canon i cal portraits

28 Pages·2008·6.26 MB·English

UN CANON I CAL
HESPERIA 69, 2000
Pages
0S-132
IMPE RIAL PORTRAITS
I N TH E [ASTE RN
ROMAN P ROVI NCES
THE CASE OF THE
KANELLOPOULOS EMPEROR
ABSTRACT
1. This articleg rew out of a paper The identity of the imperial portrait in the Kanellopoulos Museum in Ath-
originallyp resenteda t the Archaeologi- ens has baffledm odernv iewers.T he portraitl acksa n inscriptiona nd the prov-
cal Institute of America Annual
enance is unknown, although it is probablyf rom the Roman East. The por-
Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1994.
traitb earst he imperiala ttributeo f a coronac ivica yet its featuresd o not closely
I am indebted to many scholarsf or
resemble those of any emperor.C omparison with other provinciali mperial
their contributionsa nd advice,
especiallyt hose who read this articlei n portraits in sculpture and on coins reveals that deviation from Roman ca-
earliers tages, including Alan Shapiro, nonical types is common, a finding also supported in the ancient literature.
Andrew Stewart,F red Kleiner,a nd the Stylistic analysisp laces the portraiti n the early2 nd century,s o the Kanello-
anonymousr eviewersf or Hesperia.
poulos Emperori s probablyT rajan.
Their helpful comments and insightful
suggestions caused me to rethink and
reworkt his article significantly,a nd I In the collections of the small but impressive Kanellopoulos Museum, lo-
am deeply grateful.T hanks also to all cated on the northern slopes of the Acropolis in Athens, an imperial por-
who suppliedp hotographs:M aria trait is displayed (Figs. 1-4).1 The identity of the figure cannot be easily
Andreadaki,V annaN iniou-Kindelis, determined by conventional methods. The imperial status of the image is
and George Skoulas,C hania Museum;
secure.T he portrait, measuring 35 cm in height, is greater than life size, a
Mari Aurenhammer,K unsthistorisches
common characteristico f Roman imperial portraits.2I n addition, the por-
Museum, Vienna;U nal Demirer,
Antalya Museum; Roland Etienne, trait is of very high quality, both in material and carving. It was sculpted
Ecole fran aise d'Ath&nesA; xel Filges, from a good block of finely grained white marble.3T he eyes, now missing,
Deutsches ArchaologischesI nstitut, were originally inlaid in a contrasting material that would certainly have
Istanbul;E v. Giannoussaki,N ational
added a richness to the sculpture and no doubt also provided it with a
ArchaeologicalM useum, Athens; Helle
sense of liveliness, now entirely absent from the blank stare and impassive
W. Horsnaesa nd Jorgen Steen Jensen,
National Museum, Copenhagen;J an expression that currentlyg reet the viewer.T he only surviving attribute is a
Jordan,A merican School of Classical leafy crown embeflished with a centralj eweled cameo, on which faint traces
Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations; of a relief can be detected.
Ilona Trabert,S taatlicheM useen zu The crown on the portrait guarantees the imperial status of the per-
Berlin-PreussischerK ulturbesitz
son represented. Exact interpretation of wreaths worn in Roman portraits
Antikensammlung,B erlin;B ekirT uluk,
is often difficult because so many types are known from literary sources,
Efes Muizesi,S eljuk;D eutsches
ArchaologischesI nstitut, Athens; but this particularw reath is clearly intended to show a garland of multi-
StaatlicheA ntiken Sammlungen, lobed leaves woven together (although the lack of detail in the execution
Munich; and William E. Metcalf, does not allow for much texturalv ariety).T he crown represents oak leaves,
American Numismatic Society.
which are multilobed, rather than laurel leaves, which have a single lobe
2. PekAry1 985, pp. 81-83.
and are the only other type of leaf regularly used in Roman crowns. Oak
3. It appearst o be Pentelic;D ontas
1975,p.521. leaves were used in the corona civica, the headdress at one time awarded to
American School of Classical Studies at Athens
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Hesperia ®
www.jstor.org
io6 LEE ANN RICCARDI
Figure1 . Kanellopoulose mperor,
Romans who saved the lives of fellow citizens in battle. From the time of
frontalv iew.K anellopoulosM u-
Claudius onward the coronac ivica became a special attribute worn only by
seum. CourtesyD eutsches Archaologisches
the emperor.4 The oak was sacred to Jupiter, and it grew abundantly
Institut, Athens
throughout the Roman empire, making its use in the coronac ivica both (neg. 83/229)
practical and a symbol of divine sanction. Here, the presence of the central
jewel may have been intended to indicate further a special category of Figure2 . Kanellopoulose mperor,
coronac ivica, the gilded oak-leaf wreath given to a triumphator.5T hrough- right profile. CourtesyD eutsches
ArchaiologischesI nstitut, Athens
out most of the Imperial period both the coronac ivica and the coronat ri-
(neg. 83/230)
umphalisw ere exclusive attributes of the emperor.6
4. Gland~ferim aximegeneris omnes, 13; Gell. NA 5.6; Sen. Clem.1 .26.5. suggestst hat the portraitsd o not repre-
quibus honos apud romanosperpetuus:h inc 5. Massner( 1988) suggestst hat the sent recognizablei ndividualsb, ut rather
civicae coronae,m ilitum virtutis insigne presenceo f the centralj ewel on the priests.T his is, however,a particularly
clarissimum,i am pridem vero et clementiae crowno f a northernG reek portraiti n the difficulta rgumentf or the Kanellopoulos
imperatorump, ostquam civilium bellorum late 1st or early2 nd centuryt urnst he head, on which the leavesa rec learly
profano meritum coepit videri civem non leafyw reathi nto an attributeo f a priest defined as oak, a materiale xclusivelyu sed
occider(e" Theya rep racticallya ll of the or a magistrateH. er argumenti s made for imperialc rowns,a nd the medallioni s
acorn-bearingc lass of oak,w hich is ever primarilyb ecauses he finds this head's impressivelyla rge.A dditionallyt, he
held in honoura t Rome, becausef rom it lack of conformityt o any emperor's inlaid eyes and larges ize of the portrait
are obtainedt he Civic Wreaths,t hat known portraitt ype so troublingt hat she point to its imperials tatus.M oreover,t he
gloriouse mblemo f militaryv alour,b ut wants to deny that its crowni s an attestedo rigin in northernG reece is not
now for a long time past also an emblem imperiala ttribute.F or supporting secure( see note 7 below), and thereforei t
of the emperorsc' lemency,e ver since, evidences he cites three portraitsf rom may not belong geographicallyw ith this
owing to the impietyo f the civil wars, Thasos, all of which wearl eafy crowns groupa t all.
not to kill a fellow-citizenh ad come to with centralm edallions,a nd all of which 6. RE IV, 1901, cols. 1639-1640, s.v.
be deemed meritorious")P. lin. HN have been identifieda s Roman rulers corona( G. Haebler);H einen 1911,
16.2.6-3.7; trans.H . Rackham,P liny, (JuliusC aesar,C laudius,a nd Claudius/ p. 152, note 2; Alfoldi 1935, pp. 10-12;
Natural History (Cambridge, Mass., Nero?).N one of them closely adherest o Versnel1 970, pp. 74-77; Maxfield 1981,
1945), p. 391. See also Plin. HN 16.12- any known portraitt ype. Massner pp. 70-81,97.
UNCANONICAL IMPERIAL PORTRAITS I07
Figure 3. Kaneliopoulos emperor,
Therefore, because of its crown, size, and rich inlay originally present
left profile. CourtesyD eutsches
in the eyes, the portrait can be none other than that of a Roman emperor.
ArchaologischesI nstitut, Athens
The face, however, does not readily conform to known portrait types of
(neg. 83/231)
any imperial figure. The ancient viewer would have known whose image
Figure 4. Kanellopoulos emperor, was intended by the inscription that accompanied the portrait and also
rear view. CourtesyD eutsches perhaps from the context in which it was displayed. But today, with the
ArchaologischesI nstitut, Athens inscription and context lost,7 modern viewers are left wondering who the
(neg. 83/232)
artist intended to represent.
Some Roman emperors can be immediately ruled out. The sparse use
of the drill indicates that this sculpture represents an emperor whose por-
trait type was created during a time when coloristic effects of light and
shadow (normally achieved through deeply drilled areasi n the stone) were
not the preferred aesthetic in imperial portraits. This deeply drilled style
was first used in imperial portraits under Hadrian, and was especially ad-
mired in the portraits of the Late Antonine and Severan emperors, as ex-
emplified in numerous images of the emperors Lucius Verus, Commodus,
and Septimius Severus.8 Exuberant use of the drill is lacking on the
Kanellopoulos head, however, suggesting that the portrait should be placed
either before Hadrian or after Septimius Severus.
7. The only informationk nown 8. Portraitsf rom these erass urvivei n 76-78, 80-84, 88, 90-92, 97-99, 128-
about the provenanceo f the head is that abundantn umbersa nd compilationso f 130; pls. 121-124,129-139, 141-146,
Paul Kanellopoulos,w ho assembledt he them arel ikewise numerous.A mong the 150-153,202-207); and Fittschen and
entire collection in the museum before most importanta nd well-illustrated Zanker1 985 (see pp. 62-98, nos. 58-85,
donating it to the Greek government,i s volumes areW egner 1939; McCann pls. 66-104, suppl.p ls. 39-66, 96, with
reportedt o have bought the piece in 1968; Poulsen1 974 (see pp. 95-100, references).
Thessaloniki;D ontas 1975, p. 527. 103,105-106,109-110,130-132; nos.
I08 LEE ANN RICCARDI
Further clues are provided.T he sculpture is extremely well preserved,
and its smooth, polished cheeks betray no trace of facial hair. In the post-
Severan 3rd century, the soldier emperors wore beards, usually variations
on the close-cropped type favored by Caracalla.9T he only exceptions
were child emperors, such as Gordian III. Elimination of the 3rd-century
emperors as candidates pushes the later date into the early 4th century.
The Kanellopoulos artist must therefore have intended to represent an
9. Wiggers and Wegner 1971;
emperor who ruled either before Hadrian or from Constantine's time
Poulsen 1974, pp. 161-162, 166, 168-
onward.
173, nos. 164, 170, 173-177, pls. 262-
Finally, the style of the coronac ivica on the Kanellopoulos portrait, 263,272-273,277-286; Wegner,
carved in fairly low relief and with a centralj ewel, finds its best parallels in Bracker,a nd Real 1979; Fittschen and
the 1st century A.C. in a portrait of Claudius found in Thasos, now in the Zanker 1985, pp. 124-127,130-143,
nos. 105-106, 110-118, pls. 128-131,
Louvre,'0 and another of Augustus now in the Capitoline." All three of
135-147, suppl. pls. 89, 91-93, with
the crowns display a similarly undetailed treatment of the leaves, with little
references;K leiner 1992, p. 361.
or no use of the drill to define them, and all bear a centralj ewel. Although 10. Musee du Louvre,M A 1226.
the broad swath of material covering the termination of the coronac ivica at See de Kersauson1 986, pp. 192-193,
the back of the head on the Kanellopoulos portrait is a feature not nor- no. 90, with references.
11. Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli
mally seen in Rome until the early 4th century,'2i t appears in provincial
Imperatori6 , no. 495. Fittschen and
imperial portraiturem ore than 200 years earlier.'3S ince the Kanellopoulos
Zanker 1985, pp. 7-10, no. 8, pls. 9-10,
portrait is probably from the Greek East, this feature does not support the
with references;B oschung 1993, pp.
later date. 129-131, no. 45, pl. 38.
George Dontas has argued that the portrait in the Kanellopoulos 12. The earlieste xampleso f
Museum was meant to represent an unusual and uncharacteristicallyc las- imperialp ortraitsw ith a Roman
provenancet hat displayt his treatment
sicizing image of the Tetrarch Galerius, who died in 311, shortly before
are from the Constantiniand ynastic
Constantine's accession.'4 This identification was accepted by James D.
group set up in Rome in the earlyp art
Breckenridge, and the piece was identified as Galerius in the exhibition of Constantine'sr ule, including an
TheAgeo f Spirituality,s hown at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1977- over-life-size statue of Constantine
1978.1' Dontas makes his case for the identification of the portrait on the himself, now in San Giovanni in
Laterno,R ome (Fittschen and Zanker
basis of a report that the head had been purchased in Thessaloniki, the city
1985, pp. 144-145, no. 120, pls. 149-
that served as Galerius'sc apital when he was Caesar of the eastern empire
150), and the two portraitsd isplayedo n
under the Tetrarchy.S tylistic comparisons with a tondo portrait from the
the balustradeo f the Campidoglio
"small arch" of Galerius in Thessaloniki'6 and a portrait, probably of (LOrange 1933, pp. 58-67, pls. 40-41).
Galerius, in Copenhagen'7 are included in his discussion. 13. For example,o n the portraito f
Neither of these arguments is compelling. Even if the Kanellopoulos Claudiusi n the National Museum,
Athens, no. 430 (Datsoule-Stavridi
portraitc ame originallyf rom Thessaloniki, other imperiali mages are known
1985, pp. 34-35, pls. 25-26), where the
from that city, a strategic military and trading port, closely linked to Rome
treatmento f the back of the wreath is
in many ways. The Archaeological Museum in Thessaloniki contains sev- similart o that displayedo n the
eral imperial portraits, including those of Augustus, Septimius Severus, Kanellopoulosh ead.
and Alexander Severus. A provenance of Thessaloniki does not ensure 14. Dontas 1975.
15. Breckenridge1 979, pp. 13-14,
that the portrait represents Galerius.
no. 6.
Moreover,t he stylistic comparisonst hat Dontas cites are not close. The
16. Daux 1958; Vermeule1 968,
two portraitsh e discusses as examples of Galerius'sp ortraiturea re similar to
pp. 417-418; Ruisch1 969, p. 194,
each other in some respects, including the rendering of the forehead, eye- no. M20, fig. 109; Makaronas1 970,
brows, and eyes. Yet the Kanellopoulos head differs from both in precisely p. 50; Meischner 1986, pp. 223-224;
these areas.I t exhibits a smooth, unlined forehead,w ith gently arched eye- Stephanidou-Tiveriou1 995.
17. L'Orange1 933, p. 53, no. 5,
brows. The eye sockets reveal the size of the eyes; they were not especially
figs. 142, 144; Breckenridge1 968,
large, and were not emphasized by directed compositional lines to become
pp. 242-243, fig. 128; Calza 1972,
the focal point of the face, as in the other portraits.T he locks of hair are p. 142, no. 54, pl. 36; Poulsen 1974,
treatedw ith more individuality;e ach lock is longer and straightert han those pp. 188-189, no. 196; pls. 318-319.
UNCANONICAL IMPERIAL PORTRAITS IO9
on the other portraits.D ontas actuallym akes little attempt to associate di-
rectly the features of the Kanellopoulos portraitw ith those of either of his
comparisons."8
The Kanellopoulos head also differs stylistically from the Tetrarch's
other images. Most identifiable portraits of Galerius were carved in a lin-
ear and schematic style, whether in stone or on coins, and he was usually
shown bearded.'9 Dontas suggests that the Kanellopoulos portrait was
carved at the end of Galerius'sl ife, and that Galerius had shaved his beard
in order to follow the fashion set by the young and clean-shaven Con-
stantine.20H e bases this conclusion on the fact that there are both bearded
and unbearded figures on the Arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki (303)21a nd
the Arch of Constantine in Rome (312-316),22 showing that the early 4th
century was a time of transition. As Dontas himself points out, however, it
is the younger men who are clean-shaven, while the older men retain their
beards. No examples of older, unbearded men are represented on either of
the arches,23o r elsewhere prior to the year 312, when Constantine himself
was first depicted without a beard.
Another possible identity for the Kanellopoulos portrait has been pro-
posed. H. P. L'Orange dates the portrait to the late 4th century, suggesting
18. Dontas's comparisono f the iconographics ymbol to suggest the never have seen the emperor)m ight
featureso f the portraitsc onsists of a older/seniors tatus of the Augusti in thereforeh ave wanted to continue the
single sentence:" Bien que les pointes contrastt o the younger/juniors tatus of symbolismo f his clean-shavens tatus.
des cheveux ne soient pas tournees dans the Caesars. The only other unbeardedp ortrait
le meme sens que sur les deux autres A porphyryh ead from Gamzigrad of Galeriusk nown to me is the portrait
portraits( ici, de droite a gauche),j e (Srejovi61 992-1993; 1995) is also roundelf rom his small arch in Thes-
reconnaisl e meme personnage:u n clean-shaven,b ut since it may have saloniki.T he details of this image were
visage large,u n peu empate (davantage been producedi n the same studio in finished in paint (Vermeule1 968,
encore ici que sur la tete de Egypt as the group in Venice, this is p. 418), so although no beardw as
Copenhague),d es cheveuxb ien not surprising.S ee Kiss 1984, p. 100, carvedo n the image, one was appar-
peignes, retombantb as sur le front, des where he arguest hat becausep orphyry ently painted on afterward.G aleriusi s
sourcilsq ui se rejoignents ur la racine was such a rares tone, exclusivelyf rom alwaysr epresenteda s beardedo n his
du nez et remontent aux extr6mit6s, the Mons PorphyriesC ave in Upper coins.
une bouche 6troitee t am&re("D ontas Egypt, few sculptorsc ould carve the 20. Dontas 1975, p. 531. Con-
1975, p. 529). extremelyd ense and hard material.F or stantine'sf irst definitivelyd ated
19. LOrange 1984, pp. 26-28, 106- a discussiono f the provenanceo f appearancew ithout a beard on his
109; Calza 1972, pp. 135-148. Many of porphyry,s ee Gnoli 1988, pp. 124-126. coins was in the year 312, after Galerius
Galerius'sc oins are illustratedt hrough- The Tetrarchicp orphyryp ortraitsm ay was alreadyd ead; L'Orange1 984,
out PRCV I. A few sculpted examples have all been createdb y Egyptian pp. 58-80.
of portraitso f an unbeardedG alerius sculptorsw orking near the site of the 21. Makaronas1 970; Pond
do exist.T he best known is in the quarryI. t would thereforen ot be Rothman 1977; Engemann 1979;
famous porphyryg roup in Venice unusualf or the sculptorst o repeatt he Meyer 1980.
(Ragona 1963). Both of the junior iconographyo f the group portraits,a nd 22. Wace 1907; L'Orangea nd von
emperorsi n this group are portrayeda s a status-definingc haracteristics uch as Gerkan 1939, pp. 22-23, pls. 6-20, 45;
clean-shaven,i n contrastt o the bearded the beardm ight be missing even in Giuliano 1955, pls. 30-47, 52-53;
senior emperors.S ince none of the four individuali mages of the junior Richardson1 975.
portraitsa ttempts in any way to show emperors.T he Serbianp ortraiti s dated 23. At least no examplesa rev isible.
the actualp hysiognomyo f the men earlyi n Galerius'sr ise to power on the The poor state of preservationo f the
they represent,t he presenceo r absence basis of portraitb usts in his imperial arch in Thessaloniki makes it impos-
of facial hair was apparentlyn ot crown, a featuret hat would only have sible to make any definitive statement
intended to reflect accuratelyt he state appearedo n one of the Caesarso f the about the faces of many of the men
of the Tetrarchsf' aces. Most scholars firstT etrarchy( Srejovic1 992-1993, representedt here.
agree that beardsw ere used as an p. 41), and the sculptors( who would
IIO LEE ANN RICCARDI
that it representsT heodosius 1.24T his identification is also argued byjutta
Meischner in a series of articles citing both formal and historical evidence.
The formal arguments are unconvincing, as no recognizable portraits of
Theodosius in the round have survived,25a nd his image is known only in
low relief, as, for example, in the portrait on his famous Missorium26a nd
on his coins. These existing portraits are flat and generally schematic,27
and show virtually no correspondence to the Kanellopoulos head in either
styleo r physiognomicd etail.2A8 dditionally, the presence of a corona civica,
as on the Kanellopoulos portrait, is unlikely so late in the 4th century,
when the standardi mperial headdress had long been the jeweled diadem.29
The Kanellopoulosp ortraita lmost certainlyr epresentsn either Galerius
nor Theodosius. As both Dontas and Breckenridge acknowledge,30h ow-
ever, it bears definite allusions to the standard portrait type of another
emperor, the most admired general of all: Marcus Ulpius Traianus, better
known as Trajan.T hese scholars see a deliberate attempt by Galerius to
mimic the features of his hero, but could the portrait instead represent
Trajan himself?
Stylistically, the image suggests a portrait type that had its origins in
the early 2nd century.T he tools used to carve the portrait were the point,
chisel, and gouge, with little or no use of the drill. The head exhibits a
strong sense of realism, yet the arrangement of the facial lines presents a
clear, simple pattern created by the edges of the cheeks, brows, vertical
division of the forehead above the nose, and horizontal line between the
chin and the mouth. These are standard features of early-2nd-century
portraiture.3"T he gentle facial modeling and finely finished surface con-
24. LOrange 1984, pp. 28, 106. His 27. Deibrueck 1933, pp. 200-202; Theodosius'ss on Honorius wears a
rationalef or this identificationi s based LOrange 1933, pp. 66-77. leafy crown on the Rothschild cameo,
mainly on the suspectedp rovenanceo f 28. Scholarss uch as LOrange also perhapsm ade for his wedding, is
Thessaloniki. (1984), Meischner (1988, 1990, 1993), difficult to accept. Honorius'sh eaddress
25. None, at least, that is well and Kiilerich( 1993) maintaint hat on the cameo is certainlyn ot meant to
accepted.A few attempts to identify there was a classicalr evivald uring the represento ak leaves, and seeing any
Theodosius I in sculptedp ortraitsh ave Theodosian era, and thus want to place kind of leaf in it is dubious, for the
been made by variouss cholars,b ut they this portraita t that time and see it as headdressa ppearsa s a fairly standard
are all extremelyp roblematic.S ee the work of a sculptorw ith an interest exampleo f a jeweled diadem made of a
Kiilerich 1993, p. 84, note 248, for in classicalf orms. double row of roughlyo val gems. For
specific examples,a nd pp. 94-95 for a 29. Wreathed headdressesw ere referencesa nd a discussiono f the
general summaryo f the problem of replaceda s imperiali nsignia in 326 by Rothschild cameo, see Kiilerich 1993,
recognizing individuale mperorso f the Constantine,w ell before the elevation pp. 92-94 and Meischner 1993. Typical
Theodosian dynasty. of Theodosius in 379, and sculptural exampleso f the jeweled diadem can be
26. Meischner (1996) arguest hat exampleso f them are extremelyr are seen on portraitso f the emperors
the identity of the centralf igure on the afterwardT. hey disappearede ntirelyi n roughlyc ontemporaryw ith Theo-
Missorium is Theodosius II rathert han numismatic imperial portraits; dosius:A rcadius(?)( ruled 395-408), in
Theodosius I, thus removingt his Delbrueck 1933, pp. 53-66. Meisch- Istanbul (Inan and Alfoldi-Rosenbaum
portraitf rom her consideration.T his ner'sa rgument( 1995, pp. 438-439) 1979, pp. 138-139, no. 82, pl. 74.1-2),
identificationi s unlikely,h owever,a s that the corona civica on the Kanello- or Valentinian/Valens( ointly ruled
the emperoro n the Missorium is poulos portraitw as revivedt o markt he 364-375, Valens alone until 378) in
shown between two coregentsa nd occasion of Theodosius'sm arriaget o Florence (Fittschen and Zanker 1985,
Theodosius II only had one. Del- Galla in 387 would be more convincing pp. 158-159, no. 126, suppl. pl. 95:a,
brueck 1933, p. 200, pls. 94-98; if there were any literaryo r representa- c-d).
L'Orange1 933, pp. 67-72, pl. 171; tional evidence that an oak-leaf crown 30. Dontas 1975, pp. 523, 530-531;
Rumpf 1957, p. 20, pl. 16.73; Arce was the marko f a bridegroom,b ut Breckenridge1 979, p. 13.
1976; Kiilerich 1993, p. 19. none exists. Her suggestion that 31.Agora I, p. 29.
UNCANONICAL IMPERIAL PORTRAITS III
Figure5 . Trajan,S taatlicheA ntiken
SammlungenG, lyptothek,M unich,
no. 335. CourtesyM useum
32. Athens, National Museum, no.
384. Lattanzi 1968, pp. 34-35, no. 2,
pl. 2:a-b; Graindor1 915, p. 292, no. 2,
fig. 10; IG I2 2021.
33. Athens, NationalM useum,
trast markedly with the abrupt, almost mechanical carving of the hair,
no. 392. Lattanzi1 968, pp. 35-36, no. 3,
pl. 3:a-b; Graindor1 915, p. 304, no.4, which can be compared to the carving on portraits of kosmetif rom Athens,
fig. 11. especially Heliodoros, dated by inscription to 1OO-11O/1,32a nd an
A.D.
34. All the Type I images accepted unidentified male from the same era.33T he Kanellopoulos portrait is also
by Fittschen and Zankera re listed,
likely to have come from an early-2nd-century Attic workshop, and no
includingb ibliographyi,n Fittschen
emperor of this period fits this iconography as well as Trajan.
and Zanker 1985, p. 39. They admit
eight portraitsi nto this category.T he The facial features of the Kanellopoulos portrait present an older and
Kanellopoulosp ortraitc an be most more obese version of Trajan than his more familiar official images, yet
closely associatedw ith this type, certain stylistic similarities with his official portraits, especially those of
althoughv ery loosely.I n this case, the his first portrait type, are clear.34H is Type I portrait in Munich (Fig. 5),35
emperori s depicted as considerably
for instance, shares many featuresw ith the Kanellopoulos portrait, includ-
older than he is in the others.
ing an almost identical arrangemento f thick, comma-shaped locks of hair
35. Munich Glyptothek,n o. 335.
Gross 1940, p. 132, no. 72, pl. 32:b; combed forward onto the forehead and curved slightly under and to the
Bernoulli 1891, p. 81, no. 58. side. Both portraits also exhibit similar broad, flat planes of the cheeks;
36. This trait is found on virtually deep furrows running from the edge of the nose to the mouth; and long,
every obversep ortraito f Trajani n
thin lips. Even their facial proportions are similar. Additionally, the
Roman Imperialc oinage. See Strack
Kanellopoulos portrait also exhibits a protruding ridge above the eyes, a
1931, pls. 1-10; Kent 1978, pls. 74-77;
BMCRE III, lxix, note 2, pls. 9-45; and standard Trajanic feature common to all of his portrait types and a trait
RIC II, pls. 8-12. especially visible in his official numismatic portraiture.36
112 LEE ANN RICCARDI
Despite this stylistic evidence, Dontas, Breckenridge, L'Orange, and
Meischner all prefer to see other emperors in the Kanellopoulos image
because its overall effect is not the same as that conveyed in standardp or-
trait types of Trajan. Is this a valid reason to reject the identification? As
shown below, provincial imperial portraits often do not closely resemble
the official, canonical images of rulers made in Rome. The characteristics
of this portrait point most clearly to Trajan, despite the lack of resem-
blance to his official types.
THE PROBLEM
The study of Roman imperial portraitureh as long been dominated by the
belief that images of various imperial figures can be divided into categories
based upon prototypes now lost. Such prototypes are usually thought to
have been created in association with a landmark event in the emperor's
rule, such as the winning of a war, the acquisition of some new title, or the
celebration of a decennalia, so these prototypes can be arranged chrono-
logically. They would have been devised in imperial circles, and were in-
tended to create official images for the reigning emperor and his family.
Portraitsb ased on the official models were then circulated throughout the
empire via a process that is only imperfectly understood,37p erhaps through
the use of plaster or terracottam odels and certainly in part by their promi-
nent display on the obverses of Roman Imperial coins. Numismatic por-
traits, in fact, are the best surviving record of what the models must have
looked like, and the identity of the emperor and often the date of issue are
confirmed by the legends that accompany the portraits.T he conventional
scenario is that when a provincial city wanted to erect a portrait of the
reigning emperor, the sculptor commissioned to create it would follow a
model based on whatever prototype was currentlyc irculating and produce
an image as close to it as possible. Extant imperial portraits can then be
analyzed and classified according to the prototype they followed.
