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 prepared 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 easily 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 purpose of updating the hairstyle. The nature of the statue, a funerary dedication, would have precluded 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. It seems more probable, therefore, that tion of the hair was a later addition, which updated a crown or diadem was added to the portrait. The the hairstyle in response to changing fashions.25 combination of a kekryphalos and a crown seems However, the reworking of the portrait for this indeed to have been a Greek fashion, as shown purpose seems far from certain. There may have on South Italian vase paintings from the second been a technical explanation for the hair attach- half of the 4th c. BC.22 It is possible that the fam- ment, such as the discovery of a flaw in the marble, ily wanted something more elaborate for their which would have necessitated the carving of a deceased relative, whereby a crowning metal or new piece.26 Another possibility is that the sculp- stucco attachment was added to achieve this. tor may have considered the separate carving and Another example of a supposedly reworked attachment of the projecting hairpiece and ear image from the Trajanic period is a bust of a more convenient than the carving of the image in woman in New York (fig. 6).23 A now-missing one piece. This is suggested by several portraits

146 that had the ears carved separately and attached upon by Matheson. On the top, right side of the to the head.27 Since, however, only the left ear was image there is a flat, angled surface with a round carved separately, and the left side of the bust hole carved in the centre. The hole is surrounded was clearly pieced, the most likely explanation is by a number of smaller round key marks, proba- that the portrait was repaired in antiquity fol- bly to give the attachment of hair a better grip on lowing damage, a practice frequently attested in the marble surface. This technique is identical to both Greek and Roman times.28 that used on the back surface of the portrait. Additional portraits from the 2nd c. AD whose Because of its location and relatively small size, hairstyles were supposedly modernized through the flat area on the top of the head appears to recutting come from the time of Faustina the have been a result of repair or restoration, or, Younger. The portrait of a woman in the Thessalo- alternatively, could have been carved to accom- niki Archaeological Museum,29 for example, sup- modate a piece fashioned separately from the posedly had the bun and a small part of the hair beginning. Furthermore, the similar technique cut away to accommodate a replacement (fig. 7).30 used on the two added parts of the Aquileia head At the back of the head is an undowelled plane implies that both areas were probably worked on butting at an almost vertical angle. The joining at the same time. A third objection to the updating surface is sharply keyed in the centre for the explanation is offered by the similarity in tech- application of adhesive cement. Rather than hav- nique of the back of the head in Aquileia to the ing been reworked, it seems likely that the back back of a portrait of Lucilla in the Conservatori of the portrait was carved separately from the Museum in Rome37 from approximately the same beginning and attached to the head with glue. period, which has been recognised as having Several examples of portraits with no evidence of clearly been pieced. The image of Lucilla has a reworking provide instructive comparisons for roughened, flat surface at the back of the head for this technique. The portrait of a woman from the the attachment of a separately worked bun of early Augustan period had the back part of the hair.38 Another portrait of Lucilla in Ostia also had head, which is covered by a veil, worked separately the bun of hair worked separately and attached.39 and attached to the main part of the portrait.31 The bun on this head is preserved, showing what Two other heads, of Claudius32 and a Hadrianic the now missing bun on the image of Lucilla in woman,33 had both the back and top parts carved the Conservatori Museum probably looked like. separately and attached. Finally, the portrait of an The similarity in technique of the backs of the Antonine man in Princeton34 had a section of the head in Aquileia and the two portraits of Lucilla, crown added to the head as a separate piece, in a therefore, casts doubt on the claim that the coif- very similar technique to the missing section on fure on the Aquileia image was updated through the back of the head in Thessaloniki. In each case, reworking, and suggests instead that the head the sculptor may have carved the image from sev- was pieced from the beginning. eral pieces of marble because of the lack of an A similar case of original piecing can be made adequately sized block of marble, as a matter of for the image of a woman in Istanbul, dated to the convenience, or even for economy. mid 2nd c. AD (figs. 11-14).40 In the opinion of Another dubious case of a coiffure having later those who see it as a reworked image, the bun at been reworked is offered by the mid-2nd c. AD the back would have been removed, leaving a rec- portrait of a woman in Aquileia (figs. 8-10).35 The tangular tenon to anchor a new one; and the tops image has a flattened area at the back of the head, of the ears would have been altered by the addi- where the bun of hair originally was. According to tion of marble patches to change the appearance Susan Matheson, the bun and a small part of the of the subject, in conformity with female images back of the head were cut away to accomodate a from the late 2nd c. AD. In view, however, of the replacement; the round hole in the centre of this cases discussed above, the replacement of the bun area would have been carved to hold the tenon of of hair at the back of the portrait with a newer the new piece.36 Three arguments can be brought one seems less likely than the possibility that this against this explanation. Firstly, as discussed in part of the hair was carved separately. The tenon the case of the Thessaloniki image, the separate and socket technique for the attachment of a bun working of the back of a portrait does not neces- can be compared to that used on a portrait of the sarily mean that this part of the head was empress Crispina in the University of Missouri in reworked. Secondly, as in the case of the New Columbia.41 This technique could also be used in York image, another area of the Aquileia portrait male portraits. For example, the top part of a head was separately worked, a fact not commented belonging to a portrait of Antinous in Rome42 was

147 Fig. 8. Head of a woman, front, c. AD 160. Fig. 10. Right view of head on fig. 8. Museo Archeologico, Aquileia (inv. no. 401).

Figs. 8-10 photos courtesy of DAI Rom (Schwanke).

On the opposite page:

Fig. 11. Head of a woman, front, mid 150s or early 160s AD. Formerly part of the Bertelé Collection in Rome; now in the Lewis Dubroff Collection in New York (on loan, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York inv. L1994.87).

Fig. 12. Back view of head on fig. 11.

Fig. 13. Left view of head on fig. 11.

Fig. 14. Right view of head on fig. 11.

Figs. 11-14 photos courtesy of DAI Rom Fig. 9. Back view of head on fig. 8. (Felbermeyer).

148 Fig. 11. Fig. 12.

Fig. 13. Fig. 14.

149 Fig. 15. Head of a woman, back. Early Severan. Fig. 16. Right view of head on fig. 15. Museo Chiaramonti, Rome (inv. no. 1887). Photos courtesy of DAI Rom (Anger). worked separately and attached to the head, as incisions, as seen in a portrait of the empress that shown by the square hole on the underside made has been dated c. AD 162.46 to accommodate a square tenon on the head itself. Thirdly, the separate carving and attachment of A portrait of a priest from Aphrodisias43 exhibits the the crown, typical of several Roman portraits,47 same technique but in reverse, with the socket on speak for the likelihood that the entire head in the head and the tenon on the piece. The similarity Istanbul was pieced from the beginning. Finally, the in technique of these heads and the Istanbul por- marble patches over the ears, which are supposedly trait implies that piecing is a much more likely ex- later additions and made the hair descend lower planation for the appearance of the latter image. over the ears, do not really make a considerable A second point supporting a case of piecing for difference to the appearance of the portrait, as has the Istanbul head is the relatively small adhesion been claimed.48 The manner in which the surviv- surface of the knot and the short tenon, indicating ing patch on the right side of the head covers the that the portrait cannot have secondarily acquired ear, leaving only a small piece of the lower part a large bun of hair like that worn by the empress exposed, can also be seen on numerous portraits Crispina and other women from the late 2nd c. AD, of Faustina the Younger from the 150s.49 It seems as has been claimed.44 Rather, it is more likely that more likely, therefore, that the patches were simply the portrait had a middle-sized knot similar to worked separately when the portrait was origi- that worn by Faustina the Younger in the 150s nally carved, because of the delicate process of and 160s AD.45 The similarities of the Istanbul carving around this area of the head.50 On the head to images of Faustina the Younger extend to basis of its similarity to Faustina’s portraits, the the rendering of the eyebrows as long, flatly piecing of the crown, the relatively small size and arched crests with the hairs indicated by short the technique of attachment of the hair bun, it can

150 be concluded that the Istanbul head was most (now missing) bun of hair provided secondarily. likely not reworked, but pieced during the time It can be objected, however, that the sleek hair- of Faustina the Younger in the mid 150s or early style of the Bonn portrait, which adheres very 160s AD. closely to the skull and is tightly combed in fine The technical peculiarities of an early Severan waves to the back of the head, is very similar to portrait in the Chiaramonti Museum in Rome that of other portraits,59 and thus need not imply (figs. 15-16), again supposedly modernized, can a loss of volume as a result of a reworking. be explained differently.51 Matheson has recently Furthermore, the barely projecting ears are also argued that the original hair of the portrait, except found on other portraits, such as a posthumus for the band of waves across the front of the head, image of Faustina the Elder60 and a portrait of a was carved away to receive a new coiffure that woman from the late Antonine period.61 Such a was attached through the large rectangular hole at feature, therefore, is not evidence in itself that the the back of the head.52 A more likely explanation, head was reworked. however, is that the woman wore a (now lost) The bun of hair at the back of the portrait is separately carved mantle which was drawn over missing. Only an oval cavity with a picked sur- the back of the head like a veil. Certainly, the angle face and a rectangular hole where the bun was of the hair over the middle of the forehead, and originally attached remain. There is a line on the especially the rough treatment of the neck very neck below the attachment surface for the bun. low down, are very similar to veiled portraits of Goette saw the picked surface for the attachment both male and female subjects.53 Indeed, the veil of a separately worked hair bun and the line or mantle covering the back of the head of Roman underneath this area as evidence that the bun was portraits was sometimes carved separately from changed and that the portrait secondarily acquired the head, as shown, for example, by a portrait of a larger bun, similar to that worn by the empress a woman from the Antonine period in Athens.54 Crispina.62 There are several weaknesses in this The face and the front of the neck, together with reconstruction. Firstly, Goette did not justify, in what hair appears from beneath the edge of the any way, his claim that the portrait secondarily mantle, were carved in a separate piece and dow- acquired a bun of hair in the style of Crispina.63 elled into the hollow hood of the mantle behind.55 In fact, the angle of the head and the relatively It is likely then that also in the case of the Chiara- small surface for the attachment of the bun of hair monti portrait the head was carved separately preclude a large Crispina-style bun.64 This can from the beginning and then inserted into a also be seen in Goette’s problematic reconstruc- veiled statue. Such a technique could have arisen tion drawing. Clearly, the attachment of a large from the convenience of having the two parts Crispina-style bun would have resulted in an carved by two different people: one sculptor may awkward space between the top section of the have specialized in carving the facial features, bun and the occiput. There are further difficulties while another would have carved the veiled bod- with Goette’s reconstruction drawing, casting ies. However, this method may also have been doubt on his claim that the portrait was reworked. related to other workshop procedures, whereby At the top of the large bun of hair at the back of the veiled bodies were prepared in advance, the head, the dotted line actually goes above the while the faces were carved to order. solid line, which implies that marble was added, Another head from the Severan period, now in not reduced, contrary to Goette’s argument. Bonn (figs. 17-20),56 not only supposedly had the Goette did not address this discrepancy, which coiffure modified through reworking, but also highlights the problems with his claim that the modifications made to other parts.57 According to portrait secondarily acquired a large Crispina-style Hans R. Goette, the coiffure was significantly altered bun of hair. Doubts that the Bonn head was by reducing the volume of hair that originally reworked can also be raised as a result of the dis- covered almost entirely the ears and by recarving crepancies between the current state of the head the now exposed ears. Such a reworking, Goette in Goette’s reconstruction and what the actual claimed, explains why the ears do not project portrait looks like. Goette claimed that the hair from the side of the head.58 In his reconstruction was reduced in volume over the forehead. The of the portrait (fig. 20), the solid line slightly dotted line over the forehead leads one to believe above the dotted line on the top of the head rep- that the hair is still projecting over this area. resents the original hair mass of the portrait; the However, in a profile view of the actual portrait no dotted line shows the present state of the portrait, such projection can be seen. following the reworking, and also the type of The oval surface for the attachment of a now

151 Fig. 17. Head of a woman, front. First quarter of the Fig. 18. Back view of head on fig. 17. 3rd century AD. Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn (inv. no. 20335).

