Which of the Following Displays Burial Art on the Exterior

Historical Roman art genre

Tombstone of the cavalry veteran Nertus, son of Dumnotalis

Roman funerary art changed throughout the class of the Roman Republic and the Empire and comprised many different forms. In that location were ii master burial practices used by the Romans throughout history, one being cremation, another inhumation. The vessels used for these practices include sarcophagi, ash chests, urns, and altars. In add-on to these, mausoleums, stelae, and other monuments were also used to commemorate the dead. The method by which Romans were memorialized was determined past social class, religion, and other factors. While monuments to the dead were constructed within Roman cities, the remains themselves were interred outside the cities.

After the finish of Etruscan rule, Roman lawmakers became very strict regarding laying the dead to rest. A prime number issue was the legality and morality of interring the dead within the metropolis limits. It was nearly unanimous at offset to movement the dead exterior of the pomerium to ensure the separation of their souls from the living, and many politicians remained believing in enforcing the idea well into the Empire.^[1] Cicero reminds his readers of the Law of the Twelve Tables: "A dead human shall non be buried or burned within the city" (De Legibus, two, 23:58). Iii centuries later, Paulus writes in his Sententiae, "You are not immune to bring a corpse into the city in case the sacred places in the urban center are polluted. Whoever acts against these restrictions is punished with unusual severity. You are not allowed to cremate a body inside the walls of the urban center" (i, 21:2-3). Many Roman towns and provinces had like rules, frequently in their charters, such as the Lex Ursonensis.^[2] Particularly at the very stop of the Republic, exceptions to this principle became more frequent, albeit only for the most powerful leaders. The means used to commemorate the expressionless served to acknowledge the gods, but also served as means of social expression depicting Roman values and history.

Early on Christians connected this custom until Late Artifact, but liked to be buried shut to the graves of martyrs. Catacombs and funerary halls, that later became dandy churches, grew up around the graves of famous martyrs outside the walls of Rome.

Mausolea [edit]

Etymology [edit]

The mausoleum is then named for Mausolus of Caria (377-353/2 BC), a ruler in what is now Turkey. He was a profound patron of Hellenistic civilization. Afterward, or perhaps before his death, his wife and sister Artemisia deputed the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus as an enormous tomb for him above footing; it was one of the Vii Wonders of the ancient world, and much of the sculpture is at present in Berlin. Such had been a trend in Greece during the centuries earlier Mausolus, as it was a means of further solidifying the retention of the prominent deceased. At the time, the ancient Mediterranean world was in the midst of a revival of Greek ideologies, present in politics, faith, the arts, and social life. The Romans were no exception to this trend.^[three]

Occupants [edit]

Mausolea mostly had multiple occupants because their space was then vast, although this notion took time to go commonplace in the early Democracy, every bit did the thought of "burying" the dead above ground. Mass burials were common, but only for the common folk. Royalty, politicians, generals, and the richest citizens originally shared a tomb with no more than their firsthand family. Changes were gradual largely because funerary practices tended to follow strict traditions, especially in the ancient earth.^[iv] Information technology took centuries to conceive the "Roman" concept of the mausoleum. Meanwhile, the idea of lavish decoration of burying sites remained present throughout the Republic and the Empire. In context, above ground structures of the Empire and Late Republic contained art suitable to the lives of the occupants the same manner their underground alternatives did.

Locations [edit]

Few mausolea within the Pomerium predated the empire. Nearly mausolea existed on designated burying grounds in the land, though city exemptions to the prohibition of mortuary buildings only increased during the Empire. It was also pop to build them forth chief roads so that they would be consistently visible to the public. A tendency of the Centre and Late Empire was to build mausolea on family property, fifty-fifty if it was within the urban center limits.^[one]

History [edit]

Pre-Democracy [edit]

The Romans absorbed a great bargain of Etruscan funerary art practices. Above ground mausolea were all the same rare; hole-and-corner tombs and tumuli were far more common methods of burial. The early Romans buried those who could non afford such accommodations in mass graves or cremated them.^[1] Of the few mausolea that they did build during Rome's infancy, many cruel to ruins under unknown circumstances. Their absence thus renders petty indication of the Romans' mausoleum practices during these years. A notable exception is in Praeneste, or present twenty-four hour period Palestrina, where approximately forty early on mausolea remain.^[five]

Early Republic [edit]

Etruscan influence remained, and there became more consistency in the styles of mausolea equally Roman influence increased throughout the Latin League. Structures from this era are rare, but equally with the preceding centuries, most of those that the Romans congenital at this fourth dimension no longer exist.^[1]

Mid Republic [edit]

Rome, along with the rest of the Mediterranean world, experienced a resurgence of Greek culture, known as the Hellenistic period.^[1] Both the interiors and exteriors of mausolea adopted staples of Classical architecture such as barrel vaulted roofs; klinai, which were full torso benches upon which the dead lay; painted facades; ornate columns; and friezes along the roofs. During this era, about Romans best-selling the idea that above basis burial allows the public to meliorate remember the deceased.^[iv] Clearly in accordance with their embraces of tradition and virtues of the mos maiorum, Romans began to set aside coin to build vast new mausolea for the preservation of their legacies.^[6] Of course, this trend was gradual, but had gained ground past the end of the Republic.

The Tomb of the Scipios is an example of a large underground rock-cut set of chambers used by the Scipio family from the 3rd to the 1st centuries BC. It was k, only relatively inconspicuous to a higher place ground.

Also present was an influence from the lands east of Hellenic republic. Although the architectural contributions of Asia Pocket-sized were very unlike from those of the Greeks, Asia Small had previously opened itself to Hellenic styles earlier in the 4th century BC. The Romans borrowed nigh of their architecture during these years from the Greeks, so most of the Roman styles similar to those of Asia Minor actually came to Rome via Greece. Of grade, the Romans borrowed direct from the Greek style likewise. Anatolian mausolea are singled-out via their tower designs, a notable example being the Harpy Tomb, built circa 480-470 BC.^[7]

Nearing the Late Republic, the new diversity in design allowed those who could afford information technology to build larger and more lavish mausolea. Although politicians, particularly senators, had ever used their monuments to proclaim their status, they increasingly saw the grandeur of their mausolea as an boosted outlet of expressing political say-so.^[1] Effectually this time, most Romans had accustomed the similarities of mausolea and temples, although their ancestors had been witting of this apparent analogue for centuries.^[7]

Late Republic [edit]

Within the last two centuries of the Republic, Roman mausolea acquired inspiration from another geographical region: North Africa. North African architecture itself had succumbed to Greek practices since Greco-Phoenician trade settlements since the eighth century BC. Again, the Romans embraced the style as they solidified their conquest of North Africa in the second and offset centuries BC. By the time of Augustus, the influences of Greece, Asia Modest, and Africa combined to make a unique "Roman" fashion.^[viii]

Every bit the Republic ended, more people continued to forgo the rules confronting city burials.^[9] One of the concluding Republican leaders to do so was Sulla, who opted to build a mausoleum on the Campus Martius.^[10] Many burying grounds outside of the city became crowded because mausolea had not but increased in size, ornateness, and quantity since the Hellenistic Era. In the get-go century BC, some Romans settled for smaller and simpler mausolea in social club to just reserve space on a prominent burial ground, such as the Isola Sacra Necropolis outside of Portus, where visitors can notice the smaller mausolea desperately filling random space around the more properly distanced larger ones.^[11] Howard Colvin cites the mausolea of the consul Minicius Fundanus on Monte Mario and the Licinii-Calpurnii on Via Salaria as examples of more compact structures that came to scatter burial sites.^[ix]

The Tomb of Eurysaces the Baker (50-20 BC) is a flamboyant example of a rich freedman'southward tomb, with reliefs exemplifying an Italic style less influenced by Hellenistic fine art than official or patrician monuments.

Early Empire [edit]

The new government of Rome brought a new approach to mausolea politically and socially. The non-elite became ever present in the senate, putting a damper on many of the longtime rivalries of the aristocracy. Because they many of these men were homines novi, or new men, they had other incentives to assert potency; Patterson observes that their mausolea focused more upon giving prestige to their ain proper name rather than toppling that of someone else. Such an agenda is discernable through the increased interest of building mausolea on family unit holding.^[12] Many wealthy families owned magnificent estates in the land, where they were free from the burial laws of the metropolis. While the art and design of the structures themselves remained grandiose, builders shifted involvement to decorating the land around the mausoleum. Statues, podia, steles, and horti (gardens), gained popularity amongst those who had the space and coin to erect mausolea on their ain holding.^[13] The Pyramid of Cestius of about 12 BC remains a rather eccentric Roman landmark; he had maybe served in Nubian campaigns.

With the advent of the Empire came an extreme augmentation in the inclusivity of mausolea on two ways. First, the occupation of many new mausolea was greater than that of their Republican predecessors, which generally reserved space for nobody other than their immediate family unit. Many in the Empire who commissioned mausolea in their name also requested room for extended family, slaves, freedmen, concubines, clients, animals, and other intimate acquaintances.^[nine] Second, more people who could normally non afford a mausoleum were able to acquire one. Aside from those a main invited to his mausoleum, certain freedmen received their ain mausoleum with financial assistance from their former masters. Some of the freedmen's mausolea are as equally impressive as those of wealthy citizens.^[14]

Tardily Empire [edit]

No subsequently than the end of the second century Advert did Rome reach its territorial apex as an empire. The initially tedious, but quickly hastening decline of the Empire allowed the mausoleum to fall into the easily of Roman constituents and enemies. Notably, after the Third Century Crisis, the revival of the mausoleum during the tetrarchy and beyond spawned interest amongst the Christian population. They began to build mausolea in the same edificial fashion as the Romans had for the duration of the empire, and decorated them with Christian artwork. Mausolea connected to be a prime means of interring multiple individuals in the Heart Ages.^[fifteen]

The Mausoleum of Helena in Rome, built past Constantine I for himself, but subsequently used for his mother, remains a traditional course, simply the church of Santa Costanza there, built as a mausoleum for Constantine's girl, was built over an important catacomb where Saint Agnes was cached, and either was always intended, or soon developed equally, a funerary hall where burying spots could exist bought by Christians. Most of the great Christian basilicas in Rome passed through a stage every bit funerary halls, full of sarcophagi and slab memorials, before being turned into more conventional churches in the Early Middle Ages.

Notable Mausolea of Emperors [edit]

Augustus [edit]

Front facade of the Mausoleum of Augustus

Augustus did the unspeakable in 28 BC and erected a mausoleum on the Campus Martius, a previously public land upon which infrastructure was normally illegal. This challenged his claim to be Princeps, as his enemies found such an action to exist too ambitious for a regular citizen and thus above the police force. Notable features of the mausoleum included a bronze statue of Augustus, pyres, and Egyptian obelisks among the various usual mortuary ornaments. The mausoleum suffered severe destruction in 410 Advertisement during the Gothic invasion of Rome in 410 AD.^[16]

Hadrian [edit]

Hadrian had a k mausoleum, at present improve known as the Castel Sant'Angelo, for himself and his family in the Pons Aelius in 120 AD. In improver to its fame as the resting spot of the emperor, the construction of the mausoleum is famous in its own right, as information technology has a particularly complex vertical design. A rectangular base supports the usual cylindrical frame. Atop the frame is a garden roof with a baroque monument bearing the statue of an affections.^[17] The original statue, that of a aureate quadriga, among other treasures fell victim to various attacks when the mausoleum served as a castle and a papal fortress during the Middle Ages. Over a century would pass before a new mausoleum would business firm the remains of an emperor. The corruption of the Severans and the Third Century Crisis did non permit very much opportunity for such a glorious memorialization.^[18]

The Tetrarchy [edit]

Diocletian, Maxentius, Galerius, and Constantius I all had their ain mausolea.^[19] Diocletian and Galerius, who ruled the Eastern Empire, take especially visible eastern influences in their mausolea, now both churches.^[15] Viewers tin observe the tower in the one-time's building, built on Diocletian'south Palace in Split, Croatia and the dark oil murals on the interior of the latter'south, in Thessalonica. Diocletian's mausoleum is now the main function of Split Cathedral. The Mausoleum of Maxentius outside Rome is the only one of the four in Italy. It lies on the Via Appia, where his villa and circus prevarication in ruins. Colvin asserts that the ground forces likely cached Constantius in Trier, simply there is no material prove.^[19]

Funerary altars [edit]

In ancient Rome, Roman citizens would memorialize their dead past creating cippi or grave altars. These altars became, not but commissioned by the rich, but likewise commonly erected by freedmen and slaves.^[xx] The function of these altars was either to house the ashes of the dead or only to symbolically commemorate the memory of the deceased.^[21] Ofttimes, applied funerary altars were constructed to display vessels that contained the ashes and burnt basic of the deceased. These ash urns were placed in deep cavities of the altars that were then covered with a chapeau.^[22] Other times, there was a low in the altar in which libations could be poured.^[23] Some Roman funerary altars were provided with pipes so that these libations could "attend" the remains.^[22] Less commonly, the trunk of the deceased was placed in the chantry.^[24] While some altars contained remnants of the deceased, most Roman funerary altars had no practical function and just were erected to memorialize the dead.^[24]

Funerary altars versus votive altars [edit]

The practice of erecting Roman funerary altars is linked to the tradition of constructing votive altars to honor the gods. Due to the acceptance that altars act as a symbol of reverence, it is believed that funerary altars were used to heroicize the deceased.^[25] Funerary altars differed from votive altars that honored the gods, because they were not recipients of claret sacrifices. Grave altars of heroes were connected with ritual sacrifices, but altars of regular Roman citizens were not. This practical deviation is determined because Roman funerary altars do non have sacrificial pans or braziers.^[26] By having a similar appearance to votive altars, the symbolism of the reverence of a sacrifice was implied, therefore conveying proper respect to the expressionless.^[27] While having different meanings, the two types of altars were similarly synthetic, both aboveground and round or rectangular in shape.^[28]

Locations [edit]

Funerary altars of more wealthy Roman citizens were often institute on the interior of more elaborate tombs.^[21] Altars erected past the eye class were also set upward in or outside of awe-inspiring tombs, but besides in funerary precincts that lined the roads leading out of the metropolis of Rome.^[29] The altars that were part of tomb complexes were prepare on family plots or on edifice plots bought by speculators, who then sold them to private owners.^[xxx] Tombs and altars had a shut connection in the mind of a Roman, evidenced by the Latin inscriptions where tombs are described every bit if they were altars.^[31]

Importance of epitaph [edit]

Epitaphs on funerary altars provide much information about the deceased, most often including their name and their filiation or tribe.^[29] Less often, the age and profession of the deceased was included in the epitaph.^[32] A typical epitaph on a Roman funerary altar opens with a dedication to the manes, or the spirit of the dead, and closes with a word of praise for the honoree.^[32] These epitaphs, along with the pictorial attributes of the altars, let historians to discern a lot of important data nearly ancient Roman funerary practices and monuments. Gathered from the funerary altars, it tin exist established that the majority of the altars were erected past a homogeneous group of middle-class citizens.^[32]

Dedicants and honorees [edit]

Roman funerary chantry for a boy, end of 1st century AD - Purple Ontario Museum

Epitaphs ofttimes emphasize the relationship betwixt the deceased and dedicant, with nearly relationships beingness familial (husbands and wives, parents and children, etc.). Many altars also feature portraits of the deceased.^[29] Extrapolated from the evidence of epitaphs and portraits on the altars, it can exist concluded that freedmen and their descendants most ofttimes commissioned funerary altars in Rome—people who were teachers, architects, magistrates, writers, musicians and and so on.^[33]

The virtually common type of altar dedication is from parents to their deceased kid. The epitaph often features the age of the child to further limited grief at the death at such a young age. On the other hand, the historic period of a deceased person at an older age is rarely put on the epitaph.^[32] Another, less common, dedications are to parents from children, with the child most likely beingness a boy.^[34] The second most common relationship of honorees is married man to wife or wife to husband.^[35]

Outside of familial relationships, patrons sometimes defended altars to a slave or freedman and vice versa.^[36] The human relationship betwixt dedicant and honoree of some altars that support this determination were actually husband and married woman, considering patrons sometimes married their freed slaves.^[37] Even so, the relationship between patron and slave or freedman was non exclusionary to spousal relationship, considering sometimes these citizens had a personal relationship with a non-blood related person that they felt needed to be commemorated.^[37]

It is important to annotation the prominence of women surrounding the discussion of Roman funerary altars, because it is rare for ancient Roman women to exist so involved in whatsoever kind of monument of this time. Contrasting to most of the monuments that are surviving from Rome, women played a major part in funerary altars because many altars were erected in honor of or commissioned by a woman.^[29] These women were honored as wives, mothers, and daughters, as well remembered for their professions. For example, these professional women were honored as priestesses, musicians, and poets. Sometimes the epitaph does not altar information nearly the profession of the honored woman, but details of the portrait (for example, the dress of the portrait) give clues to her vocation.^[38] Many surviving altars honor women considering, in ancient Rome, women tended to die young, due to childbirth and full general hardships from spousal relationship and overwork.^[39] Roman women were honored oft honored past their husbands, with some altars dedicated to the pair and with some just honoring the wife. Furthermore, some female person children were honored in altars, commissioned past their grief-stricken parents.^[40]

Designs [edit]

Mutual varieties of pediments. Some of these forms were found on Roman funerary altars.

Roman funerary altars had varied structures, with most reflecting the erection design of votive altars, which have flat tops.^[41] For others, which about likely were designed to receive offerings, the tops of the altars were dished.^[27] Deeper cavities were created for ash urns to exist placed inside.^[24] Sizes of the altars could range from miniature examples to 2 meters tall.^[29] Some carried busts or statues or portraits of the deceased.^[29] The simplest and virtually common grade of a funerary altar was a base of operations with a pediment, often featuring a portrait or epitaph, on meridian of the base.^[42] They are nearly all rectangular in shape and taller than they are wide. Plain or spiral columns unremarkably frame the portrait or scene featured on the altar.^[43]

Forth with the typical portrait and epitaph, other motifs were inscribed in the altars. These motifs oftentimes had otherworldly or funerary meanings, which include laurel wreaths or fruit –swags.^[44] Mythological allusions in the design of the chantry frequently aimed to liken the deceased to a divine being.^[45] Examples of these allusions include a young girl who is represented in the guise of Daphne transformed into a laurel tree or another girl who is portrayed as the goddess Diana. Sometimes, tools that were characteristic of the deceased's profession were featured on the altar.^[46] The design of the Roman funerary altars differs between each individual chantry, but there are many overarching themes.

Sarcophagi [edit]

"...a stone monument is an expression of permanence. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Roman obsession with personal immortality acquired its concrete course in stone." ^[47]

Sarcophagi were used in Roman funerary art beginning in the second century A.D., and continuing until the fourth century. A sarcophagus, which means "flesh-eater" in Greek, is a stone coffin used for inhumation burials.^[48] Sarcophagi were commissioned non merely for the aristocracy of Roman social club (mature male citizens),^[49] merely too for children, entire families, and dearest wives and mothers. The nigh expensive sarcophagi were made from marble, just other stones, lead, and wood were used besides.^[48] Along with the range in production material, there existed a variety of styles and shapes, depending on where the sarcophagus was produced and whom it was produced for.

Before sarcophagi [edit]

Inhumation burial practices and the employ of sarcophagi were not always the favored Roman funerary custom. The Etruscans and Greeks used sarcophagi for centuries before the Romans finally adopted the practice in the second century.^[48] Prior to that menstruum, the dead were ordinarily cremated and placed in marble ash chests or ash altars, or were simply commemorated with a grave altar that was not designed to hold cremated remains. Despite being the principal funerary custom during the Roman Republic, ash chests and grave altars almost disappeared from the market only a century after the advent of the sarcophagus.^[l]

It is ofttimes assumed that the popularity for sarcophagi began with the Roman aristocracy and gradually became more than accepted past the lower classes.^[49] However, in the past, the near expensive and ostentatious grave altars and ash chests were commissioned more frequently past wealthy freedmen and other members of the emerging heart class than by the Roman elite.^[51] Due to this fact and the lack of inscriptions on early sarcophagi, in that location is not plenty show to make a judgment on whether or not the manner for sarcophagi began with a specific social class. Surviving bear witness does indicate that a great majority of early sarcophagi were used for children. This suggests that the change in burial practice may not take simply stemmed from a change in style, just perhaps from contradistinct burial attitudes. It is possible that the conclusion to brainstorm inhuming bodies occurred considering families believed that inhumation was a kinder, and less disturbing burial rite than cremation, thus necessitating a shift in burial monument.^[49]

Stylistic transition from altars and ash chests to sarcophagi [edit]

Although grave altars and ash chests most disappeared from the market in the second century, aspects of their ornamentation endured in some stylistic elements of sarcophagi. The largest stylistic group of early sarcophagi in the second century is garland sarcophagi, a custom of decoration that was previously used on ash chests and grave altars. Though the premise of the decoration is the same, in that location are some differences. The garland supports are often human figures instead of the animal heads used previously. In add-on, specific mythological scenes fill the field, rather than minor birds or other modest scenes. The inscription panel on garland ash altars and chests is also missing on garland sarcophagi. When a sarcophagus did have an inscription, it seemed to be an extra addition and usually ran along the elevation edge of the chest or between the decorations.^[52] The fact that early garland sarcophagi continued the tradition of grave altars with busy garlands suggests that the customers and sculptors of sarcophagi had like approaches to those who purchased and produced grave altars. Both monuments employed a similar collection of stylistic motifs with but subtle shifts in iconography.^[53]

Metropolitan Roman, Attic, and Asiatic sarcophagus production centers [edit]

The Sarcophagus with the Triumph of Dionysus is a skilful example of a Metropolitan Roman style sarcophagus with its flat lid, three-sided decoration, and Dionysian scenes from Greek mythology.

Sarcophagi product of the Ancient Roman Empire involved three main parties: the customer, the sculpting workshop that carved the monument, and the quarry-based workshop that supplied the materials. The altitude between these parties was highly variable due to the extensive size of the Empire.^[54] Metropolitan Roman, Attic, and Asiatic were the three major regional types of sarcophagi that dominated merchandise throughout the Roman Empire.^[48] Although they were divided into regions, the production of sarcophagi was not as simple as it might appear. For example, Cranium workshops were close to Mount Pentelikon, the source of their materials, just were normally very far from their client. The opposite was true for the workshops of Metropolitan Rome, who tended to import large, roughed out sarcophagi from afar quarries in guild to consummate their commissions. Depending on altitude and customer request (some customers might choose to have elements of their sarcophagi left unfinished until a hereafter date, introducing the possibility of further work after the main committee), sarcophagi were in many unlike stages of product during send. Every bit a outcome, it is hard to develop a standardized model of production.^[55]

Metropolitan Rome [edit]

Rome was the principal production center in the western part of the empire. A Metropolitan Roman sarcophagus often took the shape of a low rectangular box with a flat chapeau. Equally the sarcophagus was usually placed in a niche or against a wall in a mausoleum, they were commonly only busy on the front end and two shorter sides. Many were decorated with carvings of garlands and fruits and leaves, as well equally narrative scenes from Greek mythology. Boxing and hunting scenes, biographical events from the life of the deceased, portrait busts, the profession of the deceased and abstract designs were also popular.^[48]

Attic [edit]

This is an example of an Asiatic garland sarcophagus, dated between 150 and 180 C.E. The sarcophagus is made from Dokimeion marble, so information technology was likely sculpted in Phrygia and and then shipped to Rome. The sarcophagus has a gable-roof chapeau and exemplifies the garland tradition mutual on ash altars and chests. It also has several incomplete parts on its 4 sides, suggesting the work was interrupted or the sarcophagus was needed on curt notice.

Athens was the main production center for Cranium manner sarcophagi. These workshops mainly produced sarcophagi for consign. They were rectangular in shape and were frequently decorated on all 4 sides, dissimilar the Metropolitan Roman manner, with ornamental carvings along the bottom and upper edge of the monument. The lids were likewise different from the flat metropolitan Roman style and featured a pitched gable roof,^[48] or a kline lid, which is carved in the mode of couch cushions on which the form of the deceased reclines.^[56] The great bulk of these sarcophagi also featured mythological subjects, especially the Trojan War, Achilles, and battles with the Amazons.^[48]

Asia Pocket-size (Asiatic) [edit]

The Dokimeion workshops in Phrygia specialized in architecturally formed large-calibration Asiatic sarcophagi. Many featured a serial of columns joined together by an entablature on all iv sides with homo figures in the area betwixt the columns. The lids were frequently fabricated in the gabled-roof design in lodge to consummate the architectural-style sarcophagi so the bury formed a sort of house or temple for the deceased. Other cities in Asia Minor produced sarcophagi of the garland tradition too. In general, the sarcophagi were decorated on either iii or four sides, depending on whether they were to exist displayed on a pedestal in an open-air setting or against the walls inside tombs.^[48]

Myth and meaning on Ancient Roman sarcophagi [edit]

A transition from the classical garland and seasonal reliefs with smaller mythological figures to a greater focus on full mythological scenes began with the interruption up of the classical way in the late second century towards the cease of Marcus Aurelius' reign.^[57] This shift led to the development of pop themes and meanings portrayed through mythological scenes and allegories. The almost popular mythological scenes on Roman sarcophagi functioned every bit aids to mourning, visions of life and happiness, and opportunities for self-portrayal for Roman citizens. Images of Meleager, the host of the Calydonian Boar hunt, being mourned by Atalanta, besides as images of Achilles mourning Patroclus were very common on sarcophagi that acted as grieving aids. In both cases, the mythological scenes were akin to mourning practices of ordinary Roman citizens in an effort to reflect their grief and comfort them when they visited the tomb.^[58] Playful images depicting Nereids, Dionysiac triumphs, and love scenes of Dionysus and Ariadne were as well commonly represented on sarcophagi.^[59] It is possible that these scenes of happiness and beloved in the face of death and mourning encouraged the living to enjoy life while they could, and reflected the celebration and meals that the mourners would later bask in the tomb when they returned to visit the deceased.^[lx] The third century involved the render in popularity of self-representation on Roman sarcophagi. There were several unlike ways Roman citizens approached self-representation on sarcophagi. Some sarcophagi had bodily representations of the face or full figure of the deceased. In other cases, mythological portraits were used to connect characteristics of the deceased with traits of the hero or heroine portrayed. For instance, common mythological portraits of deceased women identified them with women of lauded traits in myth, such as the devoted Selene or loyal Alcestis.^[61] Scenes featuring the figures of Meleager and Achilles expressed bravery and were often produced on sarcophagi holding deceased men.^[48] Biographical scenes that emphasize the true virtues of Roman citizens were also used to commemorate the deceased. Scholars argue that these biographical scenes as well equally the comparisons to mythological characters propose that self-portrayal on Roman sarcophagi did not exist to gloat the traits of the deceased, but rather to emphasize favored Roman cultural values^[62] and demonstrate that the family unit of the deceased were educated members of the elite that could empathise hard mythological allegories.^[63]

Third- and fourth-century sarcophagi [edit]

The breakup of the classical style led to a menses in which full mythological reliefs with an increment in the number of figures and an elongation of forms became more than popular, as discussed in a higher place. The proportion of figures on the reliefs also became increasingly unbalanced, with the main figures taking upward the greatest area with smaller figures crowded in the modest pockets of empty space.^[64] In the third century, another transition in theme and style of sarcophagi involved the return in popularity of representing mythological and non-mythological portraits of the deceased.^[65] Imagery of the 4 seasons as well becomes popular during the tertiary and fourth centuries. With the appearance of Christianity in the third century, traditional motifs, similar the seasons, remained, and images representing a belief in the afterlife appeared. The change in style brought by Christianity is perhaps most significant, as it signals a change in emphasis on images of retrospection, and introduced images of an afterlife.^[66]

Catacombs [edit]

The Roman catacombs are a series of cloak-and-dagger cemeteries that were congenital in several major cities of the Roman Empire, beginning in the first and second centuries B.C.E. The tradition was later copied in several other cities around the world, though cloak-and-dagger burial had been already common in many cultures before Christianity.^[67] The word "Catacomb" means a large, surreptitious, Christian cemetery. Because of laws prohibiting burying inside the urban center, the catacombs were constructed around the urban center along existing roads such as the Via Appia, where San Callixtus and San Sebastiano can be found, two of the most significant catacombs.^[68] The catacombs were often named for saints who were buried in them, according to tradition, though at the fourth dimension of their burial, martyr cults had not yet achieved the popularity to grant them lavish tombs.^[69] Afterward 750 B.C.E., nearly of the remains of these martyrs were moved to the churches in the city above.^[68] This was mainly undertaken by Pope Paul I, who decided to motion the relics because of the neglected country of the catacombs.^[lxx] The structure of catacombs started tardily in the offset century and during this time they were used just for burial purposes and for funerary rites. The procedure of underground burial was abandoned, however, in the fifth century.^[71] A few catacombs remained open to exist used as sites of pilgrimage considering of their affluence of relics.^[69]

Earlier Christians began to apply catacombs for burial, they cached their dead in pagan burial areas.^[72] As a outcome of their community'due south economical and organizational growth, Christians were able to begin these exclusively Christian cemeteries.^[73] Members of the community created a "communal fund" which ensured that all members would be buried. Christians besides insisted on inhumation and the catacombs allowed them to practice this in an organized and practical manner.

Types of tombs [edit]

Reconstruction of the Catacomb of Callistus

The layout and architecture was designed to brand very efficient use of the space^[74] and consisted of several levels with skylights that were positioned both to maximize lighting and to highlight sure elements of the decor.^[75] There are several types of tomb in the catacombs, the simplest and near common of which is the loculus (pl. loculi), a crenel in the wall closed off by marble or terra-cotta slabs. These are usually simple and organized very economically, bundled along the walls of the hallways in the catacombs. A mensa is a niche in the wall property a sarcophagus while a cubiculus is more private, more monumental, and usually more than decorated.^[76] Cubicula utilise architectural structures, such as columns, pilasters, and arches, forth with bold geometric shapes.^[77] Their size and elaborate decor bespeak wealthier occupants. With the issuance of the Edict of Milan, equally Christians were less persecuted and gained more than members of the upper form, the catacombs were profoundly expanded and grew more monumental.^[78]

Types of decor [edit]

Material of tombs [edit]

Much of the material of the tombs was second-paw, some even still has heathen inscriptions on them from their previous apply.^[79] Marble was used often, partially because information technology reflected light and was light in color.^[lxxx] Clay bricks were the other common material that was used for construction and for decor. Roman concrete (volcanic rock, lime putty, and water — a combination which is incredibly resistant to wear) and a sparse layer of stucco was spread over the walls of blank rock faces. This was not structural, only artful, and was typically painted with frescoes.^[81]

Inscriptions [edit]

Tombs were usually marked with epitaphs, seals, Christian symbols, or prayers in the form of an inscription or painted in red lead, though ofttimes they were marked only with the name of the occupant.^[76] Inscriptions in the Christian catacombs were usually in Latin or Greek, while in the Jewish catacombs they were written in either Greek or Hebrew.^[82] The bulk of them are religiously neutral, while some are only graphic imitations of epitaphs (dashes and letters) that serve no meaning simply to proceed the funerary theme in an bearding and efficient mass-product. Textual inscriptions also contained graphic elements and were matched in size and significance with decorative elements and elaborate punctuations marks.^[83] Some Christians were too poor to afford inscriptions, but could inscribe their tomb with a short and somewhat sloppy graffito while the mortar was notwithstanding drying;^[84] Somewhen, a code of equality was established ensuring that the tombs of poorer Christians would still exist busy, however minimally. The quality of writing on pagan tombstones is noticeably superior to that on Christian tombstones. This was probably due to the fact that Christians had less means, less admission to specialized workers, and perhaps care more about the content of their inscriptions than their aesthetic.^[85]

Objects [edit]

Objects were oftentimes ready before, in, and in the mortar of tombs. These took the form of benches, stools, tables, and tableware and may have been used for rites such equally the refrigerium (the funerary meal) which involved real food and drink.^[86] Tables most likely held offerings of nutrient while vases or other glass or ceramic containers held offerings of vino. Objects such as the bases of gold drinking glass beakers, shells, dolls, buttons, jewelry, bells, and coins were added to the mortar of the loculi or left on shelves nigh the tomb. Some of these objects may accept been encased in the tomb with the trunk and removed after.^[87] Objects were much more mutual during and after the Constantinian period.^[86]

