Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100 (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture & Representation) 2021919502, 9780192844897, 019284489X

Table of contents :
Cover
Series page
Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Illustrations
Abbreviations
Note on Translations
1: Art, Science, and the Natural World: Introduction and Historical Background
The Alexandrian Intellectual Achievement
The Mouseion and Library
The accumulation of books
Encyclopaedism, cataloguing, and classification in Alexandrian scholarship
Aristotle and his impact on Alexandrian Intellectualism
The scientific research of Aristotle and his followers
The reception of Aristotelian natural science in Alexandria
Kallimachos’s treatises On Birds and On Changes in the Names of Fish
Paradoxography
Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome of Aristotle
The Ptolemies and Other Animals
The Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos
Collecting animals in third-century Alexandria
Encounters in the wild
2: The Nile Mosaic at Praeneste: Evidence of Ptolemaic Natural Science in Late Republican Italy
Context, Chronology, and Modern History
The Topography of the Nile Mosaic
A Ptolemaic Archetype
Praeneste and the Hellenistic East
The Nile Mosaic in its Alexandrian Context
The origins of the animal representations
Fantastical creatures
Ptolemaic Taxonomy in the Nile Mosaic
Territorial Ideology
Conclusions
3: The Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa: Parading Knowledge in Hellenistic Idumaea
Architectue and Chronology
Marisa in the Third Century BC
The Painted Decoration of the Tomb
The Animal Frieze
The Leopardess Hunt: Origins and Significance
Aethiopia, Egypt, and The Animal Frieze
A Parade of Knowledge?
Conclusions
4: The Artemidoros Papyrus: An Assortment of Scientific Images and Texts
Discovery and Reconstructions
Chronology and Context
Artemidoros and The Verso of P. Artemid
The Verso Illustrations: Artistry, Arrangement, Origins
P.Artemid, and Hellenistic Natural Science
The Function(s) of the Verso
Conclusions
5: Animals in Hellenistic Royal Mosaics: Tryphē and Taxonomy in Alexandria and Pergamon
The Dog Mosaic From Alexandria
Royal Mosaics From Pergamon
Palace IV
Palace V
Pliny the Elder and sosos of Pergamon
Sosos’s Doves
Sosos’s Unswept Room
Contextualizing the Mosaics of Sosos
Captive Animals and Transportabl Eintermediaries
Conclusions
6: Fish Mosaics in Late Republican Italy: Between Roman Gastronomy and Hellenistic Ichthyology
The Fish Mosaics at Praeneste and Pompeii
The ‘Cave of the Lots’ at Praeneste
The House of the Faun at Pompeii
The House of the Geometric Mosaics at Pompeii
Typological Connections
Workshops and Intermediaries
The Significance of Fish Mosaics for Italian Viewers
The Case for Hellenistic Origins
Interpreting the Postulated Archetype
Conclusions
7: Garden Paintings in Rome and the Bayof Naples: Bringing the Natural World Indoors
The Painted Garden Room at Prima Porta
Interpreting Livia's Garden Room
Painted Garden Room in Early Imperial Pompeii
The House of the Golden Bracelet
The House of the Fruit Orchard
Reading the Garden Paintings at Pompeii
Hellenistic Origins: Existing Theories
Hellenistic Origins: A More Flexible Hypothesis
Conclusions
8: Conclusions
Art, Science, and The Natural World in the Anceint Mediterranean
The Legacy of Hellenistic Natural Science
Cultural legacy
Artistic legacy
Closing Remarks
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

O X F O R D S T U D I E S IN AN C I E N T C U L T U R E A ND REPRESENTAT ION General Editors The late Simon Price R. R. R. Smith Peter Thonemann Tim Whitmarsh

Oliver Taplin

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

O X F O R D S T U D I E S IN AN C I E N T C U L T U R E A ND REPRESENTAT ION Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation publishes significant interdisciplinary research into the visual, social, political, and religious cultures of the ancient Mediterranean world. The series includes work that combines different kinds of representations that are usually treated separately. The overarching programme is to integrate images, monuments, texts, performances, and rituals with the places, participants, and broader historical environment that gave them meaning.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100 JOSHUA J. THOMAS

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries # Joshua J. Thomas 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2021919502 ISBN 978–0–19–284489–7 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

For my parents, Wayne and Nicky, and for Arianna

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

acknowledgements This book began life as a doctoral thesis written at the University of Oxford between 2013 and 2016 under the supervision of Bert Smith. I am grateful to Bert for his expert feedback and guidance at all stages of the project. Special thanks are also due to Maria Stamatopoulou for countless helpful discussions over the years. My manuscript benefited greatly from the thoughtful comments of several readers. I am particularly grateful to Katherine Clarke and Will Wootton, to the editors of the Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation series, to two anonymous readers for the Press, and to the editorial team at OUP. Other friends and colleagues have contributed in a variety of ways, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge some of them here: Lucy Audley-Miller, Konogan Beaufay, Ruth Bielfeldt, Angelos Chaniotis, Johannes Eber, Peter Haarer, Stelios Ieremias, Hugh Jeffrey, Priscilla Lange, Jane Masséglia, Milena Melfi, Christian Niederhuber, Julia Pacitto, Viktoria Räuchle, Anja Schwarz, Hugo Shakeshaft, Harry Sidebottom, Peter Stewart, and Rachel Wood. My gratitude also goes to the excavation team at Aphrodisias, for much stimulating conversation, and to the Fellows of Lincoln College Oxford, for making my time as the inaugural LaveryShuffrey Early Career Fellow in Roman Art and Archaeology so enjoyable. I have been fortunate to receive generous financial support from several sources. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation funded my doctoral studies; the Craven Committee at the University of Oxford funded research trips to Italy in 2014 and 2015; and the Zilkha Fund of Lincoln College provided a grant covering the cost of image copyright permissions. I wish to thank them all warmly. I am also indebted to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Institute of Classical Archaeology at LMU Munich for my current research post. My biggest thanks go to my parents, Wayne and Nicky, for their constant support, and to Arianna, for her endless supply of patience and affection. I dedicate this book to them. Munich, April 2021

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

contents List of Illustrations

xiii

Abbreviations

xxv

Note on Translations

xxvii

1. Art, Science, and the Natural World: Introduction and Historical Background

1

The Alexandrian Intellectual Achievement

5

Aristotle and His Impact on Alexandrian Intellectualism

18

The Ptolemies and Other Animals

30

2. The Nile Mosaic at Praeneste: Evidence of Ptolemaic Natural Science in Late Republican Italy

41

Context, Chronology, and Modern History

41

The Topography of the Nile Mosaic

49

A Ptolemaic Archetype

55

Praeneste and the Hellenistic East

60

The Nile Mosaic in Its Alexandrian Context

63

Ptolemaic Taxonomy in the Nile Mosaic

68

Territorial Ideology

82

Conclusions

87

3. The Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa: Parading Knowledge in Hellenistic Idumaea

89

Architecture and Chronology

91

Marisa in the Third Century BC

97

The Painted Decoration of the Tomb

99

The Animal Frieze

104

The Leopardess Hunt: Origins and Significance

114

Aethiopia, Egypt, and the Animal Frieze

117

A Parade of Knowledge?

123

Conclusions

125

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

x

contents

4. The Artemidoros Papyrus: An Assortment of Scientific Images and Texts

127

Discovery and Reconstruction

128

Chronology and Context

132

Artemidoros and the Verso of P.Artemid.

134

The Verso Illustrations: Artistry, Arrangement, Origins

143

P.Artemid. and Hellenistic Natural Science

154

The Function(s) of the Verso

160

Conclusions

166

5. Animals in Hellenistic Royal Mosaics: Tryphē and Taxonomy in Alexandria and Pergamon

168

The Dog Mosaic from Alexandria

169

Royal Mosaics from Pergamon

175

Pliny the Elder and Sosos of Pergamon

186

Contextualizing the Mosaics of Sosos

198

Captive Animals and Transportable Intermediaries

202

Conclusions

204

6. Fish Mosaics in Late Republican Italy: Between Roman Gastronomy and Hellenistic Ichthyology

206

The Fish Mosaics at Praeneste and Pompeii

207

Typological Connections

223

Workshops and Intermediaries

228

The Significance of Fish Mosaics for Italian Viewers

231

The Case for Hellenistic Origins

235

Interpreting the Postulated Archetype

242

Conclusions

245

7. Garden Paintings in Rome and the Bay of Naples: Bringing the Natural World Indoors

247

The Painted Garden Room at Prima Porta

248

Interpreting Livia’s Garden Room

257

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

contents

xi

Painted Garden Rooms in Early Imperial Pompeii

263

Reading the Garden Paintings at Pompeii

277

Hellenistic Origins: Existing Theories

278

Hellenistic Origins: A More Flexible Hypothesis

283

Conclusions

288

8. Conclusions

291

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean

291

The Legacy of Hellenistic Natural Science

294

Closing Remarks

301

Bibliography Index

303 349

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

list of illustrations Cover. Nile Mosaic, Section 6: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919206. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 1.1. Plan of Ptolemaic Alexandria. Source: McKenzie 2007, 21, fig. 22. 1.2. Plan of the upper city at Pergamon. Source: Hoepfner 1996, 18, fig. 14, with kind permission. 1.3. Map of the Nile valley and Red Sea coast. Drawing: M. Hense. Source: Sidebotham 2011, 4, fig. 1–2, with kind permission. 2.1. Map of Latium, Etruria, and Sabinum. Ancient World Mapping Center # 2021 . Used by permission. 2.2. The Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. Palestrina, MAN. Photo: Palazzo Barberini, Palestrina, Italy/Luisa Ricciarini/Bridgeman Images. 2.3. Schematic plan of the Lower Complex at Praeneste. Drawing by author, after Gullini 1984, pl. 1. 2.4. Axonometric reconstruction of the Lower Complex at Praeneste, with partial cutaway. Drawing by author, after Lauter 1979, 488, fig. 30. 2.5. Photograph of the grotto containing the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. Photo: MiBACT. Photographer: Q. Berti. Su concessione del MiBACT— Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale. 2.6. Reconstruction of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste: digital montage combining floor plan of grotto with photographs of individual sections. Source: Hinterhöller-Klein 2015, pl. 24 fig. 137, with kind permission. 2.7. Nile Mosaic, Section 12: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919212. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.8. Nile Mosaic, Section 19: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919219. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.9. Nile Mosaic, Section 17: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919217. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.10. Nile Mosaic, Section 16: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919216. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.11. Nile Mosaic, Section 11: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919211. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.12. Nile Mosaic, Section 13: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919213. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021.

7 10 37 42 43 44 44

45

49

51

51

52

52

54

57

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

xiv

list of illustrations

2.13. Nile Mosaic, Section 14: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919214. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.14. Painted stele for Antigenes from Demetrias. Volos Archaeological Museum, ¸10. Photo: Maria Stamatopoulou. Reproduced courtesy of the Department of Antiquities of Magnesia. 2.15. Painted stele for Ouaphres son of Horus. Volos Archaeological Museum, ¸52. Photo: Maria Stamatopoulou. Reproduced courtesy of the Department of Antiquities of Magnesia. 2.16a. Painted tomb at Agios Athenasios, detail of symposiasts and musicians on frieze. Photo: History and Art Collection/Alamy Stock Photo. 2.16b. Painted tomb at Agios Athenasios, detail of soldiers on frieze. Photo: ART Collection/Alamy Stock Photo. 2.17. Nile Mosaic, Section 6: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919206. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.18. Esquiline ‘Odyssey frieze’: Laestrygonians slaughtering Greeks. Vatican Museums, cat. 41013. Photo: Tarker/Bridgeman Images. 2.19. Nile Mosaic, Section 7: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919207. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.20. Nile Mosaic, Section 3: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919203. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.21. Nile Mosaic, Section 2: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919202. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.22. Nile Mosaic, Section 1: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919201. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.23. Nile Mosaic, Section 9: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919209. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.24. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis). Photo: iStock/pum_eva. 2.25. Nile Mosaic, Section 5: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919205. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.26. Reticulated giraffe (G. reticulata). Photo: iStock/Henk Bogaard. 2.27. Nile Mosaic, Section 10: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Royal Library, Windsor 919210. Photo: Royal Collection Trust/# Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2021. 2.28. Wrestlers Mosaic, Alexandria. Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities Museum, 0858. Photo: # Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Photographer: A. Pelle.

57

59

60 66 66

68 69

71

72

73

74

75 76

76 77

78

86

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

list of illustrations

xv

3.1. Map of Egypt and the Levant in the Hellenistic Period. Drawing: Konogan Beaufay, with kind permission. 90 3.2. Map of the three necropolises of Marisa. Source: Oren and Rappaport 1984, fig. 1a. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 91 3.3. Plan of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 16, fig. 1. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 92 3.4. Tomb of Apollophanes: photograph taken from Chamber B facing south. Photo: courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. 100 3.5. Wall painting from Tomb of Apollophanes: cock in Antechamber A. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 4. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 100 3.6. Wall painting from Tomb of Apollophanes: Kerberos on door jamb. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 4. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 101 3.7. Chamber D and Vestibule E of the Tomb of Apollophanes. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, frontispiece. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 102 3.8. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: hunting scene. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 6. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 105 3.9. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: lion. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 7. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 107 3.10. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: boar, giraffe, serpent, and bull. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 8. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 107 3.11. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: oryx, griffin, and boar. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 9. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 108 3.12. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: mahout, elephant, and rhinoceros. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 10. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 108 3.13. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: Chalil Raad’s photograph of two fantastical fish. Photo: # Palestine Exploration Fund. 110 3.14. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: hippopotamus, crocodile, and ibis. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 12. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 111 3.15. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: unidentified mammal, wild ass, serpent, and hippopotamus. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 13. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 111 3.16. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: porcupine and rhinoceros. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 14. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 112 3.17. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: fantastical creature (martichoras?) and lynx. Source: Peters and Thiersch 1905, pl. 15. Reproduced courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund. 112

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

xvi

list of illustrations

3.18. African lynx (Caracal caracal). Photo: iStock/StuPorts. 3.19. Alexandrovo tomb, detail of painted frieze: mounted hunter attacking boar. Photo: # Balkan Heritage Foundation and National Archaeology Institute and Museum—Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Photographer: Antonino Cosentino. 3.20. Alexander Sarcophagus, detail: short hunting scene. Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 370. Photo: # Istanbul Archaeological Museum. 3.21. Shatby stag hunt mosaic. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, 21643. Photo: # Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Photographer: A. Pelle. 3.22. Tomb of Apollophanes painted frieze: Chalil Raad’s photograph of fantastical creature (martichoras?). Photo: # Palestine Exploration Fund. 4.1. Artemidoros Papyrus, recto: sketches of hands and feet. Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.2. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: giraffe (V21). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 391, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.3. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: griffin abducting leopard cup from its mother (V19). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 383, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.4. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: hyena (V2). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 330, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.5. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: murmē x-lion and snake (V22). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 394, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.6. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: elephant and snake (V16). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 372, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.7. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: xiphias and ‘tunny-sawfish’ (V9). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 350, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.8. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: lynx and goat (V38). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 447, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.9. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: leopard and snake (V25). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 406, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.10. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: distribution of vignettes across the height of the roll. Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.11. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: black-winged stilt (?) (V14). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 367, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.12. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: flamingo (?) (V28). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 419, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.13. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: heron (V37). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 444, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie.

114

115

117 119 123 129 135

136 137

138

139

141 142

142

145

146 146 147

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

list of illustrations 4.14. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: mammal labelled kasto ̄r (V6). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 341, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.15. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: mammal labelled o ̄tos chersudros (V24). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 403, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.16. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: ‘starry-dog’ (V29). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 422, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.17. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: pair of crocodile-panthers (V3). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 333, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.18. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: hammerhead shark (V18). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 381, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.19. Hammerhead shark (Family: Sphyrnidae). Photo: iStock/Nerthuz. 4.20. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: ‘hare-fish’ (V5). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 339, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.21. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: ‘hawk-fish’ (V11). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 358, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.22. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: ‘bull-fish’ (V17). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 378, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.23. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso: ‘lizard-fish’ (V39). Source: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 451, by kind permission of LED Edizioni Universitarie. 4.24. Eudoxus papyrus (P. Paris 1), recto. Paris, Louvre, N2325. Photo: # RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre)/Hervé Lewandowski. 4.25a. Fayyum Schoolteacher’s Papyrus: cols. 9–14. Cairo, Egyptian Museum JdE 65445. Source: Gueraud and Jouguet 1938, pl. 3, by kind permission of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO). 4.25b. Fayyum Schoolteacher’s Papyrus: drawing of cols. 9–14. Source: Smith 2010, 216, fig. 17.7, with kind permission. 5.1. Bronze Horse and Jockey group from Cape Artemesion. Athens NAM, Metalwork Collection, X 15177. Photo: # Athens NAM. ‘The rights on the depicted monument belong to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports (Law 3028/2002). The monument belongs to the responsibility of the National Archaeological Museum, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Archaeological Resources Fund.’ 5.2. Gilded shield with gerenuk in repoussé. Stuttgart, Württemberg State Museum, Arch. 71/1. Photo: # Landesmuseum Württemberg, P. Frankenstein/H. Zwietasch. 5.3. East African gerenuk (Litocranius walleri). Photo: iStock/MikeLane45. 5.4. Dog Mosaic, Alexandria. Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities Museum, 0859. Photo: # Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Photographer: A. Pelle. 5.5. Plan of Palaces IV and V at Pergamon. Source: Hoepfner 1996, 21 fig. 16, with kind permission.

xvii

147

148 148

150

151 151 156 157 157 158 163

164 164

169

170 171 172 176

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

xviii

list of illustrations

5.6. Fish Mosaic from Palace V at Pergamon. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 83. Photo: # bpk/Antikensammlung, SMB/Ingrid Geske. 5.7. Altar Chamber of Palace V at Pergamon: excavation photograph. Photo: # bpk/Antikensammlung, SMB. 5.8. Altar Chamber of Palace V at Pergamon: reconstruction of floor decoration. Source: Salzmann 2011, 103, fig. 4, with kind permission. 5.9. Parrot emblema from Altar Chamber of Palace V at Pergamon: watercolour reproduction. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Archiv, P 278. Photo: # bpk/Antikensammlung, SMB/Ingrid Geske. 5.10. Alexandrine parakeet (Psittacula eupatria). Photo: iStock/TerrySze. 5.11. Garland Mosaic from Altar Chamber of Palace V at Pergamon. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 71. Photo: # bpk/Antikensammlung, SMB/Jürgen Liepe. 5.12. Garland Mosaic from Altar Chamber of Palace V at Pergamon: detail of wheatear. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 71. Photo: author. 5.13. Dove Mosaic from Capua. Naples NAM, 9992. Photo: # Naples NAM. Photographer: Giorgio Albano. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 5.14. Dove Mosaic from the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli. Rome, Capitoline Museums, MC0402. Photo: Musei Capitolini, Rome, Italy/Luisa Ricciarini/Bridgeman Images. 5.15. Plan of Aventine villa complex by Virgilio Vespignani. DAI, Rom, Archiv A-VII-69-047. 5.16. Aventine Unswept Room, section with mouse eating walnut shell. Vatican Museums, 10132. Photo: Vatican Museums and Galleries, Vatican City/Bridgeman Images. 5.17. Aventine Unswept Room, detail. Vatican Museums, 10132. Photo: Vatican Museums and Galleries, Vatican City/Bridgeman Images. 5.18. ‘Hephaistion mosaic’ from Palace V at Pergamon: mosaicist’s signature. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 70. Photo: # bpk/Antikensammlung, SMB/Johannes Laurentius. 5.19. Aventine Unswept Room: red mullet. Photo: author. 5.20. Aventine Unswept Room: purple dye murex. Photo: author. 5.21. Aventine Unswept Room: lobster leg. Photo: author. 5.22. Unswept room mosaic from Aquileia. Aquileia NAM, 597813. Photo: Slow Photo Studio—Archivio fotografico del Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo, Direzione regionale musei del Friuli Venezia Giulia. 6.1. Praeneste fish mosaic. Drawing by Karen Rasmussen (Archaeographics), # M. Swetnam-Burland. Source: Swetnam-Burland 2015, 152, fig. 4.6, with kind permission. 6.2. Praeneste fish mosaic, detail: fisherman and terrace-shrine. Photo: Andreae 2003, 133, with kind permission. Su concessione del MiBACT— Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale.

177 179 180

181 182

183 185

187

188 192

193 194

195 196 197 197

199

209

210

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

list of illustrations 6.3a. Praeneste fish mosaic, detail: red scorpion fish. Photo: author. Su concessione del MiBACT—Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale. 6.3b. Red scorpion fish (Scorpaena scrofa). Photo: iStock/PicturePartners. 6.4a. Praeneste fish mosaic, detail: European sea sturgeon. Photo: Andreae 2003, 136, with kind permission. Su concessione del MiBACT—Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale. 6.4b. European sea sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). Photo: iStock/Nosyrevy. 6.5. Plan of the House of the Faun at Pompeii, with mosaics plotted. Drawing: Johannes Eber, with kind permission. Photo montage by author. 6.6. House of the Faun fish emblema. Naples NAM, 9997. Photo: # Naples NAM. Photographer: Giorgio Albano. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.7. Drawing of House of the Faun fish emblema. Source: Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 58, fig. 2a. Su concessione: Assoc. Intern. Amici di Pompei ed Editore L’Erma di Bretschneider. 6.8a. House of the Faun fish emblema, detail: European sea bass. Photo: author. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.8b. European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Photo: Wikimedia Commons/# Hans Hillewaert. 6.9a. House of the Faun fish emblema, detail: red mullet. Photo: author. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.9b. Red mullet (Mullus barbatus). Photo: A. T. Ilkyaz, Fish Photographs by ATI, http://www.ilkyaz.eu/fishpic/index.html. 6.10. Plan of the House of the Geometric Mosaics at Pompeii. Source: Zanella 2014, 2, fig. 1, with kind permission. 6.11. House of the Geometric Mosaics fish emblema. Naples NAM, 120177. Photo: # Naples NAM. Photographer: Giorgio Albano. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.12. Drawing of the House of the Geometric Mosaics fish emblema. Source: Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 54, fig. 1a. Su concessione: Assoc. Intern. Amici di Pompei ed Editore L’Erma di Bretschneider. 6.13a. House of the Geometric Mosaics fish emblema, detail: small-spotted catshark. Photo: author. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.13b. Small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula). Photo: Wikimedia Commons/# Hans Hillewaert.

xix

213 213

214 214 215

215

217

218 218

219 219 221

222

223

224 224

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

xx l i s t o f i l l u s t r a t i o n s 6.14. Praeneste fish mosaic, detail: octopus and moray eel. Photo: Andreae 2003, 138, with kind permission. Su concessione del MiBACT—Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale. 6.15. Praeneste fish mosaic, detail: European sea bass. Photo: Andreae 2003, 138, with kind permission. Su concessione del MiBACT—Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale. 6.16. Praeneste fish mosaic, detail: oscillated electric ray. Photo: Andreae 2003, 134. Su concessione del MiBACT—Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Roma, di provincia di Viterbo e l’Etruria meridionale. 6.17a. Preparatory sketch (?) for mummy portrait. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 6-21378a. Photo: courtesy of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology and the Regents of the University of California. Photography by J. Paul Getty Museum. 6.17b. Mummy portrait from Tebtunis. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 6-21375. Photo: courtesy of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology and the Regents of the University of California. 6.18. Fragment of fish mosaic from Panisperna. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/ # Carole Raddato. 6.19. House of the Faun Nilotic mosaic. Naples NAM, 9990b. Photo: # Naples NAM. Photographer: Giorgio Albano. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.20. House of the Faun cat-and-bird emblema. Naples NAM, 9993. Photo: # Naples NAM. Photographer: Giorgio Albano. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.21. Marble statue of cat and bird from Naukratis. London BM, 1905,0612.5. Photo: # The Trustees of the British Museum. 6.22. Alexandrian silver stater with portrait of Ptolemy Soter on obverse, and Galatian shield next to eagle on reverse. ANS 1944.100.75455. Photo: Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society. 6.23. Fresco panel from the Ekklesiasterion of the Temple of Isis at Pompeii. Naples NAM, 8575. Photo: # Naples NAM. Photographer: Giorgio Albano. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli. 6.24. Sophilos emblema from Thmuis (Tell Timai). Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, 21739. Photo: # Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Photographer: A. Pelle. 7.1. Plan of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta. Source: Carrara 2015, 124, fig. 1, with kind permission.

226

227

228

232

232 234

236

237 238

240

242

244 249

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

list of illustrations 7.2. Photograph of the garden room at Prima Porta, taken in 1942. Photo: # Museo Nazionale Romano. Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo—Museo Nazionale Romano. 7.3. Auditorium of Maecenas garden painting. Source: Vespignani and Visconti 1874, pl. XVI. 7.4. Garden room at Prima Porta, south wall. Museo Nazionale Romano inv. 126276=126373. Photo: # Museo Nazionale Romano. Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo—Museo Nazionale Romano. 7.5a. Garden room at Prima Porta, detail: blackbird. Photo: author. Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo—Museo Nazionale Romano. 7.5b. Blackbird (Turdus merula). Photo: iStock/CreativeNature_nl. 7.6a. Garden room at Prima Porta, detail: Italian sparrow. Photo: author. Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo—Museo Nazionale Romano. 7.6b. Italian sparrow (Passer italiae). Photo: iStock/philou1000. 7.7. Ara Pacis Augustae, detail of vegetal frieze. Museo dell’Ara Pacis. Photo: author. 7.8. Plan of garden terrace, House of the Golden Bracelet. Drawing by J. Wilmott, # M. Carroll. Source: Carroll 2015, 534, fig. 26.1, with kind permission. 7.9. House of the Golden Bracelet, water-triclinium (Room 31). Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.10. House of the Golden Bracelet, water-triclinium, garden painting on south wall. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 59467. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.11. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, drawing of garden painting on north, east, and south walls. Source: Ciardiello 2006, 221. Drawing: M. Vallifuoco. Reproduced with the kind permission of Rosaria Ciardiello and Maria Vallifuoco. 7.12. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, garden painting on north wall. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.13a. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, detail: wood pigeon. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei.

xxi

250 251

253

255 255

256 256 259

264

265

266

268

269

271

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

xxii

list of illustrations

7.13b. Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus). Photo: iStock/MikeLane45. 7.14a. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, detail: golden oriole. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.14b. Golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus). Photo: iStock/JMrocek. 7.15. Plan of the House of the Fruit Orchard at Pompeii. Drawing: Johannes Eber, with kind permission. 7.16. House of the Fruit Orchard, Room 8, garden painting on east wall. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.17. House of the Fruit Orchard, Room 8, garden painting on south wall. Photo: H. Koppermann, Neg. D-DAI-ROM 64.2267. 7.18a. House of the Fruit Orchard, Room 8, detail: Eurasian magpie and Italian sparrow. Photo: # Sophie Hay. 7.18b. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, detail: Eurasian magpie and Italian sparrow. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.19. Anfushy Tomb V, Room 5: painted loculus. Source: Venit 2002, pl. 4. Photo: # Centre d’Études Alexandrines. 7.20. Sā qiya Tomb, Wardian, Alexandria: painting of herm in grove. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, 27029. Photo: Werner Forman Archive/Bridgeman Images. 7.21. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, detail: common nightingale. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40692. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.22. House of the Golden Bracelet, Room 32, detail: pinax and wood pigeon. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.23. House of the Golden Bracelet, water-triclinium, detail: dove. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 7.24a. Garden room at Prima Porta, detail: purple swamphen. Photo: author. Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo—Museo Nazionale Romano.

271

272 272 273

274 275 276

276 281

282

284

285

286

287

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

list of illustrations 7.24b. Sā qiya Tomb, Wardian, Alexandria: painting of purple swamphen. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum, 27029. Photo: M. Venit. Source: Venit 2015, pl. 6. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear. 7.25. Villa of the Birds, Kom el-Dikka: composite of six panels from bird mosaic. Reproduced by permission of the American Research Center in Egypt, Inc. (ARCE). The project was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Photographer: Edwin C. Brock. 7.26. Tel Dor mask-and-garland mosaic. Photo: courtesy of the Tel Dor Excavations. Photographer: Gabi Laron. 8.1. Villa Dar Buc Ammera, Zliten, Tripolitania: composite of four scenes from mosaic frieze. Tripoli Archaeological Museum. Photo: The Picture Art Collection/Alamy Stock Photo. 8.2. House of Menander, Pompeii, caldarium. Photo: # Archivio Fotografico, Parco Archeologico di Pompei. Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo—Parco Archeologico di Pompei. 8.3. Fish mosaic from the House of Virgil at Hadrumetum. Sousse, Archaeological Museum inv. 57.095. Photo: The Print Collector/Alamy Stock Photo.

xxiii

287

289 290

297

299

300

Every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders prior to publication. If notified, the publisher will be pleased to rectify any errors or omissions at the earliest opportunity.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

abbreviations BNJ BNP CIL Diels Edmonds FGE FGrHist GGM HE Helbig4 ICr ID I.Pergamon Inscr. Ital. 13 LGPN LSJ MRR OCD OGIS OLD P.Cair.Zen P.Mich. P.Oxy.

I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby, online edition (2006–). H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester (eds), Brill’s New Pauly, online edition (2006–). T. Mommsen et al. (eds), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1862–). H. Diels, Poetarum philosophorum fragmenta (Berlin, 1901). J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy after Meineke, Bergk, and Kock, 3 vols. (Leiden, 1957–61). D. L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981). F. Jacoby et al. (eds), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden, 1923–). C. Müller, Geographici Graeci Minores (Paris, 1855–61). A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge, 1965). W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, 4 vols., 4th edition (Tübingen, 1963–72). M. Guarducci and F. Halbherr, Inscriptiones Creticae (Rome, 1935–50). F. Dürrbach et al., Inscriptions de Délos (Paris, 1926–72). M. Fränkel (ed.), Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.1–2 (1890–5). A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae vol. 13: Fasti et elogia. Fasc. 1: Fasti consulares et triumphales (Rome, 1947); Fasc. 3: Elogia (Rome, 1937). P. M. Fraser, E. Matthews, et al., Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford, 1987–). H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones (eds), A Greek–English Lexicon (Oxford, 1940; with revised supplement by P. G. W. Glare, 1996). T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951–2). S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th edition (Oxford, 2012). W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae: supplementum sylloges inscriptionum graecarum (Leipzig, 1903–5). P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2nd edition (Oxford, 2012). C. C. Edgar (ed.), Zenon Papyri. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Cairo, 1925–51). Michigan Papyri (Ann Arbor, 1931–). The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London, 1898–).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

xxvi

abbreviations

P.Paris

P.Petr. PPM PSI RE SH Syll. Wehrli

J. A. Latronne, W. Brunet de Presle, and E. Egger (eds), Notices et textes des papyrus du Musée du Louvre et de la Bibliothèque Impériale (Paris 1865). J. P. Mahaffy (ed.), The Flinders Petrie Papyri (Dublin, 1891–5). I. Baldassarre (ed.), Pompei, pitture e mosaici (Rome, 1991–). Papiri greci e latini (Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto) (Florence, 1912–). G. Wissowa et al. (eds), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1893–1980). H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons (eds), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin, 1983). W. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 4 vols., 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1915–21). F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles: Text und Kommentar (Basel, 1944–59).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

note on translations Passages quoted from Agatharchides of Knidos’s On the Erythraean Sea follow the edition by Stanley M. Bustein, Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean Sea (London, 1989). Passages quoted from other ancient texts follow the most recent Loeb edition, unless otherwise indicated.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

ONE

Art, Science, and the Natural World Introduction and Historical Background

Many indeed are the things to be seen in it, composed apparently of little chips of stone and cut fragments with assiduous attention to detail and painstaking care . . . There are various representations of men and animals: elephant, rhinoceros, the names written out in some extraordinary letters (nomina litteris quibusdam peculiaribus excripta).1

Federico Cesi, a founding member of the Accademia dei Lincei, composed this brief description of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste after viewing the composition by candlelight in AD 1614 (Fig. 2.2).2 He was struck particularly by the labels accompanying many of the animals depicted in the mosaic, composed in what he described as ‘extraordinary’ or ‘peculiar’ letters.3 These labels were, in fact, written in ancient Greek, and it is easy to imagine Cesi’s surprise at finding this language embedded in a work of art located just a few dozen kilometres east of Rome. This sense of surprise persists in modern assessments of the mosaic, thanks partially to these Greek labels, but also thanks to its Egyptianizing iconography. In a wellknown textbook on ancient mosaics published in 1999, the presence of the pavement in Praeneste was described as ‘enigmatic’.4 A series of studies published in the second half of the twentieth century attempted to make sense of the mosaic in its Italian context. Several recognized that the animals accompanied by Greek labels do, in fact, have a close parallel in the artistic record: not in Egypt or in one of the major cultural centres of the ancient Mediterranean as we might expect, but in Marisa, an Idumaean town located a little to the south of Jerusalem. It was here in the summer of 1902 that John Punnett Peters and Hermann Thiersch hired a guide to lead them to tombs that had recently been plundered by grave robbers. He took them to what they

1

Translation taken from Whitehouse 1976, 6, where Cesi’s probable authorship of the description is also demonstrated. 2 Cesi was visiting the town to celebrate his marriage to Artemisia Colonna, whose family owned the fief of Palestrina. 3 4 OLD s.v. peculiaris. Dunbabin 1999, 51.

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

2

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

would later describe as ‘the most remarkable tomb ever discovered in Palestine’, today sometimes called the Tomb of Apollophanes.5 This judgement was founded on the tomb’s painted decoration, which included a frieze depicting a sequence of animals accompanied by identifying labels in Greek (Figs. 3.8–3.17). A monograph published in 2007 offered a new account of the tomb decoration, and printed the photographs of the animal frieze taken at the time of its discovery for the first time.6 A papyrus roll from Egypt, published only in 2008, offers another striking parallel.7 The recto of this papyrus carries a ‘curious mélange of contents’,8 including an extract from the Geographoumena written by Artemidoros of Ephesos, a geographer of the late second and early first centuries BC. The verso (reverse side) of the papyrus carries a series of forty-one sketched vignettes depicting both real and fantastical-looking animals, again accompanied by identifying labels in Greek (Fig. 4.10). While these animal sketches have sometimes been mentioned in the same breath as the Praeneste mosaic and the Marisa painting, discussions of the papyrus have been dominated by a fierce debate concerning its authenticity. Those who agree that it is a genuine ancient artefact are yet to reach a consensus concerning its function(s) during antiquity. According to one view, the verso sketches formed a ‘pattern book’, of the kind used to produce artworks like the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste and a series of fish mosaics surviving from Late Republican Italy (Figs. 6.1, 6.6, 6.11).9 These fish mosaics all contain naturalistic depictions of many different sea creatures, exhibiting a concern with animal representation that resonates with the papyrus, the Nile Mosaic, and the Marisa painting. The analogy takes on a contextual dimension when we consider that a particularly exquisite fish mosaic formed the sister piece to the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, decorating the same basilica-like public building. A series of mosaics laid in royal contexts in the Hellenistic East likewise incorporated highly naturalistic depictions of particular animals. In Ptolemaic Alexandria, a sumptuous mosaic excavated in the palatial district incorporates a lifelike depiction of a royal dog (Fig. 5.4). In Attalid Pergamon, meanwhile, an emblema found in Palace V depicts an Indian parrot with a remarkable level of accuracy (Fig. 5.9). Two further Pergamene mosaics attributed to the mosaicist Sosos—now lost, but known thanks to Pliny’s Natural History and a series of later versions—seem also to have depended on the accurate representation of animals or animal parts to achieve their desired effects. The first, known as the Unswept Room, depicted the leftovers of a meal as though scattered over the floor of a 5 7 9

6 Peters and Thiersch 1905, 2. Jacobson 2007. Editio princeps: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008. Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 317–22.

8

Burstein 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

3

dining hall. The second featured a series of doves perching on the rim of an expensive basin filled with water. Viewed alongside the parrot emblema, the dove mosaic indicates that Pergamene patrons and artists developed a particular interest in the accurate representation of birds. This interest re-emerged in the garden paintings that decorated houses and villas in Rome and the Bay of Naples from the middle of the first century BC, including the famous example from the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta (Fig. 7.4). It is perhaps unsurprising that this collection of visual material has never been studied as a single body. After all, these compositions exhibit considerable variety in terms of medium, chronology, location, purpose, and quality, as well as whether they represent ‘originals’ or later versions of earlier works of art. For all this diversity, the central premise of this volume is that these compositions were, in fact, conceptually related, and united by a shared dependence on an overarching informing idea. This informing idea, it is argued, should be sought in the world of Hellenistic zoology and natural science: that is, in a series of dynamic discourses on the natural world that flourished in Hellenistic centres of learning during the third and second centuries BC.10 At first sight, the notion that Hellenistic zoology underpinned this body of material might seem paradoxical. After all, it is usually held that this discipline faded following the death of Aristotle, whose research had revolutionized the study of the animal kingdom during the second half of the fourth century.11 It is true that we lack much evidence for Hellenistic scientists systematically gathering masses of zoological data through first-hand observation in the manner pioneered by the great Stagirite. But it would be wrong to assume that this kind of ‘empirical’ investigation was the only meaningful strand of zoological research pursued during antiquity. This view leans too heavily on our modern preconceptions of what zoology should entail: namely, the objective study of the anatomy and ethology of individual animal species. We should avoid retrojecting these preconceptions back into classical antiquity, when the dividing lines between scientific disciplines had not yet crystallized, and different priorities guided intellectual and scientific research. During the Hellenistic period, scientific discoveries could be shaped by the dynamics of the royal court, and new research was valued for its entertainment value just as much as its objective factuality.12 Within this cultural milieu, zoological research could take on exciting new directions. With this historically contingent approach in mind, this volume will argue that our surviving artistic evidence, correctly understood, permits us to reconstruct

10

For the notion that zoology was not yet an integrated, self-sufficient discipline during antiquity, and that it encompassed a range of discourses, see e.g. Zucker 2005, 7–54; Trinquier 2009, 355–64. 11 On the ‘disappearance’ of Aristotelian biology, see Lennox 1994. 12 Demonstrated by Berrey 2017.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

4 art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100 several important aspects of Hellenistic zoology and natural science. Although the surviving material—a tomb painting in the Levant; some mosaics in Italy, Egypt, and Anatolia; and an illustrated papyrus roll—represents only a fraction of what there once was, enough remains to sketch the outlines of this extraordinary cultural phenomenon. As it happens, some textual sources help to supplement this picture.13 The task of organizing the artistic evidence presents its own difficulties, thanks largely to the diverse nature of the surviving material. A wholesale thematic approach might seem desirable, but in practice leads to unhelpful generalizations and constant cross-referencing, while obscuring the significance of each composition within its own socio-cultural context. For these reasons, each chapter of this volume will focus on a particular work of art—or, in some cases, a group of closely related works of art—that helps to illuminate a particular aspect of zoology and natural science in the Hellenistic world. The arrangement of chapters is loosely chronological, but strict chronological ordering is sacrificed in places to ensure that the compositions closest to each other in style and spirit are treated consecutively. It is hoped that the logic dictating this order will become self-evident to readers as they progress through the volume. Chapter 2 will focus on the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, a late second-century BC masterpiece that was probably based on an earlier Ptolemaic court painting. We shall see that this composition attests to the advances in scientific knowledge that were facilitated by royally sponsored expeditions to Aethiopia and the African coast of the Red Sea. Chapter 3 will turn to the painted animal frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, and will explore how Alexandrian natural science was received and redeployed in this provincial setting. Chapter 4, on the Artemidoros Papyrus, will refute the view that the verso sketches functioned as a ‘pattern book’, and will reconsider the social level of this remarkable document. Chapter 5 will examine a series of royal mosaics surviving from Alexandria and Pergamon, and explore why artworks depicting animals were deemed suitable for the decoration of Hellenistic palaces. Chapter 6 will focus on the finest fish mosaics surviving from Late Republican Italy. We will see that these compositions reflect the contemporary interest in fish and expensive seafood, but that they may also have drawn artistic inspiration from the Hellenistic East. Chapter 7 will examine a series of garden paintings from Latium and Campania, offering a socially grounded reading of their iconography. Some concluding thoughts will be offered in Chapter 8. The remainder of this introductory chapter, meanwhile, will sketch the historical background against which Hellenistic developments in zoology and the

13

The best collection of these sources is still Keller 1909–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

5

natural sciences need to be set. The evidence is presented in three parts. The first part provides a selective account of the intellectual and scientific achievements attested in Ptolemaic Alexandria during the Hellenistic period. It is only with reference to these achievements that Hellenistic advances in the natural sciences can be fully appreciated. The second part investigates the debt that this Ptolemaic intellectual programme owed to Aristotle and his Peripatetic school. As we shall see, intellectuals working in Alexandria engaged with the zoological research of Aristotle and his followers in a direct and systematic way. Against this backdrop, the third part explores the importance that the Ptolemaic kings attached to the animal kingdom. The aims of this volume are straightforward: to bring together a historically and thematically coherent set of compositions that have often been examined in relative isolation; to explore the ways in which these compositions illuminate the world of Hellenistic natural science; to better understand each work of art in its own right, while challenging any existing misconceptions or misinterpretations; and to establish how detailed images of animals and plants—and, by implication, other subjects—might have been transmitted and reproduced during antiquity.

THE ALEXANDRIAN INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT

The Mouseion and Library In the third century BC, the satirist and Cynic philosopher Timon of Phleios complained that ‘[i]n populous Egypt many cloistered bookworms are fed, arguing endlessly in the chicken-coop of the Muses (Mouseo ̄n en talaro ̄i)’.14 Timon’s negative tone here may be explained by the fact that he enjoyed the patronage of Antigonos II Gonatas (277–239 BC), a leading royal rival of Ptolemy II Philadelphos.15 Still, Timon succeeded in highlighting the centrality of the ‘chicken-coop of the Muses’ to the intellectuals who assembled in Alexandria during his day. This was, of course, an unflattering moniker for the Mouseion, an intellectual institution clothed as a sanctuary of the Muses, which had been mentioned by the poet Herodas as early as c.270 BC.16 The Mouseion was connected, whether architecturally or conceptually, with the famous Library of the Ptolemaic kings, which is

14

Timon fr. 12 Diels = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 1.22d. Translation: Barnes 2000, 62. Patronage by Antigonos Gonatas: Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 9.3. The same author reveals that Timon was opposed to the textual criticism of Homer pioneered by Zenodotos of Ephesos, the first librarian of Alexandria: see Lives of the Philosophers 9.110. 16 Herodas I l. 31. Translation and commentary: Zanker 2009, 14–41. 15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

6

likewise known from our surviving texts.17 The scale and importance of the Library are suggested by the astronomical number of books it is said to have held, even if these figures are grossly exaggerated. Orosius (fourth–fifth century 18 AD) put the collection at 400,000 volumes; Ioánnis Tzétzis (twelfth century AD) at 490,000;19 and Aulus Gellius (second century AD) and Ammianus Marcellinus (fourth century AD) at 700,000.20 Despite the fame of the Mouseion and Library in later times, there remain serious gaps in our understanding of these institutions.21 It is unclear, for instance, whether they were first founded by Ptolemy I Soter (323–283 BC) or by his son and successor Ptolemy II Philadelphos (283–246 BC). Our earliest source concerning the Library, the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas,22 records that the Athenian statesman Demetrios of Phaleron was tasked with collecting books to stock its shelves by Ptolemy II Philadelphos.23 Demetrios had arrived at the Ptolemaic court following the death of Kassandros, his previous royal patron, in 297 BC.24 But the notion that Demetrios worked closely with Philadelphos is contradicted by Diogenes Laertios’s testimony that one of this king’s first acts upon his succession was to exile Demetrios to Upper Egypt, where he died from a venomous snakebite.25 If we accept the historicity of Demetrios’s involvement, it seems more likely that he began organizing the Library—and perhaps also the Mouseion—under Ptolemy I Soter, before these institutions were further developed by Philadelphos in subsequent years.26

17

Modern treatments of the Library and Mouseion include: Fraser 1972a, esp. 305–35; Canfora 1991; 2000; El-Abbadi 1990; 2004; Blum 1991; Erskine 1995; MacLeod 2000; Barnes 2000; Casson 2001, 31–47; Bagnall 2002; Maehler 2004; El-Abbadi and Fathallah 2008; Rico and Dan 2017. 18 Orosius, History against the Pagans 6.15.31–2. 19 Ioánnis Tzétzis, Introduction to Greek Comedy, Proem II. 20 Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 7.17.3; Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman Antiquities 22.16.3. 21 On the limits of our evidence, see Bagnall 2002. For an extreme position, see Johnstone 2014, dismissing the evidence for the Alexandrian Library in the third century BC and arguing instead that it was founded in the second century. 22 Letter of Aristeas: e.g. Murray 1987; Honigman 2003; 2007; Rajak 2009, 24–91; Gruen 2010, 419–21; Hunter 2011; Wright 2015. The Letter, written by a Jew posing as a courtier of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, is difficult to date. The author knew LXX Exodus (§57, §§106–8), and mentions a Ptolemaic naval victory over Antigonos II Gonatas, establishing a terminus post quem in the mid-third century BC. A terminus ante quem in the first century AD is supplied by Philo, Life of Moses 2.26–40, and Josephos, Antiquities 12.11–118, both referring to the Letter. Most commentators favour a date in the second century BC. 23 Letter of Aristeas §§9–11. The same story is repeated in later accounts: Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures IX 52b–c; Georgius Syncellus, Chronological Selection p. 519 Dindorf; Ioánnis Tzétzis, Introduction to Greek Comedy, Proem II. 24 Demetrios of Phaleron in Egypt: e.g. Strabo, Geography 9.1.20; Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.78–9. For a full list of sources, see Stork, van Ophuijsen, and Dorandi 2000, 79–85, nos. 35–41. 25 Killed by asp: Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.78–9; Cicero, In Defence of Rabirius Postumus 9.23. 26 Suggested already by e.g. Pfeiffer 1968, 95–102; Fraser 1972a, 321–2; El-Abbadi 1990, 79–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

7

Our information concerning the physical form of these buildings is also scarce. Not until the time of Augustus do we encounter a detailed description of the Mouseion, composed by the Greek geographer Strabo: The Mouseion is also a part of the royal palaces; it has a public walk (peripatos), an exedra, and a large house (oikos), which is the common mess-hall (sussition) of the men of learning who share the Mouseion. This group of men not only hold property in common, but also have a priest in charge of the Mouseion, who formerly was appointed by the kings, but is now appointed by Caesar.27

From this brief account we learn that the Mouseion was located in the royal district of Alexandria: that is, the Broucheion region in the north-east part of the city, covering the Lochias (el-Silsila) promontory and the area to its south-west (Fig. 1.1).28 According to Epiphanius of Salamis, writing in the fourth century AD, the Library was likewise located in the Broucheion, lending support to the

PHAROS LIGHTHOUSE

EASTERN HARBOUR

ISLAND OF PHAROS

AKRA LOCHIAS A HEPTASTADIUM

WESTERN HARBOUR

MASSIVE GATE

B

DOG MOSAIC AND WRESTLERS’ MOSAIC

L4

STAG HUNT MOSAIC IN BANQUETING ROOM

MONUMENTAL DORIC AND IONIC BUILDING

L3

CHANTIER FINNEY BUILDING (CORINTHIAN) HOUSE WITH ROSETTE MOSAIC CENTAUR MOSAIC WARRIOR MOSAIC

L2 C

THEATRE SEATS ALABASTER TOMB MAIN STREET (MODERN SHARIA EL-HORREYA) TEMPLE OF ISIS SERAPIS, PTOLEMY IV AND ARSINOE

L1

DORIC STOA URBAN VILLAS L'2

D

L'3 L'4 R9 F R4bis

TEMPLE OF SERAPIS (SERAPEION)

R2

NILOMETER R8

R7 I RACE COURSE (LAGEION)

R6

R5

R4

R3

H

R1 G

R2bis

E

R3bis

CANAL OF ALEXANDRIA

LAKE MAREOTIS 0

5 KM

F I G . 1.1. Plan of Ptolemaic Alexandria. The palatial district (Basileia) was located in the north-east sector of the city, covering the Cape Lochias peninsula and the area to its south-west. 27 28

Strabo, Geography 17.1.8. Recently on the location and architectural form of the Museion and Library, see Fragaki 2017.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

8

possibility that these institutions were architecturally connected.29 We can hardly doubt that access to this royal district was policed, and that the Mouseion and Library were not ‘public’ facilities in the modern sense, instead serving only a privileged cross-section of Alexandrian society.30 It has been suggested that the foundation of a second Library in the Serapeion—a sanctuary for the GraecoEgyptian deity Serapis31—permitted a broader segment of the population to access the intellectual facilities at the city’s disposal.32 The centrality of the kings to these institutions is highlighted by Strabo’s statement that they appointed the Priest of the Muses, the official in charge of the Mouseion. This royal involvement is further underscored by a second-century BC statue base from Delos commemorating one Chrysermos of Alexandria, who is identified both as a kinsman (sungenē s) of Ptolemy VI Philometor and as director (epistatē s) of the Mouseion.33 It is likely that the kings also appointed the librarians who oversaw activities in the Library, since several men who held this post also served as tutors of the royal pages.34 While the full list of Alexandrian librarians is debated,35 they were mostly ‘eminent literary scholars, who played a major part in establishing the texts of several of the classical Greek authors’.36 Mention of these officials introduces a key tenet of the Ptolemaic intellectual and cultural programme: the patronage of gifted scholars and intellectuals. This was not a completely new phenomenon, since patronage of this kind had emerged as an important instrument of autocratic splendour during the Classical period. Particularly well known is the case of Archelaos I of Macedon (413–399 BC), who hosted the Athenian tragedians Euripides and Agathon, the poet Timotheos of Miletos, and the painter Zeuxis in his new capital at Pella. We might also mention Philip II (359–336 BC), who patronized the comic poet Anaxandrides and hired Aristotle as tutor of the royal pages. The Ptolemaic patronage of intellectuals followed this model, but with a crucial difference: such sponsorship could now be

29

30 Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures IX, 52b. Pointed out by Rihll 2010, 411, 424. Cult of Serapis: Pfeiffer 2008. 32 Suggested by Fraser 1972a, 323, noting however that the evidence for the sister library in the Serapeion is late. Recent excavations in the Serapeion uncovered no traces of a library: see McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes 2004, 99–100. 33 OGIS 104. 34 See e.g. Suda s.v. Z 74, identifying Zenodotos of Ephesos as ‘epic poet and grammarian, student of Philetas, flourished in the reign of Ptolemy I, he was the first editor of Homer and head of the Alexandrian libraries and he taught the children of Ptolemy’. 35 Traditionally, the list of librarians has been drawn from P.Oxy. X 1241, a second-century AD papyrus containing a list of Alexandrian scholars, two of whom are explicitly identified as tutors of the royal pages. A recent re-evaluation of the papyrus has demonstrated that it contains chronological and historical inaccuracies, and that there is no reason to suppose that the names listed are necessarily those of librarians: see Murray 2012. 36 Barnes 2000, 70. 31

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

9

tied to specific institutions—the Mouseion and Library—for the first time. This meant that the kings were no longer restricted to cherry-picking a handful of prominent intellectuals, but were capable of supporting scholarly activity on a larger scale.37 Even so, the mechanisms of Ptolemaic patronage remain poorly understood. In recent years, the traditional picture of a formalized and rigidly structured system of patronage has been questioned.38 Most studies now favour a more ad hoc model, whereby the kings assisted some intellectuals directly by means of actual financial support and/or accommodation in the Mouseion, and others indirectly by cultivating an intellectual centre around which they could gather.39 Both categories included not only literary luminaries like Kallimachos, Theokritos, and Poseidippos, but also scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.40 Famously, the mathematician Euklid once warned Ptolemy I Soter that there was no ‘royal road’ to understanding geometry.41 The impact of this intellectual programme can be gauged from the response that it provoked in Attalid Pergamon, where the kings transformed their capital city into a leading intellectual centre on the Alexandrian model. Eumenes II (197–159 BC) constructed a royal library,42 said to have held some 200,000 volumes—another gross exaggeration—by the time that Marcus Antonius presented the collection to Kleopatra VII following her civil war with Ptolemy XIII.43 Four rooms behind the north stoa of the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon were identified as Eumenes’s library in the late nineteenth century (Fig. 1.2),44 but this interpretation has since been challenged on compelling grounds.45 Still, we can be sure that the Attalids followed the Ptolemaic example in patronizing important scholars and intellectuals, among whom Krates of Mallos, Apollonios of Perge, and Polemon of Ilion are three of the best known.46 Comparable initiatives can be traced in other Hellenistic kingdoms. In Macedon, Antigonos II Gonatas patronized a series of philosophers and intellectuals

37

Demonstrated by Erskine 1995, 40. For this traditional picture, see e.g. Fraser 1972a, esp. 306–19. 39 For this newer model, see e.g. Montana 2014; Berrey 2017; Strootman 2017; Schironi 2018. 40 More fully on scientific achievements in Alexandria: Argoud and Guillaumin 1998; Berrey 2017. 41 Proclus 68.6–20. Discussion: e.g. Tarn and Griffith 1952, 299; Heath 1956, 1. 42 Strabo, Geography 13.4.2 states explicitly that this king ‘added sacred buildings and libraries and raised the settlement of Pergamon to what it now is’. But it has also been suggested that Eumenes simply expanded an earlier library founded by his father Attalos I: see Müller 1989, 538. 43 Plutarch, Life of Antonius 58. 44 Original identification: Conze 1884; Bohn 1885, 56–72. Recent proponent of this theory: Brehme 2011. 45 Rejection of identification: Johnson 1984, 47–60; Mielsch 1995; Coqueugniot 2013. 46 Pergamene intellectual programme and patronage of intellectuals: e.g. Pfeiffer 1968, 234–51; Hansen 1971, 397–433; Nagy 1998. For a fascinating recent re-assessment of Pergamene literary aesthetics, see Nelson 2020. 38

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

10

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 1.2. Plan of the upper city at Pergamon. Although the royal library is often reconstructed behind the north stoa of the Sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros, its placement here is uncertain.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

11

during the third century, including the Cynic thinker Timon of Phleios, as we have seen.47 Particularly remarkable is the case of the Stoic philosopher Persaios of Kition, who was entrusted with command of the Akrocorinth—an important citadel in the heart of the Peloponnese—in the mid-240s BC.48 Gonatas and his successors are not known to have founded any specifically ‘intellectual’ institutions in the manner of the Ptolemies and the Attalids, possibly because Athens—for centuries the cultural heartland of the Greek-speaking world—lay squarely within Antigonid territory.49 Still, the kings’ intellectual interest persisted into the second century, judging by Plutarch’s testimony that Perseus (179–168 BC) owned a collection of books (ta biblia tou basileo ̄s) that was captured by the Roman general L. Aemilius Paullus following the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC.50 In Seleukid Asia, too, the kings clearly attached considerable importance to literary and cultural activity. One late source records the existence of a Seleukid royal library during the reign of Antiochos III (222–187 BC), which may have been located at Antioch-on-the-Orontes.51 While our evidence for this library is scarce, we have more detailed information concerning the literary output of writers and intellectuals who enjoyed Seleukid patronage.52 Seleukos I Nikator (305–281 BC) sponsored a series of geographic and ethnographic writers—notably Megasthenes, Patrokles, and Demodamas—whose work helped to define and conceptualize the vast extent of the Seleukid kingdom; Antiochos I (281–261 BC) hosted the poet Aratos of Soloi at court, and had him produce a new commentary on the Iliad;53 and Antiochos III patronized a series of historians who composed works describing the achievements and conquests of the first Seleukid kings. We can hardly doubt that these intellectual programmes were stoked by the keen sense of competition that defined relations between different Hellenistic kingdoms during the third and second centuries BC. This competitive aspect is encapsulated by the anecdote that Aristophanes of Byzantium, an Alexandrian Librarian of the late third century, was thrown into jail when it transpired that he was planning to defect to the Attalid court.54 Whatever the historicity of this episode, it suggests that other kingdoms sought to emulate the Ptolemaic intellectual programme as closely as possible.

47

Antigonid intellectual programme: e.g. Tarn 1913, 223–56; Le Bohec 1987; Murray 2007. Persaios of Kition: Bollansée 2000; Erskine 2011. 49 50 Pointed out by Tarn 1913, 223–4; Gabbert 1997, 69. Plutarch, Life of Aemilius 28.6. 51 Suda s.v. E 3801. Recent commentary: Visscher 2020, 169–71. 52 This Seleukid literary output has been the subject of increased focus in recent times. See especially Ehling 2002; Primo 2009; Kosmin 2014, 31–76; Visscher 2020. 53 Plutarch, Life of Aratos 1, 3. Recently on Aratos, see Gee 2013. 54 Vitruvius, De Architectura 7 proem 5–7. On Aristophanes of Byzantium, see Pfeiffer 1968, 171–209; Fraser 1972a, esp. 459–61; 1972b, 662–3 nn. 96–100; Slater 1986. 48

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

12 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

The accumulation of books Some of the best-known evidence concerning the Alexandrian Library documents the extreme measures taken by the kings to acquire books to fill its shelves. Athenaios of Naukratis, writing in the Severan period, tells us that Ptolemy II Philadelphos purchased the book collection of Neleus of Skepsis—which included the prized collection of Aristotle himself—before sending it to Alexandria together with books sourced in Athens and Rhodes.55 The reliability of this account is called into question by an alternative tradition that Neleus bequeathed his books to his heirs in Skepsis,56 but the reference to Athens and Rhodes probably reflects the importance of such cultural centres to the Ptolemaic agents charged with acquiring new texts.57 Athenaios is not the only writer to refer to the personal involvement of Philadelphos in Ptolemaic book-collecting initiatives: Epiphanius of Salamis states that the king ‘wrote letters and made request of every king and prince on earth to take the trouble to send those [books] that were in his kingdom or principality . . . those by poets and prose writers and orators and philosophers and physicians and professors of medicine and historians and books by any others’.58 Acquisition strategies became increasingly high-handed under Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 BC), Philadelphos’s son and successor. Galen of Pergamon, writing in the second century AD, describes how books found on board ships docked in the Alexandrian harbour during this king’s reign were confiscated and copied, before the copies—rather than the originals—were returned to their owners.59 The same author also records how Euergetes’s desire to obtain the Athenians’ official editions of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophokles, and Euripides resulted in an exorbitantly expensive scheme of deception. According to the anecdote, the king asked to borrow these texts in order to have copies made for the Alexandrian Library. The Athenians, clearly suspicious, demanded a bond of 15 talents to ensure their safe return, which Euergetes happily paid. He nevertheless proceeded to keep the originals, leaving the Athenians with the security payment and a new set of copies as compensation.60 It would be easy to assume, on the basis of such texts, that the third-century kings were concerned solely with collecting the masterpieces of the Greek literary tradition. But it is clear that the Library also housed a number of translations and reworked versions of texts originally composed in other languages.61 For example, 55 57 58 59 60 61

56 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 1.3a–b. Strabo, Geography 13.1.54. Pointed out by Erskine 1995, 39. Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 9.52b–c. Translation: Dean 1935. Galen, Commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics Book III, 2.4.605 Wenkebach. Galen, Commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics Book III, 2.4.607 Wenkebach. On this aspect of the Ptolemaic programme, see Canfora 2000, 52–4; Le Boulluec 2000.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

13

the Letter of Aristeas recounts how Ptolemy II Philadelphos commissioned a Greek translation of the Torah, and there are good reasons to accept the historicity of this undertaking, even if many details of the Letter remain suspect.62 We know also that Manetho, a native Egyptian priest from Heliopolis, wrote an Aegyptiaca in Greek during the first half of the third century. This chronological history of Egypt drew heavily from earlier king lists and other native records, reworking the past of the colonized territory into a form that was comprehensible for Graeco-Macedonian colonists.63 Directly comparable is the Greek-language Babyloniaca composed by Berossos, a native Babylonian priest, at the court of Antiochos I at about the same time.64 Back in Egypt, Pliny the Elder tells us that Hermippos, a pupil of Kallimachos of Kyrene, commented on and annotated 2,000,000 lines of the Zoroastrian collection, indicating that this work was available in Greek translation.65 One late source states simply that the Library housed translations of texts written by Chaldaeans, Egyptians, and Romans.66 The accumulation of such large numbers of books necessitated a detailed system of classification once they entered royal hands. Galen provides interesting information concerning this system in his account of the confiscation of books found on board ships in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy III. Royal agents, we are told, seized a copy of the Epidemics, a work in the Hippocratic corpus, which had been annotated by one Mnemon of Sidē . This book was then furnished with a label reading ‘a [book] from the ships, as emended by Mnemon of Sidē ’, while the other books taken from the harbour were likewise labelled ‘from the ships’.67 From this we infer that the volumes stored in the Alexandrian Library were labelled according to where they were acquired, with the names of previous owners and/or the names of those who had edited or annotated the text. This detailed system of classification makes good sense when we consider the philological achievements attested in Alexandria during Hellenistic times.68 The all-encompassing nature of the book collection programme is encapsulated by a famous passage in the Letter of Aristeas, which records that Demetrios of Phaleron received huge sums of money from Philadelphos ‘in order to collect, if possible, all the books in the world’.69 The hyperbole here is obvious, but the 62

Historicity of Torah translation: Rajak 2009, 24–91. Manetho: Verbrugghe and Wickersham 1996, 95–212; Dillery 1999; 2015. 64 Berossos: Verbrugghe and Wickersham 1996, 13–91; Haubold, Lanfranchi, Rollinger, and Steele 2013; Dillery 2015. 65 66 Pliny, Natural History 30.4. Georgius Syncellus, Chronographical Selection I, p. 516 Dindorf. 67 Galen, Commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics Book III, 2.4.605–6 Wenkebach. 68 On this philological activity, see e.g. Pfeiffer 1968, 87–223; Fraser 1972a, 447–79; Jensen 2009. It may be instructive that Zenodotos of Ephesos, the first Alexandrian librarian, was a keen editor of Homer and other poets. This suggests that a detailed system of classification may have been developed at an early juncture. On Zenodotos, see e.g. Lallot 2000; Schironi 2011. 69 Letter of Aristeas §9. Translation: Wright 2015. 63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

14

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

anecdotes recounted above suggest that the kings did indeed aim to amass something resembling a universal collection of books, to be housed in a building that they had constructed in the royal district of their new capital. This universality is important, since it suggests that the significance of the book collection programme transcended its cultural value, and constituted something of a political statement. By accumulating as many books as they could from the breadth of the known world and the course of human history, the Ptolemies demonstrated the wide-reaching nature of their power. In controlling Greek and non-Greek literature in this way, the kings exhibited the geographic extent of their political influence, and perhaps also their territorial aspirations.70 This universalistic ideology was manifested in other ways. We might mention particularly the ‘paintings by Sikyonian artists’ that decorated the grand banqueting pavilion of Ptolemy II Philadelphos: presumably imported masterpieces, some painted by the Classical masters of the Sikyonian school.71 These paintings hint at a royal concern with collecting famous works of art that might also have been invested with a geopolitical dimension. Our evidence for such art collection is even clearer in Attalid Pergamon, where a series of statue bases excavated in the sanctuary of Athena Nikephoros attest to the redisplay of bronze statues imported from elsewhere.72 Some of these statues had been taken as booty from cities conquered during the reign of Attalos I (241–197 BC), including Oreos and Aegina; others were significant because they were made by great sculptors of the Classical past, including Myron and Praxiteles. The correspondences with the Ptolemaic programme of book collection are clear and compelling.

Encyclopaedism, cataloguing, and classification in Alexandrian scholarship The book collection in the Library helped to facilitate the ‘encyclopaedism’ that characterizes much literature produced in Alexandria in Hellenistic times. This term refers to the practice of incorporating a wide range of knowledge within a single text, demonstrating the extent of an author’s erudition and learning. While Hellenistic encyclopaedism was by no means an exclusively Alexandrian phenomenon, a great deal of our evidence stems from the Ptolemaic capital. Here it will be useful to recount some of its defining features. Much poetry produced at the Ptolemaic court stands out for its interdisciplinarity. A well-known case study is the Lock of Berenike by Kallimachos of Kyrene, a

70

Geopolitical aspect of book collection programme: e.g. Erskine 1995, 45; Jacob 1998, 25; Shipley 2000, 243; Strootman 2010, 35–6; Stephens 2010, 55. 71 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.196e. Discussion: e.g. Tanner 2006, 220–2. Recently on the grand pavilion of Ptolemy II: Calandra 2011. On the Sikyonian school of painting, see e.g. Scheibler 1994, 58–60. 72 Attalid art collection: Tanner 2006, 222–31; Kuttner 2015.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

15

polymath who enjoyed the patronage of Philadelphos and Euergetes.73 This poem concerns a lock of hair dedicated at the Temple of Arsinoë-Aphrodite at Cape Zephyrion by Queen Berenike II, Euergetes’s wife, in thanks for her husband’s safe return from war with the Seleukids in Syria. The lock soon disappeared, but an explanation was offered by the court astronomer Konon of Samos, who identified it as a new constellation between Virgo and Leo, and suggested that it had undergone catasterism (transformation into a constellation). In describing this catasterism from the perspective of the lock, Kallimachos’s poem weaves together high-toned poetic language with sophisticated knowledge of contemporary astronomy. While Kallimachos’s poem attests to the impact of science on poetry, influence also travelled in the other direction. Indeed, the style of much Hellenistic scientific writing is comparable to that of contemporary poetry, with importance attached to playful profusion of detail, creative narrative structure, and the element of surprise.74 This playful, personal style is exemplified by Eratosthenes’s Letter to Ptolemy on the doubling of the cube, preserved in Eutokios’s commentary on Archimedes.75 Here the classic mathematical problem at the heart of the text is ‘enmeshed in a web of literary allusions and metaphors’,76 which presumably enhanced the piece’s entertainment value when it was first performed at court. A second, related aspect of encyclopaedism is intertextuality: the practice of incorporating allusions to other texts in order to create ‘a subtext to be read along with the main text, which comments on it and adds another level of meaning’.77 It will suffice here to mention a notoriously hard-to-handle case study: Lykophron’s Alexandra, a 1,474-line poem in iambic trimeter, in which a guard who has been watching over Kassandra recounts her doomsday prophecy concerning the Trojan War to her father, Priam. While the date and geopolitical context of the poem remain debated,78 recent studies have done much to elucidate its sophisticated intertexts. The poem alludes to and borrows from the Homeric epics, the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, the epinician poetry of Pindar and Bacchylides, Herodotos’s History, the geographical work of Eratosthenes, and the poetry of Kallimachos, Apollonios of Rhodes, and Theokritos, amongst others.79 For erudite readers capable of deciphering these intertexts, they enriched the brilliance of the poem’s narrative construction.

73

Commentary on Kallimachos’s Lock: Gutzwiller 1992; Clayman 2011. Demonstrated brilliantly by Netz 2008. 75 76 For a stimulating recent analysis of this poem, see Leventhal 2017. Netz 2008, 162. 77 Harder 2010, 101. 78 Compare Hornblower 2017, 26–8 (arguing for the second century BC) with Linant de Bellefonds, Pouzadoux, and Prioux 2018 (arguing for the fourth/early third century BC). 79 Intertextuality in Lykophron’s Alexandra: Hornblower 2017, 7–36. 74

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

16

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Perhaps the most significant aspect of Alexandrian encyclopaedism, in the context of the present volume, is the concern with cataloguing and classification that characterizes much of the city’s intellectual output. A key figure here is Kallimachos of Kyrene, author of the poem on the Lock of Berenike discussed above. Kallimachos composed ‘a very large number of catalogues’ according to the Byzantine Suda.80 Best known is his Tables of Persons Eminent in Every Branch of Learning and a List of Their Compositions, a work more often referred to simply as his Tables (Pinakes).81 This gargantuan text, divided into some 120 volumes, contained a comprehensive bibliography of all pre-existing Greek literature, with individual authors treated alphabetically according to subject or genre. Each entry included a biography of the author in question, a list of their works, the opening line of each text, and an indication of its length. A comparable concern with classification emerges from the titles of many texts produced in Alexandria during this period. We might mention, for instance, a treatise On Words Suspected of Not Being Used by the Early Writers written by the thwarted Attalid deserter Aristophanes of Byzantium: a title that captures the often minute and exhaustive nature of this kind of scholarly activity.82 This trend can also be discerned at lower levels of Ptolemaic society, judging by educational papyri containing lists of words organized by theme: gods, heroes, rivers, months of the year, days of the week, and so forth.83 This interest was not confined to the spheres of literature and textual criticism, but also characterizes the work of the Alexandrian scientific community. The case of the medical practitioners Herophilos of Chalkedon (c.330–260 BC) and Erasistratos of Ioulis (c.315–240 BC) is particularly instructive.84 According to the Roman medical encyclopaedist Celsus, writing in the Julio-Claudian period, Herophilos and Erasistratos ‘laid open men whilst alive—criminals received out of prison from the kings—and whilst these were still breathing, observed parts which beforehand nature had concealed’.85 While it is debated whether these men really performed vivisections of this kind,86 most agree that they probably performed dissections on human subjects.87 Such procedures broke with the traditional Greek taboo 80

Suda s.v. K 227. For this text, see Pfeiffer 1953, xcv–xcviii. Kallimachos and his Pinakes: Blum 1991, esp. 124–81; Cameron 1995, 399–401; Jacob 2000a. 82 Aristophanes of Byzantium frr. 1–36 Slater. For a useful discussion of texts of this kind, see Shipley 2000, 241–2. 83 Didactic papyri with word lists: e.g. Bonner 1977, 170–1; Cribiore 1996, 42–3; 2009, 324–5; Morgan 1998, 101. 84 On Herophilos, Erasistratos, and their contemporaries, see Fraser 1972a, 338–76; von Staden 1975; 1989, esp. 138–396; 1996; Flemming 2003; Stok 2018. 85 Celsus, On Medicine, proemium 23–4. 86 Compare e.g. Scarborough 1976, denying vivisection, with von Staden 1989, 138–53, accepting Celsus’s testimony. 87 See, recently, Stok 2018, 359–60. 81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

17

against examining the inside of the human body, and also invoked the ire of later Christian writers: in c.AD 200, Tertullian described Herophilos as a ‘butcher’ in one of his attacks on paganism.88 Still, there was a genuine scientific purpose at hand. These dissections permitted Herophilos and Erasistratos to examine individual components of the human body in unprecedented detail, and to assess ‘their position, colour, shape, size, arrangement, hardness, softness, smoothness, relation, processes and depressions of each, and whether any part is inserted into or is received into another’.89 The result was a new ‘miniaturization of anatomy’: that is, a taxonomic model of the human body that differentiated between smaller anatomical components than had been identified in earlier Hippocratic studies.90 Herophilos discovered the nerves; differentiated individual parts of the eye; developed the distinction between veins and arteries; and described the anatomy of the male and female reproductive systems. He also invented names for his discoveries, developing a detailed new nomenclature for the human body. Remarkably, some body parts have retained their Latinized Herophilean titles to the modern day, including the cornea (‘hornlike’, from the Greek amphiblē stroeidē s) and the retina (‘net-like’, from the Greek keratoeidē s). Erasistratos, for his part, provided the first description of the heart valves, and differentiated between nerves and tendons. Through such work, these men succeeded in cataloguing the different parts of the body for the first time. A comparable concern with classification can be discerned in the work of Hipparchos of Nikaia, a geographer and astronomer who worked in Alexandria in the first half of the second century BC.91 Hipparchos produced a comprehensive catalogue of c.850 stars, organized both according to a precise mathematical system of coordinates, and by three categories of brightness. In compiling his catalogue, Hipparchos drew both on older Babylonian sources and on the observations of early third-century astronomers who had worked in Alexandria itself, including Timocharis and Aristyllos. The work enjoyed an excellent reputation in later times, and was one of the principal sources used by Claudius Ptolemaeus when composing his own catalogue of 1,022 stars in the second century AD. Other studies had a more terrestrial focus. Particularly notable is the work of Eratosthenes of Kyrene (c.276–194 BC), a gifted polymath who served as librarian during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes.92 Eratosthenes’s intellectual interests were so broad that he gained the nickname ‘beta’: he was considered the second most accomplished in every branch of learning, and so presumably ranked as the

88

89 Tertullian, On the Soul 10.4. Celsus, On Medicine, proemium 23–4. 91 Von Staden 1996, 86. Recently on Hipparchos of Nikaia: Geus 2016. 92 The bibliography on Eratosthenes and his work is long. Useful treatments include Jacob 2000b; Geus 2002; Roller 2010; 2015, 121–35; Bianchetti 2016; Thonemann 2016, 57–73. 90

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

18 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 greatest scholar overall.93 His most famous achievement remains his remarkably accurate calculation of the circumference of the Earth, but he also pioneered a new kind of scientific geography aimed at systematizing the surface of the inhabited world (oikoumenē ). In particular, he established a prime parallel—a latitudinal line running through cities and other significant geographical points—and a prime meridian—a longitudinal line of a similar nature—that intersected on Rhodes. This rudimentary system of latitude and longitude paved the way for a more detailed understanding of the positions of cities and peoples on the surface of the Earth: ‘[n]ew parallels and meridians could be created . . . and the grid of the oikoumenē could be filled in’.94 We will see later in this chapter that this culture of classification and systematization extended to the spheres of zoology and natural science, since many animals were described and catalogued for the first time in third-century Alexandria. Before turning to consider Alexandrian research on the animal kingdom in detail, however, it will first be useful to introduce a further aspect of the Ptolemaic intellectual programme: its debt to Aristotle and his Peripatetic school.

ARISTOTLE AND HIS IMPACT ON ALEXANDRIAN INTELLECTUALISM

The scientific research of Aristotle and his followers Aristotle first entered the world of the Macedonian kings in 343/2 BC, when he was hired by Philip II to tutor the fourteen-year-old Alexander the Great in Mieza. Stories abound concerning his lasting impact on the future conqueror of the Persian Empire: Plutarch, for example, tells us that Alexander always slept with Aristotle’s copy of the Iliad under his pillow.95 The diversity of Aristotle’s intellectual output is well known, but he was particularly interested in the study of animals: zoology, to retroject a modern discipline. Plato and others had studied the animal kingdom previously,96 but Aristotle rejected the formulations of his predecessors and addressed the subject in unprecedented detail.97 He was aware of his status as a pioneer in the field, judging by his defence of the importance of zoological and botanical research in the introduction to his treatise On the Parts of Animals (Peri zo ̄io ̄n morio ̄n):

93

94 95 Tarn and Griffifth 1952, 302. Roller 2015, 128. Plutarch, Life of Alexander 8. Plato and animals: e.g. Irby-Massie and Keyser 2002, 256–7. 97 Aristotle’s zoological research: e.g. Pellegrin 1986; Gotthelf and Lennox 1987; French 1994, 6–82; Hankinson 1995a; 1995b; Hünemörder 1999; Kullmann 1999; Lennox 2001; 2005; Lennox and Bolton 2010. 96

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

19

Of the works of Nature there are, we hold, two kinds: those which are brought into being and perish, and those which are free from these processes throughout all ages. The latter are of the highest worth and are divine, but our opportunities for the study of them are somewhat scanty . . . We have better means of information, however, concerning the things that perish, that is to say plants and animals, because we live among them; and anyone who will but take enough trouble can learn much concerning every one of their kinds.98

Here Aristotle expresses his opinion that the study of animals and plants should start with the careful observation of real-life specimens. He offers further information concerning his methodology in Book 1 of his History of Animals (To ̄n peri ta zo ̄ia historio ̄n). Having outlined the kinds of similarities and differences between species that will be investigated in the treatise, he continues: What has just been said has been stated thus by way of outline, so as to give a foretaste of the matters and subjects which we have to examine; detailed statements will follow later; our object being to determine first of all the differences that exist and the actual facts in the case of all of them. Having done this, we must attempt to discover the causes. And, after all, this is the natural method of procedure—to do this only after we have before us the ascertained facts about each item, for this will give us a clear indication of the subjects with which our exposition is to be concerned and the principles upon which it must be based.99

For Aristotle, then, zoological research should proceed in two stages. In the first stage, it was necessary to identify ‘the actual facts’ concerning each animal. This stage is represented by the History of Animals, a treatise in which Aristotle presents empirical data concerning the anatomy, reproduction, diet, behaviour, and habitat of different creatures. His dependence on the observation of real animals is clear throughout, even if he sometimes commits errors that probably stem from specious information supplied by unreliable sources: ‘fishermen, hunters, horsetrainers, bee-keepers and the like’.100 Some passages even suggest that he performed dissections when gathering data, laying the groundwork for the investigations of Herophilos and Erasistratos in the early third century. The second stage, meanwhile, was ‘to discover the causes’ of these facts: that is, to provide an explanatory model that could account for the similarities and differences between different species. This stage is represented by On the Parts of Animals and On the Generation of Animals, in which Aristotle identifies a series of ‘causes’ that respond to the overarching philosophical and teleological framework of his research. The question of how Aristotle organized his ‘facts’ in the History of Animals— or, to put it differently, how he ‘classified’ the animal kingdom—looms large in modern studies of the treatise. In a revealing passage, Aristotle rejects the system of subdivision by dichotomy employed by his predecessors, whereby animals were

98 100

Aristotle, Parts of Animals 844b. Lloyd 1970, 116.

99

Aristotle, History of Animals I 6, 491a7–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

20

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

divided on the basis of the possession or non-possession of a single characteristic.101 This system was flawed, according to Aristotle, because there could be no meaningful subdivision of a group formed on the basis of non-possession of a characteristic. Instead, Aristotle favoured a ‘systematic, multi-differentiae’ method of classification.102 The starting point was to take natural groups of animals perceived instinctively as such by humans, such as birds and fish, and to identify the combinations of differentiae that set them apart. These groups were therefore classified according to their collective idiosyncrasies rather than by their possession or nonpossession of a single feature. Within each group, subgroups or individual species could be isolated by dividing each differentia on more and more specific grounds. The logic is summarized neatly by James Lennox: ‘if all birds have beaks, feathers, wings of a sort, are bipedal, etc., the biologist needs to perform the proper sort of division on all of these in order to grasp the various sub-kinds of bird’.103 While this multi-differentiae method of classification is in evidence throughout the History of Animals, the treatise proper is divided into four main sections: Books 1–4 treat differences in the parts of animals; Books 5–6 treat differences in modes of reproduction; Book 8 treats differences in character; and Book 9 treats differences in behaviour. This structure meant that the ‘facts’ concerning each individual species were dispersed throughout different sections of the text.104 Aristotle’s followers shared his interest in the natural world.105 Best known is the work of Theophrastos of Eresos, who succeeded Aristotle as scholarch of the Lykeion in 322 BC. Theophrastos composed a series of texts on the animal kingdom,106 but is more renowned for his two surviving botanical treatises: the History of Plants (Peri phuto ̄n historia) and On the Causes of Plants (Peri phuto ̄n aitio ̄n). These texts follow the same two-stage structure as Aristotle’s zoological work.107 The first stage is represented by the History of Plants, a nine-book treatise presenting empirical data on the botanical kingdom within a systematic, multidifferentiae framework. Particularly interesting is Book 4, in which Theophrastos offers rich descriptions of the flora indigenous to particular Mediterranean regions, including Libya, Egypt, and Lake Kopais in Boeotia. The second stage is represented by On the Causes of Plants, in which Theophrastos explains the similarities and differences between different plants with reference to his more wide-reaching philosophical framework.

101

Aristotle, Parts of Animals 642b5–644a12. Analysis: e.g. French 1994, 56–8. Aristotle’s system of differentiae: e.g. Balme 1961; 1987; Pellegrin 1986; Gotthelf 1988, esp. 101–13; 1997; Lennox 2001, esp. 39–71; 2017. 103 104 Lennox 2017. Pointed out by Lennox 1994, 14–15; Hellmann 2006, 335–6. 105 Aristotle’s followers in the Peripatetic school: Althoff 1999, 156–67; Lefebre 2016. 106 For a useful introduction to Theophrastos’s zoological work, see Sharples 1994, 32–41. 107 On this structural similarity, see Gotthelf 1988. 102

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

21

Strato of Lampaskos succeeded Theophrastos as scholarch of the Lykeion in 286/5 BC and composed two works on the animal kingdom.108 The first was entitled On Problematic Animals (Peri to ̄n aporoumeno ̄n zo ̄io ̄n), and was probably concerned with the difficult-to-explain properties of real animals. The second was entitled On Animals of Which Myths Speak (Peri to ̄n muthologoumeno ̄n zo ̄io ̄n), and may have contained ‘the legendary reports of specific characteristics of real animals’ rather than discussing fabulous creatures known from the mythological tradition.109 These works, then, suggest a growing intellectual interest in the unusual properties of animals, which—we shall see—was developed more comprehensively in Hellenistic times. Other Peripatetics shared Strato’s interest in the animal kingdom. For instance, Eudemos of Rhodes is listed in Apuleius’s Apology alongside Aristotle, Theophrastos, and Lyko of Troas as a leading authority on ‘the generation of animals and about their ways of life and their parts and about every source of difference between them’.110 Seven fragments of Eudemos’s zoological work are preserved in Aelian’s Nature of Animals, and these indicate that he was particularly interested in the behaviour of different creatures and their extraordinary interactions with humans.111 Another key figure is Klearchos of Soloi, who is often thought to have spent time at Aï Khanoum in Baktria.112 He wrote a work On Aquatic Animals,113 as well as a specialist treatise On the Electric Ray.114 The impact of Aristotle’s zoological research was not confined to scholars working in the Lykeion, since it is clear from our sources that Alexander the Great also inherited his old master’s interest in the animal kingdom.115 For example, the court historian Onesikritos tells us that Alexander harboured a strong desire to visit two magnificent serpents owned by the Indian king Abisares.116 Several later writers even claimed that the king sponsored 108 The titles of all his works are listed in Strato of Lampaskos fr. 1 Sharples = Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.59. Commentary: Fortenbaugh 2011. 109 Hellmann 2006, 331. 110 Eudemos of Rhodes fr. 125 Wehrli = Apuleius, Self-Defence 36. Lyko of Troas was the fourth scholarch of the Lykeion, 269/8–224 BC. It has been doubted whether he really undertook zoological research in the manner Apuleius implies: see e.g. White 2002, 208–9; Hellmann 2006, 331–2. 111 Eudemos of Rhodes frr. 126–32 Wehrli = Aelian, Nature of Animals 3.20, 3.21, 4.8, 4.45, 4.53, 4.56, 5.7. Commentary: White 2002. 112 But see now Martinez-Sève 2014, 274 n. 39; 2015, 32 n. 80, doubting the connection. 113 Klearchos of Soloi fr. 101 Wehrli = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 8.332b; fr. 102 Wehrli = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 7.317b; fr. 103 Wehrli = Aelian, Nature of Animals 12.34; fr. 104 Wehrli = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 8.332e. 114 This specialist treatise is mentioned at Klearchos of Soloi fr. 105 Wehrli = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 7.314c. The passage reveals that Klearchos offered an explanation concerning the electric shock delivered by the ray. 115 For a full presentation of the evidence, see Bodson 1991, 136–8. 116 BNJ 134 F16b = Aelian, Nature of Animals 16.39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

22

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Aristotle’s zoological research in a direct way. Most striking is a passage of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, written in the second half of the first century AD: King Alexander the Great being fired with a desire to know the natures of animals and having delegated the pursuit of this study to Aristotle, as a man of supreme eminence in every branch of science, orders were given to some thousands of persons throughout the whole of Asia and Greece, all those who made their living by hunting, fowling and fishing, and those who were in charge of warrens, herds, apiaries, fishponds and aviaries, to obey his instructions, so that he might not fail to be informed about creatures born anywhere. His enquiries addressed to those persons resulted in the composition of his famous works on zoology, in nearly 50 volumes.117

Compare an anecdote recorded by Athenaios of Naukratis: I assumed that the deeply learned Aristotle would have thought that the creature [the tetrax bird] deserved some mention in his enormously expensive treatise—since the story goes that the Stagirite got 800 talents from Alexander to support work on his History of Animals—but when I found no reference to it there I was delighted to have the witty Aristophanes as an utterly reliable witness.118

Most commentators doubt whether Alexander supported Aristotle’s zoological research in this direct and systematic manner.119 It is more likely that these passages reflect the advances in zoological knowledge brought about by Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire, when the Graeco-Macedonians encountered many new animal species for the first time. Indeed, Alexander was accompanied by a series of bematists (‘pacers’) during his campaigns, who were responsible for recording distances between geographically significant points, and for ‘composing more exotic reports of the flora, fauna, and customs’ in newly conquered territories.120 The Macedonians’ continued sensitivity to the natural world as they advanced into Asia also emerges from the occasions on which they drew geographical inferences based on zoological and botanical observations.121 In 326 BC, for instance, Alexander and his men interpreted the crocodiles living in the Indus and Hydaspes (Jhelum) rivers and the lotus plants growing on the banks of the river Acesines (Chebab) as evidence that the Indus and the Nile were

117

Pliny, Natural History 8.44. See also Aelian, Various History 4.19, claiming instead that Alexander’s father Philip II was the patron of Aristotle’s zoological research. 118 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 9.398e. 119 See, for example, Romm 1989; Bodson 1991, 131–3; Trinquier 2009, 335–9. 120 OCD s.v. ‘bematists’ (A. B. Bosworth). For individual bematists see Heckel 2006 s.v. ‘Amyntas [10]’, ‘Baeton’, ‘Diognetus’, ‘Philonides’, ‘Poseidonius’, as well as the more detailed study of Pfister 1961. 121 Interpretation of natural phenomena during Alexander’s campaigns: e.g. Geus 2003, esp. 236–42; Gehrke 2011; 2016.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

23

connected, and that it was possible to sail directly from India to Egypt.122 Only later was this misconception corrected.

The reception of Aristotelian natural science in Alexandria It is with the pioneering scientific research of the Peripatetic school in mind that we should consider the Aristotelian connections of the Alexandrian Library and Mouseion. These connections emerge most clearly from Ptolemy I Soter’s attempts to recruit leading Peripatetics to join his new intellectual project in Alexandria. According to Diogenes Laertios, Soter approached Theophrastos about tutoring his young son Philadelphos, but the Eresian declined the invitation.123 The king had more luck with Strato of Lampaskos, who agreed to tutor Philadelphos for an astronomical sum,124 before returning to Athens to replace Theophrastos as scholarch of the Lykeion. Another important figure in this context is Demetrios of Phaleron, who—we have seen—played an instrumental role in founding the Alexandrian Library. Demetrios’s own intellectual background is significant.125 Our sources tell us that he was educated by Theophrastos,126 and it is sometimes held that he was taught by Aristotle as well.127 While he is best known for his law-making, Demetrios was himself a productive scholar: Diogenes Laertios provides a long list of treatises that he wrote, and states that ‘[i]n the number of his works and their total length in lines he has surpassed almost all contemporary Peripatetics’.128 The very fact that Diogenes appended his Life of Demetrios to those of the first four scholarchs of the Lykeion (Aristotle, Theophrastos, Strato, Lyko of Troas) indicates that he regarded him as a Peripatetic writer and thinker of considerable importance.129 The Ptolemaic patronage of such figures helps us make sense of Strabo’s famous statement that Aristotle ‘is the first man, so far as I know, to have collected books and to have taught the kings in Egypt how to arrange a library (bibliothē kē )’.130 The anecdote itself is certainly apocryphal, since Aristotle died in c.322 BC and can hardly have advised Ptolemy I Soter on the foundation of his new Library. Even 122

Arrian, Anabasis 6.1.2–3; Indica 6.8; Strabo, Geography 15.1.25. Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.37. 124 Strato of Lampaskos fr. 1 Sharples = Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.58. 125 On Demetrios’s education and intellectual achievements, see Sollenberger 2000, esp. 326–8; Tracy 2000, esp. 340–5; Montanari 2000; Mossé 2000. 126 Educated by Theophrastos: e.g. Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.39, 5.75. For a full list of ancient sources documenting the relationship, see Stork, van Ophuijsen, and Dorandi 2000, 38–41 nos. 8–11. 127 Suggested by Ferguson 1911, 268; Wood and Wood 1978, 250; Williams 1987, 88. As Sollenberger (2000, 316) notes, ‘none of our ancient sources explicitly says this’. 128 129 Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.80. Pointed out by Tracy 2000, 340. 130 Strabo, Geography 13.1.54. 123

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

24

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

so, it demonstrates that the basic idea of a connection between Aristotle’s book collection and the new Alexandrian Library was prevalent during antiquity, and that it was held to be plausible by later commentators.131 This connection surely originated with figures like Strato of Lampaskos and Demetrios of Phaleron, who brought with them first-hand knowledge of the Lykeion’s book culture when they arrived at the Ptolemaic court.132 It is also telling that the Lykeion housed a sanctuary of the Muses: a Mouseion. Presumably this institution exerted some influence on its Alexandrian counterpart, possibly through the agency of figures like Strato and Demetrios. Given these Peripatetic connections, it is unsurprising that the zoological work of Aristotle and his followers was available for consultation in Ptolemaic Alexandria. This material had a diverse reception range. It was used extensively by philologists concerned with producing critical editions of—and detailed commentaries on—Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, for whom Aristotle was a principal authority on zoological matters.133 It was also consulted by leading poets, keen to show off their erudition by weaving intertextual references to scientific writing into their poems. A good example is Kallimachos’s epigram on a nautilus shell dedicated by one Selenaia to Aphrodite-Arsinoë at Cape Zephyrion,134 which leans on Aristotle’s description of the species.135 Most significant for our purposes, however, are a series of texts produced in Alexandria that engaged with the zoological work of Aristotle and other Peripatetics in a direct and systematic manner: Kallimachos’s On Birds and On Changes in the Names of Fish; the paradoxographical collections compiled by Kallimachos and other writers; and Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological work. It will be useful to introduce these texts in detail.

Kallimachos’s treatises On Birds and On Changes in the Names of Fish The Suda records that Kallimachos of Kyrene composed a treatise On Birds (Peri orneo ̄n).136 Fifteen fragments of this work survive,137 and these allow us to draw 131

Compare also Athenaios’s account of how Ptolemy II Philadelphos purchased the library of Neleus of Skepsis, including Aristotle’s own book collection: Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 1.3a–b. 132 More broadly on book culture in fourth-century Athens, see Pinto 2013. 133 Use of Aristotle’s zoology in Homeric exegesis: Hatzimichali 2013, 70–5. 134 HE 14 (5) = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 7.318b. Commentary: Prescott 1921; Gutzwiller 1992. 135 Aristotle, History of Animals 622b. For the nautilus, see also Pliny, Natural History 9.103; Aelian, Nature of Animals 9.34. 136 Suda s.v. K 227. 137 Kallimachos frr. 414–28 Pfeiffer. These fragments are preserved in Aelian’s Nature of Animals and Varia Historia; Athenaios of Naukratis’s Learned Banqueters; Hesychius’s Lexicon, and two further anonymous Byzantine lexica, the Etymologicum Genuinum and Etymologicum Magnum; and in scholia on Homer’s Iliad, Aristophanes’s Birds, Theokritos, Apollonios of Rhodes, and Lykophron’s Alexandra.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

25

some inferences concerning the nature and arrangement of the original text.138 It is likely, for example, that Kallimachos presented his ornithological data on a species-by-species basis.139 This is suggested by a fragment quoted by a scholion on the Iliad, in which the name of a particular species is given at the beginning of each lemma: Kallimachos says in On Birds that the ‘white-rump’ (pugargos) is not the species that gets bloody eyes when mating, but rather the grey heron (pellos); he writes as follows: “The starlike (asterias) [heron], this is also called the ‘hesitant bird’ (oknos). It is completely idle. Grey heron (pellos): when he mates, he screams and blood flows from his eyes, and the female lives in pain. ‘White’ (leukos) [heron]: this mates without any suffering for both sexes.”140

This passage also demonstrates that some entries in On Birds were concerned with animal behaviour and ethology. Other fragments indicate that Kallimachos also addressed matters of ornithological nomenclature and/or taxonomic differentiation. See, for example, Athenaios’s testimony that ‘Kallimachos in his On Birds explains that the ringdove (phassa), purallis, pigeon (peristera) and turtledove (trugo ̄n) are different creatures’.141 It is clear that Kallimachos made extensive use of Aristotle’s zoological work when composing On Birds, since several fragments of the treatise exhibit close correspondences with passages in the Aristotelian corpus.142 The fragment concerning herons quoted above, for example, recalls two passages in Book 9 of the History of Animals describing three varieties of the species: the ‘white’ (leukos) and ‘star-like’ (asterias) kinds, as well as the grey heron (pellos) that ‘screams, and, so they say, drips blood from its eyes while covering’.143 Also revealing is a passage of Athenaios’s Learned Banqueters, in which the author summarizes Aristotle’s account of the partridge (perdix), before stating that ‘Kallimachos offers the same information in his On Birds’.144 In the absence of the full treatise, it is difficult to gauge the purpose and intended audience of On Birds. Perhaps it was conceived as a kind of ornithological handbook for scholars and poets working in Alexandria, offering instant recourse to detailed information concerning individual bird species.145 138

The most extensive discussions of the fragments are Martínez 2001; and Hellmann 2015, 1245–7. Demonstrated by Witty 1973, 242; Hellmann 2015, 1246. 140 Kallimachos fr. 427 Pfeiffer (491 Asper) = Schol. B Ilias 10.274. Adapted from the German translation in Asper 2004. 141 Kallimachos fr. 416 Pfeiffer (487 Asper) = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 9.394d. 142 Noted by Blum 1991, 135; White 2015, 191; Hellmann 2015, 1245–6. 143 Aristotle, History of Animals 9.609b 21–7 and 9.616b 33–617a. The correspondences between these passages and Kallimachos fr. 427 were noted by Pfeiffer 1949, 343. 144 Kallimachos fr. 415 Pfeiffer = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 9.389a–b. 145 Suggested by Hellmann 2015, 1246–7. 139

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

26

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Kallimachos may even have consulted this ‘handbook’ when composing his own poetry.146 Kallimachos’s zoological interest was not limited to birds, since he is also said to have composed a text On Changes in the Names of Fish (Peri metonomasias icthuo ̄n).147 This text was probably part of a larger work on Local Nomenclature (Ethnikai onomasiai),148 and seems to have been concerned primarily with listing dialectical names for particular fish species. The sole surviving fragment lists six different names for anchovies or sardines, and discusses the nomenclature of the ozaina (called osmulion by the Thurians) and the iopē s (called eritimoi by the Athenians).149 It would be interesting to know whether the treatise also provided information concerning the behaviour of these creatures.

Paradoxography Kallimachos also features prominently in discussions of paradoxography, a literary genre that emerged in the third century BC.150 While its precise parameters are debated, paradoxography was concerned with presenting decontextualized information about ‘wonders’ (thaumata), ‘singular things’ (idia), and ‘things that occur against expectation or logic’ (paradoxa). It was a derivative form of literature, in the sense that writers did not depend on the first-hand observation of natural phenomena when composing paradoxographical collections. Rather, they excerpted anecdotes and topoi from pre-existing texts, usually taking care to cite their sources in order to validate the authenticity of their statements. Given this ‘derivative’ quality, it is understandable that paradoxography flourished particularly in third-century Alexandria, where writers could access the book collection in the new Ptolemaic Library.151 Kallimachos is usually held to be the father of the genre, thanks partially to the statement in the Suda that he composed a Collection of Wondrous Things over the Whole Earth According to Places (Thaumato ̄n to ̄n eis hapasan tē n gē n kata topous onto ̄n sunago ̄gē ).152 A series of paradoxographical entries attributed to Kallimachos 146

For the suggestion that Kallimachos might have consulted his entry on the corncrake (krex), a type of seabird believed to be a bad omen for those getting married, when writing about ill-fated lovers in his Akontios and Kydippe or Propemptikon, see Asper 2004, 48. 147 148 Suda s.v. K 227. Pfeiffer 1968, 135; Hellmann 2015, 1247. 149 Kallimachos fr. 406 Pfeiffer (480 Asper) = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 7.329a. 150 The best modern treatments of paradoxography include: Giannini 1963; 1964; Jacob 1983; Schepens and Delcroix 1996; Gómez Espelosín 1996; BNP s.v. ‘Paradoxographoi’ (O. Wenskus and L. Daston); Pajón Leyra 2011; Geus and King 2018. 151 One paradoxographer not discussed in detail here is Philostephanos of Cyrene, who composed an elegiac verse concerning the strange behaviour of a lake in Sicily (Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 8.331d) and probably worked in Alexandria. 152 Suda s.v. K 227.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

27

are preserved in a ninth-century AD manuscript carrying the general title Collection of Marvellous Stories of Antigonos (Antigonou historio ̄n paradoxo ̄n sunago ̄gē ).153 The Antigonos named here is usually identified as Antigonos of Karystos, a late third-century scholar and art historian who may have worked at the Attalid court.154 Despite this general title, the scope of Antigonos’s connection with the manuscript is debated. Some commentators maintain that the entire Collection was compiled by Antigonos in the third century BC,155 while others hold that it was actually compiled in Roman or Byzantine times using material drawn from both Antigonos’s work and other sources.156 This debate is of limited importance in the present context. What matters is that the Collection contains a series of entries attributed explicitly to Antigonos (at least §§1–26) and Kallimachos (§§129–73), which allow us to sample the flavour of third-century paradoxography.157 Three aspects may be usefully highlighted here. Firstly, the majority of entries attributed to Antigonos concern the marvellous properties of animals, suggesting that the animal kingdom featured prominently in paradoxographical literature.158 The situation is different for Kallimachos, since only two of his entries concern animals: the heron and the jackdaw respectively.159 Rather, his entries are united by a shared focus on bodies of water, suggesting a possible connection with his treatise On Rivers and/or his other geographical work. Secondly, a great many entries attributed to Antigonos and Kallimachos seem to have been excerpted from the earlier work of Aristotle, Theophrastos, and other Peripatetics.160 This dependency is clearest where these sources are cited directly. For example, Antigonos cites Aristotle in an entry detailing how both the seal (pho ̄kē ) and the whale (phalaina) produce milk, and how a male goat (tragos) in Lemnos produced milk in sufficient quantities to make cheese.161 A similar dependency on Peripatetic sources can be observed in another paradoxographical collection, the pseudo-Aristotelian On Marvellous Things Heard, which is often said to have been compiled in Hellenistic times.162

153

Cod. Pal. graec. 398. For a stimulating analysis of this manuscript, see White 2015. Antigonos of Karystos: Dorandi 1999; 2005. 155 For a recent instantiation of this view, see Geus and King 2018, 439. 156 See e.g. Musso 1976; 1985; Dorandi 1999, XIV–XVII; White 2015, esp. 180–2. The paradoxographical treatise written by Antigonos may have been entitled On Animals (Peri zo ̄io ̄n): see Antigonos of Karystos frs. 50A–B Dorandi = Hesychius s.v. Ø 561,  1977, with Dorandi 1999, XXIII–XIV. 157 On the organization of the Collection, see now White 2015, 175–82. Two recent doctoral theses supply fresh insights on the Collection, as well as new translations: see Ciuca 2012; Eleftheriou 2018. 158 Observed by White 2015, 176. Note that Giannini 1963, 247–63 lists ‘natural marvels’ among the six categories of wonderful things treated in ancient paradoxography. 159 [Antigonos], Collection §§172–3 Musso. These ornithological entries may have been connected to Kallimachos’s treatise On Birds. 160 Source citations in Parts 1 and 4 of the Collection: White 2015, 176, 193–4. 161 162 [Antigonos], Collection §22 Musso. Flashar 1972, 39–50. 154

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

28

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Our third observation stems from an entry in the Collection that offers important information concerning the audience of paradoxographical literature. Here Antigonos identifies his source as Archelaos, a third-century poet from Egyptian Chersonesos who composed a paradoxographical epigram collection on Peculiar Forms (Idiophuē ).163 The entry is worth quoting in full: It is also said that the crocodile (krokodeilos) gives birth to scorpions (scorpioi). And that wasps (sphē kes) are generated from horses (hippoi). And a certain Archelaos of Egypt, who was among those who explained paradoxa to Ptolemy in epigrams, spoke of scorpions in these terms: “Into you, o scorpions, does nature who gives and rules the life of all things decompose the crocodile when it has died” and about wasps, he said: “Attribute the birth of this breed, the wasps, to the corpses of horses—see how nature draws like from like”164

Whether the Ptolemy mentioned here is Ptolemy II Philadelphos or Ptolemy III Euergetes,165 the passage indicates that paradoxography found an audience among the uppermost echelons of Alexandrian society. It also suggests that the kings were especially interested in paradoxa concerning the animal kingdom, a view that fits neatly with the body of historical and archaeological evidence presented later on in this chapter.

Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome of Aristotle Aristophanes of Byzantium composed an Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological work, divided into four books.166 This Epitome incorporated not only material from Aristotle’s best-known zoological treatises but also from lost Peripatetic texts including Theophrastos’s work on animals.167 Excerpts from Books 1 and 2 are preserved in a Byzantine collection produced for Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century AD, which is divided into two corresponding books. That this 163

The title of this epigram collection is supplied by several ancient authors: Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 9.409c; Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 2.17;  ad. Nic. Ther. 823. For the surviving fragments see FGE, 20–4; SH, 125–9. 164 [Antigonos], Collection §19 Musso. For the crocodile-scorpion topos, see also Aelian, Nature of Animals 2.33. For the wasp-horse topos, see also Nikander, Theriaka l. 741; Pliny, Natural History 11.70; Plutarch, Life of Kleomenes 39; Aelian, Nature of Animals 1.28. 165 Page (FGE, 21) identifies the ‘Ptolemy’ mentioned here as either Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III. Fraser (1972a, 779) and Berrey (2017, 61) both prefer Ptolemy III. 166 The standard edition remains Lambros 1885–6. Useful recent discussions of the Epitome include Kullmann 1998, esp. 126–39; Hellmann 2006; 2010, esp. 559–70; 2015, 1247–51; Berger 2012. 167 Other sources included an anatomical treatise similar to the lost Anatomai of Aristotle, and an earlier collection of Peripatetic writing on animals known as the Zoïka: see Berger 2012.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

29

collection does not reproduce Aristophanes’s Epitome word for word is indicated by its title: Collection of research on living creatures on land, with wings, and in the sea, a labour of love by Constantine the great king and emperor: Aristophanes’ Epitome of the (writings) of Aristotle on living creatures, with what was said by Aelian and Timotheos and certain others about each creature subjoined to it.168 Thus the Byzantine compiler(s) added material from Aelian, Timotheos of Gaza, and other authors. Aristophanes provides important information concerning his methodology in an introductory passage at the beginning of Book 2: In this composition, the second in number, after giving the name of the animal, I will try to place under this heading how many parts the proposed animal has, then I will [speak] about its mating and how many months it is able to be pregnant, and concerning its birth, what kind of young and how many [of them] it is able to bear. In all cases [I will explain] the life of the animal named in the heading, what its character is like, and how many years it is able to live. This I tried to do, in order that you need not go through Aristotle’s treatise on animals which is divided into many parts, but you can have the entire enquiry on each animal brought together.169

This passage captures a fundamental difference between the Epitome and Aristotle’s original zoological work. Whereas Aristotle organized his material according to differentiae and ‘causes’, as we have seen, Aristophanes rearranged this material on a species-by-species basis. This rearrangement had important consequences: Aristotle’s zoological observations were separated from his broader theoretical and philosophical framework; and all of his hitherto disparate observations concerning a given species could now be consulted in a single place. There follows a passage in which Aristophanes describes the order in which he will present his material.170 He will treat viviparous animals—that is, those that give birth to live young that have developed inside the mother—in Book 2, starting with animals that have toes, and then moving to cloven-hoofed animals, animals with a single hoof, and cartilaginous fish.171 He will then treat oviparous (egg-laying) animals in the remaining books, starting with other kinds of fish in Book 3,172 before moving to birds in Book 4. The excerpts from Book 2 preserved in the Byzantine collection adhere to this structure. Previous studies have sometimes supposed that Aristophanes’s Epitome was born from ‘a fundamental misunderstanding’ of Aristotle’s project,173 since the organization by species undermined the structure of his original work. But the differences between the texts should probably be explained by the different aims 168 169 170 171 172

Translation of title: Sharples 1994, 35. Aristophanes of Byzantium, Epitome 2.1, p. 35.18–36.5 Lambros. Translation: Hellmann 2006, 335–6. On the structure of the Epitome, see Kullmann 1998, 126–7; Hellmann 2006, 332–7. Aristophanes of Byzantium, Epitome 2.2, p. 36.6–10 Lambros. 173 Aristophanes of Byzantium, Epitome 2.3, p. 36.11–13 Lambros. Lennox 1994, 15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

30

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

of their authors. Indeed, the Epitome was surely conceived as ‘a kind of reference book or lexicon in the Museion and in many other contexts’,174 which could be consulted for quick information concerning particular species. It was enormously successful in this respect, since a large proportion of ancient authors who refer to Aristotle’s zoological work relied not on his original treatises but on Aristophanes’s summary. Hence the Epitome is cited directly by Artemidorus Daldianus (second century AD),175 Hierocles in the Hippiatrica (fifth or sixth century),176 and John Lydus (sixth century),177 and was also used by Pliny the Elder (first century AD), Oppian and Plutarch (both second century), Aelian and Athenaios (both late second to early third century), Basil of Caesarea (fourth century), and Timotheos of Gaza (late fifth to early sixth century), among others.178

THE PTOLEMIES AND OTHER ANIMALS

Besides its influence on scholars working in the Mouseion, Aristotle’s zoological work seems to have had a direct impact on the third-century Ptolemaic kings. They recognized that the animal kingdom offered exciting new possibilities for expressing ideas about knowledge and power. Our evidence from the reign of Ptolemy I Soter is limited in this respect: Lucian tells us that this king paraded a black camel from Baktria before his subjects in the theatre, but the historicity of this episode has often been doubted.179 Rather, royal interest in the animal kingdom was concentrated during the reign of his son and successor Ptolemy II Philadelphos, a king whose connections with the Mouseion and Library have been sketched already in this chapter. Several factors may have contributed to Philadelphos’s zoological interest. Strabo credits him with a passion for study,180 and we have seen already that his tutor Strato of Lampaskos composed works On Problematic Animals and On Animals of Which Myths Speak.181

The Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos Philadelphos’s zoological interest was manifested most emphatically during his Grand Procession, an extravagant parade through the streets of Alexandria

174 176 178 179 180

175 Hellmann 2015, 1251. Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 2.14. 177 Hierocles in Hippiatr. 1,13 p. 5, 17 Oder. John Lydus, De magistr. 3.63. Recently on the impact and reception of the Epitome in later literature: Cariou 2015. Lucian, Prometheus 4. Questionable historicity: e.g. Trinquier 2002, 856–7. 181 Strabo, Geography 17.1.5. Diogenes Laertios, Lives of the Philosophers 5.59–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

31

forming part of the penteteric celebration of the Ptolemaia during the 270s BC.182 This event was described by the second-century BC historian Kallixeinos of Rhodes in Book 4 of his treatise On Alexandria, portions of which are preserved by Athenaios. It consisted of a series of divisional processions, each honouring a different god or deified mortal, including the Morning Star, Ptolemy I and Berenike I, Dionysos, Zeus, Alexander the Great, and Hesperos. The preserved portion of Kallixeinos’s account centres on the procession honouring Dionysos, which Athenaios clearly considered to be the most impressive element of the tableau. Particularly significant, in the present context, is the section commemorating the god’s triumphal return from India, since it incorporated a display of animals from across the known world. The relevant sections of Kallixeinos’s description are worth quoting in full: It would not be right to pass over this four-wheeled cart, which was 22 cubits long and 14 cubits wide and was hauled by 500 men. On top of it was a cave very deeply covered by ivy and smilax. Pigeons, ringdoves, and turtledoves flew out of this along the whole course of the procession, and wool ribbons were tied to their feet to make them easy for the spectators to catch.183 . . . After them [sc. 500 elaborately dressed girls and 120 men dressed as satyrs] came five troops of donkeys with silens and satyrs wearing garlands mounted on them. Some of the donkeys had gold frontlets and gear, the others silver. After them 24 carts drawn by elephants were sent out, along with 60 teams of billy-goats, 12 teams of hornless goats, seven teams of oryxes, 15 teams of bubales, eight teams of ostriches, seven teams of onelaphoi, four teams of onagers, and four four-horse chariots. Boys wearing charioteers’ tunics and broad-brimmed hats were mounted on all of these; girls equipped with peltast shields and thyrsus-lances and dressed in robes and gold coins were mounted beside them. The boys who held the reins wore garlands of pine, the girls garlands of ivy. After them were six teams of camels, three on either side. They were followed by carts pulled by mules. The carts contained scenes depicting barbarian countries, and women from India and elsewhere sat on them dressed like war-captives. There were also she-camels loaded with 300 minas of frankincense, 300 minas of myrrh, and 200 minas of saffron, cassia, cinnamon, iris-root, and other spices. Behind them were Ethiopian tribute-bearers, some of whom carried 600 tusks, others 2000 ebony logs, and others 60 mixing-bowls full of gold and silver coins and gold-dust. After them marched { two { huntsmen holding gilded hunting-spears. Also 2400 dogs were led along; some were Indian, while the others were Hyrcanian, Molossian, and other breeds. Immediately behind them came 150 men carrying trees, from which wild animals of every sort were suspended, as well as birds. Then came an enormous number of parrots, peacocks, guinea-fowl, pheasants, and other Ethiopian birds, carried in cages.

182

Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos: e.g. Dunand 1981, 11–40; Rice 1983; Foertmeyer 1988; Hazzard 2000, 59–79; Thompson 2000; Walbank 2002, 59–79; Keyser 2016; Kuzmin 2018. 183 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.200c–d.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

32

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

After he [sc. Kallixeinos] mentions many other things and lists various herds of animals, he adds: 130 Ethiopian sheep, 300 Arabian sheep, 20 Euboean sheep, and 26 all-white zebus, eight Ethiopian cows, a single large white bear, 14 leopards, 16 spotted wildcats, four caracals, three young leopards (?), one giraffe, and one Ethiopian rhinoceros.184 . . . For there were many things put on display worth hearing about, including a large number of wild animals and horses, and 24 huge lions. There were also other four-wheeled carts, which did not only carry images of kings, because many carried images of gods. After them in the procession marched a chorus of 600 men, with 300 lyre-players among them playing in harmony and holding lyres entirely covered with gold and gold garlands. After them 2000 bulls, all the same colour and with their horns gilded, passed through. They wore gold frontlets, garlands between their horns, and necklaces and aegises on their chests; all these items were made of gold.185

Certain details of this account seem suspect: we might question, for instance, whether it was really possible to yoke animals such as ostriches, onagers, and camels for the purpose of pulling chariots. Still, the detailed nature of the narrative suggests that Kallixeinos based his account on official sources of some kind, presumably the ‘Chronicles of the Penteterides’ (tas to ̄n pentetē rido ̄n graphas) that he mentions elsewhere in connection with the procession.186 While nothing in the account explicitly suggests that the paraded animals were subjected to systematic zoological research by Alexandrian scientists, certain aspects of the procession resonate with strands of the Alexandrian intellectual project examined already in this chapter. Particularly noteworthy is the range of geographical locations encompassed by the paraded animals. Indeed, Kallixeinos tells us that creatures emanating from India, Aethiopia, Hyrcania (a region covering parts of modern Iran and Turkmenistan), Molossia (modern Albania), Arabia, and Euboea were displayed in the procession. Recent studies have questioned the extent to which viewers would have appreciated this remarkable geographical variety, suggesting instead that the ensemble was intended to produce a generic vision of the exotic ‘other’ for those who witnessed the display.187 This may be so, but the very fact that Kallixeinos was able to record the territorial origins of so many species indicates that they were deemed important by his sources, and that they played a significant role in the conception of the parade. On a practical level, this geographical range attests to the wide extent of Ptolemaic contacts and control at the time the procession was staged. But from an ideological perspective, it offers yet another example of the culture of collection and accumulation that constituted such a hallmark of Alexandrian intellectualism, much like the imperialistic acquisition of books and the assembly of famous poets, 184 186

Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.200e–201c. Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.197d.

187

185 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.201f–202a. Trinquier 2002, 871–3; Schneider 2004, 324.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

33

scholars, and artists in the royal capital. It is possible that this accumulation also reflected something of Philadelphos’s territorial aspirations. While the king could hardly claim mastery of India, Hyrcania, or Molossia, the display of animals from these lands was one way of expressing the idea that he was the rightful heir to Alexander the Great, who had conquered these territories only a generation previously.188 It is surely no coincidence that a colossal statue of Alexander, mounted in a chariot drawn by elephants and flanked by statues of Athena and Nikē , was also paraded during this section of the procession.189 Kallixeinos’s description also resonates with the culture of classification that we have traced in the Alexandrian intellectual community during the third and second centuries BC. Indeed, much of his account reads like a catalogue, in which he lists a particular species before providing information concerning its role in the procession, the number of specimens paraded, and (sometimes) its geographical origins. Kallixeinos was also careful to outline that the display of certain animals involved the juxtaposition of breeds from different locations. Specifically, he records the display of Indian, Hyrcanian, and Molossian dogs (as well as those of ‘other breeds’); Aethiopian, Arabian, and Euboean sheep; and Indian and Aethiopian cows. Clearly Kallixeinos—and/or his sources—felt these distinctions to be significant, possibly because particular sub-species were earmarked for different agricultural functions in the aftermath of the parade.190 It is important to consider what this display of animals necessitated in practical terms. The challenges of housing and feeding so many creatures suggest that a specialist facility would have been required in—or close to—Alexandria in the weeks and months leading up to the procession.191 It is for this reason that almost every modern account of third-century BC Alexandria refers to a ‘zoo’, ‘zoological garden’, or ‘menagerie’, located in the royal district of the city, or attached to the Mouseion.192 Given that the existence of this facility is so often taken for granted, it is striking that it is never referred to explicitly in our surviving literature. Strabo, for instance, does not mention it in his account of the city, composed in the 188

Territorial ideology: e.g. Strootman 2014c, 333; 2014d, 261. Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.201d. 190 For the possibility of different agricultural functions, see Rostovtzeff 1922, 113–17; Rice 1983, 95; Dumont 2001, 309–12. 191 Jennison 1937, 35, estimates that ‘[t]he quarters of the whole collection would probably cover about 100 acres’. 192 ‘Zoo’: e.g. Hubbell 1935; Fraser 1972a, 15; Rice 1983, 35, 86–7; Burstein 1989, 4; Coarelli 1990, 244, 250; Meyboom 1995, passim; Coleman 1996, 69; Schepens and Delcroix 1996, 406–7; Kloner 1997, 35; MacLeod 2000, 4; Jacobson 2004, 34; Tammisto 2005, 21; Keyser and Irby-Masser 2006, 248; Erlich 2009, 72; Rihll 2010, 411; Magness 2012, 82; Stewart 2014, 230. ‘Zoological garden(s)’: e.g. Peters and Thiersch 1905, 91; Tarn and Griffith 1952, 307; Burchfield 1982, 75; Nielsen 1999, 133; Meyboom 1995, 47; Vörös 2001, 114; Martin 2005, 416; Strootman 2014b, 329. ‘Menagerie’: e.g. Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993, 790; Kloner and Braun 2003, 48; Jacobson 2007, 44; Kloner 2008, 178. 189

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

34

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

mid-first century BC.193 The only possible reference is supplied by the secondcentury BC writer Agatharchides of Knidos, who tells us that Ptolemy II Philadelphos collected animals together ‘to live in one place’ (sunagagein hupo mian oikē sin).194 But Agatharchides offers no further information concerning the nature of this ‘place’, and leaves open the question of whether it was a permanent facility or a temporary one conceived only with Philadelphos’s procession in mind.195 Unsurprisingly, the archaeological record from Alexandria does not illuminate this murky picture.196 A more nuanced view is possible. As Jean Trinquier has demonstrated, there were important distinctions in status and function among the animals imported into Alexandria for the procession, and these distinctions probably translated into different conditions of captivity.197 Some of the animals served a practical function, drawing chariots or carrying valuable commodities imported from abroad, while others were displayed in smaller numbers as exotic curiosities. It is likely that the creatures with practical functions were kept in specialist facilities where they would have received rigorous training in order to perform their tasks with minimal disruption to the festivities. A papyrus letter of 218 BC refers explicitly to one such facility: an elephant stable located upriver in Memphis.198 We might also imagine that the sheep and cattle mentioned by Kallixeinos were kept in farming facilities designed to capitalize on their agricultural potential.199 Certainly no ‘zoo’—in the modern sense of the term—would have been able to accommodate such large numbers of livestock. The animals displayed as exotic curiosities are more difficult to assess, but there are good reasons to suppose that they may not have been housed in a single, allencompassing facility. Aelian tells us that several giant snakes imported to Alexandria during the third century were kept in the sanctuary of Asklepios, where they functioned as sacred avatars of the god of healing.200 The same author also mentions a peacock housed in the sanctuary of Zeus Poleius by an unnamed Ptolemaic ruler.201 A different set of circumstances prevailed in the case of an unusually tame lion, said to have been kept in the royal palace by a queen Berenike.202 This was not the only creature kept in the palace, judging by an

193

194 Strabo, Geography 17.1.8–10. Agatharchides fr. 1 Burstein. Observed already by Trinquier 2002, 911–14. 196 Archaeology of Ptolemaic Alexandria: McKenzie 2007, 31–146. 197 More fully on this point, see Trinquier 2002. 198 P.Petr. II 20, col. 4, ll. 7–8 and 12–13. Commentary: e.g. Scullard 1974, 133; Casson 1993, 259; Trinquier 2002, 893. 199 Trinquier 2002, 891–3. 200 Aelian, Nature of Animals 16.39. Discussion: Trinquier 2002, 898–900. 201 Aelian, Nature of Animals 11.33. Discussion: Trinquier 2002, 900–2. 202 Aelian, Nature of Animals 11.33. Recent discussion: Prioux and Trinquier 2015. 195

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

35

extract from the Commentaries of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (146–116 BC) referring to pheasants and other birds bred by an earlier king, possibly Ptolemy II Philadelphos, on account of their gastronomic properties and curiosity value: King Ptolemy in the twelfth book of his Commentaries, speaking about the palace at Alexandria and the animals reared in it, says, “Concerning the pheasants which are called tetaroi, he [sc. Ptolemy II Philadelphos?] not only sent for these from Media but bred them with Numidian birds and produced a large number to be eaten, for it is well known that they produce expensive food. This is the word of that most distinguished king [sc. Philadelphos?], who admitted that he never even tasted a Phasian bird, but kept as a treasure these birds that are here [sc. in the royal palace].”203

In sum, animals in Hellenistic Alexandria were probably housed in a range of facilities, each catering to the particular needs of the species they accommodated. The notion of a single, all-encompassing ‘zoo’ does not do justice to this variety, even if we accept that Philadelphos did indeed gather large quantities of animals together ‘in one place’ for his famous procession.

Collecting animals in third-century Alexandria This all leads us to consider precisely how all of these creatures came to be imported into Alexandria in the first place. We shall see in Chapter 3 that animals were sometimes sent to the king by grateful local leaders, entering the realm of reciprocal exchange that constituted such an important mechanism of diplomacy in the Hellenistic world. But there were also other possibilities, and we happen to be particularly well informed about how animals were brought to Egypt from Aethiopia—that is, the region immediately south of the first Nile cataract at Aswan/Syene, covering most of modern-day Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia—during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. The historical background is significant. Whereas Ptolemy I Soter had demonstrated limited interest in the territories south of Egypt,204 Philadelphos pursued an active policy in Aethiopia and the Red Sea during the course of his reign.205 In c.275 BC, he launched a military expedition into Lower Nubia, which resulted in the annexation of the Dō dekaschoinos, the seizure of gold mines in the Eastern Desert, and the spread of Ptolemaic political and cultural influence in the Upper Nile valley. This expedition is mentioned in passing by Diodorus Siculus,206 but more detailed information is supplied by Agatharchides of Knidos, a writer

203 204 205 206

BNJ 234 F 2a = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 14.654c. Translation: BNJ (D. W. Roller). Désanges 1978, 247. Philadelphos’s Nubian policy: e.g. Désanges 1978, 252–79; Burstein 1989, 1–12; 2008; Hölbl 2001, 55–6. Diodorus 1.37.5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

36

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

identified as a Peripatetic by Strabo,207 who worked in Alexandria and composed a treatise On the Erythraean Sea during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 BC).208 The scope and nature of this text are debated,209 but some of its surviving fragments clearly allude to the genesis of Ptolemaic activity in the Upper Nile valley and the Red Sea. In a revealing passage, Agatharchides provides some information concerning the motives behind Philadelphos’ Nubian expedition: Ptolemy, the successor of the son of Lagos, was the first to organize the hunting of elephants as well as other similar activities. Animals which had been separated by Nature he brought together to live in one place.210

Philadelphos’s desire to capture elephants can be explained with reference to military developments in the late fourth and early third centuries BC. It was during Alexander’s Indian campaigns that the Graeco-Macedonians first encountered elephants in a military capacity, and these tank-like beasts soon became an essential component of Hellenistic royal armies.211 The partition of Alexander’s empire favoured the Seleukids in this respect, since their control of the East afforded them a monopoly on Indian war elephants: and in 303 BC Seleukos I Nikator agreed a treaty with the Mauryan king Chandragupta whereby he ceded territory in exchange for some 500 war elephants.212 Ptolemy I Soter had captured a force of elephants from Demetrios Poliorketes at the Battle of Gaza in 312 BC, but these beasts were probably too old for deployment in combat by the time that Philadelphos succeeded him three decades later. This problem was exacerbated by the outbreak of the First Syrian War between the Ptolemies and Seleukids in 275 BC, when the Ptolemaic need for a battle-ready corpus of elephants became critical. Accordingly, Philadelphos’s Nubian campaign inaugurated an intensive royal project in the region south of Egypt, aimed at capturing elephants and training them for combat.213 This was a costly undertaking that no doubt required extensive forward planning.214

207

Strabo, Geography 14.2.5. Chronology and biography: e.g. Burstein 1989, 12–18; Marcotte 2001, 391–9. Agatharchides’s On the Erythraean Sea is known from later sources: codex 250 of Photius’s Bibliotheca contains a series of verbatim extracts, while the descriptions of the Red Sea composed by Diodoros (III, 12–48) and Strabo (XVI 4, 5–10) were based on Agatharchides, the former directly, and the latter through the intermediary of Artemidoros of Ephesos’s Geographoumena. 209 A range of perspectives are offered by Marcotte 2001; 2016; Engels 2004; Ameling 2008. 210 211 Agatharchides fr. 1 Burstein. Elephants in Hellenistic armies: Bar-Kochva 1979, 75–83. 212 Strabo, Geography 15.2.9. Discussion: e.g. Kistler 2007, 58–67. 213 This project may have involved importing mahouts from India and/or Aethiopia, since Aelian (Nature of Animals 11.25) reports that Ptolemy II Philadelphos was taken by surprise when he was presented with an elephant that understood orders given in Greek. Discussion: Scullard 1974, 130–1. 214 Demonstrated by Casson 1993. 208

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

37

The earliest hunting parties seem to have been concentrated in the Upper Nile valley, targeting the elephants of central and southern Sudan, which could then be transported upriver back to Egypt.215 From c.270 BC, however, the Ptolemies founded an extensive network of ports and hunting stations along the African coast of the Red Sea, and the elephant-hunting expeditions shifted to the coast and its hinterlands (Fig. 1.3). Elephants captured in Sudan, Eritrea, and Somalia were taken to small hunting stations on the coast, before being transported on specially designed ships (elephantē goi) to major ports further north, and then

Mediterranean Sea

0

500 kilometers

Alexandria

‘Ain Sukhna

Abu Sha’ar

N

Petra

Arsinoë Suez

Aila Aqaba Hurghada Leuke Kome (?)

Kainepolis

Mersa Gawasis

Qena Myos Hormos Quseir el-Qadim Coptos Quft

Red Sea

Nechesia(?) Marsa Nakari

Apollonopolis Magna Edfu Syene Aswan

Berenike

r

ive

R ile

N

F I G . 1.3. Map of the Nile valley and the Red Sea coast, with the locations of Ptolemaic roads and hunting stations indicated.

215

Désanges 1970, 37–43; Trinquier 2002, 876–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

38

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

marched overland to the Nile valley.216 The best known of these ports is Berenike Trogodytika, a well-excavated settlement on approximately the same latitude as the first Nile cataract, which grew into a powerful economic centre during Roman times.217 The presence of elephants in Berenike is confirmed by an elephant tooth found in the industrial district of the Hellenistic town, and excavators also uncovered the remains of a V-shaped ditch that might have been used as a holding pen after the pachyderms had alighted from elephantē goi.218 From Berenike, the elephants were marched overland to Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu), on a route dotted with road stations guarded by Ptolemaic garrisons. The road station at alKanais preserves a graffito accompanied by a lithograph of an elephant left by Dorion, a carpenter, sometime between 270 and 264 BC.219 Ptolemaic elephant hunting expeditions continued until the close of the third century. Our latest evidence is supplied by an inscription of unknown provenance dated to 210–204 BC, which records a dedication to Ares Nikephoros Euagoras (‘victory-bringing Ares of the successful hunt’) made on behalf of Ptolemy IV Philopator, Arsinoë III, and their young son Ptolemy V Epiphanes by one Alexandros of Oroanna, an elite soldier (diadochos), and by Apoasis of Etenna, an officer (hē gemo ̄n), together with the soldiers serving under his command.220 The inscription tells us that Alexandros had been sent to hunt elephants alongside a general (stratē gos) named Charimortos: and this same Charimortos was later mentioned by Strabo in a list of Ptolemaic commanders who dedicated altars and pillars while exploring the Aethiopian coast of the Red Sea.221 Hereafter, our evidence for Ptolemaic elephant hunting ceases entirely. The reasons for this break are unclear, but the revolt in the Thebaid from 205 to 186 BC was surely an important factor. While these third-century elephant hunts were conceived with military considerations in mind, they also facilitated an improved understanding of wildlife in the regions south of Egypt, and the importation of other creatures into Alexandria. Striking evidence is supplied by a series of graffiti inscribed on the legs of two pharaonic colossi in the temple enclosure of Ramesses II (1279–1213 BC) at Abou Simbel in the Upper Nile valley, which were left by Ptolemaic hunters passing through the complex.222 Several graffiti were inscribed by men identifying themselves as ‘elephant hunters’ (elephantothē ras), but another was carved by one Iason son of Zenobios, a Cilician, who could describe himself as a ‘bird catcher’ Elephantē goi: Agatharchides fr. 85a Burstein; P.Petr. II 40(a). Berenike Trogodytika: Sidebotham 2011. 218 Archaeological evidence for elephants at Berenike: Sidebotham 2011, 32. 219 Graffito at al-Kanais: Bernand 1972, 44–6 no. 9bis; Mairs 2010; Sidebotham 2011, 42. Representations of elephants recur elsewhere in Hellenistic visual culture: for a recent overview see Lapatin 2018. 220 221 OGIS 86. Strabo, Geography 16.4.15. 222 Abou Simbel graffiti: Bernand and Masson 1957; Désanges 1970. 216 217

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

introduction and historical background

39

(ornithothē ras).223 Whether Iason was responsible for the capture of any of the ‘Aethiopian birds, many in number’ paraded in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos is impossible to say. But the realization that other types of animal might be captured alongside elephants provides an important insight into how this king’s animal collection project was implemented. Teams of royal elephant hunters were not the only individuals to venture southwards in the years following Philadelphos’s Nubian expedition. Professional freelance hunters also travelled to Aethiopia and the Red Sea coast in the hope of catching magnificent or unusual creatures, which they could then present to the king in the hope of receiving financial rewards.224 A remarkable example is recorded by Agatharchides of Knidos, who details how a group of hunters captured an enormous python before transporting it to Alexandria and being remunerated handsomely by Philadelphos for their efforts: For, the second Ptolemy, who was enthusiastic about the hunting of elephants and awarded great gifts to those who, contrary to expectation, succeeded in capturing the most courageous beasts, spent much money on this passion and acquired numerous elephants as well as making known to the Greeks other animals that had not previously been seen and were of extraordinary character (allo ̄n zo ̄io ̄n atheo ̄rē tous kai paradoxous phuseis). For this reason some of the hunters, who had noted the king’s generosity with gifts, having recruited a sufficiently large party of men, decided to risk their lives and to capture and bring alive to Ptolemy at Alexandria one of the great snakes . . . Having brought the snake to Alexandria, they presented it alive to the king, an amazing sight and one unbelievable to those who knew it by hearsay. Having worn down the beast’s spirit through the deprivation of food, they gentled it little by little so that its tameness was amazing. Ptolemy gave appropriate rewards to the hunters and maintained the snake after it had been tamed. To foreigners who visited the kingdom it provided a great and extremely remarkable spectacle . . . 225

This passage is also useful for what it reveals about the criteria that guided Philadelphos’s zoological curiosity. We are told that this king was interested in ‘animals that had not previously been seen’ and those ‘of extraordinary character’, suggesting that both geography—since animals from further afield were less likely to have been seen—and physical and behavioural properties—which might contribute to an extraordinary character—were deemed important by the king, who might then claim the honour of being ‘first discoverer’ (pro ̄tos heuretē s) of the species concerned.226

223

Bernand and Masson 1957, 33 no. 26. Freelance hunters: Trinquier 2002, 878–9; Bodson 2003. 225 Agatharchides fr. 80b Burstein, with omissions. See also fr. 74a Burstein: ‘sphinxes, dogheads and cepi are sent to Alexandria from the country of the Trogodytes and from Aethiopia’. 226 ‘First discoverer’ principle: e.g. Coleman 1996, 59–60; Trinquier 2002, 875; 2005, 261–2. 224

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

40

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Royally sponsored animal importation slowed down following the death of Philadelphos in 246 BC. Aelian tells us that three further great snakes were captured and brought to Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes,227 but our sources then drop off sharply. An inscribed granite stele from the Temple of Isis at Philae (Upper Egypt) reveals that Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 BC) offered monkeys, a giraffe, and a panther to Harpokrates in this god’s capacity as a temple-sharing divinity, but there is no reason to connect this to a more widereaching programme of animal collection on the part of this king.228

Encounters in the wild While the Ptolemaic animal collection project has often captured the attention of modern commentators, clear traces survive of another strand of the Alexandrian interest in the natural world: a culture of describing animals captured in foreign lands without necessarily capturing them, in the manner pioneered by the bematists and writers who accompanied Alexander the Great into Asia. Once again, Agatharchides of Knidos serves as a key witness. A series of fragments attributed to this author contain descriptions of the exotic fauna encountered by GraecoMacedonians in the context of royally sponsored expeditions to Aethiopia and the Red Sea in the third century BC. It is clear from the content and context of these descriptions that they did not rely on the observation of animals in captivity, but that they depended on contact with specimens in the wild. His description of the giraffe provides an instructive example: In the country of the Trogodytes there is also found the animal Greeks call camel-leopard [giraffe], an animal that, like its name, has in a certain sense a composite nature. For it has the spotted coat of a leopard and is the size of a camel and very fast, and its neck is so long that it obtains its food from the tops of trees.229

Here the explicit mention of Trogodytic country, the reference to the creature eating from the tops of trees, and the inaccurate information concerning its size can all be explained if we assume that the description stemmed from interaction with real giraffes in the territories south of Egypt, rather than specimens kept in captivity. This new culture of describing animals in the wild bears on our appreciation of some of the artistic and visual material treated in this volume, as we shall see in the next chapter, on the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste.

227 229

Aelian, Nature of Animals 16.39. Agatharchides fr. 73a Burstein.

228

Philae stele: Trinquier 2002, 882–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

TWO

The Nile Mosaic at Praeneste Evidence of Ptolemaic Natural Science in Late Republican Italy

Given that so much of Chapter 1 was devoted to describing developments in Ptolemaic Alexandria, it might seem strange to begin our discussion of the visual material with a mosaic laid in a public complex in Central Italy (Fig. 2.1). As its modern name suggests, however, the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.2) is a composition whose conceptual origins lay firmly in Hellenistic Egypt. Much has been written about the mosaic and the scope of its Egyptian connection. After discussing its display context and iconography, it will be suggested here that the composition is a later version of an earlier work of art from Ptolemaic Alexandria. Having established this Ptolemaic context, the discussion will turn to the Aethiopian animals accompanied by identifying labels depicted in the upper part of the composition. As we shall see, some telling points of contact can be traced between these animal representations and the culture of intellectualism in thirdcentury Alexandria introduced in Chapter 1. While some of these connections have been explored in previous studies, other significant questions remain: namely, how these animal representations were formulated in the first place, and what they contributed to the message of the Nile Mosaic—or, rather, its Alexandrian archetype—as a whole. Here it is argued that the labelled animals helped to articulate a striking geopolitical message concerning the extent of Ptolemaic authority in north-east Africa.

CONTEXT, CHRONOLOGY, AND MODERN HISTORY

The Nile Mosaic was laid in a 90-m-wide architectural complex that bordered the forum of Praeneste on its northern side, today sometimes called the Lower Complex (Figs. 2.3 and 2.4). This complex centred on a wide, basilica-like structure divided into four aisles by parallel rows of columns, flanked by an apsidal hall to the east and by a corresponding space sometimes known as the Cave of the Lots

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

42

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.1. Map of Latium, Etruria, and Sabinum, showing the location of Praeneste in its regional context.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

43

F I G . 2.2. The Nile Mosaic of Praeneste in its modern museum setting. The mosaic’s turbulent history since the seventeenth century accounts for alterations in its size, shape, and appearance. Late second century BC. W: 5.85 m. H: 4.31 m. Palestrina, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.

(Antro delle Sorti) to the west.1 Within this ensemble, the Nile Mosaic covered the floor of an artificial grotto accessed via an opening in the rear (north) wall of the eastern apsidal hall. A recent re-examination of the eastern apsidal hall has clarified its form and appearance.2 Constructed from concrete faced in opus incertum, the hall was rectangular in plan, with interior dimensions of 22.20  14.00 m and a plain white mosaic floor. Running around the base of its walls was a monumental podium faced in travertine, 1.30 m high and 1.50 m deep, decorated with a Doric frieze and other architectural-style ornament. This podium curved at the centre of the room’s long eastern side to form a semicircular exedra. The walls above the podium on all sides were elaborated by two superimposed orders of half-columns and pilasters, made from tufa blocks built directly into the concrete 1

The Antro delle Sorti will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6. The evidence is presented by Gatti 2017. Other useful accounts of the eastern apsidal hall in particular, and the Lower Complex more broadly, include Delbrück 1907, esp. 77–90, with pls. XV–XX; Fasolo and Gullini 1953, 18–49; Lauter 1979, 436–57; Zevi 1989; Coarelli 1987, esp. 38–41, 80–2; Meyboom 1995, 8–16. 2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

44

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100 D

A

C

B

E

F

0

50 m

F I G . 2.3. Plan of the Lower Complex at Praeneste. The Nile Mosaic decorated a grotto accessed through the rear wall of the complex’s eastern apsidal hall. A = Cave of the Lots with Fish Mosaic. B = cave annexe. C = basilica (?). D = Nile Mosaic grotto. E = eastern apsidal hall. F = forum temple.

F I G . 2.4. Axonometric reconstruction of the Lower Complex at Praeneste, with partial cutaway. The complex was constructed as part of a massive programme of urban regeneration in Praeneste during the late second century BC.

masonry. The half-columns and pilasters of the lower storey flanked a series of rectangular niches, and those of the upper storey flanked a series of arched windows that illuminated the room. While the principal entranceway was located in the room’s short southern wall, a second opening in the centre of the long western wall provided direct access to the multi-aisled basilica.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

45

F I G . 2.5. Photograph of the grotto at the rear of the eastern apsidal hall. On the floor is a photographic projection of the Nile Mosaic, replicating the composition’s original display context. In the bottom right corner is the pedestal with architectural decoration that ran around the walls of the hall.

The opening into the Nile Mosaic grotto was c.6.85 m wide, flanked by two jambs of limestone masonry supporting a tufa archway (Fig. 2.5). The keystone of the arch was c.8.00 m above floor level. The grotto itself was roughly semicircular in plan (maximum depth: c.4.35 m), with a curved wall of opus incertum surmounted by a semi-domed roof made of cement. The arc of the semicircle was interrupted by a series of five arched niches built into the rear wall: three niches at the base of the wall expanding the floor area and so the surface covered by the Nile Mosaic; and two smaller niches immediately above, in the intermediate spaces ‘between’ the larger niches below. The wall itself was decorated with imitation rock made of pumice, which covered the opus incertum masonry and lent the grotto a cave-like appearance. The semi-domed roof, meanwhile, was perforated by a series of holes (diameter: 7–8 cm) spaced at regular intervals, designed to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

46 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 funnel water channelled from the overlying terrace into the grotto.3 It follows that the Nile Mosaic was originally submerged beneath a shallow layer of water, a feature that would have enhanced its vivid polychromy.4 Recent excavations unearthed a duct at the grotto’s entrance that served as an overflow for excess water.5 For many years the Lower Complex was identified as the famous sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste mentioned by Cicero and Pliny the Elder,6 and the Nile Mosaic was identified as the pavement (lithostroton), which, according to Pliny, was laid in the sanctuary by Sulla after he had sacked the town and massacred its inhabitants in 82 BC.7 This reading was cast into doubt in the years following the Allied bombardments of Palestrina in 1944, when the terraced complex positioned further up the slope of the town was identified as the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia with certainty. Even so, some studies have persisted with religious readings of the Lower Complex in general and/or the eastern apsidal hall in particular. The apsidal hall has sometimes been interpreted as an Iseum,8 or as a Serapeum.9 The notion that the Lower Complex was a religious building is problematic, primarily because its architecture finds no close parallels in the temples and sanctuaries of the Graeco-Roman world. Rather, the closest parallels are provided by secular buildings, such as the curia, basilica, and comitium flanking the forum at Pompeii.10 Many studies have therefore dispensed with a religious reading of the Lower Complex, and have instead identified it as a public building.11 Strong support for this interpretation is supplied by an inscription carved on the rear wall of the basement directly beneath the eastern apsidal hall, which identifies this space as the public treasury (aerarium) of the town, and names M. Anicius Baaso and M. Mersieius as the aediles responsible for its construction.12 Other considerations in favour of a public reading include the complex’s proximity to the forum,13 and the presence of a doorway connecting the basilica and the eastern apsidal hall (suggesting that the latter did not have a distinct, religious function).

3

4 Gatti 2017, 87–8. For this display feature, see Meyboom 1995, 8; Hinterhöller 2009, 20. 6 Gatti 2017, 87–8. Cicero, On Divination 2.41; Pliny, Natural History 36.189. 7 For this identification, see e.g. Delbrück 1907, 47–51; Fasolo and Gullini 1953, 301–24; Riemann 1986, 357–404. 8 Marucchi 1907, 293; Bianchi Bandinelli and Torelli 1976, n. 32; Lavagne 1988, 227–56; Torelli 1989, 19–20; Krumme 1990; Gallo 1997, 294–5; Coarelli 2006, 14; Stewart 2014, 227. 9 10 Coarelli 1987, 81; 1994; 1996, 115. Meyboom 1995, 12–13. 11 Interpretation as public building: Vaglieri 1907, 291–5; 1909, 233–41; Mingazzini 1954, esp. 298–301; Kähler 1958, 227–9; Lauter 1979; Meyboom 1995, 8–16; Gatti 2017, esp. 116–32. A variant theory holds that the eastern apsidal hall was, in fact, a public library: see Hulsen 1933; Ferrari 1999. This is problematic, since no traces of shelves are preserved, and the moisture in the eastern apsidal hall would have damaged any book scrolls kept in this room. 12 CIL XIV 2975. Commentary: e.g. Delbrück 1907, 57–8; Gullini 1984, 532; Coarelli 1987, 40. 13 On the development of the forum, see Pittaccio 2001. 5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

47

Within this public complex, the eastern apsidal hall might have been used as a multifunctional space for performing civic, administrative, and judicial activities.14 The cave-like grotto containing the Nile Mosaic, meanwhile, might have been a nymphaeum, a sacred space dedicated to the nymphs.15 Such nymphaea were often included in public buildings in Hellenistic and Imperial times, and were frequently decorated with imitation rocks, mosaics, and statues. In the absence of a dedicatory inscription, the Lower Complex is dated by its architecture. Many of the complex’s architectural elements find close parallels in the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia located further up the slope of the town, which is dated securely to c.120–110 BC on epigraphic grounds.16 The opus incertum of the Lower Complex, for instance, is ‘more or less identical’ to that in the sanctuary, and both buildings incorporated columns with GraecoCorinthian capitals of a similar kind.17 In light of these correspondences, it is likely that the Lower Complex was also constructed in the final quarter of the second century BC, and that a major programme of urban regeneration was initiated in Praeneste at this time. According to one view, the spatial relationship between the Lower Complex and the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia implies that the former was built first, in which case it should be dated to c.125–120 BC.18 It does not automatically follow, of course, that the Nile Mosaic was laid in the Lower Complex at this stage, and it is partially for this reason that the composition has been variously dated to Sullan, Caesarian, Augustan, Tiberian, Flavian, and even Hadrianic times.19 Still, the style, technique, and materiality of the composition are all consistent with the view that it was laid when the apsidal hall was constructed in the late second century BC. This chronology remains the most likely.20 Whatever its original date, the Nile Mosaic remained in situ until Andrea Perretti, the archbishop of Palestrina, arranged for it to be removed in pieces

Gatti 2017, 127 describes it as ‘a sort of multifunctional hall in which it was possible to concentrate all the principal civic, administrative and jurisdictional activities’. 15 Meyboom 1995, 13. 16 Epigraphic material: Degrassi 1969, 111–27. Architectural evidence: Fasolo and Gullini 1953, esp. 57–193, 301–38. 17 18 Summary of architectural correspondences: Meyboom 1995, 14. Meyboom 1995, 14–15. 19 Sullan chronology: e.g. Gullini 1956, 9–12; Pollitt 1986, 205; Coarelli 1990, 237; Moffitt 1997, 229, 232; Tammisto 2005, 6. Caesarian/Augustan dating: Walker 2001, 334–6; 2003, 91–202; Weill-Goudchaux 2001, 332–4 (suggesting the mosaic was commissioned by Kleopatra VII); Schrijvers 2007, 223–9 (suggesting the mosaic was commissioned to commemorate a triumph of M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus in the 20s BC). Tiberian chronology: Parlasca 1994, 44. Flavian chronology: Ericsson 1984, 60. Hadrianic chronology: Panayides 1994, 44–6. 20 According to Gullini 1956, 19, the tesserae used for the Praeneste mosaics were made from the same materials as those used for the mosaics laid in the House of the Faun at Pompeii. The House of the Faun compositions are dated to the late second or early first century BC. 14

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

48

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

between AD 1624 and 1626.21 The pieces were taken to Rome, where they were presented to Cardinal Francesco Barberini. Between 1628 and 1630, Cassiano dal Pozzo commissioned a series of watercolour copies of the mosaic for his Museum Chartaceum, each of which reproduced one of the removed sections. The value of these ‘Dal Pozzo copies’ was realized when the pieces were returned to the fief of Palestrina in 1640. During transit, the boxes containing the pieces were loaded upside down, with the result that many of the tesserae fell from their original cement bedding. Giovanni Battista Calandra, the head of mosaic works at St Peter’s, travelled to Palestrina, where he was able to repair the pieces by consulting the Dal Pozzo copies. Remarkably, Calandra also reintegrated the pieces into a single composition, and installed it in an apse at the back of the entrance hall of the Palazzo Barberini, perhaps incorporating fragments that had remained in situ following the original removal.22 The mosaic underwent further restoration in Rome between 1853 and 1855, and was taken to the Eternal City once again in 1943, this time to protect it from the Allied bombings of Palestrina during the Second World War. Today it is displayed on the upper floor of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale at Palestrina, the old Palazzo Barberini. These circumstances mean that the Nile Mosaic seen today differs from the composition originally laid in the Lower Complex. As well as the changes to its size and shape,23 today’s mosaic combines authentic original fragments, parts restored in 1640 and in 1853–5, and parts that were newly made to connect the individual sections during Calandra’s restoration of 1640. We have a rough idea of the balance of these elements thanks to studies undertaken in 1952, when the tufa backing of the mosaic was removed and the reverse sides of the tesserae were exposed. This permitted Giorgio Gullini and Salvatore Aurigemma to distinguish the original and restored portions by recording variations in the size and/or colour of the tesserae, and in the type of mortar used to fix them in place.24 Although their results did not entirely correspond, both Gullini and Aurigemma concluded that around half of the modern mosaic is restored. At first sight this percentage seems worryingly high, and leads us to question how far the restored portions accurately reproduce the original composition. Fortunately, Helen Whitehouse’s rediscovery of the Dal Pozzo copies in the Royal Library at Windsor permitted this question to be answered with confidence.25 Generally speaking, the 21

Discovery and early modern history of mosaic: e.g. Whitehouse 1976, 1–10; 2001, 71–87; Meyboom 1995, 3–4, 181–98 nn. 1–15; La Malfa 2003; Hinterhöller 2009, 17–19. 22 Suggested by Meyboom 1995, 196 n. 10. 23 The current dimensions of the composition (5.85 m wide, 4.31 m tall) are smaller than those of the grotto in which it was originally laid. The mosaic has also lost the three rectangular projections that interrupted the arc of its semicircle. 24 Gullini 1956, 15 pls. XIII, XIV, XVI–XVII; Aurigemma 1959, 50, figs. 4–52. 25 Dal Pozzo watercolour copies: Whitehouse 1976; 2001, 71–131.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

49

restored portions are faithful to the original composition, albeit with the occasional loss of some more intricate detail. The Dal Pozzo copies are illustrated here on the grounds that they tend to preserve this detail.

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE NILE MOSAIC

Despite its turbulent modern history, the basic layout of the Nile Mosaic is relatively assured (Fig. 2.6).26 The composition was divided into two iconographic registers, differentiated by the kinds of landscapes they depict, and by the people, fauna, flora, and buildings shown populating them.

F I G . 2.6. Several reconstructions of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste have been published in recent times. This excellent reconstruction by Monika Hinterhöller-Klein is a digital montage combining the floor plan of the Nile Mosaic grotto with photographs of the mosaic’s individual sections, all numbered according to their corresponding Dal Pozzo copies. The Ptolemaic royal couple are restored in the centre of the foreground, standing beneath a parasol held by an attendant.

Differences between the existing reconstructions of the mosaic are mostly confined to matters of fine detail. These reconstructions include: Whitehouse 1976, 70–6, with fig. 20; Meyboom 1995, 3–7 with fig. 8; Andreae 2002a, with reconstruction at 24–5; 2003, 96–102 with 80–1 pl. and 108–9 pl.; Tammisto 1997, pl. 18 fig. NS1; 2005, 14–16, with 18 fig. 10; Hinterhöller 2009, 26–32 with pls. 10–13. 26

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

50

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

The upper register depicts a landscape filled with granite rocks, sandstone hilltops, and sandy plains,27 recalling the rocky desert of Lower Nubia: that is, the area stretching from the first Nile cataract at Aswan/Syene (Fig. 1.3) into northern Sudan.28 This landscape is populated by no fewer than forty-six animals of thirtysix different species, some twenty of which are equipped with identifying inscriptions written in Greek. The majority of these species were indigenous to Upper Nubia during antiquity: that is, the savannah country covering most of modern-day Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia. These animals are shown being pursued by African hunters armed with bows and oval shields. Together these elements constitute a ‘synoptic and symbolic representation’ of ancient Aethiopia.29 The lower register, by contrast, depicts Egypt during the annual Nile flood.30 It consists of a series of self-contained scenes united by a vast body of floodwater.31 Together these scenes offer a panorama of the different groups who inhabited Hellenistic Egypt, the boats they sailed in, and the buildings they constructed and frequented. We see Graeco-Macedonians hunting hippopotami on the river (Fig. 2.7), a group of garlanded symposiasts enjoying a dinner party beneath a sumptuous pergola (Fig. 2.8), a bireme sailing up the Nile (Fig. 2.9), farmers and fishermen in the midst of everyday activities (e.g. in Fig. 2.9), native Egyptian priests leading a solemn religious procession (Fig. 2.10), and a group of soldiers celebrating with a priestess before a Greek-style pavilion or shrine (Fig. 2.12). A striking aspect of the lower register is the plant life shown growing along the river. We observe here several species mentioned by Theophrastos in his rich account of Egyptian flora in Book 4 of the History of Plants,32 including the date palm, the Egyptian acacia, and the sycamore.33 The plant depicted most

27

For detailed descriptions of the upper register, see Meyboom 1995, 20–7; Hinterhöller 2009, 52–4. On the absence of buildings, see Trinquier 2005, 351–3, 361–2. 28 Meyboom 1995, 43–4. 29 Meyboom 1995, 50. Compare Trinquier 2005, 362, concluding that the artists ‘select[ed] among the resources and products of Aethiopia those which primarily interest the Ptolemaic dynasty’. 30 For detailed descriptions of the lower register, see Meyboom 1995, 28–41; Hinterhöller 2009, 51–2. For comprehensive discussions of the boats depicted in this register, see Friedman 2006; Pomey 2015. 31 We may usefully compare the description of the Nile inundation at Diodorus Siculus 1.36.7–8: ‘The rise of the Nile is a phenomenon which appears wonderful enough to those who have witnessed it, but to those who have only heard of it, quite incredible . . . And since the land is a level plain, while the cities and villages, as well as the farm-houses, lie on artificial mounds, the scene comes to resemble the Cyclades Islands.’ For interesting comments on the similarities between Diodoros’s account and the Nile Mosaic, see Fragaki 2008, 108–9. 32 See Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.2.1–12, on ‘trees special to Egypt’, and 4.8.1–4.9.3, on ‘plants of rivers, marshes and lakes, especially in Egypt’. 33 Date palm: Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.2.7. Depiction on mosaic: Meyboom 1995, 28, 29, 34, 245–6 n. 79, 263 n. 143. Egyptian acacia: Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.2.8. Depiction on mosaic: Meyboom 1995, 30, 33, 41, 250 n. 95, 258 n. 124, 280 n. 203. Sycamore: Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.2.1–4. Depiction on mosaic: Meyboom 1995, 35, 266 n. 154.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

51

F I G . 2.7. Nile Mosaic, Section 12: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Greeks sailing in a thalamegos (‘cabin-carrier’) hunt a hippopotamus on the River Nile. The hippopotamus has already been hit with a harpoon. Royal Library, Windsor 919212.

F I G . 2.8. Nile Mosaic, Section 19: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. A group of revellers relax beneath a waterside pergola, while a peasant punts his papyrus canoe. In the foreground are several Indian lotus plants, shown at various stages of the species’s life cycle. Royal Library, Windsor 919219.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

52 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

F I G . 2.9. Nile Mosaic, Section 17: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. A Ptolemaic bireme sails up the Delta towards Alexandria, while those living on the banks of the river see to their everyday activities. Royal Library, Windsor 919217.

F I G . 2.10. Nile Mosaic, Section 16: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. A group of native Egyptian priests carry a ritual chest—perhaps the sarcophagus of Osiris—through a propylon. The priests are approaching the walled ‘grove complex’ to the left. Royal Library, Windsor 919216.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

53

often, however, is the Indian lotus (Nelumbo nucifera), referred to by Theophrastos and other ancient authors as the ‘Egyptian bean’ (Aiguptios kuamos).34 Theophrastos tells us that the ‘beans’ (seeds) of the species could be used to make the pilos, a type of soft cap, and that Egyptian people ‘eat it both raw, boiled and roasted, and the people of the marshes make this their food’.35 Both statements find visual parallels in Section 19 of the mosaic (Fig. 2.8), where we see an Egyptian peasant punting in his papyrus canoe, wearing only a loincloth and a pilos, and collecting lotus plants to eat.36 Incidentally, the papyrus canoe recalls Theophrastos’s statement elsewhere in Book 4 that ‘[t]he papyrus itself is useful for many purposes; for they [sc. Egyptians] make boats from it, and from the rind they weave sails mats, a kind of raiment, coverlets, ropes and many other things’.37 Clearly the two registers of the mosaic have a pronounced topographic dimension, depicting the entire course of the Nile from its source in Aethiopia to its mouth at the Delta. Looking more closely, we may even detect a further topographical division between the upper and lower halves of the lower register.38 Indeed, the lower half of the register is dominated by Hellenistic-style buildings, including the pergola in Section 19 (Fig. 2.8) and the pavilion-shrine in Section 13 (Fig. 2.12), while the upper half contains buildings that can be associated with the Egyptian chora, including the Egyptian temple complex in Section 11 (Fig. 2.11), the towers, fortified villas, and farms of Sections 9 and 10 (Fig. 2.27), and the temple with a Nilometer and obelisks in Section 8. This division is not absolute, since at least one Egyptian-style building—either the reed hut of Section 15 or the farmhouse of Section 17 (Fig. 2.9)—originally belonged to the lower half of the register. Still, it seems likely that the register’s lower half depicted the Hellenized Delta, whereas the upper half represented Middle and Upper Egypt and the lands bordering Aethiopia. This topographical design fits neatly with broader developments in Hellenistic visual culture.39 We are reminded particularly of Diodorus Siculus’s account of an Alexandrian artist named Demetrios, who hosted the exiled Ptolemy VI Philometor in Rome in c.165 BC, and was apparently a painter of topographia, a pictorial genre concerned with detailed landscape representation.40 While it is tempting to 34

Indian lotus: Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.8.7–8. Depiction on mosaic: Meyboom 1995, 34, 261 n. 137. 35 Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.8.7–8. 36 The fishermen in the mosaic resemble ‘genre’ statues familiar from Hellenistic and Roman art. For these statues and their Hellenistic origins, see Himmelmann 1980, 83–108; Laubscher 1982; Masséglia 2015, 219–41. 37 Theophrastos, History of Plants 4.8.4. For the papyrus canoes depicted in the mosaic, see now Pomey 2015, 156–8. 38 Pointed out already by Hinterhöller 2009, 51–2; Stewart 2014, 232. 39 For a stimulating overview of landscape representation in Hellenistic art, see La Rocca 2008, 17–61. 40 Diodorus Siculus 31.18.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

54

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.11. Nile Mosaic, Section 11: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. A crocodile-panther (labelled krokodilopardalis) basks near a group of hunters above, while an Egyptian-style temple complex stands below. The temple may be Ptolemaic rather than Dynastic, since its pylon is decorated with statues and not flagpoles. Royal Library, Windsor 919211.

identify the Nile Mosaic as an example of topographia, the conventions of this genre are difficult to reconstruct on the basis of our limited textual evidence.41 It is just as possible that the composition is an example of chorographia, another type of landscape painting known from our ancient texts.42 According to Claudius Ptolemaeus, writing in the second century AD, the painter of chorographia ‘sets out the individual localities, each one independently and by itself, registering practically everything down to the least thing therein (for example, harbours, towns, districts, branches of principal rivers, and so on)’.43 This description fits fairly neatly with the lower register of the mosaic. In any case, the mosaic’s topographical structure has led some to associate the individual vignettes of the lower register with specific sites and buildings in

41

Interpretation as topographia: Beyen 1960, 311; Meyboom 1995, 186–9. For the circularity inherent in this interpretation, see Hinterhöller-Klein 2015, 73–5. 42 Interpretation as chorographia: Moffitt 1997, 228, 233–7; von Blanckenhagen, Alexander, Mertens, and Faltermeier 1990, 44–5; Hinterhöller 2009, 104–5. La Rocca 2008, 17–20, meanwhile, sees the landscape as ‘a hybrid between a chorographic map executed by a topographos, and, at least in some sections, a map of local fauna’. 43 Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geography 1.1. Translation after Berggren and Jones 2000, 57. For useful analysis of this text, see now Hinterhöller-Klein 2015, 100–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

55

Hellenistic Egypt.44 Assessing the plausibility of these identifications is a difficult task, primarily because of the lack of direct correspondence between the buildings depicted in the mosaic and archaeological remains from Egypt itself. On the one hand, this lack of correspondence does not exclude the possibility that the artist(s) modelled the individual vignettes on particular sites and buildings, given that so much of Hellenistic Egypt has been lost to archaeologists.45 On the other, there is a danger of associating the vignettes with specific sites in order to create a neat geographical framework that is not corroborated by the surviving evidence. From a methodological perspective, the burden of proof surely lies with those proposing specific identifications. That is, unless a convincing topographical identification can be proposed on the basis of specific architectural and/or iconographic features, a generic interpretation remains preferable.46 With this criterion in mind, it remains difficult to associate the majority of scenes in the lower register with particular sites in Ptolemaic Egypt. The most we can say is that the original artist(s) may have drawn on their experience of reallife places and buildings when formulating their designs.

A PTOLEMAIC ARCHETYPE

Clearly the mosaic’s iconography presupposes detailed knowledge of Hellenistic Egypt and the regions neighbouring it to the south. This leads us to consider whether this iconography was first conceived in late second-century BC Italy, or whether it could have originated elsewhere at an earlier juncture. There are in fact compelling indications that the mosaic is a later version of an earlier work of art from Ptolemaic Alexandria. From a historical standpoint, it is significant that Aethiopia is depicted in the composition’s upper register. It is unlikely that Praeneste enjoyed direct links with Aethiopia at the time the mosaic was laid, and it follows that this part of the composition owed something to the town’s connections with Ptolemaic Egypt. But even within a Ptolemaic context there are important chronological parameters to bear in mind. After all, we saw in Chapter 1 that Ptolemaic activity in Aethiopia was largely confined to the third century BC, and that royal interest in exotic animals like those depicted in the mosaic was concentrated in the same period. We 44

Proponents of this approach include: Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 52–97; Pollitt 1986, 207; Coarelli 1990; Ling 1991, 7–8, 11; Meyboom 1995, 50–79; Burkhalter 1999; Hinterhöller 2009, 56–67; CarrezMaratray 2014. 45 Noted already by Hinterhöller 2009, 99–100. 46 Modern studies favouring ‘generic’ interpretations of all or most of the vignettes of the lower register include: Boëthius and Ward-Perkins 1970, 461; Meyboom 1977, 76–7; Parlasca 1994, 44; Rouveret 2004, 334; Siebert 1999, 253; Traunecker 2000, 151; Tammisto 2005, 20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

56

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

shall also see in this chapter that the animals depicted in the mosaic overlap closely with those described by Agatharchides of Knidos in his account of the thirdcentury expeditions to Aethiopia sponsored by the Ptolemaic kings. Together these historical considerations anchor the iconography of the upper register in the third century, an observation that has important implications for our appreciation of the composition as a whole. From an epigraphic perspective, meanwhile, it is telling that several labels identifying animals in the mosaic seem to be miscopies of correct Greek terms. For example, the bear in Section 7 is labelled ΔΡΚΟϹ, surely a miscopy of ΑΡΚΟϹ (arkos) (Fig. 2.19),47 while a lizard in Section 6 is labelled ϹΑΥ.ΟϹ ΤϹΗΧΙϹΝΙΕ, possibly a miscopy of ϹΑΥΡΟϹ ΠΗΧΥΑΙΟϹ (sauros pē chuaios), meaning ‘one-cubit-long lizard’ (Fig. 2.17).48 These miscopies suggest that the mosaicists were not fully literate in Greek, and that they may have encountered difficulties when transposing the design of an earlier archetype into this secondary Italian setting. Circumstantial support for the possibility of an earlier archetype is supplied by the painted frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, which depicts a series of (correctly) labelled animals of a comparable kind. As we shall see in Chapter 3, the frieze should probably be dated to the third century BC. Aspects of the lower register likewise suggest dependency on a Ptolemaic archetype. Most significant is the ‘pavilion scene’ of Sections 13 and 14, which depicts a group of soldiers and a female figure celebrating in front of a pavilion or shrine (Figs. 2.12 and 2.13).49 The key to interpreting this scene is supplied by the large red parasol with a tasselled fringe depicted in Section 14 (Fig. 2.13), which was not incorporated in Calandra’s reconstruction of 1640, and which is known only thanks to the corresponding Dal Pozzo copy.50 Such parasols typically served attributes of kings and queens in ancient visual culture. We might compare, for instance, a painting from the House of Meleager at Pompeii, which shows the Carthaginian queen Dido seated under a red parasol, flanked by personifications of Libya and Alexandria.51 This royal connection strongly suggests that the Ptolemaic ruling couple were shown standing beneath the parasol in the mosaic.52 Support for this reading is supplied by the original position of the ‘pavilion scene’, since it occupied the centre of the foreground of the composition (Fig. 2.6). This

47

Meyboom 1995, 26. Meyboom 1995, 25, and 237 n. 54 stating that ‘[s]ince the inscription is original, the mis-spelling can only be due to an illiterate workman copying the lines mechanically’. 49 For a detailed account of this ‘pavilion scene’, see Meyboom 1995, 34–7. 50 Dal Pozzo copy of Section 14: Whitehouse 2001, 114–15; Burkhalter 1999, 232–3. 51 For this parallel, see Meyboom 1995, 66–7. 52 Argued persuasively by Meyboom 1995, 34–7, 64–70. 48

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

57

F I G . 2.12. Nile Mosaic, Section 13: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Shaded by an awning, a band of Ptolemaic soldiers and a priestess celebrate in front of a prostyle pavilion or shrine. The size and prominence of this scene indicate its special importance. Royal Library, Windsor 919213.

F I G . 2.13. Nile Mosaic, Section 14: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. This waterside scene features a red parasol with a tasselled fringe. The figure holding a palm branch at the left is the priestess of Section 13, indicating that Section 14 was positioned immediately to the right. The parasol was an attribute associated with royalty in ancient visual culture: here it probably shaded the Ptolemaic royal couple. Royal Library, Windsor 919214.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

58 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 conspicuous position was commensurate with the special status of the Ptolemaic royal couple. Further ‘persuasively Ptolemaic items’ were included in the lower register.53 Particularly noteworthy are the ‘baroque’ segmental pediments of the pavilionshrine in Section 13 (Fig. 2.12) and the temple in Section 8, which recall the real segmental pediments of tombs excavated in Alexandria, including Tomb II at Anfushy, Hypogeion II at Gabbari, and a tomb from Marsa Matrouh.54 Many of the mosaic’s human figures, meanwhile, find close comparanda in earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. For example, the lookout (pro ̄ratē s) on the bow of the bireme in Section 17 (Fig. 2.9) recalls the painted stele for one Antigenes from Demetrias in Thessaly, dated by its epitaph to 217 BC (Fig. 2.14).55 Both the pro ̄ratē s and Antigenes blow long trumpets (salpinges), and both wear a costume consisting of chitoniskos, chlamys, and kausia. The Egyptian priests in Section 16 (Fig. 2.10), meanwhile, recall another third-century stele from Demetrias commemorating a priest of Isis named Ouaphres (Fig. 2.15).56 Like the Nile Mosaic priests, Ouaphres has a shaved head and is dressed completely in white. We might also mention the symposiasts in Section 19 (Fig. 2.8), since they resemble the six revellers depicted on the painted frieze of the Macedonian tomb at Agios Athanasios near Thessaloniki (Fig. 2.16a).57 In both compositions we see diners wearing wreaths, reclining on couches (klinai) with colourful bedclothes, and accompanied by female musicians. A specific point of contact is supplied by the presence in both scenes of a symposiast drinking from a horn (rhyton) with an animal-bust protome. Together these observations permit the conclusion that that the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste was a later version of an earlier work of art from Ptolemaic Alexandria. That the mosaic was modelled on a single archetype—rather than several archetypes that were combined and consolidated in Praeneste58—is suggested by the systematic application of several compositional features throughout the composition: the consistent fall of light from left to right; and the use of a consistent system of perspective, with landscape elements depicted in ‘bird’s eye view’,

53

54 Stewart 2014, 228. Segmental pediments in Hellenistic Alexandria: McKenzie 2007, 93–4. Stele of Antigenes: Arvanitopoulos 1909, 128–33 no. 10; Cairon 2009, 233–8 no. 74; Boehm 2015; Stamatopoulou 2018, 365; Kravaritou 2018, 384. 56 Stele of Ouaphres: Stamatopoulou 2008; 2018, 265. 57 Painted tomb at Agios Athenasios: Tsibidou-Avloniti 2002; Brecoulaki 2006, 268–80. 58 Previous studies have sometimes argued for two or more archetypes. For example, Meyboom 1995, 99–102 suggests that the mosaic reproduced the iconography of two Alexandrian works of art, each corresponding to one of its iconographic registers, while Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 102–8 suggests that the composition was designed using different scenes in an illustrated book scroll. Other proponents of two or more archetypes include: Phillips 1962, 198–224; Ericsson 1984, 58; Panayides 1994, 37, 44; Leach 1998, 91–5; Martin 2005, 416. 55

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

59

F I G . 2.14. Painted grave stele for Antigenes son of Sotimos. Antigenes is shown in profile, facing right, with the outlines of his chlamys, chitoniskos, and kausia clearly visible. Traces remain of a long trumpet (salpinx), held in his raised right hand. The epitaph above reveals that he died on the battlefield at Phthiotic Thebes in 217 BC. Demetrias (Thessaly). H: 79 cm; W: 50 cm; D: 12 cm. Volos Archaeological Museum, inv. Λ10.

buildings depicted in oblique axonometric perspective, and animals and humans depicted in flat side-on projection.59 Our only hint concerning the display context of this archetype is supplied by the probable representation of the Ptolemaic king and queen in Section 14 (Fig. 2.13). This raises the possibility that the archetype was a court painting commissioned by a royal patron and/or displayed in a royal context.60 Support for this reading is supplied by four other works of art from Late Republican Italy that can be identified as later versions of Hellenistic court paintings with relative confidence: 59

Fuller analysis of the perspective system(s) used in the mosaic: Hinterhöller 2009, 73–100, with a useful summary by Merrills 2017, 54–5. For a painted loculus slab from Hellenistic Alexandria with ‘a landscape scene which betrays certain affinities’ with the mosaic, see Daszewski and Abd el-Fattah 1990. This landscape is part of an underworld scene. 60 Hellenistic court paintings: Smith 1988, 9–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

60 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 F I G . 2.15. Painted grave stele for Ouaphres son of Horus, a priest of Isis originally from Bousiris in Egypt. Ouaphres is turned towards the left, pouring a libation with his outstretched right hand. His head is shaved, and he wears the white costume of an Egyptian priest of Isis. Demetrias (Thessaly). Third century BC. H: 34.8 cm; W: 34.6 cm; D: 8.0 cm. Volos Archaeological Museum, inv. Λ52.

the Alexander Mosaic from the House of the Faun at Pompeii;61 ‘another’ Alexander Mosaic from Palermo in Sicily, depicting Alexander and his companions hunting in a tree-filled valley;62 the fresco cycle from the Villa of P. Fannius Synistor at Boscoreale;63 and a painting from the Basilica at Herculaneum depicting Herakles discovering Telephos, which was probably modelled on a lost Attalid court painting.64

PRAENESTE AND THE HELLENISTIC EAST

Recognizing the Ptolemaic origins of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste leads us to consider how and why the composition came to be transposed into an Italian setting. The answer lies in a consideration of Praeneste’s history during the second century BC.65 It is significant that the town enjoyed a close relationship with Rome during this period.66 Indeed, a series of leading Praenestine men held important 61

62 Alexander Mosaic: Cohen 1997. Palermo mosaic: Fuhrmann 1931, 228–70; Wootton 2002. Boscoreale fresco cycle: Smith 1994. 64 Herculaneum Telephos fresco: Robertson 1975, 577; Smith 1994, 111–12. 65 For an enlightening discussion of second-century Praeneste, see Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 111–16. 66 Praenestine magistrates at Rome: Bodei Giglioni 1977, 73–4; Meyboom 1995, 353–4 n. 48. See also the individual entries in MRR. For a detailed study of the Saufeii, a leading family in second-century Praeneste, see Wikander 1989. 63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

61

magistracies in the imperial capital: Cn. Anicius was a legatus under Aemilius Paullus in Macedonia in 168 BC;67 L. Saufeius was monetalis sometime between 165 and 150 BC;68 L. Anicius Gallus was consul in 160 BC;69 P. Rupilius was consul in 132 BC;70 C. Saufeius was quaestor in 99 BC;71 and an unidentified Saufeius served as tribunis plebis in 91 BC.72 We also know that the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia was visited by Roman magistrates and by important diplomatic missions during this period. A travertine inscription from the town records the dedication of booty taken from Leukas (modern Lefkada) by one Lucius Quinctius,73 probably the brother of Ti. Quinctius Flamininus, the great commander of the Second Macedonian War; and we learn elsewhere that King Prousias II Kynē gos of Bithynia (182–149 BC) and the Athenian philosopher Karneades visited Praeneste in 167 and 156 BC respectively.74 Further evidence for the town’s Roman connection is supplied by Livy’s statement that a military cohort from Praeneste led by one M. Anicius distinguished itself during the Second Punic War.75 It is conceivable, then, that Praenestine troops also played a part in Rome’s military campaigns in the East during the second century. In any case, these military campaigns opened the eastern Mediterranean to Italian traders and businesspeople, and it is clear that leading men from Praeneste strove to capitalize upon the new commercial opportunities on offer. Our most extensive evidence comes from Delos, a Cycladic island declared a free port by the Romans in 166 BC, which subsequently became an important centre for transporting eastern goods and commodities—notably slaves—back to Italy.76 The epigraphic material from late second- and early first-century Delos documents the presence of some twelve Praenestine families whose members served as negotiatores: that is, businesspeople with investments in a range of commercial activities.77 We might mention here one P. Satricanius P. f., who paid for the mosaic floor that

67

68 Livy 44.46.3. Wikander 1989, 206 cat. 18, with further references at n. 20. Inscr. Ital. 13.1, 50–1 (frag. 21d), 123, 462; Cicero, Brutus 287. 70 Cicero, Against Verres 2.4.112; On Friendship 37; Atticus 13.32.3; Inscr. Ital. 13.1, 52–3 (frag. 30), 125–6, 470. For the full list of ancient sources referring to Rupilius, see MRR I, 497–8. 71 Cicero, Rabirius 20; Appian, Civil Wars 1.4.32; Orosius 5.17.8–9. On C. Saufeius, see also Wikander 1989, 206 cat. 12; Wallace Hadrill 2008, 113. 72 CIL I2 p.199; CIL VI 1312; Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74. On this Saufeius, see also MRR II, 22; Wikander 1989, 206 cat. 3. 73 74 CIL I2 613. Prousias of Bithynia: Livy 45.44.8. Karneades: Cicero, On Divination 2.87. 75 76 Livy 23.19.13–20.3. Recently on Hellenistic Delos: Coarelli 2016. 77 Praenestine families on Delos: e.g. Wilson 1966, 110; Harvey 1975, 45; Bodei Giglioni 1977, 73–4; Solin 1982, 112–13. Italians in the Greek East more broadly: Hasenohr and Müller 2002. For a succinct description of the activities of such men, see OCD s.v. ‘negotiatores’. It is telling that the list of Praenestine families on Delos includes the Anicii and the Saufeii, since we have seen that members of these families enjoyed outstanding political and military careers in the late third and second centuries BC. Other families include the Caltii, the Gessii, the Magulnii, the Numitorii, the Orceii, the Samiarii, the Satricanii, and the Sehii. 69

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

62

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

decorated niche 37 in the north portico of the Agora of the Italians,78 a large porticoed complex that probably served as an ‘all-purpose recreational facility’ for Italians living on the island.79 It is also clear from the epigraphic material that Italian negotiatores on Delos forged strong links with Alexandria, particularly during the third reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (126–116 BC).80 Among the surviving documents we should highlight a statue base honouring one Lochos son of Kallimedes, referred to as a kinsman (sungenē ) of Ptolemy VIII, which was set up by ‘the Roman ship-owners and merchants who were protected during the occupation of Alexandria by King Ptolemaios Euergetes’;81 and a statue base for the legate Gaius Marius set up by ‘the Italians who have lived alongside the Alexandrians’ in 99 BC.82 Praenestine influence in the East was not confined to Delos. Indeed, evidence from Miletos and Klazomenai attests to the presence of prominent individuals from Praeneste during the first century BC, and conceivably, therefore, at an earlier juncture.83 On Crete, meanwhile, a dedication to ‘Tyche Protogeneia’ made by one Philotas of Epidamnos, the commander of the Ptolemaic garrison at Itanos under Ptolemy VI Philometor, suggests that the Praenestine cult of Fortuna Primigenia spread to the island in the mid-second century.84 The cult was also introduced on Delos, judging by a pair of dedications to ‘Isis Tyche Protogeneia’ made by one Ptolemaios from Polyrrhenia (also on Crete) at ‘Serapeion C’ in 115–114 BC.85 These historical considerations have important implications for our understanding of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste.86 On the one hand, the town’s connections with the Greek-speaking East contributed to a cultural environment in which Praenestine aristocrats could develop knowledge of, and appreciation for, famous works of art in the leading centres of the Hellenistic world, including the archetype that inspired the Nile Mosaic. On the other, the commercial successes enjoyed by leading Praenestine negotiatores in the eastern Mediterranean provide the economic background against which the decision to commission this mosaic needs to be set. This combination of intense engagement with eastern models and newfound financial firepower impacted on the material and visual culture of Praeneste in other ways. Most obviously, it accounts for the large-scale building programme that encompassed both the Lower Complex and the terraced sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia. It is no coincidence, then, that the sanctuary seems 78

For this mosaic and its dedicatory inscription, see ID 2576; Bruneau 1972, 136–9 no. 25. ‘Agora of the Italians’ and its function(s): Rauh 1992; 1993, 289–338; Trümper 2008; 2014. 80 For a maximalist reading of these Ptolemaic connections see Mavrojannis 2002. 81 ID 1526. The ‘occupation’ mentioned here is Ptolemy VIII’s capture of Alexandria from Kleopatra II in 126 BC, providing an approximate date for the dedication of the statue. 82 ID 1699. It has been suggested that this statue group was set up in niche 37 of the Agora of the Italians, paid for by P. Satricanius P. f. of Praeneste: see Trinquier 2005, 369. 83 Wilson 1966, 134 (Miletos), 142 (Klazomenai). 84 85 ICr 3.4.14. Commentary: e.g. Spyridakis 1969. ID 2072; ID 2073. 86 These are explored by Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 113. 79

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

63

to have drawn inspiration from earlier religious complexes in the Hellenistic East in terms of its terraced design and overall scenographic effect.87 Eastern influence can also be detected in the Hellenistic sculpture of Praeneste, since a series of second-century statues from the town are made from imported Parian marble, which was also the principal material of choice at Delos and at other sites in the eastern Mediterranean.88 While the general cultural and economic conditions that facilitated this mosaic reproduction of a famous Hellenistic royal painting are therefore clear, we can only speculate about the factors that inspired the choice of this specific work of art.89 Two possibilities might be mentioned. Firstly, the aquatic aspect of the iconography made the composition well suited to the decoration of a cave-like grotto where it was originally covered by a thin layer of water. We might compare, in this respect, Hellenistic statue groups set up in appropriate landscape settings: for instance, the Nike of Samothrace and the Skylla group from Sperlonga, both of which were combined with remarkable water installations, and the Sperlonga Polyphemos group, which was set up in a cave-like grotto.90 Secondly, we might suppose that the mosaic’s vision of a peaceful, prosperous Nilotic landscape was considered apposite for the decoration of a public building in Praeneste at a time when the town itself enjoyed considerable prosperity.

THE NILE MOSAIC IN ITS ALEXANDRIAN CONTEXT

Having considered the meaning of the Nile Mosaic in its Italian setting, we may turn to examine its significance in its original Alexandrian context, an issue that has already attracted many interpretations. Generally speaking, there is a divide in the scholarship between those who regard the mosaic as a purely Hellenistic work of art, and those who believe that the key to interpretation should be sought in native Egyptian religious practices.91 The existing ‘Hellenistic’ readings of the composition are diverse. Angela Steinmeyer-Schareika, for example, suggested that the mosaic was modelled on an illustrated book scroll that represented the different stages of a royal hunting 87 We might compare, for instance, the sanctuary of Asklepios at Kos and the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos on Rhodes. 88 Agnoli 2002 is the most comprehensive treatment of sculpture found in Praeneste. See especially 11–21 for an overview of the Hellenistic material. For a hardstone Egyptian statue found in the town, see Bove 2009. 89 For possible factors different to those discussed here, see Trinquier 2005, 367–79. 90 Hellenistic statue groups in landscape settings: Smith 1991, 139–40. Recently on Nike of Samothrace: Hamiaux, Laugier, and Martinez 2015. 91 Pointed out by Burkhalter 1999, 233, whose own interpretation of the mosaic seeks to bridge the gap between these positions. For a provocative ‘Egyptian’ reading of the Aethiopian register of the composition, see Trinquier 2007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

64 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 mission to Aethiopia.92 This reading is problematic, since the once-prevalent view that book-scroll illustrations played a key role in transmission of images has now been largely discarded.93 Filippo Coarelli, meanwhile, suggested that the mosaic illustrated the first celebration of the Ptolemaia festival in the 270s BC, including Philadelphos’s famous Grand Procession.94 Several problems with this reading have already been highlighted,95 notably the lack of direct intersection between Kallixeinos’s account and the iconography of the composition. Most recently, Andrew Stewart suggested that the composition was ‘racist, imperialist and exploitative’, designed to highlight a division of the human race into savage barbarians (Aethiopians in the upper register), civilized barbarians (Egyptians in the upper part of the lower register), and civilized Graeco-Macedonians (in the foreground).96 While the designers of the composition clearly took care to distinguish the different groups that inhabited Hellenistic Egypt, it is less certain whether these distinctions were intended to communicate moral judgements related to class or ethnicity. By contrast, Paul Meyboom opted for an ‘Egyptian’ interpretation in his excellent monograph on the mosaic. He suggested that the composition depicts an annual festival in the month of Khoiak celebrating the funeral and subsequent resurrection of the Egyptian god Osiris, events connected to the beginning of the Nile inundation.97 This interpretation centres on the litter carried by the procession of Egyptian priests in Section 16 (Fig. 2.10), identified as the sarcophagus of Osiris being carried towards his tomb in the ‘grove complex’ of Sections 13, 16, and 20. Meyboom was surely right to suppose that this procession alludes to the rituals that accompanied the Nile flood, be it the Khoiak festival or another religious celebration.98 But whether this religious scene constitutes the central, unifying theme of the entire composition is less certain.99 Indeed, this reading does not explain the presence of Aethiopian fauna in the upper register, an inconsistency that led Meyboom to suppose that the Nile Mosaic was a combination of two pre-existing archetypes (one for each register).100 Furthermore, the procession of priests did not occupy an especially prominent position within the overall scheme of the composition (Fig. 2.6). Perhaps, then, this was conceived simply as a Nilotic genre scene, like many other vignettes in the lower register.101 More prominent was the ‘pavilion scene’ depicted in Sections 13 and 14, which dominated the centre of the composition’s foreground (Figs. 2.12 and 2.13). 92

Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, esp. 52, 79–80, 96–7, 124–6. For criticism of Steinmeyer-Schareika’s interpretation, see e.g. Trinquier 2007, 36–7. 94 95 Coarelli 1990, esp. 226–9, 249–50. Burkhalter 1999, 239–44. 96 97 Stewart 2014, 227–33. Meyboom 1995, 50–79. 98 Malaise 1997, 516–17, suggests that a religious festival other than the Khoiak may have been represented, while Burkhalter 1999, 245–56, argues for the Festival of the Pamylia. 99 For a fuller critique of Meyboom’s interpretation, see Burkhalter 1999, 236–8. 100 Meyboom 1995, 99–102. 101 For this view, see Hinterhöller 2009, 69–70 (referring to the priestly procession as one of the ‘characteristic peculiarities of the country’); Thomas 2017. 93

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

65

We have noted already that this scene was distinguished by the presence of the Ptolemaic royal couple standing beneath a parasol. Other features confirm its importance, notably the height of the pavilion-shrine, which is the tallest structure represented in the mosaic, and the presence of ten comparatively tall figures shown standing immediately in front of this building.102 Nine of these figures are Ptolemaic soldiers wearing full Hellenistic military uniform. The tenth is a female at the far right side of the group, who carries a palm branch in her left hand and is usually identified as a priestess. These figures are shaded by an awning hung from the pavilion, fastened to a tree stump and to a pole dug into the ground. Beneath the awning is a display table (kylikeion) supporting three drinking horns (rhyta),103 with a large krater to the side. The figure immediately to the left of the priestess is shown drinking from a rhyton similar to those on the table,104 and wears a laurel wreath. He is often referred to as the ‘general’ or ‘officer’ in charge of the soldiers because of these distinguishing features.105 The assemblage of drinking paraphernalia indicates that the group is taking part in a ritual celebration, but the nature of this celebration requires careful scrutiny. For Meyboom, the scene should be associated with the Khoiak festivities alongside the other vignettes of the lower register.106 Viewed closely, however, the scene’s iconography leads us to question whether this was necessarily the case. Particularly instructive is the manner in which the nine Ptolemaic soldiers are represented. They are shown standing, clothed in cumbersome armour and helmets, and carrying shields, swords, and spears. In front of them is a pile of military equipment including shields, helmets, and an axe,107 as well as a lean hound of the kind used in hunting and warfare during antiquity.108 Together these details suggest that these men are celebrating a recent campaign, rather than simply gathering for a ceremonial drinking party connected to the annual Nile flood. A comparison with the party of soldiers depicted on the frieze of the painted tomb from Agios Athanasios in Macedonia supports this reading (Fig. 2.16b).109 Although three of the seven soldiers in the painted frieze wear full Macedonian

102

Descriptions of this scene include Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 80–2; Coarelli 1990, 238–41, 244, 246–7; Meyboom 1995, 34–7; Hinterhöller 2009, 58–9. 103 These drinking horns resemble real precious-metal rhyta surviving from the Hellenistic world. For two sumptuous examples, see Lapatin 2015, pls. 72–3, with descriptions and further bibliography at 240–1. 104 Both Steinmeyer-Schareika (1978, 81) and Coarelli (1990, 245) interpret this object as a trumpet rather than a rhyton, but its similarity to the rhyta displayed on the kylikeion suggests that it is indeed a drinking horn. 105 Meyboom 1995, 65; Hinterhöller 2009, 58. 106 Meyboom 1995, 64–70. See also Burkhalter 1999, 247–53, interpreting the scene as part of a festival celebration. 107 We might recall here Agatharchides of Knidos’s testimony (fr. 54b Burstein) that elephant hunters in Aethiopia used axes. An axe-wielding mahout was depicted on the painted frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, as we shall see in Chapter 3. 108 Compare, for instance, the Dog Mosaic from the royal district in Alexandria discussed in Chapter 5. 109 Painted tomb from Agios Athenasios: Tsibidou-Avloniti 2002, 91–7; Brecoulaki 2006, 268–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

66

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

(a)

(b)

F I G . 2.16. Two details from the painted frieze decorating the façade of the Macedonian tomb at Agios Athanasios (near Thessaloniki). Late fourth or early third century BC. Frieze H: 35 cm. (a) Four garlanded symposiasts enjoy the festivities in the company of a wine boy (oinochoos), a female aulos player, and a female kithara player. (b) Eight Macedonian soldiers stand guard. While the three leftmost soldiers are dressed in full armour, their companions wear lighter costumes suited to the ceremonial context.

military dress,110 it is clear that the group has not engaged in any actual fighting. Indeed, four of the men do not wear cuirasses, and two have dispensed with their military boots in favour of insubstantial sandals. These costumes would be poorly suited to actual combat, and the same is true of the soldiers’ ceremonial headgear, consisting of winged helmets and kausiai. Together these garments seem better suited to a ritual or ceremonial context than one connected to real combat, and this is borne out by the rest of the frieze, which depicts a lavish dinner party in an outdoor setting (Fig. 2.16a). Other features of the ‘pavilion scene’ also suggest that the soldiers are celebrating a military success. Most significant is the palm branch being held aloft by the priestess, interpreted by Meyboom as ‘a sign that the flood has been successful’.111 More typically, the palm was employed as an attribute of victory in ancient art, and the example here may be understood in these terms. The wreath worn by the

110

Miller 2014, 184.

111

Meyboom 1995, 69.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

67

‘general’ is also noteworthy, since such wreaths were commonly employed as signifiers of victory in the ancient world, in both athletic and other contexts. It is important to consider how well this ‘militaristic’ reading of the scene accords with the iconography of the rest of the composition. The only other overt reference to Ptolemaic military activity is the bireme depicted in Section 17 (Fig. 2.9).112 The original position of this section is debated:113 it is unclear whether it was located immediately to the (viewer’s) right of the ‘pavilion scene’ (as in Fig. 2.2),114 or in the upper part of the lower register, between Sections 11 and 19 (as in Fig. 2.6).115 In either case, there are some important conclusions to be drawn from the manner in which the ship is represented.116 Its bow is pointed towards the pavilion-shrine in the foreground, suggesting that the vessel is sailing up the Nile towards the Delta,117 perhaps on the return journey from a naval campaign. This campaign was a significant undertaking, judging by the number of crew required to operate the bireme. Indeed, two rows of twenty-seven oars are visible on the port side of the vessel, suggesting that it accommodated 108 rowers in total, to which we should add the seventeen hoplites gathered on the upper deck.118 A lookout (pro ̄ratē s) stands on the bow of the ship, originally shown sounding the trumpet held in his right hand. It has been suggested that the pro ̄ratē s heralds the arrival of the Ptolemaic royal couple standing beneath the parasol in Section 14, and that the bireme is their royal escort.119 Another possibility is that the pro ̄ratē s is simply announcing the return of the ship and its crew from a faraway land. The leftmost soldier in front of the pavilion-shrine in Section 13 (Fig. 2.12) has sometimes been interpreted in an analogous way: as a messenger bringing news of a victory.120 He is spatially separated from his companions, and seems to be advancing towards them, propping himself up on the spear or staff held in his right hand. According to this reading, then, the lower register of the Nile Mosaic featured a series of scenes depicting the everyday lives of different groups in Hellenistic Egypt, as well as one or two vignettes alluding to the celebration of a successful Ptolemaic military campaign. This leads us to ask what kind of military campaign is being celebrated. A possible answer is supplied by the upper register of the composition.

112

Detailed descriptions of Section 17: Coarelli 1990, esp. 247–8; Meyboom 1995, 40–1. For a useful summary of the debate, see Hinterhöller 2009, 31–2. 114 Preferred by Whitehouse 1976, 70–6 with fig. 20; Tammisto 2005, 14–16, with 18 fig. 10. 115 Preferred by Andreae 2003, 96–102, with 80–1 pl. and 108–9 pl.; Hinterhöller-Klein 2015, pls. 24–5, figs 136–9. 116 Full description: Friedman 2006, 121–2, 132–4, 137–8, 140–1; Pomey 2015, 167–9. 117 Burkhalter 1999, 250. Contra Meyboom 1995, 40. 118 119 On the bireme’s crew, see Friedman 2006, 137–8. Walker 2001, 334. 120 Coarelli 1990, 245; Stewart 2014, 230. 113

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

68

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

PTOLEMAIC TAXONOMY IN THE NILE MOSAIC

The decision to depict Aethiopia and Nubia in the upper register of the Nile Mosaic accords well with our knowledge of Ptolemaic foreign policy in the third century BC. We saw in Chapter 1 that Ptolemy II Philadelphos launched a military campaign into Aethiopia in c.275 BC, and that this expedition paved the way for exploration of the territories south of Egypt, and for the importation of elephants and other ‘extraordinary’ animals into Alexandria. The upper iconographic register of the mosaic is filled with creatures of this kind, twenty of which are accompanied by identifying labels in Greek (e.g. in Fig. 2.17).121 It will be useful here to consider these labels in detail. The practice of labelling figures had a long pedigree in ancient art.122 Pliny the Elder, writing in the Flavian period, held that the custom was nearly as old as the art of painting itself.123 It was certainly well established by the late Archaic period, judging by the north and east friezes of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi, where

F I G . 2.17. Nile Mosaic, Section 6: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Many different animals inhabit the rocky Nubian landscape in the mosaic’s upper register. In this section we see a nisnas monkey (labelled kē iuien), a flamingo, a lioness (labelled leaina), a wild ass, a lizard (labelled sau.os tsē chisnie), and a lynx (labelled lunx). In the top right corner, the copyist has sketched the outlines of a now-lost elephant. Royal Library, Windsor 919206.

121 122

On the choice of animals, see Trinquier 2005, 353–5. Recently on labelling in classical art: Hurwit 2015.

123

Pliny, Natural History 35.16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

69

F I G . 2.18. Detail from the Esquiline Odyssey frieze, excavated in a domus on Via Graziosa in 1848, showing Laestrygonians slaughtering Greeks. There are three identifying labels: one for the Laestrygonians, one for their chief Antiphates, and one for the personification Nomai sitting beneath the tree. H: 1.46 m. Mid-first century BC. Vatican Museums cat. 41013.

gods, giants, and heroes were identified by labels added in paint.124 Hellenistic examples of the practice also survive, with well-known case studies supplied by the painted façade of the Tomb of the Judgement at Mieza,125 the Gigantomachy frieze of the Great Altar at Pergamon,126 and the Archelaos relief from Bovillae in central Italy.127 The continued popularity of such labelling is attested by the painted Odyssey frieze from the Esquiline (Fig. 2.18), and the Ilioupersis frieze from the House of the Cryptoporticus in Pompeii, both dated to the mid-first century BC.128 Most commentators agree that these paintings were based on Hellenistic originals. Seen in this context, it might seem tempting to conclude that the labels of the Nile Mosaic represent simply one instantiation of an artistic practice that had gained traction over several centuries. But the differences between the labels of the Nile Mosaic and those of, say, the Esquiline Odyssey frieze are also instructive.129 A first difference concerns the type of figure labelled in each composition. The 124 126 127 128

125 Siphnian Treasury: e.g. Neer 2003. Tomb of the Judgement: Rhomiopoulou 2000, 24–9. Gigantomachy frieze: e.g. Queyrel 2005, 49–78. Archelaos relief: Pinkwart 1965, 19–90; Newby 2007. Esquiline Odyssey frieze: von Blanckenhagen 1963. House of the Cryptoporticus painting: Ling 1991,

107–8. 129

For brief remarks on the similarities between these compositions, see Bergmann 2001, 154.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

70

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

labels in the Esquiline frieze identify great men and heroes from Homer’s Odyssey, whereas those in the Nile Mosaic identify exotic creatures from foreign lands. The Esquiline frieze was more typical in this respect, judging by the compositions listed in the previous paragraph. A second difference concerns the impact of the labels on the narrative aspect of each composition. In the Esquiline frieze the labels were attached to figures engaged in vigorous action and interaction, lending each scene an exactness that recalls the corresponding episode in Homer’s Odyssey. In the Nile Mosaic, by contrast, the labels identify animals that mostly do not interact in any meaningful way. Again the Esquiline frieze seems the more typical: compare, for instance, the Gigantomachy frieze of the Great Altar, where the identifying labels lend a sense of precision to this apocalyptic battle of gods and giants, to the extent that the composition has been thought to illustrate a lost Attalid court epic.130 A useful way of conceptualizing these differences is to consider how far removing the labels would have affected the intelligibility of each composition. Although we should not underestimate ancient viewers’ familiarity with the Odyssey and its translation into visual culture, it seems likely that removing the labels from the Esquiline frieze would have rendered some of its scenes less comprehensible: the narrative would become less well defined, the protagonists less easy to identify, the details of each scene more open to interpretation.131 Whether the impact of removing the labels from the Nile Mosaic would have been quite so dramatic seems less certain. As we have noted, the labels contributed nothing to the composition by way of narrative, and it seems likely that the overall thrust of the iconography—a collection of animals in an exotic land—would have remained comprehensible to most viewers whether or not they were included. These differences help us gauge the function and significance of the identifying labels of the Nile Mosaic. Lacking a true narrative purpose, they constituted a selfsufficient aspect of the iconography, attaching definitive names to most animals depicted in the upper register. Although each label was associated with a particular creature, the juxtaposition of so many labelled animals resulted in a kind of visual catalogue of species, albeit one that was integrated into a larger work of art. In this context, the labels furnished a level of specificity that lay well outside the norms of animal representation in ancient visual culture, and hinted at concerns of a more scientific nature. The most compelling explanation is that they were, in fact, taxonomic in conception, providing one example of a process of naming and classifying newly discovered creatures that had taken root in Ptolemaic Alexandria. This reading fits neatly with the evidence presented in Chapter 1, where we saw that cataloguing and classification were important facets of the Alexandrian intellectual achievement during Hellenistic times. 130

Smith 1991, 163–4.

131

Observed already by Ling 1991, 109–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

71

F I G . 2.19. Nile Mosaic, Section 7: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Real and fantastical-looking animals are juxtaposed seamlessly in the upper register of the composition. Here the fantastical-looking landcrocodile (krokodilos chersaios) lies close to a bear (labelled drkos), two cheetahs (labelled tigris), a baboon (labelled sattuos), and a giant serpent. Royal Library, Windsor 919207.

This Alexandrian programme of animal classification was not restricted to creatures encountered in the territories south of Egypt. Indeed, the mosaic’s upper register also incorporates a handful of animals that were not indigenous to Africa, and whose presence in a rocky Nubian landscape is unrealistic. These include the bear in Section 7 (Fig. 2.19), the camel in Section 3, and the peacock in Section 3 (Fig. 2.20), which were indigenous to Syria, Arabia, and India respectively.132 Since the bear is labelled ΔΡΚΟϹ (a miscopy of arkos, as we have seen) and the camel is labelled VΑΒΟΥϹ (nabous), it is clear that animals from elsewhere were sometimes catalogued in the same manner as their African counterparts during the third century.

The origins of the animal representations It remains to determine how these representations of animals accompanied by taxonomic labels came into being. We saw in Chapter 1 that Ptolemy II Philadelphos imported animals from across the known world into Alexandria, and it is therefore tempting to suppose that these representations originated in the Ptolemaic royal capital itself, where artists and intellectuals might view these creatures 132

Meyboom 1995, 46–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

72

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.20. Nile Mosaic, Section 3: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. The sky beyond the landscape indicates that this section was positioned towards the top of the composition. It contains two hunters, a hound pouncing on a heron, a peacock, a pair of birds, a striped hyena (labelled krokottas), and a camel (labelled nabous). At the right-hand edge, the outlines of another lost elephant remain visible. Royal Library, Windsor 919203.

in captivity. Circumstantial support for this possibility is supplied by Kallixeinos of Rhodes’s account of the Grand Procession, which indicates that many of the animals depicted in the mosaic’s upper register were paraded through the streets of Alexandria during the 270s BC. On closer inspection, however, this reconstruction is unlikely to be correct. The most obvious problem is posed by four fantastical-looking animals depicted in the upper register:133 the creature labelled ΞΙΟΙΓ (xioig)—probably a miscopy of ΞΙΦΙΑϹ (xiphias) or ΞΙΦΙϹ (xiphis)—in Section 2, which combines a sturdy, hippopotamus-like body with a crocodile-like snout (Fig. 2.21);134 the female asscentaur labelled ΗΟΝΟΚΕΝΤΑΥΡΑ (onokentaura) in Section 1, which combines 133

Contra Salari 2012, identifying all the represented animals with real-life species. The xiphias appellation stems from the representation of the same creature on the verso of the Artemidoros Papyrus: see Adornato 2008a, 238; Pajön Leyra 2009. The mosaicist responsible for the label on the Nile Mosaic has then missed the vertical stroke of the phi: I am grateful to one of the Press’s anonymous readers for this observation. 134

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

73

F I G . 2.21. Nile Mosaic, Section 2: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. In the centre of the scene, the fantastical-looking xiphias stands on a rocky outcrop. We also see a group of six African hunters armed with bows, a sphinx-monkey (labelled sphingia) climbing a tree, a second monkey balled up in the same tree, a guenon seated on a rock, and two giant crabs. Royal Library, Windsor 919202.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

74

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.22. Nile Mosaic, Section 1: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. The giant serpent swallowing birds recalls a zoological topos that Pliny the Elder attributes to the second-century BC author Metrodoros of Skepsis. Also standing on the rocks are a female ass-centaur (labelled onokentaura), a monkey, and two spotted hyenas (labelled tho ̄antes). Royal Library, Windsor 919201.

a human head with the body of a female donkey (Fig. 2.22);135 the land-crocodile labelled ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟϹΧΕΡϹΑΙΟϹ (krokodilos chersaios) basking in the sun in Section 7, which combines a lizard’s body with a dog-like head (Fig. 2.19); and the crocodile-panther labelled ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΙϹ (krokodilopardalis) in Section 11, which combines a crocodile’s body with the head of a panther (Fig. 2.11). Clearly these representations were not modelled on animals kept in captivity in Alexandria, and this raises the possibility that the representations of real animals were also conceived elsewhere. It is significant, in this context, that the majority of real animals in the Nile Mosaic were represented relatively synoptically, and without a scientific degree of accuracy. A good example is the rhinoceros in Section 9, which stands out

135

The definite article has been contracted into the word: see Swetnam-Burland 2015, 151.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

75

F I G . 2.23. Nile Mosaic, Section 9: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Above a temple enclosure, a rhinoceros (labelled rhinokero ̄s) and a hog-monkey (labelled choiropithik) stand on outcrops in the river. The oval features beneath the rhinoceros represent gemstones. Royal Library, Windsor 919209.

thanks to the unusual orange colour of its hide (Fig. 2.23). Perhaps the most glaring inaccuracy is supplied by the sharp set of teeth that appear inside this creature’s mouth, since the two African subspecies of this herbivorous animal lack such teeth at the front of their mouths, relying instead on their muscular lips to pluck food from trees. Other inaccuracies include the small size of its horns, the nearly identical size of its front and posterior horns, the incorrect positioning of its nostril and eye, and the flat projection of its tasselled-looking ears (compare Fig. 2.24). The giraffes depicted in Section 5 (Fig. 2.25) are similarly detached from reality.136 Their necks are too short in relation to their bodies, their bodies are too hefty in relation to their legs, and their complex coat pattern has been reduced to a schematized set of dark V-shapes against a light background (compare Fig. 2.26). Other examples abound: the bear in Section 7 resembles a cow (Fig. 2.19); the nisnas monkey in Section 6 (Fig. 2.17) looks like an arboreal dog; and the lynx in the same section is a generic big cat (compare Fig. 3.18). The lack of attention paid to the relative scales of the creatures is also noteworthy.

136

Demonstrated by Coleman 1994, 258.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

76

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.24. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis). The North-eastern black rhinoceros, a subspecies indigenous to central Sudan, Eritrea, parts of Ethiopia, Djibouti, and parts of Somalia, became extinct in the early twentieth century.

F I G . 2.25. Nile Mosaic, Section 5: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. Two giraffes (labelled k.amelopaali) pluck food from trees, while a curious upside-down creature is represented below. Royal Library, Windsor 919205.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

77

F I G . 2.26. Reticulated giraffe (G. reticulata). This subspecies is indigenous to north-eastern Kenya, southern Ethiopia, and Somalia. The distinctive reticulated pattern of the coat is not reproduced in Section 5 of the Nile Mosaic.

Such inaccuracies speak against the view that the representations were founded on the detailed observation of real animals kept in captivity. Rather, it seems more likely that they relied on sporadic contact with the species concerned, without the artist(s) necessarily being in the presence of the represented animal. These observations fit more neatly with the possibility that many of these representations were based on encounters with animals in the wild, in contexts such as the expeditions to Aethiopia and the Red Sea hinterlands sponsored by the Ptolemaic kings during the third century BC. Strong support for this reading is supplied by Agatharchides of Knidos’s treatise On the Erythraean Sea. As we noted in Chapter 1, this fragmentary text described Ptolemaic expeditions to Aethiopia and the Red Sea during the third century. Part of the treatise is a zoological excursus in which Agatharchides describes some twelve different animal species that had been encountered in Aethiopia: lions and ‘ant-lions’, leopards, rhinoceroses, elephants, giraffes, sphinxes, ‘dog-head’ monkeys, nisnas monkeys, ‘carnivorous bulls’, horned pigs, hyenas, and giant snakes.137 It is significant that most of these creatures are also depicted in the mosaic: a lioness labelled ΛΕΑΙΝΑ (leaina) suckling her 137

Agatharchides frs. 68–82 Burstein.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/2021, SPi

78

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.27. Nile Mosaic, Section 10: Dal Pozzo watercolour copy. A hunter fires his bow at a pair of warthogs above, while an ibis farm and a boat are represented below. Royal Library, Windsor 919210.

cub in Section 6 (Fig. 2.17); a pair of leopards or cheetahs labelled ΤΙΓΡΙϹ (tigris) in Section 7 (Fig. 2.19);138 a rhinoceros labelled ΡΙΝΟΚΕΡ Ϲ (rhinokero ̄s) in Section 9 (Fig. 2.23); two elephants in Sections 3 and 6, now lost, but known from early descriptions of the mosaic and from the Dal Pozzo copies (Figs. 2.17 and 2.20); a pair of giraffes labelled Κ.ΜΕΛΟΠΑΡΑΑΛΙ, originally perhaps ΚΑΜΕΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΙϹ (kamelopardalis), in Section 5 (Fig. 2.25); a monkey identified as a sphinx by its label ϹΦΙΝΓΙΑ (sphingia) in Section 2 (Fig. 2.21); a nisnas monkey labelled ΚΗΙΥΙΕΝ, possibly a miscopy of ΚΗΠΙΟΝ (kē pion, a diminutive of kē pos), in Section 6 (Fig. 21); a pair of pigs with tusks, probably warthogs, in Section 10 (Fig. 2.27); a striped hyena labelled ΚΡΟΚΟΤΤΑϹ (krokottas) in Section 3 (Fig. 2.17); and two giant snakes in Sections 1 and 7 (Figs. 2.19 and 2.22). The only creatures described by Agatharchides that are not visible in the mosaic are the ‘ant-lion’, the ‘dog-head’ monkey, and the ‘carnivorous bull’. The extent of the crossover is otherwise striking, raising the possibility that some animal representations in the mosaic were conceived in the same cultural milieu as Agatharchides’s zoological descriptions. Agatharchides himself supplies important information concerning this milieu. In a revealing passage, he states that part of his account of Aethiopia was based on ‘information that we have obtained from the royal hypomnemata at Alexandria

ω

138 Cheetahs were sometimes referred to as ‘Aethiopian tigers’ during antiquity: see Salari 2012, 352. For animal nomenclature in antiquity more broadly, see Bodson 2005; 2014.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

79

and that we have obtained from eyewitnesses’.139 The royal hypomnemata were the official reports of Ptolemaic agents sent to explore the territories south of Egypt during the third century BC.140 Agatharchides explicitly cites the testimony of Simmias,141 who explored the coastal region south of Ptolemais-of-theElephant-Hunts for Ptolemy III Euergetes.142 He also consulted the hypomnemata of Satyros, who investigated the country of the Trogodytes and founded Philotera on behalf of Ptolemy II Philadelphos,143 and Ariston, who surveyed the western coast of Arabia during the reign of the same king.144 The reference to ‘eyewitnesses’ is more ambiguous, but is usually taken to refer to reports that were less official in nature, but likewise written by men sent to Aethiopia by the kings.145 Several such accounts are known,146 including those composed by Dalion, who was the first to explore the Nile valley south of Meroe during the reign of Philadelphos,147 and Pythagoras, an admiral under Philadelphos and Euergetes who also wrote a treatise On the Erythraean Sea.148 Agatharchides’s dependence on such sources is confirmed by the correspondences between his account of the nisnas monkey (kē pos) and the description of this creature attributed to Pythagoras,149 and between his account of the hyena (krokottas) and the description of this creature attributed to Dalion.150 It is very striking that Pythagoras is also known to have composed a description of the ass-centaur, one of the fantastical creatures depicted in the mosaic (Fig. 2.22).151 By their very nature, the reports contained in these hypomnemata and eyewitness accounts would have been based on experiences in the wild. This is confirmed by Agatharchides’s descriptions of Aethiopian animals, several of which refer explicitly to the behaviour of these creatures in their natural habitats. If, therefore, the animal representations in the Nile Mosaic emerged in the same cultural milieu as these descriptions, it follows that they, too, originated in the context of royally sponsored expeditions to Aethiopia. An economical hypothesis would be to

139

Agatharchides fr. 81 Burstein. Burstein 1989, 30–1. Agatharchides’s access to sources of this nature is explained by the close relationships he enjoyed with royal courtiers during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor: see Burstein 1989, 14–15. 141 142 Agatharchides fr. 41 Burstein. Simmias: Berrey 2017, 42–3 no. 11. 143 144 Satyros: Strabo, Geography 16.4.5. Ariston: Diodorus Siculus 3.42.1. 145 For this view, see e.g. Désanges 1978, 258; Burstein 1979, 97–101; 1989, 31–3. 146 A list of five such figures (Dalion, Aristocreon, Bion, Basilis, and Simonides) is supplied by Pliny, Natural History 6.183. For the fragments attributed to these writers, see now BNJ 666, 667, 668, 669, 718 (all S. Burstein). 147 Dalion: BNJ 666; Désanges 1978, 259–60. 148 Pythagoras: BNP s.v. ‘Pythagoras [6]’; Désanges 1978, 278–9. 149 Compare Aelian, Nature of Animals 17.8 (citing Pythagoras), with Agatharchides fr. 76 Burstein. 150 Compare BNJ 666 F1 = Paradoxographus Vaticanus 2, with Agatharchides fr. 78 Burstein. 151 Aelian, Nature of Animals 17.9. This description is discussed further in Chapter 4. 140

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

80

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

suppose that the royal hypomnemata and ‘eyewitness accounts’ were themselves illustrated, and that their taxonomic animal representations were later reproduced in large-scale works of art.152 But other channels of transmission are also possible. There are, then, strong grounds for supposing that many of the taxonomic animal representations in the Nile Mosaic were formulated on the basis of sporadic contact with the species concerned, perhaps in conjunction with—or in response to—written descriptions similar to those transmitted by Agatharchides. Had they been based on the close study of animals in captivity, we would expect closer attention to matters of scale and detail, and an absence of fantastical-looking creatures. Viewed in tandem with Agatharchides’s zoological descriptions, therefore, the taxonomic representations attest to a culture of naming, classifying, describing, and depicting creatures upon encountering them in foreign lands. This is perfectly in keeping with the broader culture of Alexandrian intellectualism introduced in Chapter 1.

Fantastical creatures We are then faced with the question of how best to account for the fantastical creatures depicted in the Nile Mosaic (xiphias, ass-centaur, crocodile-panther, and land-crocodile) as well as those described by Agatharchides and his sources (‘antlion’, and ‘carnivorous bull’).153 A useful starting point is supplied by our earlier observation that many of the real animals depicted in the mosaic exhibit anatomical inaccuracies. These inaccuracies were presumably conditioned by several factors: lack of opportunity to study a particular species at close quarters; loss of memory regarding how a creature actually looked; lapse of time between seeing and depicting a given species; the influence of written accounts; confusion caused by contradictory testimonies; the supposition that the name of a species necessarily mapped onto its anatomy; and so on. The literary tradition encompassed by Agatharchides’s zoological descriptions preserves evidence of a comparable process of distortion, involving the transmission of rumours, exaggerations, and factual inaccuracies. For example, Agatharchides states that the giraffe is the same size as the camel, when it is considerably larger, and claims that the creature has the spotted coat of a leopard, which is simply untrue.154 He also narrates the capture of a python that was supposedly 30 cubits (13.72 m) long,155 even though the species that he refers to, the African rock python (Python sebae), can grow to a maximum length of only

152

A possibility explored already by Phillips 1962, 117–82; Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 75–80. For a stimulating response to this question, see Trinquier 2005, 356–60, hinting that representations of fantastical animals may have been based directly on textual descriptions. 154 155 Agatharchides fr. 73 Burstein. Agatharchides fr. 80 Burstein. 153

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

81

c.7.50 m.156 Most telling is his assertion that ‘Sphinxes resemble the animals as depicted in pictures except that they are completely covered with hair and are tame and gentle in disposition’.157 This statement reveals a propensity for blurring fact and fiction, since he is here referring to a monkey of some description.158 In an intellectual environment where distortion, exaggeration, conflation, inaccuracy, and hearsay were regular features in the representation and description of real animals, it is not difficult to envisage how creatures of a seemingly fantastical nature might infiltrate the world of Hellenistic zoology. Many of these creatures surely had their conceptual origins in encounters with real species in foreign lands. They were then subjected to a process of distortion that eroded their basis in reality. The details of this process are difficult to reconstruct, but some useful insights are provided by Agatharchides’s description of one such fantastical creature, known as the ‘carnivorous bull’ (sarkophagos tauros): Of all the animals that people mention, however, the carnivorous bull is the fiercest and in every way the most difficult to subdue. In size it is larger than domesticated bulls, and in fleetness of foot it is not inferior to a horse while its mouth opens as far as its ears. Its colour is an extremely bright red. Its eyes are more brilliant than those of a lion and at night they gleam. Its horns have a peculiar characteristic. For most of the time the animal moves them like its ears, but in fights they stand erect. The direction of growth of its hair also is opposite that of other animals . . . Its skin is also said to be immune to wounds. Although many have tried to capture one, no one has succeeded in subduing it . . . the Troglodytes rightly consider this animal to be the strongest since nature has endowed it with the courage of a lion, the swiftness of a horse, the strength of a bull and immunity to iron whose nature is the strongest of all.159

It is significant that the description of this animal—with its bright red pelt, inverted hair, and manoeuvrable horns—included the statement that it had never been captured, since this confirms that it was never studied in detail at close quarters.160 In fact, Agatharchides provides an indication of how descriptions of this animal were transmitted by revealing that at least some of the account is founded on hearsay (‘Its skin is also said to be . . . ’). Clearly, then, this description was not founded on direct interaction with a living, breathing animal: and the same was presumably true of the visual representations of such creatures, which likewise depended on stories and rumours rather than first-hand interaction.

156 African rock python and its size: Starin and Burghardt 1992, 50–62. Note, though, that Liliane Bodson regards Agatharchides’s measurement as accurate: see Bodson 2003, 186. 157 Agatharchides fr. 74a Burstein. 158 That the Aethiopian sphinx was a monkey is suggested by the creature labelled ϹΦΙΝΓΙΑ (sphingia) in Section 2 of the Nile Mosaic, which has been identified as a long-tailed guenon: see Meyboom 1995, 22. 159 160 Agatharchides fr. 77b Burstein. Pointed out by Trinquier 2005, 360.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

82

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

This leads to some important conclusions. It is clear that depicting and describing animals in Hellenistic times often involved striking a balance between fact, rumour, and fiction. But it is also apparent that the balance between these elements varied from representation to representation, and from description to description. From a modern, post-Linnaean standpoint, it is easy to differentiate between those representations and descriptions of animals in which fact is predominant and those in which fiction stands out, hence the distinction between ‘real’ and ‘fantastical’ animals maintained in most discussions of the Nile Mosaic. But the seamless juxtaposition of all of these creatures in the upper register of the composition leads us to question whether this distinction was as sharply defined in the ancient psyche as it is today.161 It is more likely that many ancient viewers were unaware— perhaps even uninterested—that some animals in the composition were more or less realistic than others. Rather, all of these animals were probably believed to have some basis in reality, and all of their taxonomic identifying labels were taken to reflect the advances in knowledge occasioned by the royal exploration of new lands.

TERRITORIAL IDEOLOGY

We have seen that the lower register of the Nile Mosaic depicts the Ptolemaic royal couple and a group of soldiers celebrating against the backdrop of a prosperous Egypt, while the upper register alludes to new scientific knowledge that stemmed from royal expeditions to Aethiopia. Viewed as a whole, therefore, the composition may depict the aftermath of a successful expedition to Aethiopia, encompassing the return of soldiers from this land, the discoveries that this mission facilitated, and the continued stability that Ptolemaic rule brought to the Nile valley. This tight iconographic ensemble supports the view that the mosaic is a later replica of a court painting from third-century Alexandria. The decision to depict a newly reconnoitred foreign land in a royal work of art resonates with the territorial rhetoric that formed an important aspect of Ptolemaic court poetry during the third century BC.162 We might compare, for instance, a passage from Theokritos’s seventeenth Idyll exalting Ptolemy II Philadelphos: Over all these [sc. Egyptian cities] mighty Ptolemy rules as king. In addition he cuts off for himself a part of Phoenicia, Arabia, Syria, Libya and of the dark-skinned Aethiopians. He gives orders to all the Pamphylians, to the Cilician spearmen, to the Lycians and to the warlike Carians, and to the islands of the Cyclades, since his are the finest ships that sail the

Compare Trinquier 2005, 360, arguing that the ass-centaur and xiphias in the Nile Mosaic ‘cannot be annexed entirely to the domain of myth’. 162 Recently on Ptolemaic territorial rhetoric: Strootman 2010, 40–4; 2014a, 47–9; 2014b, 320–2. 161

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

83

seas. All the sea and land and the roaring rivers are ruled by Ptolemy, and about him gather a host of horsemen and a host of shielded warriors, equipped with glittering bronze.163

In the first part of this passage, Theokritos emphasizes Philadelphos’s mastery over his kingdom, beginning with his powerbase in Egypt and then moving to other territories including the land of the ‘dark-skinned Aethiopians’. The second part, however, offers a more open-ended definition of the king’s authority, painting him as the rightful ruler of ‘all the sea and land’: that is, the entire inhabited world (oikoumenē ). A similarly broad definition of royal power was presented by Kallimachos of Kyrene in his Hymn to Delos, in the context of a prophecy delivered by Apollo himself. Here Kallimachos praises Philadelphos, ‘[u]nder whose diadem will come, not unwilling to be ruled by a Macedonian, both lands and the lands that dwell in the sea, as far as the ends of the earth and where the swift horses carry the Sun’.164 This territorial rhetoric continued during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes, judging by the inscription on a (now lost) stele from Adoulis on the Red Sea coast commemorating this king’s achievements against Seleukos II Kallinikos in the Third Syrian War.165 The text records that Euergetes crossed the river Euphrates before subduing ‘Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Susiane, the Persis, Media, and the rest of the land as far as Baktria’: that is, the entire Seleukid Empire. Other sources verify that Euergetes did reach Babylonia,166 but suggest that he withdrew to Egypt in 241 without having progressed much further.167 Certainly he did not conquer ‘the rest of the land as far as Baktria’. Perhaps, then, this enumeration of Seleukid territories expressed a belief that they constituted ‘spear-won land’ in the wake of the king’s victories, but clearly this rhetoric was rooted in aspiration rather than reality.168 Viewing the Nile Mosaic alongside such texts, it seems clear that the composition’s iconography was designed to frame Ptolemaic power in territorial terms. The royal couple, depicted in the centre of the composition’s foreground, were presented as masters of the lands south of Egypt and the exotic animals that lived there, many of which had been discovered and documented for the first time. In this context, taxonomic knowledge has become an allegory for territorial domination and geopolitical power. This territorial ideology may have been enhanced further by part of the iconography that is often overlooked: the series of dark-red and dark-green oval-shaped features interspersed among the rocks of the upper register, 163

Theokritos, Idyll 17, ll. 85–94. Translation: Austin 2006, 448–50 no. 255. For commentary, see e.g. Hunter 2003, 153–70. 164 Kallimachos, Hymn 4 ll. 166–70. Translation: Stephens 2015. 165 166 OGIS 54. Analysis: Strootman 2014a, 48; 2014b, 321–2. Appian, Syrian Wars 65. 167 168 Justin, Epitome 27.1.9. Demonstrated by Strootman 2014a, 48; 2014b, 321–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

84

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

identifiable as precious and semi-precious gemstones (e.g. in Figs. 2.21–2.23).169 The generic appearance of these stones makes it difficult to determine whether they represent particular types of gem, but their inclusion fits neatly with what we know of the Ptolemaic kings’ exploitation of precious stones and minerals in Africa and the Red Sea during the third century. The best-known evidence for Ptolemaic mining is Agatharchides’s account of the miserable working conditions of the royal prisoners sent to work in the gold mines of the Eastern Desert during the third century.170 But this passage can now be set alongside an expanding body of archaeological data for Ptolemaic gold mining in the central part of the Eastern Desert.171 We should mention particularly the excavations conducted since 2013 in the district of Samut, which was situated on the ancient road connecting Apollonopolis Magna in the Nile valley with Berenike Trogodytika on the Red Sea (Fig. 1.3).172 Two Ptolemaic sites have been identified in this area, known respectively as Samut North and Bi’r Samut. Samut North was organized around an exposed gold vein some 277 m long, and excavations uncovered a series of gold-processing facilities, including two large circular grinding mills used for reducing the ground gold ore into powder following a preliminary stage of crushing and grinding. Ceramic evidence from the site suggests that it was first laid out during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, and that it was occupied only for a short period. At Bi’r Samut, meanwhile, excavations centred on a large Ptolemaic fort constructed in the mid-third century BC. Excavators also recovered traces of an earlier phase of occupation, dated to the first half of the third century, which was visibly connected to gold-processing work. Ancient authors also mention the royally sponsored extraction of green peridot (ancient Greek: topazos) on St John’s Island (Gazirat Zabarjad) in the Red Sea.173 Particularly instructive is the testimony of Juba II of Mauretania (30 BC–AD 23), a late Hellenistic monarch whose first wife was Kleopatra Selene II, the daughter of Marcus Antonius and Kleopatra VII. Juba tells us that this precious green stone was first discovered by Philon, a Ptolemaic admiral of the early third century who probably composed one of the ‘eyewitness accounts’ consulted by Agatharchides of Knidos.174 Apparently Philon brought the stone as a gift for Berenike I, the

169 On these gemstones, see e.g. Meyboom 1995, 21, 222–3 n. 4; Tammisto 1997, 255 n. 355; Trinquier 2005, 360–6; 2007, 30–2. 170 Agatharchides frs. 23–9 Burstein. For extensive discussion, and a full analysis of the historiographical tradition, see now Marcotte 2017. 171 Overview of the archaeological data: Klemm and Klemm 2011, 12–15, 614. 172 On the excavations at Samut, see especially Brun, Deroin, Faucher, Redon, and Téreygeol 2013; Brun, Faucher, Redon, and Téreygeol 2013; Redon and Faucher 2015; 2016; 2017; Faucher 2018; Redon 2018. 173 See e.g. Agatharchides fr. 84a Burstein. 174 BNJ 275 F75 = Pliny, Natural History 37.107–8. Commentary: Roller 2003, 201–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

85

mother of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, and the king himself was so impressed that he later commissioned a 4-cubit-tall peridot statue of his sister-wife Arsinoë II, which was displayed in the Arsinoeion in Alexandria.175 Juba also reveals that Pythagoras, the Ptolemaic admiral whose account of Aethiopia and the Red Sea was later consulted by Agatharchides, was responsible for mining activity on St John’s Island.176 Remarkably, an archaeological expedition to the island in 2010 uncovered the remains of Ptolemaic peridot mines on its south-east coast.177 Clearly this mining activity brought economic benefits to the third-century kings.178 That it was also invested with an ideological dimension is suggested by a collection of twenty epigrams written by Poseidippos of Pella, grouped under the title On Stones.179 Poseidippos was a third-century poet whose close connections with the Ptolemaic court are well documented.180 His epigrams On Stones describe a series of precious stones from a wide range of locations, including India, Persia, Arabia, Lydia, Samos, and Euboea. In each epigram we are told of the passage of a particular stone from its place of origin to Ptolemaic Egypt, and of how it was subsequently transformed into a sumptuous gem in the hands of a Greek artisan. The final epigram concludes with a prayer on behalf of the Ptolemaic sovereign: ‘But now, Lord of Geraestus [sc. Poseidon], together with his islands keep Ptolemy’s lands and shores unshaken.’181 As Peter Bing has shown, this closing invocation not only seeks protection for the Ptolemaic kingdom, but also serves to position all of the preceding epigrams—with their geographical content—within a royal framework.182 The result is an open-ended definition of Ptolemaic power, in which the king is presented as master of the natural world through his refinement of raw mineral resources from across the oikoumenē . Seen in this context, we may conclude that the precious stones depicted in the upper register of the Nile Mosaic contributed to the composition’s territorial ideology.183 Like the taxonomic representations of animals, these gemstones hinted at the discoveries facilitated by royal expeditions to Aethiopia, and implied that royal authority extended to this region’s mineral resources. We should mention briefly in this context another mosaic from Alexandria itself that may have carried a comparable message. This is the Wrestlers Mosaic

175

BNJ 275 F75 = Pliny, Natural History 37.107–8. Commentary: Roller 2003, 201–2. BNJ 275 F76 = Pliny, Natural History 37.24. Discussion: Fraser 1972b, 305–6 n. 365. 177 Harrell 2014. 178 This activity may have continued in the second century, judging by an inscription of 130 BC recording how one Soterichos of Gortyn was sent by the strategos of the Thebaid to collect precious stones: see OGIS 132. 179 180 Poseidippos AB 1–20. See, for example, the collection of essays in Gutzwiller 2005. 181 Poseidippos AB 20 ll.19–20. Translation: Nisetich 2005. 182 Demonstrated expertly by Bing 2009, 254–9. 183 For this ideological aspect, see Trinquier 2005, 260–2. 176

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

86

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 2.28. The Wrestlers Mosaic from the palatial district in Alexandria. A tanned Greek boy wrestles an African opponent in the gymnasium. Early to mid-second century BC. H of picture panel: 75 cm. Restored W of picture panel: 84 cm. Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities Museum inv. 0858.

excavated in the city’s royal district in 1993 (Fig. 2.28).184 Although the right-hand portion is missing, the composition clearly depicted two youths wrestling in a gymnasium. The figures are ethnically differentiated: the figure to the left has tanned skin, and is presumably a Graeco-Macedonian youth, while his opponent is African.185 According to one view, the keynote of the scene is égalité: we see a pair of evenly matched young men taking part in a traditional athletic contest.186 But

184

Wrestlers Mosaic: Saïd 1994, esp. 379; Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, esp. 272–7; 2005a; Daszewski 2001,

273–5. 185

For other representations of African sportsmen in Hellenistic art, see Masséglia 2015, 172–6. Guimier-Sorbets 2005a, 23. This reading recalls Agatharchides’s report that the Meroitic king Ergamenes I, a younger contemporary of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, received a Greek education following the Ptolemaic expeditions to Aethiopia: see Diodorus Siculus 3.6.3. 186

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the nile mosaic at praeneste

87

other readings are possible. It may be significant that the head of the African wrestler is almost frontal, whereas that of the Graeco-Macedonian wrestler is in profile. This configuration recalls a longstanding convention in Greek art, whereby the heads of heroes and athletic victors were depicted in profile, while the heads of victims, losing athletes, and those in peril were shown frontally.187 If this was the intended implication, it would follow that the Graeco-Macedonian wrestler is characterized as the victor-in-waiting, while the African wrestler— whose open mouth may also convey his strife—is soon to be defeated. The scene might then allude to Ptolemaic control of the territories south of Egypt.

CONCLUSIONS

A key characteristic of some of the best-known literature produced in thirdcentury Alexandria is its interdisciplinarity: Kallimachos weaves together poetry and astronomy in his Lock of Berenike; Apollonios of Rhodes leans on contemporary geography and ethnography in his Argonautica;188 and Eratosthenes employs the lens of mythology to address a mathematical problem his Letter to Ptolemy. In the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, a later version of a third-century court painting from Ptolemaic Alexandria, we detect boundary hopping of a similar kind, this time in—or rather into—the field of the visual arts. Indeed, we have seen in this chapter that the mosaic integrates aspects of Theophrastan botany, the kind of descriptive zoology pursued by Agatharchides and his sources, ethnography, paradoxography, and possibly also royally sanctioned mineralogy. This interplay between art and science sets the tone for the other works of art to be discussed in this volume, many of which exhibit cross-pollination of a similar kind. The animals in the upper register of the mosaic can be interpreted in both scientific and ideological terms. From a scientific standpoint, they allude to the advancements in zoological knowledge facilitated by royal expeditions to the territories south of Egypt during the third century BC. More than this, their identifying labels testify to an interest in classifying and taxonomizing animals that fits very neatly with broader trends in Alexandrian intellectualism identified in Chapter 1. This process of classification and taxonomy seems to have originated in the context of sporadic encounters with these animals in the wild, much like the zoological descriptions contained in the hypomnemata and ‘eyewitness’ accounts consulted by Agatharchides. From an ideological perspective, these taxonomic animal representations clearly offered an effective medium for communicating the wide-reaching nature of 187 188

On this convention in Greek vase painting, see Korshak 1987, 14–25. For geography in the Argonautica, see Meyer 2001.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

88

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Ptolemaic royal power. This interpretation accords well with the display of creatures from across the known world during the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, as well as the historically attested interest of this king—and others—in animals from newly explored lands. We should recognize, however, that interest in exotic and unusual animals during Hellenistic times was not confined to the kings and their courtiers. The next two chapters will focus on a tomb painting and a papyrus that show how the royal taste for animal representations was taken up by other social groups within the Ptolemaic kingdom.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

THREE

The Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa Parading Knowledge in Hellenistic Idumaea

More than 2,000 kilometres east of Praeneste, archaeologists working at Tel Sandannah around the turn of the twentieth century made a series of remarkable
discoveries.1 Tel Sandannah was a hilltop settlement approximately 35 kilometres
east of Ashqelon and 40 kilometres south-west of Jerusalem, which was first excavated in 1900 by a British team.2 This initial campaign unearthed the remains of the prosperous Upper City, which was identified as Marisa (Hebrew: Maresha), a Judaean settlement mentioned several times in the Bible that was also an important centre in ‘Seleukid and early Roman times’ (Fig. 3.1).3 In 1902, the philologist John P. Peters and the archaeologist Hermann Thiersch visited the site. They were taken by a local guide to a series of tombs in the eastern necropolis that had been plundered by grave robbers following the recent archaeological activity.4 One of these tombs stood out on account of its remarkable painted decoration, which included a frieze depicting a continuous sequence of animals accompanied by identifying labels in Greek. The tomb also yielded a series of funerary inscriptions, one of which confirmed the identification of Tel Sandannah as Marisa, and accounts for the modern name of the structure:
Apollophanes, son of Sesmaios, thirty three years chief of the Sidonians at Marisa, reputed the best and most kin-loving of all those of his time; he died, having lived seventy-four years.5

The contents of the tomb had been looted by the time of its discovery, and the heads of its painted human figures had been defaced in the name of Islam. Fearing further damage, Peters and Thiersch arranged for Chalil Raad, a commercial photographer in Jerusalem, to take photographs of the paintings. These they showed to the

1 The Arabic name Tel Sandannah stems from the twelfth-century Crusader church of St Anne built in
the area of the Tel. The political landscape of this region has changed considerably since the tomb’s original discovery. Beit Jibrin was captured by Israeli forces during the 1948 war, and the kibbutz of Beit Guvrin was established in the area in 1949. The tomb is now located in the state of Israel. 2 3 Tel Sandannah excavations: Bliss and Macalister 1902, 52–70. Bliss and Macalister 1902, 67–8.
4 5 Discovery of tomb: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 1–4. Peters and Thiersch 1905, 38.

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

OE NI C

Sidon

IA

90 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

PH

Tyre

Paneion

Dora Samaria R. Jordan

Ashqelon Raphia

Alexandria Naukratis

JUDAEA

Jerusalem Marisa

IDUMAEA

Thmuis Petra

EGYPT

Memphis R. Nile

Fayyum 0

100

200 km

F I G . 3.1. Map showing the location of Marisa in its regional context. The town was part of the Ptolemaic kingdom for much of the third century BC, before passing to Seleukid control following the Battle of Paneion in 200 BC.

Dominican clergymen of the Monastery of St Stephen and the École Biblique de St Étienne in Jerusalem, three of whom subsequently travelled to Tel Sandannah
and made their own watercolour copies of the paintings, together with plans of the tomb and copies of its inscriptions. The photographs and watercolours were then used to produce a series of coloured lithographs that illustrated the monograph published by Peters and Thiersch in 1905 (Figs. 3.5–3.17).6 The tomb paintings faded dramatically during subsequent years, and had vanished almost completely by the time that the Tomb of Apollophanes was restored in 1993.7 Thankfully, however, Chalil Raad’s original photographs were rediscovered in the archive of the Palestine Exploration Fund at the beginning of this century, and were published in a monograph by David Jacobson.8 This monograph has stimulated renewed interest in the tomb, including the present

6

Peters and Thiersch 1905, frontispiece, pls. IV–XV. By the time W. F. Albright visited the tomb in 1920 and 1921, the paintings were hardly visible: see Albright 1942, 18. In 1993, the Israel Antiquities Authority arranged for the interior of the tomb to be restored, and commissioned the artist Haim Kapchik to reproduce its paintings using the coloured lithographs. 8 Jacobson 2007. For the rediscovery of the photographs, see also Jacobson 2004. 7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

91

chapter. Following a brief account of the architecture and chronology of the structure, the discussion here will focus on its exceptional painted decoration. We will see that the animal frieze was commissioned by a patron who was well attuned to the cultural and artistic currents of third-century Alexandria.

ARCHITECTURE AND CHRONOLOGY

The Tomb of Apollophanes is a subterranean rock-hewn structure discovered in the eastern necropolis of Marisa, a north–south strip of tombs located approximately 250 m east of the Upper City (Fig. 3.2).9 It stands out from the other tombs

F I G . 3.2. Map showing the locations of the three necropolises of Marisa in relation to the Upper City. The Tomb of Apollophanes (here labelled ‘Tomb I’) is located in the eastern necropolis.

9 Tomb of Apollophanes and its architecture: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 15–28, 85–6; Jacobson 2007, 16–18; Erlich 2009, esp. 62–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

92

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 3.3. Plan of the Tomb of Apollophanes. With three large burial chambers (B, C, and D) containing thirty-five loculi (I–XXXV), and three smaller auxiliary burial chambers (XXXVI, XXXVII, and XXXVIII), it is the largest tomb so far excavated at Marisa.

of the necropolis not only on account of its painted decoration, but also because of its exceptional size: at c.17  20 m, it is the largest tomb so far discovered in Marisa.10 The tomb is T-shaped, with a burial chamber occupying each branch of the T (Fig. 3.3). These burial chambers were reached via a small, square antechamber (A), positioned at the meeting point of the three branches. The antechamber was itself accessed via a staircase on its western side. The burial chamber north of the antechamber (B) was rectangular in shape, with a vaulted ceiling and fifteen gabled loculi (burial niches) cut into its walls. The burial chamber south of the antechamber (C) was similar in size and shape, with thirteen gabled loculi. Somewhat larger was the rectangular burial chamber east of the anteroom (D), which lay on the same axis as the staircase leading to the tomb. 10

Kloner 2008, 173.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

93

This chamber had a flat roof, and originally contained thirteen gabled loculi: six cut into the north wall and seven cut into the south. Two loculi in the south wall were joined at a later stage, resulting in one larger loculus (Fig. 3.9), and reducing the total number to twelve. Below these loculi, benches ran along the north and south walls. At the rear, eastern end of the room, meanwhile, three steps provided access to a raised platform carved from the bedrock, which was sculpted to resemble a funerary couch (kline) (Fig. 3.7). This kline stood at the base of a gabled recess (E), which in turn served as a secondary vestibule providing access to small, auxiliary burial chambers on its north (XXXVIII), east (XXXVII), and south (XXXVI) sides. Since these auxiliary burial chambers did not contain loculi, they may have accommodated sarcophagi reserved for the most privileged individuals interred in the tomb. This hypothesis is supported by the funerary inscription mentioning Apollophanes, the chief of the Sidonians at Marisa, which was carved on the lintel of the doorway leading into the southern auxiliary chamber (XXXVI). Excavations in the tomb uncovered a series of thirty-five funerary inscriptions written in Greek, twenty-six carved and nine painted.11 Peters and Thiersch studied the prosopography of these inscriptions, identifying familial relationships and establishing a relative chronology of burials.12 They concluded that the names of the first generation—including Sesmaios, Apollophanes’s father—are Semitic, whereas those of the second generation—including Apollophanes himself—are Greek. This transition surely reflects the impact of Hellenism upon the colonial Sidonian population, much like the Greek language used for the inscriptions themselves. By contrast, some names of the later generations are Idumaean, including several that incorporate the theophorous prefix ‘Qos’.13 It is possible that this second transition attests to the assimilation of the hellenized Sidonian colonists with the local Edomite population.14 We might usefully compare an inscribed ceramic sherd excavated elsewhere in Marisa, which records a marriage contract in 176 BC between one Arisnoë, presumably a member of a hellenized Sidonian family, and a local man named QWSRM.15 Of the thirty-five funerary inscriptions from the tomb, six are particularly important for our appreciation of the chronology of the structure, since they record absolute or relative dates. Three of these dates refer to the Seleukid era (here designated ‘SE’),16 which began with Seleukos I Nikator’s reconquest of Babylon in 312/311 BC:

11

Inscriptions: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 37–63; Gera 2017. Familial relationships: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 62. 13 Good examples are the inscription honouring Qosnatanos (Peters and Thiersch 1905, 44–5 no. 9) and the inscription honouring Qosados (?) (Peters and Thiersch 1905, 46–7 no. 13). 14 15 Suggested by Jacobson 2007, 17. For this marriage contract, see Kloner 1997, 31. 16 Recognized already by Peters and Thiersch 1905, 77. 12

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

94 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 • An inscription painted directly on the animal frieze on the south wall of Chamber D records the interment of Ammonios son of Zab[ . . . ] in the month Dion in the year 171 (ΑΟΡ) SE. This corresponds to 142 BC.17 • An inscription painted directly on the animal frieze on the north wall of Chamber D records the burial of Apollodoros son of Zabbaios in the month Panemos in a year designated by the Seleukid era. The year has been read variously as 117 (ΙΖΡ) SE, corresponding to 196 BC; as 160 (ΞΡ) SE, corresponding to 153 BC; as 107 (ΖΡ) SE, corresponding to 205 BC; and as 171 (ΑΟΡ) SE, corresponding to 142/1 BC.18 • An inscription carved roughly on the lintel of the doorway leading into burial chamber XXXVII records the burial of Antagoras son of Zenodoros on the thirteenth day of Loos in the year 194 (ΔꟼΡ) SE. This corresponds to 119 BC.19 These inscriptions all belong to the period of Seleukid hegemony in Marisa, which began with Antiochos III’s victory over Ptolemy V at the Battle of Paneion in 200 BC and ended with the Hasmonean conquest of the city in 112 BC.20 Since the inscriptions commemorating Ammonios son of Zab[ . . . ] and Apollodoros son of Zabbaios were clearly not part of the original conception the animal frieze, the dates in these texts supply a terminus ante quem for the painting itself. Three further inscriptions found in the tomb employ a different dating system altogether: • An inscription painted directly on the animal frieze on the south wall of Chamber D records the interment of Heliodoros in ‘Year 1’ Α).21 This text overlaid two earlier carved inscriptions: one honouring a [ . . . ]maios;22 the other commemorating Alexandros son of Glaukon.23 • An inscription painted directly on the animal frieze on the south wall of Chamber D records the burial of Sabo, daughter of Qosnatanos, in the month Dysnos in ‘Year 2’ (Β).24 17

Ammonios inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 55–6 no. 30; Gera 2017, 209–11. Thiersch read the year as 117 SE, while Peters preferred 160 SE: see Peters and Thiersch 1905, 54–5 no. 29 (with Peters’s reading in the footnote). M. J. Lagrange, one of the three Domenican clergymen who visited the tomb, read the year as 107 SE: Lagrange 1902, 503–4. Recently, Dov Gera has argued for 171 SE: Gera 2017, 207–11. 19 Antagoras inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 49–50 no. 19. 20 Battle of Paneion: Polybios 16.8–19, 22a, with a synopsis in Hölbl 2001, 136–7. Hasmonean conquest: Josephos, Jewish War 1.63; Antiquities 13.257. 21 Heliodoros inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 53 no. 27; Gera 2017, 212–14. 22 [ . . . ]maios inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 40 no. 2; Gera 2017, 214. 23 Alexandros inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 47–8 no. 15; Gera 2017, 214, 220 n.15. 24 Sabo inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 54 no. 28; Gera 2017, 215–16. 18

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

95

• A carved inscription from Chamber B records the interment of Babata (or Babatas), daughter of Qosnatanos the son of Ammoios, on the twelfth day of Ab in ‘Year 5’ (Ε).25 These three inscriptions document a dating system spanning just five years. The same system recurs in two further tombs excavated in Marisa: two inscriptions from Tomb E VIII are dated to ‘Year 1’ (Α) and ‘Year 2’ (Β) respectively;26 and an as yet unpublished inscription from Tomb 500 is dated to ‘Year 7’ (Ζ), extending the chronological range of the system by two years.27 While this seven-year range suggests that the era in question was short-lived, its start date and nature remain controversial. It is often held that this dating system refers to the regnal years of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, whose control of the region lasted from his succession in 204 until the defeat at Paneion in 200 BC.28 But there are difficulties with this interpretation: notably, the new inscription from Tomb 500 referring to ‘Year 7’ (Ζ), which is difficult to reconcile with Epiphanes’s five-year period of hegemony in Marisa.29 It may also be significant that the painted inscription commemorating Heliodoros in ‘Year 1’ (Α) covered two earlier inscriptions as we have seen. We should probably envisage a gap between the carving of the earlier inscriptions and the painting of the Heliodoros inscription, a circumstance that may suit a later chronology for the dating system better than an earlier, Ptolemaic one.30 Some studies have indeed favoured a later chronology.31 Most recently, Dov Gera has argued that the dating system pertains to a local era in Marisa inaugurated by Aulus Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria from 57 to 54 BC.32 The key evidence is supplied by autonomous coins issued by Marisa in these years, some of which carry the dates ‘Year 2’ (Β) and ‘Year 3’ (Γ) in conjunction with legends referring to Gabinius (ΓΑ/ΓΑΒΙ).33 These coins suggest that a new local era was initiated in Marisa soon after Gabinius’s arrival in 57 BC, which might have lasted until the town was sacked by the Parthians in 40 BC. On this reading, the 25 Babatas inscription: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 45–6 no. 11 (mistakenly assuming that Babatas was a man); Gera 2017, 218, 221 n. 24. 26 27 Oren and Rappaport 1984, 133–5. Kloner 2008, 176. 28 For this interpretation, see Oren and Rappaport 1984, 148–9. 29 Note, however, that the final Ptolemaic withdrawal from the region did not take place until 198 BC: see Gera 2017, 221 n. 23 for this point. 30 Observed already by Gera 2017, 213–14. 31 See, notably, Peters and Thiersch 1905, 76–80, and especially 80 n., arguing for a local era in Marisa ‘about the birth of Christ, if not earlier’. For criticism of this interpretation, see Oren and Rappaport 1984, 148. 32 Gera 2017, esp. 216–20. Josephos documents the rebuilding and repopulation of Marisa by Aulus Gabinius: see Jewish War 1.165–6; Antiquities 14.87–8. 33 Numismatic evidence: Qedar 1992–3; Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 2004.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

96

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

inscriptions from the Tomb of Apollophanes likewise refer to this local era, with ‘Year 1’ (Α) corresponding to 57/56 BC, ‘Year 2’ (Β) corresponding to 56/55 BC, and ‘Year 5’ (Ε) corresponding to 53/52 BC. In this case, our only secure epigraphic terminus ante quem for the tomb would be the inscription commemorating Ammonios son of Zab[ . . . ], dated to 142 BC. Clearly the tomb was constructed prior to this date: but how long before remains an important question. The only other firm chronological evidence is supplied by the handful of movable objects recovered from the tomb.34 Three stamped handles belonging to Rhodian amphorae were found in Chamber C, which can be dated to c.198–196, c.169–163 and c.132–131 BC respectively, according to the chronological framework developed by Gerald Finkielsztejn.35 The excavators also found a moulded lamp of unglazed clay in front of the kline in Chamber D, dated between the last quarter of the third century and the first half of the second century.36 These finds push the tomb’s terminus post quem back to around the turn of the second century. Given this terminus, we should recall here that the Apollophanes inscription states explicitly that the ‘the chief of the Sidonians at Marisa’ lived for seventy-four years.37 Since Apollophanes was surely one of the first individuals buried in the tomb, we can be sure that the bulk of his life fell in the third century. There are in fact good reasons to suppose that the original construction of the tomb should be placed in the third century. Discounting for now the painted animal frieze—which, we shall see, suggests strong cultural and artistic influences from third-century Alexandria—the most relevant chronological evidence is supplied by other Marisan tombs that have been excavated more systematically than the Tomb of Apollophanes. Several of these yielded ceramic and other portable finds dating back to the third century, suggesting that monumental rock-cut tombs of this kind were indeed constructed at this time.38 Particularly instructive is Tomb T561, likewise located in the eastern necropolis of the city, which is the first tomb so far discovered in Marisa not to have been looted by grave robbers.39 Excavations in this tomb yielded ten pieces of pottery that permitted the structure to be dated to the first half of the third century with confidence.

Peters and Thiersch 1905, 96–7. In addition to the movable finds discussed here, the excavators also recovered ‘Sherds of pottery of two sorts . . . namely, fragments of large, pointed amphorae without mouldings, and . . . small, slender flasks of a grayish clay, also without mouldings, and with the wellknown bulge in the middle of the belly of the bowl.’ 35 Finkielsztejn 2001, 192 Table 19, 195 Table 21; Jacobson 2007, 18. 36 Jacobson 2007, 17, citing the classification of oil lamps in Howland 1958. 37 For a recent analysis of the letter forms of this inscription, see Gera 2017, 218–19. 38 39 On these tombs and their portable finds, see Oren and Rappaport 1984. Kloner 2008, 179. 34

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

97

MARISA IN THE THIRD CENTURY BC

Recognizing that the Tomb of Apollophanes was probably constructed during the third century has important implications for our understanding of the political and cultural milieu in which it was conceived. It suggests that the tomb was designed during the period of Ptolemaic hegemony in Marisa, which—we have noted— came to an end in 200 BC. A range of archaeological and textual sources attest to the vitality of Marisa during this period, and it will be useful to present some of them here. Excavations of the Upper City in 1900 identified a series of Hellenistic strata above an Iron Age II stratum, at least one of which belonged to the Ptolemaic city.40 They also unearthed two statue bases commemorating Ptolemaic royal women. The first is a limestone block with a curved profile, which carries a oneword inscription reading ΒΕΡΕΝΙ[ . . . ] (Bereni[ . . . ]), surely once ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗ (Berenikē ), a name given to Ptolemaic queens and princesses during the third century.41 The second inscription, meanwhile, is a large fragment of a cylindrical statue base broken across its bottom and left-hand sides.42 Soon after its discovery, the inscription was restored by M. Clermont-Ganneau as follows: [Βασίλισσαν Ἀρσ]ινόην, μεγάλην [Θεὰν ? Φιλοπάτ](ο)ρα τὴν ἐγ Βασιλέως [Πτολεμαίου καὶ] Βασιλίσσης [Βερενί-] [κης, ΘεHν Εὐεργέτων . . . . .] [The queen Ars]inoe great [goddess (?) Philopat]or, daughter of the king [Ptolemy and] of the queen [Berenikē , the gods Euergetes]

This reading has produced a consensus that the base originally supported a statue of Arsinoë III Philopator, the sister-wife of Ptolemy IV Philopator (222/ 1–204 BC).43 Certainly the use of the accusative Ars]inoē n suggests that the text honoured a living queen rather than a posthumously deified one, circumstances that better suit Arsinoë III than the only other credible candidate, Arisnoë II, the sister-wife of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. Clermont-Ganneau’s further suggestion that the statue was erected to celebrate the Ptolemaic victory at the Battle of Raphia in 217 BC has been widely adopted, and has even led some to assume that

40 Bliss and Macalister 1902, 52–8. The finds included a series of architectural elements that had been reused in second-century BC—that is, Seleukid-era—construction projects, indicating the existence of earlier monumental buildings, plausibly of Ptolemaic date. For the possibility of Ptolemaic monumental buildings at Marisa, see Kloner 1999a, 190; 2003, 9. 41 42 Bliss and Macalister 1902, 70. On this base, see Bliss and Macalister 1902, 68–9. 43 For this view, see e.g. Kloner 1999a, 190; 2003, 9–10; Jacobson 2007, 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

98

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

the Berenike inscription should be associated with this event.44 In truth, however, these historical circumstances remain entirely hypothetical. Further evidence for the close relationship between Marisa and Alexandria during the third century is provided by numismatic finds from the site.45 Indeed, of 950 ancient coins so far excavated in Marisa, 135 are Ptolemaic, 116 of which were minted between the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. It is striking that 78 of these 116 coins—more than two-thirds—are dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. This suggests that Marisa enjoyed commercial prosperity during the reign of this king, and that it was integrated into the economic infrastructure of his kingdom. We learn more about the relationship between Marisa and the Ptolemaic administration during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos from papyri in the Zenon archive. These papyri document the correspondence between Apollonios, a financial official (dioikē tē s) under Philadelphos, and Zenon of Kaunos, who managed the estate owned by Apollonios at Philadelphia in the eastern Fayyum.46 The archive reveals that Zenon travelled to Syria and Palestine on behalf of Apollonios from c.260/59 to 258/7 BC, where he was charged with assessing the resources and revenues of these territories for tax purposes. Several papyri refer directly to Marisa, and reveal that the city was engaged in intensive trade with Egypt and the cities of the Levantine coast at this time. Particularly notable is a papyrus recording the correspondence between Zenon and officials at Marisa concerning five young slaves that he had purchased in the city who had escaped and returned to their former masters.47 This picture of Marisa as a flourishing economic centre is supported by archaeological finds from the Lower City, which indicate that oil-processing and pigeon-raising were undertaken on a commercial scale.48 A final point of contact between Marisa and Alexandria is supplied by the rockcut tombs excavated at both sites. To date, some fifty-five rock-hewn tombs have been found in the three necropolises surrounding Hellenistic Marisa, located to the east, the south-west, and the north of the city (Fig. 3.2).49 Typically, these tombs consist of a stepped dromos leading to a subterranean antechamber, from which one to three burial chambers could be accessed (as in Fig. 3.3).50 These burial chambers usually contain some combination of benches, gabled loculi, and

44

Suggested by Kloner 1999a, 190; 2003, 9–10. Preliminary presentation of numismatic data: Kloner 2008, 171–2, concluding that ‘the main floruit of the city was under Ptolemy II’. 46 47 P.Cair.Zen. I 59006, 59015v, 59537. P.Cair.Zen. I 59015v. Analysis: e.g. Magness 2012, 84. 48 For an overview of the archaeology of the Lower City, see Kloner 2001, 103–31. 49 Tombs and necropolises: Oren and Rappaport 1984. 50 Brief discussion of Marisan tomb typology: Erlich 2009, 61–2. 45

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

99

access points to auxiliary burial spaces. In Alexandria, meanwhile, burial chambers were likewise arranged around the space first accessed by visitors to the tomb, and loculi were also used for the interment of the deceased.51 The only substantive difference is supplied by the nature of the entrance space: in Alexandria, open-air forecourts accessed by descending flights of stairs were preferred to subterranean antechambers accessed by stepped dromoi. Given these similarities, it is possible that burial practices in Alexandria helped to shape the Marisan tomb type during the early Hellenistic period,52 even if local Phoenician influences can also be discerned.53 From a chronological standpoint, it is interesting that the Alexandrian tomb most similar in plan to the Tomb of Apollophanes, Hypogeion A at Shatby,54 is dated between 280 and 250 BC.55

THE PAINTED DECORATION OF THE TOMB

With this historical context in mind, we may turn to analyse the decoration of the Tomb of Apollophanes. This decoration was concentrated in the central burial chamber (D) and its adjoining spaces.56 In Antechamber A, the doorway leading into Chamber D was flanked by a small altar to the left and by the fragmentary remains of ‘bust’ on a plinth to the right, both carved from the natural bedrock (Fig. 3.4). The ‘bust’ was poorly preserved at the time of discovery, although the excavators’ reference to a fragment ‘resembling the folds of the cloth and the cord of an Egyptian headdress’ is interesting given the connections between Marisa and Ptolemaic Egypt sketched in the previous section.57 Two cockerels were painted on the rear (east) wall of the antechamber, one above the altar (Fig. 3.5) and the other above the ‘bust’. A further painting adorned the inner face of the right jamb of the doorway leading into Chamber D, this time depicting Kerberos, the three-headed guardian of the underworld (Fig. 3.6). A series of graffiti was also inscribed on the jambs, no doubt after the execution of the painted decoration. Particularly interesting is a graffito incised on the inner face of the left-hand jamb, which seems to depict an 51

Alexandrian hypogeia: Venit 2002; 2016, 50–86. Possibility of Alexandrian influence: e.g. Adriani 1936, 70 n. 5, 76–7 n. 5; Oren and Rappaport 1984, 150; Venit 2002, 15–16; Kloner and Zissu 2007, 175–6; Erlich 2009, 61–2. 53 Possibility of Phoenician influence: Tal 2003. 54 For the similarities between the tombs, see Kloner 1999b, 230; 2008, 177; Jacobson 2007, 48. 55 For Hypogeion A at Shatby and its chronology, see Venit 2002, 63–4. Note, however, that Venit (2002, 175) favours a second-century BC date for the Tomb of Apollophanes on the basis of ‘comparison with Alexandrian tombs most similar in plan’, specifically the tombs at Mafrousa and Sidi Gabr. 56 The fullest accounts of the decoration of the Tomb of Apollophanes are: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 15–23, 85–91; Jacobson 2007, 22–5; Erlich 2009, 63–9, 75–7. 57 Peters and Thiersch 1905, 19. For a speculative identification as a bust of Isis, see Erlich 2009, 63 n. 74. 52

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 3.4. Photograph of the tomb interior, taken from Chamber B facing south towards Antechamber A and Chamber C. The rock-hewn altar and bust flanking the doorway leading into Chamber D are clearly visible. F I G . 3.5. A cockerel was painted on the wall directly above the altar in Antechamber A. While the chronology of this and the other tomb paintings cannot be determined with certainty, a thirdcentury BC date is likely. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

101

F I G . 3.6. Kerberos was painted on the inner face of the right-hand door jamb leading from Antechamber A into Chamber D. Of all the motifs depicted in the tomb, this has the clearest eschatological significance. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph.

altar with a bust resting on top. It is possible that this sketch was inspired by the rock-hewn decoration already described. Chamber D itself was lavishly decorated (Fig. 3.7). While much of the rear (east) wall of the chamber was taken up by the gabled opening into Vestibule E, the remaining space was covered with paintings. Red podia were depicted to either side of the gable, with round tripod tables standing on top, themselves supporting a pair of thymiateria (incense burners) with zigzagging flames emanating from their mouths. Above these thymiateria was a garland that was both incised and painted, which also continued along the side walls of the chamber. Two eagles were painted as though perching on top of the garland, their wings outstretched and their heads turned back towards the gable. On the sidewalls of the chamber, meanwhile, the narrow stretches of wall separating the gabled loculi were painted to resemble fluted Ionic pilasters, which therefore appeared to support the gabled ‘entablature’ directly above. Wreaths were painted in the spaces immediately above the pilaster capitals, as though hanging from the walls of the room. Above the gables, the animal frieze extended along the length of each wall. The decoration of the tomb also extended to Vestibule E, and specifically to its rear, eastern wall, which was ‘framed’ by the rear wall of the chamber

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

102

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 3.7. This coloured lithograph shows the view into Chamber D from its entrance, facing east towards Vestibule E. The painted decoration includes a pair of heraldic eagles, incense burners (thymiateria) standing on tables, and two Panathenaic amphorae. The animal frieze can be made out above the loculi cut into the side walls of the chamber. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph.

proper (Fig. 3.7). Here the entranceway leading into the auxiliary burial chamber XXXVII was fashioned as a pedimented Doric naiskos in relief, again carved directly from the bedrock. Red podia were painted to either side of the naiskos, this time supporting a pair of large black vessels with narrow necks, rounded bodies, flaring feet, conical lids with decorative finials, and vertical handles with ribbons (taeniae) attached. The example to the viewer’s left had a red band around its body and a red lid, while the example to the viewer’s right had a white band around its body and a white lid. Both have been identified as Panathenaic amphorae.58 Generally speaking, previous studies have chosen to interpret the painted decoration of the tomb in eschatological terms: that is, as a series of motifs that carried symbolic meanings expressing a belief in the afterlife. Hence the eagles 58

For this identification, see e.g. Peters and Thiersch 1905, 23; Jacobson 2007, 23–4. For similar amphorae depicted in the Tomb of the Musicians (Tomb II) at Marisa, see Jacobson 2007, 36. For the alternative view that these vessels represent loutrophoroi, see Kloner 2010, 55–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

103

have been thought ‘to represent symbolically the apotheosis of the soul’;59 the Panathenaic amphorae have been described as ‘a symbolic motif representing victory over death’;60 the garland has likewise been interpreted as a symbol of ‘victory over death’;61 and the pair of cockerels have been thought to connote the triumph of day over night, and, by implication, of life over death.62 We can hardly doubt that the painting of Kerberos on the doorway leading into Chamber D carried an overtly eschatological message, and it also seems likely that the rock-cut altar in Antechamber A and the thymiateria painted in Chamber D alluded to mortuary practice, whether real or imagined. But the notion that the other decorative elements would have been understood in eschatological terms is more open to debate. Indeed, it is significant that many of these elements have close parallels in tombs excavated elsewhere in the Hellenistic world: notably the Doric naiskos, the kline, the garland, and the wreaths. This suggests that they were included in the Tomb of Apollophanes because they were commonly used to validate the sacral, celebratory atmosphere of tombs during this period. In other words, they were an effective way of positioning the tomb within a more widespread funerary koine. Eschatological readings of the motifs with fewer parallels in the funerary record are similarly difficult to substantiate. Taking the eagles, for example, there is no firm evidence that these birds were employed as emblems of apotheosis in funerary art prior to the Roman Imperial period. Rather, the examples painted in the Tomb of Apollophanes are comprehensible in their own terms: as birds renowned for their exceptional power, a characterization enhanced during the Hellenistic period by their depiction on Ptolemaic coinage as an avatar for Zeus, the divine protector of the kingdom and dynasty (see Fig. 6.22).63 Similar considerations apply to the Panathenaic amphorae, which can likewise be understood in their own terms: as highly prized storage vessels that for centuries had been awarded to great men in the Greek world as trophies for athletic and cultural triumphs. Perhaps, then, the examples in the tomb were conceived simply as emblems of prosperity and success, much like the mosaics depicting Panathenaic amphorae laid in the houses of wealthy merchants on Hellenistic Delos.64 It is striking that so many of these motifs have parallels in Hellenistic contexts and/or can be understood in Greek terms. This suggests that the tomb patrons 59

Jacobson 2007, 25. Comparable interpretations: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 88–90; Rozenberg 2001, 314; Erlich 2009, 66. 60 61 62 Erlich 2009, 66. Erlich 2009, 65. Rozenberg 2001, 313–14; Erlich 2009, 64. 63 For a comprehensive treatment of Ptolemaic coinage, see now Lorber 2018. For the view that the eagles painted in the Tomb of Apollophanes are versions of the open-winged eagles depicted on the coins of Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphos, see Peters and Thiersch 1905, 93–4; Rozenberg 2001, 314, 318 n. 11; Erlich 2009, 66. 64 Westgate 2000b, 404–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

104

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

were conversant with the cultural and artistic currents of the Hellenistic world. It is with this cultural orientation in mind that we should turn to consider the painted animal frieze, which was surely the principal focus of the tomb’s decorative programme.

THE ANIMAL FRIEZE

As we have already noted, the painted frieze occupied the space immediately above the gabled loculi on the north and south walls of Chamber D.65 It was c.6.40 m long on the north wall, c.7.50 m long on the south wall, and c.0.35 m high.66 Like the rest of the painted decoration, the frieze was executed in the secco technique, with tempera-based paints applied directly to the smooth surface of the bedrock.67 The frieze depicted a continuous sequence of animals, rendered in profile and accompanied by identifying labels in Greek, together with a small number of human figures and landscape elements. Descriptions of the painting tend to begin with the westernmost scene on the south frieze, before proceeding along the entire length of this wall, and then continuing with the easternmost scene on the north frieze, before proceeding back towards the entrance of the chamber and finishing with the westernmost scene on this wall. This order is conditioned by the orientation of the animals themselves, since the majority on the south side face the rear (eastern) end of the chamber, while the majority on the north side face the front (western) end, forming something of a continuous procession. Whether ancient viewers would have viewed the frieze in this order is difficult to tell, especially since the narrow proportions of the chamber meant that it would have been impossible to view the composition on either wall as a single unit.68 Still, the following description of the frieze proceeds according to the traditional order. Entering Chamber D from Antechamber A, and looking up and to the right, viewers would have first encountered the westernmost scene of the south frieze, depicting a leopardess hunt (Fig. 3.8).69 At the far right of the scene was 65

The fullest accounts of the painted animal frieze are Peters and Thiersch 1905, 23–8, 91–2; Macalister 1906; Meyboom 1995, 44–8; Jacobson 2007, 25–36; Erlich 2009, 69–75. 66 Measurements: Jacobson 2007, 22. 67 Technique: Erlich 2009, 62–3. Compare Jacobson 2007, 40, stating that ‘[t]he method of execution follows standard Greek practice used in painting and vase decoration alike’. For a technical analysis of wall painting fragments retrieved elsewhere in Marisa, see Kakoulli 2009, 109–13. 68 For this point see Erlich 2009, 70, suggesting also that the ‘right-to-left progression reflects a Semitic conception’. 69 Leopard hunts were sometimes depicted in other media in Hellenistic times. Compare (1) a glass bowl with gold inlay found at Tresilico in Italy: Harden 1968, 62–3; Picón and Hemingway 2016, 118 cat. 20; (2) a painted amphora from Kültepe in Cappadocia, showing a mounted rider wearing breeches pointing a spear at a leopard: Miller 2014, 196.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

105

F I G . 3.8. A hunting scene was painted at the west end of the south frieze, depicting a rider accompanied by dogs and a trumpeter attacking a leopardess. Several iconographic features suggest that the hunt may take place in a local Levantine context. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

a wreathed trumpeter, wearing a chiton girdled at the waist, a red chlamys over his right shoulder, a scabbard at his left hip, and white sandals. He was shown blowing a long trumpet (salpinx), recalling the prō ratē s standing on the bow of the bireme in Section 17 of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.9) and the stele of Antigenes from Demetrias (Fig. 2.14).70 To the left was a mounted hunter, shown hurling a spear at the leopardess with his raised right hand while holding the harness of his horse with his left. He wore a short chiton girdled at the waist, a chlamys over his right shoulder billowing behind, red breeches, and strapped sandals. His rearing white horse was equipped with a harness and an ornate saddlecloth. Facing them was a lactating leopardess shown standing on her rear legs, with the spots of her coat rendered in red and black. An arrow was already lodged in her breast, with blood pouring from the wound. A lean hunting dog was shown attacking her from

70 Nile Mosaic trumpeter: Meyboom 1995, 40. Compare also the trumpeter depicted in the Tomb of the Musicians (Tomb II) at Marisa: Jacobson 2007, 38.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/2021, SPi

106

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

behind, while a second dog sprang forward adjacent to the horse and rider. The scene was framed on its left-hand side by an impressionistic-looking tree painted in black, which has been identified as a palm.71 Above the mounted hunter was a painted inscription, read by the excavators as ΙΠΠΟϹ ΛΙΒΑΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΙΠΠΙΚΟΥ (hippos libanou tou hippikou), and translated as ‘horse from Lebanon of the horseman’.72 Most commentators have since dispensed with this translation, interpreting libanou not as a geographical designator, but as the genitive form of Libanos,73 a Greek personal name of Semitic origin that appears some twenty-two times in the published editions of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names.74 According to this interpretation, the inscription should be read as ‘horse of Libanos the horseman’.75 It would be interesting to know, of course, whether an individual named Libanos was ever interred in the tomb. Although none of the surviving inscriptions contains this name, it is possible that an inscription mentioning Libanos was replaced, erased, or obscured sometime during the tomb’s lifespan. In any case, a second inscription was painted above the leopardess, and certainly read ΠΑΡΔΑΛΟϹ (pardalos), meaning leopard or panther. To the left of the palm tree followed a sequence of animals (Figs. 3.9–3.12), the majority of which faced the rear (eastern) side of the chamber, as we have noted. From the viewer’s right to left, the sequence of animals was as follows:76 • A lion with a thick mane, identified erroneously as a panther by its accompanying inscription, ΠΑΝΘΗΡΟϹ (panthē ros) (Fig. 3.9).77 • A creature much damaged by the breaching of two loculi below, perhaps originally a large feline (Fig. 3.9). • A violent encounter between a horned bull and a coiled serpent, the latter accompanied by a label reading ΔΡΑΚ[ Ν] (drakō n) (Figs. 3.9 and 3.10).78 The serpent will emerge victorious, judging by the collapsing front legs of the bull and the blood gushing from its mouth.

ω

71

72 Jacobson 2007, 27. Peters and Thiersch 1905, 57. Reading as ‘Libanos’: Rostovtzeff 1941, 520; Meyboom 1995, 44; Jacobson 2007, 27; Gera 2017, 222 n. 4. 74 LGPN I (two entries), II (three entries), IIIA (five entries), IIIB (two entries), IV (one entry), VA (seven entries), VB (two entries), s.v. Λίβανος. 75 Or, ‘horse of Libanos the cavalry commander’, reading ΙΠΠΑΡΧΟΥ (hipparchou) in place of ΙΠΠΙΚΟΥ (hippikou): see Meyboom 1995, 44, 282 n. 4. 76 For a helpful table summarizing existing interpretations of the individual animals, see Erlich 2009, 82–5. 77 For this mislabelling, see now Adornato 2008a, 229–31, comparing the mislabelled leopard in a fifthcentury AD mosaic from Hawarté in Syria. 78 For this reading, see Macalister 1906. For an alternative reading as ΤΑΥΡΟϹ (tauros), see Peters and Thiersch 1905, 25. 73

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 3.9. To the left of the hunting scene was a lion labelled panthē ros, meaning ‘leopard’ or ‘panther’. The portion of the frieze immediately to the left of the lion was damaged by the breaching of two loculi. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

F I G . 3.10. On this portion of the south frieze we see a boar, a giraffe (labelled kamelopardalos), and a serpent attacking a bull (labelled tauros). The rough quality of execution leads us to wonder whether the artist(s) had ever seen these creatures in real life. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 3.11. As in the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, real and fantastical-looking animals were juxtaposed in the painted frieze. In this section a griffin (labelled grups) is positioned between an oryx (labelled oryx) and a boar. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

F I G . 3.12. At the east end of the south frieze, the artist(s) painted a mahout, an elephant (labelled elephas), and a rhinoceros (labelled rhinokerō s). A label reading Aithiopia was added above the mahout and can still be made out in Chalil Raad’s photograph of this section. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

109

• A giraffe, perhaps originally accompanied by a label reading ΚΑΜΕΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΟϹ (kamelopardalos) (Fig. 3.10). • An unlabelled creature variously identified as a boar or a warthog (Fig. 3.10).79 • A griffin with its right forearm raised, labelled ΓΡΥΨ (grups) (Fig. 3.11). This was the only fantastical creature depicted on the south frieze. • An oryx, a type of antelope indigenous to arid parts of Africa and the Arabian peninsula, labelled ΟΡΥΞ (oryx) (Fig. 3.11). Immediately in front of this creature was a second palm tree. • A rhinoceros labelled ΡΙΝΟΚΕΡ Ϲ (rhinokerō s) (Fig. 3.12). • A saddled elephant labelled ΕΛΕΦΑϹ (elephas) led by a black mahout carrying an axe (Fig. 3.12). Two further human figures have also been identified in the scene. According to a recent study, ‘a rider too was painted, seated on the elephant’s neck just above the ear’.80 The excavators, meanwhile, discerned traces of a second, female figure immediately to the left of the mahout. In the space above the mahout was another painted inscription, reading ΑΙΘΙΟΠΙΑ (Aithiopia).

ω

The frieze continued on the northern side of Chamber D (Figs. 3.13–3.17), where the majority of creatures faced towards the entrance to the room. Starting from the rear side of the chamber, and moving from right (east) to left (west), the sequence of animals was as follows: • An unlabelled fish, characterized by its trunk, its tusks, and the feathers on its tail (Fig. 3.13). • Another unlabelled fish, characterized by the horn on its snout (Fig. 3.13). • A crocodile labelled ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟϹ (krokodilos) with an ibis labelled ΙΒΙϹ (ibis) perching on its back (Fig. 3.14). • An unlabelled creature probably representing a hippopotamus (Figs. 3.14 and 3.15). • A violent encounter between a wild ass and a serpent, the former accompanied by a label reading ΟΝΑΓΡΙΟϹ (onagrios) (Fig. 3.15). The serpent will emerge victorious, judging by the blood pouring from the neck of the ass. • A mammal variously identified as a wolf, a field rat, a lynx, and a hyena, accompanied by a fragmentary label reading ΙΥΙΛ (iuil) (Fig. 3.15).81 79

Boar: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 25; Jacobson 2007, 29. Warthog: Meyboom 1995, 47. Gera 2017, 214. 81 Wolf: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 27. Field rat: Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993, 955. Lynx: Rice 1983, 97. Hyena: Meyboom 1995, 45. Balanced discussion of these possibilities: Jacobson 2007, 34. 80

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

110

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 3.13. Chalil Raad’s photograph of the far east end of the north frieze, showing the pair of fantastical-looking fish. The specimen to the right has tusks and a trunk, while the specimen to the left has a snout terminating in a spike. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

• A horned creature identified as a rhinoceros or a tapir,82 accompanied by a fragmentary label reading [ . . . ]ΛΟΦ[ . . . ] ([ . . . ]loph[ . . . ]) or [ . . . ]ΛΟΥ[ . . . ] ([ . . . ]lou[ . . . ]) (Fig. 3.16).83 The rhinoceros identification seems more likely, since tapirs are mostly indigenous to Central and South America and South-East Asia. • A porcupine labelled ΥϹΤΡΙΞ (hystrix) (Fig. 3.16). • A lynx labelled ΛΥΝΞ (lunx), characterized by its long ears (Fig. 3.17). • A fantastical-looking creature of uncertain identity, combining a frontal, bearded, human-like head with a lion-like body in profile (Fig. 3.17). This creature was accompanied by a fragmentary label reading Η . . . Ϲ (ē . . . s)

82

Rhinoceros: Hammerstein 1980, 96; Meyboom 1995, 45; Rozenberg 2001, 318 n. 14. Tapir: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 27–8; Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993, 955. 83 Reading as [ . . . ]ΛΟΦ[ . . . ]: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 28. Reading as [ΑΙ]ΛΟΥ[ΡΟϹ] ([ai]lou[ros]): Macalister 1906.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 3.14. This section of the north frieze depicts an unlabelled hippopotamus standing in front of a crocodile (labelled krokodilos) with an ibis (labelled ibis) perching on its back. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

F I G . 3.15. The sequence of animals on the north frieze continues with an unidentified mammal followed by a wild ass (labelled onagrios) being attacked by a serpent. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 3.16. A porcupine (labelled hystrix) and a rhinoceros face each other on the north frieze, but do not interact in any meaningful way. Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

F I G . 3.17. At the far west end of the north frieze, the artist(s) depicted a fantastical-looking creature with a human-like head and a lion-like body, and a lynx (labelled lunx). Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa, coloured lithograph. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

113

or perhaps Η . . . Ξ (ē . . . x).84 Immediately to its left was a tree painted in a greyish hue, possibly an acacia.85 With the exception of the bull/serpent, wild ass/serpent, and crocodile/ibis groups, the individual animals are treated paratactically, and do not engage with each other in any meaningful way. This is surprising when we consider the recurring juxtaposition of ‘predators’ and ‘prey’ within the composition. We might contrast, in this respect, the fourth-century BC animal frieze from the Tomba François in Vulci in Italy, where the painted animals are engaged in vigorous action and interaction, some attacking their prey, others fleeing for dear life.86 The artificiality of the composition is further underscored by the animal representations themselves. Indeed, little attention is paid to relative scale, and many of the creatures are so unrealistic that it seems certain the artist(s) had never seen them in real life. Particularly noteworthy is the giraffe of the south frieze (Fig. 3.10). Its head is too large for its body, and sits on top of an implausibly slender neck; its hind legs are the same length as its forelegs, and so its hindquarters do not slope down towards its tail; and the schematized red and brown spots of its pelt seem far removed from the complex coat pattern of dark patches separated by lighter hair seen on real-life specimens (compare Fig. 2.26).87 We might also mention the rhinoceros depicted on the south frieze (Fig. 3.12), whose enormous head and bright red hide seem far detached from reality (compare Fig. 2.24). Comparable inaccuracies occur elsewhere, particularly on the north frieze, where the individual animals were depicted with even less attention to detail than their counterparts on the south.88 A good example is the lynx (Fig. 3.17), with its implausibly long ears, enormous eyes, and long face (compare Fig. 3.18).89 Given these inaccuracies, it might seem tempting to dismiss the frieze—and the decoration of the tomb more broadly—as the work of provincial painters with limited skill and only a basic grasp of their subject matter.90 The same conclusion could be reached on technical grounds, since the use of a restricted colour palette and the absence of chiaroscuro resulted in a two-dimensional composition whose

Reading as Η . . . Ϲ: Peters and Thiersch 1905, 28. Reading as Η . . . Ξ: Macalister 1906. Jacobson 2007, 35. 86 On the animal frieze of the Tomba François at Vulci, see Steingräber 1986, 377–80. 87 For these inaccuracies, see e.g. Adornato 2008a, 232–3. 88 This discrepancy between the north and south friezes is noted by Peters and Thiersch 1905, 28; Jacobson 2007, 39–40. 89 Jacobson 2007, 35 describes the appearance of the creature as ‘quite comical’. 90 See e.g. Peters and Thiersch 1905, 86, stating that ‘the choice of colours is a limited one, and the style does not rise above the level of provincial art’. 84 85

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

114

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 3.18. African lynx (Caracal caracal). The species’s distinctive tufted ears are elongated and exaggerated in the Marisa painting.

final effect has been compared to that of Greek vase painting.91 But it is perhaps more helpful to consider the relative quality of the frieze in the eyes of its original viewers: that is, the inhabitants of Hellenistic Marisa, including the Sidonian colonists who commissioned the tomb. The most relevant comparative evidence is supplied by the fifty or so other rock-cut tombs that have been excavated in the necropolises surrounding Marisa, of which only the neighbouring Tomb of the Musicians (Tomb II) yielded comparable painted decoration.92 In all likelihood, then, the frieze helped to define the Tomb of Apollophanes as an unusually sumptuous burial space in comparison to the graves of contemporaries. We should view the composition through this lens as we turn to analyse its iconography in more detail.

THE LEOPARDESS HUNT: ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE

The narrative aspect of the composition was largely confined to the hunt scene at the west end of the south frieze, depicting a rider and his dogs attacking a leopardess (Fig. 3.8). This scene recalls other Hellenistic representations of hunts featuring riders, several of which were commissioned by members of the Macedonian aristocracy. Best known is the painted frieze from the façade of Tomb II at Vergina, which depicts ten hunters—three on horseback—pursuing deer, a boar, a lion, and a bear in a landscape setting.93 Other comparanda include the ‘Alexander mosaic’ from Palermo mentioned in Chapter 2; the Alexander Sarcophagus at Sidon, which incorporated two separate hunting scenes (Fig. 3.20);94 and a 91 92 93

Technical analysis: Jacobson 2007, 39–41. For the painted decoration of the Tomb of the Musicians (Tomb II), see Jacobson 2007, 37–8. 94 Andronikos 1984, 106–19; Franks 2012. Von Graeve 1970; Houser 1998.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

115

marble relief from Messene in the Louvre, which was perhaps modelled on the famous Krateros group at Delphi.95 While the hunter at Marisa loosely recalls the horsemen depicted in these compositions, a closer parallel is supplied by a painted frieze that decorated the rounded vault of a chamber tomb from Alexandrovo in Thrace, dated to the late fourth or early third century BC.96 This frieze depicts eight hunters—some mounted, some on foot—pursuing their quarry and accompanied by a pack of hunting dogs.97 One of the huntsmen closely resembles the Marisa horseman in dress and posture (Fig. 3.19). He, too, is shown riding a rearing horse, and holds the spear that he will hurl in his raised right hand. Other points of contact include the red trousers worn by both men, the ornate saddlecloths upon which they sit, and the position of their hunting dogs alongside their horses.

F I G . 3.19. This detail of the painted frieze from a tomb in Alexandrovo (Thrace) shows a mounted hunter wearing red breeches attacking a wild boar. There are interesting iconographic correspondences between this figure and the hunter in the Marisa frieze. Late fourth or early third century BC. Frieze H: 38 cm.

95

Louvre relief: Palagia 1998, 27–8; 2000, 202–4. Krateros group at Delphi: Plutarch, Life of Alexander 40.4; Pliny, Natural History 34.63–4. 96 For this parallel, see Erlich 2009, 72; Mielsch 2009, 366. 97 Alexandrovo frieze: Kitov 2001; 2002; Kitanov 2014. See also Valeva 2015 for an overview of painted tombs from Hellenistic Thrace.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

116 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 At one level, we might conclude that the hunting scenes at Marisa and Alexandrovo were informed by the wider popularity of such compositions in Hellenistic visual culture. By adopting this iconography, the tomb patrons were characterized as well-connected men who were au fait with the latest artistic and cultural trends in the leading centres of the Hellenistic world. It is striking, however, that the Marisa scene also incorporates a series of elements that seem to evoke the Sidonian ethnicity of the deceased and/or the tomb’s local Levantine context.98 One of these is the ‘Libanos’ label accompanying the hunter on horseback, which—we have seen—probably refers to a Greek personal name of Semitic origin. But two further iconographic features also suggest a local frame of reference. The first is the leopardess being pursued by the horseman. This choice of quarry presents a contrast to Macedonian hunting scenes, in which the lion, the royal animal par excellence, was most often represented.99 Rather, our closest parallels are supplied by sarcophagi excavated in the royal cemetery of Sidon: the mid-fourth-century Satrap Sarcophagus, which depicted the satrap and a member of his entourage aiming their spears at a cowering leopard;100 and the late fourth-century Alexander Sarcophagus, which includes a scene showing a leopard being speared by a group of Sidonian hunters (Fig. 3.20). Clearly the leopard was among the most prestigious quarry in the Levant, a conclusion supported by the leopard reliefs decorating Qasr al-Abd, a second-century Toubiad stronghold at ‘Iraq el-Amir.101 Also local in conception are the red trousers (anaxurides) worn by the horseman in the Marisa frieze. Such trousers were alien to traditional Graeco-Macedonian costume,102 but again find parallels on the Sidonian royal sarcophagi (as in Fig. 3.20). Viewed together, then, the Libanos label, the wounded leopardess, and the horseman’s trousers suggest that the scene alluded to a hunt taking place in a Levantine context. It has even been suggested recently that the scene refers to a hunt in the Achaemenid paradeisos (game park) at Sidon.103 While we should probably avoid interpreting the scene in such specific terms, the notion of a local connection is further supported by a selection of epigraphic and textual sources that attest to the popularity of hunting in the Levant during the Hellenistic period.104 These include a decree concerning Jerusalem and its temple issued by Antiochos III in c.198 BC, which indicates that animal skins were widely traded in the region;105 a passage from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a set of On these ‘Sidonian’ elements, see Erlich 2009, 71–2; Held 2020, 215–19. 100 Lions in Macedonian hunting scenes: Franks 2010, 36–41. Pasinli 1996, 79. 101 On Qasr al-Abd at ‘Iraq el-Amir, see e.g. Queyrel 1991, 209–51. 102 Depictions of Persians wearing anaxurides on fifth-century vase paintings: Castriota 2005. 103 104 Held 2020, 215–19. These sources are collected by Jacobson 2007, 44. 105 Josephos, Antiquities 12.146. Compare PSI VI 678, a scrap of papyrus from the Zenon archive, which may attest to the purchase of leopard skins in the Levant during the third century BC. 98 99

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

117

F I G . 3.20. The so-called Alexander Sarcophagus from the royal necropolis at Sidon is decorated with two hunting reliefs. On the ‘short hunting frieze’, pictured here, a group of four Sidonian hunters attack a leopard or panther. Late fourth century BC. Marble. Frieze H: 69 cm. Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 370.

apocryphal scriptures associated with the Bible, which describes the joys of hunting in Judaea;106 and an anecdote recorded by Josephos, which reveals that Herod the Great (37–4 BC), a Roman client king in Judaea, once hunted some forty beasts in a single day.107

AETHIOPIA, EGYPT, AND THE ANIMAL FRIEZE

The hunting scene was separated from the rest of the animal frieze by a single palm tree, and there are good reasons to suppose that these parts of the composition remained conceptually distinct.108 Indeed, there are no hunters depicted in the 106

107 The Testament of Judah 2:3–7. Josephos, Jewish War 1.429. Previous studies have sometimes entertained the possibility that these parts of the composition should be viewed together, and that the entire composition depicts a single hunt: see e.g. Versluys 1994; Meyboom 1995, 44–9; Erlich 2009, 72–3. 108

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

118

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

rest of the frieze, and the remaining animals show no sign of being disturbed by a hunting party. In the case of the north frieze, a hunting narrative is surely precluded by the pair of fantastical-looking fish (Fig. 3.13). Whereas the hunting scene evoked the tomb’s local Levantine context, the ΑΙΘΙΟΠΙΑ (Aithiopia) label on the south wall suggests that this region was central to the conception of the rest of the composition.109 A series of quintessentially Aethiopian animals was indeed depicted on the frieze, notably the elephant (Fig. 3.12), the giraffe (Fig. 3.10), and the pair of rhinoceroses (Figs. 3.12 and 3.16). These Aethiopian creatures were accompanied by several species indigenous to Egypt and North Africa, specifically the crocodile and ibis (Fig. 3.14), the hippopotamus (Fig. 3.15), and the oryx (Fig. 3.11). The decision to depict these animals in Marisa is striking, since none of them actually lived in Levant. Rather, the presence of these animals can only be explained with reference to the close relationship that Marisa enjoyed with Ptolemaic Egypt during the third century, a time when these creatures were well known in Alexandria thanks to royal expeditions to Aethiopia and the Red Sea. Further evidence for this Alexandrian connection is supplied by two works of art associated with the Ptolemaic royal capital that can be profitably compared to the Marisa frieze. The first is the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.2), which—we saw in Chapter 2—is probably a later version of a third-century Ptolemaic court painting.110 The upper register of the mosaic depicts a rocky Nubian landscape populated by labelled Aethiopian animals, providing a direct point of contact with the Marisa frieze. The similarity between the compositions is underscored by the animal species depicted in both: the lion, the serpent, the giraffe, the warthog, the rhinoceros, the elephant, the crocodile, the ibis, the hippopotamus, the wild ass, and the lynx.111 A second comparandum is a tessellated mosaic excavated in the Shatby district of Alexandria, best known for its central field depicting three Erotes hunting a stag (Fig. 3.21).112 More significant, for our purposes, is the remarkable frieze surrounding this central picture, which represents a continuous sequence of fourteen animals: two lions, two wild boars, two leopards, two griffins, a bull, a gazelle, a hyena, a stag, and two lynxes.113 Most of these creatures were also depicted in the

109

Versluys 2010, 585. The similarities between the Nile Mosaic and the Marisa frieze were recognized already by Cook 1905, xv–xvi. 111 In the case of the lynx, it is interesting that the unusual spelling ΛΥΝΞ (lunx) appears in both the Nile Mosaic and the Marisa frieze, rather than the more common form ΛΥΓΞ (lugx). This supports the view that both representations stemmed from the same cultural milieu. 112 Shatby mosaic: Brown 1957, 68–9; Daszewski 1985, 103–10 cat. 2. Comparison with Marisa frieze: Erlich 2009, 74–5. 113 These lynxes are interpreted by Daszewski as panther-griffins. 110

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

119

F I G . 3.21. Tessellated mosaic from Shatby (Alexandria), with a central field depicting three Erotes hunting a stag. The main frieze depicts a procession of real and fantastical animals that recalls the Marisa painting. Probably early third century BC. H: 3.95 m; W: 5.25 m. Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria inv. 21643.

Tomb of Apollophanes,114 but there are in fact other striking similarities between these compositions: the isolated, paratactic treatment of individual animals;115 the use of sketchy trees to create a rudimentary sense of landscape; and the lack of attention paid to relative scale. The Shatby mosaic has been dated to c.290–260 BC on stylistic and technical grounds, indicating that the sequential, paratactic format of the Marisa frieze was already well established in Ptolemaic Egypt during the first half of the third century. These considerations strongly suggest that the painted frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes drew inspiration from the cultural and artistic currents of thirdcentury Alexandria, even if the precise nature of this influence is difficult to reconstruct. Previous studies have sometimes entertained the possibility that the artists responsible for the frieze used artistic intermediaries imported directly from 114

The species depicted in both compositions are the lion, boar, leopard, griffin, lynx, and bull. We should note, however, that paratactic sequences of animals had been depicted in a range of visual media since at least the fourth century BC. Well-known examples include the neck of the Derveni krater; the pebble mosaics from the House of the Mosaics at Eretria; and the painted frieze on a kline from a tomb in Potideia. 115

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

120

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Ptolemaic Egypt.116 This is plausible, although the sketchy quality of the animals at Marisa makes it difficult to envisage what form these intermediaries would have taken. Other channels of influence and transmission remain possible. Not all of the animals depicted in the frieze lived only in Egypt or Aethiopia. Some were also indigenous to the Levant during antiquity, notably the lion (Fig. 3.9), the bull (Fig. 3.10), the boar (Fig. 3.10), the wild ass (Fig. 3.15), the porcupine (Fig. 3.16), and the lynx (Fig. 3.17). It has been suggested, on this basis, that local animals were deliberately juxtaposed with Aethiopian and Egyptian fauna in the frieze, resulting in a composition that was characterised by a certain level of geographical diversity.117 While this is possible, we should recognize that virtually all of these ‘Levantine’ animals were also indigenous to northeast Africa during antiquity. This opens up the possibility that the representations of these animals were also influenced by Marisa’s connections with Ptolemaic Egypt, rather than by the artists’ own knowledge of local fauna.118 The fact that these animals were equipped with identifying labels in the manner of their Aethiopian and Egyptian counterparts may speak in favour of this interpretation, especially since there is no discernible difference in the level of naturalism with which they were represented. It remains to consider how the four fantastical-looking animals depicted in the frieze fit into this geographical picture. Of these, the griffin (Fig. 3.11) is perhaps easiest to assess. This creature was an exotic animal par excellence in the ancient world, and was commonly used to evoke the farthest limits of the oikoumenē in art, literature, and thought. The majority of ancient writers locate the griffin in the Far East, whether in India or Skythia, but a minority tradition associates it instead with Aethiopia.119 This lack of consistency need not surprise us: Pierre Schneider has shown how real and fantastical animals—and many other natural phenomena— were associated with both India and Aethiopia during antiquity, thanks to a widespread conflation of these territories stemming from their positions at the outermost edges of the known world.120 The griffins represented in the Marisa frieze and the Shatby mosaic were surely conceived in these terms: as exotic animals that recalled the outermost limits of the oikoumenē , whether to the east or to the south. The fantastical-looking fish at the eastern end of the north frieze (Fig. 3.13) are more difficult to analyse, partially because they are unlabelled, and partially because they have no exact parallels in the artistic record. In their initial 116 This possibility is hinted at by Jacobson 2007, 40 (referring to ‘illustrated treatises on animals or copybooks of zoological images’); and Erlich 2009, 73 (referring to the attempt by the artist ‘to convert an illustrated scroll—which was likely, in my opinion, the basis for the patternbook from which he worked’). 117 118 Jacobson 2007, 44. Suggested by Erlich 2009, 82–5; Versluys 2010, 584–5. 119 This minority tradition is noted by Meyboom 1995, 283–4 n. 12; Pajón Leyra 2012, 354–6. 120 Schneider 2004; 2016.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

121

publication of the frieze, Peters and Thiersch drew attention to the anatomical correspondences between these fish and the elephant and rhinoceros facing them at the east end of the south frieze. Indeed, the specimen to the viewer’s right had a trunk and a pair of tusks, like the elephant; while the specimen to the viewer’s left had a ‘tapir-like snout’ with a small spike or horn, recalling the rhinoceros. For Peters and Thiersch, these fish embodied ‘a pseudo-scientific theory of the universe’, whereby corresponding creatures lived on land and at sea.121 Striking support for this interpretation is supplied by four illustrations on the verso of the Artemidoros Papyrus, which will be analysed in more detail in Chapter 4 (Figs. 4.20–4.23). These illustrations, labelled ‘hare’ (lagō os), ‘falcon’ (hierax), ‘bull’ (tauros), and ‘lizard’ (sauros) respectively, depict fantastical-looking fish equipped with some of the defining anatomical characteristics of the species referred to in their identifying labels. It seems likely, then, that the pair of specimens at Marisa represented an ‘elephant-fish’ and a ‘rhinoceros-fish’, in which case they may have been conceived as Aethiopian animals, much like their terrestrial counterparts. Also difficult to interpret is the fantastical-looking creature at the far west end of the north frieze, characterized by its bearded human face and lion-like body (Fig. 3.17). The identity of this creature has been much debated. The view that it represents the mythical Assyrian lamassu is difficult to substantiate, since this creature should have eagle wings sprouting from its back.122 The identification as a real lion is also problematic, not least because the lion on the south wall indicates that the frieze painters knew how to depict this species with greater accuracy.123 More plausible is the view that this creature represents the martichoras,124 a fantastical Indian creature first described by Ktesias of Knidos, an author who served as royal physician at the court of the Persian king Artaxerxes II (404–358 BC).125 Ktesias’s description of the martichoras is known from a series of later epitomes and quotations, including the account of Aelian, writing in the third century AD: There is in India a wild beast, powerful, daring, as big as the largest lion, of a red colour like cinnabar, shaggy like a dog, and in the language of India it is called martichoras. Its face however is not that of a wild beast but of a man, and it has three rows of teeth set in its upper jaw and three in the lower; these are exceedingly sharp and larger than the fangs of a hound. Its ears also resemble a man’s except that they are larger and shaggy; its eyes are

121

122 Peters and Thiersch 1905, 31–2. Lamassu interpretation: Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1993, 955. Lion interpretation: Meyboom 1995, 285 n. 19. 124 Martichoras interpretation: Cook 1905, xii–xv; Jacobson 2007, 35. 125 Recently on Ktesias: Wiesehöfer, Rollinger, and Lanfranchi 2011. For the martichoras in ancient literature, see Li Causi 2003. It is interesting that Juba II located the creature in Aethiopia: BNJ 275 F 57 = Pliny, Natural History 8.107. 123

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

122

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

blue-grey and they too are like a man’s, but its feet and claws, you must know, are those of a lion. To the end of its tail is attached the sting of a scorpion, and this might be over a cubit in length; and the tail has stings at intervals on either side. But the tip of the tail gives a fatal sting to anyone who encounters it, and death is immediate. If one pursued the beast it lets fly its stings, like arrows, sideways, and it can shoot a great distance; and when it discharges its stings straight ahead it bends its tail back; if however it shoots in a backward direction, as the Sakai do, then it stretches its tail to its full extent. Any creature that the missile hits it kills; the elephant alone it does not kill. These stings which it shoots are a foot long and the thickness of a bulrush.126

The references here to the human-like face, shaggy coat, lion-like proportions, and cinnabar red colour of the martichoras all fit neatly with the view that the animal in the Marisan frieze represents this Indian creature.127 Even so, it is striking that such a large proportion of the account is devoted to the scorpionlike tail of the martichoras, whereas the painted creature has a mammal-like tail curled up behind its back. There is, however, an aspect of the iconography that may serve to mitigate this discrepancy. Indeed, Chalil Raad’s original photographs indicate that a series of short, roughly horizontal lines were painted in the area above and in front of the creature’s tail, which were then toned down in the corresponding lithograph (Fig. 3.22). These lines have garnered little attention, presumably because they are usually assumed to be an unplanned or incidental part of the background. Crucially, however, there is nothing to suggest that such lines appeared above any of the other animals represented in the frieze. It is at least possible, then, that these horizontal lines represent the stings fired ‘like arrows’ from the tail of the martichoras, and that we have here a depiction of this creature discharging its stings in the manner described by Ktesias. From a geographical perspective, the depiction of this quintessentially Indian creature would have evoked the outermost limits of the known world, much like the griffin depicted in the south frieze. Viewed as a whole, then, the painted animal frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes incorporated a combination of animals indigenous to Aethiopia and/or Egypt, animals found in both north-east Africa and the Levant, and a small number of fantastical-looking animals that were commonly associated with the fringes of the known world. The presence of Aethiopian and Egyptian fauna suggests that the composition was heavily influenced by the culture of animal classification that had developed in third-century Alexandria, and it is very possible that the other animal representations included in the composition should likewise

126

Ktesias, Indica F45dβ Nichols = Aelian, Nature of Animals 4.21. I have changed my mind concerning the identity of this creature, having previously argued for a new interpretation as an onokentauros (ass-centaur) based on a comparison with the female ass-centaur depicted on the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste: see Thomas 2016, 71–3. 127

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

123

F I G . 3.22. Chalil Raad’s photograph of the fantastical-looking creature painted at the far west end of the north frieze. The creature may be the martichoras, a cantankerous Indian animal mentioned by Ktesias and a succession of later authors. Frieze H: c.35 cm.

be connected to this Ptolemaic milieu. To quote Peters and Thiersch, we have here ‘a radiation of the thoughts and interests centred at that time in Alexandria, an unexpected reflection in the provinces which illuminates the culture of the capital from a new side’.128

A PARADE OF KNOWLEDGE?

It remains to consider why this painted animal frieze was deployed for the decoration of a tomb in the Levant. David Jacobson offered a stimulating answer in his 2007 monograph on the tomb and its paintings.129 For Jacobson, the frieze was designed to recall the animal parade during the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos in the 270s BC, an event discussed in detail in Chapter 1. Jacobson suggested that other motifs painted in the tomb likewise referred to the Grand Procession: notably the thymiateria and amphorae (Fig. 3.7), since precious metal versions of these objects were carried in the parade. The significance of the connection, for Jacobson, lay in the fact that the animals, thymiateria, and amphorae were paraded in the section of the procession honouring Dionysos.

128 129

Peters and Thiersch 1905, 91. Jacobson 2007, 46–9. Many of Jacobson’s suggestions are taken up by Held 2020, 214–15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

124

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

This led him to suppose that the animal frieze and other motifs were designed to evoke Dionysos, and specifically to recall this god’s role as an underworld deity who offered ‘the promise of the afterlife to the interred’.130 In other words, he suggested that the meaning of the frieze was directly connected to its funerary display context. While this interpretation succeeds in identifying the Ptolemaic cultural and artistic currents that informed the decoration of the tomb, it is not without problems.131 Indeed, the notion of an overarching Dionysian decorative programme seems difficult to substantiate when we consider the absence of overtly Dionysian iconography in the tomb. We have also seen that the thymiateria and Panathenaic amphorae can be understood in their own terms, and do not need to be connected to any such overarching programme. In the case of the painted animal frieze, meanwhile, it seems unlikely that the composition was invested with a specifically funerary or eschatological meaning. Rather, the presence of taxonomic identifying labels seems to ground the composition in the world of the living, referring to the cultural and intellectual developments examined in Chapters 1 and 2. Still, the possibility that the painted frieze was intended to recall Philadelphos’s Grand Procession deserves serious consideration. After all, we have seen that Marisa enjoyed a close relationship with Ptolemaic Alexandria during the third century BC, and it seems likely that the town’s leading men—including, perhaps, the tomb patron(s)—would have received news of the procession and its remarkable animal parade. It may also be telling that many of the animals depicted in the frieze were led through Alexandria during this famous event: specifically the leopard, bull, giraffe, oryx, rhinoceros, elephant, wild ass, and lynx.132 From a compositional perspective, meanwhile, the paratactic arrangement of animals in the frieze seems fundamentally parade-like in conception. Reading the composition as a procession also accounts for its general lack of narrative, and explains the absence of hunters outside the leopardess scene.133 Whether or not a direct reference to the Grand Procession was intended, we can hardly doubt that the frieze was informed by the royally sponsored culture of animal classification that also inspired the archetype behind the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. In this provincial Levantine context, the composition offered an eye130 131

Jacobson 2007, 48. For criticism of Jacobson’s reading, see Kloner 2008, 177–8; Mielsch 2009, 367–8; Versluys 2010,

584–5. 132

Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.200e–201c. Against this interpretation it should be pointed out that two animals depicted in the composition seem not to be parading: the bull and the wild ass, both shown fighting with serpents. The pair of fish at the east end of the north frieze present difficulties of a different kind, since they could hardly parade in the manner of terrestrial animals. 133

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the tomb of apollophanes at marisa

125

catching instantiation of the latest mode of celebrating power and privilege in Ptolemaic Egypt. For the tomb patron(s), the iconography served to highlight not only their privileged socio-political standing within their local community, but also their connectedness to Alexandria and their familiarity with the cultural and artistic fashions of the royal capital.134 We have one further piece of evidence confirming that leading Levantine aristocrats were attuned to the culture of animal collection and classification in Alexandria during this period. This is a papyrus from the Zenon archive recording a gift of animals sent to Ptolemy II Philadelphos by one Toubias, a wealthy clan leader in Transjordan and a brother-in-law of the High Priest of Jerusalem, in 257 BC: Toubias to Apollonios, greeting. As you wrote to me to send [gifts for the king in the] month of [Xandikos], I have sent on the tenth of Xandikos [Aineias] our agent [bringing] two horses, six dogs, one wild mule bred from an ass, two white Arab donkeys, two wild mules’ foals, one wild ass’s foal. They are all tame. I have also sent you the letter which I have written to the king about the gifts, together with a copy for your information. Farewell. Year 29, Xandikos 10. To King Ptolemy from Toubias, greeting. I have sent you two horses, six dogs, one mule bred from an ass, two white Arab donkeys, two wild mules’ foals, and one wild ass’s foal. Farewell. (Address) To Apollonios. (Docket) Toubias, about the items sent to the king, and the copy of his letter to the king. Year 29, Artemsios 16, at Alexandria.135

In a political landscape where sending animals to Alexandria was one way of demonstrating loyalty to the Ptolemaic kings, it is not difficult to envisage why a frieze depicting a sequence of extraordinary creatures was painted in the tomb of a leading local aristocrat. Here it constituted a royally sanctioned status symbol that was perfectly suited to commemorate the life of the deceased.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the overall context of this volume, the significance of the painted animal frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes is twofold. Firstly, the composition supplies a crucial chronological anchor, since it demonstrates that the culture of depicting animals accompanied by identifying labels originated long before the Nile Mosaic of Praeneste was laid in the late second century BC. Although the date of the Marisa frieze cannot be determined with absolute certainty, it was probably painted sometime in the third century BC, a time when Marisa enjoyed close

134 135

Versluys 2010, 585. P.Cair.Zen. I 59075. Translation: Bagnall and Derow 2004, 114–15 no. 65.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

126 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 links with Ptolemaic Egypt. This in turn lends support to the notion that the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste constitutes a later replica of a third-century work of art from Alexandria. Secondly, the frieze offers a useful insight into how the royally sponsored interest in the animal kingdom was received in a peripheral part of the Ptolemaic kingdom. In this provincial setting, the composition signalled connectedness to the royal centre and acquaintance with the new fashion for animal classification and taxonomy that had developed in Alexandria. It would be interesting to know, of course, whether the patron(s) of the Tomb of Apollophanes were interested in the represented animals from an intellectual or scientific point of view. It is perhaps more likely that they were mostly concerned with the social and cultural cachet associated with this new mode of animal representation. Seen in this light, the tomb frieze can be usefully situated within a larger body of private art from the Hellenistic world commissioned by patrons who sought to replicate visual ideas associated with contemporary education and intellectualism.136 We think immediately of the large corpus of marble grave stelai produced in Asia Minor and Aegean Greece from the third century BC, which sometimes drew on the vocabulary of philosopher portraits in their depictions of the deceased, and frequently included attributes referring to intellectual pursuits, such as book rolls, writing tablets, and gymnasium herms.137 Whereas the principal reference points for such stelai were surely the philosophical schools and gymnasia central to civic intellectualism in the Hellenistic polis, the painted frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes evoked a rather different cultural and intellectual milieu. It referred pointedly to Alexandria, and to the distinctive new kind of taxonomic intellectualism sponsored by the Ptolemaic kings.

