Greek Sculpture and Greek Society
naphtal...@yahoo.com
>
> This is the post I promised, in response to the question by naphtalia_leba.
Thanks. :)
*snip*
> In my research, I did a thorough reading of a good part of the surviving
> literature (including fragments and inscriptions), and I discovered that
> there is a wealth of evidence about how the Greeks dealt with sculpture that
> is far different from the modern conceptions. The Greeks lived with their
> sculpture, walked past innumberable examples daily, and above all,
> interacted with it. The texts indicate that the ancient Greek was an
> active, engaged viewer. They view sculpture as if they were witnessing the
> events taking place before them. That is not to say that they were unaware
> that they were looking at a work of art; they fully realized this, but had
> no trouble with allowing the fantasy. When confronted with a piece of
> sculpture, once the viewer has recognized the subject, that sculpture was
> primarily an opportunity to tell a story.
>
> Sculptures in public thus serve as memory-triggers, they reinforce ethnic,
> group or family identity by giving what GIlbert Murray and later E.R. Dodds
> have called "The Inherited Conglomerate," that is, the body of (largely
> oral) tradition, both myth and history, that is transmitted (but also is
> fluid and by definition changes) from generation to generation. For those
> who know the story it was reinforcement of previous knowledge. For those
> who did not, it was a learning experience, learning by seeing the art and
> hearing at the same time the story. Through this process belief can be
> engendered or reinforced: the viewer can conceptually become an
> eye-witness, Arguably, one of the most important tasks for a culture is to
> transmit its values, its moral virtues, in some way to the next generation.
> Greek mythology and history constantly provides moral examples, and the
> encouragement is that the moral qualities of great men of the past should be
> imitated in order that the next generation could surpass the previous. For
> the Greeks, who did not have a state-funded system of education, sculpture
> in public (along with the theater, public recitals of poetry or prose, and
> other media like monumental painting) provided an opportunity for education,
> or perhaps more precisely, enculturation. The ultimate aims were didactic
> and mimetic: that is, to teach and to inspire emulation.
So this is similar but goes beyond our war monuments or the
proliferation of Plazas de Simon Bolivar in South America. Ideally such
art work causes rememberance, and will cause some people to ask
questions and others to recite the stories.
Or perhaps you're suggesting something more akin to the statuary and
stained glass of the great cathedrals of Europe which allowed
transmission of Bible tales even when the average serf/peasant did not
know how to read or have access to the written word?
If some of this is similar, what is the difference between our art and
that of Greeks, or is there a difference in terms of quantity of what
the Greeks might have seen?
>
> This is just one aspect of the phenomenon of Greek sculpture. Sculpture is
> also an important means through which the group can honor those it considers
> worthy of praise, and by extension, emulation (through their words or
> deeds). The bestowing of these honors increases the fame of both the
> individual and the group as a whole, a very important consideration for the
> Greeks. Sculpture is also an appropriate expression of devotion to the
> gods. Indeed all aspects of sculpture are inseparable from the gods in
> ancient Greece. For to them, all virtue came from the gods, all
> achievements are the result of their favor, and each piece of sculpture
> increases their honor and fame. Equally important is the pleasure gained
> from viewing beautiful works of art (considered true for both men and the
> gods). As Aristotle stated (I paraphrase), pleasure and pain are intimately
> connected with moral virtue and education. And according to Herodotus, what
> made the Greeks Greek was their language, their belief in the same gods, and
> the practices, sacrifices and rituals that they hold in common.
>
> Well, that is what I have been working on. I hope you are not sorry you
> asked.
Nope, sounds very interesting.
> As you can tell, it doesn't really fall under 'archaeology' in its
> anthropological sense. It is really more of an ancient sociology. I have
> about 800 pages worth of ancient quotes
Pictures a new book: Bartlett's Not So Familiar Quotations, subtitled
It's all Greek... and not just to me.
> (english only, double it with the
> Greek and Latin) to back up this scheme. I would be interested to know what
> anyone thinks about it. This study has led me to be interested in the
> public statues and monuments in our own culture, which may have similar
> intended functions.
As much as we have the monuments, it seems to me we've moved towards
more abstract public art. This then moves away from the memory triggers.
Do you have ideas about the function of our abstract art today?
> We have so many other media that were unavailable to
> the Greeks, so it may be that sculpture no longer has the kind of impact
> that theirs once did.
Yes, and our most popular entertainments/methods of relaying involve
both visual and aural stimulation.
>Also, we tend to silently contemplate works of art,
I think in part this comes from our museum training. I was always
instructed that I was to be quiet in museums.
> and according to my research, in order to learn something, in order for the
> work to have meaning at all, the viewer must 1) have prior knowledge (or be
> able to read an inscription) and 2) to actively, and orally participate.
This is not so very different from Ancient Greece. A statue without
reference could be lovely but required interpretation.
> Still, a walk around D.C. will remind you of what you know about our past,
> or it teach you something if you are engaged with the monuments. The
> Vietnam War Memorial is one work of art (though it is non-figural) that was
> designed with active participation in mind, and if I am not mistaken, it is
> now one of the most frequently visited.
>
*snip
Your work sounds really interesting. I can't help but wonder how the
lingum shrine/statues of India fit into your ideas of public art? What
do you think is the function of abstract art? Do you think the shift to
more active and participatory children's museums will redefine how the
next generation interacts with art?
Terrance Rusnak
a discipline within Classics and has long been separate from anthropoligical
archaeology. This has been changing over the last twenty years, but slowly,
and much of what is called 'Greek Archaeology' is really History, Art
History, Philology, or Architectural History. Archaeology in general is
interdisciplinary, and Classical Archaeology is the same. It is just that
the disciplines that apply are somewhat different.
Having said that, my dissertation is in general a sociological study of
ancient reactions to Greek sculpture that was set up in public. The Greeks
spent a great deal of time, effort, and capital to fill their public places
(sanctuaries, temples, marketplaces, government structures, etc.) with
figural sculpture. These sculptures have a narrow range of subject (broadly
divided into mythological or historical figures, a distinction not fully
recognized by the ancient Greeks). My basic question was, why did the
Greeks spend all that time, effort, and capital to fill their cities with
sculpture? Most modern studies of Greek sculpture either stress
developments in style and technique, reconstructions of artistic schools or
careers of artists, or attempt to tie specific objects to historical events,
in which the subject is seen as symbolic or allegorical.
Ancient Greek texts, when they do mention sculpture, do not refer to them in
these modern terms, although many scholars have attempted to reconstruct a
lost art-historical body of ancient scholarship.
This is just one aspect of the phenomenon of Greek sculpture. Sculpture is
also an important means through which the group can honor those it considers
worthy of praise, and by extension, emulation (through their words or
deeds). The bestowing of these honors increases the fame of both the
individual and the group as a whole, a very important consideration for the
Greeks. Sculpture is also an appropriate expression of devotion to the
gods. Indeed all aspects of sculpture are inseparable from the gods in
ancient Greece. For to them, all virtue came from the gods, all
achievements are the result of their favor, and each piece of sculpture
increases their honor and fame. Equally important is the pleasure gained
from viewing beautiful works of art (considered true for both men and the
gods). As Aristotle stated (I paraphrase), pleasure and pain are intimately
connected with moral virtue and education. And according to Herodotus, what
made the Greeks Greek was their language, their belief in the same gods, and
the practices, sacrifices and rituals that they hold in common.
Well, that is what I have been working on. I hope you are not sorry you
asked. As you can tell, it doesn't really fall under 'archaeology' in its
anthropological sense. It is really more of an ancient sociology. I have
about 800 pages worth of ancient quotes (english only, double it with the
Greek and Latin) to back up this scheme. I would be interested to know what
anyone thinks about it. This study has led me to be interested in the
public statues and monuments in our own culture, which may have similar
intended functions. We have so many other media that were unavailable to
the Greeks, so it may be that sculpture no longer has the kind of impact
that theirs once did. Also, we tend to silently contemplate works of art,
and according to my research, in order to learn something, in order for the
work to have meaning at all, the viewer must 1) have prior knowledge (or be
able to read an inscription) and 2) to actively, and orally participate.
Still, a walk around D.C. will remind you of what you know about our past,
or it teach you something if you are engaged with the monuments. The
Vietnam War Memorial is one work of art (though it is non-figural) that was
designed with active participation in mind, and if I am not mistaken, it is
now one of the most frequently visited.
Regarding the field work I have been doing the last couple of years: I have
been working on a late bronze-Age site called Kamenska Chuka in southwest
Bulgaria for the last couple of years. It is quite an unusual site, the
first of its kind and age in the area. It is a large enclosure or structure
about 20 x 30 m on top of a hill, with one entrance overlooking the Struma
river. The walls average c. 2m thick. All of the pottery is handmade and
has parallels with sites in Northern Greece and elsewhere in Bulgaria, but
the assemblage is unique among excavated sites. There are two clear phases
of occupation: our carbon dates give B.C. 1350-1300 for the first, and
around 1250-1200 for the second. The site rests atop a Chalcolithic
settlement that was widespread on the surrounding plateau. The Bronze-age
structure seems to have suffered destruction by earthquake: Two of the
walls start with vertical faces and then abruptly lean outward, ending in a
pile of rubble. There is also strong evidence of a fire of about 800
degrees: the micaceous schist stones forming the walls have turned red and
friable in places, vessels have been found that are discolored or melted and
fragments of carbonized beams and other logs are frequent. The second phase
is a rebuild of the structure after this initial destruction. A tumulus of
late Roman date (2nd-3rd AD) was heaped over the site, in which four
inhumation burials were found (and one unattached skull, of unknown date),
along with a coin of Caracalla. The site was also used as a machine gun
nest in WWI: historical records mention this, and uniform buttons, spent
shell casings, and various metal bits attest to it archaeologically.
My first question is, how can an earthquake be determined archaeologically,
as opposed to other means of natural or manmade destruction? The earthquake
theory is based mainly on the scale of the destruction and the location of
the site in a geologically active region (the area is littered with hot
springs, and I know of one major quake in the 1910's and a small one last
summer). I would prefer a little more evidence: it still feels like an
assumption to me. Since it is the first site of this date to be excavated
in the area, no other sites can be tied to the same event. A full
geological survey might answer the question, but that would take too much
money.
My second question is, what could have caused such an intense fire? There
is no clear evidence for large-scale storage of olive oil on site, which
could produce those temperatures. Does anyone know what other fuel could do
that? The site is VERY windy at times. Could a fire burning only wood,
thatch, or grain get that hot given a strong wind? I would appreciate any
information or references that might help clarify the situation.
Terrance Rusnak
thea...@home.com
Terrance Rusnak
<naphtal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3747A736...@yahoo.com...
> So this is similar but goes beyond our war monuments or the
> proliferation of Plazas de Simon Bolivar in South America. Ideally such
> art work causes rememberance, and will cause some people to ask
> questions and others to recite the stories.
That's exactly what I am talking about, at least in its function as a mnema,
or reminder. But are people encouraged to "be like Simon" by this activity?
> Or perhaps you're suggesting something more akin to the statuary and
> stained glass of the great cathedrals of Europe which allowed
> transmission of Bible tales even when the average serf/peasant did not
> know how to read or have access to the written word?
I have a Catholic background, and I remember being walked around the
stations of the cross. It was one way they were taught to me. Use of
images in teaching Christianity goes back at least to Gregory the Great, who
explicitly advocated their employment for teaching scripture to the
illiterate. There are a number of articles in recent Art History journals
on this topic. I suspect that the phenomenon is a continuation of the
scheme seen in Graeco-Roman culture, since so many pagan motifs were adopted
for use in Christian art. The main difference, of course, is that
Christianity has the Bible, whereas neither the Greeks nor the Romans had
anything similar. So Christian art has a far more narrow range of
interpretation. The situation in Greece was more fluid, since different
versions of myths were floating around at any given time, even in the same
city-state. The Greeks themselves called it a mess, and many (the
mythographers) devoted their lives to try to sort out the situation.
> If some of this is similar, what is the difference between our art and
> that of Greeks, or is there a difference in terms of quantity of what
> the Greeks might have seen?
If you read Pausanias, you will see that in his time (2nd AD) most public
places in Greece were full of sculpture. In Pausanias' time, there were
literally thousands of statues on the acropolis of athens, a virtual army of
worshippers in bronze, stone and wood. There are only a handful that
survive today. Since people had to walk (or at the most ride animal
transport) they were exposed to more of these images for a longer time. In
fact, there is evidence that part of making a pilgrimage to a Greek
sanctuary was to go around and look at the dedications left by previous
pilgrims. There are even references to a couple of books, the sole purpose
of which was to describe dedications in a specific sanctuary. We can't get
the same effect by driving around one of the big piazzas today, and even
where you can walk, there aren't nearly as many sculptures. In any case the
notion of art has changed radically from the time of Pausanias. The greek
word, techne, means craft and skill as well as art, and the distinction is
not always clear. The evidence indicates (and there isn't much) that for
the most part, Greek artists were not anywhere near as free to express
themselves as their modern counterparts: they were subject to pressures of
patrons, and whoever paid no doubt had control over what got made. "Art for
Art's sake" doesn't take hold until the Renaissance at least. Even
Michelangelo was told what to paint on the Sistine ceiling. This makes our
art today a whole different ballgame from the ancient Greeks. Many
scholars, in their emphasis on the 'cult of the artist,' have tried to
project the modern view back onto the ancient, but it is anachronistic. One
other thing that we might bear in mind is that the ancient marbles were
painted--this goes for architecture as well as sculpture. Our modern marble
sculpture keeps to the original color of the material, which would probably
have shocked the Greeks as much as the idea of painted Greek sculpture seems
to shock us. One of my professors has compared the effect of Greek public
sculpture to modern billboards. Perhaps it is comparing the crude to the
sublime, but the comparison has value.
> As much as we have the monuments, it seems to me we've moved towards
> more abstract public art. This then moves away from the memory triggers.
> Do you have ideas about the function of our abstract art today?
Abstract art is difficult for many in the general public to appreciate
because it seems to require specific knowledge (even expertise) of its
'language' in order for it to have meaning. A lot of this stuff, IMHO, is
more about the artist and his marketing than the works themselves. Jeff
Koons, for example. People can, of course react to it, but often they are
unsure, because of this lack of knowledge. I have observed at times how
people look at abstract art in museums. The general procedure is: 1) stare
at it eruditely for 10-20 seconds, 2) go read the label, 3) stare again for
another 10-20 sec and move on. Sometimes they will make comments, but most
often not. I once saw a very elegantly dressed older woman do this in the
Andy Warhol Museum while looking at his "Oxidation works". She completed
step 1 and after reading that the works were made by urinating on metal she
shook her head and walked off in disgust. Probably exactly the reaction
A.W. wanted--I laughed my ass off.
> Yes, and our most popular entertainments/methods of relaying involve
> both visual and aural stimulation.
Several greek authors (I think Aristotle is one) mention that memory is
improved when more than one of the senses is involved. Modern psychology
agrees.
> I think in part this comes from our museum training. I was always
> instructed that I was to be quiet in museums.
Yes, and we are not allowed to touch either. André Malraux called the
Museum something like a place that kills works of art, in the sense that
they are removed from their original context to that of the lifeless museum.
The situation was very different for the ancient Greeks, where there was an
active play between viewer and object. There are many examples of
inscriptions from statues of the type of the famous "Stranger, go and tell
the Spartans...." These encourage the viewer to interact with the image:
if they are reading aloud, the statue in effect is given a voice that
commands one to take action. There are stories (probably apochryphal) of
people falling in love with statues and attempting to consumate the
relationship. Myron's bronze statue of a cow was said to have been covered
by written comments about how real it looked (makes you wonder how life-like
it looked covered in writing). Some Greek comedies and poems concern
statues that get up and talk to people, walk around and argue with each
other. Most likely not even the Greeks took such stories literally. But
they do illustrate the point: The line between reality and imagination was
freely crossed by the Greeks, even though they were aware of the difference.
> This is not so very different from Ancient Greece. A statue without
> reference could be lovely but required interpretation.
> Your work sounds really interesting. I can't help but wonder how the
> lingum shrine/statues of India fit into your ideas of public art? What
> do you think is the function of abstract art? Do you think the shift to
> more active and participatory children's museums will redefine how the
> next generation interacts with art?
I don't know much about Indian (do you mean Hindu?) art, but a similar
phenomenon can be seen in Buddhist pilgrimages, where images are used for
teaching doctrine. I know that the Chinese used to write comments on
paintings, and these were seen to add to the work of art--we would consider
that vandalism.I did see an article last year about a new Krisha temple in
New Delhi that spent $6 million for animatronic images of gods that acted
out scenes from Hindu scripture, presumably for teaching purposes. That
must be something else--I'd love to go and see it. Anyway, thanks for your
interest. I am glad to share.
Terrance Rusnak
Crys
>This is the post I promised, in response to the question by naphtalia_leba.
>Let me preface my remarks by saying that Classical Archaeology developed as
>a discipline within Classics and has long been separate from
anthropoligical
>archaeology. This has been changing over the last twenty years, but
slowly,
>and much of what is called 'Greek Archaeology' is really History, Art
>History, Philology, or Architectural History. Archaeology in general is
>interdisciplinary, and Classical Archaeology is the same. It is just that
>the disciplines that apply are somewhat different.
<chuckle> It seems to be considered something of a grey area, doesn't it? I
got my BA in exactly that, but we didn't call it Classical Archaeology, it
was Classical Civilization, which I understand denotes an entirely different
set of courses at some of the larger public universities.
>
>Having said that, my dissertation is in general a sociological study of
>ancient reactions to Greek sculpture that was set up in public. The Greeks
>spent a great deal of time, effort, and capital to fill their public places
>(sanctuaries, temples, marketplaces, government structures, etc.) with
>figural sculpture. These sculptures have a narrow range of subject
(broadly
>divided into mythological or historical figures, a distinction not fully
>recognized by the ancient Greeks).
There's something that's always complicated this for me. Perhaps in your
in-depth studies of sculpture you've found the answer to this question; I
haven't been able to.
When did the Greeks stop painting their statues? Or were not all of them
painted? (Speaking of course of the non-bronzes). I'm curious because there
is no mention anywhere of the Romans painting their copies of Greek statues,
whereas we know that the older sculptures were painted because they still
have traces of paint. But which pieces do and which don't? When I sat down
in the library to try to find out, I couldn't find any mention one way or
the other. When I looked in Art History books (as they would be more
interested, generally, in color), I found in the early sections mention of
kore being painted, but I had a heck of a time even finding a reference that
was willing to say "Yes, the Greeks even painted their architecture."
I think this is important if you want to really understand how the Greeks
reacted to their sculptures. If you look at a fine white marble statue, and
then turn around and look at the same thing, but in color, you'll find that
your two reactions are totally different. While the individual reactions
would have, of course, been different from our modern reactions, I see no
reason to believe that they would _not_ have different reactions to a plain
or a colorful statue.
> The Greeks lived with their
>sculpture, walked past innumberable examples daily, and above all,
>interacted with it. The texts indicate that the ancient Greek was an
>active, engaged viewer. They view sculpture as if they were witnessing the
>events taking place before them. That is not to say that they were unaware
>that they were looking at a work of art; they fully realized this, but had
>no trouble with allowing the fantasy. When confronted with a piece of
>sculpture, once the viewer has recognized the subject, that sculpture was
>primarily an opportunity to tell a story.
Interesting. Sort of like ancient TV.
>Well, that is what I have been working on. I hope you are not sorry you
>asked. As you can tell, it doesn't really fall under 'archaeology' in its
>anthropological sense. It is really more of an ancient sociology. I have
>about 800 pages worth of ancient quotes (english only, double it with the
>Greek and Latin) to back up this scheme.
Do you have them in electronic format anywhere? If so, I'd be interested in
seeing them. My college was pretty small, so the art history department
handled teaching this end of it, and when I started asking questions along
this line, the prof was at least honest enough to say he didn't know and
that I should go try to find out for myself. Difficult, when you have no
spare time.
> I would be interested to know what
>anyone thinks about it. This study has led me to be interested in the
>public statues and monuments in our own culture, which may have similar
>intended functions. We have so many other media that were unavailable to
>the Greeks, so it may be that sculpture no longer has the kind of impact
>that theirs once did.
I think literacy has played a role in this primarily. We don't look at
statues of our history and our heroes, we read about them. You could point
at television as a culprit, but I think if you look back through western
culture, you'll find that, though tv and radio may have taken some of the
emphasis away, there really hasn't been much emphasis on heroic or
storytelling sculpture for a couple centuries.
I think now, public sculpture is primarily about feeling and mood. Your
environment shapes the way you think and act, and sculpture can set tone and
mood to an environment.
That being said, looking at it as an artist, I have to say that even this
tells a story, just not a story in words. It's still an inspiration to
certain ideals. What ideals exactly are different for each artist and each
piece, but I think this is fundamentally true. It's just not quite as
literal an inspiration.
> Also, we tend to silently contemplate works of art,
>and according to my research, in order to learn something, in order for the
>work to have meaning at all, the viewer must 1) have prior knowledge (or be
>able to read an inscription) and 2) to actively, and orally participate.
We contemplate them silently because our culture has put things like that on
a pedestal. Society has a real love/hate relationship with artists. It
proclaims their works as above mere mortals, at the same time it decries
artists for the things that make them who they are. More so for ancient
artwork (well, we tend to hold ancient artists with more respect than living
ones, I guess). We are told that it is something to be awed by. We are to
be inspired by it, but at the same time the message is that we will never be
able to live up to that inspiration. I know I'm not the only one who gets
that feeling in most museums, from talking to people about it. Don't get me
wrong, I love museums, but to alot of people, the way the works are
presented is more intimidating than anything else. Thankfully, some museums
are trying to change that, from what I hear. The stereotype of the stuffy
museum with the weight of the ages hanging over your head ready to fall on
you came from somewhere, after all.
>Regarding the field work I have been doing the last couple of years: I
have
>been working on a late bronze-Age site called Kamenska Chuka in southwest
>Bulgaria for the last couple of years
>My first question is, how can an earthquake be determined archaeologically,
>as opposed to other means of natural or manmade destruction? The
earthquake
>theory is based mainly on the scale of the destruction and the location of
>the site in a geologically active region (the area is littered with hot
>springs, and I know of one major quake in the 1910's and a small one last
>summer). I would prefer a little more evidence: it still feels like an
>assumption to me. Since it is the first site of this date to be excavated
>in the area, no other sites can be tied to the same event. A full
>geological survey might answer the question, but that would take too much
>money.
That's just about the only way I can think of... but you may want to check
with a geologist. There might be some way to check for ancient shifts in
the ground near your site without going through an entire survey.
Did the walls all fall in the same direction? Or different ones? Is the fire
from the same period, concurrent? If so, it might have been an explosion,
not an earthquake.
>My second question is, what could have caused such an intense fire? There
>is no clear evidence for large-scale storage of olive oil on site, which
>could produce those temperatures. Does anyone know what other fuel could
do
>that? The site is VERY windy at times. Could a fire burning only wood,
>thatch, or grain get that hot given a strong wind? I would appreciate any
>information or references that might help clarify the situation.
I talked to my fiance (physics grad student) about it, and he said that
_maybe_, grain dust might if a wind picked it up. <scratches head> Never
seen it myself, but I've heard that, for instance, packed flour doesn't burn
well, but if you toss some in the air (like at a fire), it can burn
explosively. There are cases of this in modern grain storage silos. I'm
trying to think of some references, but I'm not coming up with any off the
top of my head. Maybe it's a direction you might want to check though?
steve
Terrance Rusnak <thea...@home.com> wrote in article
<yGI13.7535$zB3....@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>...
>
> of occupation: our carbon dates give B.C. 1350-1300 for the first, and
> around 1250-1200 for the second. The site rests atop a Chalcolithic
> settlement that was widespread on the surrounding plateau. The
Bronze-age
> structure seems to have suffered destruction by earthquake: Two of the
> walls start with vertical faces and then abruptly lean outward, ending in
a
> pile of rubble. There is also strong evidence of a fire of about 800
> degrees: the micaceous schist stones forming the walls have turned red
and
> friable in places, vessels have been found that are discolored or melted
and
> fragments of carbonized beams and other logs are frequent. The second
phase
> My first question is, how can an earthquake be determined
archaeologically,
> as opposed to other means of natural or manmade destruction? The
earthquake
> theory is based mainly on the scale of the destruction and the location
of
> the site in a geologically active region (the area is littered with hot
> springs, and I know of one major quake in the 1910's and a small one last
> summer). I would prefer a little more evidence: it still feels like an
> assumption to me. Since it is the first site of this date to be
excavated
> in the area, no other sites can be tied to the same event. A full
> geological survey might answer the question, but that would take too much
> money.
Is there any evidence of landslip in fault structures? For example a
terrain
feature bifurcated with sections shifted in opposite directions? I recall
seeing
USGS overflight photos of the San Andreas fault in California demonstrating
this. Link:
http://www.usgs.gov
A couple of passes with a wide angle lens in an airplane might give up
useful data fairly cheaply. Or you could ask them nicely to have Landsat-7
take a few images for you; NASA, NOAA, and the USGS have been bending
over backwards to be helpful in recent years.
> My second question is, what could have caused such an intense fire?
There
> is no clear evidence for large-scale storage of olive oil on site, which
> could produce those temperatures. Does anyone know what other fuel could
do
> that? The site is VERY windy at times. Could a fire burning only wood,
> thatch, or grain get that hot given a strong wind? I would appreciate
any
> information or references that might help clarify the situation.
Any evidence of a tannery (scraping tools, vats, etc.)? Animal fat can
produce
high temperatures in combustion and has a tendency to splash explosively,
as in a grease fire.
