octavian brought to Rome after her death, but there are other possibilites that Belozerskaya outlines (and some that she does not): it may have already been in Rome (Kleopatra’s father, Ptolemy XII, had many debts to prominent Romans), or even remained in Alexandria when the Romans took over, eventually to move to Constantinople. The possible locations of the bowl after the end of the Ptolemies are so tangled that it is difficult for Belozerskaya to choose, but this does not diminish the quality of her narrative. Whether or not the cameo belonged to Kleopatra VII, Belozerskaya later places it in Constantinople, eventually in the hands of the noted collector Constantine VII in the tenth century. Then she identifies it as the “large dish of onyx” owned by the emperor Frederick II in the thirteenth century. One can see that the spottings of the Tazza are infrequent, but Belozerskaya has filled out her narrative by absorbing vignettes of the world in which the object necessarily moved. There is a tendency to turn speculation into fact (see p. 80)—although to be sure healthy and astute speculation is a necessary part of good scholarship—but what is most interesting is the picture that Belozerskaya has presented of the world of art collectors in late antiquity and medieval times, supplemented with a good account of the Christianizing of ancient art, a strange world view that nonetheless insured its survival. One can sometimes lose sight of the Tazza itself, for its environment is so well described, with solid character studies of the personalities who probably saw or acquired it.

But it is in the early fifteenth century that the object emerged from obscurity, only to create another mystery: how did it end up at the Timurid court? This is perhaps the most remarkable event in its history, since it was now incredibly far from the locale of its origins (although Timur went as far west as Damascus and Aleppo). Belozerskaya describes well the world of the Timurid court and its interest in art, and offers—again—several different ways in which the piece could have made this latest extraordinary journey. But then it was back in Europe, perhaps the “dish of carved chalcedony” owned by Lorenzo di Medici in 1471 (p. 143). From this time—although sightings remain rare—the history of the Tazza is more linear, moving into the Farnese family and eventually to the Naples museum.

This is an exciting book. It is well written, literally hard to put down, with good illustrations and solid notes and bibliography. In many places it is a work of speculation rather than fact, but such is the nature of the Tazza itself, and anyone who reads the book and then sees the object, or has seen it, will never look at it in the same way again.

Bryn Mawr Classical Reviews

May 13, 2013May 12, 2013 ~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

I think I missed a week:

Caesar in Germania … the Evidence Mounts

May 13, 2013May 12, 2013 ~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

Back in September, we were pondering some new evidence that Caesar’s troops may have been in Germany (Evidence of Caesar’s Troops … In Germany?) and it never did seem to make it to the English press. Now, however, a blog put out by the publishers of Ancient Warfare Magazine put out a nice summary (with appropriate links) of our long-time webfriend Jona Lendering’s investigations into same … definitely worth a look (and do follow the links to Jona’s blog):

Caesar in Germania(Josho Brouwers at Karansaway Publishers

Moles Working Epiacum’s Roman Fort?

May 13, 2013May 12, 2013 ~ David Meadows ~ rogueclassicist ~ Leave a comment

From the BBC:

Epiacum is a site full of buried treasure, which no-one can reach – no-one human at least.

Near Alston in Cumbria, close to the Northumberland border, where now there are fields, there was once a thriving Roman fort.

Unfortunately for archaeologists, they cannot access any of the historic artefacts beneath the ground – because the site is a scheduled ancient monument.

Moles, however, pay no heed to the land’s protected status.

The velvety creatures have not only been digging up the earth, but doing their bit for archaeology by inadvertently pushing ancient objects to the surface.

Paul Frodsham, an archaeologist with the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), runs a project called Altogether Archaeology, which has signed up 500 volunteers to take part in digs under professional supervision.

Fifty of those have taken part in an effort to sift through the molehills at Epiacum and keep a record of what the animals dig up and where.

“I realise it sounds a bit ridiculous, but it’s actually quite serious,” Mr Frodsham said.

“We look at all the finds and we work out what’s going on in different parts off the fort and different kinds of pottery tell us what dates different buildings are.”

He stressed the work must be done with the permission of English Heritage.

As well as fragments of pottery and glass, the moles have dragged up some attractive and intact artefacts.

A molehill recently pushed up a piece of Samian ware – a type of brown pottery common on Roman sites – thought to be a stand for a vase or bowl, or possibly an egg cup.

Last year they discovered a jet bead and a decorative bronze dolphin.

Elaine Edgar, who with her husband owns a farm on the land, is trying to promote the site as a tourist attraction as part of an 18-month project, funded by a £49,000 lottery grant.

Mrs Edgar said she had run a series of events as part of the project, which had attracted higher than expected numbers and she had received “fantastic support”.

But she expressed mixed feelings about the subterranean creatures that were playing their own part.

“Moles are the bane of landowners’ lives,” she said.
Volunteers sifting through molehills Volunteers have been sifting through molehills to locate hidden artefacts

“They’re up there all the time digging away on the land and my husband generally wants to get rid of them.”

For the time being though, they are serving an important purpose.

“I’d like them to uncover as much as they can for the foreseeable future, until we can hopefully do an organised dig somewhere on the fort,” Mrs Edgar said.

“We’re looking towards our bigger vision, which is to establish a fully-fledged visitor centre on the farm.”
‘Spectacular’

The fort dates back to about the 2nd Century AD, when it is thought the Romans wanted to control lead and silver mining in the north of England.

The Romans maintained a military presence there until the 4th Century, when they seem to have abandoned the fort.

A recent English Heritage survey also revealed there was an extensive civilian settlement, or vicus, beyond the ramparts.

There have only been two recorded digs of Epiacum, in about 1810 and 1957, covering small areas of the 100-sq-m site.

Despite such limited excavation, the foundations of the Roman buildings are still visible.

There are four rings of earthwork defences, which Mr Frodsham described as “spectacular”.

“From that point of view, it’s one of the best-preserved forts anywhere in the empire,” he said.

But, it seems, only the moles know the true extent of its treasures.

via: Moles unearth Roman artefacts at Epiacum’s ancient fort (BBC)

Just for the record, the BBC was kind of slow to pick this story up … the Journal had it three or four weeks ago (Moles at Epiacum). I only bring it up again because it seems kind of strange how the moles are being ‘credited’ in this (and the Journal) piece while years ago, badgers were just messing things up, but doing the same basic thing (links in the Journal piece). I guess archaeologists find moles a bit more cuddly or something …

Iactetur bloggus:

Iactetur bloggus:

Iactetur bloggus:

Iactetur bloggus:

Iactetur bloggus: