Bril/Varner/HS/MGR10/4de 27-05-2004
(PANTONE 5285 CBlack
11:09 Pagina 1 (Zwart/Process
Plaat)
Plaat)
mg
&r
e r i c r . va r n e r ,
Ph.D. (1993) in Classics, Yale
University, is Associate Professor
of Art History and Classics,
Emory University.
He has published on Roman
portraits, including the catalogue
From Caligula to Constantine:
Tyranny and Transformation in Roman
Imperial Portraiture (Atlanta, 2000).
i s b n 90 04 13577 4
9 789004 1 35 772
i s s n 0169-8850
va r n e r
t h e con de m n at ion of m e mory
inexorably altered the visual landscape of
imperial Rome. Representations of ‘bad’ em-
perors, such as Caligula, Nero, Domitian,
Mutilation and Transformation
Commodus, or Elagabalus were routinely
reconfigured into likenesses of victorious
successors or revered predecessors. Alterna-
tively, portraits could be physically attacked
and mutilated or even executed in effigy.
From the late first century b.c. until the
fourth century a.d., the recycling and de-
struction of images of emperors, empresses,
and other members of the imperial family
occurred on a vast scale and often marked
periods of violent political transition. This
volume catalogues and interprets the sculp-
tural, glyptic, numismatic and epigraphic
evidence for damnatio memoriae and ulti-
mately reveals its praxis to be at the core of
Roman cultural identity.
m o n u m e n ta g r a e c a e t ro m a n a
Mutilation
and Transformation
da m n at io m e mor i a e
a n d ro m a n i m p e r i a l p o rt r a i t u r e
m.g.r 10
by
This book is volume 10 in the series
m o n u m e n ta g r a e c a e t ro m a n a .
e r i c r . va r n e r
brill
brill
www.brill.nl
Opgegeven en ingestelde rugdikte = 32 mm
MUTILATION AND TRANSFORMATION
MONUMENTA GRAECA
ET ROMANA
FOUNDING EDITOR

H. F. MUSSCHE

VOLUME X
 MUTILATION
AND TRANSFORMATION
Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture

BY

ERIC R. VARNER

BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2004
On the cover: the four illustrations represent the chronological and conceptual span of the mutilation and
transformation of Roman imperial images. Portraits were routinely reconfigured from the Julio Claudian period
(as evidenced by the image of Nero transformed to Vespasian in Cleveland [top left]) through the Constantinian
period (as evidenced by the colossal portrait of Constantine in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, transformed from a
pre-existing image of Maxentius [bottom right]). Portraits were also attacked and defaced, especially in the late
seond and third centuries (as evidenced by mutilated portraits of Plautilla, in Houston [top right], and Macrinus,
at Harvard [bottom left]).

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 0169-8850
ISBN 90 04 13577 4

© Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

table of contents v

D M
Ann Varner
vi table of contents
 table of contents vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter One. Developments, Implications, and Precedents ................................................................... 1

Chapter Two. Caligula, Milonia Caesonia and Julia Drusilla ............................................................... 21

Chapter Three. Nero and Poppaea ........................................................................................................ 46

Chapter Four. Other Julio-Claudians ..................................................................................................... 86

Julia Maior .......................................................................................................................................... 86
Agrippa Postumus ............................................................................................................................... 88
Julia Minor .......................................................................................................................................... 89
Agrippina Maior ................................................................................................................................. 90
Nero and Drusus Caesar .................................................................................................................... 91
Sejanus ................................................................................................................................................ 92
Livilla ................................................................................................................................................... 93
Valeria Messalina ................................................................................................................................ 95
Agrippina Minor ................................................................................................................................. 97
Claudia Octavia ................................................................................................................................ 100
Claudia Antonia ................................................................................................................................ 101
Julia Livilla, Julia Drusilla, Lollia Paulina and Domitia Lepida ...................................................... 102
Ptolemy of Mauretania .................................................................................................................... 103

Chapter Five. A.D. 69 ........................................................................................................................... 105

Galba ................................................................................................................................................. 105
Otho .................................................................................................................................................. 107
Vitellius ............................................................................................................................................. 108

Chapter Six. Domitian .......................................................................................................................... 111

Chapter Seven. Commodus, Lucilla, Crispina and Annia Fundania Faustina ................................... 136

Chapter Eight. The Severans A.D. 193-235 ........................................................................................ 156

The Rivals Of Septimius Severus: Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger ........ 157
Plautilla ............................................................................................................................................. 164
Geta ................................................................................................................................................... 168
Caracalla ........................................................................................................................................... 184
Macrinus and Diadumenianus ......................................................................................................... 184
Elagabalus and Julia Soemias ........................................................................................................... 188
Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea .......................................................................................... 195
viii table of contents

Chapter Nine. The Later Third Century (235-285) ............................................................................ 200

Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, and Caecilia Paulina ........................................................................ 200
Pupienus and Balbinus ..................................................................................................................... 203
Gordian III ........................................................................................................................................ 204
Philip the Arab, Philip Minor and Otacilia Severa ......................................................................... 205
Trajan Decius, Herrenius Etruscus, and Hostilian .......................................................................... 207
Trebonianus Gallus ........................................................................................................................... 208
Aemilian and Cornelia Supera ...................................................................................................... 209
“Celsus” ............................................................................................................................................ 210
Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian Minor, Saloninus and Marianianus ................................................. 210
Carinus ............................................................................................................................................. 211
Carausius and Allectus .................................................................................................................... 212

Chapter Ten. The Early Fourth Century ............................................................................................. 214

Maximian .......................................................................................................................................... 214
Maxentius, Galeria Valeria Maximilla and Romulus ...................................................................... 215
Maximinus Daia ............................................................................................................................... 220
Prisca, Galeria Valeria and Candidianus ......................................................................................... 221
Crispus and Fausta ............................................................................................................................ 221

Catalogue of Mutilated and Altered Portraits

1. Caligula ....................................................................................................................................... 225
2. Nero ............................................................................................................................................ 237
3. Julio-Claudians ........................................................................................................................... 257
4. A.D. 69 ........................................................................................................................................ 259
5. Domitian ..................................................................................................................................... 260
6. Commodus, Livilla, Crispina and Annia Fundania Faustina .................................................... 270
7. The Severans. Plautilla, Geta, Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalus, Severus Alexander
and Julia Mammaea ................................................................................................................... 275
8. Third Century ............................................................................................................................ 283
9. Fourth Century ........................................................................................................................... 286

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 289

Index of Museums and Collections ...................................................................................................... 307

General Index ....................................................................................................................................... 317

List of Illustrations and Photo Credits ................................................................................................. 335

Illustrations
 table of contents ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the sustained help and encouragement of
innumerable friends and colleagues. A very special debt of gratitude is owed to Diana Kleiner who,
as mentor and friend, has generously shared with me her wide-ranging insights on Roman sculpture
and who has nurtured the project along in its various guises. Many thanks are also due to Pat Erhart
Mottahedeh who originally suggested the topic of damnatio memoriae to me and looked after it in its
earliest incarnation.
In addition, I would like to warmly thank the following: Paolo Arata, Musei Captiolini; Jane Biers,
University of Missouri at Columbia, Museum of Art and Archaeology; John Bodel, Rutgers University;
Sheramy Bundrick, University of South Florida; Maddalena Cima, Musei Capitolini; John Clarke,
University of Texas at Austin; Robert Cohon, Nelson Atkins Museum; Diane Conlin, University of
Colorado, Boulder; Penelope Davies, University of Texas, Austin; Stefano de Caro, Museo
Archeologico di Napoli; Sandro de Maria, Università di Bologna; Jas Elsner, Oxford University;
Harriet Flower, Princeton University; Jasper Gaunt, Michael C. Carlos Museum; John Herrmann,
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Tony Hirschel, Indianapolis Museum of Art; Catherine Howett Smith,
Michael C. Carlos Museum; Sandra Knudsen, Toledo Museum of Art; Ann Kuttner, University of
Pennsylvania; Anne C. Leinster-Windham; Paolo Liverani, Musei Vaticani; Susan Matheson, Yale
University Art Gallery; David Minten, Harvard University Art Museums; Mette Moltesen, Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek; Sarah Morris, University of California at Los Angeles; Michael Padgett, The
Art Museum, Princeton University; John Pappadopoulos, University of California at Los Angeles;
Carlos Picon, Metropolitan Museum of Art; Jerry Podany, J. Paul Getty Museum; J. Pollitt, Yale
University; J. Pollini, University of Southern California; Gianni Ponti, Sovrintendenza Archeologica
di Roma; Gay Robins, Emory University; Peter Rockwell; Brian Rose, University of Cincinnati; V.
Rudich, Yale University; Marion Schröder, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rome; Alan Shapiro,
the Johns Hopkins University; Catherine Simon, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection; Niall Slater,
Emory University; Alaistair Small, University of Alberta; R.R.R. Smith, Oxford University; Renée
Stein, Michael C. Carlos Museum; Katrin Stump, Deutsches Archäoligisches Institut Rome; Michiel
Klein Swormink, Brill Publishers; Emilia Talamo, Museo Nazionale Romano; Marion True, J. Paul
Getty Museum; Ute Wartenburg, American Numismatic Society; Bonna Wescoat, Emory University;
Susan Wood, Oakland University.
I would also like to thank all of my colleagues and staff in the departments of Art History and
Classics at Emory University, the staff of the Michael C. Carlos Museum, the staff of the Library
of the American Academy in Rome, the staff of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Rome,
as well as my current and former graduate students, Katrina Dickson, Erin Black, John Stephenson
and Brandon Foster for various, sundry and invaluable assistance. As always, heartfelt thanks to
Brad Lapin for help on every level and for putting up with bad emperors (and the bad moods they
have been known to induce) for so long. Ultimately, all omissions, errors, and translations are my
own.
vi table of contents
 developments, implications, and precedents
CHAPTER ONE
DEVELOPMENTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND PRECEDENTS
As vital expressions of political authority and
prestige, imperial portraits permeated all aspects
of Roman society. Representations of the em-
peror and his family were prominently displayed
in civic, sacred, and domestic spaces throughout
the empire and were carefully manipulated and
disseminated in order to reach multiple audi-
ences. The power of these images lay in their
ability to speak to disparate members of the so-
ciety, from the illiterate and slaves through the
most educated members of the Roman elite.
However, imperial portraits were neither immu-
table nor monolithic, and should an emperor be
overthrown, his images were systematically mu-
tilated or physically altered into the likenesses of
other emperors. This process, popularly known
as damnatio memoriae, is the first widespread ex-
ample of the negation of artistic monuments for
political and ideological reasons and it has inexo-
rably altered the material record of Roman cul-
ture. Jerome aptly describes the fate of the por-
traits of Rome’s” bad” emperors: “When a tyrant
is destroyed, his portraits and statues are also
deposed. The face is exchanged or the head
removed, and the likeness of he who has con-
quered is superimposed. Only the body remains
and another head is exchanged for those that
have been decapitated (si quando tyrannus obtrun-
catur, imagines quoque eius deponuntur et statuae, et vultu
tantummodo commutato, ablatoque capite, eius qui vicerit,
facies superponitur, ut manente corpore, capitibusque prae-
cisis caput aliud commutetur).1 Although Jerome was
writing in the late fourth/early fifth century, his
description clearly reflects centuries of established
practices regarding the public images of emper-
ors condemned as tyrants.
Beginning in the republican period, the legal
sanctions which could be associated with damnatio
memoriae provided the mechanisms by which an
1
individual was simultaneously canceled and con-
demned. The Romans themselves realized that
it was possible to alter posterity’s perception of
the past especially as embodied in the visual and
epigraphic record. Sanctions passed by the Sen-
ate could mandate the destruction of the monu-
ments and inscriptions commemorating capital
offenders or hostes, the official enemies of the
Roman state.2 As a result, the condemned in-
dividual’s name and titles were excised from all
official lists ( fasti); wax masks (imagines) represent-
ing the deceased were banned from display at
aristocratic funerals;3 books written by the con-
demned were confiscated and burned; property
rights were forfeited; wills were annulled; the
birthday of the condemned was proclaimed a day
evil to the Roman people (dies nefastus), while the
anniversary of the death was celebrated as a time
of public rejoicing; houses belonging to the de-
ceased were razed; and prohibitions could be
enacted against the continued use of the con-
demned’s praenomen.4 After Augustus solidified
his control of the Mediterranean in 31 B.C. and
subsequently established the imperial system,
damnationes memoriae and the attendant mutilation
and transformation of images were almost exclu-
sively enacted against deposed principes, other
condemned members of the imperial house, or
private individuals who had conspired against the
1 In Abacuc 2.3.14-16.984-88. P. Stewart (1999) 159, 180-
81.
2
F. Vittinghoff (1936) 13.
3
On the imagines, see H.I. Flower (1996). Flower also
discusses the term imago in its narrowest senses as a wax
ancestor mask, and its later broader implications of por-
traiture in general, 32-52.
4 On the razing of houses, T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393-
4 and n. 3; J. Bodel (1997) 7-11. On the banning of praeno-
mina, see H. Solin (1986)70-3; H. Solin (1989) 252-3; H.
Flower (1998) 163-5.
2 chapter one
reigning emperor. Damaged or transfigured
imperial portraits survive in vast quantities and
include marble, bronze, and painted likenesses,
as well as representations in relief, on coins, and
gems.
The term damnatio memoriae, literally the dam-
nation or condemnation of memory, is modern,
but it accurately reflects the Romans’ preoccu-
pation with the concepts of memory and fame.5
The Latin term memoria has much broader reper-
cussions than its English cognate, memory, and
encompasses the notions of an individual’s fame
and greater reputation. The belief that a deceased
individual enjoyed an afterlife through the per-
petuation of his memory or by being remembered
is at the core of Roman cultural identity and is
amply witnessed by the innumerable surviving
works of funerary art and architecture created for
all classes of the society, throughout the empire.6
Furthermore, Varro closely links the idea of
monumental commemoration with the perpetu-
ation of memory.7 In effect, the condemnation,
damnation or abolition of an individual’s memory
is a posthumous destruction of his or her very
essence or being. When discussing the condem-
nation of a person’s memory and monuments,
ancient authors usually combine the word memoria
with particularly strong verbs damnare, condemnare,
5 The term damnatio memoriae covers a wide array of post
mortem sanctions against a condemned individual’s memo-
ry and monuments. These penalties could be officially
mandated by the Senate, emperor, or even army, or they
could be unofficial, de facto sanctions; see F. Vittinghoff
(1936) 13, 64-74; K. Mustakallio (1994) 9-15; J.M. Paillier
and R. Sablayrolles (1994) 12-15; and H. Flower (1998)
155-6. The term first appears as the title of a dissertation
completed in 1689 by Schreiter-Gerlach; see P. Stewart
(1999) 184, n. 3.
6 On commemoration and perpetuation of memory, see
M. Koortbojian in J. Elsner, ed. (1996) 210-34; P.J.E.
Davies (1997) 41-65. For the “activity of memory in monu-
ments” see, J. E. Young (1989) 69-106.
7 Ling. 6.49: Sic monimenta quae in sepulcris, et ideo secun-
dum iviam, quo praetereuntis admoneat et se fuisse et illos esse mortalis.
Ab eo cetera quae scripta ac facta memoriae causa monimenta dicta
(...so monuments which are on tombs, and in fact along
the roads, in order that they can warn anyone coming along
that the deceased themselves were once mortal, just as they
are now mortal. From this, other things which are written
or done for the sake of memory are said to be monuments).
See also J. Bodel (1997) 21.
accusare, abolere, or eradere.8 These verbs, to damn,
condemn, accuse, abolish, or eradicate, them-
selves resonate with the process of historical cen-
sure which is the basis of damnatio memoriae. Over-
all, these sanctions were not conceived of in
absolute terms, but were flexible and practical
methods of destroying the condemned’s posthu-
mous reputation and memory.9
Cancellation of a bad emperor’s identity and
accomplishments from the collective conscious-
ness was one of the fundamental ideological aims
of damnatio in the imperial period. Portrait stat-
ues and busts were routinely removed from public
and private display and the names and titles of
overthrown rulers were ruthlessly excised from
the inscriptions that had formerly extolled their
virtues. This calculated obliteration of images,
effectively an abolitio memoriae (abolition of me-
mory), is starkly illustrated by representations
which have been chiseled out of relief monu-
ments, as for instance portraits of Commodus
removed from the series of reliefs honoring his
father, Marcus Aurelius, or the excision of Plau-
tianus, Plautilla, and Geta from reliefs deco-
rating Severan arches in Rome and Lepcis
Magna.10 For representations of condemned em-
perors in the round, their removal from public
display and subsequent storage in secure locations
has often led, ironically, to their preservation for
posterity. Indeed, damnatio contributed directly to
the warehousing of great numbers of imperial
images.
Another important aim of post mortem sanctions
could be the complete denigration of the con-
demned individual’s posthumous reputation as a
8 For example see, Suet. Dom. 23.1 (abolendamque omnem
memoriam); HA.Com.19.1 (memoriam aboleatur), and Cod.Iust.
1.3.23; (memoriam accusare defuncti ) CodIust 1.5.4.4Pap. Dig.
31.76.9 (memoriam damanatam); Cod.Iust. 7.2.2 (memoria ...
damnata); Ulp. Dig. 24.1.32.7 (memoria... damnata); Ulp. Dig.
28.3.6.11 (memoria...damnata); Paul. Cod.Iust 9.8.6 (memoria
...damnetur); Inst. 4.18.3 (memoria... damnatur); Inst. 3.1.5
(memoria...damnata); F. Vittinghoff, Staatsfeind 13; 66-69; T.
Pekáry (1985) 135.
9 H.I. Flower (1995) 163.
10 Arch of Septimius Severus in the Forum Romanum,
infra; Arch of the Argentarii, infra; and the Arch of Septimius
Severus at Lepcis Magna, infra.
 developments, implications, and precedents
stark political warning to future offenders.11 Al-
though posthumous denigration would appear at
first glance contradictory to the total eradication
of a condemned individual’s memory, in prac-
tice the two prove to be neither incompatible nor
mutually exclusive. In visual terms denigration
was effected through the physical mutilation of
portraits. As recognizable signs of an overthrown
ruler’s disgrace, deliberately damaged likenesses
physically expressed the abstract concepts of in-
famia (disrepute, disgrace) and iniuria (insult, af-
front, revenge), and must have remained publicly
visible for some time after the emperor’s over-
throw. The sensory organs comprising the eyes,
nose, mouth and ears were specific targets of the
attacks on sculpted portraits. The resulting dam-
age to the face is T-shaped, but still renders the
representation recognizable. The mutilation of
images is often described in graphically anthro-
pomorphic terms. Pliny recounts the destruction
of bronze images of Domitian just like they were
living beings, capable of feeling pain and says that
the portraits were attacked as if “blood and pain
would follow every single blow” (ut si singulos ic-
tus sanguis dolorque sequeretur).12 Dio similarly por-
trays the destruction of Sejanus’s statues: those
who assaulted his images acted as if they were
attacking the man himself.13 Although probably
historically spurious, the account in the Historia
Augusta of the “crucifixion” of a portrait of the
North African usurper Celsus is certainly indica-
tive of fourth century attitudes and expectations
concerning the treatment of representations of
condemned rulers, as well as the continued Rom-
an perception of images as effigies.14
The anthropomorphic rhetoric employed
when discussing the destruction of imperial im-
11 H. Flower discusses the these two approaches (“the
tendency to forget” vs. the “urge to remember”) in the case
of Gn. Calpurnius Piso (1998) 180.
12 Pan. 52.4-5; for an interpretation of the full passage
in its Domitianic context, see infra.
13 58.11.3.
14 Tyr.Trig. 19: et novo iniuriae genere imago in crucem sublata
persultante vulgo, quasi patibulo ipse Celsus videretur (and in a new
kind of outrage, his portrait was hoisted on a cross, with
the crowd running around as if they were seeing Celsus
himself on the gibbet); see infra.
3
ages underscores their function as literal embodi-
ments of the imperial presence in stone or bronze.
Trajan’s posthumous Parthian triumph, in which
a statue of the emperor rode in the quadriga,
illustrates well the positive, celebratory connota-
tions of imperial portraits as effigies.15 Con-
versely, deliberate assaults on these images are
directly analogous to physical attacks against the
emperor’s person, a kind of mutilation or execu-
tion in effigy.16 The desecration of the vital sen-
sory organs, the eyes, ears, nose and mouth,
negates any “power” of these images to see, hear
or speak. Furthermore, the disfigurement of
imperial likenesses has close conceptual ties to the
desecration of the corpses of capital offenders, a
process known as poena post mortem.17 Lucan
graphically describes the mutilation of a corpse
and the attack on the ears, eyes, nose and mouth
exactly parallels the disfigurement of imperial
images: exsectaque lingua/ Palpitat et muto vacuum ferit
aera motu./Hic aures, alius spiramina naris aduncae/
Amputat; ille cavis evolvit sedibus orbes, (And the
tongue having been severed, squirms and with
silent motion strikes the empty air. Someone
amputates the ears, someone else the nostrils of
his hooked nose, and another one gouges the eyes
out of their hollow sockets).18 Although corpse
abuse was not uncommon for criminals and other
noxii executed in arena spectacles, the desecra-
tion of elite corpses was viewed as an extremely
severe form of punishment, and as a result is fairly
rare for condemned emperors or other members
of the imperial house.19 Nevertheless, the bodies
15 As illustrated on Hadrianic aurei of 117-18, BMCRE
244, no. 47; S. Settis, ed. (1988) 78-9, fig. 33.
16 Actual effigies were important components of impe-
rial funerals, see S.R.F. Price (1997) 64, 96-7. For the mu-
tilation of imperial portraits as effigies, see F. Vittinghoff
(1936) 13-19; J. von Schlosser (1910-11) 184; W. Brückner
(1966) 192; J.P. Rollin (1979) 165-69; D. Freedberg (1989)
259.
17 On the post mortem abuse of corpses, see F. Vittinghoff
(1936) 43-6; D.G. Kyle (1998) 131-3, 220-24, and 183, n.
106 where he calls the “abuse of statues” “surrogate corpse
abuse;” E.R. Varner (2001a).
18 BC 2.181-4.
19 Although obviously comic in nature, Apuleius’s story
of the guarding of a corpse at Larissa against mutilation
4 chapter one
of Nero Caesar, Drusus Caesar, Sejanus, Lollia
Paulina, Claudia Octavia, Galba, Vitellius,
Pertinax, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus,
Plautianus, Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagaba-
lus, Julia Soemias, Maximinus Thrax, Maximus,
Pupienus, Balbinus, Gallienus, and Maxentius
were all abused in some fashion. Politically, the
mutilation of imperial images and corpses was in-
tended as a visual expression of dissatisfaction
with the policies and personalities of the con-
demned emperor, and, concomitantly, loyalty to
the new regime. Dio links the concepts of image
and corpse abuse in his account of the attacks on
Sejanus’s portraits, which the condemned man
was forced to witness, thus becoming an unwill-
ing spectator of his own imminent death and
destruction (6"\ @ÜJT 2g"JZH ô< Bg\FgF2"4 §:g88g<
¦(\(<gJ@).20 After Commodus’s overthrow, the
populace mutilated his images, as artistic surro-
gates for his corpse.21 Deliberate defacement of
images was often the result of spontaneous dem-
onstrations against a condemned emperor’s
memory and it additionally represents a very
physical and violent response to the news of an
emperor’s overthrow. Not coincidentally, the
mutilation and destruction of imperial likenesses
reaches its apogee in the middle years of the third
century, c. A.D. 235-85, when the empire was
engulfed in a period of military, social, political,
and economic unrest, with no single emperor or
dynasty able to maintain control or guarantee
stability for an extended period.
of the facial features by witches illustrates the seriousness
with which Romans viewed the this kind of desecration,
Met. 2.21-22, 30. The mutilation of the ears and nose which
is ultimately carried out on the guard, Thelyphron, rather
than the dead man, resembles the disfigurement of impe-
rial images and corpses. Significantly, Thelyphron views his
own mutilation as a great disgrace which will prevent him
from ever returning to his hometown. Deiphobus’s corpse
has been similarly disfigured with the nose and ears sev-
ered in the Aeneid (6.494-9): Atque hic Priamiden laniantum
corpore toto/Deiphobum vidit, lacerum crudeliter ora,/ora manusque
ambas, populataque tempora raptis/ auribus et truncas inhonesto
vulnere naris./vix adeo agnovit pavitantem ac dira tegentem/ supplicia,
et notis compellat vocibus ultro. Vergil’s use of supplicia further
recalls the language of criminal punishment.
20 58.11.3; D.G. Kyle (1998) 221.
21 Dio 74.2.1.
Sculpted images could also be effectively can-
celed and transformed through recarving. Por-
traits of condemned emperors were routinely
recut to represent victorious successors or es-
teemed predecessors. Reuse constitutes a Roman
practical response to the economic problems
inherent in the destruction of images. Marble
portrait sculptures were expensive commissions
and recutting representations of condemned in-
dividuals is an efficient and cost-effective form of
artistic recycling.22 Furthermore sculptural reuse
has ideological implications as a kind of visual
cannibalism in which the likeness of a successful
ruler displaces that of his defeated predecessor.
Thus the transformed image has the potential to
cannibalize the power and meaning residing in
the original portrait. The process of manipulat-
ing preexisting images into new more acceptable
likenesses occurs throughout the imperial period.
In the early empire vast numbers of the marble
portraits of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian were
recut and reconfigured into new likenesses and
it is the most intensive period for the recycling
of imperial images.23 At least 120 extant sculpted
representations of these emperors have been
transformed. In the second century, there is a
hiatus in the process of recarving imperial por-
traits. No likenesses of Commodus, Lucilla, or
Crispina were recut immediately after their con-
demnations. Their images which were refash-
ioned were not altered until the third and fourth
22 On the high cost of sculpture, recutting, and ques-
tions of econmy, see C.B. Rose (1997) 10.
23 Private images were also reworked throughout the
imperial period, as for instance a late Flavian/early
Trajanic female portrait whose coiffure was completely
recut and updated in the late Trajanic period (Boston,
Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 1988.327; J.J. Herrmann, jr.
(1991) 34-50, figs. 1a-d). I cannot agree with P. Liverani
that the reworking of private images provide the impetus
for the recarving of imperial portraits (1990-91) 170-71.
The sheer number of reworked images beginning with Ca-
ligula would seem to argue that the relationship was ex-
actly the opposite, with the imperial manifestations influ-
encing the private examples. Nevertheless, Liverani is right
to stress the widespread nature of the phenomenon, both
private and imperial. Furthermore, Liverani is correct to
point out that the private examples provide an ongoing
context within which to read the recutting of imperial
images.
 developments, implications, and precedents
centuries.24 In the third century, reuse remains
relatively rare, with examples essentially limited
to portraits of Elagabalus transformed into rep-
resentations of his cousin and successor, Severus
Alexander. Recutting at this time may have been
pragmatically motived by the strong physical
resemblance between the two young Severan
cousins. Under Constantine, there is a renewed
interest in reworking marble portraits as attested
by several of his images which have been refash-
ioned from earlier likenesses of Maxentius (as well
as the recut relief portraits on the Arch of
Constantine).25 Altered likeness are not limited
to three dimensional marble portraits, but in a
few instances also occur in relief, gem, bronze,
basalt, and coin portraits. Imperial images were
transformed in all parts of the empire with sur-
viving examples from Italy, Spain, Gaul, Ger-
many, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, and Asia
Minor.
Marble images were also transformed and
recycled in more utilitarian fashion as building
material. A relief representing Nero and Agrip-
pina was reused face down as a paving slab in
the Sebasteion complex at Aphrodisias, while a
mutilated portrait of Julia Mammaea was re-
cycled as a paving stone in one of Ostia’s thor-
oughfares.26 The use of images as paving stones
may also have had further denigrative intent
against the memory of the condemned as people
literally trampled the portraits underfoot.
24 A marked decline in the instances of reuse is already
apparent in the recut images of Domitian: there are 24
recut marble representations of Domitian in the round,
versus 53 for Nero and 43 for Caligula. This may reflect
in part accidents of preservation, as well as the fact that
so many of Domitian’s own portraits had been reworked
from portraits of Nero, thus precluding a third recutting,
but is also probably due to changing practices.
25 On the recut portraits on the Arch of Constantine,
see J. Rohmann (1998) and J. Elsner (2000).
26 Nero and Agrippina, Aphrodisias, infra; Julia
Mammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26 infra; Portraits of Lucilla
(Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 2.91, inv.
2766) and Otacilia Severa (Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Centrale Montemartini 2.95, inv. 2765) were incorporated
into the fabric of a post-antique wall between the Colos-
seum and the Basilica of Maxentius and are likely indica-
tive of earlier practices.
5
The physical removal of banned images from
public view resulted in large numbers of portraits
being warehoused, stored or hidden.27 Several
likenesses were deposited in sculptural caches
including portraits of Nero, Lucilla, Commodus,
Geta, Macrinus, and Elagabalus.28 The storage
of these images has ultimately ensured their sur-
vival, and often contributed to their fine states
of preservation, as in case of the well known
Commodus as Hercules from the Esquiline (fig.
141). Portraits, or other monuments, were also
removed to sculptors’ workshops in order to be
reworked, as may have been the case with
Cancelleria Reliefs.29 The warehousing of images
is further confirmed by portraits of Caligula,
Nero, Domitian, Lucilla, Commodus, Plautilla,
and Geta which were not recut for decades or
even centuries, suggesting that they were in good
states of preservation and readily accessible at the
time of their reuse.30 Portraits could also be
buried or hidden from public view, as presum-
ably happened to a likeness of Domitian discov-
ered in the Tomb of Julia Procula at Isola
27 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 320 describe
these marble depots as Steingarten (stone gardens); see also
D. Kinney (1997) 118, 124-25.
28 Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale
Montemartini 1.25B, inv. 2835, infra; Lucilla, Rome,
Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 3.85, inv.
1781, infra; Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120, infra; Geta, Oslo, Nasjonal-
galleriet 600, inv. 1433, infra; Macrinus, Rome, Palazzo
Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 3.82, inv. 1757, in-
fra; Elagabalus, Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. 1434 infra. For
a brief discussion of sculptural caches, see E. Bartmann
(1991) 72 and ns. 3 and 4.
29 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano,
cat. 5.17.
30 Caligula/Claudius Gothicus?, New York, White-Levy
Collection, cat. 1.37; Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Univer-
sity of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, 62.46,
cat. 2.62; Nero/4th century emperor, Rome, Museo
Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 126279, cat. 2.63; Domitian/
Constantinian emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 89.6,
5.30; Lucilla/Helena, Florence, Uffizi, inv. 1914.171, cat.
6.11; Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori 59, 496, cat. 6.12; Commodus/Pupienus?,
Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. G 6812/1, cat. 6.5; Com-
modus/Pupienus, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti
27.8, inv.1613, cat. 6.6; Plautilla/fourth century empress,
Irvine, Robert K. Martin Collection, cat. 7.3; Geta/mid
third century individual, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone
51, inv. 675, cat. 7.10.
6 chapter one
Sacra.31 The numerous images of condemned
individuals recovered from the Tiber, other bod-
ies of water, sewers and wells suggest that more
violent and destructive forms of disposal, can also,
ironically, contribute to a portrait’s ultimate sur-
vival.32 In antiquity, the disposal of portraits in
bodies of water, especially the Tiber, closely
parallels the disposal of the corpses of arena vic-
tims, another aspect of poena post mortem.33 Addi-
tionally, the practice has intriguing connections
with the Sacra Argeorum, an annual purification
ritual of hostile spirits in which human effigies
were thrown into the Tiber from the Pons Sublicius
every May.34
In the imperial period, the Senate continued
to formally pass sanctions in the case of official
damnationes. Livilla, Sejanus, Messalina, Nero,
Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus, and Julia
Soemias were all officially condemned by the
Senate. Condemnations could demonstrate sena-
torial autonomy, as in the case of Nero, who was
declared a hostis while still living, or Domitian,
condemned against the express wishes of the
army. Naturally, the emperor could also exert his
influence in cases of damnatio. As early as the
damnatio of Caligula, his successor Claudius re-
fused to permit the senate to formally proscribe
his memory, but did allow an unofficial, de facto
damnatio.35 In cases of conspiracy (maiestas or
perduellio), as for Livilla, Sejanus and Messalina,
it seems likely that the emperor took a direct hand
in promoting the senatorial sanctions. By the
early fourth century, the damnatio of Maxentius
appears to have been a necessary response by the
31 Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, inv. 19, infra.
32 Portraits allegedly recovered from the Tiber include
several bronze and marble portraits of Caligula (New York,
White-Levy Collection, infra; Rome, Museo Nazionale
Romano delle Terme, 4256, infra; Switzerland, Private Col-
lection, infra) as well as a bronze portrait of Domitian
(Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768). A
portrait of Otho was unearthed from Ostia’s sewer, (Os-
tia, Museo, inv. 446). Portraits thrown in wells include:
heads of Caligula from Tharsis (Huelva, Museo Provincial),
Domitian from Munigua (Munigua, Museo), and Clodius
Albinus from Dougga (Tunis, Musée du Bardo). For this
kind of “refuse disposal,” see also P. Stewart (1999) 166.
33 D.G. Kyle (1998) 213-28.
34 D.G. Kyle (1998) 215-6.
35 Suet. Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.5-6, and infra.
Senate and people of the city of Rome to the new
political realities of life under Constantine, as
evidenced by the inscription on Constantine’s
arch which publicly memorializes the former
ruler Maxentius in highly negative terms as a
tyrannus.36
Damnatio is the direct antithesis of consecratio, the
process by which a deceased emperor was de-
clared an official god of the Roman state, and
his character, policies, and reign formally and
eternally endorsed.37 S.R.F. Price has suggested
that in the early imperial period the Senate was
able to act with some degree of freedom in cases
of consecratio as when they conspicuously refused
to deify Tiberius, but by the second century
consecrations, while still technically voted by the
Senate, were largely at the discretion of the reign-
ing emperor.38 Price cites the deification of
Hadrian, which was passed by an unwilling Sen-
ate at the express instigation of Antoninus Pius
as indicative of the new state of affairs and by
the end of the century Septimius Severus un-
equivocally compels the consecratio of Commo-
dus.39 The inverse phenomenon of condemna-
tion appears to mirror the decline in senatorial
autonomy in matters of consecration. Indeed, by
the end of second century, the senate was not
only forced by Septimius Severus to consecrate
Commodus as a new divus but also, in a more
humiliating blow, to rescind the damnatio they had
pronounced against him. Caracalla appears to
have bypassed the senate entirely, at least in the
early stages of his condemnation of Geta, when
he demanded that the army, rather than the Sen-
ate, declare his brother a hostis.40
The destruction and alteration of images was
likely accomplished in much the same way as
portrait dedications. In the latter case, the sen-
ate or emperor could decree portrait honors, or
municipalities, groups, or individuals could pe-
tition to erect commemorative images, usually in
36 CIL 6.1139=ILS 694.
37 On the inverse relationship between damnatio and
consecratio see S. G. MacCormack (1981) 96, 98, 132-3, 149,
254; S. Settis, ed. (1988) 76.
38 (1987) 86-87, 91-3.
39 S.R.F.. Price (1987) 93.
40 HA. Carac. 1.1; Herod. 4.8; see infra.
 developments, implications, and precedents
response to senatorial or imperial decrees mark-
ing important events in the life and reign of the
emperor and his family.41 Similarly, municipali-
ties, groups, or individuals were expected to re-
spond appropriately to senatorial decrees man-
dating the dishonoring of an emperor’s memory
and monuments. The army may also be impli-
cated in the implementation of damnationes, as
suggested by their involvement in Geta’s condem-
nation, as well as their presumed physical involve-
ment in the damnationes of the soldier emperors
later in the century.42 As is to be expected in
Rome and its environs, compliance with senato-
rial sanctions against a condemned emperor’s
memory is essentially universal, but elsewhere it
could be more sporadic and there appears to have
been a certain degree of autonomy in respond-
ing to condemnations. Several representations of
Caligula, whose condemnation was for the most
part unofficial, were allowed to remain on pub-
lic display, as were a boyhood portraits of Nero
at Velleia (and possibly Rusellae), and a statue
of Domitian as prince from the theater at Aphro-
disias.43 In the few instances where portraits of
condemned emperors or other members of the
imperial family were permitted to remain visible,
their presence within group dedications as well
as their importance for dynastic coherence and
imperial continuum must have outweighed con-
cerns over canceling or denigrating the indiv-
idual’s memory.
The physical destruction and mutilation of an
emperor’s images is the direct visual equivalent
of the vilification of his character and actions
which occurs in literary and historical sources.
Literary, historical, or biographical damnatio of-
ten relies on rhetorical tropes of invectio and
41 For a discussion of the motivations of portrait dedi-
cations in the late Republic and early Empire, see C.B. Rose
(1997) 7-10.
42 P.J. Casey (1994) 34.
43 Portraits of Caligula: Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria;
Genoa-Pegli, Museo Civico, inv. 614; Gortyna, Antiqua-
rium; Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 64; see in-
fra. Statues of Nero: from Velleia, Parma, Museo Nazio-
nale d’Antichità, no. 3, inv. 826; see infra; from Roselle,
Grosseto, Museo Archaeologico. Statue of Domitian from
Aphrodisias: Aphrodisias, depot, excavation inv. nos. 66-
27, 67-282-85, 71-477; see infra.
7
vituperatio in order to defame the memory of the
condemned ruler.44 Indeed, the author of the
Historia Augusta acknowledges the distortions and
difficulties surrounding the biographies of con-
demned emperors or “historical losers” in his
biography of Pescennius Niger, the defeated ri-
val of Septimius Severus:
Rarum atque difficile est ut, quos tyrannos aliorum vic-
toria fecerit, bene mittantur in litteras, atque ideo vix omnia
de his plene in monumentis atque annalibus habentur.
primum enim, quae magna sunt in eorum honorem ab
scriptoribus depravantur, deinde alia supprimuntur, postremo
non magna diligentia in eorum genere ac vita requiritur,
cum satis sit audaciam eorum et bellum, in quo victi fuerint,
ac poenam proferre.45
(It is uncommon and difficult to give an unbiased
written account of those men who have come to
be characterized as tyrants because of the victory
of others and furthermore scarcely anything about
these men is accurately preserved in monuments
or histories. For indeed, in the first place, great
events which accrued to their honor are misrep-
resented by historians, and then other events are
suppressed, and finally no great diligence is given
to recounting their ancestry or life, since it seems
enough to reveal their effrontery, the battle in
which they were conquered and their punishment.)
Significantly, the author links the literary distor-
tions and omissions with the visual distortions and
omissions on monuments (in monumentis atque
annalibus). Thus, the mutilation and transforma-
tion of imperial images can be viewed as a de-
liberate rewriting of the visual record of Roman
history and society.
The literary vilification of an overthrown ruler
which mirrors the mutilation of images was in-
tended as a written portrait of the emperor’s evil
deeds and moral inadequacies. Like publicly
mutilated likenesses, they function as potent re-
minders of an emperor’s posthumous disgrace
and failure as leader. Literary denigration, like
its visual counterpart, could also be actively and
officially promoted; indeed, E. S. Ramage has
44 T. Barton in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 48-
66.
45 HA, Pesc.Nig. 1.1-2; M. Cullhed points out the im-
portance of this passage for the study of condemned empe-
rors, or historical losers, in his monograph on Maxentius
(1994) 9-11.
8 chapter one
pointed out that while images could be removed
or transformed, buildings destroyed or rededi-
cated, texts favorable to a condemned ruler could
never be entirely rescinded, so hostile literary
traditions were actively encouraged.46
While the centrality of epigraphical texts to the
understanding and interpretation of artistic and
architectural monuments for the ancient viewer
can be overstated, the phenomenon of damnatio
memoriae certainly underscores the interdepen-
dence of image and text, at least for the literate
segments of Roman society.47 Obvious parallels
exist between the treatment of the monumental
inscriptions and portraits of condemned emper-
ors. Just as the emperor’s name and titles are
eradicated in commemorative inscriptions or
papyri, so too are his sculpted images removed
from public display, and his likenesses erased
from reliefs and paintings. Like portraits, inscrip-
tions are intended as visual signifiers of the
emperor’s position and achievements, and when
an emperor is overthrown and damned, his por-
traits, like inscriptions, can be “erased” from the
public consciousness. The practice of eradicating
condemned emperors from the epigraphic record
is remarkably long lived, as witnessed by the
erasure of Phocas’s name from the inscription on
his column, the last commemorative monument
known to have been erected in the Forum
Romanum.48 Portrait inscriptions, or inscriptions
on arches, both of which identify and explain the
monuments to which they belong, are places in
which imperial images and texts necessarily in-
teract. Such inscriptions can also be transformed
from commemorations of a condemned ruler into
celebrations of a successor or predecessor, as for
instance a statue base from the Caserma dei Vigili
at Ostia in which the name and titles of Commo-
dus have been erased and replaced with those of
his successor Septimius Severus.49 Presumably
46 Ramage discusses the phenomenon within the con-
text of Pliny’s Panegyricus and Juvenal’s Satires (1989) 643,
650.
47 J. Elsner has underscored the function of epigraphical
texts as monuments in their own right, in J. Elsner, ed.
(1996) 32-53. For epigraphical damnatio, see H.I.Flower
(2000).
48 CIL 6.1200
49 R. Lanciani, NSc 75.
any image which this statue base supported was
similarly transformed. Inscriptions are also liable
to mutilation, as when only part of a condemned
individual’s name is erased, making the inscrip-
tion still readable as a kind of denigrative memo-
rial.
The erasure of an overthrown emperor’s name
in inscriptions, papyri and on coins is also related
to prohibitions against the continued use of a
condemned individual’s praenomen. Both high-
light the importance of the act of naming in
Roman culture. In the realm of religious dedi-
cations, the simple naming of the dedicant com-
prises the great majority of Roman votive inscrip-
tions and M. Beard has suggested that naming
is a fundamental and permanent assertion of the
dedicant’s membership in the larger pagan com-
munity.50 Thus the erasure of a condemned em-
peror’s name and the suppression of praenomina
are acts of un-naming and effectively exclude the
condemned individual from society at large. In
addition un-naming acts to deny the physical
existence of the nameless individual.51 By the
fourth century A.C., there exists a well established
rhetorical tradition of not explicitly naming over-
thrown emperors or those who were deemed
usurpers of legitimate imperial authority.52
Just as imperial representations were created
in order to reach multiple Roman audiences, so
too were the messages encoded in their destruc-
tion and transformation intended to reach differ-
ent segments of the public.53 On the most fun-
damental level, the negation of images or their
alteration into new likenesses signal to the entire
populace the political transition to a new regime.
50 M. Beard (1991) 46-8.
51
P.J. Casey (1994) 46; naming is also an equivalent
existence in the ancient Near East, and the excision of an
inscribed name is tantamount to the suppression or removal
of physical being, Z. Bahrani (1995) 377.
52 A.E. Wardman (1984) 222.
53 The widespread nature of the surviving physical
evidence for damnatio in the form of mutilated, transformed,
or warehoused portraits, as well as erased inscriptions
certainly refutes C. W. Hedrick’s statement that the audi-
ence for damnationes is a “small percentage” of the popula-
tion, namely the senatorial elite, (2000) 110-11. While the
aristocracy are indeed an important audience, as well as
agent for condemnations, all strata of the society are im-
plicated in the phenomenon.
 developments, implications, and precedents
Certainly those illiterate members of the popu-
lation who could not read the written history of
the failed regime could read its visual history as
embodied in mutilated and transformed images.54
But alteration of the visual landscape of impe-
rial portraits could also be read in alternative
ways by different audiences. Damnationes which
were avidly pursued or desired by the Senate such
as those of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus
or Elagabalus, served to reaffirm the Senate’s
power and prestige for the senatorial aristocrats
themselves and for the society at large. Similarly,
for the new emperor, his family, and supporters,
the mutilation and transformation of a predeces-
sors images made tangible the authority of the
new regime. For the partisans of the overthrown
emperor, the destruction of portraits stand ob-
viously as negative exempla. To a certain extent,
the new emperor could also read the negation of
his predecessor’s likenesses as negative exempla,
visual warnings of the consequences to his own
images should his regime fail.
In cases where images have been altered, it
may have been the intention that visually sophis-
ticated Roman viewers recognize the transforma-
tion and appropriation of the original portrait.
Reworked likenesses which to modern audiences
seem less satisfactory because they retain too
many traces of the original image may be symp-
tomatic of this trend. The Nero/Domitian/Nerva
statue from Velleia stands as an extreme example
since it contains strong visual elements of its two
earlier incarnations as representations of both
Nero and Domitian (cat. 2.50/5.13). These por-
traits may then exhibit deliberate signs of their
own transformation, readable by certain viewers
as manifestations of the new emperor visually
cannibalizing the power and images of his de-
feated predecessor.
If imperial images act on certain levels as ef-
figies, intended to embody in marble or bronze
the reigning princeps, his family, and revered or
54 H. Flower discusses the importance of the visual
trappings of power and prestige, such as the display of
imagines or the erection of important public building and
monuments in communicating to the populace at large in
republican Rome (1996) 65, 69.
9
deified predecessors, then another potential au-
dience for mutilation and transformation of these
representations becomes the images themselves.
H. Flower has raised the intriguing possibility that
imagines, wax ancestor masks, assembled in the
atrium of a Roman house, act as a kind of audi-
ence witnessing the actions of their living descen-
dants. Similarly, when worn by actors at elite
funerals, imagines also function as both participants
in, and an audience for, the funerary rites.55
The physical alteration or mutilation of artis-
tic objects, such as portraits, also provided an
effective means of visual communication between
subject and ruler. Official sanctions which man-
dated the destruction of images pointedly com-
municated the victorious emperor’s new status,
while the public’s response to the damnatio could,
in turn, proclaim loyalty to the new regime.
Spontaneous demonstrations against an over-
thrown emperor’s memory and monuments, es-
pecially in instances where the ruler was never
officially condemned, provided important outlets
for public expression.56 Portraits of Severus
Alexander, Julia Mammaea, and Gordian III
have all been spontaneously attacked, despite the
fact the none of them was officially condemned
and Severus Alexander and Gordian III were
actually deified.57 The spontaneous mutilation,
transformation, or destruction of images visually
repudiates the failed ruler and simultaneously
professes allegiance to his successor.
55 H.I. Flower (1996) especially 60-127, and 185-222.
56 T. Pekáry reviews the evidence for spontaneous dem-
onstrations (1985) 134-42; see also C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)
99 for popular demonstrations involving Gn. Calpurnius
Piso’s statues during his maiestas trial under Tiberius, and
infra for descriptions of spontaneous demonstrations involv-
ing the images of Poppaea and Claudia Octavia.
57 Damaged portraits of Severus Alexander: Bochum,
Kunstasammlungen der Ruhr-Universität, cat. 7.20; Rome,
Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431, cat. 7.22; Swit-
zerland, Private Collection, cat. 7.24; Damaged portraits
of Julia Mammaea: Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-
Universität, cat. 7.25; Paris, Louvre, MA 3552 (inv. MND
2137) cat. 7.27; Ostia, Museo, inv. 26, cat. 7.26; Switzer-
land, Private Collection, cat. 7.28; Damaged portrait of
Gordian III: Sofia, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497, cat.
8.9.
10 chapter one
Iconographic Implications
Earlier works have been intent largely on docu-
menting the historical dimensions of damnatio or
its specific physical effects on individual sculpted
portraits, paintings, coins, inscriptions, or papyri.
The conceptual implications of the phenomenon
have not yet been fully addressed. Obviously,
knowledge that a work of art has been trans-
formed or intentionally mutilated radically alters
assumptions concerning the production and cul-
tural context of these images. Implicit in the
creation of imperial portraits, then, is the notion
that mechanisms and sanctions existed whereby
representations could be transformed or de-
stroyed. Thus, the imperial image is not inher-
ently stable or static.
In formal terms the mutability of imperial
images has serious iconographic and stylistic
ramifications. Sheer numbers alone reveal the
importance of recut images. As already men-
tioned, well over 100 surviving early imperial im-
ages have been transformed from representations
of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. Altered repre-
sentations often retain some or all of the style of
the original image. At the most basic level, these
trends can be reduced to classicizing or idealiz-
ing versus veristic approaches to imperial por-
traits. Style functions as a significant bearer of
meaning in Roman portraits, especially in peri-
ods of political transition, periods also marked by
damnationes memoriae and the transformation of
images. Important evidence for the ideology of
style is furnished by representations of Vespasian
whose emphasis on verism is often viewed as a
conscious visual repudiation of Nero and the
Julio-Claudian past and a return to late Repub-
lican values and style. On the other hand, those
portraits of Vespasian which are more classiciz-
ing can be read as attempts to project the idea
of imperial continuum and visually connect the
new Flavian emperor with his respected Julio-
Claudian predecessors, Claudius, Tiberius, and
especially Augustus. These opposing approaches
and intentions exist simultaneously in Vespasian’s
portraiture and suggest that his images were
designed for audiences with different expecta-
tions. Vespasian’s veristic likenesses with their
Republican associations may have been intended
for the members of the senatorial aristocracy who
had grown disaffected with Nero, the Julio-
Claudians and the imperial system in general,
while the classicizing images may have appealed
to the middle and lower classes or inhabitants of
the eastern sections of the empire, whose expe-
rience of the Julio-Claudians would have been
radically different and more positive.58
Significantly the most veristic of Vespasian’s
surviving portraits, as well as the most classiciz-
ing and Julio-Claudian in style are all reworked
from earlier representations of Nero.59 In the
former instance, the supra-verism is inspired by
a desire to obliterate all trace of the initial im-
age and its style, while in the latter instance, the
reworked image attempts to co-opt and cannibal-
ize the idealizing style of the original. Similar
patterns apply for the portraits of Claudius re-
cut from Caligula and they challenge basic no-
tions about the development of style and stylis-
tic trends, since in these examples the heightened
verism or classicism of the likenesses is a direct
result of and response to the necessity of refash-
ioning a pre-existing work of art with its own in-
herent iconographical meaning.60 The divergent
styles expressed in the reworked images may also
reflect differing approaches on the part of artists
facing the technical challenges of recarving, dif-
fering wishes expressed by the patrons oversee-
ing the reworking, or the differing audiences for
whom they were intended. Finally, a recognition
of the profound stylistic influence which an origi-
58 This interpretation runs counter to R. Bianchi-
Bandinelli’s classic Marxist reading of Vespasian’s portrait
typology which sees the veristic portraits as more plebeian
in style, designed to appeal to the proletariat and to present
the emperor as ordinary citizen, while the classicizing
portraits are more “intellectual” and stress Vespasian’s
position as ruler, (1969) 211-12.
59 Arguably the most veristic of Vespasian’s likenesses
is a head recut from Nero in the Terme, inv. 38795 (see
cat. 2.23), while his most classicizing is another recut head
from Lucus Feronia, Magazzini cat. 2.22.
60 A portrait of Claudius in the Centrale Montemartini
refashioned from Caligula is often cited as his most realis-
tic likeness, inv. 2443 (cat. 1.31). Claudius’s most classicizing
image, also recut from Caligula, is the colossal head from
Otricoli in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, 551, inv. 242
(cat. 1.30).
 developments, implications, and precedents
nal portrait can have on its recarved progeny can
drastically alter assumptions about whole periods
in Roman art, as for instance the colossal Maxen-
tius/Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei
Conservatori whose classicism and spirituality are
often cited as characteristic of new directions in
Constantinian art but which were, in reality,
already significant artistic components of the
Maxentian original, appropriated wholesale by
the new image.61
Furthermore, the wide range and variation of
coiffure and physiognomy among recut images,
which can have only the most approximate re-
semblance to more standardized, unreworked
representations, underscore the innate diversity
present in the portraiture of any given emperor.62
Inscriptions and context would have aided an-
cient viewers in identifying less precisely defined
reworked portraits. The latitude within specific
portrait types, especially apparent among altered
likenesses, is yet another symptom of the flexibil-
ity and mutability of imperial images.
Beyond the important stylistic implications for
the development and history of Roman portrai-
ture, a recognition of altered imperial images has
ramifications for other kinds of subsidiary imag-
ery. For instance, reworked cuirassed images of
Nero suggest that certain motifs on sculpted
breastplates, such as that of victories flanking a
thymeterium, may be an innovations of Neronian
rather than Flavian (or Trajanic) artists. Similarly,
a representation of Augustus with a corona spicea
which has been transformed from a likeness of
Nero suggests that Nero, rather than Augustus,
is the first emperor to introduce this important
corona in male imperial portraits.63
The recutting of Roman portraits also impacts
modern questions surrounding the authenticity
and forgery of ancient works of art. Portraits
which look strange and unusual, because they
were reworked in antiquity have been con-
61 Inv. 1622, cat. 9.4.
62 On diversity within the framework of imperial por-
trait typology, see H. von Heintze, in A. Cambitoglou ed.
(1995) 264; R.R.R. Smith (1996) 30-47.
63 Sala dei Busi 274, inv. 715; as proposed by B.S.
Spaeth (1996) 23; on the portrait see cat. 2.10.
11
demned as fakes, as for instance a likeness of
Severus Alexander refashioned from Elagabalus
in Kansas City (cat. 8.X).64 In fact, the oddities
occasioned by recutting can help to validate a
portrait’s authenticity. However, E.B. Harrison
has sounded an important note of caution con-
cerning reworked pieces of ancient sculpture and
the art market: “In the art market and in the
museums for which the market is the main
source, they represent a real danger, for the idea
of an anciently recut original can serve as a mask
for the ineptitude of a forger.”65
Much scholarly effort has been expended in
attempting to recover the lost voices of those
members of Roman society who are misrepre-
sented, under represented or not represented at
all in the literary and historical tradition largely
authored by the male elite or in the officially
sponsored monuments of Roman art. The po-
sition of women, slaves, foreigners, as well as
Roman attitudes towards gender, ethnicity, and
sexuality have all been explored in recent schol-
arship.66 “Bad” emperors like Caligula, Nero,
Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus and Maxen-
tius as historical losers have also been deprived
of their voices and no longer have the power to
speak through their images that revered rulers
such as Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan, or Con-
stantine have retained. A survey of condemna-
tions prompts reappraisals of art created for these
“bad” emperors and reveals new insights into
various aspects of imperial self-representation
including Caligula’s innovations in Julio-Claudian
group dedications, the surprising persistence of
Neronian military imagery or the extraordinary
range of Maxentius’s visual propaganda during
his six year rule of Rome. Furthermore, it often
calls into question the veracity of certain asser-
tions in surviving ancient sources and our own
64 Nelson Atkins Museum 45-66, cat. 7.16. On ques-
tions of forgery and authenticity, see R. Cohon (1996).
65 (1990) 180.
66 Scholarship has grown rather vast in these areas, but
important contributions in the field of Roman art include:
N.B. Kampen, ed. (1996); D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B.
Matheson eds., (1996) and in particular N.B. Kampen,
“Gender Theory in Roman Art,” 14-26; J.R. Clarke (1996b)
599-603; and J.R. Clarke (1998) and 2003.
12 chapter one
subsequent historical assumptions. The physical
evidence provided by damaged, altered, or mu-
tilated portraits also aids in the recovery of the
lost political voice of Roman imperial women
such as the two Julias, Livilla, Messalina, Lucilla,
Crispina, and Fausta.67 Although these women
were most often accused of adultery and sexual
misconduct, the virulent destruction of their
images underscores the political nature of their
crimes, namely involvement in conspiracies to
overthrow the reigning princeps. Thus, damnatio
contributes new avenues for revisionist ap-
proaches to Roman art and history.
Sculptors also faced substantial technical ob-
stacles when recarving marble portraits. In com-
parison to a freshly cut portrait, freshly cut from
a block of stone, the volume of marble available
for refashioning a likeness is obviously limited to
the extent of the pre-existing image. The basic
position of eyes, ears, and nose is also established
by the original likeness. The recutting of portraits
and resulting reduction in sculptural volume,
often results in representations with overly large,
projecting ears, thick necks, and receding chins.68
Marble also becomes more friable as it ages, so
projecting elements such as ears, noses, and
crowns can prove especially delicate and prob-
lematic. Indeed, ears and crowns, are often left
entirely intact from the original likeness. The
recutting of the lower sections of the face and in
particular the mouth, often a focus in the trans-
formation process may have additional ideologi-
cal implications as the word for mouth, os can also
be used to signify the entire face.69
Precedents and Parallels
The Near East
Prior to the Roman imperial period, represen-
tations of rulers were certainly destroyed, dam-
aged, or altered for political reasons. Numerous
67 See infra and E.R. Varner (2001a).
68 M. Pfanner (1989) 218-9; C.B. Rose (1997) 59.
69 H. von Heintze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995) 264.
examples of mutilated royal images survive from
the Near East. A vandalized copper head of an
Akkadian ruler from Nineveh provides an early
example of mutilation in effigy.70 The ears have
been severed from the image, the left eye gouged
out, the bridge and tip of the nose damaged by
chisel blows, and sections of the beard broken off,
all acts of deliberate denigration. These vandal-
ized features contrast with the rest of head which
is well preserved, a hallmark of most intention-
ally disfigured images. C. Nylander has pointed
out that the portrait’s mutilation finds close par-
allels to the mutilation of criminals in the Near
East, and in particular of the two Persian pre-
tenders Fravartish and Ciçantakhma, whose noses
and ears were cut off and one eye blinded by
order of Darius.71 Nylander also suggests that the
damaged state of much Akkadian hard stone
sculpture may be the result of systematic destruc-
tion.72 In a relief from Nineveh representing Sen-
nacherib, the head of the king has been gouged
out, while also at Nineveh, the faces of Ashur-
banipal and his queen have been attacked, as
have reliefs of Ummanigash.73 In the case of Sen-
nacherib’s representation, the identifying inscrip-
tion was also defaced.74 At Persepolis, royal re-
liefs have also been attacked. In scenes depicting
the king enthroned and leading processions, the
faces of the king have been obliterated, as have
their scepters. Animistic beliefs in these images
as effigies or doubles for the rulers may have
motivated the deliberate disfigurement of royal
representations in the Near East, as well as their
abduction by hostile rulers.75 Indeed, the suscep-
tibility of Near Eastern royal images to politically
motivated mutilation prompted many curse in-
scriptions, including that of the eighth century
Assyrian king Sargon who cursed “anyone who
70 Baghdad, Museum; C. Nylander (1980) 330-31 (with
earlier literature). For the politically chaotic context of the
mutilation, see A. Kuhrt (1987) 20-55.
71 C. Nylander (1980) 331-2.
72 C. Nylander (1980) 330, n. 6.
73 C. Nylander (1980) 331-2; Z. Bahrani (1995) 365-67,
figs. 19, 21; see also T. Beran (1988).
74 Z. Bahrani (1995) 366, fig. 19.
75 Z. Bahrani (1995) 375-80.
 developments, implications, and precedents
would alter or damage” the features of his im-
ages.76
Pharaonic Egypt
The destruction of royal monuments and imag-
es for political reasons was also carried out in
Egypt. Representations of Hatchepsut, who ruled
as pharaoh together with her nephew and step-
son, Thutmoses III, have been extensively mu-
tilated and her cartouches often erased.77 In some
instances her name and titles have been replaced
by those of Thutmoses III, and in others they
remain blank. These erasures appear to be part
of a concerted effort on the part of Thutmoses
III to rewrite the historical record, and he seems
to have been largely successful, as the name of
his co-ruler Hatcheput is noticeably absent in
surviving king lists.78 Images of Hatchepsut were
also deliberately mutilated, as attested by the
great number of damaged sphinxes bearing her
likeness discovered buried together at the site of
her great mortuary temple. 79 The excavator,
H.E. Winlock, estimated that there were origi-
nally as many as 200 Hatchepsut shpinxes. The
76
Z. Bahrani (1995) 372-5; 378-80; I.F. Winter (1997)
368.
77 For the evidence for a “damnatio memoriae” of Hatcehp-
sut, see C.F. Nims (1966) 97-100; P.F. Dorman (1988) 46-
65; C. Van Siclen (1989) 85-6; G. Robins (1993); J.
Tyldesley (1996) 216-229.
78 Omitting Hatchepsut’s name from the king lists would
cause no noticeable chronological gaps in the record, since
she ruled together with Thutmoses III and it would then
appear that the succession passed directly from her hus-
band and brother Thutmoses II to his son by another wife,
Thutmoses III. The alteration of the historical record as
expressed in inscriptions, reliefs, and statues may have been
intended to suppress Hatschepsut role as a successful king
and discourage other influential royal women from attempt-
ing to rule as pharaoh. In this regard it is telling that it is
only representations and inscriptions which celebrate
Hatchepsut as pharaoh, and not those which celebrate her
proper female role as queen consort, which have been tar-
geted for obliteration. G. Robins (1993) 51-52; J. Tyldesley
(1996) 223-6.
79 The “Hatchepsut Hole” discovered accidentally by
H.E. Winlock in 1922-23; Other damaged images of
Hatchepsut were discovered by Winlock in 1926-28 at the
“Senenmut Quarry,” H.E. Winlock, 23 (1928) 46 and in
1927-8 (1928) 1-23.
13
uraeus, symbol of Hatchepsut’s position as king,
has been chiseled off many of these representa-
tions, and the noses have been attacked and the
eyes carefully gouged out. The destruction of the
nose and eyes recalls the mutilation of the Akka-
dian copper head and also provides striking early
parallels to the later mutilation of Roman impe-
rial images. Monuments celebrating Hatchepsut’s
advisor Senenmut have also been attacked.80
The reign of Akhenaten witnesses several
unusual examples of the transformation of rep-
resentations of a royal woman. Reliefs and in-
scriptions honoring the pharaoh’s minor wife
Queen Kiya appear to have been regularly al-
tered to depict one of his daughters by Nefertiti,
Meretaten or Ankhesenpaaten and as a result
Kiya has virtually disappeared from the artistic
record.81 Kiya’s image is often remodeled by
simply altering her headress into a “modified
Nubian wig,” as in two reliefs in Copenhagen,82
and a relief in New York.83 Identifying inscrip-
tions were also recut to honor Meretaten or
Ankhesnpaaten.84 It is not entirely clear what
prompted the obliteration of Kiya’s memory, but
during her lifetime she appears to have enjoyed
a great deal of prominence at Akhenaten’s court,
and it is tempting to view the transformation of
Kiya’s monuments as an indication of the in-
creased importance and influence of Nefertiti and
her daughters towards the end of the reign.85
80 P.F. Dorman discusses the complex problems sur-
rounding the destruction of Senemut’s monuments and the
evidence, or lack thereof, for a concerted proscription of
his memory (1988) 141-64.
81G. Robins (1993) 54-55; D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L.
Green (1996) 11, 87-88, 105-6.
82 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AE.I.N. 1776; D. Arnold,
J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996) 106, 132-3, no. 27, fig. 100.
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, AE.I.N. 1797; D. Arnold, J.P.
Allen and L. Green (1996) 87-88, 105-106, 133, no. 28,
fig. 79.
83 Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985.328.8; D. Arnold,
J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996) 106, fig. 101.
84 As in one of the Copenhagen reliefs (Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek, A.E.I.N. 1776) whose inscription now reads
“daughter of the king of his flesh, his beloved...Meretaten,”
but beneath it, the beginning of Kiya’s usual titles are still
legible: “the wife and [great] beloved of the King of Up-
per and Lower Egypt who lives on [Maat],” D. Arnold, J.P.
Allen and L. Green (1996) 106.
85 On Kiya, see: R. Hanke (1978)188-96; W. Helck
14 chapter one
After his own death, monuments honoring
Akhenaten, his family, and references to the new
monotheistic god Aten were systematically de-
stroyed as Akhenaten’s new religion was aban-
doned and orthodoxy reasserted.86
Sculpted representations of Egyptian rulers
were also transformed and recycled in large
numbers without being politically motivated.
Many statues of Rameses II have been refash-
ioned from pre-existing images of Amenhotep III,
whose sculpted images were produced in far
greater numbers than any of his predecessors. A
representation of Amenhotep’s chief wife, Queen
Tiye may also have been recut, but not until the
Ptolemaic period when it was reworked into an
image of Arsinoe II.87 The drapery of the statue
has been substantially recut, jewelery removed,
the bottom edges of the wig narrowed, the eyes
retouched, and the modius crown of Tiye modi-
fied into an Isis crown. The image of Queen Tiye
may have been deliberately selected by the Ptole-
maic artists because of the perceived similarities
between the two popular queens and its rework-
ing can then be seen as a kind of positive trans-
formation, very different from the generally hos-
tile transformations of the Roman period.88 In
addition, the substantial alterations to the body
of the statue are not typical of Roman transfor-
mations, which are generally concentrated en-
tirely on the facial features and coiffure.
Greece and Sicily
Athens, from the late Archaic through the Hel-
lenistic periods furnishes a number of close par-
allels to the Roman phenomenon of damnatio. An
early example of the politically motivated destruc-
tion or alteration of an artistic monument is
provided by a painted plaque, attributed to
(1980) cols. 422-24; W. Helck (1984) 159-67; A.P. Thomas
(1994) 72-81; D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L. Green (1996)
14-5, 105-7; On Nefertiti’s importance towards the end of
Akhenaten’s reign and her possible position as co-regent,
see G. Robins (1993) 54 and D. Arnold, J.P. Allen and L.
Green (1996) 88-9, and n. 28.
86 D. Metzler (1973) 19-20.
87 Miho, Museum. A. Kozloff, xxx.
88 A. Kozloff, in J.N. Newland, ed. (1997) 34-37.
Euthymides, in which the name of Megakles, one
of the Alkmeonidai, in the 6"8@H inscription has
been erased, and that of Glaukon substituted.89
In 487, Hipparchos, the son of Charmides was
ostracized and his statue on the Akropolis de-
stroyed.90 At the end of the fourth century, the
Athenians revoked the decrees honoring Dem-
etrios of Phaleron and melted down three hun-
dred of his metal statues, further denigrating his
memory by refashioning some of them as cham-
berpots and throwing others into the sea.91 An
inventory list of statues on the Acropolis compiled
under Lycurgus c. 335 B.C. also provides evi-
dence for the destruction and disposal of statues
for aesthetic, and perhaps religious reasons.92
In 200 B.C., in defiance of Macedon, the
Athenians repudiated the public honors accorded
to Philip V and Livy describes the destruction of
his monuments in terms which are intended to
recall anachronistically Roman practices of
damnatio memoriae:
Tum vero Atheniensium civitas, cui odio in Philippum
per metum jam diu moderata erat, id omne in auxilii
praesentis sepem effudit...Rogationem extemplo tulerunt
plebesque scivit ut Philippi statuae et imagines omnes
nominaque earum, item maiorem eius virile ac muliebre
secus omnium tollerentur delerenturque diesque festi, sacra,
sacerdotes, quae ipsius maiorumque honoris causa institutua
essent, omnia profanarentur; loca quoque, in quibus positum
aliquid inscriptumve honoris eius causa fuisset, detestabilia
esse.93
(Then indeed the Athenian state, long restrained
in their hatred of Philip through fear, because help
was at hand, fully vented their rage...They im-
mediately put forth a resolution, and the popu-
lace passed it, that all of the statues and portraits
of Philip and their identifying inscriptions, and
all those of his ancestors, both men and women
89 Athens, Akropolis Museum, GL 1037; Brouskari, The
Acropolis Museum 126-127, no. 67, fig. 241.
90 Lykurg. Leokrat. 117; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no.
1.
91 Strabo 9.1.20 Plut. Mor. 820E; Dion. Hal. Chron.
37.41 (where the number of destroyed statues is given as
1500); Diog. Laet. 5.77 (statues thrown into the sea); C.
Houser (1987) 269; P. Green (1990) 48; M. Donderer (1991-
2) 271, no. 6.
92 D. Harris (1992) 637-52.
93 31.44.2-5. See also, P. Green (1990) 309; M.
Donderer (1991-2) 272, nos. 7-8. On the “damnatio” of
Philip, see H.A. Thompson (1981) 354.
 developments, implications, and precedents 15

should be abolished and destroyed and that the evidence of non-Roman damnatio from Ana-
festivals, religious rites, and priesthoods which had tolia.98 The body of the polychrome sarcophagus,
been instituted in his honor or that of his ances-
tors should be desecrated, and that also the sites
which seems to have been created for a local
in which any inscriptions or honors had been ruler, depicts a stag and boar hunt. The facial
placed should be held as abominable.) features of one of the horsemen in the stag hunt
have been intentionally obliterated from the re-
Polybius records that, slightly earlier in 220 B.C.,
liefs. Evidence for this kind of portrait effacement,
votive images at Dion, sacred to the Macedonians
in which only the head is attacked is generally
were also deliberately attacked and destroyed by
rare for Roman reliefs, but there are comparable
the Aetolians.94 The names of Macedonian kings
instances for both Domitian and Geta.
have also been erased in inscriptions from the
Athenian Agora, and the Athenians passed sanc-
tions against the monuments of Philip V of The Ptolemies
Macedon and those of his ancestors, c. 200 B.C.
Several late Ptolemaic portraits have been re-
Several fragments of a gilded bronze equestrian
worked for political reasons and stand as impor-
statue discovered in a well located in the north-
tant precursors to the altered likenesses of the
western section of the Agora in 1971 may belong
Roman imperial period. In particular, three rep-
to an image of Demetrius Poliorcetes, one of
resentations of Ptolemy IX (116-107, 88-80 B.C.)
Philip V’s most famous ancestors, destroyed
appear to have been remodeled from portraits of
during the Athenian demonstrations and sanc-
his younger brother and successor Ptolemy X
tions of 200 B.C.95 The Agora well had been used
(107-88) when the former regained control of
as a dump Like the Romans, the Athenians de-
Egypt in 88 B.C.99 Iustinus also records the de-
stroyed the dwelling places of those convicted of
struction of images of Ptolemy X by the Alex-
crimes agains the polis, a process known as
andrians.100 A head in Boston which initially
6"J"F6"NZ.96
depicted Ptolemy X Alexander I Physkon has
At Syracuse, after the expulsion of Dionysus
been transformed into a portrait of his elder
II, Timolean encouraged the inhabitants of the
brother Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros by
city to demolish Dionysus’s citadel, as well as
recarving the eyes and mouth and refashioning
other monuments honoring Dionysus and his
the hair and beard with stucco additions.101 The
predecessors. Plutarch closely associates the de-
general proportions of the facial features have
struction of these works of art and architecture
also been slimmed down from the original rep-
commemorating Dionysus with the charges of
resentation of Ptolemy X, whose nickname
tyranny leveled against him; in order to under-
Physkon, refers to his corpulence. The reworked
score the symbolic intent of the destruction,
image may also have been completed with an
Timolean built law courts on the site of the
eagle headdress which would have linked Ptolemy
obliterated monuments, as an architectural em-
IX, whose epithet was Soter, to the founder of
bodiment of the triumph of justice over tyranny.97
An early fourth century B.C. Greco-Persian
sarcophagus discovered at Çan may also present 98 See N. Sevinç, et al (2001).
99 Late Ptolemaic portraits are notoriously difficult to
identify, but circumstantial evidence based on representa-
94 4.62.1-2; M. Donderer (1991-2) 271, no. 3; A.F. tions preserved on sealings from Edfu and Nea Paphos
Stewart notes that this deliberate destruction of images is suggests that Ptolemy IX and X can be differentiated on
an attempt to obliterate “Macedonian historical conscious- the basis of their facial features, the former usually appear-
ness,” (1993) 25. ing with a distinctive underchin beard and with slimmer
95 J.M. Camp (1986) 164-5, fig. 138; C. Housere (1987) facial features than his younger brother, see R.R.R. Smith
255-81, figs. 16.1-6; P. Green (1990) 307; M. Donderer (1988a) 95-7.
(1991-92) 267, no. 1. 100 38.8.12; M. Donderer (1991-2) 273-4, no. 274.
96 W.R. Connor (1985) 79-102. 101 Museum of Fine Arts inv. 59.51, h. 0.46 m.; R.R.R.
97 Plut. Tim. 22.2-3; 23.7; Dion.Hal. Chron 37.20f ; M. Smith (1988a) 167, no. 57, pl. 39.1-2 (with earlier litera-
Donderer (1991-2) 272, nos. 9, 12. ture).
16 chapter one
the dynasty Ptolemy I Soter.102 A portrait in the
Getty of Ptolemy IX exhibits similar signs of
reworking (fig. 1).103 The eyes and mouth have
been recut. Like the Boston likeness, the portrait’s
overall volume has been reduced. The neck pre-
serves clear evidence of having been cut down
and the area below the right ear has been cut
back, perhaps to facilitate the addition of another
eagle headdress to the altered image. Chisel
marks are also clearly visible at the back of the
head along a large flat area, perhaps also for
securing added headgeart, or, alternatively, for
repairs in stucco or marble to damage suffered
during Ptolemy X’s overthrow. The head has
been broken from a statue whose drapery is
visible at the left of the neck. A third portrait of
Ptolemy IX in Stuttgart, discovered at Athribis,
also appears to have been modified from a like-
ness of Ptolemy X.104 The recutting of these
images predicts the reworking of Roman marble
portraits, although stucco additions are a rela-
tively rare form of alteration in the Roman pe-
riod.
The Roman Republic
The first recorded example of the destruction of
a Roman honorific monument as a result of
damnatio occurs in Pliny the Elder: a bronze statue
of Spurius Cassius Vecellinus erected in front of
the Temple of Tellus was melted down by order
of the censors after his condemnation for at-
tempted tyranny in 485 B.C.105 The historical
veracity of Pliny’s account is called into question
by three important inaccuracies: namely, true
102 On the reworking of portraits of Ptolemy IX and X
and the putative eagle headdress, see R.R.R. Smith (1986)
74-8.
103 83.AA.330, h. 0.34 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 167,
no. 59, pl. 40.1-2 (with earlier literature).
104 Würtembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. SS.17, h.
0.233 m; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 96, n. 65 (with earlier lit-
erature); S. Walker and P Higgs, eds. (2000) 81, no. 1.74,
with fig., (with earlier literature).
105 NH 34.30. eam vero, quam apud aedem Telluris statuisset
sibi Sp. Cassius, qui regnum adfectaverat, etiam conflatam a
censoribus. See also T. Hölscher (1994) 32 and n. 98. For
further discussion of Spurius Cassius, see K. Mustakallio
(1994) 30-38, and B. Spaeth (1996) 71-3.
commemorative portraiture is probably anach-
ronistic for early fifth century Rome, the office
of censor had not yet been established in 485, and
the temple of Tellus itself was not dedicated until
268.106 Nevertheless, this anecdote is particularly
revealing because it indicates that Pliny and the
contemporary audiences for whom he was writ-
ing, familiar with the damnationes of Gn. Cal-
purnius Piso Pater, Livilla, Caligula, Messalina,
Nero, and others earlier in the century, expected
such a direct link between attempted tyranny,
condemnation, and the destruction of portraits.
It also underscores the traditional, Republican
precedents ascribed to the negation of images in
the imperial period. Other early Republican
manifestations of damnatio assigned to the fifth and
fourth centuries document the razing of houses
of condemned individuals, including domås be-
longing to the same Spurius Cassius, Spurius
Maelius, Marius Manlius Capitolinus, and
Marius Vitruvius Vaccus.107 Later, the houses of
M. Fulvius Flaccus, a follower of the Gracchi and
Lucius Saturninus were similarly destroyed.108
Flaccus’s house, which stood on the Palatine, was
replaced by a portico constructed by Q. Lutatius
Catullus, further canceling Flaccus’s memory.109
The destruction of Cicero’s house on the Palatine
ordered by Clodius and the partial demolition of
his villas at Tusculum and Formia can also be
viewed as Republican expressions of architectural
damnatio memoriae.110 The demolition of houses,
106 T. Hölscher (1994) 32; for anachronistic elements
in later accounts of Republican condemnations, see also
C. W. Hedrick (2000) 100.
107Cic. Dom. 100-102; Val.Max. 6.3.1a-b; Livy 2.7.5-12,
2.41.11 (Spurius Cassius), 4.16.1 (Spurius Maelius), 6.20.13
(Marius Manlius Capitolinus), 8.20.8 (Marius Vitruvius
Vaccus); T.P. Wiseman (1987) 394 and n. 3; K. Mustakallio
(1994) 39-64; J. Bodel (1997) 7-9; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)
100, 102, 105-6.
108 Cic. de.off. 1.138, Dom 102, 114; Val. Max. 6.3.1c;
T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393; J. Bodel (1997) 7-8.
109 Cic. Dom. 102; 114 (ut eius qui perniciosa rei publicae
consilia cepisset omnis memoria funditus ex oculis hominm ac mentibus
tolleretur [so that every memory of him who had conceived
treacherous plots against the Republic should be entirely
abolishted); Val. Max. 6.3.1 c; T. Hölscher (1994) 57; J.
Bodel (1997) ms. 5..
110 Cic. Dom. 62; Red.Sen 18; Att 4.2.5, 7); J. Bodel (1997)
9.
 developments, implications, and precedents
even those belonging to condemned individuals
outside the imperial family, continued in the early
empire, as attested by the partial destruction of
a house or houses belonging to Gn. Calpurnius
Piso pater under Tiberius as decreed by the
Senate and the surviving remains of a domus on
the Caelian destroyed under Nero and likely
belonging to G. Calpurnius Piso, condemned in
A.D. 65 for conspiring against the emperor.111
The Roman aristocratic domus functioned as a
semi-public monument to the achievements and
social prestige of its owners, and as a result is
closely bound up with the memoria and fama of its
inhabitants.112 It is not surprising then that the
house as monument would be a primary target
included in the sanctions associated with damnatio
memoriae. This emphasis on the cancellation of
memory and reputation sharply differentiates the
Roman practice of house razing from the Greek
practice, 6"J"F6"NZ , which, as noted earlier,
seems motivated more by the desire to remove
a polluted dwelling from the polis.113
Although it dates to the reign of Tiberius, the
senatorial decree of A.D. 20 concerning the
damnatio of Gn. Calpurnius Piso pater which sur-
vives in six (or seven) bronze inscriptions from
Spain, provides important evidence for the treat-
ment of the images of condemned individuals and
likely reflects established republican practices.114
Piso, implicated in the death of Germanicus at
Antioch in A.D. 19, was accused of maiestas and
committed suicide in A.D. 20. In addition to the
partial demolition of his domus, the senate ex-
pressly ordered the removal of his portraits,
wherever they may have been erected and for-
bade the display of his imago in any funerals where
111 For Gn. Calpurnius Piso, see J. Bodel (1997) ms. 9;
H. Flower (1998) 169-70. These sanctions only targeted
additions made by Gn. Calpurnius Piso to the propery. On
the destruction of the Caelian domus and its likely associa-
tion with G. Calpurnius Piso, see V. Santa Maria Scrinari
(1997) 9.
112 T.P. Wiseman (1987) 393-413; B. Bergmann (1994)
225-56; J. Bodel (1997).
113 W.R. Connor (1985) 79-102.
114 M. Kajava (1995) 201-10; W. Eck, A. Caballos, and
F. Fernandez, eds (1996); H. Flower (1996) 23-28; H.
Flower (1998) 158-82.
17
it might normally have appeared.115 It is also
notable that the Senate’s decree concerning the
penalties enacted against Piso’s memory and
images survives in several copies.116 Similar pro-
hibitions had been passed against the appearance
of imagines of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus, after
his condemnation for treason in A.D. 16 and
slightly later against G. Silius A. Caecina Largus
in A.D. 24.117 Libo’s condemnation also included
the declaration of public rejoicing on the anni-
versary of his death.118 Sanctions against the
portraits and imagines of the tyrannicides Brutus
and Cassius continued in the early imperial pe-
riod, as attested in Tacitus’s description of the
funeral of Junia Tertulla in A.D. 22 which was
remarkable for their conspicuously absent like-
nesses.119 Later, under Nero, Cassius Longinus
was prosecuted for displaying an image of his
ancestor, Cassius the Tyrannicide.120 This is
115 Utiq(ue) statuae et imagines Cn. Pisonis patris, quae ubiq(ue)
positae essent, tollerentur .... neue imaginibus familiae Calpurniae
imago eius interponeretur (the statues and portraits of Cn. Piso,
the father, should be removed wherever they have been
erected .... nor should his mask be placed among the other
masks of the Calpurnian family); 73-80. The phrase quae
ubique positae essent is presumably meant to stress the fact
that Piso’s images are to be removed from both public and
private spaces. The Senate also enacted sanctions against
Piso’s name and ordered his son to change is name from
Gnaeus (he seems to have adopted Lucius instead). It was
also proposed that Piso’s name be erased from the public
records (fasti), but this penalty was vetoed by Tiberius and
not carried out; Tac. Ann. 3.17; see also H.I. Flower (1996)
28, and n. 45; H. Flower (1998) 160-61.
116 H. Flower makes an important distinction between
Gn. Piso’s condemnation, which actually preserved the
prestige of his family and descendants, and the much more
punitive sanctions against defeated political rivals, which
is the norm for condemned emperors. Flower points out
the complex and conflicting motivations which could lie
behind post mortem sanctions and sees Piso’s punishment as
more traditional and characteristic of earlier republican
practices, (1998) 179.
117 Tac. Ann. 2.32.1. As with Piso, sanctions were passed
against Libo’s name and future Scribonii were forbidden
the use of the cognomen Drusus. For Silius, see Tac.
Ann.11.35. See also H. Flower (1998) 170-71.
118 II ad Ides of September; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000)
107.
119 Ann. 3.76. There is some ambiguity as to the treat-
ment of Brutus and Cassius’s images under Augustus and
he may have permitted display of their portraits, despite
sanctions; see Tac.Ann. 4. 35; Plut. Comp. Brutus and Dio 5;
C.W. Hedrick (2000) 111, 126.
120 Suet. Nero 37.1; Tac. Ann. 16.7; H. Flower (1996)
317, no. T81.
18 chapter one
supported by Dio who claims that in an earlier
period, possession of a portrait of Cassius had
been a capital offence.121 However, by the
principate of Trajan, sanctions appear to have no
longer been in force against the portraits of both
Cassius and Brutus.122
The desecration of corpses as acts of poena post
mortem is also attested in the Republican period.
Important examples include Antonius’s insistence
that Cicero’s head and hands be cut off and then
draped over the ship’s beaks of the Rostra in the
Forum Romanum, or Octavian’s order’s that the
head of Brutus be sent from Philippi to Rome and
thrown at the feet of a portrait statue of Julius
Caesar.123
Marius and Sulla
Images played a crucial role in the civil war which
Marius and Sulla waged at the beginning of the
first century B.C. During the ascendancy of
Marius, Sulla was declared a hostis and his house
and possessions destroyed during his campaign
against Mithradates. It is at this time, as well, that
the monument put up by the Numidian King
Bocchus in honor of Sulla’s Iugurthine victories
may have been deliberately damaged. 124 The
faces of the Victories flanking a shield have been
chiseled from the reliefs. The symbolic intent is
clear: by mutilating the victory figures, Sulla’s
military accomplishments are denigrated and
invalidated. When Sulla regained power (after the
death of Marius), Marius’s portrait statues were
pulled down and trophies commemorating his
12162.27.2.
122 Plin. Ep. 1.17.3. Although C.W. Hedrick interprets
the passages relating to the portraits of Cassius and Brutus
as reflecting the lack of uniform practices associated with
condemnations, Pliny’s intent seems to be that it is now
possible to display their images, precisely because any
sanctions have been rescinded or are not enforced under
the more enlightened rule of Trajan, (2000) 101, 275, n.
36.
123 Cicero: Plut. Cic. 48.6; 49.2, Brutus: Suet. Aug. 13.1;
D.G. Kyle (1998) 132.
124 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo
2750; T. Hölscher (1994) 71; S. Nodelman (1987) 83-84;
T. Hölscher in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Ber-
lin 1988) 384-6, no. 214 (with fig.).
victories on the Capitoline were destroyed.125
Furthermore, Sulla banned the display of any
imagines of Marius,126 as well as imagines belonging
to partisans of Marius who had been condemned
as hostes.127 The first instance of numismatic
damnatio also occurs under Sulla when he restrikes
(countermarks) coins issued under Marius.128
Marius’s memory was subsequently rehabilitated
and the Capitoline trophies which included his
portrait were restored and reinstalled by Julius
Caesar in 65 B.C.129
Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra VII
Likenesses of Marcus Antonius were produced
and widely disseminated after Caesar’s assassina-
tion on 15 March 44 B.C. and especially during
his struggle for supremacy in the Mediterranean
with Octavian. Indeed, P. Zanker has demon-
strated how the two rivals waged a virtual war
of images.130 Representations of Antonius are
preserved on coins and depict him with a full
head of hair, fleshy face, prominent hooked nose,
and thick neck. Nevertheless, no sculpted like-
nesses can be identified with certainty as a result
of the removal and destruction of his portraits
following the defeat at Actium in 31 B.C. and his
subsequent suicide in 30. Three portraits from
Egypt, all with a similar coiffure are the best
candidates as possible representations of Antonius
and if they do depict him, they are likely to have
been removed from public display and ware-
housed.131 Antonius had been declared a public
125HN 34.20.32; T Hölscher (1994) 50-55.
126 Plut. Caes. 5; H. Flower (1996) 68.
127 Plut. Caes. 5; H. Flower (1996) 123. The proscribed
imagines were exhibited again at the funeral of Caesar’s aunt
Julia, the widow of Marius, in 69 B.C.
128 K. Harl (1996) 35; C. W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 274,
n. 24.
129 Plut. Caes. 6.1-5. For the inclusion of a portrait of
Marius in the resurrected monument: ¦46`<"H...9"D\@L...
ñH •<JÂ BV<JT< –>4@H gÇ0 Ò •<¬D J0yH 9"D\@L FL((g<\"H.
130( 1987) 33-78.
131 All three portraits have a similar arrangement of
locks over the forehead: limestone statue, Cairo, Egyptian
Museum, inv. JE 42891; a marble head in Alexandria,
Société archéologique d’Alexandrie; and a basalt pharaonic
statuette, Cairo, Egyptian Museum, inv. 13/3/15/3; G.
 developments, implications, and precedents
enemy of Rome (hosti iudicato) 132 and Plutarch
specifically states that Octavian, on entering Alex-
andria, had Antonius’s statues pulled down.133
Furthermore, both Plutarch and Dio confirm that
the Senate in Rome ordered Antony’s monu-
ments to be effaced or dismantled, his birthday
to be declared a dies nefastus, and his descendants
to be forbidden the use of the praenomen
Marcus.134 His birthday was further considered
ill-omened (vitiosus).135 The destruction of Anto-
nius’s images provides important precedents for
the treatment of representations of overthrown
emperors and political rivals in the imperial
period.
Antonius’s memory and reputation did how-
ever undergo rehabilitation. This process was
begun under Augustus himself. Although ar-
chaeological evidence for Augustus’s arches in the
Forum Romanum is extremely complicated, it
appears that, as part of the damnatio, Antonius’s
name was deliberately omitted from the list of
Grimm (1989) 348-353, ns. 12, 30, fig. 1, pls. 84-5. It is
important to point out that these images do not have close
correspondences to Antonius’s numismatic images and the
coiffures of the basalt portrait in Cairo and the Alexandria
head are not different enough to support Grimm’s asser-
tion that they represent two distinct portrait types: type A,
Antonius as Triumvir and type B, Antonius as “sole ruler”
in the east, respectively. The basalt statuette has also been
associated with Augustus, Z. Kiss (1984) 31-2, figs. 25-6.
R.R.R. Smith has more cautiously identified the limestone
statue in Cairo as simply representing a late Ptolemy
(1988a) 168 no.61, pl. 41. Three other portraits often as-
sociated with Antonius (Kingston Lacy, the Banks Collec-
tion; Brooklyn, Museum of Art, 54.51, and Budapest,
Museum of Fine Arts, 4807) all have divergent hairstyles
and physiognomies, nor do they have strong similarites with
the three Egyptian images; as a result, they are likely to
represent private individuals, see S. Walker and P. Higgs,
eds. (2001) 241, no. 261, 243, no. 263, 254-5, no. 277.
132 Suet. Aug. 17.2.
133 Ant. 86.5.
134 Cic.49.4: ¦Nz @Þ JVH Jz gÆ6`<"H º $@L8¬ 6"2gÃ8g<
z!<JT<\@L 6"Â J•H –88"H ²6bDTFg J4:VH 6"Â BD@FgR0N\F"J@
:0*g<Â Jä< z!<JT<\T< Ð<@:" 9VD6@< gÉ<"4; Dio 51.19.3;
see also D.G. Kyle (1998) 234, n. 47. On the erasure of
Antonius’s name, see Plut. Cic. 49.4; Dio 51.19.3; F.
Vittinghoff (1936) 21 and. M. Kajava (1994) 201; see also
C.W. Hedrick (2000) 104.
135 Fasti Verulani, Caeretaini, Maffaeiani, Praenestini, and
Appiani minores; Dio 51.19.3; H. Flower (1998) 171, and n.
101; see also II 13.3 ad 14 January and ad Kalends of
August and C.W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 107.
19
consuls which decorated the interior bay of
Augustus’s Actian arch in the Forum Roma-
num.136 By 19 B.C., however, when the Actian
Arch was replaced by a tripled bayed arch com-
memorating the return of the Parthian standards,
Antonius’s name is reinstated in the new list of
triumphatores.137 The rehabilitation of Antonius’s
memory is continued under his direct descen-
dants, Caligula and Claudius.138 Antonius’s res-
toration prefigures the rehabilitation of the
memory of Commodus under Septimius Severus
or that of Nero in the 4th and 5th centuries A.C.
As Antonius’s consort and ally, it is Cleopatra
against whom Octavian technically waged war.
Both Dio and Plutarch indicate that Cleopatra
was also declared a hostis, and if so, she is the only
woman for whom there is historical evidence of
a proclamation as an official enemy of the Ro-
man state.139 Indeed, there is a conscious at-
tempt made on the part of Octavian and his
supporters to portray the civil conflict against An-
tonius as a struggle between Rome and a foreign
power, Egypt. Nevertheless, there is no evidence
136 R.A. Gurval reviews the rather sparse numismatic,
archaeological, and literary evidence for the Actian arch
and notes that it is possible that the predecessor to the
Parthian arch in fact celebrated Augustus’ victory over
Sextus Pompey at Naulochus in 36 B.C., (1995) 36-47, as
earlier proposed by F. Coarelli (1985) 258-308. However,
the evidence of the omission of Antony’s name in the list
of consuls, which seems to have been part of the earlier
arch, would favor an identification of the earlier arch as a
commemoration of the victory at Actium rather than
Naulochus, see A. Degrassi (1945-6) 96-7; A. Degrassi
(1947) 133-5, 47 B.C., 42 B.C., 37 B.C.; E. Nedergard in
E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 80-85 (with earlier literature).
137 A. Degrassi (1947) 86-7, 40 B.C. Tac.Ann. 3.18 in-
dicates that Antony’s name was visible under Tiberius,
further evidence of the rehabilitation. The idea of recon-
ciliation and the rehabilitation of Antonius’s memory is also
present in the Ara Pacis. The Apolline and Bacchic ele-
ments of its acanthus leaf scrollwork can even be read as
a kind of numen mixtum reconciling Apollo, the patron de-
ity of Augustus and Bacchus, with whom Antony was of-
ten identified. On the scrollwork see J. Pollini (1993a) 181-
217 and D. Castriota (1995).
138 Suet. Cal. 23.1; Claud.11.5; Dio 59.20.1 and A.
Barrett, Caligula 218..
139 Dio 50.4.4 (*¥ 58g@BVJD‘ JÎ< B`8g:@<); Plut. Ant 60.1
(R0N\>gJ"4 58g@BVJD‘ B@8g:gÃ<). In the Octavia Nero calls
for his wife to be treated as a hostis, which prompts the
praefect to whom he is talking to respond by wondering if
a woman can really be a hostis 865-6.
20 chapter one
to suggest that Cleopatra’s images were system-
atically destroyed or removed after her suicide.
In the same passage where Plutarch records the
destruction of Antonius’s portraits at Alexandria,
he also indicates that Octavian accepted 2000
talents from Archibius in order that Cleopatra’s
images should not be pulled down. Three sculpt-
ed portraits of Cleopatra have survived in the
Vatican,140 Berlin,141 and Cherchel.142 The Va-
tican portrait was reportedly discovered in 1784
at the Villa of the Quintilii on the Via Appia. It
may have been carved during her sojourn in
Rome with Julius Caesar between 46-44 B.C. and
then eventually incorporated into the extensive
sculptural display at the Villa.143 The Berlin
portrait is also likely to have come from the
environs of Rome, perhaps in the vicinity of
Ariccia or Genzano, and it too may have been
created between 46-44.144 In any event, it is ex-
tremely unlikely that new images of Cleopatra
would have been created in Rome during her
140 Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 3851, h 0.39 m;
R.R.R. Smith (1988a) S. Walker and P. Higgs, eds. (2000)
157-8, no. III.2, with figs. (with earlier literature).
141Antiken Museen, 1976.10, h. 0.27 m.; R.R.R. Smith
(1988a) S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000) 159, no. III.4, with
figs. (with earlier literature).
142 Museum, S 66 (31); h. 0.31 m.; R.R.R. Smith
(1988a) ; S. Walker and P. Higgs (2000) 158, no. III.3, with
fig. (with earlier literature).
143 The portrait has also been attributed to the “Tomba
di Nerone” near the via Cassia. For the most recent attri-
bution to the Villa dei Quinitllii, see S. Walker and P. Higgs
(2000) 147, 157, no. III.2.
144 S. Walker and P. Higgs, eds. (2000) 159.
alliance with Antonius and conflicts with Oc-
tavian or after the Battle of Actium. Both Appian
and Dio mention the gilded bronze portrait of
Cleopatra which Julius Caesar placed in the
Temple of Venus Genetrix, and Dio’s account
indicates that the statue was still in situ in the
early 3rd century.145 The statue was apparently
not removed after Actium, just as her images
were not destroyed at Alexandria. The site of this
portrait in the Temple of Venus Genetrix and its
strong associations with Divus Iulius may have
insured its survival. M. Flory has further sug-
gested that Octavian may have added portraits
of Octavia and Livia to the temple in order to
deliberately contrast his wife and sister’s romanitas
and moral virtue with Cleopatra’s foreignness and
perceived moral laxity; thus the three statues
together would have acted as an exempla of
correct versus incorrect female behavior, as valid
after Actium as before.146 Posthumous images of
Cleopatra do seem to have been produced as
evidenced by the Cherchel portrait whose anach-
ronistic pin curls framing the face find close
correspondences in Julio-Claudian coiffures and
suggest that the likeness was produced in the
second quarter of the first century A.C. The
portrait comes from Iol Caesarea, the capital of
Roman Mauretania, and may have been com-
missioned by Cleopatra’s grandson, Ptolemy, the
last king of Mauretania (r. A.D. 23-40).
145 App. BC 2.102; Dio 51.22.3
146 (1993) 295-6; see also S. Wood (1999) 32.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
CHAPTER TWO
CALIGULA, MILONIA CAESONIA AND JULIA DRUSILLA
Caligula’s name has become synonymous with
the excesses and debauchery of the early empire,
and indeed he is the first of Rome’s emperors to
be assassinated and to suffer a damnatio memoriae.
Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus, nicknamed
Caligula by the troops of his father Germanicus,
was born on 31 August A.D. 12.1 On 18 March
37, he succeeded his great-uncle Tiberius as the
third emperor of Rome, at the age of twenty-four.
Initially, Caligula’s reign was viewed as a wel-
come change from the repressive policies of Tibe-
rius.2 However, Caligula’s relations with the sen-
atorial aristocracy eventually soured as a result
of the emperor’s increasingly megalomaniacal
behavior. Caligula was assassinated, during the
Ludi Palatini, on 24 January 41, together with
his wife Milonia Caesonia, and his infant daugh-
ter Julia Drusilla.3 Dio adds the additional grue-
some detail that some of Caligula’s assassins ate
the flesh from his corpse.4
The Senate wished to condemn his memory
officially, but Caligula’s uncle and successor
Claudius, who himself may have been involved
in the plot to murder Caligula, refused to per-
mit formal sanctions5 or to declare the day of
1 Suet.Cal.8.1; Fasti Vallenses; Fasti Pighiani; Dio.59.6.1;
and A. Barrett (1989) 6-7, n. 9 with discussion of conflict-
ing evidence for Caligula’s birthplace.
2 A. Barrett (1989) 50-71.
3 Suet. Calig. 59; Dio 49.29.7; the murders of Caeso-
nia and Drusilla may have occurred slightly after that of
Caligula, Jos. AJ. 19.190-200. See also J. Scheid (1984) 180,
184.
4 59.27.7 (6"\ J4<gH 6"Â Jä< F"D6ä< "ÛJ@Ø ¦(gbF"<J@).
5 Suet. Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.5-6; On Caligula’s unof-
ficial damnatio, see F. Vittinghoff (1936) 102; J. Bleicken
(1962) 104-105; J.P. Rollin (1979) 165; H. Jucker (1982)
110; A. Barrett (1989)177. There is no evidence that Caligu-
la was declared a hostis, as stated by E. Angelicoussis (1992)
57, no. 24.
21
Caligula’s death a public holiday.6 However,
Claudius did permit the images of his predeces-
sor to be removed at night7 and his acts to be
annulled.8 As a further mark of his defamation,
Caligula’s remains were not interred in the
Mausoleum of his great-grandfather Augustus,
but rather buried in the imperial gardens on the
Esquiline.9 Caligula’s exclusion from the Mau-
soleum of Augustus stood as a posthumous act
of disinhersion from the Julian gens and had
happened earlier to Julia Maior, Julia Minor, and
to Caligula’s mother, Agrippina Maior, as well
as his brothers Nero and Drusus Caesar.10
Claudius had multiple motives for vetoing an
official damnatio. Clearly, senatorial condemnation
of Caligula’s memory would have reflected neg-
atively on the entire Julio-Claudian dynasty and
ultimately on Claudius’s own legitimacy and fit-
ness to rule. And in fact, immediately following
Caligula’s murder, the Senate considered abolish-
ing the memories of all the Julio-Claudians and
destroying their temples (quidam vero sententiae loco
abolendam Caesarum memoriam ac diruenda templa cen-
suerint).11 Nevertheless, during his lifetime Caligu-
la had enjoyed considerable popularity with other
6 Suet. Claud. 11.3.
7 Dio 60.4.5.
8 Suet. Claud. 11.3.
9 Initially the corpse was only partially cremated and
then hastily buried. Caligula’s spirit was reported to have
haunted the Esquiline gardens and the palace on the Pa-
latine until Caligula’s two surviving sisters, Agrippina Minor
and Julia Livilla completed the cremation and properly in-
terred the remains, Suet. Calig. 59; see also S.R.F. Price
(1987) 76.
10 See J. Linderski (1988) 191.
11 Suet. Calig. 60. Clearly, many of the temples referred
to were dedicated to Augustus, underscoring the depth of
feeling against the Julio-Claudians among the senatorial
aristocracy. See also Joseph. AJ 19.173, 187.
22 chapter two
segments of the Roman populace, most notably
the Praetorian Guards and the plebs. As a result,
Claudius found it to be politically expedient to
bring Caligula’s assassins to trial and execute
them in order to appeal to lingering sentiment
favorable to Caligula. On the other hand, by
condoning an unofficial, de facto damnatio, which
included the removal and replacement of Caligu-
la’s portraits and the erasure of his name from
inscriptions, Claudius managed to retain favor
with the disaffected senatorial aristocracy who
had come to view Caligula as a deranged and
dangerous despot. Despite its unofficial nature,
Caligula’s damnatio and the resulting treatment of
his sculpted images established important prece-
dents for the condemnation of future emperors.
As was the case with earlier members of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty who had been condemned,
representations of Caligula were removed from
public display, deliberately mutilated, or altered
into other likenesses, most often of Claudius or
Augustus.
Caligula’s Portrait Typology
Suetonius presents an unflattering description of
the young princeps’ physical appearance:
Statura fuit eminenti, colore expallido, corpore enormi,
gracilitate maxima cervicis et crurum, oculis et temporibus
concavis, fronte lata et torva, capillo raro et circa verticem
nullo hirsutus cetera. Quare transeunte eo prospicere ex
superiore parte aut omnino quacumque de causa capram
nominare e criminosum et exitiale habebatur. Vultum vero
natura horridum ac taetrum etiam ex industria efferebat
componens ad speculum in omnem terrorem ac formidinem.
Valitudo ei neque corporis neque animi constitit.
He was of tall stature, had a pallid complexion,
and a body disproportionately large for his slen-
der neck and skinny legs. His eyes were deeply
set, his temples hollow, and his forehead was wide
and forbidding. His hair was sparse and he was
bald around the top of his head, although the rest
of his body was hairy. As a result to view him
from above as he went by or for any reason at
all to name a goat were held as capital crimes.
His face was frightful and loathsome by nature
and he exacerbated this by practicing all man-
ner of terrifying and threatening expressions in
the mirror. Neither his body nor his mind were
imbued with health.12
Suetonius’s unpleasant physical characterization
of Caligula functions as a visual component of
the author’s negative assessment of the emper-
or’s life and character, underscored by the state-
ment: valitudo ei neque corporis neque animi constitit.
As such, his depiction of the emperor is strongly
influenced by ancient physiognomic theory which
was in vogue during the second century A.C. and
therefor serves a largely rhetorical function and
should by no means be taken literally.13 Caligu-
la’s small eyes and bodily appearance denote the
petty, thieving and deceitful character of the
panther as well as the sensual nature of the goat
(further underscored in the anecdote about his
sensitivity to his baldness); his pale skin is a sign
of cowardice, while his wide forehead and hol-
low temples are further indications of stupidity,
foolishness, and madness.14 Clearly, Suetonius’s
exaggeration of Caligula’s unattractive physical
traits is intended to reflect his unwholesome spir-
itual and moral qualities.15
12 Cal. 50.1-2.
13 For ancient physiognomic theory see: E.C. Evans
(1969); for the use of physiognomic theory in Suetonius’s
description of the Caesars see: J. Couisson (1953) 246; D.
Wardle emphasizes that Suetonius’s description derives
from a hostile literary tradition (1994) 326. The discrep-
ancies between the surviving sculpted and numismatic like-
nesses of Caligula, and the literary portrait provided by
Suetonius continue to perplex modern scholars who wish
to take Suetonius at face value. E. Bartman has pointed
out the problems inherent in giving the literary depictions
of Caligula primacy over the surviving visual evidence and
vice-versa, (1994) 341. However, Bartman herself in a
subsequent work refers to Caligula’s visual representations
as “sublimating” his unpleasant physical appearance, thus
taking Suetonius’s description at face value (1998) 26. There
is also no objective evidence for Bartman’s speculation that
portraits of Caligula which represented him as “effeminate”
or “divine” (and so in keeping with the literary represen-
tations) were more “offensive” and thus the first to be
destroyed (1994) 341. In fact, there is no evidence that “ef-
feminate” portraits were ever created, and Caligula’s di-
vine or heroic portraits were actually reworked to repre-
sent Claudius and Augustus (cat. 1.X-X0.
14 E.C. Evans (1969) 54-55; D. Wardle (19940 323-30;
Psued.Arist. 812a, 812b, 808b; Pol. 182, 230, 244, 248, 254;
Adamant. 377-78, 386, 392; Anon.Physig.Lat. 2.27, 2.29,
260, 2.92-4, 2.117, 2120.
15 Caligula’s literary damnatio may have additional con-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
In contrast to Suetonius’s literary portrait of
Caligula, the emperor’s surviving numismatic
images present him with handsome and regular
facial features including a smooth and broad
forehead, sharply delineated brows, large, deep-
ly set eyes, aquiline nose with slightly bulbous tip,
well-formed mouth with receding lower lip, and
a rounded chin.16 The distinctive numismatic
representations of Caligula have facilitated the
identification of forty-eight sculpted and glyptic
portraits of the emperor.17 D. Boschung has
convincingly divided the surviving likenesses into
two types based on the arrangement of comma
shaped locks over the forehead.18 However Bos-
chung’s criteria, which are derived from an elab-
orate schematization of individual locks, should
be simplified, and the portraits grouped accord-
ing to the presence or absence of a central or
slightly off-center part. Such a grouping essen-
tially follows Boschung’s division. The majority
of Caligula’s sculpted likenesses exhibit a prin-
cipal parting of the locks at the center of the
forehead, or over the inner corner of the left eye,
constituting Boschung’s main type (Hauptty-
pus).19 The locks over the temples are often
combed back towards the center of the forehead.
However, in several portraits, the part is omit-
ted, or occurs at the extreme left of the forehead;
in this type (Boschung’s secondary type [Neben-
typus]), most of the locks over the forehead are
combed from proper left to right.20 As the sec-
sequences. It has been suggested that Curtius, the Alexander
historian is Q. Curtius Rufus (cos. A.D. 43) and that his
negative assessment of Alexander and his achievements
is, in fact, a reflection on Caligula, see A. Stewart (1993)
17.
16 A.E. Wardman (1967) notes that unlike Plutarch,
Suetonius does not explicitly refer to visual representations
of the emperor, such as portraits, in his written physical
descriptions, 419. This may be because Suetonius is very
well aware that his written descriptions do not correspond
with the visual representations of the emperors.
17 Catalogued by D. Boschung (1989)
18 D. Boschung (1988) 31-70.
19 Sometimes referred to as the Schloss Fasanerie type,
after a well preserved replica, fig. 30.
20 Sometimes referred to as the New Haven type after
the well-preserved replica in the Yale University Art Gal-
lery, see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127. Although Boschung
23
ondary type exists in far fewer numbers, and
there are no verifiable examples which have been
recarved, it is likely to have been introduced after
the main type, probably rather late in Caligula’s
principate. Additionally, the secondary type por-
traits are only found in Italy, suggesting that they
had not yet been widely disseminated.21 As a
result, the main type is almost certainly type 1,
and the secondary type, type 2.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Caligula’s Images
The most dramatic visual evidence for the den-
igration of Caligula’s posthumous reputation is
provided by surviving images which were delib-
erately mutilated in antiquity as a direct result
of his condemnation. Intentional defacement of
Caligula’s portraits constituted an effective way
of visually and physically dishonoring his mem-
ory and, concomitantly, expressing loyalty to the
new emperor, Claudius. Nevertheless, actual
mutilation of Caligula’s images is extremely rare.
An under life-sized cuirassed bronze bust in a
Swiss private collection, a replica of the main
type, received violent blows to the surface of the
face from a square hammer and the eyes have
been gouged out (cat. 1.3. figs. 2a-b).22 The
violent elimination of the eyes is the first surv-
ing instance of an attack on the sensory organs
only recognizes three marble replicas of this type (New
Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, 1987.70.1; Naples,
Antiquario Flegreo, no. 68; Fossobrone, Museo), three
additional marble portraits, classified as the main type by
Boschung, should actually be reassigned to the Nebentypus
on the basis of the coiffures which are parted at the far left
of the forehead (Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 637a
inv. 2687; New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 14.37,
and Worcester, Art Museum, 1914.23).
21 R. Grossman is the first scholar to have explored the
typological implictions of the geographical distribution of
Caligula’s surviving portraits in a senior essay at Yale
University (2001) written under the supervision of D.E.E.
Kleiner.
22 H. .097 m.; H. Jucker (1973) 20; H. Jucker (1982)
112; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 49-50, 54-57, 91, 92,
100, 115, no. 30, pls. 27.1-4, 45.1 (with previous literature);
A. Barrett (1989)178, n. 30; J. Pollini (1993) 425, and n.
14; E.R. Varner (2001b) 47.
24 chapter two
in imperial portraits and the practice would
become common in deliberately disfigured im-
ages. In addition, H. Jucker has plausibly suggest-
ed that a marble fragment in Aquileia compris-
ing a chin and mouth is derived from an over
life-sized portrait of Caligula which was broken
apart with a hammer following the emperor’s
death (cat. 1.1; fig. 3).23 Similarly, the upper
section of a colossal head with corona civica from
Saguntum in Spain may be derived from a van-
dalized representation of Caligula (cat. 1.2).24
This head was discovered in the forum and pro-
vides evidence for the destruction of Caligula’s
public images in the western provinces.
Evidence for the mutilation of Caligula’s like-
nesses is limited to these three portraits and sug-
gests that such mutilation resulted from sponta-
neous demonstrations against his memory, as
opposed to officially sponsored sanctions. Cassius
Dio records such spontaneous demonstrations
occurring in the chaos which erupted immedi-
ately after Caligula’s assassination when some of
the emperor’s statues were overthrown and
dragged from their pedestals (•<*D4V<JgH Jg "ÛJ@Ø
6"Â gÆ6`<gH ¦FbD@<J@).25 In addition, the major-
ity of Caligula’s portraits in gold, silver, or bronze
would have been melted down for their metal
content, effectively combining destruction with
reuse.
Certain Caligulan coins have also been delib-
erately defaced, often with the C for Gaius be-
ing hacked out.26 Caligula’s portrait features have
been intentionally mutilated in aes coinage from
lower Germany,27 while, according to H. Juck-
er, approximately 9.5% of certain Caligulan types
23 Aquilea, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128; h. .012 m.;
H. Jucker (1982) 111, pl. 15.1-2; D. Boschung (1989) 120,
no. 49, pl. 39.5-6 (with previous literature); E.R. Varner
(2001) 48.
24 Museo Arqueológico.
25 59.30.1a. A. Barrett sees this as a “limited and spon-
taneous” action on the part of the conspirators, probably
taking place on the Palatine (1989) 178, n. 28.
26 E. Jonas (1936-38) 89-91; H. Hinz, W. Hagen, and
D. Haupt (1966) 580 for an as from 37/38 minted at Rome
with most of Caligula’s name removed; Jucker (1982) 114-
8; A. Barrett (1989)180, n. 45.
27 H. Chantraine (1968) 22; K. Coleman (1988) 230.
have the initial C obliterated.28 Chisels, hammers,
and files were all used to mutilate the Caligulan
coins.29 The obliteration of Caligula’s praenom-
en on coins must be related to one of the earli-
est legal sanctions which would have been includ-
ed in a damnatio memoriae, namely the prohibition
against a family’s continued use of the con-
demned individual’s praenomen. Coins were
expressive and tangible monuments of Caligula’s
policies and propaganda; their random destruc-
tion and mutilation effectively denigrated his
memory and could be carried out by private
persons or soldiers not necessarily acting with a
mandate from the Senate or princeps. Although
Caligulan coins appear to have remained in cir-
culation, they were closely connected in the
popular consciousness with the disgraced repu-
tation of the overthrown princeps and the bronze
issues were considered worthless.30
Caligula’s coins also suffered official forms of
defacement. On a series of Caligula’s Vesta aes
coinage, the countermark TICA (Tiberius Clau-
dius Augustus) has been used to obliterate the
inscription C CAESAR. In some instances, coun-
termarks obliterate and cancel the emperor’s
facial features.31 A. Barrett has proposed that
these countermarked coins were used to pay the
soldiers stationed on the Rhine and that the
countermarks acted as assertions of Claudius’s
new and legitimate authority.32 If Barrett is cor-
rect, it signals that the army is an important
audience for the mutilation and destruction of
28 RIC 23/25 (adlocutio), RIC 26 (Caligula’s three sisters),
RIC 27/29 (corona civica), RIC 35/37 (consecratio of the
Temple of Augustus), and RIC 42 (Agrippina Maior’s car-
pentum). H. Jucker (1982) 117. Based on Jucker’s individu-
al breakdown of the types with 410 total coins vs. 39 dam-
aged coins.
29H. Jucker (1982) 117.
30 plus minus asse Gaiano, Stat. Silv. 4.9.22; K. Coleman
(1988) 230. A. Bay has even suggested that the aes coinage
which was technically issued by the Senate and prominently
displayed SC on the reverses was particularly targeted
because the Senate did not want to be associated in any
way with Caligula’s memory, (1972) 122.
31 New York, American Numismatic Society, inv.
1953.171.1082; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 108-109, cat. 11.
32 A. Barrett (1989)179, n. 42, (with previous literature
on the coins).
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
monuments from the outset of imperial damna-
tiones. In a more sweeping condemnation of
Caligula’s memory, the Senate also ordered in
A.D. 43 that his bronze coins be recalled and
melted down.33 This act seems to have been lim-
ited to the mint at Rome, but the two years which
intervened between Caligula’s death in 41 and
the passing of the Senate’s decree in 43 highlight
the lingering hatred that the senatorial aristoc-
racy still bore towards the memory of Caligula.34
Furthermore, it indicates that there was, in fact,
an official aspect to his condemnation, although
not enacted immediately after his death. The
dearth of small bronze coinage in the provinces
may also be attributed to an effective numismatic
damnatio.35 On the other hand, local mints in Gaul
seem to have continued to mint aes coinage with
Caligula’s portrait perhaps as late as A.D. 43, a
significant example of the widely varying respons-
es to, and even acceptance of, Caligula’s condem-
nation on the part of local municipalities.36 In
general, however, the scarcity of Caligulan coins
in hoards, of both base and precious metals,
indicates some kind of official de-monetization.37
The Transformation of Caligula’s Images
Caligula/Claudius
The great number of recut images of Caligula
confirms that reworking, rather than intentional
mutilation, was the preferred approach to the
emperor’s sculpted likenesses once they had been
removed from public display. Indeed, well over
half of Caligula’s marble portraits have been
altered into other likenesses. Reuse was econom-
ically, as well as ideologically motivated. In ad-
33 Dio 60.22.3.
34 A. Barrett (1989)178.
35 RPC 698-99; A. Savio (1988)13.
36 A. Barrett (1989) 178.
37 A. Barrett (1989)179 with a list of coin hoards and
the number of Caligulan issues versus those of other reigns.
Caligula’s numismatic damnatio has been investigated by C.
Clay: “Claudius and the Coinage of Caligula: Numismat-
ic Damnatio Memoriae Under the Roman Empire,” (talk
presented at “The Science of Numismatics” Chicago, 27
March 1996).
25
dition to preserving a costly piece of marble,
recutting was a way of visually cannibalizing
images of the overthrown Caligula and physically
displacing them with representations of his suc-
cessor Claudius, or his revered predecessor,
Augustus. Refashioned likenesses of Caligula
provide the first large body of evidence for the
recarving of imperial portraits. This practice
would become the standard approach to images
of the other two emperors condemned later in
the first century, Nero and Domitian. Indisput-
ably, the unofficial damnatio of Caligula supplied
the impetus for the development of techniques
of recarving. In addition to the technical ramifi-
cations for sculptural production and modifica-
tion, the recutting of Caligula’s portraits also
significantly influenced the style and iconography
of Claudius’s public representations. Indeed,
recut images stand as prominent visual markers
for periods of political transition in the first cen-
tury.
A majority of Caligula’s recut portraits have
been refashioned into likenesses of Claudius.
Reworking marble portraits of the youthful
Caligula into convincing representations of his
middle-aged uncle, Claudius posed numerous
challenges to sculptors. Obviously, the chief
obstacle was the greatly reduced volume of
marble available from which to create the new
portrait. In addition, the increasing friability of
marble as it ages mandated that the sculptors
responsible for recutting heads had to take spe-
cial care when handling protruding elements like
noses and ears. The representations of Claudius
reworked from images of Caligula can be divid-
ed into two categories: classicizing likenesses
which retain youthful elements of Caligula’s
portraits, and veristic likenesses which emphasize
Claudius’s more mature physiognomy.
Claudius’s own sculpted portraits divide into
two types on the basis of their coiffures.38 In the
most widely disseminated type (main type/haupt-
38 Interpretations of Claudius’s portrait typology include
D. Salzmann (1976) 252-64; K. Fittschen (1977a) 55-58,
no. 17; H. Jucker (1981a)254-84; Fittschen-Zanker I, 16-
17; H.-M. von Kaenel (1986); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 129-
35; C.B. Rose (1997) 70-71, no. 23.
26 chapter two
typus) created during his principate, Claudius’s
generally veristic, middle-aged portrait features
are combined with a hairstyle which is parted
near the inner corner of the left eye. Locks at the
edges of the forehead are often combed back
towards the part, creating the pincer-like motif
which is characteristic of this coiffure. An appar-
ently earlier type (the so-called Kassel type),
perhaps created during the reign of Caligula, or
at the outset of Claudius’s own reign has a coif-
fure which is usually parted at the right of the
forehead, combined with more youthful facial
features.39
Significantly, Claudius’s single most veristic
likeness, a replica of his main type, is a recarved
portrait of Caligula in the Palazzo dei Conser-
vatori (cat. no. 1.31; fig. 4a-d).40 Numerous de-
tails signal the reworking of this image, includ-
ing the overly long neck, the receding chin which
has been carved back from the frontal plane of
the face, and, most tellingly, the remnants of
Caligula’s main type coiffure. The top and up-
per left side of the head have been roughly
worked with a flat chisel in an attempt to remove
traces of the original Caligulan coiffure, but
Caligula’s pattern of locks remains visible at the
right side and rear of the head. Additionally, the
locks over the forehead, although slightly cut
back, substantially retain Caligula’s original ar-
rangement, with the part occurring over the inner
corner of the left eye. The long Caligulan hair
on the nape of the neck has also been shortened.
Modifications to the coiffure have caused the
occiput to be overly large when seen in profile.
The ears have been recut to reduce their mass,
39 The youthful facial features also occur on early nu-
mismatic representations. C.B. Rose has proposed a third,
posthumous type. According to Rose, this type is charac-
terized by more emphatic signs of aging and a triangular
facial structure, reminiscent of Nero’s type 2. He also sug-
gests that the corona civica is a standard attribute of this type.
However, the coiffure of this type is identical to the main
type, and it should more plausibly be considered a post-
humous redaction of the main type, (1997) 71. Posthumous
images of Augustus were also created which added more
emphatic signs of aging to the three types created during
his lifetime, see infra.
40 Formerly Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2443 (Centrale Mon-
temartini 2.74).
with the left ear now appearing considerably
higher than the right.
In refashioning this portrait, the sculptor has
focused on creating definitive signs of Claudius’s
age as opposed to faithfully rendering the new
princeps’ hairstyle. Vertical and horizontal furrows
on the forehead, bags beneath the eyes, sunken
cheeks, strong naso-labial lines, and a fleshy
underchin help to make the recut portrait a re-
alistic and recognizable likeness of the middle-
aged Claudius, who was almost 51 at the time
of his accession. The unflattering realism of the
head is entirely the result of recarving. The sculp-
tor has attempted to eliminate any lingering trac-
es of Caligula’s facial features in an effort to
strongly differentiate the new portrait of Clau-
dius from the original. Indeed, the classicizing
elements of the Caligulan likeness have been
entirely subsumed in the Claudian image’s em-
phasis on verism. The accentuated signs of ag-
ing in this portrait effectively distinguish the new
likeness of Claudius from the youthful visage of
his overthrown predecessor, and express visual-
ly Claudius’s political and ideological distance
from the unsuccessful regime of Caligula.
A second reworked representation of Claudi-
us in Woburn Abbey is also noteworthy for its
exaggerated signs of aging and its physical anom-
alies are similar to those of the Conservatori like-
ness (cat. no. 1.34; fig. 5). The top of the skull and
forehead, which slopes sharply, are abnormally
large. The face itself is unnaturally flat and does
not project adequately from the mass of the skull.
The mouth is asymmetrical, with the left side
being noticeably longer and lower than the right.
Much of Caligula’s main type hairstyle remains,
including the central part over the forehead.
Nevertheless, the artist has entirely refashioned
the physiognomy, adding conspicuous furrows in
the forehead, vertical creases above the nose,
deep naso-labial lines, sunken cheeks, and fleshy
underchin. Again, these emphatic signs of aging
eradicate all trace of Caligula’s youthful physiog-
nomy and create an image of the new middle-
aged princeps which is visually distinct from those
of his overthrown and condemned predecessor.
Thus, two of the most realistic images of Clau-
dius, which revive many of the features of veris-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
tic portraits created in the late republican peri-
od, are a direct result of Caligula’s damnatio. The
political implications of such a revival are clear.
Claudius cannot have been unaware that the
Senate had considered abolishing the memory of
all the Julio-Claudians and reestablishing the
Republic after Caligula’s murder. Those images
of Claudius which reference the topographical
realism of late republican portraiture must have
been designed to appeal to just those citizens who
had republican sympathies. The verism of cer-
tain representations of Claudius, which clearly
differentiated him from his Julio-Claudian pre-
decessors prefigures the revival of verism often
noted in portraits of Vespasian, and indeed was
similarly motivated.
Although they do not attain the enhanced
effects of verism present in the Braccio Nuovo
and Woburn Abbey portraits, additional re-
worked examples emphasize similar indications
of aging in Claudius’s physiognomy: Berlin (cat.
no. 1.18),41 Fano (cat. 1.19, fig. 6a-c)42 and
Hannover (cat. 1.21, fig. 7a-b).43 All of the por-
traits are from Italy. The Fano likeness is a co-
lossal statue which portrays the emperor with hip
mantle in the guise of Jupiter. Although the head
is worked for insertion, it appears to belong with
the body and the statue provides important ev-
idence for the reuse of Caligula’s full-length
images. Furthermore, it confirms that divine
representations were created for Caligula during
his principate and that there was no hesitation
in reusing these images as representations of
Claudius.44 Indeed, Caligula is the first living
emperor to be depicted as Jupiter in free stand-
ing sculpture, and he appears to have introduced
what would become the widespread practice of
depicting the reigning princeps in divine guise.45
The bust in Berlin has been cut down from a full-
length statue, which also portrayed the emperor
41 Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abteilung, inv. 1965.10.
42 Museo Civico.
43 Inv. 1978.15.
44 A statue in Zadar reworked to Augustus provides
additional confirmation for such divine or semi-divine
depictions of Caligula, see cat. 1.15.
45 C.B. Rose (1997) 74-5.
27
in an heroic or divine fashion with a nude tor-
so.46
In addition to the recarved marble portraits
which accentuate realistic elements of Claudius’s
middle-aged appearance, a chalcedony cameo
portrait in Vienna has been reworked with sim-
ilar results (cat. 1.33, fig. 8a-b).47 The Vienna
cameo is rare example of a reconfigured gem
portrait. Indeed, only a very few of cameos or
intaglios appear to have been altered as a result
of condemnations. Caligula was initially repre-
sented, capite velato, wearing a variation of his
main type hairstyle which is retained in the large
middle row of locks over Claudius’s forehead.48
A corona civica now encircles Claudius’s head, but
the veil of the Caligulan portrait from which the
corona has been carved is clearly visible at the
top of the cameo. The artist who recarved this
gem has reduced the size of the forehead by
adding a second smaller row of locks beneath
those of the original Caligulan portrait. Claudi-
us’s age is indicated through the addition of fur-
rows in the forehead, sunken cheeks, and very
strong naso-labial lines. Like the Conservatori,
Woburn Abbey, Berlin, Fano, and Hannover
portraits, the Vienna chalcedony emphasizes
recognizable traits of Claudius’s aged physiogno-
my rather than an orthodox Claudian hairstyle.
The recarving of individual locks of Claudius’s
coiffure may have proved impossible to carry out
on the small, delicate surfaces of the cameo, so
the artist has opted for a practical and workable
alternative.
By no means, however, are all or even a
majority of Claudius’s portraits veristic. Indeed,
many of his images were created in the classiciz-
ing and idealizing style established by Augustus.
As with the veristic portraits, arguably the most
idealizing representation of Claudius has been
reworked from a preexisting likeness of Caligu-
la. This portrait, a colossal head in the Sala
46 For the cutting down of the statue see D. Boschung
(1989) 113 and H. Jucker (1981a)258-60.
47 Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, inv. IX A 23; h. 14.5
cm.; D. Boschung (1989) 51-2, 90, 116, no. 36, sketch 29,
pl. 30.4 (with previous literature); J.J. Herrmann, jr. (1991)
45.
48 D. Boschung (1988) 116.
28 chapter two
Rotonda of the Vatican clearly preserves the
strong classicism and monumentality of the orig-
inal likeness of Caligula (cat. 1.X, fig. 9a-b).49 The
head is worked for insertion and portrays the
princeps wearing the corona civica. The portrait
contains numerous signs of recarving. The size
of the face is significantly smaller than the great
mass of the hair and corona. Although most of the
back of the head is a restoration, when seen in
profile, the face bears no coherent relationship
to the large size of the head. Furthermore, the
neck is too massive for the proportions of the face.
Most importantly, the hairstyle of Caligula’s main
type, with central part, is still discernable in the
upper row of curls above the added locks of
Claudius’s earlier Kassel type which now frame
the forehead. Claudius’s forehead is generally
lower and broader than that of Caligula and the
artist responsible for the recarving of this portrait
has attempted to reduce the height of the fore-
head by adding the lower row of Claudian locks.
The additive technique is the same as that em-
ployed in the refashioning of the Vienna cam-
eo.50 The recarving process has also rendered the
features of the face decidedly asymmetrical,
which are even more exaggerated in the Sala
Rotonda head because of its colossal format.51
While refashioning the image of Caligula, the
artist also added new physiognomic elements,
consisting of superficial signs of aging in the slight-
ly sunken cheeks and the lines around the mouth.
However, the smooth forehead, sharply delineat-
ed brows, aquiline nose with somewhat bulbous
tip, essentially unlined face, narrow chin, and
overall air of classicizing youthfulness are derived
directly from the portraiture of Caligula.
The Sala Rotonda portrait was found in 1779
during the papal excavations of the basilica at
Otricoli where it occupied the central apse.52 The
image was designed as a seated statue, probably
depicting the emperor in the guise of Jupiter
Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, and indeed, frag-
49
No. 551, inv. 242.
50
Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. IX a 23, cat. 1.33.
51 As, for instance, the colossal portrait of Maxentius
recarved to Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei
Conservatori, cat.9.4.
52 H. Jucker (1981a) 270; D.Boschung (1988) 113.
ments of a seated figure, “di bello stile,” are noted
in early accounts of the excavations.53 The orig-
inal portrait statue of Caligula, together with a
representation of Drusilla as Venus Genetirx,54
were added to a cycle of Julio-Claudian statuary,
likely commissioned early in the reign of Tiberi-
us, which included an heroic statue of Augustus
as Diomedes;55 a togate statue of Gaius Ceasar;56
a togate statue of a young Julio-Claudian prince
with bulla, perhaps Nero Caesar the son of Ger-
manicus and brother of Caligula;57 and a statue
of Livia.58 The colossal scale of the Caligula in-
dicates that it was intended as the focal point of
this dynastic group, whose other statues are es-
sentially life-sized, or slightly over. Inscriptional
evidence, as well as the architectural plan of the
edifice at Otricoli, indicate that the “basilica” was
likely associated with the worship of both Fortu-
na Augusta and the Gens Augusta.59 Thus, the spec-
ificity of the Sala Rotonda portrait to its ancient
site, its importance as the centerpiece of the stat-
uary cycle, and its association with the imperial
cult, in conjunction with its colossal size, dictat-
ed the image’s reconfiguration, rather than re-
moval or disfigurement.60
The important Julio-Claudian statuary group
discovered in 1966 at the Collegium of the August-
ales of Rusellae also included an image of Clau-
dius transformed from Caligula which presents
53 G. Dareggi (1982) 23, n. 195. H. Jucker (1981a) 267
posits that the portrait may have belonged to an acrolith-
ic statue.
54 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Gabinetto delle Maschere,
no. 429, inv. 816; G. Dareggi (1982) 21-22, figs. 32-33 (with
previous literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 93.
55 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, n. 565,
inv. 181; G. Dareggi (1982) 12-14, no. 1, fig. 19-20 (with
previous bibliography); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl.
88.
56 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, no. 597;
inv. 199; G. Dareggi (1982) 14-16, no. 2, figs. 21-4 (with
previous literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 90.
57 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria dei Candelabri 4.93,
inv. 2622; G. Dareggi (1982) 16-18, no. 3, figs. 25-29 (with
previous literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 91.
58 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti, 352, inv. 637;
G. Dareggi (1982) 18-21, no. 4, figs. 30-31 (with previous
literature); C.B.Rose (1997) 97-8, cat. 25, pl. 89.
59 G. Dareggi (1992) 12, 26.
60 In addition, the large scale of the head provides an
optimum amount of marble for recutting.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
compelling parallels to the Sala Rotonda head
(Cat 1.20, fig. 10).61 Inscriptional evidence sug-
gests that this group may have been initiated
during the reign of Augustus with substantial
numbers of portraits added under Caligula and
Claudius, and perhaps a single image of Divus
Claudius added by Nero. The Caligulan addi-
tions encompassed likenesses of his father and
mother, Germanicus and Agrippina Maior, his
brothers Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar, his
sisters Drusilla (probably as Diva) and Julia Liv-
illa, and his grandmother, Antonia Minor.62 One
of the two preserved representations of Claudi-
us, with corona civica., contains clear indications
that it has been transformed from a pre-existing
image of Caligula.63 Caligula’s main type coiffure,
substantial traces of which remain behind the left
ear and on the right side of the neck, has been
modified into a version of Claudius’s principal
type. Slight signs of aging have been added to
the portrait, including lightly carved horizontal
furrows in the forehead and naso labial lines. Al-
though not as youthful as the Sala Rotonda head,
the portrait has maintained much of the classi-
cizing style of the original likeness.
Another reworked head of Claudius in the
Vatican preserves the youthful and classicizing
air of the original portrait of Caligula (cat. 1.29;
figs. 11a-b).64 The ends of the locks over the
forehead have all been cut back, creating an
unnatural straight line. Nevertheless, Caligula’s
coiffure is still visible in this area. The recarving
of the face has imbued the image with some
indications of aging appropriate for Claudius.
The eyes have been recut to make them slightly
sunken, and pouches of flesh have been added
beneath them. The temples have been more
deeply sculpted in order to accentuate their
hollow quality, while the cheeks have been made
to sag slightly. The chin has been cut back and
reduced in size in order to add a fleshy un-
61 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Marem-
ma, inv. 97765.
62 C.B. Rose (1997) 116.
63 H. Jucker (1981a) 266, n. 91; U. Baldini, M. Cristo-
fani, G. Maetzke (1983) fig. 126; R. Amedick (1987) 50-
51; C.B. Rose (1997) 117-8, ns. 8, 15.
64 Magazzini, Inv. 151
29
derchin, clearly visible in profile views. This re-
cutting of the chin has caused it to recede from
the frontal plane of the face, a hallmark of re-
carved portraits. The reduction of the sculptur-
al volume in the head has also caused the ears,
which have not been recut, to be overly large,
as well as noticeably low on the head. The signs
of aging in the Vatican Magazzini head, however,
are superficial, and like the colossal portrait from
Otricoli, an idealized and youthful image of
Claudius is the end result, with crisply delineat-
ed details and smoothly modeled surfaces. The
more youthful features of the Sala Rotonda and
Magazzini heads would have been consonant
with the idealized portraits of Claudius’s earliest
numismatic representations. The importance of
imperial hairstyles as easily recognizable and
epistemological emblems of identity is under-
scored by the recut portraits which are endowed
with recognizable Claudian coiffures rather than
strongly individualized portrait features.
A head of Claudius inserted into a statue rep-
resenting the emperor in the traveling costume
of a Roman general, with long paludamentum
and tunic, now in Aquileia is also remarkable for
the classicizing and youthful elements still present
in the likeness (cat. 1.17; fig. 12).65 The coiffure
has been entirely recut, and the original locks on
the top and back of the head have been chiseled
out and not replaced. The arrangement of hair
over the forehead is an imprecise rendition of
Claudius’s main type. Light horizontal furrows
have been added to the forehead, pouches have
been carved beneath the eyes, and naso-labial
lines indicated. Nevertheless, the crisp delinea-
tion of the upper and lower eye-lids, the handling
of the mouth, and the smooth surfaces of the
flesh, all remnants of the original portrait of
Caligula, endow the likeness with a decidedly
idealized appearance. The head is of white Luna
marble, while the body is thought to be of Greek
marble. If the original Caligulan portrait be-
longed to this body, the statue would provide
important evidence for the production of milita-
ristic images of Caligula.
65 Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108.
30 chapter two
A portrait of Claudius as Jupiter from the
theater at Vaison has also been recut from an
image of Caligula’s main type and retains much
of the youthful and idealizing aspects of the orig-
inal likeness (cat. 1.32).66 The statue is a stand-
ing Jupiter type with hip mantel and it provides
further important evidence for the dissemination
of images of Caligula in the guise of Jupiter with
corona civica. The Vaison statue is carved from a
single block of marble, and its recutting has
caused the corona to be much to large in propor-
tion to the head, while the head itself is also too
small in relation to the body. Claudius is repre-
sented with his earlier coiffure and youthful
physiognomy, suggesting that the image was
reworked shortly after his accession.
Numerous other representations of Claudius
which have been refashioned from images of
Caligula retain strong elements of youthful ide-
alization from the original likeness. Among these
are portraits in the Louvre (cat. 1.26),67 Mantua
(cat. 1.24; fig. 13),68 Naples (cat. 1.25; fig. 14),69
Perugia (cat. 1.28; fig. 15a-d),70 and Istanbul (cat.
1.22; fig. 16a-b).71 In the Louvre portrait, rem-
nants of Caligula’s locks are clearly visible be-
neath the Claudian coiffure over the forehead.
Shallow naso-labial lines, light furrows in the
forehead, and the suggestion of pouches beneath
the eyes added to the likeness give only the faint-
est impression of middle age, and the recut im-
age maintains the classicism of the original rep-
resentation of Caligula. Similarly, cursory signs
of aging have been added to the Mantua likeness.
The coiffure of the Naples portrait has also been
recut, and the Caligulan locks on the top and
back of the head have been removed with a flat
chisel and not replaced. Despite the fact that
superficial signs of aging have been added to the
head, including pouches beneath the eyes and
naso-labial lines, the resulting likeness is youth-
ful. Emphatic naso-labial lines in the Perugia
portrait are intended to convey Claudius’s mid-
66 Musée Municipal, inv. 128 B.
67 MA 1219.
68 Palazzo Ducale.
69 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215.
70 Perugia, Museum.
71 Archaeological Museum, inv. 87.
dle age, but they are the only signs of aging
present in the image and contrast with the
smoothly modeled surfaces of the flesh. Likewise,
the Istanbul portrait contains only minimal in-
dications of aging.
A second reworked likeness in Istanbul retains
many of the characteristics of the original rep-
resentation of Caligula (cat. 1.23).72 This togate
statue exhibits the central part of Caligula’s main
type coiffure. The hair at the back of the neck
has been shortened and the lower sections of the
face substantially recut with the result that the
chin recedes noticeably and the head appears
unnaturally wide in profile. Nevertheless, the
reworking is rather perfunctory and the result-
ing image of Claudius is fairly generic.
Caligula/Augustus
Recutting images of Caligula into youthful and
classicizing representations of Rome’s first em-
peror Augustus did not present the same techni-
cal difficulties as those inherent in reworking
portraits to Claudius. This fact, coupled with the
continued popularity and importance of Augus-
tus as divus accounts for the great number of
Caligulan portraits which have been altered into
likenesses of Augustus. And in fact, thirteen of
these portraits have survived.73
While the recut coiffures are primarily of
Augustus’s most common Prima Porta type, one
example of the later Forbes type is also repre-
sented.74 In most of the portraits, the size of the
72 Archaeological Museum, inv. 4648.
73 D. Boschung (1993a) only recognizes six portraits of
Augustus which are recut from images of Caligula (1993a)
79-80, an additional seven exhibit clear indications that they
also have been reworked from likenesses of Caligula, see
cat. 1.4-15.
74 Copenhagen 611, inv. 746. D. Boschung has pro-
posed a new portrait typology for Augustus which recog-
nizes five types: 1) Typus Béziers-Spoleto, 2) Typus Lucus
Feroniae 3.) Typus Alcuida (essentially the type earlier iden-
tified as the Actium or Octavian type, 4) Typus Louvre MA
1280 (essentially the type earlier identified as the Forbes
type, and 5) Typus Prima Porta, (1993) 11-50. The por-
traits which Boschung identifies as replicas of the Beziers-
Spoleto and Lucus Feroniae types, should be considered
variants of his Alcuida type (the old Actium-Octavian type).
R.R.R. Smith elucidates the problems inherent in Bos-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
head is generally reduced to give the face a thin-
ner, more Augustan configuration, the chin made
more square, and the mouth recarved in order
to de-emphasize the receding lower lip which was
a recognizably Caligulan trait.75 One of these
recarved likenesses, currently in the Centrale
Montemartini was discovered in 1937 near the
Theater of Marcellus (cat 1.11; fig. 17a-b).76 Pos-
sibly of Parian marble, the head is worked for in-
sertion and is a replica of Augustus’s Prima-Porta
type. The coiffure over the forehead has been ex-
tensively recarved, but the position of the part
over the inner corner of left eye is retained from
Caligula’s main type. The locks themselves have
been deeply undercut and the forehead slopes
back at an unnatural angle. The back of the neck
is very flat where Caligula’s longer locks have
been removed. The top of the head was separate-
ly worked and no longer survives. Although it is
possible that the original portrait of Caligula was
pieced together, it is more likely that the marble
addition was part of the sculptural transforma-
tion of the likeness.
A second likeness of Augustus from Rome, in
the Museo Capitolino, has been similarly re-
worked (cat. 1.10).77 This Prima-Porta type por-
trait includes a corona civica. Again, the position
of the part over the inner corner of the left eye
is a remnant of Caligula’s main type coiffure. The
locks over the forehead themselves have been
recut, making them unusually shallow and short.
The facial features have also been reworked, and
some signs of aging added, including pronounced
naso-labial lines and the suggestion of a double
chin. Such signs of aging occur in posthumous
images of Augustus and may have been added
here to firmly disassociate the reconfigured im-
chung’s expanded typology, (1996) 30-47.
75 The receding lower lip is also a feature of Livia’s
portrait, and it is present in the portraits of her descen-
dants including Tiberius, Drusus, Germanicus, and espe-
cially in Caligula’s sister, Agrippina Minor, and her son
Nero. On the receding lower lip in Agrippina’s portraits
and the orthodontic condition which may underlie it, see
S. Wood (1995) 466-67.
76 Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv. 2394 (Centrale
Montemartini 1.61).
77 Scala 7, inv. 230.
31
age from the original youthful representation of
the condemned Caligula.78 The Capitoline and
Montemartini portraits exemplify the recarving
of Caligula’s likenesses into images of Augustus
at the capital and its surroundings.
Also from the environs of Rome is colossal
head of Augustus discovered at Caere which has
been refashioned in much the same way as the
Capitoline and Conservatori images (cat. 1.12;
fig. 18a-b).79 The head, which is worked for in-
sertion, has been reduced in volume and is too
small in proportion to its long, thick neck. The
locks over the forehead have been completely re-
carved into Augustus’s Prima Porta arrangement,
although they are not entirely smooth and trac-
es of the chisel are still very evident. The brows
have been allowed to remain from the original
portrait of Caligula, while the forehead has been
cut back in order to make it commensurate with
the reworked coiffure, occasioning very notice-
able bulges over the eyes.
The Caere head was part of seated image
depicting the emperor in the guise of Jupiter,
fragments of which were also found in the exca-
vations.80 The original image of Caligula formed
part of a cycle of Julio-Claudian portraits deco-
rating Caere’s theater and it would have been
similar to the seated statues of Augustus, Tibe-
rius, and Claudius, all also in the guise of Jupi-
ter, from the same cycle.81 Furthermore, its re-
78 See especially an altar with relief portrait dedicated
to Divus Augustus from Palestrina (Palestrina, Museo Ar-
cheologico Nazionale, inv. 23555; D. Boschung (1993a) 138,
no. 63, pls. 67.1-3, 221.3; N. Agnoli (2002) 243-9, no.III.9,
figs. 9a-f.
79 Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9953.
80 Including a hand, part of an arm, and possibly a knee;
see M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, and P. Santoro eds.
(1989) 97, no. 17, and n.1
81 Augustus (Louvre MA 1246; P. Liverani in M. Fuchs,
P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 137-43; C.B. Rose
[1997] 83-6, cat. 5); Tiberius (Musei Vaticani, Museo
Gregoriano Profano inv. 9961; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P.
Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 58-60, no. 2; C.B. Rose
[1997] 83-6, cat. 5, pls. 71-2); Claudius (Musei Vaticani,
Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9950; M. Fuchs in M.
Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. [1989] 61-64, no.
3; C.B. Rose [1997] 83-6, cat. 5, pls. 73-74). The torso on
which the head of Claudius is now displayed probably
32 chapter two
carving explains how two representations of
Augustus came to be part of the cycle.82 The
head was discovered with several portrait inscrip-
tions commemorating Augustus, Germanicus (or
Drusus Minor), Agrippina Minor, an unidenti-
fied emperor, and Caligula’s sister, Drusilla. In
Drusilla’s inscription, celebrating her as Diva and
sister of the emperor, Caligula’s name has been
erased.83 In its original incarnation as a colossal
image of Caligula as Jupiter, the Caere portrait
was an impressive monument and again attests
to his innovations in portrait policy through dis-
semination of his own likenesses in divine guise.
Furthermore, like the colossal Caligula/Claudi-
us in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, it was site
specific within the context of the theater complex,
a fact which undoubtedly contributed to its re-
configuration, as opposed to wholesale destruc-
tion.84
belongs with the head of Augustus in the Louvre; see M.
Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds. (1989)
61-4 and P. in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani and P. Santoro eds.
(1989) 137-43.
82 Louvre MA 1246, cited above; see also, D. Boschung
(1993a) 171, no. 152, pls. 88, 223-4 (with earlier literature);
C.B. Rose (1997) 86.
83 CIL 11.3598; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, and
P. Santoro, eds. (1989) 106, no. 22, with fig. (with earlier
literature); C.B. Rose (1997) 84.
84 C.B. Rose has suggested that the seated statue of
Tiberius from Caere (Museo Gregoriano Profano inv. 9961)
has, in fact, been refashioned from an image of Caligula
(1997) 85. Rose notes that the head is worked for inser-
tion, which is unusual for nude, or partially nude statue
bodies, and that the head and body seem to be of differ-
ent types of marble. Rose suggests that the original statue
was carved from single block of marble, the head of Caligu-
la was removed, a mortis prepared in the body, and a new
head of Tiberius inserted. However, this also would be a
highly unusual form of reuse, and it would be more likely
that the facial features would simply be recut to Tiberius
if the statue was originally of one piece of marble. Delib-
erate damage to the facial features of Rose’s hypothetical
statue of Caligula would make the kind of reuse he posits
necessary, as may have been the case with the Caligula/
Claudius and the Messalina/Agrippina Minor statues at
Velleia (cat.1.27 and 3.4). However, it is important to keep
in mind that the evidence for intentionally mutilated im-
ages of Caligula is fairly limited. The Caere Caligula/
Augustus was also inserted into a Jupiter statue body, so
this kind of piecing may simply be peculiar to the Caere
group. If Rose is correct about the Tiberius being reworked,
it would further mean that there were two images of Caligu-
la as Jupiter from Caere. Although not improbable, this
also seems unlikely.
Details of physiognomy and coiffure present
in a head of Augustus in the J. Paul Getty Mu-
seum betray its origins as a likeness of Caligula
(cat. 1.8; fig. 19a-d).85 The portrait is worked for
insertion into a togate body and was discovered
at Pietrabbondante. Its wide eyes and hollow
temples are clear remnants of the earlier image
of Caligula. In the recarving of the portrait, the
central, signature locks of Augustus’s Prima Porta
hairstyle have been emphasized and deeply un-
dercut, carved back into the existing mass of the
forehead. The reduction of sculptural volume is
especially apparent when the head is viewed in
profile. Although Augustan physiognomic details
have been included in the portrait, it is the
emphatic undercutting of the locks of hair over
the forehead which highlights the Prima Porta
coiffure and provides the recarved image with a
clearly recognizable emblem of its new identity
as a portrait of Augustus. A pronounced horizon-
tal furrow in the forehead, as well as the sugges-
tion of naso-labial lines have also been added to
the portrait. Although subtle, these signs of age-
ing do occur in posthumous images of Augustus
and in recarved portraits like that in the Museo
Capitolino (cat. 1.10). Similarly, a head in
Mantua retains elements of Caligula’s coiffure
and iconography (cat. 1.9).86 While the locks
over the forehead have been reconfigured to
reflect Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, the ar-
rangement of the hair on the top and back of the
head has not been altered from the Caligulan
image.
A statue of Augustus in Zadar provides addi-
tional testimony for the reworking of full-length
heroic images of Caligula (cat. 1.15; fig. 20a-d).87
This statue, together with the colossal Caligula/
Claudius in the Sala Rotonda, the statues of
Caligula/Claudius in Vaison and Fano, and the
colossal Caligula Augustus from Caere, reveal the
scope of the heroic and divine images of Caligula
created during his reign. Caligula’s strong em-
phasis on divine imagery may be reflected in
Suetonius’s damaging anecdote (likely apocry-
85 78.AA.261.
86 Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6615.
87 Museum.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
phal) that the emperor had planned to remove
the heads from famous cult images, including
Phidias’s chryselephantine statue of Zeus at
Olympia, and have them replaced with his own
likeness.88 Significantly, Claudius did not aban-
don his predecessor’s practice of being depicted
with divine or heroic attributes.89 The head of
the Zadar statue has been refashioned into a
replica of Augustus’s Prima Porta type. The piece
is carved from a single block of marble and, as
a result, the recut head is too small in propor-
tion to the body. As was also the case with the
colossal Caligula/Claudius in the Sala Rotonda
of the Vatican and the statue from Vaison, the
corona civica which the emperor wears is too
massive for the face and the forehead is also too
broad. The statue was discovered in 1777 dur-
ing excavations of the Roman Forum at Aenona
in Dalmatia and testifies to the reworking of
Caligula’s likenesses in the provinces. Seven other
images, four female and three male were found
with the Caligula/Augustus, including a togate
portrait of Tiberius.90
Additional provincial representations of Augus-
tus which have been recut from Caligula include
portraits in Condeixa-a-Nova (cat. 1.4),91 Copen-
hagen (cat. 1.5; fig. 21a-d),92 Cuenca (cat. 1.6),93
Lisbon (cat. 1.7),94 Tomar (cat. 1.13),95 and Tunis
(cat. 1.14, fig. 22a-c).96 These portraits cover a
broad geographical spectrum: the Condeixa-a-
Nova, Cuenca, and Tomar portraits testify to the
reconfiguration of Caligula’s images into repre-
88 Calig. 22.2.
89 Divine or heroic images of Claudius created during
his reign include the statue of Claudius as Jupiter from
Lanuvium (Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda, no. 550, inv.
243, the bronze nude statue from Herculaneum (Naples,
Museo Nazionale Archeologico) and the Claudius as Jupi-
ter from the Metroon at Olympia (Archaeological Muse-
um 7 125).
90 The whereabouts of the four female statues are no
longer known, C.B. Rose (1997) 135.
91 Museo Monográfico de Conimbriga, inv. 67.388.
92 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746.
93 Museo Arquelógico Provincial el Almudi.
94 Museu Nacional de Arquelogia e Etnologia, inv.
21520 A..
95 Convento de Cristo.
96 Musée du Bardo, C 72.
33
sentations of his great grandfather in Spain and
Portugal, while the Copenhagen portrait, which
comes from Sardis, attests to the practice in Asia
Minor, and the Tunis portrait for North Africa.
In addition, the Copenhagen image contains
some signs of aging, including light horizontal
furrows in the forehead and crows feet at the
outer corners of the eyes, like the reconfigured
likenesses in the Museo Capitolino and the Get-
ty. The Lisbon portrait also exhibits indications
of aging in its partially sunken cheeks and slight
naso-labial lines. The Tunis likeness has also been
reconfigured with superficial signs of aging such
as the horizontal furrow in the forehead and
suggestion of sunken cheeks. The Condeixa-a-
Nova head belonged to a togate statue displayed
in the Forum, whose base was discovered with
it and may have represented the emperor capite
velato. The Cuenca portrait was apparently also
publicly displayed in the Roman Theater at
Segobriga, where it was excavated.
Caligula/Tiberius
Only one of Caligula’s images, in Frankfurt97
appears to have been altered retrospectively into
a representation of Tiberius (cat. 1.16). In the
Frankfurt portrait the locks over the forehead
have been entirely recut, but the remnants of
Caligula’s longer locks parted over the inner
corner of the left eye are still clearly visible.
Although the facial features themselves have been
slightly altered, the new image of Tiberius is
remarkably youthful and generic. The portrait is
veiled and originally commemorated Caligula’s
role as pontifex maximus. Undoubtedly Tiberius’s
own posthumous unpopularity accounts for the
fact that this is the only one of Caligula’s por-
traits to be refashioned into a likeness of his uncle
and predecessor.
Caligula/Titus
Two portraits of Caligula which were not re-
carved until the Flavian period provide impor-
97 Frankfurt, Liebieghaus.
34 chapter two
tant physical evidence for the warehousing of
Caligula’s sculpted images. These portraits, in
Arles (cat. 1.35; fig. 23)98 and Athens (cat. 1.36;
fig. 24)99 must have been removed from public
display and stored in secure locations until they
were refashioned into representations of the sec-
ond Flavian emperor.100 The coiffure of the Arles
likeness, with central, part, has been retained
from the original image, a replica of Caligula’s
main type. The chin has been substantially cut
back in order to give the likeness the heavy
underchin which is a prominent feature of Titus’s
portraiture. The Athens portrait was discovered
in Smyrna. The locks over the forehead also
reproduce the arrangement of Caligula’s main
type, with central part. The idealized, classiciz-
ing features of both heads, markedly different
from the more individualized likenesses of Titus,
are remnants of the original portraits. The dis-
parate find spots of these portraits further attest
to the geographical scope of the sculptural trans-
formation of Caligula’s images. Both portraits also
provide critical evidence for the warehousing of
the images of condemned emperors. They are the
first recut likenesses whose reconfigurations were
not carried out for over a generation following
an emperor’s condemnation. The Athens and
Arles portraits were clearly stored, likely in sculp-
tural depots where they were accessible to sculp-
tors for reuse several decades after their remov-
al from public display.
Caligula/Claudius Gothicus(?)
One image of Caligula, now in the Levy-White
collection, was not recarved until the third cen-
tury, when it was refashioned into a soldier
emperor, perhaps Claudius Gothicus (cat. 1.37;
fig. 25a-e).101 The portrait has been substantial-
ly recut, but traces of Caligula’s main type coif-
fure are clearly visible behind both ears. The
locks over the forehead have been entirely refash-
98Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot.
99National Museum, Roman Collection, inv. 348.
100 For a full discussion of Titus’s portrait typology, see
infra.
101 New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.
ioned, as evidenced by chiseled surfaces directly
below the corona civica. The eyes and facial fea-
tures have also been completely refashioned. A
beard has been carved into the face, an exam-
ple of negative modeling. The reduction of the
volume of the face has caused the corona to be too
large in proportion to the rest of the head. Coins
of Claudius Gothicus depict him with a fuller
coiffure combined with short military beard, as
in the White-Levy head. Physiognomic details,
like the low, broad forehead, shape of the bridge
of the nose, and long thin upper lip combined
with full, receding lower lip present in the White-
Levy portrait also find close parallels in the nu-
mismatic portraits of Claudius Gothicus.102 The
White-Levy head is another important manifes-
tation of the phenomenon of warehousing images
for extended periods, in this case over two cen-
turies, prior to their reconfiguration.
Caligula/Deity
A head in Algiers formerly depicting Caligula is
the only surviving likeness of a condemned em-
peror which seems clearly to have been trans-
formed into the image of a deity (cat. 1.38).103
The head is colossal in scale and most of Caligu-
la’s coiffure has been removed. Nevertheless,
traces of the original hair are still visible on the
nape of the neck. The shape of the mouth and
broad eyes are also Caligulan. The hair around
the face has been drastically worked away and
holes drilled into the head for the attachment of
a wreath or perhaps radiate crown. The head
comes from Iol Caesarea the capital of Mauret-
ania, making it possible that it has been refash-
ioned into a representation of the city’s patron
the sun god, Sol.104
102 RIC 211-37, pl. 5.76-82, pl. 6.83-92.
103 Museum.
104 D. Kreikenbom has suggested that a fragmentary
and badly weathered Julio-Claudian portrait in Sardis
(Depot, NOEX 60.12) may be a private portrait recut from
Caligula. The piece is too poorly preserved to secure an
identification as Caligula, or to be certain that it has, in
fact, been reworked, (1992) 223, no. 4.2.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
The Removal of Caligula’s Images
Suetonius’s statement that Caligula’s images were
removed on Claudius’s behest finds further sup-
port in surviving unaltered portraits. Many are
well-enough preserved, or have archaeological
contexts which confirm that they were removed
from public display and warehoused as a conse-
quence of the unofficial condemnation. Indeed,
as a group, the unreworked images of Caligula
are astonishingly well-preserved and, ironically,
have largely escaped use as building material or
being burned in medieval lime kilns because of
their burial, disposal, or storage in secure loca-
tions.
The find-spots of two portraits from Cumae,105
as well as North African likenesses in Sabratha106
and Tunis (fig. 26a-b)107 provide archaeological
confirmation for the storage of Caligula’s portraits
following their removal from public display. One
of the heads from Cumae is a replica of Caligu-
la’s main type and was discovered in the “cryp-
ta romana”. The nose of the portrait is missing,
but there is little other damage. The head was
likely detached from its original context, and
stored in the crypta following Caligula’s damna-
tio.108 The other head from Cumae was discov-
ered in 1952 at the south side of the Forum.109
The portrait is worked for insertion into a togate
statue and depicts Caligula with a corona civica.
The likeness is likely to have been displayed in
105 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150 226, h.
0.245 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 62, n. 41, 69, 84, 100, 120,
no. ?47, pl. 38.1-4 (with earlier literature).
Antiquario Flegreo, no. 68, h. 40 cm; D. Boschung (1989)
29, note 19, 58-60, 87, note 193, 90, 117, no. 38, sketch
31, pl. 33.1-4 (with earlier literature).
106 Museum, 650, h. O.72 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29,
note 15, 35-38, 55, 63, 108, no. 6, sketch 6, pl. 6.1-4; D.
Kreikenbom (1992) 195-6, no. 3.57, pl. 13d.
107 Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art, formerly in
Carthage, h. 0.48 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12, 38-
42, 50, 54-57, 110-11, no. 14, pl. 14.1-4 (with earlier lit-
erature).
108 A portrait of Tiberius was also discovered in the
“crypta,” and it is possible that the portrait of this unpop-
ular emperor was also removed from display.
109 M.E. Bertoldi (1973) 42; D. Boschung (1989) 117.
35
the Forum or its environs during Caligula’s prin-
cipate. After his downfall, the head was removed
from its statue and stored in the area of the
Forum. The head from Sabratha is colossal in
scale and was intended for an acrolithic statue,
which formed part of the monumental decora-
tion of the city’s basilica.110 Although the portrait
is badly weathered, it preserves most of its fea-
tures intact, including the nose. The other North
African image was discovered behind the so-
called Temple of Fortuna Augusta at Mustis
(modern El Krib) in the nineteenth century.111
The head is well preserved. The rims of the ears
are broken off, as is the forepart of the nose.
There are some abrasions on the brows, cheeks,
and chin. Ostensibly, the portrait was removed
from the statue into which it was inserted, and
stored or buried in the vicinity of the temple
following Caligula’s overthrow.
An over life-sized togate statue, a replica of
Caligula’s main type from Rome, and now in
Richmond provides additional persuasive evi-
dence for the removal and warehousing of the
emperor’s likenesses.112 The portrait is carved
from a single block of Luna marble and is report-
ed to have been discovered in the vicinity of the
Theater of Marcellus at Rome.113 The head
exhibits very little damage: the rims of both ears
are chipped, the tip of the nose has broken off,
and there are additional chips on the chin. Both
forearms are missing, as is the front of the left
foot. In fact, major damage is limited to the front
of the statue which suggests that the image may
110 The head was discovered during excavations of the
basilica. H. Sichtermann AA (1962) 505-6, 510-11; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 108.
111 D. Boschung (1989) 110.
112 Richmond, Virginia Art Museum, accession no. 71-
20, h. 2.032 m, head, 0.27 m.;.D. Boschung (1989) 29, n.
12, 38, 53-55, 61, 89, 109-10, no. 11, sketch 11, pls. 11.1-
4, 42.1-4, 43 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989)
32, n. 138, 119, no. 106; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 110,
fig. 4.8; The sculpture was on display at the Palazzo Col-
onna in Rome until the end of the nineteenth century and
was purchased by the Virginia Museum in 1971.
113 Although there is a break in the neck, technical
analysis has confirmed that the head does in fact belong
with the body, see, J. Ternbach (1974) 29.
36 chapter two
have been violently overturned, just as Cassius
Dio reports in his account of the general confu-
sion following Caligula’s murder.114 After it was
toppled the portrait must have been removed
from public display and stored while awaiting
some form of reuse.115
A bust in Trieste was originally part of another
togate likeness of Caligula carved from a single
block of marble.116 The portrait belongs to the
emperor’s main portrait type and appears to have
been found in a fragmentary state and cut down
to its current form in the modern period.117 The
likeness may have been found at Aenona, like the
heroic Caligula/Augustus in Zadar reworked to
Augustus (cat. 1.15; fig. 20a-d). The brows are
chipped, the tip of the nose is missing, the lips
are abraded. The chin contains some modern
restorations in plaster and there are chips to the
surfaces of the face and neck. It is possible that
the original statue was toppled, like the Rich-
mond togatus, and this may explain its damaged
and fragmentary state. The fragments of the stat-
ue may then have been stored for eventual re-
use.
11459.30a. See also, H. Jucker (1973) 19.
115In addition to the damage to the front of the stat-
ue, there is a deep chisel gouge where the base of the neck
and upper chest border the toga along the right side as a
result of an attempt in antiquity to separate the neck and
head from the body and thus reuse the statue, see H. Jucker
(1973) 19. The chips along the edges of the break in the
neck, which Jucker identifies as chisel blows, appear much
too fresh to be part of any ancient damage to the statue.
These chips are also fairly random, and are probably in-
cidental damage, and not caused by chisel or hammer
blows. The attempt to reuse the statue may have taken place
in a sculptor’s workshop. And indeed, the reported find-
spot of the piece lies in the Campus Martius, an area of
the city in which has yielded much evidence for sculptors’
workshops, A. Claridge (1998) 180. Most important in the
context of damnatio memoriae is the site of the discovery of
the Cancelleria reliefs, believed by many scholars to be a
sculptors’ or marble masons’ workshop. See F. Magi, (1945)
54. In any event, the attempt to reuse the statue was aban-
doned. Perhaps the damage to the portrait rendered it
unsuitable and impracticable for reworking into a portrait
suitable for the new emperor, Claudius; and so the entire
statue must have been stored to await some other form of
reuse.
116 Museo Civico, inv. 2177, h. 0.52 m.; D. Boschung
(1989) 29, 25, 37, 54-56, 89, 109, no. 9, sketch 9, pls. 9.1-
4, 46.1.
117 D. Boschung (1989) 109.
The fine state of preservation of numerous
other images of Caligula, suggest that they, too,
were removed from public view and ware-
housed.118 This group of portraits consists of busts
in New York119 and Paris;120 heads worked for
insertion and now in, Los Angeles (fig. 27),121
Venice,122 and Worcester (fig. 28);123 and heads
which have been cut or broken in the area of the
neck: in Copenhagen,124 New Haven (fig. 29),125
Paris,126 Schloss Fasanerie (fig. 30),127 and the
118 A portrait from Cártama is so badly weathered that
it is impossible to determine whether the extensive dam-
age to the facial features is the result of deliberate mutila-
tion in antiquity, or simply incidental destruction; Mala-
ga, Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv. 553, h. 0.34 m.;
D. Boschung (1988) 29, n. 12, 40-41, 52, 55, 57, 111, no.
17, sketch 16, pl. 16.1-3 (with earlier literature).
119 Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 1914.37,
Rogers Fund, h. 0.51 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 28, 29, 46,
60-62, 86, 119, no. ?46, sketch 36, pls. 37.1-4, 47.1; H.
Meyer (2000) 91, fig. 180.
120 Musée du Louvre, MA 1234, h. 0.47 m.; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 29, 38-39, 54-56, 72, 87, 100, 110, no. 13,
sketch 13, pls. 13.1-4, 46.4 (with previous literature).
121 J. Paul Getty Museum, acc. no. 72 AA 155, h. 0.43.
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12, 38-9, 53-57, 90, 110,
no. 12, sketch 12, pl. 12.1-4 (with earlier literature); H. Born
and K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 41; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)
96-99, cat. 4.
122 Museo Archeologico, inv. 142, h. 0.42 m.; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 28, 32, 36, 46, 53-56, 61, 63, 108, no. 4, pl.
4.1-4 (with earlier literature); I. Favoretto and G.L. Rav-
agna, eds. (1997) 208, no. 76.
123 Worcester Museum of Art, acc. no. 1914.23; h. 0.486
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 43-45, 51, 52, 55-57, 60-61,
72, 90, 112, no. 20, sketch 19, pls. 20, 21.1-4 (with earlier
literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 126, fig. 102; H. Meyer
(2000) 94, figs. 185-86. Although this portrait has been
dated to the Neronian period by Jucker ([1973] 20) its style
is perfectly consonant with other Caligulan pieces, espe-
cially the Getty and Venice heads.
124 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 637a, Inv. 2687; h. O.31
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 41-, 51, 52-3, 54-, 60, 86, 100,
111-12, no. 18, sketch 17, pls. 17, 18.1-4 (with earlier lit-
erature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127, fig. 104; F. Johansen
(1994) 1, 136-7, no. 56, (with figs., with previous literature);
H. Meyer (2000) 96, fig. 195.
125 Acc. no. 1987.70.1, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
29, note 1, 58-60, 116-117, no. 37, sketch 30, pls. 31, 32.1-
3 (with earlier literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127, fig.
103; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 96-99, cat. 5.
126 MA 1267, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 28, note
2, 29, note 11, 32-5, 53-55, 61, 63, 107, no. 2, sketch 2,
pl. 2.1-4. The head is currently mounted on a seated to-
gate statue to which it does not belong.
127 FAS.ARP 21, h. 0.365 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29,
n. 11, 32-36, 53-55, 60-61, 63, 108, no. 5, sketch 5, pl. 5.1-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
Villa Albani,128 as well as a miniature bronze bust
depicting the emperor with bare chest and palu-
damentum, atop a globe in Brooklyn (fig. 31)129 and
two miniature bronze heads in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art (figs. 32-33).130 The New York
bust, a version of Caligula’s secondary type was
discovered (together with the head worked for in-
sertion in Worcester [fig. 28]) in an area of im-
perial holdings at Marino near Lake Albano. The
bust is extraordinarily well-preserved, with dam-
age limited to the rim of the left ear. Most of the
ancient surfaces are intact. Likewise, the Worces-
ter head (also a replica of the secondary type ) is
in a similarly fine state of preservation, with
damage essentially limited to the rim of the right
ear.131 Claudius would have had no reason to
continue to display images of Caligula on the
imperial estates. Both portraits may have been
removed and stored together, thus ensuring their
protection. The Louvre bust, a replica of the
main type, is reputedly from Thrace and exhib-
its the light beard of mourning which Caligula
adopted after the death of his sister Drusilla on
6 October 38. Also uncommonly well-preserved,
it is likely to have been removed from public view
and warehoused in a secure location following
Caligula’s assassination.132
Two other heads worked for insertion, now in
Los Angeles and Venice, are also singularly well-
4 (with previous literature). D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127.
128 Portico, no. 54, h. 0.26 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 111,
no. 15 (with earlier literature). R. Bol (1990) 148-51, no.
192, pls. 86-89.
129 Brooklyn Museum, Department of Ancient Art, acc.
no. 21.479.12, h. 0.142 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 120, no.
?48 (with previous literature); E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-
3, cat. 9, with fig.
130 23.162.23, h. 0.255 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 115, no.
31, pls. 28.1-4, 47.2; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3, no. 7,
with figs.; and 25.78.35, h. 0.068 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
114-15, no. 29, pl. 26.5-8; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 102-3,
no. 8.
131 D. Boschung sees this portrait as a reflection of the
main type ([1988] 43-5) but it should rather be grouped
with the secondary type, as the part occurs at the far left
of the forehead.
132 There is some damage to the rims of both ears, now
repaired in plaster. A section of the back of the head, at
the left is missing, and may have been worked separately.
The bust is cracked across the upper chest. The drapery
which covered the left shoulder is no longer extant, and
may have been worked separately.
37
preserved. As part of the Grimani bequest of
1586, the Venice portrait is likely to be from
Rome or its vicinity where, judging from its
impressive scale and workmanship, it was an
important public commemoration of Caligula.133
The Malibu likeness, said to be from Asia Mi-
nor, is worked for insertion into a togate image
of the emperor. It, too, is so well preserved that
it must have been removed from its statue body
and warehoused in safe location.134
The portraits in Copenhagen, New Haven,
Paris, and the Schloss Fasanerie are also so well-
preserved that they are likely to have been
warehoused or buried following Caligula’s over-
throw.135 Formerly part of the Campana Collec-
tion, the Paris portrait is said to have come from
Rome. The head in the Schloss Fasanarie is also
from Italy, and its high artistic quality, as well
as that of the Copenhagen portrait, may indicate
a metropolitan Roman provenance for both piec-
es.136 The Copenhagen likeness even preserves
the painted pupils, irises, and lashes of the left
eye, further underscoring the likelihood of its
storage in a protected location following its re-
moval from public display. In contrast, the Yale
head which was discovered near the Ponte Mil-
vio in Rome, is covered by extensive root marks,
suggesting that it may have been buried at some
point after Caligula’s overthrow.137 Although not
as well preserved as the preceding images, a
133 The Venice portrait, currently mounted on a mod-
ern bust, is well over life-sized. Modern restorations to the
head include the rims of the right ear, most of the left ear,
the tip of the nose, and the lower lip. The portrait has also
been subjected to an extensive modern cleaning. The an-
cient sculpture in the Grimani collection was largely ac-
quired in Rome where the family had a vigna and a resi-
dence on the Quirinal, in the vicinity of the later Palazzo
Barberini. Presumably some of the ancient sculpture came
from their vigna. On the Grimani and their collection, see
I. Favoretto (1990) 84-92.
134 The head has suffered very minor damage, includ-
ing chipping of the rims of both ears, and abrasions on the
tip of the nose and chin.
135 The damage to all three portraits is limited in na-
ture; remarkably, as in so many of the warehoused por-
traits of Caligula, the noses are intact.
136 Despite the fact that the Copenhagen piece was
purchased in Istanbul, it has been recognized as a prod-
uct of a metropolitan Roman workshop. See C.C. Vermeule
(1967) 387, no. 2, and F. Johansen (1987) 97.
137 I would like to thank Dr. Susan B. Matheson, Cu-
38 chapter two
portrait in Fossombrone exhibits no signs that it
was intentionally mutilated in antiquity and was
also almost certainly removed from public display
and perhaps warehoused after Caligula’s over-
throw.138 In addition, the miniature bronze bust
in Brooklyn may have originally been displayed
in a public or domestic shrine from which it
certainly would have been removed following the
emperor’s assassination.
The removal of Caligula’s images is also at-
tested at the Julio-Claudian Basilica at Velleia,
where a likeness of Caligula was replaced by one
of Claudius (cat. 1.27; fig. 34a-b).139 The trans-
formation presents a nearly identical scenario to
that of the group dedication at Rusellae. C. B.
Rose has persuasively argued that the Basilica
was originally constructed under Caligula, at
which time portraits of Augustus, Tiberius, Ger-
manicus, Tiberius Gemellus, Caligula, Drusilla,
Agrippina Maior, and Livia were created.140
Drusilla’s statue, apparently posthumous and de-
picting her with a “Demeter/Kore” body type,
is now headless but was accompanied by an in-
scription proclaiming her status as Diva.141 The
rator of Ancient Art of the Yale University Art Gallery for
allowing me access to the file on the Yale Caligula which
includes information on its provenance in correspondence
from the late Frank Brown, the former owner of the por-
trait.
138 Museo, h. 0.33 m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12,
38, 58-60, 87, n. 193, 100-101, 117, no. 39, sketch 32, pl.
34.1-4 (with previous literature); D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 127.
139 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichitá, no. 1, inv. 280
(1870), 834 (1952).
140 C.B. Rose (1997) 122-3. An additional togate por-
trait, often identified as L. Calpurnius Piso, also seems to
be part of this initial phase (Parma, Museo Nazionale
d’Antichità, inv. 835). Rose intriguingly suggests that this
portrait may have been recut from a representation of
Drusus Caesar, the son of Germanicus, into Nerva (1997)
124 . However, the coiffure of the portrait exhibits none
of the principal characteristics of Nerva’s hairstyle in iden-
tified original and reworked image. The physiognomy also
exhibits no close parallels to extant portraits, and the shape
of the face of the Velleia portrait is much more square than
most of Nerva’s images. C. Saletti had originally proposed
a Tiberian date for the initial phase of the Basilica (deco-
rated by portraits of Augustus, Tiberius [?], Drusus Maior,
Drusus Minor, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and Livia), followed
by the addition of three more statues under Caligula
(Caligula, his mother, Agrippina Maior, and his sister,
Drusilla [1968] 87-90).
141 DIVAE DRUSIL [LAE]/GERMANI [CI]/ CAE-
surviving portrait of Claudius is the tallest in the
cycle and exhibits many signs that it is a substi-
tution for an earlier head.142 The tenon of the
current head of Claudius does not fit closely into
the body, leaving a visible gap between neck and
chest. A large chunk of marble which is missing
from the toga at the area of the back of the neck
and the top of the shoulders provides further
crucial evidence; chipping in this area has been
caused by hammer blows, prompting C. Saletti
to conclude that the original portrait was carved
all of one piece of marble and that the head was
knocked from the statue by blows from the
rear.143 This damage is not visible from the front.
All of the portraits from Velleia are very flat and
summarily worked at the back, confirming that
they were not intended to be seen from the rear.
Following Caligula’s death, his portrait was at-
tacked, perhaps disfigured, and eventually the
head was severed from the body and a mortis was
prepared in the chest to receive the new, sepa-
rately worked likeness of Claudius.
In contrast to those portraits whose fine states
of preservation indicate that they were stored in
secure locations, the archaeological find spots of
five images of Caligula suggest that they were
disposed of in a much more violent manner. A
portrait in Huelva was discovered among the
debris of a Roman well in Tharsis.144 The badly
corroded surfaces of the head indicate that it has
suffered long immersion in the water of the well,
SARI [S F](ILIAE), C. Saletti (1968) 68; C.B. Rose (1997)
122.
142 C. Saletti (1968) 45-7; H. Jucker (1973) 19, n. 6.
143 C. Saletti (1968) 46. C.B. Rose has proposed that
the head itself has in fact been recut from Caligula into
Claudius (1997) 122. He bases this on the “proportions of
the head and relative placement of the facial features
(which) match the portraits of Caligula (while) the bangs,
lips, nose and forehead have been recut to conform to the
physiognomy of his successor.” However, I can see no overt
signs that the head has been recut (there, are, for instance
no discernible traces of Caligula’s coiffure) and while the
smaller proportions of the head would support Rose’s ar-
gument, it seems more likely, given the poor fit of the tenon
and mortis and the high join between the sections of veil
at the left, that Saletti and Jucker are correct and the head
is an ex novo creation for a statue that was originally carved
from a single block of marble.
144 Museo Provincial, h. 0.402 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
into which it may have been thrown as an act
of denigration against the overthrown princeps.
Similarly, four miniature images of Caligula are
said to have come from the Tiber and they may
have been hurled into the river in order to de-
fame Caligula’s memory. The deliberately dam-
aged cuirassed bust, discussed above, is report-
ed to have been discovered in the Tiber, as is also
the case with a bronze bust which portrays the
emperor with bare chest and paludamentum, (fig.
35)145 The disposal of these busts in the Tiber is
a forceful statement of denigration rendered that
much more dramatic by the fact that the bronze
from which they were fashioned was inherently
valuable and it would certainly have been more
practical and economical to melt them down. A
fourth miniature bust, also with bare chest and
paludamentum, but in marble, was found in the
Tiber in 1886 during construction of the river’s
embankments (fig. 36).146 The small scale of this
bust, with little available marble for recarving,
may also account for its having been discarded
rather than reused.
It is certainly significant that almost half of
Caligula’s surviving miniature portraits are reput-
edly from the Tiber. On account of their minia-
ture format, many of these busts can be associ-
ated with sacra privata, as decoration for household
lararia, or with sacra publica, as part of the wor-
ship of the emperor’s genius.147 As such, these
miniature images are powerful symbols imbued
29, note 12, 40-41, 52, 55-56, 90, 111, no. 16, sketch 15,
pl. 15.1-4; M. Donderer (1991-2) 264, no. 9.
145 New York, White Levy Collection (formerly Zurich,
Coll. R. Schinz-Rüesch); H. 0.199 m.; D. Boschung (1989)
29, 46, 48-9, 54-57, 60 72, 92, 93, 100, 114, no. 27, sketch,
27, pls. 25.1-4, 46.2 (with previous literature).
146 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massi-
mo alle Terme, inv. 4256, h. 0.16. m.; B. Di Leo, Mus-
NazRom I.9.1 141-43, no. R98; D. Boschung (1989) 41-44,
51, 54-57, 60, 72, 86, 92, 100, 112, no. 19, pls. 19.1-4, 46.3
(with previous literature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 222, n. 126;
B. Germini in A. La Regina, ed. (1998) 48 (with fig.).
The treatment of the facial features, especially in the de-
tails of the narrow pointed chin and shape of the mouth
the mouth with overbite are nearly identical to a minia-
ture bronze bust of Caligula’s sister, Agrippina Minor,
created during the reign of Claudius (Chieti, Museo, with-
out inv. no.).
147 B. di Leo, MusNazRom 9.1, 143. For the association
of miniature busts with sacra publica see B. Schneider (1979)
39
with religious meaning. Following his downfall in
41, it would no longer have been permissible or
even desirable to display portraits of Caligula in
either sacra privata or sacra publica.148 The act of
hurling images of Caligula into the Tiber was a
demonstrative way of blackening the murdered
princeps’ memory, canceling any devotional as-
pects of the portrait, and at the same time ex-
pressing loyalty to Claudius and his new regime.
Furthermore, the violent disposal of these busts
is charged with overtones of poena post mortem,
associated with the disposal (and denial of prop-
er burial) of the corpses of capital offenders, noxii
killed in the arena, and later, even certain con-
demned emperors.149 Water also functioned as a
traditional place for the disposal of polluted or
threatening objects rejected by society; further-
more, salt water was held to have properties es-
pecially efficacious in purifying accursed objects,
and, as D.G. Kyle notes, the Tiber eventually
deposited any items thrown into it in the sea.150
As is the case with the miniature busts and the
head in Huelva, the weathered states of portraits
in Athens151 and Málaga152 suggests that they
31. For the association of miniature busts with sacra privata
see L. Polacco (1955) 185.
148 In addition, H. Jucker has suggested that the small
bronze cuirassed bust which has been deliberately attacked
with a hammer, may have originally topped a legionary
standard (cat. 1.3). As such, it may have been damaged and
thrown into the Tiber during the demonstrations which
occurred in the brief period of disquiet preceding the ac-
clamation of Claudius, H. Jucker (1982)113.
149 On the disposal of corpses of dead noxii and capital
offenders in the Tiber, see D.G. Kyle (1993) 306; D.G. Kyle
(1998) 213-28. After Ceasar’s assassination, certain Sena-
tors wished to have his body dragged through the streets
and thrown in the Tiber (Suet. Iul. 82.4). Following the
death of Tiberius, the disaffected common people of Rome
wanted to throw his body into the Tiber, shouting “Tibe-
rium in Tiberim” (Suet.Tib. 75.1). Vitellius’s corpse was, in
fact thrown in the Tiber and there was an unsuccessful
attempt to do the same thing with the body of Commo-
dus after his murder (Suet. Vit. 17.2; HA. Comm. 18-19, and
infra.). The remains of Elagabalus were dragged through
the Circus Maximus and the streets of Rome and ultimately
stuffed into the sewers which emptied into the Tiber (HA.
Elag. 17.6, and infra.).
150 D.G. Kyle (1998) 214.
151 National Museum, Warehouse, inv. 3590, h. 0.26
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 35, 37-39, 53-55, 109, no. 10,
sketch 10, pl. 10.1-4 (with earlier literature).
152 Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv. 553, h. 0.34 m.;
40 chapter two
were not stored in secure locations, but discard-
ed in a more summary fashion following Caligu-
la’s death, The Athens head is broken off at the
area of the chin and there is further damage to
the forehead, brows, nose, cheeks and lips. The
facial features of the head in Málaga, discovered
at Cártama, have been substantially obliterated
through weathering.
A representation of Caligula in relief, now in
Trieste, has also survived.153 The fragmentary
relief, from Kula in East Lydia, depicts Caligula
on a rearing horse and a standing figure of
Germania. The inscription reads:
'"4\å 'gD:"<46è "ÛJ@- 'gD:"<\"
6DVJ@D4 5"\F"D4 6"2g4gDäJ"4
B"¯ H Ò *0:`F4H J`B@H
The relief attests to Caligula’s commemoration
in the remote provinces. As the inscription is not
erased, it is likely that the relief was removed from
display following his overthrow. A pharaonic
image of Caligula and accompanying cartouche
have also survived at Dendera.154
In addition to the surviving images in marble
and bronze, at least fourteen cameo or intaglio
portraits of Caligula are extant. The gems depict
Caligula in a variety of attributes and attire
including the laurel crown of the triumphator,155
cuirass and laurel crown,156 and capite velato with
scepter.157 These glyptic likenesses may survive
D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 40-41, 52, 55, 57, 111, no.
17, sketch 16, pl. 16.1-3 (with earlier literature).
153 Museo Civico, inv. 2228, 0.63 x 0.60 m.; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 92, 120-21, no. 51, pl. 40.3 (with earlier lit-
erature).
154 D. Boschung (1989) 92-121, no. 52 (with earlier lit-
erature).
155 Florence, Museo Archeologico, onyx, inv. 14539; A.
Giuliano (1989) 239, no. 165, with figs.; Florence, Museo
Archeologico, inv. 14540, onyx, A. Giuliano (1989) 239,
no. 166, with figs.; Ionides Collection, onyx, 0.013 x 0.011
m.; Boschung (1989) 116, no. 35, pl. 30.3; and Switzerland,
Private Collection, sardonyx, h. 0.02 m.; Boschung (1989)
117-8, no. 41.
156 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 11.195.7,
onyx, 0.043 x 0.0305 m.; Boschung (1989) 115, no. 32, pl.
29.1-2, E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 112-13, cat. 13.
157 Musei Vaticani, Biblioteca, inv. 5268, sardonyx,
as a result of their value as gems, which precluded
them from being destroyed, as well as the diffi-
culty inherent in recutting them as attested by the
Caligula/Claudius chalcedony cameo in Vienna
(cat. 1.33). Imperial portrait gems functioned as
presentation pieces, and it is possible that the gem
portraits of Caligula remained in private collec-
tions and perhaps were even valued as curiosi-
ties or souvenirs of an unpopular and infamous
reign.158 A chalcedony cameo of Caligula en-
throned with the goddess Roma (or possibly
Drusilla in the guise of Roma) in Vienna159 ap-
pears to have been copied in antiquity as evi-
denced by a blue glass cameo in the Dumbarton
Oaks Collection (fig. 39).160 Boyhood likenesses
of Caligula are also presumably preserved on the
blue glass phalerae distributed to the troops of his
father Germanicus. The phalerae depict bust
length portraits of Germanicus, together with
small busts of three children, likely including
Caligula.161 As the primary honorand in these
phalerae is Germanicus, the three children with
Germanicus are generic, often indistinguishable
in terms of gender and coiffure, and thus it is not
surprising that there has been no attempt to
destroy them our cancel out the representations
of Caligula.162 However, more mature portraits
0.049 x 0.038 m.; Boschung (1989) 115-6, no. 33, pl. 29.3.
158 On gem collecting in Rome, see Pliny, NH 37.11;
J.M. Padgett (1995) 3-22.
159 Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. IX a 59, h. 11 cm.,
w. 10 cm.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 51-2, 69, 72, 87-
88, 92, 95-6, 100, 116, no. 34, pl. 30.1-2 (with previous
literature); T. Mickoki (1995) 184, no. 226, pl. 23; H. Meyer
(2000) 67, 81, figs. 130, 164, 169; S. Walker and P. Higgs,
eds. (2000) 186-7, no. 3.45 (with figs) (with earlier litera-
ture).
160 Acc. no. 46.10, H. 14 cm.; G.M.A. Richter (1956)
66-9, no. 47, pl. 23.a (probably ancient); F. Eichler (1970)
71; H. Kyrieleis (1970) 492-8, figs. 2 & 7 (ancient); G.M.A.
Richter (1971) 101, no. 485; W.R. Megow (1987) 185; D.
Boschung (1989) 121, no. *55 (not ancient); E.R.Varner,
ed. (2000) 112-3, no. 14, with fig.
161 For example, London, British Museum, PRB 1870.2-
24.2 and Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. AS XI
B8; D. Boschung (1987) 248-54, nos. 35-42, figs. 7-9, 11-
12, 83-91; C.B. Rose (1997) 24, pl. 16.
162 Although D. Boschung has suggested that these
phalerae depict Claudius with his three children, they rath-
er appear to represent Germanicus, probably with his three
sons, Nero and Drusus Caesar, and Caligula, (1987) 248-
54.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
of Caligula do survive on at least two phalerae
created during his reign.163 They lack secure
archaeological contexts, but they may have sim-
ply been discarded after his overthrow. A min-
iature seated cuirassed statue in green chalcedony
may also have originally represented Caligula,
judging from its style and the type of cuirass with
cingulum.164 The image is headless and lacks its
lower legs and arms. If it indeed depicted Caligu-
la, some of the statuette’s damage may have been
the result of intentional disfigurement at the time
of the damnatio.
Caligula’s name was erased in inscriptions,
canceling his epigraphic identity in a manner
analogous to the removal of his portraits from
public display. Claudius removed his predeces-
sor’s name from the Theater of Pompey, whose
restoration had been completed under Caligu-
la.165 In one instance, Caligula’s name and titles
were even replaced by those of Claudius (just as
his sculpted portraits were replaced by, or re-
carved to, images of Claudius): on an inscription
from an arch at Thugga in North Africa, con-
structed to honor Caligula, his name and titles
have been replaced by those of Claudius.166 The
re-inscription was executed so hastily that Clau-
dius is given the praenomen Imperator which he
never actually used.167 Other erased inscriptions
are known from Milan, Bologna, Pompeii, Dal-
matia, Samos, Alexandria, and Cyzicus.168 A very
163 London, British Museum, 1972.1-26-1; inv. PS
284008, diam. 3.7 cm. D. Boschung (1987) 243-5, no. 26,
figs. 72-3; C.B. Rose 35, pl. 23; Mainz, Romanisch-Ger-
manisches Zentral Museum, B. 30431, diam. 3.8 cm.; D.
Boschung (1987) 243-5, no. 37, fig 74 (from south Nori-
cum or north Pannonia?.
164 The Art Museum, Princeton University, Loan ; J.M.
Padgett (1995) 9, fig. 7; H. Meyer (2000) 88-91.
165 In A.D. 21, the theater was burned (Heiron. a.
Abr.2037); restoration was begun by Tiberius (Tac.Ann 3.72;
Vell.Pat. 2.130.1); Caligula completed the restoration (Suet.
Calig. 21) and Claudius dedicated it (Suet. Claud.21.1; Dio
60.6.8); Dio (60.6.8) reports that Claudius placed the name
of Pompey once again upon the theater, which suggests that
Caligula replaced Pompey’s name with his own when he
completed the restoration. see also, A. Barrett (1989)178
and L. Richardson, jr. (1992), “Theatrum Pompeii,” 384.
166 L. Poinsott (1913) 45, n. 35; A. Barrett (1989)178,
n. 31.
167 M. Stuart (1939) 611.
168 A. Barrett (1989)178, note 31; Milan (ILS 194),
Bologna (ILS 5674), Pompeii (ILS 6396), Dalmatia (ILS
41
unusual example of the erasure and recutting of
a Caligulan inscription was discovered at the
Theater at Thera.169 The inscription, belonging
to statue base apparently from the theater’s scaenae
frons, has been erased and recut in honor of Ves-
pasian. The Caligulan statue base was original-
ly part of a group dedication which included the
emperor’s parents, Germanicus and Agrippina
Maior.170 Caligula’s name is not erased on their
statue bases and the erasure of his own inscrip-
tion (and removal of the accompanying portrait?)
may not have occurred immediately after Caligu-
la’s overthrow, and perhaps not until Vespasian’s
principate.171 Caligula’s name is allowed to re-
main in certain other inscriptions as well, includ-
ing the epitaph of Agrippina Maior from the
Mausoleum of Augustus, which suggests that the
excision of his name was not always a necessary
component of the condemnation.172 Two bound-
ary tones from Dalmatia illustrate the ambigu-
ous treatment of Caligula’s inscriptional identi-
ty: in one his name has been erased,173 and in
the other it has been left intact.174 The rather
sparse evidence for epigraphic erasure further un-
derscores the fact that Caligula’s portraits were
the primary targets of the damnatio.
Other forms of denigration included Claudi-
us’s refusal to complete some of Caligula’s build-
ing products, such as the amphitheater begun
near the Saepta Julia in Rome.175 Claudius also
piously discontinued the Caligula’s purported use
of the Temple of Castor and Pollux as a vesti-
bule or annex which allowed access from the
Forum to the imperial buildings on the Pa-
latine.176 Claudius repaired the Aqua Virgo,
5948); Samos (IGR 4.1721), Alexandria (IGR 1.1057), and
Cyzicus (IGR 4.146).
169 IG 12.3, suppl. 1294; C.B. Rose (1997) 160-1, cat.
97.
170 IG 12.3 suppl. 1392-3; C.B. Rose (1997) 160.
171 C.B. Rose (1997) 160.
172 CIL 6.886.
173 CIL 3.8472 = ILS 5948; C.W. Hedrick (2000) 112.
174 CIL 3.9832 = ILS 5949; C.W. Hedrick (2000) 112.
175 Suet. Calig. 21; E.S. Ramage (1983) 205; L. Rich-
ardson, jr. (1992) 6-7.
176 Dio.60.6.8; Recent archaeological excavation in the
area of S. Maria Antiqua seems to confirm this; see: H.
Hurst, G. Morganti, and F. Scoppola (1986) 470-78; H.
Hurst (1988) 13-17; A. Barrett (1989) 209, n. 57; H. Hurst
42 chapter two
which was claimed to have fallen into disrepair
under Caligula, a fact explicitly mentioned in an
inscription commemorating the Claudian repairs:
Aquae Virginis disturbatos per C. Caesarem.177 Ancient
authors such as Suetonius generally classify
Caligula’s building projects as tyrannical excesses.
For instance, Suetonius’s accounts of Caligula’s
sacrilegious remodeling of the Temple of Castor
and Pollux in the Forum Romanum as a vesti-
bule for his Palace on the Palatine, or the bridge
he constructed to link the residences on the
Palatine with the Temple of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus on the Capitoline may be intentional-
ly distorted or misinterpreted to reflect Caligu-
la’s tyrannical nature.178 In addition, Claudius’s
own choice of coin types may have been subtly
designed to defame the memory of Caligula.179
The Continued Display of Caligula’s Images
In stark contrast to those portraits of Caligula
which were mutilated, recut, or warehoused as
a result of his overthrow, the archaeological con-
text of certain images strongly suggests that they
were allowed to remain on public view in group
dedications. One of these likenesses, now in Iesi
(fig. 40)180 formed part of Caligulan dynastic
commemoration at ancient Aesis, which includ-
ed representations of Augustus181 and Tiberius.182
The portraits, worked for insertion, were discov-
ered in 1784 in the courtyard of the Convento
di S. Floriano together with fragments of five
togate statues, 2 draped female statues, and sev-
in E. M. Steinby, ed. (1995) 106-8 (Domus Gai).
177 ILS 205, E.M. Smallwood (1967) 83, no. 308 b, and
E.S. Ramage (1983) 205, and A. Barrett (1989) 178.
178 Suet. Calig. 22.2. C. Edwards (1993) 146-7; see also
Suet.Calig. 37.2-3 for Caligula’s other extravagant build-
ing programs.
179 E.S. Ramage (1983) 202-6.
180 Palazzo della Signoria, h. 0.34 m.; D. Boschung
(1989) 29, n. 14, 35-6; 54-56, 63, 89, 96, 108-9, no. 7, sketch
7, pl. 7.1-4 (with earlier literature);C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat.
1, pl. 57.
181 D. Boschung (1993a) 40, 47-8, 66, 72, 154, no. 105,
pl. 86, 149.1; C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat. 1, pl. 55.
182 C.B. Rose (1997) 81, cat. 1, pl. 56; see also H. Jucker
(1981a) 262-66.
eral inscriptions.183 Although the portrait of
Caligula is broken into two pieces and a large
chunk of marble is missing from the left side of
the head, the facial features are entirely intact and
the image has not been intentionally disfigured.
The flat back of the head indicates that it orig-
inally depicted the emperor capite velato in his role
as pontifex maximus.
A second image of Caligula, from Gortyna on
Crete also formed part of a dynastic group and
appears to have remained on public view.184 The
head, worked for insertion into a draped statue
capite velato, was discovered during the excavations
of the Agora at Gortyna, carried out by the
Archaeological Institute of America in 1893-94
in the area of the “Great Inscription.” It was
found with representation of Tiberius,185 Livia186
and Gaius Caesar,187 all similarly worked for
insertion. The portraits are remarkably well-pre-
served and essentially intact. The fine state of
preservation of the Caligulan likeness and its
discovery together with the other Julio-Claudi-
an portraits, indicates that it, like the Iesi image,
is unlikely to have been removed at the time of
Caligula’s damnatio. The entire group is Caligu-
lan in date and must have decorated the agora
or an adjacent public building.188
183 CIL 11.6199-6202.
184 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 64, h. 0.393
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 29, 32-6, 52-57; 61, 63, 89, 98-
99, 107, no. 1, sketch 1, pl. 1.1-4 (with earlier literature);
H.R. Goette (1989) 34, n. 147c; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat.
no. 85, pl. 194.
185 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 65, h. 0.43
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat. 85,
pl. 195.
186 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 67, h. 0.40
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat. 85,
pl. 196.
187 Heraklion, Archaeological Museum, no. 66, h. 0.442
m.; D. Boschung (1989) 98-99, 107; Rose (1997) 152-3, cat.
85, pl. 197.
188 L. Fabbrini (1966-7) 142. According to Fabbrini, the
original statue body for which the head of Caligula was
intended may also have been discovered at Gortyna. The
rear portion of a togate statue, whose size and style are
comparable to the portrait of Caligula, and three cuirassed
torsos of Julio-Claudian date are known from old photo-
graphs once belonging to R. Paribeni. (1966-67) n. 55. The
head of Gaius appears to be Augustan in date, but trans-
formed in the Caligulan period into a veiled portrait to con-
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
The Agora at Gortyna also yielded another
well preserved image of Caligula, a full length
veiled togate portrait.189 A replica of the main
type, the Gortyna statue is carved from a single
block of marble and exhibits very little damage.
Much of the nose, which was worked as a sepa-
rate piece, is missing, both forearms are gone, and
the tip of the right foot is also missing. There are
chips and abrasions to the drapery. In view of
the evidence of the Gortyna group dedication
with Tiberius, Livia and Gaius, the togate stat-
ue may also have continued to be displayed
publicly after the damnatio.190 If this is indeed the
case, the Cretan portraits and the Iesi likeness
underscore the great degree of autonomy which
individual cities possessed in responding to direc-
tives from the capital concerning Caligula’s un-
official damnatio as sanctioned by Claudius. These
images may have escaped removal in part be-
cause they belonged to series of imperial portraits
and the series itself as a representation of impe-
rial continuum was often deemed to be of more
importance than the eradication of any individ-
ual member from the series whose memory had
been disgraced and dishonored.191 In addition,
the survival of Caligula’s representations on Crete
further suggests that the de facto damnatio was not
rigidly enforced on the island.192 In general, the
continued display of Caligula’s images as part of
a group dedications may have been intended to
signal the uninterrupted dynastic stability of the
Julio-Claudians. In addition, because Caligula’s
damnatio was not officially mandated (at least
outside the realm of the coinage), municipalities
located at some distance from the capital may
have enjoyed greater latitude in their response
to and treatment of the emperor’s images, just
as they were free to honor the emperor and his
form with the other male images, C.B. Rose (1997) 153.
189 Gortyna, Antiquarium, h. 2.04 m.; D. Boschung
(1989) 29, note 12, 35-37; 52, 54-57, 63, 89, 109, no. 8,
sketch 8, pls. 8.1-3 and 41.1-2 (with earlier literature); H.R.
Goette (1989) 34, n. 147 b, 38, n. 176, 119, no. 105, pl.
7.6.
190 L. Fabbrini, (1966-7) 140; H. Jucker (1973) 19.
191 See S.R.F. Price (1984) 161-2 for the imperial se-
ries at Boubon which does not seem to have been disturbed
by damnationes.
192 L. Fabbrini (1966-67) 142-43.
43
family with portrait dedications on their own
initiative.
A portrait of Caligula discovered at ancient
Luna in Italy together with a representation of
a Julio-Claudian female presents more ambigu-
ous evidence concerning its removal or contin-
ued display (fig. 41).193 The head is worked for
insertion. Although the rims of both ears are
broken, the brows have been damaged, as has the
chin, and most of the nose has broken away, there
is no evidence that the image has been intention-
ally mutilated. The female head is most likely a
representation of Diva Drusilla, depicted with
diadem and infula.194 The portrait is very simi-
lar to an image of Drusilla in New York, although
it omits the characteristic pin curls which frame
the face in all other images of Drusilla.195 Both
portraits may have been removed from their
original statues following Caligula’s assassination,
although Drusilla’s images seem to have gener-
ally been allowed to remain in group dedications,
as for instance at Caere, Otricoli, and Velleia.
A third portrait representing Agrippina Maior,
simplified in its forms like the possible Drusilla,
appears to be from the same workshop and may
have been part of the same dedication, although
it was not found with the other two. Possibly, the
Caligula and Drusilla were removed and ware-
housed, while the Agrippina remained on view,
thus accounting for the dissociation. Alternatively,
all three images may have continued to be dis-
played publicly, like those from Gortyna. The
female portrait probably depicting Drusilla has
also been associated with Livia. If Livia, it has
been deliberately fashioned to resemble her great-
granddaughter Drusilla.196 Although it is less like-
193 Genoa-Pegli, Museo, inv. 614; h. 0.295 m.; A. Fro-
va (1988) 307; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n 12, 32-35, 53-55,
61, 63, 107-108, no. 3, sketch 3, pls. 3.1-4 (with previous
literature); C.B. Rose (1997) 94, cat. 20, pl. 84.
194 Genoa-Pegli, Museo Civico, inv. 609; C.B. Rose
(1997) 94, no. 20, p. 85.
195 Hispanic Society; S Wood (1995) 475-6, figs. 22-3.
The Geno-Pegli head exhibits the same long almond shaped
eyes, similar mouth and over all configuration of the face
as the New York portrait.
196 Both S. Wood (1999) 223-5, 239-40 and E. Bartman
(1999) 223, no. 11 assign the portrait to Drusilla. Wood
feels that the diadem and infula help secure the identifica-
44
ly that the portrait represents Livia rather than
Drusilla, an identification as Livia would strongly
suggest that both portraits did indeed remain on
display.
J. Pollini has recently proposed that a statue
of an imperial genius from Pozzuoli was intend-
ed specifically as a representation of Caligula’s
genius.197 The coiffure does contain the central
part of Caligula’s main portrait type, and the
facial features, although very idealized, might well
reflect Caligula’s physiognomy. However, the
image is certainly generic enough that it could
have been re-used quite easily by changing its
Caligulan context or any accompanying inscrip-
tion. Indeed, L. Curtius earlier identified the
statue as representing the genius of Caligula’s
father, Germanicus.198
The Collateral Condemnations of Milonia Caesonia
and Julia Drusilla
Any images which had been produced of Caligu-
la’s last wife, Milonia Caesonia and infant daugh-
ter Julia Drusilla were removed and destroyed
together with those of the emperor. And indeed,
there are no surviving sculpted portraits of either
Caesonia or Julia Drusilla. 199 Caesonia’s own
illustrious familial connections through her moth-
er Vistilia to many of the leading families of the
period, Caligula’s avowed affection for her, and
her very public presence in Rome may have been
additional factors which ensured that she was
murdered with her husband and that her mon-
uments suffered a damnatio. Because of her influ-
ence and connections, Caligula’s assassins could
not afford to let Caesonia survive and she was
even accused by some contemporaries of culpa-
bility in the failures and excesses of her husband’s
principate.200 Julia Drusilla’s position as Caligu-
tion, although Bartman states that “it could plausibly be
Livia.”
197 Berlin, Museum SK 157, h. 2.05 m; H. Kunckel
(1974) 78, no. A 3, pls. 8.2, 9.2 (with earlier literature); J.
Pollini (forthcoming).
198 (1948) 71.
199 E.R. Varner (2001a) 44-45.
200 Joseph. AJ. 19.193.
chapter two
la’s only direct descendant would have mandat-
ed her assassination. Suetonius’s statements that
Julia Drusilla had inherited her father’s savage
temperament are probably additional products
of anti-Caligulan propaganda designed to justi-
fy the infanticide.201
Conclusion: Paradigms and Precedents
Although not officially voted by the Senate,
Caligula’s de facto damnatio memoriae effectively
established appropriate paradigms for the de-
struction and alteration of the visual representa-
tions of condemned emperors which would en-
dure for the next three centuries of the empire.
In rare instances, Caligula’s portraits were at-
tacked and disfigured. Mutilated portraits such
as the miniature bronze cuirassed bust in Swit-
zerland or the fragmentary likenesses in Aquile-
ia and Saguntum attest to the violence enacted
against Caligula’s images after his overthrow.
Caligula’s coins were also disfigured through
inscriptional erasure and countermarking.
Significantly, recycling, rather than mutilation,
was the preferred methodology for the repression
of Caligula’s sculpted representations. After his
assassination, Caligula’s portraits were no long-
er publicly or politically useful objects, and as a
result, the majority of his images have been
physically altered to represent other individuals
or deities. For the remainder of the first century
and into the second, marble images of con-
demned emperors and empresses would contin-
ue to be reconfigured on a vast scale. The recy-
cling of Caligula’s portraits crucially impacted the
style of his successor Claudius’s images, result-
ing in examples of extreme realism, as well as
restrained classicism. Subsequent transformations
of Nero and Domitian’s portraits would similar-
ly reflect both veristic and classicizing trends
incorporated in the representations of Vespasian
and Nerva.
As sculptors grappled with the novel techni-
cal challenges inherent in refashioning Caligula’s
images, creating convincing likenesses of the
201 Calig. 25.4.
 caligula, milonia caesonia and julia drusilla
middle-aged Claudius may have presented the
most difficulties. It was undoubtedly easier to
reconfigure Caligula’s portraits into idealized
representations of his great grandfather Augus-
tus, or even the second Flavian emperor, Titus.
Significantly, most of the refashioned Claudian
images come from Italy or Rome, while portraits
recut to Augustus or Titus are far more geograph-
ically diverse, and are found in Gaul, Spain,
Portugal, North Africa, and Asia Minor. The
proximity of the altered portraits of Claudius to
Rome as a center of imperial portrait production,
and consequently technical expertise, may not be
coincidental, but in fact the result in the difficulty
posed by the sculptural transformation of Caligu-
la into Claudius.
The reuse of Caligula’s portraits also had se-
rious implications for developing iconography of
imperial imagery. As C. B. Rose has noted,
Caligula was the first of Rome’s emperors to have
himself portrayed as Jupiter in marble statuary
during his lifetime.202 Several of these divine
images, including portraits from Caere, Otrico-
li, Vaison, and Zadar were refashioned into rep-
resentations of Augustus, and more significant-
ly, the new ruler, Claudius. From this period on,
emperors would routinely depict themselves as
Jupiter.
202 (1997) 74-5.
45
The mutilation of Caligula’s images also re-
veals patterns of sculptural disfigurement in which
the sensory organs are traumatized, while the rest
of the image is left in tact. The small cuirassed
bronze in a Swiss private collection perfectly il-
lustrates the practice, with hammer and chisel
blows damaging the facial features and the eyes
gouged out of their sockets. Such mutilation
underscores the function of imperial images as
effigies, and, on an important anthropological
level, acted as a substitute for corpse abuse (poe-
na post mortem).
Caligula’s portraits were also warehoused in
vast numbers and highlight the Roman practice
of sculptural storage. Portraits could also be dis-
posed of in more destructive ways, often being
thrown into bodies of water, such as rivers or
wells. In particular, the disposal of Caligula’s
images in the Tiber, like the miniature bronze
in the Levy-White collection, or the miniature
marble portrait in the Palazzo Massimo, have
additional intimations of corpse abuse, mirror-
ing the disposal of bodies of dead capital offend-
ers, arena victims and other noxii at the capital.
The various and variable responses to Caligula’s
artistic representations triggered by his condem-
nation also reveal the flexible and adaptable
nature of damnatio memoriae, which embraced a
wide variety of censorship practices including
warehousing, disfigurement, destruction, and
transformation.
46 chapter three
CHAPTER THREE
NERO AND POPPAEA
Like Caligula before him, Nero has become a
paradigm of the decadent and tyrannical empe-
ror, corrupted absolutely by his absolute power.1
Nero was born at Antium on 15 December A.D.
37.2 Originally named Lucius Domitius Aheno-
barbus, the future emperor was the son of Gnaeus
Domitius Ahenobarbus and Agrippina Minor. In
A.D. 49, Agrippina married the reigning princeps,
her uncle Claudius. Shortly thereafter in A.D. 50,
she persuaded Claudius to adopt her son under
the names Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus.
On 13 October A.D. 54, at the age of sixteen,
Nero succeeded his great-uncle and adoptive
father as Augustus.
Initially Nero ruled under the close supervi-
sion of Agrippina, but by A.D. 55 her influence
began to wane and his praefectus praetorio, Sextus
Afranius Burrus and his tutor, Lucius Annaeus
Seneca came to dominate.3 Under their guid-
ance, Nero apparently governed well during the
early years of his reign; but in 62, Burrus died
and Seneca was dismissed from the emperor’s
service. Nero’s increasingly autocratic tendencies,
as well as his overriding interest in artistic pur-
suits, began to alienate the traditionally minded
members of the senatorial aristocracy.4 Relations
between the emperor and Senate grew steadily
1 For a review of historical attitudes towards Nero, see
J. Elsner and J. Masters in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds.(1994)
2-8.
2 As established by the AFA; M. Griffin (1984) 21, n.
11.
3 The decline of Agrippina’s influence is mirrored on
the Roman coinage. Agrippina initially appears in a fac-
ing profile with her son, and then iugate, with Nero in the
foreground, and after 55 she disappears entirely. Never-
theless, Agrippina continues to prominently feature on the
provincial coinage at Alexandria, Caesarea, Nicea, Antioch,
and Thessalonika, and until her death in 59.
4 On Nero’s conflict with the aristocracy and their re-
sponse to the princeps, see V.A. Rudich (1992).
worse and alleged plots against Nero’s life led to
wide scale persecutions of prominent citizens at
Rome. The devastating fire of A.D. 64, coupled
with several disturbances on the borders of the
empire, contributed to a general decline in Nero’s
popularity, especially among the military. Dur-
ing the last years of his reign, Nero failed to
restore public confidence in his administrative
capabilities. In March of A.D. 68, the governor
of Gallia Lugdunensis, Gaius Julius Vindex, re-
volted against the princeps. Shortly thereafter,
Servius Sulpicius Galba, governor of Hispania
Tarraconensis, and Lucius Clodius Macer, legatus
in Africa, did likewise. Nero took no immediate
action against the usurpers and was unable to
control the situation. Consequently, abandoned
by most of the army and the Senate, Nero com-
mitted suicide with the aide of his freedman
Epaphroditus on 9 June A.D. 68 and Galba
succeeded as the new princeps.5
Nero’s body was not mutilated after his death
and in fact his funeral was carried out at a rather
enormous cost of 200,000 sesterces.6 He was
cremated in white robes embroidered with gold,
and his nurses, Alexandria and Egloge, as well
as his mistress Acte, placed his ashes in the tomb
of his paternal ancestors the Domitii, whose
funerary complex was situated on the Collis
Hortulorum (the modern Pincio). His monument
consisted of a porphyry container for his ashes
(solium), surmounted by an altar of Luna marble,
all of which was surrounded by an enclosure of
Thasian marble. Despite these elaborate funerary
arrangements and furnishings, Nero’s remains
were not deposited in the Mausoleum of Augus-
tus. Like Julia Maior, Julia Minor, Agrippina
5 Suet. Nero 47-49; Dio 63.27; J. Scheid (1984) 180-81,
184-85.
6 See Suet. Nero 50.
 nero and poppaea
Maior, Nero and Drusus Caesar, Caligula, and
Agrippina Minor before him, Nero’s exclusion
from the Mausoleum constituted a posthumous
and highly symbolic revocation of his member-
ship in the Julian gens, into which he had been
formally adopted by Claudius, and served as an
effective denigration of his memory and reputa-
tion.
Nero was the first emperor to be officially
declared a hostis by the Roman Senate: se hostem
a senatu judicatum et quaeri ut puniatur more maiorum.7
The Senate sought to execute Nero in the man-
ner traditionally reserved for hostes, which man-
dated that the offender was stripped, held by a
forked stick, and then beaten to death with rods.
Suetonius includes a detailed description of this
traditional punishment in his account of Nero’s
final moments8 The declaration of Nero as a hostis
necessarily included posthumous sanctions
against his monuments and inscriptions. Pliny the
Elder also records that Nero’s “crimes” were
condemned (damnatis sceleribus illius principis).9
Suetonius indicates that Nero’s publicly dis-
played images also played important roles in the
events leading up to his overthrow. A placard was
affixed to one of his statues which read in Greek
“Now there will be a true contest, and you will
finally surrender.”10 A second placard, also af-
fixed to a portrait of Nero proclaimed that the
emperor “deserved the sack,” referring to the
traditional punishment for parricide, the poena
cullei in which the condemned was sewn into a
sack with a dog, a monkey, a snake and a rooster
and thrown into a body of water.11 The reference
to parricide recalls the murder of Nero’s mother,
Agrippina Minor, and may also be intended to
metaphorically invoke Nero’s “murder” of the
Roman fatherland, the patria. The historical
sources and the surviving archaeological evidence
7 Suet.Nero 49.2; K.R. Bradley (1978) 277-78.
8 Suet.Nero 49.3.
9 HN 34.18.45
10 nunc demum agona esse, et traderet tandem, Nero 45.2. This
pasquinade is undoubtedly meant to refer ironically to the
supposedly rigged contests in which Nero participated during
his Greek tour. See also A.P. Gregory (1994) 93.
11 R. Bauman (1996) 30.
47
confirm that this destruction of Nero’s portraits,
monuments, inscriptions, and coins was aggres-
sively carried out under Galba and Vespasian.12
During the revolt of Vindex, the troops of Rufus
Gallus overthrew and destroyed Nero’s statues,
prefiguring the destruction of the emperor’s
images following his death.13 Immediately after
Nero’s death, the mob also demonstrated against
the dead emperor and dragged his statues
through the Forum Romanum.14 Tacitus quotes
Nero’s successor Galba as saying that there was
no prior precedent for the condemnation of a
princeps (neque erat adhuc damnati principis exemplum).15
Nero’s Portrait Typology
Like his unflattering portrayal of Caligula, Sue-
tonius’s physical depiction of Nero was pro-
foundly affected by Nero’s damnatio and the en-
suing defamation of his memory. Suetonius
describes Nero’s physical appearance in the fol-
lowing terms:
Statura fuit prope iusta, corpore maculoso et fetido, subflavo
capillo, vultu pulchro magis quam venusto, oculis caesis
et hebetioribus, cervice obesa, ventre proiecto, gracillimis
cruribus...comam semper in gradus formatam.
He was well-proportioned, but his body was spot-
ted and malodorous. His hair was tawny. His
features were pretty rather than pleasing, with eyes
that were blue, but dull. His neck was heavy and
his stomach hung over his skinny legs. (He wore)
his hair always arranged in waves.16
The physical details of heavy neck and wavy
hairstyle are indeed present in Nero’s later
12 Suet.Galba 15.1,; Tacit.Hist. 1.20, 1.78; Plut.Galba 16.1-
2, Otho 3.1; F. Vittinghoff (1936) 102; J. Bleiken (1962)104-
5; J. P. Rollin (1979) 165; E. S. Ramage (1983) 201, 209-
10, n. 22; A. Barrett (1989) 177, n. 25.
13 6"Â @Ê FJD"J4äJ"4 J•H :¥< J@Ø ;XDT<@H gÆ6`<"H 6"2gÃ8@<
6"Â FL<XJD4R"<, Dio 63.25.1.
14 Plutarch reports that the gladiator Spiculus was thrown
beneath the statues as they were being torn down. Galba
8.5 ( EBÃ68@< :¥< @Þ< JÎ< :@<@:"P`< •<*D4VF4 ;XDT<@H
©86@:X<@4H ßB@$"8`<JgH ¦< •(@D” *4XN2g4D"<).
15 Tacit. Hist. 1.16. The statement also essentially con-
firms the unofficial, ad hoc nature of Caligula’s condem-
nation.
16 Nero 51; K.R. Bradley (1978) 281-85.
48 chapter three
sculpted and numismatic portraits, but Suetonius
deliberately exaggerates the unattractive aspects
of Nero’s appearance in order to deprecate the
emperor’s character. As with his description of
Caligula, contemporary theories of ancient phy-
siognomics clearly influenced Suetonius’s descrip-
tion.17 Nero’s spotted body (corpore maculoso) lik-
ens him to the panther, who is petty, thieving,
and deceitful.18 The spindly legs are character-
istic of the monkey, and betray an evil, intem-
perate and lustful nature.19 His weak eyes are
signs of cowardice and timidity,20 while his pro-
truding stomach denotes “deceitfulness, insensi-
tivity, drunkenness, and debauchery.”21
Nero’s surviving sculpted likenesses corre-
spond closely with his datable numismatic images
and can be divided into four distinct portrait
types each marking significant events in the em-
peror’s career. 22 The earliest type celebrates
Nero’s adoption by Claudius and appears on
coins minted during from A.D. 51-54. This type
depicts the future emperor with a coiffure of long
comma shaped locks parted near the center of
the forehead.23 Lengthy sideburns curl in front
of the ears. The facial features are smooth and
regular. Well formed, almond shaped eyes, with
crisply delineated upper and lower lids are set
beneath straight brows. The nose is aquiline. The
17 T. Barton elucidates the connections between physi-
ognomical and Suetonius’s rhetorical invectio against Nero
in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57-58.
18 Phgn. 810a.6-9; K.R. Bradley (1978) 283; T. Barton
in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57.
19 Phgn. 810b.3-5; Polemo F.1.194.10, 270.17; Anon.
§ 71, § 91, § 112; T. Barton in J. Elsner and J. Masters,
eds. (1994) 57.
20 Phgn 807b.8; K.R. Bradley (1978) 283-84; T. Barton
in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57; Pliny the Elder
also describes Nero’s dull eyes as a sign of his weak and
cowardly nature, HN 11.141-45.
21 Polemo F.1.210.7-12; Ps. Pol. 361.16-362.10; Anon
§ 64, 93, 112; Adam. F.1.361.5-362-2; T. Barton in J. Elsner
and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 57.
22 U. Hiesinger (1975) remains the fundamental source
on the Nero’s portrait typology. subsequent refinements
include, M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 321-32; H.
Jucker (1981a) 284-309; Fittschen-Zanker I, 17-19; and S.
Maggi (1986) 47-51; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 135-39.
23 U. Hiesinger has divided the portraits of these years
into two separate types: an “Adoption Type” dated 50-51
and an “Heir Apparent Type,” (1975) 117-118. However,
mouth consists of full upper lip and receding
lower lip. The chin is rounded and the ears pro-
trude from the head which continues to be a
characteristic physical trait in the three subse-
quent types.
A new portrait type was created for Nero upon
his accession to the throne in A.D. 54. Coins
issued from 54-59 depict the young princeps with
the same centrally parted hairstyle, but the fa-
cial features are significantly more mature. This
second type is often referred to as the accession
type or Cagliari type, after a well-preserved rep-
lica.24
Nero’s third type marks a significant departure
from the two earlier types. The numismatic por-
traits of A.D. 59-64 depict the emperor with
much heavier facial features; the face is broader,
the neck thicker, and there is a visible underchin,
details which conform more closely to Suetonius’s
description of the princeps. The coiffure is gener-
ally longer and more full than the earlier hair-
style and is made up of locks which are carefully
arranged over the forehead in parallel curves
moving from right to left. These locks reverse
direction over the outer corner of the right eye.
The hair which covers the top of the head is
waved in an incipient version of the waved coma
in gradus formata hairstyle mentioned by Suetonius.
The locks grow long on the nape of the neck and
are swept forward. Long sideburns still curl in
front of the ears. Only one sculpted example of
this type, now in the Museo Palatino, has sur-
vived (fig. 82a-c).25 It conforms closely to the nu-
the coiffures and physiognomies of these two types are
basically identical and they should certainly be considered
the same type. M. Bergmann and P. Zanker have proposed
that the portraits of Hiesinger’s Heir Apparent type are
actually an official “Neufassung” of the earliest type, (1981)
321-22.
24 Accession type: U. Hiesinger (1975)118; Cagliari Type:
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 321-22. As in the first
portrait type, the placement of the part is subject to slight
variation; In one example over the inner corner of the right
eye, Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 35533; and in four
examples over the inner corner of the left eye, Rome, Museo
Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 4, inv. 418; Rome,
Museo Palatino, ex Terme, inv. 616; Rome, Musei Vaticani,
Sala dei Busti 385, inv. 59; Syracuse, Museo Nazionale,
inv. 6383.
25 Museo Palatino, ex Terme, inv. 618.
 nero and poppaea
mismatic images, but includes a lightly incised
beard. The type was introduced to mark the
quinquennalia of Nero’s reign in A.D. 59.26
Nero’s fourth and final type is similar to the
third type, with even more insistent modeling of
the corpulent facial features, and a more ornately
constructed coiffure. This type is introduced on
coins in A.D. 64 and continues until Nero’s death
in 68. The hair is still arranged in curving locks
across the forehead, but the right to left orienta-
tion of these locks remains unbroken as there is
no longer a change in direction of the hair over
the outer corner of the right eye. The waves of
hair on the top of the head are much more pro-
nounced than in the third type; this final coiffure
resemble most closely the hairstyle which Sue-
tonius refers to as coma in gradus formata.27 The
fourth type was created to commemorate Nero’s
decennalia in A.D. 64.28 The heavier, emphatically
modeled facial features of Nero’s final two por-
trait types are clearly modeled on the images of
Hellenistic rulers, especially Ptolemaic portraits.29
These fleshier faced images are intended to com-
municate the concept of JDLNZ or luxuria (royal
luxury and beneficence).
The Mutilation and Destruction of Nero’s Images
Mutilated images of Nero are graphic remind-
ers of the damnatio pronounced against him. Four
26 U. Hiesinger (1975)124.
27 H.P. L’Orange stressed this coiffure’s relationship to
Hellenistic ruler portraits and its ultimate derivation from
images of Alexander the Great, (1947) 55-63. J.M.C.
Toynbee set forth an alternative suggestion that Nero’s
hairstyle is an imitation of the coiffures worn by aurigae; (1947)
137 (followed also by Bartman [1998] 25). This seems highly
unlikely; the reverse should rather be the case, with Nero’s
evocation of Hellenistic hairstyles influencing the charioteers
with whom he was popular.
28 U. Hiesinger (1975)124.
29 See, for instance, a portrait of Ptolemy I Soter in the
Louvre, (MA 849, R.R. Smith [1988] 164, no. 46, pl. 34.1-
3) and later, fatter faced physkon portraits: Ptolemey XII
Auletes (?) (Louvre, MA 3449, R.R. Smith [1988a] 168,
no. 62, pl. 42.1-2); the Getty Physkon (83.AA.205, R.R.
Smith [1988a] 168, no. 63, pl. 42.2-4); and the Brussels
Physkon (Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. E1839,
R.R. Smith [1988a] 93-94, no. 73, pl. 47.1-2).
49
surviving portraits were intentionally vandalized
after his overthrow. The most dramatically dam-
aged is a likeness of the second type from the
island of Cos (cat. 2.2).30 The portrait was exca-
vated at the island’s agora, where the image is
likely to have been publicly displayed. The brows,
eyes, nose, and lips and chin have all been at-
tacked with a chisel. The resulting damage to the
sensory organs is T-shaped and occurs in other
deliberately defaced imperial portraits. While
extreme, it still renders the likeness recognizable.
Like the bronze cuirassed bust of Caligula in
which the eyes have been gouged out (cat. 1.X),
the violent destruction of the sensory organs
stands as an anthropomorphic attack on the
image as an artistic effigy of the emperor and has
close conceptual ties to post mortem corpse abuse
(poena post mortem).31 After its mutilation, the im-
age must have been stored or buried in the vi-
cinity of the agora. Prior to its removal, the
defaced portrait may have remained on public
display for a time as a visible signifier of Nero’s
posthumous denigration. The head provides
rather surprising evidence for the mutilation of
Nero’s images in the Greek speaking areas of the
Empire where he is known to have enjoyed great
popularity during his lifetime. However, the
Greeks’ former enthusiastic support for Nero as
the emperor who “liberated” the province of
Achaea may have produced an anti-Neronian
backlash and probably necessitated prominent
public displays of repudiation like the mutilation
of the Cos portrait.32
A portrait of Nero in Cagliari has also been
deliberately defaced (cat.2.1; fig. 42).33 The bust
is said to have been acquired on the mainland.34
It has undergone severe damage to the brows,
eyes, nose, lips, and chin, echoing the T-shaped
destruction of the Cos portrait. Two X’s have
been carved at each clavicle and VICTO
30 Museum, inv. 4510.
31 E.R. Varner (2001b) 48.
32 On Nero’s relationship to the Greeks and their re-
sponse to him, see S.E. Alcock in J. Elsner and J. Masters,
eds., (1994) 98-111
33 Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122.
34 U. Hiesinger (1975)115, n. 10.
50 chapter three
scratched on the right breast. The X’s may be
ancient or modern markers, preparatory to re-
moving the head and neck from the torso.35 The
inscription VICTO (to the conquered) is an ironic
reversal of the dedication used for victorious
athletes or performers, VICTORI (to the victor),
and is especially caustic in light of Nero’s own
athletic and artistic pretensions. The ironic im-
plications of the graffito also directly recall the
pasquinade proclaiming that there would now be
a true contest (agona) in which Nero would finally
be defeated.
A badly damaged statue from the Roman
theater at Vicenza (ancient Vicetia) may also be
an intentionally mutilated representation of Nero
(cat. 2.4).36 The portrait, discovered in 1839
represents an emperor with bare torso and hip
mantle as Jupiter. The face of the portrait has
been shorn away and the damage appears to be
deliberate. The long locks which are swept for-
ward on the nape of the neck are characteristic
of Nero’s type 2, 3, and 4 portraits. If the statue
did depict Nero, it provides important evidence
for the violent destruction of his publicly dis-
played images in Italy. The damaged statue could
then have been stored somewhere in the theater
or its substructures
Two other marble portraits may owe their
extremely fragmentary state to destruction car-
ried out as a consequence of Nero’s damnatio. A
type 2 portrait from Syracuse (cat. 2.2; fig. 43)37
and a type 4 portrait from Vienne (cat. 2.5; fig.
44)38 are both only partially preserved. The Syra-
cuse fragment depicts the emperor with a corona
civica and was found in the city’s Forum. Like the
portrait from Cos, it may have originally been
displayed in the public context of the Forum, and
stored or buried there following the destruction
of the image. The Vienne portrait was excavated
at the city’s Odeum and may have been part of
35 I thank T.J. Luce for first suggesting this possibility.
The removal was obviously never carried out, and recalls
the unfinished attempt to remove the head and neck from
the togate body of the Richmond Caligula, see supra.
36 Vicenza, Museo Civico, inv. EI-19.
37 Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383.
38 Vienne, Musée archéologique.
the building’s sculptural decoration. Its destruc-
tion should perhaps be associated with the events
surrounding the revolt of Vindex in Gaul. Sub-
sequently, the fragment was stored or buried near
the Odeum. It has also been suggested that a
fragmentary marble eagle discovered in an area
of ancient refuse disposal at Exeter may be a
remnant of an vandalized portrait of Nero as
Jupiter.39 The scattered find-spots of the damaged
likenesses suggests that their destruction was likely
the result of spontaneous demonstrations against
Nero’s memory. These must have been fairly
immediate responses to the news of the emperor’s
overthrow and death, and were intended to de-
fame Nero’s character and reign, as well as to
demonstrate support for Galba’s new regime. The
surprising paucity of surviving damaged marble
portraits, in comparison to the enormous num-
ber of portraits which were recarved or un-
touched , confirms that removal and reuse, rather
than intentional mutilation, was the standard
response to Nero’s damnatio and is consonant with
the earlier evidence established by Caligula’s
survivng marble and bronze images.40
Nero’s numismatic portraits were also defaced,
and many of his coins were countermarked
throughout the Empire. A laureate portrait of
Nero on a tetradrachm from Alexandria has been
destroyed and the accompanying legend: NEP
K7AK KAIE EEB 'EP AKT has been obliter-
ated.41 A coin from Thessalonika also has a de-
faced laureate portrait of the emperor and a
partial erasure of the legend: NE /////// EB
AETOE KAIEAP.42 A deep chisel mark has been
cut into Nero’s neck on an as discovered at Sil-
chester (Roman Calleva Atrebatum).43 A dupondius
39 J.M.C. Toynbee (1979) 130-2, pl. 20.44; P. Stewart
(1999) 186, n. 24.
40 D. Kreikenbom has indentified fragments of a seated
colossal image from Lugundum Convenarum (St. Bertrand)
as a replica of Nero’s last type (St. Bertrand de Comminges,
Musée Municipal; [1992] 206, no. 3.75). However the
preserved sections of the coiffure are too fragmentary to
permit a secure identification.
41 R. Mowat (1901) 449-50; rev. bust of Octavia facing
right, OKTAO IA EBA TO and LE, dated to the fifth year
of Nero’s reign, A.D. 58.
42 L. Ruzicka (1924) 354-55.
43 G.C. Boon (1974) 11, fig.; the coin was discovered
between 1890 and 1909.
 nero and poppaea
from Rome has been disfigured by the counter-
mark SPQR which has severed the neck, meta-
phorically “decapitating” Nero’s image (fig. 45).44
Nero’s portraits have been overstruck in provin-
cial issues in bronze or brass from Teos,45
Sardis,46 and Smyrna.47 Nero’s coiffure has been
removed with a chisel on a duopondius in Bonn48
and a sestertius in Hamburg.49 The resulting bald
images were likely intended to make the over-
thrown princeps appear ridiculous.50 In both coins,
Nero’s names and titles have not been erased. On
the other hand, a small bronze coin from Cyme
has had Nero’s name carefully erased,51 as do
sestertii from Rome and Lyon,52 and a [bronze]
issue from Patras.53 Like the mutilation of his
sculpted portraits, the defacements of Nero’s
coins are isolated events, individual expressions
of denigration intended to signal loyalty to the
new princeps.54 Significantly, the mutilation of
Nero’s numismatic images is limited to the less
valuable issues, with no examples on aurei.55
Nero’s coins were also frequently counter-
marked.56 During the rebellion of Vindex, SPQR
was stamped on the obverses of Neronian aes
from Lyon, usually on the emperor’s neck.57 At
44 New York, American Numismatic Society, inv.
1953.171.1308; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 126-31, with figs.
45 RPC 53, 425.
46 RPC 53, 495, no. 3045.
47 RPC 53, 420-21, no. 2490.
48 Bonn, Rheinische Landesmuseum, inv. 6783; from
Neuss; V. Zedelius (1979) 20-21; H. Jucker (1982) 124 pl.
42; D. Salzmann (1984) 295, n. 5, fig. 1.
49 Kunsthalle; P. Postel (1976) 124, no. 612, pl. 42; D.
Salzmann (1984) 295-96, fig. 2.
50 D. Salzmann suggests that the coma in gradus formata
hairstyle may have been objectionable in itself since Sue-
tonius refers to it as shameful (pudendus, Nero 51) (1984) 298,
n. 15.
51 T.O. Mabbot (1941) 398.
52 Removed from obverses showing Nero’s arch in Rome,
F.S. Kleiner (1985) 118, no. 67b (Rome), 133, no. L71 a
(Lyon).
53 RPC 53, 261, no. 1263.
54 D. Salzmann proposes that the alteration of these coins
may have made them more acceptable in the marketplace,
as was certainly the case with countermarked coins; how-
ever the scarcity of defaced or altered coins speaks against
Salzmann’s theory (1984) 298.
55 D. Salzmann (1984) 298.
56 R. Mowat (1901) 448; C.J. Howgego (1985) 5-6.
57 G.C. Boon (1974) 11.
51
Tripolis, Nero’s issues were countermarked suc-
cessively with the monograms of Galba, Otho,
and Vespasian.58 And 'A7BA is countermarked
on various obverses,59 often obliterating Nero’s
facial features, as for instance on bronze and brass
issues at Perinthus,60 Nicea,61and Nicomedia.62
In Spain, Galba’s province, a denarius of Nero was
completely overstruck.63 At Tripolis, in addition
to Galba’s countermark, there are countermarks
with the names of Otho or Vespasian.64 Thessa-
lonika, Prusa, Caesareia in Samaria, and Nysa-
Scythopolis all countermarked Nero’s coins with
each city’s respective name.65 Nero’s coinage may
also have been recalled by the local Senate of
Nicopolis.66 The extensive use of countermarks
was intended to revalidate Nero’s coinage, as well
as to announce the sovereignty of the new em-
peror to the citizens of the Empire.67 Addition-
ally, the countermarking of Nero’s coins was a
practical, as well as economically viable alterna-
tive to the wholesale recalling of his issues, which
would have necessitated the creation of entirely
new emissions. The Othonian countermark from
Tripolis is especially intriguing, given the
emperor’s rehabilitation of Nero’s memory at the
capital, and it further underscores the relative
autonomy local mints must have enjoyed in re-
sponding to condemnations.
58 C.H.V. Sutherland (1940) 266; BMC Greek Coins of
Phoenicia nos. 39, 41, 42; C.J. Howgego (1985) 6, 222-223,
nos. 592, 594-95, pl. 23.
59 D.W. MacDowall (1979) pl. 21 d, k; C.J. Howgego
(1985) 205-6, nos. 525-7, 222, no. 591, pls. 20, 23; F.S.
Kleiner (1985) 118, nos. R71 b & c, 126, L8 a.
60 RPC 53, 319-20, nos. 1752, 1758-61.
61 RPC 53, 348-9, nos. 2050, 2052, 2057, 2060-61.
62 RPC 53, 351, nos. 284-85.
63 C.H.V. Sutherland (1940) 266.
64 RPC 53, 647, no. 4520.
65 C.J. Howgego (1985) 6, 209-10, no. 537, pl. 21
(Thessalonica), 214, nos. 556-7, pl. 21 (Prusa), 211, no. 543,
pl. 21 (Caesareia in Samaria), 213, no. 555, pl. 21 (Nysa-
Scythopolis), 228, no. 619, pl. 24 (Corinth?); see also RPC
52.
66 T. O. Mabbot (1941) 358.
67 R. Mowat (1901) 449, n. 1.
52 chapter three

