Greco roman art Essays

Greco roman art Essays Greco roman art Essay Greco roman art Essay Many elements weight over five tons and the capitals and architraves almost ten tons More on the Parthenon: Calibrates and Stations Parthenon Acropolis, Athens 447-438 BCC/Classical pennon Greeks recognized that our visual perception is not flawless and that it is influenced by our mental assumptions. Stations and Calibrates used an astonishing series of optical refinements in the proportions of the Parthenon to make it appear perfectly regular and rectangular to he human eye. Exact measurement of the Parthenon has revealed many apparently intentional deviations from regularity and rectangular. The Greeks realized that we perceive vertical lines as sloping and horizontal lines as sagging in the center. They corrected for these human errors in perception. The platform and stairs curve upward, as does the untreatable (but to a lesser degree, presumably because it was farther from the viewers eye). : The columns and untreatable also slope inward slightly to prevent their appearing to slope outward. Effect of their being silhouetted against the sky. The diameter of the columns bulges out by two-thirds of an inch part-way up to accommodate the human assumption that the columns will be slightly compressed by the weight they appear to bear (entities), and the illusion of regular spacing among the columns is created by spacing that is actually irregular. The result is what many perceive as the most perfectly proportioned building ever created. Just as the contemporary Doorposts by Polytheists may be seen as the culmination of nearly two centuries searching for the ideal proportions of the various human bodily parts, so, too, the Parthenon may be viewed as the ideal solution to the Greek architects quest for perfect proportions in Doric temple design. Its well-spaced columns, with their slender shafts, and the capitals, with their straight-sided conical Chinese, are the ultimate refinement of the bulging and squat Doric columns and compressed capitals of the Archaic Temple of Hear at Pesetas, Italy, c. 40 BCC. The Parthenon architects and Polytheists, the Doorposts sculptor were kindred spirits in their belief that beautiful proportions resulted from strict adherence to harmonious numerical ratios, whether they were designing a temple more than 200 feet long or a life-size statue of a nude man. The Parathions harmonious design and mathematical precision of the sizes of its constituent elements tend to obscure the fact this temple, as actually constructed, is quite irregular in shape. Throughout the building are pronounced deviations from the strictly horizontal and vertical lines assumed to be the basis of all Greek post- and-lintel structures. For ex. , the stalemate curves upward at the center on both the sides and the fade, forming a kind of shallow dome, and this curvature is carried up into the untreatable. Moreover, the priestly columns lean inward slightly. Those t the corners have a diagonal inclination and are also about 2 inches thicker than the rest. If their lines are continued, they would meet about one and one-half miles above the temple. These deviations from the norm meant that virtually every Parthenon block and drum had to be carved according to the special set of specifications its unique place in the structure dictated. This was obviously a daunting task, and a reason must have existed for these so- called refinements in the Parthenon. Some modern observers note, how the curving of horizontal lines and the tilting of vertical ones create a dynamic balance in the alludinga kind of architectural contrastsand give it a sense of life. The oldest recorded explanation, however, may be the correct one. Vitreous, a Roman architect of the late first century BCC who claims to have had access to the treatise on the Parthenon Stations wroteagain note the kinship with the Canon of Polytheistsmaintains that these adjustments were made to compensate for optical illusions. Vitreous states that if the stalemate is laid out on a level surface, it will thicker since they are surrounded by light and would otherwise appear thinner than their neighbors. Ex. Of Ionic Temple 0 Temple of Athena Nikkei, Acropolis, Athens, c. 427-424 BCC. 0 Slenderer proportions than Doric 0 Scroll capitals 0 Continuous sculpted frieze 0 Mephistopheles planthat is, porch at each end 0 Surrounded by parapet, or low wall, faced with sculpted panels depicting Athena presiding over her winged attendants, called Nines (Victories), as they prepared for a celebration. O Ex. Nikkei Adjusting Her Sandal 0 Bends forward gracefully, causes ample chitin to slip off one shoulder. Large wings, one open and one closed, effectively balance this unstable pose 0 Unlike creative swirls of heavy fabric covering the Parathions Three Goddesses or the weighty pleats of the robes of the Rescissions (another example of an Ionic Temple) caryatids, the textile covering this Nikkei appears delicate and light, clinging to the body like wet silk, one the most discreetly erotic images in ancient art Corinthian order 0 Originally developed by the Greeks for use in interiors, but came t o be used on temple exteriors as well. Elaborate capitals are sheathed with stylized acanthus leaves 0 Romans appropriated the Corinthian order and elaborated it Roman Classicism The Romans admired Greek art. They imported Greek originals by the thousands and had them copied in even greater numbers. Also some of their own works were based on Greek sources, and many of their artists, from Republican times (51()- 31 BCC) to the end of the empire (31 BCC-410 CE), were of Greek origin. Roman authors tell us a good deal about the development of Greek art as it was described in Greek writings on the subject. They also discuss Roman art during the early days of the Republic, of which almost no trace survived