Frescoes [edit]

The objects surrounding the tomb were reflected in the frescoes of banquets.^[88] The tombs sometimes used mosaics, merely frescoes were overwhelmingly more popular than mosaics. The walls were typically whitewashed and divided upwardly into sections by red and green lines. This shows influence from Pompeian wall painting which tends toward extreme simplification of architectural imitation.^[89]

"The Severan menstruum sees the definition of the wall surface as a chromatic unity, no longer intended every bit a space open up towards an illusionary depth, but rather as a solid and substantial surface to be articulated with panels." ^[89]

Symbolism [edit]

The organized and uncomplicated fashion of the frescoes manifests itself in two forms: an faux of architecture, and clearly defined images. The images typically present ane subject of religious importance and are combined together to tell a familiar (typically Christian) story. Floral motif^[90] and the Herculean labors (often used in pagan funerary monuments) along with other Hellenistic imagery are common and merge in their depictions of nature with Christian ideas of Eden.^[91] Similarly, seasons are a common theme and stand for the journeying through life from nascency (bound) to decease (winter), which goes with the occasional depictions of the Goddesses Ceres and Proserpina. There are many examples of pagan symbolism in the Christian catacombs, often used as parallels to Christian stories. The phoenix, a heathen symbol, is used to symbolize the Resurrection;^[92] Hercules in the Garden of Hesperides symbolizes Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the garden of Eden;^[93] the most famous symbol of the catacombs, the Good Shepherd is sometimes shown equally Christ, but sometimes as the Greek figure Orpheus.^[92]

Virtually usage of pagan imagery is to emphasize paradisial aspects,^[94] though information technology may also indicate that either the patron or the creative person was pagan.^[95] Other symbols include historical martyrs,^[96] funerary banquets,^[97] and symbols of the occupation of the deceased.^[98] The well-nigh popular symbols are of the Jonah bike, the Baptism of Christ, and the Good Shepherd and the fisherman.^[99] The Practiced Shepherd was used as a wish for peaceful remainder for the dead, but besides acted equally a guide to the dead who were represented past the sheep. Sometimes the Good Shepherd was depicted with the fisherman and the philosopher as the symbol of ultimate "peace on land and sea," though this is but briefly pop.^[100] These Old Testament scenes are also seen in Jewish catacombs.

Tombstones and funerary inscriptions [edit]

Roman epitaph from Church building in Sankt Stefan in the customs of Völkermarkt

Culturally pregnant throughout the Empire, the erection and dedication of funerary tombstones was a common and accessible burial do.^[101] Every bit in modern times, epitaphs were a ways of publicly showcasing 1's wealth, honour, and status in club.^[101] In this mode, tombstones not only served to commemorate the dead, merely as well to reflect the sophistication of the Roman globe.^[101] Both parties, therefore – the living and the dead – were venerated by and benefited from public burial.^[102] Though Roman tombstones varied in size, shape, and style, the epitaphs inscribed upon them were largely uniform.^[103] Traditionally, these inscriptions included a prayer to the Manes, the name and age of the deceased, and the name of the commemorator.^[104] Some funerary inscriptions, though rare, included the year, month, 24-hour interval, and even hour of death.^[105] The design and layout of the epitaph itself would have often been left to the discretion of a hired stonemason.^[103] In some cases, the stonemason would have fifty-fifty chosen the inscription, choosing a common phrase to complement the biographical information provided by the family unit of the deceased.^[106] In decease, i had the opportunity to idealize and romanticize their accomplishments; consequently, some funerary inscriptions tin be misleading.^[107] Tombstones and epitaphs, therefore, should not exist viewed as an accurate delineation of the Roman demographic.^[108]

Freedmen and their children [edit]

An inscribed funerary relief of Aurelius Hermia and his married woman Aurelia Philematum, onetime slaves who married later on their manumission, 80 BC, from a tomb along the Via Nomentana in Rome

In the Roman globe, infant mortality was common and widespread throughout the Empire.^[109] Consequently, parents often remained emotionally detached from immature children, so equally to forbid or lessen future grief.^[110] Withal, tombstones and epitaphs defended to infants were common among freedmen.^[111] Of the surviving collection of Roman tombstones, roughly 75 per centum were fabricated by and for freedmen and slaves.^[112] Regardless of course, tombstones functioned as a symbol of rank and were chiefly popular among those of servile origin.^[113] Equally public displays, tombstones were a means of attaining social recognition and asserting one's rise from slavery.^[114] Moreover, tombstones promoted the liberties of freeborn sons and daughters who, unlike their freed parents, were Roman citizens by birth.^[115] The child's tria nomina, which served to testify that the child was dignified and truly Roman, was typically inscribed upon the tombstone.^[111] Infants additionally had ane or ii epithets inscribed upon the stone that emphasized the moral aspects of the kid'southward life.^[116] These epithets served to express the fact that fifty-fifty young children were governed by Roman virtues.^[117]

[edit]

Tombstones of Roman horsemen

Members of the ruling class became interested in erecting funerary monuments during the Augustan-Tiberian menses.^[118] However, generally, this interest was brief. Whereas freedmen were oft compelled to display their success and social mobility through the erection of public monuments, the aristocracy felt lilliputian demand for an open up demonstration of this kind.^[119] Archeological findings in Pompeii propose that tombs and monuments erected by freedmen increased at the very moment when those erected past the elite began to decrease.^[120] This alter in custom signifies a restoration of pre-Augustan minimalism and austerity amid the elite in Rome.^[120] Self-remembrance amidst the social elite became uncommon during this time.^[121] Nonetheless governed by a strong sense of duty and religious piety, however, ancient Romans chose to celebrate the dead privately.^[122] With this modify, noble or aristocratic families took to commemorating the deceased by adding inscriptions or simple headstones to existing burying sites.^[123] These sites, which were often located on the family'south country estate, offered privacy to a grieving household.^[123] Dissimilar freedmen, the Roman elite rarely used tombstones or other funerary monuments every bit indicators of social status.^[124] The size and mode of one's cippi, for example, was largely a personal choice and not something influenced by the need to fulfill greater social obligations.^[119]

Soldiers [edit]

The Cenotaph of Drusus (Drususstein), an empty tomb raised by Roman troops in 9 AD to commemorate the deceased general Drusus