The Transformation of Nero’s Images Wrinkles are eliminated or less emphatically

carved. Vespasian is endowed with a fuller head
Nero/Vespasian of hair, often with a row of coma shaped locks
across the forehead. This portrait type is classi-
Over forty surviving marble portraits which origi-
cizing in tone and looks back to the idealization
nally represented Nero have been recarved into
of Julio-Claudian portraiture rather than to re-
images of other emperors. Sixteen of these por-
publican verism. The more youthful type appears
traits have been reworked into likenesses of
to have been in use simultaneously with the main
Vespasian, who, as victor in the civil conflicts of
type, although not produced in such great num-
68-69, established the Flavian dynasty. These
bers. It also appears on coins minted through-
ecarved portraits encompass both portrait types
out Vespasian’s reign.69 There is, however, some
employed by Vespasian during his reign, a more
conflation between the two types: portraits of the
youthful, idealized type (secondary type), and an
main type can gloss over some of the signs of
older, more veristic type (main type).68 The main
aging and achieve a less harshly veristic ap-
portrait type recalls republican portraiture with
proach, while portraits of the secondary type can
its ruggedly realistic portrayal of the aging
include more dramatic signs of aging and thus
emperor’s physiognomy. Vespasian is depicted as
be more realistic in their handling of Vespasian’s
balding, with little or no hair on the top of the
facial features.
head. The thinning locks at the temples are
As is to be expected, images of the youthful
combed towards the back of the head. The face
Nero were more often refashioned into likenesses
is massive and square. Deep vertical furrows mark
of Vespasian’s secondary idealizing type. Ten of
the forehead, with horizontal furrows above the
the portraits recarved to Vespasian, have been
nose. The eyes are heavily lidded with bags be-
reworked into the secondary type, in spite of the
neath them and crows feet are often included at
fact that this type was produced in far fewer
their corners. The nose is hooked and the bridge
numbers than the much more widely dissemi-
is very pronounced. Sunken cheeks, the sugges-
nated main type. It would have been substantially
tion of jowls, and strong naso-labial lines are
easier for artists to recarve Nero’s youthful and
further elements of aging included in the
relatively classicizing images into Vespasian’s own
emperor’s physiognomy. The mouth is long and
more youthful portrait type. Indeed, as was also
thin and the lower lip does not recede. Wrinkles
the case with the portraits of Claudius recon-
are often carved on the neck as further indica-
figured from Caligula, the most idealizing images
tions of age. This is the most widely disseminated
of Vespasian have been recut from pre-existing
of Vespasian’s two portrait types and appears on
representations of Nero. In fact, Vespasian’s most
coins minted throughout his reign.
classicizing portrait has been refashioned from a
The secondary type agrees with the main type
likeness of Nero (cat. 2.22; fig.46a-d).70 The head
in the essentials of physiognomy, but the signs of
was excavated at Lucus Feroniae in 1953 near
aging are minimized or suppressed. The emperor
the temple in the Forum, where it is likely to have
is represented as considerably more youthful.

69 The secondary type may be based on a portrait of

68
For discussions of Vespasian’s portrait typology, see:
J.J. Bernoulli (1891) 21-28; G. Förschner (1959) 3-10, 26
(1960) 25-32; B.M. Felletti Maj 1966) 1147-48; M. Wegner,
G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 9-17, 72-84; A. De
Franciscis (1975) 211-24; V.P. Giornetti in MusNazRom I.1,
279-80; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)332-49; H.
Jucker (1981b) 697-702; G. Paladini (1981) 612-22; J. Pollini
(1984) 549-51; D. Salzmann (1984) 295-99; K. Fitt-
schen and P. Zanker (1985) 33, nr. 27; A. Amadio in
MusNazRom I.9.1, 186-87; D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 172-
Vespasian created before his elevation to the principate,
or it may simply be a classicizing response to the more veristic
type. In any case, since both types were in use simultaneously,
the main veristic type may have been judged appropriate
in certain contexts, while the secondary classicizing type
in others. Patrons who commissioned imperial portraits and
individual artistic workshops also must have played a role
in determining the degree of classicism or verism included
in each portrait.
70 Lucus Feroniae, Magazzini, formerly Rome, Museo

3. Nazionale di Villa Giulia.

 nero and poppaea
been displayed. It is worked for insertion into a
togate statue. The longer hair on the nape of the
neck is a remnant of the original likeness of Nero.
The eyes and brows do not appear to have been
substantially recarved and strongly recall portraits
of Nero’s fourth type, especially the replica in
Munich.71 The Lucus Feroniae portrait deviates
from the other replicas of Vespasian’s secondary
type in the in that indications of aging are almost
totally suppressed. The brows and cheeks are
relatively smooth and the naso-labial lines and
wrinkles on the neck are not pronounced. The
portrait has maintained much of the youthfulness
and classicism of the original likeness of Nero,
and as such, is directly comparable to the ideal-
izing representations of Claudius which retain the
classicism of Caligula’s likenesses.
Another remarkably youthful portrait of
Vespasian, in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, has
been similarly refashioned from an earlier like-
ness of Nero (cat. 2.19; fig. 47a-d).72 The piece
was acquired in Rome and is likely to have been
discovered in the city or its environs. The por-
trait portrays the emperor with a corona civica and
is worked for insertion into a draped statue. The
eyes and the brows remain basically intact from
the original portrait of Nero’s second type. The
receding lower lip has also been retained, as has
the fleshy underchin. The artist has added super-
ficial signs of aging to the portrait, including light
horizontal furrows in the forehead and vertical
creases above the nose. Nevertheless, the over-
riding classicism of the image is a clear remnant
of the original Neronian likeness.
Although they are not as highly idealized as
the Lucus Feroniae and Cophenhagen portraits,
five other recut representations of Vespasian,
formerly at the Villa Borghese (cat. 2.26; fig.
48),73 in Baltimore (cat. 2.15,74 Cleveland (cat.
71 The Nero/Vespasian in Cleveland (Cat. 2.17) also
substantially retains the eyes and brows of Nero’s fourth
type; J. Pollini (1984) 551.
72 No. 463, inv. 1979.
73 The original was formerly displayed the right of the
Villa’s entrance, and is now replaced by a concrete copy.
The original is currently on display, with other sculpture
from the Villa’s facade at the Palazzo dei Conservatori.
74 Walters Art Gallery, inv. 23.119.
53
2.17; fig. 49a-e),75 London (cat. 2.21; figs),76 and
two portraits in Seville (cat. 2.27-28)77 exhibit
fundamentally classicizing approaches to the
emperor’s physiognomy that are direct legacies
of the Neronian originals. Signs of aging have
been added to the Borghese portrait including
horizontal furrows on the forehead, vertical
creases above the nose, crows feet at the corners
of the eyes, slightly sunken cheeks, naso-labial
lines, and wrinkles on the neck. These signs of
aging notwithstanding, the recarved image of
Vespasian is extremely idealizing in appearance
and has maintained much of the youthful char-
acter of the original Neronian likeness. The
Baltimore portrait is reported to have come from
Pergamum. The long, rectangular shaped tenon
is unusual and indicates that the head is worked
for insertion into a semi-nude heroic portrait
body, with cloak or paludamentum draped over the
right shoulder. The classicism of the image, which
has been essentially retained from the youthful
portrait of Nero, stands in the tradition of
heroized representations of Roman emperors
particularly popular in the Greek speaking East.78
The Seville portraits, one discovered at Écija in
1972 and the other from Italica, as well as the
London likeness, discovered at Carthage between
1835-36, provide additional evidence for ideal-
ized representations of Vespasian refashioned
from images of Nero in the provinces.
Three other replicas of Vespasian’s secondary
type, in Copenhagen (cat. 2.18),79 Grosseto (cat.
2.20),80 and the Vatican (cat. 2.25; fig. 51a-e)81
represent fundamentally different approaches to
the recutting of Nero’s images. While they are
versions of Vespasian’s more youthful type, these
portraits reject the classicism of the original like-
nesses in favor of an emphasis on realistic signs
of aging. The Vatican portrait is symptomatic of
75 Art Museum, inv. 29.439a.
76 British Museum, inv. 1890..
77 Museo Arquelógico, inv. 7.906 and Museo Arque-
lógico, inv. 1060.
78 P. Zanker (1983) 23-24, 47-48; J. Pollini (1984) 553.
79 National Museum, inv. 3425.
80 Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma.
81 Galleria Chiaramonti, 7.9, inv. 1291.
54 chapter three
this group. The head, presumably from Rome or
its vicinity, has been recut from a preexisting
portrait of Nero’s fourth type. Numerous signs
of aging have been added to the likeness and
include deep horizontal furrows on the forehead
and vertical creases above the bridge of the nose,
sunken eyes set beneath heavy lids, naso-labial
lines, and several wrinkles on the neck. The hair
over the forehead has been recut, and the top of
the head has been worked over with a chisel. The
locks over the left ear are unaltered from Nero’s
fourth portrait type.82 The longer hair on the
right side of the head, and on the nape of the
neck are also remnants of Nero’s fourth type, as
is the slightly receding lower lip. The wrinkles on
the neck do not accurately take into account the
turn of the head and are clearly a product of
the reworking.83 The indications of aging sharp-
ly distinguish the new portrait of Vespasian
from more idealized images of the disgraced
Nero.
Significantly, only five of the portraits of Ves-
pasian recut from likenesses of Nero have been
reworked into Vespasian’s more realistic, main
type. One of these portraits, in the Terme, was
discovered in 1908 near Castel Porziano and is
remarkable for the marked exaggeration of its
aged facial features, which make it, without a
doubt, the most realistic of Vespasian’s images
(cat. 2.23; fig. 52a-d).84 The furrows in the fore-
head are insistently modeled. The small eyes are
nearly swallowed by the heavy lids and surround-
ing folds of flesh. The cheeks are sunken and the
naso-labial lines are deeply carved. The recutting
of the facial features has resulted in striking
asymmetricalities. The left eye is considerably
smaller than the right and the handling of the
upper eyelids has given a triangular shape to both
eyes. The treatment of the eyebrows is vastly
different. All trace of Nero’s full lips have been
removed and, consequently, the mouth of the
portrait is reworked as a sunken gash in the face.
82 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 337.
83 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 337.
84 Inv. 38795.
The under life-sized scale of the head is a direct
result of the reduction in marble occasioned by
the recutting. A second recut portrait in the
Palazzo Massimo, also achieves similarly exag-
gerated effects of aging which emphatically dis-
tance the new representation of Vespasian from
the images of Nero (cat. 2.24., fig. 53a-e).85
Whereas in many reworked portraits the physi-
ognomic asymmetricalities occasioned by the
recarving often appear anomalous, in these two
portraits the exaggerated effects are well suited
to the revival of Republican topographical verism
espoused in Vespasian’s main type.
Although they fail to attain the level of real-
ism present in the Terme portraits, two other
examples of Vespasian’s main type in Tunis (cat.
2.29; fig. 54)86 and Turin (cat. 2.30; fig. 55a-b)87
have been refashioned from likenesses of Nero.
In the Tunis portrait, Nero’s locks have been
entirely smoothed over, but the mass of the origi-
nal coiffure is still present and bulges out unnatu-
rally behind Vespasian’s ears. The brows are re-
tained from Nero’s second type. The wrinkles and
furrows which have been cut into the forehead,
above the nose, and around the mouth have been
rendered in a harshly linear manner which is
characteristic of much of the sculpture produced
locally in North Africa. The result is a more
abstract handling of the veristic details of
Vespasian’s main type than in the metropolitan
Roman or Italian examples. The head is worked
for insertion into an over life-sized togate statue
and was discovered in the temple of Apollo at
Bulla Regia. The image may have been associ-
ated with the imperial cult and, in addition to the
London portrait, provides important evidence for
the dissemination of Nero’s likenesses in North
Africa and their subsequent reworking after his
overthrow.88 A colossal laureate portrait from
Verria in Macedonia has also been recut into a
85 Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle
Terme, inv. 53.
86 Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025.
87 Museo di Antichità, inv. 244.
88 A statue of Minia Procula, identified by inscription
as a priestess of the imperial cult was also discovered at
the temple of Apollo; A. Beschaouch, R. Hanoune, Y.
Thébert (1977) 131, fig. 130.
 nero and poppaea
markedly veristic likeness of Vespasian, with
strong horizontal wrinkles added to the forehead,
pouches beneath the eyes, as well as deep naso-
labial lines (cat. 2.31).89 Traces of Nero’s longer
and fuller hair (from type 3 or 4) are visible at
the back of the head. The insistent signs of ag-
ing have been cut into the head, rather than
being fully modeled, giving the likeness a kind of
wood-cut effect. The Verria head provides im-
portant evidence for the transformation of Nero’s
likenesses in Greece.
A small chalcedony bust of Vespasian in Bos-
ton has also been refashioned from a represen-
tation of Nero (cat. 2.16).90 The portrait depicts
the emperor wearing a paludamentum and is an im-
portant instance of a miniature military image of
Nero being recut into a likeness of Vespasian.
Traces of Nero’s longer locks are still clearly
visible at the sides and back of the head.
A Neronian sestertius once on the art market
in Munich is a unique example of a reworked
numismatic portrait.91 The coin is dated by its
reverse, which depicts a congiarium, to A.D. 64-
66. The obverse depicts a laureate portrait of the
emperor and the legend reads: NERO CLAVDIVS
CAESAR AVG GERM P M TR P IMP P P. Nero’s
coiffure and beard from his third portrait type,
as attested in an unaltered versions of the coin,
have been carefully chiseled away.92 In addition,
the nose has been chiseled in at the bridge, and
three diagonal cuts have been made in the
emperor’s fleshy underchin. Apparently, these
alterations were an attempt to transform Nero’s
likeness into that of Vespasian. Interestingly
enough, Nero’s name and titles have not been
erased or altered. The combination of the re-
worked portrait of Vespasian with the names and
titles of Nero makes a forceful statement regard-
ing Nero’s overthrow and Vespasian’s ultimate
success in replacing him as the head of the Ro-
man state. Because it is unique, the reworked
sestertius is likely to have been the spontaneous
89 Museum, inv. 373.
90 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 98.768.
91 D. Salzmann (1984) 295-99, figs. 3, 5.
92 A. Banti and L. Simonetti (1979) 138- 53, nos. 784-
805, figs; D. Salzmann (1984) 296-7, n. 10, figs. 4,6.
55
work of an individual who intended to defame
the memory of Nero and proclaim his loyalty to
the new regime.
Nero/Titus
Several likenesses of Nero have been refashioned
into images of Vespasian’s eldest son, Titus. On
the basis of numismatic parallels, Titus’s sculpt-
ed portraits have been divided into two types.93
The first is the most widely disseminated of his
types. The coiffure of this type is combed forward
from the occiput, with longer locks at the back
of the head and relatively short curly locks fram-
ing the face. The hair recedes at the temples and
is arranged in a curved segment over the fore-
head. The locks over the forehead are brushed
from left to right, with a few locks over the right
eye reversing this direction. The face is full and
square, with a forehead that is broad and often
marked by horizontal furrows. The brows are
somewhat arching and the eyes are marked by
well-defined upper and lower lids. The nose is
hooked and the cupid’s bow mouth is full. The
lower lip does not usually recede. The chin is
rounded and often cleft and combined with a
fleshy underchin. The main replica of this type,
after which it is often called, is a cuirassed stat-
ue discovered at Herculaneum.94 The second
type differs from the first chiefly in the way in
which the locks are arranged over the forehead.
These locks are less randomly ordered than in
the Herculaneum type and are combed from left
to right, sometimes having one or two curls re-
versing this direction over the outer corner of the
left eye. The hair over the forehead is also less
curved than in the first type. The second type has
been referred to as the Erbach type after an
important replica preserved in that collection.95
Significantly, most of the images of Titus trans-
93 See M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966)
18-29; K. Fittschen (1977) 63-67; Fittschen-Zanker I, 33-
34.
94 Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6059.
95 See D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 172-6, figs. 141-2, for a
discussion of Titus’ portrait typology and illustrations of the
Herculaneum and Erbach images.
56 chapter three
formed from pre-existing images of Nero have
been adapted to Titus’s first type, suggesting that
these reconfigurations took place earlier in the
principate of Vespasian, rather than later or
during the principate of Titus himself. A cuirassed
portrait from the Metroon at Olympia, originally
a type 3 replica of Nero has been refashioned into
a conflation of Titus’s two portrait types (cat.
2.37).96 Nero’s type 3 coiffure is evident on the
top of the head and behind the left ear where it
is swept forward. The long, curving locks which
remain from Nero’s hairstyle contrast starkly with
Titus’s more heavily modeled short curls added
over the forehead. The cuirass is decorated with
marine imagery, including dolphins and a Nereid
riding a hippocamp. This particular motif may
have been created by Neronian artists.97 In ad-
dition the statue attests to the dissemination of
militaristic images of Nero in Greece, specifically
Olympia, the site of his panhellenic victories in
athletics and recitation. Furthermore, the portrait
confirms both a Neronian and Flavian phase for
the portrait cycle at the Metroon, as the origi-
nal portrait of Nero would have been added to
the existing Claudian group of Divus Augustus,
Claudius, and Agrippina Minor.
Two portraits of Titus’s first type have been
adapted from replica’s of Nero’s second type.
These likenesses, in Hannover (cat. 2.36)98 and
Castle Howard (cat. 2.33),99 still exhibit remnants
of Nero’s type 2 hairstyle at the back of the head.
The smooth modeling of the surfaces in the
Hannover likeness reveals the underlying classi-
cism and idealization which are characteristic of
Nero’s type 2 images. On the other hand, the
more realistic details of the Castle Howard por-
trait have entirely eliminated any trace of Nero’s
youthful facial features. In contrast, two addi-
tional replicas of Titus’s first type, in Paris (cat.
2.38)100 and Alexandria (cat. 2.32),101 have been
96Museum, no. 144.
97Two additional cuirasses display identical imagery,
in the Louvre (inv. 3384) and Durres, inv 4415 (earlier 825)
see infra.
98 Sammlung des Herzogs von Braunschweig.
99 Castle Howard (Forschungsarchiv für römische Plastik
Köln, neg. no. 1025/05, 1025/06, 918/10).
100 Musée du Louvre, MA 3562.
101 Alexandria, Museum, inv. 26958.
altered from Nero’s fourth type and consequently
are more exuberant and baroque in the model-
ing of the physiognomy. In both portraits the
lower profiles closely match Nero’s type 4 por-
trait in Munich (fig. 83). The Alexandria portrait
of Titus provides further corroboration for the
recarving of Nero’s likenesses in the provinces,
and additionally attests to the dissemination of
Nero’s images in Egypt, a province which inter-
ested Nero greatly. A badly weathered type 1
image of Titus in Copenhagen also appears to
have been refashioned from a type 3 or 4 por-
trait of Nero (cat. 2.34; fig. 36a-d).102 Like the
Paris and Alexandria heads, it exhibits a more
emphatic modeling of the heavy facial features.
The small, fleshy eyes are remnants of the
Neronian portrait. Nero’s longer locks have been
cut down behind the ears and on the nape of the
neck.
Representations of Nero were also reworked
into Titus’s secondary (Erbach) type, as attested
by two examples, in the Villa Borghese (cat.
2.39)103 and the Uffizi (cat. 2.35; fig. 57).104 The
Borghese head was recarved from a type 2 like-
ness of Nero and retains some of the classicizing
feel of the original. As part of the Borghese col-
lection, the head is likely to have been discov-
ered in Rome or its vicinity. The Uffizi portrait
has been recarved from a replica of Nero’s third
or fourth type. Like the Borghese piece, it prob-
ably comes from Rome or its vicinity, as it was
originally part of the Ludovisi collection sold to
Ferdinando II, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in
1669.105 The discrepancies of coiffure and physi-
ognomy occasioned by the recarving have re-
sulted in a likeness of Titus which deviates con-
siderably from other replicas of his second type.
A portrait from the Roman theater at Trieste of
Titus has also been reconfigured from an exist-
ing image of Nero (cat. 2.40; fig. 58).106 The
portrait is worked for insertion, likely into a
102 664a, inv. 1843.
103 Sala del Ermafrodito 171, inv. 748.
104 Inv. 1914.126.
105 B. Palma, MusNazRom 1.6, 104.
106 Museo Civico di Storia e Arte, inv. 3139.
 nero and poppaea
cuirassed statue, and represents the emperor
wearing a laurel crown. The hair behind the
corona has been worked away, but the longer
locks brushed forward behind the ears are clear
remnants of Nero’s type 3 coiffure. As a result
of the reworking, the crown is too large for the
shape of the face, and the neck is unnaturally
thick at its base.
Nero/Domitian
Vespasian’s younger son, Domitian shared super-
ficial similarities in age, physiognomy, and coif-
fure, with Nero and as a result more portraits of
Nero were altered into representations of Domi-
tian, than have been transformed into either
Vespasian or Titus. All three of Domitian’s por-
trait types are represented among the reworked
images, spanning the years A.D. 69-96. Domi-
tian’s earliest type is attested on coins from A.D.
72-75. The young prince is shown with a full
head of curly hair which is arranged in curving
locks over the forehead, combed from right to
left, with a section of locks often reversing direc-
tion over the right eye. Domitian has a hooked
nose like his father and his face is broad. His
mouth is full, and the lower lip recedes slightly.
The chin is firm and somewhat square in shape.
Domitian’s second portrait type is used on coins
beginning in 75. In this portrait type, the hair is
curlier over the forehead and at the temples.
Some of these locks can be treated as full cork-
screw curls. The curving locks over the forehead
continue to be brushed right to left, but the re-
versed locks are placed over the left eye rather
than the right. The third and final portrait type
first appears on coins in A.D. 81, the year of
Domitian’s accession. The long strands of hair
are now brushed in waves, forward from the
occiput.107 Again, the curving locks are careful-
ly arranged over the forehead and are oriented
right to left, with the locks over the right temple
reversing this direction.
107 According to Suetonius, Domitian combed his hair
forward in order to cover his premature baldness, Dom. 18.2.
108 126 (formerly 129), inv. 2213.
57
Four full length portrait statues of Domitian
originally represented Nero. Three of these are
cuirassed likenesses, including a statue recut to
Domitian’s first type in the Braccio Nuovo of the
Vatican (cat. 2.53; fig. 59).108 The likeness retains
elements of Nero’s type 2 coiffure, but M.
Pfanner has conclusively demonstrated that the
original facial structure belonged to Nero’s third
portrait type: the profile of the Braccio Nuovo
head matches exactly the profile of Nero’s only
surviving type 3 portrait in the Museo Palatino
(fig. 82a-c).109 Thus, the original portrait of Nero
was a conflation of types 2 and 3, datable to A.D.
59-64. The Braccio Nuovo statue is one of three
Neronian likenesses which exhibit such con-
flations.110
The reworked image of Domitian retains the
calm, classicizing authority of the original and
consequently is a flattering representation of the
young Caesar. The statue recalls the Prima Porta
statue of Augustus, depicting the emperor in
cuirass and hip mantle. Like the Prima Porta
portrait, the imagery on the cuirass, a cupid
riding a bull, a nereid, a triton, and a dolphin,
imbues the likeness with additional iconographi-
cal meaning, placing the rule of the princeps in a
larger cosmological setting and proclaiming his
domination over the sea. In addition, the statue’s
marine imagery closely relates it to the Nero/
Titus from the Metroon at Olmpia (cat. 2.37). As
a representation of a victorious imperator the statue
also provides invaluable evidence for militaristic
images of Nero produced in Rome. Such images
were undoubtedly created to capitalize on the
Roman military successes in Armenia, engineered
by Gn. Domitius Corbulo, as well as to publicly
represent Nero in the traditional role of popular
army commander (like his maternal grandfather
Germanicus), despite the emperor’s lack of mili-
tary experience.
109 (1989) 219, fig. 35.
110 A bronze portrait from the Via Babuino has the same
combination of type 2 hair with type 3 facial features (Palazzo
dei Conservatori, [formerly] Sala dei Bronzi, inv.
2385[Centrale Montemartini 1.25b), while a portrait in Oslo
combines a type 4 coiffure with the leaner facial features
of type 2 (Nasjonalgalleriet, 1248).
58 chapter three
A second reworked cuirassed portrait of
Domitian provides additional evidence for mili-
taristic representations of Nero (cat. 2.58; fig. 60a-
b).111 The statue was discovered at the Roman
theater in Vaison-la-Romaine, together with the
Caligula/Claudius as Jupiter (cat. 1.32). The
anomalies of the reworked portrait, namely the
unfinished hair on the top and sides of the head
and the asymmetrical eyes, would not have been
visible if the portrait was displayed high up in the
scaenae frons or wall of the theater. The original
statue of Nero is likely to have been specifically
commissioned for the theater. On the cuirass
winged victories in short chitons flank the palla-
dium associated with Minerva, Vesta and the
earliest cults of Rome, and the entire ensemble
is designed to underscore the emperor as semper
victor.112 Although variations on this motif became
common on Flavian and Trajanic cuirasses, its
earliest appearance is on the Vaison statue sug-
gesting that the resonant combination of Victory
figures and the palladium was a particular inno-
vation of the Neronian period.113
A third cuirassed portrait, discovered on 17
June 1761 during the excavations of the Julio-
Claudian Basilica at Velleia, provides an unusual
example of an image of Nero which has under-
gone two recuttings (cat. 2.50; fig. 61a-e).114 The
portrait was initially a replica of Nero’s fourth
portrait type, then recarved into a likeness of
Domitian, and ultimately reworked into an im-
age of Nerva (cat. 5.13). The decoration on the
cuirass is strikingly similar to the Vaison statue,
with nearly identical winged victories in short
chitons flanking a thymeterium, instead of a palla-
dium. Like the motif on the Vaison statue, the
111Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Municipal, inv. 300.315.
112As a further statement of the invincible and heroic
nature of the emperor, he is presented barefoot. The ap-
pearance of the palladium on the cuirass also associates the
image with the cult of Vesta, which Nero promoted, as
evidenced particularly by his rebuilding and expansion of
the Temple and Atrium Vestae in the Forum Romanum
after the fire of A.D. 64; see F. Coarelli (1980) 83.
113 On the motif, see K. Stemmer (1978) 77, n. 227,
155, and table between pages 152 and 153.
114 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870),
827 (1954).
variation with thymeterium may be an innovation
of the Neronian period, designed, through the
sacral symbol of the thymeterium, to underscore the
divinely sanctioned nature of Nero’s position as
victorious imperator. 115 The pteryges are embossed
with lions heads alternating with pairs of double
elephant heads, perhaps intended as allusions the
victories in Armenia. The statue body is of ex-
tremely high quality, with much care lavished on
the details of the cuirass and sandals.116 The
original portrait must have been created between
A.D. 64 and 68 and may have been designed to
offset the perception of Nero as an artist and
philhellene, which was especially prevalent dur-
ing the later years of his reign. In addition to the
Braccio Nuovo and Vaison-la-Romaine statues,
the Parma portrait provides further evidence for
a militaristic component of Neronian visual pro-
paganda. Indeed, martial representations of Nero
may have been especially susceptible to reuse
under the Flavians, who all stressed their roles
as military leaders and victors.
Another full length portrait of Domitian’s first
type has been entirely transformed from an ear-
lier likeness of Nero. The statue is now in Munich
and the body, adapted from a 4th century pro-
totype of Diomedes by Kresilas, depicts the
emperor nude, with mantle draped over his left
shoulder and a balteus across his chest (cat.2.46;
115 K. Stemmer cites the Parma cuirass, which he dates
to the early Claudian period, as the first appearance of the
motif of victories flanking a thymaterium or candleabra; 8-
10, no. I 4, table between pages 152 and 153. Stemmer
cites only three instances which predate the Neronian period
and they are dated to the Claudian or late Claudian peri-
ods; none of these survive with their original portrait heads
to permit more secure dating (formerly Sikyon Museum,
[1978] 19, no. I 18, pl. 9.4; Schloss Ehrbach 20 [1978] 24,
no. II 2, pl. 11.2-3; Berlin, Staatlich Museen 368 [1978]
60, no. V 8, pl. 36.4; see also Sassari, Museo Sanna 7890
[1978] 87-88, no. VII 23, pl. 61.3, which is listed in the
table between pages 152 and 153 as late Claudian, but in
the catalogue entry as Neronian). Stemmer’s dating crite-
ria are probably too rigid, and it is certainly within the realm
of possibility that these three cuirasses are Neronian or later.
Significantly no Neronian cuirasses are included in
Stemmer’s table on the types and chronology of cuirass
decoration.
116 C. Saletti (1968) 54-5.
 nero and poppaea
fig. 62a-e).117 The statue was discovered in 1758
at Labicum, in the excavations of a villa which
may have belonged to one of Domitian’s freed-
men. This heroic image of the emperor was origi-
nally a replica of Nero’s third type. Although the
Diomedes body type is attested in the early im-
perial period, it was not especially popular for
imperial portraits during the first century.118 The
Munich statue documents the dissemination of
heroic, classicizing images of Nero, fully in keep-
ing with the emperor’s philhellenic tastes. In
addition, the combination of classicizing body
with a head rendered in the more baroque style
of Nero’s third portrait type would have lent an
eclectic tension to the original.
Additional portraits of Domitian have been
reworked from likenesses of Nero, and, as might
be expected a substantial majority were refash-
ioned into replicas of Domitian’s first portrait type
making them datable to the initial years of
Vespasian’s principate, as also seems to be the
case with portraits reconfigured into representa-
tions of his brother Titus . Images from Rome
or its environs include a portrait altered from type
2 likeness in Madrid (cat. 2.44)119 as well as por-
traits refashioned from type 4 likenesses in the
Terme (cat. 2.52; fig. 63a-d),120 the Museo
Capitolino (cat. 2.51),121 in Munich (cat. 2.47),122
and Boston (cat. 2.47; fig. 64a-c).123 Of uncer-
tain provenance, another type 1 portrait of
Domitian in Stuttgart has been recut from a
replica of Nero’s third portrait type (cat. 2.57).124
The carving of the Boston head is of the highest
artistic quality and is remarkable for a recut im-
117 Munich, Glyptothek, 394 (formerly 249).
118 Louvre MA 1251 and Louvre MA 1215 are early
imperial replicas of the type. Other variations on the type
which predate the Neronian image include: Pompey (Museo
Torlonia, C. Maderna [1988] 199, no. D3); Agrippa (Venice,
Museo Archeologico 11, C. Maderna [1988] 198, no. D2);
Augustus (Musei Vaticani, Sala a Croce Greca, inv. 181,
C. Maderna [1988] 199-200, no. D4, pl. 18.3).
119 Prado, inv. 321 E.
120 Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle
Terme, inv. 226.
121 Stanza degli Imperatori 14, inv. 427.
122 Glyptothek, 418.
123 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 88.639.
124 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, 64/28.
59
age. The sculptor responsible for refashioning this
piece has concentrated his efforts on redoing the
hair over the forehead and the preexisting mass
of Nero’s coiffure has allowed the artist to dra-
matically undercut the new locks. The resulting
exuberant play of light and shadow contrasts with
the smooth classicism of the face and recalls simi-
lar virtuoso contrasts in the best metropolitan Ro-
man portraits from the Flavian period.125 Indeed,
the sculptor has masterfully translated the exist-
ing image of Nero into the emerging Flavian
artistic idiom.126
In contrast, a type 1 likenesses in Vasto, also
refashioned from a type four replica of Nero
represents an entirely different stylistic approach
(cat. 2.59; fig. 65).127 The stiff, linear handling
of the coiffure, the emblematic treatment of the
almond shaped eyes, and the blank, unmodeled
surfaces of the face suggest that the original
portrait of Nero and the subsequent recarving
strongly reflect local Apulian taste and workman-
ship apparently characterized by a preference for
schematized and abstracted sculptural renderings.
Provincial variants of Domitian’s first portrait
type, from Cologne (cat. 2.42)128 and Munigua
(cat. 2.56),129 have also been reworked from rep-
resentations of Nero. The Cologne likeness
retains small narrow eyes and the part over the
right temple of Nero’s type 3 images. The por-
trait was discovered at Cologne, ancient Colonia
Agrippinensis, and is worked for insertion into a
togate statue, capite velato. The city’s close connec-
tion to Nero’s mother Agrippina Minor may have
125 As is especially evident in female portraiture of the
period whose elaborate coiffures provided ample opportu-
nities displaying such sculptural talents, as, for example,
in the well known Fonseca bust in the Stanza degli
Imperatori of the Museo Capitolino 15, inv. 434, Fittschen-
Zanker III, 53-54, no. 59, pls. 86-7 (despite P. Zanker’s
attempts to date the bust to the late Trajanic or early
Hadrianic period).
126 The head was discovered at Tusculum in the ruins
of Domitian’s villa in the nineteenth century. M. Comstock
and C.C. Vermeule (1976) 217. Evidently the recarved
likeness was sufficiently appreciated in antiquity to be dis-
played at the imperial villa.
127 Museo Civico.
128 Römisch-Germanisches Museum.
129 122. Seville, Museo Arqueológico Provincial, inv.
1996/8.
60 chapter three
occasioned the creation of the original Neronian
likeness. The Munigua image was discovered in
an ancient well together with other sculptural
fragments. The orientation of the locks, as well
as the broad facial features have been retained
from the original type 4 likeness of Nero. The
Cologne and Munigua portraits testify to the
transformation of Nero’s representations into
images of Domitian as Caesar in the western and
northern provinces.
An unusual example of Domitian’s second
portrait type in Naples has been recut from a
replica of Nero’s own second type (cat. 2.48).130
The coiffure of the Naples head has been largely
recarved. However, Nero’s longer locks are
clearly visible on the left side of the head, espe-
cially at the nape of the neck where they are
swept forward. The locks on the right side of the
nape of the neck have been made shorter, but
the projecting mass of the original coiffure is still
clearly visible in this area.
Three replicas of Domitian’s third portrait
type, in Naples (cat. 2.49; fig. 66a-b),131 Rome
(cat. 2.55; fig. 67),132 and Madrid (cat. 2.43),133
have been recut from images of Nero. These
three recut images of Domitian provide signifi-
cant evidence for the warehousing of Nero’s
portraits, since they could not have been re-
worked any earlier than A.D. 81, the year in
which Domitian’s third portrait type was intro-
duced to mark his accession. The Naples likeness
retains elements of Nero’s own third portrait type.
The portrait in Rome is well over life-sized in
scale, and displays remnants of Nero’s type 3
coiffure over the right ear. The Madrid likeness
has also been refashioned from a type 3 portrait
of Nero. In addition to the Munigua portrait, and
the Nero/Vespasians in Seville, it provides fur-
ther evidence for the warehousing and rework-
ing of Nero’s images in Roman Iberia.
A fragmentary relief portrait of Domitian’s
third type in the Museo Gregoriano Profano ori-
130
Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 5907.
131
Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6061.
132 Villa Margherita (American Embassy) wall along the
Via Boncompagni.
133 Madrid, Museo Arqueológico, inv. 2770.
ginally represented Nero (cat. 2.54; fig. 68).134
Elements of Nero’s third portrait type coiffure still
visible in the relief indicate that it was created
between 59 and 64, while the use of Domitian’s
third portrait type, indicates a date of 81 or later
for the recutting. The period of over a decade
which elapsed between the creation of the monu-
ment and its alteration is puzzling and suggests
that the relief may have been stored in the in-
tervening years, or alternatively never installed
on the monument for which it was intended, as
seems to also be the case with the Cancelleria
Reliefs (cat. 5.17).
Several of Nero’s glyptic likenesses were also
reworked, including a type 2 likeness of Nero on
a sardonyx cameo in Minden recut to a portrait
of Domitian’s third type (cat. 2.45; fig. 69).135 The
emperor wears a corona civica and the coiffure and
facial features have been extensively recarved,
causing a reduction in the overall proportions of
the head. Consequently, both the neck and co-
rona are too large for the current size of the head.
Nero’s longer locks have been cut back over the
forehead, in front of the ears and on the nape of
the neck, but traces of the original coiffure are
still clearly visible in these areas. The locks on
top of the head have also been reworked into
Domitian’s waved arrangement. Nero’s aquiline
nose has been made hooked by recarving the
bridge of the nose.
Like the reconfigured type 3 marble portraits
of Domitian in Naples and Madrid, the Minden
cameo could not have been recarved any earlier
than A.D. 81. Cameo portraits of Vespasian or
Titus are fairly rare, which suggests a decline in
both production and demand for such gems
during their reigns. The recutting of the Minden
cameo may have been occasioned by the renewed
interest in gem portraits under Domitian. The
inherent value of the Minden portrait as a semi-
precious stone and object d’art, must have insured
that it was not destroyed as a result of Nero’s
damnatio. But the fact that the effort was made to
reuse this cameo underscores its political signifi-
134 no. 644, inv. 4065.
135 Domschatz.
 nero and poppaea
cance as a presentation piece, redesigned to ex-
alt the reigning emperor, Domitian.
The great number of sculpted portraits of Nero
which were reworked into images of the three
Flavian principes Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian
may also have been occasioned by economic
necessity as well as convenience. Following Nero’s
financial excesses and the enormous costs of the
civil wars, Vespasian inherited an imperial trea-
sury which was substantially depleted. Certainly,
reworking preexisting portraits of Nero into like-
nesses of the new dynasts would have been more
economically feasible than destroying the former
emperor’s representations altogether.136
Nero/Augustus
As was also the case with Caligula, several im-
ages of Nero were retrospectively recycled into
representations of Augustus. The continued pop-
ularity of the first princeps transcended the change
in regime, while the physical similarities between
Nero and his great-great grandfather would have
facilitated the reworkings. Seven of these refash-
ioned portraits have survived and all of them are
versions of Augustus’s Prima Porta type.137
Three likenesses, in the Palazzo Colonna (cat.
2.11; fig. 70),138 Padua (cat. 2.9), 139 and St.
Germain-en-Laye (cat. 2.12)140 were originally
replicas of Nero’s second type, the closest to
Augustan portraits in terms of style, iconography,
and coiffure. In all three Nero’s central part has
been replaced with the three lock arrangement
characteristic of Augustus’s Prima Porta hairstyle.
136 Vespasian’s thrifty personality and concern with
economy are illustrated by several anecdotes recorded by
Suetonius, Vesp. 16, 23.2-4.
137 D. Boschung recognizes six recarved likenesses in
his catalogue of Augustus’s portraits (Alexandria, Greco-
Roman Museum, inv. 24.043; Aquileia, Museo Archeologico
Nazionale, inv. 12; Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033; Padua,
Museo Civico, inv. 819; Palazzo Colonna, fid. no. 54; St.
Germain-en-laye, Musée des Antiquités Nationales, inv.
63734). However, details of physiognomy and coiffure in-
dicate that a portrait in the Vatican is also recarved (Sala
dei Busti 274, inv. 715).
138 Fid. no. 54.
139 Museo Civico, inv. 819.
140 Musée des Antiquités Nationales, inv. 63734.
61
Nevertheless, Nero’s long curving locks are still
apparent, at the edges of the forehead and over
the ears. The physiognomy of the Colonna por-
trait has been very little altered from the
Neronian likeness, and is a pertinent reminder
of the homogenous nature of much Julio-
Claudian portraiture and the endurance of the
Augustan iconographic legacy. In the Padua and
St. Germain images, the facial features have been
recut, especially in the area of the forehead,
cheeks and mouth. The Padua portrait includes
slight signs of aging, the suggestion of sunken
cheeks and naso-labial lines. As already noted,
veristic signs of aging can be a feature of Augus-
tus’s posthumous images, and here they may have
been additionally intended to distance the
recarved image from the original Neronian like-
ness, as with so many of the portraits altered to
Vespasian. Indeed, the recutting of Padua head
is likely contemporary with the transformation of
images of Nero into Vespasian and reflects similar
stylistic intentions. The St. Germain portrait was
discovered in Marseilles and attests to the rework-
ing of Nero’s images in Gaul.
Nero’s type 3 portraits were also refashioned
into representations of Augustus, as evidenced by
likenesses in Aquilea (cat. 2.7; fig. 71),141 the
Vatican (cat. 2.10; fig. 72a-b),142 and Alexandria
(cat. 2.6).143 The Aquilea portrait, a full length
togate statue capite velato (carved from a single
block of marble) was discovered near the Roman
circus at Aquilea, together with the Caligula/
Claudius with long paludamentum (cat. 1.17; fig.
12). The portrait retains much of Nero’s full coif-
fure, but the face has been substantially recut and
again, signs of aging often present in Augustus’s
posthumous likenesses, have been added. The
statue, testifies to the dissemination of traditional
images of Nero, capite velato, intended to celebrate
the emperor’s religious role as pontifex maximus.144
The Vatican portrait is especially significant
141 Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 12.
142 Sala dei Busti 274, inv. 715.
143 Greco Roman Museum, inv. 24043.
144 As also in the unreworked type 2 capite velato por-
trait of Nero in the Museo Palatino, ex Terme (inv. 616),
see infra.
62 chapter three
for its attribute, the corona spicea. Nero’s third
coiffure has been left largely intact, with the
exception of the central locks over the forehead
which have been recut to Augustus’s Prima Porta
arrangement. The small eyes, broad facial fea-
tures, and full, retreating lower lip are all lega-
cies of the Neronian portrait. And in fact, the
profile of the Vatican image closely matches that
of the Palatine portrait of Nero. The Vatican
head marks the first appearance of the corona spicea
in conjunction with male imperial portraits.145
This distinctive crown is multivalent in its asso-
ciations with Ceres, Triptolemus, the Eleusinian
Mysteries, as well as the fratres arvales.146 The
corona spicaea is also used extensively by Nero’s
mother, Agrippina Minor in her numismatic
images issued under Claudius. The association
with the fratres arvales is likely stressed in the
Vatican image, as it may have been discovered
at the Arval sanctuary at Magliana.147 The rec-
ognition of this piece as a recarved portrait of
Nero changes significantly the initial ideological
implications of the image. The portrait is not a
product of Augustus’s wish to associate himself
with Ceres as guarantor of agricultural abun-
dance,148 but rather a testament to Nero’s close
involvement with the fratres arvales.149
145 Prior to the Neronian period, the corona spicea, chiefly
associated with Ceres, was used in conjunction with repre-
sentations of female members of the imperial family includ-
ing Livia, Antonia Minor, and Agrippina Minor; see B.S.
Spaeth (1996) 171, no. 1.10, 172, nos. 1.16, 1.21, 173, nos.
1.23-26 (Livia); 173, nos. 2.1-2 (Antonia Minor); 175, nos.
6.4, 6.6-9 (Agrippina Minor).
146 P. Liverani favors an association with the Arval
Brotherhood (1990-91) 165, as does C. Chirasi-Colombo
(1981) 423-5; B. Spaeth, following A. Alföldi (1979) 582-3,
cites the piece in the context of Triptolemus and Ceres (1994)
92 and (1996) 23, n. 123, 47, n. 94.
147 J. Scheid (1990) 572, n. 36.
148 As proposed by B.S. Spaeth (1996) 23, 47, n. 94.
149 At Nero’s request, the Brotherhood made an annual
sacrifice on the birthday of his father, Gn. Domitius
Ahenobarbus (11 December) in front of the ancestral home
of the Domitii Ahenobarbi (Suet. Nero 9; Tac. Ann.13.10;
J. Scheid [1990] 412, 416). The Arvals gave thanks for the
discovery of a “wicked plot” against Nero between May
and September of 66 (Suet. Nero 36; AFA Henzen 34 =
Smallwood 26; Griffin [1984] 178, n. 75). They also made
vows for safe return of Nero and Statilia Messalina from
Greece (25 September 66; Philost. Life of Apollonius 5.7; Eus.,
ed. Schoene, 154-57; Griffin [1984] 126, n. 162). Later
The colossal image in Alexandria is worked for
insertion into an acrolithic statue. Nero’s type
three hairstyle is plainly visible at the edges of
the forehead and in the traces of long sideburns
over the ears. The long arching brows and full,
receding lower lip have also been retained from
the Neronian likeness. Indeed, the brows them-
selves project unnaturally from the forehead and
are remnants of the sculptural volume of the
Neronian original. The insistent modeling of the
coiffure and facial features, also clear vestiges of
the original, combine to make this one the most
baroque of Augustus’s images. The portrait was
discovered at Athribis, and attests to the creation
of colossal images of Nero in Egypt, probably to
be associated with the imperial cult.
A fragmentary relief portrait of Augustus from
Luni was modified from a replica of Nero’s fourth
portrait type (cat. 2.8; fig. 73).150 Likely forming
part of the sculptural decoration of an important
public monument at Luna, the portrait featured
a separately worked radiate crown (in metal). The
radiate crown is an important Neronian innova-
tion within the context of imperial visual imag-
ery. Previously, its use had been essentially limit-
ed to representations of deities like Apollo-Helios,
Hellenistic rulers, as for instance Ptolemy IV, and
divi, most notably Augustus.151 If the radiate
crown is a feature of the original Neronian por-
trait, as seems probable, its appearance on the
Luni relief may actually have dictated the
reconfiguration of the image as Divus Augustus,
for whom it was already and established attribute
Like the Nero/Domitian in the Museo Grego-
riano Profano, the portrait provides important,
albeit tantalizing, evidence for the production and
appearance of Neronian relief monuments and
their subsequent alteration under the Flavians.
Both of the likenesses are also the first chrono-
logical instances of reconfigured portraits on
emperors are also shown with this crown as frater arval, as
for instance, portraits of Antoninus Pius and Lucius Verus
in the Louvre, MA 1180, MA 1169 (K. de Kersauson [1996]
198-99, 270-71, nos. 84, 121).
150 Antiquario, CM 1033.
151 M. Bergmann (1998) 13-79 for the Hellenistic ma-
terial.
 nero and poppaea
Roman imperial reliefs which may have been
commemorative or historical in nature.
Nero/Claudius
One colossal portrait of Nero originally a replica
of Nero’s third or fourth type, now in Baltimore,
was altered into a likeness of his uncle and pre-
decessor, Claudius (cat. 2.13).152 Deep naso la-
bial lines and strong wrinkles around the mouth
have been added in order to transform the im-
age of the youthful Nero into a middle aged
representation of Claudius. Such realistic signs of
aging are consonant with the revived interest in
verism which marks the early Flavian period. All
three Flavian emperors honored the defied
Claudius, whose cult may have been neglected
during the later years of Nero’s reign. 153 The
retrospective reconfiguration of the Baltimore
portrait into Claudius is unique but it stands as
a clear expression of the pietas which the Flavians
evinced towards the memory of Claudius.
Nero/Galba
A sardonyx cameo in Paris representing Galba
has been recut from a type 3 portrait of Nero (cat.
2.14; fig. 74).154 The cameo presents the emperor
with corona civica and aegis. The locks which frame
the face have been shortened, but their arrange-
ment has essentially been retained from Nero’s
coiffure. Horizontal furrows on the forehead and
emphatic naso-labial lines, which appear on
Galba’s numismatic portraits, have been included
in the recarved cameo likeness. The remnants of
the original likeness, namely the full Neronian
coiffure and the divine attribute of the aegis, are
152 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, inv. 23.118.
153 Vespasian is credited with completing the huge
complex containing the Temple of Divus Claudius on the
Caelian, parts of which was used as a nymphaeum in the
park of Nero’s Domus Aurea (Suet. Vesp. 9.1), Claudius is
also featured on coins of Titus and Domitian (BMC 2, 289-
90, nos. 297-307, 417, no. 512, pls. 56.1, 56.3, 56.5, 83.3).
Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis is an extreme example of the deni-
gration of Claudius which took place under Nero; see also
J. Pollini (1984) 552-53, n. 45.
154 Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles 251.
63
extremely inconsistent with Galba’s numismatic
iconography. Galba’s coin portraits stand in stark
contrast to those of his predecessor. Galba is
usually depicted with a short, military coiffure,
his features are realistically aged, in the tradition
of Republican verism, and he eschews all divine
attributes. Galba’s portraits were distinctly in-
tended to differentiate his character and policies
from those of Nero and they are an important
precursor of similarly motivated Flavian veristic
likenesses. However, the discrepancies of the
recarved Paris cameo may have been viewed as
less incongruous in the medium of glyptic por-
traits, which often present the emperor or mem-
bers of the imperial family with divine at-
tributes.155
Nero/Trajan
A fragmentary sardonyx cameo in Berlin has
been somewhat cursorily reworked into a likeness
of Trajan (cat. 2.60; fig. 75).156 The emperor
wears the laurel crown of the triumphator. Nero’s
type 3 coiffure remains essentially intact, although
shallow locks have been engraved on the fore-
head beneath the Neronian locks in order to
change their orientation from right-to-left to left-
to-right.157 A notch has been carved into the
forehead just below the hair to make it bulge
slightly, a physiognomical trait of Trajan’s por-
traiture. Naso-labial lines have been added and
the lips and chin recarved. The reconfiguration
of this cameo was delayed at least 30 years, as it
cannot have been recut before Trajan’s accession
in 98.
Nero/Antinous
In contrast to the Nero/Trajan cameo in Berlin,
a sardonyx in Paris has been more plausibly
155 Cameos of Galba in Florence represent him bare-
headed, without attributes and with a laurel crown (Museo
Archeologico invs. 14543 and 14656), A. Giuliano (1989)
242, no. 173, with fig. (with earlier literature); A. Giuliano
(1989) 244, no. 174, with fig. (with earlier literature).
156 Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 1983.11.
157 Trajan’s Type 1 coiffure is characterized by a ma-
jority of forehead locks which are combed right to left.
64 chapter three
refashioned into an image of Antinous (cat. 2.61;
fig. 76).158 Antinous wears a corona civica and
paludamentum. The hair around the face has been
recarved into Antinous’s profusely curly coiffure,
although the straight locks of Nero’s type 2 hair-
style remain on the occiput, and Nero’s central
part is still discernible amidst the reconfigured
hairstyle over the forehead. The corona and
paludamentum of the Paris cameo are remnants of
the original Neronian image. As elements of
ostensibly imperial iconography, they are unusual
among portraits of Antinous, which tend to have
divine or heroic attributes. As most portraits of
Antinous were produced between 131, the year
of his death, and 138, the year of Hadrian’s
death, this cameo, like the Nero/Trajan cameo
in Berlin, was not reworked until considerably
after Nero’s own death and damnatio.
Nero/Gallienus
Nero’s sculpted images could also be warehoused
for centuries as evidenced by a portrait in Co-
lumbia, Missouri which was not recarved until
the middle of the third century, when it was
altered into a likeness of Gallienus (cat. 2.62; fig.
72a-d).159 The portrait comes from Egypt and is
worked for insertion into a togate statue, capite
velato. The togate statue to which this head origi-
nally belonged was almost certainly reused after
Nero’s portrait head had been removed. The
insertion of a new head, probably a Flavian like-
ness, would have transformed the statue into a
new and serviceable portrait. In the head itself,
the long curving locks of Nero’s third coiffure
remain visible behind the ears and over the fore-
head. The mouth retains the Neronian full re-
ceding under lip; but the upper lip has been
recarved, giving it the pronounced central dip
characteristic of Gallienus’s likenesses. Moreover,
the profile with its fleshy underchin is an unmis-
takable feature Nero’s last two portrait types. A
158 Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles, 238,
5.9 x 4.8 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 97, n. 294, 111, 113-
14, 308, no. E6, pl. 42.10 (with previous literature).
159 University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archae-
ology, acc. no. 62.46.
stippled beard has been added to the portrait, and
the hair over the forehead has been recut into
Gallienus’s arrangement of comma shaped locks
which are clearly intended to recall Julio-Clau-
dian coiffures.160 The resulting image combines
the shorter beard of Gallienus’s first portrait type,
with the fuller coiffure of his later types.161 The
revival of Julio-Claudian coiffures which occurred
under Valerian and Gallienus, combined with the
political and economic instability of the period,
would have rendered the Columbia portrait es-
pecially suitable for reuse at this time.162 Like the
Nero/Augustus and the Nero/Titus in Alexan-
dria, the Columbia head also provides important
evidence for the kinds of Neronian images dis-
played in Egypt, in this instance a veiled portrait
invoking Nero’s role as Pontifex Maximus.
Nero/Constantinian Emperor
A colossal head in the Terme provides additional
important evidence for the warehousing of Nero’s
images for long periods of time (cat. 2.63; fig.
160 S. Wood (1986) 101.
161 Gallienus’s first portrait type dates to the period of
co-rule with his father Valerian (253-60), while the three
later types (“Terme,” “Louvre,” and “Lagos,” all date to
his reign as sole emperor (260-68); On Gallienus’s portrait
typology see Fittschen and Zanker I, 134-139, nos. 112-
115, pl. 142; K. Fittschen (1993). The Columbia head finds
close parallels to a replica of the Lagos type in the Palazzo
Quirinale, Sala delle Quattro Stagioni SM 5071; M.E.
Micheli in L. Guerrini and C. Gasparri (1993) 92-5, no.
33, pl. 32; K. Fittschen (1993) 212, pls. 27b, 29b, 35b.
162 M. Fuchs suggestion that the Nero/Gallienus is a
type 4 Nero with beard reworked from a portrait of Caligula,
(1997) 88 does not seem persuasive. The likeness preserves
no traces of a pre-existing Caligulan likeness. Indeed, de-
tails such as the fleshy underchin and the girth of the por-
trait in profile are features of Nero’s representations and
not Caligula’s and would be virtually impossible to add in
terms of sculptural volume to a recut image. The stippled
beard is more typically a third century feature. In Nero’s
type 3 portrait in the Museo Palatino, the slight beard under
the chin is incised as a series of long, curving locks, not
stippled. The beard of the gilded bronze portrait now in
an American private collection (fig. 87a-b) is fully modeled.
The beards on Neronian and later Hadrianic private por-
traits which Fuchs sites are also fully modeled rather than
stippled (Hannover, private collection, and Budapest,
Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, inv. 3942, M. Fuchs [1997] 88-
89, pls. 9-10).
 nero and poppaea
78).163 The portrait, originally of Nero’s fourth
type, was not recut until the fourth century. Like
the Columbia Nero/Gallienus, the Terme head
must have been accessible and well enough pre-
served to make its reuse viable. The over life-sized
scale of the Terme portrait virtually assures that
it was reused as an imperial likeness. The prov-
enance of the Terme head is unknown, but it is
likely to have been discovered in Rome or its
vicinity. Despite the portrait’s poor state of pres-
ervation, the remains of Nero’s type IV coiffure
are discernible. The hair over the forehead has
been recarved, but Nero’s hairstyle, with its
parallel arrangement of curving locks across the
forehead, from right to left, has been substantially
retained. The resulting arrangement closely re-
sembles a colossal marble portrait in the Cortile
of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, representing one
of the sons of Constantine.164 The classicism of
the Terme image would also be consistent with
a Constantinian date for its recarving. The eyes
of the image have been recut in order to make
them larger. The pupils have been drilled as half
circles, with the irises incised around them, a
pattern also consistent with other Constantinian
portraits.165 The Constantinian period witnesses
a resurgence in the practice of recarving impe-
rial images, especially in the city of Rome, as
attested by several portraits of Maxentius refash-
ioned to represent Constantine and the recut
relief portraits from the Great Trajanic Frieze,
the Hadrianic tondi, and originally the Aurelian
panels on the Arch of Constantine. The Con-
163 Inv. 126279
164 Inv. 2882, H. 0.65 m.; K. Fittschen and P. Zanker
(1985) 156-58, no. 125, pl. 156.
165 This treatment of the pupils and irises occurs in other
Constantinian portraits; for example and marble portrait
of a son of Constantine in Sara, San Donnato, H.P.
L’Orange (1984) 138, pl. 61c-d; a marble portrait of
Constantine in Carthage, Museum, inv. C 0032, H.P.
L’Orange (1984) 87, 121-22, pl. 56a-b; and three recarved
portraits from the Hadrianic tondi of the Arch of
Constantine: a recarved portrait of Constantine on the
northwest (left) medallion, lion hunt, H.P. L’Orange (1984)
43, 45, 124, pl. 33a-b, two recarved portraits of Licinius,
on the northeast side, offering to Apollo, and northwest side,
offering to Hercules, H.P. L’Orange (1984) 43-45, 116-17,
pls. 28a-b, 29a-b.
65
stantinian period also evinces a predilection for
over life-sized and colossal imperial images.
Nero’s Images Altered into Private Individuals
In addition to the recarved portraits of Vespasian,
Domitian, Titus, and Claudius, an unidentified
child’s portrait in Hannover may have been re-
worked from a likeness of Nero (cat. 2.64).166 The
portrait was discovered in Rome in the eighteenth
century and traces of Nero’s type I coiffure are
still visible on the back of the head and on the
nape of the neck. The recarved arrangement of
the hair, with its comma shaped locks is found
in private portraits from the Julio-Claudian
through the Trajanic periods. K. Fittschen has
suggested that the reconfigured image was in-
tended to represent one of the sons of Vitellius,
whose likenesses appear on some of their father’s
coins, but whose names are not recorded.167
Given Vitellius’s very public rehabilitation of
Nero’s memory, this seems unlikely and the
possibility that this portrait was recarved into an
unknown private individual should not be dis-
counted. In any case, the Hannover portrait
remains a unique (and puzzling) example of a
recarved replica of Nero’s first type.
A portrait in the Yale University Art Gallery
may also have been recarved into a representa-
tion of an unknown private individual of the
Hadrianic period (cat. 2.65; fig. 79a-d).168 The
arrangement of the locks over the forehead, with
a part in the hair over the outer corner of the
right eye recalls the type 3 replica in the Terme.
The slightly wavy treatment of the hair on the
top of the head also clearly resembles the coma
in gradus formata coiffures of Nero’s last two por-
trait types. Additionally, the small, fleshy eyes find
parallels in Nero’s type 3 and 4 likenesses. If the
portrait is, indeed, a recarved portrait of Nero,
then it is another unusual example of an impe-
rial image reworked into the likeness of a priv-
ate individual. The Yale piece may have been
166 Sammlung des Herzogs von Braunschwieg.
167 K. Fittschen in Die Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden
(Göttingen 1979) no. 27.
168 Inv. 1961.30.
66 chapter three
removed from public display following Nero’s
damnatio and warehoused, its reuse occasioned by
the continued popularity of coiffures inspired by
Nero’s coma in gradus formata arrangement into the
Hadrianic period.169 The long span of time be-
tween Nero’s overthrow and the Yale image’s
putative transformation suggests that the portrait
was warehoused in a safe location prior to its
reuse. If the Hannover and Yale portraits are in
fact representations of Nero reworked into pri-
vate individuals, then, like the altered head of
Caligula in Algiers (cat. 1.38), they are extremely
rare examples of imperial images which have not
been transformed into representations of other
emperors.
The Colossus
The Colossus is perhaps the most famous
Neronian image to have undergone transforma-
tion in antiquity.170 Nero commissioned the re-
nowned sculptor Zenodorus to design a ca. 100-
120 Roman foot talll bronze representation of the
sun-god, Sol/Helios with Neronian facial fea-
tures, ultimately intended to be the spectacular
centerpiece for the atrium of the Domus Aurea
on the Velia which allowed access to the villa/
palace complex from the Forum Romanum.171
169 For instance, a portrait of a private Hadrianic man
in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 544, inv. 1641, F. Johansen
(1995a) 166-7, with figs. (with earlier literature); For pri-
vate versions of Nero’s coiffures, see P. Cain (1993) and
M. Fuchs (1997).
170 P. Howell (1968) 291-99; C. Lega, (1989-90) 339-
78; M. Bergmann (1993). C. Lega (1993); F. Albertson (1996)
802-3; M. Bergmann (1998) 189-201, fig. 3 ; S. Ensoli in
S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 66-71; R.R.R. Smith
(2000) 532-8; F. Albertson (2001). S. Ensoli’s attempt to
identify the bronze colossal head of Constantine from the
Lateran (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala degli Orazi e
Curiazii, [ex Sala dei Bronzi] inv. 1072; h. 1.77 m.; K.
Fittschen and P. Zanker (1985), as belonging to the colos-
sus of Nero are largely unconvincing as it is far smaller than
the ancient descriptions of the colossus itself. If the
Constantinian bronze has been modified from an earlier
portrait, It seems much more likely that it has been altered
from an earlier portrait of Trajan, as suggested by the
arrangement of the hair at the back of the head.
171 Pliny, NH 34.18.45; Suet. Nero 31.1. R.R.R. Smith
has recently raised a note of scholarly caution concerning
The Colossus, however, was clearly unfinished at
the time of Nero’s suicide in A.D. 68,172 and was
only eventually erected on the Velia in c. A.D. 75,
when it was dedicated as an image of the Sun.173
Cassius Dio suggests that the portrait features of
the Colossus may have been altered to resemble
Titus (JÎ gÉ*@H @Ê μ¥< JÎ J@Ø ;XDT<@H @Ê *¥ JÎ J@Ø
I\J@L §Pg4<).174 Hadrian had the statue relocated
to a position closer to the Colosseum in order to
clear the Velia for construction of the Temple of
Venus and Roma.175 In the later second century,
the Colossus was altered into an image of Her-
cules with the portrait features of Commodus.176
The Commodan alterations were removed fol-
lowing his death and damnatio. Finally, in the early
fourth century the Colossus was rededicated to
the memory of Maxentius’s deified son, Romu-
lus.177 Despite the changes of its location, at-
tributes, and portrait features, the Colossus con-
tinued to be associated with Nero throughout its
the Colossus as a portrait of Nero (2000) 536-7. Although
Smith claims that the notion of the Colossus as a portrait
of Nero is derived solely from the Pliny and Suetonius
passages, Dio 65.15.1 also entertains the notion of Neronian
portrait features and the three passages taken together seem
fairly unequivocal. Smith is surely right, however, in rais-
ing the possibility that the Colossus was not, in fact, in-
tended by Nero as a portrait of himself as the sun god, but
rather the sun-god with facial features resembling those of
Nero. The image would then have been intended to invoke
the concept of Sol Augustus (or Apollo-Helios-Augustus).
172 P. Howell (1968) 293-4 was the first entertain the
possibility that Colossus was not completed during Nero’s
principate by pointing out that Pliny’s description of the
statue as destinatum illius principis simulacro (intended as a
likeness of that emperor [Nero] implied that it was not
completed in that form. Similarly Howell noted Suetonius’s
use of staret to describe the placement of the Colossus in
the vestibule of the Domus Aurea (in quo colossus CXX pedum
staret ipsius effigie [in which would stand the 120 foot tall
Colossus as a representation of him{Nero}])suggesting that
these were Nero’s intentions, rather than the statue’s ulti-
mate outcome. See also M. Bergmann (1993 [1994]) 9; F.
Albertson (1996) 803; M. Bergmann (1998) 190; R.R.R.
Smith (2000) 537; F. Albertson (2001).
173 Suet. Vesp. 18; Dio 65.15.1; P. Howell (1968) 294
with supporting evidence from later Chronicles.
174 65.15.1.
175 HA.Had. 19.12.
176 HA. Comm. 17.9-10; Dio 72(73).22.3; Herod. 1.15.9;
ChronPasch (Bonn ed.I 492) A.D. 187.
177 195. A. Cassatella and M.I. Conforto (1989) 41; P.
Peirce (1989) 404; M. Cullhed (1994) 61; S. Ensoli in S.
Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 86.
 nero and poppaea
history. The Colossus may also have been re-
flected in a painted portrait of Nero, also 100
Roman feet tall, which was displayed in the Horti
Maiani and destroyed by lightning before Nero’s
death.178
The Removal of Nero’s Images
Portraits of Nero were removed and then ware-
housed under Galba, as corroborated by Sueto-
nius in the Life of Otho: Certe et imagines statuasque
eius reponi passus est (It is certain that he [Otho]
allowed his [Nero’s] portraits and statues to be
re-erected).179 Suetonius’s use of the verb reponere
(literally to set up again) is extremely significant
because it indicates that images previously re-
moved during Galba’s brief tenure as princeps were
readily accessible and survived in suitable con-
dition to be returned to public display.180 Tacitus
also confirms that portraits of Nero were dis-
played under Otho (Et fuere qui imagines Neornis
proponerent).181
Most surviving representations of Nero were
not intentionally vandalized after his death. On
the contrary, like the portraits of Caligula before
him, they were removed and stored in secure
locations. Two of these surviving images are full-
length, togate statues, replicas of Nero’s earliest
boyhood type, in Detroit,182 and the Louvre (fig.
80).183 The Louvre portrait, originally part of the
178 Pliny, HN 35.33.51; M. Cima, in M. Cima and E.
La Rocca, eds. (1986) 39.
179 Suet.Otho 7.1.
180 Reponere is also used by Tacitus in conjunction with
the statues of Poppaea which were returned to public dis-
play under Otho (Hist 1.78) as part of the emperor’s cam-
paign to rehabilitate the memories of Nero and Poppaea.
181 Hist. 1.78.
182 Institute of Arts, acc. no. 69.218, H. 1.40 m.; H.R.
Goette (1989) 39, n. 180, 125, no. 249, pl. 11.3; E.R. Varner
in D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson, eds. (1996) 63, no.
15 (with earlier literature); J.M. Croisille (1999) 398, fig.
4. The portrait head of the statue in Detroit has been broken
off at the neck and reattached. The statue lacks its left foot
and there is slight damage to the ears, nose, right hand and
drapery folds.
183 Louvre, MA 1210, h. 1.38 m.; K. de Kersauson (1986)
210-11, no. 99, figs. (with earlier literature); S. Maggi (1986)
50, n. 15; H.R. Goette (1989) 37-38, 124-125, no. 245, pls.
67
Borghese Collection, was discovered at Gabii,
and was likely stored there following Nero’s
damnatio.184 In contrast, the Detroit statue, said
to be from Asia Minor, provides evidence for the
removal and storage of Nero’s boyhood images
in the provinces.
The upper half a nude type 4 portrait with a
chlamys draped over the shoulder has also sur-
vived.185 The images’s current whereabouts are
unknown, but it depicted the emperor n with
Diomedes body type. Like the Nero as Diomedes
statue in Munich reconfigured as Domitian (cat.
2.46; fig. 62a-c) the lost portrait provides further
important evidence for the association of Nero
with the Greek hero at Troy in visual art.
Sixteen surviving marble heads representing
Nero have clearly been removed from their origi-
nal context as a consequence of the damnatio. In
the case of heads worked for insertion, the stat-
ues to which they originally belonged would have
been reused with the addition of new likenesses,
undoubtedly depicting the same individuals as his
reworked portraits, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian,
Claudius and Augustus. Two of Nero’s well-pre-
served portraits were discovered in a cryptopor-
ticus beneath the Temple of Apollo complex on
the Palatine where they must have been stored
following his overthrow.186 The Neronian heads
were discovered with other sculptural remnants,
including an under-life-sized Julio-Claudian fe-
male portrait, and heads of an Isiac priest and
an ephebe.187 The earlier portrait of Nero is a
type 2 replica worked for insertion and depicts
the emperor capite velato (fig. 81a-c).188 Like the
10.4, 94.3; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 70-71, figs.
18-19; J.M. Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 2. The statue exhibits
minimal signs of damage; the left hand and sections of both
feet are restorations.
184 H.R. Goette (1989) 124.
185 H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 72, 94-5, 102, fig.
34.
186 The likenesses were discovered by Pietro Rosa in 1869
during his excavations for Napoleon III; see M.A. Tomei
(1990) 85 and M.A. Tomei (1997) 78, 79, nos. 53 and 55;
M.A. Tomei (1999) 171.
187 M.A. Tomei (1999) 171, fig. 110 (Julio Claudian
Female Portrait, Museo Palatino, inv.115176.
188 Museo Palatino, Sala 7; formerly Museo Nazionale
68 chapter three
veiled statue in Aquileia reworked to represent
Augustus, or the Nero/Gallienus in Columbia,
this portrait celebrates Nero’s position as Pontifex
Maximus. The second Palatine likeness is the only
surviving replica of Nero’s third portrait type (fig.
82a-c).189 These two extremely well-preserved
representations were likely displayed somewhere
within the context of the structures covering the
Palatine, perhaps the Temple of Apollo Palatinus
complex or Nero’s palaces (the Domus Transi-
toria and the Domus Aurea), and were ware-
housed following Nero’s overthrow. Indeed, there
are surprisingly few imperial images which are
known to have come from the Palatine, and the
warehousing of these portraits must account for
their survival on the hill.190 In addition, the por-
Romano delle Terme, inv. 616, h. 0.43 m.; E. Talamo,
MusNazRom 1.1, 273-74, no. 169, with fig. (with earlier
literature); Bergmann and Zanker (1981)322; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 17-18, n. 5; S. Maggi (1986) 50, n. 15; H.R. Goette
(1989) 39, n. 179, 2b; M.A. Tomei (1990) 85; H. Born and
K. Stemmer (1996) 72, 92-3, 102-3, fig. 22; M.A. Tomei
(1997) 78, no. 53 (with fig.); J.M. Croisille (1999) 399, fig.
11; M.A. Tomei (1999) 171, fig. 111.
189 Museo Palatino, Sala 7, formerly Museo Nazionale
Romano delle Terme, inv. 618, h. 0.31 m.; E. Talamo,
MusNazRom 1.1, 272-3, no. 168, with fig. (with earlier lit-
erature); K. Vierneisel and P. Zanker (1979) 101, fig. 11.1;
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 322-326, fig. 5.
Fittschen-Zanker I, 19, n. 4; M.A. Tomei (1990) 85; N.H.
and A. Ramage (1991) 111-12, fig. 4.10; D..E.E. Kleiner
(1992) 138, fig. 112; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 72-
3, 102-3, figs. 23-4; M.A. Tomei (1997) 80, no. 55 (with
fig.); J.M. Croisille (1999) 400, fig. 14; M..A. Tomei (1999)
171, fig. 109; H. Meyer (2000) 131-2, fig. 242; A. La Regina,
ed. (2001). The occiput, nape of the neck, and a portion of
the neck are now missing from the portrait and may have
been worked separately. A rectangular channel in the top
of the head suggests ancient modifications or repairs (pos-
sibly for the addition of a radiate crown), which perhaps
mitigated against recarving the portrait. The tip of the nose
has been broken off and there is damage to the chin. Other
type 3 portraits apparently survived but their whereabouts
are no longer known. Modern portraits in Modena and
Florence are based on ancient replicas of type 3 which are
now lost, and a fragmentary portrait, whose whereabouts
are also currently unknown, was a type 3 replica as well
(EA 5063, DAI neg. 3074) M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)324-26, figs. 6a-c, 7, 8a-d.
190 Images which remained on display on the Palatine
would have fallen prey to the same kind of despoliation which
afflicted the architectural structures on the hill. Other
imperial portraits from the Palatine include a deliberately
damaged head of Maximinus Thrax (Museo Palatino, Sala
8, formerly Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 526817, cat.
traits’ possible association with the Temple of
Apollo Palatinus is intriguing, given Nero’s iden-
tification with Apollo and the solar iconography
of many Neronian images.
Well-preserved likenesses in the Museo Capi-
tolino,191 the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek,192 the
Vatican,193 Munich (fig. 83),194 Worcester (fig.
84a-b)195 and a Swiss private collection,196 fur-
8.4); a bust of Antoninus Pius (Museo Palatino, Sala 7,
formerly Museo Nazionale delle Terme, inv. 1219, M.A.
Tomei [1997] 84, no. 58 (with fig.) (with earlier literature);
and a portrait of Julia Domna (Museo Palatino, Sala 8,
formerly Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 12438,
M.A. Tomei [1997] 94, no. 67 (with fig.) (with earlier lit-
erature), and a replica of the Lepcis-Malta type (Julia Livilla),
Museo Nazionale Romano di Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,
inv. 620.
191 Stanza degli Imperatori 4, inv. 418, H. 0.32;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 17-18, no. 17, pl. 17 (with earlier lit-
erature); S. Maggi (1986) 50, n. 15; G. Legrottaglie (1999)
80, pl. 19.d-e; H. Meyer (2000) 50, fig. 90. The portrait, a
type 2 replica, has been attached to a modern bust and
displays signs of modern reworking. Restorations include
the tip and bridge of the nose, the right cheek, portions of
both ears, and portions of the neck.
192 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 628, inv. 750, h. 0.27 m.;
V. Poulsen (1962) 99 no. 65, pl. 110-11 (with earlier litera-
ture); U. Hiesinger (1975)116, n. 20, pl. 20.28; M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker (1981)322, n. 7; S. Maggi (1986) 48, 50, n.
15, fig. 5. F. Johansen (1994) 158, no. 67 (with figs.); J.M.
Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 6; The head is a type 1 replica
and has suffered abrasions to the brows, cheeks lips and
chin and the nose is no longer extant. The piece was pur-
chased in Rome, and should be considered a metropolitan
replica of Nero’s initial portrait type.
193 Museo Gregoriano Profano 595, inv. 10198, H. 0.27
m.; A. Giuliano (1957) 13, no. 16, pl. 11 (with earlier lite-
rature); U. Hiesinger (1975)116, n. 18. The portrait is a
type 1 replica. Restorations in stucco include the nose, a
portion of the chin, the brows, sections of the hair, and
portions of the ears.
194 Glyptothek, 321, h. 0.44 m.; J.J. Bernoulli (1886) 399,
no. 40, pl. 23; A. Furtwängler (1910) 346, no. 321; K.
Vierneisel and P. Zanker, eds. (1979) 101; M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker (1981)326, figs. 9a-d; Fittschen-Zanker I, 18-
19, n. 4, 35, n. 2; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 73, 92,
94, figs. 25-29; H. Meyer (2000) 128-30, figs. 239-244. The
portrait is from Rome, originally in the Palazzo Ruspoli.
The surface of the portrait is somewhat weathered and the
right cheek is slightly chipped. The portrait has been cut
or broken from the bust or statue to which it originally
belonged.
195 Art Museum, acc. 1915.23, h. 0.38 m.; Bergmann
and Zanker (1981)326-31, figs. 10a-e; H. Jucker (1981a) 307-
9; C.C. Vermeule (1981) 298, no. 254, with fig. (with ear-
lier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 18-19, nr. 18, n. 4; N.
Hannestad in N. Cambi and G. Rizza, eds., (1988) 327;
D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 138-39, fig. 113 (photo reversed);
 nero and poppaea
ther attest to the removal and storage of Nero’s
images at Rome and its environs. The Capitoline
portrait was discovered at Tusculum in 1818 by
Lucien Bonaparte, while the other portraits are
said to come from Rome. The Munich and
Worcester likenesses are type IV replicas (and
both include holes for the addition of radiate
crowns). The Worcester portrait has been up-
dated from a type 2 or 3 image, which probably
precluded further recutting after Nero’s condem-
nation.197
Images from elsewhere in Italy were also re-
moved and warehoused, including likenesses in
Cagliari,198 and Mantua,199 The Cagliari portrait
Johansen (1994) 21, fig. 21; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996)
73, 93-5, figs. 30-33; J.M. Croisille (1999) 401, fig. 16. The
head has been broken from a bust or statue. Sections of
the shoulders are still preserved. There is damage to the
nose and the chin.
196 Aniken-Sammlung Ennetwies, h. 0.325 m.; H. Jucker
and D. Willers, eds. (1982) 101, no. 40, with figs.; I. Jucker
(1995) 23-24, no. 10, pls. 21-22; The portrait, a type II
replica, has been cut or broken from a statue or bust. The
nose has been restored in plaster, and the left ear is miss-
ing. There are slight abrasions to the brows, nose, cheeks
and chin. The portrait was originally attached to a togate
statue to which it did not belong and displayed in gardens
at the junction of the Via Flaminia and the Via di Villa
Giulia in Rome.
197 Punch marks which are still visible on the right side
of the neck indicate that the hair on the nape of the neck
was cut back in antiquity. The ears of the portrait were
also removed and square holes cut into the head, presum-
ably for the attachment of new ears. Two rows of small
holes, some still containing the remnants of metal dowels,
were drilled in the hair, in order to affix an metal crown
or diadem to the portrait. This evidence for the reworking
of the Worcester head suggests that an earlier portrait of
Nero was reworked in an effort to update the image of the
emperor from replica of type 2 or 3.
198 Museo Nazionale, inv. 35533, h. O.42 m.; U.
Hiesinger (1975)114-15, pl. 21.33-34 (with earlier literature);
Z. Kiss (1975) 11, 144-45, 147-48, 154, figs. 502-3; H. Jucker
(1981a) 287-88, skizze 4; Bergmann and Zanker (1981)321-
22, fig. 2a-b; J. Pollini (1984) 553-54, pl. 73.13-14; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 17, no. 17; S. Maggi (1986) 47-48, 50, n. 10; C.
Saletti (1989) 79, pl. 7; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 138, fig. 111;
H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 71-2, 92-3, figs. 20-21;
J.M. Croisille (1999) 399, fig. 9; H. Meyer (2000) 30, 46,
figs. 47, 82-3. The portrait, said to be from Olbia, has been
inserted into a modern bust. The head is exceedingly well
preserved; only the right ear has been restored.
199 Palazzo Ducale h. 0.24 m.; A. Levi (1931) 58, no.
111, pl. 64b (with earlier literature); R. Bianchi Bandinelli
(1932) 159, no. 7; V. Poulsen (1951) 120, no. 6; U. Hiesinger
69
may have been displayed on the extensive impe-
rial holdings on Sardegna which included ce-
ramic and brick factories.200 A generally well
preserved type 1 portrait in Stuttgart has been
broke from a statue or bust of Luna marble and
it, too is likely from Rome or elsewhere in Italy.201
Evidence for the removal of Nero’s images in
Gaul is provided by a type 1 likeness in Gene-
va.202 The portrait depicts the young prince
wearing the corona civica and possibly comes from
Vienne. If so, it suggests that Nero’s images were
removed at Vienne, in addition to being attacked
and damaged as attested by the fragmentary type
4 portrait from the Odeum (cat. 2.5; fig. 44).
An unusual portrait of Nero from Rome, now
in the Sala dei Busti of the Vatican was also
removed from public display and stored (fig.
85).203 This likeness is unique in that it has been
reworked from a preexisting portrait of Gaius
Caesar, the eldest grandson and one of the pre-
sumptive heirs of Augustus.204 Like the Worces-
(1975)113-15, pl. 22.35-36; Z. Kiss (1975) 143-44; H. Jucker
(1981a) 289, figs. 63-64; Bergmann and Zanker (1981)321-
2; Fittschen-Zanker I, 18, n. 7; S. Maggi (1986) 47-51, figs.
1-3; J.M. Croisille (1999) 399, fig. 10. The portrait has been
attached to a modern bust. The right ear is broken. The
nose, portions of the lips, the right half of the chin, and
part of the left ear are restorations. The portrait originally
formed part of the collection of antiquities accumulated by
the Gonzaga in their villa at Sabbioneta. The piece was
certainly discovered in Italy and may have come from the
area around Mantua (alternatively, the Gonzaga may have
purchased it in Rome).
200 C. Saletti (1989) 79. Saletti also notes a dedicatory
inscription from a Temple of Ceres erected by Nero’s
mistress, Acte, discovered on Sardinia, n. 62.
201 Würtembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. arch. 65/
11, h. 0.22 m.; U. Hausmann (1975) 30, no. 7 123, fig. 18-
20, 24; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)321, n. 6; S.
Maggi (1986) 50, n. 10; J.M. Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 5.
202 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. C 186, h. 0.122.; I.
Rilliet-Maillard (1978) no. 9; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)321, n. 6; S. Maggi (1986) 48, n. 19, fig. 7. H. Jucker
and D. Willers, eds. (1982) 103, no. 41, with figs.; J.M.
Croisille (1999) 398, fig. 7. Much of the nose and chin of
the Geneva portrait have been restored in marble and there
is slight damage to both ears.
203 385, inv. 591, H. 0.28 m; J. Pollini (1987) 13, 62,
66-67, 101, no. 20 (with earlier literature); J.M. Croisille
(1999) 405, fig. 26; H. Meyer (2000) 56, fig. 102.
204 The locks over the forehead have been recut into
Nero’s characteristic type 2 arrangement with central part.
70 chapter three
ter head, the fact that the portrait had already
been subjected to recarving, with adjustments to
the coiffure, eyes, and mouth, and general reduc-
tion in the volume of marble, probably precluded
a second transformation after Nero’s death and
damnatio.
A bronze portrait discovered in 1880 during
the construction of the Anglican Church on the
Via Babuino in Rome furnishes additional com-
pelling archaeological evidence for the storage
of Nero’s images (fig. 86).205 The portrait, a con-
flation of Nero’s second and third portrait
types,206 formed part of a cache of bronze Julio-
Claudian busts207 which included two portraits
of Augustus,208 a portrait of Gaius Caesar,209 and
Although Gaius’s original forehead locks, a reversed ver-
sion of Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, are currently vis-
ible, they were probably covered over with stucco when
the portrait was reused. The eyes have been slightly recarved;
the inner corner of the left eye has been more deeply cut
than the outer corner and the entire reworking has caused
the left eye to appear smaller than the right. The inner corner
of the mouth has also been more deeply cut as a result of
the reworking. The reuse of the bust was not occasioned
by a damnatio memoriae but rather for economic or practical
reasons. In the Neronian period, likenesses of Gaius (and
his brother Lucius) would no longer have held the propa-
gandistic importance which they had during the Augustan
period and the typically Julio-Claudian classicism with which
the facial features of Gaius were imbued, as well as the
comparable ages of Gaius and Nero would have rendered
the bust especially appropriate for reuse.
205 The face of the portrait is preserved in the Centrale
Montemartini while the remainder is in the Walters Art
Museum in Baltimore. Sala dei Bronzi (Vitrine), inv. 2835
(Centrale Montemartini 1.25b) and Walters Art Gallery,
23.104, total h. 0.433 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 18-19, no.
18, pl. 18 (with earlier literature); C.B. Rose (1997) 115,
cat. 43.4, pl. 121.
206 The hairstyle with its central part is clearly derived
form Nero’s second portrait type, but the heavy facial fea-
tures, with addition of a light beard, are characteristic of
his third type. The cuirassed portrait of Nero recarved to
represent Domitian in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican
originally exhibited a similar combination of type II coif-
fure and type III physiognomy. See cat. 2.X.
207 NSc (1880) 467 (Dec.); R.Lanciani BullCom 9 (1881)
30.
208 Augustus (Prima Porta type), Baltimore, Walters Art
Gallery, inv. 23.105; D. Kent Hill (1939) 401-2; figs. 3, 6-
7; C. Pietrangeli (1946-48) 58, fig. 1; Fittschen-Zanker I,
24, n. 1a; C.B. Rose (1997) 115, cat. 43.1, pl. 117. Augustus
(?) (Forbes Type?), private American collection, R. Lanciani,
BullCom 9 (1881) 246, no. 1/2, pl. 1.3; D. Kent Hill (1939)
407, fig. 2; C. Pietrangeli (1946-48) 59; Fittschen-Zanker
an unidentified Julio-Claudian prince.210 The
portraits comprised a collection of Julio-Claudian
images which were displayed in a first century
A.C. villa located to the east of the Via Flaminia
in the Campus Martius. The portraits were dis-
covered in a subterranean passage of the villa,
where they may have been deposited for safe-
keeping during the chaos which ensued in Rome
following Nero’s death and the subsequent civil
wars.211
A gilded bronze type 4 head now in an Ameri-
can private collection, has also been severed from
its original statue (fig. 87a-b).212 Damage sustain-
ed to the back of the neck is the result of a blow
or blows which beheaded the image. The bronze
in the damaged area has aged differently than un-
damaged areas and is chemically consistent with
ancient depredations. The quality and style of the
portrait suggest that it was produced in Rome.213
Significantly, the image was not melted down
after its decapitation, but perhaps ritually bur-
ied or disposed of in a more cursory fashion. The
fact that the valuable metal content of the head
I, 24, n. 1b; C.B. Rose (1997) 115, cat. 43.5, pl. 118.
209 Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale
Montemartini 1.252, inv. 2171; Fittschen-Zanker I, 21-25,
no. 20, pls. 20-21; C.B. Rose (1997) 115, cat. 43.3, pl. 120.
210 Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, inv. 23.190, D. K.
Hill (1939) 404-5, figs. 4, 8-9; C. Pietrangeli (1946-48) 58,
no. 2; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 24, n. 1c; C.B. Rose (1997) 115,
cat. 43.2, pl. 119.
211 As first suggested by D. K. Hill (1939) 408-9; see
also, D. von Bothmer in L. Bonfante and H. von Heintze,
eds. (1976) 158. None of the finds postdate the Neronian
period.
212 Connecticut, Private Collection (W. Conti); h. 0.377
m.; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996), figs. 1-17, 105-14.
Both the technique of gilding and the corrosion of the bronze
argue in favor of the head’s authenticity; see H. Born and
K. Stemmer (1996) 163-7. The height of the original statue
is estimated between 2.15-2.25 m., H. Born and K. Stemmer
(1996) 125.
213 The thickness of the bronze is remarkably consis-
tent for ancient bronze working and the artists have taken
great care to add additional feeding channels so that the
molten bronze could reach complicated areas of the coif-
fure and head, all of which indicates that the workshop
responsible for the piece was operating at the highest lev-
els, likely producing imperial commissions. I would like to
thank Renee Stein, Conservator at the Michael C. Carlos
Museum for sharing her invaluable insights and expertise
concerning the production and chemical properties of the
head.
 nero and poppaea
was not recuperated indicates that the act of
mutilation overrode any economic considerations
in this instance. The original statue body, possi-
bly cuirassed may, have been reused through the
addition of a new head. Both the scale and quality
of the original portrait suggest that it was
an important and probably highly visible monu-
ment.
A bronze statuette in Venice, has also been
dissociated from original context following Nero’s
damnatio.214 The statuette depicts the emperor
cuirassed and seated. He extends his right arm
in gesture of clementia. This small bronze may
reflect the statue of Nero in Armenia to which
Tiridates surrendered his crown in 63, prior to
receiving it back from the Nero’s own hand in
Rome in 65. Although L. Sperti has attempted
to link this statuette to the elaborate ceremonies
surrounding Tiridates visit to Rome in 66, the
use of Nero’s second portrait type, in use from
54 to 59 probably precludes the statuette’s asso-
ciation with these events. The image comes from
Opitegerium and its small scale suggests that it
may have been associated with a shrine, or was
a fitting for furniture or horse trappings.
A portrait of Nero originally inserted into a
cuirassed portrait from Caere has also been re-
moved (fig. 88).215 The head itself no longer sur-
vives, but the imagery on the cuirass suggests that
it was originally combined with a portrait of
Nero. On the upper portion of the breastplate,
Apollo-Helios, driving the chariot of the sun, is
represented with facial features and coiffure as-
similated to Nero’s with type 4 portrait type. This
imagery evokes the decoration of the purple and
gold covering designed for the Theater of
Pompey during the visit of Tiridates in 66.216 The
association with the events of 66 is further con-
214 Museo Archeologico, Sala 18, vetrina b, inv. 276;
h. .011 m.; L. Sperti (1990) (with earlier literature).
215 Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv.
9948; h. 2.30 m.; M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani, P.
Santoro, eds. (1989) 68-70, no. 5, with figs. (with previous
literature); R. Gergel (1994) 196-97; C.B. Rose (1997) 83-
6, cat. 5, pl. 64 (identification as Germanicus).
216 Dio 53.6.2. The imagery also has obvious parallels
with the Colossus. See M. Fuchs in M. Fuchs, P. Liverani,
P. Santoro, eds. (1989) 69.
71
firmed by the kneeling Arimaspes, who were
legendary one eyed people from central Asia,
offering bowls in submission to winged griffins,
the creatures of Apollo (and by extension Nero),
which occur directly below the scene of Nero/
Helios. Despite its specifically Neronian conno-
tations, the cuirassed statue body is of extremely
high artistic quality and was likely reused with
the insertion of a new portrait head. The origi-
nal representation of Nero provides additional
important evidence for the production of
Neronian military images, which also draw on
solar iconography. The portrait further attests to
Nero’s inclusion among the important cycle of
Julio-Claudian statues at Caere. A nearly iden-
tical cuirass in Turin discovered at Susa, now
completed with a private third century likeness
may have originally been another military rep-
resentation of Nero from which the head was
removed.217 The conflation of Neronian portrait
features and solar imagery also recalls the Co-
lossus, as well as the altar of Eumolpus, a slave
at the Domus Aurea, which is dedicated to Sol
and Luna and includes a representation Sol with
Neronian type 4 facial features and coiffure.218
A cuirassed statue in Istanbul, whose head has
not been preserved, survives together with its
plinth and dedicatory inscription: ;gDT;"
58"L*4< 1g@L 58"L*4L 5"4FgD@F L4@<.219 The
statue was discovered at Tralles and the head has
been cut or broken from the body. Because the
inscription has not been erased or altered, it is
clear that the statue was either removed entirely
217 Turin, Museo di Antichità, without inv. no., h. 1.95
m.; K. Stemmer (1978) 96, pl. 64.1-2; C.B. Rose (1997)
85, and n. 17.
218 Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 86025; CIL
6.3719=31033; ILS 1774; M. Bergmann (1993[1994]) 9,
pl. 5.3; M. Bergmann (1998) 194-201, pl. 38; R.R.R. Smith
(2000) 539. Eumolpus apparently oversaw the imperial
furnishings at the Domus Aurea (a suppelectile Domus Auriae).
219 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, 584, h. ; G. Mendel
(1914) 315-16, no. 584, with fig.; G. Mancini (1922), no.
22; F.W. Goethert (1935) 137, pl. 52.3; H. Muthmann (1951)
50-51, 211, pl. 8; G.M.A. Hanfmann and C.C. Vermuele
(1957) 232; C.C. Vermeule (1959) 43, no. 76; J. Inan and
E. Rosenbaum (1966) 69; C.C. Vermeule (1968) 43, 389,
no. 6; K. Stemmer (1978) 17, n. 62, 171, no. 185; H. Born
and K. Stemmer (1996) 100, 102, fig. 36; M. Fuchs (1997)
92-3.
72 chapter three
from public display to await some form of even-
tual reuse, or conversely, it may have been al-
lowed to remain on view. It is also within the
realm of possibility that the portrait continued to
be displayed publicly, although without its head,
in order to denigrate Nero’s memory. The men-
tion of the deified Claudius in the inscription
suggests that the statue was dedicated early in
Nero’s reign and that the original portrait was a
replica of Nero’s second type in use until A.D.
59.220
Two fragmentary cuirassed statues in the
Louvre221 and Durres (fig. 89) 222 have nearly
identical relief decoration to the Nero/Titus in
Olympia, and, as a result, appear to have origi-
nally represented Nero. Other extant cuirassed
statues which are Neronian in date and may have
been combined with portraits of the emperor
include a statue in Grosseto from the Julio-
Claudian group dedication at Rusellae 223 and
one restored as a portrait of Fabrizio Colonna in
the Palazzo Colonna in Rome.224 The Grosseto
cuirass is nearly colossal in scale and remarkable
for its sculptural quality. The imagery on the
cuirass is striking and unique. A trophy is de-
picted above an eagle with outstretched wings.
To the trophy’s left is a seated mourning female
foreigner looking frontally out of the relief. To
the right, an adult male rushes towards the tro-
phy with cloak flying behind and a child clutched
in his arms. Both the adult and male look up
220 It seems highly unlikely that the statue is Antonine
and represents a revival of Nero’s portraits in the second
century, as suggested by K. Fittschen (1970), K. Stemmer
(1978) 17, n. 62, and M. Fuchs (1997) 92-3. Indeed, the
unusual combination of patrician calcei with a cuirass also
occurs in the Nero and Agrippina panel from Aphrodisias
and the small seated bronze in Venice (Museo Archeologico
276) and seems to be a characteristic of certain Neronian
military imagery.
221 inv. 3384, h. 1.20 m.; G. Koch (1995) 324-6, pl. 74.3
(with earlier literature).
222 inv 4415 (earlier 825) h. 1.67 m.; G. Koch (1995)
321-6, pls. 71-74.1 (with earlier literature).
223 Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma; K.
Stemmer (1978) 28, no. 11a 3, pl. 14.3; C.C. Vermeule
(1980b) 16; H.R. Goette (1988) n. 36; A. Kuttner (1995)
166, n. 16: C.B. Rose (1997) 118.
224 K. Stemmer (1978) 393; C.C. Vermeule (1980b) 93,
fig. 53; A. Kuttner (1995) 166, n. 17.
towards the trophy and the portrait head that
originally completed the statue. The Palazzo
Colonna cuirass also includes a foreign child, at
the feet of a bound foreigner beneath a trophy.
Additional cuirasses which are possibly Neronian
in date include Schloss Erbach,225 Berlin,226
Sassari,227 and formerly Sikyon.228 Unfortunately,
none of these statues survives with its original
head, but taken together with the Istanbul and
Caere statues, the Venice bronze statuette and
the cuirassed portraits altered to represent Titus
and Domitian (Olympia, Vaison, and the
Vatican), they attest to the surprising breadth and
vitality of militaristic representations of Nero, as
well as experimentation and innovation in cui-
rass imagery.
In contrast to the warehoused images, the cor-
rosion suffered by a head in Oslo suggests that
it was thrown into a body of water after it was
removed from the togate statue to which it origi-
nally belonged.229 This type four likeness was
purchased in Rome and is presumably from the
capital or its surroundings.230 Although details of
its discovery are lacking, the image may come
from the Tiber, where it would have been thrown
following Nero’s suicide and damnatio in an act
of poena post mortem similar to disposal of the three
miniature busts of Caligula.231 The treatment of
images related to post mortem corpse abuse may
also explain the discovery of a bronze portrait of
Nero in the River Alde at Rendham near
Saxmundham in Sussex, (fig. 90).232 The head,
225 No. 20; Stemmer (1978) 24, no. II.2, pl. 11.2-3.
226 Staatliche Museen, 368; Stemmer (1978) 19, no. V.18,
pl. 36.4.
227 Museo Sanna 7890: Stemmer (1978) 87-88, no. 7.23,
pl. 61.3.
228 Museum; Stemmer (1978) 19, no. I.18, pl. 94.
229 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. 1248, h. 0.385 m.; from the
Hartwig collection in Rome; S. Sande (1991) 48-50, no.
35, pl. 35 (with earlier literature); H. Born and K. Stemmer
(1996) 71, 94-5, fig. 35.
230 The more youthful facial features of the likeness are
a contamination from Nero’s second portrait type; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)232.
231 The Hartwig collection was assembled in Rome at
the end of the nineteenth century, during which time, great
quantities of sculpture were being recovered from the Tiber
as a result of the construction of the river’s embankments.
232 London, British Museum, PRB, inv. 1965.12-1.1; h.
 nero and poppaea
perhaps originally from ancient Comilodunum,
has been decapitated from its original statue and
its disposal in the Alde provides an illuminating
provincial counterpart to the disposal of images
and corpses in the Tiber.233 A badly weathered
type 2 likeness in the Louvre, whose provenance
is unknown, may also have been disposed of in
a similarly destructive fashion.234
Relief portraits of Nero from the Sebasteion
at Aphrodisias present conflicting approaches to
Nero’s images. The Sebasteion complex, begun
during the reign of Tiberius and finished under
Nero, was dedicated to Venus-Aphrodite, the
Theoi Sebastoi, and the Demos.235 The complex
was entered through an arch and consisted of two
monumental three-storied porticoes on the north
and south which enclosed a long rectangular
open space culminating in a temple of Venus-
Aphrodite. The entire complex stressed the city’s
close ties to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Sculpted
relief panels, set between the columns of the
upper two stories of the colonnade, honored
members of the dynasty and depicted mythologi-
cal scenes (many having to do with Aeneas), the
various Ethnoi of the empire, as well as other
geographical and chronological personifications.
Nero appeared in three of the imperial panels,
two of which are extant, and, in the mythologi-
cal series, Aeneas is represented with portrait-like
features resembling Nero’s last two types in a
0.33 m.; U. Hiesinger (1975)116, n. 17; H. Jucker (1981a)
307-9, figs. 75-6 (with earlier literature); S. Maggi (1986)
50, n. 15; M. Donderer (1991-2) 260, no. 6; A. Oliver (1996)
152. Although it is has been variously identified as Claudius
or even Trajan, the head is clearly a provincial variant of
Nero’s second type with centrally parted hair; see H. Jucker
(1981a) 307-9.
233 H. Jucker, compares the portrait’s disposal in the
Alde to the proposed disposal of Tiberius’s corpse in the
Tiber in 37 at which time the Roman mob shouted “Tiberium
in Tiberim!.” Jucker speculates that the inhabitants of Ro-
man Britain may have shouted the equivalent of “‘In die
Alde mit Nero!’,” (1981a) 308-9.
234 Musée du Louvre, MA 3528, h. 0.26 m; K. de
Kersauson (1986) 214-15, with figs. (with earlier literature);
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)322, n. 7; S. Maggi
(1986) 48, 50, n. 10, fig. 4. The portrait has suffered dam-
age to the forehead, nose, and lips and the back of the head
is missing.
235 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 90.
73
panel depicting the hero fleeing Troy with
Anchises and Ascanius/Iulus.236 One of the re-
liefs presents Nero at the proper right, wearing
a cuirass, while Agrippina stands to his left as a
conflation of the goddesses Roma and Concordia
extending the laurel wreath of the triumphator (fig.
91).237 The depiction of Nero and Agrippina is
modeled on the cult group from the temple of
Roma and Augustus at Pergamum, as depicted
in Claudian cistophoroi.238 The use of Nero’s sec-
ond portrait type in the relief and the prominent
divine iconography for Agrippina and her depic-
tion as the guarantrix of Nero’s imperium indicates
that the relief was created after Nero’s accession
in A.D. 54, but probably not long after
Agrippina’s diminishing political prominence
which commenced c. A.D. 55. Although the cir-
cumstances surrounding the fate of the relief after
Nero’s downfall are somewhat enigmatic, it was
removed from the colonnade and used, face
down, as a paving slab in one of the north shops
at the Sebasteion’s ground level.239 The panel
contains clear indications of secondary use, in-
cluding the loss of its upper corners, smoothing
of the picked surfaces at the back, two cuttings
near the top, and a hole cut through the back-
ground emerging above Agrippina’s right arm.
The relief is generally well preserved, and this,
together with the signs of secondary use, suggest
that the panel was reused sometime after Nero’s
condemnation in 68.240 The panel may have
236 R.R.R. Smith (1990) 97, fig. 9; C.B. Rose (1997) 167.
237 K.T. Erim (1986) 4 (with fig.), 30 (fig.), 122 (with
fig.); R.R.R. Smith (1987) 127-32, pls. 24-26; R.R. Smith
(1988b) 53; T. Mikocki (1995) 181, no. 210; C.B. Rose (1997)
164-7, no. 105.10, pl. 207; S. Wood (1999) 302-3, fig. 142;
H. Meyer (2000) 28, fig. 44. Agrippina appears in a simi-
lar guise, as the guarantor of Nero’s auctoritas and military
victory, in a cameo in Cologne (Cathedral, Dreiköni-
genschrein I B a 17, W.R. Megow (1987) 213-4, no. A 98,
pl. 35.1-2).
238 RPCi 2221-2; BMCRE 1, 196, no. 228; RIC2 1, 131,
no. 120; CNR 14.130-48; R. Mellor (1975) 140-1; C. Fayer
(1976) 110; S.R.F. Price (1984) 182, 252, no. 19; L. Sperti
(1990) 10, plate 13, fig. 30; C.B. Rose (1997) 47, pl. 208.
239 Room 9 of the north portico; R.R.R. Smith (1987)
128.
240 R.R. Smith (1987) 128. Alternatively, the panel could
have been reused much later, after the collapse of the north
portico, which occurred much earlier than the south. If so,
then the Nero and Agrippina panel would have remained
74 chapter three
come from the north portico, whose primary
decoration consisted of geographical (and tem-
poral) personifications, which would make it
unique, as all of the other imperial panels are
from the south. The humble, utilitarian reuse of
the panel with its grandiose military and divine
imagery stands as a potent reminder of Nero’s
posthumous denigration in the city which had
such close ties to his dynasty.
In contrast, the second Neronian panel, from
the south portico, was never removed from the
colonnade (fig. 92a-c).241 In another explicitly
militaristic scene, the emperor, helmeted and
nude with a paludamentum draped over his shoul-
ders, supports the slumping figure of Armenia in
his arms.242 Although Nero’s portrait features
have not been damaged or recut, the inscription
has been altered.243 The inscription originally read:
!C9+;3! [;+CS;(3)]
57!K)3?G
)C?KE?G
5!3E!C E+#
!EI?G '+C
9!;35?G.244
NEPON(I) in the second half of the top line was
erased. The altered inscription thus refers to
on display, as did the Nero and Armenia panel. This seems
highly unlikely given the very specific Neronian imagery
of the Nero and Agrippina relief, combined with its rela-
tively good state of preservation and the secondary signs
of reuse. In addition, none of the other panels seems to have
been reused in this way.
241 K.T. Erim (1986) 116-17 (with fig.), 180 (fig.); R.R.R.
Smith (1987) 117-120; H. Meyer (2000) 30-32, figs. 45-6,
48. Like the remains of other reliefs from the south por-
tico of the Sebasteion, the fragmentary portrait head of Nero
and the slab itself were discovered above the latest paving
levels of the complex, indicating that the relief remained
in place until the ultimate collapse of the south portico in
the Late Roman Period; R.R. Smith (1987) 119-20.
242 The composition has iconographic parallels with the
Pasquino group as well as coin reverses and is intended to
show the emperor aiding or succoring the province, rather
than merely conquering it. On these and similar scenes
representing parocinium, see A. Kuttner (1995) 77.
243 Although the head is fragmentary and the facial
features are now missing, there is no evidence that the
damage to the head is intentional; R.R.R. Smith (1987) 119-
120.
244 R.R.R. Smith, (1987) 117-18. The superfluous iota
in Nero’s name may have been removed immediately af-
ter the inscription was first carved.
57!K)3?G )C?KE?G 5!3E!C E+#!EI?G
'+C9!;35?G , rather generic Julio-Claudian
names which could be linked with other mem-
bers of the dynasty.245 The use of Nero’s second
type on the relief, and its great similarity to ear-
lier Julio-Claudian likenesses, allowed the relief
to remain in situ, the only modifications neces-
sary for reuse being the alteration to the accom-
panying inscription. Dio Chrysostom attests to
this kind of reuse of portrait statues by simply
changing the dedicatory inscription.246 Neverthe-
less, the erasure of Nero’s name from the inscrip-
tion also constitutes a posthumous, and highly
visible, denigration of his memory at Aphrodisias.
A third imperial panel also depicts Nero in his
second portrait type; the emperor is nude and
holding a globe in his extended left hand (fig.
93).247 Nero’s raised right hand presumably held
a scepter and he wears a paludamentum over his
right shoulder. A diminutive male foreigner is at
Nero’s right. The relief was discovered in the
remains of rooms 9-10, together with a panel
often identified as “Augustus by Land and
Sea.”248 This panel more likely represents
Claudius, perhaps as divus, suggesting that both
reliefs may have been created early in Nero’s
reign. Like the Nero and Armenia panel, the ar-
chaeological context of the Neronian panel sug-
gests that it was never removed from display.
Again, the rather generic Julio-Claudian appear-
ance of the portrait features may have allowed
it to be re-interpreted following Nero’s downfall
by redacting the inscription. Indeed, the portrait
has often been associated with Nero’s father,
Germanicus.249
Inscriptional evidence suggests that there was
a fourth panel from the imperial cycle depicting
Nero and Helios.250 The inscription has been
245 R.R.R. Smith (1987) 118.
246 Or.31. Additionally, such reuse may have been more
liable to occur in the provinces, where the imperial image
was not as widely disseminated as at Rome, and where
discrepancies in portrait typologies were more likely to be
overlooked.
247
R.R.R. Smith (1987) 110-11, no. 4 (with fig.).
248
R.R.R. Smith (1987) 104-6, no. 2 (with fig.); D.E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 138, fig. 133.
249
R.R.R. Smith (1987) 110-11.
250
SEG 31 (1981) no. 919; J. Reynolds (1981) 324, no.
9; C.B. Rose (1997) 48, 165, no. 105.
 nero and poppaea
altered in an identical manner to the Nero and
Armenia panel, with Nero in the first line erased:
[;+CS;] 57!K)3?G /73?G
)C?KE?G 5!3E!C
E+#!EI?G
'+C9!;35?G
As with the other panels, it seems that Nero’s
image was left intact, with only the most individu-
alized part of his nomenclature obliterated. 251
In addition to his sculpted, bronze, and relief
portraits, Nero’s image has survived on ten cam-
eos. Although there is much scholarly controversy
concerning its date, the Grand Camée de France
was likely created under Claudius to commemo-
rate his adoption of Nero (fig. 94).252 H. Jucker
has convincingly identified the principal figures
on the gem; the central band depicts, from proper
right to left, Providentia (?), Nero, Germanicus,
251
Nero may also be represented in a fifth imperial panel,
together with Britannicus. The panel depicts two boys, nude
and wearing paludamenta. The boy at the right of the relief
is clearly singled out as being of higher status because he
holds an aplustre (ship’s rudder) and globe, symbols of domi-
nation over sea and land. C.B. Rose has proposed that the
relief depicts Nero and Britannicus after Claudius’s adop-
tion of Nero, with Nero’s senior status reinforced by the
attributes he holds (1997) 164-8, no. 105.8, pl. 205. While
Rose’s theory is attractive and logical in terms of Claudian
dynastic propaganda, the coiffure of the proposed Nero
figure lacks the characteristic central part of Nero’s estab-
lished type I portraits and an identification as Gaius and
Lucius may be more tenable, R.R.R. Smith (1987) 124-5.
Smith has also noted in conversation that its placement on
the portico after the other Neronian reliefs gives it a likely
Neronian, rather than Claudian, context, making the ap-
pearance of Britannicus highly unlikely.
252
Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 264,
31.0 x 26.5 cm.; K. Jeppesen (1974); W.R. Megow (1987)
1, 4, 9, 24, 31-2, 42, 49, 51-2, 80, 84-5, 88, 99, 103-4, 123,
130-4, 139, 142-44, 146, 202-07, no. A85, pls. 32.5-10, 33
(with previous bibliography); D. Boschung (1989) 64-6, 85,
88, 92, 95-6, 119, no. 4, pl. 35.6; D. D. Boschung (1993a)
195, no. 215, pl. 205.4; N.B. Kampen (1991) 235, fig. 13;
D..E.E. Kleiner (1992) 149-51, fig. 126; K. Jeppesen (1993)
141-75, pl. 34; C. Mango in M. Henig and M. Vickers,
eds. (1993) 59, 62, fig. 4.11; C. White in M. Henig and M.
Vickers, eds. (1993) 79-82, figs. 5.1-2; A. Kuttner (1995)
166, n. 18; T. Mikocki (1995) 157-8, no. 45,pl. 8; H. Born
and K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 50; H. Guiraud (1996) 116-
21, figs. 81a-b; C.B.Rose (1997) 24; E. Bartman (1999) 112-
4, fig. 90; S. Wood (1999) 308-13, fig. 145.; E. Borea and
C. Gasparri, eds. (2000) 558, no. 44, with fig.; H. Meyer
(2000) 11-28, figs. 1-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 21, 23, 25-26, 28-
30, 35, 39-43.
75
Agrippina Maior (whose Scheitelzopf coiffure is a
later restoration), Tiberius enthroned as Jupiter,
Livia enthroned as Ceres, Claudius, and Agrip-
pina Minor seated on a throne decorated with
sphinxes; above the central register, Augustus,
veiled, wearing a radiate crown and holding a
scepter, is carried aloft on the back of Apollo-
Mithras or Aeneas. Augustus is flanked on his
right by Drusus Minor and on his left by Eros
and Drusus Maior.253 The Grand Camée clearly
links the reigning princeps Claudius with his illus-
trious relatives, and furthermore, honors the
distinguished lineage of Claudius’s adopted son
Nero, through Agrippina Minor and Maior. The
cameo’s central scene alludes to Tiberius’s adop-
tion of Nero’s grandfather Germanicus, the char-
ismatic general whose memory continued to be
revered and whose name Nero took at the time
of his adoption into the gens Iulia. Tiberius’s
adoption of Germanicus is implicitly compared
to Claudius’s adoption of Nero.254 Furthermore,
the prominence of the two Agrippinae stresses
their importance for the continuum of the Julio-
Claudian dynasty, and strongly suggests that the
Grand Camée may have been created for, or at
the instigation of, Agrippina Minor.255 Although
Nero appears on this gem, the Claudian content
of the cameo, as well as its complicated iconog-
raphy, may have precluded any recarving under
the Flavians and its value as a precious stone and
work of art may have prevented outright destruc-
tion. Agrippina Maior’s Scheitelzopf is a resto-
ration or adaptation, likely carried out in the third
or the fourth century and suggests that the cameo
continued to be an important part of some col-
lection.256 The Grand Camée may have remained
253
H. Jucker (1976) 211-50; for a review of the schol-
arship on the Grand Camée and the stylistic and icono-
graphic reasons which support a Claudian date for the
creation of the gem, see W.R. Megow (1987) 203-7. K.
Jeppesen’s attempts to identify the figures on the gem on
the basis of age and body type are entirely unconvincing
and fail to accurately recognize the youthful cuirassed fig-
ure as Nero, with a clear version of his type I physiognomy
and coiffure (1993) 141-75. See also infra.
254
W.R. Megow (1987) 206.
255
See S. Wood (1988) 409-26 for Agrippina Minor’s
manipulation of her mother’s image in order to legitimize
her own and Nero’s position within the dynasty.
256
H. Jucker (1981b) 674-5.
76 chapter three
imperial property for a considerable time as it was
eventually given by the Byzantine emperor,
Badouin II to Louis IX of France for the Sainte
Chapelle.257
Nero’s profile appears nine times on gems,
including: two type I likenesses on sardonyx
cameos in the British Museum;258 four laureate
type 2 likeness in St. Petersburg,259 in Bonn, 260
in the British Museum,261 and the Content Col-
lection;262 and two type 4 replicas in Berlin,263 and
Geneva.264 Nero also appears as a small head
rising from a cornucopia with Agrippina Minor
on a sardonyx cameo in Paris.265 These portraits
are likely to have survived because of their in-
trinsic value as gems and/or their perceived
worth as collectors’ items.
Two additional glyptic portraits survive on
cameos with more complicated iconography. A
sardonyx cameo in Cologne depicts Nero en-
throned with the attributes of Jupiter; at his left
stands Agrippina Minor again in the guise of
Roma-Concordia, crowning her son with the
257
J.J. Bernoulli (1886) 275; and K. Jeppesen (1993) 174,
n. 160.
258
3621, inv. no. R.P.K. 21, 2.2 x 1.3 cm.; ex Payne
Knight Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 88, 99-101, 212-13, no.
A 96, pl. 34.7 (with earlier literature). 3618, h. 3.2 x 2.4
cm.; ex Blacas Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 98, 141, n. 438,
215, no. A 101, pl. 34 (with earlier literature).
259
Sardonyx cameo; Ermitage, inv. J 275, 2.0 x 1,8 cm.;
W.R. Megow (1987) 215-16, no. A 103, pl. 34.11 (with earlier
literature).
260
Fragment from a sardonyx cameo; Private collection,
2.3 x 1.8 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 212, no. A 94, pl. 34.9-
10 (with earlier literature).
261
Fragment from an onyx cameo; 3600, inv. 68.5-20.2,
2.8. x 2.1 cm; ex Pulsky Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 88, 96,
100, 113, n. 353, 212-13, no. A. 95, pl. 34.4-5 (with ear-
lier literature); H. Born and K. Stemmer, 97, fig. 58.
262
Sardonyx cameo, 3.03 x 2.8 x .52 cm,; M. Henig
(1990) 34, no. 59.
263
Fragmentary sardonyx cameo; Staatliche Museen, inv.
30219.710, h. 2.15 cm; ex von Gans Coll.; W.R. Megow
(1987) 96, 98, 215, no. A100, pl. 35.4 (with earlier litera-
ture); H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 97, fig. 56.
264
Glass cameo; Musée d’Art et d’Histoire 224, 1.7 x
1.3 cm.; ex Fol Coll.; W.R. Megow (1987) 215, no. A 102,
pl. 35.5 (with earlier literature).
265
Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.
276, 8.3 x 7.6 cm; S. Wood (1999) 305-6, fig. 133; T. Mickoki
(1995) 39, 180, no. 203 (with earlier literature); W. Megow
(1987) 27-8, no. A86, pl. 27.3.
laurel crown of the triumphator.266 As in the
Sebasteion relief, Agrippina appears as the
guarantrix of Nero’s auctoritas and victory. A
sardonyx cameo in Nancy, with a type 3 portrait
of Nero, also represents the emperor in overtly
divine guise.267 Nero is shown in a scene of apo-
theosis, borne heavenward on the back of an
eagle. Nero appears as Jupiter, with hip mantle,
sandals, aegis and laurel crown. The emperor
holds a figure of victory extending a wreath in
his right hand and cradles a cornucopia in his left.
The divine symbolism and inflated visual rheto-
ric of the Cologne and Nancy gems may have
been judged as iconographically inappropriate for
the first two Flavian emperors, Vespasian and
Titus, and thus unsuitable for recutting during
their principates. In any case, these images un-
doubtedly survived because of their value as semi-
precious stones, as objects d’art, or as curiosities.
In addition to the cameos, Nero’s image sur-
vives on three intaglios. A chrysolite in London,268
a carnelian in Paris,269 and a another carnelian
in New York (fig. 95),270 are all based on Nero’s
266
Dom, Dreikönigenschrein I B a 17, 8.0 x 6.4 cm.;
W.R. Megow (1987) 4, 96, 101-2, 109, 137, 143, 149, 213-
14, no. A 98, pl. 35.1-2; T. Mikocki (1995) 182, no. 213,
pl. 14; H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 72, 100, fig. 51.
Nero wears a mantel draped across his hips, holds a scep-
ter in his raised right hand and an ornamented ship’s stern
(aphlaston) in his left hand. He wears a laurel crown and a
star, an attribute of solar divinity, rises from his head. An
eagle decorates his throne. Agrippina holds aloft a second
laurel crown in her right hand and cradles a cornucopia in
her left arm. She wears a tunica with a palla draped around
her hips. She, too, wears a laurel crown. Three sheaves of
wheat spring from her head.
267
Bibliothèque Publique, h. 7.1 x 6.0 cm.; W.R. Megow
(1987) 86, n. 265, 96, 101-3, 114, 142, n. 440, 144, 214-
15, no. A 99, pl. 35.3 (with earlier literature); J. Arce in S.
Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 551, no. 295 (Caracalla).
The profile, coiffure and beard closely resemble the sculpted
replica of Nero’s third portrait type in the Terme. The Nancy
gem has been identified with Caracalla, but the coiffure
does not correspond to any of Caracalla’s hairstyles.
268
British Museum, Blacas 497, 16 x 13 mm; G.M.A.
Richter (1971) 109, no. 523, fig. 523 (Nero in his younger
years)(with earlier literature).
269
Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 17
x 13 mm; Chabouillet, Cat, no. 2083; G.M.A. Richter (1971)
109, no. 524, fig. 524.
270
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 41.160.762, 14 x 12
mm.; G.M.A. Richter (1971) 109, no. 525, fig. 525 (with
 nero and poppaea
fourth portrait type. Intaglios were often used as
seals for important documents and clearly, Nero’s
image would no longer have been appropriate for
such a use after his damnatio. Because they are
carved in negative relief, in very small-scale,
intaglios are virtually impossible to recarve and
indeed only one surviving intaglio seems to have
been reconfigured as a result of Geta’s condem-
nation (cat. 7.9). They may simply have been
discarded, or again, valued as curiosities or pre-
served by Nero’s former partisans after his death.
A graffito from an arched room in the sub-
structures of the “Domus Tiberiana” in Rome
may have been intended a caricature of Nero’s
third portrait type.271 The grafitto is signed
TVLLIVS ROMANUS MILES and depicts an in-
dividual in right profile. The light beard, short
aquiline nose, and slope of the underchin recall
Nero’s third portrait type. The handling of the
hair over the forehead parodies Nero’s carefully
arranged coiffures. If the graffito is indeed a like-
ness of Nero, it lies far outside the realm of of-
ficial portraits of Nero. This humorous image
would have been exempted from the damnatio as
a result of its satiric and unflattering nature. The
room in which it was found lies in an area of the
Palatine used as barracks for soldiers and sleep-
ing quarters for slaves.272
The removal of Nero’s public images repre-
sents an attempt to obliterate him from the his-
torical record and communal consciousness,
comparable to the erasure of his name in inscrip-
tions and the destruction, dismantling, or appro-
priation of his commemorative monuments and
works of architecture. Not surprisingly, no ar-
chaeological trace remains of the triumphal arch
which was erected in Nero’s honor on the Arx of
the Capitoline Hill, but its appearance can be
reconstructed on the basis of numismatic evi-
dence.273 The arch, which was vowed by the
earlier literature); K.M. Dickson in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)
132, no. 25, with fig .
271
L. Correra (1894) 89-90, pl. 2.4; R. Lanciani (1897)
147, fig. 55; W. Binsfeld (1956) 31; H. Jucker (1963) 87-
88, fig. 8.
272
R. Lanciani (1897) 146.
273
F.S. Kleiner (1985); S. de Maria (1988) 283-84; F.S.
Kleiner in E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 101.
77
Senate in 58 and begun in 62, commemorated
Gn. Domitius Corbulo’s victories in Parthia, for
which Nero took credit. The arch was demolished
under Galba or Vespasian274 Despite the
monument’s destruction, it had an enormous
impact on subsequent arch design.275
Nero was a prodigious builder, and his main
building projects were either demolished or ex-
propriated.276 The Domus Aurea, the sprawling
villa/palace which Nero built linking the Palatine
and the Esquiline outraged the Senatorial aris-
tocracy on account of its lavish decoration and
the extent of its grounds in the heart of Rome.277
Although Otho lived in the Domus Aurea and
devoted substantial sums to its completion, the
palace was subsequently destroyed or transformed
and the elaborately landscaped grounds were
reclaimed by Vespasian for other purposes.278
The great artificial lake was drained and the
Amphitheatrum Flavium erected on its site. The
surviving Esquiline wing of the palace was incor-
porated into the substructures of the baths of
Trajan. It is likely that the Baths of Titus on the
Oppian represent modifications to the pre-exist-
ing baths of the Domus Aurea, opened to the
public in A.D. 80.279 The works of art which had
decorated Nero’s palace were expropriated by
Vespasian for public display in the nearby
Templum Pacis.280 Like the destruction of the
274
Both Otho and Vitellius were sympathetic towards
Nero’s memory. F.S. Kleiner (1985) 70-72. The arches of
Domitian were similarly destroyed, F.S. Kleiner (1985) 94.
275
F.S. Kleiner (1985) 94-6.
276
On Nero’s building projects and their negative pre-
sentation in hostile literary sources, see J. Elsner in J. Elsner
and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 112-27.
277
The palace is censured in a contemporary epigram
recorded by Suetonius: “Rome is becoming a house; emi-
grate to Veii, Romans, unless that house takes over Veii,
too” (Roma domus fiet; Veios migrate, Quirites, Si non et Veios occupat
ista domus, Nero 39.2). And later, Martial quips “One house
took up the whole of Rome,” (Lib.Spect. 2.4).
278
Suet. Otho 7.1; L.F. Ball has also distinguished post-
Neronian phases of construction in the Esquiline wing of
the Domus Aurea, portions of which he assigns to modifi-
cations carried out under Otho, (1994) 226-27 and (2003)
168-69.
279
F. Coarelli (1974) 203; L.F. Ball (forthcoming) 249-
53.
280
Pliny, NH 35.120. On the political implications of
the Templum Pacis as a reaction against the Domus Aurea,
see C. Kerrigan (1996) 359 (abstract).
78 chapter three
house of Julia Minor earlier in the first century,
or the destruction of the house of C. Calpurnius
Piso under Nero himself, the dismantling, demo-
lition, and reconfiguration of the Domus Aurea
reflects the earlier republican practice of razing
the houses of individuals subjected to a damnatio.281
The Esquiline wing of the Domus Aurea, not
incorporated into the Baths of Trajan until it was
ravaged by the fire of A.D. 104, was degraded
by alterations which turned its grand public
rooms and spaces into utilitarian barracks or
storerooms.282 The modified Esquiline remnant
of the Palace, in a semi- ruinous and highly vis-
ible state near the Colosseum would have func-
tioned as yet another pertinent manifestation of
Nero’s disgrace and downfall. The combination
of Neronian ruin with the new Flavian architec-
tural showpiece would have been extremely ef-
fective visual propaganda for the new regime.
The circus which was begun by Caligula and
completed by Nero in the valley of the Mons
Vaticanus may also have been given over to
public use following Nero’s death and damnatio.283
Interestingly, Nero’s greatest public building
project, the Baths which he constructed in the
Campus Martius continued to be known as the
Baths of Nero despite his damnatio.284
281
F.C. Albertson (1993) 139; V. Santa Maria Scrinari
(1997) 9.
282
Plans for the baths on the Oppian may have been
initiated late in the reign of Domitian. L.F. Ball (1994) 227-
28.
283
The circus was begun by Caligula. It’s dimensions
were comparable to the Circus Maximus. Caligula was
responsible for bringing the obelisk, now in the piazza of
San Pietro, to the circus. Claudius continued work on the
circus and Nero completed it. Both Caligula and Nero used
it as a private venue for their own chariot racing. No re-
liable references to races, games or performances held in
this circus postdate the Neronian period. After the death
of Nero, the area may have been used as public gardens.
Tombs eventually encroached on the area of the circus. HA,
Elag. 23.1 mentions Elagabalus racing in this circus, but
the reference is probably fictional, designed to link the
character of Elagabalus with those of Caligula and Nero.
See A. Barrett (1989) 200 and J. Humphrey (1986) 550-
54.
284
For instance, ILS 5173 (thermis...Neronis); and Mar-
tial (2.48.8 [thermas...neronianas]; 3.25.4 [Neronianas...
therms]; 7.34.9-10 [Neronianas thermas]; and his famous
Nero’s name has been erased in the majority
of his inscriptions.285 In addition to the expected
erasure of the princeps’ name in portrait dedica-
tions and other commemorative inscriptions, a
bronze inscription, honoring Nero which was
added to the architrave of the Parthenon in A.D.
61-2, was entirely removed from the temple.286
The inscription was inserted between the bronze
shields which had been affixed below the
metopes, probably under Alexander. 287 Indeed,
of the seven (or possibly eight) inscriptions from
Athens which originally mentioned Nero, his
name has been erased on all but two.288 Nero’s
name has also been erased in an important public
inscription from Akraiphia in Boetia, which re-
corded the speech delivered by the emperor at
the time of the liberation of Achaea and addi-
tionally honored the emperor as Nero Zeus Eleu-
quip “Quid Nerone peius? Quid thermis melius Neronianis?
(7.34.4-5).
285
M. Stuart lists portrait dedications which originally
honored Nero (1939) 609. Stuart’s list is reproduced here:
ROME: CIL 6.927, 31288, 921 = Dessau 222, 4; REGIO
I: Casinum (CIL 10.5171); Pompeii (CIL 10.932); REGIO
II: Aeclanum (CIL 9.1108); REGIO IV: Aequiculi (CIL
9.4115); REGIO VII: Luna (CIL 11.1331 = Dessau 233,
1332, 6955 = Dessau 8902); BAETICA: Marchena (CIL
2.1392); Salpensa (CIL 2.1281; LUSITANIA: Olisipo (CIL
2.183,184); Emerita (EphEpigr 8 (Hisp) 24); AQUITANIA:
Mediolanum Santonum (CIL 13.1040); LUGDUNENSIS:
Metiosedum (CIL 13.3013); BRITANNIA: Regni (CIL 7.12
plus EphEpigr 9, 24; NORICUM: Virunum (CIL 3.4825);
MACEDONIA: Hripishta (AE [1914] 216); ACHAEA:
Delphi (AE [1937] 52 = Sylloge3 808); Athens (IG 2-32 3277-
3278); Megara (IG 6.68); Sparta (IG 6.1, 376); Messene (IG
5.1, 1449-1450); Olympia (Olympia 5.373, 375, [374?]);
BOSPORUS: Panticapaeum (IGR 1.876); ASIA: Ilium (IGR
4.209d); Alexandria Troas (CIL 3.382); Pergamum (IGR
4.330); Halasarna (IGR 4.1097); Cos (IGR 4.1053); Hippia
(IGR 4.1090); Aphrodisias (CIG 2740); Tralles or Nysa (CIG
addendum 2942d); Omarbeili (AE 1891, 151); LYCIA AND
PAMPHYLIA: Sagalassus (IGR 3.345); CYPRUS: Salamis
(IGR 3.986); Curium (IGR 3.971); EGYPT: Talit (IGR
1.1124).
286
K.K. Carroll (1982) 59-63; Carroll argues per-
suasively that the inscription did not commemorate the dedi-
cation of the Parthenon in toto to Nero, nor did it commemo-
rate a statue set up to Nero in or near the Parthenon.
287
The channels cut for the attachment of the bronze
letters are still visible and allow the text of the inscription
to be reconstructed. The bronze letters themselves were
removed in their entirety following the damnatio.
288
K.K. Carroll (1982) 31.
 nero and poppaea
therios.289 The inscription also mandated the
erection of portraits of Nero and his third wife
Satilia Messalina in the temple of Ptoan Apollo.
Significantly, Statilia Messalina’s name is allowed
to remain in the inscription. Given the relatively
short period which elapsed between the Nero’s
liberation of Achaea and his death in 68, it is
unlikely that these honorific images were ever set
up. However, if they were, Nero’s would un-
doubtedly have been removed from the temple.
Nero’s name has also been excised from another
prominent provincial monument, the Jupiter
Column at Mainz. The column was originally
dedicated PRO SALUTE NERONIS, but after the
emperor’s death and condemnation his name was
eradicated from the inscription.290 In addition,
Nero’s name has been erased in an honorific
inscription from the imperial cult building at
Boubon in Turkey. 291 Although not a portrait
inscription, the erasure of Nero’s name and titles
at Boubon suggest that his statue was also re-
moved from the cycle of imperial images which
decorated the building.292
289
SIG3 814; T. Pekary (1985) 62; S.E. Alcock in J. Elsner
and J. Masters, eds. (1994) 99; C.B. Rose (1997) 136-38,
cat. 67.
290
G. Bauchhenss and P. Noelke (1981) 162-3; G.
Bauchhenss (1984).
291
SEG 27 (1977) 916; J. Inan and C. Jones (1997-98)
268-95; S.R.F. Price (1984) 160, 263-64; C.B. Rose (1997)
171, cat. 109.
[erased line ca. 20 characters]
[erased line ca. 20 characters]
[erased line ca. 20 characters]
#@L$T<XT< º #@L8¬ 6"4 Ò *0 y
:@H •N4XDTFg< *4• '"\@L !4
64<\@L 9@L64"<@Ø BDgF
$gLJ@Ø [;XDT<@H] Gg$"FJ@Ø
•<J4FJD"JZ(@L
292
A portrait inscription contemporary with the erased
inscription honoring Nero which commemorates Poppaea
was also found at Boubon (SEG 27 (1977) 917). The inscrip-
tion is not erased and seems to date between A.D. 62, the
year of Poppaea’s marriage to Nero and 63, the year in
which she was awarded the title of Augusta, see C.B. Rose
(1997) 171, cat. 109. The lack of erasure in the portrait
inscription may indicate that her image was not removed,
but rather allowed to remain on public display.
79
The Continued Display of Nero’s Images
In contrast to those images which were mutilated,
transformed, or removed, a third full-length
togate statue of Nero’s first type in Parma may
have remained on public display (fig. 96).293 The
statue was discovered substantially intact in the
Julio-Claudian Basilica at Velleia on 11 June
1761 in the colonnade where the representations
of other members of the Julio-Claudian family
were also uncovered. Like the two portraits of
Caligula excavated at Gortyna on Crete, the
discovery of the Parma portrait of Nero in the
Velleian Basilica, together with numerous other
Julio-Claudian representations, strongly suggests
that it was never removed from public view. As
already noted, the original cycle of portraits was
created under Caligula and included portraits of
Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Tiberius Ge-
mellus, Caligula, Drusilla, Agrippina Maior, and
Livia. Subsequently, the portrait of Caligula was
reworked to an image of Claudius (cat. l.32; fig.
34a-b) and a portrait of Messalina was added to
the cycle and ultimately transformed into an
image of Agrippina Minor (cat. 3.4; fig. 100a-c),
at which time the statue of Nero was also
added.294 Like the Julio-Claudian Basilica at Otri-
coli, the Velleian Basilica was dedicated to the
worship of the imperial gens. It is especially sig-
nificant that the boyhood image may have been
293
Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 826, H. 1.53 m.;
C. Saletti (1968) 49-52, 91-2; 122-23, pls. 35-38 (with ear-
lier literature); 14; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)321,
n. 6; H.R. Goette (1989) 33, 37, 125, no. 246 (reworked
portrait of Britannicus?)(with earlier literature); D..E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 136, fig. 110; F. Johansen (1994) 21, fig. 20;
C.B. Rose (1997) 122-3, cat. 48.13, plates 133, 150-51;
S.Wood (1999)195 . There is slight damage to the tip of
the nose, the edges of the ear and the top of the skull and
both forearms are missing. Rose has suggested that the body
is reused from an earlier image. He notes the awkward join
between head and neck and the fact that the back is not
nearly as summarily worked as the other statues in the group
and lacks the flat profile of the others. However, the dis-
crepancies between the statue of Nero and the other two
Claudian portraits, those of Claudius and Agrippina Mi-
nor may simply reflect the fact that the Nero has been
created ex novo in the Claudian period, whereas the Claudius
and Agrippina Minor have been reworked from pre-exist-
ing images of Caligula and Messalina.
294
C. Saletti (1968) 91-2.
80 chapter three
retained in the Velleian group dedication which
presents ample evidence of adult alterations as
the result of damnatio including the transformed
Caligula/Claudius and Messalina/ Agrippina.295
The impressive statuary cycle displayed at the
Collegium of the Agustales of Rusellae which
yielded the likeness of Caligula recut to Claudius
and the Neronian cuirass also included a two
headless togate portraits of boys, one of which
is likely to have depicted Nero.296 C.B. Rose has
intriguingly suggested that the togatus which in-
cludes a partially hidden bulla, as a sign of incipi-
ent manhood, belonged to a portrait of Nero and
stressed his seniority over Britannicus, whose
corresponding statue has a prominently displayed
bulla.297 This large dedication appears to have
been initiated under Augustus with substantial
additions under Caligula and Claudius, and
perhaps two images added under Nero. Evidence
consisting of portrait heads and statue bodies are
preserved for seventeen and are likely to repre-
sent Germanicus (head and body), Agrippina
Maior (body), Diva Drusilla (body), Julia Livilla
(head and body), Nero Caesar (head), Drusus
Caesar (head and upper torso), Antonia Minor
(head), Divus Augustus (body), Diva Livia (head
and body), Caligula/Claudius (head; cat. 1.20),
Nero as Caesar (body), Britannicus (body/head
and body), Claudia Octavia (head and body),
Divus Claudius (head) and Nero as imperator
(body), as well as an unidentified cuirass and
unidentified togate boy.298
The Rusellae dedication presents tantalizing
parallels to the Velleia group. Naturally, many
295
S. Wood (1999) 195 notes the discrepancies in en-
forcing condemnations present at Velleia. The third altered
adult image, the cuirassed portrait of Nero himself recut
to Domitian and ultimately transformed into a representa-
tion of Nerva was apparently not an original part of the
Julio-Claudian dedication, but added later, after its trans-
formation.
296
Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Marem-
ma; C.B. Rose (1997) 116-18, no. 45.6.
297
C.B. Rose (1997) 118. The portrait of Octavia is also
remarkable for its similarities of coiffure and physiognomy
to Nero’s type 1 portraits.
298
Inscriptional evidence suggests that the earliest phase
of the cycle included representations of Augustus as em-
peror, Agrippa, and Lucius Caesar C.B. Rose (1997) 116.
of the same imperial personages are commemo-
rated, including Diva Drusilla. In addition, both
contained images of Caligula transformed to
Claudius, as well as a boyhood togate portraits
of Nero with bulla, and cuirassed portraits of Nero
as imperator. Like the cuirassed statue of Nero from
Rusellae, the togatus with hidden bulla lacks its
head so it is impossible to confirm its ongoing
public display. Alternatively the statue exhibits
an unusual large rectangular cutting in the
marble on the upper chest below the mortis and
this appears to be an area of repair to the drap-
ery which possibly indicate an attack on the
image after Nero’s suicide.
Inscriptional evidence, however, seems to
confrim that Nero’s boyhood portraits were al-
lowed to remain in important group dedications.
Nero’s name has not been erased from an inscrip-
tion belonging to a group dedication set up near
the Britannic Arch of Claudius in Rome.299
Nero’s portrait may not have been removed from
the statuary group, given the fact that his name
and titles have not been effaced. Nero may also
have been present in another Claudian group
dedication, which included a gilded bronze imago
clipeata of Agrippina Maior with an inscription
identifying her as the grandmother of Nero.300
The survival of boyhood images of Nero in the
context of Julio-Claudian statuary cycles suggests
that the continuum of imperial auctoritas as em-
bodied in group portraits may, in isolated cases,
have been deemed more important than dishon-
oring the memory of condemned emperors.301 In
addition boyhood portraits of Nero, which natu-
rally were created prior to his accession, may
have been seen as less threatening and less rep-
resentative of Nero as tyrannus.
299
CIL 6.921; S. de Maria (1988) 112-3, 280-2, no. 69;
E. Rodríguez Almeida in E.M. Steinby ed. (1993).85-6; this
inscription has often been assumed to belong to the arch,
but C.B. Rose has pointed out that this is impossible and
that the inscription belongs to a nearby, perhaps contem-
porary group dedication, (1997) 113-5, no. 42, pl. 116 (with
earlier literature).
300
C.B. Rose (1997) 90, no. 13; S. Wood (1999) 237.
301
On the importance of continuity in the context of
the imperial cult, see S.R.F. Price (1984) 161.
 nero and poppaea
Portrait dedications from which Nero’s name
has not been erased may also suggest the con-
tinued display of his images. Nero and Poppaea
were honored with two portrait groups at Luna,
one including their deified infant daughter
Claudia,302 and a highly unusual group dedica-
tion from Amisus originally honored Nero, Pop-
paea and Britannicus.303 The lack of erasure in
the Luna dedications may simply indicate that the
statues and their bases were removed (or de-
stroyed) in toto, but the appearance of Britannicus
in the Amisus group suggests that it may have
remained on display.
The Rehabilitation of Nero’s Memory
Following Nero’s official condemnation under
Galba, Otho attempted to rehabilitate his me-
mory in an effort to curry favor with the plebs.304
As noted earlier, Otho ordered Nero’s portrait
statues returned to public display, allowed him-
self to be called Otho Nero, allocated large sums
for continued work on the Domus Aurea, and
courted Nero’s widow Statillia Messalina.305 Otho
also forced the Senate to re-erect the statues of
Poppaea, who had been Otho’s wife before she
married Nero.306 Upon his accession, Vitellius
continued Otho’s policy of honoring Nero’s
memory.307 Vitellius offered sacrifices to Nero’s
manes, had his songs performed in public, and
generally wished to imitate him.308 In fact, nu-
mismatic portraits of both Otho and Vitellius
depict them with versions of the coma in gradus
formata coiffure which function as recognizable
visual links to Nero.309 Dio even praises Vitellius
302
CIL 11.1331; C.B. Rose (1997) 95, no. 22; CIL
11.6955; C.B. Rose 94-5, no. 21.
303
G. Bean (1956) 213-6; SEG (1959) 748; C.B. Rose
(1997) 161, no. 98.
304
Tacit. Hist. 1.78.
305
Suet. Otho 7.1, 10.2, Tacit. Hist. 1.78 (imagines Neronis
proponeret), Plut. Otho 3, see supra xxx.
306
Statuas Poppaeae per senatus consultum reposuit, Tacit. Hist.
168, and see infra.
307
Vitellius and Otho seem to have played on the plebs’
nostalgia for Nero, M. Griffin (1984)186.
308
Dio, 64.7.3; Suet. Vit. 11.2.
309
See infra.
81
for retaining the coinage of all three of his im-
mediate predecessors, Nero, Galba and Otho.310
However, Nero’s rehabilitation was short-lived,
for his damnatio was once again actively enforced
Vespasian.311
Despite his damnatio, the memory of Nero
continued to be esteemed by the plebs after his
death. Loyal followers frequently decorated his
tomb with flowers and displayed togate images
(imagines praetextatae) and edicts of the emperor on
the Rostra in the Forum Romanum, “as if he
were still living” (quasi viventis).”312 It is unclear
whether imagines refer to sculpted or painted
portraits, but the context of Suetonius’s statement
suggests that these portraits were not heavy
marble or bronze likenesses; rather, it is more
likely that they were easily transportable painted
or small scale images. Nero’s posthumous popu-
larity also led to imposters.313 Interestingly, all of
the known Nero imposters seem to have come
from the eastern portions of the empire, where
the emperor would only have been largely known
through his images and not through actual per-
sonal appearances. Dio Chrysostom, writing at
the end of the first century, was able to claim:
“Even now his subjects wish he were still alive
and most men believe he is,”314 More alarmingly,
the Sibylline Oracle prophesied that in A.D. 195
Nero would return and Rome itself would fall.315
In the mid third century, Nero was again invoked
when the Neroniana, the games he had instituted
in 60, were revived under Gordian III.316
In the late fourth and early fifth centuries,
Nero’s memory was again rehabilitated when his
portrait was introduced on contonoriate medal-
310
64(65).6.1.
311
In addition, Vespasian also denigrated Nero and his
reign through his choice of coin reverses, E.S. Ramage (1983)
201, 209-10.
312
Suet. Nero 57.1; see also C. Wells (1992) 168.
313
Suet. Nero 57.2; Tacit. Hist. 2.8-9; Dio 66.19.3; B.W.
Jones (1983) 516-21, Jones believes that the execution of
G. Vettulenus Civica Cerialis, Domitian’s proconsul in Asia,
in 88 might be tied to the appearance of the third of these
pretenders.
314
Disc. 21.10.
315
OrSib 8.139ff; R. Syme (1958) 773; A. Birely, Septimius
157.
316
F. Friedländer (1907) vol. 2, 120, vol. 4, 548-9; B.W.
Jones (1992) 103.
82 chapter three
lions.317 Nero is often represented in a chariot and
is invoked as a famous patron of the Circus
Maximus.318 These contorniates were minted by
Rome’s elite and have a predominantly pagan
iconography. Presumably distributed at the games
held in the Circus, they are often used as evidence
for the existence of a “pagan aristocracy” dur-
ing this period at Rome.319 Nero’s later reputa-
tion as a persecutor of Christians may have
instigated his appearance on the staunchly pa-
gan contorniates. A chalcedony cameo which is
contemporary with the contorniates also repre-
sents him with circus regalia .320 Nero is depicted
frontally in a quadriga. He wears a paludamentum
and the radiate crown of Apollo. He holds a
mappa in his right hand and a scepter in his left
and is accompanied by the inscription: NEPVN
A O/ VCTE (Neron Auguste). Significantly, all of
the late portraits of Nero include accurate, al-
though stylized, versions of the coiffures and
physiognomies of his third and fourth portrait
types, which indicates that Nero’s portrait iconog-
raphy was still known into the fifth century. These
remarkably accurate details of Nero’s portraiture
were likely transmitted to the late Roman die and
gem cutters via coins and gems themselves.
During the Renaissance and later, the scarci-
ty of unaltered portraits of Nero led to the cre-
ation of numerous modern forgeries and copies
of his likeness.321 These modern portraits reflect
Nero’s last two portrait types. Modern portraits,
like those in Florence and Modena, are fairly
close copies of ancient originals which are now
lost.322 Or they can be freer adaptations, strongly
reflecting the artistic tastes of the period in which
they were created, as in the examples in the
317
See, W. Jakob-Sonnanbend (1990).
318
A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1976) pls. 58.1-
9, 73.2-3, 87.3-12, 88.1-4, 94.6-8.
319
C.W. Hedrick, Jr. (2000) 59.
320
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles
129, 287, diam. 3.4 cm.; E. Babelon (1897) 149-50, nr. 287,
pl. 32; O. Neverov (1986) 192, fig. 8; W.R. Megow (1987)
216, no. A104, pl. 35.6; M. Fuchs (1997) 94; S. Ensoli in
S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 68, fig. 6.
321
H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 117; on the rela-
tionship of the post-antique portraits to surviving replicas,
see J.M. Croisille (1999).
322
See supra.
Uffizi,323 the Louvre, 324 the Vatican 325 the
Museo Capitolino,326 the Palazzo Corsini,327 the
Palazzo Quirinale328 the Villa Borghese,329 Palaz-
zo Mattei,330 and Palazzo Farnese331 which range
in date from the 16th to the 19th centuries. In the
Renaissance and Baroque periods, the majority
of these modern portraits were probably not
intended as forgeries, but rather to fill gaps in
collections, especially series of the twelve cae-
sars.332 However, an unusual portrait of Nero in
the British Museum does appear to have been
fashioned as a forgery, created with the express
purpose of deceiving its buyer that it was an
323
Inv. 1914.123; G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 68-69, no. 62,
fig. 61a-b (ancient). U. Hiesinger (1975)122 (modern); J.M.
Croisille (1999) 404, fig. 24.
324
MA 1222, ex Coll. Borghese; K. de Kersauson (1986)
239, no. 120, with figs; M Fuchs (1997) 83-96, pl. 7.1-4;
J.M. Croisille (1999) 403, fig. 22 . While Fuchs considers
this portrait to be a revival of the Gallienic period, the
emphatic modeling of the facial features and the dramatic
undercutting of the stiffly arranged coiffure over the fore-
head is not consonant with such a date betrays the image’s
post antique origins. Gallienic sculpture is more often
characterized by smoothly modeled and classicizing features.
In addition, portraits of Gallienus and private individuals
created during his reign do not have nearly as strong a visual
correspondence to Neronian portraits as Fuchs suggests. Nor
is there any historical, epigraphic, or numismatic evidence
for the Neronian revival under Gallienus which Fuchs posits.
325
Bilblioteca K. Kluge and K. Lehmann-Hartleben
(1927) 25-30, fig. 4 (ancient); B.M. Felletti Maj (1963) 425-
26, fig. 555 (ancient); Helbig4I, nr. 476 (ancient); U. Hiesinger
(1975) 120, n. 34 (modern); G. Lahusen and E Formigli,
(1993); J.M. Croisille (1999) 403, fig. 31. The head is docu-
mented as belonging to the Mattei in 1613 and was
entered the Vatican collections in 1770 under Clement
XIV.
326
Stanza degli Imperatori, ex Albani collection B 167;
H. Stuart Jones (1926) 191, no. 15.
327
Scalone, 2nd pianerottolo, nicchia a destra e nicchia
a sinistra, De Luca, 135, nos. 75, 76, pls.
328
Sala del Bronzino, DP 100; M.E. Micheli in L.
Guerrini and C. Gasparri eds. (1993) 209-11, no. 84, pl.
61 (19th century).
329
Porphyry and marble portrait, Sala IV; I. Faldi (1954)
16-17, fig. 11h; P. Moreno and C. Stefani (2000); Marble
bust, Salone del Ingresso; I. Faldi (19540 49-51; P. Moreno
and C. Stefani (2000) 59.
330
Modern type 3 head on an ancient statue, F. Carinci
in L. Guerrini, ed. (1982) 115-7, no. 7, pl. 23.
331
type 4; Sala delle Guardie (del Ercole Farnese); part
of a cycle of 18 imperial busts.
332
Such Suetonian displays were particularly important
in the 17th century and less so in the 18th; J. Fejfer (1997)
12-13.
 nero and poppaea
authentic ancient likeness of Nero.333 The por-
trait is said to have been purchased by Dr. An-
thony Askew in 1740 in Athens where it was recut
from an ancient portrait of Hadrian; the scarci-
ty of authentic representations of Nero motivat-
ed the forgers to create an image of Nero from
one of the numerous surviving likenesses of
Hadrian.334
The Collateral Condemnation of Poppaea Sabina
Poppaea’s images suffered a similar fate to those
of her husband, and as a result, securely identi-
fied sculptural representations of the empress are
completely lacking.335 Poppaea was married ini-
tially to Rufius Crispinus and then to the future
emperor Marcus Salvius Otho.336 While still
married to Otho, Poppaea became Nero’s mis-
tress, sometime in A.D. 58.337 Nero and Poppaea
were finally married in A.D. 62, only twelve days
after Nero’s divorce from Claudia Octavia.338 At
that time Poppaea was awarded the title of Au-
gusta. She bore Nero one child, Claudia Augusta,
who died in infancy.339 Poppaea’s death in 65 was
rumored to have been caused by a miscarriage
induced when Nero kicked her in the stomach.340
333
BM GR 1805.7-3.246; B.F. Cook (1985) 27; P.
Craddock in M. Jones, ed. (1990) 270-72, no. 301, with fig.;
E. Köhne, C. Ewigleben, and R. Jackson, eds. (2000) 22,
no. 7, with fig.
334
P. Craddock in M. Jones, ed. (1990) 270-72.
335
See E.R. Varner (2001a) 45-47.
336
M. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 523-24, no. 646. On
her marriage to Crispinus, see Suet. Nero 35.5; Tac. Ann.
13.45; Plut. Galba 19.4; on her marriage to Otho, see Suet.
Otho 3.1-2; Tac. Ann. 13.46; Tac. Hist. 1.13; Dio 61(62) 11.2.
337
Suet. Otho 3.1; Tac. Ann. 13.46; Tac. Hist. 1.13; Dio
61(62).11.2; Plut. Galba 19.4-5.
338
Suet. Nero 35.2. On Octavia Augusta, see infra.
339
Poppaea was given the title of Augusta, at the time
of Claudia’s birth in 63, see Tac. Ann. 15.23; CIL 10.6787
= ILS 3873; CIL 11 1331 a = ILS 233; CIL 11. 6955 = ILS
8902; Suet. Nero 35.3; Claudia Augusta was deified after
her death; Tac. Ann. 15.23, 16.6; M. Raepsaet-Charlier
(1987) 198-199, no. 213.
340
Suet. Nero 35.3; Tac. Ann. 16.6; Dio 62.28.1. This
incident should probably also be read in the light of anti-
Neronian rhetoric which informs all of these authors.
83
Although Poppaea was deified after her
death,341 her apotheosis was rescinded in 68 when
her memory was collaterally condemned together
with that of Nero. During the reign of Galba,
Poppaea’s images, like those of Nero, were re-
moved from public display and warehoused.342
Upon his accession Otho reversed Galba’s poli-
cies and had the statues of his former wife re-
turned to public display, expressly by order of the
Senate: ne tum quidem immemor amorum statuas
Poppaeae per senatus consultum reposuit.343 As was the
case with Nero’s likenesses, the use of the verb
reponere (literally, to set up again) indicates that
statues of Poppaea were accessible and well pre-
served during Otho’s principate. Vitellius, con-
tinued Otho’s practice of honoring the memories
of Nero and Poppaea.344 However, during the
principate of Vespasian, portraits of Poppaea and
Nero were once again removed from public dis-
play as their damnationes were re-enforced.345
Although images of Poppaea, celebrating her
position as Augusta and later as diva were cre-
ated and disseminated under Nero, her damnatio
has ensured that no sculpted portraits are ex-
tant.346 Her likeness is, however, preserved on
341
CIL 11.1331a = ILS 233; Tac. Ann. 16.21.
342
Poppaea’s images were also targeted in A.D. 62,
during demonstrations against Octavia’s banishment and
divorce, (Effigies Poppaeae proruunt, Tac. Ann. 14.61, Octavia
684-7. See also, S. Wood (1999) 3 and E.R. Varner (2001a)
45-6, n. 33.
343
Tac. Hist. 1.78. See also M.B. Fory (1993) 303-4,
344
Suet. Vit. 11.2; Dio 65(64).7.3.
345
Nero’s image was not revived again until the late
fourth century when his portrait is appears on contorniate
medallions minted in Rome; A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi-
Rosenbaum (1976) pls. 58.1-9, 73.2-3, 87.3-12, 88.1-4, 94.6-
8.
346
Three portrait inscriptions have survived from A.D.
63-66; CIL 11.6955 (Luna, A.D. 63); CIL 11.1331 (Diva
Poppaea, Luna, A.D. 66); Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten 20 (1956)
213-15, pl. 1 (Amissus, A.D. 63-65); Several sculpted por-
traits have been associated with Poppaea, most notably a
marble head worked for insertion, now in the Terme, inv.
124129; V. Picciotti Giornetti, MusNazRom 1.1 286-7, no.
178, with fig. While the heavier treatment of the facial featues
in the Terme portrait, together with the treatment of the
eyes find parallels in Nero’s last two portrait types and would
lend support to an identification as Poppaea, the hairstyle
of Terme head, with its formal arrangement of two rows
curls, pin curls framing the forehead, and heavy shoulder
84 chapter three
coins issued by eastern mints347 and two cameos
in Florence348 and Bonn349 which are nearly iden-
tical representations of Poppaea as diva (figs. 97-
98). The coiffure seen on the cameos, with three
rows of large curls massed over the forehead and
running back over the top of the head, as well
as the physiognomy with large almond shaped
eyes, arching brows, long oval face, and grace-
ful neck are paralleled on the numismatic like-
nesses.350 These cameo’s highly unusual use of the
aegis as a headdress equates the Poppaea with
Juno-Isis and underscores her role as diva.351 The
locks does not appear in Poppaea’s numismatic likenesses.
The portrait may, in fact be Poppaea’s predecessor, Octavia
Augusta. For a brief discussion of the problems surround-
ing Poppaea’s portraiture, see D. Boschung (1993b) 77. In
addition to sculpted, glyptic, and numismatic representa-
tions of Poppaea, Dio mentions posthumous theatrical masks
which bore the likeness of Poppaea, 62(63) 9.5 (and Suetonius
21.3 where Poppaea is not mentioned by name; see also S.
Bartsch.(1994) 47. I would like to thank Niall W. Slater for
bringing these masks to my attention.
347
J.J. Bernoulli (1886) 417, pl. 35.20 (unspecified Asia
Minor mint). Alexandrian issues: A. Geissen (1974) 58, nos.
155, 157-59, 60, nos. 168-69.
348
Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 14519, 2.6 x 1.8
cm; A. Giuliano, ed. (1989) 274, no. 229 (with figs.) (with
earlier literature); E.R. Varner (2001b) 48, fig. 1.
349
Private collection, 2.4 x 1.5 cm.; W.R. Megow (1973)
244-45, no. 393, pl. 181; Megow (1987) 260-61, no. B 28,
pls. 34.14-16.; T. Mickoki (1995) 188, no. 257, pl. 24; H.
Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 30, 97, fig. 57; S. Wood (1999)
289; E.R. Varner (2001) 48. E.R. Varner (2001 a) 48, fig.
2. Wood suggests that the portrait might in fact represent
Octavia Claudia, but the coiffure is much closer to the
Alexandrian coins of Poppaea and the divine assimilation
and Egyptianizing implications of the headdress seem more
suited to Poppaea.
350
While Poppaea’s coiffure is similar to that of her
mother-in-law Agrippina Minor, the curls massed over the
forehead are larger and run much farther back over the
top of the head, as is especially visible in the Alexandrian
issues. The braids on the back of the head are gathered
together and looped back up, forming a long and thick pony
tail on the nape of the neck. Poppaea’s ears are usually shown
uncovered, and she is depicted with a long, fairly straight
shoulder lock. In addition, Poppaea’s face and neck are
longer than that of Agrippina Minor. It is likely that
Poppaea’s hairstyle is closer to those popular in the early
Flavian period, for instance, that worn by Domitia in her
first portrait type, ca. A.D. 71, see E.R. Varner (1995) 189-
93, figs. 1-2.
351
The aegis headdress may also be meant to recall the
headdress of the Egyptian goddess Hathor. I would like to
thank Gay Robins and Saskia Benjamin for alerting me to
the Egyptian implications of this headdress.
Bonn cameo has been quite literally defaced; the
nose, lips, and chin have all been entirely de-
stroyed as a dramatic repudiation of her deifica-
tion. In addition, the destruction of the cameo
may be intended to deprive the piece of any
magical or supernatural qualities believed to
reside in the gem itself. The virulent mutilation
of the Bonn cameo is all the more remarkable
as it is one of only two cameos with imperial
portraits to have been vandalized.352 Unlike their
sculpted counterparts, imperial gems were not
part of the public visual discourse, and so lay
outside the scope of usual condemnation prac-
tices. In addition, they were presumably designed
for more partisanal audiences, such as members
of the imperial family and entourage.353
Conclusion: Rome’s First Official Imperial Condemnation
Although Caligula’s condemnation had an offi-
cial implication in terms of the senatorial recall
of his coinage, it was essentially a de-facto damnatio.
The repression of Nero’s memory was, however,
officially sanctioned by the Senate and initiated
when he was declared a hostis while still living.
The senatorial measures passed to restore his
images, as well as those of Poppaea, underscore
the official nature of the initial sanctions. Nero
is the first princeps whose memory was officially
condemned and his damnatio follows the proce-
dural precedents set for Caligula’s condemnation
and included the outright destruction, mutilation,
transformation, and warehousing of his sculpted
likenesses. His coins were also effaced and coun-
termarked and his name erased in honorific in-
scriptions.
As with Caligula, the bulk of the evidence for
Nero’s damnatio is centered around a vast num-
352
A sardonyx cameo with facing portraits of Macrinus
and Diadumenianus has suffered similar mutilation of the
facial features, Bonn, Rheinishces Landesmuseums, inv.
32300; cat. 7.11.
353
Thanks are due to M. Koortbojian for perceptive
comments on this gem and its relationship to mutilated
sculpted images. On the more flamboyant imagery and
restricted audiences of imperial cameos, see R.R.R. Smith
(2000) 542.
 nero and poppaea
ber of portraits which have been recycled, usually
into representations of the succeeding Flavian
emperors, but also into his great-great grand-
father, Augustus, as well as Claudius, Galba,
Trajan, Antinous, and Gallienus. Indeed the
Neronian material is the chronological, as well
as qualitative and quantitative fulcrum for the full
blown practice of sculptural transformations.
More portraits of Nero were reconfigured than
for any other emperor and into a wider variety
of new identities. Nero’s images which have been
recycled into likenesses of Vespasian had the
same critical stylistic impact on the development
of portraiture as Caligula’s images refashioned
into Claudius. Vespasian’s most insistently veristic
representations, as well as his most cooly classi-
cizing, are the products of sculptural recycling.
Vespasian’s revival of verism with its republican
connotations clearly signaled a period of transi-
tion from the Julio-Claudian to the Flavian re-
gimes. On the other hand, his continued use of
classicizing representations promoted his legiti-
macy by visually connecting him to the founder
of the Empire, Augustus. The simultaneous use
of two oppositional portrait modes underscores
the potentially volatile nature of style, especially
85
in periods of political transition as a new regime
attempts to establish power. In addition, the
existence of two stylistic possibilities implies at
least two distinct audiences for the imagery; the
veristic images likely resonated with the disaf-
fected senatorial aristocracy who had entertained
the possibility of dismantling the principate after
Caligula’s overthrow, while the more classicizing
likenesses, with their intimations of continuity
with the Julio-Claudians would have appealed to
those who had benefitted under their rule.
Nero was not only the first princeps to be of-
ficially condemned, but also the first whose
memory and images were subsequently rehabili-
tated, first under Otho and Vitellius, and much
later in the mid third and the end of the fourth
century. Nero’s rehabilitations, as well as the
phenomenon of the “false Neros” which contin-
ued into the second century, underscore his con-
tinued posthumous popularity and highlight the
complexities of the condemnation process. The
practice itself necessarily had to be remarkably
flexible, but it also had to take into account
widely differing assessments, both negative and
positive, of the overthrown ruler and regime.
86 chapter four
CHAPTER FOUR
OTHER JULIO-CLAUDIANS
Julia Maior
In addition to the damnationes leveled against
Caligula and Nero, the Julio-Claudian period
witnessed several other condemnations of mem-
bers of the imperial family. Julia, Augustus’s only
child by his second wife Scribonia, is the first of
the imperial women whose memory was con-
demned.1 Julia was born in 39 B.C. and married
her cousin M. Marcellus in 25 B.C.2 Marcellus
died in 23 B.C., and in that same year Julia
married M. Vipsanius Agrippa and ultimately
bore him five children.3 Their two eldest sons
Gaius and Lucius Caesar were formally adopt-
ed by Augustus as his heirs.4 Following Agrippa’s
death, Julia married Augustus’s stepson, Tiberi-
us, in 11 B.C.5 The couple had one son, Clau-
dius, who died in infancy.6 Their marriage
proved unhappy, however, and Tiberius left
Rome for retirement on Rhodes in 6 B.C. While
Tiberius was absent from Rome, Julia was ac-
cused of adultery and banished by Augustus to
Pandateria in 2 B.C.7 Upon his accession, Tibe-
rius refused to end Julia’s exile, and further re-
stricted her liberty, which reportedly hastened her
death from starvation, in A.D. 14.8
Although charges of adultery were leveled
against her, Julia’s exile was more likely motivat-
ed by her involvement in political intrigues
1 E. Meise (1969) 3-34; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier
(1987)358-59, no. 421; E.R. Varner (2001a) 57-60.
2 Suet. Aug. 63.1; Vell.Pat. 2.93.2, Dio (48.34.3; 53.27.5;
54.65, 8.5, 18.1, 31.1-2, 35.4; 55.2-4, 10.14;
3 Gaius, Lucius, Julia Minor (Vipsania Julia), Agrippi-
na Maior (Vipsania Agrippina), and Agrippa Postumus,
Suet. Aug. 65.1., Cal. 7.1.; Vell.Pat. 96.1.
4 Suet. Aug. 64.1.; Vell.Pat. 96.1.
5 Dio 54.35.4.
6 Suet. Tib. 7.3.
7 Suet. Aug. 54.1; Tac. Ann 1.53; Vel.Pat. Hist. 2.100.
8 Tac. Ann 1.53.1-2; Dio 57.18.1a. On the political mo-
tives behind Tiberius’s actions, see J. Linderski (1988) 198.
against Augustus.9 Pliny explicitly links the charg-
es of adultery and conspiracy: adulterium et consil-
ia parricidae palam facta and the two need not be
mutually exclusive.10 Also implicated in the plot
were Sempronius Gracchus, Appius Claudius,
Quintus Crispinus, Scipio, and Iullus Antonius,
the second son of M. Antony and Fulvia.11 Dio
reports that Iullus was executed for attempting
to seize the principate.12 The charges of adultery
and sexual promiscuity leveled against Julia ef-
fectively blackened her reputation and destroyed
her political influence. Indeed sex and politics are
inextricably bound together in the rhetoric sur-
rounding Julia’s downfall and two of the locales
of her alleged assignations, the Statue of Mars-
yas and Rostra in the Forum Romanum, are
9 B. Levick (1976) 306. G. Williams also links the char-
ges of adultery with “other transgressions, in D.E.E. Klei-
ner and S.B. Matheson, eds. (1996)128, 133. A. Ferril denies
that there was a plot, but does not adequately explain
Pliny’s explicit statement and Julia’s known involvement
with other conspirators who were condemned for maiestas.
Ferril also neglects to account for subsequent charges of
adultery against imperial women involved in conspiracies
against the reigning princeps, nor does he acknowledge that
elite male historians might have deliberately suppressed,
minimalized, or trivialized the roles of powerful imperial
women who attempted to overthrow the current regime
(1980)332-46. In his study of maiestas, R.A. Bauman also
reviewed the evidence concerning Julia, and felt that there
was no full blown conspiracy (1967) 198-206 and (1992)
108-119. Nevertheless, in his later study of maiestas in the
early empire, he fully acknowledges the use of accusationes
adulterii as substitutions for charges of maiestas in reference
to Valeria Messalina, (1974) 177-88. K.A. Raaflaub and
L. J. Sammons II review the ancient evidence and modern
scholarship concerning Julia’s involvement in a conspira-
cy, and suggest that it may have been a kind of internal
palace intrigue revolving around the succession, in K.A.
Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds. (1990) 428-30; E.R. Varner
(2001a) 58.
10 HN 7.45; S. Wood (1999) 138-40.
11 Vel.Pat. Hist. 100.4-5.
12 Dio 55.10.15.
 other julio-claudians
politically charged prominent public spaces.13
Ultimately accusations of sexual impropriety
would become the standard way of discrediting
later imperial women embroiled in political in-
trigues against the reigning emperor.14 Julia
herself continued to be a potential threat to her
father even in exile.15 Late in A.D. 7, or early 8,
a conspiracy was formed to liberate Julia and her
son Agrippa Postumus, who had been exiled in
A.D. 7, and bring them to disaffected troops
stationed nearby.16
In addition to formally requesting the Senate
to banish his daughter, Augustus forbade her
interment in his Mausoleum and formally disin-
herited her in his will, thus revoking her mem-
bership in the gens Iulia.17 After 2 B.C., it would
no longer have been politically expedient to
commemorate the emperor’s daughter with por-
traits. Nevertheless, before her banishment, Julia’s
portrait honors are attested by seven surviving
inscriptions from the Greek speaking east.18
Julia’s likeness is preserved on a lead tessera with
13 Sen. Ben 6.32.1; Pliny HN 21.6.9; Dio 55.10.12; S.
Wood (1999) 37-40.
14 Julia was even accused of adultery with the actor, De-
mosthenes and such accusations of adultery with actors and
other lower class males, served as a kind of literary and bio-
graphical topos used to denigrate the reputations of impe-
rial women. (Macr. Sat. 1.11.17); see M.P. Vinson (1989)
440.
15 Dio 55.12.1; B. Levick (1976) 310; A. Richlin has spe-
culated that Julia’s well known witticisms preserved by Ma-
crobius, may function as a form of subversive humor indi-
cative of her personal opposition to the status quo (1992)
74-9.
16 Suet. Aug.19.2; B. Levick, (1976) 337-38; J. Linders-
ki, (1988) 198. B. Levick has further suggested that Julia
the Younger may have been responsible for the attempt
to free her mother and brother, (1976) 337-38.
17 On the letter to the Senate, see, Plin. NH 21.9; On
Augustus’s refusal to allow Julia’s burial in his mausoleum,
see, Suet. Aug. 101.3; Dio 56.32.4) on Julia’s disinherison,
see J. Linderski (1988) 190.
18 D. Boschung (1993b) 48, n. 50 and C.B. Rose (1997)
61. Julia’s seven surviving inscriptions are: Delphi, SIG 779
A, B, D (14-2 B.C., together with Agrippina Maior, Lu-
cius and Gaius(?), C.B. Rose [1997] 139-40, cat. 70; Ephe-
sus, Forsch.Ephes 3.52 = ILS 8897 = IvEph 3006, Mithrada-
tes tower (4 B.C., together with Augustus, Livia, Agrippa,
and Lucius Caesar; C.B. Rose [1997] 172-4, cat. 112);
Lindos, C. Blinkenberg (1941) no. 385 (9-2 B.C., together
with Tiberius and Drusus Maior; C.B. Rose [1997] 153-
87
an accompanying inscription,19 on coins, includ-
ing a group portrait with her two sons on the
obverse of a denarius minted in Rome in 13 B.C.,20
on a bronze issue from Pergamum where she is
identified as Julia Aphrodite,21 and possibly on
a scabbard with Gaius and Lucius.22 Indeed, the
only inscriptional evidence for Julia’s inclusion in
group dedications comes from the eastern por-
tions of the empire.23 While it is conceivable that
her image was allowed to remain on view in the
east, most of her portraits must have been de-
stroyed or warehoused following her condemna-
tion.24 Although attempts have been made to
identify likenesses from Béziers and in Kiel as
Julia, these portraits are more plausibly associ-
ated with Livia.25 Similarly, C.B. Rose’s sugges-
4, cat. 87); Palaephahus, IGR 3.943, BSA 42 (1947) 228,
no. 12 (together with Tiberius; C.B. Rose [1997] 156, cat.
91; Sestos, IGR 1.821 (together with Agrippa; C.B. Rose
[1997] 180, cat. 122); Thasos, IG 12.8.381 = ILS 8784 =
IGR 1.835 (12-2 B.C., together with Livia and Julia Mi-
nor; C.B. Rose [1997] 158-59, cat. 95; Thespiae, BCH 50
(1926) 447, nos. 88-89 (after 14 B.C., together with Livia,
Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, and Agrippina Maior; C.B.
Rose [1997] 149-51, cat. 82}.
19 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme; the
lead tessera is very badly deteriorated, but its inscription
reads (IV)LIA AVGVSTI and Julia is depicted with a no-
dus coiffure, wide eyes, and aquiline nose; see G.Grimm
(1973) 279, pl. 87.2 (with earlier literature); C.B. Rose
(1997) 61; S. Wood (1999) 69.
20 Minted by G. Marius; BMCRE 1.2, nos. 106, 108-9,
pl. 4.3,5; RIC 1,76, nos. 166,166a, pl. 2.19; 10J.B. Girard
(1976) 111, pl. 25.529; P. Zanker (1988) 216, fig. 167a-b;
C.B. Rose (1997) 14-15, pl. 8; S. Wood (1999) 63-8, fig.20.
21 London, British Museum 096524; J. Pollini, in K.
Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds. (1990) 354, fig. 31; S. Wood
(1999) 64, 69, fig. 21.
22 Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum; P. Zanker (1988)
218, fig. 172; A. Kuttner (1994) 174-75, fig. 114; E. Bartt-
man (1999) 12, 20, 82-3, 95, 96, n. 9; 98, n. 69; S. Wood
(1999) 106-7; E.R. Varner (2001a) 59. An aes from Perga-
mum, c. 11 B.C., may represent Livia on the obverse as
Hera, and Julia on the reverse as Aphrodite, Paris Biblio-
thèque Nationale, no. 1195; W.H. Gross (1962) 29, n. 17,
pl. 4, figs. 6-8; M.L. Anderson (1987) 130, fig. 4.
23 C.B. Rose (1997) 20-21; S. Wood (1999) 20.
24 S. Wood (1999) 27, 30; E.R. Varner (2001a) 59-60.
25 D Boschung (1993) 48-50 identifies the Béziers-Kiel
type as Julia; see also J.C. Balty in Lo sguardo di Roma 204,
no. 143;. R Winkes correctly assigns to type to Livia (1995)
112-13, no. 38, 181, no. 104; C.B. Rose (1997) 126-8, cat.
42, pl. 161, and E. Bartman (1998) 145, 167, no. 47, fig.
92. Wood’s identification of the female portraits in the Be-
88 chapter four
tion that another portrait from the Beziers group,
as well as a portrait in Copenhagen reputedly
from Caere represent Julia, seems unlikely.26
These portraits bear a strong physical resem-
blance to Agrippa, and S. Wood is certainly
correct to identify them as Agrippa’s daughter,
Vipsania Agrippina who was also married to
Tiberius and the mother of his heir, Drusus
Minor.27 Ultimately, a portrait from Corinth is
the most likely candidate as representation of
Julia, and it was apparently produced by the same
sculptural workshop as the well known statues of
Augustus, Gaius and Lucius from the Basilica.28
If the head does depict Julia, as seems probable,
then it was presumably removed from its origi-
nal context and stored or buried in the vicinity
of the basilica and forum. The absence of Julia
in a large Julio-Claudian group dedication from
Velia, which included in its initial phase repre-
sentations of Gaius, Lucius, Octavia and Livia
may further indicate that Julia’s likenesses were
removed after her condemnation in 2 B.C. 29 The
portrait group appears to have decorated some
kind of medical collegium and may have been
commissioned in honor of Gaius’s taking of the
toga virilis in 5 B.C.30
Grave difficulties surround the secure identi-
fication of Julia on the greatest dynastic monu-
ment of the Augustan period, the Ara Pacis
Augustae, and indeed she appears to be conspic-
uously absent as a result of her banishment and
consequent condemnation. Although the Ara
Pacis preserves no evidence for the excision of
any figure from the monument, Julia may have
ziers group as Livia, Vipsania Agrippina, Antonia Minor
(?), and a prominent local woman seems most convincing
(1997).
26 Toulouse, Musée St. Raymond, inv. 30.004; C.B.
Rose (1997) 61, 126-8, cat. 52, pl. 45, 159; Copenhagen,
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, inv. 1282; C.B. Rose (1997) 61,
pls. 43-5. See also E. Bartman (1999) 215-6.
27 It seems inconceivable that images of Augustus’ only
child would not stress her resemblance to him as S. Wood
has noted (1999) 187-88.
28 E. de Grazia Vanderpool (1994) 285; J. Pollini (forth-
coming).
29 C.B. Rose (1997) 120-21, cat. 49, pls 122-31; E. Bart-
man (1999) 80, n. 47.
30 C.B. Rose (1997) 121.
been refashioned into someone else. The ques-
tion of Julia’s appearance on the altar, or erasure
or alteration are further compounded by the
monument’s current alignment, which, as D.
Conlin has amply demonstrated, has mis-restored
and missing figures.31 Although Julia has been
recognized as the female figure wearing a ricin-
ium, the traditional fringed cloak of the Roman
widow, on the north frieze of the Ara Pacis (N
36), the identification is not especially persuasive
and as the figure is headless, the question of a
possible reconfiguration of the portrait features
remains open.32 Attempts to identify the female
figure behind Agrippa on the South Frieze (S 32),
usually identified as Livia, as Julia are similarly
unconvincing and present even more insurmount-
able interpretive difficulties.33
Agrippa Postumus
The youngest child of Julia and Agrippa, Agrip-
pa Postumus was adopted by his grandfather
Augustus, together with Tiberius, in A.D. 4, fol-
lowing the death of his eldest brother Gaius. Just
three years later, in A.D. 7, Ausgustus had his
only surviving grandson banished, first to Surren-
tum, and later to the island of Planasia off the
coast of Etruria, where he was also placed un-
der guard (insuper custodia militum).34 Upon the
accession of Tiberius in A.D. 14, Postumus was
murdered by one of his guards; the orders for the
murder are variously attributed to Tiberius, Livia,
or, posthumously, to Augustus.35 Although Sue-
tonius attributes his downfall to his sordid and
31 D.A. Conlin (1992) 209-5; G. Koeppel (1992) 216-
8; D.A. Conlin (1997) 45-56.
32 See C.B. Rose (1990) 463, R. Billows (1993) 91 and
A. Kuttner (1995) 100; E. Bartman (1998) 44; see also E.
Simon (1967) 21 on the controversy surrounding the iden-
tification of this figure and the nature of the ricinium see
J.L. Sebesta in J.L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante, eds. (1994)
50 and E.R. Varner (2001a) 60.
33 A. Bonnano (1976) 28. D. Boschung (1993b) 49; for
the difficulties inherent in maintaining an identification of
S 32 as Julia rather than Livia, see E.R. Varner (2001a)
60-61.
34 Suet. Aug. 65.4; Tac. Ann.1.3.
35 Suet. Tib. 22; Tac.Ann. 1.6.
 other julio-claudians
ferocious temperament36 and Tacitus claims that
he had been convicted of no crimes37 Postumus’s
exilium and eventual relagatio ad insulam may, in
fact, have been politically motivated, as suggest-
ed by the plot to liberate him, as well as his
mother, late in A.D. 7 or early in A.D. 8.38
Postumus also seems to have been somehow in-
volved in the intrigues which led to his sister
Julia’s downfall and banishment in A.D. 8.39 In
addition, a plot to avenge Agrippa was led by his
slave Clemens and it is enumerated by Suetonius
together with the sedition of Lucius Scribonius
Libo whose brother M. Scribonius Libo Drusus
was eventually condemned for maiestas in A.D.
16), and mutinies in Illyricum and Germany at
the outset of Tiberius’s principate.40
Agrippa Postumus’s image appears on coins
minted at Corinth in A.D. 5.41 In addition, a
statue base of Agrippa Postumus at a building
associated with the Augustales at Lucus Feroniae
attests to the creation of his portraits,42 and he
is honored as a boy of 7 at Forum Clodii in 5
B.C. in a group dedication which included is
brother Lucius, and almost certainly his oldest
brother Gaius as well.43 His name occurs on an
altar together with Gaius and Lucius at Ephesus,
also probably erected c. 5 B.C,44 as well as an
inscription from Samos.45 The memory and rep-
utation of Postumus appears to have been reha-
bilitated under his nephew, Caligula as his name
appears on an altar together with those of his
father and Caligula’s siblings.46 The linkage of
Agrippa Postumus with Caligula’s brothers, Nero
and Drusus Caesar, suggest that he was being
36 Suet. Aug. 65.1 (ob ingenium sordidum ac fercox).
37 Tac. Ann. 1.3 (nullius tamen flagitii conpertum).
38 Suet. Aug.19.2; B. Levick, (1976) 337-38; J. Linderski,
(1988) 198.
39 E. Meise (1969) 37.
40 Suet.Tib. 25.1.
41 RPC 252, no. 1141 (as); F. Salviat and D. Terner
(1982) 237-41.
42 L. Sensi (1985-86) 284, no. 5; AE (1988) 548; C.B.
Rose (1997) 93.
43 C.B. Rose (1997) 88, no. 10.
44 I. Ephesos 253; C.B. Rose (1997) 221, n. 97.
45 IGR 4.1718; C.B. Rose (1997) 224, n. 148.
46 IG 12.2.172; IGR 4.78; C. Hanson and F.P. Johnson
(1946) 399; C.B. Rose (1997) 35, 233-4, n. 63
89
reclaimed and celebrated posthumously, like
them, as victims of Tiberius.
After his banishment, Agrippa Postumus was
naturally excluded from group dedications, in-
cluding one set up in A.D. 8 at Eresus on Les-
bos.47 There is no surviving evidence for Agrip-
pa Postumus’s appearance in any of the
Julio-Claudian group dedications in the East.48
Agrippa Postumus is conspicuously absent from
a group dedication set up on the Acropolis at
Athens.49 The base for the statues consists of a
reused 3rd century B.C. inscription and honors
Augustus, Tiberius, Drusus Minor, and German-
icus. There is a base for a fifth honorand, possi-
bly Agrippa Postumus, which was never used.
The portraits were erected after the adoption of
Tiberius and Agrippa Postumus in A.D. 4, and
Tiberius’s adoption of Germanicus in that same
year. It may originally have been intended to
honor the male members of the Julian gens as they
existed in A.D. 4, namely the emperor, his two
adopted sons, Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius,
and Tiberius’s natural son, Drusus Minor, and
adopted son Germanicus. News of Agrippa Pos-
tumus’s condemnation and banishment may have
interrupted the erection of this group and ulti-
mately precluded his inclusion, thus accounting
for the empty base, which was left vacant until
the reign of Trajan, when an image of that
emperor was added to the ensemble.
Julia Minor
Shortly after Agrippa Postumus’s exile, in A.D.
8 his eldest sister Julia Minor (Vipsania Julia), was
also banished. 50 As was the case with her mother,
Julia Minor may also have been involved with an
anti-Augustan faction. Most tellingly, shortly after
Julia’s banishment to the Island of Trimerus, her
husband Lucius Aemilius Paullus was actually
47 C.B. Rose (1997) 152.
48 C.B. Rose (1997) 20, 157.
49 C.B. Rose (1997) 138, no. 66.
50 E. Meise (1969) 35-48; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier
(1987)635-6, no. 813; D.E.E. Kleiner in E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 48; E.R. Varner (2001a) 60.
90 chapter four
executed on charges of maiestas.51 As already
noted, Agrippa Postumus may also have been
implicated at an earlier stage in the conspiracy,
and possibly Ovid as well.52 Julia survived in exile
for twenty years, and finally died in A.D. 28.53
In addition to ordering her banishment, Augus-
tus commanded that the child Julia Minor was
expecting was to be exposed at birth: ex nepte Iulia
post damnationem editum infantem adgnosci alique vetu-
it.54 Like her mother befor her, Julia Minor was
refused burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus,55
and so symbolically disinherited her from the
Julia-Claudian family for all posterity.56 In ad-
dition, Augustus ordered one of Julia’s villa’s
razed to the ground, an act which would have
had strong conceptual resonances with the de-
struction of domås belonging to condemned indi-
viduals in the Republic.57 Inscriptional evi-
dence confirms the inclusion of Julia Minor’s
portraits in group dedications, but, as a direct
consequence of her disgrace and downfall, no
surviving sculpted representations can be iden-
tified with certainty.58
51 nupta Aemilio Paulo, cum in maiestatis crimine perisset, ab
avo relegata est, post revocata cum semet vitiis addixisset perpetuo
damnata est supplicio, Schol.Iuv. 6.158; Suet. Aug. 19.1; Tac.
Ann 3.24; 4.71; Pliny HN 7.45.149; Schol.Juv. 6.158.
52 On Ovid’s involvement, see R. Syme (1955) 488; and
E. Meise (1969) 47. B. Levick has further suggested that
after Agrippa Postumus’s banishment late in A.D. 7, Julia
may have formed a plot to rescue her brother and mother
from exile, ultimately ensuring her own banishment (1976)
337-38. Again, K.A. Raaflaub and L.J. Sammons II sug-
gest that any intrigue may have centered on the question
of the succession in K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds.
(1990) 430-31.
53 Tac. Ann. 4.71.
54 Suet. Aug. 65.4.
55 Suet. Aug. 90.3.
56 J. Linderski (1988) 191.
57 Suet. Aug.72.3; C. Edwards (1993) 166, n. 74; M..
Bergmann (1994) 225-226, n. 4; J. Bodel (1997) 10; P.J.E.
Davies in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 38; E.R. Varner (2001a)
61.
58 Thasos, IG 12.8.381 = ILS 8784 = IGR 1.835 (with
the elder Julia), C.B. Rose (1997) 158-9, no. 95 and supra.
E.R. Varner (2001a) 61; Julia Minor may also have been
present in a dedication at Delphi, but it seems likely that
the fragmentary inscription refers to her mother; SIG 3
779.A, B, D; C. B. Rose (1997) 139-40, no. 70.
Agrippina Maior
Julia Minor’s sister, Agrippina Maior, was pub-
licly condemned for her outspoken opposition to
her uncle, Tiberius. Agrippina was born c. 14
B.C., married to Germanicus in A.D. 5, and bore
him nine children.59 After the death of German-
icus, under mysterious circumstances involving
Gn. Calpurnius Piso, at Antioch in A.D. 17,
Agrippina Maior returned to Rome with her
children. Agrippina’s position as the widow of the
enormously popular Germanicus, whom Tiberius
had formally adopted, and the granddaughter of
Augustus, insured her an elevated position at the
capital, but relations between the emperor and
Agrippina quickly deteriorated.60 Tiberius refused
to let her remarry, perhaps fearing that any
husband of Agrippina could stand as a potential
rival to his own son, Drusus Minor, for the suc-
cession.
In A.D. 29, Tiberius finally prevailed upon the
Senate to exile Agrippina to Pandateria where
she eventually starved herself to death in A.D.
33.61 After her death, Tiberius officially com-
memorated his merciful treatment of Agrippina
for refraining from having her strangled and her
corpse thrown down the Gemonian steps in an
act of poena post mortem.62 Agrippina’s exclusion
from the Mausoleum of Augustus posthumously
canceled her membership in the imperial fami-
ly, as had happened to her mother and sister
before her. Agrippina’s memory was further
publicly dishonored when her birthday was pro-
59 For their marriage, see CIL 6.886 = ILS 180; CIL
6.4387, 5186, 5772, 17146 CIL 9. 2635; CIL 11.167 = ILS
179; AE (1968) 476 = IvEphes. 256; AE (1980) 874; ZPE 55
(1984) 58.1.7; 59.1.21; Suet. Aug. 64.1; Tac. Ann.1.33. For
the children, see Suet. Calig. 7; Plin. HN 7.13.57.
60 Tiberius is said to have remarked to Agrippina, “Is
it your opinion, my little daughter, that you have been un-
justly treated if you are not completely in charge?.” “Si non
dominaris,” inquit, “filiola, iniuriam te accipere existimas?” Suet.
Tib. 53.1.
61 Suet. Tib. 53.2. Suet. Cal. 10; Tac. Ann. 25; Dio
58.22.4-5. Tiberius apparently also accused her of impudi-
citia and adultery with Asinius Gallus, Tac. Ann 25; see also
M.P. Charlesworth (1922) 260-1; E.R. Varner (2001a) 61-
2.
62 Suet. Tib. 53.2; Tac. Ann. 25; D.G. Kyle (1998) 232,
n. 34.
 other julio-claudians
claimed a dies nefastus, an act against her memo-
ry with profound political implications.63 Agrip-
pina’s images had been widely disseminated and,
indeed, had played an important role in the
protests on her behalf when her supporters car-
ried her representations and those of her son
Nero around the Curia while the Senate deliber-
ated whether to pass sanctions against her (Simul
populus effigies Agrippinae ac Neronis gerens circumsis-
tit curiam faustisque).64 Following her condemna-
tion, however, it would no longer have been
appropriate or prudent to display Agrippina’s
likenesses in either public or domestic contexts.
Subsequently, after Agrippina Maior’s memory
was rehabilitated by her children Caligula and
Agrippina Minor, new images were created for
her. In fact, one of Caligula’s first public acts as
emperor was to retrieve Agrippina’s ashes, togeth-
er with those of his brothers Nero and Drusus,
and inter them in the Mausoleum of Augustus,
thus rescinding their disinhersion and restoring
them to their rightful membership in the Julio-
Claudian gens.65 The production of new repre-
sentations in the Caligulan and Claudian peri-
od suggests that many of her portraits had been
damaged or destroyed under Tiberius, and in
fact, the majority of her surviving portraits are
posthumous.66 As part of her rehabilitation, the
proclamation of her birthday as a dies nefastus was
also rescinded.67
63 AFA 49.1-4 = Smallwood 9.11-15; Suet. Tib. 53.2;
A. Barrett (1989) 62.
64 Tac. Ann. 5.4.
65 Suet. Cal.15.1.
66 As, for instance, the well known bust in the Museo
Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperiatori 7, inv. 421, h. 0.31
m., Fittschen-Zanker III, 5-6, no. 4, pls. 4-5; S. Wood (1999)
221-2, figs. 91-2.. On Caligula and Agrippina Minor’s reha-
bilitation of their mother’s memory, see S. Wood (1988)
409-26; S. Wood (1999) 178. Under Caligula, a portrait
of Agrippina Maior was also added to the cycle of Julio-
Claudian statuary in the Basilica at Velleia (Parma, Mu-
seo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 828); a portrait from the
Domus dei Moasaici at Rusellae may also be posthumous,
either Caligulan or Claudian (Grosseto, Museo Archeolo-
gico e d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 1729148).
67 AFA (Scheid) 221.3; AFA (Smallwood) 9.11-15; Bar-
rett (1996) 51.
91
Nero and Drusus Caesar
Agrippina’s two eldest sons, Nero and Drusus
Caesar also suffered in their mother’s downfall.
Nero was born in A.D. 6, and Drusus in A.D. 7.
Under Tiberius, both boys were declared hostes.
Nero was exiled to Pontia, where he was starved
to death in 31, and Drusus was imprisoned on
the Palatine, and also starved to death in 33.68
In an act of poena post mortem, both of their corpses
were dismembered and so thoroughly scattered
that they could scarcely be gathered up (amborum
sic reliquas dispersas ut vix quandoque colligi possent).69
Their remains were also denied burial in the
Mausoleum of Augustus. When their younger
brother Caligula attained the principate, he re-
habilitated their memories together with Agrip-
pina, and also deposited their ashes in the Mau-
soleum.70
Based on extant inscriptions and literary sourc-
es, portraits of Drusus and Nero Caesar were
created in three separate phases: in 19, just af-
ter the death of their father Germanicus; between
23 and their downfall in 29; and under Caligu-
la.71 During the 8 year period after their condem-
nation in 29 and prior to Caligula’s accession in
37, continued display of their images would have
been discouraged and existing portraits may have
been removed or destroyed. Many of the surviv-
ing images convincingly identified by C.B. Rose
as Nero and Drusus appear to be posthumous
and date to the principate of Caligula, as for
instance a cuirassed portrait of Nero Caesar from
the theater at Caere or a statue of Drusus in
heroic nudity from Rusellae.72 As with their
68 iudicatos hostes, Suet. Tib. 54.2; Neronem et Drusum se-
natus Tiberio criminante hostes iudicavit, Suet. Cal. 7.
69 Suet.Tib. 54.2.
70 Suet.Cal. 15.1; S. Wood (1999) 208.
71 C.B. Rose (1997) 66.
72 Nero Caesar: from Caere, Musei Vaticani, Museo
Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9963, C.B. Rose (1997) 67, 83-
6, cat. 5.4, pls. 67-8; from Rusellae, Grosseto Museo Ar-
cheologico e d’Arte della Maremma; C.B. Rose 67, 116-
8, cat. 45.5; from Velia, Marna di Ascea, Soprintendenza
Archeologica, inv. 3994 (17486), C.B. Rose (1997) 67, 120-
21, cat. 49.7, p. 128; Drusus Caesar, from Rusellae, Gros-
seto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, C.B.
Rose 66, 116-8, cat. 45.6. The dedicatory inscription to
Drusus has also survived:
92 chapter four
mother, these new Caligulan images may have
been intended to replace damaged or destroyed
likenesses.
Sejanus
Lucius Aelius Sejanus was appointed co-Praefect
of the Praetorian Guard, together with his father,
Lucius Seius Strabo, at the accession of Tiberi-
us in A.D. 14.73 Not long afterward, Strabo was
named Praefect of Egypt, and, as sole Praefectus
Praetorio, Sejanus wielded considerable power.
Sejanus initiated a series of persecutions against
the supporters of Agrippina Maior in the capi-
tal, and in 29, was instrumental in engineering
her banishment to Pandateria. Sejanus, in con-
junction with the emperor’s niece and daughter-
in-law, Livilla, appears to have been planning to
seize the principate from Tiberius, but the em-
peror was warned of the plot by Antonia Minor
and Sejanus was executed for treason, by order
of the Senate in 31; in an extended example of
poena post mortem, the populace of Rome is report-
ed to have abused his corpse for three days be-
fore throwing it into the Tiber.74 Sejanus is the
first person to suffer a damnatio memoriae in the
imperial period whose corpse was so publicly
desecrated and then discarded in the Tiber.75 His
children were also killed and his wife, Apicata,
committed suicide.76
The Senate’s pronouncements against Sejan-
us included sanctions against his memory and
monuments and mandated that the day of his
death was to be celebrated with public rejoicing.77
Dio vividly describes the destruction of the prae-
fect’s images in Rome while the Senate was de-
DRVSO CAESARI
GERMANICI CAESARIS
F TI CAESARIS AVG N
DIVI AVG PRONEPOTI
EX DD PP
73 On the career of Sejanus, see D. Hennig (1975).
74 Dio 58.11.5; see also D.G. Kyle (1998) 221-2.
75 On post mortem corpse abuse of imperial individu-
als, see E.R. Varner (2001b).
76 Tac. Ann 5(6).9; Dio 58.11.5-6.
77 Dio 58.12.2.
liberating his fate: JVH Jg g\6`<"H "bJ@Ø BVF"H
6"JX$"88@< 6"Â 6"JX6@BJ@< 6"Â 6"JXFLD@< ñH 6"\
"ÛJÎ< ¦6gÃ<@< "Æ64>`:g<@4.78 The anthropomor-
phic implications are clear: attacks on Sejanus’
portraits were carried out as if they were attacks
on his own person. Significantly, Sejanus witness-
es the anthropomorphic attacks on his images,
thus forced to be a spectator to acts which pre-
figure and parallel his own execution and the sub-
sequent defilement of his remains.79 Furthermore,
Juvenal’s description of the burning of Sejanus’s
bronze portraits is linked to partial cremation,
another form of corpse abuse and he further deni-
grates his memory by emphasizing the transfor-
mation of Sejanus’s portraits into commonplace
and derogatory objects such as pitchers, frying
pans, and slop pails.80 As an additional conse-
quence of the damnatio, Sejanus’s name is erased
in inscriptions.81 No securely identified sculpted
likenesses of Sejanus exist,82 but honorary por-
78 58.11.3. Juvenal also describes the destruction of Se-
janus’s images in graphic terms, 10.56-64: Quosdam praeci-
pitat subiecta potentia magnae/invidiae, mergit longa atque insignis
honorum/pagina: descendunt statuae restemque sequuntur,/ipsas
deinde rotas bigarum inpacta securis/caedit et inmeritis franguntur
crura caballis;/iam strident ignes, iam follibus atque caminis/ ar-
det adoratum populo caput et crepat ingens/ Seianus; deinde ex fa-
cie toto orbe secunda/ fiunt urceoli pelves sartago matellae.
79 D.G. Kyle (1998) 221.
80 10.61-4 And the head of powerful Sejanus, adored
by the people, is crackling in the flames and out of that
face, just now second in the whole world, are made pitchers,
bowls, frying pans & chamber pots; also 10.81-2; D.G. Kyle
(1998) 183, n. 106.
81 R. Cagnat (1914) 173.
82 K. Jeppesens’ attempt to identify the imperator who
stands in front of Tiberius in the Grand Camée de France
as Sejanus, rather than Germanicus is entirely unconvin-
cing (1993) 141-75. Jeppesen’s conclusions stem largely from
his unwillingness to see the scene as retrospective (i.e, com-
bining both living and deceased figures in the same sce-
ne). However, retrospective combinations of living and de-
ceased individuals can be found in other monuments, for
instance the Gemma Claudia, which has facing portraits
of Claudius and Agrippina Minor vs. Germanicus and
Agrippina Maior (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 19,
inv. IX a 63), or, in the following century, the inclusion of
Faustina Maior in the joint apotheosis scene on the base
of the Column of Antoninus Pius, despite the fact that she
had died and been divinized in A.D. 141, 20 years before
the death of her husband. Additionally, Jeppesen’s identi-
fications fail to accurately take into account the coiffures
 other julio-claudians
traits, known to have been created in great num-
bers, were removed from public display and
destroyed in the capital and elsewhere in the
Empire.83
As a mark of his denigration and the wide-
spread nature of his damnatio, Sejanus’s tria nom-
ina have been eradicated from the reverses of two
coins from the mint of Bilbilis in Spain.84 The
obverses of these coins depict laureate profile
portraits of Tiberius, while the reverses commem-
orate the joint consulship of Tiberius and Seja-
nus in 31. The reverses depict a laurel wreath,
originally surrounded by the legend NV AUGUS-
TA BILBILIS TI CAESARE V L AELIO SEIANO.
Sejanus’s names have been removed in both
coins, as has COS within the laurel wreath in one
of the coins. The appearance of Sejanus’s name
on the Tiberian coins attests to his extraordinary
prominence and influence during his tenure as
praefect. The erasure of his names from the coins
is the earliest example of numismatic damnatio in
the imperial period and dramatically underscores
his precipitous fall from power and prefigures the
random destruction of numismatic images and
inscriptions of later emperors beginning with
Caligula.85
and portrait iconography of the figures depicted in the
upper two registers. In fact, the gem must be Claudian, ce-
lebrating Nero’s adoption by Claudius in A.D. 50, as pro-
posed by Jucker (1976) 210-50.
83 Sejanus’s portraits are attested in a remarkable va-
riety of sources: Sen. Dial. 6.22.4 (Decernebatur illi statua in
Pompei theatro ponenda, quod exustum Caesar reficiebat: exclama-
vit Cordus tunc vere theatrum perire); Suet. Tib. 65.1 (et imagines
aureas coli passim videret); Tac. Ann. 3.72 (et censuere patres ef-
figiem Seiano quae apud theatrum Pompei locaretur); Ann 4.2 (ut
socium laborum non modo in sermonibus, sed apud patres et popu-
lum celebaret colique per theatra et fora effigies eius interque princi-
pia legionum sineret); Ann.4.7.2 (cerni effigiem eius in monumentis
Cn. Pompei); Ann 4.74.2 (effigiesque circum Caesaris ac Seiani
censuere); Dio 57.21.3 (JÎ< *¥ *¬ Ggï"<Î< .ä<J" X< Jè 2gV-
JDå P"86@Ø< §FJ0Fg. 5•6 J@bJ@L B@88"Â :¥< ßBÎ B@88ä<
g\6`<gH "bJ@Ø ¦B@4Z2F"<); Dio 58.2.7 (JÎ (VD J@4 B820y@H
Jä< V<D4V<T< ô< » Jg $@L8¬ 6"Â º ÂBB"H "Ë Jg ML8"Â 6"Â @Â
—<*DgH @Ê BDäJ@4 ¨FJ0F"< "bJ@Ø, @b*g X>0D\2:0Fg< –< J4H);
Dio 78.7.1 (V<*D4V-<J@H J4<ÎH "bJ@Ø). See also C.B. Rose
(1997) 31.
84 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médail-
les, Espagne, no. 444; R. Mowat (1901) 444-46; K. Regling
(1904) 144; RPC 1, 129, nos. 398-99 (for the coin type).
85 Sejanus’s downfall and subsequent condemnation pre-
93
Livilla
Livilla, Sejanus’s accomplice in the plot to over-
throw Tiberius was also condemned.86 Livilla was
born sometime between 14 and 11 B.C., the only
surviving daughter of Drusus Maior and Anto-
nia Minor.87 She was first married to Augustus’s
grandson, Gaius Caesar, and after his death, she
married Tiberius’s son Drusus Minor (Drusus
Iulius Caesar), to whom she bore one daughter
Julia, and twin sons, Germanicus Julius Caesar
and Tiberius Gemellus.88 Drusus died in A.D. 23,
allegedly poisoned by Livilla and Sejanus.89 Af-
ter the death of Drusus, Sejanus, although only
of equestrian origins, wished to marry Livilla.90
Tiberius, however, refused to permit the mar-
riage91 and, as already noted, Sejanus was even-
tually executed for plotting against the emperor
in A.D. 31.92 Charges of adultery with Sejanus
and complicity in the murder of Drusus Minor
were then brought against Livilla and she was
either executed or forced to commit suicide.93
figures that of another powerful praetorian praefect, Plau-
tianus, at the beginning of the third century; see infra.
86 E. Meise (1969) 49-90; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier
(1987)216-8, no. 239.
87 Suet. Claud. 1.6.
88 On the birth of the daughter see, Suet. Aug.99.1; Tac.
Ann. 3.29.3; and Raepsaet-Charlier; On the twin sons, see,
Tac. Ann. 2.84; CIL 5.4311 = ILS 170; Forsch.Eph. 4.3.37
= IvEph 4337; Germanicus Julius Caesar died the same year
as his father, in A.D. 23; Tiberius Gemellus was killed at
the outset of Caligula’s reign in 37 .
89 Suet. Tib. 62.1; Tac. Ann. 4.3, 4.10; Dio. 57.22.1-4.
90 Undoubtedly in order to strengthen his ties to the im-
perial house and legitimize his own claims as a successor
to Tiberius’s imperium; Tac. Ann.4.3, 4.40.
91 There is a slight possibility that the two were be-
trothed or even married prior to their deaths. Sejanus is
twice referred to as the son-in-law (generum) of Tiberius in
Tacitus, Ann. 6(5).6, 6.8; and Dio refers to Sejanus as ha-
ving married Julia, daughter of Drusus, prior to his down-
fall. Perhaps Livilla (Claudia Livia Julia), the daughter of
Drusus Maior is meant here. Alternatively, Livilla’s daugh-
ter Julia Drusilla, the daughter of Drusus Minor and wife
of Nero Caesar may also be intended although Nero Cae-
sar himself did not die until A.D. 31, so it is uncertain if
this Julia was even available for marriage prior to Sejanus’s
death on 18 October A.D. 31, Fasti Ostiensis; see also K.
Jeppesen (1993) 173 and n. 158.
92 Suet. Tib. 62.1; Dio 58.11.5-7.
93 Suet. 62.1; Dio 58.11.6-7; Octavia 941-43. Dio also
94 chapter four
Livilla was clearly complicit in Sejanus’s plot to
overthrow Tiberius, and as a result, Livilla is the
first imperial woman against whom the Senate
brought formal sanctions, voting to condemn her
memory and decreeing the destruction of her
images (atroces sententiae dicebantur, in effigies quoque
ac memoriam eius).94
Livilla’s position as the widow of the emper-
or’s son, and mother of a potential heir, Tiberi-
us Gemellus ensured her commemoration with
numerous portraits. But after her condemnation,
the senatorial sanctions mandated the erasure of
her name in inscriptions and the destruction of
her images.95 A portrait type (the Lepcis-Malta
type) which survives in at least eight replicas has
been associated with Livlla (and also with Anto-
nia Minor and Julia Livlla), but there are many
difficulties in maintaining the identification as
Livilla.96 With one exception, a portrait from
Tindari which has a crack through it, none of the
portraits exhibits any signs of deliberate damage
which could be associated with damnatio.97 The
portrait of this type in Lepcis was part of the
Julio-Claudian group dedication at the Temple
of Roma and Augustus and does not appear to
have been removed from public display, despite
the fact that her name has been erased from the
dedicatory inscription.98 Similarly, a replica from
the Julio-Claudian cycle at Rusellae appears to
have remained on public view.99 The vehement
records the alternative story that Livilla was not executed
she was forced to starve to death by her mother Antonia
Minor.
94 Tac. Ann. 6.2; see also M.B. Fory (1993) 303-4; E.R.
Varner (2001a) 63.
95 The erasure of Livilla’s name in the portrait inscrip-
tions from the Temple of Roma and Augustus at Lepcis
Magna indicates that her portrait was also likely eradica-
ted from the group diedication; H. Donner and W. Röllig
(1968) 128, no. 122.
96 S. Wood reviews the complicated evidence (1999)
190-6. Wood has further demonstrated that another por-
trait in a Swiss private collection, identified by D. Kaspar
as Livilla (H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds. [1982] 91, no.
35), is actually a Caligulan likeness of her niece, Agrippi-
na Minor (1995) 465, n. 45.
97 Palermo, Museo. S. Wood (1999) 193.
98 H. Donner and W. Röllig (1968) 128, no. 122; C.B
Rose (1997) 182, no. 125, 238, n. 44.
99 C.B. Rose (1999) 117-8.
nature of Livilla’s damnatio should argue against
the identification of the type as Livilla.100 Indeed,
no surviving sculptural portraits can be securely
associated with her as a direct result of her con-
demnation.
Glyptic images of Livilla are less problemati-
cal and her likeness has survived on thirteen
cameos.101 These gem portraits are remarkably
consistent in their portrayal of Livilla, depicting
her with a waved and centrally parted coiffure.102
The hair at the back of the head is rolled or
100 K. P. Erhart (Mottahedeh) (1978) 202-204; C.B.
Rose (1997) 68-9, 117-8; S. Wood (1999) 193.
101 As identified by W.R. Megow: 1.) Aquileia, Museo
Archeologico, (1987) 298-99, no. D 27; T. Mikocki (1995)
170, no. 136 ; 2.) Berlin, Staatliche Museen 11096, (1987)
295-96, no. D 22, pl. 12.7; 3; T. Mikocki (1995) 34-5, 174,
no. 161, pl. 4; S. Wood (1999) 196-7, fig. 79; 3.) Cambridge,
Fitzwilliam Museum, (1987) 300-301, no. D 32, pl. 14.4;
4.) London, British Museum 3434, inv. no. 1923.4-1.946,
(1987) 297, no. D 26, pl. 12.9; 5.) London, British Museum,
3581, inv. 72.6-4.1420, (1987) 293-94, no. D 19, pl. 10.4;
6.) Paris, Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles 131,
(1987) 299-300, no. D 30, pl. 12.8; 7.) Paris, Bibliothèque
National, Cabinet des Médailles 242, (1987) 296, no. D 24,
pl. 12.5; T. Mikocki (1995) 175, no. 164; 8.) Paris, Bibli-
othèque National, Cabinet des Médailles 243, (1987) 296,
no. D 23, pl. 12.6; T. Mikocki (1995) 174, no. 162, pl. 4;
S. Wood (1999) 196-7, fig. 78; 9.) Paris, Bibliothèque
National, Cabinet des Médailles 244, (1987) 296-97, no.
D 25, pl. 12.3; 10.) Schaffhausen, Museum zu Allerheili-
gen, (1987) 298-99, no. D 29, pl. 12.1,2,4; T. Mikocki (1995)
175, no. 165, pl. 11; 11) Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Mu-
seum, inv. XI 1160, (1987) 293, no. D 18; 12) Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 1821.161. no. 45, (1987)
300, no. D 31; 13.) Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 23,
inv. IX a 34, (1987) 298, no. D 28; T. Mikocki (1995) 174-
5, no. 163, p. 4. Although Megow identifies two additio-
nal cameos as likenesses of Livilla, the coiffure is slightly
different, with the ears covered, and these are more likely
to be representations of Antonia Minor (Paris, Bibliothè-
que National, Cabinet des Médailles 260, (1987) 294, no.
D 20, Pl. 7.18; Paris, Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des
Médailles 261, (1987) 294, no. D 21, Pl. 7.17); see also T.
Mickoki (1995) 174-5, nos. 163-5, pls. 4, 11 and B.S. Spaeth
(1996) 121, 146, 173-4; E.R. Varner (2001a) 63-4. It is also
important to note that these glyptic images are not repli-
cas of the Lepcis-Malta type, S. Wood (1999) 195.
102 K. Jeppesen misreads the coiffure of the seated fe-
male at the left of the Grand Camée which leads him to
identify her as Livilla; however, the coiffure is not a ver-
sion of Livia’s later, centrally parted hairstyle, but rather
a version of Agrippina Minor’s Claudian coiffure with rows
of pin curls framing the face, (1993) 148 and n. 22. The
figure also clearly displays Agrippina Minor’s receding
lower lip.
 other julio-claudians
twisted into a small chignon. The ears are left
uncovered, or with only the very tops covered.
The facial features are regular with an aquiline
nose, small mouth with pronounced downward
curve at the outer corners, and a distinctive full,
rounded chin. Two of the cameos emphasize
Livilla’s prominence as the producer of potential
heirs for Tiberius, showing her with her twin
sons, Tiberius Caesar Gemellus and Germanicus
Caesar.103 In another of the cameos, Livilla is
shown in the guise of the goddess Pax.104 The
great quantity of glyptic likenesses of Livilla which
have survived contrasts vividly with the complete
lack of marble or bronze portraits and under-
scores the eradication of her public images as a
result of the senatorial sanctions.
Valeria Messalina
Like Livilla, Valeria Messalina, the third wife of
Claudius was officially condemned by the Senate
for her role in a conspiracy against the reigning
emperor.105 Well-connected within the Julio-
Claudian family, Messalina was a great-grand-
daughter of Octavia through both her father,
Marcus Valerius Mesalla Barbatus and her moth-
er, Domitia Lepida. Messalina married the future
emperor Claudius in A.D. 38 or 39, and pro-
duced two children, Tiberius Claudius Caesar
Britannicus and Claudia Octavia.106 In A.D. 48
Messalina was involved in an intrigue with the
consul designate, Gaius Silius, culminating in the
celebration of a marriage ceremony between the
two.107 This “marriage” was likely designed to
lend legitimacy to Silius, who hoped to replace
Claudius as emperor, and also to restrain the
103 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. 11096; Paris, Bibli-
othèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv. 243; S.
Wood (1999) 196-7, figs. 78-9.
104 Schaffhausen, Museum zu Allerheiligen, 9.5 x 7.8
cm.
105 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)606-8, no. 774; E.R.
Varner (2001a) 64-68.
106 Suet. Claud. 27.1, 39.2; Tac. Ann. 11.26, 32, 34, 38;
Dio, 40.12.5.
107 Tac. Ann. 11.25-38; Suet. Claud. 26.2; Juv. Sat.
10.329-45; Dio 60.31.35; Aur.Vict. Caes. 4. 11.
95
growing power of Claudius’s freedmen and his
niece, Agrippina Minor.108 Informed of the cer-
emony while in Ostia, Claudius immediately
returned to Rome and Silius, Messalina, as well
as eight of their associates were executed.109
Tacitus specifically records that Messalina’s
portraits (as Livilla’s had been before her) were
included in the senatorial sanctions: nomen et ef-
figies privatis ac publicis locis demovendas.110 Tacitus’s
statement is supported by extant inscriptions in
which Messalina’s name is erased including a
funerary inscription belonging to one of her
freedmen111 and from the Forum of Augustus in
Rome, as well as honorific inscriptions from
Lepcis Magna, Lindos, and Arneae which have
been damaged or reused in other contexts.112 The
erased inscription from Lepcis also attests to the
removal of Messalina’s portrait from the Clau-
dian group of portraits at the Temple of Roma
and Augustus, just as Livilla’s image had been
removed and her name erased from the earlier
Tiberian dedication.113 Messalina’s damnatio was
even extended to coins as attested by issues from
Tralles that have her name intentionally chiseled
108 Tac. Ann. 11.28, 30 suggests that Silius was aiming
for the principate, while Dio indicates that Messalina wis-
hed to place Silius on the throne, 60(61).31.5 . On the plot,
see also, M. Griffin (1984) 27-29; B. Levick(1990) 64-7; S.
Wood (1992) 233-4; S. Wood (1999) 255.
109 Suet. Claud. 26.2, 39.1; Tac. Ann. 11.28-38; Dio
60(61).31.5; The others executed were: Titius Proculus, Vet-
tius Valens, Pompeius Urbicus, Saufeius Trogus, Decrius
Calpurnianus, Sulpcius Rufus, Iuncus Vergilianus, and the
actor Mnester. Mnester was widely reported to have been
Messalina’s paramour and Dio suggests that Messalina had
recalled coins of Caligula converted into bronze images of
Mnester 60.22.3; If such images were in fact produced, they
would have been subject to sanctions after the actor’s
execution.
110 Ann. 11.38.3. The Senate’s specification of public and
private locations signals the sweeping nature of the sanc-
tions against Messalina’s representations.
111 CIL 6.4474.
112 Forum of Augustus Inscription: CIL 6.6918 = ILS
210 (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo inv. 6944)
and H. Flower in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 61, fig. 3; For
the reused inscriptions see AfrIt 8 (1941) 34 (Lepcis Mag-
na); IGR 4.1146 = IG 12.1.806 (Lindos); TAM 2.3.760 (An-
reae, Lycia); C.B.Rose (1997) 41, and n. 43; S. Wood (1999)
274-5.
113 J. Reynolds and J.B. Ward-Perkins (1952) no. 340;
C.B.Rose (1997) 184, no. 126.
96 chapter four
off.114 C.B. Rose has also plausibly suggested that
Messalina may have originally appeared in the
Ravenna relief (and the statue group it may re-
flect) and if so, her image would have been re-
moved, replaced, or recut.115
As a direct result of her damnatio memoriae and
the virulence of the feeling against her, Messal-
ina is the first empress for whom there is extant
physical evidence for the deliberate mutilation of
her images. Two portraits of Messalina, in the
Galleria Chiaramonti of the Vatican (cat.3.2; fig.
99),116 and Dresden (cat. 3.1)117 were vandalized
with hammers or chisels. Both portraits represent
Messalina with complex divine attributes. The
Chiaramonti head combines a crested helmet,
reminiscent of that of the Athena Parthenos and
decorated with the Augustan symbols of the grif-
fin of Apollo and the winged horse of Mars, with
a turreted crown associated with, Cybele, Tyche,
and Roma.118 Restorations to the nose and lips
of the portrait conceal intentional mutilations and
the headdress itself has suffered extensive dam-
age. The corrosion of the portrait’s surfaces in-
dicate that it may have been thrown into a body
of water following its defacement. Substantial
blows to the Dresden portrait have split the image
into four sections. It combines a turreted crown
with a laurel or olive wreath. The overt divine
iconography of the Chiaramonti and Dresden
representations may have provoked the violent
depredations which each image has suffered, as
tangible signs of the empress’s denigration.119
The removal of Messalina’s images is con-
firmed by a full-length portrait in the Louvre
whose generally excellent state of preservation
indicate that it was warehoused following the
114 RPC 2654; BMC Lydia 345, no. 124. See also,
C.B.Rose (1997) 41, and n. 43.
115 Rose (1997) 102.
116 Galleria Chiaramonti 39.9, inv. 1814.
117 Albertinum, Skulpturensammlung, cat. 358.
118 S. Wood (1992) 225, and n. 18.
119 Three portraits, in Dresden (Albertinum, Skulptu-
rensammlung, 352), Munich (Glyptothek, inv. 316), Schloss
Fasanerie (cat. no. 23) have been identified as a second type
for Messalina, but these likenesses should be assigned to
Drusilla. S. Wood (1995) 471-82, figs. 18-19, 24-26.
empress’s downfall.120 The statue depicts Messal-
ina cradling a male infant in her left arm. Al-
though the head of the infant is a modern resto-
ration, it originally must have represented
Messalina’s son Britannicus. The pose of both
mother and child are intended to evoke the Eir-
ene and Ploutos of Kephisoditos, while the tuni-
ca and palla which the empress wears, and her
gesture of raising to right hand to the veil cov-
ering her head are clearly intended to evoke her
role as traditional Roman matrona. As a power-
ful piece of Claudian dynastic propaganda, the
Louvre portrait would have been entirely unsuit-
able for display after Messalina’s condemna-
tion.121 A papyrus in London preserves a letter
written by Claudius granting permission for a
group of portraits to be erected in Alexandria,
including representations of Claudius, Messalina,
Antonia Minor, Britannicus, Octavia Claudia,
and Claudia Antonia.122 Like the Louvre statue,
Messalina’s image was undoubtedly removed
