Roman Studies Research Articles

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2007–8

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2007–8

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2007–8

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2007–8

The conservational heritage of wall paintings and buildings : an FT‐Raman spectroscopic study of prehistoric, Roman, mediaeval and Renaissance lime substrates and mortars

AbstractRaman spectroscopic studies of ancient lime‐based plasters and mortars from periods ranging from prehistoric through Roman to mediaeval have revealed the potential application of the technique for the non‐destructive analysis of these ubiquitous substrates that are found in constructional and decorative work. Characteristic information obtained from the Raman spectra of these materials obtained with near infrared excitation at 1064 nm provides an insight into ancient technological practices and particularly the methodology of application of the associated pigments in wet fresco techniques in the transition towards gypsum plasters. The assignment of molecular features to the plasters and to their reaction product with moist air, calcium carbonate, facilitates the assessment of the extent of curing of the material that has taken place and is relevant to the conservation of buildings and fresco art works. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

História e filosofia da história na obra do jovem Friedrich Schlegel

Este artigo apresenta e comenta dois textos do jovem Friedrich Schlegel, Vom Wert des Studiums der Griechen und Römer (Sobre o valor do estudo dos gregos e romanos), de 1795/1796, e Über das Studium der griechischen Poesie (Sobre o estudo da poesia grega), de 1795, escritos antes de sua ida para Jena, em 1796, nos quais o autor elabora uma teoria original sobre a história e a filosofia da história.

Provincial Patrons and Commemorative Rivalries: Rethinking the Roman Arch Monument

Provincial Patrons and Commemorative RivalriesRethinking the Roman Arch Monument Kimberly Cassibry The Roman arch monument had a remarkably fluid commemorative identity. Like figurines, sculpted panels, and column monuments, it could concretize religious vows and serve as a gift to the gods.1 Like stelai and tower tombs, it could honor the dead.2 As with temples, amphitheatres, and even fora, its sculptural program could—but did not invariably—celebrate an emperor's military victories and triumphal processions.3 The patrons of ancient arch monuments spanned a surprisingly broad spectrum of imperial society: men and women; freed slaves and emperors; businessmen, priests, and military officers; city councils and the Roman [End Page 417] senate.4 The results of this patronage remain impressive. A recent estimate puts the number of known Roman arch monuments at more than 800.5 Only a very small number—about 30—of these can be proven to have resulted from decrees of the Roman senate.6 The majority of Roman arch monuments were in fact commissioned by private citizens and city councils, and are to be found not in the city of Rome, but in the Roman provinces. Appropriate to so many different contexts and accessible to such a broad body of patrons, arch monuments preserve local perspectives from all corners of the Roman Empire. Therein lies their great value for Roman historians and art historians alike. It has, nevertheless, been the relatively rare appearance of centralized imperial propaganda on arch monuments that has garnered the most sustained scholarly treatment to date. Within such visual programs, individual citizens play—at best—supporting roles: on the arch the Roman senate erected for Trajan at Beneventum, for example, the emperor is shown meeting officials from cities improved by his public works projects; on the senate's arch for the Severan dynasty in the Roman Forum, anonymous soldiers are shown waging battle under the emperor's sound leadership.7 These regular citizens, however, were also [End Page 418] major patrons in their own right, and the many monuments they themselves erected reflect a rather more revealing light upon them. What prompted individuals such as city councilmen and soldiers to commission arches? Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Cast of the Arch of Dativius Victor, Mainz, Germany. Author's photograph. The Roman arch monument's ubiquity can make its patronage seem almost inevitable, at least from a modern perspective. Inscriptions, however, indicate that arches were commissioned not for their own sakes, but [End Page 419] rather to serve a particular purpose, whether religious, funerary, civic, or more broadly honorific. In none of these contexts was the arch the only available option. Unfortunately, individual patrons have not left us detailed accounts of their decision-making. Analyzing an arch monument's form—its broad surfaces primed for elaboration—may offer insight into other genres with which it was in dialogue. Looking at the alternatives pursued by a given patron's peers may also help to reconstruct the range of possibilities for specific kinds of dedications. If we can identify which monuments were rejected in favor of an arch, we may gain a better understanding of the latter's special appeal. This reconsideration of the Roman arch assumes that monuments were intended to attract the gazes of viewers and that the most successful monuments developed novel strategies for doing so. Alfred Gell's anthropological theories of art address this process: Gell treated artworks as empowered elements within social contexts, elements which could be acted upon by patrons and craftsmen, but which could in turn compel action from potential viewers.8 Focusing attention on what an artwork "does," rather than merely trying to decipher what it "means," has the potential to open up a new perspective on the Roman Empire's monument-rich landscape.9 Two arches, dedicated by city councilmen (decurions) residing at opposites ends of the empire, illustrate what can be gained by rethinking the Roman arch monument in this way. The first, commissioned by Dativius Victor in Mainz, Germany, constructs a complex relationship to local religious art that has long been scrutinized. The significance that such a local process of definition holds for the larger study of Roman...

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2006–7

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2006–7

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2006–7

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2006–7

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2006–7

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Looking at the Forest? The Silvae and Roman Studies: Afterword

Looking at the Forest? The Silvae and Roman Studies: Afterword

Paul and Theodicy: Intertextual Thoughts on God's Justice and Faithfulness to Israel in Romans 9–11

This study of Romans 9–11 focuses on three prominent questions that Paul asks in relation to God's faithfulness to Israel: 1) Is God unjust in reference to his election?; 2) Why does God find fault, for who has resisted his will? and 3) Has God rejected his people? The article examines Paul's answers to these questions in light of an intertextual study related to the catchwords the apostle develops from the ancient Jewish sources that he echoes.

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2005–6

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2005–6

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2005–6

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2005–6

Le Nouveau Roman en questions, 3: Le Créateur et la CitéLe Nouveau Roman en questions, 4: Situation diachronique

These two volumes in this landmark series devoted to nouveau roman studies do not disappoint, maintaining the consistently high standards of scholarship and originality. The essays collected in Le Créateur et la Cité address the relationship between the nouveau roman and ‘history’ in the second half of the twentieth century, a hitherto rather neglected topic, as a result of the critical emphasis on a formalist aesthetic. The contributors examine the extent to which Simon, Sarraute, Robbe-Grillet, Duras and Beckett (the last two fully recruited into the nouveau roman camp throughout this series, although Christiane Blot-Labarrère's ‘Marguerite Duras et le “nouveau roman”’ presents a more subtle analysis of the troubled relationship) were involved in diverse forms of ‘political’ activity, which place them as historical actors, although clearly not in an overtly engagé manner. According to Allemand, it is the decision to endorse unequivocally the Manifeste des 121 (1960) which requires the question to be re-examined, despite their (literary) repudiation of Sartrean commitment. Madeleine Borgomano's account of Duras is particularly nuanced in this respect: the non-declarative textual complexities of her writing can be considered as a fundamentally subversive manœuvre, mirroring social disintegration. For Bernard Valette, Michel Butor's linguistic freedom is a socio-ideological gesture which celebrates the autonomy and authenticity of the self. In both Christian Milat's alchemical reading of Robbe-Grillet's Djinn (1981) and Marie-Miguet Ollagnier's Christian-mythological account of Pinget's L'Apocryphe (1980), the multiplication of explicit and implicit cultural reference points function as means of self-transcendence and textual invention: these are texts which rely on quotation as a transgressive reading strategy. The essays collected in Situation diachronique offer an especially pertinent confrontation with the very notion of a ‘nouveau roman’ itself: Allemand's ‘Débuts et fins du “Nouveau Roman”’ is an impressive survey of the modalities of a supposedly collective enterprise; the ambiguous situations of Butor and Pinget within the corpus is the focus of two contributions; Christian Milat's outstandingly comprehensive analysis of Robbe-Grillet's writing concludes that he is ‘le dernier écrivain’ of the nouveau roman, while Johann Faerber demonstrates convincingly the degree to which the self-referentiality of these writers constitutes a baroque aesthetic. It is to be applauded that other essays in the volume are devoted to ‘minor’ works which have not yet received much attention (for example, Jean Ricardou's Révolutions minuscules and Claude Ollier's Marrakech Medine). In particular, the existence of a ‘carnet critique’ will be welcomed by all scholars, as it contains detailed reviews of some fifteen recently published critical studies, in addition to a list of theses, books, articles and internet sites of general interest.