136

I am grateful to an anonymous reader for this suggestion. The full corpus of stelai is Pfuhl and Möbius 1977–9. For a detailed analysis of the examples surviving from Hellenistic Smyrna (Izmir), see Zanker 1993. 137

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

FOUR

The Artemidoros Papyrus An Assortment of Scientific Images and Texts

We saw in Chapters 2 and 3 that the labelled animals in the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste and the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa can be connected to a cultural phenomenon anchored in Ptolemaic Alexandria, despite the fact that neither composition was produced in Egypt itself. This chapter will focus on a remarkable artefact that surely was produced in Egypt: the so-called Artemidoros Papyrus, known as P.Artemid. for short, a papyrus roll covered on both sides by text and drawings. Of particular interest for the present volume is the verso of the papyrus, which carries a series of sketched vignettes of animals accompanied by identifying labels written in Greek. P.Artemid. has generated much discussion since its discovery was first announced in 1994.1 The papyrus was exhibited in Torino in 2006,2 before being published in a 630-page editio princeps in 2008.3 Neither the exhibition nor the editio princeps avoided controversy. The former coincided with the beginning of a fierce debate concerning the authenticity of the papyrus, which has continued to dominate discussions in the years since.4 Many fundamental aspects of the editio princeps, meanwhile, have been criticized by those on both sides of the authenticity debate.5 Several of these controversies will be touched upon in this chapter, but my aim here is not to revisit this well-trodden ground. Rather, starting from the view that the papyrus is indeed ancient, the following

1

Announcement: Albert 1994, 229. Preliminary publication: Gallazzi and Kramer 1998. Exhibition catalogue: Galazzi and Settis 2006. 3 Editio princeps: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008. 4 Useful summaries of the authenticity debate are presented by Marcotte 2010 and Pajón Leyra 2014. The staunchest advocate of the view that the papyrus is a modern fake is Prof. Luciano Canfora, who has argued in conjunction with several collaborators that the document should be attributed to the nineteenth-century forger Konstantinos Simonides: see e.g. Canfora 2007; 2008; 2011; and, recently, Condello 2018. But there is a growing consensus that the papyrus should be regarded as an exceptional ancient survival. Among the most convincing proponents of this view are D’Alessio 2009, esp. 30–4; 2012; Hammerstaedt 2009a; 2009b; Gallazzi and Kramer 2012; Adornato 2016b. 5 See now Elsner 2020, raising important concerns about the lack of transparency regarding how the images published in the editio princeps were produced. 2

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

128

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

analysis will consider what the papyrus contributes to our understanding of natural science and taxonomy during the Hellenistic period and beyond.

DISCOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION

The fragments of P.Artemid. were extracted from a bundle of recycled papyrus. This bundle may have been used as mummy cartonnage,6 and is conventionally referred to using the German term Konvolut. The Konvolut is today known from a single photograph taken during its disassembly.7 It is said to have been acquired by an Egyptian collector based in Asyût sometime during the first half of the twentieth century.8 It was then apparently bought and exported by the German– Armenian antiquities dealer Serop Simmonian in 1971, shortly before the UNESCO convention of 1972 prohibiting the sale of such artefacts. Approximately fifty fragments of P.Artemid. were extracted from the Konvolut during the 1980s.9 These were found to belong to three independent sections of the document, distinguished by their different contents on the recto:10 • Section A carries, from left to right, drawings of two bearded heads, aligned vertically; and three fragmentary columns of Greek prose containing an otherwise unknown encomium of the discipline of geography (designated Cols. I–III). • Section B carries a small section of the map on Section C. • Section C carries, from left to right, a large but unfinished map; two columns of Greek prose containing a description of Spain (Cols. IV–V); and twenty-three separate drawings of hands, heads, and feet (Fig. 4.1). The relative arrangement of these sections proposed in the editio princeps was founded on the description of Spain in Section C. This description begins with an account of the extent of Iberia, a discussion of the name of this territory, and the 6

Probable funerary context: e.g. Obbink 2009, 14–16; D’Amicone, Aceto, Agostino, and Fenoglio 2009. 7 For the Konvolut, see Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 60–2. For the view that the only photograph of the Konvolut is a digital counterfeit, see Canfora 2009c, 120–1; Bozzi 2009. This is refuted by Baumann 2012, with Hammerstaedt 2012b. 8 Twentieth-century history of P.Artemid.: e.g. Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 53–4. 9 The details of this disassembly process remain obscure. See Elsner 2020, 58: ‘It is frankly shocking that there should be no expectation at all . . . for a proper conservation history that charts the process that changed effectively a lump of papier mâché (or perhaps several) into a long piece of papyrus covered in drawing and writing.’ 10 The recto is the side where the papyrus strips are layered horizontally. On the verso (reverse side), they are layered vertically.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

129

F I G . 4.1. Artemidoros Papyrus, recto, Section C. These sketches of hands and feet are sometimes said to have been inspired by ancient sculpture. H of roll: c. 32.5 cm

comment that it was divided into two Roman provinces (ll. 1–14).11 These lines correspond with a fragment from Book 2 of the Geographoumena written by the Hellenistic geographer Artemidoros of Ephesos. The fragment is preserved in the De administrando imperio produced for Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century, which in turn drew on an intermediate version of Artemidoros’s text transmitted by the sixth-century lexicographer Stephanos of Byzantium.12 The passage is then a quotation from Artemidoros’s Geographoumena, an attribution that accounts for the modern name of the papyrus. Our knowledge of Artemidoros himself is murky.13 We are told by Markianos of Herakleia, who composed an epitome of the Geographoumena in the fourth or early fifth century AD, that Artemidoros’s floruit fell during the 169th Olympiad: that is, in 104–101 BC.14 The significance of this chronological range has been

11

Cols. IV–V: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 116–18, 170–97, 213–72. Artemidoros fr. 21 Stiehle = Const. Porph. De administrando imperio 23. For the correspondences between this text and P.Artemid. Col. IV ll. 1–14, see Billerbeck 2009; West 2009; and especially Hammerstaedt 2012a, arguing that Stephanos’s version of the text did not depend on the Epitome composed by Markianos of Herakleia in c.AD 400. 13 Useful recent accounts of Artemidoros include Canfora 2007, 3–27; Lehnus 2008; Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 98–113; Schiano 2010a; Engels 2012; Panichi 2013. 14 Markianos of Herakleia, Epitome of Menippos of Pergamon 1.3 = GGM I, 566. 12

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

130 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 debated. It is sometimes held that this is when Artemidoros undertook a diplomatic mission to Rome on behalf of his native Ephesos, a trip that would have improved his knowledge of Iberia and other provinces in the western empire.15 Alternately, it has been suggested that this date range refers simply to his literary acme.16 In either case it is clear that Artemidoros wrote his Geographoumena during the late second or early first century BC, providing a broad terminus post quem for the production of the papyrus. Taking their lead from this quotation, the editors proposed that P.Artemid. was originally conceived as a deluxe version of Book 2 of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena. According to this reading, the unknown encomium of geography on Section A is the proem of Book 2, while the unfinished map on Sections B and C depicts Iberia, the territory described in the extract from the Geographoumena in Section C. The editors therefore restored the order of sections on the recto as Section A—Section B—Section C, from left to right. To account for the remaining contents of the papyrus, meanwhile, the editors suggested that the deluxe book project was abandoned prior to the completion of the map, and that the artefact subsequently enjoyed two further ‘lives’.17 Firstly, they claimed, the animal drawings were added to the verso of the papyrus in an artist’s studio, where they would have served as a ‘pattern book’ for consultation during the production of paintings and mosaics. Secondly, the anatomical drawings were added to the blank spaces on the recto: namely the protokollon (margin) adjacent to the left edge of Section A, and the blank space to the right of Cols. IV–V on Section C. It is suggested that these anatomical drawings were inspired by ancient sculpture.18 Bold and uncompromising, this theory of ‘three lives’ offered a possible explanation for the diverse contents of the papyrus. But it was not long before doubts were expressed about its validity. These doubts centred on the text of Section A (Cols. I–III), identified by the editors as the proem to Book 2 of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena. This passage differs markedly from the extract in Section C in terms of its language and style, being characterized above all by its ‘lack of connective particles, odd word order, repetitive vocabulary and pleonasms’,19 as well as the recurrent misspelling of several important terms.20 The editors explained this inconsistency with reference to the different function of the proem compared to the rest of Book 2, and by proposing that it was written in

15 For this view, see e.g. Alonso-Núnez 1980; Knibbe 1998, 102 n. 213; Canfora 2007, 3–11; Lehnus 2008. Artemidoros’s embassy to Rome is mentioned by Strabo, Geography 14.1.26. 16 For this view, see e.g. Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 99–101; Engels 2012, 142. 17 ‘Three lives’ theory: Gallazzi and Settis 2006; Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008. 18 19 Suggested by Adornato 2008b; 2009, 53; 2013, 541–3. Rathbone 2012, 445. 20 Pointed out by Janko 2009, 404.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

131

an elevated ‘Asianic’ style of prose.21 To other eyes, however, the passage appeared as though it was composed by an individual who did not possess proper Greek: certainly not an accomplished writer like Artemidoros of Ephesos.22 Furthermore, the irregular formatting and inconsistent dimensions of the text columns would seem strange in the context of luxury book production.23 There are also difficulties with the editors’ interpretation of the map on the recto. That this map depicts Iberia is far from certain, given the absence of place names and labels, and our lack of knowledge concerning its scale and the meaning of many of its cartographic symbols.24 It has been suggested recently that the map actually depicts the Nile Delta,25 in which case there would be no direct connection with the adjacent passage from Book 2 of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena. The strongest challenge to the editors’ interpretation of P.Artemid. was mounted by Giambattista D’Alessio, who demonstrated that the arrangement of the individual sections proposed in the editio princeps is certainly incorrect.26 D’Alessio recognized that the ink used for the text and drawings on the recto left offset imprints on the verso when the papyrus was rolled, and that these mirror imprints—which were mostly overlooked by the editors—can be used to link the right-hand margin of Section C with the left-hand margin of Section A. It follows that the sequence of sections on the recto certainly ran Section B—Section C—Section A, rather than Section A—Section B—Section C.27 The same author demonstrated that a small fragment with a drawing of a head on the recto and a sketch of a hyena-wolf labelled λυκοθόας (lukothoas) on the verso (V1), known now as Section D, was erroneously attached to Section C by the editors. It was actually an independent part of the document, positioned somewhere to the right of Section A on the recto. He also suggested—on the basis of the direction in which the distance between the original and offset images increases, and the actual increase in these distances—that the extant portion of P.Artemid. (c.250 cm long and c.32.5 cm high) was originally preceded by another section at least as long to the left of Sections B and C on the recto. This rearrangement of the individual sections has significant implications for the editors’ interpretation of P.Artemid. Most notably, the passage of text identified as the proem of Book 2 of the Geographoumena was demonstrably transcribed to the right of the extract from Book 2, and was separated from it by a space filled

21 ‘Asianic’ prose theory: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 113–15, 134–9. Convincing refutation: Tosi 2009. 22 See Schiano 2010b, 241: ‘Gallazzi-Kramer’s theory of Artemidoros’ authorship actually appears to be a minority position.’ 23 24 Pointed out by Parsons 2009b, 29–30; Janko 2009, 43. Talbert 2009; 2012; Prontera 2012. 25 Carrez-Maratray 2019. 26 D’Alessio 2009. See also Tarte 2012, lending further weight to D’Alessio’s conclusions. 27 The same conclusion was reached (independently) by Gideon Nisbet, who reordered the individual sections on compositional grounds: see Nisbet 2009.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

132 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 with anatomical drawings. These anatomical drawings were themselves concentrated in a single space on the recto, and were not, therefore, an afterthought stemming from a later ‘life’ of P.Artemid., but rather a ‘substantive item in the sequential use of the roll’.28 It follows that the text on Section A cannot be an Asianic proem written by Artemidoros. In light of its stylistic and linguistic idiosyncrasies, it seems safest to conclude that it was composed by another writer whose literary talent did not reach the same high level. The rearrangement also impacts on our appreciation of the animal drawings on the verso. Firstly, the suggestion that the extant portion of P.Artemid. was originally preceded by another section at least as long raises the possibility that the surviving animal vignettes represent only a portion of what there once was. Secondly, the rearrangement of the individual sections of the recto necessitates a corresponding alteration of the sequence of sections on the verso, which therefore ran Section A—Section C—Section B, from left to right.29 Although the contents of the verso are more homogeneous than those of the recto, this reconfiguration of the sequence of the animal drawings has also paved the way for new theories concerning the logic underpinning their arrangement, as we shall shortly see. Finally, the supposition that the animal drawings should necessarily be attributed to a later ‘life’ of the papyrus needs to be reconsidered. Indeed, it is essential to investigate possible connections between the individual elements of the document before reconstructing independent and unrelated phases of use during antiquity.

CHRONOLOGY AND CONTEXT

We have already noted that Artemidoros composed his Geographoumena in the late second or early first century BC, and that this date provides a broad terminus post quem for P.Artemid. There are in fact are good reasons to suppose that the papyrus was produced during late Hellenistic or early Imperial times. The document was tested with the Carbon-14 method, which arrived at a date between 40 BC and AD 130 with a 95.4 per cent level of confidence.30 The chemical composition of the ink, meanwhile, is consistent with the kind of vegetal inks used on papyri until the third century AD.31 From a palaeographical standpoint, the script on the recto can be compared to other hands of the late Ptolemaic and early Imperial periods.32 Some 28

29 Parsons 2009a, 22. For this sequence on the verso, see Pajón Leyra 2012, 354. Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 66–71; Fedi et al 2010. 31 Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 66–71; Adornato 2016b, 15–17. 32 Analyses of the palaeography include: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 90–3, 313–14; Delattre 2009; Strassi 2009; Obbink 2009, 12; Parsons 2009b, 30–1; Van Minnen 2009, 168–9. Compare Wilson 2009, doubting the authenticity of the papyrus based on the script. 30

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

133

commentators have favoured a date in the later first century BC based on comparisons with other papyri of this period, but the shortage of comparanda from the first century AD means that a later chronology remains possible. Broad support for this chronology is supplied by the series of twenty-five administrative documents that were extracted from the Konvolut together with P.Artemid., which all date to the first century AD.33 Four of these documents belonging to a single ‘family archive’ have recently been published: one records an application made by one Dionysios and his wife Didyme for their son Dionysios to be admitted to the register of Alexandrian epheboi in AD 83/84; and the other three are documents submitted in support of this application.34 Some of the remaining unpublished documents pertain to the affairs of Alexandrian citizens who owned land in the Antaiopolite nome (located more than 500 km south of Alexandria itself), while others are ‘circulars from Prefects, letters, accounts etc.’.35 As well as their significance for our appreciation of the chronology of P.Artemid., these texts impact upon the question of its authenticity, since such prosaic documents would be challenging to forge and difficult to sell at a profit.36 These documents also offer good circumstantial evidence that P.Artemid. originated in an environment where the cultural currents of Alexandria circulated freely, whether or not this was the Ptolemaic royal capital itself.37 The same conclusion is suggested by the contents of P.Artemid., and particularly by the labelled animal illustrations on the verso, which resonate with the Alexandrian programme of animal taxonomy and classification explored in Chapters 2 and 3. The extract from Book 2 of the Geographoumena may also betray an Alexandrian connection, since Artemidoros of Ephesos is known to have visited the city during his lifetime. Diodoros Siculus states explicitly that the geographer resided in Egypt,38 while Strabo reports that: ‘ . . . the rhinoceros, is but little short of the elephant in size, not, as Artemidoros says, “in length to the tail” (although he says that he saw the animal in Alexandria), but falls short, I might almost say, only about [ . . . ] in height, judging at least from the one I saw’.39

33

Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 62. For this family archive, see now Gallazzi and Kramer 2014. 35 Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 62; Gallazzi and Kramer 2014, 118. 36 Pointed out by Parsons 2009b, 28. 37 Parsons 2009a, 20–1: ‘It is possible to argue that the whole content originated in Alexandria, from where perhaps it was transported up river for recycling . . . You can also visualise Alexandrian families on vacation, or indeed normally resident, on their country estates, for example at Antaeupolis: the archive of such a household might mix local products with imported ones.’ 38 Diodorus Siculus 3.11.2. 39 Artemidoros fr. 97 Stiehle = Strabo, Geography 16.4.15. The measurement given by Strabo concerning the different heights of the two species is missing from the MS. 34

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

134 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 Although the date and length of Artemidoros’s residency in Alexandria are debated,40 Strabo’s testimony indicates that Artemidoros saw and studied animals during his stay. We may surmise, then, that he was well acquainted with the interest in taxonomy and classification that had flourished in the city since the third century BC. It is also clear that Artemidoros studied texts written by scholars based in Alexandria, even if we accept the possibility that these works may also have been available for consultation elsewhere. Specifically, Artemidoros’s account of Aethiopia and Arabia in Book 8 of the Geographoumena seems to have been borrowed—in places virtually word for word—from the treatise On the Erythraean Sea by Agatharchides of Knidos.41 It is particularly striking that Artemidoros’s account of the animals living in Aethiopia, preserved for us by Strabo, is a paraphrase of Agatharchides’s excursus on the fauna of this region.42 Much of Chapter 2 was devoted to identifying and analysing correspondences between Agatharchides’s zoological excursus and the animals depicted in the upper register of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. These correspondences led to the conclusion that at least some of the animal representations should be traced back to sources that originated in the same cultural milieu as the hypomnemata and ‘eyewitness accounts’ consulted by Agatharchides when composing his account. It is striking, then, that a series of similar animal representations on one side of P.Artemid. were juxtaposed with a passage by an author who demonstrably consulted and copied from Agatharchides’s treatise on the other (Artemidoros). This opens up the possibility that the recto and verso of the papyrus were characterized by greater coherence than the editors had originally assumed.

ARTEMIDOROS AND THE VERSO OF P.ARTEMID.

It was Stefano Micunco, a proponent of the view that P.Artemid. is a modern forgery, who first recognized that several of the verso drawings depict creatures that were certainly described by Artemidoros in Book 8 of his Geographoumena.43 The animals described by Artemidoros are: elephants, ‘lions called ants’, leopards, rhinoceroses, giraffes, sphinxes, ‘dog-heads’, nisnas monkeys, wild and carnivorous bulls, hyenas, and serpents. Several of these creatures are depicted on the verso

40

Compare e.g. Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 105–7, arguing that Artemidoros wrote most of the Geographoumena in his native Ephesos, with Lehnus 2008, arguing for a longer stay in the Ptolemaic royal capital. 41 Artemidoros’s dependence on Agatharchides: e.g. Stiehle 1856, 222; Bunbury 1883, 62–3; Fraser 1972a, 549–50; Burstein 1989, 22. 42 Aethiopian animals: Artemidoros frs. 97–8 Stiehle = Strabo, Geography 16.4.15–16; Agatharchides frs. 68–80 Burstein. 43 Micunco 2008a, 183–8; 2008b, 243–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

135

F I G . 4.2. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V21. Giraffe labelled kamelopordalis. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

of P.Artemid.: a giraffe labelled καμηλοπορδαλις (kamē lopordalis) (V21) (Fig. 4.2), a leopardess labelled πο[ρδαλις] (po[rdalis]) (V19) (Fig. 4.3), a hyena (V2) (Fig. 4.4), a leopard labelled πά[νθηρ?] (pa[nthē r?]) (V25) (Fig. 4.9), and the series of vignettes featuring serpents (V16, V22, V25, V31). But there are two particularly striking points of contact that warrant closer attention. The first stems from Artemidoros’s description of ‘lions called ants’ in Aethiopia: The country [sc. Aethiopia] abounds . . . in lions called ants (leousi tois kaloumenois murmē xin), which have their genital organs reversed, and are golden in colour, but are less hairy than those in Arabia.44 44

Strabo, Geography 16.5.15. While this passage was omitted by Stiehle in his collection of Artemidoros fragments, it is likely that Strabo is here drawing on Agatharchides through the intermediary of Artemidoros: see Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 397.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

136

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 4.3. Artemidorus Papyrus, verso vignette V19. A griffin (labelled grups) abducts a leopard cub from its mother (labelled por[dalis]). Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

A visual parallel for this passage is supplied by a remarkable verso illustration depicting a large, spotted feline accompanied by the label μύρμηξ (murmē x), meaning ‘ant’, confronting a large serpent (V22) (Fig. 4.5).45 The iconography of this vignette will be discussed in detail later in this chapter. The second correspondence stems from Artemidoros’s account of the enmity between snakes and elephants in Aethiopia: Artemidoros also speaks of serpents thirty cubits in length which overpower elephants and bulls; and his measurement is moderate, at least for serpents in this part of the world; for the Indian serpents are rather fabulous, as also those in Libya, which are said to grow grass on their backs.46

45 46

Murmē x vignette (V22): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 394–9; Kinzelbach 2009, 66–71. Artemidoros fr. 97 Stiehle = Strabo, Geography 16.4.15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

137

F I G . 4.4. Artemidorus Papyrus, verso vignette V2. Hyena with spotted coat. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

A visual parallel is supplied by one of the largest verso vignettes, which depicts a violent encounter between an elephant and a large snake, labelled στειρὸς ἐλέφας (steiros elephas), meaning ‘sturdy elephant’, and χ[έρ]συδ[ρος ὄφις] (ch[er]sud[ros ophis]?), meaning ‘amphibious watersnake’, respectively (V16) (Fig. 4.6).47 The same theme recurs in a wall painting from the House of Romulus and Remus at Pompeii, as well as several other later paintings, mosaics, and illuminated manuscripts.48 These correspondences seem too close to be coincidental, suggesting that the verso illustrations were connected somehow to the textual tradition that encompassed both Artemidoros’s Geographoumena and Agatharchides of Knidos’s earlier zoological excursus. This realization, coupled with the presence of an extract from Book 2 of the Geographoumena on the recto, indicates that the two sides of P.Artemid. were thematically connected, and casts doubt on the notion that the animal illustrations should necessarily be associated with an independent, later ‘life’ of the papyrus.

47 48

Elephant/serpent vignette (V16): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 372–7; Kinzelbach 2009, 47–9. For this topos in ancient visual culture, see Mielsch 2005, 50–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

138 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

F I G . 4.5. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V22. This narrative vignette depicts a big cat with wings and a spotted coat (labelled murmē x) fighting a snake. The murmē x is discussed by several ancient authors, including Agatharchides of Knidos and Artemidoros of Ephesos. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

We are then faced with the question of the scope of this relationship between the verso illustrations and the text of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena. It is in this context that we should consider Irene Pajón Leyra’s fascinating hypothesis that the verso drawings constituted a ‘geographical zoology’ conceived directly in relation to Artemidoros’s Geographoumena.49 According to this interpretation, the eight largest ‘central vignettes’ were organized from left to right in a sequence defined by the geographical origins of the creatures that they depicted, starting (at the left) in Libya, progressing eastwards through Egypt and Aethiopia, and finishing (at the right) in India. Crucially, according to Pajón Leyra, this geographical sequence was borrowed from Books 7 to 9 of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena, which would have described these territories in precisely the same order. The theory can be represented schematically as follows: (L edge of verso) Libya

49

Contest between lynx and wild goat (V38)

Pajón Leyra 2012, especially 345–57. See also now Pajón Leyra 2016, 87–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

139

F I G . 4.6. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V16. An elephant (labelled steiros el[e]phas) is locked in a dramatic combat with a serpent (labelled ch[er]sud[ros ophis]). The enmity between these creatures is a zoological topos known from both textual and visual sources. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

Egypt Aethiopia

Contest between xiphias and ‘tunny-sawfish’ (V9) Contest between elephant and serpent (V16) Griffin seizing leopard cub from its mother (V9) Giraffe (V21) Contest between murmē x-lion and serpent (V22) India/Orient Contest between leopard and serpent (V25) Tiger (V31) (R edge of verso) An obvious difficulty with this theory—as Pajón Leyra herself recognized—is that we lack much direct evidence for the geographical sequence of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena, even if ‘the order Libya-Egypt-Aethiopia-Arabia-India does

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

140

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

seem likely as a working hypothesis’.50 There are also two further considerations that lead us to question whether the relationship between the verso illustrations and the Geographoumena was as direct as the theory implies. Firstly, a significant proportion of the creatures described by Artemidoros in Book 8 of the Geographoumena are not depicted on the ‘Aethiopian’ portion of the papyrus: the rhinoceros, sphinx, ‘dog-head’, nisnas monkey, and ‘carnivorous bull’. Secondly, we have no direct evidence that Artemidoros included detailed zoological descriptions in the parts of his treatise addressing Libya, Egypt, Arabia, and India. Even so, the central tenet of the theory would remain intact if it could be shown that the verso vignettes were disposed in a geographical sequence. This remains uncertain, however, since several geographical associations favoured by Pajón Leyra rest on selective readings of our surviving evidence. For instance, she interprets the vignette (V9) featuring combat between a fantastical-looking creature labelled ξιφίας (xiphias)—meaning ‘swordfish’—and the sea creature labelled θυνν[ό-]|πριστ[ις] (thunn[o]prist[is])—meaning ‘tunny-sawfish’—as an Egyptian scene (Fig. 4.7).51 This reading depends on the xiphias depicted in the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.21),52 despite the fact that this creature is shown in the composition’s upper, Aethiopian register.53 The interpretation of the lynx/wild goat vignette (V38) (Fig. 4.8) as a Libyan scene, meanwhile, is based on a minority literary tradition that situates the wild goat in Libya.54 We might object that a creature labelled ΛΥΝΞ (lunx) was depicted in the Aethiopian register of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.17), suggesting that an association with this territory was equally as likely.55 Also problematic is the interpretation of the leopard/serpent vignette (V25) (Fig. 4.9) as an Indian or Oriental scene.56 A pair of leopards is depicted in the upper register of the Nile

50

Pajón Leyra 2012, 345. Pajón Leyra 2012, 347. For the xiphias/tunny-sawfish vignette, see Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 350–4; Kinzelbach 2009, 32–4; Pajón Leyra 2009. 52 Nile Mosaic xiphias: Meyboom 1995, 22. Meyboom’s identification of the creature as the ‘carnivorous bull’ described by Agatharchides is rightly questioned by Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 354. 53 Compare also a fresco from the north wall of the peristyle of the House of the Physician at Pompeii (VIII.5.24), where a xiphias-like creature is shown devouring a group of pygmies. Here the ethnicity of the pygmies, together with other iconographic features in the scene, suggest that it takes place ‘either near the first cataract or in Nubia, the land of the black people, or in the land of the pygmies’ (Meyboom and Versluys 2007, 181). Another fresco incorporating a representation of a xiphias-like creature and several pygmies decorated the north wall of the rear garden of the House of Maius Castricius at Pompeii: see Versluys 2002, 132–4 no. 054. 54 Pajón Leyra 2012, 352–3. For the lynx/wild goat vignette (V38), see Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 447–50; Kinzelbach 2009, 99–100. 55 Depiction in Nile Mosaic: Meyboom 1995, 22–3, 228–9 ns. 22–3. 56 Pajón Leyra 2012, 351. For the leopard/serpent vignette (V25), see Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 406–11; Kinzelbach 2009, 75–6. 51

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

141

F I G . 4.7. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V9. In this vignette the fantastical-looking xiphias is fighting a ‘tunny-sawfish’ (labelled thunn[o]prist[is]). The xiphias was also represented in Section 2 of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

Mosaic (Fig. 2.19), and both Agatharchides and Artemidoros list this creature among the fauna found in Aethiopia during Ptolemaic times. It follows that the interpretation of the verso illustrations as a ‘geographical zoology’ designed to mirror the structure of Artemidoros’s Geographoumena is problematic. Rather, it is striking just how many of the represented animals were associated with Aethiopia during antiquity: testimony perhaps to the enduring influence of royal expeditions to the territories south of Egypt during the third century BC. Still, this discussion leaves us wondering whether the verso illustrations were organized according to some kind of rational order or sequence, and how best to characterize the relationship between these illustrations and the textual tradition encompassed by Artemidoros’s Geographoumena.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

142

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 4.8. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V38. A lynx (labelled lugx) leaps to attack a goat (labelled aigagros). Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

F I G . 4.9. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V25. This narrative vignette shows a leopard (labelled pa[nthē r]) fighting a snake (labelled drako ̄n). The four snakes depicted on the papyrus exhibit interesting variety, hinting at sub-classification of different species. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

143

THE VERSO ILLUSTRATIONS: ARTISTRY, ARRANGEMENT, ORIGINS

In total, traces of some forty-one separate vignettes remain on the verso of P.Artemid.57 The preservation of these vignettes is variable: some are entirely intact, while in other cases the animal representations and/or their accompanying identifying labels are partially or completely missing. All of the illustrations were executed in vegetal ink, which was diluted to achieve various tones and intensities of black.58 Generally speaking, the draughtsman used concentrated ‘black’ ink applied with a thin-tipped stylus to render contours and interior details, and washes of diluted ‘grey’ ink applied with a thicker-tipped stylus to achieve shading and chiaroscuro effects. Unlike the recto drawings, hatching was used sparingly on the verso.59 Altogether, some forty-seven animals are depicted in the surviving vignettes. The majority of vignettes depict only a single animal, but in eight cases we observe two or three animals configured in an ‘anecdotal or narrative relationship’.60 The xiphias/tunny-sawfish (Fig. 4.7), lynx/wild goat (Fig. 4.8), and leopard/serpent (Fig. 4.9) vignettes discussed above are examples of such narrative groups. In all cases, the draughtsman added a cursory indication of background, land or water as appropriate.61 These separate backgrounds underscore the isolation and independence of the individual vignettes, which are spatially and proportionally unconnected to each other. They also supply a point of contrast with the anatomical illustrations on the recto, which lack this kind of spatial contextualization entirely.62 Any assessment of the artistry of the verso illustrations is necessarily subjective,63 especially since they exhibit considerable variety in terms of their technical quality. On the one hand, the rudimentary three-dimensionality of the vignettes separates them from other papyrus illustrations surviving from antiquity, many of which depend entirely on line drawing and seem two-dimensional by comparison. On the other hand, many of the vignettes appear to have been executed by the draughtsman relatively quickly, resembling accomplished sketches rather than 57

Forty are described in the editio princeps: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 327–424 (V1–V29), 427–60 (V31–V41). The forty-first (V42) is an identifying label missed by the editors, recognized by Pajón Leyra 2012, 351–2. 58 Technical observations: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 314–17; Adornato 2016b, 14–17; Elsner 2016, 39–44. 59 60 Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 315. Elsner 2009, 48. 61 62 Backgrounds of verso drawings: Elsner 2016, 44–9. Elsner 2016, 44. 63 Compare Settis 2008, 88: ‘The quality of papyrus drawings already known is not generally high, and the drawings of the Artemidoros Papyrus are not an exception’, with Elsner 2016, 42, referring to the verso illustrations: ‘This is . . . competent work, skilfully and competently handled in a medium of realistic representation well established, taught and executed in the milieu in which the papyrus was made.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

144

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

careful, detailed drawings. This is especially clear in cases where the draughtsman has (re)drawn contour lines several times, an act of self-correction that may betray a quick and semi-improvisatory method of composition.64 We should also mention here those ‘narrative’ scenes where the draughtsman clearly drew one animal before adding the other: see, for instance, the xiphias/tunny-sawfish vignette (V9), where the contours of the xiphias remain clearly visible ‘through’ the coils of its opponent (Fig. 4.7). The identifying labels accompanying the animals also seem to have been written relatively quickly. Besides these identifying labels, the only text on the verso is a general title (V30) positioned towards the top right-hand corner of Section C: that is, towards the top right-hand corner of the surviving portion of the verso.65 At first sight this peripheral position might seem strange, but it is important to recall here D’Alessio’s calculation that the extant portion of P.Artemid. was originally preceded by another section at least as long to the left of Section C on the recto, meaning that it was originally followed by another section at least as long to the right of Section C on the verso. It follows that the general title might originally have been positioned close to the centre of the collection of animal illustrations.66 The text was restored by the editors as follows: ζHα] τὸν Ὠκεανὸν οἰκοῦν]τα καὶ πτηνὰ κα[ὶ πεζ]ὰ [κα]ὶ κήτη animals that inhabit the ocean, animals with wings, with feet and sea monsters67

An alternative reading, first proposed in 2012, is as follows: τὰ (?) παρὰ] τὸν ὠκεανὸν οἰκοῦντα πε]ζὰ καὶ πτηνὰ κα[ὶ ἐν αὐτ] κήτη the (?) walking animals and birds which [live near] the ocean and the (?) monsters [which live in it]68

Whichever reading we accept, it is clear that this general title referred to the broad division of the animal kingdom into aquatic, terrestrial, and flying species. We are reminded not only of Aristotle’s ‘systematic, multi-differentiae’ method of classification, but also of Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological

64

65 Lehmann 2012, esp. 270. General title: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 425–6. Contra Elsner 2016, 50, suggesting that the caption appears near the end of the roll. 67 English translation: Pajón Leyra 2012, 340. Original Italian translation in editio princeps: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 425. 68 Pajón Leyra 2012, 342 n. 172. See also Pajón Leyra 2010, instead restoring the first line as simply παρὰ] τὸν ὠκεανὸν (para ton o ̄keanon). 66

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

145

work. Indeed, we saw in Chapter 1 that Book 2 of the four-book Epitome treated viviparous animals (mostly mammals), Book 3 treated fish, and Book 4 treated birds. It is even possible that this general title accounted for the distribution of vignettes on the surface of the verso.69 Indeed, the majority of vignettes depicting birds (seven of ten examples) are positioned at the top of the roll, the majority of vignettes depicting fish and other aquatic species (nine of eleven examples) are positioned at the bottom, while most representations of terrestrial animals are positioned somewhere in between (Fig. 4.10). This interpretation has been doubted on the grounds that ten or so vignettes do not conform to this framework:70 three birds at the bottom, two mammals at the bottom, a mammal at the top, and two fish in the middle of the roll. It is striking, however, that the three birds positioned towards the bottom—the black-winged stilt (?) labelled

F I G . 4.10. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso, Section C. The distribution of animals across the height of the roll mostly follows a fixed pattern: fish and water-based creatures at the bottom, land animals in the centre, and birds at the top. H of roll: c.32.5 cm.

69

Proposed by Van Minnen 2009, 173–4. List of ‘striking and significant exceptions’: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 315. The same view is shared by Kinzelbach 2009, 9. 70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

146

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 4.11. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V14. Black-winged stilt (?) labelled hudroskopos. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

F I G . 4.12. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V28. Flamingo labelled muxos. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

ὑδροσκοπος (hudroskopos) meaning ‘water-seeker’ (Fig. 4.11), the flamingo (?) labelled μύξος (myxos) (Fig. 4.12), and the heron labelled ἀνεμοσκάπτης (anemoskaptē s) (Fig. 4.13)—are all aquatic waders, an observation that may account for their juxtaposition with other water-based species.71 The same conclusion applies to the pair of mammals at the bottom of the roll, since the semi-aquatic associations of both emerge clearly from their accompanying labels: κάστωρ (kasto ̄r) meaning ‘beaver’ (V6) (Fig. 4.14) and ὦτος χέρσυδρος (o ̄tos chersudros) meaning ‘amphibious 71

Hudroskopos vignette (V14): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 367–9; Kinzelbach 2009, 44–5. Muxos vignette (V28): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 419–21; Kinzelbach 2009, 83–4. Heron vignette (V37): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 444–6; Kinzelbach 2009, 97–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

147

F I G . 4.13. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V37. Heron labelled anemoskaptē s. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

F I G . 4.14. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V6. Unidentified mammal labelled kasto ̄r. While this term usually refers to the beaver, the creature represented here bears limited resemblance to this species. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

big-eared [creature]’ (V24) (Fig. 4.15) respectively.72 It also seems likely that the canine labelled ἀστροκύων (astrokuo ̄n) (V29) (Fig. 4.16), meaning ‘starry dog’, was

72 Beaver vignette (V6): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 341–3; Kinzelbach 2009, 25–6. ‘Amphibious big-eared mammal’ vignette (V24): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 403–5; Kinzelbach 2009, 74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

148

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 4.15. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V24. Unidentified mammal labelled o ̄tos chersudros. Both its name and its position towards the bottom of the roll suggest that this creature is an ‘aquatic’ mammal. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

F I G . 4.16. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V29. Canine labelled astrokuo ̄n, meaning ‘starrydog’. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

149

depicted at the top of the roll thanks to its celestial associations.73 The only two animals that break with the overall framework are the pair of fish depicted in the middle of the roll: the hammerhead labelled ζύγαινα (zugaina) (V18) (Fig. 4.18) and the fish labelled οὐρανοσκόπος (ouranoskopos) meaning ‘heaven-watcher’ (V20).74 Clearly, then, the general title accounted for the distribution of vignettes on the verso, with ‘flying and celestial animals’ depicted towards the top, ‘terrestrial animals’ depicted in the centre, and ‘aquatic and amphibious animals’ depicted at the bottom of the roll. The notion that many of the vignettes constitute ‘exceptions’ leans too heavily on a modern conception of birds as airborne animals, mammals and reptiles as terrestrial animals, and fish and crustaceans as aquatic animals. Rather, the designer of P.Artemid. seems to have adopted a classificatory system that was built on the habitats of represented animals rather than on class, order, or genus. Together with Aristophanes’s Epitome, the papyrus illustrates the thought that went into subdividing the animal kingdom along new lines during Hellenistic times. It remains to consider the conditions in which the verso illustrations were first formulated. As with the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, there are good reasons to suppose that these illustrations were not based on the observation of living specimens kept in captivity. The key evidence is again supplied by the inclusion of fantastical-looking animals with limited basis in reality:75 the pair of crocodile-panthers labelled χέρσυδροι πανθηροκορκόδειλο[ι] (chersudroi panthē rokorkodeilo[i]) (V3) (Fig. 4.17),76 the xiphias and tunny-sawfish shown wrestling in V9 (Fig. 4.7), the griffin abducting a leopard cub from its mother (V19) (Fig. 4.3), and the winged murmē x-lion confronting a serpent (V22) (Fig. 4.5). Three of these creatures find parallels in the works of art considered in Chapters 2 and 3: the griffin recalls the specimens depicted in the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa (Fig. 3.11) and the hunt mosaic at Shatby (Fig. 3.21); the xiphias resembles the specimen in Section 2 of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.21); and the pair of crocodile-panthers can be compared to the specimen

73 ‘Starry-dog’ vignette (V29): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 422–4; Kinzelbach 2009, 85–6. For the view that this vignette was inspired by the astronomical tables composed by Johannes Hevelius (1611–87), see Micunco 2008a, 199–206. For a convincing rejection of this theory, see Adornato 2008a, 240–4. 74 Hammerhead vignette (V18): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 381–2; Kinzelbach 2009, 57–8. ‘Heaven-watcher’ vignette (V20): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 388–90; Kinzelbach 2009, 62–3. 75 This division between ‘real’ and ‘fantastical’ creatures is not absolute, since many of the represented specimens combine real and fantastical characteristics. Useful here is the categorization of the verso illustrations adopted by Elsner 2009, 48: ‘some fantasy creatures, some highly conventional renderings of real animals . . . some with distinct resemblances to caricature’. 76 Crocodile-panther vignette (V3): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 333–5; Kinzelbach 2009, 18–19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

150

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 4.17. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V3. A pair of crocodile-panthers (labelled chersudroi panthē rokorkodeilo[i]) bask at the riverbank. Another crocodile-panther is depicted in Section 11 of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

labelled ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΙϹ (krokodilopardalis) in Section 11 of the Nile Mosaic (Fig. 2.11). It is also telling that none of the real animals depicted on the papyrus is represented with a scientific degree of accuracy. We might mention particularly the sea creature labelled ζύγαινα (zugaina) (V18) (Fig. 4.18), which is clearly supposed to represent the hammerhead shark. Here the most pronounced anatomical inaccuracy is the lack of connection between the hammer-shaped head and the body: the former projects from a second, round head attached to the body by a long neck. Other inaccuracies include the series of projections (horns?) sprouting from the round head, the tiny pectoral fins, and the implausibly thin, curling tail (compare Fig. 4.19). Together these observations indicate that the animal vignettes were not modelled on real-life specimens kept in captivity. It is more likely that they originated in the same cultural and artistic milieu as the labelled animals of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste. This was a milieu in which descriptions and depictions of animals were sometimes formulated on the basis of sporadic interactions with species in the wild, but also one in which stories, rumours, exaggerations, inaccuracies, and contradictory accounts concerning particular species circulated freely, and in which the line separating real and fantastical creatures was not sharply drawn. Our appreciation of this milieu is enhanced by the vignette depicting a murmē xlion confronting a serpent (V22) (Fig. 4.5). As we have noted, this illustration

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

151

F I G . 4.18. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V18. Hammerhead shark labelled zugaina. The creature depicted on the papyrus bears little resemblance to real-life specimens. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

F I G . 4.19. Hammerhead shark (family: Sphyrnidae). The distinctive cephalofoil head affords this creature extra maneuverability when hunting its prey.

intersects particularly closely with the accounts of Aethiopian fauna composed by Agatharchides of Knidos and Artemidoros of Ephesos. It is striking, however, that the vignette also exhibits correspondences with other textual descriptions of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

152

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

murmē x surviving from antiquity. The textual traditions can be summarized as follows: • Herodotos, writing in the fifth century BC, described murmē kes as goldmining ants living in India, and tells us that they were somewhere between foxes and dogs in size.77 Pliny the Elder also described these creatures as giant insects in the first century AD.78 • Agatharchides and Artemidoros, writing in the Hellenistic period, recorded that the murmē x was a type of lion indigenous to Aethiopia, characterized by its ‘reversed’ genitals, its golden colour, and its relative lack of hair compared to lions in Arabia.79 The same tradition was recorded by Aelian in the early third century AD, although situating the creature in Mesopotamia rather than Aethiopia.80 • Strabo, citing the authority of Nearchos, records the existence of ‘goldmining murmē kes’ in India that had ‘skins . . . like those of leopards’. He then tells us, citing the authority of Megasthenes, that these creatures were as big as foxes, swift, and carnivorous, before providing information concerning their gold-mining habits.81 Arrian, writing in the early second century AD, likewise mentions these Indian creatures, and reveals that Nearchos never saw one in person, but that his knowledge was based on (leopard-like?) skins brought into to the Macedonian camp.82 • Later authors including Philostratus and Heliodorus refer to the goldmining activities of the murmē kes, but situate these creatures in Aethiopia rather than India.83 The murmē x depicted on the verso of P.Artemid. does not map directly onto any one of these traditions, but combines characteristics referred to in several.84 That the creature is represented as a ‘big cat’—rather than a giant insect—fits neatly with the accounts of Agatharchides and Artemidoros, although it is unclear whether the draughtsman also included the ‘reversed genitals’ mentioned by these authors. Its spotted coat, meanwhile, accords well with the account of Nearchos transmitted by Strabo and Arrian, even if the draughtsman included no obvious reference to the creature’s propensity for gold mining. The drawing

77 79 80 83 84

78 Herodotos, Histories 3.102. Pliny, Natural History 11.111. Agatharchides frs. 70a and 70b Burstein; Artemidoros apud Strabo, Geography 16.5.15. 81 82 Aelian, Nature of Animals 17.42. Strabo, Geography 15.1.44. Arrian, Indica 15.5–7. Philostratus, Life of Apollonios 6.1; Heliodorus Emesenus, Aethiopicae 10.26.2. Demonstrated by Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 397–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

153

also incorporates anatomical features that are not mentioned in our surviving textual sources: the wings sprouting from its shoulders, the pair of horns protruding from its skull, and the barbel beneath its chin. It is possible that the wings betray the influence of the depictions of winged lions in Persia and the East.85 We are led to reconstruct a dynamic cultural and artistic milieu that allowed for widely varying descriptions and depictions of particular species. A useful point of comparison, in this respect, is supplied by the depiction of a female ass-centaur labelled ΗΟΝΟΚΕΝΤΑΥΡΑ (onokentaura) in Section 1 of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.22).86 This fantastical species was also described by Pythagoras, a Ptolemaic admiral whose ‘eye-witness account’ of Aethiopia was consulted by Agatharchides: There is a certain creature which they call an ass-centaur (onokentaura) . . . Its face is like that of a man and is surrounded by thick hair. Its neck below its face, and its chest are also those of a man, but its teats are swelling and stand out on the breast; its shoulders, arms, and forearms, its hands too [ . . . ] chest down to the waist are also those of a man. But its spine, ribs, belly, and hind legs closely resemble those of an ass; likewise its colour is ashen, although beneath the flanks it inclines to white. The hands of this creature serve a double purpose, for when speed is necessary they run in front of the hind legs, and it can move quite as fast as other quadrupeds. Again, if it needs to pluck something, or to put it down, or to seize and hold it tight, what were feet become hands; it no longer walks but sits down. The creature has a violent temper. At any rate if captured it will not endure servitude and in its yearning for freedom declines all food and dies of starvation. This also is the account given by Pythagoras and attested by Krates of Pergamon in Mysia.87

Once again there are interesting discrepancies between text and image.88 According to Pythagoras, this creature had a human torso and arms combined with the lower body and rear legs of an ass. In the Nile Mosaic, by contrast, the human aspect is confined to the head. Such case studies indicate that the culture of taxonomizing the natural world that developed in Ptolemaic Alexandria catered for a certain level of pluralism: that is, for the existence of competing—or indeed complementary—accounts concerning the appearance and behaviour of particular species. Fantastical creatures like the murmē x and the ass-centaur were perhaps particularly susceptible to this kind of varied treatment, since there was no scope for depictions, reports, and descriptions to be crosschecked against real-life specimens.

85 86 88

Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 398. Nile Mosaic ass-centaur: Meyboom 1995, 20–2, 111–14. Recognized already by Adornato 2008a, 237–8.

87

Aelian, Nature of Animals 17.9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

154

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

P.ARTEMID. AND HELLENISTIC NATURAL SCIENCE

There are other ways in which the animal illustrations of P.Artemid. impact upon our understanding of natural science in the Hellenistic world. Here it will suffice to comment on three of the most interesting. A first point stems from the seven verso vignettes depicting antagonistic encounters between different animal species: the xiphias fighting a tunny-sawfish (V9) (Fig. 4.7), an elephant being constricted by a serpent (V16) (Fig. 4.6), a griffin abducting a leopard cub from its mother (V19) (Fig. 4.3), the murmē x-lion fighting a serpent (V22) (Fig. 4.5), a leopard stalking a serpent (V25) (Fig. 4.9), a tiger facing off with a serpent (V31), and a lynx attacking a wild goat (V38) (Fig. 4.8).89 Three of these vignettes find parallels in our surviving texts: the elephant/serpent vignette embodies a topos communicated by Agatharchides of Knidos and Artemidoros of Ephesos, and by several later authors;90 the griffin/ leopard vignette echoes a story recorded by Timotheos of Gaza concerning a griffin that abducted a tiger cub before being chased by its mother into the sea;91 and the leopard/snake vignette recalls a passage concerning the enmity between these creatures recorded in the Physiologus.92 Several antagonistic encounters depicted in the works of art discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 can likewise be connected to the textual tradition. Taking first the Tomb of Apollophanes, the animal frieze incorporated a representation of a snake attacking a bull (Figs. 3.9 and 3.10), recalling Agatharchides and Artemidoros’s account of ‘serpents thirty cubits in length which overpower elephants and bulls’,93 as well as a reference in Megasthenes’s Indika to snakes that ‘grow so large as to be able to swallow stags and bulls whole’.94 The juxtaposition of the elephant and rhinoceros in this composition (Fig. 3.12) also recalls Agatharchides and Artemidoros’s comment that these species were ‘inclined to fight . . . for places of pasture’.95 Turning to the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, the confrontation between a cobra and a mongoose in Section 21 recalls the hostility between these species recorded by authors including Aristotle, Nikander, and Pliny the Elder.96 The same theme appears twice at Pompeii: on a tripartite mosaic that decorated the 89

For a useful overview of narrative animal groups in ancient visual culture, published prior to the discovery of P.Artemid., see Mielsch 1986. 90 Full list of textual sources, with commentary: Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 375–6. 91 Timotheos of Gaza, On Animals 9. 92 Phys. Redactio prima, 16. Original Greek text: Sbordone 1991, 60–4. New commentary on the Physiologus: Lazaris 2016. 93 Agatharchides fr. 80c Burstein; Artemidoros fr. 98 Stiehle. 94 BNJ 715 F 22 = Pliny, Natural History 8.36. On Megasthenes, see now Wiesehöfer, Brinkhaus, and Bichler 2016. 95 Agatharchides frs. 72a, 72b, 72c Burstein; Artemidoros fr. 97 Stiehle. 96 Aristotle, History of Animals 612a; Nikander, Theriaka ll. 209–57; Pliny, Natural History 8.88.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

155

threshold of the exedra containing the Alexander Mosaic in the House of the Faun (Fig. 6.19), and on a painted socle panel from the west wall of the Ekklesiasterion of the Temple of Isis.97 In Section 1 of the Nile Mosaic (Fig. 2.22), meanwhile, we see a serpent devouring a group of herons, recalling an anecdote about snakes that ‘catch and gulp down birds passing over them’ that Pliny attributes to the secondcentury BC author Metrodoros of Skepsis.98 We might also mention here the fish mosaics from Late Republican Italy analysed in Chapter 6, several of which depict a three-way struggle between an octopus, a lobster, and a moray eel (see e.g. Figs. 6.6 and 6.11). As we shall see, this combat corresponds to a zoological topos communicated by Aristotle and a succession of later authors. It is clear, then, that stories concerning antagonism between different species constituted an important component of Hellenistic natural science, and that such stories were often reproduced in visual media. We cannot rule out the possibility that the lynx/wild goat (V38), xiphias/tunny-sawfish (V9), murmē x-lion/serpent (V22), and tiger/serpent (V31) vignettes likewise communicated widespread zoological topoi, some of which might also have existed in written form. It would be interesting to know whether any of these topoi were recorded by the third-century BC author Bolos of Mendes, since his work is known to have addressed the sympathies and antipathies of natural phenomena including plants, stones, and animals.99 A second point emerges when we consider the series of four vignettes depicting snakes fighting different land animals (V16, V22, V25, V31). Although the snake squaring off with the tiger in V31 is missing, the three surviving specimens exhibit considerable variety in terms of their nomenclature and anatomy. Indeed, the ‘amphibious serpent’ (ch[er]sud[ros ophis]?) constricting the elephant in V16 has an open mouth with sharp teeth and a long tongue inside (Fig. 4.6); the specimen fighting the murmē x-lion in V22 lacks an identifying label, but has a distinctive feathery cap at the top of its head and a pointed beard under its jaw (Fig. 4.5); and the ‘dragon’ (drako ̄n) facing off with the leopard in V25 has a beard but no feathery cap (Fig. 4.9). This variety hints at a culture of sub-classifying herpetological species during Hellenistic times, an idea that also fits well with our surviving textual evidence. A particularly useful point of comparison is Nikander’s Theriaka, a 958line didactic poem composed (probably) in the second century BC, which concerns 97

Nilotic threshold mosaic: Andreae 2003: 111–25. Ekklesiasterion painting: De Vos 1980, 61, pl. 39.2; Sampaolo 1992, 56 cat. 1.65. For the cobra-mongoose topos in ancient visual culture more broadly, see Mielsch 2005, 66–71. 98 BNJ 184 F 10 = Pliny, Natural History 8.36. The same topos is reported by Aelian, Nature of Animals 2.21. Discussion: Whitehouse 1976, 11–12, 89 n. 7; Meyboom 1995, 20, 222 n. 3; Mielsch 2005, 81–3; Trinquier 2007, 35–6. 99 A possibility hinted at already by Trinquier 2009, 362. On Bolos of Mendes, see now BNJ 263 (M. Węcowski), with further bibliography.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

156 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 poisonous creatures and the wounds they inflict.100 The bulk of this text is devoted to describing different varieties of dangerous snake (ll. 145–492) and the antidotes used to treat snake-attack victims (ll. 493–714). In total, Nikander discusses some fourteen different species, including the ‘amphibious’ watersnake (chersudros), and the ‘dragon’ (drako ̄n) with its ‘beard of yellow stain’.101 Viewing this poem in tandem with the verso of P.Artemid., therefore, we detect the outlines of a rich tradition of herpetological study and classification during Hellenistic times. A third aspect of Hellenistic zoology is illuminated by the four vignettes depicting fish accompanied by labels that were used more commonly to denote creatures belonging to different habitats: the ‘hare-fish’ labelled λαγω[ό]ϲ (lago ̄[o]s) (V5) (Fig. 4.20),102 the ‘hawk-fish’ labelled ἱέραξ (hierax) (V11) (Fig. 4.21),103 the ‘bull-fish’ labelled ταῦροϲ (tauros) (V17) (Fig. 4.22),104 and the ‘lizard-fish’

F I G . 4.20. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V5. ‘Hare-fish’ labelled lago ̄os. A detailed description of this species is preserved in Aelian’s Nature of Animals. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

100

Translation of Theriaka, with introduction: Gow and Scholfield 1953. More substantive commentary: Jacques 2002; Overduin 2015. The case for a third-century chronology is made by Hornblower 2017, 31. 101 ‘Amphibious’ watersnake: Nikander, Theriaka ll. 359–71. ‘Dragon’ snake: ibid., ll. 438–47. 102 Hare-fish vignette (V5): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 339–40; Kinzelbach 2009, 22–4. 103 Hawk-fish vignette (V11): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 358–60; Kinzelbach 2009, 37. 104 Bull-fish vignette (V17): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 378–80; Kinzelbach 2009, 55–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

157

F I G . 4.21. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V11. ‘Hawk-fish’ labelled hierax. There is a clear connection between the fish’s anatomy and its avian nomenclature. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

F I G . 4.22. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V17. ‘Bull-fish’ labelled tauros. The taurine qualities of the fish are readily apparent. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

158

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 4.23. Artemidoros Papyrus, verso vignette V39. ‘Lizard-fish’ labelled sauros. This specimen has a clear reptilian character. Digitally enhanced reproduction published in the editio princeps.

labelled σαῦρος (sauros) (V39) (Fig. 4.23).105 It is striking that these representations do not closely resemble real fish species, but rather incorporate some of the salient anatomical characteristics of the animals named in their accompanying labels. Hence the ‘hare-fish’ has a hare-like snout and a pair of sharp incisor teeth; the ‘hawk-fish’ has a hooked beak, a pair of long, slender pectoral fins resembling wings, and a caudal fin rendered as a bifid tail; the ‘bull-fish’ has a head that is separated from the rest of its body, a pronounced nostril on its snout, a muscular hump behind its head, and a pair of horns; and the ‘lizard fish’ has a reptilian head separated from the rest of the body, an auricular opening in place of gills, and four fins disposed in positions corresponding to the legs of a lizard. Clearly these drawings were informed by the nomenclature of the represented specimens rather than a close knowledge of real ichthyological species. Viewed together, they suggest that ancient zoology catered for the belief that particular mammals and birds had aquatic analogues living underwater. We find traces of this belief elsewhere. The closest visual comparanda are the pair of fish depicted on the north frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa (Fig. 3.13).106 As we saw in Chapter 3, these fish were equipped with some of the defining anatomical features of the elephant and the rhinoceros facing them at the far eastern end of the southern frieze, characterizing them as an ‘elephant-fish’ and a ‘rhinoceros-fish’ respectively. We might also mention, in this context, the testimony of Aelian, writing in the early third century AD, whose treatise On the Nature of Animals drew extensively from pre-existing zoological literature. In one

105 106

Lizard-fish vignette (V39): Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 451–3; Kinzelbach 2009, 101–2. Pointed out already by Adornato 2008a, 235–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

159

passage, Aelian mentions fish living in the waters surrounding Taprobane (Sri Lanka) that ‘have the heads of lions and leopards and wolves and rams’.107 In another, he provides a detailed account of ‘hare-fishes’ living in the Indian Ocean: The sea-hare (lago ̄s thalattios) . . . resembles the land animal in every respect except in its fur. For the fur of the land-hare seems smooth and is not hard to the touch. Whereas the sea-hare’s fur is prickly and erect and if one touches it one is stabbed. They say that it swims on the surface ripples of the sea and does not dive into the depths, and that it swims very fast. It is not easily caught alive, the reason being that it never falls into a net, nor yet will it approach the line and bait of a fishing-rod. When however this hare through sickness and inability to swim is cast up on shore, anyone who touches it with his hand dies if he is not treated . . . 108

There are clear correspondences between Aelian’s description of the ‘hare-fish’ and the representation of this creature on P.Artemid. (Fig. 4.20). Most notably, the dangerous ‘prickles’ mentioned in the textual description correspond with the row of spikes on the creature’s back in the papyrus drawing.109 It is also telling that Aelian comments on the difficulties involved in capturing the ‘hare-fish’, since this was presumably one of the factors influencing the belief that this creature resembled its terrestrial counterpart so closely. Doubtless the illustrations of P.Artemid. provide other insights into the world of Hellenistic taxonomy and zoology that remain to be enumerated. Still, we have seen in this chapter that these illustrations attest to the happy coexistence of real and fantastical animals in ancient thought; to the existence of multiple traditions concerning particular species; to the circulation of topoi concerning the enmity between different creatures; to the belief that birds and terrestrial animals had aquatic analogues living underwater; and to the sub-classification of different types of snake. Given the complexity of this picture, it seems unlikely that the designs of all the verso vignettes were realized for the first time on the papyrus itself. This scenario presupposes an incredible amount of work on the part of the draughtsman, and a highly detailed knowledge of these diverse aspects of contemporary zoology. Rather, it seems more likely that at least some of the vignettes were modelled on pre-existing designs collected in one or more repertories of illustrations, formulated in tandem with—or in response to—descriptions and topoi like those preserved in our textual sources. This reconstruction fits neatly with the chronology of P.Artemid., since the roll seems to have been designed 107

Aelian, Nature of Animals 16.18. Aelian, Nature of Animals 16.19. See also Pliny, Natural History 9.155, contrasting the sea-hare in Italian waters ‘resembling a hare in colour only’ with the Indian variety, which is ‘also like a hare in size and in fur, only its fur is harder; and there it is never taken alive’. 109 Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 340. 108

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

160

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

long after the practice of depicting animals with identifying labels first emerged in the third century BC. It also raises the question of why the draughtsman of P.Artemid. decided to compile this collection of animal illustrations in the first place, and of what kind of function they were intended to perform.

THE FUNCTION(S) OF THE VERSO

Ever since P.Artemid. became known, the idea that the verso illustrations served as an artistic intermediary used in the production of more grandiose works of art has featured prominently in discussions of the document. This theory has two variants that require careful consideration. A minority view, first proposed by Philippe Bruneau, holds that the entire verso was conceived as a paradeigma: that is, a 1:1 scale model used for producing a mosaic or wall painting similar to the upper register of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste.110 This interpretation accords well with the observation that much of our evidence for the use of paradeigmata in antiquity comes from Egypt,111 but remains difficult to reconcile with the verso vignettes themselves. Indeed, these vignettes are spatially and proportionally unconnected to each other, and they all have independent backgrounds.112 These features speak against the possibility that the verso served as a direct model for a single mosaic or wall painting. More widespread is the view that the verso served as a ‘pattern book’: that is, as a repository of individual designs that could be rescaled and reconfigured in shifting combinations during the production of new works of art.113 The existence of such ‘pattern books’ has long been posited by classical archaeologists, despite the absence of any securely identified examples surviving from antiquity. According to a recent analysis of mythological picture panels in Pompeian wall paintings, the artists responsible for these compositions originally used three

Bruneau 2000, 191–7. For the reverse view, that the verso is ‘a copy in another medium of a great work of art, probably derived from a Hellenistic masterpiece’, see van Minnen 2009, 173–4. 111 See especially P.Cair.Zen. IV 59665, dated 256–246 BC, which records a contract for the laying of two mosaic floors in a bathhouse at Philadelphia in the Fayyum, and instructs the mosaicists to follow a paradeigma supplied by the royal palace (eg basilikou paradeigma). For commentary on this important text, see e.g. Koenen 1971; Bruneau 1980; 1984, esp. 244–5; Daszewski 1985, 6–12; Dunbabin 1999, 23, 278, 318; Whitehouse 2010, 1014. We might also mention here a series of papyrus ‘pattern sheets’ from Egypt, which were used as cartoons for reproducing motifs on woven textiles from the first to the seventh centuries AD: see Stauffer 1996; 2008; 2016. 112 Settis 2008, 90–1; Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 318. 113 For this view, see e.g. Kramer 2001, 116; Donderer 2005, 62; 2005/2006, 82–3; Trinquier 2007, 45; Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 317–22; Schmidt-Colinet 2009, 589; Elsner 2010; 2012, 291–2. 110

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

161

distinct types of book: ‘model books’, which transmitted images of entire compositions; ‘outline books’, which were like model books but recorded only the outlines of figures and significant compositional details; and ‘figure books’, which contained repertories of individual figures or figure groups.114 Within this framework, the verso of P.Artemid. would seem to fit most neatly into the ‘figure book’ category. But there are also difficulties with this interpretation. We have already touched upon one these: namely, the mediocre artistic quality of many of the animal illustrations. It is true that the quality of the surviving vignettes is variable, and that the standard of artistry on the verso is higher than on many of our illustrated papyri surviving from antiquity. We might compare, for instance, a pair of recently published papyri from the rubbish dumps at Oxyrhynchus carrying drawings of animals, which seem rudimentary and two-dimensional compared to the best illustrations of P.Artemid.115 Even so, the verso illustrations of P.Artemid. are themselves sketchy and quickly executed, and lack the clarity and sophistication required to suggest that they could have served as models for the crisp, clean representations of animals in works of art like the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, let alone more detailed representations of animals like those in the fish mosaics analysed in Chapter 6.116 Comparison with these mosaics highlights another serious flaw with the ‘pattern book’ theory: the verso illustrations are monochrome, and supply no indication of the colours of the represented species. Supposing that P.Artemid. functioned as a ‘pattern book’ therefore requires a tacit acceptance that the artists who used it already knew the colours of all the species they represented, or that they could determine them from an independent visual source. Both of these contingencies seem unlikely. Another objection to the ‘pattern book’ theory centres on the relationship between the verso illustrations and the contents of the recto. As we have seen, three of the four components of the recto—the two passages of text, and the map—were united by a shared interest in geography. The verso illustrations can also be linked to this overarching theme, since descriptions of animals featured prominently in geographical literature in Hellenistic times, including the work of Agatharchides and Artemidoros. This correspondence suggests that the verso illustrations were conceived in relation to the other elements of the papyrus, and that they should not necessarily be attributed to a separate ‘life’ of the artefact during antiquity. In other words, we might suppose that the individual(s) responsible for P.Artemid. aimed at compiling a miscellany or anthology of texts and images encompassing a single theme. It is interesting, in this context, that the

114 116

115 Clarke 2009; 2010. P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5402, 5403. Commentary: Whitehouse 2018, 203–7. Recognized already by Mielsch 2008, 183; Lehmann 2012, 270.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

162 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 script used for the identifying labels on the verso is similar to that used for the passages of text on the recto: they may have been written by the same hand.117 We should therefore consider what kind of document could have contained such an assortment of thematically connected texts and images. Several commentators have already suggested that we should look outside of the high cultural plane of deluxe book production and/or artistic ‘pattern books’ for an answer to this question.118 One way of approaching the issue is to compare the function(s) of other Hellenistic papyri that likewise carry texts and images encompassing an overarching theme. Two comparanda are particularly instructive. The first is the so-called Eudoxus papyrus in the Louvre, a document from the archive of the ‘recluses’ Ptolemaios son of Glaukias and his brother Apollonios at the Memphis Serapeion, dated shortly before 165/164 BC.119 This papyrus carries a prose astronomical treatise on the recto, accompanied by a series of colour illustrations (Fig. 4.24). The astronomical theme is carried over onto the verso thanks to an iambic acrostic poem that invokes the skill (technē ) of the fourth-century BC astronomer and mathematician Eudoxus of Knidos.120 Several correspondences with P.Artemid. can be noted.121 From a textual perspective, it is clear the treatise on the recto is not the original Eudoxus, but rather a paraphrase or summary replete with spelling errors, not unlike Cols. I–III on the recto of P.Artemid. From an iconographic point of view, it is significant that the astronomical illustrations on the recto are not strictly relevant to the accompanying treatise, recalling the loose connection between the text of P.Artemid. and the animal illustrations on its verso. And from a compositional standpoint, the thematic unity again extends to both sides of the document. It is clear that this papyrus should not be connected to the high-end world of deluxe book production: rather, it is something like a commonplace notebook, composed by an academically inclined but intellectually limited amateur for private consumption.122 The comparatively modest social level of the document is confirmed by the later reuse of the blank spaces on the verso for recording a series of administrative texts.

117

Janko 2009, 403; Strassi 2009, esp. 25–7. Notably Parsons 2009b, 33: ‘we could look outside the ordered world of scriptoria and ateliers to a much more messy and improvisatory context’. 119 P.Paris 1. Commentary: e.g. Blass 1887; Weitzmann 1947, 49–50; Neugebauer 1975, 686–9. A terminus ante quem of 165/4 BC is supplied by an administrative circular written on the verso of the papyrus. 120 Recent analysis of poem: Squire 2011, 116–21. 121 These correspondences are enumerated brilliantly by Parsons 2009a; 2009b, esp. 32–3. 122 See Jones 2009, 345: ‘As a whole the work does not seem to be an adequate index of what astronomers were doing in the early second century, but is probably a fair portrayal of what an educated layperson knew about the subject.’ 118

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

163

F I G . 4.24. Eudoxus papyrus (P. Paris 1), recto, cols. 9–13. This side of the roll carries an astronomical text accompanied by a series of rudimentary diagrams connected to this scientific discipline. 160–150 BC. Length of entire papyrus: 283.5 cm. Maximum preserved height: 48.4 cm. Paris, musée du Louvre N2325.

The second comparandum is a well-known schoolteacher’s papyrus from the Fayyum, dated to the late third century.123 This papyrus is divided into two parts. The first consists of a series of didactic syllabic exercises and number sequences, leading to the identification of the document as a teaching manual. These exercises were separated by architectural sketches: a series of tall, slender columns with different kinds of black-and-white banding (Fig. 4.25a, Fig. 4.25b). The second part of the papyrus, meanwhile, carries copies of two Ptolemaic court epigrams: one from a fountain monument dedicated to Arsinoë II or Arsinoë III; the other from a monument for Homer consecrated by Ptolemy IV Philopator. Here the connection between text and image stems from the relationship between the Ptolemaic epigrams and the sketched columns separating the teaching exercises. On the one hand, the epigrams suggest that the individual responsible for the papyrus was interested in and/or conversant with the architecture of royally sponsored building projects in Alexandria. On the other, the tall, slender columns separating the teaching exercises exhibit close correspondences with the royal style 123 Cairo, Egyptian Museum inv. 65,445. Full publication: Gueraud and Jouget 1938. Analysis of illustrations: Smith 2010.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

164

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

(a)

(b)

F I G . 4.25. Fayyum Schoolteacher’s Papyrus, recto, cols. 9–14. This section of the papyrus carries a series of syllabic exercises and number sequences separated by drawings of slender, pavilion-style columns. Third century BC. Extant length of entire papyrus: c.250 cm. Maximum preserved height: 10.5 cm. Cairo, Egyptian Museum inv. 65445. (a) Photograph. (b) Drawn reconstruction.

of architecture described by Kallixeinos of Rhodes in his account of third-century Alexandria.124 Hence the tall, slender dimensions of the columns recall the architecture of the banqueting pavilion of Ptolemy II Philadelphos: Five wooden columns 50 cubits high stood at intervals along the long sides, and four along the shorter sides . . . Four columns [sc. in the corners] were made to resemble palm-trees, while those in the middle were decorated like Dionysiac staffs.125

And the black-and-white banding of the columns can be compared to columns in the Egyptian oecus of the great Nile yacht of Ptolemy IV Philopator:

124

Smith 2010, 217–18.

125

Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.196b–c.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

165

It was decorated in the Egyptian style; because the columns in it increased in diameter from the bottom to the top, with drums of different sizes that alternated between black and white.126

These correspondences strongly suggest that the columns depicted on the papyrus were inspired by a contemporary canon of royal architecture, which might also have been used in the fountain for Arsinoë and monument for Homer alluded to in the epigrams. Once again, then, we are presented with a thematically unified document that seems to have been conceived at a modest social level. Such comparanda suggest that the collection of geographical texts and images on P.Artemid. was likewise compiled in a private context, possibly in a scholarly or didactic milieu. This interpretation accords well with the prose of Cols. I–III on the recto, which, we have seen, was probably composed by an individual who did not possess proper Greek. Although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions concerning the personality of the author based on the text alone, it is feasible that Cols. I–III were composed by a young student studying geography, or by a modest scholar with a special interest in the field.127 We should note, in this context, that geography and paradoxography were important parts of the ‘curriculum’ for students studying in ancient Egypt. This is indicated by a series of thirteen documents from Egypt—seven papyri, four ostraka, and two wooden tablets—ranging in date from Ptolemaic to Byzantine times, which are all concerned with the teaching of geography.128 Of these, P.Berol. 13,044, a papyrus roll dated to the second or first century BC, is closest to P.Artemid. in date.129 This document contains a series of educational word lists known as the Laterculi Alexandrini: some pertaining to famous men, including lists of lawgivers, painters, sculptors of gods and men, architects, and engineers; others pertaining to geography and the natural world, including lists of the Seven Wonders, the largest islands, the highest mountains, the longest rivers, the most beautiful springs, and the greatest lakes.130 We should be alert to the possibility that P.Artemid. was likewise an educational document conceived at a similar social level. A possible stumbling block to this interpretation is posed by the anatomical sketches on the recto of P.Artemid., which do not fit neatly into the document’s overarching geographical-paradoxographical framework. But this difficulty is not 126

Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.206a–b. Alternatively, we might consider the possibility that the text was written by an individual whose first language was not Greek: for example, an Egyptian priest intent on familiarizing himself with literary and artistic currents of royal or imperial Alexandria. This possibility is suggested by Rathbone 2012, 448. 128 Documents collected and presented in Legras 1994. 129 The papyrus was published by Diels 1904 (col. I—col. VI l. 9) and Wilcken 1923 (col. VI l. 9—col. XII). 130 For discussion of the Laterculi Alexandrani, see Diels 1904; Legras 1994, 167–9, 172–4; Cribiore 1996, 270 no. 380; D’Alessio 2012, 304–9; Pajón Leyra 2014. 127

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

166

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

necessarily insurmountable. After all, the Laterculi Alexandrini juxtaposed lists of places and landmarks with lists of sculptors and painters, demonstrating that fields as diverse as geography and the visual arts could happily coexist within a single roll.131 We should also note that it was not uncommon for a single papyrus roll to be filled up with ostensibly disparate content. A good example is the aforementioned Eudoxus papyrus, since administrative texts were added to either side of the verso’s acrostic poem during a secondary phase of use. It is significant that one of these administrative texts is written in the same hand as the astronomical treatise on the recto. In other words, we do not need to posit a separate ‘life’— in the sense of a different hand and/or context—to account for the miscellaneous contents of the roll. Rather, we have here an example of the evolving use of a papyrus within an unchanging cultural milieu, and we may well envisage a comparable pattern of use for P.Artemid. In this case, the anatomical drawings might simply reflect a different interest of the individual(s) responsible for all the geographical-paradoxographical content on the papyrus.

CONCLUSIONS

For all its extraordinary characteristics, then, the Artemidoros Papyrus was not a high-end cultural artefact that enjoyed three distinct lives during antiquity. The eccentric text in Cols. I–III did not belong to a deluxe version of Book 2 of the Geographoumena, and the verso illustrations did not constitute a ‘pattern book’ for reproducing designs in more prestigious artistic media. Rather, the papyrus contains a series of thematically related texts and images, which are most comprehensible if we assume they originated in the private sphere, possibly in a scholarly or didactic context. From an art historical perspective, we may feel disappointed that P.Artemid. is not a ‘missing link’ clarifying how artistic designs were transmitted and reproduced during antiquity. But recognizing the document’s comparatively modest origins is itself significant, since it provides an indication of the extent to which the scientific interest in the natural world permeated Graeco-Egyptian society during the Hellenistic period and beyond. The Nile Mosaic at Praeneste strongly suggests that the culture of depicting exotic animals with taxonomic identifying labels emerged within the uppermost echelons of Alexandrian society, and the painted frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa indicates that this trend was co-opted by provincial aristocrats within the Ptolemaic kingdom. The verso of P.Artemid., by contrast, hints at the diffusion of this interest in taxonomy and the natural world down the social and artistic spectrum. By the later Hellenistic 131

D’Alessio 2012, 309.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

the artemidoros papyrus

167

period, it seems, taxonomic drawings of exotic animals were sufficiently dispersed that they could be reproduced on papyri for private use, in conjunction with such undistinguished passages of text as the verbose encomium of geography in Cols. I–III of the recto. The papyrus offers a unique glimpse of a more popular interest in geography and paradoxography, and a reminder that ancient visual culture was not confined to the dazzling mosaics and wall paintings that so often capture the attention of classical archaeologists. The second half of this monograph returns to the world of mosaics and wall paintings, focusing on works of art containing highly naturalistic representations of particular animal species. We will see that there are strong grounds for supposing that several such compositions from Late Republican Italy were inspired by— perhaps even modelled on—earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. This again raises the question of how detailed designs were transmitted and reproduced during antiquity. Since P.Artemid. does not supply the answer to this question, it will be useful to consider other alternatives.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

FIVE

Animals in Hellenistic Royal Mosaics Tryphē and Taxonomy in Alexandria and Pergamon

Not all representations of animals in the Hellenistic world were accompanied by identifying labels in Greek. The period also witnessed the birth of a new fashion for depicting particular animal species with a scientific level of naturalism. This fashion was sometimes manifested in large-scale bronze statuary, judging by chance survivals like the Horse and Jockey group discovered in an ancient shipwreck off the coast of Euboea near Cape Artemision (Fig. 5.1). According to one description, ‘[r]ealistic features abound in the Horse’, including ‘the narrow build of its body, its tense working muscles, the incised hoof and chin hairs, anatomically correct teeth, ears pressed back, and the way in which the bridle bit sits comfortably in the back of the horse’s mouth’.1 The realism of such statues was sometimes thematized in the epigrams inscribed on their bases. For example, an epigram by Poseidippos of Pella, author of the series On Stones discussed in Chapter 2, surely once accompanied a group similar to the Horse and Jockey from Artemision:2 Admire the mettle of this colt, how he pants from end to end, flanks strained to the limit as when he ran at Nemea. To Molycus he brought the crown of celery, winning by a last thrust of his head.3

It is difficult to assess the prevalence of naturalistic representations of animals in Hellenistic statuary, since so few compositions executed in bronze—the premier material for large-scale statues during this period—have survived.4 More extensive is our corpus of high-quality marble animal statues surviving from the Roman

1

Hemingway 2004, 93–4. Contra Fantuzzi 2005, 268, suggesting that Poseidippos’s equestrian epigrams were not written to accompany real statue monuments. For criticism of this view, see Dickie 2008, 14–16, 21–2; McKechnie 2012, 74. 3 Poseidippos AB 72. Translation: Nisetich 2005. 4 Recently on bronze statuary from the Hellenistic world, see the essays in Daehner and Lapatin 2015. 2

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

169

F I G . 5.1. Horse and Jockey group discovered in a shipwreck off Cape Artemesion in Euboea. The group is a rare surviving example of an athletic victory monument of the Hellenistic period. Perhaps second century BC. Bronze. Height to the top of the head: 2.05 m. Length without modern tail: 2.50 m. Athens, National Archaeological Museum, Metalwork Collection, inv. no. X 15177.

period, including the Uffizi Boar, the Jennings Dog, and the ancient pieces in the Sala degli animali in the Vatican Museums.5 Such compositions are often said to be modelled on Hellenistic archetypes,6 but further work is required to ascertain the scale and scope of this influence. We are on firmer ground when it comes to representations of animals in mosaic, since compositions in this medium tend to survive better than large-scale bronze statuary. It is striking that high-quality mosaics containing naturalistic representations of particular animals have been excavated in the palatial districts of two leading Hellenistic royal capitals: Alexandria and Pergamon. These mosaics will be analysed in this chapter, with the aim of determining how such compositions were made in practice, and why they were considered so important to royal selfpresentation.

THE DOG MOSAIC FROM ALEXANDRIA

We saw in Chapters 1 and 2 how Ptolemaic expeditions to Aethiopia led to an increased knowledge of the fauna of this region, and how some of these species were subsequently imported to Alexandria for observation and display. Given this, 5

Uffizi Boar: Mansuelli 1958, 78–80 no. 50. Jennings Dog: Williams 2010. Sala degli animali: GonzálezPalacios 2013. 6 See e.g. Harden 2014, 55: ‘In the surviving media, truly naturalistic animals are generally Hellenistic.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

170

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

it is tempting to imagine that detailed representations of animals were routinely produced in Alexandria, where both zoological knowledge and the ability to commission high-grade works of art carried associations of prestige. Some support for this possibility is supplied by a votive shield made of gilded bronze, originally perhaps from third-century BC Egypt, which is decorated with an accurate representation of an East African gerenuk (Litocranius walleri) in repoussé (Fig. 5.2; compare Fig. 5.3).7 The finest animal representation surviving from Alexandria, however, is the remarkable Dog Mosaic excavated in 1993 (Fig. 5.4).8 Both this composition

F I G . 5.2. Gilded bronze shield, perhaps originally from Ptolemaic Egypt. Decorated with a central boss and spina, and with a representation of an East African gerenuk in repoussé. Perhaps third century BC. H: 117 cm; W: 64 cm. Stuttgart, Württemberg State Museum Inv. Arch. 71/1.

7

For this seldom-discussed shield, see Künzl 2003. Studies of the Dog Mosaic include Saïd 1994; Saïd and Abdel Fattah 1997; Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, esp. 265–72; 1998b, 230 cat. 177; Daszewski 2001; Queyrel 2012. 8

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

171

F I G . 5.3. East African gerenuk (Litocranius walleri). The species is sometimes known as the giraffe gazelle on account of its long neck.

and the Wrestlers Mosaic discussed in Chapter 2 (Fig. 2.28) were uncovered in the area of the new Bibliotheca Alexandrina, just to the south of the el-Silasah promontory of the Cape Lochias peninsula, in the district once occupied by the Ptolemaic palaces (Fig. 1.1).9 As M. Rodziewicz has demonstrated, the building in which the mosaics were laid may have functioned as a small bathing complex.10 Indeed, both compositions were covered with ‘thick layers of water sediments’ at the time of excavation, and other discoveries—notably a sewage canal for evacuating waste water—suggested that fresh water was available at the site, which was probably channelled from a nearby aqueduct. The mosaics themselves have been dated to the first half of the second century BC on stylistic and technical grounds,11 a chronology supported by ceramic fragments recovered during excavations.12 The Dog Mosaic centres on a circular picture field depicting a dog seated next to a precious metal vessel (diameter: 95.0 cm). In this central field, the mosaicist(s) achieved a stunning painterly effect through the use of tesserae as small as 1.0 mm. Both the dog and the vessel are shown resting on a brown surface, which is

9

Find location: Saïd 1994, 377; Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, 263; Daszewski 2001, 268; McKenzie 2007, 69; Rodziewicz 2009, 192–5. 10 Rodziewicz 2009, 192–5. 11 Stylistic and technical analysis: Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, 277–90. But see now the observations of Wootton 2012, criticizing the notion of linear technical and stylistic evolution in Hellenistic mosaics, with several references to Guimier-Sorbets’s analysis of the Alexandrian Dog and Wrestler pavements. 12 Ceramic evidence: Saïd and Abdel Fattah 1997, 22; Daszewski 2001, 272; Queyrel 2012, 320.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

172

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 5.4. Dog Mosaic from the palatial district in Alexandria. The central field depicts a powerful dog wearing a red collar sitting next to an expensive askos-shaped oinochoe. Early to mid-second century BC. Diameter of central picture field: 95 cm. Bibliotheca Alexandrina Antiquities Museum inv. 0859.

demarcated in the foreground by a plain black band that functions like the vertical front of a stage. The dog is seated on his hindquarters in three-quarter view, looking out of the picture field towards the viewer. His body is broad and muscular, while his face is characterized by wide eyes, a thin, pointed muzzle, and lupine ears. He wears a red collar around his neck, indicating that he is domesticated, and suggesting—together with the vessel—that the scene may take place indoors. His fur is predominantly white, but there are large patches of black on his body and symmetrical patches of black and tan on his face and ears. The overall effect is highly naturalistic, suggesting that we are dealing with a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

173

detailed representation of a real dog.13 At first sight this might seem difficult to reconcile with the observation that the specimen does not precisely resemble any ‘breed’ or ‘pedigree’ identified as such today. But the very concept of a pedigree is probably anachronistic in this context, when we consider the long gap separating modern breeds from ancient dogs, as well as the fact that animal reproduction in antiquity was often the product of chance.14 The represented animal, then, lies between an ancient pure breed and a modern crossbreed, exhibiting clear correspondences with several dog species found today in North Africa and the Levant, notably the Aïdi, the Canaan dog, and the Basenji (all Canis lupus familiaris). The vessel depicted to the left of the dog is shown tipped over onto its side, with its mouth facing out of the composition towards the viewer. Its colour and lightreflective surface indicate that it is bronze or gilded bronze, while diagnostic features include the rounded pouring spout, the convex body shape, the flat section on the side with the handle, and the wooden handle attached with two metal rivets. It has been identified as a type of jug called an askos-shaped oinochoē, similar to a pair of real bronze examples from Dodona dated to the first half of the second century BC.15 The central picture field was surrounded by a series of concentric, circular borders, suggesting that the space in which the composition was laid might have been circular.16 The innermost border enclosing the central field is c.2.5 cm wide, and depicts a leaf-and-dart design rendered in different shades of grey to imitate the appearance of a moulding executed in marble or stucco. This border is itself framed by a thin red band, and then by a white border c.12.0 cm wide and punctuated by six evenly spaced lion heads, which likewise seem to be modelled on protomes or waterspouts in marble or stucco. The architectural character of these borders led François Queyrel to propose that the leaf-and-dart pattern was intended to recall the moulded edge of a basin, and that the central picture might have been conceived as a ‘reflection’ on the surface of the water inside.17 It is perhaps more likely that these borders were simply intended to provide a sophisticated decorative framework for the central picture field, which is the most technically accomplished part of the composition. This central picture has been subjected to a range of interpretations. Several studies have explored the possibility that the composition refers to a now-lost fable, communicating a moral message of some kind.18 Wiktor Daszewski, meanwhile, suggested that the dog is a portrait of a deceased pet of the Ptolemaic kings, 13 See Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, 269, commenting that the dog’s ‘distant descendants still walk today in Alexandria’. 14 Pointed out by Queyrel 2012, 324, referring to his correspondence with B. Denis. 15 Identification and comparanda: Touloumtzidou 2011, 542–5. 16 Note however that the excavators describe the mosaic as ‘probably square in shape’: see Saïd 1994, 378. 17 18 Queyrel 2012, 322. Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, 277; 1998b, 230 cat. 177; Daszewski 2001, 272–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

174

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

and that the mosaic therefore served a commemorative function, underscored by the presence of an empty vessel that ‘seems to say that something has ended’.19 Most recently, Queyrel interpreted the upturned vessel as a reference to the Festival of the Pitchers that formed part of the Anthesteria celebrations in Athens. We know that this festival was also celebrated in Hellenistic Alexandria thanks to a passage in Kallimachos’s Aetia.20 Noting Kallimachos’s warnings against excessive drunkenness in the same passage, Queyrel suggested that the composition might have encouraged viewers to refrain from heavy drinking in the context of the royal symposion.21 For all their diversity, these interpretations converge in supposing that the meaning of the picture was contingent on factors extraneous to the composition itself. It is perhaps more instructive to consider the iconography on its own terms, and to explore how it was suited to the decoration of a Hellenistic royal palace. Taking first the askos-shaped oinochoē, this is clearly an expensive vessel of the kind used by only the most privileged members of Hellenistic society. While such oinochoai may have been used to distribute wine at royal symposia, it is possible that the example in the mosaic refers more directly to the composition’s context of display. Indeed, several representations of askos-shaped oinochoai surviving from antiquity show them being carried by bath servants, suggesting that this was a special type of vessel used for pouring water at the baths.22 Best known, perhaps, is a mosaic from the bathhouse of the House of Menander at Pompeii, which depicts a figure dressed only in a wreath and a loincloth—probably a slave—holding two precious askos-shaped oinochoai.23 It follows that the vessel in the Alexandrian Dog Mosaic may represent the kind of expensive pouring vessel used in the palatial bathhouse where the composition was laid. Given its wooden handle, this type of vessel may have been used for distributing hot water. The dog was likewise well suited to the mosaic’s palatial context. Indeed, its powerful anatomy identifies the creature as the kind of swift, muscular companion deployed in a range of social contexts in the Hellenistic world, particularly in hunting and warfare. We have already encountered several representations of hunting dogs in this volume: the canine accompanying the group of Ptolemaic soldiers in the foreground of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.12); the pair of dogs in the hunting scene from the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa (Fig. 3.8); and the specimen on the short frieze of the Alexander Sarcophagus (Fig. 3.20), for example.24 Such dogs are also mentioned in our surviving Hellenistic

19

20 Daszewski 2001, 272–3. Kallimachos, Aetia fr. 178 Harder. 22 Queyrel 2012, esp. 332–7. Examples collected by Franken 2018. 23 PPM II, 380–1 no. 225 (F. Parise Badoni). 24 Other well known case studies include the frieze of Tomb II at Vergina and the pebble mosaics with hunt scenes at Pella. 21

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

175

literature. For instance, Agatharchides of Knidos recounts how the freelance hunters who caught the giant serpent in Aethiopia for Ptolemy II Philadelphos provoked the beast with ‘a pack of fierce dogs’.25 A more personal perspective is supplied by a papyrus from the Zenon archive, which contains a pair of epitaphs commemorating Tauron, an Indian hunting dog owned by Zenon, who was killed while protecting his master from a wild boar: This tomb tells that Tauron the Indian lies dead, but his murderer saw Hades sooner: the very one which was a beast to behold at close quarters, in fact an immovable remnant from the Caledonian boar was reared in its lair in the fruitful plains of Arsinoë, in the underbrush bristling thickly from his neck, and pressing foam from his jaws. But dashing his strength willingly against the courage of the young dog, the one ploughed a furrow, but the other without delay laid (the boar’s) neck upon the ground, for when he had grasped a great tendon along with (the boar’s) bristles, he did not loosen his teeth until he laid him low in Hades. [He (Tauron) saved (?)] without any schooling Zenon the hunter by undertaking ponos and wrought/fulfilled the charis with his tomb below the earth.26

There is no way of knowing, of course, whether dog in our mosaic represents a named canine companion like Tauron. It is perhaps more important to recognize that the depiction of this creature in a palatial context reflects the importance of such dogs to privileged members of Hellenistic society. These animals were involved in some of the quintessential social activities of the Graeco-Macedonian elite, including hunting and warfare, but perhaps also events in royal palaces.27

ROYAL MOSAICS FROM PERGAMON

Several mosaics containing highly naturalistic representations of animals have also been excavated in Attalid Pergamon. They were found in Palaces IV and V, two richly decorated buildings located in the southern part of the royal district on top of the city’s acropolis (Fig. 5.5; see also Fig. 1.2).

Palace IV Palace IV was a centripetal structure, with rooms organized around a peristyle courtyard (Fig. 5.5).28 It was comparatively small for a Hellenistic palace, with a

25

26 Agatharchides fr. 80b Burstein. P.Cair.Zen. IV 59532r, ll. 1–12. Translation: Pepper 2010. Previous studies have sometimes considered the possibility that that this is a ‘table dog’ (kuōn trapezeus), whose principal role would have been to accompany his master to the symposion: see Daszewski 2001, 272–3; Queyrel 2012, 326. 28 On Palace IV, see Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 25–30; Hoepfner 1996, 22–3; Nielsen 1999, 102–11 esp. 103–5; W. Radt 2011, 67–8; Zimmer 2011, esp. 145–6; 2014, esp. 280–1. 27

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

176 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

F I G . 5.5. Plan of Palace IV (above) and Palace V (below) at Pergamon, drawn by Wolfram Hoepfner. Hoepfner plausibly identifies Palace IV as the private residence (oikos) of the Attalid kings and suggests that Palace V was devoted to the entertainment of royal guests.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

177

surface area of just c.1,050 m2. Room A, on the eastern side of peristyle, was the largest in the building, and was decorated with a colourful mosaic floor and lively masonry style wall paintings.29 It is sometimes described as a hearth chamber (Herdgemach), on account of the rectangular altar or hearth excavated in the centre of the room. The surviving fragments suggest that the mosaic floor decorating this room consisted of a series of concentric borders framing a central picture field.30 Of particular interest here are two fragments of the central field carrying representations of fish (Fig. 5.6). The larger fragment (A) depicts the rear part of a fish with the profile of a rover-predator, positioned above a pale border with an egg-anddart design. This specimen has a counter-shaded body with tones of dark brown and green in its upper part and tones of light grey and pink in its lower part, as well as a thick black lateral line running across its side. The smaller fragment (B) depicts the head of a fish with a greyish-brown snout, an open mouth, bright red gills, and a beady yellow eye. While the fish are set against differently coloured backgrounds,31 their similar scale and colouration suggests that they probably

F I G . 5.6. These two fragments of the Fish Mosaic from Room A of Palace IV probably belong together. They depict a specimen sometimes identified as a sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Early to mid-second century BC. Fragment A (right): 15.5  11.9 cm; Fragment B (left): 6.8  5.0 cm. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 83.

29

Masonry style paintings: Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 47–50; Wirth 1931; Tarditi 1990; Bingöl 1997, 89–97; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 504–5 cat. 5.16 (V. Kästner). 30 On the mosaic decoration in Room A, see Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 54–7; Pernice 1938, 154; Salzmann 1995, 102 pl. 10; 2011, 103–4; Andreae 2003, fig. 140; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 518–19 cat. 5.41 (D. Salzmann). 31 Fragment A has a greyish-brown background, whereas Fragment B has a variegated background with a dark red zone and a beige zone separated by a thick black line.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

178

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

belonged to a single specimen. This specimen has been identified plausibly as a sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) (compare Figs. 6.8a and 6.8b),32 although the poor state of preservation and the slightly mannered style of execution make it difficult to classify with certainty. Given its royal display context, it is tempting to suppose that this mosaic was informed by the intense gastronomic interest in fish that constituted a hallmark of upper-class living and luxury (tryphē) in the Hellenistic world. Our biggest repository of information concerning this interest is Book 8 of Athenaios’s Learned Banqueters, in which a group of diners quote extensively from earlier texts concerning the culinary qualities of different fish.33 Several passages in Book 8 confirm that the Hellenistic kings and their philoi took an active interest in the consumption of seafood. Here we might mention an anecdote concerning an encounter between the third-century BC poet Antagoras of Rhodes and the Macedonian king Antigonos II Gonatas: The poet Antagoras did not let his slave pour oil on his fish, but made him “give it a bath”, according to Hegesander. He was wearing an apron and stewing a casserole-dish full of conger eels (gongroi) in camp, Hegesander reports; and King Antigonos stood beside him and said: “So, Antagoras; do you think Homer produced his account of Agamemnon’s accomplishments by stewing conger eels?” Antagoras offered a clever reply: “Do you think”, he said, “that Agamemnon produced those accomplishments by worrying about who in his camp was stewing conger eels?”34

While the point of this anecdote was apparently to emphasize Antagoras’s notorious gluttony, it offers a useful glimpse into social milieu against which the Fish Mosaic from Palace IV needs to be set.

Palace V Even more technically accomplished is the famous Parrot Mosaic excavated in Palace V at Pergamon.35 This building was considerably larger than Palace IV— although still small for a Hellenistic palace—with a total surface area of c.2,420 m2 (Fig. 5.5). It too was a centripetal structure, with a peristyle courtyard surrounded by rooms on its north, east, and south sides, probably on two storeys. The central peristyle probably combined a Doric lower storey with an Ionic upper storey, much like other royally sponsored buildings in the Attalid capital.36 The palace

32

Identification: Salzmann 1995, 101–2; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 518–19 cat. 5.41 (D. Salzmann). On Athenaios and his Learned Banqueters, see e.g. Braund and Wilkins 2000; Jacob 2013. 34 Hegesander FGrHist F 15 = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 8.340e. 35 On Palace V, see Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 30–9; Hoepfner 1996, 24–6; Nielsen 1999, 102–11 esp. 105–7; W. Radt 2011, 70–4; Zimmer 2011, esp. 146–7; 2014, esp. 281–3. 36 Recent overviews of Attalid architecture: Bachmann 2011; Seaman 2016. 33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

179

can be dated to the reign of Eumenes II (197–159 BC) with confidence, since discarded architectural members from the Great Altar—a building certainly erected by this king—were found built into its foundations.37 The mosaics decorating the palace were excavated 1886.38 From a stylistic and technical perspective, there is nothing to contradict the view that they were laid soon after the construction of Palace V, and so during the reign of Eumenes II or that of his successor Attalos II (159–138 BC). This chronology is supported by soundings taken beneath the mosaics by Dieter Salzmann, which yielded no ceramic material later than the mid second century.39 The Parrot Mosaic was excavated in the northernmost room of the eastern wing of the palace, today known as the Altar Chamber (Altargemach). This appellation stems from the rectangular marble base found abutting the rear, eastern wall of the room, which originally supported an altar or statue. The room was comparatively small, with a square-shaped floor measuring just c.3.12  3.13 m (Figs. 5.7 and 5.8). A series of cuttings in its threshold indicate that it was closed off from the peristyle

F I G . 5.7. This excavation photograph, taken from the north-east, documents the Altar Chamber of Palace V at the time of its discovery. The Parrot Mosaic is clearly visible in situ.

37

Zimmer 2014, 281–2. Chronology of Great Altar: e.g. Callaghan 1981; Stewart 2000. On the Altar Chamber mosaics, see Bohn 1886; Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 61–3; Salzmann 1991, 436–7; 1995, 108–10; 2011, 104; Tammisto 1997, 95, 105–10, 395–7 cat. SP1, 411–12 cat. GA1; Kriseleit 2000, 24–7 no. 7; Andreae 2003, 42–4; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 519–20 cat. 5.42 (D. Salzmann), 521–2 cat. 5.47 (U. Kästner); Picón and Hemingway 2016, 130 cat. 35 (U. Kästner). 39 Salzmann 1995, 109–10. 38

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

180

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 5.8. Dieter Salzmann’s reconstruction of the floor decoration of the Altar Chamber of Palace V. The Parrot Mosaic was laid at the left side of the central horizontal zone, between the pair of garland mosaics. Dimensions of Altar Chamber: 3.12  3.13 m.

by a metal grille or lattice—rather than solid wall—for most of its width, suggesting that its interior would have remained partially visible to those moving around the peristyle.40 This semi-open design may have been conditioned by the room’s rich decoration. The Parrot Mosaic is an emblema that was pre-fabricated in a mosaicist’s workshop, and ranks among the finest mosaics surviving from antiquity. Executed in refined opus vermiculatum, it depicts a parrot in profile, perching on a small rectangular pedestal (Fig. 5.9). The pedestal itself rests on a light brown surface, with a plain black background immediately behind. Today the emblema survives in a poor condition, but it is clear from the excavation photographs (e.g. Fig. 5.7) 40

Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 31; Salzmann 1995, 108; 2011, 104.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

181

F I G . 5.9. This watercolour reproduction of the Parrot Mosaic, first published in 1930, allows us to gauge which parts were preserved at the time of its discovery. The original sections are differentiated through the depiction of individual tesserae. Dimensions of original emblema: 36.5  51.1 cm. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Archiv, P 278.

that more was preserved at the time of discovery. According to an early report, the damage was originally restricted to the beak, crown, and lower feet of the bird, as well as small parts of its throat, belly, and tail, and large portions of the pedestal and the background to its right.41 These observations are corroborated by a watercolour reconstruction of the emblema published in 1930, in which the original and restored portions of the composition are clearly differentiated (Fig. 5.9). This watercolour now provides our best evidence for assessing the stunning pictorialism of the mosaic, which was achieved by a combination of technical and compositional means. From a technical perspective, the tesserae were as small as 0.5 mm and encompassed an impressive range of colours and shades. The bird’s plumage incorporated many different tones of green, as well as a selection of violets, greys, pinks, oranges, yellows, browns, and blues that helped to enliven and distinguish the different parts of its anatomy, including individual feathers. From a compositional perspective, the mosaicist took great care to render

41

Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 63.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

182

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

the perspective of the scene correctly, seen most clearly in the recession of the rectangular pedestal into space. He also introduced a definite light source, emanating from in front of the parrot and to the viewer’s right, causing the pedestal to cast a shadow across the ground. This was ‘a true painting in stone’,42 with a final effect comparable to the finest contemporary panel painting. The astonishing naturalism of the parrot leaves little doubt that the mosaic depicts a specific ornithological species. Its anatomy, bright green plumage, red neck collar, and the red-violet patch at the top of its wing all identify the bird as an Alexandrine parakeet (Psittacula eupatria), a species indigenous to India (Fig. 5.10).43 It has been suggested that the bird’s feet—with two toes facing forwards, and two toes facing backwards—were also configured naturalistically,44 but this view conflates the original and restored portions of the mosaic, since there is nothing to suggest that the lower parts of the feet were preserved at the time of excavation. In order to appreciate the full significance of the Parrot Mosaic, it is first necessary to introduce the remaining decoration of the Altar Chamber (Fig. 5.8).

