- Museum number
- 1947,0714.12.h
- Description
-
Fragment from a colmnar marble sarcophagus of 'Sidamara' Type, of Docimeaen marble. One of the Dioscuri, wreathed and dressed as in part a, stands with the weight on his left leg, his head turned to his right. Above the pediment, a lion (carved on the adjacent short side of the chest) mauls a boar.
- Production date
- 2ndC(late)-3rdC(early)
- Dimensions
-
Height: 93 centimetres (at maximum)
-
Length: 50.50 centimetres
-
Thickness: 26.50 centimetres
- Curator's comments
- Walker, Susan, 1990, Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum:
Related to 1947.07-14.12a, d and e.
The fragment is part of a series 1947.07-14.12a-j. They were said to have lain for
fifty years previously in a London garden,(1) a fate that seems incompatible with the excellent condition of the surface of the fragments.
E. Strong, Burlington Magazine 11 (1907), 109-11; J. Stryzgowski, JHS 27 (1907), 99-122; Morey, 29-37; F. Eichler, Jdl 59 (1944), 125-136; Wiegartz, 151-2, p. refs. & bibl.; M. L. Coleman-S. Walker, Archaeometry 21 (1979), 109-111; Waelkens, no. 107, 86, Taf. 27.2.
The fragments were first studied by Eugenie Strong, who passed her observations to Stryzgowski and published the other antiquities in the Cook Collection in the following issue of JHS (1908). They were subsequently published by Morey. Mrs Strong was rightly cautious about the possibility of assigning them to one sarcophagus. But, in a study published in 1944, Eichler associated them with fragments of similarly unknown provenance then in the National and now in the Byzantine Museum, Athens. It was of course impossible at that time for Eichler to study the fragments at first hand. This was later done by Wiegartz (in London) and Gabelmann (in Athens). In the subsequent publication of Wiegartz's general study of Asiatic columnar sarcophagi, all the fragments were said to be from one sarcophagus, which was used to illustrate the features of the principal type.
Even within the highly individual Asiatic series, the iconography of the reconstructed sarcophagus seemed to lack cohesion. Subsequent study of the London fragments has added to the doubts expressed by Mrs Strong. The matter of their relationship to each other and to the pieces in Athens could only be resolved by the recovery of the missing data on the provenance of all the fragments and their subsequent history. Stryzgowski observed that 'the (Richmond) sarcophagus, perhaps discovered intact, had been purposely broken into pieces in order that it might be easily transported abroad.'(2) It would now appear that the London fragments represent the destruction not of one sarcophagus but of a large tomb containing several sarcophagi, or part of a cemetery.
Isotopic analysis of all the fragments now in London has been set against observations of their sizes and techniques to assign them to various groups. On these grounds it seems that these fragments alone come from at least five sarcophagi. They may be grouped as follows: a, d, e, h; b, c; f; g; i,j. The fragments in Athens have not been analysed.
The letters used in the following entries to differentiate the panels refer to entries in the departmental register. In recent publications the fragments appear under the rubric 'Athens-
London.'(3) In the preliminary publication of the isotopic analysis of the London fragments,(4) unmarked fragments were listed as follows: R2 = 1947.7-14.12b; S/F = 1947.7-14.12a; SB = 1947.7-14.12a; S/E =1947.7-14.12f; NN = the right foot of 1947.7-14.12f now joined to the figure.
Wiegartz dated the fragments in Athens and London from the appearance of the architectural ornament to c. AD 215. A Severan date, possibly slightly earlier than that suggested by Wiegartz, would also seem compatible with the forms of the hair, heads, torsos and limbs of the figures. Fragments i and j with cruder realisation of the clothing, might be slightly later in date. Such differences, however, may reflect the varying styles of individual craftsmen.
1. Stryzgowski, op. cit. (above), 99 n. 1.
2. Idem, 107.
3. E.g. in the works by Wiegartz and Waelkens, cited above.
4. Coleman-Walker, op. cit. (above). In the second entry of Table 3, under the heading 'Identification in fig. 2', read M for N.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very likely that a and h are, as Wiegartz suggested, the ends of the front of the same sarcophagus.(1) Isotopically they are very similar. The capital to the right of a is unfinished, as is the Lesbian cymatiom to the right of h. In both cases, preliminary drillwork is completed, but the connecting channels are left uncut.
1. The variation in oxygen isotope ratios is 0.05%, well within the acceptable limit of 0.14% for fragments cut from one block. See Coleman-Walker, op. cit. (above), 111.
- Location
- Not on display
- Condition
- Both forearms and attributes are lost; struts for the attribute held in the left hand are preserved on the cloak and on the plinth supporting the column.
- Acquisition date
- 1947
- Department
- Greek and Roman
- Registration number
- 1947,0714.12.h