Interestingly but rather unsurprisingly, the details provided in the Last Supper painting by da Vinci didn’t actually help the historian duo. According to Urciuoli –
Leonardo’s mural derives from centuries of iconographic codes. Embodying the sacrament of the eucharist, the Last Supper has a very strong symbolic meaning and this does not help the historical reconstruction.Now of course, actual history goes beyond symbolism – and for that, the archaeologists had to revert to older paintings dating from around 3rd century AD. The search related to a range of sources, including even catacomb murals that are around 2,000 years old. They had also closely analysed the New Testament passages that describe the then Jewish meals in two separate incidents – the Wedding at Cana (where the famed miracle of water turning into wine was achieved), and Herod’s Banquet (where John the Baptist was martyred). In terms of historical significance, these two incidents shed some interesting insights into the Levant populace’s eating habits, with the ‘wedding’ alluding to how the Jewish people maintained their dietary laws, and the ‘banquet’ hinting at the Roman influence on the Levant cuisine.
Marriage at Cana by Giotto.
The historical scope is however not just limited to the food items in question here; it also relates to the setting of the ‘last supper’. To that end, once again da Vinci’s depiction would have been out-of-place, since in ancient Palestine food was served and eaten around a low table, with guests sitting on carpets or cushions (as opposed to in chairs around a rectangular table). The utensils and bowls would have also pertained to stone-made products or (Roman influenced) terra sigillata pottery. And lastly, back then, people did follow the ‘politesse’ of sharing food from a common container – as Judas did from Jesus’s bowl.
Roman red gloss terra sigillata bowl with relief decoration.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου