ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 1

UCL, INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ARCL0164 MAKING AND MEANING IN ANCIENT MODULE HANDBOOK 2018/19 15 credit optional module – MA level Turnitin Class id: 3885656 Turnitin password: IoA1819

Module coordinator: Professor Jeremy Tanner [email protected] Office: Room 105. Tel: 0207 679 1525 Office hours: Tuesday 11-12pm, Wednesday 11-12pm or by appointment

Essay submission: Draft to be submitted to JJT by Friday 22nd March; final revised version Friday 26th April.

Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and marking procedures, or links to the relevant webpages

1. Overview of module: This module is designed to develop in students the skills of careful looking, and detailed visual analysis, grounded in a strong awareness of the major theoretical issues, which are central to research in Roman art history. It will take the form of a series of seminars addressing key themes in the historiography of Roman art through detailed consideration of specific works of art in the and other London museums, where most classes will be held. Alongside traditional concerns with issues of style and iconography, a particular emphasis will be laid on questions of ‘facture’, ‘materiality’ and ‘agency’ which have been at the centre of recent discussions in archaeology, the anthropology of art and art history. Particular themes and classes may vary from year to year to reflect students’ own research interests, new publications and special exhibitions.

Module schedule:

Classes will be held in the British Museum, 2-4pm every Tuesday. We will meet in the Great Court at the Entrance to the Egyptian Galleries.

8/1/19: 1. Introduction to the course: some key concepts and approaches 15/1/19: 2. The question of ‘Roman art’ 22/1/19: 3. : technology and cultural form 29/1/19: 4. Art and luxury at the table: silver and ceramic fine wares 5/2/19: 5. Portraiture and the making of identities in the second century AD [12/2/19: Reading Week – No Class] 20/2/19: 6. Art as Imperial Propaganda: ’s Column [V&A Cast Court] 26/2/19: 7. Death and commemoration: the Social Life of Sarcophagi 5/3/19: 8. Roman and native in the art of 12/3/19: 9. Transformation: late antique and early Christian arts. 19/3/19: 10. Classical art and global antiquities: Roman art in Asia.

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 2

Essay submission deadlines: The draft for your essay must be submitted to me (as word document, via email attachment) by 10pm on Friday 22nd March. I plan to return the draft to you, with comments over the weekend. I will be available in my office on Wednesday 28th 2-4 pm to discuss any questions you may have; alternatively if you are away from UCL and wish to talk we can communicate by skype. Your revised essay for assessment (and turnitin) must be submitted by 10pm Friday 26th April (first week term 3).

Methods of assessment: The module will be assessed by one 3800-4200 word essay.

For Students taking this module as a 20 credit module (e.g. KCL, Classical Archaeology MA): In addition to the standard essay, students taking the module as a 20 credit element will be required to write an additonal 1000 word report. This may take either the form of a review of a book from amongst the readings for the course, or a critical comparison of two articles in the module bibliography approaching the same issue or materials from different points of view. The books and articles chosen must come from a different topic than the one chosen for your standard essay. Your choice of book / articles should be discussed with the module tutor. This essay should be handed in by the same date as the revised version of your essay as submitted for assessment. This report will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. Students are required to pass the report element in order to complete the course.

Teaching methods: All classes will be taught as seminars in the British Museum (and the V&A). Students will be required to give two presentations in order to complete the course. Students must complete the required readings for each class before the class, and will be expected on this basis to be able to participate actively in class discussion.

Workload: There will be 20 hours of seminars for this course. Students will be expected to undertake 100 hours of reading for the course, and 30 hours preparing for and producing the assessed module work. This adds up to a total workload of 150 hours for the course.

Prerequisites: Students should normally have a good background in classical (Greco-Roman) art. Other students may take the course, subject to consultation with the module coordinator, but would normally be advised to sit in on the undergraduate option ARCL0018 Roman Art and Architecture (Tuesday 9-11).

2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

Aims To provide a proseminar for the study of Roman art at an advanced level, preparing students to develop dissertation research at MA level and beyond. To provide an advanced level exploration of classic and contemporary theoretical frameworks and methodologies for the understanding of Roman art. To provide a basis in skills of problem definition and visual analysis prerequisite to developing innovative research in Roman art. To offer the possibility studying at first hand some of the major monuments of Roman art through the collections of the British Museum and the V&A. ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 3

To address a range of key problems in the history of Roman art through close engagement with collections of museums in London.

Objectives Students will develop and advanced critical understanding of a range of key issues in the history and historiography of Roman Art. They will develop an active mastery of key theoretical frameworks and methods of analysis in contemporary approaches to the history of Roman art. They will develop key skills of close looking and detailed visual analysis through first hand engagement with objects from the collections of London museums. They will acquire the ability to identify significant research problems in the history of Roman art, as a preparation for developing their own independent research projects.

Outcomes Students will: 1) Be able to demonstrate a good understanding of the key principles which inform the systematic and critical visual analysis of works of art 2) Be able to demonstrate a good understanding of key classical and contemporary theoretical and methodological frameworks for the understanding of Roman art 3) Be able critically to evaluate existing research in Roman art, and identify ways in which a range of research programmes might be taken forward 4) Be familiar with the range of visual, textual and archaeological sources relevant to the understanding of Roman art 5) Be able to understand and appreciate the range of problems involved in the interpretation of complex, ambiguous and often incomplete data.

Assessment Students are required to write one essay of 3800-4200 words. Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance and to indicate the sort of length that is expected. Bibliography and captions do not count towards the total word count. Essay questions are listed at the end of each weekly seminar topic. Students are required to submit a draft of their essay, on which they will receive detailed written comment, which should inform the final revised essay which they submit for formal assessment. The draft for your essay must be submitted to me (as word document, via email attachment) by 11pm on Friday 22nd March. I plan to return the draft to you, with comments over the weekend. I will be available in my office on Wednesday 27th to discuss any questions you may have; alternatively if you are away from UCL and wish to talk we can communicate by skype. Your revised essay for assessment (and turnitin) must be submitted by 10pm Friday 26th April (first week term 3).

In the 2018-19 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

 For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass. ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 4

 For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures  All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically. (The only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted as hard copy only.)  You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the box at the Reception Desk (or room 411a in the case of Year 1 undergraduate work)  All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.  Instructions are given below.

Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘module’. 1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc., docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the module (available from the module handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1819 for all modules this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper case A, followed by the current academic year) 2. Click on http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login 3. Click on ‘Create account’ 4. Select your category as ‘Student’ 5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 6 months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a “Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above). 6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’. Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand. 7. Click on the module to which you wish to submit your work. 8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1). 9. Double-check that you are in the correct module and assignment and then click ‘Submit’ 10. Attach document as a “Single file upload” 11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this) 12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In what sense can culture be said to evolve?), 13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only version of your submission. 14 Click on “Submit”

. If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa- [email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday- Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work before the deadline ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 5

SYLLABUS AND READING LISTS - following pages

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 6

1. INTRODUCTORY: SOME KEY CONCEPTS

Preliminary reading – please read before first class.

Required: Summers, David. 2006. “World art history and the rise of western modernism or goodbye to the visual arts”, 215-234 in John Onians ed. Compression versus Expression: Containing and Explaining the World’s Art. New Haven: Yale University Press. [STORE 10-0519 ] Xeroxes distributed; will add to IoA TC Burke, Peter. 2002. “Context in context”, Knowledge 8.1: 152-177. [Online] Thompson, John B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press. 303-13 “Analysing mass communication: the tripartite approach”,, 313-319 “The everyday appropriation of mass-mediated products”. [SSEES: Misc.XIX THO ; ANTHROPOLOGY D 70 THO ] Morgan, L. 1988. "Methods and aims: a definition of iconography", pp. 10-16 in idem. The Miniature Wall-Paintings of Thera: a Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).(IoA TC 194 - 3 copies; IoA DAG 10 MOR) Tanner, Jeremy and Robin Osborne. 2006. “Introduction: Art and Agency and art history”, in R. Osborne and J. Tanner eds. Art’s Agency and Art History. Oxford: Blackwell. 1-27. [Online – ebook]

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 7

2. THE QUESTION OF ROMAN ART:

Topic outline: One of the major critical issues in the historiography of Roman art has been identifying its subject matter, namely what is Roman art? We will explore this issue in the context of a critical transformative period, namely the late Republic and early empire by looking at Roman copying of Greek art, the formation of what are often seen as distinctively Roman art styles, such as verism in portraiture, and the Hellenisation of Roman culture as represented in early Julio-Claudian portraiture. British Museum presentations: 1. Roman copying: the Diskobolos and the Diadoumenos. 2. Verism in Roman portraiture: freedman reliefs. 3. Augustan portraiture.

Required readings: 1. Brendel, O.J. 1953. “Prolegomena to a book on Roman art”, Memoirs of the American Academy in 21: 9-73. [Online] 2. De Angelis, Francesco. 2008. “Pliny the Elder and the Identity of Roman art”. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 53-4: 79-92. [Online] 3. Koortbojian, Michael. 2002. “Forms of attention: four notes on replication and variation”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volume. Vol 1: The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. 173-204. [Online] 4. Jackson, D. 1987. “Verism and the ancestral portrait”, and Rome 34.1: 32- 47. [online] 5. Smith, R.R.R. 1996. “Typology and diversity in the portraiture of ”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9: 31-47 [Online]. 6. Versluys, M. 2015. “Roman visual material culture as globalising koine”, 141-74 in Martin Pitts and Miguel John Versluys eds. Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. [Online: Available as ebook via library catalogue]

Basics: Bianchi-Bandinelli, R. 1970. Rome the Centre of Power. Pp. 51-106 "Two Traditions: Plebeian and Patrician." (ISSUE DESK IOA BIA)

Readings for presentations

Aesthetics of Emulation in Roman Copy Culture: Roman copies of Myron’s Diskobolos and Polykleitos‘ Diadoumenos: 2019: Diskobolos is on display in the Enlightenment Gallery – turn left on entering, first pier. JJT will bring pictures of Diadoumenos. JJT presentation ▲Anguissola, A. 2005. “Roman copies of Myron’s Diskobolos”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 18: 317-35 [Online] _____. 2015. “Idealplastik and the relationship between Greek and Roman ”, 240-59 in Elise A. Friedland and M.G. Sobocinski eds. The Oxford Handbook of . Oxford. [Online] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 8

▲Koortbojian, Michael. 2002. “Forms of attention: four notes on replication and variation”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volume. Vol 1: The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. 173-204. [Online] ▲Decter, Joshua. 1988. “Edward Allington: allegorical inventories, artefactual narratives”, 7-16 in Papadrakis, A.C. ed. 1988. The Classical Sensibility in Contemporary Painting and Sculpture = Art and Design, Profile 9 issued with Art and Design vol. 4, 5/6. [ART PERIODICALS] ▲Marvin, Miranda. 1997. “Roman sculptural copies, or Polykleitos, the sequel”. 7-28 I A. Hughes and E. Ranfft eds. Sculpture and its Reproductions. London: Reaktion. [ART C 20 HUG] Bartmann, E. 1988. "Decor et Duplicatio. Pendants in Roman Sculptural Display." American Journal of Archaeology 92, 211-235. [Online]

Roman freedman portraits and funerary reliefs: Student presentation Location: BM room 70 far end left hand side. Freedman funerary reliefs the walls; Monument of Aurelius Hermia directly opposite on right hand side. ▲Koortbojian, Michael. 2006. “The Freedman’s voice: the funerary monument of Aurelius Hermia and Aurelia Philematio in the British Museum”, 91-153 in Eve D’Ambra and Guy P.R. Metraux eds. The Art of Citizens, Soldiers and Freedmen in the Roman World. BAR International Series 2006. (YATES QUARTO A6 DAM) Kleiner, D.E. 1977. Roman Group Portraiture: The Funerary Reliefs of the Late Republic and Early Empire. New York: Garland Publishing. [Dissertation available Online] ▲George, Michele. 2006. “Social identity and the dignity of work in Freedmen’s reliefs”, 19-30 in Eve D’Ambra and Guy P.R. Metraux eds. The Art of Citizens, Soldiers and Freedmen in the Roman World. BAR International Series 2006. (YATES QUARTO A6 DAM) ▲Kleiner, D. 1992. Roman Sculpture. Pp. 31-47 "Republican portraiture", 79-81 "Portraits of freedmen and freedwomen under Augustus". [YATES QUARTOS M 70 KLE – 2 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA KLE 1 – 1 copy] Hackworth Petersen, Lauren. 2015. “Arte plebea and non-elite Roman art”, in B. Bord. Ed. A Companion to Roman Art. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 214-30. [Online]

Augustan portraiture and classicism: Student presentation Location: Room 70. ▲Smith, R.R.R. 1996. “Typology and diversity in the portraiture of Augustus”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9: 31-47 [Online] ▲Zanker, Paul. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor Michigan. 98-100, 156-66. [ANCIENT HISTORY R 15 ZAN – 4 copies, one Reference] ▲Kleiner, D. 1992 Roman Sculpture. Pp. 61-72 "Portraiture of Augustus", 72-78 "Portraiture of Augustus family (Gaius and Lucius, Livia, Agrippa)." [YATES QUARTOS M 70 KLE - 3 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA KLE 1 – 1 copy] Opper, Thorsten. 2014. The Meroe Head of Augustus. London: British Museum Press. ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 9

Bartman, Elizabeth. 1999. Portraits of Livia: Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge. [YATES QUARTOS M 229 BAR] Rose, Brian. 1997. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio- Claudian Period. Cambridge. [YATES QUARTOS M 226 ROS] Pollini, J. 1987. The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar. New York: Fordham University Pres. [ ICS 131Q.1] [ICS = Institute of Classical Studies, Senate House] Squire, Michael. 2013. “Embodied ambiguities on the Prima Porta Augustus”, Art History 36.2: 242-79. [Online]

Supplementary readings

Historiography and the Romanness of Roman Art Brilliant, R. 1998. “Some reflections on the ‘New Roman Art History’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 11: 557-65 [Online] Hallett, Christopher H. 2015. “Defining Roman art”, in Barbara E. Borg ed. A Companion to Roman Art. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 11-33 [Online] Kampen, Natalie. 1997. “Democracy and debate: Otto Brendel’s ‘Prolegomena to a book on Roman art’”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 127: 381-388. [Online] *Kampen, N. 2003. “On writing histories of Roman art”, Art Bulletin 85.2: 371-86 [Online] Kampen, N.B. 1995. "On not writing the history of Roman art", Art Bulletin 77: 375- 8 [Online] Settis, S. (1989). Un'arte al plurale. L'impero romano, i Greci e i posteri, in E. Gabba and A. Schiavone (eds.), Storia di Roma, vol. 4: Torino: G. Einaudi, pp. 827- 878 Settis, S. (2015), Sommamente originale. L'arte classica come seriale, iterativa, portatile, in S. Settis, A. Anguissola, D. Gasparotto (eds.), Serial/Portable Classic: the greek Canon and its mutations”, Milano: Fondazione Prada, pp. 275-283 Wickhoff, Franz. 1900. Roman Art: Some of its Principles and their Application to Early Christian Painting. Trans. Mrs S. Arthur Strong. London: Heinemann. Esp. 22-45

Roman copying and Greek Art Bartman, Elibaeth, 1988. “Décor et duplicatio: pendants in Roman sculptural display”, American Journal of Archaeology 92.2: 211-225 [Online] Gazda, E. 1995. “Roman art and the ethos of emulation, reconsidering repetition” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97: 121-56 [Online] {Whole volume looks at ‘Greece in Rome: influence, integration, resistance’} Gazda, Elaine (ed.) 2002. The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity. MAAR Supplementary Volume 1. [YATES QUARTOS M 5 GAZ; also accessible online via individual chapter titles] Hallett, Christopher H. 2005. “Emulation versus replication: redefining Roman copying”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 17: 419-435. [Online] {Review of Gazda ed. Ancient Art of Emulation, and Perry ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 10

Marvin, Miranda. 2008. The Language of the : the Dialogue Between Roman and Greek Sculpture. Los Angeles. Pollitt, J. J. 1978. "The Impact of Greek Art in Rome." Transactions of the American Philological Association 108, 155-75.