F I G . 5.10. Alexandrine parakeet (Psittacula eupatria). Male specimens have pinkish-red collars encircling their necks and dark red patches on their ‘shoulders’. Both of these diagnostic features are clearly visible on the Pergamene emblema.

42 44

Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 61. Tammisto 1997, 95.

43

Identification: Tammisto 1997, 82, 95.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

183

At the rear, eastern end of the room, the marble altar was flanked to either side by an emblema set into a field of white tesserae. The emblema to the left was well preserved at the time of discovery, depicting a tragic mask, while the emblema to the right was mostly destroyed, but probably depicted a comic mask. The remaining floor space was bordered by a series of friezes at its outer edges, including one with an elaborate bead-and-reel design, possibly with semi-precious gemstones in the centre of each bead.45 The rectangular area enclosed by the friezes was divided into three horizontal zones. The upper and lower zones were c.46.0 cm high, each depicting a garland tied into swags with taeniae, set against a light background. Only two thirds of the lower garland survive, but we are struck by its rich botanical variety: ivy leaves, linum flowers, bunches of grain, acanthus scrolls, carnation leaves, apples, oleanders, and flowers of different colours can all be identified (Fig. 5.11). Three small birds are also shown perching on or near the garland. The

F I G . 5.11. Different bird species were shown fluttering around the garlands depicted in the Altar Chamber. This section of the lower garland includes a common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) perching on a sprig and a green woodpecker (Picus viridis) standing below. Early to mid-second century BC. Height of garland zone: c.47 cm. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 71.

45

Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 63.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

184

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

central horizontal zone, meanwhile, was c.84.5 cm high, and was divided into three contiguous subsections by strips of lead. The two lateral subsections were decorated with emblemata: the Parrot Mosaic to the left, and a now-missing panel to the right. The central subsection did not contain an emblema but depicted a motif with ‘rounded contours’ set against a light background.46 Together with the marble altar, the floor decoration has been taken as proof that the Altar Chamber functioned as a shrine of Dionysos Kathegemon, a tutelary deity of the Attalids whose public sanctuary was located at the north end of the theatre terrace in Pergamon.47 According to this reading, the emblemata depicting dramatic masks alluded to this god’s role as the patron deity of the theatre, while the mass of ivy in the lower garland was included as an explicitly Dionysian motif. The Parrot Mosaic, meanwhile, could be connected to Dionysos because the Alexandrine parakeet was widely known to be indigenous to India, the land conquered by this god in Greek art, literature, and thought.48 Viewed altogether, then, these themes encapsulate some key aspects of Dionysos, the Hellenistic royal divinity par excellence. While this interpretation successfully accounts for the range of iconography deployed in the Altar Chamber, it is possible that the Parrot Mosaic also carried other meanings for contemporary viewers. It is conceivable, for instance, that the bird’s Indian associations communicated a geopolitical message in addition to a strictly Dionysian, religious one. For some viewers, the creature might have evoked Alexander the Great and his stunning conquest of India, a subject well suited to conversation in any Hellenistic royal palace. For others, the depiction of this Indian bird might have signalled the wide extent of Attalid contacts and control. It is also noteworthy that many ancient texts concerning parrots concentrate on this bird’s ability to imitate human speech: Aristotle, for instance, records that ‘the Indian bird, the parrot (psittakē) is said to be human-tongued (and it becomes even more outrageous after drinking wine)’.49 This remarkable ability no doubt appealed to the royal taste for paradoxa and extraordinary natural phenomena, and may have influenced the decision to commission the mosaic.

46 Salzmann 1995, 109. For the suggestion that this part of the composition might likewise have represented a bird, see Tammisto 1997, 396. 47 For this interpretation, see e.g. Salzmann 2011, 104. On the Temple of Dionysos Kathegemon in Pergamon, see W. Radt 2011, 188–93; Maischberger 2011; 2014. 48 Indian origins: e.g. Ktesias FGrHist 688 F 45.8; Aristotle, History of Animals 597 b27; BNJ 133 F 9 = Arrian, Indica 15.8–9; Aelian, Nature of Animals 13.18, 16.2; Pliny, Natural History 10.117. Discussion: Arnott 2007, 201–3, with further references. 49 Aristotle, History of Animals 597b27–9. Other ancient texts commenting on the ability of the bird to speak include Plutarch, On the Intelligence of Animals 972f–973a; Aelian, Nature of Animals 6.19, 13.18, 16.2. Recent discussion: Mynott 2018, 143–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

185

The Alexandrine parakeet was not the only ornithological species depicted in the Altar Chamber, since three further birds survive in the lower garland mosaic. While these specimens are rendered with larger tesserae than the parrot (each c.2.0 mm), they too can be identified with particular species.50 To the left, the small brown songbird perched on a twig springing from the garland is clearly a common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos), while the specimen standing in the area below has been identified as a green woodpecker (Picus viridis) based on its anatomy and coloured plumage (Fig. 5.11). To the right, meanwhile, the passerine with a black face, throat, and wings and a white crown, back, and belly can be identified a wheatear: either a Finsch’s wheatear (Oenanthe finschii) or the eastern subspecies of the black-eared wheatear (Oenanthe melanoleuca) (Fig. 5.12). It is frustrating that these garland mosaics are so poorly preserved, since it is clear that they originally accommodated a larger number of birds. According to one estimate, each garland would have been populated by six or so birds, making a total of around twelve overall.51 In this case, the three preserved specimens originally belonged to a more extensive repertoire of taxonomically accurate representations of birds. Antero Tammisto has attempted to reconstruct this more extensive repertoire using later Italian works of art in which ‘Pergamene’ birds discussed so far—the Alexandrine parakeet, the nightingale, the green woodpecker—were depicted in conjunction with other species.52 In the absence

F I G . 5.12. The third bird preserved in the lower garland mosaic has been identified as a wheatear (Oenanthe finschii or Oenanthe melanoleuca). Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 71.

50 52

51 Tammisto 1997, 105–10. Tammisto 1997, 105. Pergamene ornithological repertoire: Tammisto 1997, 188–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

186 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 of any further material from Pergamon itself, however, we should perhaps be content with the knowledge that mosaicists working at the Attalid court specialized in producing accurate representations of particular birds.

PLINY THE ELDER AND SOSOS OF PERGAMON

We know of another mosaic laid in Attalid Pergamon that incorporated detailed representations of birds. This is one of two pavements attributed to the mosaicist Sosos of Pergamon by Pliny the Elder: Paved floors (Pavimenta) originated among the Greeks and were skilfully embellished with a kind of paintwork until this was superseded by mosaics (lithostrata). In this latter field the most famous exponent was Sosos, who at Pergamon laid the floor of what is known in Greek as ‘the Unswept Room’ (asaroton oecon) because, by means of small cubes tinted in various shades, he represented on the floor refuse from the dinner table and other sweepings, making them appear as if they had been left there. A remarkable feature there is a dove, which is drinking and casts the shadow of its head on the water, while others are sunning and preening themselves on the brim of a large drinking vessel (mirabilis ibi columba bibens et aquam umbra capitis infuscans; apricantur aliae scabentes sese in canthari labro).53

This passage provides our only surviving reference to a particular mosaicist—and indeed to specific mosaics—in the textual record, an anomaly usually explained with reference to the exceptional quality of Sosos’s pavements.54 It is probable that these compositions were commissioned during the period of Attalid hegemony in Pergamon: that is, prior to 133 BC, when Attalos III Philometor bequeathed the kingdom to Rome.55

Sosos’s Doves The only work of art excavated in Pergamon depicting a dove perching on a vessel is a wall painting from Room 36 of the House of the Consul Attalos, dated to the Roman Imperial period.56 For mosaics depicting this subject we have to turn elsewhere: seven examples survive from Pompeii, Capua, Ostia, Delos, Tivoli,

53

Pliny, Natural History 36.184. For the general anonymity of Hellenistic mosaicists, see Dunbabin 1999, 269–73. On Pliny’s criteria for selecting material to include in his Natural History, see Murphy 2004, 1–25. 55 Dunbabin 1999, 27: ‘Pliny gives no date for Sosos’s work at Pergamon, but it must belong to the period of the kings, before 133 BC.’ 56 On this painting, see Jashemski 1993, 390–1 cat. 141; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 486 cat. 3.147 (J. Auinger); Salvadori 2017, 215–16 cat. PE1. 54

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

187

Malta, and Alexandria respectively.57 These compositions are all different in terms of style, technique, and iconography, suggesting that the doves-on-basin motif became an adaptable topos in mosaic art during Hellenistic and Imperial times. It is possible, however, that the motif retained a specifically Pergamene frame of reference, since two of these mosaics juxtapose doves with other bird species that were also depicted in the Attalid royal capital. Indeed, the Capua mosaic shows two parrots perching alongside a dove (Fig. 5.13), while the Ostia mosaic shows a parrot and a black-eared wheatear standing beneath the dove motif, together with a third bird that has been identified as either a wryneck (genus: Jynx) or a chukar-

F I G . 5.13. Emblema from Capua showing two parrots and a dove perching on the rim of a bronze basin, while a spotted housecat waits below. First century BC. H: 58; W: 50 cm. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli inv. 9992.

The first six examples are catalogued by Tammisto 1997, 376–84 cats. DM1–DM6. The seventh is part of a recently excavated pavement from Kom el-Dikka in Alexandria, to be discussed briefly in Chapter 7: see Kołątaj, Majcherek, and Parandowska 2007, 34–8. 57

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

188

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

type partridge (Alectoris chukar).58 The parrots in both compositions recall the emblema from Palace V, while the black-eared wheatear in the Ostia mosaic recalls the specimen on the Altar Chamber garland. The most technically accomplished version of the subject is the emblema excavated in the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli in 1737, which is today kept in the Palazzo Nuovo of the Capitoline Museums (Fig. 5.14).59 This composition consists of a series of monochrome borders and a sophisticated bead-and-reel design surrounding a central picture field. The central field is c.65.0 cm wide and c.54.0 cm

F I G . 5.14. Dove Mosaic from the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli, showing four doves perching on the rim of an expensive basin. There are strong reasons for supposing that this composition was modelled directly on Sosos’s original Pergamene masterpiece. H: 85; W: 98 cm. Hadrianic? Rome, Capitoline Museums inv. MC0402.

58

Capua mosaic: Sampaolo 1986, 118–19 cat. 18; Tammisto 1997, 75, 80–1, 380–1 cat. DM4. Ostia mosaic: Tammisto 1997, 76–8, 382–4 cat. DM6. 59 Capitoline dove emblema: e.g. Parlasca 1963; Helbig4 II no. 1256 (K. Parlasca); Donderer 1987, 368–70; 1991; Tammisto 1997, 74–5, 376–7 cat. DM1; Dunbabin 1999, 26–7; Andreae 2003, 161–75; Kielau 2004. Find context: De Franchesini 1991, 337; Werner 1994, 102–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

189

tall, and is executed in stunning opus vermiculatum, with some tesserae as small as 1.0 mm. It depicts four doves (family: Columbidae) perching on the rim of an elaborate bronze bowl, which itself stands on a rectangular board resting on a flat brown surface. Three doves preen themselves while the dove second from the right drinks from the bowl, causing a series of concentric ripples to form on the water’s surface. This drinking dove and the specimens at the far left and right all have speckled plumage that picks up a golden glow from the bronze basin and the water inside. The second dove from the left, meanwhile, has distinctive brown feathers, suggesting that it may be a different sub-species. This is a work of ‘astonishing painterly character’ that also ranks among the finest mosaics surviving from antiquity.60 Its outstanding quality has led some to suppose that the Tivoli emblema is in fact Sosos’s original masterpiece, lifted from its original Pergamene context and relaid in the Villa of Hadrian in the second century AD.61 There is however one compositional feature that speaks against this possibility: the mosaicist did not succeed in rendering the recession of the rectangular board into space completely accurately, making it appear slightly trapezoidal in shape. One wonders whether a Hellenistic mosaicist of Sosos’s calibre would have made this kind of mistake.62 Even so, we should not rule out the possibility of a direct connection between the Tivoli emblema and Sosos’s famous original, especially since many of the finest artworks from the Villa of Hadrian are later versions or replicas of earlier Greek masterpieces. Best known, perhaps, are the four caryatids built into the colonnade framing the long ‘Canopus’ pool, which are copies of korai from the south porch of the Erechtheion on the Athenian acropolis.63 We might also mention a fine pair of marble heads belonging to a Polyphemos group identical to the well-known ensemble from the imperial villa at Sperlonga.64 Viewed alongside such artworks, it seems possible that the Tivoli Doves is a later version or replica of the original laid by Sosos at Pergamon, and there are in fact two further observations that speak in favour of this interpretation. Firstly, there are compositional correspondences that link the Tivoli mosaic with the Parrot Mosaic from Palace V discussed above (Fig. 5.9).65 In both compositions, ornithological subjects are depicted against a plain black background, with light emanating from a single source outside the scene to the viewer’s right. The board beneath the basin in the Tivoli mosaic also corresponds to the parrot’s pedestal in the Pergamene emblema, and plays a comparable ‘supportive’ function. 60 62 64 65

61 Dunbabin 1999, 27. Donderer 1991; 1999, 91–2. 63 I am grateful to R. R. R. Smith for this observation. Tivoli caryatids: Raeder 1983, 213–20. Tivoli Polyphemos group: Raeder 1983, 40 no. I.12, 143 no. III.3, 169 no. III.79. Highlighted by Kielau 2004, 501–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

190

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

The second observation pertains to the bronze basin depicted in the Tivoli mosaic, which stands on three spool-shaped feet. An egg-and-dart pattern decorates the rim of this vessel, and to the viewer’s left there is a movable ring handle, presumably with a counterpart on the opposite side. Beneath the handle is a female figure in relief, although it is unclear whether she has been rendered in repoussé or added in appliqué. Her right arm is raised above her head, and her wings and tail feathers identify her as a siren.66 This vessel can be identified as a skyphos-shaped krater, a type of bowl used for serving wine at the symposion.67 Several comparable vessels survive in the archaeological record: a silver basin from Tchortomlyk with three spool feet and female figures rendered in relief beneath its pair of ring handles, dated to between 350 and 250 BC; a bronze basin from Kurdzhips-Kurgan with an egg-and-dart pattern on the rim and heroic male figures in relief beneath its ring handles, dated to the fourth or third century BC; and a silver basin from Borovo in Bulgaria with a gilded egg-and-dart pattern on its rim and two gilded protomes beneath its ring handles, dated to the fourth century BC.68 These comparanda indicate that the vessel in Tivoli mosaic is late Classical or Hellenistic in design, supporting the view that the iconography was first conceived in Hellenistic times. It is tempting to conclude, therefore, that the Tivoli mosaic is a later replica of Sosos’s famous original.69 But the situation is complicated by Pliny’s account, since there are discrepancies between his description and the iconography of the Tivoli emblema. Most notably, Pliny records that Sosos’s doves were shown perching not on a skyphos-shaped krater but on a kantharos: that is, on a drinking cup with two high handles that could easily be held by a single symposiast. It might be objected here that no kantharos would be big enough to accommodate at least three doves in the way Pliny implies, suggesting that he may have been mistaken in his choice of terminology. But Pliny also mentions a shadow cast on the water by the dove shown drinking from the vessel, whereas the only hint of a shadow on the Tivoli mosaic is cast by the rightmost dove preening itself on the rim. Given these discrepancies, the precise relationship between Sosos’s original and the Tivoli mosaic remains unknowable. We can be confident, however, that the doves in Sosos’s mosaic were depicted with a high level of naturalism, as they certainly were in the composition from Tivoli.

66

67 Kielau 2004, 492–4. Identification: Touloumtzidou 2011, 449–57. Comparanda: Kielau 2004, 496–8; Touloumtzidou 2011, 449–57. See also Meyer 1977, 109, noting that ‘[t]he shape of the basin, the decoration of the rim, and the spool-like feet are commonly Hellenistic’. 69 Contra Pernice 1938, 164 and Andreae 2003, 164, both suggesting that the mosaic from the House of the Doves at Pompeii is closest to Sosos’s original. 68

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

191

Sosos’s Unswept Room The other mosaic by Sosos described by Pliny did not contain naturalistic representations of living animals. Rather, it depicted the detritus of a banquet on the surface of the floor, as though waiting to be swept away following a dinner party. It will be useful to consider this Unswept Room in some detail, since there are telling points of intersection with the other compositions discussed so far in this chapter. Sosos’s original Unswept Room has not survived, but five mosaic versions of this subject are preserved, ranging in date from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.70 These compositions are all different in style and iconography, demonstrating that this subject offered considerable scope for originality and experimentation. The most technically accomplished version is a mosaic found in 1833 on eastern side of the Aventine hill in Rome, just outside the Aurelian walls.71 It is housed today in the Museo Gregoriano Profano of the Vatican Museums. This Unswept Room composition was one of a series of sophisticated opus vermiculatum borders framing a lost central picture in a large room belonging to an impressive suburban villa complex (Fig. 5.15). The other principal border, positioned directly inside the Unswept Room, depicted a Nilotic scene with Egyptian fauna and flora set against a black background. These borders were themselves surrounded by an elegant floor of opus sectile, while the walls of the room were punctuated by a series of niches and decorated with marble revetment. This lavish decoration suggests that the room was one of the principal display suites in this Aventine villa complex: it probably functioned as a triclinium. The Unswept Room border was c.4.05 m long on each side and c.0.70 m wide, depicting the leftovers of a banquet as though scattered on the floor of a dining hall. Although the composition has been subjected to a series of restorations since its piecemeal removal from the Aventine,72 we can be sure that the pavement seen today is broadly in keeping with the ancient original thanks to two nineteenthcentury reproductions—a tapestry and an etching—each modelled on a now-lost drawing made at the time of the mosaic’s discovery.73 Among the debris are fish bones, chicken feet, a chicken head, small animal bones, sea urchins, artichokes, lettuce leaves, cherries, grape stalks, figs, chestnuts, walnuts, and the remains of molluscs and crustaceans (Figs. 5.16 and 5.17). These remains are interrupted on

70

The most comprehensive surveys of the surviving versions are Moormann 2000, 80–7, and Perpignani and Fiori 2012, 11–15, 39–58. 71 Aventine mosaic: Nogara 1910, 3–5; Werner 1994, 120–7; 1998, 265–8; Liverani and Spinola 2003, 104–6. Find location: Werner 1994, 120; 1998, 260–5. 72 For the modern history of the mosaic, see Werner 1998, 260–4. 73 Tapestry by Eraclito Gentili: Werner 1998, 262, 271–2 n. 21. Etching by Filippo Troiani: Werner 1998, 272 n. 23.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 5.15. Plan of the Roman villa complex excavated on the Aventine in 1833, with east at the top of the picture. The Unswept Room (measuring c.4.05  4.05 m) was one of several borders framing a central emblema in the large chamber to the north. These borders were surrounded by an elaborate floor in opus sectile. Black ink drawing with watercolour details by Virgilio Vespignani. DAI, Rom, Archiv A-VII-69-047.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

193

F I G . 5.16. Detail from the Aventine Unswept Room. Among the discarded morsels, a common dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) nibbles on an empty walnut shell. Second century AD. Width of frieze: c.70 cm. Vatican Museums cat. 10132.

the west side by a picture field containing six dramatic masks and a selection of ritual objects, beneath which a horizontal white band encloses the signature of the mosaicist, ΗΡΑΚΛΙΤΟϹ ΗΡΓΑϹΑΤΟ (Hēraklitos ērgasato), meaning ‘Heraklitos made [it]’. The viewing axis established by this signature suggests that the entrance to the room was positioned on this same western side. Further support for this reading is supplied by the drop shadows cast by the leftovers on the white floor, which were oriented as though illuminated by a single light source shining from this direction. The composition is usually dated to the Hadrianic period thanks to the coffer and waveband borders enclosing the Unswept Room, both of which lack close parallels prior to the second century AD. The dramatic masks above Heraklitos’s signature likewise find their closest comparanda in the art of Hadrianic times.74 Given the high technical and artistic quality of the Aventine Unswept Room, it is tempting to assume that the iconography of this mosaic was closely modelled on that of Sosos’s original. In the absence of any more substantive evidence, however, the most we can say is that the pavement exhibits one or two compositional features that we would expect to observe had it been modelled closely on an 74

Chronology: Werner 1994, 124; 1998, 267–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

194

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 5.17. An extraordinary range of leftovers is depicted in the Aventine Unswept Room. In this section we see the remains of fish, fruits, nuts, molluscs, and crustaceans. To the right is one of six theatrical masks depicted above the signature of the mosaicist Heraklitos. Second century AD. Width of frieze: c.70 cm. Vatican Museums cat. 10132.

earlier version of the same subject: the drop shadows cast on the white ground by the leftovers are all aligned as though illuminated by a single light source; and the relative scale of these leftovers is both realistic and unerringly consistent. The question remains open, but there is every reason to believe that the Aventine mosaic echoed Sosos’s original in style and spirit, and it will be useful here to consider it in these terms. From an iconographic perspective, the most striking feature of the mosaic is that it simultaneously pretended to be and was a floor, achieving a trompe l’oeil effect that embraced the full potential of the medium. Sosos’s original Unswept Room was surely similar in this respect, especially when we consider that this kind of illusionism is paralleled in the surviving mosaic art of Attalid Pergamon. Indeed, the ‘Hephaistion mosaic’ laid in Room K of Palace V preserved a small section showing the mosaicist’s signature— ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝ ΕΠΟΙΕΙ (Hēphaistiōn epoiei), meaning ‘Hephaistion made [it]’— written on a sheet of parchment or papyrus held down at its corners by sealing wax (Fig. 5.18).75 Here the trompe l’oeil effect is underscored by the bottom right corner of the sheet, which has come away from the ground, casting a shadow

75 For the Hephaistion mosaic, see I.Pergamon no. 46a; Kawerau and Wiegand 1930, 63–5; Salzmann 1991, 436; 1995, 103–7; 2001; Kriseleit 2000, 17–22; Andreae 2003, 44–7; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 520–1 cat. 5.43

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

195

F I G . 5.18. Since surviving mosaicists’ signatures are rare, the ‘Hephaistion mosaic’ from Room K of Palace V at Pergamon is particularly remarkable. Hephaistion’s signature appears on a trompe l’oeil piece of parchment held down at its corners by sealing wax. Early to mid-second century BC. Berlin, Antikensammlung SMB, Mos. 70.

directly beneath. A representation of parchment would be particularly apposite in this Attalid context: Pliny the Elder reports that when Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204–180 BC) banned the export of papyrus from Egypt due to concern at the growth of the Pergamene royal library, the Attalids responded by inventing parchment as an alternative writing material.76 In the case of the Aventine mosaic, the trompe l’oeil effect is enhanced by the astonishing realism of the individual leftovers. It is striking that some of the ‘carnivorous’ remains exhibit a level of naturalism comparable to that of the living animals depicted in the mosaics considered already in this chapter, as well as those in the fish mosaics that will be analysed in Chapter 6.77 A good example is a fish bone depicted in part of the pavement that has escaped partial or wholesale restoration since its discovery (Fig. 5.19). Much of the dead fish’s body is missing, having been eaten by an imaginary banqueter, but its silvery colour and double (D. Salzmann), 522–3 cats. 5.49 and 5.50 (both U. Kästner); Picón and Hemingway 2016, 130–1 cats. 36 and 37 (both U. Kästner). See also Robertson 1965, 68 for the suggestion that Hephaistion’s signature was left by looters because they wished to pass off the rest of the composition as Sosos’s work 76 Pliny, Natural History 30.70. Pliny’s story can hardly be true, but the fact that parchment was referred to as charla pergamena during antiquity indicates that it was closely associated with Pergamon: see Pfeiffer 1968, 236; Hansen 1971, 214–15. 77 Recognized already by Della Seta 1935, 150.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

196

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 5.19. The red mullet (Mullus barbatus) was treasured for its gastronomic properties in antiquity. This specimen recalls the mullets depicted on earlier fish mosaics from Late Republican Italy. Detail from Aventine Unswept Room.

pair of barbels identify it immediately as a red mullet (Mullus barbatus), a species often praised for its gastronomic qualities during antiquity (compare Figs. 6.9a and 6.9b).78 Similarly naturalistic are the five purple dye murex shells (Murex brandaris) dispersed among the débris (e.g. Fig. 5.20), which stand out from most other representations of this species thanks to the careful depiction of the rows of spikes on the body whorl, and the slight curvature of the siphonal canal (compare the specimens in Figs. 6.6, 6.11, and 6.18). We might also mention the ‘crustacean parts’ scattered throughout the composition, which include long tapering parts with sharp spines at the broad end, clearly the biramous antennae of spiny lobsters (Palinurus vulgaris); and thinner parts divided into distinct horizontal sections, probably walking legs of the same species (Fig. 5.21). Assuming that the individual leftovers depicted in Sosos’s original Unswept Room mosaic were rendered with the same high level of naturalism, we may conclude that this composition constituted a playful manifestation of the trend of depicting animals naturalistically in Hellenistic royal art. While there is nothing to suggest that the mosaic was scientific in purpose or function, its illusionistic impact was surely enhanced by depicting the individual leftovers with a scientific level of accuracy.

78 Juvenal, Satires 11.37, 6.40; Seneca, Moral Letters 95.42; Suetonius, Life of Tiberius 34. For commentary on these passages, see Reese 2002a, 284.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

197

F I G . 5.20. As well as being used in the textile industry, the purple dye murex (Murex brandaris) was consumed at upper-class banquets in the Graeco-Roman world. Detail from Aventine Unswept Room.

F I G . 5.21. Leftover crustacean parts are scattered throughout the Aventine Unswept Room. Here we see the walking leg of a common lobster (Palinurus vulgaris).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

198 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 CONTEXTUALIZING THE MOSAICS OF SOSOS

In order to appreciate fully the social and cultural significance of Sosos’s mosaics, we should first clarify the relationship between them. While it is clear from Pliny’s testimony that both pavements were laid in Attalid Pergamon, modern studies are divided on whether they belonged to a single floor or whether they were displayed in different contexts. The argument hinges on the Latin term ibi (meaning ‘there’ or ‘in that place’79) used by Pliny when introducing the Doves. For some commentators, this term refers back to the author’s mention of Pergamon itself, suggesting only that the two compositions were laid by Sosos in the same city.80 For others it refers back to his description of the Unswept Room, suggesting that both compositions decorated a single floor.81 With the philological debate lacking a clear solution, our only other evidence is supplied by the later versions of both compositions. These strongly suggest that the Doves and Unswept Room were executed in different formats that would have been well suited to combination within a single floor. Taking first the Doves, the later versions of this subject excavated in Tivoli, Delos, Pompeii, Capua, and Ostia are all emblemata, while another version from Malta is a ‘pseudo-emblema’ positioned in the centre of a room. We may safely conclude, then, that Sosos’s original was a pictorial emblema that served as a decorative centrepiece. The surviving Unswept Room mosaics exhibit greater variety, but the finest versions suggest that Sosos’s pavement was probably a sumptuous frieze. We have seen already, for example, that the Aventine Unswept Room was one of several friezes framing a central picture in a large triclinium. The same is true of another version from Aquileia, where a frieze with this subject bordered a central picture with a cat-and-bird motif (Fig. 5.22).82 A similar scheme was adopted in the House of Bacchus at Thysdrus (El-Djem) in Tunisia, dated to the third century AD.83 Here the floor consisted of a plain U-shaped area on which the triclinium couches were positioned, and a decorated T-shaped area whose central branch was lodged between the two branches of the ‘U’. Within this ensemble, the Unswept Room formed a border surrounding the three exposed branches of the ‘T’. According to this reading, then, Sosos’s mosaics would have been combined in a single floor, with the Unswept Room framing the central Doves. Circumstantial support for this reconstruction is supplied by a series of mosaic floors excavated in Pergamon that feature concentric borders surrounding a central picture field. As well as the mosaic from the hearth chamber of Palace IV analysed above, we 79

80 OLD s.v. ibi. Herter 1976, 123–42; Meyer 1977, 105–6; Moormann 2000, 85–6. Parlasca 1963, 276–82; Donderer 1987, 468–70; Dunbabin 1999, 26–7 with n. 29. 82 Aquileia mosaic: Fasiolo 1915, 22, 49–51; Brusin 1955; Perpignani and Fiori 2012, 11–38; Ghedini, Bueno, Novello, and Rinaldi 2017, 275–6 cat. 420. 83 Thysdrus mosaic: Foucher 1961, 292, 294–5; Dunbabin 1978, 260; Ben Osman 1990, 74–5. 81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

199

F I G . 5.22. Triclinium mosaic from Aquileia in northern Italy, with an unswept room design surrounding a central picture field. Perhaps first century BC. Dimensions: 2.39  2.07 m. Aquileia NAM, 597813.

might mention here the ‘Hephaistion mosaic’ from Palace V, and the pavements from Rooms 37 and 38 of the House of the Consul Attalos, Room 9 of Peristyle House II, and the cella of the Temple of Hera.84 It is likely that the room in which Sosos’s mosaics were laid was an andrōn: that is, a room used for dining and drinking. This is suggested not only by the fact that 84

House of the Consul Attalos mosaics: Salzmann 1991, 440–4; 2011, 105–6. Peristyle House II mosaic: Pinkwart 1984, 98–9, 102. Temple of Hera mosaic: Schazmann 1923, 108; Salzmann 2011, 105; Grüßinger et al. 2011, 430 cats. 1.19 (J. Auinger) and 1.20 (D. Salzmann).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

200 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 four of the five surviving Unswept Room pavements were excavated in triclinia,85 but also by the iconography of the compositions themselves. Indeed, the Unswept Room depicted a selection of gastronomic delicacies similar to those served up to elite diners across the Hellenistic world. We can only imagine the excitement of viewers when confronted with Sosos’s pavement in the context of their own extravagant dinner parties. Prior to the food being served, the composition could be taken as a promise of the delicious meal that would follow,86 while during and after the meal the trompe l’oeil effect would have been underscored— perhaps even undermined—by the addition of actual leftovers discarded on the floor. The Doves was also well suited to an andrōn setting, since the precious metal vessel depicted in the composition recalled similar basins used at upper-class symposia. The remains of Palaces IV and V on the Pergamene acropolis indicate that there was no shortage of impressive dining rooms in the Attalid royal capital,87 and it is possible that Sosos’s mosaics were originally laid in one of these palatial suites.88 Here they would have supplied a sophisticated, self-referential allusion to the lavish dinner parties that took place within the room itself.89 We might compare, in this respect, the statue groups depicting symposia attended by figures from Greek mythology displayed in the grand banqueting pavilion of Ptolemy II Philadelphos in Alexandria.90 It is even possible that Sosos’s mosaics were intended to evoke a specific stage of the ancient dinner party. Indeed, the large quantities of leftovers depicted in our surviving Unswept Room mosaics indicate that their (imaginary) dinner parties are at an advanced stage.91 In the Aventine pavement, the banquet is so far through that a small mouse is shown nibbling on an empty walnut shell, providing a solitary vignette of animation in this otherwise motionless scene (Fig. 5.16).92 The presence of the mouse suggests that the banqueters have finished their feast, 85

The exception is a sixth-century AD version from Uppenna (modern Henchir Chigarnia, in Tunisia), laid in a Byzantine basilica. 86 Dunbabin 2003, 64. 87 Wolfram Hoepfner interpreted Palace V as the ‘royal andrōn’ of the Attalid kings on account of the large number of banqueting rooms: see Hoepfner 1996, 24–6; 1997, 35–40. Some aspects of this interpretation have been challenged by Radt 1998, 8–9; Wulf 1999, 174 nos. 833, 837, 839. 88 For the suggestion that Sosos’s mosaics were laid in Room I of Palace V, see Seaman 2016, 661–2; 2020, 112–19. 89 For a different view, see e.g. Renard 1956, 311–14; Deonna and Renard 1961, 109–37; Foucher 1961, 294–6; Parlasca 1963, 282–90, all suggesting that the unswept floor motif carried an eschatological meaning. 90 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.196f–197a. 91 Though compositional and aesthetic considerations certainly played a part here, since a pavement with fewer leftovers would have been considerably less interesting for an ancient audience to look at. 92 The mouse was mentioned by Luigi Vescovali in a description of the mosaic published in Diario di Roma on 8 May 1833. Vescovali refers to ‘a little mouse (un sorcetto) that is finding for itself a most sumptuous banquet among the refuse of men’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

201

permitting the creature to emerge from the woodwork and gnaw on waste they have already discarded. In the context of the ancient dinner party, this corresponds to the time between the deipnon, the evening meal, and the symposion, the after-dinner drinking party.93 These parts of the festivities were clearly differentiated during Hellenistic times, and the transition between them was sometimes marked by a ritualized blast of the trumpet.94 Perhaps, then, the mouse was included as a temporal marker of sorts, alluding to the interval between deipnon and symposion, and so to the stage of ancient Greek dinner parties at which communal drinking was traditionally instigated.95 It is impossible to know whether a mouse was also included in Sosos’s original Unswept Room. But further support for the view that his mosaics alluded to the instigation of communal drinking is supplied by the iconography of the Doves. While the juxtaposition of a manmade basin with a series of wild birds no doubt evoked a range of associations for ancient viewers, it is significant that one of the doves was shown drinking from the vessel. Within an andrōn setting, this was taken most easily as a reference to drinking at the symposion. On this reading, the birds assume the role of symposiasts, drinking from an opulent vessel that would have been suited to even the most lavish royal dinner party. They congregate on the rim of this vessel like banqueters in an andrōn, drinking water in the manner that real symposiasts enjoyed large quantities of wine. This reading of Sosos’s pavements accords well with our textual evidence concerning the importance of dining and drinking for Hellenistic kings and their courtiers. Given the Attalid context, we should recall here the tradition that Eumenes I, ruler of Pergamon between 263 and 241 BC, died from ‘excessive drinking’.96 Perhaps the closest textual cognate for the mosaics, however, is a letter from Hippolochos to his correspondent Lynkeios of Samos, which describes in detail a wedding feast hosted by a Macedonian nobleman named Karanos in the early third century BC.97 In his introduction to this text, Athenaios reveals that Hippolochos and Lynkeios also exchanged letters describing dinner parties attended by Antigonos I Monophthalmos, Demetrios I Poliorketes, and a Ptolemy, suggesting that Karanos’s feast rivalled those of Hellenistic kings in its

93 The ritualized division between deipnon and symposion is discussed in several recent studies of ancient dining culture: see Smith 2003, 27–31; Wilkins and Hill 2006, 77–8; König 2012, 6; Wecowski 2014, 35–8; Schmitt Pantel 2015, 226. 94 A trumpet blast separated deipnon and symposion at the wedding feast of the Macedonian nobleman Karanos: see Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 4.130b. 95 Suggested already by Moormann 2000, 94. 96 BNJ 245 F 2 = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 10.445d–e. 97 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 4.128a–130d. Commentary: Dalby 1988; Dalby 1996, 154–5; Wilkins and Hill 2006, 43–51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

202

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

expense and extravagance.98 This is confirmed by Hippolochos’s account of the party itself, where we are told that Karanos’s guests were served bread, chickens, ducks, ringdoves, geese, pigeons, turtle doves, partridges, a huge roast piglet, roast thrushes, ducks, warblers, pea soup poured over hard boiled eggs, oysters, scallops, roast fish of every sort, and Cappadocian bread. We are reminded of the extraordinary range of detritus depicted in the surviving Unswept Room mosaics, particularly the Aventine pavement. The provision of such a wide range of edible luxuries—whether real or represented—was surely intended to communicate the exceptional wealth of the patron, and, by implication, their privileged social status.

CAPTIVE ANIMALS AND TRANSPORTABLE INTERMEDIARIES

We have seen in this chapter how a series of high-quality mosaics incorporating naturalistic representations of individual animals—or, in the case of Sosos’s Unswept Room, edible animal detritus—were laid in royal contexts in Alexandria and Pergamon during the Hellenistic period. While these compositions carried distinctive meanings in their immediate display settings, together they testify to a new culture of producing taxonomically accurate representations of animals that achieved considerable popularity among the highest levels of Hellenistic society. The section that follows will consider how mosaics containing highly naturalistic depictions of animals might have been made. The most logical explanation for the remarkable naturalism of these representations is that they were based somehow on the close observation of real species. This leads us to consider the conditions under which these animals might have been observed. It is possible that artist(s) were familiar with some of these species from everyday encounters in domestic and/or gastronomic contexts. But in the case of exotic species imported into the Mediterranean from the edges of the known world—notably the Alexandrine parakeet—the idea of accurate representation based on everyday experience seems implausible. Rather, it seems more likely that the artist(s) depended on the close observation of real-life specimens kept in captivity: that is, in specialist animal facilities built in the leading cultural centres of the Hellenistic world. We cannot rule out the possibility that naturalistic representations of less exotic species were formulated in a comparable manner. Two considerations lend support to this hypothesis. Firstly, our textual sources leave us with no doubt that animals were indeed kept in captivity in the leading royal centres of the Hellenistic world. The extensive evidence for this practice in 98 See also Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 3.126e, where the author states explicitly that Karanos’s dinner party ‘outdid any held anywhere for extravagance’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

203

Ptolemaic Alexandria was collected in the first half of this volume: it will suffice to mention here only the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, during which captive animals were paraded as part of an ostentatious display of Ptolemaic royal power. The evidence from other Hellenistic kingdoms is less comprehensive, but there are a handful of textual passages that ought to be recounted here. We know from two comic fragments attributed to the Attic playwrights Philemon and Alexis that Seleukos I Nikator (305–281 BC) sent a tiger (tigris) to the Athenians as a gift, possibly in the late fourth century.99 In Attalid Asia Minor, we are told by Athenaios that: Ptolemy the king of Egypt says in Book IX of his Commentaries: “When I visited Assos, the local people presented me with a pig (choiros) that was four feet tall, proportionately wide across, and the colour of snow. They claimed that King Eumenes had been eager to purchase animals like this from them and had paid 4,000 drachmas apiece.”100

The ‘Ptolemy’ here is Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, and it follows that ‘King Eumenes’ should be identified as Eumenes II (197–159 BC). The passage raises some important questions, not least whether these kings acquired these massive white pigs simply for their gastronomic and/or agricultural value, or whether they were also interested in them from a zoological or paradoxographical point of view. We should also be alert to the possibility that the people of Assos invented parts of the episode involving Eumenes in an attempt to persuade Ptolemy VIII to pay over the odds for these creatures.101 Even if so, it is significant that the story concerning Eumenes II was thought—at least by some—to be believable when Ptolemy VIII was writing in the second century BC. We might imagine that the credibility of this story rested on the existence of a more wide-reaching programme of animal collection on the part of the Attalid kings. The second factor in favour of the ‘observation in captivity’ hypothesis is that several of the specific species depicted in the mosaics were demonstrably kept in captivity during this period. Kallixeinos of Rhodes tells us that parrots kept in cages (en angeiois psittakoi) were paraded through Alexandria during the Grand Procession, together with 2,400 dogs (kunes): some Indian, some Hyrcanian, some Molossian, and others belonging to other breeds.102 The same author also describes a processional float carrying ‘a grotto deeply covered by ivy and smilax’, from which pigeons (peristerai), ringdoves (phassai), and turtle doves (trugones) flew out during the course of the procession, with ribbons tied to their feet so that they could be caught by spectators.103 This culture of keeping animals 99

Philemon fr. 47 Edmonds = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 13.590a; Alexis fr. 204 Edmonds = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 13.590b. 100 BNJ 234 F 10 = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 9.375d. 101 Suggested by Olson in a footnote of his translation of the text: Olson 2008, 236 n. 56. 102 103 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.200e–201c. Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.200c–200d.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

204 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 in captivity was not confined to royal circles, judging by the testimony of the Stoic philosopher Chrysippos in the mid-third century BC, who assailed the contemporary fashion for keeping caged birds including doves and nightingales: [I]n his work On Commonwealth he [sc. Chrysippos] says that we are almost at the point of painting pictures on the privies too and a little later that some people embellish their farmlands with tree-climbing vines and myrtles “and they keep peacocks (taoi) and pigeons (peristerai) and partridges (perdikes) for their cackling and nightingales (andones).”104

There are, then, strong reasons for supposing that the naturalistic representations of animals found in Hellenistic royal mosaics were based on the close observation of real specimens kept in captivity. This is not to suggest that the mosaicists were actually accompanied by living, breathing animals as they worked: this would have been impractical given the time required to produce sophisticated opus vermiculatum compositions of this kind. Equally, Sosos can hardly have consulted real leftovers while laying his famous Unswept Room: this would have involved acquiring a steady supply of remains from expensive banquets over a prolonged period, and depicting each leftover before it began to rot or go bad. Two other possibilities should be mentioned. The first is that mosaicists were capable of producing highly accurate representations of particular species from memory alone, after observing real specimens at first hand. The second is that highly naturalistic representations of individual animal species were transmitted using detailed artistic intermediaries, and that these intermediaries were consulted by mosaicists as they laid their compositions. This second possibility seems particularly likely in the case of the Alexandrian Dog Mosaic (Fig. 5.4), since the awkward manner in which the hindquarters of the dog and the lip of the oinochoē abut the edge of the picture field suggests that the artists reproduced a pre-existing design that was originally conceived for a quadrangular format.105

CONCLUSIONS

We saw in Chapter 2 that draughtsmen from Ptolemaic Alexandria produced ‘taxonomic’ representations of exotic animals in the context of royally sponsored expeditions to foreign lands. This chapter has identified a second strand of royal interest in the animal kingdom: a culture of commissioning high-quality works of art containing scientifically accurate representations of particular species. Whereas the labelled, ‘taxonomic’ representations expressed the territorial extent of Ptolemaic influence and power, the mosaics examined in this chapter advertised royal authority in other ways. They provided sophisticated commentaries on the 104

Plutarch, Stoic Self-Contradictions 1044d–e.

105

Observed by Guimier-Sorbets 1998a, 278.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

animals in hellenistic royal mosaics

205

importance of the royal pastimes (Alexandrian Dog Mosaic, Sosos’s Doves); alluded to the range of gastronomic luxuries consumed at upper-class banquets (Sosos’s Unswept Room); and evoked the outermost limits of the known world, and, by implication, the conquests of both Dionysos and Alexander the Great (Pergamene Parrot Mosaic). Some further trends have been identified in this chapter, not least the taste for naturalistic representations of different birds in Attalid Pergamon. Given this taste, it is worth recalling that the ornithological kingdom was a subject of specialist intellectual research during Hellenistic times. We think immediately of Kallimachos’s treatise On Birds, a species-by-species account that (we saw in Chapter 1) leaned heavily on the earlier work of Aristotle and other scientific authorities. Also significant here is Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological work, since Book 4 of this text concentrated solely on the ornithological kingdom. This specialist interest continued during later Hellenistic times, with writers like Dionysios of Philadelphia (first century BC) and Alexander of Myndos (first century BC or AD) much cited by later authors as leading authorities on ornithological matters.106 It is probably no coincidence that detailed representations of birds were produced in Attalid Pergamon at about the same time that this specialist ornithological literature was being composed. We sense here a crossover of artistic and scientific concerns, which—given the royal connections of the mosaics on the one hand, and scholars like Kallimachos and Aristophanes on the other—probably owed something to the dynamics of life at court. While the mechanisms of this crossover are difficult to pin down, it is tempting to attribute a leading role to real animals kept in captivity. After all, we have seen already how such animals were studied closely by artists working at court, and this opens the possibility that they were also observed at close quarters by the kings, their philoi, and leading intellectuals. The next chapter will present a series of mosaics from Late Republican Italy that exhibit crossover of a comparable kind.

106 Dionysios is a shadowy figure who composed a didactic poem On Birds (Ornithiaka) in three books, possibly in the first century BC: see Keyser and Irby-Massie 2008, 264–5 s.v. ‘Dionusios of Philadelphia 140 BCE?–20 CE?’ (Zucker). The text survives in a later paraphrase. Alexander of Myndos wrote a three-book treatise On Animals, of which the second book focused solely on birds: see RE 1.2 s.v. ‘Alexandros [100]’ (M. Wellmann); Wellmann 1891; Arnott 1987. The treatise is quoted frequently by Athenaios in his Learned Banqueters.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

SIX

Fish Mosaics in Late Republican Italy Between Roman Gastronomy and Hellenistic Ichthyology

The Fish Mosaic from Palace IV at Pergamon analysed in the previous chapter stands at the head of a long series of ancient mosaics incorporating detailed, polychrome representations of different fish.1 Such compositions achieved considerable popularity in the Mediterranean world from the Hellenistic period all the way into Late Antiquity.2 Among our surviving corpus of fish mosaics, those closest to the Pergamene example in style and chronology are a series of pavements from Italy dated to the late second and first centuries BC.3 This chapter will concentrate on three of the best known: the fragmentary mosaic laid in the ‘Cave of the Lots’ at Praeneste; an emblema from the House of the Faun at Pompeii; and a second emblema from the House of the Geometric Mosaics in the same town. These compositions stand out not only thanks to their outstanding technical quality, but also because several fish species were depicted in a near-identical manner in two or more of the mosaics, indicating a shared artistic genealogy of some kind. Representations of fish had a long pedigree by the time that these mosaics were produced in the Late Republican period. For instance, Plutarch tells us that the fourth-century painter Androkydes of Kyzikos depicted Skylla with fish ‘swimming around her in a most enthusiastic and lifelike manner’.4 While this work has not survived, it belongs to roughly the same period as the red-figure fish plates produced in large quantities in Attica and South Italy during the fourth century. Many fish painted on these vessels are depicted with sufficient accuracy to permit credible taxonomic identifications, much like the specimens in the mosaics

1 It is worth noting, however, that an earlier pebble mosaic from the pronaos of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia incorporated rudimentary representations of different fish. On this mosaic, see e.g. Robertson 1965, 85–6; 1975, 580. 2 For the longevity of this decorative type, see e.g. De Puma 1970, 191–2. 3 Listed by Meyboom 1977, 50–2 cats. A–D, 56–60 cats. 1–15. 4 Plutarch, Table Talk 665d, 668c; see also Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 8.341a.

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

207

analysed here.5 Noting this similarity, early studies explored the possibility that the mosaics were descendants of the fish plates, and that their iconography emerged in an Italian milieu.6 But this connection is difficult to substantiate when we consider the chronological gap separating the mosaics from the plates, as well as the pronounced differences in size, medium, artistry, and function. Recognizing that our fish mosaics were not descended from painted fish plates opens up the question of their artistic origins. We will see in this chapter that they may have had a significant point of reference outside Republican Italy. In order to understand their origins more fully, however, it will first be necessary to introduce each mosaic in detail, and to consider how these compositions were produced in practice.

THE FISH MOSAICS AT PRAENESTE AND POMPEII

The ‘Cave of the Lots’ at Praeneste The largest fish mosaic surviving from Late Republican Italy decorated the floor of the ‘Cave of the Lots’ (Antro delle Sorti) at Praeneste (Fig. 2.3), a Latin town introduced in Chapter 2.7 The modern nomenclature of the cave stems from its association with a passage of Cicero’s De Divinatione concerning a rock (silicem) that was split open by one Numerius Suffustius following a dream, after which ‘lots sprang forth carved on oak, in ancient characters’.8 This association is far from certain: a better candidate for Cicero’s split rock is the well enclosed by a tholos on the ‘Terrace of the Hemicycles’ that formed part of the Sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia further up the slope of the town.9 Still, the traditional name is retained here for the sake of convention. Roughly semicircular in shape, the Cave of the Lots was c.4.63 m wide at its opening and c.5.77 m deep from its opening to the rear wall. While it may have been natural in origin, it was artificially elaborated through the construction of an arched tufa entranceway and vaulted tufa ceiling, the addition of imitation pumice

5 But see McPhee and Trendall 1987, 13, noting that taxonomic identifications ‘should not be regarded as more than tentative, since, although a few painters draw their fish with sufficient accuracy to allow of an almost certain identification, many treat them with a substantial measure of artistic license . . . and, where professional ichthyologists often differ widely in their identifications, we have felt particularly vulnerable’. 6 Leonhard 1914, 15–16; Pfuhl 1923, 861; Fuhrmann 1931, 17; Pernice 1938, 150. 7 The most up-to-date account of the Antro delle Sorti is Gatti 2004. Also useful: Delbrück 1907, 58–66, with pls. X–XI; Fasolo and Gullini 1953, 25–7; Lauter 1979, 436–57; Zevi 1989; Meyboom 1995, 8–16. 8 Cicero, On Divination 2.85. For the postulated association with the Cave of the Lots see e.g. Fasolo and Gullini 1953, 49. 9 First demonstrated by Mingazzini 1954.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

208

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

stalactites attached to the walls with stucco, and the insertion of three oval niches in the back, left, and right walls. The arched entranceway was flanked by a wall of opus quadratum to the west, while to the east the cave was bordered by a small side room. In front of the cave, meanwhile, was a quadrangular space or room of uncertain form and function, paved with a plain white mosaic floor with a black border.10 In what follows, it will be useful to refer to Cave of the Lots and these adjoining spaces as the ‘cave annexe’. The cave annexe was part of the so-called Lower Complex at Praeneste (Figs. 2.3 and 2.4). It was located immediately to the west of the long central basilica, in a position corresponding to that of the apsidal hall on the opposite, eastern side. Unlike the apsidal hall, however, there is nothing to suggest that the cave annexe could be accessed directly from the basilica, and it is partially for this reason that the function of the space remains debated. According to one view, the cave annexe served the same civic and administrative needs as the rest of the complex, and the Cave of the Lots was simply a decorative nymphaeum suited to the decoration of this grand public building.11 According to another, the space should be identified as a self-contained shrine or sanctuary for the goddess Isis, even if its architecture does not correspond closely with other Isis facilities—or religious buildings more broadly—in late Republican Italy.12 One proponent of this view has suggested that the famous grey marble statue of Fortuna–Isis kept in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale at Palestrina was displayed in a niche in the western wall of the space in front of the cave.13 The Fish Mosaic decorated the floor of the Cave of the Lots, extending slightly beyond the arched opening of the cave to the south (Fig. 6.1).14 At this southern edge, the composition was enclosed by a moulded marble border that retained the shallow layer of water covering the composition and contained an overflow duct for any excess water. As well as enhancing the vivid polychromy of the composition, this display feature resonated with its aquatic iconography. Today the mosaic survives in a fragmentary state, largely because the Cave of the Fates was reused as a limekiln during post-antiquity.15 Generally speaking, the parts of the composition bordering the edges of the semicircle are best preserved,

10 Gatti 2004, 59: ‘The problem of the architectural aspect of this space therefore remains substantially unresolved.’ 11 Mingazzini 1954; Kähler 1958, 227–9; Lauter 1979, 436–57; Meyboom 1995, 8–16. 12 Coarelli 1987, 79–82; Gatti 2004, esp. 59–64. See also Torelli 1989, 20, identifying the space instead as a Serapeum. 13 Gatti 2004, 59–60. For the statue itself, see Agnoli 2002, 31–40. 14 The fullest accounts of the fish mosaic are Gullini 1956, esp. 20–32; De Puma 1969a, 65–7; 1969b, 23–4 no. 15; Meyboom 1977, esp. 58–60, 63–6; 1995, 173, 336 n. 6, 269–70 n. 12; Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 98–101; Pinci 2001; Andreae 2002b; 2003, 127–39, 255–7. 15 Damage to the mosaic: e.g. Gullini 1956, 13–14; Andreae 2003, 139; Gatti 2004, 53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

209

Rock

Border of mosaic 0

4m

Exterior of basin

F I G . 6.1. Line drawing of the fish mosaic laid in the Cave of the Fates at Praeneste. Late second century BC. W of cave at opening: c.4.63 m. Depth of cave: c.5.77 m.

together with those decorating the three oval-shaped extensions in the niches. While the majority of the mosaic depicted realistic-looking fish swimming in water, the portion bordering its bottom edge—adjacent to the moulded marble border—depicted a sandy coastline dotted by rocks, weeds, and a series of naked male figures. This coastline curves upwards along the lower left- and right-hand edges of the composition, forming two promontories that project into water as though framing a bay. A tortoise (family: Testudinidae) stands on the left promontory, while the right promontory supports a terrace of drafted isodomic masonry (Fig. 6.2). This terrace is home to a small shrine, consisting of a columnar-style altar with a sacrificial flame burning on top and a Corinthian column standing inside a low semicircular exedra.16 Two bronze urns stand at 16 For the fanciful suggestion that the Corinthian column represents the Pharos lighthouse in Alexandria, see Marucchi 1904, 271.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

210

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 6.2. The terrace-shrine is the only architectural feature depicted in the Praeneste Fish Mosaic. It is home to an altar and a Corinthian column standing inside a semicircular exedra. To the left a fisherman prepares to cast his net. On the spit of land above the shrine a lagobolon and the heel of another fisherman remain visible.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

211

either end of the exedra, and a selection of ritual objects are attached to the column: a rudder and trident projecting from its base; two oval-shaped shields fastened to its shaft; and a large precious metal vessel standing on a red plinth atop its capital. Some studies have taken the trident to signify that this is a shrine of Poseidon, but others have preferred to associate it with Isis Pelagia or Isis Tyche, or to interpret it as the grave of a trierarch or admiral.17 The best-preserved human figure stands immediately to the left of the terraceshrine, and is shown looking backwards over his left shoulder and carrying a translucent white fabric—surely a net—over his right forearm (Fig 6.2). He has sometimes been identified as Odysseus or as the survivor of a shipwreck,18 but in the absence of a pileus, a flock of sirens, or a beached ship, it seems safest to interpret him simply as a fisherman. Support for this reading is supplied by two other partially preserved figures depicted on the coastline, both of whom can likewise be identified as fishermen.19 The first, whose heel is preserved next to a large rock just above the terrace-shrine (Fig. 6.2), is shown standing next to a lagobolon, an instrument commonly used in hunting and fishing in the ancient world.20 The second, whose right arm and leg are preserved just to the right of the centre of the shore, is shown holding a fishing line in his outstretched right hand. The rest of the composition depicts a selection of fish and other sea creatures swimming in water. The scale at which these fish are represented is appreciably larger than that of the human figures and architectural elements on the shore, suggesting that they are the principal subject of the composition (Fig. 6.1). We should note, however, that the scale of these creatures is itself variable, with an increase in relative size from the front to the back of the composition. This increase in size is matched by a corresponding increase in spacing, resulting in a less dense concentration of creatures towards the rear. The colour of the water also changes, progressing from a deep turquoise-blue at the front of the composition to a dark bluish-black at its back. These adjustments are explained by the fact that the mosaic could only be viewed from the mouth of the Cave of the Lots,

17

Shrine of Poseidon: Delbrück 1907, 59; Vaglieri 1909, 235; Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 98; Riemann 1986, 396–7; Wattel-de-Croizant 1986, 554; Tammisto 1997, 246 n. 303; Ferrari 1999, 381. Shrine of Isis Pelagia: Schefold 1962, 197; Coarelli 1987, 81; Lavagne 1988, 245. Shrine of Isis Tyche: Meyboom 1995, 336–7 n. 6. Grave of trierarch: Lauter 1983, 290. 18 Odysseus: Ferrari 1999, 382. Shipwreck survivor: Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 98; Krumme 1990, 163–4. 19 Andreae 2003, 255–7. Besides the three fishermen described here, a fourth fragmentary figure depicted on the coastline (Andreae 2003, 254, fig. at top left) presents a more difficult case. This figure has golden skin, like the other fishermen, but also appears to have long hair extending to the lower back. 20 On the lagobolon as a hunting/fishing implement, see Anderson 1985, 40–1. A lagobolon was also depicted in the central picture field of a Hellenistic mosaic from Tel Dor (ancient Dora) in Israel: see Stewart and Martin 2003, 139; Wootton 2008, 262.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

212

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

resulting in a need to ensure that the fish represented towards the back of the composition were legible from a distance of several metres.21 Depictions of thirty-five marine creatures are fully or partially preserved in the surviving portions of the mosaic, including the tortoise shown ambling along the shore. The original total was doubtless much higher, given how much of the composition has been lost since antiquity. Estimating the original number of specimens is difficult, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that there were at least double the number of surviving representations—that is, at least sixty-five to seventy fish and marine creatures—depicted in the mosaic. Just as striking as their quantity, however, is the remarkable naturalism with which the majority of specimens were depicted, which was facilitated by the mosaicists’ masterful command of the opus vermiculatum technique.22 A good example of this naturalism is the fragmentary scorpion fish (Scorpaena scrofa) depicted slightly to the left of the ‘threshold’ of the right-hand niche (Fig. 6.3a). Here the mosaicist has succeeded in depicting the characteristic series of ridges and spikes that define the head of this species, as well as the set of spikes projecting through the rear dorsal fin. He has also captured something of its mottled colouration through the careful use of minuscule tesserae in shades ranging from brick red to light pink (compare Fig. 6.3b). Slightly less technically accomplished, though no less identifiable, is the European sea sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) depicted immediately above (Fig. 6.4a). As well as rendering the wedgeshaped head and all five fins of the species correctly, the mosaicist has taken great care to depict three longitudinal lines of osseous plates that define the contours of its body (compare Fig. 6.4b). One or two creatures seem less naturalistic in appearance, notably the pair of dolphins (Delphinus delphis) positioned at the ‘thresholds’ of the left and right niches. Still, the overwhelming majority of specimens were depicted with sufficient accuracy to permit credible taxonomic identifications. We can be certain, then, that many of these representations depended on the close observation of real-life sea creatures, even though Praeneste was situated several dozen kilometres from the Tyrrhenian coast. In terms of its dating, the Fish Mosaic seems to have been laid during the construction of the Lower Complex in the later second century BC. Support for this chronology is supplied by ceramic finds from the bedding layer beneath the mosaic, which included an architectural terracotta that can be dated securely to the final decades of the second century.23 This chronology also accords well with the style and technique of the composition.

21

On these compositional adjustments, see Meyboom 1977, 60, 64; 1995, 369–70 n. 12. Two previous studies offer identifications of all the represented species: Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 100; Andreae 2002b. 23 Gatti 2004, 61–2. 22

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

213

(a)

(b)

F I G . 6.3. (a) Red scorpion fish depicted in the Praeneste Fish Mosaic. (b) Red scorpion fish (Scorpaena scrofa). This species is perhaps best known for its venomous spikes.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

214

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

(a)

(b)

F I G . 6.4. (a) European sea sturgeon depicted in the Praeneste Fish Mosaic. (b) European sea sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). The body of the fish carries five longitudinal lines of osseous plates.

The House of the Faun at Pompeii Four polychrome fish mosaics of the Late Republican period have been excavated in Pompeii.24 The most technically accomplished is an emblema from the House of the Faun (VI, 12), an exceptionally large property occupying an entire city insula, with two atria and two peristyle courtyards (Fig. 6.5). Within this house, the fish emblema was laid in a triclinium with masonry style wall paintings that opened directly onto the large Tuscan atrium containing a bronze statue of a dancing satyr— misidentified as a ‘faun’ in the nineteenth century—in the centre of its impluvium.25 This statue accounts for the modern nomenclature of the house, but was perhaps originally conceived as a play on the name of the house owners, if indeed the property belonged to the Satrii, a prominent family in Samnite-era Pompeii.26 Measuring c.117.5  117.5 cm, the fish emblema incorporates a central picture field surrounded by several concentric borders (Fig. 6.6).27 Its surface has been 24

Meyboom 1977, 50–2. On the masonry style paintings, see PPM V, 106 no. 29 (A. Hoffmann). 26 Suggested by Meyboom 1995, 167–72; Pesando 1996, 121. 27 The fullest accounts of the emblema are: Leonhard 1914, 9–18; Pfuhl 1923, 861; Blake 1930, 138; Fuhrmann 1931, 17, 358 n. 38a; Pernice 1938, 149–51; Palombi 1950, 429–31; Gullini 1956, 22; Beyen 1960, 321; De Puma 1969a, 54–7; 1969b, 3–4 no. 3; Meyboom 1977, esp. 51 cat. A; 1995, 16–17; Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989; PPM V, 106–7 no. 30 (M. de Vos); Andreae 2003, 148–54. 25

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

215

F I G . 6.5. Plan of the House of the Faun (VI, 12) at Pompeii. The pictorial mosaics laid in the early first century BC are plotted in their original display contexts.

F I G . 6.6. Fish emblema from the House of the Faun. The central picture field is framed by a sumptuous acanthus scroll border inhabited by birds and other small creatures. Early first century BC. H: 117.5 cm, W: 117.5 cm. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli inv. 9997.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

216 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 worked to a waxy polish. The most impressive border, c.11 cm wide, depicts a blossoming acanthus scroll set against a black background, inhabited by a series of small creatures: four birds perching on metal vessels at the centre of each side, six winged Erotes, a grasshopper, a butterfly, a snail, a dog, a rabbit, and a mouse.28 This border has sometimes been likened to the acanthus scroll frieze of the ‘Hephaistion mosaic’ at Pergamon, a composition mentioned briefly in Chapter 5.29 Given this Pergamene parallel, it is interesting that all six birds depicted in the Pompeian border can be identified with specific ornithological species: two parrots, an owl, a green woodpecker, and two wheatears.30 Some twenty-two separate sea creatures are depicted in the central picture field. They are set against a background depicting a perspective view of the sea and sky, with the ocean at the bottom and a sky filled with wispy clouds above.31 On the left side of the scene a rocky outcrop is depicted at the level of the horizon, with waves breaking against its surface and a small bird identified as a kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) or bee-eater (Merops apiaster) perching on top.32 A second rocky outcrop is depicted in the bottom right-hand corner. While this ‘aquatic’ background fits neatly with the general subject matter, it is spatially and proportionally unconnected to the rest of the composition. That is, the fish are not shown as though actually swimming through the body of water. The sea creatures are depicted in a lively colour palette, and are evenly distributed around a central group showing an octopus wrestling a lobster and being approached by a moray eel. To the naked eye these creatures seem entirely in proportion with each other, but in fact they are not quite shown on a like-for-like scale, presumably for reasons of space and composition.33 All the specimens are, however, depicted with a very high level of naturalism, permitting credible taxonomic identifications (Fig. 6.7).34 A representative example is the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) dominating the lower part of the composition (Fig. 6.8a). Here the mosaicist has successfully captured not only the elongated body shape of the species, its silvery-grey colour, and the arrangement and shape of its six visible fins, but also finer details such as its vomerine teeth and the 28

More fully on this border: Tammisto 1997, 113–24, 417 cat. SC1; Westgate 2000a, 266. See e.g. Castriota 1995, 46, noting the specific parallel of an Eros grabbing the wings of a butterfly in both compositions. 30 These species are identified by Tammisto 1997, 113–24, 417 cat. SC1. 31 Pernice 1938, 150; Beyen 1960, 321–3; De Puma 1969a, 54–6; PPM V, 106–7 no. 30 (M. de Vos). For the alternative view that the background actually constitutes a perspective view of the surface of the sea, see Meyboom 1977, 60–3. 32 Identification as kingfisher: Meyboom 1977, 59. Identification as bee-eater: Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 64–5; PPM V, 106–7 no. 30 (M. de Vos); Tammisto 1997, 41–2; Andreae 2003, 148 33 Pointed out by Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 56; contra Meyboom 1977, 64. 34 Identifications of the represented species are offered by Palombi 1950, 425–55; De Puma 1969b, pl. 4; Meyboom 1977, 78; Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989. 29

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

217

F I G . 6.7. Drawing of the House of the Faun fish emblema, with taxonomic identifications of individual fish: (1) Liza aurata; (2) Serranus cabrilla; (3) Diplodus vulgaris; (4) Muraena helena; (5) Torpedo torpedo; (6) Sparus aurata; (7) Sparus pagrus; (8) Scorpaena scrofa; (9) Murex brandaris; (10) Dentex dentex; (11) Palinurus vulgaris; (12) Octopus vulgaris; (13) Scyliorhinus stellaris; (14) Merops apiaster; (15) Trigla sp.; (16) Penaeidae; (17) Pecten jacobeus; (18) Mullus barbatus; (19) Dicentrarchus labrax; (20) Diplodus sargus; (21) Diplodus annularis; (22) Leander sp.; (23) Trigla sp.

longitudinal line running across the side of its body (compare Fig. 6.8b). Similarly realistic is the red mullet (Mullus barbatus) depicted immediately above (Fig. 6.9a), which can be identified thanks to the steep profile of its snout, the stout barbel beneath its chin, and the longitudinal line running across its body (compare Fig. 6.9b). The other creatures are also represented with the same high level of naturalism. At first sight, these comments might seem difficult to reconcile with the observation that scholars have sometimes proposed different identifications of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

218

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

(a)

(b)

F I G . 6.8. (a) The European sea bass is the largest fish depicted in the House of the Faun emblema. (b) European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). The species can reach up to 1.0 m in length and 12.0 kg in weight.

individual fish depicted in this emblema and in the other mosaics considered in this chapter.35 But it is important to recognize that most ‘disputed’ specimens have been identified simply as different—but closely related—members of a single ichthyological family, meaning that disagreements are confined to matters of very fine detail. For example, a specimen in the House of the Faun emblema identified as a golden grey mullet (Liza aurata) by some scholars has been identified as a flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) by others.36 Here the lack of consensus is less important than the conclusion that the specimen is clearly a 35

Some differences of opinion are highlighted by Reese 2002a, 274–91; 2002b, 292–314. Golden grey mullet: Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 57–60. Flathead grey mullet: Meyboom 1977, 50, 80 no. 41, pl. 46. 36

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

219

(a)

(b)

F I G . 6.9. (a) Red mullet depicted in the House of the Faun fish emblema. (b) Red mullet (Mullus barbatus). This species is found throughout the Mediterranean and in the Black Sea. Today it is the subject of intense fishing by trawlers, on account of its gastronomic properties.

grey mullet belonging to the Mullidae family. The key point remains that the mosaicists took sufficient care when rendering the anatomy, colour, and behaviour of each creature to permit a precise taxonomic identification, whether at a family or species level. In some cases they were limited by their craft, since it is impossible to translate certain minute details—for instance, the size and shape of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

220

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

scales—using tesserae, and such details are often important when distinguishing individual species.37 The date of the fish emblema from the House of the Faun can be gauged with reference to the chronological development of the property itself. According to a recent study, the opus vermiculatum mosaics and masonry style wall paintings were added to the property during a major renovation programme of the early first century BC. This programme also involved the construction of the large northern peristyle, a switch from Doric to Ionic order in the portico of the smaller southern peristyle, and the insertion of a second entrance into the eastern, tetrastyle atrium.38 It provides a broad terminus ante quem for the production of the fish emblema, which would have been prefabricated in a mosaicist’s workshop.

The House of the Geometric Mosaics at Pompeii Another fish emblema, measuring c.88  88 cm, was excavated in the House of the Geometric Mosaics at Pompeii (VIII, 2, 14–16). This large property was accessed from the Via delle Scuole, and had two atria and two gardens (Fig. 6.10).39 The mosaic was laid in a small, square-shaped room identified as a ‘winter triclinium’ that opened off the portico surrounding the large garden in the south-west wing of the property.40 Here it was set into the bottom of a shallow basin with moulded marble edges, positioned in the centre of an opus signinum floor.41 This suggests that the composition was submerged beneath a shallow layer of water in its original context, much like the mosaic from the Cave of the Lots at Praeneste. The mosaic contains representations of some twenty-three different sea creatures, set against a plain black background (Fig. 6.11). This background is interrupted only by a series of rocky outcrops along the lower and left-hand edges of the composition.42 The largest outcrop is situated roughly half way up the left edge, and is home to a small bird with a pointed beak, usually identified as a kingfisher (Alcedo athis).43 The fish and other marine fauna are evenly distributed around a central group showing an octopus wrestling a lobster (Fig. 6.12). They stand out sharply from 37

Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 53–4. On this construction phase (called ‘CdF2’) and its chronology, see Faber and Hoffmann 2009, esp. 48–50. 39 Recent archaeological investigations in the house are documented by Zanella 2014; 2019. 40 For the garden, see Jashemski 1993, 206 cat. 411. 41 Display context: PPM VIII, 88 no. 28 (V. Sampaolo). 42 The fullest accounts of this emblema are: Leonhard 1914, 11–14; Pfuhl 1923, 861; Blake 1930, 138; Fuhrmann 1931, 17, 358 n. 38a; Pernice 1938, 151–2; Palombi 1950, 427–9; Gullini 1956, 22; De Puma 1969a, 19–34; 1969b, 5–6 no. 4; Meyboom 1977, esp. 51–2 cat. B; Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989; PPM VIII, 89 no. 29 (V. Sampaolo); Andreae 2003, 148–54. 43 Identification: Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 62–3; Tammisto 1997, 41; Andreae 2003, 148. 38

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

221

F I G . 6.10. Plan of the House of the Geometric Mosaics at Pompeii. The original display context of the fish emblema, in a triclinium opening off the large garden peristyle, is indicated by an arrow.

the plain black background, and are depicted with a soft palette of reds, browns, and greys that would have been enlivened by the water covering the composition. Several have large, beady eyes and/or a mannered anatomical stiffness that impart a slight sense of caricature, although it is usually possible to identify the species that the mosaicist intended to represent.44 A good example is the moray eel (Muraena helena) shown swimming towards the central octopus–lobster group, whose body has been simplified into a series of flat, schematic curves. Other specimens are depicted with a higher level of naturalism. In the case of the small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) (Fig. 6.13a), for example, the artist has successfully captured the correct position of its gill slits, the configuration of its seven visible fins, and the speckled appearance of its back (compare Fig. 6.13b). This emblema is usually held to be later than its counterpart from the House of the Faun thanks to a perception that it is a simplified and less technically accomplished version of the same iconographic scheme.45 A later date is possible, but it is 44

For identifications of the represented species, see Palombi 1950, 425–55; De Puma 1969b, pl. 5a; Thompson 1977; Meyboom 1977, 78; Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989. 45 Meyboom 1977, 55–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

222

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 6.11. Fish emblema from the House of the Geometric Mosaics at Pompeii. This composition was originally set in a marble-lined basin, where it was covered by water. Early first century BC. H: 88 cm; W: 88 cm. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli inv. 120177.

important to recognize that many factors shaped artistic production in the ancient world, and that a linear model based solely on comparative criteria may not take all these factors into account. Besides chronology, the resources of the patron, the technical ability of the mosaicist(s), the available materials, the size and function of the room in which the pavement was laid, and the quality of the mosaicist’s models might all impact the form of the final composition. In the case of the emblema from the House of the Geometric Mosaics, it is possible that the design was influenced by the underwater display context. The plain black background, the soft colour palette, and the slightly caricatured appearance of some fish all helped to ensure that the composition remained clearly legible even when submerged beneath several centimetres of water.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

223

F I G . 6.12. Drawing of the House of the Geometric Mosaics fish emblema, with taxonomic identifications of individual fish: (1) Octopus vulgaris; (2) Palinurus vulgaris; (3) Torpedo torpedo; (4) Scyliorhinus canicula; (5) Scyliorhinus stellaris; (6) Muraena helena; (7) Liza aurata; (8) Sparus aurata; (9) Diplodus sargus; (10) Boops boops; (11) Mullus surmuletus; (12) Dicentrarchus labrax; (13) Epinephelus guaza; (14) Serranus scriba; (15) Trigla sp.; (16) Scorpaena porcus; (17) Aspitrigla cuculus; (18) Loligo vulgaris; (19) Murex brandaris; (20) Strombus sp.?; (21) Penaeus kerathurus; (22) Alcedo atthis; (23) Serranus cabrilla; (24) Balanus sp.

TYPOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS

Our three mosaics all contain scientifically accurate representations of large numbers of sea creatures. This suggests that they depended on the close observation of real-life specimens, much like the royal mosaics analysed in Chapter 5. But here our appreciation of this dependency is affected by the observation that several species are represented in a near-identical manner in two or more of the mosaics,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

224

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

(a)

(b)

F I G . 6.13. (a) Small-spotted catshark depicted in the House of the Geometric Mosaics fish emblema. (b) Small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula). This species can grow up to 1.0 m in length and can weight more than 2.0 kg.

establishing a nexus of typological connections that link all three. It will be useful to highlight some of these typological connections before considering how they can best be explained.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

225

Typological relationships are most immediately detectable in the case of the two Pompeian emblemata (Figs. 6.6–6.7 and Figs. 6.11–6.12). Nine species are represented in an near-identical manner in both compositions, in terms of their anatomy, colouration, pose, and size: the octopus (Octopus vulgaris), lobster (Palinurus vulgaris), large spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris), golden grey mullet (Liza aurata), gilt head bream (Sparus aurata), sea bream (Diplodus sp.), European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), small gurnard (Trigla sp.), and purple dye murex (Murex brandaris). A further five species are represented in both compositions, but in a similar—rather than identical—manner: the oscillated electric ray (Torpedo torpedo), moray eel (Muraena helena), scorpion fish (Scorpaena sp.), comber (Serranus cabrilla), and prawn (Leander sp./Penaeus kerathurus). There are also compositional similarities between the emblemata, in terms of the relative positioning of particular species.46 We have seen already that both have an octopus–lobster group in the centre, as well as a small bird perching on a rocky outcrop at the left-hand side. Both compositions also include a moray eel (Muraena helena) swimming towards the central octopus–lobster group; an oscillated electric ray (Torpedo torpedo) positioned above this octopus–lobster group and on the same vertical axis; a scorpion fish (Scorpaena sp.) just above and to the right of the octopus–lobster group; a large spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris) immediately to the right of the octopus–lobster group; a gilt head bream (Sparus aurata) in the top right-hand corner; a sea bream (Diplodus sp.) in the bottom left-hand corner; a sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) occupying a large proportion of the space between the octopus–lobster group and the rocky outcrop in the bottom right-hand corner; a gurnard (Trigla sp.) darting through the water somewhere to the right of the central group; and a purple dye murex (Murex brandaris) in the space between the octopus–lobster group and the top righthand corner. Given these correspondences, it might seem tempting to suppose that one emblema was modelled directly on the other. That this was not the case, however, is suggested by the fact that both compositions incorporate representations of species that are not reproduced in the other: the Mediterranean scallop (Pecten jacobeus) in the House of the Faun and the squid (Loligo vulgaris) in the House of the Geometric Mosaics, for example. Rather, the most we can say is that the two emblemata shared some kind of common artistic genealogy, in the sense that some of their representations of particular species were based on precisely the same original designs. The sea creatures depicted in the mosaic from the Cave of the Lots at Praeneste also fit into this typological picture, since several are very close in appearance to the

46

Some of these similarities are highlighted by Capaldo and Moncharmont 1989, 53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

226

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

corresponding specimens in the House of the Faun and/or the House of the Geometric Mosaics. Most striking is the octopus (Octopus vulgaris), which at Praeneste is shown wrestling a moray eel rather than the usual lobster (Fig. 6.14).47 Here, as in the two emblemata, the creature is depicted in a delicate pink colour, and has piercing eyes at the base of its head. Even more telling is the configuration of its tentacles. In all three compositions the octopus has three tentacles protruding directly beneath the head, with the central tentacle looping beneath the one to the left. In Praeneste and the House of the Faun, a fourth tentacle extends down beneath the central and rightmost tentacles, while in House of the Geometric Mosaics the same effect is achieved by extending the rightmost tentacle. In Praeneste, the rightmost tentacle projects to form a semicircular loop, while in the House of the Geometric Mosaics the loop is formed by an additional tentacle, and in the House of the Faun it is missing completely.

F I G . 6.14. Beginning with Aristotle, the three-way combat between the octopus (Octopus vulgaris), moray eel (Muraena helena), and common lobster (Palinurus vulgaris) was a recurring topos in ancient zoological literature. In the Praeneste Fish Mosaic, the artist(s) depicted the octopus defeating a moray eel.

47 This discussion of the typological similarities between the octopuses depicted in the three mosaics relies heavily on a brilliant analysis by Paul Meyboom: see Meyboom 1977, 58–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

227

As well as exhibiting an anatomical configuration found in both Pompeian emblemata, therefore, the Praeneste octopus includes anatomical elements exclusive to each. Incidentally, the eel (Muraena helena) wrestling the octopus has a curved profile that recalls the specimen from the House of the Geometric Mosaics. A further eighteen specimens in the Praeneste mosaic have close analogues in the two Pompeian emblemata: the squid (Loligo vulgaris), the two small prawns in the lagoon beneath the column shrine (Leander sp.), the spiny lobster (Palinurus vulgaris), a second moray eel (Muraena helena), the golden grey mullet (Liza aurata), the sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) (Fig. 6.15; compare Figs. 6.8a and 6.8b), the scorpion fish (Scorpaena scrofa) (Fig. 6.3a), three combers (Serannus cabrilla), the painted comber (Serranus scriba), the annular bream (Diplodus annularis), another bream (Sparidae sp.), two gurnards (Trigla sp.), the smallspotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula), and the oscillated electric ray (Torpedo torpedo) (Fig. 6.16). From a compositional perspective, meanwhile, the rocky outcrops of the Pompeian emblemata seem to constitute abbreviated versions of the sandy, rocky coastline depicted at Praeneste.48

F I G . 6.15. In this fragmentary section of the Praeneste Fish Mosaic, the head of a European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) is preserved.

48

Recognized already by Pernice 1938, 150; Gullini 1956, 22; Meyboom 1977, 59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

228

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 6.16. Oscillated electric ray (Torpedo torpedo) depicted in the Praeneste Fish Mosaic. This specimen is similar in appearance to those depicted in the two Pompeian emblemata.

WORKSHOPS AND INTERMEDIARIES

The usual explanation for this nexus of typological connections is that all three mosaics were produced by a single workshop.49 This is possible, especially if—as Giorgio Gullini suggested—the tesserae of the Praeneste mosaic were made from the same materials as those used in the House of the Faun.50 Still, we are then faced with the question of how the mosaicists of this workshop were able to produce near-identical representations of so many fish species in mosaics laid in different locations and at different times, all the while maintaining a scientific level

49

Common workshop (‘Workshop of the House of the Faun’): Meyboom 1977, esp. 54–5, 72–4; 1995, 91–5; Meyboom and Brouwer 2005, 235–6, 241. 50 Gullini 1956, 19. The tesserae used in the House of the Faun were apparently made from materials collected in the area surrounding Vesuvius: Fuhrmann 1931, 110–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

229

of accuracy. Here there are two theoretical possibilities that require careful consideration.51 The first possibility is that mosaicists were taught how to produce highly naturalistic representations of particular fish species in a workshop environment, and that they could subsequently reproduce these designs from memory alone.52 In this case, we might reconstruct an itinerant workshop of mosaicists operating in Latium and Campania in the later second and early first centuries BC, capable of reproducing carefully memorized designs in new configurations according to the wishes of each patron. We should note, however, that this reading assumes an astonishingly sophisticated visual memory on the part of the mosaicists, since each of the Pompeian emblemata contains taxonomically accurate representations of more than twenty different species, while the Fish Mosaic at Praeneste may originally have contained as many as sixty or seventy. In order to reproduce all these specimens from memory alone, mosaicists would have required a detailed knowledge of the ichthyological kingdom, and a photographic recall of the minutiae differentiating individual species. The second possibility is that mosaicists used artistic intermediaries of some kind: that is, detailed images carried on transportable media that could be copied and consulted when designing and laying a particular mosaic.53 While the nature of artistic intermediaries during antiquity remains hotly debated, their existence is all but confirmed by the discovery of near-identical works of art across the Roman Empire that were separated by long distances and/or created at intervals of several centuries. In the case of our Italian fish mosaics, the theory of circulating intermediaries allows for a more flexible reconstruction of how these compositions were made, since it does not necessarily depend on the supposition that all three were produced by a single workshop. It also lessens the burden on the visual memory of individual mosaicists. These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, and it is likely that a large proportion of artistic production during antiquity—including, perhaps, our fish mosaics—can be accounted for by some combination of the two. Still, recognizing that artistic intermediaries might have been used when producing at least some of these naturalistic fish designs is significant, since it leads us to consider their form and nature. We should revisit in this context the distinction introduced in Chapter 4 between paradeigmata, intermediaries that transmitted the iconography of entire works of art, and ‘pattern books’ or ‘figure books’, intermediaries that transmitted 51

For a balanced summary of both these possibilities, see Dunbabin 1999, 300–3. For this approach, see e.g. Bruneau 1984; 2000. 53 Recently on ‘pattern books’ and intermediaries: e.g. Donderer 2005; 2005/2006; Schmidt-Colinet 2009; 2016; Clarke 2009; 2010; 2013. 52

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

230

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

the iconography of individual figures or motifs. It seems unlikely that all three mosaics considered in this chapter were modelled on a single paradeigma, given their differences in size, format, and iconography. It is more likely that these mosaics were compilations of sorts, designed using intermediaries that transmitted specific elements of the iconography: individual ichthyological specimens, for argument’s sake.54 The use of such intermediaries would account both for the typological connections between the fish mosaics at Praeneste and Pompeii, as well as for their differences in size, format, and iconography. The material format of this repertory of designs is more difficult to reconstruct. Most studies tend to refer to ‘pattern books’ or ‘figure books’ in such contexts, terms that in practice refer to repertories of designs drawn or painted on rolls of papyrus or parchment. But there is a serious gap in our evidence here, since even the finest papyrus roll illustrations surviving from antiquity fall well short of the artistry that we observe in the mosaics. To take just one example, we saw in Chapter 4 that the animal illustrations on the verso of the Artemidoros Papyrus are unlikely to have served as intermediaries in this kind of context, given the sketchy quality of its vignettes, the total absence of polychromy, and the varied contents of the papyrus as a whole. The same conclusion is reached even if the scope of comparison is extended to include the entire corpus of illustrated papyri surviving from antiquity.55 Simply put, there are no illustrations that match the fish mosaics in terms of detail, colour, and quality. In light of these discrepancies, we should entertain the possibility that individual ichthyological designs were originally transmitted on a larger scale and in greater detail than the papyrus/parchment roll format allowed for. One possibility is that they were transmitted on whitened wooden boards known as pinakes, leuko ̄mata, or sanides,56 which are known to have carried detailed paintings in antiquity thanks to a selection of epigraphic and literary sources, notably the inscribed temple inventories from Hellenistic Delos.57 The perishable nature of these boards means they have left few traces in the archaeological record, but Fayyum mummy portraits and other panel paintings from Roman Egypt may provide some indication of their original appearance.58 Particularly instructive is a sketched portrait of a woman with a fashionable Antonine hairstyle on a rectangular

54 This possibility was hinted at by Westgate 2000a, 268–9, suggesting that the designers of the two Pompeian emblemata utilized ‘the same set of cartoons’. 55 Standard catalogue of ancient illustrated papyri: Horak 1992. More recent contributions to the corpus: Stauffer 2008; Froschauer 2008; Whitehouse 2016. 56 Recently on this possibility: Thomas 2019. 57 Painted images on pinakes, leukomata, and sanides: Syll. nos. 364 (l. 5), 577 (l. 85), 958 (l. 40) and 1157 (ll. 30–5), and Index, s.v. leukoma. See also Fischer 2003; Jones 2014. 58 For an innovative study of fifty-nine panel paintings with pagan subjects from Roman Egypt, see Mathews and Muller 2016 (with a list of the paintings at p. 240), reviewed by Borg 2018.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

231

wooden board, which also incorporates artist’s instructions written in Greek (Fig. 6.17a).59 According to one view,60 this object served as the preparatory drawing for a surviving encaustic mummy portrait from Tebtunis now in the Phoebe Heart Museum (Fig. 6.17b), and so may provide some indication of the role played by such wooden boards in transmitting detailed iconographic designs during antiquity.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FISH MOSAICS FOR ITALIAN VIEWERS

Regardless of how they were produced, such opus vermiculatum fish mosaics clearly achieved considerable popularity in Italy during the late second and early first centuries BC. This leads us to consider how they were understood by their viewers. It is significant, in this context, that the emblemata from the House of the Faun and the House of the Geometric Mosaics were both laid in triclinia, since we know that the consumption of expensive seafood was an important component of fine living in contemporary Italy.61 Already in the mid Republic, the Latin poet Ennius enumerated the gastronomic properties of many different fish species in his Hedyphagetica, a composition that leaned heavily on an earlier culinary poem by the fourth-century writer Archestratos of Gela.62 This taste for seafood then continued to intensify, particularly during the early first century BC. Indeed, Pliny the Elder records that C. Sergius and L. Lucullus were credited with the invention of artificial oyster beds and saltwater fishponds respectively,63 and we learn elsewhere that these men adopted piscine cognomena on account of these pioneering installations.64 Most fish kept in such facilities were cultivated for their gastronomic value: hence G. Hirrius was able to supply six thousand eels from his own ponds for the triumphal banquet staged by Julius Caesar in 45 BC.65 But fish could also be kept as pets or exotic curiosities: the statesmen Q. Hortensius and L. Licinius Crassus are both said to have been overcome with grief upon learning

59

Parlasca 1977, 76–7 no. 432; Borg 1996, 12 n. 52, 50; Walker and Bierbrier 1997, 122–3 cat. 118. Walker and Bierbrier 1997, 122–3. 61 The fullest analysis of the textual evidence is Peurière 2003. See also Corcoran 1959; 1964; Purcell 1995; Littlewood 1987, 14; Higginbotham 1997, 41–64; Reese 2002a; 2002b. 62 On Ennius and Archestratos, see e.g. Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 340–1. 63 Pliny, Natural History 9.168, 9.170. 64 Sergius ‘Orata’ (‘Gilt-head’): Varro, De Re Rustica 3.2.17. Licinius ‘Murena’ (‘Eel’): Columella, De Re Rustica 8.16.5. 65 Pliny, Natural History 9.171; Macrobius, Saturnalia 3.15.10. See also Varro, De Re Rustica 3.17.3, placing the figure at two thousand. 60

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

232 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

(a)

(b)

F I G . 6.17. (a) This sketched portrait of a woman on wood carries instructions for the artist written in Greek. Found in Cemetery VII or VIII at Tebtunis in 1899–1900. Photographed using infrared reflectography. Second century AD. H: 35.2 cm, W: 24.3 cm. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, cat. no. 6-21378a. (b) Mummy portrait from Tebtunis. Second century AD. H: 29.0 cm, W: 19.5 cm. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, cat. no. 6-21375.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

233

of the deaths of their favourite eels.66 Such written accounts find their archaeological counterparts in the fishponds excavated in high concentrations outside Rome and in the Bay of Naples.67 Some of these ponds belonged to extra-urban villas owned by prominent Roman aristocrats like Sergius and Lucullus; others belonged to less grandiose dwellings, but were cultivated to meet the demand for seafood in Rome and other urban centres. In the context of Pompeian triclinia, then, exquisite fish mosaics surely alluded to the expensive seafood consumed by diners in these rooms. But other reception ranges were also possible. Indeed, we have seen that the Praeneste Fish Mosaic was laid in a public building, and there is no reason to assume a specifically gastronomic meaning in this context. Rather, we might suppose that the composition was chosen because of its suitability to its display setting, where it was submerged beneath a layer of water. A useful point of comparison here is a fragmentary fish mosaic excavated close to the Church of San Lorenzo in Panisperna on the slopes of the Quirinal in 1888, which is now on display in the museum at Centrale Montemartini.68 This composition was apparently laid in a small bathroom,69 and depicted a series of sea creatures against a variegated background of light grey and dark blue.70 While the style of this composition differs from the other mosaics analysed in this chapter,71 the individual fish are again depicted with a very high level of naturalism. Examining the largest surviving fragment (Fig. 6.18), for example, we might pick out the European squid (Loligo vulgaris), with its delicate pink colour, its long, slender mantle with rhomboid fins, its eight short arms, and its two long tentacles with large suckers. Here, as at Praeneste, the choice of aquatic iconography was surely dictated by the composition’s watery display context.72 There are also strong grounds for supposing that these compositions carried a scientific register of reception for Italian viewers. The key evidence is supplied by the inclusion of an octopus (Octopus vulgaris) fighting a lobster (Palinurus vulgaris) and/or a moray eel (Muraena helena) in each composition. A similar group was depicted in the Panisperna bathroom mosaic, judging by the mention 66

Hortensius: Varro, De Re Rustica 3.17.5–9; Pliny, Natural History 9.172. Crassus: Aelian, Nature of Animals 8.4; Plutarch, On the Intelligence of Animals 976a; Macrobius 3.15.3. 67 Full catalogue of Italian fishponds: Higginbotham 1997. 68 On this fragmentary mosaic from Panisperna, see Gatti 1888; Visconti 1888; Matini Morricone 1963, 236–7; Meyboom 1977, 57 cat. 6; 1995, 174 and n. 7; Tammisto 1997, 417 cat. SC2; Andreae 2003, 142–8. 69 The function of the room is clear from the report that its walls were covered with waterproof cement (calcestruzzo): see Visconti 1888, 263. 70 See De Puma 1969a, 64, arguing that the light grey areas simulate ‘clouds of bubbles’. 71 See Meyboom 1995, 173 n. 7, describing the composition as ‘impressionistic’. 72 Similar considerations apply to a fragmentary fish emblema laid in the bathroom of a suburban villa located between the Via Sistina and the Via della Purificazione, a little to the south of the Pincian hill. For this composition, see Fiorini 1988, 45–57; La Rocca 1990, 465–6; Tammisto 1997, cat. SS3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

234

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 6.18. Several fragments of a sumptuous fish mosaic were excavated in a villa at San Lorenzo in Panisperna in 1888. In this fragment, a European squid (Loligo vulgaris), a prawn (Leander sp.), a dusky grouper (Epinephelus guaza), and a purple-dye murex (Murex brandaris) are depicted, together with the antennae of a lobster (Palinurus vulgaris). Perhaps first century BC. Rome, Centrale Montemartini inv. AntCom32359.

of ‘a large octopus that seizes a lobster, which in turn grasps a moray eel’ in one of the excavation reports.73 The theme also recurs elsewhere in Roman visual culture: notably in a wall painting of the second century AD from a house excavated on the Via del Porto Fluviale.74 The significance of this motif stems from the fact that it reproduces a topos known from zoological and paradoxographical literature all the way from Aristotle to Aelian. In the History of Animals, for example, we read: For the octopuses (polupodes) overcome the spiny lobsters (karaboi), so that if the lobsters even sense them near in the same net they die of fear. The lobsters overcome the moray eels (gongroi), which do not slip away from them because of their rough surface. But the moray eels eat the octopuses, which cannot deal with them because of their smoothness.75

Gatti 1888, 437. Compare Visconti 1888, 263, mentioning instead ‘a monstrous octopus, which holds several other intricate marine animals in its tentacles’. 74 Octopus–eel–lobster topos in ancient visual culture: Mielsch 2005, 125–8. 75 Aristotle, History of Animals 8.590b. Translation adapted from the Loeb edition, where karaboi is translated as ‘crayfishes’, and gongroi is translated as ‘conger eels’. Other ancient accounts of this topos include Pliny, Natural History 9.185; Plutarch, On the Intelligence of Animals 978f–979a; Oppian, Halieutica 2.253, 2.257, 2.389, 3.189; Aelian, Nature of Animals 1.32, 9.25. 73

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

235

Viewing our mosaics through the lens of this topos, we can well imagine educated Italian viewers discussing Hellenistic natural science in their presence. Presumably these viewers were familiar with the work of Aristotle and other leading intellectuals, and were keen to show off their knowledge of individual species. But this connection with earlier scientific writing also leads us to consider whether the iconography of our mosaics was first formulated in Republican Italy, or whether it might have been conceived elsewhere at an earlier juncture. There are, in fact, compelling arguments in favour of Hellenistic origins that ought to be considered here.

THE CASE FOR HELLENISTIC ORIGINS

The Fish Mosaic from Palace IV at Pergamon (Fig. 5.6) proves that high-quality pavements containing detailed representations of sea creatures were produced in the eastern Mediterranean as early as the first half of the second century BC.76 Several considerations suggest that the Italian fish mosaics analysed in this chapter may have been inspired by a comparable masterpiece. Most significant, perhaps, is the observation that all three mosaics were laid in buildings containing other pavements based on earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. This is clearest in the case of the Praeneste Fish Mosaic, since we saw in Chapter 2 that the Nile Mosaic decorating the same complex was probably a later version of an earlier court painting from Alexandria.77 As well as their shared architectural context, there are thematic and compositional correspondences that link the two compositions: both depict large natural bodies of water; both exhibit clear interest in the animal kingdom; and both employ side-on perspective for human figures, elevated perspective for landscape elements, and oblique, axonometric perspective for architectural features.78 Similar considerations apply to the House of the Faun emblema, since this property likewise contained a series of mosaics connected to the East (Fig. 6.5).79 Best known is the Alexander Mosaic, laid in an exedra opening off the north wing of the house’s southern peristyle, which depicts the pivotal moment in an epochal battle between Alexander the Great and Darius of Persia. This composition is almost universally held to be a copy of a now-lost battle 76

It is possible that a fragmentary still-life mosaic from Ptolemais (Cyrenaica) featuring naturalistic representations of (dead) fish should likewise be dated to Hellenistic times: see Guimier-Sorbets 2019, 140. 77 It is also interesting, in this context, that a series of Egyptianizing elements have been identified in the architecture of the Lower Complex: see Lauter 1979, 445–6, 457. 78 Recently on the correspondences between the compositions, see Swetnam-Burland 2015, 150–4. 79 House of the Faun mosaics: De Caro 2001. For a stimulating recent discussion of the house and its decoration, see Haug 2020, 51–120.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

236

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

painting of the early Hellenistic period, partially because it is executed in the restricted four-colour palette associated with the great painters of the fifth and fourth centuries BC. The original painting was probably commissioned by one of the protagonists in the power struggle that followed Alexander’s death, and Kassandros, Seleukos I Nikator, and Ptolemy I Soter have all been identified as candidates.80 It is interesting, in this context, that another mosaic laid in the same exedra certainly alluded to Egypt and, by implication, to the Ptolemaic kingdom. This is the triptych decorating the threshold of the room, which depicts a selection of typically Egyptian fauna and flora in a swampy Nilotic landscape (Fig. 6.19).81 Two further mosaics excavated in the House of the Faun also have interesting Egyptian connections.82 The first is an emblema depicting an erotic encounter (symplegma) between a satyr and nymph that decorated a cubiculum accessed via the property’s Tuscan atrium. This composition reproduces precisely the same iconographic scheme as an earlier mosaic from Thmuis in the Nile Delta, opening the possibility that this scheme originated in an Egyptian milieu.83 The second mosaic is an emblema depicting a cat attacking a bird that decorated the eastern ala of the Tuscan atrium (Fig. 6.20). This composition likewise reproduced a wellknown archetype, judging by other mosaics with identical iconography found in Rome, Veii, Capri, Ampurias, and elsewhere.84 Here the Egyptian connection stems from an extensive series of marble, limestone, and terracotta statues of cats

F I G . 6.19. Central panel of the Nilotic triptych decorating the threshold of the Alexander Mosaic exedra in the House of the Faun at Pompeii. We see here a series of Nilotic fauna, including an antagonistic encounter between a cobra and a mongoose. Early first century BC. H: 0.70 m; W: 3.33 m. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli inv. 9990b.

80 Seleukos I Nikator: Andreae 2004. Ptolemy I Soter: Rumpf 1962, 238–9; Thomas in press. Kassandros: e.g. Fuhrmann 1931, 41–2. 81 Nilotic triptych: Pernice 1938, 167–8; Meyboom 1995, 17–18, 219–20 nn. 71 and 74, 357–8 n. 5; Tammisto 1997, 364–6 cat. NS2; Zevi 1998b, 52–60; Andreae 2003, 111–12. 82 On the Egyptian connections in the House of the Faun, see already Parlasca 1975, 365; Daszewski 1985, 18–22; 1998, 403–5; Zevi 1998a, esp. 34–41; 1998b, esp. 31–60; Pfrommer 1998, 209–14. 83 Thmuis symplegma mosaic: Parlasca 1975, 364–5; Daszewski 1985, 21–2. 84 Examples collected by Tammisto 1997, 387–91 cats. CM1–3; Andreae 2003, 201–16; Meyboom and Brouwer 2005. For a version of the motif from Aquileia, see Perpignani and Fiori 2012, 15–20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

237

F I G . 6.20. This emblema from the House of the Faun depicts a cat attacking a chicken above, with two ducks, four small birds, and a selection of fish and shellfish below. Early first century BC. H: 51 cm; W: 57 cm. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli inv. 9993.

devouring birds excavated in Alexandria and Naukratis (e.g. Fig. 6.21).85 Particularly remarkable are the finds from the Boubasteion—the sanctuary of the Egyptian cat goddess Boubastis—at Kom el-Dikka in central Alexandria, excavated only in 2009–10.86 Here three votive pits were uncovered, containing respectively: 50 limestone cats and 469 terracotta cat figurines; 106 limestone cats; and 13 limestone cats. Many reproduce the cat-and-bird motif familiar from the Pompeian emblema, lending support to the view that that this composition descends from an Alexandrian original. 85 86

For an overview of these cat statues, see Higgs and Thomas 2017. Boubasteion excavations: Abd El-Maksoud, Abd El-Fattah, and Seif El-Din 2012; 2018.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

238 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0

F I G . 6.21. This marble statue of a cat attacking a bird was probably excavated in the Boubasteion at Naukratis. Late fourth or third century BC. H: 23.0, L: 49.5, W: 12.0 cm. London, British Museum 1905,0612.5.

Turning finally to the House of the Geometric Mosaics, only one further pictorial mosaic was found in this property. This is the fragmentary emblema depicting the abduction of the Leukippides by the Dioskouroi, which was excavated in the room directly behind the triclinium containing the fish mosaic.87 Like the Alexander Mosaic, this composition is executed in the restricted four-colour palette associated with the great painters of the fifth and fourth centuries. It may then be a version of a lost masterpiece from this period.88 In short, the fish mosaics considered here were all laid in buildings containing other pictorial mosaics modelled on earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. We are struck by the high proportion of these compositions that can be connected with Ptolemaic Egypt: the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, the Nilotic triptych from the House of the Faun, and the symplegma and cat mosaics from the same property. Seen in this context, it is tempting to suppose that the fish mosaics from Praeneste and Pompeii might have been descended from an earlier archetype, conceivably from Alexandria or another royal centre.89 This hypothesis accords well with the mosaics from royal centres containing naturalistic representations of animals discussed in Chapter 5.

87

Leukippides mosaic: PPM VIII, 91 no. 34 (V. Sampaolo). Suggested already by Walter-Karydi 2002, 83. 89 For the notion of an Alexandrian archetype, see already Leonhard 1914, 16–18; Gullini 1956, 31–2; Meyboom 1977, 68–71; Guimier-Sorbets 2019, 107. For a creative reconstruction of this archetype, see Meyboom 1977, 63–6, with fig. 16a. 88

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

239

The terrace-shrine depicted in the foreground of the Praeneste Fish Mosaic (Fig. 6.2) may also bear on the question of artistic origins. While it is possible that this part of the iconography was invented by the late second-century mosaicist(s), there are indications that this was not the case. Particularly revealing is the awkward manner in which the terrace wall and semicircular exedra recede into space, seen most clearly in the angular, distorted profiles of the two corner blocks of the terrace wall. This awkwardness may betray difficulties in translating a pre-existing design into a secondary artistic context. If so, the architecture and ornament of the terraceshrine might offer clues concerning where this design was first formulated. The most eye-catching component of the shrine is the freestanding Corinthian column, which has a shaft of unfluted—or perhaps lightly faceted90—drums with smooth, drafted margins. Despite its striking appearance, this column is difficult to contextualize either geographically or chronologically, since ‘deliberate un-finish’ of this kind became increasingly common in Greek architecture from the late Classical period onwards.91 Also difficult to contextualize is the Corinthian capital, which has a squat profile, a curving abacus, a single row of acanthus leaves with volutes springing directly from their collars, and a central fleuron in place of the usual helices. While it has sometimes been described as Alexandrian,92 the capital does not closely resemble any of the classes of Alexandrian Corinthian capital first identified by Konstantin Ronczewski.93 The most we can say is that the squat proportions and the single row of acanthus leaves may be more consistent with a date earlier in the Hellenistic period rather than later.94 More revealing, perhaps, are the two oval-shaped shields with metal rims suspended from the column. The shield closest to the viewer an oval-shaped boss (umbo) at its centre, positioned at the point of intersection between a thin vertical midrib (spina) and a thicker horizontal cross-band. It is decorated with an emblem of four S-shapes arranged symmetrically around the central boss.95 Such oval-shaped shields appear in a range of contexts in Hellenistic visual culture (see e.g. Fig. 5.2), but occur most often in the context of representations of the Galatians: those tribes of marauding Celts from Central Europe who were often cast in the role of barbarian enemies by Hellenistic kings.96

90

I am grateful to Konogan Beaufay for this observation. ‘Artful un-finish’ in real and represented architecture: e.g. Lauter 1983; Kalpaxis 1986; Tybout 1989. 92 Gullini 1956, 31–2. Compare Meyboom 1995, 377–8 n. 36, suggesting that the closest parallels are ItaloCorinthian capitals from Reggio di Calabria and Palermo. 93 Alexandrian Corinthian capitals: Ronczewski 1927, 3–36; McKenzie 2007, 83–91. 94 Riemann 1986, 396; Steinmeyer-Schareika 1978, 98–9. 95 A similar shield emblem is visible on one of the shields depicted in Section 13 of the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (Fig. 2.12). 96 On Galatians in the Hellenistic world, see e.g. Hannestad 1993; Mitchell 2003. For depictions of Galatians in Hellenistic art, see Marszal 2000; Papini 2016. 91

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

240

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

While Galatians feature prominently in the state-sponsored imagery of the Attalid kingdom, Galatian shields were also prevalent in Ptolemaic ideology and visual culture. Indeed, a small oval shield was added to the reverse field of coins minted during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, adjacent to the principal motif of an eagle perching on a thunderbolt (Fig. 6.22). This addition probably commemorated Philadelphos’s suppression of a revolt by a group of four thousand Galatian mercenaries in c.275 BC,97 which involved abandoning them on an island in the Nile and leaving them to die by infighting and starvation.98 The same event was celebrated by Kallimachos of Kyrene in his Hymn to Delos, where Apollo prophesizes that ‘shields that saw their owners die by gasping in the fire’ would be set up by Philadelphos as trophies by the Nile following the revolt.99 It is even possible the ‘oblong shields (thureoi) that alternated between silver and gold’ displayed in the same king’s grand banqueting pavilion were connected to the suppression of this insurrection.100 Seen in this context, we should at least entertain the possibility that the oval-shaped shields at Praeneste were conceived as spolia, and that they were designed to evoke the military victory of a Hellenistic king.

F I G . 6.22. A Galatian shield was added to the reverse field of coins minted in Alexandria under Ptolemy II Philadelphos, probably to commemorate this king’s defeat of recalcitrant Galatian mercenaries. This silver stater dates sometime between 275/4 and 272 BC: see Lorber 2018, no. 281. Obverse: portrait of Ptolemy I Soter. Reverse: eagle on thunderbolt, with Galatian shield to the left. ANS 1944.100.75455.

97 For this interpretation see e.g. Voegtli 1973; Ritter 1975; Wolf and Lorber 2011, 22–3. Contrast Salzmann 1980, interpreting the shield instead as a reference to the foundation myth of the Ptolemaic dynasty. These readings are reconciled by Lorber 2018, 118–20, 312–17, arguing that the shield motif is ‘probably polysemous’. 98 99 Pausanias 1.7.2. Kallimachos, Hymn 4 ll. 185–7. Translation: Nisetich 2001. 100 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.196b.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

241

Two further components of the terrace-shrine may also bear on the question of artistic origins: the columnar altar with a flame burning on top, and the plinth standing directly on top of the Corinthian column. Both features are depicted in dark red tesserae, presumably to simulate a real-life material of the same colour used in ornament and architecture. While other possibilities should not be ruled out, the material has been interpreted plausibly as red porphyry (porfido rosso), an igneous stone found only at Mons Porphyrites in Egypt.101 This stone was quarried systematically from the reign of the emperor Tiberius (AD 14–37), but a series of isolated archaeological finds and incidental literary references suggest that it was also extracted in small quantities for privileged clients during Ptolemaic times.102 This mining activity was facilitated by the construction of a road linking Koptos and the Red Sea port of Myos Hormos during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos, since this route passed close to Mons Porphyrites (Fig. 1.3).103 Clearly the depiction of this material in the Praeneste mosaic would have significant implications for our understanding of the origins of the composition. It is also notable that the Praeneste terrace-shrine recalls the rustic shrines depicted in later ‘genre landscape’ paintings surviving from Rome and Campania.104 While the artistic origins and geographical associations of these paintings are controversial, it may be telling that the Praeneste terrace-shrine most closely resembles the examples painted on the north wall of the Ekklesiasterion of the Temple of Isis—an Egyptian divinity par excellence—in Pompeii.105 The picture painted on the left ala of this wall, for example, depicts a columnar shrine surrounded by a low exedra carrying bronze vessels (Fig. 6.23). As at Praeneste, the shrine stands in a rocky coastal landscape, the columns are adorned with military spolia, and the column capitals support dark red bases carrying precious metal vessels. The painter also included a representation of an ibis, a quintessentially Egyptian species found in both the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste (e.g. in Fig. 2.27) and the Tomb of Apollophanes at Marisa (Fig. 3.14).106 Given these correspondences, it is possible that the Praeneste terrace-shrine carried a similar set of cultural and geographical associations.

101

For this interpretation, see Gullini 1956, 32; Lucci 1964, 239; Meyboom 1977, 69–70; 1995, 377 n. 36; Wattel-de-Croizant 1986, 554; Lavagne 1988, 245. 102 The relevant evidence is collected by Delbrück 1932; Lucci 1964, esp. 238–9; Del Bufalo 2012. See also Russell 2013, 90: ‘Various materials had been extracted here [sc. the Eastern Desert] under the Pharaohs and Ptolemies but in nothing like the quantities quarried in the Roman period.’ Contrast Malgouyres and BlancRiehl 2003, arguing that red porphyry was not extracted in Ptolemaic times. 103 Koptos to Myos Hornos road: Strabo, Geography 17.45. Archaeological investigation of this route: Sidebotham 2011, 28–9. 104 105 Meyboom 1977, 70. For these paintings, see Elia 1941; Sampaolo 1992, 55, 58–9. 106 The painting from the right ala, meanwhile, includes a depiction of a kingfisher, recalling the specimens from the Pompeian fish emblemata.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

242

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 6.23. This fresco panel from the Ekklesiasterion of the Temple of Isis at Pompeii shows a distyle column-shrine standing in a rustic Egyptian (?) landscape, recalling the terrace-shrine in the Praeneste Fish Mosaic. AD 62–79. H: 170 cm; W: 193 cm. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli inv. 8575.

INTERPRETING THE POSTULATED ARCHETYPE

In brief, a series of contextual and iconographic considerations open the possibility that the fish mosaics analysed in this chapter were descended from an earlier masterpiece from the Hellenistic East, plausibly from Ptolemaic Egypt. We may therefore consider the cultural and social significance of this postulated Hellenistic archetype in its original eastern Mediterranean context. We can be sure that the archetype was intended to communicate detailed scientific knowledge to contemporary viewers. The clearest evidence is again supplied by the octopus–eel–lobster group, which brings to mind the Aristotelian heritage of the new Ptolemaic Mouseion and Library discussed in Chapter 1. A scientific dimension is further suggested by the juxtaposition of so many different fish within a single work of art, resulting in a visual catalogue of species. This visual catalogue offers an artistic counterpart to the large body of specialist ichthyological

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

243

literature composed during Hellenistic times. We think here of Klearchos of Soloi, who composed texts On Aquatic Animals and On the Electric Ray, and Kallimachos of Kyrene, who wrote On Changes in the Names of Fish. We might also mention Aristophanes of Byzantium’s Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological work, since Book 3 of this text constituted a species-by-species account of the ichthyological kingdom.107 This interest in different fish also extended to royal circles, judging by a fragment from the Commentaries of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II: Ptolemy, the King of Egypt, was one of the students of the grammarian Aristarchos, and in the second book of his Commentaries he writes as follows: “Around Berenike in Libya there is a stream called the Lethon, in which are found sea bass (icthus labrax) and gilt head (chrusophrus), and many eels (encheleo ̄n plē thos), the ones called ‘royal’, which are one and a half times the size of those in Macedonia and Lake Kopais [sc. in Boeotia]. Its entire flow is full of a huge variety of fish”.108

Since Macedonian and Boeotian eels were regarded as among the finest in the Mediterranean, Ptolemy VIII seems here to be asserting ‘the superiority of the products of his own kingdom’.109 This fragment also alerts us to the possibility that the archetype was interpreted in gastronomic terms by its original Hellenistic audience. After all, we saw in Chapter 5 that the consumption of expensive seafood constituted an important facet of upper-class living in the Hellenistic East, a conclusion that was supported with reference to the gastronomic texts cited in Athenaios’s Deipnosophistai and famous works of art like Sosos’s Unswept Room. It is even possible that the archetype communicated concerns of a geopolitical nature.110 This interpretation hinges on the supposition that it was displayed in a royal context: a credible possibility, given the contextual and iconographic considerations presented above. Within this royal context, the composition might have evoked ideas such as naval victory and thalassocratic power. While this reading should not be pressed in the absence of further evidence, it accords well with our knowledge of how royal authority was conceptualized in Hellenistic times. Indeed, we can be certain that the naval power was sometimes expressed in pictorial terms. This is demonstrated by two emblemata excavated at Thmuis in the Nile Delta, each depicting a stately female figure—probably a personification

107

This specialist interest continued during the late Hellenistic period, judging by a treatise On Fish composed by one Dorion during the first century BC. The fragments of this treatise in Athenaios’s Learned Banqueters indicate that it contained detailed information on the names, anatomy, behaviour, and culinary properties of different species. On Dorion, see: RE 5.2 s.v. ‘Dorion [3]’ (M. Wellmann); Wellmann 1888; Keyser and Irby-Massie 2008, 275–6 s.v. ‘Dōriōn (Biol.) (1st c. BCE)’ (Zucker). 108 BNJ 234 F1 = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 2.71b–c. Translation: BNJ (D. W. Roller). 109 BNJ 234 F1 (D. W. Roller). 110 See already Künzl 2003, 297–9, suggesting a royal Ptolemaic context.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

244

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

of Alexandria111—wearing a ship’s prow headdress and carrying a ship’s yardarm. Here the accumulation of thalassocratic regalia amounted to a clear statement of Ptolemaic authority at sea (Fig. 6.24).112 We also have anecdotal evidence that fish themselves could be used to communicate maritime power. The crucial testimony is a fragment from the Histories of the third-century author Phylarchos, which

F I G . 6.24. A stately female figure stares out of this sumptuous opus vermiculatum mosaic from Thmuis (Tell Timai) in the Nile Delta. Although she is sometimes identified as a Ptolemaic queen, the medium and iconography suggest that she is a personification. Probably second century BC. Dimensions of central emblema: 0.86  0.85 m. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum inv. 21739.

111

Identification as personification of Alexandria: Smith 1988, 10 n. 20; Dunbabin 1999, 25. Alternative identification as Ptolemaic queen: Daszewski 1985, 142–60 nos. 38–9. 112 Coins minted by Hellenistic monarchs could also incorporate iconographic allusions to prowess at sea: for example, the tetradrachms minted by Antigonos Gonatas depicting Poseidon on the obverse and the prow of a ship on the reverse: see Thonemann 2015, 158.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

fish mosaics in late republican italy

245

records that Patroklos, a general (stratē gos) of Ptolemy II Philadelphos,113 sent seafood to Antigonos II Gonatas in the context of the Chremonidean War (267/ 6–263/2 BC): I know, too, that Phylarchos has spoken, somewhere or other, about large fish (ichthues) and about fresh figs which were sent with them, saying that Patroklos, the general of Ptolemy, sent such a present to Antigonos the king, by way of a riddle, as the Skythians sent an enigmatic present to Darius when he was invading their country . . . the king, at the time that they arrived, happened to be drinking with his friends, and when all the party were perplexed at the meaning of the gifts, Antigonos laughed and said to his friends that he knew what the meaning of the present was; “for”, he said, “He [sc. Patroklos] means that we must either be masters of the sea or else be content to eat figs”.114

It is clear from Gonatas’s reaction that both products sent by Patroklos were invested with politico-military meaning. While the fish stood for mastery of the sea, the figs stood for the renunciation of naval power. In the end, however, Patroklos’s warnings fell on deaf ears: Gonatas went on to defeat the combined forces of Philadelphos, Athens, and Sparta, before installing a Macedonian garrison in Athens.115

CONCLUSIONS

We have seen how the typological correspondences between the fish mosaics from Praeneste and Pompeii suggest that they were designed using artistic intermediaries that transmitted detailed representations of particular fish. Given that they depicted animals with a comparable level of naturalism, it is possible that the royal mosaics from Alexandria and Pergamon analysed in Chapter 5 were likewise designed using intermediaries of this kind. While we can only speculate concerning the form of these intermediaries, it seems unlikely that they were sketchy, monochrome illustrations like those on the verso of the Artemidoros Papyrus. It is more probable that designs were transmitted on a larger scale and in greater detail, possibly on whitened wooden boards. We have also seen that the Italian fish mosaics may have been descended from a famous work of art from the Hellenistic East. While this suggestion is necessarily hypothetical, several considerations point in this direction: the integration of the octopus–eel–lobster topos borrowed from Aristotelian natural science; the fact that our fish mosaics were laid in the same contexts as other mosaics modelled on

113 114 115

Recently on Patroklos: Hauben 2013. BNJ 81 F 1 = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 8.334a–b. Translation: BNJ (F. Landucci). Recently on the Chremonidean War: O’Neil 2008.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

246

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

Eastern archetypes; and the possible Hellenistic connections of the terrace-shrine in the mosaic from Praeneste. Viewed side by side, these observations have significant implications for our understanding of how later versions of earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East were produced in Late Republican Italy. Indeed, we are faced with the possibility that the artists responsible for such compositions used detailed artistic intermediaries that were themselves imported from the Hellenistic East. This is not to imply that these artists had no scope for creativity and originality, since the differences between the fish mosaics analysed here demonstrate that they were adept at adapting their models to particular contexts of display. Rather, the use of intermediaries helped to ensure that these talented mosaicists were able consistently to depict particular animal species with a scientific degree of accuracy. This Italian taste for accurate animal representation persisted in subsequent generations, judging by the garden paintings from Latium and Campania discussed in the next chapter.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

SEVEN

Garden Paintings in Rome and the Bay of Naples Bringing the Natural World Indoors

We saw in Chapter 5 that mosaics containing naturalistic depictions of birds decorated royal spaces in Attalid Pergamon. Although these works of art successfully communicated the wealth and power of their royal patrons, the reality of Attalid authority in Asia Minor was not destined to last. Indeed, Rome’s expanding influence in the eastern Mediterranean during the second century left the Attalids in an increasingly precarious political position,1 and the dynasty ended when Attalos III Philometor bequeathed his kingdom to Rome in 133 BC.2 Still, the Pergamene interest in detailed ornithological representation did not disappear with Rome’s arrival in the East. Rather, this interest was perpetuated—even intensified—in the art of Late Republican and Early Imperial Italy.3 This artistic interest in birds was manifested most emphatically in the garden paintings produced in Latium and Campania during the Late Republic and Early Empire.4 The term ‘garden painting’ is used to denote any wall or ceiling painting in which a combination of trees, plants, birds, and garden ornament constitutes the principal subject. A great many examples survive, and these exhibit considerable variety in terms of iconography, artistry, and type of display context.5 The finest garden paintings were reserved for enclosed settings inside the villa or domus. Five such paintings are particularly well documented: the subterranean 1

Attalids and Rome: e.g. Gruen 1984, 529–610. This act is recorded by many ancient sources: Strabo, Geography 13.4.2; Livy, Periochae 58; Pliny, Natural History 33.148; Florus 1.47 (3.12); Justin, Epitome 35.4.5; Appian, Mithridatic Wars 62; Ampelius, Liber Memorialis 33.3; Eutropius, Summary 4.18; Orosius, History against the Pagans 5.8.4; Eusebius, Chronicle. 2.130, 2.131. 3 We have already encountered several compositions that exemplify this continued interest, notably the later versions of Sosos’s Doves from Tivoli and elsewhere, and the birds depicted in the acanthus scroll border framing the fish emblema from the House of the Faun at Pompeii. 4 The most recent catalogue of examples is Salvadori 2017, 157–237. 5 Favoured contexts include the walls of porticos, peristyles, and exedrae surrounding real peristyle gardens, and the walls of small courtyards or light wells. On this range of display contexts see e.g. Jashemski 1979, 55–87; Donati 2002, 55–7; Salvadori 2017, 67–91. 2

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0007

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

248

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

garden room of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta; the paintings from Rooms 31 and 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet at Pompeii; and those from Rooms 8 and 11 of the House of the Fruit Orchard in the same city. These compositions stand out not only by virtue of their panoramic designs—extending around three or four walls of a room to create an unbroken garden vista—but also thanks to their artistic quality, exemplified above all by their naturalistic representations of individual birds and plants. This chapter will explore how these panoramic garden paintings were understood by contemporary viewers. While previous studies have often favoured ‘symbolic’ interpretations of their iconography, it will be suggested here that the key to understanding the paintings lies in the taste for luxury gardens and aviaries that formed part of Roman villa culture in the Late Republic and Early Empire. It is significant that this Roman garden culture is thought to have been influenced by earlier leisure gardens in the Hellenistic East. As we shall see, this may have implications for our understanding of the artistic origins of the garden paintings themselves.

THE PAINTED GARDEN ROOM AT PRIMA PORTA

The Villa of Livia at Prima Porta was a grand suburban complex located on a hill approximately 14 kilometres outside Rome, overlooking the junction of the Via Flaminia and the Via Tiberina (Fig. 7.1).6 As its modern name suggests, the complex can be identified as the villa owned by Augustus’ wife Livia, which is known from our surviving texts.7 These sources tell us that the villa was home to a grove of laurel trees planted to commemorate a miraculum at the site in late 39 or early 38 BC, when an eagle dropped a white hen carrying a sprig of laurel into Livia’s lap. This event was interpreted as a positive omen for her impending marriage to Octavian/Augustus. The laurel grove retained a high symbolic charge throughout the Julio-Claudian period, since Augustus and later emperors used it as the source for the laurel branches that they carried in their military triumphs, before adding to the grove by replanting these same branches. The painted garden room was a rectangular subterranean chamber (c.11.70  5.90 m) with a barrel-vaulted ceiling, which is today reconstructed—with the original paintings—in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme. This subterranean room was illuminated by a skylight in the ceiling and was accessed via an entrance in the

6

Useful accounts of the architecture and design of the villa include Calci and Messineo 1984; Messineo 2001; Reeder 2001, 13–34; Carrarra 2005; Zarmakoupi 2008. 7 See e.g. Pliny, Natural History 15.136–7; Suetonius, Life of Galba 1; Dio Cassius, Roman History 48.52.3–5, 63.29.3; Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 5.17; Iulius Obsequens, Liber Prodigiorum 131.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

249

F I G . 7.1. Plan of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta. The subterranean garden room (no. 2) was constructed in the west wing of the property, while the large peristyle garden (no. 69) was located to the east of the main complex.

centre of its long east side, located at the base of a steep staircase (Fig. 7.2).8 The room formed part of the western wing of the villa, which was added during a secondary construction phase. The date of this construction phase is debated, but most favour a chronology in the early Augustan period, c.38–20 BC, on account of the masonry technique and the style of the painted decoration.9 In terms of its function, meanwhile, it is likely that the chamber served as a cool triclinium for dining during the hot summer months, when the beating sun raised the temperature of the south-west facing villa.10 Comparable subterranean triclinia have been excavated elsewhere,11 and we might also compare Pliny the Younger’s reference to a semi-underground cryptoporticus in his Tuscan villa that ‘never loses its icy temperature in summer’.12

8 9 11

Zarmakoupi 2008, 273 states that this subterranean complex was ‘roughly 4 m below the ground level’. 10 Summary of chronological data: Reeder 2001, 13–29. Zarmakoupi 2008, 271–3. 12 For these comparanda, see Zarmakoupi 2008, 273. Pliny the Younger, Letters 5.6.30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

250

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.2. This photograph of the subterranean garden room was taken in 1942, prior to the removal of the famous painting. The entrance to the room in the east wall is clearly visible.

Assuming that the early Augustan chronology is correct, the painted garden room may be described as one of the earliest garden paintings surviving from Italy. Even earlier, perhaps, are a handful of Second Style paintings from Campania incorporating garden iconography: notably compositions from Exedra 25 of the House of Menander at Pompeii and Room 15 of Villa A at Oplontis.13 While it might seem tempting to identify these Campanian paintings as ‘precursors’ that anticipated the Prima Porta garden room, this overlooks a series of conceptual and iconographic differences separating these compositions.14 Indeed, the ‘gardens’ depicted in the Campanian paintings functioned as background elements subordinated to Second Style architectural designs, and their individual trees and plants were comparatively generic in appearance. At Prima Porta, by contrast, the garden itself was the principal subject, and the plants and birds were mostly depicted with a scientific degree of accuracy. Closer to the Villa of Livia painting, both geographically and iconographically, are two garden paintings from Rome dated to Augustan times: the painted niches 13

House of Menander painting: PPM II, 372–5 nos. 210–15 (F. Parise Badoni); Salvadori 2017, 174–5 cat. P9. Oplontis painting: Salvadori 2017, 23. 14 For a fuller enumeration of these differences, see Salvadori 2017, 23–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

251

F I G . 7.3. In this engraving, first published in 1874, we can glimpse the quality of the garden painting that decorated the niches of the Auditorium of Maecenas, a subterranean triclinium on the Esquiline. Late first century BC or early first century AD. W of niche: c.1.10 m; H of niche: c.1.90 m.

of the Auditorium of Maecenas, a subterranean pavilion on the Esquiline (Fig. 7.3);15 and the fragmentary painting from viridarium L of the Villa Farnesina, a riverside property in the Campus Martius.16 The Auditorium of Maecenas offers a particularly striking point of comparison, since it was likewise a structure

15

On the Auditorium of Maecenas and its painted niches, see De Vos 1983; Jashemski 1993, 383–4 cat. 128; Salvadori 2017, 210 cat. R3. 16 Bragantini and De Vos 1982, 123–7; Jashemski 1993, 386 cat. 130; Salvadori 2017, 209 cat. R2. On the villa paintings more broadly, see Sanzi di Mino, Bragantini, and Dolciotti 1998; Wyler 2006; Mols and Moormann 2008.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

252

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

with close connections to the imperial family. Indeed, it was part of the Esquiline horti owned by Maecenas, a friend and advisor of Augustus, who bequeathed his estate to the emperor upon his death in 8 BC.17 The garden paintings were probably added to this structure during a secondary phase, conceivably when the future emperor Tiberius retired to ‘the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline’ in AD 2.18 We have less concrete information concerning the patron of the Villa Farnesina, although the complex is often associated with Marcus Agrippa.19 This concentration of early garden paintings produced for high-level patrons in Rome is significant, since it raises the possibility that these compositions were first produced for the most privileged members of Roman society before diffusing down the social spectrum. We might compare, in this respect, Pliny’s account of the Augustan landscape painter Studius, who apparently invented a new mode of painting,20 identified as the kind of ‘genre landscape’ exemplified by—say—the yellow frieze from the so-called House of Livia on the Palatine.21 It is possible that Studius ‘spent at least part of his career in the emperor’s employment’,22 in which case the earliest genre landscape scenes might also have decorated imperial properties before being taken up by other social groups. Whether or not this ‘top down’ model is correct, the garden painting from the Villa of Livia represents the finest example of this decorative type to survive from antiquity.23 Extending uninterrupted from the base of each wall to the height of the barrel vault c.3.0 m above, the composition presents an unbroken vista of a blossoming garden that covers all four sides of the room (Fig. 7.4).24 The profusion of plant and bird life is remarkable, but a sense of order is supplied by subtle symmetry in the distribution of certain plant species and by the incorporation of a series of manmade landscape features.25 The most obviously manmade element is the walkway (ambulatio) depicted in the foreground of the composition, which is delimited by a trellis fence on the side

Gaius Maecenas: OCD s.v. ‘Maecenas, Gaius’ (E. J. Gowers), with further bibliography. Suetonius, Life of Tiberius 15. 19 Postulated connection with Agrippa: Beyen 1948, 3–21. See now also Wyler 2006, 216: ‘There is a body of chronological, topographical and iconographical evidence suggesting this hypothesis, even if it is unrealistic to hope to find definitive proof.’ 20 Pliny, Natural History 35.116–17. 21 Ling 1977, 1–16; contra Grimal 1969, 94–6 arguing instead that Studius might have invented garden paintings like those analysed in this chapter. 22 Ling 1977, 2–3. 23 The fullest accounts of the painted garden room at Prima Porta are Gabriel 1955; Förtsch 1989; Kellum 1994; Reeder 2001; Settis 2002. 24 In this respect the composition preserved the ‘illusionism’ typical of Second Style painting. Recently on Second Style illusionism, see Mulliez 2015. 25 On these aspects of the composition, see Förtsch 1989, 333–8. 17 18

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 7.4. South wall of the painted garden room of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta. Most of the birds and plants are depicted with a scientific level of accuracy. Early Augustan period. H: 2.88 m; W: 5.88 m. Museo Nazionale Romano inv. 126276=126373.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

254

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

nearest the viewer,26 and by a low marble balustrade with decorative latticework panels on the opposite side. A series of shrubs sprout up against the balustrade, which incorporates six rectangular niches distributed at roughly regular intervals, one on the short north and south sides, and two each on the long east and west sides. A tree stands in each niche: a pine to the north, an oak to the south, and four spruces to the east and west. Beyond the balustrade is a garden filled with a remarkable selection of flowers and trees, set beneath a deep blue sky. The plants and trees in the foreground—that is, immediately behind the marble balustrade— are rendered in great detail, while those set further back are comparatively hazy, creating an impression of spatial depth. Sixty-nine birds are interspersed throughout the composition, perching on branches or fences, or flying through the sky. At the top of the composition—just below the barrel-vaulted ceiling—the artists painted a craggy brown border. This feature eased the transition between the garden and the more artificial decoration of the ceiling above, consisting of stucco panels decorated with relief work, painted brightly in red, white, and blue.27 Some studies have identified the border as the edge of a stalactite-rimmed grotto, others as the edge of a thatched roof.28 In either case, this feature was surely designed to make viewers feel as though they were standing inside a roofed structure, looking out onto a blossoming garden. It is striking, however, that this roofed structure is devoid of architectural support, since no pilasters or columns were depicted in the composition. One recent study attempted to account for this apparent inconsistency by suggesting that real columns were set up around the chamber itself, despite the absence of any hard archaeological evidence for such a colonnade.29 Most of the birds depicted beneath the craggy border were represented in a highly naturalistic manner, and can be identified with particular species. Looking at the well-preserved short southern wall (Fig. 7.4), for instance, the identifiable specimens include a common blackbird (Turdus merula) alighting the central oak tree (Fig. 7.5a, compare Fig. 7.5b), an Italian sparrow (Passer italicae) perching on a branch of this oak tree (Fig. 7.6a, compare Fig. 7.6b), a dove (family: Columbidae) sitting beneath the pomegranate tree on the left-hand side, a song thrush (Turdus philomenus) perching on a branch a little to the right of this pomegranate tree, a

26 This trellis fence incorporates a series of three openings, positioned in the centre of the long west and short north and south walls, which provided fictive ‘access points’ into the garden for viewers standing in the room. The corresponding position on the long east wall was occupied by the entrance to the room proper. 27 While most studies contend that these brightly painted stucco panels detract from the ‘illusionism’ of the garden room, Kuttner 1999, 27 offers the intriguing counter-suggestion that this kind of ceiling ‘is just how a Roman might finish a real grotto, e.g. the inner cavern at Sperlonga, owned by Livia’s husband Augustus and son Tiberius’. 28 Interpretation as stalactites: e.g. Lavagne 1988, 346; Kuttner 1999, 27; Reeder 2001, 35–44. Interpretation as ‘a thatch made of reeds and covered with stucco’: Gabriel 1955, 7–8. 29 Jones 2016, 68–71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

255

(a)

(b)

F I G . 7.5. (a) Blackbird on the south wall of the garden room of the Villa of Livia. (b) Blackbird (Turdus merula). Several Hellenistic epigrams in the Palatine Anthology refer to this bird’s ability to sing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

256 a r t , s c i e n c e , a n d t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d , 3 0 0 b c – a d 1 0 0 (a)

(b)

F I G . 7.6. (a) Italian sparrow on the south wall of the garden room of the Villa of Livia. (b) Italian sparrow (Passer italiae) photographed at Lake Garda in northern Italy. Sparrows were valued as pets during antiquity.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

257

common quail (Coturnix coturnix) standing on the balustrade behind the central oak tree, and a common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) kept inside the cage balanced on the balustrade.30 Only a handful of brown and yellow birds seem more generic in appearance.31 The majority of trees and plants in the composition were likewise depicted in a highly naturalistic manner, and some twenty-four different species belonging to twenty families can be identified.32 Looking again at the short southern wall (Fig. 7.4),33 we observe an elegant oak tree standing in the central balustrade recess, and a series of beautifully depicted flowers standing immediately behind the balustrade, including camomiles, chrysanthemums, myrtles, periwinkle blossoms, lavender poppies, and rose bushes. In the centre of the space between the central oak and the left-hand edge of the wall is a pomegranate tree, while a quince tree occupies the corresponding position to the right. A series of identifiable trees and shrubs fill the remaining space behind the balustrade, including laurels, oleanders, a pine, cypresses, and an oak. For all their naturalism, it has been pointed out that many of these plants bloom and blossom in different seasons, and so would not have been seen together at a single time of year.34 This ‘extra-seasonal simultaneity’ of plant life features prominently in many interpretations of the iconography of the garden room:35 and it is to these interpretations that we may now turn.

INTERPRETING LIVIA’S GARDEN ROOM

We have only one surviving ancient description of a garden painting. It forms part of Pliny the Younger’s description of his Tuscan villa estate, in a letter written to Domitius Apollonaris towards the end of the first century AD: And there is another chamber, also shaded by the plane trees’ greenness at close hand, made elegant by a thin marble socle, nor do its paintings which imitate branches and birds sitting in that foliage fall short of the marble (nec cedit gratiae marmoris ramos insidentesque ramis aves imitata pictura).36

30

These identifications follow Gabriel 1955, 33–6, 43–53. On this point, see already Gabriel 1955, 44, 48. 32 Analyses of the represented botanical specimens: Gabriel 1955, 10–11; Caneva and Bohuny 2003. 33 For these identifications, see Gabriel 1955, 33–6. 34 This aspect of the painting is noted by virtually all commentators. See e.g. Caneva and Bohuny 2003, 153: ‘From the standpoint of phenology, the plants here represented show no seasonal consistency, in that some species are represented in the habit of spring, like poppies, roses, and daisies, while others are depicted in the habit of autumn, like quinces, pomegranates, and strawberry trees.’ 35 The term ‘extra-seasonal simultaneity’ is borrowed from Jones 2016, 62. 36 Pliny the Younger, Letters 5.6.22. Translation: Kuttner 1999, 7. Discussions of Pliny’s villas include Förtsch 1993; Du Prey 1994; Bergmann 1995; Zarmakoupi 2014. 31

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

258

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

While Pliny’s letter is later than the painted garden room at Prima Porta, it captures the kind of visual pleasure that such compositions afforded viewers during antiquity. Even so, modern commentators are agreed that the decision to commission the garden room cannot be explained with reference to aesthetic criteria alone. According to a prevalent mode of analysis, the composition’s plants and birds ‘function on a symbolic level’, serving as ‘complex units of meaning, visual elements that offer multiple associations to the viewer’.37 In other words, the individual plants and birds carried deeper meanings, acting as symbols for more wide-reaching political or religious ideas. The existing ‘symbolic’ readings of the garden room at Prima Porta are too numerous to summarize fully here, but it may be useful to recap a handful of recurring themes. Particularly pervasive is the view that the plants and birds communicated the idea of a new Augustan ‘Golden Age’ (aurea aetas), much like court literature produced in the same period.38 This idea of a ‘Golden Age’, it is suggested, successfully accounts for the composition’s ‘extra-seasonal simultaneity’ of plant life, especially when viewed alongside Virgil’s description of a garden at Tarentum kept by an old Corycian, who was ‘the first to pluck roses in spring and apples in autumn’: that is, outside their regular seasons.39 Also widespread is the view that the individual birds and plants served as visual allegories for particular objects, ideas, or divinities linked to Augustan ideology.40 For instance, the oak tree might have recalled the corona civica awarded to Augustus for saving his fellow citizens;41 the laurel might have evoked the myth of Daphne and so the broader theme of metamorphosis known from Ovid’s poetry;42 and the ivy and palm trees might have conjured up the divine presence of Dionysos.43 Such readings tend to presuppose that the garden room carried a message connected to Augustus’s more wide-reaching political and religious agenda. This might seem logical, in view of the composition’s imperial display context. In truth, however, it remains very difficult to ascertain how far politics and religion factored in the conception of the room, given the complete absence of overtly political or religious iconography in the composition itself.44 It may be significant, in this regard, that the painting decorated a subterranean triclinium in a private suburban villa: hardly the typical setting for a programmatic statement of imperial ideology,45

37

38 39 Kellum 1994, 218. Förtsch 1989, esp. 339–45. Virgil, Georgics 4.125–48. Examples of this approach include Kellum 1994; Caneva 1999; 2014, 332–6; Reeder 2001, esp. 75–107; Jones 2016, esp. 61–5. 41 42 43 Kellum 1994, 318. Kellum 1994, 319–21. Reeder 2001, 103–7. 44 See already Kuttner 1999, 28–9, questioning how far religion was a significant factor in the design of the composition. 45 This statement might seem contradicted by the fact that the famous Prima Porta Augustus was excavated at the villa. But this marble statue was a copy of a (lost) bronze original, leaving open the question of how far the ‘political’ aspects of the composition informed its reproduction in this domestic context. Recently on the statue, with interesting new perspectives, see Squire 2013. 40

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

259

F I G . 7.7. Many distinctive botanical species sprout from the acanthus scrolls of the vegetal frieze decorating the altar enclosure of the Ara Pacis Augustae. The altar was commissioned in 13 BC and consecrated in 9 BC. H of frieze: 1.83 m. Museo dell’Ara Pacis.

unlike the great public monuments of the Augustan age such as the Palatine Temple of Apollo and the Ara Pacis.46 In fact, the Ara Pacis offers a particularly useful point of comparison in this context, since the lower part of the altar enclosure was decorated with a sumptuous vegetal frieze depicting stylized acanthus tendrils emitting buds, stalks, flowers, and leaves belonging to an impressive array of plants (Fig. 7.7).47 Several studies have proposed wholesale ‘symbolic’ interpretations of this frieze, according to which the individual botanical species—or combinations of species—were intended to evoke particular divinities.48 But even here, in the context of one of the best-known public monuments of the Augustan age, the extent of any symbolism is hotly debated,49 and there 46

Temple of Apollo: e.g. Zanker 2014; Hallett 2019. Ara Pacis: e.g. Simon 1968; Rossini 2007. On the power of images in Augustan visual culture more broadly, see Zanker 1987. 47 As many as ninety individual species, according to Caneva 2010. 48 Symbolic readings of Ara Pacis scrolls: Förtsch 1989, esp. 339–45; Castriota 1995; Caneva 2010; 2014, 340–3. 49 See e.g. Elsner 1995: ‘I still suspect that the great floral friezes of the Ara Pacis were an ornamental backdrop (full of possible symbolism, to be sure) to the main imperial, mythic and sacrificial themes of its prime images.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

260

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

remains no agreement concerning how far the individual plants were designed to communicate religious and political concerns. Perhaps, then, we should be careful not to accept ‘symbolic’ readings of the painted garden room at Prima Porta uncritically.50 While it is very possible that discerning viewers would have pondered the meanings and associations of the individual species depicted in the painting, it does not necessarily follow that these meanings and associations were central to the conception of the composition as a whole. Other factors may have been more important in the decision to commission this remarkable work of art. A leading factor was surely the new taste for real ornamental gardens that flourished among the Italian upper classes during the Late Republican period.51 Our knowledge of this taste is founded, to a large extent, on our surviving textual sources, which describe the lavish gardens commissioned by leading aristocrats in their villa estates.52 Many leading statesmen of the early first century BC were proud owners of villa gardens, and some even celebrated their military achievements by transplanting exotic plant species from foreign lands.53 By the Augustan period, meanwhile, Vitruvius could list ‘groves and promenades’ (silvae ambulationesque) as key components of aristocratic estates,54 while Strabo recorded that the region between Rome and Tusculum was filled with ‘plantings (phuteiai) and villas’.55 Given that these villa gardens marked a departure from the Republican ideals of simplicity and self-sufficiency, they soon attracted the ire of Horace and other moralists.56 Viewed dispassionately, of course, such texts confirm the wide appeal of gardens when they were written. This wide appeal is further suggested by the specialist botanical literature written during this period. Besides the wellknown agricultural treatise of Varro, we might mention a pair of Augustan texts listed by Pliny the Elder among his sources for Book 19 of his Natural History, written by Sabinus Tiro and Valerius Messalla Potitus respectively.57 It is interesting that Tiro dedicated his treatise to Maecenas,58 the original patron of the Esquiline horti and painted ‘auditorium’ discussed above.

Compare Jones 2019, 93–136, challenging allusive political readings of wall paintings in the ‘House of Augustus’ and ‘House of Livia’ on the Palatine. 51 The scholarship on Roman gardens has grown considerably in recent decades. Classic treatments are Grimal 1969; and, on Campanian gardens in particular, Jashemski 1979; 1993. A range of historical and archaeological perspectives are offered in Macdougall and Jashemski 1981; Macdougall and Jashemski 1987; Andreae 1996; Farrar 1998; 2016; Carroll 2003; von Stackelberg 2009; Coleman and Derron 2014; Hardy and Totelin 2016; Jashemski, Gleason, Hartswick, and Malek 2018. 52 For useful overviews of the textual evidence, see Littlewood 1987; 2018; Myers 2018. 53 Recently on ‘botanical imperialism’ in Republican Rome: Totelin 2012, 122–6, 131–41; Marzano 2014. 54 55 56 Vitruvius, De Architectura 6.5.2. Strabo, Geography 5.4.8. Horace, Epistles 1.10.22. 57 58 Pliny, Natural History 1.19, 19.177. Pliny, Natural History 19.177. 50

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

261

Such textual sources find their archaeological counterparts in the handful of Late Republican ornamental gardens so far excavated in Italy,59 including the examples from the countryside villa at Settefinestre in Tuscany, the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, and Villa A at Oplontis.60 Particularly significant in the present context, however, are the gardens discovered at the Villa of Livia itself (Fig. 7.1).61 The largest of these is the terraced garden located in the north-east sector of the property, which has been identified plausibly as the famous laurel grove known from our textual sources.62 Measuring some 74  74 m, this terrace was enclosed by a double portico on three sides. Fragments of Second Style wall paintings recovered from the western portico hint at the lavish decoration of this complex, while excavations behind the northern portico recovered a series of planting beds cut into the slope of the hillside, which belonged originally to a hanging garden. Given the combination of real and represented gardens at Prima Porta, it is striking that our sources record the personal interest of Augustus and Livia in ornamental gardens and horticulture. Suetonius tells us that Augustus adorned his own villas ‘not so much with handsome statues and pictures as with terraces (xysti), groves (nemora), and objects noteworthy for their antiquity and rarity’.63 We learn elsewhere that the princeps was on friendly terms with Gaius Matius, the inventor of topiary.64 Livia, too, was au fait with the fashion for gardens and gardening. She is credited with cultivating a new variety of fig that was subsequently named after her.65 It is only with reference to this body of evidence that we can fully appreciate the significance of the painted garden room at Prima Porta. This composition was surely informed by the new taste for ornamental gardens among the Roman elite, by the real gardens planted elsewhere in the same complex, and by the personal interest of the imperial family in botany and horticulture. In a triclinium setting, the painting was surely designed to thrill viewers through its novel transplantation of realistic plants and birds into an interior, underground space. It blurred the lines between the natural and the manmade, and perhaps even implied a sense of control over the natural world on the part of the imperial villa owners. We can well imagine diners in the triclinium marvelling at the different species

59

For an overview of the archaeological data, see Macauley-Lewis 2018. Villa at Settefinestre and its gardens: Carandini and Rossella Filippi 1985; Romizzi 2001, 180–2 cat. 43. Villa of the Papyri and its gardens: Neudecker 1988, 147–57 cat. 14; Zarmakoupi 2010; 2014, 28–45, 245–9. Villa A at Oplontis and its gardens: Zarmakoupi 2014, 45–54, 249–54. 61 The gardens at the villa were excavated by the Swedish Institute at Rome from 1996. The resulting publications include Liljenstolpe and Klynne 1997/1998; Klynne and Liljenstolpe 2000; Pinto-Guillame 2000; Klynne 2002; 2005. 62 63 For this identification, see e.g. Klynne 2005. Suetonius, Life of Divus Augustus 72.3. 64 65 Pliny, Natural History 12.13. Pliny, Natural History 15.70. 60

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

262

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

represented, some of which they presumably recognized from their own gardens and estates. These viewers might even have drawn comparisons between this painted garden and the real gardens they encountered in the villa itself. In short, then, the composition is best understood in the context of the garden culture that emerged as an important component of aristocratic splendour in Late Republican and Early Imperial Italy.66 This social context may also help to account for the painting’s ‘extra-seasonal simultaneity’ of plant life. Indeed, the juxtaposition of so many species makes good sense in a cultural climate that placed a high value on horticultural knowledge and artfully arranged combinations of plants. It is even possible that this aspect of the composition had a stronger basis in reality than usually assumed, since we have direct evidence indicating that some Roman aristocrats took an active interest in cultivating plants and trees outside their regular seasons. We should mention here a moralizing passage by Seneca the Younger, a Stoic philosopher who tutored the emperor Nero, in which he asks: ‘Do not men live contrary to Nature who crave roses in winter, or seek to raise a spring flower like the lily by means of hot-water heaters and artificial changes of temperature?’67 Also instructive is an epigram by Martial, addressed to a villa owner who had constructed a greenhouse, lest his ‘orchard from Cilicia lose colour in dread of winter and a brisker air bite the tender grove’.68 Such extra-seasonal cultivation had a long pedigree in antiquity, since Kallixeinos of Rhodes records that gardeners in Ptolemaic Egypt could ‘cultivate plants that grow elsewhere only in limited quantities and in particular seasons’ all year round, in such a way that ‘no flower . . . ever completely stops blooming’.69 The birds depicted in the composition can also be connected to contemporary garden culture, since many aristocrats kept aviaries at their country estates. Particularly instructive here is the testimony of Varro, who castigates a lavish birdhouse owned by L. Licinius Lucullus (consul in 74 BC),70 before describing his own—seemingly equally extravagant—aviary at his estate in Casinum in southern Latium.71 This building incorporated colonnades, artificial fishponds, and carefully arranged trees, but the focal point was a tholos with a central pool that

66 Others have likewise interpreted the garden room at Prima Porta in the context of Roman villa culture: see e.g. Settis 2002, esp. 24–47; Hales 2003, 153–61; Leach 2004, 124–5; Jones 2016, 68–9; Bergmann 2018, esp. 286–99. 67 68 Seneca, Epistulae morales 122. Martial, Epigrams 8.14. 69 Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.196d–e. In the same passage we learn that the grand banqueting pavilion of Ptolemy II Philadelphos contained ‘flowers that could not easily have been found combined in a single garland in any other city . . . arranged in garlands in immense numbers . . . and strewn in heaps on the floor of the pavilion’. 70 71 Varro, De re rustica 3.4.3. Varro, De re rustica 3.5.8–17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

263

apparently served as a ‘tiny avian theatre’ (theatridion avium).72 It is interesting that Varro uses the Greek terms ornitho ̄n and ornithotropheion when describing this facility, suggesting that it may have been influenced by earlier birdhouses in the East. In any case, the creatures kept in such facilities could be a source of considerable amusement for wealthy Romans. We hear of birds that were taught to imitate human speech, including a raven that mastered the phrase ‘Hail Caesar, victorious commander’.73 It is true that most of the birds depicted in the Prima Porta painting are not shown kept in captivity. But aesthetic considerations presumably played a part here, since a birdhouse would have interrupted the otherwise unbroken garden vista and detracted from the naturalism of the individual birds. In fact, the artists were careful to incorporate one clear reference to the practice of keeping birds in captivity: on the short southern wall (Fig. 7.4), a small brown passerine—probably a nightingale (Luscinia megarhyncho), a species valued for its ability to sing74—is shown perching inside a cage balancing on the marble balustrade. The presence of this caged specimen suggests that the other birds in the composition may also have been understood in the context of the contemporary fashion for bird-keeping and aviaries.

PAINTED GARDEN ROOMS IN EARLY IMPERIAL POMPEII

Slightly later than the painted garden room at Prima Porta are four panoramic garden paintings excavated at Pompeii. These compositions are divided between two properties: the House of the Golden Bracelet, where garden paintings decorated Rooms 31 and 32; and the House of the Fruit Orchard, where gardens paintings decorated Rooms 8 and 11. All four compositions are dated to the early to mid-first century AD. Three of these four paintings are extremely close in style, technique, and iconography. The exception is the composition from Room 11 of the House of the Fruit Orchard, which has a glossy black background in place of the more typical sky blue.75 This black background may have been designed to evoke a garden viewed by night,76 but the overall effect is stylized and abstracting. Given these differences, this section will concentrate on the three remaining paintings,

72

73 Recent commentary and reconstruction: Sauron 2007, 143–56. Macrobius, Saturnalia 11.29. On the nightingale and its singing ability, see now Mynott 2018, 49–53. 75 On this painting, see PPM II, 113–34 nos. 139–69a–b (M. de Vos); Jashemski 1993, 320–2 cat. 13; Salvadori 2017, 172–4 cat. P7, cubicolo (b). 76 Suggested by Leach 2004, 126. 74

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

264

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

which are closer to the example from the Villa of Livia in conception and more naturalistic in overall effect.

The House of the Golden Bracelet The House of the Golden Bracelet (VI.17[Ins. Occ.].42) was a large three-storey townhouse located in the Insula Occidentalis at Pompeii, constructed on top of the old western city wall.77 The lower storey of the property was dominated by a small ornamental garden, which contained a geometric series of box hedges framing a number of ‘showpiece’ trees (Fig. 7.8).78 On the rear east side of the terrace was a small pool with fountain fittings. Two columns at the front corners of this pool probably supported a pergola. On the eastern side of the garden terrace, two of the three vaults supporting the second storey of the property were converted into rooms decorated with garden paintings during the first half of the first century AD.79 From these spaces visitors

F I G . 7.8. Plan of the garden terrace of the House of the Golden Bracelet at Pompeii. The watertriclinium (b) and Room 32 (a) are located to the east of the garden proper. The dark spots in the garden represent the excavated remains of root cavities.

77

On the House of the Golden Bracelet, see now Ciardiello 2006; 2011–12. For this garden, see Jashemski 1993, 166–7 cat. 313; 2007, 490–2; Mastroroberto 2003. 79 The third, southernmost vault (Room 30) contained a staircase that provided access to the second storey. 78

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

265

F I G . 7.9. This photograph documents the water-triclinium of the House of the Golden Bracelet in its current state. In the rear (east) wall is the apse originally equipped with a mosaic fountain. This fountain emptied into the small pool positioned between the dining couches.

could enjoy views of the ornamental garden and the Tyrrhenian Sea beyond. The central vault (Room 31) was a water-triclinium, with an apsidal mosaic fountain built into its rear (east) wall (Fig. 7.9).80 Fed by a cistern behind, the fountain water passed over a series of steps in the rear of the apse before emptying into a pool in the centre of the triclinium. This central pool was flanked by a pair of banqueting couches, partially faced in white marble. From here the water passed out of the triclinium through underground pipes, before resurfacing and emptying into the small pool at the east side of the garden. The walls of the water-triclinium were decorated with a high-quality garden painting, parts of which were repaired and/or replaced following the earthquake of AD 62.81 Today the painting survives in a fragmentary state, but the portion that decorated the long south wall is almost fully preserved (Fig. 7.10), and enough survives to indicate that the north wall followed a similar scheme. On both walls 80

On the decoration of Room 31, see PPM VI, 129–38 nos. 164–78 (V. Sampaolo); Jashemski 1993, 356–8 cat. 61; Ciardiello 2006, 162–3; De Carolis 2007, 144–5; Salvadori 2017, 192–3 cat. P43. 81 Specifically, the painted socle depicting imitation opus sectile panelling was added, and the western portions of the garden paintings on the north and south walls were restored.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

266

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.10. Detail from the south wall of the water-triclinium, showing a garden inhabited by a series of identifiable bird species. A white pigeon (family: Columbidae) and golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus) perch on the trellis frame bordering a real apse in the wall of the room. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 59467.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

267

the composition was arranged around painted columns and trelliswork, and these architectural elements also appeared to ‘support’ the vaulted ceiling of the room itself, perhaps recalling the design of a real garden pergola. The painted garden contained many different plants and birds, as well as a range of manmade ornament: tall-footed fountain basins with water bubbling inside; decorative pinakes mounted on slender posts; theatrical masks and oscillae hanging from the trelliswork; and statues of sphinxes and Egyptianizing figures displayed in pairs. As at Prima Porta, the majority of plants and birds were depicted with a high level of naturalism. It will suffice to mention only the six birds depicted in the central subsection of the well-preserved southern wall (Fig. 7.10). Two are shown perching on the trelliswork frame surrounding the central niche: a white pigeon (family: Columbidae) with its head turned back to the left; and an elegant golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus) to the right. Three further specimens are shown balancing on the branches of the trees above: a blackbird (Turdus merula) on the tree to the left; a swallow (Hirundo rustica) on the tree in the centre; and a song thrush (Turdus philomelos) on the tree to the right. More difficult to classify is the brown specimen shown soaring through the sky to the right of the mask suspended from the trelliswork above. Immediately to the north of the water-triclinium was a second vaulted room that was likewise decorated with a superb garden painting (Room 32). Its floor decoration indicates that this room accommodated only a single couch, suggesting that it may have functioned as a cubiculum or study.82 The garden painting is better preserved than its counterpart from the water-triclinium, and there is nothing to suggest that it was repaired following the earthquake of AD 62.83 It is divided into three iconographic registers, with comparatively narrow upper and lower registers framing the garden painting proper in the wide central zone (Fig. 7.11). The lower register is a plain black dado imitating a low garden wall, with a series of plants and shrubs painted as though sprouting up against it. The upper register has a typical Third Style design, enlivened by imitation marble amphorae, trelliswork arches, oscillae, theatrical masks, pinakes, and garlands. On the short east and west walls, the lunettes above the upper register were decorated with still-life scenes: a loose version of Sosos’s Doves on the east; and a similar

82

Roberts 2013, 172. Note, however, the cautious comments of De Carolis 2017, in the context of his discussion of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet: ‘it is not always possible to precisely determine the function of the individual spaces of a Roman house, nor whether there is any relationship with the pictorial decoration’. 83 On the decoration of Room 32, see PPM VI, 117–28 nos. 150–63 (V. Sampaolo); Conticello 1991; Capaldo 1991; Ciarallo 1991; Ciarallo and Capaldo 1992; Jashemski 1993, 348–56 cat. 60; Stefani and Borgongino 2006; Ciardiello 2006, 187–8; De Carolis 2007, 145–6; Roberts 2013, 171–3; Salvadori 2017, 192–3 cat. P43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

268

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.11. Drawn reconstruction of the painted decoration of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet at Pompeii. As well as the garden painting decorating the north, east, and south walls, we see here the dove motifs that decorated the lunettes on the east and west walls.

scene featuring doves and apples on the west. The room’s vaulted ceiling was also painted, imitating a trelliswork canopy planted with roses and other flowers. The garden in the central register is populated by plants and birds, as well as a selection of manmade ornament (Fig. 7.12). We see a trelliswork balustrade with a series of geometric apertures in the foreground;84 tall-footed fountain basins with water bubbling inside; elegant herms supporting pinakes with figural paintings; and theatrical masks suspended in the sky above. Here there is no fictive architecture to recreate the sense of being inside a garden pergola. Rather, the garden view is uninterrupted with the exception of a rectangular niche built into the rear (east) wall. The painting’s remarkable naturalism can be gauged by analysing the wellpreserved section on the long northern wall (Fig. 7.12). This section is oriented around a central shell-shaped fountain, flanked by a herm to either side: one with a youthful female head to the left, and one with a bearded male head with satyr-like features to the right (Fig. 7.22). The plants and birds depicted in this garden setting are executed in a crisp, linear style. In the foreground, the lowest level of vegetation consists of two low date palms, two rose bushes, a low oleander with pink blossoms, a clump of ivy, chrysanthemums, camomiles, two low strawberry 84

This balustrade is not visible in Fig. 7.12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

F I G . 7.12. The north wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet is the best preserved. Here the garden painting incorporates an astonishing range of plant and bird species. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

270

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

trees, opium poppies, and an unidentified plant with four-petalled flowers. Immediately above, the second level of vegetation includes a plane tree depicted behind the central fountain, three viburnums with clusters of white flowers, and several laurels. Ten birds are preserved against this backdrop, which can all be identified with particular species.85 Two are shown flying through the light blue sky: an Italian sparrow (Passer italicae) towards the centre of the composition, and a common blackbird (Turdus merula) nose-diving further to the right. A further four specimens are shown perching at the tops of trees: an elegant barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) on the laurel tree emerging behind the left-hand herm; a white dove (Columba domestica or Streptopelia risoria) alighting on a viburnum just to the right; and a Eurasian magpie (Pica pica) and another Italian sparrow at the top of the plane tree positioned behind the central fountain. This plane tree is home to two more birds lower down: a second white dove to the left and a common wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) just above the fountain to the right (Fig. 7.13a, compare Fig. 7.13b). A second wood pigeon is shown standing just above the right-hand pinax, its head turned backwards towards its tail. Just to the left of this pinax, a male golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus) peeks its head out from a viburnum tree, displaying the golden plumage and black eye stripe typical of this species (Fig. 7.14a, compare Fig. 7.14b).

The House of the Fruit Orchard A similar garden painting decorated Room 8 of the House of the Fruit Orchard (I.9.5), a medium-size townhouse located in the south-east district of Pompeii.86 This property followed a typical atrium house plan and contained a small garden at the rear enclosed by a peristyle on its north, east, and south sides (Fig. 7.15). Within this ensemble, Room 8 flanked the atrium on its eastern side. Its floor decoration indicates that this room was designed to accommodate a single kline,87 while a window was inserted in the western part of the long southern wall. The garden painting reproduces many elements familiar from the House of the Golden Bracelet (Fig. 7.16).88 At the base of the composition is a black dado with painted plants sprouting against it, and above is a decorative trelliswork fence. The remainder of the composition depicts a blossoming garden filled with a rich selection of plants and birds. As in the water-triclinium of the House of the

85

The ornithological identifications presented here follow Capaldo 1991. On the house and its gardens, see Jashemski 1993, 44 cat. 56. 87 Floor decoration: PPM II, 15 nos. 23–4 (M. de Vos). 88 On the garden painting in Room 8, see PPM II, 15–25 nos. 23–47 (M. de Vos); Jashemski 1993, 317–20 cat. 12; Salvadori 2017, 172–4 cat. P7, cubicolo (b). 86

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

271

(a)

(b)

F I G . 7.13. (a) Wood pigeon on the north wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. (b) Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus). The ‘cooing’ call of this species is highly distinctive.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

272 (a)

(b)

F I G . 7.14. (a) Golden oriole on the north wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690. (b) Golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus). This species migrates to Europe in summer, before spending the winter in central and southern Africa.

Golden Bracelet, this garden is viewed ‘through’ painted architecture, this time a series of slender white columns—or ‘trellis supports’—that subdivide each wall into three sections. These imitation columns do not extend all the way to the ceiling, but rather support a horizontal cornice approximately three-quarters up the height of the wall. Several ornamental elements are displayed on this

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples 5

273

6

8

11

12

garden 0

5

10m

garden paintings

F I G . 7.15. Plan of the House of the Fruit Orchard (I.9.5) at Pompeii. This property contained both a small ornamental garden and two painted garden rooms.

cornice: two pinakes depicting Egyptianizing figures on the rear east wall (Fig. 7.16); and a central pinax depicting the Apis bull flanked by two marble amphorae on each of the long north and south walls. Other manmade ornament is depicted elsewhere in the garden: Egyptianizing statues and Dionysian pinakes in the foreground; and garlands, theatrical masks, and oscillae hanging in the sky above. The majority of plants and birds in the garden are again depicted with remarkable naturalism. Here we might mention only the selection of birds depicted above the horizontal cornice on the long south wall (Fig. 7.17), which includes an Eurasian magpie (Pica pica) and an egret (Egretta sp.) perching on the cornice itself, a blackbird (Turdus merula L.) balancing on the marble amphora to the right, a poorly preserved specimen perhaps representing a hooded crow (Corvus corone cervix L.) standing on the central Apis bull pinax, and several fragmentary specimens flying in the sky above. Clearly the birds in this composition were depicted with the same level of finesse as those in Rooms 31 and 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet. But this parallel

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

274

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.16. The painting decorating Room 8 of the House of the Fruit Orchard recalls the examples from the House of the Golden Bracelet. On the rear (east) wall, two pharaonic statues stand in the lateral zones delineated by the ‘trellis supports’.

can be pushed even further, since several ornithological species were represented in a virtually identical manner in two or more of these paintings. For example, the Eurasian magpie and Italian sparrow shown perching on the cornice on the rear (eastern) wall of Room 8 of the House of the Fruit Orchard (Fig. 7.18a)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

275

F I G . 7.17. A series of identifiable birds are depicted above the pergola architecture on the south wall of Room 8 of the House of the Fruit Orchard, together with a pinax depicting the Apis bull.

closely resemble the specimens shown standing on the plane tree on the northern wall of Room 32 in the House of the Golden Bracelet (Fig. 7.18b). Such correspondences suggest that all three paintings were painted by a single workshop, which presumably specialized in compositions of this kind.89 It would be interesting to know whether the artists of this workshop were able to reproduce these naturalistic depictions of individual ornithological species from memory alone,90 or whether they instead relied on material intermediaries like those discussed in Chapter 6.91

89

For the view that both garden paintings in the House of the Fruit Orchard and the painting in Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet were executed by a single workshop, see Moormann 1995. Subsequent studies have suggested that the water-triclinium in the latter property was likewise painted by this workshop: see Esposito 2005; De Carolis 2007, 148–51. 90 For this view, see e.g. Jashemski, Meyer, and Ricciardi 2002, 82: ‘Although pattern books were available, we had the feeling that the artist was painting flowers and fruits that were familiar to him.’ 91 Suggested by De Carolis 2007, 149–51, arguing for the use of ‘a series of cut-outs’ by the painters.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

276

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

(a)

(b)

F I G . 7.18. Eurasian magpie (pica pica) and Italian sparrow (Passer italiae) depicted on (a) the east wall of Room 8 of the House of the Fruit Orchard; and (b) the north wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet (Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690). It is likely that both compositions were painted by a single workshop.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

277

READING THE GARDEN PAINTINGS AT POMPEII

Like the painted garden room at Prima Porta, the garden paintings from Pompeii have sometimes been interpreted in ‘symbolic’ terms.92 One such reading of the composition from Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet centres on the herms painted on the north and south walls, which are identified as portraits of the family who owned the property, ‘albeit with attributes of members of the Dionysiac thiasos’.93 Specifically, the male and female herms on the north wall (Fig. 7.12) are identified as the house owner and his wife, while the child on the south wall is identified as their son. The painted plants, meanwhile, are interpreted as references to values and ideas appropriate to the ‘portraits’ that they accompanied. This reading is difficult to substantiate, not least because of the non-portrait-like appearance of the male herm on the north wall. But there may be a broader conclusion to be drawn here concerning the tendency to identify individual plants and birds as visual allegories for more wide-reaching cultural ideas. Such readings are necessarily subjective, and tend to depend on information supplied by sources external to the compositions themselves. For this reason, they risk losing sight of how the represented plants and birds were understood in their own terms by contemporary viewers. Whatever other meanings they might have carried, these were first and foremost species familiar from real-life gardens, which were culturally significant in their own right. Sharper insights can be gained by considering the settings in which the Pompeian garden paintings were displayed. It is significant, in this context, that both the House of the Golden Bracelet and the House of the Fruit Orchard contained real ornamental gardens, as did many other small- and medium-sized townhouses excavated in Pompeii.94 According to an influential theory first formulated by Paul Zanker, these Pompeian gardens were inspired by the larger ornamental gardens cultivated by aristocrats in their villa estates, evoking a comparable set of meanings and associations.95 These meanings and associations emerge from our surviving literature: not only the Late Republican and Augustan sources already discussed, but also a series of texts surviving from the first century AD. Particularly instructive are Pliny the Younger’s letters concerning his Tuscan and Laurentine villas, in which he lovingly describes the gardens surrounding these properties, and Statius’s Silvae, several of which concern extravagant gardens adorning countryside villas owned by members of high society.96 Such texts leave no doubt that ornamental gardens remained an important facet of villa culture during the first century AD, and that they continued to carry 92

Proponents of this approach include Ciarallo and Capaldo 1992, 227–39; Ciarallo 2006; 2012; Caneva 2014, 347–52. 93 For this reading, see Ciarallo and Capaldo 1992, 227–39, with quotation at 235. 94 95 The standard catalogue is Jashemski 1993, 21–312. Zanker 1998, 135–203. 96 E.g. Statius, Silvae 1.3 (on the villa owned by Manilius Vopiscus at Tivoli); 2.2 (on the villa maritima owned by Pollius Felix at Sorrento).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

278

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

associations of prestige. They also supply the historical and social background against which real and represented gardens in Pompeian townhouses need to be set. While the real gardens recalled their counterparts in rural and suburban villas, the garden paintings both alluded to this garden culture and played an important role in structuring the domestic space of the domus. The rooms containing these paintings were defined as particularly important spaces within each house, whether they served for the reception and entertainment of guests, or as quieter spaces reserved for the house-owners themselves. Presumably viewers also compared the real and represented gardens in these properties, since the ornament depicted in the paintings closely resembles finds from real gardens excavated in Pompeii. For example, the herms in Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet can be compared to the series of Dionysian herms excavated in the peristyle garden in the House of the Golden Cupids (VI.16.7).97 It may also be significant that garden paintings had existed in Italy for several decades by the time that the Pompeian examples were commissioned in the early first century AD. This chronological gap raises the possibility that the paintings had developed their own connotations of prestige in the intervening period, in addition to—and, in a sense, independent of—their close relationship with real ornamental gardens.98 These connotations would be especially pronounced if the earliest Italian garden paintings were produced for high-level patrons with close connections to the imperial family, a possibility entertained already in this chapter. In this case, the Pompeian examples would have constituted municipal, middle-level instantiations of a decorative fashion that had previously developed cachet among the most privileged members of Roman society.99

HELLENISTIC ORIGINS: EXISTING THEORIES

According to this reading, the finest garden paintings from Latium and Campania should be understood in the context of the fashion for ornamental gardens that emerged in Italy during the Late Republic and Early Empire. Given this, it might seem logical to suppose that such paintings were a completely new cultural phenomenon in first-century BC Italy.100 But the question of origins is not quite so straightforward, since there are strong grounds for supposing that the Roman taste for real ornamental gardens was inherited from the Hellenistic East.101 It will 97

On the House of the Golden Cupids and its garden, see Jashemski 1979, 38–41; 1993, 159–63 cat. 302. For this point, see Settis 2002, 31, referring to ‘a double connotation of prestige’. 99 For the view that the best garden paintings at Pompeii were inspired by Roman examples, see Wallace Hadrill 1998, esp. 6–12; 2008, 357–8. 100 Proponents of this view include Jashemski 1979, 55; Ling 1991, 150; De Caro 1993, 293–7. 101 The classic account is La Rocca 1986. See also Grimal 1969, 63–98; Wallace-Hadrill 1998. 98

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

279

be useful here to recount some of the evidence for this connection, before considering the origins of the paintings in more detail. Our surviving texts preserve numerous references to parks and gardens in the Hellenistic world. Plutarch tells us that Seleukos I (305–281 BC) possessed ‘royal courses for riding and walking’ as well as ‘parks with wild game in them’,102 while Athenaios—quoting the third-century historian Moschion—reveals that the grain transporter built for Hieron II of Syracuse (270–215 BC) was equipped with ‘all kinds of gardens’.103 According to Strabo, meanwhile, groves (alsē ) formed part of the royal district in Alexandria.104 Our attempts to visualize these Ptolemaic royal gardens are aided by the Zenon papyri, which—we saw in Chapter 3— document the correspondence between Apollonios, a financial minister under Ptolemy II Philadelphos, and Zenon of Kaunos, who managed the estate owned by Apollonios at Philadelphia in the Fayyum. Several papyri in the archive record how Apollonios purchased live plant stocks before sending them back to Philadelphia to stock his estate.105 Among the species requested are six varieties of fig tree, eleven varieties of grape vine, pomegranates, apricots, apples, figs, nuts, walnuts, plums, pears, sweet apples, olives, laurels, Egyptian olives, and roses. Remarkably, the remains of a commercial plant nursery responsible for satisfying such orders were excavated at Abu Hummus in the western Nile Delta in 1960.106 The surviving archaeological data for Hellenistic gardens is more limited. Excavations at the Toubiad palace at ’Iraq el-Amir and the Hasmonean palace at Jericho unearthed the remains of planted areas surrounding the main structures, and it would be interesting to know how far this arrangement was repeated elsewhere.107 It is sometimes held that Hellenistic palaces were also equipped with large ‘interior’ gardens, planted inside large peristyle courtyards like those found at Aigai, Pella, Demetrias, and Pergamon (see Fig. 5.5).108 But there is no hard archaeological evidence to support this assumption, and we should be careful not to retroject the later Roman fashion for planted peristyle gardens back into the Hellenistic world.109 Such evidence indicates that ornamental gardens formed an important component of royal splendour in the Hellenistic East. Given the massive engagement with Hellenistic-style luxury in Late Republican Italy, particularly in private settings, it is likely that these Hellenistic installations influenced the villa gardens

102

103 Plutarch, Life of Demetrios 50.5. BNJ 575 F1 = Athenaios, Learned Banqueters 5.206d–209e. Strabo, Geography 17.1.9. 105 P.Cair.Zen. I 59033, II 59156, II 59157, II 59162, II 59184, IV 59736, V 59839; P.Mich. I 24. Commentary: e.g. Kenawi, Macaulay-Lewis, and McKenzie 2012, 195–225, with further references. 106 Abu Hummus nursery: Kenawi, Macaulay-Lewis, and McKenzie 2012, 195–225. 107 ’Iraq el-Amir: Gentelle 1981. Jericho: Netzer 2001; Evyasaf 2010. 108 For the possibility of interior gardens in Hellenistic palaces, see e.g. Nielsen 1999; 2001; Sonne 1996; Étiénne 2006. 109 Demonstrated by Kopsacheili 2015. 104

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

280

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

owned by the Roman aristocracy. In the absence of further archaeological evidence, however, the nature of this influence remains difficult to pin down. We should probably avoid the assumption that Italian gardens aimed at the direct replication of their Hellenistic predecessors. It is more likely that they borrowed only certain aspects of Hellenistic garden culture, just as the designers of Roman villas during this period chose selectively from the Hellenistic architectural repertoire. This relationship also bears on the question of the origins of our garden paintings, since it has been suggested that these compositions were first conceived in Ptolemaic Alexandria rather than in Late Republican Italy.110 Two arguments have been adduced in support of this hypothesis, both of which require careful consideration. The first argument concerns a series of paintings from Alexandria that have been identified as precursors that anticipated the later compositions from Latium and Campania. Most often discussed in this context are two paintings from Tomb V in the Anfushy necropolis.111 The first decorates Room 2 of the tomb, and depicts a series of date palms and deciduous trees alternating with piers against a white background. The second decorates a loculus accessed via the rear wall of Room 5, and depicts date palms, other trees, and shrubs against a white background, here without piers (Fig. 7.19). While there are interesting similarities between these compositions and the Italian paintings, the view that they constituted precursors cannot be substantiated on either chronological or iconographic grounds. From a chronological perspective, Tomb V at Anfushy has been dated to the second half of the first century BC, and so cannot be significantly older than the earliest garden paintings from Italy.112 And from an iconographic standpoint, there are important differences separating the Anfushy paintings from our finest Italian examples. Most obviously, their trees are executed in a ‘cursory and decorative manner’,113 and bear little resemblance to the naturalistic plants depicted at Prima Porta and Pompeii. Two further Alexandrian paintings have been identified as precursors. The first is from Hypogeion A at Shatby, where excavators recorded that the interstices between the Doric half-columns lining the tomb’s central courtyard were decorated with birds fluttering around garlands against a blue sky.114 Since no

110 See e.g. Nowicka 1969, 48–50; De Vos 1980, 88–90; Bianchi Bandinelli 1969, 125; 1980, 197; De Carolis 1992, 29–37; 1999, 55; 2001, 24; 2007, 142 with 152 n. 2; Mastroroberto 1997, 61–2; Di Pasquale 2007, 62. 111 Anfushy Tomb II and its painted decoration: Brown 1957, 53–4; Adriani 1966, 195–7; Michel 1980, 377–8; Settis 2002, 27; Venit 2002, 85–90; 2016, 56–9. 112 Chronology: Venit 2002, 199. But see now also Guimier-Sorbets 2014, 152, proposing an earlier date in the second half of the second century BC. 113 Venit 2002, 86. 114 Hypogeion A at Shatby and its painted decoration: Pagenstecher 1919, 109; Adriani 1966, 124–6; Venit 2002, 29, 34; 2015, 52–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

281

F I G . 7.19. Several tomb paintings from Hellenistic Egypt have been identified as precursors that anticipated later garden paintings in Italy. This painted loculus in Room 5 of Tomb V at Anfushy is decorated with trees and shrubs set against a plain white background, as well as an ornate ceiling. Perhaps first century BC.

photographs of this painting were ever published, however, we cannot ascertain how closely it resembled our surviving Italian examples.115 The second is a painting from the Sā qiya Tomb excavated at Wardian in Alexandria, a structure usually dated to the second half of the second century BC.116 The modern name of this tomb stems from a painting on the eastern wall of its central courtyard depicting two oxen turning a waterwheel (Arabic: sā qiya) accompanied by a shepherd boy playing a pipe. In the foreground of this sā qiya scene, the artist depicted a pond with plants and birds, several of which—despite their sketchy appearance—resemble specific species. On the narrow section of wall adjacent to the sā qiya scene was a painting of a bearded male herm inside a gated grove (Fig. 7.20). This herm scene can be compared to the painting from Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet at Pompeii, where several herms were depicted in a garden setting, as we have seen (Fig. 7.12). Still, the style of the Alexandrian 115 It would be interesting to know how far the iconography resembled that of a painting from Kom El Shoqafa in the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria (inv. 3772), which shows two generic-looking birds standing above a garland. 116 Sā qiya Tomb and its paintings: Venit 1988; 2002, 101–18; 2016, 60–3; Salvadori 2017, 31–2. Note, however, that Guimier-Sorbets (2014, 157) has argued recently for a later chronology for the tomb and its paintings.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

282

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.20. Among the rich painted decoration of the Sā qiya Tomb at Wardian in Alexandria is this scene showing a herm standing in a gated grove. Perhaps second century BC. Scene W: 59 cm. Scene H: 183 cm. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum inv. 27029.

painting is considerably less refined, and the grove containing the herm is devoid of recognizable bird and plant species. Given these observations, it is difficult to maintain that the Alexandrian tomb paintings from Anfushy, Shatby, and Wardian anticipated the garden paintings at Prima Porta and Pompeii. At the very most, these compositions can be described as distant relatives of our Italian examples, which do not necessarily shed light on the geographic and chronological context in which garden paintings were first conceived. The second argument for Alexandrian origins centres on the Egyptianizing motifs included in two of the Pompeian garden paintings analysed in this chapter. In Room 8 of the House of the Fruit Orchard, the garden contains statues of Egyptianizing figures dressed in pharaonic regalia (Fig. 7.16).117 There are also a series of decorative pinakes with Egyptian motifs: two with scenes of worship featuring figures in a rigid, hieroglyphic style on the short east wall (Fig. 7.16); and two depicting the Apis bull on the north and south walls (Fig. 7.17). In the water-triclinium of the House of the Golden Bracelet, meanwhile, the painted

117

Recently on these ‘pharaonizing’ figures: Barrett 2019, 283–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

283

garden contains statues of pharaonic figures and sphinxes, all arranged in pendant pairs. There is also a pinax depicting the Apis bull on the well-preserved south wall. While the Egyptian associations of these motifs are obvious, it is unclear whether they reveal anything about the origins of garden paintings more broadly.118 Indeed, it may be significant that such motifs are absent at Prima Porta and in the other early garden paintings from Rome, raising the possibility that they were a later addition to this decorative type. This addition could be explained with reference to more widespread cultural dynamics during this period, particularly the successive waves of ‘Egyptomania’ that swept through Italy during the Late Republic and Early Empire.119 Other manifestations of this cultural phenomenon include the appearance of grand funerary monuments shaped like pyramids, the erection of obelisks in Roman public contexts, and the profusion of Egyptianizing iconography in other Third Style wall paintings.120

HELLENISTIC ORIGINS: A MORE FLEXIBLE HYPOTHESIS

In short, then, the arguments that have been adduced in favour of Hellenistic origins are inconclusive. Certainly our evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion that garden paintings like those at Prima Porta and Pompeii were first invented in Ptolemaic Alexandria. It does not necessarily follow, however, that we should rule out the possibility of a connection between Italian garden paintings and the Hellenistic East altogether. After all, we have seen in this volume that Hellenistic artists made important advances in the representation of the natural world, and that these advances were keenly felt in Late Republican Italy. With this in mind, it is striking that many of the individual birds depicted in the garden paintings from Prima Porta and Pompeii closely resemble specimens depicted in earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. Here it will be useful to present a handful of these parallels. The common nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) shown perching on a thin wooden stake on the southern wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet offers a useful case study (Fig. 7.21). In terms of its anatomy, pose, and colouration, this bird resembles a specimen of the same species shown balancing on a twig in the garland mosaic from the Altar Chamber of Palace V discussed in Chapter 5 (Fig. 5.11). Both birds were depicted in profile, perching on the top of 118 For an idiosyncratic interpretation of these motifs, see Fragaki 2008, suggesting that Egyptian elements in Roman paintings constitute visions of utopia comparable to those communicated by ancient writers including Plato and Diodorus Siculus. 119 On the impact of ‘Egyptomania’ in Late Republican and Early Imperial Italy, see e.g. Versluys, Bricault, and Meyboom 2007; Swetnam-Burland 2015; Barrett 2019. 120 Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 357–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

284

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.21. On the south wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet the artists painted a nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos) perching on a bamboo stake supporting a red rose (Rosa gallica). Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40692.

delicate supports, and both have the plain brown upper parts and the creamy buff under parts characteristic of this species. There are of course some differences, notably the darker beak of the nightingale in the mosaic, and the fact that this specimen faces towards the viewer’s right, while the specimen from the Pompeian painting faces towards the viewer’s left. But the similarities remain close enough for us to suppose that both representations might have derived from a shared artistic tradition. There are also correspondences between the doves and pigeons (family: Columbidae) depicted in our finest garden paintings and those represented in earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. We might mention here the version of Sosos’s Doves from the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli (Fig. 5.14), a composition whose Hellenistic origins were elucidated in Chapter 5.121 The leftmost dove in the mosaic is shown in profile, facing towards the viewer’s right, with its head

121 Compare also the dove painted above the vegetal frieze on the east wall of Tomb II at Aineia, dated to the third quarter of the fourth century BC: see Brecoulaki 2006, 327–40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

285

F I G . 7.22. The pigeon (Columba palumbus) shown perching just above a pinax on the north wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet can be compared to earlier representations of the same species from the Hellenistic East. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 40690.

turned backwards, and with its raised right wing interrupting the natural contour of its back and tail. A series of similar doves and pigeons can be identified in our surviving garden paintings: for example, a wood pigeon with a brown breast and grey wing and tail feathers perching just above the right hand pinax on the northern wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet (Fig. 7.22). The dove shown drinking water in the Tivoli mosaic also finds parallels: see, for instance, the specimen shown perching on a branch on the south wall of the water-triclinium of the House of the Golden Bracelet (Fig. 7.23). We might also mention the purple swamphens (genus: Porphyrio) shown balancing on the trellis fence on the eastern wall of the garden room at Prima Porta (Fig. 7.24a) and stalking through the undergrowth on the eastern wall of Room 32 of the House of the Golden Bracelet. The former, in particular, resembles a sketchy specimen of the same species depicted in the foreground of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

286

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.23. Detail from the south wall of the watertriclinium of the House of the Golden Bracelet, showing a dove (family: Columbidae) perching on a branch. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 59467.

sā qiya scene from the tomb at Wardian in Alexandria (Fig. 7.24b). In both cases, the swamphen is shown in profile, with its long, spindly legs extended as it walks from right to left. These correspondences are by no means close enough for us to trace direct connections between the representations of particular birds in earlier compositions and later garden paintings, in the sense of both reproducing precisely the same original designs. But the continuity in accurate ornithological representation opens the possibility that at least some birds in the garden paintings were influenced by earlier depictions of the same species from the Hellenistic East. The nature of this influence is no longer recoverable, but three possibilities might be mentioned. The first is that artists specializing in naturalistic representations of birds and plants travelled to Rome from the Hellenistic East, before reproducing their designs in this new cultural and artistic milieu. We might compare, in this respect, the many Greek sculptors active in Rome and Italy during the second and first centuries BC, known from both textual sources and from signatures on surviving statues and bases.122 A second possibility is that detailed representations of individual species were transmitted to Italy using material intermediaries of some kind, which were then consulted by local painters before being reproduced in garden paintings and other works of art. This possibility was hinted at already by Ann Kuttner, who suggested that the garden painting at Prima Porta may have been indebted to ‘Hellenistic illustration of plant encyclopaedias’, like the herbal produced for Mithridates VI of Pontus (120–63 BC) by his court physician

122

Recently on Greek sculptors in Rome: La Rocca 2019.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

287

(a)

(b)

F I G . 7.24. (a) Purple swamphen (genus: Porphyrio) on the east wall of the subterranean garden room of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta. (b) Purple swamphen painted in the central courtyard of the Sā qiya Tomb at Wardian in Alexandria. Probably second century BC. Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum inv. 27029.

Krateuas.123 The third possibility is that influence from the Hellenistic East was less direct, and limited to a more general spread of artistic ideas across the Mediterranean. It is perhaps safest to envisage some combination of all three

123 Kuttner 1999, 29. On Krateuas, see Keyser and Irby-Massie 2008, 491 s.v. ‘Krateuas (100–60 (Jacques) and OCD4 s.v. ‘Crateuas’ (J. Scarborough), both with further references.

BCE)’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

288

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

possibilities, whereby specialist painters and/or detailed artistic intermediaries arrived from the East, and subsequently encouraged artists in Italy to compose similarly accurate representations of the fauna and flora of the countryside in Latium and Campania. The notion that specialist painters and/or detailed artistic intermediaries were involved in the production of our finest garden paintings is supported by technical evidence furnished by the compositions themselves. In the case of the painted garden room at Prima Porta, the representations of birds were added in secco once the rest of the composition had been finished, presumably by a specialist painter who required time and space to achieve the desired results.124 Likewise, the bird and plant species depicted in the paintings from the House of the Golden Bracelet and the House of the Fruit Orchard were added in secco or mezzo-fresco after the underlying parts of these compositions had been completed.125 In all cases, we can detect a division of labour between painters with different skill sets, comparable to the collaboration between skilled pictores imaginarii (‘panel painters’) and common parietarii in more conventional wall paintings of the Third and Fourth Styles.126 We might also mention, in this context, a passage of Horace’s Ars poetica that hints at the existence of painters who specialized in representations of particular trees: ‘Perhaps, too, you can draw a cypress (cupressus). But what of that if you are paid to paint a sailor swimming from his wrecked vessel in despair?’127

CONCLUSIONS

In short, we do not need to assume that garden paintings originated in Alexandria in order to suppose that the examples from Prima Porta and Pompeii were informed by earlier works of art from the Hellenistic East. A stronger case can be made that the depictions of particular birds and plants in these compositions were inspired by—even modelled on—earlier representations of the same species, even if the precise lines of communication remain difficult to trace. This interpretation leaves room for the possibility that garden paintings themselves were invented in Italy, and that they emerged in the context of the taste for real

124

Gabriel 1955, 24–5. Compare Moormann 1995, 224–5 (suggesting secco), with De Carolis 2017 (suggesting mezzofresco). The mezzo-fresco technique involved painting on a nearly dry intonaco (final plaster layer), often using pigments dissolved in limewater. 126 For the notion of specialist painters of plants and birds, see Barbet 1985, 139; Salvadori 2017, 27. 127 Horace, Ars poetica 19–21. This unflattering assessment of the inability of such specialists to paint more iconographically complex scenes—shipwrecks, for instance—appears in the context of a more widereaching comparison between poetry and painting. 125

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

garden paintings in rome and the bay of naples

289

ornamental gardens that formed an important part of elite villa culture in the Late Republic and Early Empire. We would like to know whether there were artistic centre(s) in the East that provided particularly fruitful sources of inspiration for Italian artists. Pergamon is a strong candidate, given the exquisite bird mosaics laid there during the second century BC. Alexandria is another possibility, since a series of late Hellenistic and Roman mosaics excavated in the Nile Valley incorporate accurate representations of different birds.128 We might mention, for example, a second-century AD mosaic floor excavated recently in a house in the Kom el-Dikka district of Alexandria, now called the Villa of the Birds (Fig. 7.25).129 This pavement consisted of a series of nine square panels separated by bands of guilloche, each containing a polychrome representation of a particular bird. Seven panels are preserved, depicting respectively a pigeon, a mallard, a peacock, an Alexandrine parakeet, a purple swamphen,

F I G . 7.25. Birds feature prominently in several mosaics from late Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. This composite image shows six panels from a floor excavated recently in the Villa of the Birds at Kom elDikka. The species represented are: (1) Alexandrine parakeet (Psittacula eupatria); (2) purple swamphen (genus: Porphyrio); (3) common quail (Coturnix coturnix); (4) peacock (Pavo cristatus); (5) mallard (Anas platyrhynchos); (6) pigeon (family: Columbidae). Not shown here is the panel with a version of Sosos’s Doves. Second century AD.

128 129

Birds in Hellenistic and Roman mosaics from Egypt: Daszewski 2005; Guimier-Sorbets 2019, 97–102. Kom el-Dikka bird mosaic: Kołątaj, Majcherek, and Parandowska 2007, 34–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

290

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 7.26. An exquisite mask-and-garland border excavated at Tel Dor (Israel) confirms that highquality mosaics were not the exclusive preserve of royal centres in the Hellenistic East. Here the sophisticated opus vermiculatum technique facilitated the accurate representation of many different botanical species. H of fragment: 51.1 cm; H of picture field: 42.8 cm. Second century BC.

a quail, as well as a version of Sosos’s Doves. We should be alert to the possibility that birds had been depicted with comparable naturalism in Alexandria during Ptolemaic times. Given this royal focus, it is important to point out that naturalistic representations of animals and plants were not the exclusive preserve of centres like Alexandria and Pergamon. A significant non-royal case study is supplied by an exquisite mask-and-garland border from a mosaic floor excavated recently at Dora— modern Tel Dor—in Israel, executed in high quality opus vermiculatum (Fig. 7.26).130 The garland incorporates several botanical species depicted with a high degree of naturalism, including ivy sprays, wild olives, pomegranates, grape bunches, oak leaves, and wild roses, as well as a fruit resembling citrus and some more generic-looking flowers and plants. We should not rule out the possibility that works of art from such non-royal centres also exerted some influence on later Italian artists like those responsible for the garden paintings analysed in this chapter.

130

For this composition, see Stewart and Martin 2003, 132–43; Wootton 2008; 2012; Martin 2017, 65–71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

EIGHT

Conclusions

This volume has demonstrated how the natural world played an important role in defining power and privilege during Hellenistic and Roman times. Throughout the preceding chapters, every effort has been made not to overburden the surviving evidence, and to avoid interpretative leaps that are not grounded in the ancient material. A different approach is adopted in the first part of this concluding chapter, which presents a maximalist reading of the works of art discussed in Chapters 2 to 7. The aim is to provide an evocative sketch of the unprecedented importance attached to the study and representation of the natural world during this period. The second part of the conclusion, meanwhile, will address some of the ways in which these Hellenistic developments left long-lasting legacies in Roman art and culture.

ART, SCIENCE, AND THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN

Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire brought Greeks and Macedonians into contact with many exotic animals that they had rarely—if ever—encountered previously. But it was in third-century Alexandria that the ideological potential of the animal kingdom was harnessed fully for the first time. The Ptolemaic kings recognized that animals might serve as vehicles for advertising their territorial aspirations and wide-reaching political power. For this reason, they sponsored an ambitious zoological programme geared towards the collection, classification, description, and depiction of creatures from across the known world. Two strands of this Ptolemaic programme can be discerned. Firstly, Ptolemaic agents sometimes described and depicted exotic creatures that they encountered in the wild, particularly in the context of royally sponsored expeditions to Aethiopia. Other than the vivid descriptions of Aethiopian fauna in Agatharchides of Knidos’s On the Erythraean Sea, our clearest evidence is supplied by the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste, a replica of a third-century court painting from Ptolemaic Alexandria. Here a series of labelled Aethiopian animals are shown

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100. Joshua J. Thomas, Oxford University Press. © Joshua J. Thomas 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192844897.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

292

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

populating a rocky Nubian landscape: a setting that surely reflects the wild conditions under which these animal representations were first formulated. The sporadic nature of these encounters in the wild probably accounts for the fact that some animals in the mosaic tread the line between reality and fantasy. But we should be careful not to overstate this distinction, since most ancient viewers were probably less concerned with the reality of the represented creatures than with how they encapsulated the advances in knowledge facilitated by the royal exploration of new lands. The second strand of the Ptolemaic programme involved transporting animals to Alexandria, where they could be exhibited as instruments of royal splendour before being studied in captivity. This practice peaked with the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos in the 270s, during which an extraordinary range of animals—many imported from Aethiopia and elsewhere—were paraded through the streets of the Ptolemaic capital. Clear traces of this practice also exist in our visual evidence. Indeed, the Dog Mosaic excavated in the palatial district of Alexandria demonstrates that court artists sometimes produced scientifically accurate representations of particular animals. There are also strong grounds for supposing that the finest fish mosaics surviving from Late Republican Italy were descended from an Alexandrian archetype. It is therefore tempting to imagine that artists based in Alexandria routinely produced naturalistic depictions of animals kept in captivity. Both of these strands fit with what we know of the Alexandrian intellectual achievement during the Hellenistic period more broadly. The accumulation of animals in Alexandria matches the accumulation of books and distinguished intellectuals; the impulse to catalogue and taxonomize different species resonates with the accomplishments of scholars like Kallimachos of Kyrene; and the emphasis on the exotic origins of imported animals recalls the emphasis on the domination of foreign territories in contemporary court poetry. In short, the Ptolemaic zoological programme constituted a novel instantiation of a wider cultural and intellectual agenda designed to paint the kings as the rightful heirs to Alexander’s empire and the legitimate rulers of the entire oikoumenē . The impact of this zoological programme was keenly felt throughout the Hellenistic Mediterranean. In Marisa, a Levantine town in the Ptolemaic kingdom, a family of Sidonian colonists decorated the principal chamber of their impressive rock-cut tomb with a frieze depicting a procession of animals—many of them Egyptian and Aethiopian—accompanied by identifying labels in Greek. Clearly this Alexandrian visual vocabulary was deemed useful for communicating status and cultural connectivity in this provincial setting. Over time, this vocabulary continued to filter down the social and artistic spectrum, judging by the animal sketches on the verso of the Artemidoros Papyrus, which probably originated in a comparatively modest social milieu.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

conclusions

293

Nowhere was the impact of the Ptolemaic programme more pronounced than in Attalid Pergamon, where animals were likewise kept and studied in captivity during the first half of the second century BC. This is clear from the series of mosaics with naturalistic representations of animals that have been excavated in— or can be associated with—the Attalid royal capital: the Parrot Mosaic from the Altar Chamber of Palace V, the bird-and-garland mosaics laid in the same room, the Fish Mosaic from Palace IV, and Sosos’s famous Doves, which was probably also displayed in a royal context. Given the preponderance of birds in these compositions, we might plausibly reconstruct an Attalid royal aviary (ornithotropheion), which might then have inspired the aviaries that adorned Italian villa estates from the Late Republican period onwards.1 In any case, it seems likely that the collection and depiction of animals developed a competitive edge in Alexandria and Pergamon, much like the acquisition of books and the patronage of prominent intellectuals. For the Ptolemaic and Attalid kings, acquiring these creatures was a way of advertising the scope of their influence in an increasingly ‘international’ world where knowledge was synonymous with power. It is very possible that the Seleukid and Antigonid kings sponsored initiatives of a comparable kind. The taste for naturalistic animal representation also captured the imagination of the Romans and their allies as they conquered the eastern Mediterranean during the second century. In Praeneste, a flourishing Latin settlement close to Rome, a new public building was adorned with a pair of mosaics that deliberately co-opted the two strands of the Ptolemaic zoological programme enumerated above: the famous Nile Mosaic with its labelled Aethiopian fauna; and the fragmentary mosaic containing highly naturalistic depictions of many different fish. Similar fish mosaics were commissioned for domestic buildings at Pompeii, where prosperous house-owners were keen to show off their knowledge of Hellenistic natural science. Comparable, in terms of both their artistic quality and zoological interest, are the garden paintings commissioned in Latium and Campania during the Late Republic and Early Empire, which might also have been inspired by earlier works of art from the East. The ornithological subject matter was taken up again in the early second century AD, when Hadrian commissioned a precise replica of Sosos’s Doves for his new villa at Tivoli. In short, the culture of producing naturalistic representations of animals that constituted a hallmark of royal splendour in the eastern Mediterranean was adopted and adapted in Late Republican and Early Imperial Italy. While it is difficult to reconstruct the channels through which this culture of naturalistic 1

The term ornithotropheion is used by Varro when describing his aviary at Casinum: De re rustica 3.5.9–15. His use of such Greek terms suggests that earlier aviaries in the Hellenistic East might have inspired this facility.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

294

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

representation travelled from East to West, we should not rule out the possibility of influence of a direct kind. In this case, both craftsmen and detailed artistic intermediaries may have travelled to Italy during this period, bringing with them the Hellenistic taste for naturalistic animal depictions. In this new cultural context, pre-existing artistic designs could be reproduced and combined in new ways, resulting in works of art that carried culturally distinctive meanings for their Italian patrons.

THE LEGACY OF HELLENISTIC NATURAL SCIENCE

Hellenistic developments in the natural sciences had an enduring impact during antiquity. For example, we have seen repeatedly that writers including Pliny the Elder, Athenaios, and Aelian made extensive use of zoological and paradoxographical texts written in Hellenistic times. Here it will be useful to discuss two further facets of this cultural and artistic legacy: the importation and display of creatures from faraway lands by Roman statesmen and emperors; and the continued production of works of art containing representations of different animal species.

Cultural legacy Like Hellenistic kings, leading figures in Republican Rome recognized the ideological and geopolitical potential of the animal kingdom. As early as 275 BC four elephants captured from Pyrrhos of Epiros during a battle close to Beneventum were displayed in a triumph celebrated by the victorious general M. Curius Dentatus.2 It was during the closing years of the Republic, however, that the non-violent display of animals truly emerged as a method for leading Roman aristocrats to advertise the scope of their power. In 58 BC, the aedile M. Aemilius Scaurus sponsored a set of games (ludi), during which a hippopotamus and five crocodiles were exhibited as exotic curiosities.3 These creatures were surely imported from Egypt: an astute cultural move by Scaurus, given the waves of ‘Egyptomania’ that washed over Italy during the later second and first centuries BC. Even more lavish were the games sponsored by Pompey the Great to celebrate the inauguration of his new theatre-temple complex in 55 BC, during which Aethiopian monkeys, a one-horned Indian (?) rhinoceros, and a Gallic lynx were displayed in Rome for the first 2

Seneca, On the Shortness of Life 13.3; Eutropius, Summary 2.2.14; Varro, De lingua latina 7.389.39; Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 5.1302, 5.1339; Pliny, Natural History 8.16. 3 Pliny, Natural History 8.64, 8.96, 36.113.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

conclusions

295

time.4 For contemporaries, Pompey’s importation and display of these creatures provided a firm marker of his political connections in Africa and the East.5 Not to be outdone, Julius Caesar paraded the first giraffe seen in Rome during his quadruple triumph of 46 BC,6 as well as a series of Thessalian bulls that were perhaps intended to evoke his victory over Pompey at the Battle of Pharsalos in 48 BC.7 Displays of this kind continued under the Empire, with the crucial difference that the emperor now assumed sole responsibility for acquiring and exhibiting exotic and unusual animals. Suetonius tells us that during the reign of Augustus (27 BC–AD 14) a rhinoceros was exhibited in the Saepta, a tiger was paraded on the stage, and a snake measuring some 50 cubits in length—a gross exaggeration—was displayed in front of the Comitium.8 We might also mention the Jewish triumph celebrated by the Flavians in AD 71, during which ‘Beasts of many species were led along all caparisoned with appropriate trappings’, according to Josephos.9 Such animal parades took place as late as the third century AD, judging by the enigmatic imperial biographies in the Historia Augusta.10 We are told that Gordian III (AD 238–44) planned to parade thirty-two elephants, ten elks, ten tigers, sixty tame lions, thirty tame leopards, ten hyenas, six hippopotami, one rhinoceros, ten wild lions, ten giraffes, twenty wild asses, forty wild horses, and ‘various other animals of this nature without number’ during a Persian triumph (but that these were eventually presented by his successor Philip the Arab);11 that Aurelian (AD 270–5) paraded twenty elephants, two hundred animals from Africa and Palestine, four tigers, giraffes, elks, and ‘other such animals’ during the triumph celebrating his victory over the Palmyrene queen Zenobia in AD 274;12 and that Probus (AD 276–82) displayed a thousand ostriches, a thousand stags, a thousand boars, gazelles, ibexes, wild sheep, and other creatures in the Circus Maximus during a triumph in AD 281.13 While questions remain concerning the accuracy of these accounts, they hint at the continued ideological significance of the animal kingdom during the later Imperial Period.14 The correspondences between such displays and the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphos are clear and compelling.15 Still, it is important to

4

5 Pliny, Natural History 8.70–1. Suggested by Merten 1991, 140–2. Pliny, Natural History 8.69; Dio Cassius, Roman History 43.23.1–2. 7 Display of bull-fighting by mounted Thessalians: Pliny, Natural History 8.182. Possible connection with Pharsalos: e.g. Jennison 1937, 59. 8 Suetonius, Life of Divus Augustus 43.4. 9 Josephos, Jewish War 7.136–7. Commentary: e.g. Östenberg 2009, 168–9. 10 Recently on these imperial biographies: e.g. Cameron 2011, 743–82. 11 12 Historia Augusta, Gordian Tres 33.1.2. Historia Augusta, Aurelian 33.4. 13 14 Historia Augusta, Probus 19. Pointed out by Östenberg 2009, 163. 15 These correspondences are elucidated by Coleman 1996. 6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

296

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

recognize that a rather different mode of animal display seems to have achieved much greater popularity in Italy during the same period: namely, venationes (beast hunts) staged in the arena on the occasion of important festivals and public celebrations.16 The earliest venatio mentioned in our texts was sponsored by the general M. Fulvius Nobilior in 186 BC, and featured both lions and leopards.17 Such spectacles continued during the Late Republic and Early Empire. Their popularity peaked during the later first and second centuries AD, when successive emperors imported extraordinary quantities of foreign creatures into Rome for slaughter in the arena. Hence nine thousand animals were killed during the venationes put on by Titus (AD 79–81) to accompany the inauguration of the Colosseum in AD 80;18 and eleven thousand animals were slaughtered during the 123-day spectacle sponsored by Trajan (AD 98–117) to celebrate victory in the Second Dacian War.19 Comparable events were also staged in amphitheatres in the provinces. Given the popularity of such beast hunts, it is unsurprising that they came to be thematized in the visual arts.20 A standout example is a mosaic of the late first or early second century AD excavated in a coastal villa at Zliten in Tripolitania (modern Libya), which has a border depicting scenes from the amphitheatre set against a plain white background (Fig. 8.1).21 Among these scenes we observe an onager hunt, a deer hunt, an antelope hunt, an ostrich hunt, and a dwarf fighting a boar, as well as a series of convicted criminals being executed by damnatio ad bestias: that is, being devoured by wild animals. Presumably this composition was intended to document key episodes in a set of amphitheatre games sponsored by the wealthy villa owner. We may conclude, then, that animals served different cultural and social purposes in the Hellenistic East and the Roman Empire. Whereas large-scale animal displays in the Hellenistic East seem to have been non-violent in nature, spectacles involving animals in the Roman Empire often involved bloodshed and slaughter geared towards the entertainment of the population. In a sense, both these modes of animal display carried intimations of geopolitical power, since they involved the expensive and time-consuming importation of creatures from the furthest reaches of the known world. But the ways in which this power was conceptualized differed markedly in either case: through taxonomy and scientific understanding on the one hand; and through physical control and slaughter on the other. This dichotomy serves to highlight the chronologically and

16 17 19 20 21

Useful introduction to Roman venationes, with further bibliography: Epplett 2013. 18 Livy 39.22.2. Dio Cassius, Roman History 66.25; Suetonius, Life of Divus Titus 7.3. Dio Cassius, Roman History 68.15. For a brilliant recent overview of the visual material, see Dunbabin 2016, 172–226. Zliten mosaic: Aurigemma 1926, 131–201; Ville 1965. Chronology: Dunbabin 1978, 235–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

conclusions

297

F I G . 8.1. A remarkable ‘gladiator frieze’ was excavated in a Roman villa at Dar Buc Ammera in Zliten (Tripolitania). This composite image combines several of the frieze’s most striking scenes: the arena orchestra playing; gladiators fighting in pairs; criminals being executed via damnatio ad bestias; and animals being hunted in the arena. Probably first half of the second century AD. H of frieze: 35.2 cm. Tripoli Archaeological Museum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

298

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

culturally distinctive nature of the Hellenistic developments that we have already discussed.

Artistic legacy It remains to consider the afterlife of Hellenistic natural science in Roman material and visual culture. Not all aspects of Hellenistic animal representation remained popular under the Empire, since the practice of depicting animals with identifying labels disappeared almost entirely. Apart from the works of art analysed already in this volume, our surviving instantiations of this practice are late and provincial.22 We might mention here a mosaic of the fourth century AD from Rudston in Yorkshire, which features a central representation of Venus and a Triton surrounded series of four semicircular panels. Inside the four panels are a speared lion accompanied by the (Latin) label [LEO] F[R]AMMEFER (‘spear-bearing lion’), a red bull accompanied by the label TAVRVS OMICIDA (‘man-killing bull’), an unlabelled stag, and an unlabelled leopard.23 Also relevant is a late-fifthcentury mosaic from the Upper Church in Hawarté in Syria, which contains a depiction of a spotted leopard accompanied by the inscription ΛΕΟΝ (‘lion’) hunting a pair of stags.24 Both compositions seem far removed from works of art like the Nile Mosaic and the Marisa frieze in terms of chronology, artistry, and cultural milieu. This discontinuity serves to highlight how far the practice of depicting animals with identifying labels was rooted in Hellenistic centres of learning like Alexandria. Within this cultural milieu, taxonomic depictions of animals were closely tied to the extraordinary effort that the kings poured into cataloguing, classifying, and systematizing the natural world. As the power and influence of the Ptolemies waned during the second century BC, so too did their remarkable programme of zoological classification. It is therefore unsurprising that the practice of producing ‘taxonomic’ animal representations slowed down in the East and seems never to have taken off in the West, especially since their Greek labels meant they would have been difficult to comprehend for most Roman viewers. We saw in Chapters 6 and 7 that two artistic genres informed by Hellenistic natural science were embraced more warmly in Roman contexts: fish mosaics and garden paintings. Both genres followed interesting trajectories of reception and development in Imperial times. Garden paintings continued to be produced even after the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, with well-known examples of the second century AD surviving from Terrace House 2 at Ephesos and the House of the 22 23 24

These comparanda are mentioned briefly by Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2008, 311–12. Rudston mosaic: Neal and Cosh 2002, 353–6 cat. 143.2. Hawarté mosaic: Balty 1977, 128–9 cat. 59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

conclusions

299

Consul Atticus at Pergamon. Generally speaking, however, such post-Pompeian examples suggest a gradual reduction in the quantity and quality of this decorative type.25 Turning to the fish mosaics, the production of pictorial emblemata like those from Pompeii ceased around the middle of the first century BC. In their place we find black-and-white mosaics with marine subjects executed in more rudimentary opus tessellatum. A well-known case study is the pavement decorating the caldarium of a private bathhouse in the House of Menander at Pompeii, dated to c.40–20 BC, which depicts two human figures and a series of sea creatures surrounding a central rosette (Fig. 8.2).26 While such compositions were less naturalistic than their polychrome predecessors, the taste for accurate ichthyological representation did not disappear entirely. Indeed, it re-emerged in Roman North Africa during the second and third centuries AD, where polychrome fish F I G . 8.2. The caldarium of the private bathhouse at the House of Menander at Pompeii was decorated with a mosaic made (mostly) from black and white tesserae. Such black-and-white mosaics became widespread in Italy from the Late Republican period onwards. c.40–20 BC.

25 26

On garden paintings of the Middle and Late Imperial periods, see now Salvadori 2017, 115–37. House of Menander mosaic: Clarke 1979, 13–15, 59–61; 1994, 91–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

300

art, science, and the natural world, 300 bc–ad 100

F I G . 8.3. This mosaic from the House of Virgil at Hadrumetum (Sousse) in Tunisia shows four fishermen at work surrounded by a selection of identifiable sea creatures. Such compositions were widespread in Roman North Africa. Dimensions of entire pavement: H: 2.60 m; W: 3.10 m. Late second or early third century AD. Sousse, Archaeological Museum inv. 57.095.

mosaics were frequently employed for the decoration of fountains, pools, and baths in houses and villas. A representative example is an early third-century mosaic from the House of Virgil at Hadrumetum (modern Sousse) in Tunisia, which depicts an impressive selection of sea creatures against a white background enlivened by wavy black lines, as well as two fishing boats with nude fishermen (Fig. 8.3).27 Clearly the impact of Hellenistic natural science on the visual arts extended well into the Roman Imperial period: and it seems even to have persisted into Late Antiquity. This is suggested above all by the spectacular mosaic from the Great Palace at Constantinople,28 and by a series of Late Antique and early Byzantine manuscripts containing highly naturalistic paintings of animals and plants. We might mention particularly the Vienna Dioskourides, a deluxe illustrated codex produced for Anicia Juliana, a daughter of the emperor Flavius Anicius, in c.AD 512. As its modern name suggests, this codex contains an illustrated version of the treatise On Medical Materials composed by Dioskourides of Anazarbos in the first

27

For this mosaic see Dunbabin 1978, 269 cat. 12b; Abed-Ben Khader, de Balanda, and Uribe Echeverría 2003, 537 no. 356. 28 Great Palace mosaic: Dunbabin 1999, 232–5; Jobst 2005; Parrish 2005.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

conclusions

301

century AD.29 A great many of the botanical illustrations accompanying this treatise closely resemble representations of the same species found in RomanoCampanian wall paintings of the first centuries BC and AD.30 The same codex also contains an illustrated version of a late Hellenistic or early Imperial treatise On Birds,31 and several accompanying illustrations closely recall naturalistic bird representations analysed already in this volume.32 These iconographic correspondences suggest that the manuscript illustrations were descended from classical models, even if the exact nature of this influence remains difficult to trace.

CLOSING REMARKS

There can be little doubt, then, that advances in the natural sciences during the Hellenistic period cast a long shadow over the art, culture, and literature of Classical antiquity. It is hoped that these advances will feature more prominently in future studies concerning not only the intellectual and cultural achievements of the Hellenistic world, but also the reception of Hellenistic art and culture in Republican and Imperial Italy. Part of the value of this monograph, I hope, lies in its demonstration that material and visual culture can be just as instructive as texts when reconstructing ancient culture and society. While our literary sources offer some indication of the importance of the natural world during the Hellenistic period (and beyond), it is only with reference to the surviving artistic material that we can sketch the true outlines of this remarkable historical and cultural phenomenon.

29

This is an alphabetical recension of De materia medica, accompanied by 382 illustrations of medicinal plants (ff. 10v–387). 30 On the artistic origins of the Vienna Dioskourides, see now Thomas 2019. 31 More specifically, the manuscript contains a paraphrase of Dionysios of Philadelphia’s Ornithiaka, a late Hellenistic or early Imperial treatise on birds and bird-catching, illustrated with twenty-three birds interspersed with the text and a further twenty-four birds set within a gridded frame on a single folio (ff. 474–85v). 32 On this subject, see more fully Kádár 1978.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography Abd el-Maksoud, M., Abd el-Fattah, A., and Seif el-Din, M. 2012: ‘La fouille du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie: pr
esentation pr
eliminaire’, in A. Hermary and C. Dubois (eds), L’enfant et la mort dans l’antiquit
e III: Le mat
e riel associ
e aux tombes d’enfants. Actes de la table ronde internationale organis
e e à la Maison m
e diterran
e enne des sciences de l’homme (MMSH) d’Aix-en-Provence, 20–22 janvier 2011, Paris, 427–46. Abd el-Maksoud, M., Abd el-Fattah, A., and Seif el-Din, M. 2018: ‘The early Greek presence in Alexandria’, in C. S. Zerefos and M. B. Vardinoyannis (eds), Hellenistic Alexandria: Celebrating 24 Centuries. Papers Presented at the Conference Held on December 13–15 2017 at Acropolis Museum, Athens, Oxford, 51–60. Adornato, G. 2008a: ‘Didascalie, disegni e zoologia sul Papiro di Artemidoro’, Archiv f€ u r Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 54.2, 224–45. Adornato, G. 2008b: ‘I disegni del recto’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Il papiro di Artemidoro (P.Artemid.), Milan, 461–578. Adornato, G. 2009: ‘Goya, Bramante and others on P. Artemid.?’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 51–5. Adornato, G. 2013: ‘Drawings after ancient statuary and workshop practice: detecting Skopaic influence’, in D. Katsonopoulou and A. Stewart (eds), Skopas of Paros and His World: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades, Paroikia, Paros, 11–14 June 2010, Athens, 533–52. Adornato, G. (ed.) 2016a: Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III. I disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan. Adornato, G. 2016b: ‘P.Artemid. and C. Simonides’ original drawings’, in G. Adornato (ed.), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III. I disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan, 11–35. Adriani, A. 1936: Annuaire du Mus
e e gr
e co-romain II (1933–34–1934–35): la n
e cropole de Moustafa Pacha, Alexandria. Adriani, A. 1966: Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano. Serie C: architettura e topografia, 2 vols., Palermo. Agnoli, N. 2002: Museo archeologico nazionale di Palestrina: le sculture, Rome. Albert, S. 1994: ‘De visitation quadam amici Russi’, Vox Latina 30.116, 224–30. Albright, W. F. 1942: ‘Two cressets from Marisa and the pillars of Jachin and Boaz’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 85, 44–5.
n ~ ez, J. M. 1980: ‘Les renseignements sur la p
eninsule ib
erique d’Art
emidore Alonso-Nu
ese’, L’antiquit
e classique 49, 255–9. d’Eph Althoff, J. 1999: ‘Biologie im Zeitalter der Hellenismus (ca. 322–31 v. Chr.)’, in G. W€ ohrle (ed.), Biologie, Geschichte der Mathematik und der Naturwissenschaften in der Antike 1, Stuttgart, 155–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

304

bibliography

Ameling, W. 2008: ‘Ethnography and universal history in Agatharchides’, in T. C. Brennan and H. I. Flower (eds), East and West: Papers in Ancient History Presented to Glen W. Bowersock, Cambridge, 13–59. Anderson, J. K. 1985: Hunting in the Ancient World, Berkeley. Andreae, B. 1996: “Am Birnbaum”: Garten und Parks im antiken Rom, in den Vesuvst€ a dten und in Ostia, Mainz am Rhein. Andreae, B. 2002a: ‘Il mosaico del Nilo di Palestrina’, Forma Urbis 7.3, 17–32. Andreae, B. 2002b: ‘Il mosaico dei pesci nella “Grotta delle Sorti” a Palestrina’, Forma Urbis 7.4, 33–48. Andreae, B. 2003: Antike Bildmosaiken, Mainz am Rhein. Andreae, B. 2004: ‘Seleukos Nikator als Pezh
etairos im Alexandermosaik’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts, R€omische Abteilung 111, 69–82. Andronikos, M. 1984: Vergina: The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City, Athens. Argoud, A. and Guillaumin, J.-Y. (eds) 1998: Sciences exactes et sciences appliqu
e es à Alexandrie (IIIe sie cle av. J.-C. – Ier sie cle ap. J.-C.): actes du colloque international de Saint-Etienne (6–8 juin 1996), Saint-Etienne. Arnott, W. G. 1987: ‘In praise of Alexander of Myndos’, in A. Bonanno (ed.), Laurea Corona: Studies in Honour of Edward Coleiro, Amsterdam, 23–39. Arnott, W. G. 2007: Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Arvanitopoulos, A. S. 1909: Θεσσαλικὰ μνημεῖα. Περιγραφὴ τῶν ἐν τῷ Ἀθανασακείῳ Μουσείῳ Βόλου γραπτῶν στηλῶν τῶν Παγασῶν, μετὰ συντόμου ἱστορίας τῆς ἑλληνικῆς ζωγραφικῆς, Athens. Asper, M. 2004: Kallimachos: Werke. Griechisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt. Aurigemma, S. 1926: I mosaici di Zliten, Rome. Aurigemma, S. 1959: ‘Il restauro del Mosaico Barberini, condotto nel 1952’, Atti della Pontificia accademia romana di archeologia. Serie 3, Rendiconti 30–1 (1957–1959), 41–98. Austin, M. M. 2006: The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge. Avi-Yonah, M. and Kloner, A. 1993: ‘Maresha (Marisa)’, in E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 3, New York, 948–57. Bachmann, M. 2011: ‘Pergamenische Architektur und Bautechnik’, in R. Gr€ ußinger, V. K€astner, and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung: eine Ausstellung der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin and Petersberg, 74–81. Bagnall, R. S. 2002: ‘Alexandria: library of dreams’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 146.4, 348–62. Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P. 2004: The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation, Malden and Oxford. Balme, D. M. 1961: ‘Aristotle’s use of differentiae in zoology’, in S. Mansion (ed.), Aristote et les proble mes de m
e thode: communications pr
e sent
e es au Symposium Aritotelicum tenu à Louvain du 24 août au Ier septembre 1960, Louvain, 195–212. Balme, D. M. 1987: ‘Aristotle’s use of division and differentiae’, in A. Gotthelf and J. G. Lennox (eds), Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge, 69–89. Balty, J. 1977: Mosa€iques antiques de Syrie, Brussels.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

305

Bar-Kochva, B. 1979: The Seleucid Army: Organisation and Tactics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge. Barbet, A. 1985: La peinture murale romaine: les styles d
e coratifs pomp
e iens, Paris. Barnes, R. 2000: ‘Cloistered bookworms in the chicken-coop of the Muses: the ancient library of Alexandria’, in R. M. MacLeod (ed.), The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, London, 61–78. Barrett, C. E. 2019: Domesticating Empire: Egyptian Landscapes in Pompeian Gardens, New York. Baumann, H. D. 2012: ‘The Konvolut photo: a digital forgery? Arguments against a montage’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II. Geografia e Cartografia, Milan, 231–55. Ben Khader, A. B. A., de Balanda, E., and Uribe Echeverr
ia, A. 2003: Image de pierre: La Tunisie en mosa€ique, Paris. Ben Osman, W. 1990: ‘Association du theme des xenia avec d’autres themes dans certaines mosa€iques de Tunisie’, in C. Belmelle (ed.), Xenia: recherches francotunisiennes sur la mosa€ique de l’Afrique antique, Rome, 73–8. Berger, F. 2012: ‘Die Textgeschichte der Historia Animalium des Aristoteles, Aristophanes von Byzanz und die zoologische Sylloge des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’, Rursus 7 [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/rursus.766 (last accessed 1 March 2021). Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. 2000: Ptolemy’s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters, Princeton. Bergmann, B. 1995: ‘Visualising Pliny’s villas’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 8, 406–22. Bergmann, B. 2001: ‘Meanwhile, back in Italy . . . creating landscapes of allusion’, in S. Alcock, J. Cherry, and J. Elsner (eds), Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, Oxford, 154–66. Bergmann, B. 2018: ‘Frescoes in Roman gardens’, in W. F. Jashemski, K. L. Gleason, K. J. Hartswick, and A.-A. Malek (eds), Gardens of the Roman Empire, Cambridge and New York, 278–316. Berlin, A. M. 1997: ‘Archaeological sources for the history of Palestine. Between large forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic period’, The Biblical Archaeologist 60.1, 2–51. Bernand, A. 1972: La Paneion d’El-Kana€is: les inscriptions grecques, Leiden. Bernand, A. and Masson, O. 1957: ‘Les inscriptions grecques d’Abou-Simbel’, Revue des
e tudes grecques 70, 1–46. Berrey, M. 2017: Hellenistic Science at Court, Berlin and Boston. Beyen, H. G. 1948: ‘Les domini de la Villa della Farn
esine’, in Studia varia Carolo Guilielmo Vollgraff: a discipulis oblata, Amsterdam, 3–21. Beyen, H. G. 1960: Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweiten bis zum vierten Stil, vol. 2, Den Haag. Bianchetti, S. 2016: ‘The “invention” of geography: Eratosthenes of Cyrene’, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography: The Inhabited World in the Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 132–49. Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1969: Roma: L’arte romana nel centro del potere, Rome. Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 1980: Le pittura antica, Rome.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

306

bibliography

Bianchi Bandinelli, R. and Torelli, M. 1976: L’arte dell’antichità classica, Turin. Billerbeck, M. 2009: ‘Artemidorus’ Geographoumena in the Ethnika of Stephanus of Byzantium: source and transmission’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 65–87. Bing, P. 2009: The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry, Ann Arbor. € l, O. 1997: Malerei und Mosaik der Antike in der T€ Bingo u rkei, Mainz am Rhein. Blake, M. E. 1930: ‘The pavements of the Roman buildings of the Republic and the early Empire’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 8, 7–159. Blass, F. 1887: Eudoxi Ars astronomica qualis in charta Aegyptiaca superset denuo, Kiel [republished in Zeitschrift f€ ur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 115 (1997), 79–101]. Bliss, F. J. and Macalister, R. A. S. 1902: Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900, London. Blum, R. 1991: Kallimachos: The Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography, Madison. Bodei Giglioni, G. 1977: ‘Pecunia fanatica: l’incidenza economica dei templi laziali’, Rivista Storica Italiana 89, 33–76 [reprinted in F. Coarelli (ed.) 1978: Studi su Praeneste, Perugia, 3–48]. Bodson, L. 1991: ‘Alexander the Great and the scientific exploration of the oriental part of his empire: an overview of the background, trends and results’, Ancient Society 22, 127–38. Bodson, L. 1998a: ‘Ancient Greek views on the exotic animal’, Arctos 32, 61–85. Bodson, L. 1998b: ‘Contribution à l’
etude des criteres d’appr
eciation de l’animal exotique dans la tradition grecque ancienne’, in L. Bodson (ed.), Les animaux exotiques dans les relations internationales: espe ces, fonctions, significations: Journ
e e d’
e tude Universit
e de Lie ge, 22 mars 1997, Liege, 139–212. Bodson, L. 2003: ‘A python, Python sebae (Gmelin, 1789), for the king: the third century a ge 52, 181–91. B.C. herpetological expedition to Aithiopia’, Bonner zoologische Beitr€ Bodson, L. 2005: ‘Naming the exotic animals in ancient Greek and Latin’, in A. Minelli, G. Ortalli, and G. Sanga (eds), Animal Names, Venice, 453–80. Bodson, L. 2014: ‘Zoological knowledge in ancient Greece and Rome’, in G. L. Campbell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Ancient Thought and Life, Oxford, 556–78. Boehm, R. A. 2015: ‘Alexander, “whose courage was Great”: cult, power, and commemoration in Classical and Hellenistic Thessaly’, Classical Antiquity 34, 209–51. €thius, A. and Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1970: Etruscan and Roman Architecture, Boe Harmondsworth. Bohn, R. 1885: Altert€ u mer von Pergamon II. Das Heiligtum des Athena Polias Nikephoros, Berlin. Bohn, R. 1886: Letter to A. Conze ‘€ uber die Auffindung und Bergung’ of the Palace V mosaics, written on 19 June 1886, published in G. Kawerau and Th. Wiegand, Altert€ u mer von Pergamon V 1. Die Pal€ a ste der Hochburg, Berlin 1930, 58–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

307


e, J. 2000: ‘Persaios of Kition, or the failure of the wise man as general’, in Bollanse L. Mooren (ed.), Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997, Leuven, 15–28. Bonner, S. F. 1977: Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny, London. Borg, B. 1996: Mumienportr€ a ts: Chronologie und kultureller Kontext, Mainz am Rhein. Borg, B. 2018: Review of Mathews and Muller 2016, Journal of the American Institute of Conservation 57.1–2, 91–4. Bove, E. V. 2009: ‘Una statuetta tolemaica da Praeneste’, Archeologica Classica 60, 369–76. Bozzi, S. 2009: ‘Indagine tecnica sul Konvolut: nuove prospettive di analisi sul Papiro di Artemidoro’, Quaderni di Storia 70, 273–316. Bragantini, I. and De Vos, M. 1982: Museo Nazionale Romano: le pitture II, 1. Le decorazioni della villa romana della Farnesina, Rome. Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. 2000: Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter. Brecoulaki, H. 2006: La peinture fun
e raire de Mac
e doine: emplois et fonctions de la couleur IVe–IIe s. av. J.-C., Athens. Brehme, S. 2011: ‘Die Bibliothek von Pergamon’, in R. Gr€ ußinger, V. K€astner, and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung: eine Ausstellung der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin and Petersberg, 195–7. Brodersen, K. and Elsner, J. (eds) 2009: Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart. Brown, B. R. 1957: Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics in the Alexandrian Style, Cambridge.
reygeol, F. 2013: ‘Les Brun J.-P., Deroin, J.-P., Facuher, T., Redon, B., and Te mines d’or ptol
ema€iques: r
esultats des prospections dans le district minier de Samut (d
esert Oriental)’, Le Bulletin de l’Institut français d’arch
e ologie orientale 113, 111–41.

reygeol, F. 2013: ‘L’or d’Egypte: Brun J.-P., Faucher, T., Redon, B., and Te l’exploitation des mines d’or dans le d
esert Oriental sous les Ptol
em
ees’, L’arch
e ologue 126, 56–61.
Bruneau, Ph. 1972: Exploration arch
e ologique de D
e los faite par l’Ecole française d’Athe nes, fasc. XXIX: les mosa€iques, Paris. Bruneau, Ph. 1980: ‘Un devis de pose de mosa€iques: le papyrus Cairo Zenon 59665’, in Stē lē : tomos eis mnē mē n tou Nikolaou Kontoleontos, Athens, 134–43. Bruneau, Ph. 1984: ‘Les mosa€istes antiques: avaient-ils des cahiers de modeles?’, Revue Arch
e ologique n.s. 2, 241–72. Bruneau, Ph. 2000: ‘Les mosa€istes antiques: avaient-ils des cahiers de modeles? Suite, probablement sans fin.’, Ktema 25, 191–7. Brusin, G. 1955: ‘ “Asaroton” di Aquileia’, in Anthemon. Scritti di archeologia e di antichità classiche in onore di Carlo Anti, Florence, 93–107. Bunbury, E. H. 1883: A History of Ancient Geography among the Greeks and Romans from the Earliest Ages till the Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, London.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

308

bibliography

Burchfield, J. D. 1982: ‘Science in Alexandria: the third century B.C.’, Archaeological News 11, 75–9. Burkhalter, F. 1999: ‘La mosa€ique nilotique de Palestrina et les Pharaonica d’Alexandrie’, Topoi 9.1, 229–60. Burstein, S. M. 1979: ‘The Nubian campaigns of C. Petronius and George Reisner’s second Meroitic kingdom of Napata’, Zeitschrift f€ u r a€ gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 106, 95–105. Burstein, S. M. 1989: Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean Sea, London. Burstein, S. M. 2008: ‘Elephants for Ptolemy II: Ptolemaic policy in Nubia in the third century B.C.’, in P. McKechnie (ed.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Leiden and Boston, 135–48. Burstein, S. M. 2010: Review of Brodersen and Elsner 2009, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2010.10.20. Cairon, E. 2009: Les
e pitaphes m
e triques hell
e nistiques du P
e loponne se à la Thessalie, Budapest. Calandra, E. 2011: The Ephemeral and the Eternal: The Pavilion of Ptolemy Philadelphos in the Court of Alexandria, Athens. Calci, C. and Messineo, G. 1984: La villa di Livia a Prima Porta, Rome. Callaghan, P. J. 1981: ‘On the date of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 28, 115–21. Cameron, A. 1995: Callimachus and his Critics, Princeton. Cameron, A. 2011: The Last Pagans of Rome, New York and Oxford. Caneva, G. 1999: ‘Ipotesi sul significato simbolico del giardino dipinto della Villa di Livia (Prima Porta, Roma)’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 100, 63–80. Caneva, G. 2010: Il codice botanico di Augusto: Roma, Ara Pacis: parlare al popolo attraverso le immagini della natura = The Augustus Botanical Code: Rome, Ara Pacis: Speaking to the People through the Images of Nature, Rome. Caneva, G. 2014: ‘Il giardino come espressione del divin o’, in K. Coleman and P. Derron (eds), Le jardin dans l’antiquit
e : introduction et huit expos
e s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, 301–61. Caneva, G. and Bohuny, L. 2003: ‘Botanic analysis of Livia’s villa painted flora (Prima Porta, Roma)’, Journal of Cultural Heritage 4, 149–55. Canfora, L. 1991: The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, London. Canfora, L. 2000: ‘The world in a scroll’, in C. Jacob, F. de Polignac, and C. Clement (eds), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City, Alexandria, 43–55. Canfora, L. 2007: The True History of the So-Called Artemidorus Papyrus, Bari. Canfora, L. (ed.) 2008: Il papiro di Artemidoro, Bari. Canfora, L. (ed.) 2009a: Il papiro di Artemidoro: Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009, Rovereto. Canfora, L. 2009b: Artemidorus Ephesius: P. Artemid. sive Artemidorus personatus, Bari. Canfora, L. 2009c: ‘Sarà Simonides? Certo non pu o essere Artemidoro’, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro. Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009, Rovereto, 105–32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

309

Canfora, L. 2011: La meravigliosa storia del falso Artemidoro, Palermo. Capaldo, L. 1991: ‘Fauna’, in Il giardino dipinto nella Casa del Bracciale d’Oro a Pompei e il suo restauro, Florence, 27–9. Capaldo, L. and Moncharmont, U. 1989: ‘Animali di ambiente marino in due mosaici pompeiani’, Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 3, 53–68. Carandini, A. and Rossella Filippi, M. (eds) 1985: Settefinestre: una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria romana, 3 vols., Modena.
Cariou, M. 2015: ‘Oppien de Cilicie et l’Epitom
e d’Aristophane de Byzance’, Revue des
Etudes Grecques 128.1, 101–25. Carney, E. D. 2013: Arsino€e of Egypt and Macedon: A Royal Life, New York. Carrara, M. 2005: ‘La Villa di Livia a Prima Porta da praedium suburbanum a villa Caesarum’, in B. Santillo Frizell and A. Klynne (eds), Roman Villas around the Urbs: Interaction with Landscape and Environment. Proceedings of a Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 17–18, 2004, Rome, 159–66. Carrara, M. 2015: ‘Piatto-vassoio di ardesia in opus interrasile e giunzione a festone dalla Villa di Livia a Prima Porta (Roma)’, in C. Angelelli and F. Sposito (eds), Atti del XX Colloquio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico: con il patrocinio del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (Roma, 19–22 marzo 2014), Tivoli, 117–30. Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2014: ‘Les tours et maisons à tours sur la mosa€ique de Pales
trina’, in S. Marchi (ed.), Les maisons-tours en Egypte durant la Basse
e poque, les p
e riodes ptol
e ma€ique et romaine: actes de la table-ronde de Paris, Universit
e Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), 29–30 novembre 2012, Paris, 1–8. Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. 2019: ‘La “carte d’Art
emidore”? Le delta des Ptol
em
ees’, Archiv f€ u r Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 65.1, 1–19. Carroll, M. 2003: Earthly Paradises: Ancient Gardens in History and Archaeology, London. Carroll, M. 2015: ‘Contextualizing Roman art and nature’, in B. Borg (ed.), A Companion to Roman Art, Chichester, 533–51. Casson, L. 1993: ‘Ptolemy II and the hunting of African elephants’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 123, 247–60. Casson, L. 2001: Libraries in the Ancient World, New Haven and London. Castriota, D. 1995: The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art, Princeton. Castriota, D. 2005: ‘Feminizing the barbarian and barbarizing the feminine: Amazons, Trojans, and Persians in the Stoa Poikile’, in J. M. Barringer, J. M. Hurwit, and J. J. Pollitt (eds), Periklean Athens and Its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives, Austin, 89–102. Ciarallo, A. 1991: ‘Flora’, in Il giardino dipinto nella Casa del Bracciale d’Oro a Pompei e il suo restauro, Florence, 29–31. Ciarallo, A. 2006: Elementi vegetali nell’iconografia pompeiana, Rome. Ciarallo, A. 2012: Gli spazi verdi dell’antica Pompei, Rome. Ciarallo, A. and Capaldo, L. 1992: ‘163. Room (oecus) with garden paintings’, in Rediscovering Pompeii: Exhibition by IBM-Italia, New York City, IBM Gallery of Science and Art, 12 July–15 September 1990, Rome, 227–39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

310 b i b l i o g r a p h y Ciardiello, R. 2006: ‘La Casa del Bracciale d’Oro (VI, 17, 42 Ins. Occ.)’, in M. Aoyagi and U. Pappalardo (eds), Pompei (Regiones VI–VII): Insula Occidentalis, Naples, 69–256. Ciardiello, R. 2011–12: ‘Alcune riflessioni sulla Casa del Bracciale d’Ora a Pompei’, “Annali” dell’Università degli Studi Suor Orsola Benincasa, Napoli, vol. 1: Archeologia. Studi e ricerche sul campo, 167–93. Ciuca, I. R. 2012: Antigonos’ Collection of Extraordinary Stories: Translation and Commentary, PhD Diss., University College London. Clarke, J. R. 1979: Roman Black-and-White Figural Mosaics, New York. Clarke, J. R. 1994: ‘Mosaic workshops at Pompeii and Ostia Antica’, in P. Johnson, R. Ling, and D. J. Smith (eds), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics Held at Bath, England, on September 5–12, 1987, vol. 1, Ann Arbor, 89–102. Clarke, J. R. 2009: ‘How did painters create near-exact copies?’, in S. Bell and H. Nagy (eds), New Perspectives on Etruria and Early Rome in Honor of Richard Daniel de Puma, Madison, 134–48. Clarke, J. R. 2010: ‘Model-book, outline-book, figure-book: new observations on the creation of near-exact copies in Romano-Campanian painting’, in I. Bragantini (ed.), Atti del X congresso internazionale: Association internationale pour la peinture murale antique (AIPMA), vol. 1, Naples, 203–14. Clarke, J. R. 2013: ‘Sketching and scaling in the second-style frescoes of Oplontis and Boscoreale’, in A. Barbet and A. Verbanck-Pi
erard (eds), La villa romaine de Boscoreale et ses fresques, vol. 2, Arles, 199–209. Clayman, D. L. 2011: ‘Berenice and her Lock’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 141.2, 229–46. Coarelli, F. 1987: I santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana, Rome. Coarelli, F. 1990: ‘La pompe di Tolomeo Filadelfo e il mosaico nilotico di Palestrina’, Ktema 15, 225–51. Coarelli, F. 1994: ‘Iside e Fortuna a Pompeii e a Palestrina’, La parola del passato 49, 119–29. Coarelli, F. 1996: Revixit ars: arte e ideologia a Roma, dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana, Rome. Coarelli, F. 2006: ‘Iside’, in S. De Caro (ed.), Egittomania: Iside e il mistero, Milan, 13–17. Coarelli, F. 2016: I mercanti nel tempio: Delo: culto, politica, commercio, Athens. Cohen, A. 1997: The Alexander Mosaic: Stories of Victory and Defeat, Cambridge. Cohen, A. 2010: Art in the Era of Alexander the Great: Paradigms of Manhood and Their Cultural Traditions, Cambridge. Coleman, K. M. 1994: ‘The upside-down animal at Palestrina’, Arch€ a ologischer Anzeiger, 255–60. Coleman, K. M. 1996: ‘Ptolemy Philadelphus and the Roman amphitheatre’, in W. J. Slater (ed.), Roman Theater and Society, Ann Arbor, 49–68. Coleman, K. M. and Derron, P. (eds) 2014: Le jardin dans l’antiquit
e : introduction et huit expos
e s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres. Condello, F. 2018: ‘P.Artemid. e i suoi avvocati’, Eikasm
os 29, 510–46.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

311

Conticello, B. 1991 ‘Il giardino dipinto nella Casa del Bracciale d’Oro’, in Il giardino dipinto nella Casa del Bracciale d’Oro a Pompei e il suo restauro, Florence, 19–24. Conze, A. 1884: ‘Die pergamenische Bibliothek’, Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse f€ u r Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst Jahrgang 1884, Erster Halbband, 1259–70. Cook, S. A. 1905: ‘Editor’s preface’, in J. P. Peters and H. Thiersch, Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Marêsha), London, xiii–xvii. Coqueugniot, G. 2013: ‘Where was the royal library of Pergamum? An institution found and lost again’, in J. K€ onig, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf (eds), Ancient Libraries, Cambridge, 109–24. Corcoran, T. H. 1959: ‘Roman fishponds’, The Classical Bulletin 35.4, 37–43. Corcoran, T. H. 1964: ‘Fish treatises in the early Roman empire’, The Classical Journal 59.6, 271–4. Cribiore, R. 1996: Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton. Cribiore, R. 2009: ‘Education in the papyri’, in R. S. Bagnall (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford, 320–37. D’Alessio, G. 2009: ‘On the “Artemidorus” Papyrus’, Zeitschrift f€ u r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17, 27–43. D’Alessio, G. 2012: ‘Reconstructions of the Artemidorus Papyrus’, Historia 61.3, 292–309. D’Amicone, E., Aceto, M., Agostino, A., and Fenoglio, G. 2009: ‘Cartonnages in tela e papiro stuccati e dipinti, e inchiostri: due capitoli del progetto “colore” ’, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro: Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009, Rovereto, 173–91. Daehner, J., and Lapatin, K. D. S. (eds) 2015: Power and Pathos: Bronze Sculpture of the Hellenistic World, Florence. Dalby, A. 1988: ‘The wedding feast of Caranus the Macedonian by Hippolochus’, Petits Propos Culinaires 29, 37–45. Dalby, A. 1996: Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece, London. Daszewski, W. A. 1985: Corpus of Mosaics from Egypt, vol. 1: Hellenistic and Early Roman Period, Mainz am Rhein. Daszewski, W. A. 1998: ‘Mosaics in Egypt and Italy: reciprocal influence’, in N. Bonacasa, M. C. Naro, E. C. Portale, and A. Tullio (eds), L’Egitto in Italia dall’antichità al Medioevo: atti del 3. congresso internazionale italo-egiziano Roma, CNR-Pompei, 13–19 novembre 1995, Rome, 397–406. Daszewski. W. A. 2001: ‘Un atelier “royal” de mosa€iques à Alexandrie’, in D. Paunier and C. Schmidt (eds), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romaine VII: Actes du VIIIe me colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique et m
e di
e val, vol. 1, Lausanne, 266–81. Daszewski, W. A. 2005: ‘Egypt, birds and mosaics’, in H. Morlier (ed.), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romaine IX: Actes du IXe colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique et m
e di
e vale, Rome, 5–10 novembre 2001, vol. 2, Rome, 1143–52.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

312 b i b l i o g r a p h y Daszewski, W. A. and Abd el-Fattah, A. 1990: ‘A Hellenistic painting from Alexandria with landscape elements’, in Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses f€ ur Klassische Arch€ a ologie, Berlin 1988, Mainz, 441–2. Dean, J. E. (ed.) 1935: Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version, Chicago. De Caro, S. 1993: ‘Deux ‘genres’ de la peinture pomp
eienne: la nature morte et la peinture de jardin’, in G. Cerulli Irelli, M. Aoyagi, S. De Caro, and U. Pappalardo (eds), La peinture de Pomp
e i: t
e moignages de l’art romain dans le zone ensevelie par le V
e suve, vol. 2, Paris, 293–7. De Caro, S. 2001: I mosaici: la casa del fauno, Naples. De Carolis, E. 1992: ‘La pittura di giardino a Ercolano e Pompei’, in B. Conticello and F. Romano (eds), Domus, viridaria, horti picti, Naples, 29–37. De Carolis, E. 1999: ‘1. Wall painting with a garden scene’, in A. Ciarallo and E. De Carolis (eds), Pompeii: Life in a Roman Town, Milan, 55. De Carolis, E. 2001: Gods and Heroes in Pompeii, Rome. De Carolis, E. 2007: ‘I giardini dipinti: osservazioni e proposte’, in G. Di Pasquale and F. Paolucci (eds), Il giardino antico da Babilonia a Roma, Livorno, 142–53. De Carolis, E. 2017: ‘Painted gardens: observations on execution technique’, in V. ZechMatterne and G. Fiorentino (eds), ARGUMED: Archaeology and History of Citrus Fruit in the Mediterranean, Naples. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pcjb.2188 (last accessed 1 March 2021). De Franchesini, M. 1991: Villa Adriana: mosaici, pavimenti, edifici, Rome. De Puma, R. D. 1969a: The Roman Fish Mosaic, vol. 1, PhD Diss., Bryn Mawr College. De Puma, R. D. 1969b: The Roman Fish Mosaic, vol. 2, PhD Diss., Bryn Mawr College. De Puma, R. D. 1970: ‘The octopus-eel-lobster motif on Hellenistic and Roman fish mosaics’, American Journal of Archaeology 74.1, 191–2. De Vos, M. 1980: L’egittomania in pitture e mosaici Romano-Campani della prima età imperiale, Leiden. De Vos, M. 1983: ‘Funzione e decorazione dell’Auditorium di Mecenate’, in G. Pisani Sartorio and L. Quilici (eds), L’archeologia in Roma capitale tra sterro e scavo, Venice, 231–47. Degrassi, A. 1969: ‘Epigraphica IV: quando fu costruito il santuario della Fortuna Primigenia di Palestrina’, Memorie: Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche VIII XIV 2, 111–27 [reprinted in F. Coarelli (ed.) 1978: Studi su Praeneste, Perugia, 147–77]. Del Bufalo, D. 2012: Porphyry. Red Imperial Porphyry: Power and Religion, Turin and London. Delattre, D. 2009: ‘L’
ecriture du papyrus dit “d’Art
emidore” et les dessins grav
es de quelques papyrus d’Herculanum’, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro: Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009, Rovereto, 7–14. € ck, R. 1907: Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, vol. 1, Strasbourg. Delbru € ck, R. 1932: Antike Porphyrwerke, 2 vols., Berlin. Delbru Della Seta, A. 1935: I monumenti dell’antichità classica: Grecia e l’Italia, vol. 2: Italia, Milan.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

313

Deonna, W. and Renard, M. 1961: Croyances et superstitions de table dans la Rome antique, Brussels.
sanges, J. 1970: ‘Les chasseurs d’
el
ephants d’Abou-Simbel’, Actes du 92e Congre s De national des soci
e t
e s savantes, Strasbourg et Colmar (1967). Section d’arch
e ologie, Paris, 31–50.
Desanges, J. 1978: Recherches sur l’activit
e des M
e diterran
e ens aux confins de l’Afrique (VIe sie cle avant J.-C.–IVe sie cle apre s J.-C.), Rome. Di Pasquale, G. 2007: ‘Una enciclopedia delle tecniche nel Museo di Alessandria’, in G. Di Pasquale and F. Paolucci (eds), Il giardino antico da Babilonia a Roma, Livorno, 58–71. Dickie, M. W. 2008: ‘The Hippika of Posidippus’, in F. Cairns (ed.), Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 13, Cambridge, 13–54. Diels, H. 1904: ‘Laterculi Alexandrini aus einem Papyrus ptolem€aischer Zeit’, Abhandlungen der k€oniglich-preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 4, Berlin, 3–16. Dillery, J. 1999: ‘The first Egyptian narrative history: Manetho and Greek historiography’, Zeitschrift f€ ur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 127, 93–116. Dillery, J. 2015: Clio’s Other Sons: Berossus and Manetho, Ann Arbor. Dindorf, W. 1829: Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus CP., 2 vols., Bonn. Donati, F. 2002: ‘Appendice bibiliografica’, in S. Settis, La pareti ingannevoli: la Villa di Livia e la pittura di giardino, Milan, 51–75. Donderer, M. 1987: ‘Die antiken Pavimenttypen und ihre Benennungen (zu Plinius Naturalis Historia 36, 184–189)’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts 102, 365–77. Donderer, M. 1991: ‘Das Kapitolinische Taubenmosaik—Original des Sosos?’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts, R€omische Abteilung 98, 189–97. Donderer, M. 1999: ‘La mosa€ique des colombes de Sosos et sa fortune’, in J. CharlesGaddiot and H. Lavagne (eds), Hadrien: tr
e sors d’une villa imp
e riale, Milan, 91–3. Donderer, M. 2005: ‘Und es gab sie doch! Ein neuer Papyrus und das Zeugnis der Mosaiken belegen die Verwendung antiker “Musterb€ ucher” ’, Antike Welt 36.2, 59–68. Donderer, M. 2005/2006: ‘Antike “ Musterb€ ucher” und (k)ein Ende: ein neuer Papyrus und die Aussage der Mosaiken’, Musiva & Sectilia 2.3, 81–113. Dorandi, T. 1999: Antigone de Caryste: fragments, Paris. Dorandi, T. 2005: ‘Accessioni a Antigono di Caristo’, Studi Classici e Orientali 51, 119–24. Dreyfus, R. and Schraudolph, E. (eds) 1996–7: Pergamon: The Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar, 2 vols., San Francisco. Du Prey, P. de la R., 1994: The Villas of Pliny from Antiquity to Posterity, Chicago and London. Dumont, J. 2001: Les animaux dans l’antiquit
e grecque, Paris. Dunand, F. 1981: ‘Fête et propagande à Alexandrie sous les Lagides’, in La fête, pratique et discours: d’Alexandrie hell
e nistique à la Mission de Besançon, Paris, 13–40. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1978: The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage, Oxford.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

314 b i b l i o g r a p h y Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1999: Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 2003: The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality, Cambridge. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 2016: Theater and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire, Ithaca. Ehling, K. 2002: ‘Gelehrte Freunde der Seleukidenk€ onige’, in A. Goltz, A. Luther, and H. Schlange Sch€ oningen (eds), Gelehrte in der Antike: Alexander Demandt zum 65. Geburtstag, Cologne, 41–58. El-Abbadi, M. 1990: The Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria, Paris. El-Abbadi, M. 2004: ‘The Alexandria library in history’, in A. Hirst and M. S. Silk (eds), Alexandria, Real and Imagined, Aldershot, 167–83. El-Abbadi, M. and Fathallah, O. M. (eds) 2008: What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?, Leiden and Boston. Eleftheriou, D. 2018: Pseudo-Antigonos de Carystos: Collection d’Histoires Curieuses, PhD Diss., Universit
e Paris Nanterre. Elia, O. 1941: Le pitture del tempio di Iside, Rome. Elsner, J. 1995: Review of Castriota 2005, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 95.09.05. Elsner, J. 2009: ‘P. Artemid.: the images’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 35–50. Elsner, J. 2010: Review of Kinzelbach 2009, Sehepunkte 10. Elsner, J. 2012: Introduction to ‘New studies on the Artemidorus Papyrus’, Historia 61.3, 289–92. Elsner, J. 2016: ‘Backgrounds and shadows in the Artemidorus Papyrus’, in G. Adornato (ed.), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III: i disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan, 37–76. Elsner, J. 2020: ‘The Artemidorus Papyrus: imagination and the digital-photographic archaeology of pictures’, in A. Morris-Reich and M. Olin (eds), Photography and Imagination, New York and London, 52–68. Engels, J. 2004: ‘Agatharchides von Knidos’ Schrift Über das Rote Meer’, in H. Heftner and K. Tomaschitz (eds), Ad Fontes! Festschrift f€ ur Gerhard Dobesch zum f€ u nfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September 2004, Vienna, 179–92. Engels, J. 2012: ‘Artemidoros of Ephesos and Strabo of Amasia: common traditions of Greek cultural geography and Strabo’s decisive importance in the history of reception of Artemidoros’ Geographoumena’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II: geografia e cartografia, Milan, 139–55. Epplett, C. 2013: ‘Roman beast hunts’, in P. Christesen and D. G. Kyle (eds), A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Chichester, 505–19. Ericsson, C. H. 1984: ‘The great Nilotic mosaic in Palestrina’, in R. Holthoer and T. Linders (eds), Sundries in Honour of Torgny S€ a ve-S€oderbergh, Uppsala, 55–65. Erlich, A. 2009: The Art of Hellenistic Palestine, Oxford. Erskine, A. 1995: ‘Culture and power in Ptolemaic Egypt: the Museum and Library of Alexandria’, Greece and Rome 42, 38–48. Erskine, A. 2011: ‘Between philosophy and the court: the life of Persaios of Kition’, in A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea, 177–94. Esposito, D. 2005: ‘Breve nota su pitture di giardino da Ercolano’, Cronache Ercolanesi 35, 223–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

315


Etienne, R. 2006: ‘Architecture palatiale et architecture priv
ee en Mac
edoine, IVe–IIe s. av. J.-C.’, in A.-M. Guimier Sorbets, M. B. Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizot (eds), Rois, cit
e s, n
e cropoles: institutions, rites et monuments en Mac
e doine, Athens, 105–16. Evyasaf, R. S. 2010: ‘Gardens at a crossroads: the influence of Persian and Egyptian gardens on the Hellenistic royal gardens of Judea’, Bollettino di Archeologia Online 1 D/D9/5, 27–37. Faber, A. and Hoffmann, A. 2009: Die Casa del Fauno in Pompeji (VI 12), vol. 1: Die stratigraphischen Befunde und Funde der Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1961 bis 1963, Wiesbaden. Fantuzzi, M. 2005: ‘Posidippus at court: the contribution of the ἱππικ
of P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309 to the ideology of Ptolemaic kingship’, in K. J. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, New York and Oxford, 249–68. Farrar, L. 1998: Ancient Roman Gardens, Stroud. Farrar, L. 2016: Gardens and Gardeners of the Ancient World, Oxford. Fasiolo, O. 1915: I mosaici di Aquileia, Rome. Fasolo, F. and Gullini, G. 1953: Il santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina, Rome. Faucher, T. 2018: ‘L’or des Ptol
em
ees: l’exploitation de l’or dans le d
esert Oriental’, in
J.-P. Brun, T. Faucher, B. Redon, and S. Sidebotham (eds), Le d
e sert oriental d’Egypte durant la p
e riode gr
e co-romaine: bilans arch
e ologiques, Paris, 1–16. Fedi, M. E., Carraresi, L., Grassi, N., Migliori, A., Taccetti, F., Terrasi, F., and  , P. A. 2010: ‘The Artemidorus Papyrus: solving an ancient puzzle with radioMando carbon and ion beam analysis measurements’, Radiocarbon 52, 356–63. Ferguson, W. S. 1911: Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay, London. Ferrari, G. 1999: ‘The geography of time: the Nile Mosaic and the library at Praeneste’, Ostraka 8, 359–86. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001: Chronologie d
e taill
e e et r
e vis
e e des
e ponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ: premier bilan, Oxford. Fiorini, C. 1988: ‘Edificio di età repubblicana in via Sistina’, in F. Castagnoli (ed.), Topografia romana: ricerche e discussioni, Rome, 45–57. Fischer, J. E. 2003: ‘Sanides and sanidia’, in G. W. Bakewell and J. P. Sickinger (eds), Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy Presented to Alan L. Boegehold, Oxford, 237–50. Flashar, H. 1972: Aristotelis Opuscula II: Mirabilia, Berlin. Flemming, R. 2003: ‘Empires of knowledge: medicine and health in the Hellenistic world’, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 449–63. Flory, M. B. 1988: ‘Octavian and the omen of the “gallina alba” ’, Classical Journal 84.4, 343–56. Flory, M. B. 1995: ‘The symbolism of laurel in cameo portraits of Livia’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 40, 43–68. Foertmeyer, V. 1988: ‘The dating of the pompe of Ptolemy II Philadelphus’, Historia 37.1, 90–104. Fortenbaugh, W. W. 2011: ‘Theophrastus and Strato on animal intelligence’, in M.-L. Desclos and W. W. Fortenbaugh (eds), Strato of Lampascus: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 399–412.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

316

bibliography

Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Gutas, D. 1992: Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings, New Brunswick. € rtsch, R. 1989: ‘Ein Aurea-Aetas-Schema’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchFo a€ ologischen Instituts, R€omische Abteilung 96, 333–45. € rtsch, R. 1993: Arch€ Fo a ologischer Kommentar zu den Villenbriefen des j€ u ngeren Plinius, Mainz am Rhein. Foucher, L. 1961: ‘Une mosa€ique de triclinium trouv
ee a Thysdrus’, Latomus 20, 291–7.
Fragaki, H. 2008: ‘Des topia à l’utopie: le rôle de l’Egypte dans la peinture paysagiste romaine’, Antike Kunst 51, 96–122. Fragaki, H. 2017: ‘La bibliotheque d’Alexandrie: questions de topographie et d’architecture’, in C. Rico and A. Dan (eds): The Library of Alexandria: A Cultural Crossroads of the Ancient World: Proceedings of the Second Polis Institute Interdisciplinary Conference, Jerusalem, 3–44. ur zwei hellenistische Franken, N. 2018: ‘B€adersklaven: ein neuer Benennungsvorschlag f€ Bronzestatuetten’, Antike Kunst 61, 44–53. Franks, H. M. 2012: Hunters, Heroes, Kings: The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina, Princeton. Fraser, P. M. 1972a: Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. 1: Text, Oxford. Fraser, P. M. 1972b: Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. 2: Notes, Oxford. French, R. K. 1994: Ancient Natural History: Histories of Nature, London. Friedman, Z. 2006: ‘The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina: an illustration of shipbuilding traditions’, Archaeologia Maritima Mediterranea 3, 115–45. Froschauer, H. 2008: Zeichnungen und Malereien aus den Papyrussammlungen in Berlin und Wien, Berlin. € ber zwei Fuhrmann, H. 1931: Philoxenos von Eretria: arch€ a ologische Untersuchungen u Alexandermosaik, G€ ottingen. Gabbert, J. J. 1997: Antigonus II Gonatas: A Political Biography, London. Gabriel, M. M. 1955: Livia’s Garden Room at Prima Porta, New York. Gallazzi, C. and Kramer, B. 1998: ‘Artemidor im Zeichensaal: eine Papyrusrolle mit Text, Landkarte uns Skizzenb€ uchern aus sp€athellenistischer Zeit’, Archiv f€ u r Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 44.2, 189–208. Gallazzi, C. and Kramer, B. 2012: ‘Sui buchi del P.Artemid., ovvero, su alcune interpretazioni soggettive di dati oggettivi’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II: geografia e cartografia, Milan, 257–81. Gallazzi, C. and Kramer, B. 2014: ‘Alexandrinische Ephebenurkunden aus dem Konvolut des Artemidorpapyrus (P.Alex. Epheb.)’, Archiv f€ u r Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 60.1, 117–53. Gallazzi, C. and Settis, S. 2006: Le tre vite del Papiro di Artemidoro: voci e sguardi dall’Egitto greco-romano, Milan. Gallazzi, C., Kramer, B., and Settis, S. 2008: Il papiro di Artemidoro (P. Artemid.), Milan. Gallo, P. 1997: ‘Luoghi di culto e santuari isiaci in Italia’, in E. A. Arslan, F. Tiradritti, M. A. Brida and A. Magni (eds), Iside: il mito, il mistero, la magia, Milan, 290–6. Gatti, G. 1888: ‘Ritrovamenti a Roma’, Notizie degli scavi di antichità, 437.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

317

Gatti, S. 2004: ‘Nuove ricerche sull’Antro delle Sorti in Palestrina’, in G. Ghini (ed.), Lazio e Sabina II: atti del convegno secondo incontro di studi sul Lazio e la Sabina, Rome, 53–66. Gatti, S. 2017: ‘Tradizione ellenistica e sperimentazione italica: l’Aula Absidata nel foro di Praeneste’, Archeologia Classica 68, 53–141. Gee, E. 2013: Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition, Oxford and New York. Gehrke, H.-J. 2011: ‘Alexander der Große: Welterkundung als Welteroberung’, Klio 93, 52–65. Gehrke, H.-J. 2016: ‘The “revolution” of Alexander the Great: old and new in the world’s view’, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography: The Inhabited World in the Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 78–97. Gentelle, P. 1981: ‘Un “paradis” hell
enistique en Jordanie:
etude de g
eo-arch
eologie’, H
e rodote 20, 70–101. Gera, D. 2017: ‘Some dated Greek inscriptions from Maresha’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 149.3, 201–22. Geus, K. 2002: Eratosthenes von Kyrene: Studien zur hellenistischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Munich. Geus, K. 2003: ‘Space and geography’, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 232–45. Geus, K. 2016: ‘Progress in the sciences: astronomy and Hipparchus’, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography: The Inhabited World in the Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 150–60. Geus, K. and King, C. G. 2018: ‘Paradoxography’, in P. T. Keyser and J. Scarborough (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World, New York, 431–44. Ghedini, F., Bueno, M., Novello, M., and Rinaldi, F. (eds) 2017: I pavimenti romani di Aquileia: contesti, tecniche, repertorio decorativo, Padova. Giannini, A. 1963: ‘Studi sulla paradossografia greca I: da Omero a Callimaco: motivi e forme del meraviglioso’, Rendiconti: Istituto Lombardo, Accademia di scienze e lettere 97, Milan, 247–66. Giannini, A. 1964: ‘Studi sulla paradossografia greca II: da Callimaco all’età imperiale: a letteratura paradossografica’, Acme 17, 99–140. Gitler, H. and Kushnir-Stein, A. 2004: ‘A new date on coins of Marisa in Idumaea and its historical implications’, Revue Suisse de Numismatique 83, 87–94. Giuliani, L. 1977: ‘Alexander in Ruvo, Eretria und Sidon’, Antike Kunst 20, 26–42.
mez Espelos
in, F. J. 1996: Paradox
ografos griegos: rarezas y maravillas, Madrid. Go
lez-Palacios, A. 2013: Il serraglio di pietra: la Sala degli Animali in Vaticano, Gonza Vatican City. Gotthelf, A. 1988: ‘Historiae I: plantarum et animalium’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and R. W. Sharples (eds), Theophrastean Studies on Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick, 100–38. Gotthelf, A. 1997: ‘Division and explanation in Aristotle’s Parts of Animals’, in H.-C. G€ unther and A. Rengakos (eds), Beitr€ a ge zur antiken Philosophie: Festschrift f€ ur Wolfgang Kullmann, Stuttgart, 215–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

318 b i b l i o g r a p h y Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J. G. (eds) 1987: Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F. and Scholfield, A. F. 1953: Nicander of Colophon: The Poems and Poetical Fragments, Cambridge. Grimal, P. 1969: Les jardins romains, 2nd edition, Paris. Gruen, E. S. 1984: The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley and London. Gruen, E. S. 2010: ‘Jewish literature’, in J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers (eds), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Chichester, 415–28. € stner V., and Scholl, A. (eds) 2011: Pergamon: Panorama der € ßinger, R., Ka Gru antiken Metropole: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung: eine Ausstellung der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin and Petersberg.
raud, O. and Jouget, P. 1938: Un livre d’
e colier du IIIe sie cle avant J.-C., Cairo. Gue Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 1998a: ‘Alexandrie: les mosa€iques hell
enistiques d
ecouvertes sur le terrain de la nouvelle Bibliotheca Alexandrina’, Revue arch
e ologique fasc. 2, 263–90. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 1998b: ‘Les mosa€iques’, in La gloire d’Alexandrie: catalogue d’exposition Paris, Mus
e e du Petit Palais, 7 mai–26 juillet 1998, Paris, 227–33. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2005a: ‘La mosa€ique aux lutteurs de la Bibliotheca Alexandrina: techniques picturales et mosa€istiques dans les palais d’Alexandrie’, Musiva & Sectilia 1, 15–34. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2005b: ‘Un nouvel emblema alexandrin (terrain du Patriarcat grec orthodoxe)’, in H. Morlier (ed.), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romaine IX: actes du IXe colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique et m
e di
e vale, Rome, 5–10 novembre 2001, vol. 1, Rome, 567–77. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2014: ‘Le jardin pour l’au-delà des bienheureux: repr
esentations fun
eraires à Alexandrie’, in P. van Ossel and A. M. Guimier-Sorbets (eds), Arch
e ologie des jardins: analyse des espaces et m
e thodes d’approche, Montagnac, 151–60.
Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. 2019: Mosa€iques d’Alexandrie: pavements d’Egypte grecque et romaine, Alexandria. Gullini, G. 1956: I mosaici di Palestrina, Rome. Gullini, G. 1984: ‘Architettura italica ed ellenismo alessandrino’, in N. Bonacasa and A. Di Vita (eds), Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: studi in onore di Achille Adriani, vol. 3, 527–92. Gutzwiller, K. 1992: ‘Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice: fantasy, romance and propaganda’, American Journal of Philology 113.2, 359–85. Gutzwiller, K. (ed.) 2005: The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, New York and Oxford. Hales, S. 2003: The Roman House and Social Identity, Cambridge. Hallett, C. H. 2019: ‘Terracotta, antiquarianism, and the “archaic revival” of early Augustan Rome’, in C. M. Draycott, R. Raja, K. Welch, and W. T. Wootton (eds), Visual Histories of the Classical World: Essays in Honour of R. R. R. Smith, Turnhout, 181–204. Hamiaux, M., Laugier, L., and Martinez, J.-L. (eds) 2015: The Winged Victory of Samothrace: Rediscovering a Masterpiece, Paris.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

319

Hammerstaedt, J. 2009a: ‘Artemidoro di Efeso nella tradizione indiretta e nel papiro di Torino’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro I. Contesto culturale, lingua, stile e tradizione, Milan, 55–68. Hammerstaedt, J. 2009b: ‘Warum Simonides den Artemidorpapyrus nicht h€atte f€alschen k€ onnen: eine seltene Schreibung f€ ur Tausender in Inschriften und Papyri’, Chiron 39, 323–37. Hammerstaedt, J. 2012a: ‘Artemidorus fr. 21 and its relationship to the Artemidorus Papyrus’, Historia 61.3, 309–24. Hammerstaedt, J. 2012b: ‘The relevance of the dispute about the photograph of the Konvolut for the debate about the Artemidorus Papyrus’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II: geografia e cartografia, Milan, 221–30. Hammerstein, E. 1980: ‘Hellenistic bestiary in the Tomb of Apollophanes’, Israel, Land and Nature, Spring edition, 94–100. Hankinson, R. J. 1995a: ‘Philosophy of science’, in J. Barnes (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge, 109–39. Hankinson, R. J. 1995b: ‘Science’, in J. Barnes (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge, 140–67. Hannestad, L. 1993: ‘Greeks and Celts: the creation of a myth’, in T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World, Aarhus, 15–38. Hansen, E. V. 1971: The Attalids of Pergamon, 2nd edition, Ithaca and London. Harden, A. 2014: ‘Animals in Classical art’, in G. L. Campbell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life, Oxford, 24–60. Harden, D. B. 1968: ‘Pre-Roman glass’, in D. B. Harden, K. S. Painter, R. H. Pinder Wilson, and H. Tait (eds), Masterpieces of Glass: A Selection, London, 11–35. Harder, A., 2010: ‘Callimachus’ Aetia’, in J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers (eds), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Chichester, 92–105. Hardy, G. and Totelin, L. 2016: Ancient Botany, Abingdon. Harrell, J. A. 2014: ‘Discovery of the Red Sea source of Topazos (ancient gem peridot) on Zabargad Island Egypt’, in L. Thoresen (ed.) Twelfth Annual Sikankas Symposium: Peridot and Uncommon Gem Minerals, California, 16–30. Harvey, P. 1975: ‘Cicero leg. agr. 2.78 and the Sullan colony at Praeneste’, Athenaeum n.s. 53, 33–56 [reprinted in F. Coarelli (ed.) 1978: Studi su Praeneste, Perugia, 185–208]. € ller, C. (eds) 2002: Les Italiens dans le monde grec: IIe sie cle av. Hasenohr, C. and Mu
J.-C.–Ier sie cle ap. J.C.: circulation, activit
e s, int
e gration: actes de la table ronde, Ecole Normale Sup
e rieure, Paris 14–16 mai 1998, Paris. Hatzimichali, M. 2013: ‘Encyclopaedism in the Alexandrian library’, in J. K€ onig and G. Woolf (eds), Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cambridge, 64–83. Hauben, H. 2013: ‘Callicrates of Samos and Patroclus of Macedon, champions of Ptolemaic thalassocracy’, in K. Buraselis, M. Stefanou, and D. J. Thompson (eds), The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile: Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge, 39–65. Haubold, J., Lanfranchi, G. B., Rollinger, R., and Steele, J. (eds) 2013: The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on ‘The Ancient Near East

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

320

bibliography

between Classical and Oriental Traditions’, Hatfield College, Durham, 7th–9th July 2010, Wiesbaden. Haug, A. 2020: Decor-R€ a ume in pompejanischen Stadth€ a usern: Ausstattungsstrategien und Rezeptionsformen, Berlin. Hazzard, R. A. 2000: Imagination of a Monarchy: Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda, Toronto and London. Heath, T. L. 1956: The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, Cambridge. Heckel, W. 2006: Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire, Malden and Oxford. Held, W. 2020: ‘Ach€amenidische Hofkunst in der hellenistischen Levante: eine Jagdszene in Marisa, der Pavillon in Jericho und der Paradeisos von Sidon’, in W. Held (ed.), The Transition from the Achaemenid to the Hellenistic Period in the Levant, Cyprus, and Cilicia: Cultural Interruption or Continuity? Symposion at Philipps-Universit€ a t Marburg, October 12–15, 2017, Marburg, 209–28. Hellmann, O. 2006: ‘Peripatetic biology and the Epitome of Aristophanes of Byzantium’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and S. A. White (eds), Aristo of Ceos: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 329–59. Hellmann, O. 2010: ‘Antike Verk€ urzungen biologischer Texte’, in M. Horster and C. Reitz (eds), Condensing Texts—Condensed Texts, Stuttgart, 555–83. Hellmann, O. 2015: ‘On the interface of philology and science: the case of zoology’, in F. Montanari, S. Matthaios, and A. Rengakos (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, vol. 2, Leiden and Boston, 1235–66. Hemingway, S. A. 2004: The Horse and Jockey from Artemision: A Bronze Equestrian Monument of the Hellenistic Period, Berkeley. Herter, H. 1976: ‘Die durstigen Tauben’, Grazer Beitr€ a ge 5, 123–42. Higginbotham, J. A. 1997: Piscinae: Artificial Fishponds in Roman Italy, Chapel Hill. Higgs, P. and Thomas, R. 2017: ‘Greek and Roman sculpture’, in Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, British Museum Online Research Catalogue. Available at: https://webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/20190801123903/https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/ online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/material_culture_of_nauk ratis/greek_and_roman_sculpture.aspx (last accessed 1 March 2021). Himmelmann, N. 1980: Über Hirten-Genre in der antiken Kunst, Opladen. € ller, M. 2009: ‘Das Nilmosaik von Palestrina und die Bildstruktur eines Hinterho geographischen Großraums’, R€omische Historische Mitteilungen 51, 15–130. € ller-Klein, M. 2015: Varietates topiorum: Perspektive und Raumerfassung in Hinterho Landschafts- und Panoramabildern der r€omischen Wandmalerei vom 1. Jh. v. Chr. bis zum Ende der pompejanischen Stile, Vienna. Hoepfner, W. 1996: ‘Zum Typus der Basileia und der k€ oniglichen Andrones’, in W. Hoepfner and G. Brands (eds), Basileia: die Pal€ a ste der hellenistischen K€onige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992 bis 20.12.1992, Mainz am Rhein, 1–43. Hoepfner, W. 1997: ‘The architecture of Pergamon’, in R. Dreyfus and E. Schraudolph (eds), Pergamon: The Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar, vol. 2, San Francisco, 23–58. € lbl, G. 2001: A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London. Ho

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

321

€ lscher, T. 1973: Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Ho W€ urzburg. Honigman, S. 2003: The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas, London. Honigman, S. 2007: ‘The narrative function of the king and the library in the Letter of Aristeas’, in T. Rajak, S. Pearce, J. Aitken, and J. Dines (eds), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley and London, 128–46. Horak, U. 1992: Illuminierte Papyri, Pergamente und Papiere, Vienna. Hornblower, S. 2017: Lykophron: Alexandra, Oxford. Houser, C. 1998: ‘The “Alexander Sarcophagus” of Abdalonymus: a Hellenistic monument from Sidon’, in O. Palagia and W. D. E. Coulson (eds), Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, March 15–17, 1996, Oxford, 281–91. Howland, R. H. 1958: The Athenian Agora, vol. 4: Greek Lamps and Their Survivals, Princeton. Hubbell, H. M. 1935: ‘Ptolemy’s zoo’, The Classical Journal 31.2, 68–76. Hulsen, C. 1933: Das Skizzenbuch des Giovannantonio Dosio im Staatlichen Kupferstichkabinett zu Berlin mit Unterst€ utzung der Generalverwaltung, Berlin. € nemo € rder, C. 1999: ‘Aristoteles als Begr€ under der Zoologie’, in G. W€ ohrle (ed.), Hu Biologie, Geschichte der Mathematik und der Naturwissenschaften in der Antike 1, Stuttgart, 89–102. Hunter, R. L. 2003: Theocritus: Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Berkeley and London. Hunter, R. L. 2011: ‘The Letter of Aristeas’, in A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds), Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea, 47–60. Hurwit, J. M. 2015: Artists and Signatures in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Irby-Massie, G. and Keyser, P. T. 2002: Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A Sourcebook, London. Irwin, M. E. 2016: ‘Greek and Roman botany’, in G. L. Irby-Massie (ed.), A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, Chichester, 264–80. Jacob, C. 1983: ‘De l’art de compiler à la fabrication du merveilleux: sur la paradoxographie grecque’, Lalies 2, 121–40. Jacob, C. 1998: ‘La bibliotheque, la carte et le trait
e: les formes de l’accumulation du savoir à Alexandrie’, in G. Argoud and J.-Y. Guillaumin (eds), Sciences exactes et sciences appliqu
e es à Alexandrie (IIIe sie cle av. J.-C.–Ier sie cle ap. J.-C.): actes du colloque
19–37. international de Saint-Etienne (6–8 juin 1996), Saint-Etienne, Jacob, C. 2000a: ‘Callimachus: a poet in the labyrinth’, in C. Jacob, F. de Polignac, and C. Clement (eds), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City, Alexandria, 89–100. Jacob, C. 2000b: ‘Eratosthenes: intellectual athlete’, in C. Jacob, F. de Polignac, and C. Clement (eds), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City, Alexandria, 101–13. Jacob, C. 2013: The Web of Athenaeus, Cambridge.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

322 b i b l i o g r a p h y Jacobson, D. M. 2004: ‘Marisa tomb paintings recently discovered’, Biblical Archaeology Review 30.2, 24–39. Jacobson, D. M. 2007: The Hellenistic Paintings of Marisa, Leeds. Jacques, J.-M. 2002: Nicandre, Oeuvres, vol. 2: Les Th
e riaques: fragments iologiques ant
e rieurs à Nicandre, Paris. Janko, R. 2009: Review of Canfora 2007, Canfora 2008, and Gallazzi, Kramer and Settis 2008, Classical Review 59.2, 403–10. Jashemski, W. F. 1979: The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius, vol. 1, New Rochelle. Jashemski, W. F. 1993: The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius, vol. 2: Appendices, New Rochelle. Jashemski, W. F. 2007: ‘Gardens’, in J. J. Dobbins and P. W. Foss (eds), The World of Pompeii, London and New York, 487–98. Jashemski, W. F., Gleason, K. L., Hartswick, K. J., and Malek, A.-A. (eds) 2018: Gardens of the Roman Empire, Cambridge and New York. Jashemski, W. F., Meyer, F. G., and Ricciardi, M. 2002: ‘Plants’, in W. F. Jashemski and F. G. Meyer (eds), The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge, 80–180. Jennison, G. 1937: Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome, Manchester. Jensen, M. S. 2009: ‘Homeric scholarship in Alexandria’, in G. Hinge and J. A. Krasilnikoff (eds), Alexandria: A Cultural and Religious Melting Pot, Aarhus, 80–93. Jobst, W. 2005: ‘Das Palastmosaik von Konstantinopel. Chronologie und Ikonographie’, in H. Morlier (ed.), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romaine IX: actes du IXe colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique et m
e di
e vale, Rome, 5–10 novembre 2001, vol. 2, Rome, 1083–101. Johnson, L. L. 1984: The Hellenistic and Roman Library: Studies Pertaining to Their Architectural Form, PhD Diss., Brown University. Johnstone, S. 2014: ‘A new history of libraries and books in the Hellenistic period’, Classical Antiquity 33, 347–93. Jones, A. 2009: ‘Mathematics, science, and medicine in the papyri’, in R. S. Bagnall (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford, 338–57. Jones, F. 2016: The Boundaries of Art and Social Space in Rome: The Caged Bird and Other Art Forms, London. Jones, N. B. 2014: ‘Ancient painted panels: terminology and appearance’, Mnemosyne 67.2, 295–304. Jones, N. B. 2019: Painting, Ethics and Aesthetics in Rome, Cambridge.
da
r, Z. 1978: Survivals of Greek Zoological Illuminations in Byzantine Manuscripts, Ka Budapest. € hler, H. 1958: ‘Das Fortunaheiligtum von Palestrina Praeneste’, Annales Universitatis Ka Saraviensis 7.3/4, 189–240 [reprinted in F. Coarelli (ed.) 1978: Studi su Praeneste, Perugia, 221–72]. Kakoulli, I. 2009: Greek Painting Techniques and Materials from the Fourth to the First Century BC, London. Kalpaxis, T. E. 1986: Hemiteles: akzidentelle Unfertigkeit und “Bossen-Stil” in der griechischen Baukunst, Mainz am Rhein.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

323

Kawerau, G. and Wiegand, Th. 1930: Altert€ u mer von Pergamon V 1. Die Pal€ a ste der Hochburg, Berlin. Keller, O. 1909–13: Die antike Tierwelt, 2 vols., Leipzig. Kellum, B. A. 1994: ‘The construction of landscape in Augustan Rome: the garden room at the villa ad Gallinas’, The Art Bulletin 76.2, 211–24. Kenawi, M., Macaulay-Lewis, E., and McKenzie, J. S. 2012: ‘A commercial nursery near Abu Hummus (Egypt) and re-use of amphoras for the trade in plants’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 25, 195–225. Keyser, P. T. 2016: ‘Venus and Mercury in the Grand Procession of Ptolemy II’, Historia 65.1, 31–52. Keyser, P. T. and Irby-Massie, G. L. 2006: ‘Science, medicine and technology’, in G. R. Bugh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 241–64. Keyser, P. T. and Irby-Massie, G. L. (eds) 2008: The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek Tradition and Its Many Heirs, Abingdon and New York. Kielau, S. 2004: ‘Das Taubenmosaik aus der Villa Hadriana und seine Beziehungen zu Pergamon. Neue Beobachtungen’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 54, 491–505. Kinzelbach, R. 2009: Tierbilder aus dem ersten Jahrhundert: ein zoologischer Kommentar zum Artemidor-Papyrus, Berlin. Kinzelbach, R. 2010: ‘Eine bunte Gesellschaft: die Tiere des Artemidor-Papyrus’, Antike Welt 41.3, 8–13. Kistler, J. M. 2007: War Elephants, Nebraska. Kitanov, K. 2014: ‘Le dessin pr
eparatoire et les corrections apport
ees à la peinture du tombeau thrace pres d’Alexandrovo’, in H. Zimmermann (ed.), Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA, 13–17. September 2010, Vienna, 675–8. Kitov, G. 2001: ‘A newly found Thracian tomb with frescoes’, Archaeologia Bulgarica 5.2, 15–29. Kitov, G. 2002: ‘New Thracian frescoes from Bulgaria’, Minerva 13.3, 42–5. Klemm, D. D. and Klemm, R. 2011: Gold and Gold Mining in Ancient Egypt and Nubia: Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts, Berlin and London. Kloner, A. 1997: ‘Underground metropolis: the subterranean world of Maresha’, Biblical Archaeology Review 23.2, 24–35, 67. Kloner, A. 1999a: ‘Maresha: the Hellenistic city’, in P. Kalogerakou (ed.), `λxανdρος ο Μγας: από τη Μακεdονία στην οικουμνη: Βροια 27–31/5/1998 = Alexander the Great: From Macedonia to the Oikoumenē : Veria 27–31/5/1998, Beroia, 185–99. Kloner, A. 1999b: ‘The artistic impact of Hellenistic period kerameikos on wall painting and reliefs from Maresha, Jerusalem and Petra’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa€ ologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 114, 227–34. Kloner, A. 2001: ‘The economy of Hellenistic Maresha: inferences based on the city plan and the archaeological finds’, in Z. H. Archibald, J. Davies, V. Gabrielsen, and G. J. Oliver (eds), Hellenistic Economies, London, 103–31. Kloner, A. 2003: Maresha Excavations Final Report, vol. 1: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (Israel Antiquity Authority Reports 17), Jerusalem.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

324

bibliography

Kloner, A. 2008: ‘Maresha in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus’, in P. McKechnie and Ph. Guillaume (eds), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Leiden and Boston, 171–81. Kloner, A. 2010: ‘Amphorae and urns as grave markers in Idumaea, Judaea, and Nabataea’, Strata: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 28, 55–79. Kloner. A. and Braun, J. 2003: ‘Hellenistic painted tombs at Marisa: burial-hunt music’, in E. Hickmann and R. Eichmann (eds), Saiteninstrumente im arch€ a ologischen Kontext: Vortr€ a ge des 8. Symposiums der Study Group on Music Archaeology (ICTM), Limassol, 26.–30. August 1996, und andere Beitr€ a ge, Rahden and Westfalen, 47–51. Kloner, A. and Zissu, B. 2007: The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, Leuven. Klynne, A. 2002: The Prima Porta Garden Archaeological Project. Terra Sigillata from the Villa of Livia, Rome: Consumption and Discard in the Early Principate, Uppsala. Klynne, A. 2005: ‘The laurel grove of the Caesars: looking in and looking out’, in B. S. Frizell and A. Klynne (eds), Roman Villas around the Urbs: Interaction with Landscape and Environment. Proceedings of a Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 17–18, 2004, Rome, 167–75. Klynne, A. and Liljenstolpe P. 2000: ‘Investigating the gardens of the Villa of Livia’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 13, 221–33. Knibbe, D. 1998: Ephesos: Geschichte einer bedeutenden antiken Stadt und Portrait einer modernen Großgrabung im 102. Jahr der Wiederkehr des Beginnes €osterreichischer Forschungen (1895–1997), Frankfurt am Main. Koenen, L. 1971: ‘Bemerkungen zu P. Cairo Zenon 59665: Verlegen eines Mosaikfussbodens’, Zeitschrift f€ u r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8, 276–7. Koła ̨taj, W., Majcherek, G., and Parandowska, E. 2007: Villa of the Birds: The Excavation and Preservation of the Kom Al-Dikka Mosaics, Cairo and New York. € nig, J. 2012: Saints and Symposiasts: The Literature of Food and the Symposium in GrecoKo Roman and Early Christian Culture, Cambridge. Kopsacheili, M. 2015: ‘In search of a garden-peristyle in Hellenistic palaces: a reappraisal of the evidence’, in Z. T. Polychroniadis and D. Evely (eds), Aegis: Essays in Mediterranean Archaeology Presented to Matti Egon by the Scholars of the Greek Archaeological Committee UK, Oxford, 173–83. Korshak, Y. 1987: Frontal Faces in Attic Vase Painting of the Archaic Period, Chicago. Kosmin, P. J. 2014: The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire, Cambridge and London. Kramer, B. 2001: ‘The earliest known map of Spain (?) and the Geography of Artemidorus of Ephesus on papyrus’, Imago Mundi 53, 115–20. Kravaritou, S. 2018: ‘Cults and rites of passage in ancient Thessaly’, in M. Kalaitzi, P. Paschidis, C. Antonetti, and A. M. Guimier-Sorbets (eds), Βορειοελλαdικ
: Tales from the Lands of the Ethne: Essays in Honour of Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos/Histoires du monde des ethn
e :
e tudes en l’honneur de Miltiade B. Hatzopoulos, Athens, 377–96. Kriseleit, I. 2000: Antike Mosaiken: Altes Museum, Pergamonmuseum, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Mainz am Rhein. Krumme, M. 1990: ‘Isis in Praeneste: zur Rekonstruktion des unteren Heiligtums’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts 105, 155–65.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

325

Kullmann, W. 1998: ‘Zoologische Sammelwerke in der Antike’, in W.Kullmann, J. Althoff, and M. Asper (eds), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike, T€ ubingen, 121–39. Kullmann, W. 1999: ‘Aristoteles’ wissenschaftliche Methode in seinem zoologischen Schriften’, in G. W€ ohrle (ed.), Biologie, Geschichte der Mathematik und der Naturwissenschaften in der Antike 1, Stuttgart, 103–23. € nzl, E. 2003: ‘Waffendekor und Zoologie in Alexandrien: der hellenistische PrunksKu child im W€ urttembergischen Landesmuseum Stuttgart’, Jahrbuch des R€omischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 50.1, 279–305. Kuttner, A. 1999: ‘Looking outside inside: ancient Roman garden rooms’, Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes 19.1, 7–35. Kuttner, A. 2015: ‘Hellenistic court collecting from Alexandros to the Attalids’, in M. Wellington Gahtan and D. Pegazzano (eds), Museum Archetypes and Collecting in the Ancient World, Leiden, 45–53. Kuzmin, Y. 2018: ‘New perspectives on the date of the great festival of Ptolemy II’, Klio 99.2, 513–27. La Malfa, C. 2003: ‘Reassessing the renaissance of the Palestrina Nile Mosaic’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 66, 267–72. La Rocca, E. 1986: ‘Il lusso come espressione di potere’, in M. Cima and E. La Rocca (eds), Le tranquille dimore degli dei: la residenza imperiale degli horti Lamiani, Venice, 3–35. La Rocca, E. 1990: Linguaggio artistico e ideologia politica a Roma in età repubblicana, Milan. La Rocca, E. 2008: Lo spazio negato: la pittura di paesaggio nella cultura artistica greca e romana, Milan. La Rocca, E. 2019: ‘Greek sculptors in Rome: an art for the Romans’, in O. Palagia (ed.), Handbook of Greek Sculpture, Berlin, 579–619. Labrothanassi, E. and Touloumtzidou, A. 2016: ‘A terracotta figurine of a war elephant and other finds from a grave at Thessaloniki’, in R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, P. K€ ogler, and W. Rudolph (eds), Journal of Hellenistic Pottery 1, 69–112. Lagrange, M. J. 1902: ‘Deux hypog
ees mac
edo-sidoniens à Beit-Djebrîn (Palestine)’, Acad
e mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 497–505. Lallot, J. 2000: ‘Zenodotus, the editor of Homer’, in C. Jacob, F. de Polignac, and C. Clement (eds), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City, Alexandria, 83–8. Lambros, S. P. 1885–6: Excerptorum Constantini De natura animalium libri duo Aristophanis Historiae animalium epitome: subiunctis Aeliani Timothei aliorumque eclogis, Berlin. Lapatin, K. D. S. 2015: Luxus: The Sumptuous Arts of Greece and Rome, Los Angeles. Lapatin, K. D. S. 2018: ‘A puzzling pachyderm’, in C. M. Draycott, R. Raja, K. Welch, and W. T. Wootton (eds), Visual Histories of the Classical World: Essays in Honour of R. R. R. Smith, Turnhout, 159–68. Laubscher, H. P. 1982: Fischer und Landleute: Studien zur hellenistischen Genreplastik, Mainz am Rhein.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

326

bibliography

Lauter, H. 1979: ‘Bemerkungen zur sp€athellenistischen Baukunst in Mittel-italien’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts 94, 390–459. Lauter, H. 1983: ‘K€ unstliche Unfertigkeit: hellenistische Bossens€aulen’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts 98, 287–310. Lavagne, H. 1988: Operosa antra: recherches sur la grotte à Rome de Sylla à Hadrien, Rome and Paris. Lazaris, S. 2016: Le physiologus grec, Florence. Le Bohec, S. 1987: ‘L’entourage royal à la cour des Antigonides’, in E. L
evy (ed.), Le syste me palatial en orient, en Gre ce et à Rome: actes du colloque de Strasbourg 19–22 juin 1985, Strasbourg, 315–26. Le Boulluec, A. 2000: ‘Alien wisdom’, in C. Jacob, F. de Polignac, and C. Clement (eds), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City, Alexandria, 56–69. Leach, E. W. 1998: The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic Representations of Landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome, Princeton. Leach, E. W. 2004: The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples, Cambridge. Lefebre, D. 2016: ‘Aristotle and the Hellenistic Peripatos: from Theophrastus to Critolaus’, in A. Falcon (ed.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity, Leiden and Boston, 11–34.
Legras, B. 1994: ‘L’horizon g
eographique de la jeunesse grecque d’Egypte (IIIeme siecle av. n.e.–Veme siecle de n.e.)’, in A. B€ ulow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen, 23–29 August, 1992, Copenhagen, 165–76. Lehmann, S. 2012: ‘Skizzen au seiner €agyptischen Malerwerkstatt: Tiere, Fabelwesen und Menschen in Artemidor-Papyrus’, Archiv f€ u r Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 57.2, 267–73. Lehnus, L. 2008: ‘Artemidoro Elegiaco (SH 214)’, Quaderni di Storia 68, 279–88. Lennox, J. G. 1994: ‘The disappearance of Aristotle’s biology: a Hellenistic mystery’, Apeiron 27.4, 7–24. Lennox, J. G. 2001: Aristotle’s Philosophy of Biology: Studies in the Origins of Life Science, Cambridge. Lennox, J. G. 2005: ‘The place of zoology in Aristotle’s natural philosophy’, in R. W. Sharples (ed.), Philosophy and the Sciences in Antiquity, Aldershot, 55–71. Lennox, J. G. 2017: ‘Aristotle’s biology’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ spr2017/entries/aristotle-biology/ (last accessed 1 March 2021). Lennox, J. G. and Bolton, R. (eds) 2010: Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle: Essays in Honour of Allan Gotthelf, Cambridge. Leonhard, W. 1914: Mosaikstudien zur Casa del Fauno in Pompeji, Naples. Leventhal, M. 2017: ‘Eratosthenes’ letter to Ptolemy: the literary mechanics of empire’, American Journal of Philology 138.1, 43–84.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

327

Levine, T. 1999: ‘The Hellenistic private house at Maresha’, in P. Kalogerakou (ed.), `λxανdρος ο Μγας: από τη Μακεdονία στην οικουμνη: Βροια 27–31/5/1998 = Alexander the Great: From Macedonia to the Oikoumenē : Veria 27–31/5/1998, Beroia, 201–8. Li Causi, P. 2003: Sulle tracce del manticora: la zoologia dei confini del mondo in Grecia e a Roma, Palermo. Liljenstolpe, P. and Klynne, A. 1997/1998: ‘The imperial gardens of the villa of Livia at Prima Porta: a preliminary report on the 1997 campaign’, Opuscula Romana 22–3, 127–47. Linant de Bellefonds, P., Pouzadoux, C., and Prioux, E. 2018: ‘Lycophron l’Italien?’, in P. Linant de Bellefonds and E. Prioux (eds), Voir les mythes: po
e sie hell
e nistique et arts figur
e s, Paris, 199–246. Ling, R. 1977: ‘Studius and the beginnings of Roman landscape painting’, Journal of Roman Studies 67, 1–16. Ling, R. 1991: Roman Painting, Cambridge. Littlewood, A. R. 1987: ‘Ancient literary evidence for pleasure gardens’, in E. B. MacDougall and W. F. Jashemski (eds), Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Washington DC, 7–30. Littlewood, A. R. 2018: ‘Greek literary evidence for Roman gardens’, in W. F. Jashemski, K. L. Gleason, K. J. Hartswick, and A.-A. Malek (eds), Gardens of the Roman Empire, Cambridge and New York, 245–57. ikos, ou “sale non Liverani, P. and Spinola, G. 2003: ‘Mosa€ique de l’asàrotos o balay
ee” ’, in P. Liverani and G. Spinola, Vatican: les mosa€iques antiques, Milan, 104–6. Lloyd, G. E. R. 1970: Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle, New York and London. Lorber, C. C. 2018: Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire. Part I: Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV, vol. 1: Precious Metal, New York. Lucci, L. M. 1964: ‘Il porfido nell’antichità’, Archeologia Classica 16, 226–71. Macalister, R. A. S. 1906: ‘Addenda’, in Peters and Thiersch 1905, London, 1–4. Macauley Lewis, E. 2015: Review of Coleman and Derron 2014, The Classical Review 65.2, 578–80. Macauley-Lewis, E. 2018: ‘The archaeology of gardens in the Roman villa’, in W. F. Jashemski, K. L. Gleason, K. J. Hartswick, and A.-A. Malek (eds), Gardens of the Roman Empire, Cambridge and New York, 87–120. MacDougall, E. B. and Jashemski, W. F. (eds) 1981: Ancient Roman Gardens, Washington DC. MacDougall, E. B. and Jashemski, W. F. (eds) 1987: Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, Washington DC. MacLeod, R. M. (ed.) 2000: The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, London. Maehler, H. 2004: ‘Alexandreia, the Mouseion and cultural identity’, in A. Hirst and M. S. Silk (eds), Alexandria, Real and Imagined, Aldershot, 1–14. Magness, J. 2012: The Archaeology of the Holy Land from the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Cambridge.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

328 b i b l i o g r a p h y Mairs, R. 2010: ‘Egyptian “inscriptions” and Greek “graffiti” at El Kanais (Egyptian eastern desert)’, in J. Baird and C. Taylor (eds), Ancient Graffiti in Context, London, 153–64. Maischberger, M. 2011: ‘Der Dionysos-Tempel auf der Theaterterrasse’, in R. Gr€ ußinger, V. K€astner, and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung: eine Ausstellung der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin and Petersberg, 242–7. Maischberger, M. 2014: ‘The theatre complex and the temple of Dionysos’, in F. Pirson and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: A Hellenistic Capital in Anatolia, Istanbul, 288–301. Malaise, M. 1997: Review of Meyboom 1995, L’Antiquit
e Classique 66, 515–18. Malgouyres, Ph. and Blanc-Riehl, C. 2003: Porphyre: la pierre pourpre des Ptol
e m
e es aux Bonaparte, Paris. Mansuelli, G. A. 1958: Sculture antiche degli Uffizi, Milan. Marcotte, D. 2001: ‘Structure et caractere de l’ouvre historique d’Agatharchide’, Historia 50.4, 385–435. Marcotte, D. 2010: ‘Le papyrus d’Art
emidore: le livre, le texte, le d
ebat’, Revue d’histoire des textes 5, 333–71. Marcotte, D. 2016: ‘The Indian Ocean from Agatharchides of Cnidus to the Periplus Maris Erythraei’, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography: The Inhabited World in the Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 163–83. Marcotte, D. 2017: ‘Les mines d’or des Ptol
em
ees: d’Agatharchide aux archives de Photios’, Journal des savants 1, 3–49. Marszal, J. R. 2000: ‘Ubiquitous barbarians: representations of the Gauls at Pergamon and elsewhere’, in N. T. de Grummond and B. S. Ridgway (eds), From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, Berkeley, 191–234. Martin, G. T. 2005: ‘The Egyptian temple in the mosaic of Palestrina’, in P. J
anosi (ed.), Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient Egyptian Architecture, Vienna, 415–31. Martin, R. S. 2017: ‘Craft identity: mosaics in the Hellenistic east’, in K. Seaman and P. Schultz (eds), Artists and Artistic Production in Ancient Greece, Cambridge, 55–80. Mart
inez, S. 2001: ʻA prop osit del tractat Sobre les aus de Call
imacʼ, Faventia 23.1, 51–69. ve, L. 2014: ‘The spatial organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek city in Martinez-Se Afghanistan’, American Journal of Archaeology 118, 267–83. ve, L. 2015: ‘Ai Khanoum and Greek domination in Central Asia’, Electrum Martinez-Se 22, 17–46. Marucchi, O. 1904: ‘Nuovi studi sul tempio della Fortuna in Preneste e sopra i suoi musaici’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 32, 233–83. Marucchi, O. 1907: ‘Il “lithostroton” di Silla riconosciuto nel tempio della Fortuna in Praeneste’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 35, 275–324. Marzano, A. 2013: Harvesting the Sea: The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean, Oxford. Marzano, A. 2014: ‘Roman gardens, military conquests, and elite self-representation’, in K. Coleman and P. Derron (eds), Le jardin dans l’antiquit
e : introduction et huit expos
e s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, 195–244.
glia, J. 2015: Body Language in Hellenistic Art and Society, Oxford. Masse

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

329

Mastroroberto, M. 1997: ‘La pittura di giardin o’, in P. R. Guzzo (ed.), Pompeii, picta fragmenta: decorazioni parietali dalle città sepolte, Turin, 61–2. Mastroroberto, M. 2003: ‘La casa del bracciale d’Oro (VI, 17 [Ins. Occ.], 42)’, in A. D’Ambrosio, P. G. Guzzo, and M. Mastroroberto (eds), Storie da un’eruzione: Pompei, Ercolano, Oplontis, Milan, 398–9. Mathews, T. F. and Muller, N. E. 2016: The Dawn of Christian Art in Panel Paintings and Icons, Los Angeles. Matini Morricone, M. L. 1963: ‘Precisazioni sui mosaici di Quaderna e di San Lorenzo in Panisperna a Roma’, Archeologia Classica 15, 233–8. Mavrojannis, T. 2002: ‘Italiens et Orientaux à Delos: consid
erations sur l’“absence” des negotiatores romains dans la M
editerran
ee orientale’, in C. Hasenohr and C. M€ uller (eds), Les Italiens dans le monde grec: IIe sie cle av. J.-C.–Ier sie cle ap. J.C.: circulation,
activit
e s, int
e gration: actes de la table ronde, Ecole Normale Sup
e rieure, Paris 14–16 mai 1998, Paris, 163–80. McKechnie, P. 2012: ‘Racing ahead to a globalized world: the Ptolemaic commonwealth and Posidippus’ Hippika’, in E. Kefallinos (ed.), Thinking Diversely: Hellenism and the Challenge of Globalisation, Sydney, 71–80. McKenzie, J. 1990: The Architecture of Petra, Oxford. McKenzie, J. 2007: The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt: c. 300 B.C. to A.D. 700, New Haven and London. McKenzie, J., Gibson, S., and Reyes, A. T. 2004: ‘Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the archaeological evidence’, Journal of Roman Studies 94, 73–121. McPhee, I. and Trendall, A. D. 1987: Greek Red-Figured Fish-Plates, Basel. Merrills, A. H. 2017: Roman Geographies of the Nile: From the Late Republic to the Early Empire, Cambridge. Merten, E. W. 1991: ‘Venationes in der Historia Augusta’, Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 21, 139–78. Messineo, G. (ed.) 2001: Ad gallinas albas: Villa di Livia, Rome. Meyboom, P. G. P. 1977: ‘I mosaici pompeiani con figure di pesci’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 39 n.s. 4, 49–93. Meyboom, P. G. P. 1995: The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina: Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy, Leiden. Meyboom, P. G. P. 2011: ‘A tour along ancient scenes with Aithiopian animals: the Marisa frieze, the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, the Artemidorus Papyrus and the great hunt mosaic of Piazza Armerina’, in G. F. La Torre and M. Torelli (eds), Pittura ellenistica in Italia e in Sicilia: linguaggi e tradizioni: atti del convegno di studi (Messina, 24–25 settembre 2009), Rome, 91–103. Meyboom, P. G. P. and Brouwer, H. 2005: ‘Il gatto ladro a Leida’, in J. de Waele, S. T. A. M. Mols, and E. M. Moormann (eds), Omni pede stare: saggi architettonici e circumvesuviani in memoriam Jos de Waele, Naples, 228–42. Meyboom, P. G. P. and Versluys, M. J. 2007: ‘The meaning of dwarfs in Nilotic scenes’, in M. J. Versluys, L. Bricault, and P. G. P. Meyboom (eds), Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World: Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden, May 11–14, 2005, Leiden and Boston, 170–208.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

330

bibliography

Meyer, D. 2001: ‘Apollonius as a Hellenistic geographer’, in T. D. Papanghelis and A. Rengakos (eds), A Companion to Apollonius Rhodius, Leiden and Boston, 217–35. Meyer, H. 1977: ‘Zu neueren Deutungen von Asarotos Oikos und kapitolinisches Taubenmosaik’, Arch€ a ologischer Anzeiger, 104–10. Michel, D. 1980: ‘Pompejanische Gartenmalereien’, in H. A. Cahn and E. Simon (eds), Tainia. Roland Hampe zum 70. Geburtstag am 2. Dezember 1978 dargebracht von Mitarbeitern, Sch€ u lern und Freunden, Mainz am Rhein, 373–404. Micunco, S. 2008a: ‘Le figure di animali sul verso del papiro di Artemidoro’, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro, Bari, 180–206. Micunco, S. 2008b: ‘Il verso del papiro e la damnatio di Artemidoro’, Quaderni di Storia 68, 241–58. Mielsch, H. 1986: ‘Hellenistische Tieranekdoten in der r€ omischen Kunst’, Archa€ ologischer Anzeiger, 747–63. Mielsch, H. 1995: ‘Die Bibliothek und die Kunstsammlung der K€ onige von Pergamon’, Arch€ a ologischer Anzeiger, 765–79. Mielsch, H. 2005: Griechische Tiergeschichten in der antiken Kunst, Mainz am Rhein. Mielsch, H. 2008: ‘Kopien in Mosaiken und Wandmalereien’, in K. Junker (ed.), Original und Kopie: Formen und Konzepte der Nachahmungen in der antiken Kunst. Akten des Kolloquiums in Berlin, 17.–19. Februar 2005, Wiesbaden, 177–83. Mielsch, H. 2009: Review of Jacobson 2007, Bonner Jahrb€ u cher 209, 365–8. Miller, S. G. 2014: ‘Hellenistic painting in the eastern Mediterranean, mid fourth to mid first century B.C.’, in J. J. Pollitt (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting in the Classical World, New York, 170–237. Mingazzini, P. 1954: ‘Note di topografia prenestina: l’ubicazione dell’antro delle sorti’, Archeologia Classica 6, 295–301 [reprinted in F. Coarelli (ed.) 1978: Studi su Praeneste, Perugia, 211–20]. Mitchell, S. 2003: ‘The Galatians: representation and reality’, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 280–93. Moffitt, J. F. 1997: ‘The Palestrina mosaic with a “Nile scene”: Philostratus and ekphrasis; Ptolemy and chorographia’, Zeitschrift f€ u r Kunstgeschichte 60.2, 227–47. Mols, S. T. A. M. and Moormann, E. M. 2008: La Villa della Farnesina: le pitture, Milan. Montana, F. 2014: ‘Hellenistic scholarship’, in F. Montanari (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, vol. 1, Leiden and Boston, 60–183. Montanari, F. 2000: ‘Demetrius of Phalerum on literature’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Sch€ utrumpf (eds), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 391–411. Moormann, E. M. 1995: ‘Giardini ed altre pitture nella Casa del frutteto e nella Casa del bracciale d’oro a Pompei’, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Historisch Instituut te Rome 54, 214–28. Moormann, E. M. 2000: ‘La bellezza dell’immondezza: raffigurazioni di rifiuti nell’arte ellenistica e romana’, in X. D. Ravent
os and J.-A. Remolà (eds), Sordes Urbis: la eliminaci
on de residuos en la ciudad romana, Rome. Morgan, T. 1998: Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

331


, C. 2000: ‘Demetrius of Phaleron: a philosopher in power?’, in C. Jacob, F. de Mosse Polignac, and C. Clement (eds), Alexandria, Third Century BC: The Knowledge of the World in a Single City, Alexandria, 74–82. € ller, H. 1989: ‘Ein neues hellenistisches Weihepigramm aus Pergamon’, Chiron 19, Mu 499–553. Mulliez, M. 2015: Le luxe de l’imitation: les trompe-l’oeil de la fin de la R
e publique romaine, m
e moire des artisans de la couleur, Naples. Murphy, T. 2004: Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in Encyclopaedia, Oxford. Murray, J. 2012: ‘Burned after reading: the so-called list of Alexandrian librarians in P. Oxy. X 1241’, Aitia 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/aitia.544 (last accessed 1 March 2021). Murray, O. 1987: ‘The Letter of Aristeas’, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi ellenistici II, Pisa, 15–29. Murray, O. 2007: ‘Philosophy and monarchy in the Hellenistic world’, in T. Rajak, S. Pearce, J. Aitken, and J. Dines (eds), Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Berkeley and London, 13–28. Musso, O. 1976: ‘Sulla struttura del cod. Pal. Gr. 398 e deduzioni storico-letterarie’, Prometheus 2, 1–10. Musso, O. 1985: [Antigonus Carystius]: Rerum mirabilium collectio, Naples. Myers, K. S. 2018: ‘Representations of gardens in Roman literature’, in W. F. Jashemski, K. L. Gleason, K. J. Hartswick, and A.-A. Malek (eds), Gardens of the Roman Empire, Cambridge and New York, 258–77. Mynott, J. 2018: Birds in the Ancient World: Winged Words, Oxford. Nagy, G. 1998: ‘The library of Pergamon as a classical model’, in H. Koester (ed.), Pergamon, Citadel of the Gods: Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development, Harrisburg, 185–232. Neal, D. S. and Cosh, S. R. 2002: Roman Mosaics of Britain, vol. 1: Northern Britain, London. Neer, R. T. 2003: ‘Framing the gift: the Siphnian treasury at Delphi and the politics of architectural sculpture’, in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds), The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, Cambridge, 129–52. Nelson, T. J. 2020: ‘Attalid aesthetics: the Pergamene “baroque” reconsidered’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 140, 176–98. Netz, R. 2008: Ludic Proof: Greek Mathematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic, Cambridge. Netzer, E. 2001: Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, vol. 1: Stratigraphy and Architecture, Jerusalem. Neudecker, R. 1988: Die Skulpturenausstattung r€omischer Villen in Italien, Mainz am Rhein. Neugebauer, O. 1975: A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 vols., Berlin. Newby, Z. 2007: ‘Reading the Archelaos relief ’, in Z. Newby and R. Leader-Newby (eds), Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 156–78. Nichols, A. 2011: Ctesias on India and Fragments from His Minor Works, London.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

332

bibliography

Nielsen, I. 1999: Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal, 2nd edition, Aarhus. Nielsen, I. 2001: ‘The gardens of Hellenistic palaces’, in I. Nielsen (ed.), The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium BC: Regional Development and Cultural Interchange Between East and West, Athens, 165–87. Nisbet, G. 2009: ‘P. Artemid.: the sequence of the fragments’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 19–22. Nisetich, F. J. 2001: The Poems of Callimachus, Oxford. Nisetich, F. J. 2005: ‘The poems of Posidippus’, in K. J. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, New York and Oxford, 17–64. Nogara, A. 1910: I mosaici antichi conservati nel palazzi pontifici del Vaticano e del Laterano, Milan.
Nowicka, M. 1969: La maison priv
e e dans l’Egypte ptol
e ma€ique, Wrocław. Obbink, D. 2009: ‘P. Artemid.: the artefact’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 11–17. O’Connor, D. 1993: Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Philadelphia. Olson, S. D. 2008: Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, vol. 4, Cambridge. O’Neil, J. L. 2008: ‘A re-examination of the Chremonidean War’, in P. McKechnie and Ph. Guillaume (eds), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Leiden and Boston, 65–89. Oren, E. D. and Rappaport, U. 1984: ‘The necropolis of Maresha-Beth Govrin’, Israel Exploration Journal 34, 114–53. € Ostenberg, I. 2009: Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Procession, Oxford. Overduin, F. 2015: Nicander of Colophon’s Theriaca: A Literary Commentary, Leiden. € ber Gestalt und Entwicklung der Pagenstecher, R. 1919: Nekropolis: Untersuchungen u alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer Malereien, Leipzig.
n Leyra, I. 2009: ‘˛ιίας in the Artemidorus Papyrus’, Zeitschrift f€ Pajo u r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 170, 64.
n Leyra, I. 2010: ‘La didascalia general del animalario del verso del papiro de Pajo Artemidoro: una nueva interpretaci
on’, Em
e rita 78.1, 132–5.
n Leyra, I. 2011: Entre ciencia y maravilla: el g
e nero literario de la paradoxografia Pajo griega, Zaragoza.
n Leyra, I. 2012: ‘Artemidorus behind Artemidorus: geographic aspects in the Pajo zoological designs of the Artemidorus Papyrus’, Historia 61.3, 336–57.
n Leyra, I. 2013: Review of Gallazzi, Kramer and Settis 2012, Bryn Mawr Classical Pajo Review 2013.09.15.
n Leyra, I. 2014: ‘Vicisitudes de un ge
Pajo ografo: el papiro de Artemidoro y la discusi
on acerca de su autenticidad’, in I. Vel
azquez and J. Mart
inez (eds), Realidad, ficci
on y autenticidad en el Mundo Antiguo: la investigaci
on ante documentos sospechosos. Antig€ u edad y Cristianismo XXIX, 2012, Murcia, 353–70.
n Leyra, I. 2016: ‘Paradossografia visiva sul Papiro di Artemidoro’, in G. Adornato Pajo (ed.), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III: i disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan, 77–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

333

Palagia, O. 1998: ‘Alexander the Great as lion hunter: the fresco of Vergina Tomb II and the marble frieze of Messene in the Louvre’, Minerva 9, 25–8. Palagia, O. 2000: ‘Hephaestion’s pyre and the royal hunt of Alexander’, in A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford, 167–206. Palombi, A. 1950: ‘La fauna marina nei mosaici e nei dipinti Pompeiani’, in A. Maiuri (ed.), Pompeiana: raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi di Pompei, Naples, 425–55. Panayides, A. M. 1994: ‘Überlegungen zum Nilmosaik von Praeneste’, Hefte des Archa€ ologischen Seminars der Universit€ a t Bern 15, 31–47. Panichi, S. 2013: ‘Dall’India all’Iberia: Artemidoro di Efeso misura l’ecumene (frr. 1 e 125 Stiehle)’, in K. Geus and M. Rathmann (eds), Vermessung der Oikumene, Berlin and Boston, 101–6. Papini, M. 2016: ‘Commemorations of victory: Attalid monuments to the defeat of the Galatians’, in C. A. Pic
on and S. Hemingway (eds), Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the Ancient World, New Haven, 40–3. Pappalardo, U. and Ciardiello, R. 2012: Greek and Roman Mosaics, New York. Parrish, D. C. 2005: ‘The art-historical context of the Great Palace mosaic at Constantinople’, in H. Morlier (ed.), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romaine IX: actes du IXe colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique et m
e di
e vale, Rome, 5–10 novembre 2001, vol. 2, Rome, 1103–17. Parlasca, K. 1963: ‘Das pergamenische Taubenmosaik und der sogenannte NestorBecher’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts 78, 256–93. Parlasca, K. 1975: ‘Hellenistische und r€ omische Mosaiken aus Ägypten’, in M. Glay (ed.), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romaine II: IIe colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique Vienne, 30 août–4 septembre 1971, Paris, 363–9. Parlasca, K. 1977: Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-romano. Serie B: ritratti di mummie, vol. 2, Palermo. Parlasca, K. 1994: ‘Zur Problematik des Nilmosaiks von Palestrina’, in P. Johnson, R. Ling, and D. J. Smith (eds), Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics Held at Bath, England, on September 5–12, 1987, vol. 1, Ann Arbor, 41–4. Parsons, P. 2009a: ‘The Artemidorus Papyrus in Graeco-Egyptian context’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro I: contesto culturale, lingua, stile e tradizione, Milan, 19–28. Parsons, P. 2009b: ‘P. Artemid.: a papyrologist’s view’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 27–33. Pasinli, A. 1996: Istanbul Archaeological Museum, Istanbul. Pellegrin, P. 1986: Aristotle’s Classification of Animals: Biology and the Conceptual Unity of the Aristotelian Corpus, Berkeley. Pepper, T. W. 2010: ‘A patron and a companion: two animal epitaphs for Zenon of Caunos (P.Cair.Zen. IV 59532 = SH 977)’, in T. Gagos and A. Hyatt (eds), Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4 2007, Ann Arbor, 605–33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

334

bibliography

Pernice, E. 1938: Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji, vol. 6: Pavimente und fig€ urliche Mosaiken, Berlin. Perpignani, P. and Fiori, C. 2012: Il mosaico ‘non spazzato’: studio e restauro dell’asaroton di Aquileia, Ravenna. Pesando, F. 1996: ‘Autocelebrazione aristocratica e propaganda politica in ambiente privato: la casa del Fauno a Pompei’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 7, 189–228. Peters, J. P. and Thiersch, H. 1905: Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Marêsha), London. re, Y. 2003: La pêche et les poissons dans la litt
e rature latine, Brussels. Peurie Pfeiffer, R. 1949: Callimachus, vol. 1: Fragmenta, Oxford. Pfeiffer, R. 1953: Callimachus, vol. 2: Hymni et epigrammata, Oxford. Pfeiffer, R. 1968: History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age, Oxford. Pfeiffer, S. 2008: ‘The god Serapis, his cult and the beginnings of ruler cult in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in P. McKechnie and Ph. Guillame (eds), Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, Leiden and Boston, 387–408. Pfister, F. 1961: ‘Das Alexander-Archiv und die hellenistische-r€ omische Wissenschaft’, Historia 10, 30–67. Pfrommer, M. 1998: Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Komposition des Alexandermosaiks auf antiquarischer Grundlage, Mainz am Rhein. Pfuhl, E. 1923: Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, 2 vols., Munich. € bius, H. 1977–9: Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs, 2 vols., Mainz am Pfuhl, E. and Mo Rhein. Phillips, K. M. 1962: The Barberini Mosaic: sunt hominum animaliumque complures imagines, PhD Diss., Princeton.
n, C. A. and De Puma, R. D. (eds) 2007: Art of the Classical World in the Pico Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome, New Haven.
n, C. A. and Hemingway, S. A. (eds) 2016: Pergamon and the Hellenistic Kingdoms Pico of the Ancient World, New Haven. Pinci, A. 2001: L’Antro delle Sorti e il mosaico dei pesci di Palestrina, Palestrina. Pinkwart, D. 1965: Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene und die ‘Musen des Philiskos’, Kallm€ unz. Pinkwart, D. 1984: ‘Die Einzelfunde’, in D. Pinwart and W. Stammnitz, Altert€ u mer von Pergamon XIV: Peristylh€ a user westlich der unteren Agora, Berlin, 78–168. Pinto, P. M. 2013: ‘Men and books in fourth-century BC Athens’, in J. K€ onig, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf (eds), Ancient Libraries, Cambridge, 85–95. Pinto-Guillaume, E. M. 2000: ‘Mollusks from the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta (Rome): Swedish Garden Archaeological Project, 1996–1999’, American Journal of Archaeology 1061, 37–58. Pittaccio, S. 2001: Il foro intramuraneo a Preneste: origini e trasformazioni, Rome. Pollitt, J. J. 1986: Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge. Pollitt, J. J. 2014: ‘Painting in Greek and Graeco-Roman art criticism’, in J. J. Pollitt (ed.), The Cambridge History of Painting in the Classical World, New York, 288–301.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

335

Pomey, P. 2015: ‘La batellerie nilotique gr
eco-romaine d’apres la mosa€ique de Palestrina’, in P. Pomey (ed.), La Batellerie
e gyptienne: arch
e ologie, histoire, ethnographie, Alexandria, 151–72. Popa, T. 2016: ‘Zoology’, in G. L. Irby-Massie (ed.), A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, Chichester, 281–95. Prescott, H. W. 1921: ‘Callimachus’ epigram on the nautilus’, Classical Philology 16.4, 327–37. Primo, A. 2009: La storiografia sui Seleucidi: da Megastene a Eusebio di Cesarea, Pisa.
and Trinquier, J. 2015: ‘L’autruche d’Arsino
e et le lion de B
er
enice: des Prioux, E. usages de la faune dans la repr
esentation des premieres reines lagides’, in P. Linant de
Prioux, and A. Rouveret (eds), D’Alexandre à Auguste: dynamiques de la Bellefonds, E. cr
e ation dans les arts visuels et la po
e sie, Rennes, 31–56. Prontera, F. 2012: ‘Carta e testo nel Papiro di Artemidoro’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II: geografia e cartografia, Milan, 175–84. Purcell, N. 1995: ‘Eating fish: the paradoxes of seafood’, in J. Wilkins (ed.), Food in Antiquity, Exeter, 132–49. Qedar, Sh., 1992–3: ‘The coins of Marisa: a new mint’, Israel Numismatic Journal 12, 27–33. Queyrel, F. 1991: ‘Le d
ecor sculpt
e’, in E. Will and F. Larch
e, ‘Iraq al Amir: le château du Tobiade Hyrcan, Paris, 209–51. Queyrel, F. 2005: L’autel de Pergame: images et pouvoir en Gre ce d’Asie, Paris. Queyrel, F. 2012: ‘Le chien au conge d’Alexandrie’, Etudes et Travaux 25, 320–37. Radt, W. 1998: ‘Recent survey in and about Pergamon: a survey (ca. 1987–1997)’, in H. Koester (ed.), Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, Harrisburg, 1–40. Radt, W. 2011: Pergamon: Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole, Darmstadt. Raeder, J. 1983: Die statuarische Ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei Tivoli, Frankfurt am Main. Rajak, T. 2009: Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora, Oxford. Rathbone, D. 2012: Review of Brodersen and Elsner 2009, Canfora 2009a, and Canfora 2009b, Classical Review 62.2, 442–8. Rauh, N. K. 1992: ‘Was the Agora of the Italians an
e tablissement du sport?’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hell
e nique 116, 293–333. Rauh, N. K. 1993: The Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at Hellenistic Roman Delos, 166–87 BC, Amsterdam. Redon, B. 2018: ‘The control of the eastern desert by the Ptolemies: new archaeological data’, in J.-P.Brun, T. Faucher, B. Redon, and S. Sidebotham (eds), The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports, Paris, 1–21. Redon B. and Faucher, Th. 2015: ‘Gold mining in early Ptolemaic Egypt’, Egyptian Archaeology 46, 17–19. Redon B. and Faucher, Th. 2016: ‘Samut North: “heavy mineral processing plants” are mills!’, Egyptian Archaeology 48, 7–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

336 b i b l i o g r a p h y
Redon B. and Faucher, Th. 2017: ‘Forts et mines d’or du d
esert Oriental d’Egypte: d
ecouvertes r
ecentes dans le district de Samut’, Revue Arch
e ologique 63, 101–9. Reeder, J. C. 2001: The Villa of Livia Ad Gallinas Albas: A Study in the Augustan Villa and Garden, Providence. Reese, D. S. 2002a: ‘Fish: evidence from specimens, mosaics, wall paintings and Roman authors’, in W. F. Jashemski and F. G. Meyer (eds), The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge, 274–91. Reese, D. S. 2002b: ‘Marine invertebrates, freshwater shells, and land snails: evidence from specimens, mosaics, wall paintings and Roman authors’, in W. F. Jashemski and F. G. Meyer (eds), The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge, 292–314. Renard, M. 1956: ‘Pline l’Ancien et le motif de l’asarôtos oikos’, in Hommages à Max Niedermann, Brussels, 307–14. Rhomiopoulou, K. 2000: Lefkadia: Ancient Mieza, Athens. Rice, E. E. 1983: The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford. Rico, C. and Dan, A. (eds) 2017: The Library of Alexandria: A Cultural Crossroads of the Ancient World: Proceedings of the Second Polis Institute Interdisciplinary Conference, Jerusalem. Riemann, H. 1986: ‘Zum Forumstempel und zum unteren Heiligtum der Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts, R€omische Abteilung 93, 357–404. Rihll, T. E. 2010: ‘Science and technology: Alexandrian’, in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, vol. 1, Chichester, 409–24. Ritter, H. W. 1975: ‘Zum Schild auf den M€ unzen des Philadelphos’, Schweizer M€ unzbl€ a tter 97, 2–3. Roberts, P. 2013: Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum, London. Robertson, M. 1965: ‘Greek mosaics’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 85, 72–89. Robertson, M. 1975: A History of Greek Art, London. Rodziewicz, M. D. 2009: ‘Ancient baths in Alexandria’, in M.-F. Boussac, Th. Fournet,
and B. Redon (eds), Le bain collectif en Egypte, Cairo, 191–201. Roger, J. 1939: ‘Le monument au lion d’Amphipolis’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hell
e nique 63, 4–42. Roller, D. W. 2003: The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome’s African Frontier, New York. Roller, D. W. 2010: Eratosthenes’ Geography, Princeton. Roller, D. W. 2015: Ancient Geography: The Discovery of the World in Classical Greece and Rome, London. Roller, D. W. 2016: ‘Geography’, in G. L. Irby-Massie (ed.), A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, Chichester, 247–62. Roller, D. W. 2018: ‘Hellenistic geography from Ephorus through Strabo’, in P. T. Keyser and J. Scarborough (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World, New York, 315–36. Romizzi, L. 2001: Ville d’otium dell’Italia antica (II sec. a.C.–I sec. d.C.), Naples. Romm, J. S. 1989: ‘Aristotle’s elephant and the myth of Alexander’s scientific patronage’, American Journal of Philology 110.4, 566–75.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

337

Ronczewski, K. 1927: ‘Les chapiteaux corinthiens et varies du Mus
ee gr
eco-romain d’Alexandrie’, Acta Universitatis Latviensis 16, 3–32. Rossini, O. 2007: Ara Pacis, Milan. Rostovzteff, M. I. 1922: A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C.: A Study in Economic History, Madison. Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1941: The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford. Rouveret, A. 2004: ‘Pictos ediscere mundos: perception et imaginaire du paysage dans la peinture hell
enistique et romaine’, Ktema 29, 325–44. Rozenberg, S. 2001: ‘Hellenistic funerary painting in Israel’, in A. Barbet (ed.), La peinture fun
e raire antique: IVe sie cle av. J.-C.–IVe sie cle ap. J.-C.: actes du VIIe colloque de l’Association internationale pour la peinture murale antique (AIPMA), 6–10 octobre 1998, Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Vienne, Paris, 313–19. Rumpf, A. 1962: ‘Zum Alexandermosaik’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 77, 229–41. Russell, B. 2013: The Economics of the Roman Stone Trade, Oxford. Sa€id, D. 1994: ‘Deux mosa€iques hell
enistiques r
ecemment d
ecouvertes a Alexandrie’, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’arch
e ologie orientale 94, 377–80. Sa€id, D. and Abdel Fattah, A. 1997: ‘D
ecouvertes arch
eologiques dans le quartier royal
ptol
ema€ique de l’Ancienne Alexandrie’, Egypte, Afrique & Orient 6, 19–22. Salari, L. 2012: ‘Mosaico nilotico di Palestrina: nuovi dati sulle raffigurazioni zoomorfe’, in G. Ghini and Z. Mari (eds), Lazio e Sabina 8, Rome, 349–57. Salvadori, M. 2017: Horti picti: forma e significato del giardino dipinto nella pittura romana, Padova. Salzmann, D. 1980: ‘Überlegungen zum Schild auf den M€ unzen des Ptolemaios Philadelphos und verwandten Denkm€alern’, Schweizer M€ unzbl€ a tter 118, 33–9. Salzmann, D. 1991: ‘Mosaiken und Pavimente in Pergamon: Vorbericht der Kampagnen 1989’, Arch€ a ologischer Anzeiger, 433–56. Salzmann, D. 1995: ‘Zu den Mosaiken in den Pal€asten IV und V von Pergamon’, in Studien zum antiken Kleinasien III, Bonn, 101–12. Salzmann, D. 2001: ‘Hephaistion [I]’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), K€ unstlerlexikon der Antike, vol. 1, Munich, 293. Salzmann, D. 2011: ‘Hellenistische und fr€ uhkaiserzeitliche Mosaiken und Pavimente in Pergamon’, in R. Gr€ ußinger, V. K€astner, and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung: eine Ausstellung der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin and Petersberg, 101–7. Sampaolo, V. 1986: ‘I mosaici, le pitture’, in M. R. Borriello, M. Lista, U. Pappalardo, V. Sampaolo, and C. Ziviello, Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, vol. 1: I mosaici, le pitture, gli oggetti di uso quotidiano, gli argenti, le terrecotte invetriate, i vetri, i cristalli, gli avori, Rome, 28–37, 116–23. Sampaolo, V. 1992: ‘La decorazione pittorica’, in S. De Caro (ed.), Alla ricerca di Iside: analisi, studi e restauri dell’Iseo pompeiano nel Museo di Napoli, Rome, 23–62. Sanzi di Mino, M. R., Bragantini, I., and Dolciotti, A. M. 1998: La Villa della Farnesina in Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Milan.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

338

bibliography

Sauron, G. 2007: La peinture all
e gorique à Pomp
e i: le regard de Cic
e ron, Paris. Sbordone, F. 1991: Physiologus, New York. Scarborough, J. 1976: ‘Celsus on human vivisection at Ptolemaic Alexandria’, Clio Medica 11, 25–38. Schazmann, P. 1923: Altert€ u mer von Pergamon VI: Das Gymnasion, der Tempelbezirk der Hera Basileia, Berlin. Schefold, K. 1962: Vergessenes Pompeji: unver€offentlichte Bilder r€omischer Wanddekorationen in geschichtlicher Folge, Bern. Scheibler, I. 1994: Griechische Malerei der Antike, Munich. Schepens, G. and Delcroix, K. 1996: ‘Ancient paradoxography: origin, evolution, production and reception’, in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (eds), La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino: atti del convegno internazionale: Cassino, 15–17 settembre 1994, Cassino, 375–452. Schiano, C. 2010a: Artemidoro di Efeso e la scienza del suo tempo, Bari. Schiano, C. 2010b: Review of Brodersen and Elsner 2009 and Gallazzi, Kramer, and Settis 2009, Museum Helveticum 67.4, 240–1. Schironi, F. 2011: ‘Zenodotus of Ephesus’, in M. Finkelberg (ed.), The Homer Encyclopedia, vol. 3, Oxford, 950–1. Schironi, F. 2018: ‘Enlightened kings or pragmatic rulers? Ptolemaic patronage of scholarship and sciences in context’, in P. Bosman (ed.), Intellectual and Empire in Greco-Roman Antiquity, London, 1–29. Schmidt-Colinet, A. 2009: ‘ “Musterb€ ucher” statt “Meisterforschung”: zum Verst€andnis antiker Werkstattstrukturen und Produktionsprozesse’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 22, 787–92. Schmidt-Colinet, A. 2016: ‘The reconstruction and distribution of pattern books in the Roman empire: some archaeological evidence from Palmyra’, in G. Adornato (ed.), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III: i disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan, 129–46. Schmitt Pantel, P. 2015: ‘Dining in ancient Greece’, in J. Wilkins and R. Nadeau (eds), A Companion to Food in the Ancient World, Chichester, 224–33. Schneider, P. 2004: L’Ethiopie et l’Inde: interf
e rences et confusions aux extr
e mit
e s du monde antique, Rome. Schneider, P. 2012: ‘Les rois hell
enistiques et la transplantation des plantes à aromates: h
eritage proche-oriental et sp
ecificit
e hellene’, Phoenix 66.3/4, 272–97. Schneider, P. 2016: ‘The so-called confusion between India and Ethiopia: the eastern and southern edges of the inhabited world from the Greco-Roman perspective’, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella, and H.-J. Gehrke (eds), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography: The Inhabited World in the Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden, 184–202. Schrijvers, P. H. 2007: ‘A literary view on the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste’, in M. Bricault, M. J. Versluys, and P. G. P. Meyboom (eds), Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World: Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden, May 11–14, 2005, Leiden, 223–39. Scullard, H. H. 1974: The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, London.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

339

Seaman, K. 2016: ‘Pergamon and Pergamene influence’, in M. M. Miles (ed.), A Companion to Greek Architecture, Chichester, 650–77. Seaman, K. 2020: Rhetoric and Innovation in Hellenistic Art, Cambridge. Settis, S. 2002: La pareti ingannevoli: la villa di Livia e la pittura di giardino, Milan. Settis, S. 2008: Artemidoro: un papiro dal I secolo al XXI, Turin. Sharples, R. W. 1994: Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Commentary, vol. 5: Sources on Biology (Human Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany: Texts 328–435), Leiden. Sharples, R. W. 2011: ‘Strato of Lampascus: the sources, texts and translations’, in M.-L. Desclos and W. W. Fortenbaugh (eds), Strato of Lampascus: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 5–229. Shipley, G. 2000: The Greek World after Alexander, 323–30 BC, London. Sidebotham, S. E. 2011: Berenike and the Ancient Maritime Spice Route, Berkeley. Siebert, G. 1999: ‘Sur la mosa€ique nilotique de Pr
eneste: problemes d’iconographie, de chronologie et de style’, Ktema 24, 251–8. Simon, E. 1968: Ara Pacis Augustae, T€ ubingen. Slater, W. J. 1986: Aristophanis Byzantii fragmenta, Berlin. Smith, D. E. 2003: From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World, Minneapolis. Smith, R. R. R. 1988: Hellenistic Royal Portraits, Oxford. Smith, R. R. R. 1991: Hellenistic Sculpture: A Handbook, London. Smith, R. R. R. 1994: ‘Spear-won land at Boscoreale: on the royal paintings of a Roman villa’, Journal of Roman Studies 7, 100–27. Smith, R. R. R. 2010: ‘A Fayum teacher’s manual, Alexandrian pavilion architecture, and Augustan wallpainting’, in B. Wescoat and O. Palagia (eds), Samothracian Connections: Essays in Honor of James R. McCredie, Oxford, 211–21. Solin, H. 1982: ‘Appunti sull’onomastica romana a Delo’, in F. Coarelli, D. Musti, and H. Solin (eds), Delo e l’Italia, Rome, 101–17. Sollenberger, M. J. 2000: ‘Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Demetrius of Phalaerum’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Sch€ utrumpf (eds), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 311–29. Sonne, W. 1996: ‘Hellenistische Herrschaftsg€arten’, in W. Hoepfner and G. Brands (eds), Basileia: die Pal€ a ste der hellenistischen K€onige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992 bis 20.12.1992, Mainz am Rhein, 136–43. Spyridakis, S. 1969: ‘The Itanian cult of Tyche Protogeneia’, Historia: Zeitschrift f€ ur Alte Geschichte 18, 42–8. Squire, M. 2011: The Iliad in a Nutshell: Visualizing Epic on the Tabulae Iliacae, Oxford. Squire, M. 2013: ‘Embodied ambiguities on the Prima Porta Augustus’, Art History 36.2, 242–79. Stamatopoulou, M. 2008: ‘Ouaphres Horou, an Egyptian priest of Isis from Demetrias’, in D. C. Kurtz, C. Meyer, D. Saunders, A. Tsingarida, and N. Harris (eds), Essays in Classical Archaeology for Eleni Hatzivassiliou 1977–2007, Oxford, 249–57. Stamatopoulou, M. 2018: ‘Demetrias: the archaeology of a cosmopolitan Macedonian harbour’, in M. Kalaitzi, P. Paschidis, C. Antonetti, and A. M. Guimier-Sorbets (eds),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

340

bibliography

Βορειοελλαdικ
: Tales from the Lands of the Ethne: Essays in Honour of Miltiades
B. Hatzopoulos/Histoires du monde des ethn
e . Etudes en l’honneur de Miltiade B. Hatzopoulos, Athens, 343–76. Starin, E. D. and Burghardt, G. M. 1992: ‘African rock pythons (Python stebae) in the Gambia: observations on natural history and interactions with humans’, The Snake 24, 50–62. Stauffer, A. 1996: ‘Cartoons for weavers from Graeco-Roman Egypt’, in D. M. Bailey (ed.), Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt: The Proceedings of the Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum Held on 1–4 December 1993, Ann Arbor, 223–30. Stauffer A. 2008: Antike Musterbl€ a tter: Wirkkartons aus dem sp€ a tantiken und fr€ u hbyzantinischen Ägypten, Wiesbaden. Stauffer, A. 2016: ‘Zum Gebrauch von Musterbl€attern in der antiken Textilherstellung’, in G. Adornato (ed.), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III: i disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan, 147–64. Stefani, G. and Borgongino, M. 2006: ‘Il giardino dipinto della casa del bracciale d’oro a Pompei’, in T. Budetta (ed.), Il giardino: realtà e immaginario nell’arte antica, Naples, 71–83. € ber, S. 1986: Etruscan Painting: Catalogue Raisonn
e of Etruscan Wall PaintSteingra ings, New York. Steinmeyer Schareika, A. 1978: Das Nilmosaik von Palestrina und eine ptolem€ a ische Expedition nach Äthiopien, Bonn. Stephens, S. A. 2010: ‘Ptolemaic Alexandria’, in J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers (eds), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Chichester, 46–61. Stephens, S. A. 2015: Callimachus: The Hymns, Oxford. Stewart, A. 2000: ‘Pergamo ara marmorea magna: on the date, reconstruction, and functions of the Great Altar of Pergamon’, in N. T. de Grummond and B. S. Ridgway (eds), From Pergamon to Sperlonga: Sculpture and Context, Berkeley, 32–57. Stewart, A. 2014: Art in the Hellenistic World: An Introduction, Cambridge. Stewart, A. and Martin, S. R. 2003: ‘Hellenistic discoveries at Tel Dor, Israel’, Hesperia 72.2, 121–45. Stiehle, R. 1856: ‘Der Geograph von Artemidoros von Ephesos’, Philologus 11, 193–244. Stok, F. 2018: ‘Medical sects: Herophilus, Erasistratus, Empiricists’, in P. T. Keyser and J. Scarborough (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World, New York, 359–80. Stork, P., van Ophuijsen, J. M., and Dorandi, T. 2000: ‘Demetrius of Phalerum: the sources, text and translation’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and R. W. Sharples (eds), Theophrastean Studies on Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick, 1–310. Strassi, S. 2009: ‘Osservazioni paleografiche a proposito del papiro di Artemidoro (P.Artemid. MP3 168.02)’, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro: Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009, Rovereto, 15–33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

341

Strootman, R. 2010: ‘Literature and the kings’, in J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers (eds), A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, Chichester, 30–45. Strootman, R. 2014a: ‘Hellenistic imperialism and the idea of world unity’, in C. Rapp and H. Drake (eds), The City in the Classical and Post-Classical World: Changing Contexts of Power and Identity, Cambridge, 38–61. Strootman, R. 2014b: ‘ “Men to whose rapacity neither sea nor mountain sets a limit”: the aims of the Diadochs’, in H. Hauben and A. Meeus (eds), The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms (323–276 B.C.), Leuven, 307–22. Strootman, R. 2014c: ‘The dawning of a golden age: images of peace and abundance in Alexandrian court poetry in the context of Ptolemaic imperial ideology’, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker (eds), Hellenistic Poetry in Context, Leuven, 325–41. Strootman, R. 2014d: Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The Near East after the Achaemenids, c. 330 to 30 BCE, Edinburgh. Strootman, R. 2017: The Birdcage of the Muses: Patronage of the Arts and Sciences at the Ptolemaic Imperial Court, 305–222 BCE, Leuven. Swetnam-Burland, M. 2015: Egypt in Italy: Visions of Egypt in Roman Imperial Culture, New York. Tal, O. 2003: ‘On the origin and concept of the loculi tombs of Hellenistic Palestine’, Ancient West & East 2.2, 288–307. Talbert, R. 2009: ‘P. Artemid.: the map’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 57–64. Talbert, R. 2012: ‘The unfinished state of the map: what is missing, and why?’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer, and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II: geografia e cartografia, Milan, 185–96. Tammisto, A. 1997: Birds in Mosaics: A Study on the Representation of Birds in Hellenistic and Romano-Campanian Tessellated Mosaics to the Early Augustan Age, Rome. Tammisto, A. 2005: ‘The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina reconsidered: the problematic reconstruction, identification and dating of the so-called Lower Complex with the Nile Mosaic and Fish Mosaic of ancient Praeneste’, in H. Morlier (ed.), La mosa€ique gr
e coromaine IX: actes du IXe colloque international pour l’
e tude de la mosa€ique antique et m
e di
e vale, Rome, 5–10 novembre 2001, vol. 1, Rome, 3–24. Tanner, J. 2006: The Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece: Religion, Society and Artistic Rationalisation, Cambridge. Tarditi, C. 1990: ‘Nuove considerazioni sullo sviluppo dello stile strutturale nel mondo grec o, Xenia 20, 23–32. Tarn, W. W. 1913: Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford. Tarn, W. W. and Griffith, G. T. 1952: Hellenistic Civilisation, 3rd edition, London. Tarte, S. M. 2012: ‘The digital existence of words and pictures: the case of the Artemidorus Papyrus’, Historia 61.3, 325–36. Thomas, J. J. 2016: Art and Natural Science in the Hellenistic World, DPhil Diss., University of Oxford.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

342

bibliography

Thomas, J. J. 2017: Review of Meyboom 1995, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2017.06.45. Thomas, J. J. 2019: ‘The Vienna Dioskourides and the transmission of images in antiquity’, Journal of Roman Studies 109, 241–73. Thomas, J. J. in press: ‘The Ptolemy painting? Alexander’s “right-hand man” and the origins of the Alexander Mosaic, Journal of Roman Archaeology. Thompson, D. J. 2000: ‘Philadelphus’ procession: dynastic power in a Mediterranean context’, in L. Mooren (ed.), Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997, Leuven, 365–88. Thompson, D’A. W. 1936: A Glossary of Greek Birds, 2nd edition, Oxford. Thompson, T. E. 1977: ‘A marine biologist at Pompeii, A.D. 79’, Nature 265.5592, 292–4. Thonemann, P. 2015: The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources, Cambridge. Thonemann, P. 2016: The Hellenistic Age: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford. Torelli, M. 1989: ‘Topografia sacra di una città latina—Praeneste’, in B. Coari (ed.), Urbanistica ed architettura dell’antica Praeneste: atti del convegno di studi archeologici, Palestrina, 16/17 aprile 1988, Palestrina, 15–30. € rok, L. 2011: Hellenizing Art in Ancient Nubia 300 BC–AD 250 and Its Egyptian To Models: A Study in “Acculturation”, Leiden and Boston. Tosi, R. 2009: ‘Non Asiani sed asini’, in L. Canfora (ed.), Il papiro di Artemidoro: Convegno Internazionale di Studio Rovereto, 29–30 aprile 2009, Rovereto, 35–54. Totelin, L. 2012: ‘Botanizing rulers and their herbal subjects: plants and political power in Greek and Roman literature’, Phoenix 66.1/2, 122–44. Touloumtzidou, A. 2011: Μετ
λλινα αγγεία του 4ου–2ου αι. π.. από τον ελλαdικό wρο, PhD Diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Tracy, S. V. 2000: ‘Demetrius of Phalerum: who was he and who was he not?’, in W. W. Fortenbaugh and E. Sch€ utrumpf (eds), Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 331–45. Traunecker, C. 2000: ‘A propos de la mosa€ique de Palestrina et des pylônes
egyptiens sans mâts’, Ktema 25, 149–61. Trinquier, J. 2002: ‘Localisation et fonctions des animaux sauvages dans l’Alexandrie
lagide: la question du “zoo d’Alexandrie” ’, M
e langes de l’Ecole française de Rome, Antiquit
e 114.2, 861–919.
Trinquier, J. 2005: ‘Hic sunt leones: la repr
esentation des confins
ethiopiens de l’Egypte
dans la mosa€ique Barberini de Palestrina’, in F. Lecocq and J. Leclant (eds), L’Egypte à Rome: actes du colloque de Caen 28–30 septembre 2002, Caen, 339–82. Trinquier, J. 2007: ‘La partie
ethiopienne de la mosa€ique Barberini: une proposition de lecture’, in F.-H. Massa-Pairault and G. Sauron (eds), Images et modernit
e hell
e nistiques: appropriation et repr
e sentation du monde d’Alexandre à C
e sar, Rome, 23–60. Trinquier, J. 2009: ‘L’animal, le roi et le savant: le “Mus
ee” et le d
eveloppement des savoirs sur l’animal dans d’Alexandrie lagide’, in F. Le Blay (ed.), Transmettre les savoirs dans les mondes hell
e nistique et romain, Rennes, 333–66. € mper, M. 2008: Die ‘Agora des Italiens’ in Delos: Baugeschichte, Architektur, AusTru stattung und Funktion einer sp€ a thellenistischen Porticus-Anlage, Rahden and Westfalen.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

343

€ mper, M. 2014: ‘The honorific practice of the “Agora of the Italians” in Delos’, in Tru J. Griesbach (ed.), Polis und Portr€ a t: Standbilder als Medien der €offentlichen Repr€ a sentation im hellenistischen Osten, Wiesbaden, 69–187. Tsibidou-Avloniti, M. 2002: ‘Excavating a painted Macedonian tomb near Thessaloniki: an astonishing discovery’, in M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece, Oxford, 91–7. Tybout, R. A. 1989: Aedificiorum Figurae: Untersuchungen zu den Architekturdarstellungen des fr€ u hen zweiten Stils, Amsterdam. Vaglieri, D. 1907: ‘Regione I (Latium et Campania): Palestrina’, Notizie degli scavi di antichità, 289–301. Vaglieri, D. 1909: ‘Preneste e il suo tempio della Fortuna’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 37, 212–74. Valeva, J. 2015: ‘The decoration of Thracian chamber tombs’, in J. Valeva, E. Nankov, and D. Graninger (eds), A Companion to Ancient Thrace, Chichester, 180–96. Van Minnen, P. 2009: ‘Less Artemidorus and more’, The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 46, 165–74. Van Ophuijsen, J. M. and van Raalte, M. 1998: Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources, New Brunswick. Venit, M. S. 1988: ‘The painted tomb from Wardian and the decoration of Alexandrian tombs’, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 25, 71–91. Venit, M. S. 2002: Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria: The Theater of the Dead, Cambridge. Venit, M. S. 2016: Visualizing the Afterlife in the Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt, Cambridge. Verbrugghe, G. P. and Wickersham, J. M. 1996: Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Ann Arbor. Versluys, M. J. 1994: ‘Op jacht in het land van de zwarte mensen: het jacht fries van een graftombe in Marissa’, Hermeneus: Tijdschrift voor Antieke Cultuur 66.5, 314–19. Versluys, M. J. 2002: Aegyptiaca Romana: Nilotic Scenes and the Roman Views of Egypt, Leiden. Versluys, M. J. 2010: Review of Jacobson 2007, Bibliotheca Orientalis 67.5–6, 584–6. Versluys, M. J., Bricault, L., and Meyboom, P. G. P. (eds) 2007: Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World: Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden, May 11–14, 2005, Leiden. Vespignani, V. and Visconti, C. L. 1874: ‘Antica sala da recitazioni, ovvero auditorio, scoperto fra le ruine degli orti mecenaziani, sull’Esquilino’, Bollettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma 2, 137–73. Ville, G. 1965: ‘Essai de datation de la mosa€ique des gladiateurs de Zliten’, in M. G. Picard and M. H. Stern (eds), La mosa€ique gr
e co-romain I: actes du colloque international sur la mosa€ique antique organis
e à Paris, du 29 août au 3 septembre 1963, Paris, 147–55. Visconti, C. L. 1888: ‘Trovamenti di oggetti d’arte e di antichità figurate’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma 16, 263–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

344

bibliography

Visscher, M. S. 2020: Beyond Alexandria: Literature and Empire in the Seleucid World, Oxford. Voegtli, H. 1973: ‘Der Schild des Philadelphos’, Schweizer M€ u nzbl€ a tter 23, 86–9. Von Blanckenhagen, P. 1963: ‘The Odyssey Frieze’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa€ ologischen Instituts, R€omische Abteilung 70, 100–46. Von Blanckenhagen, P., Alexander, C., Mertens, J. R., and Faltermeier, C. 1990: The Augustan Villa at Boscotrecase, Mainz am Rhein. Von Graeve, V. 1970: Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt, Frankfurt am Main. Von Stackelberg, K. T. 2009: The Roman Garden: Space, Sense, and Society, London. Von Staden, H. 1975: ‘Experiment and experience in Hellenistic medicine’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 22, 178–99. Von Staden, H. 1989: Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria: Edition, Translation and Essays, Cambridge. Von Staden, H. 1996: ‘Body and machine: interactions between medicine, mechanics, and philosophy in early Alexandria’, in M. True and K. Hamma (eds), Alexandria and Alexandrianism: Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organized by the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities and Held at the Museum, April 22–25, 1993, Malibu, 85–106. € ro € s, G. 2001: Taposiris Magna: Port of Isis, Budapest. Vo Walbank, F. W. 2002: Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections, Cambridge. Walker, S. 2001: ‘The Palestrina mosaic: drawings (cat. nos. 353–355)’, in S. Walker and P. Higgs (eds), Cleopatra of Egypt from History to Myth, London, 334–6. Walker, S. 2003: ‘Carry-on at Canopus: the Nilotic mosaic from Palestrina and Roman attitudes to Egypt’, in R. Matthews and C. Roemer (eds), Ancient Perspectives on Egypt, London, 191–202. Walker, S. and Bierbrier M. L. 1997: Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt, London. Wallace Hadrill, A. 1998: ‘Horti and hellenization’, in M. Cima and E. La Rocca (eds), Horti Romani: atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 4–6 maggio 1995, Rome, 1–12. Wallace Hadrill, A. 2008: Rome’s Cultural Revolution, Cambridge. Walter-Karydi, E. 2002: ‘Color in classical painting’, in M. A. Tiverios and D. S. Tsiafakis (eds), Color in Ancient Greece: The Role of Color in Ancient Greek Art and Architecture (700–31 BC): Proceedings of the Conference Held in Thessaloniki, 12th– 16th April, 2000, Organized by the J. Paul Getty Museum and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 75–88. Wattel-de-Croizant, O. 1986: ‘L’emblema de l’enlevement d’Europe à Pr
eneste (Barberini-Oldenburg) ou l’histoire d’une mosa€ique “oubli
ee” du temple de la
Fortune’, M
e langes de l’Ecole française de Rome, Antiquit
e 98, 494–564. Wecowski, M. 2014: The Rise of the Greek Aristocratic Banquet, Oxford. Weill-Goudchaux, G. 2001: ‘352. Nilotic mosaic of Palestrina (photographic reproduction)’, in S. Walker and P. Higgs (eds), Cleopatra of Egypt from History to Myth, London, 332–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

345

Weitzmann, K. 1947: Illustrations in Roll and Codex: A Study of the Origin and Method of Text Illustration, Princeton. Wellmann, M. 1888: ‘Dorion’, Hermes 23.2, 179–93. Wellmann, M. 1891: ‘Alexander von Myndos’, Hermes 26.4, 481–566. Wenkebach, E. (ed.) 1936: Corpus medicorum graecorum V 10, 2.1: Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum librum III, Leipzig. Werner, K. E. 1994: Mosaiken aus Rom: Polychrome Mosaikpavimente und Emblemata aus Rom und Umgebung, W€ urzburg. Werner, K. E. 1998: Die Sammlung antiker Mosaiken in den Vatikanischen Museen, Vatican City. West, M. 2009: ‘All Iberia is divided into two parts’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 95–101. Westgate, R. 2000a: ‘Pavimenta atque emblemata vermiculata: regional styles in Hellenistic mosaic and the first mosaics at Pompeii’, American Journal of Archaeology 104.2, 255–75. Westgate, R. 2000b: ‘Space and decoration in Hellenistic houses’, The Annual of the British School at Athens 95, 391–426. White, S. A. 2002: ‘Eudemus the naturalist’, in I. Bodn
ar and W. W. Fortenbaugh (eds), Eudemus of Rhodes, New Brunswick, 207–41. White, S. A. 2015: ‘Phaenias in the mirabilia tradition: from “Antigonus” to Callimachus’, in O. Hellmann and D. Mirhady (eds), Phaenias of Eresus: Text, Translation and Discussion, New Brunswick, 171–99. Whitehouse, H. 1976: The Dal Pozzo Copies of the Palestrina Mosaic, Oxford. Whitehouse, H. 2001: The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo. Series A—Part One: Ancient Mosaics and Wall Paintings, London. Whitehouse, H. 2010: ‘Mosaics and painting in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Chichester, 1008–31. Whitehouse, H. 2016: ‘Birds, beasts and a unicorn at Oxyrhynchus’, in G. Adornato (ed.), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro III: i disegni. Atti del convegno internazionale del 4 febbraio 2011 presso il Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Firenze, Milan, 105–28. Whitehouse, H. 2018: ‘IV. Paintings and drawings (5041–3)’, in P. J. Parsons and N. Gonis (eds), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 83, London, 197–207. € fer, J., Brinkhaus, H., and Bichler, R. (eds) 2016: Megasthenes und seine Wieseho Zeit = Megasthenes and His Time, Wiesbaden. € fer, J., Rollinger, R., and Lanfranchi, G. B. (eds) 2011: Ktesias’ Welt = Wieseho Ctesias’ World, Wiesbaden. € 1989: ‘Senators and equites III: the case of the Saufeii’, Opuscula Romana Wikander, O 17, 205–12. Wilcken, U. 1923: ‘Alexander der Große und die indischen Gymnosophisten’, Sitzungsberichte der K€oniglich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 160–83. Wilkins, J. M. and Hill, S. 2006: Food in the Ancient World, Malden and Oxford. Williams, D. 2010: ‘Dogged by debts: the Jennings dog’, in F. A. Macfarlane (ed.), Exploring Ancient Sculpture: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Waywell, London, 225–44.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

346

bibliography

Williams, J. 1987: ‘The Peripatetic School and Demetrius of Phalerum’s reforms in Athens’, Ancient World 15, 87–98. Wilson, A. J. N. 1966: Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome, Manchester. Wilson, N. 2009: ‘P. Artemid.: a palaeographer’s observations’, in K. Brodersen and J. Elsner (eds), Images and Texts on the Artemidorus Papyrus. Working Papers on P.Artemid. (St John’s College Oxford, 2008), Stuttgart, 23–6. Wirth, F. 1931: ‘Wanddekoration ersten Stils in Athen’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 56, 33–58. Witty, F. J. 1973: ‘The other Pinakes and reference works of Callimachusʼ, Library Quarterly 43.3, 237–44. Wolf, D. and Lorber, C. 2011: ‘The “Galatian shield without ” series of Ptolemaic bronze coins’, The Numismatic Chronicle 171, 7–53. Wood, E. M. and Wood, N. 1978: Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context, Oxford. Wootton, W. 2002: ‘Another Alexander mosaic: reconstructing the hunt mosaic from Palermo’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 15, 264–74. Wootton, W. 2008: ‘Piecing it back together: the fragmentary Hellenistic vermiculatum mosaic from Tel Dor’, in D. C. Kurtz and H.-C. Meyer (eds), Essays in Classical Archaeology for Eleni Hatzivassiliou, 1977–2007, Oxford, 259–68. Wootton, W. 2012: ‘Making and meaning: the Hellenistic mosaic from Tel Dor’, American Journal of Archaeology 116.2, 209–34. Wright, B. G. 2015: The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’, Berlin and Boston. Wulf, U. 1999: Altert€ u mer von Pergamon XV 3. Die Stadtgrabung, Berlin. Wyler, S. 2006: ‘Roman replications of Greek art at the Villa della Farnesina’, Art History 29.2, 215–34. Zanella, S. 2014: ‘Pomp
ei: maison des mosa€iques g
eom
etriques VIII 2, 3–16’, Chronique
des activit
e s arch
e ologiques de l’Ecole française de Rome. Available at: https://doi.org/ 10.4000/cefr.1110 (last accessed 1 March 2021). Zanella, S. 2019: ‘La chantier de reconstruction de la Casa dei mosaici geometrici à Pomp
ei: la pr
eservation “id
eologique” d’une maison à plan canonique?’, in C. Davoine, M. L’H
eritier, and A. P. d’Harcourt (eds), Sarta tecta: de l’entretien à la conservation des
e difices (Antiquit
e , Moyen Âge, d
e but de la p
e riode moderne), Provence, 113–29. Zanker, G. 2009: Herodas: Mimiambs, Oxford. Zanker, P. 1987: Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, Munich. Zanker, P. 1993: ‘The Hellenistic grave stelai from Smyrna: identity and self-image in the polis’, in A. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and A. Stewart (eds), Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley, 212–30. Zanker, P. 1998: Pompeii: Public and Private Life, Cambridge and London. Zanker, P. 2014: ‘Il tempio di Apollo Palatino in Properzio e i suoi resti’, in G. Bonamente, R. Cristofoli, and C. Santini (eds), Properzio e l’età augustea: cultura, storia, arte: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Propertius, Assisi, Perugia, 25–27 May 2012, Turnhout, 221–35.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

bibliography

347

Zapheiropoulou, M.-K. 2006: Emblemata vermiculata: hellenistische und sp€ a trepublikanische Bildmosaiken, Munich. Zarmakoupi, M. 2008: ‘Designing the landscapes of the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta’, in D. C. Kurtz, C. Meyer, D. Saunders, A. Tsingarida, and N. Harris (eds), Essays in Classical Archaeology for Eleni Hatzivassiliou 1977–2007, Oxford, 269–76. Zarmakoupi, M. 2010: The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum: Archaeology, Reception, and Digital Reconstruction, Berlin and New York. Zarmakoupi, M. 2014: Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes (c.100 BCE–79 CE), Oxford. Zevi, F. 1989: ‘Note di archeologia prenestina: il santuario della Fortuna e il Tempio di Giove sotto la cattedrale di S. Agapito’, in B. Coari (ed.), Urbanistica ed architettura dell’antica Praeneste: atti del convegno di studi archeologici, Palestrina, 16/17 aprile 1988, Palestrina, 33–46. Zevi, F. 1998a: ‘Die Casa del Fauno in Pompeji und das Alexandermosaik’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arch€ a ologischen Instituts, R€omische Abteilung 105, 21–65. Zevi, F. 1998b: I mosaici della Casa del Fauno a Pompei, Naples. Zimmer, T. 2011: ‘Die Basileia—Der Palastbezirk von Pergamon’, in R. Gr€ ußinger, V. K€astner, and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: Panorama der antiken Metropole: Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung: eine Ausstellung der Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Berlin and Petersberg, 144–7. Zimmer, T. 2014: ‘The Basileia: the palace district of Pergamon’, in F. Pirson and A. Scholl (eds), Pergamon: A Hellenistic Capital in Anatolia, Istanbul, 276–85.
Zucker, A. 2005: Les classes zoologiques en Gre ce ancienne d’Home re à Elien (VIIIe av.– IIIe ap. J.-C.), Aix-en-Provence.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/11/2021, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

INDEX

Abisares, Indian king 21 acacia 50, 113, Fig. 3.17 acanthus 183, 216, 239, 247 n.3, 259, Figs. 5.11, 6.16, 7.7 Adoulis stele, honours for Ptolemy III 83 Aelian 21, 29, 30, 121, 153, 158, 234, 294 on animals in Alexandria 34, 36 n.213, 40 on fantastical creatures 121–2, 152, 153, 158–9 Aemilius Paullus, L. 11, 61 Aeschylus, playwright 12 Aethiopia: animals from 31–3, 35–40, 71–82, 291–2, 294 conflation with India 22–3, 120 hunting in 36–9, 65 n.107, 79, 175 in Ptolemaic ideology 82–7 in Hellenistic visual culture 50, 53, 55–6, 68–85, 109, 118–21, 122, 138–41 invaded by Ptolemy II Philadelphos 35–6, 68, 291; see also Ptolemaic agents, in Aethiopia and the Red Sea mineral resources 83–5 Aethiopians, in Hellenistic art 50, 85–7, 140 n.53, Figs. 2.11, 2.20, 2.21, 2.27, 2.28 Agatharchides of Knidos 35–6, 79 n.140, 84 on Aethiopian animals 39, 56, 77–80, 87, 134–7, 140–1, 154, 161, 291 on animals sent to Alexandria 34, 39 n.225 on fantastical creatures 80–1, 150–3 on hunting 36, 38 n.216, 39, 65 n.107, 175 on Ptolemy II’s Aethiopian expedition 35–6, 86 n.186 sources 78–80, 84, 85, 87, 153 Agathon, playwright 8 Agios Athanasios, painted tomb 58, 65–6, Fig. 2.16 Agrippa, M. Vipsanius 252 Aigai, see Vergina Aineia, painted tomb 284 n.121. Alexander of Myndos, zoologist 205 Alexander the Great: campaigns and conquests 33, 36, 40, 184, 205, 235–6, 291 interest in animal kingdom 21–23, 291

portraits 31, 33, 59–60, 115, 235–6 tutored by Aristotle 18, 21–2 Alexander Mosaic 59–60, 154–5, 235–6, 238; see also Pompeii: House of the Faun Alexander Sarcophagus 114, 116, 174, Fig. 3.20 Alexandria: Asklepieion 34 Arsinoeion 85 Boubasteion 237 festivals in 30–1, 64, 174 fountain monument for Arsinoë 163–5 harbour 12, 13 Homereion 163–5; see also Archelaos relief Library, see Library of Alexandria mosaics 85–7, 118–9, 170–5, 289–90 Mouseion 5–9, 24, 30, 33 palace and royal district 7–8, 34–5, 85–6, 170–1, 279 personified in art 56, 243–4, Fig. 6.24 Serapeion 8 Temple of Arsinoë-Aphrodite at Cape Zephyrion 15, 24 tombs 58, 98–9; see also Anfushy; Shatby; Wardian Zeus Poleius sanctuary 34 ‘zoo’ 33–5 Alexandrovo (Thrace), painted tomb 115–16, Fig. 3.19 Alexis, comic playwright 203 ‘amphibious, big-earred’ mammal, on P.Artemid 146–7, Fig. 4.15 Anaxandrides, comic poet 8 anchovy 26 Anfushy (Alexandria), necropolis: Tomb II 58 Tomb V 280, 282, Fig. 7.19 Anicia Juliana, daughter of Flavius Anicius 300–1 animals: antagonism between species 106, 109, 134–141, 143, 154–5, 233–5, 242 fantastical-looking creatures 72–4, 79, 80–2, 120–3, 149–50, 153, 158–60

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

350 i n d e x animals: (cont.) observation in captivity 30–35, 38, 39, 71–2, 202–4, 262–3, 292, 293 observation in the wild 40, 71–82, 149–53, 191 sent as gifts 35, 125, 203 see also entries for individual species ‘ant-lion’, see murmē x-lion Androkydes of Kyzikos, painter 206 Antagoras of Rhodes, poet 178 antelope 296, Fig. 8.1 Antigonids, see entries for individual kings Antigonos I Monophthalmos 201 Antigonos II Gonatas coinage 244 n.112 foreign policy 6 n.22, 244–5 patronage of intellectuals 5, 9–11, 178 Antigonos of Karystos, paradoxographer 26–8 Antioch-on-the Orontes, Seleukid royal library 11 Antiochos I Soter 11, 13 Antiochos III 11, 94, 116 Apollonios, Ptolemaic dioikē tē s, see Zenon papyri Apollonios of Perge, astronomer 9 Apollonios of Rhodes, poet 15, 24 n.137, 87 Apollophanes, chief of Sidonians at Marisa; see Tomb of Apollophanes apple 183, 258, 267–8, 279, Fig. 5.11 Arabia 79, 82, 85, 134, 139–40 animals from 31–33, 71, 109, 135, 152 Aratos of Soloi, poet 11 Archelaos I of Macedon 8 Archelaos of Chersonesos, paradoxographer 28 Archelaos relief 69 Archestratos of Gela, gastronomic poet 231 Aristophanes of Byzantium 11, 16 Epitome of Aristotle’s zoological work 28–30, 144–5, 149, 205, 243 Aristotle: book collection 12, 23–4; see also Neleus of Skepsis followers in the Lykeion 20–1 patronage by Macedonian kings 8, 18, 21–2 reception of work in Ptolemaic Alexandria 23–30 research on animals 3, 18–20, 21–2, 24, 25, 27, 28–30, 144, 184, 234–5

Aristyllos, astronomer 17 Arsinoë II, wife of Ptolemy II 85, 97, 163 Arsinoë III, wife of Ptolemy IV 38, 97, 163 artistic intermediaries, see paradeigmata; pattern books; wooden boards Artemidoros of Ephesos 2, 36 n.208, 128–30, 134–41 Alexandrian connections 133–4 dependency on Agatharchides of Knidos 134–7 Artemidoros Papyrus (P.Artemid.): anatomical sketches 128, 130, 131–2, 143, 165–6, Fig. 4.1 animal sketches 2, 127, 132–3, 134–141, 143–53, 292, Fig. 4.10 authenticity debate 2, 127–8, 133 chronology 132–3 drawing technique 143–4 editio princeps 127–8, 130–2 function(s) 2, 130–2, 137, 160–6, 230, 245 map 128, 130, 131, 161 reconstruction 128, 130, 131–2, 144 text on recto 128–9, 130–1, 165, 167 title on verso 144–9 Artemision Horse and Jockey 168, Fig. 5.1 ‘ass-centaur’ in ancient texts 79, 153 on the Nile Mosaic 72–4, 79, 80, 82 n.161, 122 n.127, 153, Fig. 2.22 astronomy 14–15, 17, 149 n.73, 162, 166 Attalids: animal collection 203–5, 293 art collection 14 patronage of intellectuals and artists 9, 11, 27, 60, 70, 184, 205 see also entries for individual kings and rulers Attalos I 9 n.42, 14 Attalos II 279 Attalos III 186, 247 Athenaios of Naukratis 25, 30, 31, 203, 205 n.106, 294 on the Alexandrian Library 12, 24 n.131 on Aristotle’s zoological work 22 on Hellenistic gastronomy 34–5, 178, 201–2, 243, 244–5 Athens 11, 12, 20, 21 23–4 174, 189 Augustus 248, 252, 258 interest in animals 295 interest in horticulture 261

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

index Aulus Gabinius, governor of Syria 95–6 Aurelian (emperor) 295 aviaries 22, 262–3, 293 Babylon, Babylonia 13, 17, 83, 93 baths and bathing 171, 174, 233 bear 32, 56, 71, 75, 114, Figs. 2.19, 8.1 beaver 146, Fig. 4.14 bee-eater (bird) 216, Figs. 6.6, 6.7 bematists, on Alexander’s campaigns 22, 40 Berenike I, wife of Ptolemy I 31, 84–5 Berenike II, wife of Ptolemy III 15 Berenike Trogodytika, Ptolemaic seaport 38, 84 Berossos, Babyloniaca 13 birds: ability to speak 184, 263 in scientific texts 20, 22, 24–6, 27, 144–5, 205 in visual culture 2–3, 145–6, 180–2, 183–6, 186–90, 198–202, 216, 220, 247–8, 254–7, 262–3, 267, 270, 273–5, 280–2, 283–6, 288, 289–90, 293, 301 kept in captivity 31, 35, 38–9, 203–4, 262–3, 293 see also entries for individual species black-winged stilt 145–6, Fig. 4.11 blackbird 254, 267, 270, 273, Figs. 7.4, 7.5, 7.10, 7.12, 7.17 boar 109, 114, 118–9, 120, 169, 175, 295, 296, Figs. 3.10, 3.11, 3.19, 3.21 Boeotia, Lake Kopais 20, 243 Bolos of Mendes, philosopher 155 books, book-scrolls 11, 12, 23–4, 126, 130, 162, 166 collected in Alexandria; see Library of Alexandria Boscoreale, Villa of P. Fannius Synistor 60 bull 32, 81, 106, 113, 118–19, 120, 124, 136, 154, 281, 295, 298, Figs. 3.9, 3.10, 3.21, 8.1 ‘bull-fish’ 121, 156–8, Fig. 4.22 butterfly 216 camel 30, 31, 32, 40, 71, 80, Fig. 2.20 camomile 257, 268, Figs. 7.4, 7.12 captivity, see animals: kept in captivity caracal, see lynx carnation 183, Fig. 5.11

351

‘carnivorous bull’ 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 n.161, 134, 140 cataloguing and classification: of animals 19–20, 32–33, 68–71, 87, 122–3, 124–6, 242–3, 292, 298 of body-parts 16–17 of books 13, 16 of plants 20, 286–8 of stars 17 of words 16, 165–6 cat-and-bird motif, in Hellenistic art 198, 236–7, Figs. 6.20, 6.21 catshark 221, 227, Figs. 6.11, 6.12, 6.13 Celsus, medical encyclopaedist 16–17 Chandragupta, Mauryan king 36 chicken 99, 103, Figs. 3.5, 6.20 chrysanthemum 257, 268, Figs. 7.4, 7.12, 7.21 Chrysippos 204 Cicero 46, 207 cobra 154–5, 236, Fig. 6.19 cockerel, see chicken comber (fish) 225, 227, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 28–9, 129 Constantinople, Great Palace mosaic 300 copies and versions, of earlier works of art 55–60, 189–90, 193–4, 235–41, 278–88 mistakes by copyists 56, 71, 72, 78, 189, 239 see also paradeigmata; pattern books; wooden boards corona civica 258 court paintings, Hellenistic 58–9, 82, 87, 235–6, 291–2 cow 32, 33; see also bull class (social), in material and visual culture 88, 126, 160–7, 251–2, 290 Claudius Ptolemaeus, geographer 17, 54 clothing, costume 58, 65–6, 104–5 trousers (anaxurides) 105, 115, 116, Figs. 3.8, 3.19, 3.20 crab Fig. 2.21 crocodile 22–3, 28, 109, 113, 118, 294, Figs. 3.14, 6.19 crocodile-panther 74, 80, 149–50, Figs. 2.11, 4.17 crow 273 Curius Dentatus, Marius 294 cypress 257, 288, Fig. 7.4 Cyrenaica, see Libya

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

352 i n d e x Dalion, Ptolemaic explorer 79 damnatio ad bestias, see venationes date palm 50, 268, 280, Fig. 7.12 deer 296, Fig. 8.1 Delos 61–2 epigraphy 8, 62, 230 mosaics 61–2, 103, 186, 198 statuary 63 see also, Italians, in the Hellenistic East Demetrias (Thessaly): palace 279 stele for Antigenes son of Sotimos 58, 105, Fig. 2.14 stele for Ouaphres son of Horus 58, Fig. 2.15 Demetrios I Poliorketes 36, 201 Demetrios of Phaleron 6, 13–14, 23–4 Demetrios topographos, painter 53–4 Demodamas of Miletos, Seleukid courtier 11 Derveni krater 119 n.115 dining and drinking: in Hellenistic culture 35, 50, 58, 65–6, 174–5, 178, 199–202, 243, 200, Figs. 2.8, 2.16a in Roman culture 198, 214, 220, 231–3, 248–9, 261–2, 265 see also tableware; Sosos’s Unswept Room Diodorus Siculus 35, 50 n.31, 86 n.186, 133 Diogenes Laertios 6, 21, 23, 30 n.181 Dionysios of Philadelphia, ornithologist 205, 301 n.31 Dionysos 31–2, 123–4, 184, 205, 258 dissection and vivisection 16–17, 19 Dog Mosaic (Alexandria) 1, 65 n.108, 170–3, 292, Fig. 5.4 dogs 31, 33, 125, 170–5, 203, 216 used for hunting 65, 105–6, 115, 174–5, Figs. 2.20, 3.19, 3.20, 8.1 ‘dog-head’ monkey 39 n.225, 78, 134, 140 dogfish 225, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 dolphin 212 donkey 31, 74, 125 Dora (Tel Dor), mask-and-garland mosaic 290, Fig. 7.26 Dorion, ichthyologist 243 n.107 doves and pigeons 3, 25, 98, 186–90, 201, 254, 267–8, 270, 284–5, 289, Figs. 5.13, 5.14, 7.4, 7.10, 7.12, 7.13, 7.22 7.23, 7.25 kept in captivity 31, 203–4 drinking vessels, see tableware

duck 202, 289–90, Figs. 6.19, 6.20, 7.25 dusky grouper Fig. 6.18 eagle 101, 102–3, 240, 248, Figs. 3.7, 6.22 Eastern Desert (Egypt): Ptolemaic mining 35, 83–5, 241 roads and road-stations 37–8, 241, Fig. 1.3 education: educational and didactic papyri 16, 163–6 of royal princes 8, 18, 21–2, 23, 30 eel, see moray eel egret 273, Fig. 7.17 Egypt: Abou Simbel, temple enclosure of Ramesses II 38–9 Abu Hummus, plant nursery 279 animals from 50, 118–20, 138–41 Antaiopolite nome 133 Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu) 38, 84 Aswan (Syene) 35, 50, 140 n.53 Fayyum 98, 160 n.111, 279; see also mummy portraits; Zenon Papyri Khoiak (festival) 64–5 Memphis 34, 162 Pamylia (festival) 64 n.98 Philae, temple of Isis 40 see also Eastern Desert; Nile ‘Egyptian bean’, see Indian lotus ‘Egyptianization’ in Roman Italy 55–63, 235–8, 267, 273, 280–3, 294 electric ray 21, 225, 227, 243, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 6.16 elephant(s) 77, 133, 134, 136, 154 hunted by Ptolemies 36–9, 65 n.107, 79 in visual culture 1, 77–8, 109, 118, 121, 136–7, 139, 154, 155, Figs. 2.17, 2.20, 3.12, 4.6 paraded through Alexandria 31, 33, 68, 124 paraded through Rome 294, 295 ‘elephant-fish’ 109, 118, 120–1, 158, Fig. 3.13 elk 295 encyclopaedism, in Hellenistic literature 14–18, 87 Ennius, poet 231 Epiphanius of Salamis 7, 12 Erasistratos of Ioulis, physician 16–17, 19 Eratosthenes of Kyrene 17–18, 87 Ergamenes I, Meroitic king 86 n.186 Euboea 31–3, 85

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

index Eudemos of Rhodes, Peripatetic 21 Euklid, mathematician 9 Eumenes I 201 Eumenes II: as builder 9, 178–9 as collector of animals 203 Euripides, playwright 8, 12 ‘falcon-fish’ 121, 156–8, Fig. 4.21 farms, farming 34, 50, 53, 204 figs 191, 244–5, 261, 279 fish in gastronomic contexts, see seafood in scientific texts 20, 26, 29, 144–5, 234–5, 242–3 in Roman society 231–3 in visual culture 2, 109, 120–1, 145–9, 155, 156–9, 177–8, 206–7, 212, 216–20, 220–1, 223–7, 235 see also entries for individual species fish mosaics: Pergamon 175–8, 206, 235, Fig. 5.6 Pompeii 214–20, 220–2, 225–31, 231–3, 247 n.3, 299, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 8.2 Praeneste 2, 207–12, 225–31, 233, 239–41, 293, Figs. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16 Roman North Africa 299–300, Fig. 8.3 fishing, fishermen 19, 22, 50, 53 n.36, 159, 211, 300, Figs. 6.2, 8.3 fish-plates (red figure pottery) 206–7 fishponds 22, 231–3, 262 flamingo 145–6, Figs. 2.17, 4.12 Flamininus, L. Quinctius 61 food, see dining and drinking Fortuna Primigenia: as Tyche Protogeneia in the East 62 sanctuary and cult at Praeneste 46, 47, 61, 62–3, 207 frontality, as pictorial device 87 fruit 183, 191, 279, 290, Figs. 5.11, 5.13, 5.16, 5.17, 7.4, 7.12, 7.16, 7.26 Fulvius Nobilior, M. 296 Gaius Matius, inventor of topiary 261 Galatians, in Hellenistic art and society 239–40; see also shields Galen 12, 13 garden culture: in the Hellenistic East 278–80 in Roman Italy 260–1, 277–8, 279–80

353

garden ornament, in Roman Italy: Egyptianizing statues 267, 273, 282–3, Fig. 7.16 fountains 264, 267, 268, Fig. 7.12 herms 268, 277, 278, 281–2, Figs. 7.12, 7.20, 7.22 masks 267, 268, 273, Figs. 7.10, 7.12 oscillae 267, 273, Fig. 7.17 pinakes 267, 268, 273, 282, Figs. 7.10, 7.12, 7.16, 7.17, 7.22 trelliswork 252–4, 265–8, 270, 285, Figs. 7.10, 7.16 garden paintings: in Rome 247–63, Figs. 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5a, 7.6a, 7.24a in the Bay of Naples 263–78, Figs. 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13a, 7.14a, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, 7.21, 7.22, 7.23 in the Hellenistic East 278–88 post Vesuvius 298–9 Gauls, see Galatians gazelle 118, 295, Fig. 3.21 gerenuk 170, Figs. 5.2, 5.3 gilt head bream 225, 231 n.64, 243, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 giraffe 32, 40, 75, 77–8, 80, 109, 113, 118, 124, 134–5, 139, 295, Figs. 2.25, 2.26, 3.10, 4.2 goat 27, 31, 138, 140, 143, 154, 155, Fig. 4.8 gold, mined by Ptolemies 35, 84 golden grey mullet 218, 225, 227, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 golden oriole 267, 270, Figs. 7.10, 7.12, 7.14 Gordian III 295 Grand Procession of Ptolemy II, see Ptolemy II Philadelphos grape 191, 279, 290, Fig. 7.26 grasshopper 216 grave stelai 58, 105, 126 griffin 109, 118–9, 120, 122, 139, 149, 154, Figs. 3.11, 3.21, 4.3 gurnard 225, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 Hadrumetum (Sousse), fish mosaic 300, Fig. 8.3 hammerhead shark 149, 150, Figs. 4.18, 4.19 ‘hare-fish’ 121, 156–8, 159, Fig. 4.20 Hasmoneans 94 palace at Jericho 279

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

354 i n d e x Hawarté (Syria), Upper Church mosaic 106 n.77, 298 ‘heaven-watcher’ (fish) 149 Hegesander, historian 178 Hephaistion mosaic (Pergamon) 194–5, 199, 216, Fig. 5.18 Heraklitos, mosaicist 193 Herculaneum: Basilica, Telephos painting 60 Villa of the Papyri, gardens 261 Hermippos of Smyrna, grammarian 13 Herod the Great 117 Herodas 5 Herodotos 15, 152 heron 25, 27, 146, 155, Figs. 2.20, 4.13 Herophilos of Chalcedon, physician 16–17, 19 Hieron II of Syracuse 279 Hipparchos of Nikaia, astronomer 17 Hippolochos, gourmand, see Karanos hippopotamus 50, 109, 118, 294, Figs. 2.7, 3.14, 3.15, 6.19 Hirrius, G. 231 Historia Augusta 295 Homer 5 n.15, 8 n.34, 14 n.68, 15, 18, 24, 69–70, 163, 165, 178 Horace 260, 288 horse 28, 31–2, 81, 83, 105–6, 115–6, 125, 168, 295, Fig. 3.8 Hortensius Hortalus, Q. 231–3 hunting: in Aethiopia 36–9, 38–9, 65 n.107, 79 in Hellenistic art 50, 60, 63–4, 65, 104–6, 114–6, 118–9, Fig. 2.7, 3.20, 3.21 in Marisa 116–7, Fig. 3.20 in the amphitheatre, see venationes hyena 77–8, 79, 109, 118–19, 131, 134–5, 295, Figs. 2.20, 2.22, 3.21, 4.4 Hyrcania, animals from 31–3 Iberia (Spain) 128–9, 130, 131 ibex 295 ibis 109, 113, 118, 241, Figs. 2.27, 3.14, 6.19 illusionism, see trompe l’oeil incense-burners, see thymiateria India 22–3, 85, 120 animals from 21, 31–3, 36, 71, 120, 121–2, 136, 150–3, 159, 182, 184, 294 Indian lotus (‘Egyptian bean’) 22–3, 50–3, Figs. 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.12, 6.19, 6.20

intertextuality 15, 24, 87 ‘Iraq el-Amir, Qasr al-Abd 116, 279 Isis 40, 99 n.57, 155, 241 assimilation with Fortuna Primigenia 62 cult at Praeneste 46, 62, 208, 211 priests 58, Fig. 2.15 Italian sparrow 254, 270, 274–5, Figs. 7.4, 7.6, 7.12, 7.16, 7.18 Italians, in the Hellenistic East 61–2 Itanos (Crete), Ptolemaic garrison 62 ivy 31, 183, 184, 203, 258, 268, 290, Figs. 5.11, 7.12, 7.26 jackdaw 27 Jerusalem 1, 89, 90, 116, 125 Josephos 117, 295 Juba II of Mauretania: on Ptolemaic peridot mining 84–5 on the martichoras 121 n.125 Julius Caesar 231, 295 Kallimachos of Kyrene 9, 14–15 Aetia 174 catalogues 16, 292 Hymn to Delos 83, 240 Local Nomenclature 26 Lock of Berenike 14–15, 16, 87 On Birds 24–26, 205 On Changes in the Names of Fish 26, 243 On Rivers 27 paradoxography 26–8 Pinakes 16 poetry 15, 24, 26 Kallixeinos of Rhodes, historian 30–5, 64, 163–5, 203, 262 Karanos, wedding feast of 201 n.93, 201–2 Karneades, philosopher 61 Kassandros of Macedon 6, 236 Kerberos 99, 103, Fig. 3.6 kingfisher 216, 220, 241 n.106, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 Klazomenai 62 Klearchos of Soloi, Peripatetic 21, 243 Kleopatra II 62 n.82 Kleopatra VII 9, 47 n.19, 84 Kleopatra Selene II, daughter of Kleopatra VII 84 Ktesias of Knidos 121–2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

index Kom el-Dikka (Alexandria): Boubasteion 236–7 Villa of the Birds, mosaic 289–90 Konon of Samos, astronomer 15 Kos, Asklepieion 63 n.87 Krates of Mallos, grammarian 9, 153 Krateros Group, Delphi, see Messene relief Krateuas, herbalist 286–7 labels, labelling: in visual culture 68–71 of animals 1–2, 50, 56, 68–71, 89, 104–13, 124, 127, 156–8, 298 of books 13 see also cataloguing and classification lagobolon (hunting stick) 211, Fig. 6.2 lamassu (Assyrian beast) 121 ‘land-crocodile’ 74, 80, Fig. 2.19 laurel 248, 257, 258, 261, 270, 279, Figs. 7.4, 7.12 leopard(s) 32, 40, 77–8, 80, 118–19, 124, 134–5, 139, 140–1, 143, 149, 152, 154, 155, 159, 295, 296, 298, Figs. 2.19, 3.21, 4.3, 4.9, 8.1 hunted in the Levant 104–6, 114–17, Figs. 3.8, 3.20 Letter of Aristeas 6, 12–14 Leukippides mosaic (Pompeii) 238 leuko ̄mata, see wooden boards Library of Alexandria: books and book collection 6, 12–14, 26, 292, 293 connections with Aristotle 23–4 foundation 6, 23–4 librarians 8, 11, 13 n.68, 17 location and form 7–8 Libya 20, 56, 82 animals from 136, 138–40 Berenike, eels and fish 243 Ptolemais, fish mosaic 235 n.76 Licinius Crassus, L. 231–3 Licinius Murena, L. 231–3 Licinius Lucullus, L. 262–3 lily 262 Lindos, sanctuary of Athena Lindia 63 n.87 linum 183, Fig. 5.11 lion 32, 34, 77–8, 81, 106, 114, 116, 118–19, 120, 121–2, 152, 159, 295, 296, 298, Figs. 2.17, 3.9, 3.21, 8.1

355

Livia 248, 261; see also Prima Porta Livy 61 lizard 56, Fig. 2.17 ‘lizard-fish’ 121, 156–8, Fig. 4.23 lobster 155, 196, 216, 220, 225, 227, 233–5, Figs. 5.21, 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 6.18; see also octopus-eel-lobster topos loculi (burial niches) 59 n.59, 92–3, 98–9, 101, 104, 106, 280, Fig. 3.3 Lucian 30 Lyko of Troas, Peripatetic 21, 23 Lykophron, Alexandra 15, 24 n.137 Lynkeios of Samos, gourmand, see Karanos lynx 32, 75, 109, 110, 113, 118–19, 120, 124, 138, 140, 143, 154, 155, 294–5, Figs. 2.17, 3.17, 3.18, 3.21, 4.8 Maecenas, G. Cilnius 252, 260; see also Rome, buildings and monuments: Auditorium of Maecenas magpie 270, 273, 274–5, Figs. 7.16, 7.17, 7.18 mahouts 36 n.213, 65 n.107, 109, Fig. 3.12 mallard, see duck Manetho, Aegyptiaca 13 manuscript illumination 137, 300–1 Marcus Antonius 9, 84 Marisa: coinage 95–6 connections with Ptolemaic Egypt 97–9, 118–23, 123–5 tombs and necropolises 89, 91–2, 95, 96, 98–99, 102 n.58, 105 n.70, 114, Fig. 3.2 Upper and Lower City 89, 97–8 see also Tomb of Apollophanes Markianos of Herakleia, geographer 129–30 Martial 262 martichoras 110–12, 121–3, Figs. 3.17, 3.22 masks (theatrical) 183, 184, 193, Figs. 5.7, 5.8, 5.17; see also garden ornament medicine, in Alexandria 13, 16–17 Mieza 18 Tomb of the Judgement, painted façade 69 Miletos 62 mining, see gold; peridot; porphyry Mithridates VI of Pontus 286–7 Megasthenes, geographer 11, 152, 154 Messene relief 115

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

356

index

Metrodoros of Skepsis, philosopher 155, Fig. 2.22 Mnemon of Sidē , physician 13 monkeys 40, 294, Figs. 2.21, 2.22, 2.23; see also nisnas monkey; sphinx (monkey) Molossia, animals from 31–3 mongoose 154–5, 236, Fig. 6.19 moray eel 155, 178, 216, 221, 225, 226, 227, 231–3, 233–5, 243, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 6.14; see also octopus-eel-lobster topos mosaic techniques: opus sectile 191, 265 n.81 opus signinum 220 opus tessellatum 118, 299 opus vermiculatum 180, 188–9, 191, 204, 212, 231, 290 pebble mosaics 119 n.115, 174 n.24, 206 n.1 mosaicists: models used by, see pattern books; paradeigmata; wooden boards signatures 193, 194–5, Fig. 5.18, Fig. 6.24 workshops 180, 220, 228–31 Moschion, historian 279 mouse 200–1, 216, Fig. 5.16 mule 31, 125 mummy portraits 230–1, Fig. 6.17; see also wooden boards murmē x-lion: in ancient texts 77–8, 134–6, 152–3 on P. Artemid 134–6, 139, 149, 150–3, 154, 155, Fig. 4.5 Myron, sculptor 14 myrtle 204, 257, Fig. 7.4 Naukratis, cat-and-bird statues 236–7, Fig. 6.21 nautilus (mollusc) 24 Nearchos, admiral 152, 184 n.48 negotiatores: see Italians, in the Hellenistic East Neleus of Skepsis, pupil of Aristotle 12, 24 n.131 nightingale 185, 204, 257, 263, 283–4, Figs. 5.11, 7.4, 7.21 Nikander of Kolophon, didactic poet 154, 155–6 Nike of Samothrace 63 Nile (river) 50, 64, 79, 240 fauna and flora 22–3, 50–3

in visual culture 140 n.43, 154–5, 191, 236, Fig. 6.19; see also Nile Mosaic at Praeneste possible map of delta 131 Nile Mosaic at Praeneste: chronology 47 Dal Pozzo watercolour copies 48–9, 56–8; Fig. 2.6 dependency on Ptolemaic archetype 55–60, 235 display context 41–8, 63 gemstones 83–5, Figs. 2.19, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.27 labelled animals 1, 50, 56, 72–4, 80–2, 118, 291–2 modern history and repairs 1, 47–9 ‘pavilion scene’ 56–8, 59, 64–7, 174, Figs. 2.12, 2.13 territorial ideology 82–7, 291–2 topographical structure 49–55 nisnas monkey 39 n.225, Fig. 2.17, 75, 77–8, 79, 134, 140 Nubia, see Aethiopia nymphaia, in public buildings 47, 208 oak 207, 254, 257, 258, 290, Figs. 7.4, 7.26; see also corona civica Octavian, see Augustus octopus 155, 216, 220, 225, 226–7, 233–5, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 6.14 octopus-eel-lobster topos 155, 233–5, 242–3 oleander 183, 257, 268, Figs. 5.11, 7.4, 7.12 olive 279, 290, Fig. 7.26 Olympia, fish mosaic 206 n.1 onager (‘wild ass’) 31, 32, 109, 113, 118, 120, 124, 125, 295, 296, Figs. 2.17, 3.15, 8.1 Onesikritos, historian 21 Oplontis, Villa A 250, 261 oryx 31, 109, 118, 124, Fig. 3.11 ostrich 31, 32, 295, 296, Fig. 8.1 Ovid 258 oyster 202, 231 P. Artemid see Artemidoros Papyrus painters 14, 165–6 in Hellenistic Marisa 113–14 in Roman Italy 273–5, 286–8 painting, styles and techniques: chorographia 53–4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

index four-colour palette 235–6, 238 genre landscape 241, 252, Fig. 6.2 topographia 53–4 masonry style (‘First Style’) 177, 214, 220 ‘Second Style’ 250, 261 ‘Third Style’ 267, 283, 288 ‘Fourth Style’ 288 palaces, Hellenistic 7–8, 34–5, 160 n.111, 170–1, 175–7, 178–80, 200, 279, 300 Palermo, ‘Alexander mosaic’ 60, 114 palm 106, 109, 117, 164, 258, Figs. 3.8, 3.11 as marker of victory 66–7, Fig. 2.12 Panathenaic amphorae 102, 103, 123, 124, Fig. 3.7 papyrus (plant) 53, Fig. 2.8 papyri: Eudoxus papyrus 162, 166, Fig. 4.24 ‘family archive’ of Dionysios 133 Fayyum schoolteacher’s manual 163–5, Fig. 4.25 illustrated papyri and book-scrolls 63–4, 230; see also Artemidoros Papyrus Laterculi Alexandrini 165–6 Oxyrhynchus, papyrus with animal sketches 161 word-lists 16, 165–6 see also Zenon papyri paradeigmata 160, 229–30 paradoxography, paradoxa 26–8, 79 n.150, 87, 165–7, 184, 203, 234–5, 294 performed at court 28 parasol, as marker of royalty 56–7, 65, Fig. 2.13 parrot 180–2, 184, 187–8, 216, 289, Figs. 5.9, 5.10, 5.13, 7.25 kept in captivity 31, 202, 203 Parrot Mosaic (Pergamon) 178–86, 188, 189, 205, 293, Figs. 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 partridge 25, 187–8 Patrokles, geographer 11 Patroklos, Ptolemaic admiral 244–5 pattern books 2, 4, 63–4, 119–20, 130, 160–2, 166, 204, 229–30, 275 n.90, 293–4 peacock 31, 34, 71, 204, 289, Figs. 2.20, 7.25 Pella 8, 174 n.24, 279 Pergamon: Great Altar 69, 70, 178–9 House of the Consul Attalos 186, 199, 298–9 Library 9

357

mosaics 175–202 Palace IV 175–7, 279, Figs. 5.5, 5.6; see also fish mosaics: Pergamon Palace V 178–186, 279, 283–4, 293. Figs. 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.11, 5.12; see also Hephaistion mosaic; Parrot Mosaic Peristyle House II 199 Temple of Athena Nikephoros 9, 14 Temple of Dionysos Kathegemon 184 Temple of Hera 199 peridot, mined by Ptolemies 84–5 periwinkle 257, Fig. 7.4 Persaios of Kition, philosopher 11 Perseus of Macedon 11 Persia 85, 121, 235 animals from 22, 152, 291 perspective, perspectival systems, in Hellenistic art 58–9, 235 pheasant 31, 34–5 Philemon, comic playwright 203 Philip II of Macedon 8, 18, 22 n.117 Philip the Arab 295 Phylarchos, historian 244–5 Physiologus 154 pig 203; see also warthog pigeon, see doves and pigeons pinakes: as artistic intermediaries, see wooden boards in Roman gardens, see garden ornament pine tree 254, 257, Fig. 7.4 plane tree 257, 270, 275, Fig. 7.12 plants: as ‘symbols’ 258–60, 277 cultivated outside their regular seasons 257–8, 262 transplanted from abroad 260 see also entries for individual species Plato 18 Pliny the Elder 13, 30, 46, 79 n.146, 155, 186 n.54, 195, 260, 294 on animals 152, 154, 159 n.108, 234 n.75 on Aristotle’s zoological research 21–2 on fish-keeping in Roman Italy 231–3 on painting 68, 252 on Sosos of Pergamon 2, 186, 190, 191, 198 Pliny the Younger: on garden paintings 257–8 on subterranean villa architecture 249 on villa gardens 277

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

358 i n d e x Plutarch 11, 18, 30, 206, 279 poison, poisonous animals 121–2, 155–6, 159, Fig. 6.3 Polemon of Ilion, philosopher 9 pomegranate 254, 257, 279, 290, Figs. 7.4, 7.26 Pompeii: forum buildings 46 House of Maius Castricius, Nilotic painting 140 n.53 House of Menander, paintings and mosaics 174, 250, 299, Fig. 8.2 House of Meleager, Dido picture 56 House of Romulus and Remus, elephant– snake painting 137 House of the Cryptoporticus, Ilioupersis frieze 69 House of the Doves, dove mosaic 186, 190 n.69, 198 House of the Faun 154–5, 214–20, 225–31, 231–3, 235–7, 247 n.3, Figs. 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8a, 6.9a, 6.19, 6.20 House of the Fruit Orchard 263–4, 270–6, 277, Figs. 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18a House of the Geometric Mosaics 220–2, 225–31, 231–3, 238, Fig. 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13a House of the Golden Bracelet 264–70, 277, 283–4, 285, Figs. 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.21, 7.22, 7.23 House of the Golden Cupids, garden herms 278 House of the Physician, Nilotic painting 140 n.53 Temple of Isis, Ekklesiasterion paintings 155, 241, Fig. 6.2 Pompey the Great 294–5 poppy 257, 270, Figs. 7.4, 7.12, porcupine 110, 120, Fig. 3.16 porphyry, mined by Ptolemies 241 Poseidippos of Pella 9 On Stones 85 On Equestrian Victories 168 Poseidon 85, 211, 244 n.112 Potideia, tomb painting 119 n.115 Praeneste: aerarium (treasury) 46 apsidal hall 43–7, Fig. 2.5 ‘Cave of the Lots’ 41–3, 207–8, Fig. 6.1

Lower Complex 41–3, 46–7, 62–3, 208, Figs. 2.3, 2.4 mosaics, see fish mosaics: Praeneste; Nile Mosaic at Praeneste sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia, see Fortuna Primigenia sculpture 63, 208 Praenestine families: as magistrates in Rome 60–1 as negotiatores in the Hellenistic East 61–2 prawn 225, 227, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 6.18 Praxiteles, sculptor 14 Prima Porta, Villa of Livia: architecture and chronology 248–9, Fig. 7.1 laurel grove 248, 261 painted garden room 248–57, 257–63, 285–6, Figs. 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.24a Probus (emperor) 295 Prousias II of Bithynia 61 Ptolemaic agents, in Aethiopia and the Red Sea 38–9, 79, 84–5; see also Dalion; Pythagoras Ptolemaios son of Glaukias, recluse 162 Ptolemies: collection of animals 30–40, 123–5, 202–3 court poetry 14–15, 28, 82–3, 85, 240 see also entries for individual kings and queens Ptolemy I Soter 30, 98, 103 n.63, Fig. 6.22 foreign policy 26, 35, 36, 84 patronage of artists and intellectuals 6, 9, 23–4, 236 Ptolemy II Philadelphos: art collection 14, 200 as sovereign in Marisa 97–8, 123–5 banqueting pavilion 14, 164, 200, 240, 262 n.69 coinage 98, 103, 240, Fig. 6.22 court poetry 82–3 education 23, 30; see also Strato of Lampaskos foreign policy 6 n.23, 35–40, 68, 78–9, 244–5 Galatian ‘victory’ 240 Grand Procession 30–5, 39, 64, 72, 88, 123–4, 203, 292, 295 intellectual patronage 5, 6, 13, 12–15, 24 n.131, 28, 39, 84–5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

index interest in the animal kingdom 30–9, 71, 88, 175 mining activity 35, 84–5, 241 Ptolemy III Euergetes: foreign policy 79, 83 intellectual patronage 12, 13, 14–15, 17, 28 interest in the animal kingdom 40 Ptolemy IV Philopator 38, 97, 163, 164–5 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 38, 94, 95, 195 Ptolemy VI Philometor 8, 36, 40, 53, 62, 79 n.140 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 98 animal collection 203 connections on Delos 62 Commentaries 34–5, 203, 243 Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator 9 Ptolemy (geographer), see Claudius Ptolemaeus purple dye murex 196, 225, Figs. 5.20, 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12, 6.18, 6.20 purple swamphen 285–6, 289, Figs. 7.24, 7.25 Pyrrhos of Epiros 294 Pythagoras, Ptolemaic admiral 79, 85, 153 Qasr al-Abd, see ‘Iraq el-Amir quail 257, 289–90, Figs. 7.4, 7.25 quince 257, Fig. 7.4 rabbit 216 raven 263 red mullet 195–6, 217, Figs. 5.19, 6.6, 6.7, 6.9 rhinoceros 1, 32, 74–5, 77–8, 109, 110, 113, 118, 121, 124, 133, 134, 140, 154, 158, 294, 295, Figs. 2.23, 2.24, 3.12, 3.16 ‘rhinoceros-fish’ 109, 118, 120–1, 158, Fig. 3.13 Rhodes 12, 18 Rome, as imperial centre: animal displays and venationes 294–8 conquest of Hellenistic East 11, 60–3, 247, 293–4 inheritance of Attalid kingdom 186, 247 Rome, buildings and monuments: Ara Pacis, vegetal frieze 258–60, Fig. 7.7 Auditorium of Maecenas, garden paintings 250–2, 260, Fig. 7.3 Aurelian walls 191 Circus Maximus 295 Colosseum 296 Comitium 295

359

Esquiline Odyssey frieze 69–70, Fig. 2.18 ‘House of Augustus’ 260 n.50 ‘House of Livia’ 252, 260 n.50 Palatine Temple of Apollo 258–9 Panisperna, fish mosaic 233–4, Fig. 6.18 Saepta 295 Via del Porto Fluviale, octopus-eel-lobster painting 234 Via Sistina, fish mosaic 233 n.72 Villa Farnesina, garden painting 251–2 rose 257, 258, 262, 268, 279, 290, Figs. 7.4, 7.12, 7.21, 7.26 royal hypomnemata, see Agatharchides of Knidos: sources Rudston (Yorkshire), Venus mosaic 298 Sabinus Tiro, horticulturalist 260 Samut, Ptolemaic gold mining facilities, see gold sanides, see wooden boards Satrii, Pompeian gens 214 scallop 202, 225, Figs. 6.6, 6.7 Scaurus, M. Aemilius 294 scorpion 28, 122 scorpion fish 212, 225, 227, Figs. 6.3, 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 sculptors 14, 165–6, 286 sea bass 177–8, 216–17, 225, 227, 243, Figs. 5.6, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 6.12, 6.15 sea bream 225, 227, Figs. 6.6, 6.7, 6.11, 6.12 seafood 178, 191, 195–6, 201–2, 231–3, 243 seal 27 Seleukids 11, 293; see also entries for individual kings Seleukos I Nikator 36, 93 interest in animals and gardens 203, 279 patronage of artists and intellectuals 11, 236 Seleukos II Kallinikos 83 Seneca the Younger 262 Serapis 8, 62, 162 at Praeneste 46, 208 n.12 Sergius Orata, C. 231–3 serpent, see snake Settefinestre, Roman villa 261 shading (skiagraphia), in Hellenistic art 58, 182, 186, 189, 190, 193–4, 194–5 Shatby (Alexandria): Hypogeion A 99, 280–1, 282 stag hunt mosaic 118–19, 120, 149, Fig. 3.21

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

360

index

sheep 32, 33, 34, 295 shields: in Hellenistic visual culture 65, 211, 239–40, Figs. 6.2 6.22 votive shield with gerenuk 170, Fig. 5.2 Sidon, colony at Marisa 89, 93, 96, 114, 116, 292 Siphnian Treasury, Delphi 68–9 song thrush 254, 267, Fig. 7.10 Sophokles, playwright 12 Sosos of Pergamon, mosaicist 186 Sosos’s Doves: Capua version 186, 187–8, 198, Fig. 5.13 Kom el-Dikka version 187, 289–90 Ostia version 186, 187–8, 198 painted versions 186, 267–8, Fig. 7.11 Pergamene original 3, 186, 189–90, 198–202, 293 Tivoli version 188–90, 246 n.3, 293, Fig. 5.14 Sosos’s Unswept Room: Aquileia version 198, 236 n.84, Fig. 5.22 Aventine version 191–6, 200–1, Figs. 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.19, 5.20, 5.21 Pergamene original 2–3, 186, 191–7, 198–202 Thysdrus (El-Djem) version 198 slaves, slavery 61, 98, 174, 178 snail 216 snakes 6, 21, 34, 39, 40, 77–8, 80–1, 106, 109, 113, 118, 124 n.133, 134–7, 139, 140, 143, 149, 150, 154–6, 159, 175, 295, Figs. 2.19, 2.22, 3.10, 3.15, 4.5, 4.6, 4.9; see also cobra Spain, see Iberia sparrow, see Italian sparrow Sperlonga, villa of Tiberius 254 n.27 Polyphemos group 63, 189 Skylla group 63 sphinx (fantastical creature) 81, 267, 282–3 sphinx (monkey) 39 n.225, 77–78, 81, 134, 140, Fig. 2.21 spruce 254 squid 225, 227, 233, Figs. 6.11, 6.12, 6.18 St John’s Island, see peridot stag 118, 154, 295, 298, Fig. 3.21 ‘starry-dog’ 147–9, Fig. 4.16 Statius 277 statues, statuary 14, 63, 130

of animals 168–9, 236–7, Fig. 5.1 of ‘genre figures’ 53 n.36 of mythological figures 63, 189, 200, 214 Strabo 9 n.42, 30, 152, 260 on Agatharchides of Knidos 35–6 on Aristotle 12, 23–4 on Artemidoros of Ephesos 130 n.15, 133–4 on Ptolemaic Alexandria 7–8, 33–4, 279 on Ptolemaic explorers in Aethiopia 38, 79 n.143 Strato of Lampaskos: as tutor of Ptolemy II 23–4, 30 research on animals 21, 30 strawberry 257 n.34, 268–70, Fig. 7.12 Stephanos of Byzantium, lexicographer 129 Studius, landscape painter 252 sturgeon 212, Fig. 6.4 Suetonius 261, 295 Sulla 46 swallow (bird) 267, 270, Figs. 7.10, 7.12 sycamore 50 symbols and symbolism, in ancient visual culture 102–3, 123–4, 258–60, 277 symposion, see dining and drinking symplegma motif, in Hellenistic mosaics 236 Syria 82–3, 95–6 animals from 71 Syrian Wars 15, 36, 83, 94, 97–8 tableware: askos-shaped oinochoē 173, 174, Fig. 5.4 kantharos 190 kylikeion 65, Fig. 2.12 krater 65, 119 n.115, Fig. 2.12 skyphos-shaped krater 190, Figs, 5.13, 5.14 rhyton 58, 65, Figs. 2.8, 2.12, 2.16a Taprobane (Sri Lanka) 159 Tauron, hunting dog, see Zenon papyri taxonomy, see cataloguing and classification Tel Dor, see Dora Tertullian 17 textiles 160 n.111 Theokritos 9, 15, 24 n.137 Encomium of Ptolemy II Philadelphos 82–3 Theophrastos of Eresos 20, 23 research on animals 20, 21, 27, 28 research on plants 20, 23, 50–3, 87

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

index Thmuis (Nile Delta): ‘Alexandria’ mosaic 243–4, Fig. 6.24 symplegma mosaic 236 thymiateria 101, 103, 123–4, Fig. 3.7 Tiberius 47, 241, 252, 254 n.27; see also Sperlonga tiger 78 n.128, 139, 154, 155, 203, 295 time and temporality, in Hellenistic visual culture: in Sosos’s Unswept Room 200–1 in the Nile Mosaic at Praeneste 64–7 Timocharis of Alexandria, astronomer 17 Timon of Phleios, philosopher 5, 9–11 Timotheos of Gaza, grammarian 29, 30, 154 Timotheos of Miletos, poet 8 Titus 296 Tivoli, Villa of Hadrian 188–90; see also Sosos’s Doves Tomb of Apollophanes, Marisa: animal frieze 2, 56, 89, 104–14, 117–23, 123–5, 149, 154, 292 architecture and design 92–3, 102, Figs. 3.3, 3.4 chronology 93–6 decoration 89–90, 99–104, Figs. 3.4, 4.5, 3.6, 3.7 discovery 1–2, 89–90 epigraphy and prosopography 89, 93–6, 106 hunting scene 104–6, 114–17, 174, Fig. 3.8 portable finds 96 preservation and restoration 91 Tomb of Philip, see Vergina: Tomb II Tomba François, Vulci 113 topazos, see peridot Torah, Greek translation 12–13 tortoise 209, 212 Toubiads, Judaean clan 125; see also ‘Iraq el-Amir Trajan 296 trompe l’oeil, in Hellenistic mosaics 194–5, 200 trumpeters, trumpets 58, 65 n.104, 104–5, 201, Figs. 2.9, 2.14, 3.8 ‘tunny-sawfish’ 140, 143, 144, 149, 154, 155, Fig. 4.7 Tyche Protogeneia, see Fortuna Primigenia Unswept Room, see Sosos’ Unswept Room

361

Valerius Messalla Corvinus, general 47 n.19 Valerius Messalla Potitus, horticulturist 260 Varro 260 aviary at Casinum 262–3, 293 n.1 venationes (animal hunts) 296, Fig. 8.1 venom, see poison Vergina: palace 279 Tomb II (‘Tomb of Philip’), painted frieze 114, 174 n.24 viburnum 270, Fig. 7.12 Vienna Dioskourides, plant and bird illustrations 300–1 Villa of Livia, see Prima Porta Virgil 258 Vitruvius 260 walnut 200, 279 Wardian (Alexandria), Sā qiya Tomb 281–2, 285–6, Figs. 7.20, 7.24b warthog 77–8, 109, 118, Fig. 2.27 wasp 28 water, as display feature in Hellenistic visual culture 45–6, 63, 208, 220, 223 whale 27 wheatear 185, 187–8, 216, Fig. 5.12 wild ass, see onager wild boar, see boar wooden boards 230–1, 245, 275, Fig. 6.17; see also pattern books woodpecker 185, 216, Fig. 5.11 workshops, see mosaicists; painters wreaths 58, 65, 66–7, 101, 103, 104–5, 174, Fig. 2.12 Wrestlers Mosaic (Alexandria) 85–7, 170–1, Fig. 2.28 wryneck 187 xiphias 72, 80, 140, 143, 144, 149, 154, 155, Figs. 2.21, 4.7 Zenobia, Palmyrene queen 295 Zenodotos of Ephesos, grammarian 5 n.15, 8 n.34, 13 n.68 Zenon papyri: contract for bathhouse mosaics at Philadelphia 160 n.111 epitaph for hunting dog Tauron 175

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 18/11/2021, SPi

362

index

Zenon papyri: (cont.) gift of animals to Ptolemy II 125 on leopard-skin trade 116 n.105 on slaves at Marisa 98 plant orders for Apollonios’s estate 279

Zeus 31, 103 Zeuxis, painter 8 zoology, as multifaceted discipline 3–4 Zliten (Tripolitania), gladiator mosaic 296, Fig. 8.1