A Canadian scholar has come up with a theory about the wear patterns on the famous Alexander mosaic. In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Martin Beckmann of the University of Western Ontario suggested that the wear patterns allow us to reconstruct exactly how ancient Romans viewed the mosaic.
The Alexander mosaic, now on display at the National Archaeological Museum in Naples but originally from the floor of the exedra of the House of the Faun in Pompeii, is one of the most famous extant ancient mosaics. The mosaic, which measures 19’ x 10’ was a copy of a Hellenistic painting showing Alexander facing the Persian King Darius in battle (probably the Battle of Issus) which was executed around 300BC. The mosaic itself, which features the “opus vermiculatum” technique was made around 100 BC from circa 4 million tesserae.
Several areas of the mosaic were repaired in antiquity (around 100AD) with mortar, and in particular a large piece of the mosaic around the figure of Alexander was repaired as seen in the image. Beckmann’s theory is that the main patterns of wear, as annotated below (1,2,a,b and c), show where the Romans stood to look at the mosaic with the owner of the house acting as a tour guide.
“Once the visitors had entered the room - we might imagine a group of dinner-guests led by their host - the tour would begin with Darius and his Persians. The host would have stood above Darius' horses (1), explained why the great king was fleeing, and pointed out the artistic novelties in the lower portion of the mosaic. The guests would have milled about at the foot of the mosaic, taking in the overall scene, and then briefly concentrated themselves around the figures of the two doomed Persians (a - b). Then the host moved to the left and stationed himself in the area above the figure pair composed of Alexander and the unfortunate Persian he is spearing (2). The guests marched right onto the mosaic and crowded around the image of the Macedonian king, standing right on top of his body (c), being careful however not to step on his head or that of his horse. The guests arranged themselves in a semicircle, so as to leave a line of sight open between them and their host, who was also able to see Alexander's head from his vantage point above."
Hmm, I’m afraid I just don’t agree with this explanation. A Roman exedra was a large, elegant room usually located off the garden used for formal entertainments and dinner parties. In the case of the House of the Faun, the exedra is between two peristyle gardens and would have been used as a place where the hosts could relax and entertain special guests. Given its location in the house, as a sort of meeting place, or axis, it would be strange if there were not at least some furniture for the guests to relax and dine and I think it is entirely possible that moving furniture caused the damage. In Roman villas it was more common for rooms to have a plain or geometric floor mosaic with a small pictorial element or ‘emblema’ of opus vermiculatum in the middle and this would mean that furniture would usually be on the larger, more stable, tesserae, rather than on the opus vermiculatum. The opus vermiculatum section would be quite fragile because the tesserae are small. Since in this case the opus vermiculatum covers the whole floor, the furniture would have to be placed on it, and could have caused damage.
I think that Beckmann’s theory also falls down on a practical level: the repaired areas where people are supposed to have milled around to look at the Persians (a and b) don’t seem big enough to equal where they all stood to look at Alexander (c). I also think that to view Alexander properly, you would have stood to the right of him to look him in the face full on (he is shown in a right facing profile) rather than to the left and below. Surely the best vantage point for viewing the mosaic (even if we are prepared to consider that this was viewed as a piece of ‘art’, which is another debate which could be held) would be in the middle of the bottom edge of the view of the battle, under the black horse’s head. To stand so far to the left upsets the balance of the composition as intended by the original painter, and would not be a natural vantage point at all.
So, comments please….. what do you think?
The Alexander mosaic, now on display at the National Archaeological Museum in Naples but originally from the floor of the exedra of the House of the Faun in Pompeii, is one of the most famous extant ancient mosaics. The mosaic, which measures 19’ x 10’ was a copy of a Hellenistic painting showing Alexander facing the Persian King Darius in battle (probably the Battle of Issus) which was executed around 300BC. The mosaic itself, which features the “opus vermiculatum” technique was made around 100 BC from circa 4 million tesserae.
Several areas of the mosaic were repaired in antiquity (around 100AD) with mortar, and in particular a large piece of the mosaic around the figure of Alexander was repaired as seen in the image. Beckmann’s theory is that the main patterns of wear, as annotated below (1,2,a,b and c), show where the Romans stood to look at the mosaic with the owner of the house acting as a tour guide.
“Once the visitors had entered the room - we might imagine a group of dinner-guests led by their host - the tour would begin with Darius and his Persians. The host would have stood above Darius' horses (1), explained why the great king was fleeing, and pointed out the artistic novelties in the lower portion of the mosaic. The guests would have milled about at the foot of the mosaic, taking in the overall scene, and then briefly concentrated themselves around the figures of the two doomed Persians (a - b). Then the host moved to the left and stationed himself in the area above the figure pair composed of Alexander and the unfortunate Persian he is spearing (2). The guests marched right onto the mosaic and crowded around the image of the Macedonian king, standing right on top of his body (c), being careful however not to step on his head or that of his horse. The guests arranged themselves in a semicircle, so as to leave a line of sight open between them and their host, who was also able to see Alexander's head from his vantage point above."
Hmm, I’m afraid I just don’t agree with this explanation. A Roman exedra was a large, elegant room usually located off the garden used for formal entertainments and dinner parties. In the case of the House of the Faun, the exedra is between two peristyle gardens and would have been used as a place where the hosts could relax and entertain special guests. Given its location in the house, as a sort of meeting place, or axis, it would be strange if there were not at least some furniture for the guests to relax and dine and I think it is entirely possible that moving furniture caused the damage. In Roman villas it was more common for rooms to have a plain or geometric floor mosaic with a small pictorial element or ‘emblema’ of opus vermiculatum in the middle and this would mean that furniture would usually be on the larger, more stable, tesserae, rather than on the opus vermiculatum. The opus vermiculatum section would be quite fragile because the tesserae are small. Since in this case the opus vermiculatum covers the whole floor, the furniture would have to be placed on it, and could have caused damage.
I think that Beckmann’s theory also falls down on a practical level: the repaired areas where people are supposed to have milled around to look at the Persians (a and b) don’t seem big enough to equal where they all stood to look at Alexander (c). I also think that to view Alexander properly, you would have stood to the right of him to look him in the face full on (he is shown in a right facing profile) rather than to the left and below. Surely the best vantage point for viewing the mosaic (even if we are prepared to consider that this was viewed as a piece of ‘art’, which is another debate which could be held) would be in the middle of the bottom edge of the view of the battle, under the black horse’s head. To stand so far to the left upsets the balance of the composition as intended by the original painter, and would not be a natural vantage point at all.
So, comments please….. what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment