The Ludovisi Sarcophagus
Art is alluring. It can be fascinating to look at, telling stories with vivid details, colors and technique. Art can be paintings, sculptures, architecture, cave art, rock art, personal adornment and so much more. Furthermore, art can give us a glimpse into the past lives of individuals. Though interpretations may not always be accurate and miss details, looking into prehistoric art nevertheless provides us with useful information about the past cultures of individuals. For this assignment we had to choose a piece of prehistoric art and try to understand it through a cognitive archaeological approach and present this understanding in front of the class. In our case, we chose to research the Ludovisi Battle Sarcophagus. We looked into different
…show more content…
It was discovered in 1621 and was in fact named after its first owner Ludovico Ludovisi. It is interesting to note that Ludovico Ludovisi was an antique collector, along with being an Italian Cardinal and statesman, and this was just one of the many pieces he seems to have had. The situation is not surprising considering the time period in which the sarcophagus was found. As we know the 1300’s-1700’s, when the European renaissance took place, people were fascinated with classical civilizations and would collect arts and relics such as the sarcophage (Kelly, Thomas, 2013:4). However, the art itself dates to 250-260 AD, a time period marked by instability and civil war in ancient Rome. The sarcophage can be described as a personal adornment and in this case, the adornment is of the individual that has passed …show more content…
It is clear from ethnographic data that the Romans had a “hierarchy of social status” (Kelly, Thomas, 2013: 264). Likewise, the society is believed to be ranked because of how expensive this sarcophagus appears. Rituals and burials typically reveal a person’s social status (Kelly, Thomas, 2013: 265). From here we can infer that because of the detail of the sarcophage and its size, the individual must have been wealthy and enjoyed a high status in the society and hence we conclude that a ranked society was present. The sarcophage is believed to be made by a professional, a skilled sculptor. We come to these conclusions based on the appearance of the art piece and knowledge that most sculptors work alone. The sculptor, in this case, is unknown. Nevertheless, looking at the fact that this sarcophage is often described as unclassical, maybe the way it was manufactured was unclassical? Maybe there was more than one sculptor? Because we have no solid ethnographic data on this piece of art itself, these questions are merely
It was discovered in 1621 and was in fact named after its first owner Ludovico Ludovisi. It is interesting to note that Ludovico Ludovisi was an antique collector, along with being an Italian Cardinal and statesman, and this was just one of the many pieces he seems to have had. The situation is not surprising considering the time period in which the sarcophagus was found. As we know the 1300’s-1700’s, when the European renaissance took place, people were fascinated with classical civilizations and would collect arts and relics such as the sarcophage (Kelly, Thomas, 2013:4). However, the art itself dates to 250-260 AD, a time period marked by instability and civil war in ancient Rome. The sarcophage can be described as a personal adornment and in this case, the adornment is of the individual that has passed …show more content…
It is clear from ethnographic data that the Romans had a “hierarchy of social status” (Kelly, Thomas, 2013: 264). Likewise, the society is believed to be ranked because of how expensive this sarcophagus appears. Rituals and burials typically reveal a person’s social status (Kelly, Thomas, 2013: 265). From here we can infer that because of the detail of the sarcophage and its size, the individual must have been wealthy and enjoyed a high status in the society and hence we conclude that a ranked society was present. The sarcophage is believed to be made by a professional, a skilled sculptor. We come to these conclusions based on the appearance of the art piece and knowledge that most sculptors work alone. The sculptor, in this case, is unknown. Nevertheless, looking at the fact that this sarcophage is often described as unclassical, maybe the way it was manufactured was unclassical? Maybe there was more than one sculptor? Because we have no solid ethnographic data on this piece of art itself, these questions are merely