HELLENISTIC CAMEOS: PROBLEMS OF CLASSIFICATION AND CHRONOLOGY
1996; Oxford University Press; Volume: 41; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.2041-5370.1996.tb00593.x
ISSN2041-5370
Autores Tópico(s)Ancient Near East History
ResumoBulletin of the Institute of Classical StudiesVolume 41, Issue 1 p. 115-132 HELLENISTIC CAMEOS: PROBLEMS OF CLASSIFICATION AND CHRONOLOGY* DIMITRIS PLANTZOS, DIMITRIS PLANTZOS Lincoln College, OxfordSearch for more papers by this author DIMITRIS PLANTZOS, DIMITRIS PLANTZOS Lincoln College, OxfordSearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.1996.tb00593.xCitations: 2 * This paper was written in Oxford, while in tenure of a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship. I wish to express my gratitude to Sir John Boardman for his support and constructive criticism; also the following: François de Callataÿ, Martin Henig, Gertrud Platz-Horster, Gertrud Seidmann, Jeffrey Spier, Gocha Tsetskhladze, Dyfri Williams, and the audience of the Institute of Classical Studies seminar in London where an earlier version of this paper was presented. Photographs: the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California; the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; la Bibliothèque Nationale de France; the British Museum; the Museum of London; Oleg Neverov. Abbreviations (other than those for periodicals, for which the standard abbreviations apply) ANRW – Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt CAH – The Cambridge Ancient History ComR – Comptes Rendu de la Commission Impériale Archéologique LIMC – Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae OED – Oxford English Dictionary RE– Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encylopädie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References 1 E. Babelon, Catalogue des camées antiques et modernes de la Bibliothèque Nationale ( Paris 1897) iv. Google Scholar 2 Ornamenta Eccl. Sarum in Register S. Osmund (1884) II. 129; OED, s.v. cameo.. Google Scholar 3 Visitat. Thesaur. S. Pauli (Monast. Angl.) III; OED, ibid. Google Scholar 4 See, in general, D. M. Lewis, ' Temple Inventories in Ancient Greece' in M. Vickers (ed.), Pots and Pans; Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics ( Oxford 1986) 71–81; also D. Harris, 'Gold and Silver on the Athenian Acropolis: Thucydides 2.13.4 and the Inventory Lists', Horos 8–9 (1990–91) 75–82 (with n. 1 for earlier bibliography) and ead., The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford 1995) for the Parthenon accounts. Google Scholar 5 IG 2 II.1 1388B 11. 86–89: . Google Scholar 6 Most ordinary cameos weigh well under 5–6g (cf. M. Henig, The Content Family Collection of Ancient Cameos, [ Oxford 1990] throughout). It is in later periods that large 'official' cameos are commissioned. These are a lot thicker and heavier, and bear complex scenes. Cf. the two fragmentary 'State Cameos', ibid., nos. 178 (94.3g: Severan?) and 179 (140.5g: Augustan?). A cameo weighing 137.92g, bearing a single figure, is highly unlikely in the Classical period. Google Scholar 7 IG 2 II.1 1388B, 1. 62f. (398/7 BC): 368/7 (IG2 II.1 1415, 1. 12 (368/7 BC): . Google Scholar 8 Babelon (n. 1) xxxvi. Google Scholar 9 Cf. the entry for an onyx intaglio set in a ring from the same inventory as the tragelaphos, above n. 5. On ways of recording the subject matter of an intaglio cf. the account of 278 BC from Delos (archonship of Hypsokles, IG XI2 161B): a gold ring representing an Eros (1. 47: ) and another tragelaphos (1. 48: ). On sēmeion and episēmon see also J. Spier, 'Emblems in Archaic Greece', BICS 37 (1990) 107–29 and L. Lacroix, 'Les "blasons" des villes grecques', ÉTAC 1 (1955–56) 91–115. Google Scholar 10 Cf. IG2 II.1 1445, 1. 20; IG2 II.1 1534 1. 103 (a sphragidion representing an eagle); 1. 104 (another, representing a bull). Google Scholar 11 Cf. IG2 II.1 1534, 1. 103, from the sanctuary of Asklepios in Athens, where a sphragis is inventoried as asēmos, plain: The inventory dates from 276/5 BC. Google Scholar 12 Usually in composites as dialithos (Deipn. 5.197c), lithokollos (C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period [ New Haven 1934] no. 5, 38), and lithokollētos (Strabo, 15.1.69) all meaning 'gem-studded'. Google Scholar 13 Welles (n. 12) no. 36, 13–14: Also: L. Robert, Hellenica VII (Paris 1949) 5–22; lithokolletos, 'Encore une inscription grecque de l'Iran', CRAI (1967) 281–97, esp. 286. Google Scholar 14 Robert, Hellenica lithokolletos, 288f. Google Scholar 15 R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits ( Oxford 1988) 12. Google Scholar 16 G. Hafner, 'Pergamenische Herrscherbildnisse', Aach. Kunstbl. 40 (1970) 154–64 and esp. 158 with fig. 9; A. J. Wace, 'Hellenistic Royal Portraits', JHS 25 (1905) 86–104 and 94, no. B.2; Smith (n. 15) 12. Google Scholar 17 ComR 1875 19; S. Reinach, Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien ( Paris 1892) 44. Google Scholar 18 ComR 1862, xv; Reinach (n. 17) 19 with pl. LXXXV.12. Google Scholar 19 G. F. Hill, 'Priester – Diademe', WJh 2 (1899) 245–49. Google Scholar 20 The entry reads: The 15 letter gap in 1. 7 should be restored as …12…πpo- but the nature of the prometōpidion seems difficult to conjecture. It could well be a material or a representation, but the gap is too big to restore. Google Scholar 21 Cf. G. M. A. Richter, Engraved Gems of the Greeks and Etruscans ( London 1968) 9. Google Scholar 22 G. M. A. Richter 140–51. Google Scholar 23 RE I A I [1914] s.v. Ringe 819 (F. Marshall). Google Scholar 24 Found by Aschik in 1838 (in a tomb on the Quarantine Way), the ring was published by A. Aschik, 'Fouilles de Kertch', Annali dell' Instituto 12 (1840) 6 with pl. A, 1. St Petersburg, The Hermitage (Inv. no. ∏II 1838.15); Reinach (n. 17) 19 with pl. XV. 15; U. Axmann, 'Hellenistische Schmuckmedaillons (Berlin 1986) no. 34B (and no. 34A [=∏II 1838.16] for another example). The latter is illustrated in Kunsthaus Zürich; Aus den Schatzkamern Eurasiens Meisterwerke antiker Kunst, 29 Januar bis 2 Mai 1993, no. 125. Google Scholar 25 Reinach (n. 17) lxiii with caption for pl. lxxxv.10, was under the impression that the gold staters issued by Lysimachos were portraying the king himself, and were therefore contemporary with him. It was later established that they were in fact portraying Alexander and that they were being issued until much later, well into the 2nd century BC (see Appendix). The coin from the Quarantine Way tomb represents the standard Lysimachos type with the addition of a bull on the exergue of the reverse. This issue has been identified by H. Seyrig, 'Monnaies hellénistiques de Byzance et de Chalcédoine', in C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (eds.), Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson (Oxford 1968) 183–200 and esp. 196, as having been struck by Chalcedon in c. 205–195 BC. However, Reinach's old dating is still influencing the opinion of several scholars, for example Axmann (n. 24). Google Scholar 26 Cf. J. Boardman, Archaic Greek Gems ( London 1968) nos 54 and 143. Google Scholar 27 Henig (n. 6) no. 1. Google Scholar 28 Cf. J. Boardman, Intaglios and Rings from a Private Collection ( London 1975) no. 37 for a 'lion gem' (burnt cornelian) of the 4th century BC. Google Scholar 29 A comparable class of all-metal, usually bronze, rings that seem to date from the later 4th century onwards often bear representations, usually heads and busts, in relief; cf. O. Neverov, 'A Group of Hellenistic Bronze Rings', VDI 127 (1974) 106–15; J. Spier, 'A Group of Ptolemaic Garnets', JWaltersArtGal 47 (1989) 21–38 with n. 17; D. Plantzos, ', on the cult of Arsinoe Philadelphos', Archaiognosia 7 (1991–92) 119–34, esp. 129–32. The rings are usually recognised as 'Ptolemaic', on the basis of their shape (which however was universally popular) and — on less solid grounds — their iconography, although their style is rather coarse and details are lacking. Their wide distribution (from the Black Sea to Egypt and from Greek localities such as Lemnos to as far East as Afghanistan) might suggest a wide production as well. This type of ring, along with relief rings in other media (bone, marble, glass, wood) and quite possibly the class of precious stones cut in relief discussed above, might have suggested the possibility of cameo cutting to engravers and their clientele; on bone 'cameos', see E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, 'Ruler Portraits on Roman Game Counters from Alexandria', in EIKONES: Festschrift H. Jucker (1980) 20–39 and L. Marangou, 'Ptolemaischer Fingerringe aus Bein', AM 86 (1971) 163–71. Their own production, however, remained quite marginal: bronze rings were limited to the subjects listed above, and were interchangeable with similar rings cast in intaglio. As most actual signet rings were all-metal rather than stone-set, the market for all-metal rings cut in relief was quite small. Google Scholar 30 J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California (inv. no. 81.AN.76.59); Boardman (n. 28) no. 59; Spier (n. 29) 30. The identification was carried out from comparison with Berenike's coins. Although the portraits are not easy to compare, and the absence of any regalia makes even the identification with royalty speculative, the type adopted for the garnet bust is that of Berenike's portraits; it could be argued, therefore, that the Getty garnet dates from the 3rd century BC and that it was perhaps intended as a portrait of Berenike II. Google Scholar 31 Cf. O. Mørkholm, Early Hellenistic Coinage ( Cambridge 1991) nos. 178; 297, and so on. Google Scholar 32 A. Furtwängler, Die Antiken Gemmen III ( Berlin 1900) 334. Google Scholar 33 W. R. Megow, 'Zu einigen Kameen späthellenistischer und frühaugusteischer Zeit', JdI 100 (1985) 445–88 and esp. 451. Google Scholar 34 R. Righetti, Opere di glittica dei musei sacro e profano ( Rome 1955) 18. Google Scholar 35 A. Adriani, 'Contributi all' iconografia dei Tolomei', BArchAlex 32 (1938) 77 with pl. vi; Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum (Inv. no. 24345). On casts in general, see F. Burkhalter, 'Moulages en plâtre antiques et toreutique alexandrine', in N. Bonacasa and A. di Vita (eds.), Alessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano; Studi in onore di Achile Adriani II (Rome 1984) 334–47. Google Scholar 36 O. Rubensohn, Hellenistisches Silbergerät in antiken Gipsabgüssen ( Berlin 1911); C. Reinsberg, Studien zu hellenistischen Toreutik (Hildersheim 1980). Google Scholar 37 O. Kurz, ' Begram et l'Occident gréco-romain' in J. Hackin (ed.), Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Begram; Mémoires de la Délégation archéol. franç, en Afghanistan XI ( Paris 1954) 89–150. Google Scholar 38 Rubensohn (n. 36) no. 32; no. 12. Google Scholar 39 H. Kyrieleis, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer ( Berlin 1975) 6; H. Möbius, Alexandria und Röm (Munich 1964) 17; Megow (n. 33) 461; Smith (n. 15) 12. Google Scholar 40 Burkhalter (n. 35) 335. Google Scholar 41 Adriani (n. 35) 