Identities and empire: Local mythology and the self-representation of Aphrodisias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Louis Robert's pioneering studies of cities of Asia Minor revealed the wide extent and complexity of the use of local mythology in the cultural production of these communities, particularly during the Roman imperial period. 1 His research laid the groundwork for later studies of this phenomenon, such as those of Peter Weiss on the coinage of these cities, which interpret depictions of local mythology as a form of self-representation and associate this prominent use of the past in daily life as a distinctive feature of the culture of the so-called Second Sophistic. 2 The glimpses of the self-image of communities of Asia Minor fashioned in the guise of myth on their local coinage coalesce into a remarkable portrait of a polis community in the Hellenic East at the dawn of the period of the Second Sophistic on a series of reliefs that decorated a Roman civil basilica at Aphrodisias in Caria.Based on an analysis of the iconography of the depictions of foundation legends and the 'self-representation' of the founders on the reliefs of the basilica, it will be argued that the reliefs functioned both as a form of diplomacy that claimed the preeminence of the peoples, cults and lands of Aphrodisias, and as a visual encomium that celebrated their membership in the wider Hellenic world of the Roman Empire and their unique identity within that world in the past and present. The basilica and its reliefsAround the turn of the first century AD, benefactors at Aphrodisias brought the urban landscape of the civic center of the polis up to date by building a large Roman civil basilica (c.29 x 136 m) at the southwest corner of the city's South --------
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".