Roman Portraiture and Roman Identities Pollini, J. 2007. “Ritualizing death in Republican Rome: memory, religion, class structure and the wax ancestral mask tradition’s origin and influence on veristic portraiture”, in Nicola Laneri ed. Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Chicago: Oriental Institute Seminars. [INST ARCH DBA 100 LAN; ISSUE DESK IOA LAN 4] Richter, Gisela. 1955. “The origins of verism in Roman portraits”, Journal of Roman Studies 45: 39-46. Rose, B. 2008. “Forging artistic identity in the late Roman republic, Trojan ancestry and veristic portraiture”, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 7, Role Models in the Roman World. Identity and Assimilation (2008), pp. 97-131. [Online] Tanner, J. 2000. “Portraits, power and patronage in the late Roman Republic”, Journal of Roman Studies XC, 18-50.

Hellenisation, acculturation, ‘globalisation’ **Hölscher, Tonio. 2004 (1987). The Language of Images in Roman Art. Cambridge. 5-9 “The Greek paradigm: a model for life style, a case of academic classicism, or a building block of imperial culture”; 47-57 “State ceremonial: the tradition of classical dignity”, 76-82 “The reliefs of the Ara Pacis”. {One of the most important contributions to this debate of the last generation; whole book key reading for essay, but especially these chapters} MacMullen, R. 1991. “Hellenizing the Romans: second century BC”, Historia 40: 119-138 Veyne, Paul. 1979. “The Hellenization of Rome and the question of acculturations”, Diogenes 106: 1-27 Cirucci, G. (2005). Sculture greche di VI–IV secolo a.C. reimpiegate nella Roma antica: Una proposta di sintesi, RivIstArch 28, pp. 9-57

Essay question: Why has the problem of defining the relationship between Greek and Roman art in late Republican and early imperial Rome proven so contentious, and how close has recent work come to solving it?

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 11

3. GLASS: TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURAL FORM

Topic outline: The saw remarkable innovations in the character of glass as an artistic medium, in part as the result of the invention and diffusion of the technology of glass blowing. This class explores the relationship between the technologies of glass production, the social and practical uses of glass, and the material forms (style, iconography, aesthstics) taken by glass in the Roman world. In particular we shall discuss how we might best approach the social and cultural significance that objects like the or the may have had for their original owners and viewers, and how far this significance was dependent on the material affordances of glass as an artistic medium. British Museum presentations: 1. Roman glass; 2. The Lycurgus cup]; 3. Mould blown glass*; 4. Mosaic glass*. 5.Glass blowing*. 6. Murrhine Ware*.

Key readings for class discussion:

1. Sillar, Bill and M.S. Tite. 2000. “The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for materials science approaches in archaeology”, Archaeometry 42.1: 2-20 [Online] 2. Freestone, I. et al. 2007. “The Lycurgus cup, a Roman nanotechnology”, Gold Bulletin 40.4: 27-277. [Online] 3. Stern, E. Marianne. 2015. “ from East to West”. 77-94 in In Freestone I, Jackson C.J. and Bayley J. (eds) Glass of the Roman World. Oxford: Oxbow. [INST ARCH KL BAY] [Also available as ebook online via UCL catalogue] 4. Elsner, Jas. 2013. “The Lycurgus cup”, 103-111 in C. Entwhistle and L. James eds. New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine Mosaics and Glass. British Museum Publications no 179. London: British Museum. {Downloadable as PDF from Elsner’s Academia Edu page, or ask JJT} 5. Journal of Glass Studies 32, 1990: entirely dedicated to The Portland Vase. Please read the following short essays. i. I. Freestone, “Laboratory studies of the Portland Vase”, 103-7; ii. W. Gudenrath and D. Whitehouse, “The manufacture of the vase and its ancient repair”, 108-21; iii. K. Painter and D. Whitehouse, “Style, date and place of manufacture”, 122-5; iv. K. Painter and D. Whitehouse, “The place of the vase in Roman glass making”, 126-9. v. K. Painter and D. Whitehouse, “The interpretation of the scenes”, 130-6. [Online] [6. Henderson, . 2013. Ancient Glass: an Interdisciplinary Exploration. Chapter 7 (203-234) “Hellenistic to early Roman Glass: a change from small to large scale production”, Chapter 8 (235-251) “Late Hellenistic and early Roman glass: scientific studies”. Cambridge. [Online, or INST ARCH KL HEN] – worth a look if you have time, but not top priority; if short of time, just skim to get a sense of approach]

Basics (assumed from Introductory Roman art classes) Price, J. 1983. "Glass", pp. 205-219 in M. Henig ed. Handbook of Roman Art. [YATES A 40 HEN; ISSUE DESK IOA HEN 6] Price, J. 1976. "Glass", pp. 111-126 in Strong and Brown eds. Roman Crafts. [INST ARCH K STR; ISSUE DESK IOA STR 8] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 12

Grose, D. 1983. “The formation of the Roman glass industry”, Archaeology 36.4 38- 45. [Online]

Presentation Readings:

Glass blowing: technology and forms: {Not sure this will easily lend itself to object focussed presentation in BM- JJT will introduce} ▲Grose, David F. 1977. “Early blown glass: the western evidence”, The Journal of Glass Studies 19.9-29 [Online] ▲Israeli, Y. 1991. “The invention of blowing”, 46-55 in M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London: Society of Antiquaries Occassional Paper. [INST ARCH KL NEW] Plus one copy to issue desk ▲Stern, E.M. 2002. “The ancient glassblower’s tools”, in G. Kordas ed. Hyalos Vitrum Glass: History, Technology and Conservation of Glass and Vitreous Materials in the Hellenic World. Athens: Glasnet. [INST ARCH KL Qto KOR]

The Portland Vase and : Student presentation [Portland Vase, Room 70, Case 12; Auldjo Jug, Case 16 1859,0216.1] ▲Roberts, Paul et al. 2010. Roman Cameo Glass in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press. 9-23 “British Museum Roman cameo glass in context”, 25-50 “How vessel blanks were made”. Plus entries on Portland Vase and Auldjo jug in catalogue. [INST ARCH KL Qto ROB] Haspeslagh, Martine Newby. 2015. “A Roman Dionysiac cameo glass vase”, pp. 138- 145 in In Freestone I, Jackson C J and Bayley J (eds) Glass of the Roman World. Oxbow. ▲Gudenrath, W. and Whitehouse D. 1990. “The manufacture of the vase and its ancient repair”, Journal of Glass Studies 32: 108-121 [Online] ▲Harden, D.B. 1983. “New light on the technique of the Portland and Auldjeo cameo vessels”. Journal of Glass Studies 25: 45-54. [Online] ▲Painter, K. and Whitehouse, D. 1990. “The place of the Portland vase in Roman glass making”, Journal of Glass Studies 32: 126-9/ [Online] Painter, K. and Whitehouse, D. 1990. “Early Roman cameo glass”. Journal of Glass Studies 32: 138-65 Whitehouse, D.B. “Cameo glass”, 19-32 in M. Newby and K.S. Painter eds. Roman Glass. Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London: Society of Antiquaries. Whitehouse, D. 1989. “The Seasons Vase”, Journal of Glass Studies 31: 16-24. Journal of Glass Studies 32, 1990: entirely dedicated to Portland Vase: essays on history of collection, technique, iconography etc.

Portland vase: iconography – a selection of the 50+ interpretations ▲Haynes, D.E.L. 1995. "The Portland Vase: a reply", Journal of Hellenic Studies CXV, 146-152. ▲Hind, J.G.F. 1995. "The Portland vase: new clues towards old solutions." ibid 153-155 Ashmole, B. 1967. "A new interpretation of the Portland Vase", Journal of Hellenic Studies LXXXVII, 1-17 Haynes, D.E.L. 1968. "The Portland Vase again", Journal of Hellenic Studies LXXXVIII, 59-72 ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 13

Hind, J.F.G. 1979 "Greek and Roman Epic Scenes on the Portland Vase", Journal Of Hellenic Studies XCIX, 20-5

The Lycurgus Cup and Cage Cups: Student presentation Location: Room 41 ▲Elsner, Jas. 2013. “The Lycurgus cup”, 103-111 in C. Entwistle and L. James eds. New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine Mosaics and Glass. British Museum Publications no 179. London: British Museum. [ARCH KL Qto ENT]{Downloadable as PDF from Elsner’s Academia Edu page} ▲Lierke, R. 2013. “Manufacture of diatreta and cage cups”, 88-102 in C. Enthistle and L. James eds. New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine Mosaics and Glass. British Museum Publications no 179. London: British Museum. [INST ARCH KL Qto ENT] Gudenrath, W. and Whitehouse, D. 1990. “A fragment of a dichroic cage cup in the British Museum”, Journal of Glass Studies 51: 224-7. [Online] *Meredith, H. 2009. “Animating objects: ekphrastic and inscribed late antique movable material culture”, Facta: a Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies 3: 35-54. {PDF can be downloaded from her Academia Edu page; Journal available in ICS – Institute of Classical Studies, Senate House} Harden, D.B. and Toynbee, J.M.C. 1959. “The Rothschild Lycurgus cup”, Archaeologia 97: 179-212 ▲ Freestone, I. et al. 2007. “The Lycurgus cup, a Roman nanotechnology”, Gold Bulletin 40.4: 27-277. [Online] ▲Scott, George D. 1995. “A study of the Lycurgus cup”, Journal of Glass Studies 37: 51-64. [Online] Vickers, Michael. 1996. “Rock cut crystal: the key to and diatreta in Persia and Rome”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9: 48-65 [Online] Whitehouse, David. 2015. Cage Cups: Late Roman Luxury . Corning Museum of Glass. [INST ARCH KL WHI]

Techniques and chemistry of Roman coloured Glass – scientific approaches to Roman glass

Freestone, Ian. 2008. “Pliny on Roman glass making”, 77-100 in M. Martinon-Torres and T. Rehren eds. Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials. Left Coast Press. [INST ARCH AJ MAR; ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9; online] {not req} Green, L.R. and Hart, F.A. 1987. “Colour and chemical composition in ancient glass: an examination of some Roman and Wealden glass by means of Ultraviolet- Visible-Infrared Spectrometry and Electron Microprobe analysis”, Journal of Archaeological Science. 14: 271-82 [Online] Henderson, Julian. 2013. Ancient Glass: an Interdisciplinary Exploration. Cambridge. Chapter 7 (203-234) “Hellenistic to early Roman Glass: a change from small to large scale production”, Chapter 8 (235-251) “Late Hellenistic and early Roman glass: scientific studies”. [IoA KL HEN; also Online]

Mosaic Glass – JJT introduce Location: Room 70, Case 17 for examples. ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 14

▲Freestone, I. and Stapleton C. 2015. “Composition, technology and production of mosaic glass vessels of the early Imperial period”. 61-76 In Freestone I, Jackson C J and Bayley J (eds) Glass of the Roman World. Oxbow. {chemistry approach} [INST ARCH KL BAY – also copy on issue desk, and available online as ebook]

▲Dawes, S. 2002. “Hellenistic and Roman mosaic glass, a new theory of production”, Annual of the British School at Athens 97: 413-28. {experimental approach} [Online] Flemming, S. and Swann, C.P. 1999. “Roman mosaic glass a study of production processes, using Pixe spectrometry”, Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, B, 150(1): 622-627. [Online]

Roman engraved glass: Location: Blown glass dishes, engraved. GR1967.11 21.1 Bellerophon (G70, dc 17; check ‘Glass of the Caesars’ catalogue); GR1887.1-8.1 and Athena (G70, DC 33) *Caron, Beaudoin. 1997. “Roman Figure engraved glass in the Metropolitan Museum of Art”, Metropolitan Museum Journal 32: 19-50. [Online]

Murrhine Ware: JJT will introduce Location: Room 70, Case 13. ▲Treassau, Alain and and Michael Vickers. 2007. “Ancient Murrhine ware and its glass evocations”, Journal of Glass Studies 49: 143-52 [Online] ▲Loewenthal, A.I. et al. 1949. “Vasa Murrina”, Journal of Roman Studies 39. 31-37 [Online] ▲Lapatin, Kenneth. 2015. Luxus: the Sumptuous Arts of Greece and Rome. Malibu: J. Paul Getty Museum. Pp. 122-2 “Murrhine ware”, with plates 133-4 and their catalogue entry (both in BM). [YATES QUARTOS A 99 LAP – Reference only]. Bromehead, C.N. 1952. “What was Murrhine?”, Antiquity 26: 65-70. [Online] Slavazzi, Fabrizio. 2003. “Vasi in pietra dura nell’ età ellenistico-romana”, in Cristalli e gemme: Realtà fisica e immaginario simboligia, technical e arte. Edited by Bruno Zanetti. 437-58. Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, lettere ed arti. [Trying to locate – 2017]

Mould-blown glass – Student presentation: Location: Room 70, Case 17 for examples (esp. GR1878.10-20.1: Hercules, , Seasons; GR1993.10-16.1. Box from Sidon, Dunghello Collection.) (NB also: Glass beaker with chariot-racing scene; Chariot racing souvenir - 1870,0224.3, Hierax farewell; Olympus farewell; Antiocus farewell; hail Crescens; On display: Gallery 49/display case13. JJT will bring pictures for presentation in room 70) Fontaine, S. and D. Foy. 2015. “Mould-blown beakers with figurative scenes: new data on Narbonensis Province”, 97-111 in J. Bayley, I. Freestone and C. Jackson eds. Glass of the Roman World. Oxford: Oxbow. {cf. GR1878.1020.1} [INST ARCH KL BAY – to be moved to issue desk] ▲Price, J. 1991. “Decorated mould-blown tableware in the first century AD”, 56-75 in M. Newby and K. Painter eds. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention. London: Society of Antiquaries. [INST ARCH KL NEW – 2 copies] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 15

▲Weinberg, G.D. 1972. “Mould blown beakers with mythological scenes”, Journal of Glass Studies 14: 26-47. {BM material} [Online] ▲Wight, K. 2000. “Leaf beakers and Roman mould-blown glass production in the first century AD”, Journal of Glass Studies 42: 61-79. [Online] {Very helpful on production methods} Bailey, Donald M. 1992. “A grave group from Cyzicus”, Journal of Glass Studies 34: 27-34 Harden, Donald B. 1982. “New light on mould blown glass sports cups of the first century AD, bearing both chariot races in bigae and gladiatorial combats”, Journal of Glass Studies 24: 30-43 Price, J. 1995. “The Canterbury-London group of chariot-race cups”, in K. Blockley, M. Blockley, S.S. Frere and S. Stow. Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas. The Archaeology of Canterbury, 5. 122-27. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust. [INST ARCH DAA 410 K.2 BLO] *Ville, G. 1964. “Les coupes de Trimalcion figurant des gladiateurs et une série de verres ‘sigillés’ gaulois”, in M. Renard and R. Schilling eds. Hommage à Jean Bayet. Collection Latomus 70: 722-33. [ICS, 202 BAY; Institute of Classical Studies, Senate House] Wight, K. 1994. “Mythological beakers, a re-examination”, Journal of Glass Studies 36: 24-55. [Online] *Lightfoot, Christopher S. ed. 2014. Ennion: Master of Roman Glass. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. [YATES V 20 LIG]

Supplementary reading: *Beretta, Marco. 2004. When Glass Matters: Studies in the History of Science and Art from Graeco-Roman Antiquity to the Modern Era. Olschki: Florence; 1-30 “Between nature and technology: glass in ancient chemical philosophy” (Beretta); Giovanni di Pasquale “Scientific and technological use of glass in Graeco-roman antiquity” (31-76), E. Marianne Stern “The glass banausoi of Sidon and Rome” (77-120), Girogio Strano “Glass and the heavenly spheres: astronomic refraction in Ptolemy’s optics” (121-134). (INSTARCH KL BER) Biek, L. and Bayley, J. 1979. “Glass and other vitreous materials”, World Archaeology 11: 1-25. Degryse, C.ed. 2014. Glass Making in the Roman World. Studies in Archaeological Science 4. Leuven: European Research Council. [Online] [Strong science focus] Frank, S. 1982. Glass and Archaeology. London. *Grose, D.F. “Glass forming methods in classical antiquity”, Journal of Glass Studies 26.25-34 *Newby, Martine and Painter, Kenneth. 1991. Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Innovation. London: Society of Antiquaries. (Excellent bibliography) Henderson, Juliam. 2013. Ancient Glass: an Interdisciplinary Approach. Cambridge. Price, Jennifer. 2005. “Glass working and glass workers in cities and towns”, in Ardle McMahon and Jennifer Price eds. Roman Working Lives and Urban Living. Oxford: Oxbow. [INST ARCH DAA 170 MAC] Stern, E.M. 1997. “Glass and rock crystal, a multi-faceted relationship”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 10: 192-206. Stern, E. Marianne. 1999. “Roman in a cultural context”, American Journal of Archaeology 103: 441-84 [Online] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 16

*Stern, E.M. 1998. “Interaction between glassworkers and ceramists”, 183-204 in P. McCray and W.D. Kingery eds. The Prehistory and History of Glassmaking Technology. Westerville OH: The American Ceramic Society. ISSUE DESK IOA MCC Stern, E.M. 2002. “Glass is hot” American Journal of Archaeology 106: 463-71 Stern, E.M. 2007. “Ancient glass in a philological context”, Mnemosyne 60.3: 341- 406 Stern, E.M. 2009. “Glass production”, in J.P. Oleson ed. The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World. Oxford. [Online] *Stern, E.M. 2012. “A glass blower looks at Martial 14.94” Mnemosyne 65: 80-93 Stern, E.M. 2012. “Blowing glass from chunks instead of molten glass”, Journal of Glass Studies no? 33-45. Tait, G. ed. 1991. Five Thousand Years of Glass. London: British Museum Press. (Good chapters on Greek and Roman glass) Valotto, M. and M. Verita. 2002. “Glasses from Pompeii and Herculaneum and the sands of the rivers Belus and Volturno”, in Homer Faber. Studies on Nature, Technology and Science at the time of Pompeii. Ed. J. Renn, G. Castagnetti. Rome. 63-73 Webster, Graham. 1959. “Roman windows and grilles”, Antiquity 33: 10-14. Whitehouse, David. 1999. “Glass in the epigrams of Martial”, Journal of Glass Studies 41: 73-81.

Anthropology of technologies etc. Lemonnier, Pierre. 1986. “The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 147-86 [Online] O’Connor, E. 2005. “Embodied knowledge: the experience of meaning and the struggle toward proficiency in glassblowing”, Ethnography 6 (2): 183-204 _____. 2007. “Hot glass: the calorific imagination of practice in glassblowing”, in C. Calhoun and R. Sennett eds. Practicing Culture. New York: Routledge. 57-81 Rihouet, P. 2013. “Veronese’s goblets, glass blowing and the civilizing process”, Journal of Design History 26.2: 133-151

Essay questions: Either: “Compare the role and importance of cultural, social and technological factors in the development of glassware in the Roman empire”. Or: “How far is the development of glass technology shaped by its social and cultural environments in the Roman empire, and how far is it transformative of them?”. Or: How important is an understanding of the technical bases of glass production to understanding the social and cultural significance of glass as an artistic medium in the Roman empire?

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 17

4. ART AND LUXURY AT THE TABLE: SILVER AND CERAMIC FINE WARES

Class topic: This class explores the theme of Roman luxury consumption through the elite medium of Roman silver and the more demotic medium of fine red glazed (Arretine) through which Roman luxury culture was translated for mass consumption. The first part of the class will focus on silverware, thinking about techniques of production and contexts of consumption, and how ‘luxury’ – generally perceived as potentially morally corrupting in Roman culture – was contoured to the social, cultural and aesthetic sensibilities of Roman elites. The second part of the class will look at Arretine pottery, exploring its relation with silverware, mass-production by means of moulds, and its relationship to ‘consumer culture’ in the Roman empire. British Museum Presentations: 1. Silver smithing and the Sophocles cup; 2. The ; 3. Iconography and decoration of Arretine Ware; 4. Lead-glazed pottery.

Required reading: 1. Olivier, Andrew. Jr. 1994. “The changing fashions of Roman silver”, Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 63: 2-27. [Online] 2. Pollini, John. 1999. “The Warren cup: homoerotic love and symposium rhetoric in silver”, Art Bulletin 81: 21-52 [Online] 3. Greene, Kevin. 2007. “Late Hellenistic and early Roman invention and innovation: the case of lead-glazed pottery”, American Journal of Archaeology 111.4: 653-71. [Online] 4. Greene, Kevin. 2008. “Learning to consume: consumption and consumerism in the Roman Empire”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 64-82 [Online] 5. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Ch ?, “Waves of fashion”, esp. pp. 407-421 ‘Pottery from Samian to Arretine’. [ANCIENT HISTORY R 72 WAL – IoA Teaching collection - INST ARCH 3800 – 2 copies] 6. Webster, P. and Webster, J. 2013. “Classical figures in a provincial landscape. A study in the iconography of Samian”. In: M. Fulford and E. Durham (eds.), Seeing Red: New Economic and Social Perspectives on Gallo-Roman Terra Sigillata, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 340–348. [YATES QUARTOS P 42 FUL; IoA Teaching collection - INST ARCH 3801 – 2 copies]

Sophocles cup and techniques of silver-smithing – student presentation Location: Room 70, Case 13 ▲Corbett P.E. and D.E. Strong. 1960/1. "Three Roman silver cups". British Museum Quarterly XXIII, 66-86, pls. xxxi-xxxvii. [Online] ▲Haynes, S. 1961. "Drei neue Silberbecher im British Museum" Antike Kunst IV, 30-6 pls. 15-16. (in German, but with excellent plates of the Sophocles cup) [Online] ▲Sherlock, D. 1976. "Silver and silver-smithing", pp. 11-23 in Strong and Brown eds. Roman Crafts. [INST ARCH K STR; ISSUE DESK IOA STR 8]

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 18

The Warren Cup – Student presentation Room 70, Case 12a] ▲Clarke, John R. 1993. “The Warren cup and the contexts for representations of male to male love-making in Augustan and early Julio-Claudian art”, Art Bulletin 75: 275-94 [Online] _____. 1998. Looking at Love-Making: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 BC-AD 250. ▲Pollini, John. 1999. “The Warren cup: homoerotic love and symposium rhetoric in silver”, Art Bulletin 81: 21-52 [Online] Williams, Dyfri. 2006. The Warren Cup. London. ▲Williams, Dyfri. 2015. “A cantharus cup from ancient Betar near Jerusalem (the so- called Warren cup) and Roman silver plate”, BABESCH 90: 155-198. [ISC Persiodicals; PDF can be downloaded from Williams AcademiaEdu page]

Silver – general bibliography: Barratte, Francois. 1985. “À propos de la vaiselle d’argent Romain: valeur métallique, valeur artistique”, Bulletin de la Societé française de Numismatique 50: 625- 629 _____. Ferriès, M-C. and Dalaison, J. 2013. Métal et dignité : la vaisselle précieuse à Rome. Luxe, ostentation et propagande (Ier siècle avant J.-C. et Ier siècle après J.-C.). In, Ferriès M-C; Castiglioni M.P.; Létoublon, F. (eds.), Forgerons, élites et voyageurs d’Homère à nos jours. Hommages en mémoire d’Isabelle Ratinaud-Lachkar., PUG: 147-167 Johns, C. 1990. "Research on Roman silver plate", Journal of Roman Archaeology 3, 28- 43 Künzl, Ernst. 1975. “Eine Silberkanne mit Kentauromachie aus Pompeji”, Jahrbuch der Römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 22: 62-80 _____. 1997. “Römische Tempelschätze und Sakralinventare: Votive, Horte, Beute”, Antiquité Tardive 5: 57-81 Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1938. “Two Roman silver jugs”, American Journal of Archaeology 42: 82-105 Painter, Kenneth S. 2001. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii, vol IV: the Silver Treasure. Oxford: Clarendon. Tamm, John. 2001. Argentum Potorium in Roman Campanian Wall-Paintings. PhD MacMaster University. [Online] Tamm. John. 2004. “Roman drinking silver: terms, forms and functions; some notes”, 453-67 in Rory B. Egan and Mark A. Joyal eds. Daimonopylai: Essays in Classics and the Classical Tradition Presented to Edmund G. Berry. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Centre for Hellenic Civilization. [ICS 202 BER] Tamm, John. 2005. Argentum potorium and the Campanian wall-painter: the Priscus service revisited”, Bulletin Antieke beschaving 80: 73-90 [ICS] Van de Grift, John. 1984. “Tears and revel: the allegory of the skyphoi”, American Journal of Archaeology 88: 377-88. Ferriès, M-C. and Dalaison, J. 2013. Métal et dignité : la vaisselle précieuse à Rome. Luxe, ostentation et propagande (Ier siècle avant J.-C. et Ier siècle après J.-C.). In, Ferriès M-C; Castiglioni M.P.; Létoublon, F. (eds.), Forgerons, élites et voyageurs d’Homère à nos jours. Hommages en mémoire d’Isabelle Ratinaud-Lachkar., PUG: 147-167.

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 19

[Hoby Cups – Copenhagen] Poulsen, Vagn H. 1968. “Die silberbecher von Hoby”, Antike Plastik 8: 69-74 Johansen, K. Friis. 1960 “New evidence about the Hoby Silver cups”, Acta Archaeologia 31: 185-90 (Replication of central submission scene on Arretine pottery). Kunzl, Ernst. 1988. “Die zwei Silberbecher des Cheirisophos von Hoby”, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik. 569-71, nos. 396, 397. Exh. Cat. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Vermeule, C.C. 1963. "Augustan and Julio-Claudian Court Silver", Antike Kunst 6, 33-40 (Hoby cups)

Berthouville Treasure (Bernay, ) Lajoye, Patrica. 2008. “Analyse sociale des donateurs du trésor de Berthouville (Eure)”. In Romanisation et épigraphie: Études interdiscilinaires sur l’acculturation et l’identité dans l’Empire romain, edited by Ralph Häussler. 127-32. Archéologie et historire romaine 17. Montagnac: M. Mergoil. *Lapatin, Kenneth. 2016. “Some reflections on the Berthouville ‘Dichterbecher’”. 69-80 In D’Alexandre À Auguste. Dynamiques de la creation dans les arts visuels et la poésie..Edited by Pascae Linant de Bellefonds, Évelyn Prioux and Agnes Rouveret. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Mobius, Hans. 1951. “Zu den Dichterbechern von Bethouville”, BABesch 26: 57-62. [ICS – only from no 31. 1957 - find] Picard, Charles. 1948. “Sur les aiguières à sujets homérique du Trésor de Bernay (Bibliothèque Nationale)”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 92, no 1: 95-111. _____1950. “Un cenacle littérarre hellenistque sur deux vases d’argent du trésor de Berthouville-Bernay”, MonPio 44: 53-82

Other Roman silver in BM – other (worth looking at, but no bibliography I could track down, other than BM Catalogue) Walters, H.B. 1922. Catalogue of the Silver Plate (Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Musueum). London [YATES QUARTOS T 50 BRI] Thil , Caubiac. Discovered 18thC. Room 70 (1824,0489.71 etc; Room 70, case 30) Chaourse Hoard – discovered 1880, 3rd/2nd century Room 70. Chatuzange Hoard – discovered 1893. Room 70 [K. Painter, 1989. “Le Tresor de Chatuzange in 'Tresors d'orfevrrerie gallo-romaine”, ed F. Baratte (ed)), 1989, . CUL SF 410:3.c.95.49]

LUXURY CERAMICS AND TABLEWARES

Lead-glazed ceramics – Student presentation Location: Room 70, Case 14 (also Case 19, but best focus on case 14 materials) ▲Greene, Kevin. 2007. “Late Hellenistic and early Roman invention and innovation: the case of lead-glazed pottery”, American Journal of Archaeology 111.4: 653-71. [Online] ▲Roberts, P. 2006.‘“Singing all summer and dancing all winter”, a group of lead- glazed ware vessels in the British Museum’ in N.Crummy (ed.) Image, Craft and the Classical World. Essays in Honour of Donald Bailey and Catherine ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 20

Johns. Instrumentum, monograph 29. 2006, 23-38 (2006). [YATES QUARTOS A 6 BAI]

Arretine ware: iconography and decoration: Student presentation

Location: Room 70, Case 16. Samian ware , from Trier – Diana and Actaeon GR1855.8-4.16; Arretine Krater with images of Seasons, GR 1869.2-5.4. Samian Bowl, decoated with tendrils and buds, Xanten, GR1859.2-5.5; Applique medallions from the Morel Collection – GR1912.11-25,23, GR1904.2-4.441]

Bird, J. 2012. “Arena scenes with bulls on South Gaulish Samian”. In: D. Bird (ed.), Dating and Interpreting the Past in the Western Roman Empire. Essays in Honour of Brenda Dickinson, Exter: Oxbow, 135–148. [YATES QUARTOS A 6 BIR] ▲Bird, J. 2013. “Samian in religious and funerary contexts”. In: M. Fulford and E. Durham (eds.), Seeing Red: New Economic and Social Perspectives on Gallo- Roman Terra Sigillata, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 326–339. [YATES QUARTOS P 42 FUL] ▲Webster, P. and Webster, J. 2013. “Classical figures in a provincial landscape. A study in the iconography of Samian”. In: M. Fulford and E. Durham (eds.), Seeing Red: New Economic and Social Perspectives on Gallo-Roman Terra Sigillata, London: Institute of Classical Studies, 340–348. [YATES QUARTOS P 42 FUL] Henig, M. 1998. “Romano-British Art and Gallo-Roman Samian”. In: J. Bird (ed.), Form and Fabric: Studies in Rome’s Material Past in Honour of B.R. Hartley., Oxford: Oxbow, 59–67.[ INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto BIR] Xerox for TC Desbat, A. and Savay-Guerraz, H. 2011. Images d’argile: les vases gallo-romains à médaillons d'applique de la Vallée du Rhône, Gollion: Infolio, 159. Marabini Moevs, M. T. 2006. Cosa. The Italian Sigillata. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volume III., Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. [YATES QUARTOS E 22 COS; and Online] ▲Pucci, Guiseppe. 1981. “La ceramica arretina: imagerie e correnti artistiche”, in L’art decoratif à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Rome. 115-117. [YATES A 6 ECO] ▲Webster, P. and Webster, J. 2012. “Is your figure less than Greek?” Some Thoughts on the Decoration of Gaulish Samian Ware. In: D. Bird (ed.), Dating and Interpreting the Past in the Western Roman Empire. Essays in Honour of Brenda Dickinson, Exeter: Oxbow, 195–215. [YATES QUARTOS A 6 BIR]

Ceramic Fine Wares – broader contexts Fulford, Michael. 1986. “Pottery and precious metals in the Roman world”, in Michael Vickers ed. Pots and Pans Oxford. 153-60. [INST ARCH K VIC] Woolf, Greg. 1998. Becoming Roman: the Origins of Provincial Civilization in Roman . Cambridge. 185-93 “The consumer revolution in ceramics”, 193-205 “Mass consumption and regional traditions” ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 21

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 2008. Rome’s Cultural Revolution. Cambridge. 407-421 “Pottery: from Samian to Arretine” [ANCIENT HISTORY R 72 WAL – 2 copies] *Peacock, D.P.S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World. Chapter 7, pp. 114-128 “The giant fineware producers”. [INSTARCH DA 170 PEA; ISSUE DEAK IOA PEA 12] *Pitts, Martin. 2015. “Globalisation, circulation and mass consumption in the Roman world”, 69-98 in Martin Pitts and Miguel John Versluys eds. Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge. [Online] *Roberts, Paul. 1997. “Mass production of Roman finewares”, 188-193 in Ian Freestone and David Gaimster eds. Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions. British Museum Press.[INSTARCH KD FRE – 3 copies; ISSUE DESK INSTARCH FRE 5] [*]Johns, Catherine. 1971. Arretine and Samian Pottery. British Museum Press. (Very short ca 20 pages text) [YATES P40 JOH - 2 copies] [*]De la Bedoyere, Guy. 1988. Samian Ware. Shire Archaeology: Princes Risborough. (Also a very short introduction) [INSTARCH KD BED; YATES P40 DEL] Paturzo, Franco. 1996. Arretina Vasa: La ceramic Arretina da mensa in età Romana – arte, storia e tecnologia. Esp. ch 5 “L’argentaria da tavola nel mondo antico e la ceramic aretina”. [YATES P 40 PAT] Hayes. John. 1997. Handbook of Mediterranean Roman Pottery. British Museum Press. van den Hoek. 2006. “Peter , Paul and a Consul : Recent Discoveries in African Red Slip Ware”, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 9.2: 197-246 [Available online via Warburg Library; need Senate House Library card]

Roman Luxury [Edwards, Catharine. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in . Cambridge. ] *D'Arms, John. 1999. “Perfoming culture. Roman spectacle and the banquets of the powerful”, 300-319 in The Art of Ancient Spectacle. Studies in the History of Art, National Gallery Washington. [Online] *Friedlander, Ludwig. 1936. Roman Life and Manners under the early Empire. Trans JH, Freese and LH Magnus. Vol 2, chapter 2 “Roman Luxury”, pp. 131-230 Lapatin, Kenneth. 2008. “Luxus”, in Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture around the Bay of Naples. Ed. Carol C. Mattusch. 31-51. London. _____. 2015. “Luxury arts”, in Barabra E. Borg ed. A Companion to Roman Art. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. La Rocca, Egenio. 1986. “Il lusso come espressione di potere”, 3-35 in Maddalena Cima and Eugenio La Rocca eds. Zeiner, Noelle K. 2005. Nothing Ordinary Here: Statius as Creator of Distinction in the Silvae. Routledge. 191-200 art collecting; chapter 3 ‘Material wealth in the Silvae’. [CLASSICS LS 18 ZEI] Wyetzner, P. 2002. “Sulla’s Law on Prices and the Roman Definition of Luxury”. Aubert and Sirks (eds.). Speculum Iuris: Roman Law as a Reflection of Social and Economic Life in Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe and Anna E. Plisecka. 2010. “Luxury in Ancient Rome: Scope, Timing and Enforcement of Sumptuary Laws”. Amsterdam Centre for Law and Economics. Working Paper No. 2010-03: 1-27. [Online – google] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 22

Zanda, Emanuela. 2011. Fighting Hydra-Like Luxury: Sumptuary Regulation in the Roman Republic. London: Bristol Classical Press

Theoretical inspirations Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. “Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value”. Arjun Appadurai (ed.) The Social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-62. Clark, Grahame. 1986. Symbols of Excellence: Precious Materials as Expressions of Status. Cambridge. Douglas, Mary, and Baron C. Isherwood. 1979. The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books. *Graeber, D. 2011. “Consumption” Current Anthropology 52.4: 489-511 Simmel, Georg. 1900. “A Chapter in the Philosophy of Value”. American Journal of Sociology. 5 (5): 577-603 Veblen, T. 1924. Theory of the Leisure Class. London.

Essay topic: Either: “What special problems and opportunities characterise the study of either silverware or ceramic fine-wares as categories of Roman art production?” Or: How much do luxury silver vessels and mass-produced ceramic fine-wares of the Roman empire have in common, and with what implications for how we should understand the use of such objects, and the meanings attributed to them, by their consumers?

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 23

5. PORTRAITURE AND THE MAKING OF IDENTITIES IN THE SECOND CENTURY

Topic outline: Portraiture was one of the most widespread and varied genres of artistic production in the Roman world. This class will explore both imperial and private portraits from a number of regional and material traditions represented in the British Museum collections: marble portraits of Roman emperors and empresses; limestone funerary portraits from Palmyra, and painted mummy-portraits from the Fayum. The central focus of our discussions will be on the role played by portraiture in the construction of identities. How far do portraits communicate shared Roman identity? In so far as portrait identities are socially constructed, who are the parties who negotiate such ‘constructions’ and with what entailments for the character of portraits. How far do the distinctive traditions of material practice which inform portrait- making in different regions and contexts affect the material agency of portrait- images?

Required readings: 1. Smith, R.R.R. 1998. “Cultural choice and political identity in honorific portrait statues in the Greek East in the second century AD. Journal of Roman Studies 88: 56-93. [Online] 2. Smith, R.R.R. 2006. Roman Portrait Statuary from Aphrodisias. Mainz: von Zabern. “Portraits and local history” 40-1, 44-54 (1stC AD) 54-67 (2ndC AD) {focussing on spatial placement}. [YATES QUARTOS E82 APH – Reference Only; ICS = Institute of Classical Studies, Senate House: X107D APH – Reference Only] 3. Stewart, Peter. 2008. The Social History of Roman Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 77-107 “Portraits in society”. [YATES A 40 STE – 2 copies; IoA Teaching Collection - INST ARCH 3803, 2 copies] 4. Vout, Caroline. 2010. “, Hellenism and the Social history of art”, Arion 18.1: 55-78 [Online] 5. Borg, Barbara and Glenn W. Most. 2000. “The face of the elite”, Arion 3rd series 8.1: 63-96. {on fayum portraits}. [Online] [6. Heyn, Maura K. 2010. “Gesture and identity in the funerary art of Palmyra” American Journal of Archaeology 114.4: 631-661 [Online] {excellent biblio}] 7. Gleason, P. 1983. “Identifying identity: a semantic history”, Journal of American History 69: 910-931 [Online]

Portraits of women in the second century AD – student presentation Location: Room 70: choose 2 of the following: 1) Matidia, GR1805.7-3.96; 2) Portrait of a woman from Cyrene, GR1861.11-27.19; 3) Faustina the Younger GR1861.11- 27.18 ▲Kleiner, Diana. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale. 277-80 “Female portraiture under the Antonines, the Faustinas”. [YATES Qto M70 KLE - 2 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA KLE 1 – 1 copy] ▲Bartman, E. 2001. “Hair and the artifice of Roman female adornment”, AJA 105.1: 1-25 {discusses BM examples} [Online] ▲Fittschen, K. 1996. “Courtly portraits of women in the era of the adoptive emperors (AD 98-180) and their reception in Roman society”, 42-52 in D. Kleiner and ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 24

S. Matheson eds. I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press. [YATES QUARTOS A60 KLE] ▲Davies, Glenys. 2008. “Portrait statues as models for gender roles in Roman society”, 207-220 in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volume 7. [Online] Bieber, M. 1962. “The copies of the Herculaneum women”, ProcPhilSoc 106: 111- 134 [Online] [Stephens, J. 2008. “Ancient Roman hairdressing: on (hair) pins and needles”, JRA 21.1: 111-132] D’Ambra, E. 2000. “Nudity and adornment in female portrait sculpture of the sccond century AD”, in D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson eds. I Claudia II: Women in Roman Art and Society. Austin: 101-14. [ICS 152J.1 KLE] MacMullen, R. 1980. “Women in public in the Roman empire”, Historia 29: 208-18 [Online] Meyers, Rachel. 2012. “Female portraiture and female patronage in the high imperial period”, 454-466 in Sharon L. James and Sheila Dillon eds. A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. London: Blackwell. [Online] *Trimble, Jennifer. 2000. “Replicating the body politic: the Herculaneum Women statue types in early imperial Italy”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 13 : 41- 68. [Online]

Techniques of portrait sculpture – JJT Brilliant, Richard. 1993. “Hairiness: a matter of style and substance in Roman portraits”, Studies in the History of Art 43: 302-12. [Online] Pfanner, M. 1989. “Über das Herstellen von Porträts’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 104: 157–257. [IoA Periodicals] Boschung, Dietrich von and Pfanner, Michael. 1988. “Antike Bildhauertechnik: vier Untersuchungen an Beispielen in der Münchner Glyptothek”, Münchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst xxxix: 7-28 *Russell, B. 2013. “Statue production”, in The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade. Oxford. [Online]

Antinous and Hadrian – student presentation ▲Kleiner, Diana. 1992. Roman Sculpture. 237-244 (Portraiture of Hadrian, Sabina, ). [YATES QUARTOS M 70 KLE – 2 copies; ISSUE DESK IOA KLE 1 – 1 copy] ▲Vout, C. 2005. “Antinous, archaeology and history”, Journal of Roman Studies 95, 80-96 [Online] ▲Burns, B. 2008. “Sculpting Antinous”. Helios 35.2, 122-142. [Online] (mainly on modern receptions) ▲Zanker, Paul. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: the Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. 198-266 “Hadrian’s beard”. [ISSUE DESK IOA ZAN – 1 copy] Opper, Thorsten. 2008. Hadrian, Empire and Conflict. London: British Museum. ANCIENT HISTORY QUARTOS R 16 OPP Vout, Caroline. 2010. “Hadrian, Hellenism and the Social history of art”, Arion 18.1: 55-78 [Online] Vout, C. (2003), ‘A Revision of Hadrian’s Portraiture’, in L. de Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and S. Mols, eds., The Representation and Perception of ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 25

Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop Rome 2002. Amsterdam. 442–57. [ICS 121E CON] Vout, C. 2006. “What’s in a beard? Rethinking Hadrian’s Hellenism”, 96-123 in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne eds. Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece. Cambridge. [ANCIENT HISTORY P 72 GOL] Vout, C. 2006. Antinous: the Face of the Antique. Leeds: Henry Moore Foundation. Evers, C. (1994), Les portraits d’ Hadrien. Typologie et ateliers. Brussels.

Antonine Portraits of Emperors – student presentation Location : Room 70 -Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius ▲Kleiner, Diana. 1992. Roman Sculpture. Pp. 267-277 [YATES QUARTOS M 70 KLE – 2 copies, ISSUE DESK IOA KLE 1 – 1 copy] ▲Albertson, F.C. (2004), ‘The Creation and Dissemination of Roman Imperial Portrait Types: The Case of Marcus Aurelius Type IV’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 119: 259–306. ▲Boschung, D. 2012. “The portraits” in Marc van Ackeren ed. A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Oxford: Blackwell. [Online]

Fayum Portraits: Student Presentation Location: Room 62, case 17, and Case 22 for Artemidorus) Shore, A.F. 1972. Portrait Painting From . (British Museum Booklet) ▲Doxiadis, E. 1995. The Mysterious Fayum Portraits: Faces from . Pp. 34-46 "Graeco-Roman Egypt" (The social and religious context), 82- 102 "The Portraits" (The Pictorial Tradition: from Apelles to Icons; Technique: Scale, Materials and Colours) (EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS M20 DOX) ▲Walker, Susan and Bierbrier, Maurice. Eds. 1997. Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt. {Excellent plates; Contains some good short essays for the exhibition, esp. Walker on the relation to Greek and Roman portraiture; plus 121-4 Some Technical aspects} (EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS M20 WAL) ▲Walker, S. 1997. Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Ancient Egypt. Cat. Nos. 18, 24, 25, 56, 81, 141, 143. [(EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS M20 WAL) *Riggs, Christina. 2002. “Facing the dead: recent research on the funerary art of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt”, American Journal of Archaeology 106: 85-101 [Online] ▲_____. 2012. “Portraits, , piety: images of women in Roman Egypt”, 423- 436 in Sharon L. James and Sheila Dillon eds. A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. London: Blackwell. [Online] Corcoran, L.H. 1992. "A cult function for the so-called Faijum mummy portraits", pp. 57-62 in J.H. Johnson ed. Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. Chicago. (EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS A6 DEM) Cormack, Robin. 1997. Painting the Soul: Icons, Death Masks and Shrouds. London, Transaction. 64-73 on Fayum portraits as background to Christian icons, and esp. for portraits with frames. (ART BC 10 COR) *Montserrat, D. 1993. “The representation of young males in ‘Fayum portraits’”. Journal of Egyyptian Archaeology 79: 215-225. (JSTOR) **Bierbrier, M.L. ed. 1997. Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt. London, British Museum Press. (EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS M20 BIE) ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 26

*Walker, Susan E.C. 1997. “Mummy portraits in their Roman context”, in Bierbrier ed. 1-6 Borg, Barbara. 1997. “The dead as a guest at table? Continuity and change in the Egyptian cult of the dead”, in Bierbrier ed. 26-32 *Corcoran, Lorelei H. 1997. “Mysticism and the mummy portraits” in Bierbrier ed. 45-54. Daszewski, W.A. 1997. “Mummy portraits from Northern Egypt: the necropolis in Marina el-Alamein”, in Bierbrier ed. 59-66 Doxiadis, Euphrosyne. 1997. “From eikon to icon: continuity in technique”, in Bierbrier ed. 78-80 Delaney, J. K ; K. A. Dooley, R. Radpour and I. Kakoulli, 2017. "Macroscale multimodal imaging reveals ancient painting production technology and the vogue in Greco-Roman Egypt", Scientific Reports 7, 2017 (doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15743-5) [Online] Cartwright, C. and A. , 2008. “Scientific aspects of ancient faces: mummy portraits from Egypt”, The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin, vol. 2: 59-66 [INSTARCH PERS]

Palymyrene Funerary busts – JJT Room 70

▲Colledge, M.A.R. 1976. The Art of Palmyra. Pp. 58-77 "Funerary sculpture", 109-118 "Funerary sculpture", 122ff iconography - esp. 126f frontality, 138-9 gestures, 139-41 headgear, 141-4 hairstyles, 144-5 features, 145-9 clothing, 149-50 drapery, 150-2 jewellery ▲Heyn, Maura K. 2010. “Gesture and identity in the funerary art of Palmyra” American Journal of Archaeology 114.4: 631-661 [Online] {excellent biblio} _____. 2012. “Female portraiture in Palmyra”, 439-442 in Sharon L. James and Sheila Dillon eds. A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. London: Blackwell. [Online] Smith, Andrew M. 2013. Roman Palmyra: Identity, Community and State Formation. Oxford. [INSTARCH DBD 10 SMI] {Good up to date historical study; thin on art, but interesting for social and cultural context} Drijvers, H. J. W. 1982. “Afterlife and funerary symbolism in Palmyrene religion.” In Bianchi, U. and Vermaseren, M. J. (eds.), La soteriologia dei culti oriental nell’Impero Romano. Leiden. 709–33. [ICS 122i cannot find, 1.2016; WARBURG BKG 400] Parlasca, K. 1988. “Ikonographische Probleme palmyrenischer Grabreliefs.” DaM 3: 215–21. [IoA Periodicals] [Ploug, G. 1995. Catalogue of the Palmyrene , Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Copenhagen. Find?] Sadurska, A. 1994. “Recherches sur les sculptures.” In Sadurska, A. and Bounni, A. (eds.), Les Sculptures Funeraires de Palmyre . Rome. 181–95 [ICS X 105E PAL – Reference] —— 1996. “L’art et la societe: Recherches iconologiques sur la sculpture funeraire de Palmyre.” In Palmyra and the Silk Road. Les Annales archaeologiques Arabs Syriennes: Revue d’Archaeologie et d’Histoire 42. 285–8. FIND ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 27

Balty, J.C. 1996. “Palmyre entre Orient et Occident: Acculturation et resistances.” In Palmyra and the Silk Road. Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 42: 437–41. FIND [Cussini, E. 2004. “Regina, Martay and the others: Stories of Palmyrene women.” Orientalia 73: 1–10. ] —— 2005a. “Beyond the spindle: Investigating the role of Palmyrene women.” In Cussini (ed.): 26–43 in idem ed. A Journey to Palmyra. Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers. Leiden and . [INST ARCH DBD 10 CUS] [Interesting on contexts but not much on art] Yon, J.-B. 2002. Les Notables de Palmyre. Beirut. *Albertson, Fred C. 2017. “The influence of bronze-working on Roman provincial stone sculpture: the case of Palmyra”, 190-197 in Jens Daehner et al eds. Artistry in Bronze: the and their Legacy. Los Angeles: Getty Museu, [YATES Qto M130 DAE] * Long, Tracey and Annette Højen Sørensen (ed.), Positions and Professions in Palmyra. Scientia Danica. Series H, Humanistica, 4 vol. 9; Palmyrene studies, 2. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2017. [ICS 105 E PAL] {Chapter 2: Glenys Davies, Body language of Palmyra and Rome; Ch. 3: Signe Krag. Jewellery and changing female roles} *Kropp, Andreas and Rubina Raja. Eds. 2016. The World of Palmyra. Copenhagen. Royal Danish Academy. INST ARCH DBD 10 KRO; good series of chapters on portraiture pp. 135-206 addressing issues of concept of portrait, female portraiture Kropp, A. and Raja, R. 2014. “The Palmyra portraits project”, Syria 91: 393-405 [Online]

General bibliography on Roman portrait sculpture, focussing on second century AD Fejfer, J. 2008. Roman Portraits in Context. Berlin/New York. [YATES M 225 FEI] Smith, R.R.R. 2006. Roman Portrait Statuary from Aphrodisias. Mainz: von Zabern. (Reviewed J. Tanner, BMCR 2007.04.70) Stewart, Peter. 2003. “Portrait statues and the statuesque”, 79-117 in Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response. Oxford. Trifilo, Francesco. 2007. “Power, architecture and community in the distribution of honorary statues in Roman public space”, in Fenwick, C., Wiggins, M. and Wythe, D. (eds), TRAC 2007: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 2007. pp.109-120. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Zanker, Paul. 2016. Roman Portraits: Sculptures in Stone and bronze in the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Yale: new Haven.

Social and cultural contexts and supplementary bibliography: Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. 2000. “Beyond identity”, Theory and Society 29: 1-47 [Online] Gleason, Maud W. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome.Princeton. ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 28

Goldhill, Simon ed. 2001. Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Introduction 1-25 (17ff good discussion of ‘identity’)

Essay questions: Either: “We can expect to capture little of the social and cultural significance of sculpted portraits in the Roman empire, without proper attention to the material processes and technologies of their production”. How far do you agree with this statement? Or: How can we best approach the social and cultural significance which Roman portraits may have held for their original viewers?

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 29

6. ART AS IMPERIAL PROPAGANDA: LOOKING AT TRAJAN’S COLUMN

This class will be held in the Cast Court of the Victoria and Albert Museum, which includes a direct life-size cast of Trajan’s column (in some respects, better for looking at than the original!, [for others not]).

Topic outline: It has been commonplace in studies of Roman art to understand the major state monuments as exemplars of ‘propaganda’, an approach best exemplified in Zanker’s classic study of The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus which drew direct analogies with the propaganda of the Nazi state (also broadly neo-classical in style). More recent scholarship has sought to question the relevance of this modernising model to ancient art, laying particular emphasis on the difficulties of reading the helical frieze, and challenging iconographic decodings of the frieze as straightforward ‘propaganda’. In this class we will approach Trajan’s column from a number of angles. How was and built and designed, and what was its purpose? What is the image which it projects of Trajan as emperor, and of his campaigns in Dacia? How can we characterise the visual languages – iconography and style – which characterise the helical frieze, and how can we read their messages? How should we think about how ancient viewers – and in particular different categories of viewer – may have responded to this monument?

Required readings: 1. Brilliant, R. 1984. "The Column of Trajan and its Heirs." Pp. 90-123 in idem Visual Narratives. [IoA TC 415; YATES Qto A35 BRI] 2. Veyne, Paul. 1988. “Conduct without belief and works of art without viewers”, Diogenes 143: 1-22 [Online] 3. Clarke, John R. 2003. Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans: Visual Representation and Non-elite Viewers in Italy, 100 BC-AD 315. Berkeley: University of California Press. 28-41 “Trajan’s forum and the new imperial city”. [YATES A 50 CLA; ISSUE DESK IOA CLA 29] 4. Davies, P.J.E. 1997. “The politics of perpetuation: Trajan’s column and the art of commemoration”, American Journal of Archaeology 101.1: 41-65 [Online] 5. Huet, Valerie. 1996. “Stories one might tell of Roman art: reading Trajan’s column and the Tiberius cup”, in J. Elsner ed. Art and Text in Roman Culture. Cambridge. 9-31. with excellent bibl; [YATES A 40 ELS 1 copy; IoA teaching collection – INST ARCH 3806, 2 copies] 6. Stephenson, John W. 2013. “The column of Trajan in the light of ancient cartography and ”, Journal of Historical Geography 40: 79-93. [Online]

Design and building of the column of Trajan – student presentation{?} ▲Beckmann, M. (2006), ‘The Direction of Carving on the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 112: 225–36. [IoA Periodicals] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 30

Beckmann, M. (2002), ‘The Columnae Coc(h)lides of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius’, Phoenix 56: 1–10. {Should be available online, subscription problem being sorted} ▲Lancaster, L. (1999), ‘Building Trajan’s Column’, American Journal of Archaeology 103: 419–39. [Online] ▲Wilson-Jones, Mark. 2000. Principles of Roman Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pp. 161-76 (building Trajan’s column). [YATES K5 JON] Wilson Jones, M. 1993 "One Hundred Feet and a Spiral Stair: the Problem of Designing Trajan's Column," Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: [Online]

Gender on the column of Trajan – student presentation ▲Dillon, S. 2006., ‘Women on the Column of Trajan and Marcus and the Visual Language of Roman Victory’, in S. Dillon and K.E. Welch, eds., Representations of War in Ancient Rome. New York. 244–71. [YATES A 60 DIL] ▲Kampen, Natalie. 1995. “Looking at gender: the Column of Trajan and Roman historical ”, in D.C. Stanton and A.J. Stewart eds. Feminisms in the Academy. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. 43-73. [ANTHROPOLOGY D 47 STA – 3 copies] [Currie, S. (1996) “The empire of adults: the representation of children on Trajan’s arch at Beneventum”, in Elsner, (ed.) Art and Text in Roman culture, pp153- 181]

Sacrifice on the column of Trajan – student presentation ▲Scott-Ryberg, I. 1955. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. See Index s.v. Trajan’s column: lustration of camp 109-13; vota soluta on arrival 121-25; vota suscepta on departure 121, 125 f.; motifs of 199. [Online] ▲Gordon, R.L. . 1990. "The veil of power: emperors, sacrificers and benefactors", pp. 199-232 in M. Beard and J. North eds. Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. [TC IOA 595, Main Library: ANCHIST B74 BEA]

Picturing war: style and narrative on Trajan’s column – student presentation ▲Hamberg, P. G. 1945. Studies in Roman Imperial Art. Pp. 104-61 "The Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius and their Narrative Treatment: the Epic Documentary Tradition in State Reliefs." Pp. 162-92. "Convention and Realism in the Battle Scene: on the Relations between Formal Legacy and Contemporary Experience." [YATES QUARTOS M 126 HAM – Reference only] ▲Holscher, Tonio. 2004. “Battle scenes their reception in Rome”, 38-46 in The Language of Images in Roman Art. Cambridge. (Also recommend chapter 4, 23-37 “Battle scenes: the tradition of Hellenistic pathos). (Plus s.v. Trajan’s column 63, 89-90) Holscher, T. 1991a. "Einleitung." In "Narrative Systematik und politisches Konzept in den Reliefs der Traianssaule: Drei Fallstudien," by L.E. Baumer, T. Holscher, and L. Winkler, 261-66. Jd/106:261-95. -. _____. 1991b. "Vormarsch und Schlacht." In "Narrative Systematik und politisches Konzept in den Reliefs der Traianssaule: Drei Fallstudien," by L.E. Baumer, T. T. Holscher, and L. Winkler, 261-66. Jd/106:261-95 Richmond, A.I. 1935. "Trajan's army on Trajan's column", Papers of the British School at Rome 13, 1-40. (Reprinted as monograph, Rome 1982) ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 31

Supplementary reading: Propaganda and Trajan’s Column: Kleiner, Diana. 1992. Roman Sculpture. 212-220 “The forum and column of Trajan”. Coulston, J.C.N.1990a. "The Architecture and Construction Scenes on Trajan's Column." In Architecture and Architectural Sculp ture in the Roman Empire, edited by M. Henig, 39-50. Ox ford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. -. _____.1990b. "Three New Books on Trajan's Column." JRA 3:290-309. *Brilliant, Richard. 1963. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. Connecticut Academt of Arts and Sciences: New Haven. Pp. 118-127 “The reliefs of Trajan’s column” (focus on imperial gesture) Bruno, M. and Bianchi, F. 2006. “La Colonna Traiana”, Papers of the British School at Rome 74: 293-322 De Angelis, F. 2014. “Sublime histories, exceptional viewers. Trajan’s column and its visibility”, in J. Elsner and M. Meyer eds. Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge. 89-114 Fehr, B. "Das Militar als Leitbild. Politische Funktion und Gruppenspezifische Wahrnehmung des Traiansforums und der Traianssdiule,' Hephaistos 7-8 (1985-1986) 51-53, Lepper, F.A. and Frere, S. 1988. 'Trajan's Column: a New Edition of the Cichorius Plates'. Gloucester. Packer, J.E. 1994."Trajan's Forum Again: The Column and the Temple of Trajan in the Master Plan Attributed to Apollodorus(?)," JRA 7 (1994) 163-82. Packer, J.E. 2008. "The Column of Trajan: The Topographical and Cultural Contexts." Review of La Colonne Trajane JRA 21 Rockwell, P. "Preliminary Study of the Carving Techniques on the Column of Trajan," in P. Pensabene ed., Marmi Antichi (Studi Miscell 26 [1981-83]) 105 Settis, Salvatore. Et al. 1985. “La colonne Trajan: invention, composition, disposition”, Annales, Histoires, Sciences Sociales 40.5: 1151-1194 [Online] _____1991. “La colonne Trajane: l’empereur et son public”, Revue Archéologique “, 186-98 [Online] Veyne, P. 1990. “Propagande expression roi, image idole oracle”, L’homme 30, n. 114: 7-26 [Online] Aijmer, G., 2000. Introduction: The Idiom of Violence in Imagery and Discourse. In: Aijmer, G. and Abbink, J. (eds.), Meanings of Violence: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford and New York: Berg, 1-21ANTHROPOLOGY D 82 AIJ

Modern uses of the concept of propaganda Ellul, J. 1965. Propaganda. The formation of men’s attitudes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Taithe, B. and Thornton, T. 1999. “Propaganda: a misnomer of rhetoric and persuasion?”. In B. Taithe and T. Thornton (eds.) Propaganda. Political Rhetoric and Identity 1300-2000. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, pp. 1-24. Taylor, P.M. 1995. Munitions of the mind. A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day (second edition). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press

Essay question: “How far can the concept of ‘propoganda’ take us in understanding the purposes and impact of Trajan’s column? ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 32

7. DEATH AND COMMEMORATION: THE SOCIAL LIFE OF SARCOPHAGI

Topic outline: Roman sarcophagi have been collected and studied since the . Despite being one of the most familiar categories of Roman artistic production, their interpretation remains very much contested, with a long standing debate between minimalists who see their reliefs as largely decorative and symbolists who read deep eschatological meanings into them. These debates have been continued into recent scholarship, but with an increasing emphasis on the materiality of sarcophagi. This is explored through studies of the manufacture and trade in sarcophagi, and also through more contextual approaches to their interpretation, considering how they might have been viewed in the tomb, against the background of funerary ritual and consolatory rhetoric. We will explore these debates in relation to the extensive collection of Roman sarcophagi housed in the basement of the British Museum.

Required readings: 1. Brilliant, R. 1984. "Mythological Sarcophagi: Proleptic Visions." Pp. 124-65 in idem Visual Narratives. (YATES Qto A35 BRI – 2 copies, one Reference) 2. Nock, A. D. 1946. "Sarcophagi and Symbolism." American Journal of Archaeology 50, 140-70 [Online] 3. Newby, Z. 2015. “Poems in stone: reading mythological sarcophagi through Statius’ Consolations”, 256-287 in Jas Elsner and Michel Meyer eds. Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge. [Online] [4. Siotto, Eliana et al. 2015. “A multidisciplinary approach for the study and virtual reconstruction of the ancient polychromy of Roman sarcophagi”, Journal of Cultural HeritageI 16: 307-14. [Online] – no need to read the details but worth taking a look just to remind concerning the issue of colour] 5. Russell, B. 2014. “The Roman sarcophagus ‘industry’: a reconsideration”, 119-147 in J. Elsner and J. Huskinson eds. Life, Death and Representation. Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Berlin: de Gruyter. [YATES M 127 ELS; IoA Teaching Collection INST ARCH 3808, 2 copies] 6. Bartman, E. 1993. "Carving the Badminton sarcophagus". Metropolitan Museum Journal 28: 57-76 [Online] 7. Zanker, P. and B.C. Ewald. 2012. Living with Myths: the Imagery of Roman Sarcophagi. 21-30 “Sarcophagus and tomb”, 30-36 “Living with myths” [IoA ISSUE DESK IOA ZAN]

Funerary urns Davies, Glenys. 2010. “Before sarcophagi”, in Jas Elsner and Janet Huskinson eds. Life, Death and Representation; Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 25-51

Children’s sarcophagi – student presentation ▲Walker, Susan. 1990. Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Nos: 6, 7, 11, 36 ( Isochrysos); plus : 27, 28, 29, 30 (all children’s sarcophagi: chariot theme, and psyche). ISSUE DESK IOA WAL 12 ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 33

▲Huskinson, Janet. 2007. “Constructing childhood on Roman funerary memorials”, 323-338 in Constructing Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy. Hesperia Supplements, vol 41. [Online] _____. 1996. Roman Childrens’ Sarcophagi. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [YATES QUARTOS M 127 HUS] ▲D'Ambra, E. 2007. “Racing with death, Circus sarcophagi and the commemoration of children in ”, 339-51 in Constructing Childhood in Ancient Greece and Italy. Hesperia Supplements, vol 41. [Online] [Online]

Herakles on Roman Sarcophagi – JJT ▲Walker, Susan. 1990. Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Nos: 15*, 64* [ISSUE DESK IOA WAL 12] ▲Jongste, Peter F.B. 1992. The Twelve Labours of Hercules on Roman Sarcophagi. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. [Institute of Classical Studies, Senate House: 131K.2 JON] {Disappointing, but worth taking a look} ▲Thomas, Edmund. 2011. “Houses of the dead? Columnar sarcophagi as micro- architecture”, 387-435 in Elsner, Jas and Janet Huskinson eds. 2011. Life, Death and Representation. Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Berlin: de Gruyter. Esp. p. 386-408 on Pillars of Heracles. [YATES M127 ELS – to be moved to issue desk] May also be worthwhile to look at the relevant material in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, if you read German

Achilles on Roman Sarcophagi – JJT ▲Walker, Susan. 1990. Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Nos: 13 (on Skyros), 42 (and Penthesilea), 44 (cycle of scenes, life of Achilles) Giuliani, L. 1989. “Achill-Sarkophage in Ost und West. Genese einer ikongraphie”, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 31: 25-39[Online] Cameron, Alan. 2009. “Young Achilles in the Roman world”, Journal of Roman Studies 99: 1-22 [Online] May also be worthwhile to look at the relevant material in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, if you read German

Culture and Learning – sarcophagi and paideia – student presentation ▲Walker, Susan. 1990. Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Nos 23*, 24* (Muses), 25, 26, 66 (Philosophers, poets etc). [ISSUE DESK IOA WAL 12] Borg, Barbara. 2004. “Glamorous intellectuals and portraits of pepaideumenoi in the second and third centuries AD”, 157-78 in B. Borg ed, Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic. Berlin: de Gruyter. [ANCIENT HISTORY R 72 BOR] ▲Huskinson, Janet. 1999. “Women and learning: gender and identity in scenes of intellectual life on Late Roman sarcophagi”, 190-213 in Richard Miles ed. Constructing Identities in . London: Routledge. [ANCIENT HISTORY M 72 MIL] ▲Hansen, Inge. 2008. “Muses as models: learning and complicity in authority”, in I. Hansen and S. Bell eds. Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation. Ann Arbor. 273-85 [Online] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 34

▲Zanker, Paul. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: the Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 6, pp. “The cult of learning transfigured”, esp. 267-289

Other themes in BM Sarcophagi Walker, Susan. 1990. Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Endymion/Jonah: 43 (Ariadne recarved), 76 (Jonah); Portraits: 1, 35; Marriage: 4, 5; Bacchic themes: 18*, 19-21 fragmentary.

Reading mythological sarcophagi – general and supplementary bibliography Borg, Barbara E. 2015. “Rhetoric and art in third century AD Rome”, 235-55 in J. Elsner and M. Meyer eds. Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture. Cambridge. [Online] Ewald, B.C. 2004. “Men, muscle and myth: Attic sarcophagi in the context of the second sophistic”, in B. Borg ed, Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic. Berlin: de Gruyter. *Gessert, G. 200 4. “Myth as consolatio, Medea on Roman sarcophagi” G&R 217- 249 Grassinger, D. “The Meaning of Myth on Roman Sarcophagi”, in H. Goldfarb (ed.), Myth and Allusion: Meanings and Uses of Myth in Ancient Greek and Roman Society (Boston, 1994), 91-107 Koortbojian, M. 1995. Myth, Meaning and Memory on Roman Sarcophagi. Pp. 1-18 "Introduction", 23-48 "Adonis tale", 114-126 "Myth, meaning and memory", 127-142 "The recognition of correspondences" Newby, Zahra. 2011. “Myth and death. Roman mythological sarcophagi”, in K. Dowden and N. Liningstone eds. A Companion to . Oxford: Blackwell. 302-318. [Online] Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1975/6 "Workshops and Clients: the Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore." Rendiconti Atti della Pontificia Academia Romana di Archeologia 48, 191-238

Manufacturing and merchandising sarcophagi: *Birk, Stine. 2012. “Carving sarcophagi: Roman sculptural workshops and their organisation”, 12-37 in Kristensen, T.M. and B. Poulsen. Eds. 2012. Ateliers and Artisans in Roman Art and Archaeology. JRA Supplementary Volume 92. [YATES QUARTOS A6 KRI] Fant, J. Clayton. 1985. “Four unfinished sarcophagus lids at Docimium and the Roman imperial quarry system in Phrygia”, American Journal of Archaeology 89.4: 655-662. [Online] Immerzeel, M. 2003. “A day at the sarcophagus workshop”, Visual Resources 19.1: 43-55 [Online] *Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1975/6 "Workshops and Clients: the Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore." Rendiconti Atti della Pontificia Academia Romana di Archeologia 48, 191-238. [ICS – Periodicals; also Warburg]

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 35

Contexts/Funerary practices Brink, Laurie and Green, Deborah eds. 2008. Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artefacts in Context. Berlin: de Gruyter. [YATES M127 BRI] nb esp. Tomb as House essay – Wallace Hadrill; essays on catacombs; Dining with the Dead Morris, I. 1992. Death Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Pp. 1-30 "The anthropology of a dead world", 31-69 " 'Mos Romanus': cremation and inhumation in the Roman empire Müller, Frank G.J.M. 1994. The So-called Peleus and Sarcophagus in the Villa Albani. Amsterdam. NB Appendix 4: excellent material for contextualising sarcophagi (funerary ritual, consolation etc) Tonybee, J.M.C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London: Thames and Hudson

Sarcophagi – supplementary bibliography - miscellaneous: *Elsner, Jas and Janet Huskinson eds. 2011. Life, Death and Representation. Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Berlin: de Gruyter. [YATES M127 ELS] {nb esp. excellent introduction by Elsner} Elsner, Jas and Wu Hung eds. 2012. Sarcophagi. Special issue (61/2 Spring/Autumn) of Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics. Comparing (juxtaposing) Roman and Chinese sarcophagi. [Online] *Ewald, B. 2003. “Sarcophagi and senators: the social history of Roman funerary art and its limits”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 16: 561-571 Lehmann-Hartleben, K. and E. Olsen. 1942. Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore. McCann, A.M. 1978. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Roman Sarcophagi. New York. Zanker, P. and B.C. Ewald. 2012. Living with Myths: the Imagery of Roman Sarcophagi. Oxford. (rev. C. Hallett, Art Bulletin 87: 157-60)

Essay topic: “What special problems and opportunities characterise the study of pictorial sarcophagi as a category of Roman art production?” “How did the factors (social, technical, cultural) which informed the design of sarcophagi shape their ‘agency’ as funerary monuments in their primary viewing contexts?”

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 36

8. ROMAN AND NATIVE IN THE ART OF ROMAN BRITAIN

Topic outline: The character of the art of Roman Britain has long been contested, between classicists like Collingwood deploring to archaeologists like Martin Henig celebrating the fusion of Roman and Celtic traditions as the origins of a specifically British art. ‘’ perspectives have traditionally focussed on the progressive assimilation of provincial art to artistic Roman models, and interpreted deviance from such models as an indication of ‘resistance’. More recent work has sought to go beyond these variably dichotomous approaches, trying to explore the varying character and developmental trajectories of specific genres or material traditions of art, or at the art production associated with specific categories of actor (such as the Roman military, villa owners etc).We will explore these issues in relationship to a number of categories of material well represented in the collections of the British Museum: Roman-British silverware, funerary stelai, religious art. Key objects: Romano-British funerary stelai; Romano-British religious art (Uley Sanctuary); Celtic identities in Romano-British art; Romano-British Mosaics; Romano-British Silver (Risley Park Lanx; Thetford Treasures)

Required 1. Woolf, G. 1995. ‘Beyond Romans and Natives’, World Archaeology 28, 339– 50.[Online] 2. Hope, V.M. 1997. “Words and pictures: the interpretation of Romano British Tombstones”. Britannia 28: 245-58. [Online] 3. Henig, M. 1985, “Graceo-Roman art and the Romano-British imagination”, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 138: 1-22 [Online] 4. Johns, C. 2003. "Art, Romanisation and competence" in Scott, S. and Webster, J. eds. Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Cambridge. 9-23 [YATES A 40 SCO; Teahing collection - INST ARCH 3809 – 2 copies] 5. Stewart, Peter. 2010. “Geographies of provincialism in Roman sculpture”, RIHA Journal 0005 (27 July 2010). [Online] 6. Hunter, Fraser. 2015. “The impact of Rome, AD 50-250”, 129-151 in J. Farley and F. Hunter eds. Celts: Art and Identity. London: British Museum Press. [ISSUE DESK IOA FAR 3]

Romano-British Funerary stelai and the Roman Military – student presentation ▲Hope, V.M. 1997. “Words and pictures: the interpretation of Romano British Tombstones”. Britannia 28: 245-58. [Online] ▲Smith, D. 'A Palmyrene sculptor at South Shields?', Arch. Ael.4 xxxvii (I959), 203-11. [IoA Peruodicals – in store but I will have get xerox] ▲Carroll, M. 2013 “The insignia of women. Dress, gender and identity on the Roman funerary monument of Regina from Arbeia.” The Archaeological Journal 169: 281–311 Phillips, J. 1976. “A workshop of Roman sculptors at Carlisle”. Brittannia 7: 101-8 Phillips, E.J. 1975. The gravestone of M. Favonius Facilis at Colchester. Britannia 6, 102-5. ▲Mackintosh, M. 1986. "The sources of the Horseman and Fallen Enemy motif on the tombstones of the Western Roman empire", Journal of the British Archaeological Association cxxxix, 1-21 ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 37

▲Stewart, P. 2009. “Totenmahl reliefs in the northern provinces: a case study in imperial sculpture”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 22, 253-74. [Online]

Roman—British Sculpture – supplementary bibliography Hope, Valerie. 2001. Constructing Identity. The Roman Funerary Monuments of Aquileia, Mainz and Nimes. Oxford. 2001. CSI Volumes

Romano-British art and Celtic identities?- Student presentation

Key objects: Ilam and Rudge Cup, Room 49 Case 9. (cf. also Dragonesque broaches, Room 50, Case 30 – though all best ones remover for Celtic Art exhibit 2016 and never returned – but I will bring pictures if you wish to make the comparison) [Bronze trulla handle, signed Bodvogenus: (Henig p. 130; Toynbee Art in Britain under the Romans 320, pl. 77; Potter and Johns 1992, Roman Britain p, 132)]

▲Hunter, F. 2008. ‘Celtic Art in Roman Britain’. In D. Garrow, D. C. Gosden, and J. D. Hill (eds.), Rethinking Celtic Art. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 129–45 [INST ARCH DAA 161 GAR] ▲Hunter, Fraser. 2015. “The impact of Rome, AD 50-250”, 129-151 in J. Farley and F. Hunter eds. Celts: Art and Identity. London: British Museum Press. [ISSUE DESK IOA FAR 3] ▲Breeze, David J. ed. 2012. The First Souvenirs: Enamelled Vessels from Hadrian’s Wall. Kendal: Cumberland and Westmoreland Archaeological Society. Esp. Ch. 2, Ernst Kunzl “Enamelled vessels of Roman Britain, Ch. 3, L. Allason- Jones, “The Rudge cup”, Ch. 5. Ralph Jackson “The Ilam Pan”. [Nb excellent bibl on Roman enamels] ISSUE DESK IOA BRE 2 Spratling, Mansel. 2008. “On the aesthetics of the ancient Britons” 185-202 in D. Garrow, D. C. Gosden, and J. D. Hill (eds.), Rethinking Celtic Art. Oxford: Oxbow Books. [INST ARCH DAA 161 GAR] Lindgren, C. 1980. Classical Art Forms and Celtic Mutations. Figural Art in Roman Britain. Park Ridge, NJ. [INST ARCH DAA 170 LIN] Bulmer, W. “Dragonesque broaches and their development”, Antiquaries Journal 18: 146-53. Feachem on Dragonesque fibulae Antiquaries Journal 1951, 1968. Charlesworth, Dorothy 1973 `The Aesica hoard [of jewellery, Great Chesters, Northumberland]' Archaeol Aeliana ser 5, 1, 1973 225-34, pls, refs. Bayley, J. 2015. On roman enamels in Bayley and Freestone eds. Glass of the Roman World. Johns, C. 1996. The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Traditions. London: British Museum Press. Walker, Susan. 2016. “Celtic design, Roman subject: a portrait of Marcus Aurelius from Roman Britain”, 192-205 in Alcock, Susan E. et al eds. Beyond Boundaries: Connecting Visual Cultures in the Provinces of Ancient Rome. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. [YATES A45 ALC];

[Roman Art in Britain before the Romans- Room 50, Case 23: Aylesford Bicket Burial, Welwyn Hertfordshire – Silver Drinking cups] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 38

Romano-British Religious art: Finds from Uley and/or Ashwell – JJT Key objects: Ashwell Hoard (PY2003,0901.1-27) Room 49, Case 19; Finds from the Uley Sanctuaries, Case 20.

[Kamash, Z., Gosden, C., and Lock, G. 2010. ‘Continuity and Religious Practices in Roman Britain: The Case of the Rural Religious Complex at Marcham/Frilford’, Britannia 41, 95–125] ▲Woodward, A., and Leach, P. 1993: The Uley Shrines: Excavations of a Ritual Complex on West Hill, Uley, Gloucestershire: 1977–9, English Heritage Archaeological Report 17, London. Ch. 6, pp. 89-112 “Votive objects: images and inscriptions”, by Martin Heni; 320-318, in the “Synthesis” chapter on history of the temple. [IoA DAA 410 Qto WOO] Aldhouse-Green, M. 2003. “Alternative iconographies: metaphors of resistance in Romano-British cult imagery”, 39-48 in in Noelke, P. ed. Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Mainz. [Instute of Classical Studies X 128 CON – Reference Only] Green, Miranda J. 1998. “God in Man's Image: Thoughts on the Genesis and Affiliations of Some Romano-British Cult-Imagery”, Britannia: 17-30 [Online; alas no illustrations!] ▲ Jackson, Ralph and Gilbert Burleigh. 2018. Dea Senuna: Treasure, Cult and Ritual at Ashwell, Hertfordshire. London: British Museum Press. Jackson, chapter 4, pp. 31-61 “The Ashwell Hoard, Catalogue”; chapter 8, pp. 211-142 “The Ashwell Hoard, Dea Senuna and comparable finds from Britain and the wider Roman world”. Bibl on syncretism, Webster etc?

Romano-British Mosaics

Key objects: 1. Mosaic of a sea-god, 4th century, Withington, Glouc. (P&E 1812,0613.1); 2. *Hemsworth Venus Mosaic, Dorset, 4th century (PRB 1908.12-15.1). [3. Thruxton Bacchus Mosaic, Hampshire, 4th century (PRB 1899.6-14)]. All in Room 49. Compre with N. African Mosaic in West Stairway: Month and Seasons Pavement, Carthage, AD 375 (BM Cat.Mosaics: MLA 1857.12-18.126/127/128/130/131/132/133/134/135/136/137/143)

Barrett, A.A. 1978. "Knowledge of the literary classics in Roman Britain", Britannia ix, 307-13 Beeson, A.J. 1990. "Perseus and Andromeda as lovers. A mosaic panel from Brading and its origins", Mosaic 17, 13-19. Ling, R. 1997. “Mosaics in Roman Britain\; discoveries and research since 1945”, Britannia 28: 259-95 [Online] Cookson, N.A. 1984. Romano-British Mosaics. A Reassesment and Critique of Some Notable Stylistic Affinities. British Archaeological Reports, Brit. Ser. 135. Johnson, P. 1984. "The mosaics of Bignor villa, England: a Gallo-Roman connection", pp. 405-10 in R. Farioli Campanati, III colloquio internazionale sul mosaico antico, Ravenna ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 39

Dunbabin, K. 1978. The Mosaics of Roman North . Esp. pp. 1-37, 196ff. _____. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge. 88-100 “Britain” (with Bibl), 101-129 “The North African Provinces’ Smith, D. 1969. "The mosaic pavements", pp. 71-125 in A. Rivet ed. The Roman Villa in Britain. Smith, D.J. 1983. "Mosaics", pp. 116-138 in Henig ed. Handbook of Roman Art. Neal, D.S. 1981. Roman Mosaics in Britain. Neal and Cosh. Roman Mosaics of Britain, 4 vols. Vol 2, no 171.2 for Hemsworth Venus; Vol. 2, no 172 for Hinton St Mary; vol IV (2010), no 455.4 for the Withington Mosaic. Wootton, W.T. . 2016. "A Portrait of the Artist as a Mosaicist," in Beyond Boundaries: Connecting Visual Cultures in the Provinces of Ancient Rome, eds. S. E. Alcock, M. Egri, and J.F.D. Frakes (Los Angeles), 62-83 [YATES A 45 ALC] _____. 2015. “Figuring out the facts: calculating mosaic labour times in 4th century AD Britain”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 2015: 261-82. [Online] _____. 2012. “Mosaic production in 4th century Britain: materials, makers and making at Badminton Park”, In Kristensen , T. M. & Poulsen , B. (eds.), Ateliers and Artisans in Roman Art and Archaeology, 2012 [YATES QUARTOS A 6 KRI]

Romano-British Silver Key objects: Risley Park Lanx [Not on display 2016; JJT to bring picture]; Thetford Treasure; Capheaton Treasure (Room 49 Case 11) Johns, C, and Potter T. 1984. The Thetford Treasure. London: British Museum Press. [INST ARCH DAA 410 N.5 JOH] cf. Henig on the swan spoons Johns, C. 1981. “The Risley Park silver lanx: a lost antiquity from Roman Britain”, Antiquaries Journal lxi: 53-72 {nb Henig refs for comps with Pewter traditions} Johns, C. 2010. The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure. London: British Museum Press. [ ARCH DAA 410 Qto JOH]

Provincial art and archaeology: general bibliography Alcock, Susan E. et al eds. Beyond Boundaries: Connecting Visual Cultures in the Provinces of Ancient Rome. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. [YATES A45 ALC]; esp. Jimenez 16-30 “What is a province”, Papaioannou 31-45 “A synoecism of cultures in Roman Greece” Aldhouse-Green, Miranda. 2004. An Archaeology of Images: Iconology and Cosmology in Iron Age and Roman Europe. London and New York Kampen, Natalie. 2006. “The art of soldiers on a Roman frontier: style and the Antonine wall”, in Eve D’Ambra and Guy Metraux eds. The Art of Citizens: Soldiers and Freedmen in the Roman World. Oxford. 125-134 ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 40

Revell, L. 1999. ‘Constructing Romanitas: Roman Public Architecture and the Archaeology of Practice’. In P. Baker, C. Forcey, S. Jundi, and R. Witcher (eds.), TRAC 98 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Theoretical Archaeology Conference, Leicester 1998. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 52–8 —— 2009. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, S. 2014. “Britain in the classical world. Samuel Lysons and the art of Roman Britain 1780-1820”, Classical Receptions Journal 6: 294-337 Stewart chapter on provincial statuary in book on Statues and Society

[Painting]

Architecture Clarke, S. 1999a. ‘Architecture and Social Change during the Roman Period’. In Leslie, A. (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology and Architecture: The Third Conference Proceedings. Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 111–21. —— 1999b. ‘Contact, Architectural Symbolism and the Negotiation of Cultural Identity in the Military Zone’. In P. Baker, C. Forcey, S. Jundi, (p.346) and R. Witcher (eds.), TRAC98 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Theoretical Archaeology Conference 1998. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 36–4

Concepts Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. 2004. Towards a Geography of Art. London and Chicago **Hannerz, U. 1992. "The global ecumene", pp. 217-267 in Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organisation of Meaning. (for an interesting account of core-periphery relations in contemporary world - principles of analysis, at least, applicable to Roman empire). Freeman, P. 1993. ‘“Romanisation” and Roman Material Culture’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: 438–45.

