classifications 93 CHAPTER SEVEN CLASSIFICATIONS The heterogeneous collection of recarved portraits mainly removed, and the lower parts of the faces represented in the catalogue below is difficult to were simply smoothed out. The heads lean back- classify in detail, but some of the sculptural tech- wards. The upwards-gazing eyes are especially niques employed can be identified and allow gen- typical of late-antique portraits, but this feature eral sub-categories to be determined. Some is especially prominent in the portraits of the late-antique portraits, in particular, display fea- Bandit type. tures which make it possible to sort them into It has been said regarding the portrait of the specific categories: the Bandit group; the Helmet so-called Licinius from Ephesos, now in Vienna, group; the Ephesos-Tetrarch group; the Athens that portraits during late-Constantinian times group; the Eutropius group; and the Iamblichus were made to resemble Tetrarchic examples (CAT group. 292, figs. 52a-d). In my view, portraits like this one could have been recarved in Constantinian times from Tetrarchic originals, perhaps even The Bandit group recarved twice, first from a 1st or 2nd century original in the Tetrarchic period, and then a The Bandit group dates to the Tetrarchic and second time in the Constantinian period. Constantinian periods and can be recognised by An informative discussion on style by Smith the shape of the head (Plate 153: The Bandit departs from an analysis of this portrait (Smith, Group; CAT 286, figs. 50a-d; 291, figs. 51a-b; 292, 1997). He argues that dynastic style categories figs. 52a-d; 268, fig. 41; 370-373, figs. 86-88; 376, are too narrow, and “period-style” definitions are figs. 93a-b; 285, figs. 49a-b; 497). These heads look too wide (Smith, 1997: 202). This conclusion is like they have a stocking pulled over their heads, accurate, in my opinion, since most late-antique hence “bandits.” portraits were recarved and therefore either con- Similarities between these portraits are the tain stylistic remains from earlier periods or were oval, almost egg-shaped head in which the facial limited by the original form. features are cut in shallow profile, almost without In the portrait of the so-called Licinius, it is breaking the surface. The features are cut close the original form rather than the earlier stylistic against a compact head. The profile is shortened, features which have influenced the present the hairline raised, and the facial expression cen- expression (Sketch 3a-b). The vertical angle of tred at the root of the nose. The naso-labial lines the neck and the way in which the head seems and the lines from the inner part of the eyebrows to grow out of it indicate that the original, pro- to the root of the nose form an oblong cross and truding features were carefully cut away at the give the portraits their characteristic appearance. outset of recarving. The strands of hair in the The mouth forms a glimmer of a smile, softening slightly claw-shaped locks in the hair above the the expression. The eyes are large and almond- forehead indicate that the original portrait had a shaped, with fleshy bags underneath and bean- curly fringe, perhaps resembling that of the colos- shaped pupils. The gaze is cross-eyed and turned sus of Constantine (CAT 307). The subtle curls upwards at a diagonal from beneath the eyelids. which have been incised in the front of the ears The foreheads of the original portraits were may cover remains of earlier sideburns. The lower 94 chapter seven Sketch 3a-b. Hypothetical sketches explaining the recarving method of the Bandit group. The features are cut close against a compact head. The profile is shortened, the hairline raised. The eyes are larger than in the original portrait, and the mouth is smaller. The forehead of the original portrait has been removed, and the lower parts of the original face smoothed out. The grey areas in Sketch a suggest where the traces from the recarving can most easily be observed. Sketch b suggests what a cross section of the profile of the original portrait might have looked like in comparison with the profile of the recarved example. Thus the grey areas indicate the parts of the original portrait which were removed. The model for the original portrait in Sketches 3-7 and 9 is a randomly chosen example from Ephesos dated to 235-240 (Inan & Rosenbaum, 1966: 131-132 cat. 159 pl. 92 figs. 1-2). The height of this portrait is 0,342 m. In comparison, CAT 292 is 0,302 m. Only 2,2 cm of the height would have been removed, but that was probably more removable volume than what the sculptors required for the recutting from one portrait to another in this period. part of the face was cut back into a double chin, towards each other and meet in a vertical furrow and the mouth was left small and pouting, with at the bridge of the nose. The diagonal folds in its corners lifted in a vague smile. The upper lips the forehead may be traces from earlier eyebrows. were covered with a vague a punto moustache, which was not as densely rendered as the beard. The cheeks are fleshy over an almost absent bone The Helmet group structure. The furrows on the high forehead may be grooves from the modelling of the original Portraits in the Helmet group are characterised face. The eyes are large and round, with accentu- by a pronounced hairline around the forehead ated lachrymal glands above fleshy bags. The and a short-cropped, pageboy hairstyle (Plate 153: pupils are bean-shaped depressions and the irises The Helmet Group; CAT 273, fig. 43; 274, figs. large and circular. The worn eyebrows are carved 44a-b; 355, figs. 77a-d; 342, figs. 71a-b; 422; in .