Sign In

Login

Password

Forgot Password ? Sign Up

Roman art (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Roman art" in English language version.

Last modified:

Ref.Un. Ref.Website
Global rank English rank
33jstor.org
23rd place
15th place
22doi.org
2nd place
2nd place
22tufts.edu
192nd place
165th place
21britishmuseum.org
1,421st place
1,087th place
11semanticscholar.org
15th place
8th place
11worldcat.org
4th place
4th place
11metmuseum.org
854th place
646th place
11ccel.org
2,249th place
1,566th place
11books.google.com
3rd place
3rd place

books.google.com (Global: 3rd place; English: 3rd place)

britishmuseum.org (Global: 1,421st place; English: 1,087th place)

  • Daniel Thomas Howells (2015). "A Catalogue of the Late Antique Gold Glass in the British Museum (PDF)." London: the British Museum (Arts and Humanities Research Council). Accessed 2 October 2016, p. 7: "Other important contributions to scholarship included the publication of an extensive summary of gold glass scholarship under the entry ‘Fonds de coupes’ in Fernand Cabrol and Henri Leclercq's comprehensive Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie in 1923. Leclercq updated Vopel's catalogue, recording 512 gold glasses considered to be genuine, and developed a typological series consisting of eleven iconographic subjects: biblical subjects; Christ and the saints; various legends; inscriptions; pagan deities; secular subjects; male portraits; female portraits; portraits of couples and families; animals; and Jewish symbols. In a 1926 article devoted to the brushed technique gold glass known as the Brescia medallion (Pl. 1), Fernand de Mély challenged the deeply ingrained opinion of Garrucci and Vopel that all examples of brushed technique gold glass were in fact forgeries. The following year, de Mély's hypothesis was supported and further elaborated upon in two articles by different scholars. A case for the Brescia medallion's authenticity was argued for, not on the basis of its iconographic and orthographic similarity with pieces from Rome (a key reason for Garrucci's dismissal), but instead for its close similarity to the Fayoum mummy portraits from Egypt. Indeed, this comparison was given further credence by Walter Crum's assertion that the Greek inscription on the medallion was written in the Alexandrian dialect of Egypt. De Mély noted that the medallion and its inscription had been reported as early as 1725, far too early for the idiosyncrasies of Graeco-Egyptian word endings to have been understood by forgers." "Comparing the iconography of the Brescia medallion with other more closely dated objects from Egypt, Hayford Peirce then proposed that brushed technique medallions were produced in the early 3rd century, whilst de Mély himself advocated a more general 3rd-century date. With the authenticity of the medallion more firmly established, Joseph Breck was prepared to propose a late 3rd to early 4th century date for all of the brushed technique cobalt blue-backed portrait medallions, some of which also had Greek inscriptions in the Alexandrian dialect. Although considered genuine by the majority of scholars by this point, the unequivocal authenticity of these glasses was not fully established until 1941 when Gerhart Ladner discovered and published a photograph of one such medallion still in situ, where it remains to this day, impressed into the plaster sealing in an individual loculus in the Catacomb of Panfilo in Rome (Pl. 2). Shortly after in 1942, Morey used the phrase ‘brushed technique’ to categorize this gold glass type, the iconography being produced through a series of small incisions undertaken with a gem cutter's precision and lending themselves to a chiaroscuro-like effect similar to that of a fine steel engraving simulating brush strokes."

ccel.org (Global: 2,249th place; English: 1,566th place)

  • Josephus, The Jewish Wars VII, 143-152 (Ch 6 Para 5). Trans. William Whiston Online accessed 27 June 2006

doi.org (Global: 2nd place; English: 2nd place)

  • Toynbee, J. M. C. (1971). "Roman Art". The Classical Review. 21 (3): 439–442. doi:10.1017/S0009840X00221331. JSTOR 708631. S2CID 163488573.
  • Gazda, Elaine K. (1995). "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition". Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 97 (Greece in Rome: Influence, Integration, Resistance). Department of the Classics, Harvard University: 121–156. doi:10.2307/311303. JSTOR 311303. According to traditional art-historical taxonomy, Roman sculpture is divided into a number of distinct categories--portraiture, historical relief, funerary reliefs, sarcophagi, and copies.

jstor.org (Global: 23rd place; English: 15th place)

  • Toynbee, J. M. C. (1971). "Roman Art". The Classical Review. 21 (3): 439–442. doi:10.1017/S0009840X00221331. JSTOR 708631. S2CID 163488573.
  • Grant, Michael (1952). "Roman Coins as Propaganda". Archaeology. 5 (2): 79–85. ISSN 0003-8113.
  • Gazda, Elaine K. (1995). "Roman Sculpture and the Ethos of Emulation: Reconsidering Repetition". Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 97 (Greece in Rome: Influence, Integration, Resistance). Department of the Classics, Harvard University: 121–156. doi:10.2307/311303. JSTOR 311303. According to traditional art-historical taxonomy, Roman sculpture is divided into a number of distinct categories--portraiture, historical relief, funerary reliefs, sarcophagi, and copies.

metmuseum.org (Global: 854th place; English: 646th place)

semanticscholar.org (Global: 15th place; English: 8th place)

api.semanticscholar.org

tufts.edu (Global: 192nd place; English: 165th place)

perseus.tufts.edu

worldcat.org (Global: 4th place; English: 4th place)

search.worldcat.org