The most important characteristic that modern scholars use to cat-
egorize extant images is hairstyle,d etermined by coiffure patterns depicted
on the coins. The facial features are considered only secondarily.T he cus-
tomary approach of modern scholars is to compare the labeled numis-
matic images on official coins with unlabeled portraits in sculpture.T he
chronological order of the numismatic types is also used to determine the
chronological availabilityo f the now-lost models, for the use of a portrait
model provides at least a terminus post quem. An important underlying
assumption driving this methodology is that the overall process of erect-
ing and commissioning an imperial portrait was subject to some form of
either overt or covert central control by the emperor or his inner circle, so
that adherence to whatever officially approved portrait was currently in 37. Swift 1923 and Stuart 1939
use may be expected in all or most instances. remaint he standardr eferencesf or the
circulationo f portraitm odels. For a
This method has proven effective in so many cases that the identity of
more recent discussion and emphasis
large numbers of anonymous portraits has been determined with assur-
on cities on the receivinge nd of this
ance. Often such close correspondence to specific features can be seen, imperialp ropaganda,s ee Rose 1997a,
even in portraits from the far reaches of the empire, that identifications pp. 57-59 and especiallyR ose 1997b.
UNCANONICAL IMPERIAL PORTRAITS I13
can be confidently assigned. Scholars have come to rely on the prototype-
replica model for identification, and rarely have different scenarios been
considered.I t is postulatedt hat in Roman times, when a portraitw as erected
in a provincial city, local artists would reproduce the latest official portrait
of an emperor as well as they could. Because some sort of control by Rome
over the quality of the portrait is assumed, images that deviate from offi-
cial prototypes are thought to reflect the unavailabilityo f a suitable model;
misunderstanding by local artists; or a lack of skill in execution. Portraits
that do not possess features similar enough to those of known types to be
recognized may be misidentified or ignored. This focus on internally rec-
ognizable images that, however loosely, reflect a specific, centrally devised
prototype has largely excluded less easily recognizable representations of
emperors, that is, images that do not conform to a standard canon of fea-
tures and that lack identifying inscriptions.38
But were images throughout the Roman world intended to be recog-
nized by their appearance alone, without context or inscription? Repeat-
edly, scholars have been forced to acknowledge that some imperial por-
traits, particularly away from Rome, deviate dramatically from official
types39a nd can be included in a replica series only by granting a great deal
of creative license to the local sculptor, or by postulating special circum-
stances in the creation of a specific portrait. For example, Klaus Fittschen,
who has worked extensively on provincial images as well as on centrally
created ones, has noted the phenomenon of the "blurring"o f types in some
portraits of the long-ruling, popular emperor Hadrian.40F ittschen dem-
onstrates that some of Hadrian'sp ortraits consist of combinations of fea-
tures taken from more than one of the officially sanctioned images of the
emperor.N onetheless, Fittschen regardse ach of them as a special case. He
remains firmly committed to the idea that sculptors normally created their
portraits with conscious intent to mimic the current prototype provided
by Rome, and can offer no explanation for why others worked eclectically,
38. Rose (1997b) discussest he p. 109: "One issue in particularm ust be of this deviationi s visible in the
evolution of scholarshipi n Roman kept in mind: emperorsd id not set up imperialp ortraitg roup from Cyrene
portraitures tudies from the Renais- portraitso f themselves;p rovincialc ities found in 1989 (Walker 1994). The
sance onward,a nd also notes the set up portraitso f the emperori n eight statues in this group representing
centralp osition given historicallyt o the gratitudef or or in anticipationo f memberso f the Julio-Claudianf amily
processo f identifying and cataloguing Imperialb enefactions."A s he goes on must all have been carvedb y a local
images accordingt o type, as well as the to discuss,t he direct supervisiono f the workshop and are lacking in nearlya ny
historicald isregardo f context or installationo f the portraitw as normally suggestion of Roman influence. It is
provenance.A s he points out, tradi- carriedo ut under local rathert han clear that the sculptorsd id not follow
tional scholarsh ave createda centuries- centrala uthorityT. hus the appearance measuredm odels, nor attempt to give
old focus on connoisseurshipa nd of the final productw as subjectt o a more than a vague allusion to the
privilegedt he analysiso f the images variety of regionalf actors,i ncluding the Roman featureso f their subjects.I t is
themselves,s o that the function and use economic and artisticr esources inconceivablet hat these portraitsc ould
of the portraitsi n their original settings availablet o the city, the abilities and have been approvedb y anyonew hose
were issues, until recently,o nly rarely trainingo f the local artists,a nd the goal was to present a standardized
considered.R ose challengest he accessibilityo f imperialp ortraitm odels. appearanceo f memberso f the imperial
underlyinga ssumptiont hat the The result,a s is clearlyv isible by family.
portraitsw ere in some way under the examination,i s that provincialp ortraits 40. See Fittschen 1982; and
control of the emperoro r his inner can be quite diverse. especiallyF ittschen 1984.
circle by reminding his readerso n 39. An especiallyp owerfule xample
II4 LEE ANN RICCARDI
especially as the portraits he examines were neither all provincial nor all
produced by a single workshop.
