1 He uses evidence exclusively from Nineveh after 612 B.C. At that time, the image was more than a thousand years old, and the mutilation should be considered a late example. resorts to the mutilation of an Akkadian royal portrait as an early example without considering the fact that the attack on the head apparently took place after the sack of Nineveh in 612 B.C. To specify examples, in the Near Eastern section V. might have examined his sources somewhat more extensively. Further, he highlights antecedents and similarities in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Greece and Sicily, as well as in Republican Rome, with extra sections on Marius and Sulla as well as on Antony and Cleopatra VII. He points out the parallels between mutilation of portrait and mutilation of corpse, treats the reworking of images, and stresses the important role the phenomenon played in Roman society. explains issues of damnatio memoriae in the Roman Empire. The book proceeds directly to the argument. That said, the presentation of the study is unfortunately rather sloppy. includes a wide range of evidence and provides a particularly useful catalogue as well as numerous illustrations of high quality. In his study of Roman imperial portraiture Varner (henceforth V.) investigates the destruction and recycling of images of Roman emperors and members of their family after their condemnation by what was called damnatio memoriae.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |