Miltiades.pdf
Posted at Feb 28/2011 01:10AM:
fstrauss: I find the possibility of this sculpture being stolen really interesting. What could be the point of adding the Latin if the residents of the domus, and presumably their guests were bilingual in Latin and Greek, particularly given that there was very little space for the Latin and so it is clearly crammed in?
Posted at Feb 28/2011 02:11PM:
milardi: While I am not certain, adding Latin could be a way for the Roman's to stake their own claim on Greek history. We know that the Romans loved all things Greek, and this would show that Roman culture was the best outlet for preserving Greek art/history.
Posted at Feb 28/2011 09:50PM:
mjfinnegan: This is actually somewhat similar to my group's sculpture, in that it featured a portrait of the deceased and an accompanying inscription in both Latin and Greek. The possibility of it having been stolen hadn't occurred to me - I think that Romans often used Greek stylistic elements and language as a mark of education and status. This would be in keeping with the Hellenistic trends in Roman art and culture.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 12:47AM:
mmanella: Although this bust may be difficult to date, the facial features of the bust may help us narrow the scope of its creation. Miltiades, a Greek general, is not clean shaven and his hair is slightly curled in a more typical Roman General fashion seen in busts of Julius Caesar. Although Miltiades was a war hero during the 5th century BCE, I believe that if this bust was sculpted in the Common Era that it would have been created before the reign of Hadrian the Philhellene. Hadrian, lover of all things Greek, may have had a bust such as this one commissioned to commemorate an admirable Greek ancestor, and to show his knowledge of Greek history. However, Hadrian is almost always sculpted in his busts clean shaven or with a very well-kept beard and his hair curls much more elegantly and dramatically with small waves. I do not think this bust was commissioned after the 1st century CE, and although we may never discover the exact date it is clear from the appearance of both Latin and Greek text that the Romans must have acquired some Grecian territory as their cultures began to coalesce both culturally, artistically, and linguistically in objects such as this grave stele.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 01:38AM:
chuang: I also think it's really interesting to consider the sculpture being stolen. I wonder if the inscription was added in the time it disappeared (between 1553 and 1940) under another motive. Another thing I was wondering about was the inscription of "SEG 13.479" and what it might mean.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 09:53AM:
cteitz: I agree that the unclear origins of this piece make it particularly interesting, especially with the combination of Latin and Greek inscriptions as well as themes. The compressed and less tidy nature of the Latin inscription does lend itself to the concept of a later addition to a Greek work, but the Roman elements could move its entire production date. M.Manella raises an interesting point in comparing the hairstyle to those of Hadrian’s time; it reminded me more of early first century CE works, especially those of the Julio-Claudian emperors, with strong defined locks of hair. Thematically, the depiction of someone, even an enemy, who had been of good character and morals, devoted to serving his homeland in war, would have been very Roman, so it is possible ot think this was carved in Italy. Ideally, a marble sample could be taken and tested to find its origins and date.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 12:53PM:
jman: Going along with the discussion on being stolen due to both the use of Greek and Latin, I had not thought of that either. What our group had assumed was that by using both languages, the deceased was trying to convey his or her sense of being well-traveled or educated. As we know, the Romans really looked upon the Greeks. Even later, Hadrian copied several styles of the Greek philosophers in his style of sculptural portraits and busts--to show his wisdom and knowledge, what the Greek philosophers were known. Although this is text, I think it still incorporates this idea.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 01:25PM:
klougheed: If the statue was stolen, I would guess that it was plundered as military spoils during some battle. In the domus, the Romans would often adorn their walls with military spoils to show both their prowess in war and status in society (military triumphs often led to personal wealth as well as the personal loyalty of a legion). The Latin insertion may be an attempt of the Romans to express their ownership over the Greeks, whom they conquered in 146 BCE with the Sack of Corinth. By supplementing the Greek with Latin, vandalizing the statue in a sense, the Romans assert the dominance of their culture over that of the Greeks.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 05:51PM:
jdesrosier: What I find most interesting about this sculpture is that it depicts a Persian, but was found in Rome. The group associates his hairstyle with Alexander the Great's, but the Persians were great enemies of Alexander. The mosaic in the House of the Faun is an illustration of his great battle against Darius. Many Romans idolized Alexander and attempted to emulate him in their own portraiture (like Pompey, later Augustus). Why would a Persian man, whose descendants had fought so fiercely against Alexander, want to imitate him? And why, if the Romans appreciated Alexander, would a sculpture of one of his greatest enemies be preserved, particularly in one of the most privileged parts of Rome like the Caelian hill? This is a really interesting issue.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 07:41PM:
nfadaifa]: For me, I think that Miltiades looks concerned as opposed to proud. His eyes are looking out over everyone as if he is contemplating some event or feeling and his mouth seems to be frowning. the text hints that he feels the need to convince himself that he is a war hero in the repetitive reminders that he was a loyal countryman. In Rome at the time putting that you were a general in a war on your monument would make obvious that one was appreciated by Rome, brave, distinguished, honorable, ect...
Posted at Mar 01/2011 09:34PM:
jthomas: The addition of Latin is one of the most interesting features of the sculpture. The summary reads that it was stolen, but does that really mean it was plundered and taken in triumph? As it was mentioned above, the addition could just be the Romans putting their mark on the object showing that they are indeed superior, but also showing their love of Hellenistic style. Assuming of course that the Latin portion is indeed an addition and not the deceased wanting to show his high status and ties to both Roman and Greek society.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 09:43PM:
jmiranda: One of the recurring themes I've seen in reading the different reports is a inscriptions on the monuments as conversations with the viewer. While these references are very specific in the text, I began to wonder whether there were also explicit "conversations" per se present in the art as well. Did anyone else also have the same thought? And if so, what examples of a conversation or interaction did you find?
Posted at Mar 01/2011 09:45PM:
amarks: I also find that the fact that it was inscriptions of both Latin and Greek very interesting. How many of the Roman people were even bilingual or could even read two different languages? A valid point would be that the deceased was trying to show how well educated he was. Also another interesting topic is when the statue disappeared around 1553 to 1940 the Latin text could have been added somewhere in that time. Lastly I think if the statue was stolen it would have been stolen as some kind of military spoil.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 10:45PM:
mmcvicker: I thought the lack of relevance of the personal identity of the bust to the affluent Roman collector is interesting. Rather than being a warrior for Rome, Meltiades was clearly a warrior for Greece and a successful one at that. The Roman collector must have admired the bust for what it stood for rather than who it stood for. It signified the heroism and honor of a warrior as well as the valued Greek aesthetic. It is also important to point out that this practice of collecting artifacts of different cultures for symbolic meaning is not uncommon in the present day.
Posted at Mar 01/2011 10:48PM:
passafuime: This sculpture is interesting to compare to the sarcophagus that my group, group 7, studied. Both men were military men and made that known through their gravestones. However the choice to have the bust of this man on his tomb is very different than the total lack of artwork other than floral design on the sarcophagus in terms of ways to commemorate military successes and achievements. I am also interested in the fact that this particular sculpture was stolen and then further engraved from the original..
Posted at Mar 02/2011 01:59AM:
cwelling: I think this sculpture is particularly interesting because not only was the sculpture stolen but then it was later engraved in Latin. From the visual standpoint it was clearly trying to fit before the Greek engraving that was well spaced on the bust and it is somewhat awkward it was crammed at the top and at the time Greek engravings were more significant because the title of being Greek was so important. I also find it interesting that this bust was a statue of Miltiades the Younger eludes to the prominent Greek style art and was clearly a successful Greek general even though it was found in a wealthy Roman's home.
Posted at Mar 02/2011 09:09AM:
haoki: As we are looking at the sculpture of an Athenian general, it is clear why the inscription is mainly written in Greek. However, what struck me was--as Group 6 observed in their report--the difference in the Roman and Greek writing styles. The former is rather matter-a-fact, while the latter is emotional and poetic. Because of this, Roman aficionados for Greek art (and of course any man or woman of Greek descent) would have been able to make a personal connection with this statue.
Posted at Mar 02/2011 11:31AM:
cklimansilver: Why a bilingual inscription? If the work was indeed stolen, why might they want to add a Latin line? To assert Roman dominance?
Posted at Mar 03/2011 06:33PM:
mschmidt-fellner: The combination of Latin and Greek inscriptions make this piece very interesting. The exchange of culture between the Greeks and Romans is a very fascinating and illuminating aspect of the ancient world. It brings about many questions as to why the inscription was added, what this means for the cultural exchange, and why it was necessary to alter the identity of the grave stone? The comparison on hairstyles discussed above are indeed very interesting because of the different styles popular at different times. The hairstyle seems to be related to Alexander the Great, certainly a Hellenistic hero, but other elements lend itself to Persian and Roman origins. Because the origins of the stone are unclear we can only surmise why certain elements were added, but because the Latin addition one could guess that it was stolen by the Romans to make their mark as conquerors of the Greek world.
Posted at Mar 04/2011 11:18AM:
jconnuck: Rather than the Latin being added to assert dominance, I think this is in a way a tribute to a great Greek general, who the Romans probably would have respected for his triumphs. There exists an interesting relationship between the Romans and the Greeks in particular, because the Romans were influenced so heavily by the Greeks and yet were their conquerors. But I think more likely than trying to display dominance, this was probably just a piece moved into a Roman home and given a little bit of a Roman touch by the owners in order to fit in within their collection, similar to the way Rome would conquer and leave its mark on, but not destroy existing cultures.
Posted at May 13/2011 01:30AM:
rvillene: I find it interesting to compare this tomb to tombs in funerary's today. Particularly, I was struck by the sculptural impression of the subject himself. One certainly does not see a sculpture accompanying a tomb today very often, if at all. It is an interesting occurrence of having a recreation of the deceased looking at you while viewing the tomb. This serves as a medium of exchange for communication. It is an interesting way to get in touch with and to commemorate the physical image and identity that has deceased. In a way, it brings the deceased back to life again: one can visit the tomb and visually remember, by seeing, the deceased individual.