Fig. 19. Right view of head on fig. 17. Fig. 20. Reconstruction drawing of head on fig. 17 Photos courtesy of the museum. by Goette. Published by permission of the author.

152 missing hair bun is not in itself evidence that the appearance of these portraits may be better ex- portrait was reworked, as Goette claimed. The plained by piecing or other technical reasons technique is very similar, for example, to the sep- besides reworking. By the 2nd c. AD, there was arately worked and attached crown from a por- nothing in the area of joining and piecing that was trait of Antinous, discussed above.65 One may beyond the capabilities of proficient sculptors.74 also compare the Bonn portrait to a head of Athena Moreover, the production of portraits in the 2nd in the Chiaramonti Museum in Rome,66 which and early 3rd c. AD was incredibly prolific, with has a similar picked and roughly circular surface images produced according to different tech- with a hole in the middle for the attachment of a niques, depending on the availability of marble separate piece, in this case a helmet, as can be seen and the capabilities of individual workshops. from the remains at the back of the head. The sim- Thus, we should expect many explanations for the ilarity in technique implies that the bun of the piecing of marble images. First, this may have Bonn head may also have been carved separately, been due to technical reasons. Projecting features like other portraits examined above.67 (such as ears or buns of hair) may have been Goette also argued that the head in Bonn was regarded as easier or more convenient to carve reworked because of the form of the relatively separately before attaching them to the head using bulging eyes, above deep bags. To reduce the vol- dowels or adhesive. Such attachments, especially ume of the hair, Goette claimed, the sculptor when restricted to one side, may also have been removed marble from the forehead to create a repairs following a mistake during the carving suitable transition to the surface of the face, but process or an unexpected discovery of a defect in left the eyes untouched. This, according to Goette, the marble, or at a later date, following uninten- is why the eyes currently project so far forward.68 tional damage. Piecing may also have been related However, projecting eyes and a long lower lid are to economic factors. Shortages in the supply of found also on other portraits that are not rework- materials, for example, may have required the ed,69 and thus need not imply that these features practice of making a portrait out of more than one are the result of a lowering of the plane of the piece of marble, because the sculptor could not forehead. Goette also argued that the lips on the have obtained a single block of marble of the Bonn portrait were originally much fuller, but right size. It is also possible that sculptors, even that they were made smaller by the reduction of during a time of economic well-being and plenty, marble in this area; and that marble was removed would simply want to economize on the use of from the chin to create a smooth transition from marble: by carving individual parts separately, the mouth, which caused the jawbone to disap- they could have put to good use scraps of marble pear and the chin to be no longer distinguished left over from larger works or from shapes unsuit- from the throat.70 Once more, there is no reason able for other purposes. It can be objected, of for either the lips or the chin to have been altered. course, that pieced images would not have been Goette’s reconstruction of the face, with the solid as attractive as portraits that had been carved line showing the present appearance of the head, from one piece of marble. However, it should be is again inaccurate. From the profile view, one can kept in mind that imperfections in joins could be see that the lips actually have considerable vol- covered by paint75 or masked with plaster.76 ume, and are comparable in both volume and size The Roman technique of making sculpted to the image of Faustina the Elder in Rome71 and images out of more than one piece was the con- the portrait of a woman from the tetrarchic period tinuation of an established tradition. From the in the Capitoline Museum.72 It is difficult to imag- Greek Archaic period onwards, sculpture was often ine that the lips were originally even fuller in vol- pieced together using a variety of glues, adhesives, ume. The small chin, which is barely differentiated and dowels.77 Separately carved hair attachments from the neck, is also a characteristic of portraits are found in particular in images of deities.78 from other periods, such as the above-mentioned Since these images do not represent real people image of Faustina the Elder.73 It seems more likely, who may have been concerned with changing then, that the sculptor of the Bonn head was sim- hair fashions, it is unlikely that the attachments ply trying to capture the plump physiognomy of represent updated coiffures. At the very least, this the sitter. casts doubt on the claim that the coiffures on most Through the re-evaluation and reinterpretation portraits depicting private Roman women with of the preceding images, we have sought to rein- separately carved portions of hair were modern- force the doubts cast by Bartman on the modern ized through reworking. Because of their similarity idea of fashionable change, and argue that the in technique to the pieced coiffures on sculpted

153 images of deities, these coiffures may also simply unlikely. Private portraits could also assume an represent cases of carving the hair from more honourary function. Honourary statues of private than one piece of marble. individuals could be set up in prominent places It is interesting to note that the total number of in the city, such as fora and basilicas, after the female images with so-called reworked coiffures approval of the senate or the local city council.87 represents only a small fraction of the total num- The reworking of the coiffures belonging to ber of extant female images. If Roman women female images that were displayed in such a pub- were so concerned with keeping up-to-date with lic context would also have been unlikely, because changing hair fashions by commissioning the problems would have arisen regarding the actual updating of the coiffures on their marble images, carrying out of the reworking, since the honou- one might have expected a much greater number rific statue was not a private commission. of portraits with some claim to having been Several conclusions may be made in the light reworked in this way. of this discussion. Persuasive evidence for the An impediment to the updating of coiffures on reworking of the marble coiffures on sculpted the sculpted portraits of private Roman women images of private Roman women is very limited. would have arisen from the considerable differ- It is doubtful, at the very least, that the images ence in female hairstyles from one period of the examined here were reworked to bring their coif- empire to the next.79 In many cases, this would fures up-to-date. Many other portraits that sup- have rendered impractical the updating through posedly received similar alterations to the hair are reworking of a given coiffure into that of the next doubtful cases, because several of the additions, style, because of the significant technical difficulties such as hair buns that were allegedly made to faced by the sculptor. It would have been a difficult update the coiffures, are not preserved. Rather task, for example, to rework a coiffure in the style than having been reworked, these images were worn by women from the time of Caligula and more likely pieced from the beginning, or in some Claudius into the following style worn by Flavian cases repaired at a later time. Consequently, if the women.80 The reworking of a coiffure similar to reworking of marble coiffures was not so widely that worn by Lucilla into the later style worn by practised, Roman women must not have been as Crispina would also have been impractical.81 concerned with changing fashions in hair as some Similar difficulties would have been encountered scholars have assumed. In any case, it would seem in updating a coiffure worn by women during the more likely that women who wanted to update mid-3rd c. AD, into a style with a much larger the coiffures on their marble portraits and who skull-braid that became popular in the late 3rd and were wealthy enough to commission a portrait in into the 4th c. AD.82 the first place, would have ordered a new image The commissioning of most portraits for a very rather than the reworking of an existing one. specific context and purpose would have, in most cases, precluded any reason for the updating of the APPENDIX marble coiffures belonging to the images of private Roman women. Many private Roman portraits Further cases of private female portraits with coiffures that come from a private context, chiefly residences were supposedly reworked, but which remain doubtful 83 cases, include: and tombs. Images in funerary contexts were set 1. A head formerly belonging to Frank Brown, now in a private up in honour of the deceased by the family or collection in New York: members of the household, and served to remind Brilliant 1975; Calza 1977, 56-57, no. 71; Goette 1984, viewers of the appearance and deeds of the 137, n. 45; Goette 1986, 251, n. 27c; Herrmann 1991, 47; 84 Kleiner and Matheson 1996, 174, n. 8 (under no. 130); deceased. As we have already seen in the case Raeder 2000, 198, n. 10f, 199; Ziegler 2000, 62, 65, no. 40. 85 of the statue of Julia Procula in Ostia, there 2. Athens, National Museum, Egyptian Collection of would have been little reason in such a context to Dimitriou, inv. 58: rework the hairstyle of the portrait, because the Rodenwaldt 1928, 211-213, with earlier literature; West person was dead and the coiffure would have 1941, 47; Hausmann 1959, 174; Blanck 1969, 44-45. 3. Braunschweig, Anton Ulrich-Museum, inv. AS 16: been up-to-date at the time of the subject’s death. Andreae 1973, 306; Goette 1986, 736-740, no. 14. Private Roman portraits also served a votive 4. Budapest, Szépuvészeti Múzeum, inv. 4134: function, in temples and sanctuaries, set up by Trillmich 1976, 31-32, with earlier literature; permission of the local religious council.86 In this Kreikenbom 1992, 107-109; Matheson 2000, 72-73. 5. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, inv. 790: context, too, the sanctity of these images and their V. Poulsen 1974, 116, no. 109, with earlier literature; primary function as votives to the gods would Bergmann 1981, 184; Fittschen 1982, 54, n. 34i; Goette have made the reworking of their coiffures 1984, 136, n. 45; Johansen 1995, 260-261, no. 108;

154 Matheson 2000, 74; Raeder 2000, 198, n. 10d. 11 Bartman 2001, 19. Schlüter 1971, 46, 48, raised two fur- 6. Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. 8120: ther objections: firstly, that, if such images were made Rilliet-Maillard 1978, 74-76, no. 24, with earlier litera- for the purpose of rapid change in hairstyle, one might ture; Frel, Chamay, and Maier 1982, 288-291; Goette ask why so few extant portraits have removable hair- 1984, 138. pieces and why the confinement of the practice is 7. Köln-Weiden, Grabkammer: almost exclusively to the Severan period; and secondly, Noelke 1982, 249-250; Goette 1984, 129, n. 30, no. 4, 135- that for every portrait with a removable wig one would 137; Salzmann 1990, 141; Raeder 2000, 199; Ziegler 2000, expect to find at least one other wig, which is not the 62, 65, no. 41. case among extant images. 8. Munich, Glyptothek, inv. 342: 12 Strocka 1967, 119, n. 16; Claridge 1988, 152, n. 47; Sande Ohly 1974, 80; Matheson 2000, 73. 1991, 81; Baharal 1992, 114; Bartman 2001, 18. 9. Neuchâtel, Musée Cantonal d’Archéologie: 13 D’Ambra 2000, 103, 110. Jucker and Willers 1982, 188-189, no. 79, with earlier lit- 14 Ziegler 2000, 168; Bartman 2001, 19. Bartman notes that erature; Meischner 1984, 328; Matheson 2000, 75; such a technique in images with wigs is very similar to Raeder 2000, 198, n. 10e, 202, n. 14b. that employed in acrolithic statues, where the sculptor’s 10.New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 13.229.3: intent was to suggest the sitter’s own hair. Herrmann 1991, 47, with earlier literature. 15 For a list of other dubious images in need of a fresh, 11. Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. MA 1195: more critical reinterpretation, see Appendix. Herrmann 1991, 46; Kersauson 1996, 112, no. 45, with 16 Inv. 61: Calza 1964, 65-66, no. 100; Kruse 1975, 339-340, earlier literature. no. D28, with earlier literature; Wrede 1981, 255, no. 12.Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. 2709: 162; Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 56, n. 7 (under no. 74); Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 111, no. 166. Pfanner 1989, 246; Herrmann 1991, 46; Lenaghan 1999, 13.Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 332: 171-173, 494, no. 221. Giuliano 1988, 364-365, no. R275, with earlier literature; 17 On the find-spot of the statue, see Lenaghan 1999, 172- Matheson 2000, 75. 173. 14.Rome, Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 128035: 18 For example, Calza 1964, 65; Kruse 1975, 339; Pfanner Matheson 2000, 74. 1989,246;Herrmann1991,46;Lenaghan1999,171-173,494. 15.Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2689: 19 Calza 1964, 65. Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 116, no. 175, with earlier lit- 20 Herrmann 1991, 46. erature; Matheson 2000, 75-76. 21 Cf. Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 105. Since, however, Roman women could sometimes commission funerary por- NOTES traits for themselves prior to their own death (see McDonnell 2002), an update of their marble coiffures could have been tempting. Elizabeth Bartman, Amanda Claridge, and Eric Varner 22 offered very helpful advice at an earlier stage of this arti- See, for instance, the head of a woman on a bell-krater cle. An earlier version was presented at the Triennial in a private collection in Naples: Trendall 1989, 162, fig. 290. Conference of the New Zealand Universities Classics 23 Departments held at Victoria University, Wellington (June Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 14.130.7: Fittschen/ 2002). Zanker 1983, 56, n.1, with earlier literature (under no. 72); Herrmann 1991, 47; Freyer-Schauenberg 1999, 171, 1 See Born/Stemmer 1996, 101-118; Giuliano 1997; n. 30; Matheson 2000, 73; Raeder 2000, 200, n. 7e; Kinney 1997, 118-119, 134-135, 144; Schäfer 1999; Bartman 2001, 20, n. 106. 24 Herrmann 1991, 47. Strocka 2000, 44-63, 104-119, 152-165, 196-214, nos. 4-5, 25 10, 14, 17-18; Varner 2000; Dahmen 2001, 51-53, 90-91. Herrmann 1991, 47; Matheson 2000, 73; Bartman 2001, 2 See recently, Varner 2000. 20, n. 106 (with reservations). However, none of the 3 E.g., Amelung 1903, 744; F. Poulsen 1916, 47-48; Craw- scholars discussed what this addition of hair might ford 1917, 116; Rodenwaldt 1928, 211-213; Rathbone have looked like. 26 Bartman 2001, 20, n. 106. 1938, 69; Blanck 1969, 44-45; Helbig 1963-1972 I, 41, 241, 27 nos. 50, 310; Brilliant 1975; Gazda 1977, 26; Rilliet- See, for example, a head of Alexander Severus (Rome, Maillard 1978, 74-76, no. 24; Frel 1981, 92, no. 75; Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. 329: Giuliano 1979, 360- Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 111, no. 166; Goette 1984, 128- 362, no. R273) and another of Gordian III (Rome, 140; Goette 1986, 736-740, no. 14; Herrmann 1991; Burns Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. 326: Giuliano 1988, 310- 312, no. 186). 1993; Kleiner/Matheson 1996, 164; Matheson 2000. 28 4 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 1988.327: Liverani 1990-1991, For the restoration and repair of sculpture in the Greek 167, n. 15; Herrmann 1991; Vermeule 1991; Varner 2000, period, see, for example, Frel 1982; Harrison 1990. For 73, 216-219, no. 57; Bartman 2001, 19-20. the Roman period, see Frel 1984; Hannestad 1994; 5 Freyer-Schauenburg 1999. Bartman 2001, 20. 29 6 Museo Capitolino, inv. 339: Bergmann 1977, 96, n. 402; Inv. 1054: Rüsch 1969, 130, no. P34; Fittschen 1982, 54, Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 113, no. 170; Goette 1986, 738, n. 34u; Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 81, n. 1f (under no. 109); n. 70; Ziegler 2000, 106-108, no. 103. Claridge 1990, 148, 150; Matheson 2000, 74. The portrait 7 Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 113. has been dated to around AD 159, based on its simi- 8 Cf., for instance, the head of a woman from the early larity to images of Faustina the Younger from this Gallienic period in the Antalya Museum (no inventory period; Fittschen 1982, 54, n. 34u. For the portraits of number): Inan/Rosenbaum 1966, 194-196, no. 268a, pl. Faustina the Younger, see Fittschen 1982, 44-65. 30 Matheson 2000, 74. CXLVII. 31 9 We thank Marina Prusac for this suggestion. Izmir, Museum, inv. 534: Inan/Rosenbaum 1966, 112, 10 Bartman 2001. no. 115, pl. 68, 2-3.

