Comments
Exodus111 t1_ir237j1 wrote
Yeah but it's just half the image. Does anyone have the full image of the statue?
RenAndStimulants t1_ir261hz wrote
WorthPlease t1_ir9onuj wrote
It's because that statue likely ends up on the thumbnail and looks a lot cooler/more impressive.
Pavlock t1_ir22hur wrote
My Greek mythology loving daughter would like to point out that if it was found in Greece, it would be Heracles.
smittythehoneybadger t1_ir257ni wrote
Unless it was built by Roman’s which makes sense as they would have been occupying Greece right at that time
AeonsOfStrife t1_ir29qn0 wrote
It would still have been referred to most often as Heracles, as Greek was the dominant language of the eastern portions of the empire. Latin never took hold as the lingua franca of the area, so along it Heracles is more accurate to what locals (and later Romans themselves in the area) would have called it.
But I digress, it is mostly a matter of which perspective you find most personally valid.
TwoPercentTokes t1_ir2e4me wrote
The article also says Byzantine Era, and at the point they were firmly Greek Romans.
AeonsOfStrife t1_ir2fe5x wrote
Well, the early "Byzantine" era (It's just late antiquity Roman, Eastern Roman if you must) did still have Latin usage for much of it until Heraclius at an official state level. So I couldn't quite go that far as I didn't catch the exact date. Maybe you're right though, if it's post Heraclius than it would be Greek Romans.
HermanCainsGhost t1_ir2hkac wrote
It'd have to be super early Byzantine era, as Christianity was pretty solidly established after not too long - I can't imagine much support after 450, or maybe 550 at the absolute latest for a Hercules/Heracles statue.
John_Hunyadi t1_ir34vg1 wrote
It estimates around 200AD. Ya coulda just read the article…
HermanCainsGhost t1_ir3djtx wrote
Then that's not Byzantine era at all.
snkn179 t1_ir48818 wrote
Bunch of people misreading the article. It says the statue dates back to the 2nd century CE (100-200 CE), the peak of the Roman Empire. It is not stated where in the Empire the statue was originally built, as this is not known. However it was later used to adorn a Greek building during the Byzantine period around the 8th or 9th century. During this time, the locals would have referred to it as Heracles.
ieatpickleswithmilk t1_ir2mewc wrote
The article states that the statue was sculpted during the Roman era, around the 2nd century AD but last adorned buildings during the Byzantine era in the 8th or 9th century. I believe Latin was at least spoken by some people during the 2nd century since many inscriptions in Latin have been found in the city from that time period.
Ypnos666 t1_ir53ya0 wrote
The lingua franca of the East Roman Empire was Greek, throughout its history with Latin only used for administrative purposes. It would have been Herakles, son of Dias.
NordWithaSword t1_ir4ks8o wrote
2nd century AD was Peak empire, we're talking Trajan/Hadrian times.
Kichae t1_ir2af0e wrote
Eh. Even then, they spoke Greek in Greece.
cchiu23 t1_ir2lzbi wrote
Hell, they spoke greek in rome
That famous "et tu brutus" was actually said in Greek (if actually spoken at all)
ezrs158 t1_ir39frv wrote
Unfortunately, I recently learned that line was popularized by Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar and there's zero minimal evidence it was ever actually said.
The series Rome apparently has a very accurate (from what we know) portrayal of Caesar's asssassination. He doesn't say anything.
[deleted] t1_ir3byxj wrote
[deleted]
LateInTheAfternoon t1_ir819an wrote
Suetonius reports two traditions. According to one Caesar says nothing, according to the other he says "and you, son" in Greek. Suetonius doesn't elaborate on these traditions nor does he show preference for one over the other. One might note the similarity with the quote "the die is cast" (when Caesar crossed the Rubicon) which Plutarch claims Caesar uttered in Greek and not in Latin (it seems Caesar choose the quote from a play by the Greek playwright Menander).
cchiu23 t1_ir3p6fe wrote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius
Yeah, its extremely unlikely, but it comes from a roman historian
It reinforces the point that upper crust romans liked speaking greek
[deleted] t1_ir3brrn wrote
[deleted]
_KatetheGreat35_ t1_ir32n3h wrote
Greeks continued to exist and continued to speak Greek for the most part.
Anxiety_Friendly t1_ir3dgj7 wrote
Yea but what have the Romans ever done for us?