In a military context, burial sites served to honour fallen soldiers too as to mark newly sequestered Roman territory, such as Mainz.^[125] The most common funerary monument for Roman soldiers was that of the stelae – a apprehensive, unadorned slice of stone, cut into the shape of a rectangle.^[126] The name, rank, and unit of the deceased would be inscribed upon the stone, also as his age and his years of service in the Roman army.^[126] The name of the commemorator, usually an heir or shut family unit fellow member, could be inscribed most the bottom of the stelae if desired.^[126] Uniform in nature, the consistent style of these tombstones reflected the orderly, systematic nature of the ground forces itself.^[126] Each tombstone stood equally a testament to the strength and persistence of the Roman army likewise equally the individual soldiers.^[127] In some unique cases, military tombstones were adorned with sculpture.^[128] These types of headstones typically belonged to members of the auxiliary units rather than legionary units.^[129] The chief difference between the two units was citizenship.^[129]

Whereas legionary soldiers were citizens of Rome, auxiliary soldiers came from provinces in the Empire. Auxiliary soldiers had the opportunity to obtain Roman citizenship just after their belch.^[129] Tombstones served to distinguish Romans from non-romans, and to enforce the social-hierarchy that existed within military legions.^[130] For men who died in boxing, the erection of ornate tombstones was a terminal effort at Romanization.^[131] Reliefs on auxiliary tombstones often depict men on horseback, denoting the courage and heroism of the auxiliary'due south cavalrymen.^[132] Though expensive, tombstones were likely within the means of the common soldier.^[130] Unlike well-nigh lower class citizens in aboriginal Rome, soldiers received a regular income.^[130] Moreover, some historians suggest the cosmos of a burial order, a grouping organized to collect regular monetary contributions from the legions.^[130] The gain served to subsidize the toll of burial for fallen soldiers.^[130] Countless soldiers died in times of Roman war. Tombstones, therefore, were a way to identify and honor one'southward military service and personal achievement on the battlefield.^[133] These tombstones did not commemorate soldiers who died in gainsay, just rather soldiers who died during times of peace when generals and comrades were at ease to hold proper burials.^[133] Soldiers who died in battle were disrobed, cremated, and buried in mass graves well-nigh camp.^[127] In some cases, heirs or other family unit members commissioned the structure of cenotaphs for lost soldiers - funerary monuments that commemorated the expressionless as if the body had been establish and returned dwelling house.^[134]

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f} Patterson (2000), p. 265
2. ^ Hope (2007), p. 130
3. ^ Colvin (1991), p. thirty
4. ^ ^{a b} Colvin (1991), p. 16
5. ^ Smith (2000), p. 23
6. ^ Patterson (2000), p. 273
7. ^ ^{a b} Colvin (1991), p. 21
8. ^ Colvin (1991), p. 29
9. ^ ^{a b c} Patterson (2000), p. 266
10. ^ Promise (2007), p. 137
11. ^ Hope (2007), p. 134
12. ^ Patterson (2000), p. 267
13. ^ Patterson (2000), p. 271
14. ^ Patterson (2000), p. 269
15. ^ ^{a b} Colvin (1991), p. 53
16. ^ Colvin (1991), p. 43
17. ^ Colvin (1991), p. 49
18. ^ Colvin (1991), p. 50
19. ^ ^{a b} Colvin (1991), p. 52
20. ^ Hornblower, Spawforth & Eidinow (2012), p. 87
21. ^ ^{a b} Toynbee (1996), p. 266
22. ^ ^{a b} Kleiner (1987a), p. 22
23. ^ Toynbee (1996), p. 253
24. ^ ^{a b c} Kleiner (1987a), p. 23
25. ^ Coulton (2005), p. 128
26. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 21
27. ^ ^{a b} Coulton (2005), p. 129
28. ^ Coulton (2005), p. 145
29. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Kleiner (1987b), p. 547
30. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 24
31. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 27
32. ^ ^{a b c d} Kleiner (1987a), p. 45
33. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 28
34. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 50
35. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 51
36. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 54
37. ^ ^{a b} Kleiner (1987a), p. 55
38. ^ Kleiner (1987b), p. 550
39. ^ Kleiner (1987b), p. 548
40. ^ Kleiner (1987b), p. 549
41. ^ Coulton (2005), p. 29
42. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 29
43. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 31
44. ^ Toynbee (1996), p. 265
45. ^ Toynbee (1996), p. 46
46. ^ Kleiner (1987a), p. 46
47. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Russell (2010), p. 119
48. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i} Awan (2007)
49. ^ ^{a b c} Elsner, Huskinson & Davies (2010), p. 47
50. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Davies (2010), pp. 21–22
51. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Davies (2010), p. 45
52. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Davies (2010), p. 40
53. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Davies (2010), pp. 44–45
54. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Russell (2010), pp. 123–124
55. ^ Elsner, Huskinson & Russell (2010), pp. 125–126
56. ^ Stiff & Toynbee (1995), p. 192
57. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), p. 249
58. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), pp. 62–66
59. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), pp. 128–132
60. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), pp. 169–170
61. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), pp. 199–206
62. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), p. 199
63. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), p. 30
64. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), pp. 249–250
65. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), p. 252
66. ^ Zanker & Ewald (2012), pp. 261–266
67. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. 16
68. ^ ^{a b} Nicolai (1999), p. ix
69. ^ ^{a b} Bisconti (1999), p. 129
70. ^ Osborne (1985), p. 287
71. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. thirteen
72. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. fourteen
73. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. 15
74. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. 17
75. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 72
76. ^ ^{a b} Nicolai (1999), p. xx
77. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. 44
78. ^ Nicolai (1999), p. 37
79. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 100
80. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 85
81. ^ Sanchez-Moral et al. (2005)
82. ^ Mazzoleni (1999), p. 152
83. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 78
84. ^ Mazzoleni (1999), p. 149
85. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 79
86. ^ ^{a b} Nicolai (1999), p. 45
87. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 81
88. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 110
89. ^ ^{a b} Bisconti (1999), p. 89
90. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 99
91. ^ Berg (1994), p. 219
92. ^ ^{a b} Bisconti (1999), p. 103
93. ^ Berg (1994), p. 229
94. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 123
95. ^ Berg (1994), p. 220
96. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 105
97. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 109
98. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 115
99. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 116
100. ^ Bisconti (1999), p. 120
101. ^ ^{a b c} Oliver (2000), p. 1
102. ^ Male monarch (2000), p. 118
103. ^ ^{a b} King (2000), p. 130
104. ^ Campbell (2015)
105. ^ Male monarch (2000), p. 139
106. ^ King (2000), pp. 130–131
107. ^ Hope (2000), p. 156
108. ^ Hope (2000), p. 157
109. ^ Hope (2003), p. 93
110. ^ King (2000), p. 117
111. ^ ^{a b} King (2000), p. 122
112. ^ Mouritsen (2005), p. 38
113. ^ King (2000), p. 121
114. ^ Mouritsen (2005), pp. 60–61
115. ^ Mouritsen (2005), p. 61
116. ^ King (2000), pp. 140–141
117. ^ King (2000), p. 141
118. ^ Mouritsen (2005), p. 45
119. ^ ^{a b} Mouritsen (2005), p. 47
120. ^ ^{a b} Mouritsen (2005), p. l
121. ^ Mouritsen (2005), p. 46
122. ^ Rex (2000), p. 120
123. ^ ^{a b} Mouritsen (2005), p. 51
124. ^ Mouritsen (2005), p. 43
125. ^ Hope (2000), p. 160
126. ^ ^{a b c d} Hope (2000), p. 163
127. ^ ^{a b} Hope (2003), p. 87
128. ^ Hope (2000), p. 165
129. ^ ^{a b c} Hope (2000), p. 167
130. ^ ^{a b c d eastward} Hope (2000), p. 161
131. ^ Promise (2000), p. 180
132. ^ Hope (2000), p. 171
133. ^ ^{a b} Hope (2003), p. 85
134. ^ Promise (2003), p. 89

Bibliography [edit]

• Awan, Heather T. (2007). "Roman Sarcophagi". Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
• Berg, Beverly (1994). "Alcestis and Hercules in the Catacomb of Via Latina". Vigiliae Christianae. 48 (3): 219–234. JSTOR 1584095.
• Bisconti, Fabrizio (1999). "The Decoration of Roman Catacombs". The Christian Catacombs of Rome: History, Decoration, Inscriptions. Translated by Christina Carlo Stella and Lori-Ann Touchette (3rd ed.). Rome: Schnell & Steiner.
• Campbell, Elisabeth (2015). "Latin Funerary Inscriptions". Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum. Retrieved April 8, 2015.
• Coulton, J. J. (2005). "Pedestals as 'altars' in Roman Asia Small-scale". Anatolian Studies. 55: 127–157. doi:ten.1017/S0066154600000697. JSTOR 20065539. S2CID 193331281.
• Colvin, Howard (1991). Architecture and the Afterlife. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. sixteen, 21, 29–thirty, 49–50, 52–53, 59.
• Elsner, Jas; Huskinson, Janet; Davies, Glenys (2010). "Before Sarcophagi". Life, Death and Representation: Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Vol. 29. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. pp. 21–55.
• Elsner, Jas; Huskinson, Janet; Russell, Ben (2010). "The Roman Sarcophagus 'Manufacture': A Reconsideration". Life, Decease and Representation: Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Vol. 29. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. pp. 119–149.
• Hope, Valerie M. (2000). "Inscription and Sculpture: the Construction of Identity in the Military Tombstones of Roman Mainz". In Graham Oliver (ed.). The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. pp. 155–185. ISBN9780853239154.
• Promise, Valerie M. (2003). "Trophies and Tombstones: Commemorating the Roman Soldier". World Archæology. 35 (i): 79–97. doi:x.1080/0043824032000078090. JSTOR 3560213. S2CID 31467438.
• Hope, Valerie M. (2007). Death in Ancient Rome: a Sourcebook . New York: Routledge. pp. 129–130, 133–134, 136–137.
• Hornblower, S.; Spawforth, A.; Eidinow, Due east. (2012). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• King, Margaret (2000). "Commemoration of Infants on Roman Funerary Inscriptions". In Graham Oliver (ed.). The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Gild of Greece and Rome. Liverpool: Liverpool Academy Press. pp. 117–154. ISBN9780853239154.
• Kleiner, D. Due east. E. (1987a). Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore.
• Kleiner, D. E. Eastward. (1987b). "Women and Family Life on Roman Imperial Funerary Altars". Latomus. 46 (3): 545–554. JSTOR 41540684.
• Mazzoleni, Danilo (1999). "Inscriptions in Roman Catacombs". The Christian Catacombs of Rome: History, Ornament, Inscriptions. Translated past Christina Carlo Stella and Lori-Ann Touchette (3rd ed.). Rome: Schnell & Steiner.
• Mouritsen, Henrik (2005). "Freedmen and Decurions: Epitaphs and Social History in Regal Italian republic". The Periodical of Roman Studies. 95: 38–63. doi:ten.3815/000000005784016315. JSTOR 20066816. S2CID 162253187.
• Nicolai, Vincenzo Fiocchi (1999). "The Origin and Development of Roman Catacombs". The Christian Catacombs of Rome: History, Decoration, Inscriptions. Translated by Christina Carlo Stella and Lori-Ann Touchette (3rd ed.). Rome: Schnell & Steiner.
• Oliver, Graham (2000). "An Introduction to the Epigraphy of Death: Funerary Inscriptions as Testify". In Graham Oliver (ed.). In The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Guild of Greece and Rome. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. pp. 1–23. ISBN9780853239154.
• Osborne, J. (1985). "The Roman Catacombs in the Middle Ages". Papers of the British School at Rome. 53: 278–328. doi:10.1017/S0068246200011569.
• Patterson, John R. (2000). "Living and Dying in the City of Rome: Houses and Tombs". In Jon Coulston & Hazel Dodge (ed.). Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal Urban center. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. pp. 265–269, 271, 273, 278.
• Sanchez-Moral, S.; Luque, L.; Cuezva, S.; Soler, V.; Benavente, D.; Laiz, L.; Gonzalez, J. M.; Saiz-Jimenez, C. (2005). "Deterioration of building materials in Roman catacombs: the influence of visitors". Scientific discipline of the Full Environment. 349 (1–three): 260–276. Bibcode:2005ScTEn.349..260S. doi:x.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.12.080. JSTOR 16198686. PMID 16198686.
• Smith, Christopher (2000). "Early and Archaic Rome". In Jon Coulston & Hazel Dodge (ed.). Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal Metropolis. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology.
• Stiff, Donald Emrys; Toynbee, J. M. C. (1995). Roger Ling (ed.). Roman Fine art. Yale University Press.
• Toynbee, J. 1000. C. (1996). Death and Burial in the Roman Earth. Baltimore, Doc: JHU Press.
• Zanker, Paul; Ewald, Bjorn C. (2012). Living with Myths: the Imagery of Roman Sarcophagi. Translated by Julia Slater. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press.

External links [edit]

• Description of the reconstruction of a Roman sarcophagus in the J. Paul Getty Museum

preslerwarte1990.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_funerary_art

Share this post