155 32 Bern, Private Collection (no inventory number): Inan 53 Cf., for example, a head of Augustus in Chiusi, Museo and Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 82-83, no. 29, pl. 24, 3-4. Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 3182 (Boschung 1993, 148, 33 Sinop, Museum, inv. 3.1.75: Inan/Alföldi-Rosenbaum no. 86, pl. 73) and a head of a woman in Selcuk, 1979, 147-148, no. 93, pl. 82, 1-3. Museum, inv. 97 (Inan/Rosenbaum 1966, 122-123, no. 34 University Art Museum, inv. y1989-26: Padgett 2001, 139, pl. 81). 67-70, no. 16. 54 Agora Museum, inv. S 336: Harrison 1953, 44-45, no. 33. 35 Museo Archeologico, inv. 401: Fittschen 1982, 80, n. 44 55 Harrison 1953, 44. a3; Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 26, with earlier literature 56 Rheinisches Landesmuseum, inv. 20335 (first quarter of (under no. 26); Matheson 2000, 73-74. the 3rd c. AD): Goette 1984, 128-140, with earlier litera- 36 Matheson 2000, 74. Matheson did not speculate, how- ture; Fittschen 1991, 308-309; Raeder 2000, 199. ever, on the possible appearance of this ‘later variant’. 57 Goette 1984, 128-140. 37 Inv. 2766: Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 24-25, no. 24, with 58 Goette 1984, 133. earlier literature. 59 Cf. the hair on the portrait of an early 1st c. AD woman 38 Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 24. in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen, inv. 741: 39 Inv. 27: Fittschen 1982, 76, with earlier literature. Johansen 1994, 180-181, no. 78. See also a head in the 40 Formerly part of the Bertelé Collection in Rome; now Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome, inv. 1149: Stuart in the Lewis Dubroff Collection in New York (on loan, Jones 1926, 68, no. 4, pl. 201. A similar ‘tight’ hairstyle Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York inv. L1994.87): can also be seen on the portrait of a woman in the Curtius 1957; Brilliant 1975, 136-137; Inan/Alföldi- Galleria degli Uffizi in Florence, inv. 1914.131: Rosenbaum 1979, 341-343, no. 342; Meischner 1981, 151; Mansuelli 1961, 107, no. 134, fig. 134. Fittschen 1982, 53, n. 32g; Fittschen/Zanker 1983, 81, n. 60 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2413: Fittschen/ 1b (under no. 109); Goette 1984, 128, n. 26; Claridge Zanker 1983, 16-17, no. 15, pl. 19. 1990, 161, n. 71; Herrmann 1991, 47; Kleiner/Matheson 61 Sofia, National Archaeological Museum: Fittschen 1991, 1996, 174, n. 8 (under no. 130); Matheson 2000, 74; 308-309. Raeder 2000, 198, n. 10i, 199; Strocka 2000, 127; Bartman 62 Goette 1984, 132-133. For the sculpted portraits of 2001, 20-21. Following the first publication of the head Crispina, see Fittschen 1982, 82-88. Goette did not dis- (Curtius 1957), it has sometimes been claimed that the cuss what type of hairstyle the Bonn head might orig- image was reworked: Brilliant 1975, 136-37; Herrmann inally have had. 1991, 47; Kleiner/Matheson 1996, 174, n.8 (under no. 63 Goette 1984, 133, simply stated: ‘Am Hinterkopf kann 130); Matheson 2000, 74. tief im Nacken ein kleiner kegelförmiger Knoten 41 Museum of Art and Archaeology, inv. 74.145: Fittschen gesessen haben. Jedoch scheint mir die Annahme eines 1982, 85, with earlier literature. großen flachen Knotens, wie ihn die späten Bildnisse 42 Auditorium of Maecenas: Meyer 1991, 51. der Crispina zeigen, eher wahrscheinlich.’ 43 Geyre, Museum, inv. (of excavation) 71-152 (head only): 64 Compare the case of the portrait from Istanbul (above, Inan/Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 223-224, no. 194, pl. 146, pp. 147-151). 1-4. 65 See above, pp. 147-150. 44 See, for example, Brilliant 1975,136-137. 66 Inv. 1598: Helbig 1963-1972 I, 263, no. 345. 45 Cf., for example, a head of Faustina the Younger in the 67 Cf. above, pp. 147-151 the images in Thessaloniki, Chiaramonti Museum in Rome, inv. 1676: Fittschen Aquileia, and Istanbul, each of which had the bun of 1982, 51, pl. 20, 1-3. hair carved separately and attached. The likelihood that 46 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, inv. 642: Fittschen the bun on the Bonn head was not secondarily altered 1982, 60, pl. 36, 1-4. means that the line on the neck may have been carved 47 See the examples discussed above (p. 147). when the sculptor was preparing the attachment sur- 48 For example, by Brilliant 1975, 136-137. face for the bun. There would have been no need to 49 Cf., for example, the head in the Chiaramonti Museum smooth this line because it would have been obscured (above n. 45), and a head in the British Museum, inv. by the bun, or perhaps because the portrait was dis- 1468: Fittschen 1982, 52, pl. 22, 1-4. played against a wall or in a niche. 50 Several other heads also had the ears, or sections of hair 68 Goette 1984, 133-134. near or over the ears, carved separately. See, for exam- 69 Cf., for example, the treatment of the eyes on the head ple, two portraits of Alexander Severus and Gordian III of a woman from the tetrarchic period in the Capitoline in Rome (above, n. 27); a portrait of a woman in the Museum in Rome, inv. 1063: Fittschen/Zanker 1983, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (above, p. 117, no. 177, pl. 206. 146); and a portrait of Julia Mamaea (Paris, Musée du 70 Goette 1984, 134. Louvre, inv. 3552: Kersauson 1996, 424-425, no. 196). See 71 Above, n. 60. also Raeder 2000, 198, n. 10, who lists 13 further exam- 72 Above, n. 69. ples. 73 Above, n. 60. 51 Inv. 1887: Wiggers/Wegner 1971, 128, with earlier lit- 74 On the development and technique of piecing and join- erature; Liverani 1989, 94, no. 63.5; Andreae 1994, 98; ing in antiquity, see Claridge 1988 and 1990. Matheson 2000, 75. 75 Inan/Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, 341-342. 52 Matheson 2000, 75. Matheson, however, did not discuss 76 Kleiner/Matheson 1996, 174. what type of hairstyle the portrait might have secon- 77 Adam 1966, 53, 66, 80-81, 99; Salzmann 1990, 166. For darily acquired. It is unlikely that the head was fur- the piecing of Greek Archaic and Hellenistic statuary, nished with a separately worked wig, because no see Dickins 1912, 37-39; Merker 1973, 8-9; Waywell extant private portraits with detachable wigs have a 1978, 63-65. ‘partial’ wig, as would have been necessary in this 78 See, for example, Boardman 1995, 72, fig. 57; 166, fig. image because of the band of waves across the front of 192.2; Finocchi 1997. the head. In every known case, the wig represents the 79 The development of Roman female hairstyles is docu- entire coiffure. mented, for example, by Wessel (1946-1947), Furnée

156 van Zwet (1956), Jedding-Gesterling/Brutscher (1988, Quarrying and Trade: Papers from a Colloquium Held at the 38-45), Mannsperger (1998), Ziegler (2000) and Croom Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, (2002, 98-105). San Antonio, Texas, December 1986 (BAR S453), Oxford, 80 The hair rendered in corkscrew curls over the forehead 139-152. and temples on female images from the Claudian Claridge, A. 1990, Ancient Techniques of Making Joins in period was much less projecting and voluminous than Marble Statuary, in M. True/J. Podany (eds), Art the hair over the forehead and temples on female Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture: images from the Flavian period. Thus, the reworking of Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organised by the Depts. a coiffure in the former style into a coiffure in the lat- of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation and Held at the ter style would have been unlikely because of an insuf- J. Paul Getty Museum, April 28-30, 1988, Malibu, 135-162. ficient amount of marble. Crawford, J. 1917, Capita Desecta and Marble Coiffures, 81 Portraits in the style of Lucilla have a small bun of hair MemAmAc 1, 103-119. at the back of the head. Clearly, this style could not Croom, A. 2002, Roman Clothing and Fashion, Stroud. have easily been reworked into a coiffure similar to that Curtius, L. 1957, Mädchenporträt vom Ende des 2. worn by Crispina, whose images have a much larger Jahrhunderts n.Chr., RM 64, 1-7. bun. See the discussion of the portrait in Bonn (above, Dahmen, K. 2001, Untersuchungen zu Form und Funktion pp. 151-153) for the problems inherent in replacing a kleinformatiger Porträts der römischen Kaiserzeit, Münster. small hair bun with a larger one. Also, because of an D’Ambra, E. 2000, Nudity and Adornment in Female inadequate volume of marble, the uncovered ears on a Portrait Sculpture of the Second Century AD, in D. Lucilla-style portrait could not have easily been Kleiner/S. Matheson (eds), I Claudia II: Women in Roman reworked into ears covered with hair, as seen on the Art and Society, Austin, 101-114. portraits of Crispina. Dickins, G. 1912, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum I: 82 The mid-3rd c. AD image would not have provided Archaic Sculpture, Cambridge. enough marble for the transformation of the coiffure Fejfer, J. 1999, What is a Private Roman Portrait?, in H. von into the larger skull-braid style, which has a much more Steuben (ed.), Antike Porträts: Zum Gedächtnis von Helga projecting mass of hair on top of the head and behind von Heintze, Möhnesee, 137-148. each ear. Finocchi, P. 1997, L’Afrodite del Mercato di Leptis Magna, 83 Fejfer 1999, 140. ArchCl 49, 211-222. 84 Fejfer 1999, 140. Fittschen, K. 1982, Die Bildnistypen der Faustina Minor und 85 Above, pp. 144-146. die Fecunditas Augustae, Göttingen. 86 Fejfer 1999, 140. Fittschen, K. 1991, Zur Datierung des Mädchenbildnisses 87 Fejfer 1999, 142. vom Palatin und einiger anderer Kinderporträts der mittleren Kaiserzeit, JdI 106, 297-309. BIBLIOGRAPHY Fittschen, K./P. Zanker 1983, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommu- Adam, S. 1966, The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the nalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom 3: Kaiserinnen- und Archaic and Classical Period, London. Prinzessinnenbildnisse Frauenporträts, Mainz. Amelung, W. 1903-1908, Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Frel, J. 1981, Roman Portraits in the Getty Museum, Los Museums, Berlin. Angeles. Andreae, B. 1973, The Art of Rome, Paris. Frel, J. 1982, Ancient Repairs of Archaic Sculpture, AAA Andreae, B. 1994, Bildkatalog der Skulpturen des Vatika- 15, 202-214. nischen Museums. Museo Chiaramonti, Berlin. Frel, J. 1984, Ancient Repairs to Classical Sculptures at Baharal, D. 1992, The Portraits of Julia Domna from the Malibu, The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 12, 73-92. Years 193-211 A.D. and the Dynastic Propaganda of L. Frel, J./J. Chamay,/J.L. Maier 1982, Le monde des Césars: Septimius Severus, Latomus 51, 110-118. portraits romains, Geneva. Bartman, E. 2001, Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Freyer-Schauenburg, B. 1999, Prinz oder Bürger? Zu einem Adornment, AJA 105, 1-25. antik restaurierten Bildniskopf in Kiel, in H. von Bergmann, M. 1977, Studien zum römischen Porträt des 3. Steuben (ed.), Antike Porträts: Zum Gedächtnis von Helga Jahrhunderts n.Chr., Bonn. von Heintze, Möhnesee, 167-176. Bergmann, M. 1981, Review of Poulsen, Les portraits Furnée van Zwet, L. 1956, Fashion in Women’s Hair Dress romains II, in Gnomon 53, 176-190. in the First Century of the Roman Empire, BABesch 31, Blanck, H. 1969, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehren- 1-22. denkmäler bei Griechen und Römern, Rome. Gazda, E. (ed.) 1977, Roman Portraiture: Ancient and Modern Boardman, J. 1995, Greek Sculpture: The Late Classical Period, Revivals, Michigan. and Sculpture in Colonies and Overseas. A Handbook, Giuliano, A. (ed.) 1979, Museo Nazionale Romano 1.1, Rome. London. Giuliano, A. (ed.) 1988, Museo Nazionale Romano 1.9.2, Born, H./K. Stemmer 1996, Damnatio Memoriae: das Berliner Rome. Nero-Porträt, Mainz. Giuliano, A. 1997, Augustus-Constantinus, in J. Bouzek/I. Boschung, D. 1993, Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Berlin. Ondrejova (eds), Roman Portraits: Artistic and Literary. Brilliant, R.1975, One Head, Three Problems, RM 82, 135-142. Acts of the Third International Conference on Roman Burns, M. 1994, Roman Marble Coiffures and Imperial Portraits held in Prague and in the Bechyne Castle from 25 Fashion, AJA 98, 285. to 29 September 1989, Mainz, 29-31. Calza, R. 1964, Scavi di Ostia 5.1: ritratti greci e romani fino Goette, H.R. 1984, Zwei frühseverische Bildnisse in Bonn, al circa 160 D.C., Rome. BJb 184, 117-140. Calza, R. 1977, Scavi di Ostia 9.2: ritratti romani dal 160 circa Goette, H.R. 1986, Antike Skulpturen im Herzog Anton alla metà del III secolo D.C., Rome. Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, AA, 711-744. Claridge, A. 1988, Roman Statuary and the Supply of Hannestad, N. 1994, Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture: Statuary Marble, in J.C. Fant (ed.), Ancient Marble Conservation, Modernisation, Production, Aarhus.

157 Harrison, E. 1953, The Athenian Agora I: Portrait Sculpture, Pfanner, M. 1989, Über das Herstellen von Porträts: Ein Princeton. Beitrag zu Rationalisierungsmassnahmen und Produk- Harrison, E. 1990, Repair, Reuse and Reworking of Ancient tionsmechanismen von Massenware im späten Helle- Greek Sculpture, in M. True/J. Podany (eds), Art nismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, JdI 104, 157- Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture: 257. Papers Delivered at a Symposium Organised by the Depts. Poulsen, F. 1916, Two Roman Portrait Busts in the Ny of Antiquities and Antiquities Conservation and Held at the Carlsberg Glyptotek, JRS 6, 47-55. J. Paul Getty Museum, April 28-30, 1988, Malibu, 163-184. Poulsen, V. 1974, Les portraits romains II, Copenhagen. Hausmann, U. 1959, Bildnisse zweier junger Römerinnen Raeder, J. 2000, Die antiken Skulpturen in Petworth House, in Fiesole, JdI 74, 164-202. Mainz. Helbig, W. 1963-1972, Führer durch die öffentlichen Samm- Rathbone, P.T. 1938, Three Roman Portrait Heads, Bulletin lungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom (fourth edition), of the Detroit Institute of Arts 17, 68-70. Tübingen. Rilliet-Maillard, I. 1978, Les portraits romains du musée d’art Herrmann, J. 1991, Rearranged Hair: A Portrait of a et d’histoire, Geneva. Roman Woman in Boston and Some Recarved Portraits Rodenwaldt, G. 1928, Zwei römische Porträtköpfe aus of Earlier Imperial Times, Journal of the Museum of Fine Alexandrien, in Antike Plastik: Walther Amelung zum Arts, Boston 3, 35-50. sechzigsten Geburtstag, Berlin, 206-213. Inan, J./E. Rosenbaum 1966, Roman and Early Byzantine Rüsch, A. 1969, Das kaiserzeitliche Porträt in Makedonien, Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor, London. JdI 84, 59-196. Inan, J./E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1979, Römische und früh- Salzmann, D. 1990, Antike Porträts im Römisch-Germanischen byzantinische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei: Neue Funde, Museum Köln, Köln. Mainz. Sande, S. 1991, Greek and Roman Portraits in Norwegian Jedding-Gesterling M./G. Brutscher (eds) 1988, Die Frisur: Collections, Rome. eine Kulturgeschichte der Haarmode von der Antike bis zur Schäfer, T. 1999, Felicior Augusto, Melior Traiano: Zum Gegenwart, Munich. Bildnis des Konstantin in New York, in H. von Steuben Johansen, F. 1994, Roman Portraits I: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, (ed.), Antike Porträts: Zum Gedächtnis von Helga von Copenhagen. Heintze, Möhnesee, 295-302. Jucker, H./D. Willers (eds) 1982, Gesichter: griechische und Schlüter, R. 1971, Die Bildnisse der Kaiserin Iulia Domna, römische Bildnisse aus Schweizer Besitz, Bern. Diss. University of Münster. Kersauson, K. 1996, Catalogue des portraits romains 2: De Strocka, V.M. 1967, Aphroditekopf in Brescia, JdI 82, 110- l’année de la guerre civile (68-69 aprés J.-C.) à la fin de 116. l’Empire, Paris. Strocka, V.M. (ed.) 2000, Römische Bildnisse: Porträts der Kinney, D. 1997, Spolia: Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae, Berliner Antikensammlung in Freiburg, Munich. MemAmAc 42, 117-148. Stuart Jones, H. 1926, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Kleiner, D./S. Matheson (eds) 1996, I, Claudia: Women in Preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The Ancient Rome, New Haven. Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome. Kreikenbom, D. 1992, Griechische und römische Kolossal- Trendall, A.D. 1989, Red Figure Vases of South Italy and porträts bis zum späten ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus, Sicily, London. Berlin. Trillmich, W. 1976, Das Torlonia-Mädchen: zu Herkunft und Kruse, H.J. 1975, Römische weibliche Gewandstatuen des Entstehung des kaiserzeitlichen Frauenporträts, Göttingen. zweiten Jahrhunderts n.Chr., Göttingen. Varner, E. (ed.) 2000, From Caligula to Constantine: Tyranny Lenaghan, J. 1999, Portrait Statues of Women in the Roman and Transformation in Roman Portraiture (Exhibition World, Diss. New York University. Catalogue, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory Univer- Liverani, P. 1989, Museo Chiaramonti: guide cataloghi Musei sity), Atlanta. Vaticani, Rome. Vermeule, C. 1989, Matidia the Elder, a Pivotal Woman of Mannsperger, M. 1998, Frisurenkunst und Kunstfrisur, Bonn. the Height of Roman Imperial Power, in Festschrift für Mansuelli, G. 1961, Galleria degli Uffizi: le sculture II, Rome. Jale Inan, Istanbul, 71-76. Matheson, S. 2000, The Private Sector: Reworked Portraits Waywell, G.B. 1978, The Free-standing Sculptures of the Outside the Imperial Circle, in E. Varner (ed.), From Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in the British Museum, Caligula to Constantine: Tyranny and Transformation in London. Roman Portraiture (Exhibition Catalogue, Michael C. Wessel, K. 1946-1947, Römische Frauenfrisuren von der Carlos Museum, Emory University), Atlanta, 70-80. severischen bis zur konstantinischen Zeit, AA 61, 62-76. McDonnell, K.J. 2002, Viva Fecit: Women, Patronage, and West, R. 1941, Römische Porträt-Plastik, Rome. Funerary Monuments, AJA 106, 290-291. Wiggers, H.B./M. Wegner 1971, Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla: Meischner, J. 1981, Fragen zur römischen Porträtgeschichte, Macrinus bis Balbinus, Berlin. BJb 181, 143-167. Wrede, H. 1981, Consecratio in formam deorum: vergöttlichte Meischner, J. 1984, Privatporträts aus den Regierungs- Privatpersonen in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz. jahren des Elagabal und Alexander Severus (218-235), Ziegler, D. 2000, Frauenfrisuren der römischen Antike: Abbild JdI 99, 319-351. und Realität, Berlin. Merker, G.S. 1973, The Hellenistic Sculpture of Rhodes, Göteborg. CLASSICAL STUDIES PROGRAMME Meyer, H. 1991, Antinoos, Munich. SCHOOL OF HISTORY PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS Noelke, P. 1982, Zu den Porträts der römischen Grab- , kammer von Köln-Weiden, WissZBerl 31, 249-252. MASSEY UNIVERSITY Ohly, D. 1974, The Munich Glyptothek: Greek and Roman PRIVATE BAG 11 222 Sculpture, Munich. PALMERSTON NORTH, NEW ZEALAND Padgett, M. (ed.) 2001, Roman Sculpture in the Art Museum, [email protected] Princeton University, Princeton.

158