More recently, Cecile Evers has addressed the phenomenon of
"blended"p ortraits in her work on representations of Hadrian,41a greeing
in principle (although not in specific detail) with Fittschen's conclusions.
Evers proposes a chronological explanation for these blended portraits.
She can suggest this only by rejecting some of Fittschen's examples and
revising others to reflect different official models than the ones he pro-
posed. Thus, the portraits that Evers includes in this category are only
those that supposedly used two chronologically successive models rather
than two randomly selected ones. She then concludes that the sculptors
were in fact clinging to features of an old type while introducing some
characteristics from a new one (so that these portraits should be more
properly thought of as "transitionalt ypes" rather than blended ones), and
she explains the whole phenomenon in terms of the personal choices made
by the sculptors. Both Evers and Fittschen regard portraits with charac-
teristics of more than one official type as relatively isolated instances, and 41. Evers 1994, pp. 267-271.
both assume that despite the exceptional cases of these blended types, ad- 42. Zanker 1983.
43. Zanker 1983. See, for example,
herence to the currently sanctioned official image from Rome was nor-
his discussiono f the bronze portrait
mally the goal of provincial sculptors.
recoveredf rom the Thames River
Paul Zanker has also investigated the variety of provincial images of (pp. 16-18) or the bronze portraitf rom
several emperors, not only from the East, but from North Africa and the Cilicia now in the Louvre (pp. 22-23).
western provinces as well.42H e, too, found in many of them a lack of con- These both provideh im with particular
difficulty as he laborst o connect them
formity to type. Zanker freely acknowledges the vastness of the variety
with official imperialt ypes of Hadrian
present in the provincialp ortraits,a nd he proposes a wide number of case-
and Nero, respectively.
by-case scenarios to account for it. Yet no matter how remote the influ- 44. Inan and Rosenbaum1 966,
ence, Zanker, like Fittschen and Evers, usually ties the provincially pro- p. 72.
duced portraitst o the sequence of Roman prototypes,43a nd alwaysp resumes 45. From the Asklepieion in
that, one way or another, the sculptor's intention was to re-create the vi- Pergamon( Inan and Rosenbaum1 966,
p. 70, no. 31, with references),a nd
sual details of an officially sanctioned model or models. By giving such a
Miletus (Inan and Rosenbaum1 966,
priority to the prototype, all of these scholars imply that Roman rather
p. 70, no. 32).
than civic concerns were the primary force determining the appearanceo f 46. A relief from the Libraryo f
the portraits. Celsus in Ephesus (Inan and
The problem of the lack of standardizationo f provincial portraitsw as Rosenbaum 1966, p. 71, no. 34, with
references).
also raised by Jale Inan and Elisabeth Rosenbaum in discussions of the
47. From Perge (Inan and
portraits of Hadrian in their two extensive catalogues of Roman portraits
Rosenbaum1 966, pp. 68-69, no. 29,
excavated in Turkey.T hey state that "the portraits of Hadrian from the with references);t he Temple of Trajan
provinces vary considerably in type and frequently are very poor like- in Pergamon( pp. 69-70, no. 30, with
nesses."44T heir difficulties with these images can be easily seen by exam- references);E phesus (pp. 70-71, no. 31,
ining the results of their attempts to associate their portraits of Hadrian with references);a nd Kadirli,n ow in
Istanbul (pp. 71-72, no. 35, with
with his official types. In their first catalogue of portraits from Asia Mi-
references).
nor, seven images identified as Hadrian are included. Among these they
48. Inan and Alfoldi-Rosenbaum
found only two based clearly on Hadrian's official types.45O ne was too 1979.
badly damaged to be analyzed,46a nd the other four are clearly not based 49. From the Via Tecta in Pergamon
on imperial prototypes.47I n their second catalogue of portraits from Asia (Inan and Alfoldi-Rosenbaum 1979,
pp. 94-95, no. 43, with references);t he
Minor,48s ix more portraits of Hadrian were accepted. Of these, they were
Nymphaeum in Perge (pp. 95-96, no.
unable to determine a clear Roman prototype for four of them.49M ore
45, with references);S eleucia Pieria
than half of the thirteen portraits of Hadrian presented in these two vol- (pp. 98-99, no. 47); and Izmir (pp. 99-
umes were thus apparently created independently of Roman models. De- 100, no. 48).