7. Valerius Papirianus

Uploaded Image

Document Icon Group 7 Report-Valerius Papirianus.pdf

Posted at Feb 27/2011 08:22PM:
geggie: Good job, Group 7. Do you have any idea how this sarcophagus was meant to be viewed? I.e. how would ancient Romans have approached and interacted with the monument?

Posted at Feb 28/2011 03:02PM:
kmanalo: I find it interesting that this sarcophagus does not have any relief depicting a battle or military scene, considering the occupation of the departed. However, the fact that the person is interred in a sarcophagus does agree with the comment in the report about the probable wealth of Gaius Valierus Paprianus, a Roman tribune of Greek origin. The sarcophagus is carved out of a huge block of marble, which was probably extremely expensive compared to the smaller tablets of stone used for the more simble stele. As the other funerary relics serve the purpose of identifying the dead, so does this sarcophagus. The group talked about how the Latin and Greek inscription proves the allegiance to both Roman and Greek beginnings. This sarcophagus does differ from the other objects because its purpose was to preserve the entire body and not simply the ashes of the person. Burying the person in a sarcophagus probably related to the identification of the person with more eastern, Grecian traditions that involved the ancients viewing the sarcophagus as a symbol of rebirth in a future life, immortality of one's soul, etc. I'm not quite sure who the Romans would have approached and interacted with the monument, but I would imagine that anyone who would have passed this may have stopped for a moment and meditated on the importance of the person buried here, acknowledged the person's achievements, his familial connections, his importance to the Roman empire, and his rebirth/afterlife.

Posted at Feb 28/2011 05:23PM:
milardi: Great report group 7, the intro was a nice touch. I agree with kmanalo that it seems odd that there are no scenes depicting his victory in battle, considering the military was the focus of his life. Much of the funerary art we have studied depicts battle scenes; even if the person commemorated by the monument was not in the military, but merely had relatives who were there were often battle scenes. As it seems he died in battle he probably did not have much input on the design of the sarcophagus, and these decisions were likely made by his sons. One would wonder how much of what is written is true, and how much is due to his son’s motivation to glorify Paprianus’s accomplishments in battle and therefore glorify their family in general. As is mentioned in the report the text on the sarcophagus clearly indicated the sons paid for it, and that they were Roman Knights. I wonder how the focus of the inscription may have differed if the sons were instead involved in some non-military occupation.

Posted at Feb 28/2011 09:57PM:
mfinnegan: I think one has to assume in reading funerary sculptures that there is an element of exaggeration, especially given the fact that Roman funerals were spectacles in and of themselves. As the sons paid for the sarcophagus, I would guess that a lot of the military accomplishments were somewhat embellished as a means of glorifying both Paprianus and the family line as a whole. Given the density of the text, I would imagine that the the sarcophagus was situated in such a way that the view could approach the sarcophagus closely and read the inscriptions up close.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 10:14AM:
cteitz: The presentation of this piece is very similar to the monument for Claudia Homonoea I studied, with verse as the main form of art and border carving the only decoration. Interesting and notable differences, however, are scale and the goals of the text. This is a massive sarcophagus, which seems almost alter-like in scale, although how its presentation, whether in a building or on the roadside, is still up for debate. The large lettering and announcement of the sons’ efforts to set it up might suggest that the monument itself was viewed in a public setting rather than inside another tomb. The alter for Claudia Homonoea was clearly at the roadside, as the text directly communicates with the passing traveler. The text itself is another interesting contrast between these works, as the tomb of Paprianus actively calls attention to his status as a foreigner who rose to Roman levels of success, while Claudia Homonoea’s inscription focus the attention on her place as a woman within society, although she was a freedwoman.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 02:06PM:
mmcvicker: I think the simplicity of this piece is very interesting. Most military men/leaders would include heroic myths or battles on the facade of their graves to accentuate their own heroism displayed in their lifetime. I don't believe that the reason this was not included was because of the lack of resources, considering the sheer size and quality of the sarcophagus. Perhaps the reason was because of a spontaneous death, becoming a casualty of war. As mentioned in the analysis, "it is clear the man was a man of the military, stating that military matters brought him to where he was and, ultimately, to his death." Valerius Papirianus may not have been able to prepare a grave for himself before his death causing one to be hastily carved and patroned by family members.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 06:50PM:
aiarocci: I find this to be a very compelling and mysterious stone in that it does not include a visual of the battle that this general won. I agree with milardi's point that if he died in battle, he would not have had much say in what his tomb was decorated with. If I were one of his sons, I would have chosen to depict the glorious battle so that it could live on in my family record. I find the text a bit overwhelming, but I guess it would be necessary for the sons to include things like their names as the patrons to prove they had the right in Roman society to display and honor their father. The size and work put into this stone, and many other funerary monuments for war generals clearly indicate the value the society placed on the military.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 07:32PM:
nwalker: I agree with your comments regarding the use of both Greek and Latin to boost his image of cultural worldliness. I also find it very interesting that the tombstone appears so simple from the image, yet still reveals a significant amount of personal information about the man. I think this is perfect evidence of how the Romans could utilize simplicity to still make an illustrious work.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 08:48PM:
nvitrano: I find it odd that the sarcophagus does not include elaborate scenes of war from history and mythology, but what I find most interesting was the use of poetic verse in order to fortify the “identity” of the deceased. The commissioners of this piece chose to use written verse to create an image that would “live” on even after that one it represents passes on. The use of Greek and Latin as well as the colorful language of the description created the art that described this man’s life. I found it interesting and refreshing to have this very different art form used to depict military achievements. It in now way is ostentatious, but still produces the desired effect.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 10:15PM:
mstokely: Something I find odd about this memorial is the way the financiers of the tomb are introduced. First off, they are introduced by the deceased in the first person, unlike most monuments we've seen before. Also, the are introduced at the end of the memorial. Again, an odd way for the financial backers of the monument to be introduced. The reason I suspect this is the case is because the monument was paid for by the sons of Papirianus. Sense the identity that a Roman tries to depict on their funerary monument often deals with class and social status, as well as relation and rank within a family, it makes perfect sense that the sons would be introduced at the very end by their father.

Posted at Mar 01/2011 10:56PM:
lwsnyder: Good job, group 7! I appreciated how you referred to the sarcophagus as a "historical device." Often times, it is all too easy to forget that these pieces tell us much about the past and are more than just an aesthetic object. I found it interesting just how much was revealed about the departed from this tomb. It truly is a piece of "identity."

Posted at Mar 02/2011 12:26AM:
lfernandez: I, too, find the complete lack of ostentatious visual images reinforcing and emphasizing Valerius Papirianus’ military deeds curious and interesting. Such a pictorial exclusion allows the viewer to focus purely on the text provided. The inscription itself provides an explicit narrative; there is no reliance upon a relief scene. It is ironic that Gaius and Lucius would commission a sarcophagus for their father, an esteemed man, completely void of military iconography. Nevertheless, I find this deviation from the norm refreshing.

Posted at Mar 02/2011 10:51AM:
hstrausser: Like others that have commented on this sarcophagus, I find the lack of pictorial evidence of his military career to be very interesting, especially given his status as a respected soldier. However, the text itself does seem to do justice to his accomplishments, and I find it interesting how much was able to be conveyed about this man's life through mere text without any military reliefs, or other reliefs for that matter.

Posted at Mar 03/2011 09:04AM:
ylee: This is a very similar artifact that my group 5 and I worked on, the epitaph of Claudia Homonoea. Both do not have lavish ornaments or carvings around as Roman aritocrats would had put on their funeral art works, and how the inscriptions are very exact and visible even to us after all these years are very notable in both pieces. It is also very interesting to see how these works contain two langauges: Latin and Greek, and Latin is used for mor official terms to indicate who the deceased is and Greek is implying more private touches. Unlike Claudia Homonoea' epitaph, this artifact connotes the deceased's occupation, while Claudia Homonoea's is more of sentimental remembrance of a deceased wife.