Three monuments to Rhodopaios: a case study of re-use and continuity at Aphrodisias in the sixth century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The honorific monuments erected in late antiquity in the city of Aphrodisias are striking in their preservation and in their appearance. Two scholars, Charlotte Roueché and R.R.R. Smith, have provided full and ground-breaking publications of these monuments and have extracted important information from careful study of the epigraphic and sculptural elements. Further study conducted under the aegis of Smith and B. Ward-Perkins in the Last Statues of Antiquity Project, has grounded these monuments in the larger, empire-wide context of late antiquity. These fine academic studies have made these late Aphrodisian honours points of reference. Without the work of these distinguished scholars, this paper would not be possible or relevant. This paper seeks merely to focus attention on small details of structure, technique, and iconography in an attempt to sharpen our vision of the very last of these monuments. It endeavours to distinguish tendencies specific to the sixth-century honorific statuary habit at Aphrodisias and to understand the concept of re-use and recycling in that last moment of the statue culture in this conservative city, by looking at three monuments dedicated to the same man in the last moments of the habit. These are three statues monuments to one Rhodopaios of the second quarter of the sixth century, preserved in different states. The paper is divided into three parts; an introduction that considers the main trends of honorific statuary, the presentation of the three monuments of Rhodopaios, and a conclusion. On cover:Late Roman wall, the portion immediately south of the West Gate (Porta Oea) with re-used blocks from first-century mausolea (Drawing by Francesca Bigi) and Tombstone of Regina from South Shields (Arbeia) (Tyne and WearArchives and Museums/ Bridgeman Images). E-ISSN (online version) 2611-3686 ISSN (print version) 0065-0900
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".