78. Google Scholar 42 Burkhalter (n. 35) 345. Google Scholar 43 St Petersburg, the Hermitage (Inv. no. 291; 157 × 118 mm). Bibliography in: W. R. Megow, Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus (Berlin 1987) 281–84; O. Neverov, Cameo Gonzaga (Leningrad 1977); id., Antique Cameos (Leningrad 1988) no. 1. Whether the St Petersburg Cameo is indeed the 'Cameo Gonzaga' has been the subject of considerable controversy. N. T. de Grummond, 'the Real Gonzaga Cameo', AJA 78 (1974) 427–29 with pl. 87 has argued that it is the Vienna Cameo that once belonged to the Gonzaga family (both cameos were in Mantua at some time) whereas others disassociate the Gonzagas from either the Vienna or the St Petersburg cameos altogether: see C. M. Brown, 'Isabella d'Este's Augustus and Livia Cameo and the Alexander and Olympias gems in Vienna and St Petersburg', in C. M. Brown (ed.), Engraved Gems; Survivals and Revivals (Washington, forthcoming) with bibliography; also G. Seidmann, 'Portrait Cameos; Aspects of their History and Function', in M. Henig and M. Vickers (eds.), Cameos in Context; the Benjamin Zucker Lectures (Oxford and Houlton 1993) 86 with nn. 3–4. Both the St Petersburg and Vienna cameos have been cut down since antiquity. Google Scholar 44 Vienna, the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Inv. no. IXa 81; 115 × 113 mm). History and bibliography in: W. Oberleitner, Geschnittene Steine. Die Prunkkameen der Wiener Antikensammlung ( Vienna 1985) 32–35; A. Bernhhard-Walcher et al., Trésors des Empereurs d'Autriche (Vienna and Quebec 1994) 90. Google Scholar 45 H. Kyrieleis, 'Der Kameo Gonzaga', BJh 171 (1971) 162–93. Google Scholar 46 E. Zwierlein-Diehl, Die antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien II ( Munich 1979) 105. Google Scholar 47 Megow (n. 43). Google Scholar 48 Kyrieleis (n. 45). Google Scholar 49 W. Oberleitner, ' Der "Ptolemäer"-Kameo – doch ein Kameo der Ptolemäer!', in O. Brehm and S. Klie (eds.), MOYΣIKOΣ ANHP; Festschrift für Max Wegner zum 90. Geburstag ( Bonn 1992) 329–38. Google Scholar 50 Other such cameos cut in this way are Berlin, Staatliche Museen FG 11058 [A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium (Berlin 1896) no. 11058] and Vienna, the Kunsthistorisches Museum IXa 59 [Bernhhard-Walcher (n. 44) no. 159]. This remark I owe to G. Platz-Horster, in relation to the cameo Berlin FG 11057 (see below) which she is currently in the process of studying. Google Scholar 51 Kyrieleis (n. 39) 19; 80f. Google Scholar 52 Megow (n. 43). Google Scholar 53 Megow (n. 33) 476. Google Scholar 54 E. Nau, 'Julia Domna als Olympias', JNG 18 (1968) 50–66. Google Scholar 55 D. Hertel, ' Eine Darstellung Alexanders d. Gr. und seiner Mutter Olympias: zur Deutung des sog. Ptolemäerkameos in Wien', in H.U. Cain et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Nikolaus Himmelmann ( Mainz am Rheim 1989) 417–23. Google Scholar 56 Möbius (n. 39) 16f.; id. 'Zweck und Typen der römischen Kaiserkameen', ANRW II 12.3 (1985) 56–59. Google Scholar 57 Richter (n. 21) nos. 610 and 611 with the early bibliography. Google Scholar 58 Cf. Megow (n. 43) nos. A18; A70–76; B26–25; D39; and so on. Google Scholar 59 Möbius (n. 56) 57. Google Scholar 60 M.-L. Vollenweider, Die Steinschneidekunst und ihre Künstler in spätrepublikanischer und augusteischer Zeit ( Baden-Baden 1966) pls. 4–6. Google Scholar 61 Spier (n. 29) with n. 35; id., Ancient Gems and Finger Rings, Catalogue of the Collections, The J. Paul Getty Museum (Malibu 1992) 156–57, nos. 433–34. For a recent addition to the group see M. Henig and R. Wilkins, 'A New Portrait of Antonia Minor', OJA 15 (1996) 109–11. Google Scholar 62 Neverov (n. 43). Google Scholar 63 Berlin, Staatliche Museen (Inv. no. FG 11057); Furtwängler (n. 50) no. 11057. Google Scholar 64 Kyrieleis (n. 45) 189–93. Google Scholar 65 Möbius (n. 39) 17. Google Scholar 66 A. Linfert, 'Bärtige Herrscher', JdI 91 (1976) 157–74, esp. 171–72. The young Kleopatra was the daughter of Kleopatra VII and Marc Antony and, along with her brothers Alexander Helios and Ptolemy Philadelphos, was taken under Octavia's custody after the fall of Alexandria. Juba reigned from 29 BC–AD 5 or 6. Google Scholar 67 Megow (n. 33) 456–71. Google Scholar 68 Kyrieleis (n. 39) pl. 107, 1–7. Google Scholar 69 A new study of the Berlin cameo is currently in print: G. Platz-Horster, in M. Avisseau-Broustet (ed.), La glyptique des mondes classiques ( Paris ). Google Scholar 70 Kyrieleis (n. 45) 178. Google Scholar 71 D. Plantzos, 'Ptolemaic Cameos of the second and first centuries BC', OJA 15 (1996) 39–61. Google Scholar 72 Cf. Smith (n. 15) 59–62. Google Scholar 73 Warrior's tomb: Tomb Four from Tillya Tepe; the cameo was taken to Kabul but is today lost; see V. I. Sarianidi, The Golden Hoard of Bactria; from the Tillya Tepe Excavations in Northern Afghanistan ( New York and Leningrad 1985) 37–38, no. 4. 10 with pls. 68–69. Google Scholar 74 ComR 1879 xliv; ibid. 1880, 78, and pl. III.9; St Petersburg, the Hermitage (Inv. no.: APT 55); O. Neverov, Antique Cameos ( Leningrad 1971) no. 11; E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks (Cambridge 1913) 404; 430–33; 584–85. Google Scholar 75 Minns (n. 74) 404. Google Scholar 76 Cf. D. B. Shelov, Coinage of the Bosporus; vi-ii centuries BC (1956: transl. Oxford 1978) 157–61. Only five royal names of the Spartocid house appear in Bosporan coinage: Leukon, Spartokos, Pairisades, and Hygiainon. Google Scholar 77 Minns (n. 74) 433. Google Scholar 78 On the coinage of Lysimachos, see Mørkholm (n. 31) 81–82 and 145–47 for the posthumous Lysimachos-type coinage. Google Scholar 79 Minns (n. 74) 585. Google Scholar 80 A. N. Zograph, Ancient Coinage: Part II: the Ancient Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral (1951; trans. Oxford 1977) 296. Google Scholar 81 Shelov (n. 76) 160. Google Scholar 82 Zograph (n. 80) 296–97. Google Scholar 83 R. Werner, 'Die Dynastie der Spartokiden', Historia 4 (1955) 412–44. Google Scholar 84 V. F. Gajdukevič, Die bosporanische Reich ( Berlin 1971) ch. 4. Google Scholar 85 V. A. Anokhin, Monetnoe delo Bospora (Coinage of the Bosporus) ( Kiev 1986). Google Scholar 86 N. A. Frolova, VDI 185.2 (1988) 122–43 (in Russian with French summary). Google Scholar 87 M. J. Price, The Black Sea; Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum IX, British Museum: Part 1 ( London 1993) no. 960 with pl. 36. Google Scholar 88 J. Hind, ' The Bosporan Kingdom', in D. M. Lewis et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History VI2 ( Cambridge 1994) 503. Google Scholar 89 Minns (n. 74) 351. Google Scholar 90 Cf. Seyrig (n. 25); M. Thompson, ' The mints of Lysimachus', in Kraay and Jenkins (n. 25) 163–82; Mørkholm (n. 31) 145–47. Google Scholar 91 Seyrig (n. 25) 197 and n. 7. The continuing popularity of the Lysimachos-type coinage, and the fact it was resumed in the later 2nd and early 1st centuries BC, has been explained on the basis of the political developments in the Black Sea area in that period; cf. M. J. Price, The Coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (Zurich and London 1991) 174. Google Scholar 92 Published by N. K. Stambolidis, , Les Sceaux de Délos 2 ( Paris 1992) 87–93, nos. 227–60. Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume41, Issue1December 1996Pages 115-132 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)