Supplementary Blagg in Todd Research on Roman Britain [INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto TOD] Braithwaite, G. 1984. Romano British face pots and head pots. Britannia 15, 99-131 Cool, H.E.M. 1986. A Romano British gold workshop of the 2nd century. Britannia 17, 231-7 Green, Miranda. 1998. “God in man’s image. Thoughts on the genesis and affiliations of some Romano-British cult imagery”, Britannia 29: 17-30 [No images!] Henig, M. 2000. “Art in Roman London”, in I. Haynes, H. Sheldon and L. Hannigan eds. London Underground: the Archaeology of a City. (Oxford: Oxbow Books) 62-84 Merrifield, R. date??. “Art and religion in Roman London: an inquest on the sculptures of Londinium”, in J. Munby and M. Henig eds. Roman Life and Art in Britain: A Celebration in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of Jocelyn Toynbee vol 2 (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports) 375-406 Johns, C. 2003. "Romano-British Sculpture: Intention and Execution", in Noelke, P. ed. 'Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Mainz. 27-38 Johns, C. 1995. ‘Romano-British Precious Metalwork Hoards: Some Comments on Martin Millett’s Paper’. In S. Cottam, D. Dungworth, S. Scott, and J. Taylor ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 41

(eds.), TRAC 94: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference 1994. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 107–18 —— and Potter, T. 1983. The Thetford Treasure: Roman Jewellery and Silver. London: British Museum. Mattingly, David. 2003. “Family values: art and power at Ghirza in the Libyan pre- desert”, in S. Scott and J. Webster eds. Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art. Cambridge. 153-70. [YATES A 40 SCO] Munby Roman Art and Life in Britain INST ARCH DAA Series Qto BRI 41

Essay topic: How far does the provincial location of Britain explain the character of the art of Roman Britain? Discuss with reference to at least two media (e.g. sculpture, painting, mosaic, silver, jewellery/minor arts)?

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 42

9. TRANSFORMATION – LATE ANTIQUE AND EARLY CHRISTIAN ARTS

Topic Outline: Changes in the character of later Roman art, in the fourth and fifth centuries, were long discussed in terms of the concept of decline, largely as a function of Vasari’s infamous denunciation of the sculptures of the Arch of Constantine. More recently “transformation” has been the preferred term to describe changes in the late antique world. But what exactly is the nature of that transformation: can we identify a ‘late antique aesthetic’, and if so what are its social and cultural coordinates? What role is played by new forms of political organisation, and new modes of social relationship in an increasingly hierarchical and bureaucratic society? How important is the role of new forms of religion and spirituality, notably the rise of , in informing artistic transformations? What role is played by changes in artistic techniques and technologies? We will discuss these issues in relationship to the rich collections of the British Museum in the ‘minor arts’ of late antiquity: silver, ivory carving, and gold- glass.

Required readings: 1. Elsner, J. 2004. “Late antique art: the problem of the concept and the cumulative aesthetic”, 271-309 in S. Swain and M. Edwards eds. Approaching Late Antiquity. Oxford. [Online] 2. Harley, Felicity. 2009. “Christianity and the transformation of late Antique art”, 307-326 in P. Rousseau ed. Companion to Late Antiquity. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell. [Online] 3. Elsner, J. 2008. “Framing the objects we study: three boxes from late Roman Italy”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 71: 21-38 [Online] 4. James, Edward. 2008. “The rise and function of the concept ‘Late Antiquity’”, Journal of Late Antiquity 1.1: 20-30. [Online] 5. Cameron, Alan. 1996. “Orfitus and Constantius: a note on Roman gold glasses”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9. 295-301. [Online] 6. Cameron, Alan. 1992. "Observations on the distribution and ownership of late Roman silver plate", Journal of Roman Archaeology 5, 178-85; with Kenneth Painter 1993 “”Late Roman silver plate: a response to Alan Cameron”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: 109-115 [Online]

Late antique gold-glass: student presentation

Key objects: Room 41, Case 8: Several examples, use a couple to focus discussion. Nb if the Orfitus Medallion is still not on display, I will bring picture. (1881.0624.1; 1898,07.19.1-2; 1863,0727.5-6) [Nb Howells nos 11, 38, 42, 37 normally on display, but varies with special exhibitions, loans]

▲Cameron, Alan. 1996. “Orfitus and Constantius: a note on Roman gold glasses”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9. 295-301. [Online] ▲Buckton, David. Ed. 1994. Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture. London: British Museum Press. Pp. 31-3. ▲Howells, D.T. 2015. A Catalogue of the Late Antique in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press. Chapter 1 “An overview of gold glass scholarship”, Chapter 3 (22-40) “Material considerations” (don’t get ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 43

bogged down in the science); Chapter 4 “The manufacture of gold glass: past attempts and new experimental reproductions”; *Chapter 5: Some practical considerations: distribution and context, workshop identity and date, function and costs”. Catalogue for the specific examples on display; **nb esp. the Saint Severine Bowl pp. 90-100. [INSTARCH DAA 180 Qto SPE]. De Santis, P. 2000. “Glass vessels as grave goods and grave ornaments in the catacombs of Rome”, 238-43 in J. Pearce, M. Millett and M. Struck eds. Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World. Oxbow: Oxford. [INST ARCH DA Qto PEA] Entwhistle C. and James, L eds. New Light on Old Glass: Recent Research on Byzantine Mosaics and Glass, 2013, British Museum Research Publication No. 179, British Museum Press Chapters: 13. "Making Late Antique Gold Glass", (Daniel Thomas Howells'); 14. "Gold Glass in Late Antiquity", (Andrew Meek). [INST ARCH KL Qto ENT] Morey, Charles Rufus. 1959. The Gold Glass Collection of the Vatican Library; with additional Catalogues of other Gold Glass Collections. Edited Guy Ferrrari. Vatican City.

Late Roman Ivory Carving. Student Presentation

Key objects: Apotheosis Diptych = Rome 1857.1013; Maskell Passion Cycle: Rome 1856.0623.4-7

Apotheosis Diptych St Clair, A. 1964. "The apotheosis diptych", The Art Bulletin 64, 205-11 Buckton, David. Ed. 1994. Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture. London: British Museum Press. Pp. 57-8 (Apotheosis diptych) Weitzmann, K. ed.,1979. Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, 3rd to 7th Century. New York: Metropolitan Museum. [Available online from Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.] No 60 (Apotheosis Diptych).

Maskell Caskets: ▲Buckton, D. 1994. Byzantium etc (as above 5.2) nos. 44-5, pp. 57-9 (with supplementary bibliography) Weitzmann, K. ed.,1979. Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, 3rd to 7th Century. New York: Metropolitan Museum. No. [Available online from Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.] ▲Spier, J. 2007. Picturing the . Pp. 229-232 (Maskell Ivories – Passion Cycle) (ART BC10 SPI) ▲Harley-McGowan, Felicity. 2013. “The Maskell Passion ivories and Greco-Roman art: notes on the iconography of cruxifixion”, 13-33 in Juliet Mullins et al eds. Envisioning Christ on the Cross: Ireland and the Early Medieval West. Four Courts Press. [Book on order; PDF available on Harley-McGowan’s AcademiaEdu page or ask JJT] Kötzsche, L. 1994. "Die trauernden Frauen. Zum Londoner Passionskästchen", pp. 80-90 in D. Buckton and T.A. Heslop eds. Studies in Medieval Art and Architecture presented to Peter Lasko. ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 44

Ivories – general bibliography:

Buckton, D. ed. 1994. Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture. pp. 57-9, 71- 65 Bloch, H. 1963 "The Pagan revival in the West at the end of the 4th century." in A. Momigliano ed. Pagans and Christians in the Fourth Century. (MAIN TC 957) Shelton, K. 1989. "Roman aristocrats, Christian commissions: the Carrand diptych", pp. 105-27 in F.M. Clover and R.S. Humphreys eds. Tradition and Innovation in Late Antiquity. Watson, C.J. 1981. "The programme of the Brescia casket", Gesta 20, 283-98 Natanson, J. 1953. Early Christian Ivories. Gibson, M. 1994. The Liverpool Ivories. Cameron, A. 1982. "A note on ivory carving in fourth century ", American Journal of Archaeology 86, 126-9 Netzer, N. 1983. "Redating the consular ivory of Orestes", Burlington Magazine 125, 265-71 Cutler, A. 1984. "The making of the Justinian diptychs", Byzantion 54, 75-115 _____. 1993. "Five lessons in late Roman ivory", Journal of Roman Archaeology 6, 167- 92 Milburn, R. 1988. Early Christian Art. Pp. 234-250 "Carved ivories" Williamson, Paul. 2009. Medieval Ivory Carving, Early Christian to Romanesque. Victoria and Albert Museum.

Late Roman Silver

The and the Projecta Casket: Student Presentation Location: Room 41, Case 7. NB for presentation focus on Projecta Casket ▲Elsner, J. 1995. Art and the Roman Viewer. Pp. 249-61 (best starting point) Buckton, D. 1994. Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture. Catalogue nos. 10-14, pp. 33-37 ▲Elsner, J. 2003. “Visualising women in late antique Rome: the Projecta Casket”, Chapter 4 in C. Entwistle ed. Through a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and Archaeology Presented to David Buckton. Oxford: Oxbow.[INST ARCH DA 300 ENT; also as PDF on Elsner’s Academia Edu Page] ▲Shelton, K. 1981. The Esquiline Treasure. London; Britsh Museum Press. [ISSUE DESK IOA SHE 20] Cameron, A. 1985. "The date and owners of the Esquiline treasure", American Journal of Archaeology 89, 135-45 Shelton, K.J. 1985. "The Esquiline treasure: the nature of the evidence", American Journal of Archaeology 89, 147-55

Mildenhall Treasure: Tonybee, J.M.C. and K.S. Painter. 1986. "Silver picture plates of late antiquity, AD 300- 700", Archaeologia 108, 15-65 Painter, K.S. 1977. The . London. [IoA Issue Desk: PAI] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 45

Hobbs, Richard. 2012. The Mildenhall Treasure. London. Hobbs, R. 2010. “Platters in the Mildenhall Treasure”, Britannia 41 (2010), pp. 24- 33 Hobbs, R. 2008. 'The secret history of the Mildenhall Treasure', The Antiquaries Journal 88 (2008), pp. 376-420. Hobbs, R. 1997. ‘The Mildenhall Treasure: Roald Dahl’s ultimate tale of the unexpected?’ Antiquity, 71 (no. 271), March (1997), pp. 63-73 Schneider, Lambert. Doman als Weltbild

Miscellaneous on Late Roman Silver: Johns, C. 1990. "Research on Roman silver plate", Journal of Roman Archaeology 3, 28- 43 Brendel, O. 1941. "The Corbridge lanx", Journal of Roman Studies 31, 100-127 Cahn, H.A., A. Kaufmann-Heinimann and K. Painter, 1991. "A table-ronde on a treasure of late Roman silver", Journal of Roman Archaeology 4, 184-91 Van Grunsven-Eygenraam, M. 1973. " and the David plates", Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 48, 158-74 Tonybee, J.M.C. and K.S. Painter. 1986. "Silver picture plates of late antiquity, AD 300- 700", Archaeologia 108, 15-65 Johns, C. 1981. "The Risley-Park silver lanx: a lost antiquity from Roman Britain", Antiquaries Journal lxi, 53-72 Painter, K. 1993. "Late Roman silver plate: a reply to Alan Cameron", Journal of Roman Archaeology 6, 109-115. Leader-Newby, Ruth. 2004. Silver and Society in Late Antiquity: Functions and Meanings of Silver Plate in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries. Ashgate. [YATES T 50 LEA]

General on Late Antiquiry and Late Antique Art: Elsner, J. 2002. “The Birth of Late Antiquity: Riegl and Strzygowski in 1901”, Art History _____. 2003. “Archaeologies and agendas: reflections on late antique Jewish art and early Christian art”, Journal of Roman Studies 93: 114-24 Cutler, A. 1997. “The Right Hand's Cunning: Craftsmanship and the Demand for Art in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages”, Speculum, Vol. 72, No. 4: 971- 994 James, Edward. 2008. “The rise and function of the concept ‘Late Antiquity’”, Journal of Late Antiquity 1.1: 20-30. Pitarakis, Brigitte. 2006. “Objects of desire and protection”, in Derek Krueger ed. Byzantine Christianity: a People’s History of Christianity vol 3. Minneapolis, Fortress. (on amulets, personal objects etc) Wickham, C. 1984. “That other transition, from antiquity to feudalism. Past and Present. 103: 3-36

Essays: Either: Can we identify a ‘late antique aesthetic’ and if so what are its social and cultural coordinates? Discuss with primary reference to at least two traditions in the minor arts (silver, ivory, gold glass).

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 46

Or: How far does the early Christian art/visual culture represent a distinctive tradition within the art of late antiquity to the end of the fourth century AD? Discuss with primary reference to at least two traditions in the minor arts (silver, ivory, gold glass).

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 47

10. CLASSICAL ART AND GLOBAL ANTIQUITIES: ROMAN ART IN ASIA

Topic outline: Traditionally the history of ‘Roman’ art has been firmly bounded by the limits of the empire. Just as the nineteenth century national model of ‘Roman’ art has been criticised in relation to the early history of the formation of Roman art, recent research has sought to look at Roman art through the lense of modern processes of globalisation, and associated ‘globalisation’ theory. The reach of Greco-Roman art stretched far beyond the Roman Empire, and interactions between Rome, ancient Persia, early Islamic societies, ancieny india and early medieval China played a role in defining those artistic traditions, and also their art reached into and in varying degrees affected later Roman art. The final class of the module explores Roman art beyond the frontiers of the empire, exploring the varying kinds of agency exercised by Roman art objects, styles and iconographies in the ancient Orient, from early Islam to Medieval China.