today. However, they show little concern with the art of their own time. And, except for Vitreous, whose treatise on architecture is of great importance for later eras, the Romans never developed a rich literature on the history and theory of their art such as the Greeks had. Indeed, some prominent Romans even viewed their own art as degenerate compared with the extraordinary achievements of the Greeks. Roman portraiture From literary accounts, we know that the Senate honored Romeos great political and Republican times and was to continue until the end of the empire many hundred years later. It probably arose from the Greek practice of placing votive statues of athletes and other important individuals in sanctuaries such as the Acropolis, Delphi, and Olympiaa practice that was gradually secularists during the Classical and Hellenic periods. Our first indication off clearly Roman portrait style occurs around 100 BCC. It parallels an ancient custom. When the male head of the family died, he was honored with a wax portrait, which was then preserved in a special shrine or family altar. At funerals, these ancestral images were carried in the procession, and masks were even made from them for chosen participants to wear, in order to create a living parade of the familys illustrious ancestors. Such mimicry may have fostered a desire among the Roman elite for similarly true-to-life portraits in bronze and marble. Verses Ex. Head of a Roman Patrician (Head of an Old Roman) c. 75-50 BCC marble, approximately 1 2 Somber face, grave demeanor. Project patriarchal dignity. Detailed record of the faces topography, in which the sitters character appears only incidentally. This style is verses, a documentary realism. The features are true to life, but the sculptor has emphasized them selectively to bring out a specifically Roman personality: stern, rugged, devoted to duty. It is a father image of daunting authority. The facial details are like individual biographical data that distinguish it from others. Ex. Augustus from Portrait Early 1st century CE (perhaps a copy of a bronze statue of c. 20 BCC) Marble, originally colored, 6 8 high New trend in Roman portraiture, which reaches a climax in the images of Augustus himself. Sophisticated combination of Greek idealism and Roman individualityin effect, a new Augustan ideal. This was the most popular image of the emperor. Heroic, idealized body which is derived from the Doorposts of Polytheists. Augustus, the emperor, reaches out toward us as if to address us in person. His concreteness of surface texture that conveys the actual touch of cloth, metal, and leather. The breastplate illustrates Augustus diplomatic triumph over the Parthian in 20 BCC, when he recovered the legionary standards lost in Roman defeats in 53 and 36 BCC. His head is idealized. Small details are omitted, and the focus on the eyes gives it something of an inspired look. Even so, the face is a definite, individual likeness, as we know from many other portraits of Augustus. All Romans would have recognized it immediately, for they knew it from coins and countless other representations. Augustus of Portrait Focus on the individual Greek pose, roman clothes Emperor Augustus The importer and creator of Fax Roman stands in a contrasts that echoes the one of classical Greek athletes, such as the Doorposts of Polytheists. The cupid on the dolphin at his feet hints at the origin of the genes Julia, namely Venus or Aphrodite, the goddess of love.

Barley (Hordeum vulgare) - The History of Domestication

Barley (Hordeum vulgare) - The History of Domestication Barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare) was one of the first and earliest crops domesticated by humans. Currently, archaeological and genetic evidence indicates barley is a mosaic crop, developed from several populations in at least five regions: Mesopotamia, the northern and southern Levant, the Syrian desert and, 1,500-3,000 kilometers (900-1,800 miles) to the east, in the vast Tibetan Plateau. The first was long though to be that of southwest Asia during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A about 10,500 calendar years ago: but the mosaic status of barley has thrown a wrench into our understanding of this process. In the Fertile Crescent, barley is considered one of the classic eight founder crops. A Single Wild Progenitor Species The wild progenitor of all of the barleys is thought to be Hordeum spontaneum (L.), a winter-germinating species which is native to a very wide region of Eurasia, from the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Iraq to the western reaches of the Yangtze River in China. Based on evidence from Upper Paleolithic sites such as Ohalo II in Israel, wild barley was harvested for at least 10,000 years before it was domesticated. Today, barley is the fourth most important crop in the world after wheat, rice and maize. Barley as a whole is well-adapted to marginal and stress-prone environments, and a more reliable plant than wheat or rice in regions which are colder or higher in altitude. The Hulled and the Naked Wild barley has several characteristics useful to a wild plant that arent so useful to humans. There is a brittle rachis (the part that holds the seed to the plant) that breaks when the seeds are ripe, scattering them to the winds; and the seeds are arranged on the spike in a sparsely seeded two rows. The wild barley always has a tough hull protecting its seed; the hull-less form (called naked barley) is only found on domestic varieties. The domestic form has a non-brittle rachis and more seeds, arranged in  a six-rowed spike. Both hulled and naked seed forms are found in domesticated barley: during the Neolithic period, both forms were grown, but in the Near East, naked barley cultivation declined beginning in the Chalcolithic/Bronze Ages about 5000 years ago. Naked barleys, while easier to harvest and process, are more susceptible to insect attack and parasitic disease. Hulled barleys have higher yields; so within the Near East anyway, keeping the hull was a selected-for trait. Today hulled barleys dominate in the west, and naked barleys in the east. Because of the ease of processing, the naked form is used primarily as a whole-grain human food source. The hulled variety is used mainly for animal feed and the production of malt for brewing. In Europe, the production of barley beer dates at least as long ago as 600 B.C. Barley and DNA A recent (Jones and colleagues 2012) phylogeographic analysis of barley in the northern fringes of Europe and in the Alpine region found that cold adaptive gene mutations were identifiable in modern barley landraces. The adaptations included one type that was non-responsive to day length (that is, the flowering was not delayed until the plant got a certain number of hours of sunlight during the day): and that form is found in northeast Europe and high altitude locations. Alternatively, landraces in the Mediterranean region were predominantly responsive to day length. In central Europe, however, day length is not a trait which (apparently) had been selected for. Jones and colleagues were unwilling to rule out the actions of possible bottlenecks, but suggested that temporary climate changes might have affected the selection of traits for various regions, delaying the spread of barley or speeding it, depending on the adaptability of the crop to the region. How Many Domestication Events!? Evidence exists for at least five different loci of domestication: at least three locations in the Fertile Crescent, one in the Syrian desert and one in the Tibetan Plateau. Jones et al. 2013 report additional evidence that in the region of the Fertile Crescent, there may have been up to four different domestication events of Asian wild barley. The differences within groups A-D are based on the presence of alleles which are differently adapted to day length; and the adaptive ability of barley to grow in a wide variety of locations. It could be that the combination of barley types from different regions created increased drought resistance and other beneficial attributes. The DNA analysis reported in 2015 (Poets et al.) identified a genome segment from the Syrian desert variety in Asian and Fertile Crescent barleys; and a segment in northern Mesopotamia in Western and Asian barleys. We do not know, says Allaby in an accompanying essay, how our ancestors produced such genetically diverse crops: but the study should kick off an interesting period towards a better understanding domestication processes in general. Evidence for barley beer making as early as Yangshao Neolithic (ca 5000 years ago) in China was reported in 2016; it seems most likely to have been from the Tibetan Plateau, but that has yet to be determined.   Sites Greece: Dikili TashIsrael: Ohalo IIIran: Ali Kosh, Chogha GolanIraq: JarmoJordan: Ain GhazalCyprus: Klimonas, Kissonerga-MylouthkiaPakistan: MehrgarhPalestine: JerichoSwitzerland: Arbon Bleiche 3Syria: Abu HureyraTurkey: Çatalhà ¶yà ¼kTurkmenistan: Jeitun Sources This article is a part of the About.com guide to the Plant Domestication, and the Dictionary of Archaeology.Allaby RG. 2015. Barley domestication: the end of a central dogma? Genome Biology 16(1):176.Badr A, Muller K, Schafer-Pregl R, El Rabey H, Effgen S, Ibrahim HH, Pozzi C, Rohde W, and Salamini F. 2000. On the origin and domestication history of Barley (Hordeum vulgare). Molecular Biology and Evolution 17(4):499-510.Dai F, Chen Z-H, Wang X, Li Z, Jin G, Wu D, Cai S, Wang N, Wu F, Nevo E et al. 2014. Transcriptome profiling reveals mosaic genomic origins of modern cultivated barley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(37):13403-13408.Jones G, Charles MP, Jones MK, Colledge S, Leigh FJ, Lister DA, Smith LMJ, Powell W, Brown TA, and Jones HL. 2013. DNA evidence for multiple introductions of barley into Europe following dispersed domestications in Western Asia. Antiquity 87(337):701-713.Jones G, Jones H, Charles MP, Jones MK, Colledge S, Leigh FJ, Lister DA, Smith LMJ , Powell W, and Brown TA. 2012. Phylogeographic analysis of barley DNA as evidence for the spread of Neolithic agriculture through Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(10):3230-3238. Komatsuda T, Pourkheirandish M, He C, Azhaguvel P, Kanamori H, Perovic D, Stein N, Graner A, Wicker T, Tagiri A et al. 2007. Six-rowed barley originated from a mutation in a homeodomain-leucine zipper I-class homeobox gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(4):1424-1429. doi:10.1073/pnas.0608580104Lister DL, and Jones MK. 2013. Is naked barley an eastern or a western crop? The combined evidence of archaeobotany and genetics. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 22(5):439-446. doi: 10.1007/s00334-012-0376-9Morrell PL, and Clegg MT. 2007. Genetic evidence for a second domestication of barley (Hordeum vulgare) east of the Fertile Crescent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:3289-3294.Poets AM, Fang Z, Clegg MT, and Morrell PL. 2015. Barley landraces are characterized by geographically heterogeneous genomic origins. Genome Biology 16(1):1-11.Riehl S, Zeidi M, and Conard NJ. 2013. Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros mountains of Iran. Science 341:65-67. Riehl S, Pustovoytov K, Weippert H, Klett S, and Hole F. 2014. Drought stress variability in ancient Near Eastern agricultural systems evidenced by delta13C in barley grain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(34):12348-12353.Wang J, Liu L, Ball T, Yu L, Li Y, and Xing F. 2016. Revealing a 4,000-y-old beer recipe in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.Zhao Z. 2011. New Archaeobotanic Data for the Study of the Origins of Agriculture in China. Current Anthropology 52(S4):S295-S306.