Bravefan21 t1_ir45smk wrote
Alright but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?!?!
beerdrew t1_ir2a5ih wrote
The article does say it’s a Roman statue…
Fendibull t1_ir4x0av wrote
ELI5 I thought Heracles supposed to be bearded? All I know about youth looking gods supposed to be Apollo.
smittythehoneybadger t1_ir4ysr2 wrote
I apologize for confusion, I didn’t mean it in that the Greeks spoke Latin so much as that if a Latin speaking artist sculpted it, would we not use his terms? I know the two are essentially the same, but wouldn’t the distinction matter? Or did they recognize that Ares and Mars were the same entity?
dumbidoo t1_ir55jzm wrote
This is just some dumb reasoning. If an American went to Finland and made a statue of Santa Claus there, complete with a name plate referring to it as such, at least 99% of Finnish people would still refer to it as Joulupukki (the Finnish word for Santa Claus), because that's their name for the character and has been for longer than America has existed as a country in its current state. You will pretty much never change people's use of a word like that when they've already been using their own word for them for centuries. If the creation was an original, sure, they would probably respect the foreign name enough to at least try and pronounce it, but they're not going to stop using a name they've been using forever for the newer, foreign version. Especially so in the case of Herakles which is originally a Greek creation in the first place.
Initial_E t1_ir35qt0 wrote
Named after Hera, lifelong enemies?
Pavlock t1_ir3m9qt wrote
Yes, actually. He was renamed in an attempt to placate Hera. It didn't work.
popupideas t1_ir3nxfg wrote
My son does the same. Every…single…time. Not sure how old she is but if young check out the podcast Greeking out by National Geographic kids. He was obsessed.
JosseCoupe t1_ir5690l wrote
Flex on him by saying his name before Heracles was Alcides.
Jordan_the_Hutt t1_ir51mku wrote
Except it's a Roman made statue apparently so it might well have been Hercules.
MonarchistParty t1_ir1fag8 wrote
Convincing and indeed "larger than life" as the article describes.
SyllabubLopsided4724 t1_ir32t10 wrote
Is no one else focused on the headline? Roman statue of Greek hero Hercules found in greece... It's either a Roman statue of Hercules or a Greek statue of Heracles.
nimama3233 t1_ir36wci wrote
I think it’s fine.
The age of the statue for that region would indicate it would have been made by “Romans”. The Roman’s depicted the Greek hero “Hercules”. Remember that even though they bastardized the gods Hercules was still considered a Greek Hero.. even though as a Greek his name was Heracles
Remon_Kewl t1_ir4ay8x wrote
Greeks continued to exist and create art during the roman era.
Jordan_the_Hutt t1_ir533zz wrote
A Greek living under Roman occupation might very well have identified as a Roman. They would've been a "Greek Roman" and held both things as significant labels of identity.
In the same way Peurto Ricans are also Americans. One identity does not drive out the other nor does one necessarily come first for many people.
Ypnos666 t1_ir553wp wrote
In pre-Roman and early-Roman years, they called themselves Hellenes ("Greeks" is a complicated name, never used by Gre...Hellenes themselves, even today).
Later they called themselves Rhomaioi, which essentially meant "We're actually Hellenes, but the church calls us pagans, so we're Rhomaioi *wink*"
The term "Hellenes" was revived in the 15th century in an attempt to rouse rebellion against Ottoman occupiers and to re-assert Orthodox Christianity.
MarcusScythiae t1_ir4x2y5 wrote
>Remember that even though they bastardized the gods
Romans didn't bastardise anyone. Their Gods are native to the region and were later syncretized with the Greek ones.
black_brook t1_ir3muyt wrote
The Eastern Roman Empire spoke Greek. This was Heracles.
Jordan_the_Hutt t1_ir53heg wrote
This would've been 200 years before dioclecian so lowercase eastern. The aristocracy of the area would likely have spoke Latin and both languages would've been present.
TorchedBlack t1_ir3d1x7 wrote
Not really, they mentioned the byzantines. The byzantine empire was the breakaway empire of the eastern Roman empire. It controlled Greece for a while as well. The line at which you say when byzantines were byzantines vs Romans is pretty murky.
Remon_Kewl t1_ir4b0xx wrote
It controlled Greece and was controlled by greeks for most of the East Roman empire's history.
Anthemius_Augustus t1_ir4uy78 wrote
>The byzantine empire was the breakaway empire of the eastern Roman empire.
It wasn't a "breakaway empire" of the Eastern Roman Empire, it was the Eastern Roman Empire. Strange wording. It's not like the "Byzantines" 'broke away' from the Eastern Empire, they were the same thing.
sunny0_0 t1_ir34lvs wrote
And... The British Museum has mysteriously already acquired half of it.
something_facetious t1_ir389n3 wrote
Jon Oliver?
sunny0_0 t1_ir3b3tz wrote
I saw it the other day but learned about it long ago. The BM likely did save some of the marbles taken from Greece, but it's no longer the case.
BernzSed t1_ir3s01e wrote
Honestly, the British Museum is kinda boring. The exhibits have no context, they don't really tell a story or teach us about life in ancient societies. It's just a collection of old stolen stuff, like some ancient hoarder's attic but with everything behind glass boxes.
London's other museums are excellent, though. The Science Museum is amazing.
sunny0_0 t1_ir3va4x wrote
They were not taken to teach the public, they were trophies. For context you'd have to read about them and put the pieces together yourself.
Ypnos666 t1_ir5666a wrote
The Parthenon Marbles were taken from Athens illegally. Lord Elgin obtained a "firman" (document) from the Sultan in Constantinople that gave him permission to take plaster casts of the friezes.
He went to Athens, showed the local authorities and insisted that it meant he could take the entire thing. He then proceeded to use untrained local labour to crowbar the friezes off the Parthenon.
He loaded them onto two boats, bound for London. One of the boats sank off the coast of Italy.
London was originally not interested and so he kept them in his "back yard" at his stately home in Scotland. Eventually, the British Museum agreed to buy them (fence). In the 1930s they found that everything was badly damaged from being left outside in Scottish weather. So they used untrained labour to clean them.
They then found this "strange pink tint" and used untrained labour once more to get the tint off using scouring pads and caustic soda!
It turns out the pink tint was remnants from the original paint from 2000 years earlier.
This story blows the theory that the BM "protected" (and continues to "protect") Greece's heritage clean out of the water. One can only imagine what they have done with the treasures from other civilisations.
sunny0_0 t1_ir57f4f wrote
Let me know when your report on everything in the BM is ready.
something_facetious t1_ir3eb7k wrote
I'm of the opinion that everything should be returned, unless a country/culture asks that another country keep it safe for them because of times of instability or what have you. But if it gets returned and then gets destroyed... it was always theirs to preserve or destroy. Is it a tremendous loss? Yes, but such is the way of human history.
Jordan_the_Hutt t1_ir52l1v wrote
That's a valid argument. I think what we need is a multinational museum collective that owns and loans a large number of antiquities. It would be horrible to live in a world where no museum has any significant foreign objects. So for example the met could donate 1 piece to the collective which would entitle then to one loan. They then apply to take out a specific piece, and it gets moved to the Met for 1 year. Country of origin always moves to the top of the list for taking out there own pieces.
A system like this would alow people all over the world to continue to be inspired by foreign artifacts while still not depriving the country of origin from seeing those artifacts. Of course this is not a perfect system, many artifacts should simply be returned to their country if origins and there would be a lot of details to work out but with growing globalization I do think it's important for artifacts of world history to be available to the world.
something_facetious t1_ir5e2rc wrote
Yes, I agree that would be a good system. Museums lend things to each other all the time and they get money in exchange. Wouldn't it be better if that money went to the artifacts' country of origin?
I think we should offer to repatriate everything, and if those countries can't afford to preserve those items and would like help, there should be a trust set up by the museum where they're being displayed and a percentage of ticket sales should go into that trust. Then the trust could be used to cover the cost of building a facility/museum in the artifacts' home country so they can be safely returned.
It breaks my heart that people are being deprived of the experience of seeing important pieces of their own cultural history. That should be the priority, in my opinion.
zookeeper4312 t1_ir2paw1 wrote
I love that after 2000 years someone was just like...."oh hey cool look at that statue"
Jjex22 t1_ir4pxjq wrote
I know, these scales always blow my mind a bit. When I read it I was just thinking that when this was being carved the Pyramids were already more than 2000 years old.
KCCOfan t1_ir2upn4 wrote
Marvel are really upping their marketing game.
TheMain_Ingredient t1_ir3ujcj wrote
Lol @ the person in the comments section of that article calling for it to be smashed because it's a "false idol."
[deleted] t1_ir1zbj2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ir2k8iy wrote
[removed]
nimama3233 t1_ir373o6 wrote
Strong dude holding a lions skin is 100% Hercules though? I guess the club too.. but still I’m surprised they’re this definitive. Particularly because he’s rarely depicted this young
ln94 t1_ir3im74 wrote
Fun useless fact but the Greek statues and the later Roman reproductions and/or imitations were almost always painted, just the paint tended to wear away over the years and there has been a willful ignorance to the paint fragments left remaining by earlier art historians.
[deleted] t1_ir1rndt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ir206wd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ir2at46 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ir2dztv wrote
[removed]
Borisof007 t1_ir3fcv7 wrote
It's a 2000 year old statue of Blaine Gibson
[deleted] t1_ir3l0qt wrote
[removed]
motorambler t1_ir3zzq5 wrote
This is headed to the British Museum in London where it 'belongs', right?
[deleted] t1_ir4dqk6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ir4dtkg wrote
[removed]
sfxpaladin t1_ir4fjxx wrote
Cant wait to go see it at the British History Museum
Revanur t1_ir54mmm wrote
Small nitpick but that is a statue of Heracles then, not Hercules.
[deleted] t1_iryb66f wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ir2ubyv wrote
[deleted]
hailwyatt t1_ir3hd6u wrote
Nobody take your eyes off the British Museum!!!
tex1138 t1_ir3kau7 wrote
British museum will be by shortly to collect it.
[deleted] t1_ir2498j wrote
[removed]
QuestionableMechanic t1_ir1x2gf wrote
Kinda dumb they use a different statue as the main image in the article
The actual statue it’s talking about is towards the bottom