Private Roman Female Portraits: Reworked Or Pieced?

BABesch 79 (2004) Private Roman Female Portraits: Reworked or Pieced? Mark Hirst & Gina Salapata Abstract In this article we re-examine in detail a group of private Roman female portraits often considered to have been reworked through the chiselling away of all or part of the coiffure, followed by the addition of new updated portions. Our aim is to expand on Elizabeth Bartman’s criticism of the modern theory that Roman women followed fashions in hair so closely that they frequently commissioned the updating of the coiffures on their marble images. We argue instead that the appearance of these supposedly reworked images can better be explained in technical terms, as a result of initial piecing or later repair. Sculpted Roman portraits depicting imperial and gests that the image may indeed have been mod- private subjects could be reworked in antiquity ified to update the hairstyle of the subject. Still, for a variety of reasons.1 The reworking of a pre- Elizabeth Bartman has recently suggested another existing portrait was obviously a practical and possibility for the traces of the earlier hairstyle: much quicker alternative to the carving of a head the face had originally remained unfinished with ex novo. However, the central motivation behind the portrait being a stock workshop piece; it was the transformation of private images was different finished when eventually sold during the Trajanic from that of imperial portraits. The reworking of period, at which stage an updating of the hair- the marble images of imperial personages was style would also have been necessary.5 mainly a result of political causes. Official or de A similar explanation could be applied to the facto cases of damnatio memoriae in the wake of the portrait of a woman from the mid 3rd c. AD in fall from grace of a member of the ruling family Rome (figs. 3-4).6 Her hair is parted in the centre often resulted in the recarving of that person’s and brushed in waves behind the ears. At the images to depict a successor or revered predeces- neck, it is drawn up into a braided skull plait with sor.2 Conversely, while a number of images of pri- rhombic patterning. Underneath the first plait, a vate Roman citizens were also recut to depict new second one is clearly visible, reaching towards the identities, these portraits were mainly reworked front of the head. Because there are no parallels as a result of a lack of money and materials. for this unusual doubling of skull plaits, the por- Some modern scholars have suggested that trait was almost certainly reworked.7 Having reworking also allowed private Roman women to been originally provided with a short skull plait keep their marble portraits up-to-date, a practice in the style worn during the post-Severan period driven by imperial fashions.3 According to this by Otacilia Severa, wife of the emperor Philip the theory, women followed changes in hair fashions Arab, the portrait was then modified through the so closely, that they often insisted upon the updat- carving of a second, larger plait of hair, which ing of the coiffures on their marble portraits in emerged in the Gallienic period.8 The apparent response to these changing styles. Admittedly, short period of time between the original carving there is some evidence suggesting that the coif- of the portrait and its reworking, and the absence fures on the sculpted portraits of private Roman of reworking of the face to depict a new subject women could occasionally be updated through could speak for another case of an unsold work- reworking as fashions changed during their life- shop piece rather than imply that the subject times. A portrait in Boston, for example, appears remained the same in both phases with the hair- to have been originally carved in the late Flavian style updated in response to changing hair fash- period with drilled pincurls over the forehead ions. Even if these images did have their coiffures (‘beehive’ coiffure) and subsequently had the coif- updated as a result of changing fashions, it could fure reworked in the Trajanic era to a triple-tiered, be argued that they may have represented another banded crest (figs. 1-2).4 Together with the absence individual in the second phase, for example, a of reworking on the face, the short time lag sug- daughter or another female family member. Family 143 resemblance and greater idealisation of female versus male portraits would have restricted reworking only to the coiffure.9 In the case of many other supposedly reworked female portraits, different explanations can be put forward to turn them, at the very least, into doubtful cases of images reworked for the sake of fashion. Bartman has recently sought to discredit the theory that private Roman women followed fashions in hair so closely that they frequently commissioned the updating of the coiffures on their marble images.10 In her study, which concentrated on a group of private female portraits, predomi- nately Severan in date, with heads that were pre- pared to receive separately worked, detachable coiffures, she convincingly demonstrated the improbability of the theory that such hairpieces were made separately so that they could be eas- ily removed and replaced when the sitter wanted to update her coiffure in response to changing fashions. In particular, she noted that the exchange of one hairpiece for another would have been hampered by the considerable difference in hair length, relationship of hair to ears, and shape and size of the bun from one hairstyle to the next.11 An alternative explanation could be that the sculptor, striving for realism, acknowledged the wearing of a wig by his sitter by carving it sepa- Fig. 1. Reworked head of a woman, front. Originally rately.12 Perhaps, as Eve D’Ambra has argued, the carved c. AD 96-117; hair reworked c. AD 98-125. wig was a status symbol, whereby the honest Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mary S. and Edward treatment of the wig as a wig, with the natural J. Holmes Fund (inv. no. 1988.327). hairline showing, expressed the refinement and status of the sitter.13 In the case of the many bewigged portraits consisting of heads executed in white marble and separately carved coiffures in coloured marble, the sculptor may simply have attempted a flamboyant, striking contrast in colour between hair and face.14 In this article we re-examine in detail a group of female images often considered to have been reworked through the chiselling away of all or part of the coiffure and the addition of new updated portions. Our aim is to expand on Bartman’s criticism of the modern idea, loaded with biased assumptions about female behaviour, that Roman women frequently commissioned the updating of the coiffures on their marble images. We argue instead that the appearance of these supposedly reworked images can better be explained in technical terms, as a result of initial piecing or later repair. The examination of such portraits is not exhaustive but applies to a representative number of them.15 Fig. 2. Top view of head on fig. 1. A good example of a doubtful case of a re- Photos © 2003 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. worked portrait is that of Julia Procula in Ostia 144 Fig. 3. Reworked head of a woman, right. Originally Fig. 4. Back view of head on fig. 3. carved AD 244-249; hair reworked c. AD 253. Museo Capitolino, Rome (inv. no. 339). (fig. 5).16 The statue, which can be dated to the Trajanic period, was found in an ornate and large tomb in the Isola Sacra, which belonged to three related families.17 The woman’s hair is wrapped in a headscarf (kekryphalos) in the Greek fashion. Although it is widely accepted that the first wind- ing was later roughened to receive an attachment,18 only two scholars have commented on what kind of attachment this might have been: Raissa Calza thought that the roughening of the surface was carried out for the application of an attachment in metal or stucco;19 and John Herrmann suggested that the head might have been updated with the addition of a fashionable crest of hair.20 Neither scholar, however, discussed what this addition might have looked like. Although the addition of a later attachment is clear, it is unlikely that this was done for the pur- pose of updating the hairstyle. The nature of the statue, a funerary dedication, would have pre- cluded the necessity of modernising the coiffure Fig. 5. Statue of Julia Procula, left. Trajanic. in response to changing fashions: the subject was Museo Ostiense, Ostia (inv. no. 61, Sala VIII 14). 145 Fig. 6. Bust of a woman, front. Trajanic. Metropolitan Fig. 7. Head of a woman, left, c. AD 159. Museum of Art, New York (inv. no. 14.130.7). Archaeological Museum, Thessaloniki (inv. no. 1054). Photo courtesy of the museum. Photo courtesy of the museum. dead, and the hairstyle would have been up-to- crest of hair was apparently fitted into the deep date at the time of her death. Therefore, there socket preserved over the forehead and attached would have been no real sense in changing it by two iron pins. Other areas of the portrait, the later.21 More importantly, because the hair is left ear and the back and left sides of the bust, wrapped with a cloth, the later addition of a crest were also pieced.24 The separate attachment of the of hair would have created an unnatural effect on hair at the front has led to the claim that this sec- the image.

Load more