MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005315711 · doi:10.1353/mou.0.0032

Granite Funerary Stelae from Augusta Emerita (review)

2007· article· en· W2005315711 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMouseion Journal of the Classical Association of Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeological and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)ChronologyArchaeologyHistoryAncient historyArtClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Granite Funerary Stelae from Augusta Emerita Leonard A. Curchin Jonathan Edmondson. Granite Funerary Stelae from Augusta Emerita. Monografías Emeritenses, 9. Mérida: Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, 2006. Pp. 303; 39 plates (6 in colour). € 30. ISBN 84-8181-313-3. Epigraphic corpora typically include either all the inscriptions from a particular town, museum or region, or a specific type of inscription (e.g. juridical, metric, military, graffiti). It is highly unusual to focus on a particular type of stone support, especially one so unspectacular as granite. Yet that is precisely the theme of the present volume, which studies fifty-three granite stelae (the word “funerary” in the title is redundant) from Augusta Emerita, the capital of Roman Lusitania, as well as five epitaphs on granite blocks. However, the rationale for this selection is not entirely petrological. The granite stelae (as opposed to their somewhat later marble counterparts) appear to represent the first funerary monuments of the Augustan colony, reflecting the lives of the Italian veterans and their families who initially settled here. They thus shed light on the earliest history of the provincial capital. Edmondson, a well-known specialist on Lusitania, has set himself a difficult task, given the notoriously poor legibility of granite inscriptions (whose letters would originally have been vividly highlighted in red cinnabar, of which traces can still be seen on two examples). His [End Page 168] study consists of five introductory chapters (fabric and form; archaeological context; chronology; social context; personal names and geographical origins of the colonists) followed by a detailed catalogue of the material (123–218). The majority of the inscriptions are engraved on coarse grey granite from local quarries, though a few are of finer grain, and some have a yellowish or pinkish hue. Far from being an inferior material, granite was the stone of choice for some of the most important public monuments in the early days of Emerita, among them a statue base dedicated to Augustus’ daughter Julia before her demise (57). Nearly all the stelae are either round-topped, or rectangular but carved with a projecting arch at the top; only three have a triangular gable. Round-topped stelae were the commonest form of tombstone in central Italy in the late Republic, and were obviously a type with which the veterans would have been familiar. Edmondson conjectures that the colonists of Emerita “suggested [this shape] to the local stonemasons” (55). He does not entertain the possibility that Italian stonemasons, already experienced at producing round-topped gravestones with Latin inscriptions, could have emigrated to the new colony looking for work. This might explain the elegant lettering on some of the early examples (79), which would not be expected of indigenous craftsmen requiring instruction from the settlers. Stelae with triangular pediments may be equally early (51), but the rectangular shape with projecting arch does not appear in Italy until the second quarter of the first century AD “and so too late to have influenced the introduction of this form at Emerita” (55). Edmondson here seems to assume that these rectangular stelae at Emerita developed earlier than and independent of the Italian ones (cf. 88, where he dates several of them to the period 25 BC to ca. AD 25 on the ambiguous evidence of letter-forms and simplicity of funerary formulae), but I find it more believable that they are subsequent and derivative, dating to a later phase of the Julio-Claudian period. The shape is sufficiently distinctive as to make polygenesis unlikely, and it is even less likely that Italy borrowed it from Emerita. As for the dating criteria, letter-forms may well have changed more slowly in a distant colony than in Italy. Moreover, the distinction between “good quality square capitals” and “slightly irregular square capitals” (79) sometimes has less to do with the date than with the roughness of the granite surface. Edmondson also attempts to reconstruct how these stelae would have been positioned in the burial-ground, though his aim is frustrated by the fact that nearly all of them were later removed from their archaeological context, particularly as building material for the ninth-century Alcazaba. However, a rescue excavation in 2002 uncovered a...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it