>
> Terrance Rusnak
> thea...@home.com
>
Regards,
Steve
naphtal...@yahoo.com
> >is no clear evidence for large-scale storage of olive oil on site, which
> >could produce those temperatures. Does anyone know what other fuel could
> do
> >that? The site is VERY windy at times. Could a fire burning only wood,
> >thatch, or grain get that hot given a strong wind? I would appreciate any
> >information or references that might help clarify the situation.
>
> I talked to my fiance (physics grad student) about it, and he said that
> _maybe_, grain dust might if a wind picked it up. <scratches head> Never
> seen it myself, but I've heard that, for instance, packed flour doesn't burn
> well, but if you toss some in the air (like at a fire), it can burn
> explosively. There are cases of this in modern grain storage silos. I'm
> trying to think of some references, but I'm not coming up with any off the
> top of my head. Maybe it's a direction you might want to check though?
>
>
world" happened, there was a grainary that burned/exploded. That's the
only one that comes right to mind.
Terrance Rusnak
I
> got my BA in exactly that, but we didn't call it Classical Archaeology, it
> was Classical Civilization, which I understand denotes an entirely
different
> set of courses at some of the larger public universities.
Archaeology, one of the only such programs in the country.
> There's something that's always complicated this for me. Perhaps in your
> in-depth studies of sculpture you've found the answer to this question; I
> haven't been able to.
We don't have as clear a distinction as you might think. For instance,
think of the myths that have grown up around Washington and Lincoln. The
situation is not too different from historical figures in Greece. But the
Greeks considered their early myths to be history, especially those about
the Trojan War. This holds true even for the more 'rationalist' Greek
historians--just look at the first book of Thucydides, his 'archaeology'.
>
> When did the Greeks stop painting their statues? Or were not all of them
> painted?
This is a different question to answer. Part of the problem is that casts
made of ancient sculptures in the 18th and 19th C. have removed any trace of
pigment that would have remained, for both original Greek works and Roman
copies (many of which are considered to have been made by Greek artists).
There are many examples of Roman sculpture using colored marbles, so it is
possible that the Romans were not as interested in painted the marbles as
the Greeks, but it does show their interest in polychramy. As for bronzes,
well they used different types of metal to indicate color, and were able to
put very realistic glass eyes in the heads. Look at some color photos of
the Riace Warriors--Copper lips and nipples, glass eyes, silver eyelashes.
Same with the Delphi Charioteer. There is a new book by B.S. Ridgway on
Architectural Sculpture that should be coming out very soon (within the next
two months). She has a chapter on polychramy that addresses many of these
issues. Polychramy is an important consideration for interpretation of
Greek sculpture. It seems to me that without it, the tendency is much
greater to focus on form and style of carving rather than subject or
content.
> Do you have them in electronic format anywhere? If so, I'd be interested
in
> seeing them. My college was pretty small, so the art history department
> handled teaching this end of it, and when I started asking questions along
> this line, the prof was at least honest enough to say he didn't know and
> that I should go try to find out for myself. Difficult, when you have no
> spare time.
Sorry, but you'll have to wait until I publish :).
> We contemplate them silently because our culture has put things like that
on
> a pedestal. Society has a real love/hate relationship with artists. It
> proclaims their works as above mere mortals, at the same time it decries
> artists for the things that make them who they are. More so for ancient
> artwork (well, we tend to hold ancient artists with more respect than
living
> ones, I guess). We are told that it is something to be awed by. We are
to
> be inspired by it, but at the same time the message is that we will never
be
> able to live up to that inspiration.
The message for the ancient Greeks was, not only to live up to the
inspiration, but to surpass it. A standard topos seen from the funeral
oration of Perikles to Plutarch.
> That's just about the only way I can think of... but you may want to check
> with a geologist. There might be some way to check for ancient shifts in
> the ground near your site without going through an entire survey.
Our geologist didn't seem to have a problem with the earthquake idea. We
did have her taking soil samples more than working on this problem, though.
That was an important job though! When you get into Bronze Age sites, soil
formation processes start to come in, and if you are not careful, you can
mistake natural transforms for cultural ones. It underscores the importance
of having a geologist on every excavation!
It really is my suspicious nature that is giving me a problem, I think. The
site sits between two large faults (maybe even ON one) that run on either
side of the river valley. The layers of bedrock under the site run
vertically out of the ground. The place easily COULD have been destroyed by
an earthquake. It's just that the stratigraphy tells us that the Romans
pushed over some of the walls that must have been visible in the process of
making the tumulus, and it appears that they dismantled other parts, since
the tops of the preserved walls follow the line of the tumulus where they
intersect. OTOH, the amount of erosion the site has suffered in the 5 years
since it has been exposed leads me to think it could have collapsed
naturally (that is, by gravity rather than earthquake).
> Did the walls all fall in the same direction? Or different ones? Is the
fire
> from the same period, concurrent? If so, it might have been an explosion,
> not an earthquake.
The walls did fall in the same direction. I have seen many news reports of
grain silos spontaneously igniting and exploding in the Midwest.
Unfortunately, the earthquake theory has already been published, so it is
unlikely the Director is going to abandon that theory easily. You know how
it goes. . .
Thanks for the input!
Terrance Rusnak
Terrance Rusnak
steve <seb...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:01bea546$bcb7abc0$1f626420@newt...
[snip]
>
> Is there any evidence of landslip in fault structures? For example a
> terrain
> feature bifurcated with sections shifted in opposite directions? I recall
> seeing
> USGS overflight photos of the San Andreas fault in California
demonstrating
> this. Link:
> http://www.usgs.gov
> A couple of passes with a wide angle lens in an airplane might give up
> useful data fairly cheaply. Or you could ask them nicely to have
Landsat-7
> take a few images for you; NASA, NOAA, and the USGS have been bending
> over backwards to be helpful in recent years.
We took several sets of aerial photos with both balloon and airplane. The
problem is, there is too much vegetation to get a good picture of the
geology. The focus was on the site itself, too. High-voltage power lines
are all over the hill, which makes taking the photos a DANGEROUS
proposition. I don't think there are any plans to do that again. I don't
know enough about geologic processes myself (I wish I did), so I can't
comment on landslip. The place looks like an uplift (is that the right
term?) rather than a slip fault, because the rock layers (micaceous schist)
are perpendicular to the ground.
> Any evidence of a tannery (scraping tools, vats, etc.)?
I can't recall seeing any scrapers from the Bronze Age occupation levels,
but lots of Chalcolithic ones were found in secondary (fill) context. Also
some really cool bone tools that look like awls, again Chalcolithic and in
secondary context. There are hundreds of storage vessels, but they are
pithoi, not large, open containers that are obviously to be interpreted as
vats. Through flotation we found einkorn, lentil, vetch, grape, cherry, and
danewort in the pithoi. We are waiting for a thorough analysis of the bone
finds by an expert, so the jury is still out on that. That is a good idea,
though. I'll pass it along. Thanks!
Terrance Rusnak
DarStec
<thea...@home.com> writes:
>This is the post I promised, in response to the question by naphtalia_leba.
[Much good stuff snipped]....................
>Sculptures in public thus serve as memory-triggers, they reinforce ethnic,
>group or family identity by giving what GIlbert Murray and later E.R. Dodds
>have called "The Inherited Conglomerate," that is, the body of (largely
>oral) tradition, both myth and history, that is transmitted (but also is
>fluid and by definition changes) from generation to generation. For those
>who know the story it was reinforcement of previous knowledge. For those
>who did not, it was a learning experience, learning by seeing the art and
>hearing at the same time the story. Through this process belief can be
>engendered or reinforced: the viewer can conceptually become an
>eye-witness, Arguably, one of the most important tasks for a culture is to
>transmit its values, its moral virtues, in some way to the next generation.
>Greek mythology and history constantly provides moral examples, and the
>encouragement is that the moral qualities of great men of the past should be
>imitated in order that the next generation could surpass the previous. For
>the Greeks, who did not have a state-funded system of education, sculpture
>in public (along with the theater, public recitals of poetry or prose, and
>other media like monumental painting) provided an opportunity for education,
>or perhaps more precisely, enculturation. The ultimate aims were didactic
>and mimetic: that is, to teach and to inspire emulation.
>
I wonder if the Hebrew's admonition against statues (idolatry) understood the
effectiveness of the statue-history link, and for that reason forbade the
practice? Did they perhaps want to "rewrite" history or create their own,
without reminders of the past?
[Even more good stuff snipped]......................
[More snipped]..............
>My second question is, what could have caused such an intense fire? There
>is no clear evidence for large-scale storage of olive oil on site, which
>could produce those temperatures. Does anyone know what other fuel could do
>that? The site is VERY windy at times. Could a fire burning only wood,
>thatch, or grain get that hot given a strong wind? I would appreciate any
>information or references that might help clarify the situation.
>
>Terrance Rusnak
>thea...@home.com
>
>
A program on one of the educational channels discussed "spontaneous" combustion
of people. Various methods were used to duplicate the resulting conditions
that they found in some of these cases.
One such experiment tried to ignite a ham soaked for several days in gasoline
and another one in lighter fluid, with a match or cigarette. They couldn't
keep it lit long enough to do any appreciable damage. However, when a hog
carcus was wrapped in cotton material, laid in a bed, and had a lit cigarette
laid on the bed, it did ignite with a very intense, internal heat, but
smoldered for quite a few days mimicing the way a candle wick burns in the
melted wax. The interesting thing about this experiment was that in comparing
it to a typical cremation (where some bone fragments do not turn to ash), this
hog had its bones completely consumed. The damage to the bedroom was minimal.
They used the hog because it contained roughly they same amount of fat and body
weight as the persons had in the cases they were examining. The key was the
cotton wrapping -- "clothes".
Could there have been some kind of animal or food sacrifices in which the
sacrificial offering might have been wrapped in some way?
Later,
Darrell Stec E-Mail: Dar...@aol.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Terrance Rusnak
DarStec <dar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990524114919...@ngol05.aol.com...
> I wonder if the Hebrew's admonition against statues (idolatry) understood
the
> effectiveness of the statue-history link, and for that reason forbade the
> practice? Did they perhaps want to "rewrite" history or create their own,
> without reminders of the past?
A distinciton is sometimes made between images (figural art) and their
worship (idolatry). I don't know much about the Hebrew angle of this, but I
do know that it was not universal. There is a synagogue in Dura Europus
from I think the 3rd C AD that has frescoes on the walls illustrating OT
subjects (Noah, Jonah and the Whale, etc.). Presumably these were for
purposes of teaching rather than worship. Dura was a cosmopolitan city,
though, so there is really no way of knowing how 'orthodox' the sect that
used the synagogue was.
As far as Christianity. . . Clement of Alexandria made one of the most
eloquent attacks against idolatry, written for a non-Christian, Greek
audience. His take is that images are NOT gods, they are lifeless, and
therefore unworthy of worship. The responses of the pagan apologists (e.g.
Maximus of Tyre) stress education with regard to images. They admit that
their images are not gods, but for them it is beside the point. It is a
fascinating debate: the two camps argue at cross-purposes: their terms of
their arguments rarely intersect. Nevertheless, the underlying assumption
of both is that images have some sort of power (whether good or bad). The
tone of the debate reminds me of some of the posts in newsgroups (not just
this one).
> A program on one of the educational channels discussed "spontaneous"
combustion of people.
[snip]
> Could there have been some kind of animal or food sacrifices in which the
> sacrificial offering might have been wrapped in some way?
Combustion of grain is a totally different thing--it happens because of the
increased surface area of grain in the air within a closed space like a
silo. We are talking about an explosion that was powerful enough to push
over a 2m thick wall (estimated to have been c. 5m) high, if it wasn't done
by an earthquake. Anyway, at this site we have found no clear evidence of
ritual activity. It looks like a storage facility more than anything else.
The grain we have found was stored in large jars set into the floor, so it
is not really all that likely it could have had the conditions necessary to
ignite without help.
Terrance Rusnak
John
accidentally demonstrated this while trying to salvage bronze fittings from
wood by burning. There was a strong wind blowing, the fire got to hot and
there was nothing left of the bronze! Also Scottish vitrified forts are so
called because the stone ramparts are fused - vitrified. It is thought that
the ramparts where origionaly timber framed and the vitrification took place
when the timber frame caught fire. With a strong wind, the fire was hot
enough to melt the stone. Experiments have shown that earthenware type
pottery will melt at approximately 800 degrees while finer pottery like
Roman "samian ware" will melt at just over 1000 degrees.
John.
Terrance Rusnak
John <jo...@orrell55.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7jhi1i$d2b$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
[snip]
> Given a strong wind, a wood fire can easily exceed 1000 degrees C. I
> accidentally demonstrated this while trying to salvage bronze fittings
from
> wood by burning. There was a strong wind blowing, the fire got to hot and
> there was nothing left of the bronze! Also Scottish vitrified forts are so
> called because the stone ramparts are fused - vitrified. It is thought
that
> the ramparts where origionaly timber framed and the vitrification took
place
> when the timber frame caught fire. With a strong wind, the fire was hot
> enough to melt the stone. Experiments have shown that earthenware type
> pottery will melt at approximately 800 degrees while finer pottery like
> Roman "samian ware" will melt at just over 1000 degrees.
> John.
>
found a huge quantity of both fired and vitrified daub on site. A problem
in interpretation has been the indications of intense heat. So there was no
bronze left at all after the fire?
Terrance Rusnak
thea...@home.com
John
Terrance Rusnak wrote in message ...
>
Some, but in the hottest part it all went.
If you have vitrified daub then the temprature probably exceeded 1000
degrees in places.
John.
algis....@gmail.com
Excellent Post here...Your invited to my show called born in Stone...
Algis Kemezys' BORN IN STONE (composite photographs)
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, Athens, Greece;
opening January 19 @ 6 p.m., until March 15, 2015
Internationally exhibited photographic artist Algis
Kemezys, will be showing his recent work, Born in Stone
(composite photographs of stone and ancient Greek
sculpture) in the National Archaeological Museum in
Athens, home to the greatest collection of Greek art on the
planet. Photographed in the museum (the very inspiration
for the project) and the rest of the Hellenistic world, as
well as in the Louvre and the British Museum, the
sculptures depicted in this work are the most iconic
examples of Greek sculpting, the kind that has been imitated, but never quite
equalled, for the last two and a half millennia.
The stone, which forms the back-
grounds of the photographs, is also from
antiquity. Kemezys chose the holy rock upon
which sits the Athenian Acropolis, and that of
the famed quarries of Paros Island, whose
pure-white, translucent marble inspired the
greatest work of Phideas and of Praxiteles.
The fusion of the perfect, life-like
sculptures to the stone from which they sprung
makes for images that linger in the pleasure
centers of the mind as they propel the
imagination into mythology. They tell the tales
of a storied civilization whose artistry has
informed the very roots of western culture. The
museum's former director, Dr. George
Kakavàs, declared Born in Stone the most
original interpretation of ancient sculpture that
he has ever seen.
This interest in sculpture and the infinite visual possibilities of stone is an
on-going theme in Kemezys' work. It began in childhood, when his mother showed
him that he could find "faces" on stone, and culminated in his award-winning,
hour-long documentary Mimetoliths, a visual poem to the anthropomorphic rocky
highlights of the island of Crete (Greece). Born in Stone continues his quest into
the artistry that resides in stone all around us.
http://tellusnewsdigest.com/stone-poetry-by-algis-kemezys/ algis....@gmail.com