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2004–5

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2004–5

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2004–5

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Melancholy, love, and time: boundaries of the self in ancient literature

Ancient literature features many powerful narratives of madness, depression, melancholy, lovesickness, simple boredom, and the effects of such psychological states upon individual sufferers. Peter Toohey turns his attention to representations of these emotional states in the Classical, Hellenistic, and especially the Roman imperial periods in a study that illuminates the cultural and aesthetic significance of this emotionally charged literature. His probing analysis shows that a shifting representation of these afflicted states, and the concomitant sense of isolation from one's social affinities and surroundings, manifests a developing sense of the self and self-consciousness in the ancient world.This book makes important contributions to a variety of disciplines including classical studies, comparative literature, literary and art history, history of medicine, history of emotions, psychiatry, and psychology.Peter Toohey is Professor and Department Head of Greek and Roman Studies at the University of Calgary, Canada.

A geochemical study of Roman to early Byzantine Glass from Sagalassos, South-west Turkey

The finding of glass chunks together with fuel ash slag and kiln fragments related to glass processing strongly suggests local secondary production (working) of glass at Sagalassos (SW Turkey) from imperial to early Byzantine times. Chemical evidence shows that different silica raw materials were used in imperial and early Byzantine times for blue and green glass found locally. Colourless glass shows no clear difference in chemical composition and hence in silica raw materials between late Roman and early Byzantine times. Locally found early Byzantine yellow-green glass and chunks correspond to the previously defined Byzantine HIMT glass type. The chemical composition of the glass chunks found, identical to that of the contemporary glass of the same colour, strongly indicates that these chunks were used for the manufacture of early Byzantine green, colourless and yellow-green glass at Sagalassos. The homogenous lead isotopic composition of the chronological groups of blue glass, suggests the use of two distinct but homogenous silica raw materials for the manufacture of this glass. In view of this homogeneity, it is likely that contemporary blue glass was produced at a single location. The linear trend of the heterogeneous lead isotopic composition of the green and colourless glass is a strong indication of recycling effects in the glass composition. The end members of this trend are formed by the isotopic composition of the blue glass on the one hand, and of the yellow-green (HIMT) glass on the other hand. The heterogeneous lead isotopic composition of the yellow-green glass at Sagalassos is probably the result of recycling of this glass, reflecting mixtures of the original lead isotopic signatures of the broken glass and the original HIMT glass chunks. It should be noted that the two main raw materials for primary glass production (silica and soda) were available on the territory of Sagalassos. Moreover, the lead isotopic composition of quartz pebbles sampled from the artisanal quarter of Sagalassos, is similar to that of the local blue glass.

Roman Archaeology in the 21st Century

this might intersect with the interests of both other disciplines and a wider public. It is certainly the case that academic priorities in UK universities have shifted over time, and are likely to continue to do so in the future, especially as changes being initiated by the present government to the funding of higher education in the UK come into effect. In this context, all specialist fields will be forced – quite rightly – to examine their place in the creation of knowledge and understanding, and in the training of professionals in those fields. I want to argue here that Roman archaeology is, perhaps contrary to appearances from the outside, already in a strong position to do this. To a considerable extent, this is due to the way in which debate about archaeological theory has progressed within Roman studies. There is no doubt that the theoretical convulsions affecting many other parts of the discipline from the 1960s to the 1980s, originating primarily in the study of prehistory, passed Roman archaeology by. Nonetheless, the last 15 years have witnessed a significant amount of catching up. Two of the pioneers of this revolution were both, incidentally, connected to the Institute of Archaeology. In 1988, Richard Reece published My Roman Britain, a book both challenging and entertaining, and one of the most theoretically-sophisticated archaeology books never to be considered (even by its author) as a ‘theory book’. In 1990, Martin Millett – a former student at the Institute – published The Romanization of Britain, a book which consciously broke with the textual traditions of Classical Archaeology and brought the study of Roman Britain into contact with, particularly, contemporary processual approaches to social and economic life. Since this point, the floodgates have opened. In 1991, the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) was established by a mixture of academics and fieldworkers, led by Eleanor Scott. This open forum for the discussion of ideas about the Roman past is still going strong (http://www.romansociety.org/trac.htm). More importantly, its agendas – dominated, it is probably fair to say, by broadly post-processual themes such as meaning and identity – are exerting increasing influence over mainstream Roman archaeology. This is evident in the sessions at recent Roman Archaeology Conferences

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2003–4

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.