Required reading: 1. Canepa, Matthew. 2010. “Distant displays of power: Understanding Cross-Cultural Interaction Among the Elites of Rome, Sasanian Iran, and Sui-Tang China”, Ars Orientalis 38: 121-54 [Online] 2. Hay, Jonathan. 1999. "Toward a theory of the intercultural", Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 35: 2-9 [Online] 3. Galli, M. 2011. “Hellenistic Court Imagery in the Early Buddhist Art of Gandhara”, Ancient civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 17.2: 279-329 [Online] 4. Ahuja, Naman P. 2016. “The British Museum Hariti: toward understanding transculturalism in Gandhara”, 247-263 in Susan E. Alcock et al eds. Beyond Boundaries: Connecting Visual Cultures in the Provinces of Ancient Rome. Los Angeles: Getty Publications. [YATES A45 ALC] Will be copied for teaching collection 5. Laing, E.J. 1995. “Recent Finds of Western-Related Glassware, Textiles, and Metalwork in Central Asia and China” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, New Series, Vol. 9: 1-18 {nb see Watt China: Dawn of a Golden Age for colour illustrations of many of these objects}. [Online, but you will need to login through UCL. Go to journal page via Explore, then login as UCL, then search within the Jstor page for the article] 6. Ali, Nadia. 2017. “Qusayr ‘Amra and the continuity of post-classical art in early Islam: towards an iconology of forms”. 161-197 in Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja eds. The Diversity of Classical Archaeology.Turnhout: Brepols. [YATES A8 LIC] Will be copied for teaching collection

Sassanian Art and Roman Art:

Sassanian Art and Roman Art: Presentation – JJT:

Location: Room 52 Case 6: Silver plate showing Dionysos, 2nd/3rdC, Afghanistan (124086). ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 48

Case 7: Silver plate showing Shapur I killing deer, 4thC (124091); Silver plate with Investiture scene (124093); Sassanian silver plate with depiction of lion hunt ((124092); gilded silver vase with grape harvesting scene (ME 124094)

Masia-Radford, Kate. 2013. “Luxury vessels of the Sasanian period”, in Daniel T. Potts ed. The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran 920-938. [Online] Cutler – article in Image Making in Byzantium [INSTARCH DA 180 CUT] Mackintosh, M.C. 1973. ‘Roman Influences on the Victory Reliefs of Shapur I of Persia’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 6: 181–203. [Online]

Gandharan Art: Greco-Roman Tradition and Rise of Buddhist Art in India

Gandharan Art – General Bibliograhy Soper, A. "The Roman Style in Gandhara," Amercan Journal of Archaeology 55 (1951) 301-319; Rowland, B. "Rome and Gandhara," East and West 9 (1958) 199-208; Rowland, B. 1956. “Gandhara, Rome, and Mathura: the Early Relief Style”. Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America 10, 6-17. Rowland, B. 1942. “Gandhara and Late Antique art: the Buddha Image”, American Journal of Archaeology 46: 223-36 Goetz, H. 1959: Imperial Rome and the Genesis of Classical Indian Art. East & West 10, 153- 182, 261-268. Aldrovandi, Cibele and Hirata, Elaine. 2005. “Buddhism, Pax Kushana and Greco- Roman motifs: pattern and purpose in Gandharan iconography” Antiquity Volume 79, Issue 304: 306 – 315 Nehru, Lolita. 1989. Origins of the Gandharan Style. Oxford. *Pons, Jessie. 2017. “Archaeology in Gandhara: a review of research at the crossroads of disciplines”, 199-219 in Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja eds. The Diversity of Classical Archaeology.Turnhout: Brepols. [YATES A8 LIC]

Bimaran and Kanishka Reliquaries Student presentation Location: Room 33, Case 51a: Bimaran Reliquary Casket (OA 1900.2-9.1); Kanishka Casket (Copy: OA 1880-270) ▲Rowland, B. 1946. “Gandhara and early Christian art: the Homme Arcade and the date of the Bamiran reliquary”, Art Bulletin 28.1: 44-47 [Online] ▲Errington, E. et al eds. 1992. The Crossroads of Asia: Transformation in Image and Symbol. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. Pp. 189-197 on the reliqauies. [ISSUE DESK IOA CRO 2] ▲Brancaccio, Pia and Liu Xinru. 2009.” and Drama in the Buddhist art of Gandhara”. Journal of Global History 4: 219-244 [Online] Cribb, Joe. 2018. “The Bimaran Casket: The Problem of Its Date and Significance”, 47-65 in Relics and Relic Worship in Early Buddhism: India, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma , eddited by Janice Stargardt and Michael Willis. London: British Museum Press. [INST ARCH DBMA Qto STA] – also online from BM 2019

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 49

Classicising themes and style in Gandharan sculpture: Student presentation

Location: Room 33: Chose two or three objects you find particularly interesting from amongst the following Case 50a: Cosmetic palettes: [Man riding sea-monster, Asia 1898.10-27. 6]; Poseidon and Hippocamp – 1937,0319.3; ** Chastising Eros – 1973.0618.1; Nereid – 1976,0221.1; and Actaeon, Asia 1936.12-251, not on display 2019]); **Relief: Vajrapani and others, 1970,0718.1 Case 50b: [Trojan Horse (OA1990.10-13.1), not on display 2019]; ** (OA1914.5-23); **Putti with garlands. ▲Errington, E. et al eds. 1992. The Crossroads of Asia: Transformation in Image and Symbol. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. Pp. 118-135: esp. nos: 123 Head of a ; 128 “Triton”, *132 “Relief fragment with garland of putti”; [133 “Trojan horse”]; 134: *Relief: Vajrapani and others. pp. 152-157 “Palettes”, esp. nos 153 (Aphrodite chastises Eros), [154 (Artemis and Actaeon - alas not on display 2019, but I will bring picture)) [ISSUE DESK IOA CRO 2] ▲Galli, M. 2011. “Hellenistic Court Imagery in the Early Buddhist Art of Gandhara”, Ancient civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 17.2: 279-329 [Online] Khan, N.A. 1990. “A new relief from Gandhara depicting the Trojan horse”, East and West 40: 315-19 Allan, J. 1946. “A tabula Iliaca from Gandhara”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 66: 21- 23 ▲Pons, Jessie. 2017. “Archaeology in Gandhara: a review of research at the cross- roads of disciplines”, 199-219 (esp. 209-213 on Herakles-Vajrapani) in Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja eds. The Diversity of Classical Archaeology.Turnhout: Brepols. [YATES A8 LIC] Zwalf, Wladamir. 1996. A Cataloge of the Gandhara Sculpture in the British Museum. London: British Museum. IoA DBMA 390 ZWA.

[Victoria and Albert Museum, Rooms 47a-47b. 2017 only -BM Gallery closed] Key objects (all in rooms 47a-b: select two or three which capture your interest IM.247-1927: Buddha’s death, 200-300 AD, relief sculpture [Ackermann pl. 41] IS.7-1948: Part of a Paranirvana (mourners), 100-300 AD; relief sculpture.[Ackermann pl. 52] IS.8-1947: Relief with winged triton. 100-300 AD IS.3-1971. Stair riser with drinking scene, gift of Benjamin Rowland. [Errington no 130] 339.1907. Buddhist Donor, 300-400. Kushan, Gandhara IS.100-1972. Bodhisattva Maitreya. IS.108-2001: Buddha seated in meditation, AD 200-400. Kushan, Gandhara.

▲Errington, E. et al eds. 1992. The Crossroads of Asia: Transformation in Image and Symbol. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. No 130 (= V&A IS.3- 1971); no 128; no 206 (= IM.3-1931); No 214 Siddartha going to school (I.S..3-1931, but seems not to be on display at moment) [ISSUE DESK IOA CRO 2] ▲Galli, M. 2011. “Hellenistic Court Imagery in the Early Buddhist Art of Gandhara”, Ancient civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 17.2: 279-329 [Online] ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 50

▲Ackermann, H.C. 1975. Narrative Stone Reliefs from Gandhara in the Victoria and Albert Museum, Catalogue and an Attempt at Stylistic History. Rome. {Alas not in UCL library, but JJT will make available xerox of key pages}.

Rome and India in the Art of Amaravati: Location: BM Room 33a Stone, Elizabeth Rosen. 2016. “Reflections of Roman art in Southern India”, 59-69 in Akira Shimada and Michael Willis eds. Amaravati: the Art of an Early Buddhist Monument in Context. London: British Museum Press. [IoA DBMA 390 SHI]

Parker, Grant (2008). The Making of Roman India. Cambridge University Press Rome and India: Ancient Sea Trade Tomber, Roberta. Indo-Roman Trade: from Pots to Pepper.

Islamic Art and the Roman Inheritance:

Baer, Eva. 1999. “The human figure in early Islamic art: some preliminary remarks”, Muqarnas 16: 32-41 [Online] Fowden, Garth. 2004. “Late-antique art in Syria and its Umayyad evolutions”, Journal of Roman Archaeology no: 283-304 Evans, H.C. and Ratliff, B. eds. 2012. Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition, 7th-9th Century. New York: Metropolitan Museum. [SSEES Gr.XX.3 BYZ] {Wonderful catalogue from major exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum; nb esp. for discussion of Great Mosque, pp. } McKenzie, Judith. 2007. The Architecture of and Egypt, 300 BC to AD 700. New Haven: Yale. 351-375 “Pictorial tradition of Alexandrian architecture in Byzantine and early Islamic art”, esp. on Dome of the Rock, Great Mosque; with bibl Ali, Nadia. 2017. “Qusayr ‘Amra and the continuity of post-classical art in early Islam: towards an iconology of forms”. 161-197 in Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja eds. The Diversity of Classical Archaeology.Turnhout: Brepols. [YATES A8 LIC]

Islamic Art and the Roman Inheritance –presentation – JJT – perhaps? 2019 – New Islamic Art Gallery Room 41. Cases not numbered (!), but nb “The Classical Tradition” (as you enter, pillar in front to your right); “Legacies of the Ancient World” (on the wall to your left on entering)

[Objects in former display, pre 2019: Room 34: Case 3: Early Islamic coin types and their Roman sources; Mosaic Glass – Iraq, 9thC, 1973.6-23.1; Case 4: Wooden door pillar, 9th century, with classical palmette ornament. [Case 44: Islamic coins copying Roman prototypes]

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 51

Roman art in China and Chinese Art in Rome

[Nothing really suitable in BM for presentation, that I have been able to dig out so far: but will check. Silk Road – cases 10b, 13a;Case 16c, Pilgrim Flask with grape motif]

Baratte, Francois. 1996. “Dionysus en Chine: Remarques à propos de la coupe en argent de Beitan”, Arts Asiatiques 51: 142-7 Barbieri-Low, Anthony. 2001. “Roman themes in a group of Eastern Han lacquer vessels”, Orientations May 2001: 52-8 Bush, S. 1976. “Floral motifs and vine scrolls in Chinese art of the late fifth to early sixth centuries AD”, Artibus Asiae 38.1: 40-83 Lee, In-sook. 2001. “Silk road trade and Roman glass from Korea”, Central Asian Studies 5: 327-37. {find journal} Di Cosmo, Nicola and Michael Mass. 2018. Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity. Cambridge CUP. {lots of key stuff nb esp chapters by Peter Brown on ‘Charismatic Goods’ and Fitzgerald Johnson on transmission of Medit culture into China; latter primarily on texts but Brown on material culture} Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens, Michele.1994 "Pour une archeologie des echanges: Apports etrangers en Chine—transmission, reception, assimilation," Arts Asiatiques 49 (1994), 21-33. Watts, James. C Y. et al eds. China: Dawn of a Golden Age, 200-750 AD. New Haven: Yale University Press. Esp.Cat nos 59 (Stem cup with figures and grapevine), 62 (Plate with hunting scene, Sassanian), 90 (Beitan plate with figure of Dionysus), 101 (Wall hanging with centaur and warrior), 116 (Roman diatret glass, Nanjing), 157 (Bactrian Ewer, emulating Greek model) Zuchowska, M. 2013. “From China to Palymyra: the value of silk”, Swiatowit XI (LII), 133-154 . (PDf Available from her Academia Edu page or ask JJT).

[V&A: China Gallery 2017: A.61.-1937. Votive stele, Northern Qi, AD 550-77. Limestone. Nb ornament – palmettes etc. A.9-1935: Northern Wei Stele. Ca 520 AD, Shanxi. Flying apsaras; pensant Bodhisattva . M.32-1935: cup, floral design; Tang; 650-70.]

General: Boardman, John. 1994. The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson. Chapter 4 “The East after ” Canepa, M.P. 2009. The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual Kingship between Rome and Sassanian Iran. Berkeley: University of California Press. ANCIENT HISTORY F 18 CAN; also available as ebook online. *Hay, Jonathan. 1999. "Toward a theory of the intercultural", Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 35: 2-9 [Online] **Hannerz, U. 1992. "The global ecumene", pp. 217-267 in Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organisation of Meaning. (Esp. on social framworks and mechanisms of cultural transfer – strongly recommended if you do this essay)

Essay topic: How can we account for the extent and limitations of the reach of Greco- Roman art beyond the boundaries of the Roman empire? Discuss with reference to/comparison of at least two regional traditions. {E.g. Persian/Sassanid, Chinese. Indian/Gandharan, Islamic} ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 52

11. THE MUSEUM AND THE APPROPRIATION OF CLASSICAL ART: THE CASE OF SIR JOHN SOANE {in case of closre of VandA Cast Gallery}

Topic outline: This topic focusses on the variation in the ways in which classical art has been displayed in museums, and the entailments it had for viewers understanding of and relationship to classical antiquity. After thinking about the role played by classical art in standard modern museums, with their regional and chronological surveys of the history of art, we will explore the very different display of classical art and architecture in the late 18th/early 19th century Museum of Sir John Soane in Lincolns Inn Fields, London.

Required readings: 1. Duncan C. and A. Wallach. 1980. "The universal survey museum", Art History 3.4, 448-469. [Online] 2. Karp, I. and S. Lavine eds. 1991. Exhibiting Cultures: the Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Pp. 1-9 "Museums and multiculturalism", 11-24 "Culture and representation", 151-8 "Museum practices", 373-388 "Other cultures in museum perspective. (IOA ISSUE DESK MB3 KAR) 3. Ernst, Wolfgang. 1993. “Frames at work: museological imagination and historical dismodule in nineteenth century Britain”, Art Bulletin 75.3: 481-498 [Online] 4. Elsner, John. 1994. “A collector’s model of desire: the museum of Sir John Soane”, in Roger Cardinal and John Elsner eds. Cultures of Collecting. London: Reaktion [Online] 5. Richardson, Margaret. 2003. “Sir John Soane and the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli”, Architectural History 46: 127-46 [Online] 6. Dixon, susan M. 1999. “Piranesi and Francesco Bianchini: Capricci in the service of pre-scientific archaeology”, Art History 22.2: 184-213 [Online]

Supplementary reading:

Jenkins, Ian. 1992. Archaeologists and Aesthetes in the Sculpture Galleries of the British Museum, 1800-1939. esp. pp. 56-74 "The chain of art", 75-101 "Arcadia in : the Elgin and the Phigaleian marbles", 211-230 "The chain is broken". (YATES C10 BRI – 2 copies, 1 ref only; IoA MA 41 JEN)

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 53

APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2017-18 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY) This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. It is not a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the following website: http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic- manual/

GENERAL MATTERS ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.

COURSEWORK LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations, unless formal permission for late submission has been granted. Please note that these regulations have changed for the 2016-17 session. The UCL penalties are as follows:  The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark).  The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules).  Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional information is given here

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework within one month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

ARCL0164 MM.Ro. Module Handbook 2018/19 54

CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others. This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current- students/guidelines/plagiarism

RESOURCES MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the module on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact Charlotte Frearson ([email protected]).