from the Alexandrian group dedication.
Messalina’s portrait has also been removed
from a full length statue in the Julio-Claudian
Basilica at Velleia, and replaced with a likeness
of Claudius’s fourth wife, Agrippina Minor (cat.
3.4; fig. 100a-c).123 After her damnatio, Messali-
na’s head was severed from the statue and the
body prepared for the insertion of the new like-
ness of Agrippina. The pendant statue of Clau-
dius from the Velleian cycle was transformed in
an identical manner from a pre-existing likeness
120 MA 1224, h. 1.95 m.; K. de Kersauson (1986) 200-
1, no. 94, with earlier literature; S. Wood (1992) 219-34,
figs. 1-4; D. Boschung (1993b) 71, no. 166; T. Mikocki
(1995) 45, 187, no. 245; S. Wood (1999) 276-80, pls. 123-
5; E.R. Varner (2001a) 65, fig. 7. Because the portrait has
been restored from several large pieces, S. Wood has sug-
gested that the statue may have been deliberately attacked,
thus accounting for its fragmentary nature. However, the
face has not been mutilated and it is likely that the dama-
ge which caused the statue to be broken is incidental, rat-
her than a deliberate act resulting from damnatio.
121 S. Wood has also suggested that the portrait may
owe its good state of preservation to protection by a pri-
vate owner, presumably a partisan of Messalina or her son
(1992) 334.
122 C.B. Rose (1997) 185-8, no. 128.
123 Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv 146 (1870),
inv. 830 (1952).
 other julio-claudians
of Caligula (cat. 1.27; fig. 34a-b). As with the
Caligula/Claudius, the fact that the portrait fea-
tures were replaced, rather than recut, strongly
suggests that they were intentionally mutilated.
Messalina’s image may also have been removed
and replaced with a statue of Bacchus in the
Julio-Claudian statuary group from Baiae.124
A portrait statue now in Naples of Agrippina
Minor, refashioned from a likeness of Messalina,
is the first surviving female image to have been
physically transformed as the result of a damna-
tio (cat. 4.3; fig. 101a-d).125 The statue is carved
from a single block of marble and the facial fea-
tures and coiffure have been substantially altered.
As a result, the head is disproportionately small.
The statue itself represented the empress as the
goddess Ceres, which like the Louvre image, was
designed to celebrate her role as producer of heirs
guaranteeing the stability of the empire. Not only
is the Naples statue the first recarved imperial
female portrait, it is apparently the only likeness
of a condemned empress reconfigured in the first,
second and third centuries. Two sculpted por-
traits of Lucilla (cat. 6.11 and cat. 6.12) would
also be recut, but not until the Constantinian
period and a relief portrait of Galeria Valeria (cat.
9.8) appears to have been refashioned earlier in
the fourth century. The Naples statue’s unique
status stands in marked contrast to the numer-
ous private female likenesses which were altered
or updated during these centuries.126 The spec-
ificity of imperial female coiffures as badges of
identity, as well as their often very elaborate and
delicate configurations which precluded extensive
124 S. Wood (1999) 285. Messalina is also absent from
the group dedication from Russelae which includes her
daughter Claudia Octivia, and presumably her son, Brit-
tanicus. If these statues are part of an earlier Claudian phase
it is likely that Messalina was also represented and her
image removed after her condemnation.
125 Museo Nazionale Archeologico. inv. 6242.; P. Li-
veriani identifies a statue from Caere (Musei Vaticani, Mu-
seo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9952) as a representation
Agrippina Minor recycled from Messalina ( [1990-91] 66).
S. Wood, however, has situated the likeness within Drusil-
la’s typology and suggested that the sculptural modifica-
tions resulted from her deification (1995) 471-75.
126 On reworked private female portraits, see S. Ma-
theson in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 70-81.
97
sculptural alterations must have contributed to
the nearly total absence of recarved representa-
tions of fallen empresses. The random holes scat-
tered throughout Agrippina’s coiffure which are
remnants of Messalina’s earlier arrangement
attest to the enormous technical problems which
faced sculptors who attempted to reconfigure the
images of imperial women. Apparently, sculptors
determined that such challenges were nearly
insurmountable and as a result, replacement,
removal, or intentional disfigurement become
more standard responses to the sculpted likeness
of condemned women.
Agrippina Minor
Under Nero, three prominent imperial women
were condemned for plotting against the emper-
or. The first of these was the emperor’s own
mother, Agrippina Minor. Agrippina had under-
gone an earlier condemnation when she and her
sister Julia Livilla were exiled by their brother
Caligula, as images of both are conspicuously
absent in later Caligulan group portrait dedica-
tions.127 After Caligula’s death, Agrippina re-
turned to Rome and gained supreme power as
the wife of Claudius. Agrippina eventually se-
cured the accession of her son over Claudius’s
own son by Messalina, Britannicus, and at the
outset of Nero’s principate she appears to have
acted as a kind of regent for her son. Agrippi-
na’s preeminent position is broadcast on aurei and
denarii from the mint of Rome which show facing
busts of Agrippina and Nero, with Agrippina’s
name and titles on the obverse and Nero’s rele-
gated to the reverse and rendered in the dative;
Agrippina’s prominence is underscored in simi-
lar extraordinary fashion on the Aphrodisias
Sebasteion relief and the Cologne cameo in
which she is depicted as Roma/Concordia and
the guarantrix of Nero’s imperium.128 However, per-
127 C.B. Rose (1997) 37. On the exile of the two sis-
ters, see: Suet. Calig. 24.3; 29.1-2; Dio 59.22.5-9; A. Bar-
rett (1990) 106-10; A. Barrett (1996) 63-67; S. Wood (1999)
213-4.
128 For the coins of 54 see, RIC 150, no. 1 (aureus and
98 chapter four
haps as early as 55 her power was in eclipse, and
in 59 she was accused of conspiring to overthrow
Nero and, as a result, she was murdered.129
Tacitus specifically states theat supplicationes were
to be celebrated commemorating the failure of
Agrippina’s conspiracy and her birthday (6 No-
vember) was to be a dies nefastus, as her mother
Agrippina Maior’s had been under Tiberius:
Miro tamen certamine procerum decernuntur supplicationes
apud omnia pulvinaria, utque Quinquatrus, quibus apertae
insidiae essent, ludis annuis celebrarentur; aureum Minervae
simulacrum in curia et iuxta principis imago statuerentur;
dies natalis Aprippinae inter nefastos esset
(However, in an astonishing spirit of rivalry among
the elite, supplicationes were decreed at all shrines,
and the Quinquatrus, the festival of Minerva on
which the plot was revealed, was to be celebrated
with annual games; a golden image of Minerva
together with a portrait of the princeps was to be
set up in the Curia, and the birthday of Agrippina
was to be counted among the days inauspicious
to the Roman state.130
In view of the charges which the emperor
brought against his mother, it certainly would no
longer have been politically expedient to display
portraits of Agrippina after her death. Dio con-
firms that some of Agrippina’s statues were re-
moved from display at Rome.131 In the Octavia
Agrippina’s ghost mentions the destruction of her
images and inscriptions, ascribed to Nero’s or-
ders: he (Nero) destroys my statues and inscrip-
denarius of Rome, A.D. 54); by 55 the facing portraits are
replaced by jugate busts, with Nero in the more prominent
frontal position, and his name and titles now on the ob-
verse in the nominative RIC 150, nos. 6-7 (Aureus and
denarius of Rome); see also C.H.V. Sutherland (1987) 87,
figs. 35a-b; and C.B. Rose (1997) 47; and K. Dickson
(2002).
129 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)365-7, no. 426; A.
Barrett has suggested that Agrippina’s period of influence
actually encompassed the first five years of her son’s reign,
the quinquennium Neronis, until her death in 59 (1996) 238-
40.
130 Ann. 14.12. On Agrippina’s death and the alleged
conspiracy, see also Suet. Nero 34.3; Tac. Ann. 14.7.6-7, 11;
Dio 61(62).14; R. Bauman (1992) 190-203; W. Eck (1993)
88, n. 96; A Barrett (1996) 181-95, 244-6; C.B. Rose (1997)
48.
131 61(62).16.2a; see also A.P. Gregory (1994) 94.
tions throughout the entire world under penalty
of death (for those who don’t comply) (simulacra,
titulos destruit mortis metu totum per orbum).132 And
indeed, Agrippina’s image has been attacked on
an aureus with her facial features slashed.133 Agrip-
pina’s name is also erased in selected inscriptions
and an effaced portrait dedication at Epidauros,
further suggests that certain of her images were
destroyed.134
In addition, Agrippina’s image at Rome was
certainly eradicated from a group commemora-
tion erected by imperial musicians in 55-6 and
ultimately destroyed in the fire of 64. The sur-
viving inscriptions honor Augustus, Nero, Clau-
dius and Agrippina. After Agrippina’s murder,
her portion of the base was dismantled and de-
stroyed and the remaining inscription altered as
a result.135 Similarly, other important public
132 Octavia 611-12.
133 BMCRE 1, 174, n. 72 (undamaged example of the
issue); W. Eck (1993) 59, fig. 23; Va Morizio in C. Panel-
la, ed. (1996) 216.
134 R. Cagnat (1901) 173; ILS 226.31; A. Barrett (1996)
192, n. 39. For the portrait dedication from Epidauros, see
C.B. Rose (1997) 10, n. 91, 48, 141, no. 72.
135 123. Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme; CIL
6.40307; AE (1996) 248; V. Morizio in C. Panella, ed.
(1996). The dedicants, the aenatores, consisting of the tubi-
cines, the liticines and the cornicines, were listed in a conti-
nuous line beneath the imperial dedications which were
oriented horizontally. Romani, modifying the musicians,
originally appeared in Agrippina’s section of the base, but
was reinscribed under Claudius’s name and titles, imme-
diately to Agrippina’s right. The inscriptions of Augustus
and Nero are on the same slab, while those of Claudius
and Agrippina were carved on separate slabs.
1. IMP CAISARI DIVI F 2. NERONI CLAVDIO DIVI
AVGUSTO CLAVDII F
PONTIFICI MAXIMO COS XI GERMANICIS CAISARIS N
TRIBVNICIA POTESTAT XI TI CAISARIS AVG PRO N
DIVI AVGVSTI AB N
CAISARI AVG GERMANICO PONT
MAX TRIB POTEST II IMP COS
AENATORES TVBICINES
3. TI CLAVDIO DRVSI F. 4. IVLIAE AV[GVSTAE]
CAISARI AVGVSTO AGRI[PPINAE]
GERMANCO PONTIFICI GERMANIC[I CAISARIS F]
MAXIMO TRIBVNICIA POT DIVI CLA[VDI VXORI]
IMP COS II
LITICINES CORNICINES [ROMANI]
ROMANI
 other julio-claudians
portraits from Rome, such as the basanite image
of Agrippina as priestess of the Divine Claudius
from the Claudianium on the Caelian would have
been removed from public display.136 It is also
possible that the damage which the statue body
has suffered, as it is composed from forty-one
fragments, may have been the result of an attack
carried out after her condemnation. Two bronze
statues of Agrippina from Herculaneum137 em-
ploy a priestly iconography similar to the basanite
portrait and they may have been warehoused
following her murder. In addition, Agrippina’s
absence from the important Julio-Claudian cy-
cle at Rusellae may not be coincidental. Most of
her immediate family members including both of
her parents, all of her siblings (Nero Caesar,
Drusus Caesar, Julia Livilla, Diva Drusilla, and
Caligula [cat. 1.20; altered to Claudius), her hus-
band Claudius (in altered Caligulan portrait and
a second posthumous representation), and her son
Nero (probably in two portraits: boyhood togatus
with bulla and cuirassed statue as imperator). The
inclusion of Nero with bulla in the cycle, togeth-
er with Claudius’s children by Messalina, Clau-
dia Octavia and Britannicus, may suggest a date
of 50-51 for the Claudian statues. If so, Agrippi-
The dedication may have been associated with either
the temple to the Curiae Veteres or the Palatine birthpla-
ce of Augustus.
136 (body)Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori (Centrale
Montemartini 2.43), inv. 1.882, h. 2.12 m.; E. Talamo in
S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 599-600 (with ear-
lier literature); (head) Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glypto-
tek 634, inv. 753; h. 0.30 m.; F. Johansen (1994) 152-3,
with figs. (with earlier literature). The portrait represents
Agrippina in her fourth and final Neronian portrait type,
in use from Nero’s accession in 54 until Agrippina’s death
in 59. At some point, the head was slightly modified by
cuttings for anchoring additional headgear. The modifica-
tions to the portrait have led E. Talamo to suggest that the
image has been refashioned from a portrait of Messalina,
in S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 599-600, with
figs. The adjustments are minor, however and are essen-
tially limited to cuttings fro the attachment of a diadem
or priestly crown and the coiffure lacks the indications of
substantial reworking or traces of Messalina’s coiffure that
the Naples portrait contains. The statue was, in fact, crea-
ted ex novo as an important part of the sculptural decora-
tion of the Temple of Divus Claudius.
137 Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 5609;
and Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 5602.
99
na’s absence is especially noteworthy and likely
the result of her condemnation under Nero.
Just as her mother Agrippina Maior had been
denied burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus,
Agrippina Minor’s remains were never given a
proper internment in Rome during Nero’s reign;
subsequently, a tomb was constructed near the
site of her death along the road to Misenum in
the environs of a villa which had belonged to
Julius Caesar.138 The great number of portraits
of Agrippina which survive from Rome and else-
where in the Empire may be partially the result
of the warehousing of her images after her death,
but they ultimately indicate that the destruction
of her likenesses was short-lived and necessarily
limited in scope to the period shortly after her
death; later in Nero’s principate, Agrippina’s
memory is actually rehabilitated and games held
in her honor.139 Moreover, Dio praises Galba for
re-erecting representations of members of the im-
perial family who had been murdered under
Nero, and this would likely have included imag-
es of Agrippina; in addition, he indicates that
Galba also had murdered family members’ re-
mains interred in the Mausoleum of Augustus,
which may indicate that Agrippina’s ashes were
ultimately transferred there.140 Posthumous im-
ages may also have been created for Agrippina.141
138 Tac. Ann. 14.9.2-5; A. Barrett (1996) 190.
139 Dio 61.17.1; A. Barrett (1996) 194.
140 63(64).3.4c; C. W. Hedrick (2000) 127.
141 A portrait in Cologne, the birthplace of Agrippina,
may also be posthumous, Romisch-Germanisches Museum,
inv. 564; S. Wood (1988) 425-6, n. 47. A colossal head from
the Forum of Trajan has also been associated with Agrip-
pina: Mercati Traianei, Magazzini, without inventory
number; Fittschen-Zanker III, 6, no. 5, pl. 6; L. Ungaro
and. M. Mielella, eds. (1995) 124 (with figs.); J.E. Packer
1 (1997) 781-2, no. 191, fig. 58; S. Wood (1999) 302-4, figs.
143-4. However, D. Boschung and W. Eck have suggested
that the colossal image, together with a related portrait in
the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence, may, in fact, represent
Trajan’s mother (1998) 73-81. The head exhibits strong sty-
listic and physiognomical similarities to Trajan’s sculpted
portraits.
100 chapter four
Claudia Octavia
In A.D. 62, Nero divorced and banished his wife,
Claudia Octavia on contradictory charges of
infertility and adultery with the flute-player Eu-
caerus.142 Subsequently Octavia was accused of
plotting with Anicetus to overthrow the emper-
or.143 Octavia was finally relegated to Pandate-
ria where she was executed.144 Octavia’s corpse
was beheaded and the head brought to Rome
where Poppaea is reported to have viewed it
(Additurque atrocior saevitia, quod caput amputatum
latumque in urbem Poppaea vidit: and an even more
atrocious brutality was added, that is, her head,
having been amputated and taken to the city,
Poppaea viewed it).145 This act of poena post mor-
tem has extraordinary political implications as it
was almost exclusively perpetrated on male corps-
es of overthrown emperors (Galba, Macrinus,
Diadumenianus, Maximus, Maximinus, and
Maxentius), failed rivals for imperial power (Clo-
dius Albinus), or defeated foreign foes (Decebal-
us).146
As the daughter of the deified Claudius, Oc-
tavia was extremely popular with the plebs and a
public outcry ensued in Rome at the initial news
of her divorce and banishment.147 Demonstrators
who supported Octavia decked her portraits with
flowers and paraded them around Rome and at
the same time attacked and overturned the im-
ages of her rival Poppaea.148 Her popularity
142 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)223-4, no. 246; for
Octavia’s alleged involvement with Eucaerus, see Tac. Ann.
14.60; Oct. 107. The accusations of adultery and sexual im-
propriety with a lower class male were intended to destroy
Octavia’s reputation; M.P. Vinson (1989) 440-43.
143 Tac. Ann 14.63. Suetonius also reports that Nero bri-
bed Anicetus to confess to committing stuprum with Octa-
via, Nero 35.2.
144 Suet. Nero 35.2, 57.1; Tac.Ann. 14.64; Dio 62.13.1;
Plut. Galba 19.
145 Octavia, Tac. Ann. 14.64.2.
146 J.L. Voisin (1984) 250-252; E.R.,Varner (2001b) 57-
58.
147 Tac. Ann. 14.60-61.
148 Tac. Ann. 14.61; Octavia’s significance is, natural-
ly, stressed in the Octavia, where the fire of 64 is depicted
as Nero’s response to Octavia’s partisans’ attempt to burn
the imperial palace (801, 831-3, 851-52). See also, G. Wil-
liams in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds, (1994) 188-89; S.
Wood (1999) 271.
notwithstanding, Octavia’s portraits must have
been removed from public display following her
banishment and execution, out of fear of offend-
ing Poppaea or the emperor who had divorced
her and ordered her execution.149 After death,
public thanksgiving was decreed to celebrate the
emperor’s escape from Octavia’s treasonous
plot.150 Significantly, in the historical drama
which bears her name, Nero declares his wife a
hostis a term associated almost always with male
traitors to the state, but her downfall is also the-
matically linked to the condemnations of sever-
al earlier Julio Claudian women, including Agrip-
pina Maior, Livilla, Julia Minor, Messalina, and
Agrippina Minor.151 The Octavia itself stands as
a post-Neronian resuscitation of Octavia’s mem-
ory. As noted for Agrippina, Dio records the re-
erection of portraits of those murdered under
Nero and the reburial of some of his victims
remains in the Mausoleum of Augustus and these
measures would almost certainly have included
Octavia.152
Octavia’s likeness was represented on coins
minted in the east.153 One childhood portrait of
Octavia has survived from the Claudian group
dedications at Baiae,154 and two additional rep-
149 C.B. Rose (1997) 49.
150 Tac. Ann. 14.63-4; S. Wood (1999) 271-2.
151 Octavia 865-6 (Nero: Quod parcis hosti/Praefectus: Fe-
mina hoc nomen capit); and 932-57; R.A. Bauman (1996) 89-
90. Cleopatra seems to be the only woman for whom the-
re is historical evidence for a declaration as a hostis. Dio
50.4.4.; Plut. Ant. 60.1; see also supra.
152 63(64).3.4c. S. Wood also entertains the idea of post-
humous, post-Neronian images for Octavia, analogous to
the possibly posthumous portrait of her mother-in-law,
Agrippina Minor in Köln (1999) 303, although there are
no clearly identifiable images of Octavia which have sur-
vived.
153 Two Alexandrian coins depict Octavia with curls
massed well over the top of the head and the plaits on the
back of the head drawn up into a small chignon; both nu-
mismatic images portray Octavia with very prominent ears,
often a feature of her father’s iconography as well, A.
Geissen (1972) 52, no. 138, 54, no. 147. See also a coin
from Corinth, which depicts Octavia with a hairstyle si-
milar to Livia’s centrally parted type and a coin from Si-
nope whose hairstyle is very similar to Agrippina Minor
(J.J. Bernoulli [1886] 415, pl. 35,17, 18).
154 Museo dei Campi Flegrei, h. 1.20 m.; T. Mikocki
(1995) 188, no. 252; C.B. Rose (1997) 72, 82-3, cat. 4, pls.
62-3 (with earlier literature); B. Andreae (1998) 32-4, with
 other julio-claudians
licas are in Trieste and a Spanish private collec-
tion.155 A headless togata from the Claudian phase
of the portrait cycle at and Rusellae also presum-
ably represented Octavia as a child.156 Octavia’s
condemnation has made the identification of her
mature portraits extremely difficult, and there are
no securely recognizable extant images which
date from the time of her marriage to Nero.157
R. Bol has recently attempted to identify a se-
ries of marble portraits as Octavia, but these
portraits are more plausibly associated with
Agrippina Minor’s third (Ancona) type.158 A
portrait in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme
which includes a diadem (suggesting that the
woman portrayed is an Augusta) and displays a
physiognomy strongly resembling that of Clau-
dius has the most likely claims to being a mature
likeness of his daughter, Octavia.159 The head is
worked for insertion and very well preserved. If
it does, in fact, represent Octavia, it was likely
figs.; S. Wood (1999) 283-4.
155 S. Wood (1999) 283-4; for the Trieste and Spanish
portraits, see R. Amedick (1991) 378-80, pls. 99-100. T.
Mickocki has tentatively identified a sardonyx cameo which
represents a young girl as Minerva as a Claudian repre-
sentation of Octavia, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabi-
net des Médailles, 21, Mickoki (1995) 188, no. 251, pl. 24.
This identification is far from certain, however, as the
physiognomy is not sufficiently specific, and the helmet
masks the coiffure.
156 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Ma-
remma; C.B. Rose 72, 116-8, cat. 45; S. Wood (1999) 283-
4.
157 On the difficulties of identifying mature likenesses
of Claudia Octavia, see D. Boschung (1993b) 75-76 and
C.B. Rose (1997) 72.
158 A marble portrait discovered in Rome on the Via
Varese has been associated with Octavia; Museo Nazio-
nale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 121316;
Fittschen-Zanker III, 7, no. 5, n. 4. For the identification
as Octavia, see R. Bol (1986) 289-307. B. Di Leo, MusNa-
zRom 1.9.1, 155-6, no. R 111, with figs; and M.L. Ander-
son in M.L. Anderson and L. Nista, eds. (1988) 74, no. 14,
with figs.
159 Inv. 124129, h. 0.35 m.; V. Picciotti Giornetti,
MusNazRom 1.1 286-7, no. 178, with fig. (with earlier lite-
rature); S. Wood (1999) 313-4. The shape of the mouth,
chin, and fleshy underchin conform well with Claudius’s
more realistic images, including the statue depicting him
as Jupiter in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican, and the por-
trait recut from Caligula (no. 550, inv. 243) now in the Cen-
trale Montemartini 2.74 (cat. 1.31).
101
removed from public view and warehoused af-
ter her downfall. A second replica of the same
type, in Barcelona, also worked for insertion, may
have been similarly removed and stored and
would then attest to the perpetuation of Octa-
via’s damnatio in the provinces.160
Claudia Antonia
The half-sister of Octavia, Claudia Antonia,
daughter of Claudius and Aelia Paetina, was
executed for her involvement in the Pisonian
conspiracy of A.D. 65.161 After the murder of
Octavia, Antonia was the last surviving child of
Claudius and the most prominent living female
member of the imperial family. Antonia had
previously been married to Gnaeus Pompeius
Magnus, as well as to Faustus Cornelius Sulla.
After the death of Poppaea, Antonia refused to
strengthen Nero’s political position by marrying
him. Indeed, Antonia seems to have been actively
involved with the anti-Neronian factions of the
aristocracy, and Suetonius confirms her condem-
nation on charges of sedition (Antoniam Claudi
filiam, recusantem post Poppaeae mortem nuptias suas,
quasi molitricem novarum rerum interemit).162 Further-
more, Tacitus, in his account of the Pisonian
conspiracy, refers to Pliny’s report that Antonia
intended to accompany Piso in public after the
planned assassination of Nero in order to secure
for Piso the approval of the masses (comitante
Antonia, Claudii Caesaris filia, ad eliciendum vulgi fa-
vorem, quod C. Plinius memorat).163 As with the
images of Agrippina Minor and Octavia Clau-
dia, portraits of Antonia would have been re-
moved from public display after her execution.
Although she is attested in portrait inscriptions,
her condemnation has made identification of her
portraits difficult and none can be attributed to
her with certainty.164 Again, Dio’s statements
160 Museo de la Historia de la Ciuidad, inv. 7440; see
Fittschen-Zanker III, 48, no. 61, n. 1.
161 M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)202-3, no. 217.
162 Nero. 35.4.
163 Tac. Ann 15.53; see also V. Rudich (1993) 136-7.
164 C.B. Rose (1997) 72; E.R. Varner (2001a) 72.
102 chapter four
concerning rehabilitation already mentioned in
conjunction with Agrppina Minor and Octavia
Claudia, may equally apply to Antonia.165
Julia Livilla, Julia Drusilla, Lollia Paulina and
Domitia Lepida
Three other imperial women were also execut-
ed in the later Julio-Claudian period, and their
images are likely to have been treated similarly
to those of their more prominent relatives. Dur-
ing the reign of Claudius, Messalina secured the
exile of Julia Livilla, the sister of Caligula and
husband of Marcus Vinicius on charges of adul-
tery with Seneca and she was later executed.166
C.B. Rose has persuasively identified the eight
surviving replicas of the Lepcis Malta type as Julia
Livilla. 167 There are, however, serious problems
in assigning all eight of the surviving replicas to
the reign of Caligula, as Julia Livilla was banished
in 39 and portraits are unlikely to have been
created for her after this date. Nevertheless, Julia
Livilla’s memory may have been revived by her
sister Agrippina once she had replaced Messal-
ina as the wife of Claudius and, as a result, some
of her surviving portraits in Julio-Claudian group
dedications may in fact be posthumous.168
165 63(64)3.4c.
166
Suet. Claud. 29.1; Tac. Ann 14.63.2; Sen. Apocol. 10.4;
Dio 60.4.1-2, 8.5; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)380-81,
no. 443; Levick (1990) 56; S. Wood (1999) 214, 238. On
the charges of adultery being substitutions for maiestas, see
R.A. Bauman (1974) 177 and A. Barrett (1996) 81-2.
167 (1997) 68-9. Algiers, Musée; Berlin, Staatliche Mus-
een, inv. 1802; Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della
Maremma, inv. 97740; Malta, La Valett; Munich, Resi-
denz, inv. 85; Palermo, Museo Nazionale, inv. 705; Rome,
Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,
inv. 620; Rome Musei Vaticani, Ingresso 5, inv. 103; Spo-
leto, Collezione Antonelli, Tripoli, Museum; and former-
ly art market. D. Boschung’s attempts to associate a group
of three portraits in Naples, Warsaw and Rome as Julia
Livilla are not convincing (1993b) 69 S
168 Wood has rightly pointed out that it is odd that Julia
Livilla would have more surviving portraits than Caligu-
lan images of her more prominent sisters, Drusilla and
Agrippina Minor (type 1), ([1999] 195). However, if some
of Julia Livilla’s surviving portraits were actually posthu-
mous and part of a concerted effort on the part of Agrip-
Julia Drusilla, the daughter of Julia Minor and
Drusus Minor, and wife of Rubellius Blandus was
murdered, supposedly another victim of Messal-
ina, in A.D. 43.169 Lollia Paulina, briefly the wife
of Caligula from A.D. 38-39, was also con-
demned, exiled and eventually murdered in A.D.
49; Paulina may have posed a serious threat to
Agrippina as she was strongly considered as a
possible wife for Claudius after the death of
Messalina and Agrippina was alleged to have
arranged for the execution of her rival.170 In any
case, Paulina’s legendary wealth and her position
as the surviving wife of a former emperor made
her potentially dangerous.171 Paulina’s head was
severed from her body in a blatant political act
of poena post mortem and her corpse abuse may
have provided a precedent for that of Octavia.172
They are the only two imperial women whose re-
mains are known to have been desecrated in this
fashion. After the downfall of Agrippina in 59,
Paulina’s memory was rehabilitated when Nero
allowed Paulina’s ashes to be returned to Rome
and a tomb erected for their interment.173 In 54,
Agrippina may also have engineered the destruc-
tion her former sister-in-law, Domitia Lepida who
was executed after being condemned on maiestas
charges which included allegations that she had
employed magic in an attempt on Agrippina’s
life; at her trial, Nero testified agains his aunt.
As the mother of Messalina and grandmother of
Britannicus, Nero’s principal rival as heir to Clau-
dius, Lepida may have been a real threat to her
nephew’s succession and, as a result, she was
pina to rehabilitate the sister who was killed by her rival
Messalina, it would help to explain the apparent discrepan-
cies. Wood also underscores the difficulties present in iden-
tifying Julia Livilla as part of the Julio-Claudian group
dedication at Lepcis since there is no inscriptional eviden-
ce for Caligulan additions, but these objections can be dis-
pensed with if her portrait from Lepcis is actually part of
Claudian activity at the site ([1999] 194-5).
169 Suet. Claud. 29.1; Sen. Apoloc. 10.4; Dio 60.18.4;
M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)360-61, no. 422.
170 Tac. Ann.4.20.1-2; 12.22; Dio 60(61) 32.4; A. Bar-
rett (1996) 132.
171 On Lollia Paulina’s wealth and her celebrated pearls,
see Pliny, HN 9.35.117-8.
172 Dio 60.32.4.
173 Tac. Ann. 14.12.
 other julio-claudians
eliminated.174 All four of these women appear to
have been executed because their positions within
the Julio-Claudian dynasty gave them the pow-
er of legitimizing, either through marriage or by
using their poliitical influence and connections,
rival claimants to the principate, which conse-
quently made them potentially serious threats to
the reigning emperor or empress.
Ptolemy of Mauretania
As the grandson of Cleopatra and Marcus An-
tonius, the last of the Ptolemies, Ptolemy of
Mauretania was related to the final three Julio-
Claudian emperors, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.
Ptolemy was the son of Cleopatra and Antonius’s
daughter, Cleopatra Selene and Juba II of Mau-
retania. Ptolemy succeeded his father as king of
Mauretania in 23. Ptolemey’s sculpted images,
especially those of his first portrait type created
during the reign of his father, visually stress his
links to the Julio-Claudians in the youthful phys-
iognomy and the arrangement of comma shaped
locks over the forehead. 175 Ptolemy’s distant
cousin, Caligula, however, apparently grew sus-
picious of the young king and his ties to the Julio-
Claudian dynasty and had him executed on
charges of treason in 40; the kingdom of Mau-
retania was then promptly annexed as a province
of the Roman Empire.176 Indeed, Ptolemy may
have been involved in the conspiracy of 39, which
also included Caligula’s sisters (and Ptolemy’s
cousins) and Ptolemy also had connections with
Gaetulicus, another of the conspirators.177 After
his execution, images of Ptolemy would likely
have been destroyed or removed from public
display. This would be especially true of well-
preserved type 2 likenesses from the environs of
174 Tac. Ann. 64.4-6; 65.1; Suit. Nero 7.1; Barrett (1997)
137-8.
175 K. Fittschen (1974) 169-73; R.R.R. Smith (1988)
141.
176 Sen. Tranq. 11.12; Suet. Cal 35.1; Dio 59.29.1; A.
Barrett (1989) 116-8.
177 A. Barrett (1989) 118.
103
Rome in the Vatican,178 Villa Albani,179 and
Woburn Abbey180 which may have been ware-
housed following Ptolemy’s downfall. Portraits
from Ptolemy’s capital, Cherchel, in Paris181 and
Cherchel,182 were also likely removed from public
view after the annexation of the province, as was
a bronze bust of unknown provenance.183 Dam-
aged, weathered, and fragmentary portraits from
Cherchel may have been also disposed of in a
more violent or summary fashion.184
Conclusions: Established Mechanisms of Political
Repression
A review of the condemnations enacted in the
first century reveals that the political repression
of memory was by no means limited to emper-
ors and empresses. Indeed, at least eleven addi-
tional members of the imperial family (including
Sejanus) were exiled or executed and their mem-
ories and monuments condemned. All of these
individuals were damned because of their actu-
al or potential political influence in opposition to
the regime. As with emperors and empresses,
commemorative monuments and inscriptions
were the targets of the condemnations. Coins
could also be included in the sanctions, and the
178 Braccio Nuovo 65, inv. 2253; R.R.R. Smith (1988a)
180, no. 130.1 (with earlier literature).
179 inv. no. 58, h. 0.25 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 180,
no. 130.4; P.C. Bol (1990) 181-2, no. 205, pls. 118-19 (with
earlier literature).
180 h. 0.34 m.; E. Angelicoussis (1992) 56, no. 24, figs.
117-20, 127 (with earlier literature).
181 MA 1888 (type 2), h. 0.28 m.; K. de Kersauson
(1986) 126-7, no. 57, with figs. (with earlier literature); R.R.
R. Smith (1988a) 179, no. 129.3, pls. 69.1-2.
MA 1887 (type 2), h. 0.37 m.; K. de Kersauson (1986)
128-9, no. 58, with figs. (with earlier literature); R.R.R.
Smith (1988a) 180, no. 130.5, pl. 69.3-4.
182 Museum 52; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 179, no. 129.2
(with earlier literature).
183 Sweden, private collection; R.R.R. Smith (1988a)
179, no. 129.1 (with earlier literature).
184 Louvre, MA 3183, h. 0.19 m.(type I); K. de
Kersauson (1986) 130-31, with figs. (with earlier literatu-
re); R.R. Smith (1988a) 179, no. 129.4; Cherchel, Museum;
R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 180, no. 130.3 (with earlier litera-
ture); Cherchel, Museum 40; R.R.R. Smith (1988a) 180,
no. 130.6 (with earlier literature).
104 chapter four
issues from Bilbillis in Spain which originally
honored Sejanus are the first attested examples
of numismatic damnatio in the imperial period.
Because many of these individuals were not com-
memorated with portraits on the scale of emper-
ors and empresses, the repression of their mem-
ory and monuments has resulted in a lack of
securely identifiable extant sculpted portraits in
marble or bronze.
What is even more striking in the Julio-Clau-
dian evidence is the preponderance of condem-
nations aimed against imperial women, not men.
During this period twelve women, Julia Maior,
Julia Minor, Agrippina Maior, Livilla, Valeria
Messalina, Julia Drusilla, Julia Livilla, Lollia
Paullina, Domitia Lepida, Agrippina Maior,
Claudia Octavia, and Claudia Antonia were con-
demned. Although their condemnations were
often cloaked in charges of sexual misconduct, the
underlying motivations were actual conspiracies
against the reigning emperor or their potential
to disrupt the regime. Just as the images of these
women were often integral and prominent com-
ponents of dynastic visual propaganda, so too
were they liable to repression as a result of con-
demnation.
 a.d. 69
CHAPTER FIVE
A.D. 69
Galba
Servius Sulpicius Galba was the son of Gaius
Sulpicius Galba and Mummia Achaica, both of
renowned patrician families. Born in 3 B.C.,
Galba held a number of important positions
during the course of his career, including the
governorship of Aquitania, the consulship (A.D.
33), the command of Upper Germany, the
proconsulship of Africa, and eventually the gov-
ernorship of Hispania Tarraconensis. While gov-
ernor of Spain, Galba allied himself with Gaius
Julius Vindex, after the latter revolted against
Nero’s authority in 68 and it was Galba whom
the Senate confirmed as emperor following
Nero’s death. Although initially supported by the
praetorians, Galba dismissed Nymphidius, their
praefect, and refused to pay out promised bo-
nuses. Consequently, the praetorians quickly grew
dissatisfied with Galba. Additional resentment
existed among the first and fifth legions stationed
in Germany and soldiers actually hurled stones
at Galba’s statues when asked to renew their oath
of allegiance to him (primani quintanique turbidi adeo
ut quidam saxa in Galbae imagines iecerint).1 The
fourth and twenty-second legions in upper Ger-
many expressed their anger against the emperor
by attacking his images and smashing them to
pieces (At in superiore exercitu quarta ac duetvicensima
legiones, isdem hibernis tendentes, ipso kalendarum Ianu-
ariarum die dirumpunt imagines Galbae).2 Finally, the
1 “Members of the first and fifth legions were so agi-
tated that they even hurled stones at the images of Galba,”
Tac. Hist. 1.55.
2 “And in the upper army, the fourth and twenty sec-
ond legions, who were spending the winter together in the
same place, smashed the images of Galba to pieces on the
first day of January,” Tac. Hist. 1.55.3, and also 1.56;
Elsewhere, soldiers loyal to Galba attempted to protect his
portraits, Tac. Hist. 1.56
105
troops in Lower Germany repudiated Galba’s
authority entirely and declared Vitellius emperor
on 2 January 69. Meanwhile in Rome, Otho
successfully plotted Galba’s overthrow and the
emperor was murdered in the Forum Romanum,
together with his adopted son and heir Lucius
Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, by members of
the praetorians on 15 January. The corpses of
both Galba and Piso were denigrated and their
heads cut off, and the head of Galba may have
been further abused by being thrown into the
Sessorium, a place of execution for condemned
criminals.3 Otho was subsequently proclaimed
emperor by the praetorians and their choice was
quickly ratified by the Senate.
Visual images of Galba continued to be inti-
mately involved in the events surrounding his
overthrow. Just prior to his murder, his imago was
ripped from a military standard and thrown on
the ground as a signal of the soldier’s rejection
of Galba in favor of Otho (vexilarius...dereptam
Galbae imaginem solo adflixit).4 After his murder,
Galba’s portraits in the capital were destroyed.5
Although almost certainly a literary construct and
not strictly historical, it is also tempting to asso-
ciate Juvenal’s description of an earless and
noseless portrait of Galba with his intentionally
disfigured images (Galbam auriculis nasoque caren-
tem).6 Ultimately, following Otho’s own over-
throw, Tacitus records that images of Galba were
paraded through the city and garlands were piled
over the Lacus Curtius, the site of his murder in
3 Tac. Hist. 1.41; Plut. Galb. 28.2-3. Suetonius mentions
that the head was cut off, placed on a spear and mocked,
but eventually buried together with the body, Galba 20.2;
J.L. Voissin (1984) 251; D.G. Kyle (1998) 221, 233, n. 40,
235, n. 54; E.R. Varner (2001b) 57.
4 Tac. Hist 1.41.1; see also A.F. Gregory (1994).
5 Plut. Galb. 26.7; Plut. Galb. 22.
6 8..5; Flower (1996) 295-6.
106 chapter five
the Fourm.7 Galba’s rehabilitation continued
after Vespasian’s accession to the principate when
one of his generals, Antonius Primus, ordered
statues of Galba to be re-erected, providing im-
portant substantiation that images were still ac-
cessible and well preserved, presumably in ware-
houses or storerooms.8 The Senate also voted to
restore Galba’s honors 9 and even desired to erect
a memorial to him where he was murdered in
the Forum “as soon as it was lawful (ut primum
lictum est),” underscoring that official sanctions
against Galba’s memory and portraits had been
enacted after his assassination.10 However,
Vespasian may not have wholeheartedly sup-
ported Galba’s rehabilitation, as he refused to
allow the proposed monument in the Forum.11
Identification of sculpted portraits of Galba is
complicated by the damnatio and his relatively
short duration as princeps.12 Coin portraits por-
tray Galba with aged, fleshy facial features and
a coiffure of fairly thin, short locks. His forehead
is furrowed, and the eyes are deeply set beneath
the brows. The nose is hooked. His cheeks are
wrinkled and jowls are usually indicated. The
emperor is depicted with deep naso-labial lines
and a mouth with thin lips turned down mark-
edly at the corners. He has a fleshy underchin
and the neck is wrinkled. The pronounced verism
in Galba’s images, clearly intended to evoke
republican precedents and appeal to the aristoc-
7 Tac. Hist. 2.55 (populus cum lauru ac floribus Galbae imag-
ines circum templa tulit, congestis in modum tumuli coronis iuxta
lacum Curtii, quem locum Galba moriens sanguine infecerat).
8 postquam Galbae imagines discordia temporum subversas in
omnibus municipiis recoli jussit Antonius (Afterward, Antonius
commanded that images of Galba which had been over-
turned in every municipality during the discord of the times
be honored again) Tac. Hist. 3.7; see also L. Fabbricotti
(1967) 54, n. 48 and A.F. Gregory (1994) 95.
9 Tac. Hist. 4.40. The restoration of Galba’s honors was
proposed by Domitian (Referente Caesare de restituendis Galbae
honoribus...Patres...iussere). J. Gagé (1952) 290-315; C. W.
Hedrick.(2000) 126.
10 Suet. Galb. 23, Senatus, ut primum licitum est, statuam ei
decreverat rostratae columnae superstantem in parte Fori, qua trucidatus
est.
11 Suetonius suggests that Vespasian denied the Senate’s
request because he believed that Galba had sent assassins
against him while he was in Judaea; Galba 23.
12 The major study of Galba’s career and portraiture
remains L. Fabbricotti (1967).
racy, decisively differentiates representations of
the new emperor from those of his condemned
predecessor Nero.13
An overlifesized marble portrait head deliber-
ately removed from a relief has convincingly been
associated with Galba and reproduces several
physiognomical details present in his numismatic
likenesses (fig. 102).14 Chisel marks around the
back edge of the head document the portrait’s
removal from its relief background.15 A hole over
the forehead and one at the back of the head
which still contains the remnants of a metal dowel
confirm that the portrait was completed with a
metal wreath. Although the baldness of the Getty
head conflicts with Galba’s numismatic portraits
which depict him with a short military coiffure,
it is consonant with Suetonius’s literary depiction
of the emperor as quite bald (capite praecalvo).16
The scale, quality, and metal head ornament of
the Malibu portrait suggest that it is an imperial
image from an official monument. If the portrait
does indeed depict Galba, as seems highly likely,
then it was removed from the monument in re-
sponse to his damnatio memoriae. Galba may also
be represented in a small silver bust from Her-
culaneum, which might reflect the kind of imag-
ines attached to military standards which were at-
tacked during his overthrow.17
In addition to the Getty and Naples portraits,
a cameo in Paris depicts Galba with corona civica
13 On the iconographic importance of the verism in
Galba’s numismatic portraits, see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992)
168-9.
14 Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 74.AA.37, h. 0.29
m.; J. Frel (1981) 59, no. 32, with figs., 124, no. 32 (with
earlier literature); J. Chamay and J.L. Maier (1982) 101,
pl. 17. The marble used in the portrait is from Asia Mi-
nor and may indicate that it was discovered in the east.
The brows, eyes, nose, lips, chin and ear are damaged. The
portrait agrees with the coin images in the deep set eyes,
the wrinkled cheeks, the naso-labial lines, the thin,
downturned lips, the jowls and fleshy underchin. Although
the nose is missing, it is apparent that the nose was indented
at the bridge and it may have been hooked.
15 J. Pollini (1977) 63.
16 Suet. Galb. 21. In addition, it is possible that the metal
head ornament attached to the Malibu head masked the
top of the head, thus eliminating the necessity of indicat-
ing a coiffure.
17 Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 110127; F.
Johansen (1995a) 8, fig. 2.
 a.d. 69
and aegis (cat. 2.14; fig. 74), reconfigured from a
pre-existing likeness of Nero’s third type.18 The
previous reworking obviously precluded any fur-
ther attempt at recarving. Moreover, the cameo’s
inherent value as a gem, as well as Galba’s re-
habilitation under Vespasian helped to further
ensure the survival of the Paris cameo. The re-
cutting of the gem may even have been carried
out under Vespasian, as part of Galba’s rehabili-
tation. As already noted, the full coiffure and
divine attribute of the aegis, which are remnants
of the Neronian image, are inconsistent with
Galba’s iconography and may support a posthu-
mous date for the recarving. Other unaltered
glyptic representations of Galba include cameos
in Florence19 and Naples.20
A headless, seated togatus in the Villa Massimo
presents strong claims as a representation of
Galba.21 C.F. Konrad has suggested that the
reliefs on the sella curulis and the toga itself, make
it highly probable that this statue commemorates
Galba’s proconsulship in Africa of 44-45.22 As a
monument honoring Galba’s early career, this
image would not have remained on public dis-
play during the reigns of his predecessors Otho
and Vitellius. Indeed, the portrait features may
have been intentionally vandalized, or simply
removed and the statue reused with the addition
of a new head. Alternatively, the statue could
have been removed, warehoused, and returned
to public display under Vespasian.
Otho
Marcus Salvius Otho, born in A.D. 32, was the
second husband of Poppaea Sabina. After Nero
became interested in Poppaea, he appointed
18 Bibliothèque National, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.
238.
19 Museo Archeologico inv. 14543, onyx, 1.1 x 0.8 cm;
A. Giuliano, ed. (1989) 242, no. 173 (with figs) (with ear-
lier literature); Museo Archoleogico, inv. 14656, carnelian
cameo, 4.7 x 3.1 cm.; A. Giuliano, ed (1989) 244, no. 174
(with figs)(with earlier literature).
20 Museo Nazionale Archeologico 11021.
21 T. Schäfer (1989) 149-50; T. Schäfer (1990) 187-94;
C.F. Konrad (1994) 151-62.
22 C.F. Konrad (1994) 151-62.
107
Otho governor of Lusitania in order to remove
him from the capital. In the final days of Nero’s
reign, Otho supported Galba, hoping to be
named his successor. But Galba repudiated Otho
and named L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus
as his heir, with the result that Otho arranged
the murder of Galba and Calpurnius Piso on 15
January 69. Otho’s accession was immediately
challenged by Vitellius who eventually defeated
Otho’s forces outside Cremona, causing Otho to
take his own life on 16 April 69. Otho’s memo-
ry was condemned under his successor and his
name eradicated from inscriptions.23 Otho’s
birthday was clearly declared a dies nefastus, for,
under Domitian, Salvius Cocceianus was execut-
ed for celebrating the birthday of his uncle,
Otho.24 Otho also suffers a kind of literary dam-
natio in Juvenal’s Satires, where his memory and
reputation are denigrated.25
Upon his accession, Otho presented himself as
the new Nero and his coin portraits alternately
recall Nero’s second type and his final types with
their elaborately waved coiffures and heavier
facial features.26 Although surviving portraits with
such elaborately waved hairstyles, strongly remi-
niscent of Nero’s coma in gradus formata arrange-
ment have been identified with Otho, no replica
series can be securely established and most of
these represent private individuals.27 Neverthe-
less, persuasive evidence for the destruction of
Otho’s images is provided by a deliberately dam-
aged colossal portrait in Ostia (cat. 4.1; fig. 103).28
The waved coiffure, short broad forehead, fairly
small eyes, and heavy facial features are closely
paralleled in Otho’s numismatic likenesses.29 The
portrait was discovered in 1938 in a sewer near
23 R. Cagnat (1914) 173.
24 Suet. Dom. 10.3.
25 See, E.S. Ramage (1989) 679-80.
26 On Otho’s presentation of himself as a new Nero, see,
Suet. Otho 7.3, 10.2; Tacit. Hist. 1.78; Plut. Otho 3.
27 For instance, the well-known portrait in the Museo
Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori, no. 19, rejected by K.
Fittschen and P. Zanker in their catalogue of the male
imperial portraits in the Musei Capitolini.
28 Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446.
29 In addition, the colossal scale of the portrait indicates
that an emperor is intended. Nero and Domitian are the
only two emperors to wear similar hairstyles, and the Ostian
108 chapter five
the Temple of Hercules and has sustained con-
siderable injury, including damage to both eyes,
most of the nose and the lips.30 The portrait must
have been attacked and damaged after Otho’s
suicide and subsequent senatorial and praetorian
recognition of Vitellius as emperor. After its
destruction, the portrait was doubtless thrown in
the sewer in a vehement gesture of poena post
mortem and denigration of Otho’s memory. The
disposal of the image in the sewer also recalls a
relatively rare form of the abuse of corpses of
condemned criminals and others who were
stuffed into the drains leading to the Tiber.31 In
the politically uncertain and chaotic year of the
four emperors, it would have been especially
expedient to disavow public honors and support
given an overthrown princeps and simultaneously
affirm loyalty to the newly recognized regime.
The intentional damage and degraded form of
disposal inflicted on the Ostian portrait effectively
fulfills both purposes.32
Vitellius
Aulus Vitellius was born in A.D. 15. His father,
Lucius Vitellius, was an important advisor to
Claudius and held three consulships. Aulus Vi-
head is not a replica of any of their well-established por-
trait types.
30 Although she identified the portrait as Domitian, R.
Calza suggested that fragments of a colossal statue discov-
ered in the Temple of Hercules originally belonged with
this head, and that together they formed a statue of the
emperor in the guise of Hercules (1964) 47.
31 The portrait’s disposal recalls that of the miniature
busts of Caligula and Domitian in the Tiber, the portrait
of Nero from the Alde, or the portraits of Caligula and
Domitian found in wells. In addition, the Ostian images
disposal in a sewer predicts the reported abuse of the
corpses of Elagabalus and Julia Soemias , which were thrust
into the sewers which led to the Tiber; HA.Elag. 17.4-7,
23.7; Dio 80.20.2; Herod. 8.8.9; or the inscription of
Diadumenianus discovered in the latrine of the barracks
belonging of the Vigili in Ostia (ILS 465). D.G. Kyle (1998)
223-4; E.R. Varner (2001b) 58-9.
32 As was the case with other condemned emperors of
the first century, the destruction of Otho’s portraits in an-
tiquity led to the creation of modern portraits of the em-
peror, such as an example the Uffizi (inv. 1914.111).
tellius, himself, held a consulship under Claudi-
us in 48, and was later named proconsul to Af-
rica. In 68, Galba appointed him to the com-
mand of the restive troops stationed in Lower
Germany. On 2 January 69, shortly after assum-
ing command, Vitellius was saluted as emperor
by his new forces. After Galba’s murder, Vitel-
lius’s troops, under the command of Fabius
Valens and Aulus Caecina Alienus, marched into
Italy and defeated Otho and his troops north of
Cremona. As a result, Otho committed suicide
and the soldiers and Senate at Rome formally
recognized Vitellius as the new emperor.
However, troops stationed in the east refused
to recognize Vitellius as the legitimate princeps and
instead declared in favor of Vespasian. Vitellius
managed to hold the capital for some time, but
his forces ultimately were either defeated by or
defected to Vespasian’s cause.33 On the 20th of
December 69, Vitellius was dragged to the Fo-
rum and forced to suffer the indignities of a
common criminal (ceu noxii solent): he was insulted
by the populace, forced to watch his statues
overturned (cadentes statuas suas)34 pelted with
dung, and finally tortured to death on the
Gemonian steps;35 his corpse was mutilated36 and
then dragged by a hook and thrown into the
Tiber (unco tractus in Tiberim), a fate reserved for
the bodies of traitors, capital offenders and vic-
tims of the arena (noxii).37 Vitellius is the first
33 During this period, Tacitus records the overturning
and removal of Vitellius’s portraits set up in the camps of
troops which were considering defecting to Vespasian’s side:
simul Vitelli imagines dereptae (Hist. 3.13); these portraits were
subsequently reerected: Haec singuli, haec universi, ut quemque
dolor impulerat, vociferantes, initio a quinta legione orto, repositis
Vitelli imaginibus (Hist. 3.14).
34 Tac. Hist.3.85.
35 veste discissa seminudus in Forum tractus est inter magna rerum
verborumque ludibria per totum viae Sacrae spatium, reducto coma
capite, ceu noxii solent, atque etiam mento mucrone gladii subrecto,
ut visendum praeberet faciem neve summitteret; quibusdam stercore
et caeno incessentibus, aliis incendiarium et patinarium vociferantibus,
parte vulgi etiam corporis vitia exprobrante; Suet. Vit.17.1-2; see
also Aur.Vict. Caes. 8.6.
36 Tac. Hist. 3.85; Et vulgus eadem pravitate insectabatur
interfectum qua foverat viventem (And the common people at-
tacked his dead body with the same depravity with which
they had cherished him while living).
37 Suet. Vit. 17.2; D.G. Kyle (1998) 219; see also J.
Scheid (1984) 181-82, 185.
 a.d. 69
Roman emperor whose corpse was publicly des-
ecrated in this way and it most have been a fairly
shocking act of denigration intended to assert
loyalty to his victorious rival, Vespasian.38
Vitellius’s violent and bloody end is symptom-
atic of his damnatio memoriae, as is the destruction
of his images.39 As troops defected to Vespasian’s
side, Vitellius’s portraits were destroyed and re-
placed with representations of Vespasian.40 Fur-
thermore, Vitellius’s character and reign are
consistently vilified by the ancient authors, and
in the Historia Augusta, he is firmly linked with
other condemned emperors, including Nero,
Domitian, and Elagabalus.41
Vitellius’s numismatic images depict him with
a short coiffure and decidedly corpulent physi-
ognomy. His forehead is low and bulges out over
the nose. The eyes are deep set, with full pouches
beneath them. The nose is aquiline. The cheeks
are very wide and fleshy and naso labial lines are
indicated. Both the mouth and chin are small.
The emperor is depicted with a substantial
underchin and exceedingly thick neck. Rolls of
flesh appear on the back of the head and nape
of the neck.
A colossal portrait of Vitellius in Copenhagen
agrees closely with the details of his numismatic
images (fig. 104).42 The head is worked for in-
38 As mentioned earlier, certain members of the Sen-
ate wished to throw the body of Julius Caesar in the Tiber
(Suet. Iul. 82.4) and the mob had threatened to throw
Tiberius’s corpse in the Tiber (Suet. Tib. 75.1). Later, the
Senate wished to drag the body of Commodus by a hook
and throw it in the Tiber (HA Comm. 17.4; 18-19, quoting
Marius Maximus; Dio 74.2.1); Elagabalus’s corpse was, in
fact, thrown in the Tiber (HA. Elag. 17.4-7; 23.7; Epit.Caes.
23.5-7; Dio 80.20.2; Herod. 58.9).
39 Indeed, Vespasian may have felt especially virulently
towards his defeated rival, since Vespasian’s brother
Sabinus, the praefectus urbi, was killed during the siege of
the Capitoline by Vitellian partisans in December of 68.
40 Vitelli imagines dereptae, Tac. Hist.3.13; repositis Vitellii
imaginibus, Tac. Hist. 3.14; Primores castrorum nomen atque imag-
ines Vitellii amoliunutr, Tac. Hist. 3.31.2; 6"Â J`Jg :¥< JVH Jg
J@Ø ?Û4Jg88\@L gÆ6`<"H •BÎ Jä< F0:g\T< 6"2gÃ8@< 6"Â ßB@
J@Ø ?ÛgFB"F4"<@Ø •DP2ZFgF2"4 ê:@F"<, Dio 64(65).10.3.
41 For example, Car. 1.3 and Elag. 1.1.
42 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 655a, inv. 3167; V. Poulsen
(1974) no. 1, pls. 1-2 (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker (1981) 346, 349, fig. 23c. N. Hannestad
(1988) 328; D.E.E. Kleiner, (1992) 169, fig. 137. Kreiken-
109
sertion. It reproduces the short coiffure, low
forhead, deep set eyes, heavy facial features,
double chin, thick neck and rolls of fat at the back
of the neck of the coin portraits. Although the
Copenhagen head is not well preserved, with
damage to the brows, nose, lips and ears and
general corrosion of the surfaces, there are no
signs of deliberate defacement. The portrait is
alleged to have been discovered near the Piazza
Colonna in Rome. Once Vespasian’s partisans
had gained control of the capital, the image was
removed from public display in the Campus
Martius and warehoused or buried. The statue
into which it had been inserted was probably
reused, through the addition of a new portrait of
Vespasian or one of his sons.
As strong indications of the Flavian tendency
to appropriate and recarve the images of con-
demned predecessors, three portraits of Vitellius,
in Hannover (cat. 4.2; fig. 105a-b),43 Thessalonika
(cat. 4.3; fig. 106a-c)44 and Trier (cat. 4.4; fig.
107a-b)45 were refashioned into likenesses of
Vespasian. All three retain the rolls of flesh on
the nape of the neck which betray their origins
as images of the corpulent Vitellius. The Han-
nover and Thessalonika portraits have been re-
cut into replicas of Vespasian’s main, older type.
The Thessalonika head attests to the production
of Vitellius’s portraits in Greece, as well as to their
reworking after his assassination. The Trier por-
trait is also worked for insertion into a draped
statue or bust and has been recut into Vespasian’s
more youthful portrait type. Not surprisingly, the
portrait confirms the dissemination of images of
Vitellius in the geographical region of his initial
support. All three portraits provided important
evidence for the repudiation of Vitellius and his
reign following his defeat by Vespasian. As with
Caligula and Nero, the scarcity of extant unal-
tered representations of Vitellius as a result of his
condemnation, has spawned numerous post an-
bom 210, no. 3.82; F. Johansen (1995a) 24, no. 1, with figs;
H. Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 98, fig. 44; H. Meyer
(2000) 63.
43 Kestnermuseum.
44 Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055.
45 Rheinisches Landesmuseum, ST 5223.
110 chapter five
tique portraits. The Grimani “Vitellius,” which
may be a work of the 16th century, exists in sev-
eral modern copies.46
Conclusion: Condemnation and Violent Political
Transitions
Not surprisingly, the condemnations of Galba,
Otho and Vitellius followed the precedents set by
those of Caligula and Nero. Although the prin-
cipates of all three were brief, they generated
46 Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 20, h. 0.48 m; G.
Traversari (1968) 63-64, no. 43, figs. 44a-d; S. Bailey (1975)
105-22, and n. 22; I. Favoretto and G.L. Ravagna, eds.
(1997) 156, no. 18; J. Fejfer (1997) 10-11, fig. 12. See also
a modern copy in the Palazzo Colonna (fid. no. 15); F.
Carinci, H. Keutner, L. Musso, M.G. Picozzi, eds. (1990)
133-5, no. 71, with fig.
commemorative monuments which were attacked
and destroyed. In addition, portraits of Vitellius
were also recycled into images of his immediate
successor, Vespasian.
Written accounts of the downfalls of all three
regimes stress the prominent roles which artistic
representations played in these periods of violent
political transition. Legionaries are recorded to
have destroyed and hurled stones at Galba’s
images to express their dissatisfaction with his
regime. Moreover, just before his assassination,
his imago was ripped from a military standard to
visually signal his overthrow. Later in A.D. 69,
Vitellius would be forced to watch the destruc-
tion of his portraits prior to his murder. Like
Sejanus, Vitellius is forced to witness the muti-
lation of his own images as a kind of artistic pre-
enactment of the desecration of his corpse, which
was abused by the populace and eventually
thrown into the Tiber.
 domitian
CHAPTER SIX
DOMITIAN
Domitian follows Nero as the second emperor to
suffer an officially mandated damnatio memoriae.
Titus Flavius Domitianus was born on 24 Octo-
ber A.D. 51 on the Quirinal in Rome, the sec-
ond surviving son of the future emperor Titus
Flavius Vespasianus and Flavia Domitilla Maior.1
During the reigns of his father Vespasian (69-79)
and brother Titus (79-81) Domitian held presti-
gious, though largely ceremonial positions: caesar,
princeps iunventutis; consul ordinarius (73 and 80) and
consul suffectus (71, 75, 76, 77 and 79).2
Domitian succeeded to the principate after the
premature death of Titus on 13 September 81.3
Domitian was a gifted administrator and capable
general, but his reign, like those of Caligula and
Nero, was marred by serious conflicts with the
Senate exacerbated by his increasingly autocratic
behavior.4 Overt signs of Domitian’s more mo-
narchical approach to the principate included his
assumption of the title censor perpetuus in 85, his
salutation as dominus et deus,5 and the renaming
of September and October as Germanicus and
Domitianus in his honor.6
As a result of his despotic behavior and ruth-
less persecution of the senatorial aristocracy,
1 Suet. Dom. 1.1.
2 Domitian’s Portrait Typology
On Domitian’s career under Vespasian and Titus, see
B.W. Jones (1992) 18-21.
3 Suet. Titus 11. Domitian was not officially acclaimed
by the Senate until 14 September, CIL 6.2060 and B.W.
Jones (1992) 20-21.
4 On Domitian’s relations with the Senate, see, B.W.
Jones (1979).
5 censor perpetuus: Dio 67.4.3-4; B.W. Jones (1992) 76,
106-7; dominus et deus: Suet. Dom. 13.2; Dio 67.13.3-4; Dio
Chrys. 45.1; Aur.Vict. Caes. 11.2; Epit.Caes. 11.6; Eutr. 7.23;
Orosius 7.10; and B.W. Jones (1992) 107-9, suggesting that
the term was not official (it is not attested epigraphically),
but used by flatterers and perpetuated by later hostile
sources.
6 Suet. Dom. 13.3.
111
Domitian was assassinated on 18 September 96.7
His own wife, Domitia Longina, was implicated
in the plot.8 The soldiers, with whom he had
remained popular, called for Domitian’s imme-
diate deification and the punishment of his as-
sassins, but the Senate defied their wishes and
instead voted to erase his inscriptions and abol-
ish his memory: novissime eradendos ubique titulos
abolendamque omnem memoriam decerneret.9 By the
fourth century, Domitian had become the para-
digm of the condemned tyrant, and Lactantius
categorically states that even the memory of
Domitian’s name was erased (memoria nominis eius
erasa est) and supplies a powerful motivation for
Domitian’s condemnation, stating that the Sen-
ate intended that absolutely no vestige of the
emperor’s images or titles would remain: neque
imaginum neque titulorum eius relinqueret ulla vestigia.10
Despite the damnatio, Domitian’s nurse, Phyllis,
cremated his body at her villa suburbana on the
Via Latina and secretly deposited the ashes at the
temple of the Flavian gens on the Quirinal adja-
cent to the house where Domitian had been
born.11 The burial of Domitian’s corpse by his
nurse directly recalls the burial of Nero by his
nurses, Alexandria and Eclogue.
Suetonius records the following details of Domi-
tian’s physical appearance:
7 Suet. Dom. 17; J.D. Grainger (2003) 1-3.
8 Suet. Dom. 14.1; see also E.R. Varner (1995) 202-3.
9 Suet. Dom. 23.1.
10 De Mort.Pers. 3.2-3. See also P. Stewart (1999) 181.
11 Suet. Dom. 17.3. Remains of both the house and the
temple have been identified beneath the modern Caserma
dei Corazzieri on the Via XX Settembre, F. Coarelli (1997)
273 and P. Davies (2000) 2, 24, 27, 104, 150-58.
112 chapter six
Statura fuit procera, vultu modesto ruborisque pleno,
grandibus oculis, verum acie hebetiore; praeterea pulcher
ac decens, maxime in iuventa...postea calvito quoque
deformis et obesitate ventris et crurum gracilitate, quae tamen
ei valitudine longa remacruerant.12
His stature was tall, and he had a modest de-
meanor, with a ruddy complexion. His eyes were
large, but, in fact, his vision was rather weak.
Moreover, he was fair and handsome, especially
in his youth...later, he suffered the deformities of
baldness, a protruding stomach, and skinny legs,
which had indeed grown thin as a result of pro-
tracted sickness.
As in his unflattering descriptions of Caligula and
Nero, Suetonius’s inclusion of unpleasant phys-
ical details such as weak eyes, bloated stomach,
baldness and skinny legs, rely heavily on contem-
porary physiognomical theory and are carefully
constructed as negative physical reflections of the
princeps’ flawed moral character. In contrast,
numismatic and sculpted portraits, as officially
sanctioned works commissioned during Domi-
tian’s lifetime, portray him with handsome facial
features. Domitian’s later portraits do, however,
include a coiffure in which the hair is combed
directly forward from the occiput, perhaps in an
effort to cover the baldness mentioned by Sue-
tonius.
Domitian’s sculpted and coin portraits can be
divided into three types.13 His earliest portrait
type appears on coins from A.D. 72-75, intended
to celebrate his position as Caesar under
Vespasian. Domitian is depicted with a full, curly
coiffure. The curving locks over the forehead are
combed from right to left, and a portion of these
locks sometimes reverse their orientation over the
right eye. Domitian’s nose is hooked like that of
his father and the face is broad. The mouth is
long, with a full slightly receding lower lip. The
chin is firm and square
A second portrait type is attested on coins from
75 until Domitian’s accession in 81. In this type,
the coiffure is similar to that of the first, but the
12 Suet. Dom. 18.1.
13 On Domitian’s portrait typology see, M. Wegner, G.
Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 30-42, 97-108; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 349-70; Fittschen-Zanker
I, 35-37, nos. 31-33; W. Grünhagen (1986) 312-21.
hair is curlier over the forehead and recedes
slightly at the temples. Some of these locks are
often treated as full corkscrew curls. The hair
over the forehead maintains the right to left
orientation of the first portrait type, but, in
sculpted examples, any locks which reverse their
orientation appear over the left eye instead of the
right. The facial features are somewhat heavier
and generally more mature.
The third and final type first occurs on coins
in A.D. 81 and was conceived to mark Domitian’s
accession to the principate. Long strands of hair
are now brushed forward from the occiput and
are arranged in a series of waves over the top of
the head, recalling Nero’s coma in gradus formata
hairstyles. The curving locks over the forehead
retain the right to left orientation of the first types,
but they are much more meticulously arranged
and the hair over the left temple reverses its
direction. The artful arrangement of this coiffure
evokes Nero’s last two hairstyles with their strong
associations with luxuria and may also reflect the
treatise Domitian is known to have written on
hair care.14
The Mutilation and Destruction of Domitian’s Portraits
Pliny the Younger provides a vivid and dramat-
ic description of the destruction of Domitian’s
portraits.
Illae autem aureae et innumerabiles strage ac ruina pub-
lico gaudio et litaverunt. Iuvabat illidere solo superbissimos
vultus, instare ferro, saevire securibus, ut si singulos ictus
sanguis dolorque sequeretur. Nemo tam temperans gaudii
seraeque laetitiae, quin instar ultionis videretur cernere
laceros artus truncata membra, postremo truces horendasque
imagines obiectas excoctasque flammis, ut ex illo terrore
et minis in usum hominum ac voluptates ignibus
mutarentur.15
However, his [Domitian’s] countless golden stat-
ues, in a heap of rubble and ruin, were offered
as fitting sacrifice to the public joy. It was a delight
to smash those arrogant faces to pieces in the dust,
to threaten them with the sword, and savagely
14 Suet. Dom. 18.2.
15 Pan. 52.4-5.
 domitian
attack them with axes, as if blood and pain would
follow every single blow. No one controlled their
joy and long awaited happiness, when vengeance
was taken in beholding his likenesses hacked into
mutilated limbs and pieces, and above all, in seeing
his savage and hideous portraits hurled into the
flames and burned up, in order that they might
be transformed from things of such terror and
menace into something useful and pleasing.
Pliny’s account is striking for its anthropomorphic
depiction of Domitian’s images as living beings
capable of suffering pain; their savage mutilation
represents the collective destruction of the em-
peror himself in effigy. Pliny also emphasizes the
transformation of Domitian’s images into useful
and pleasing objects. Pliny’s account, however,
is hardly unbiased and is embedded within the
framework of a panegyric to Trajan who is de-
picted by contemporary authors as the direct
antithesis of the tyrannical Domitian. As a mem-
ber of the senatorial aristocracy, Pliny is presum-
ably writing for an elite, primarily male audience,
many of whom would have had family members,
or been themselves persecuted under Domitian.
Pliny represents the entire Roman populace as
willing participants in the destruction of Domi-
tian’s monuments, when, in fact, certain segments
of the society, including the military, and lower
class inhabitants of Rome, did not perceive
Domitian in the same negative light as the elite.
The Equus Domitiani, a colossal bronze stat-
ue located at the western end of the Roman Fo-
rum between the Basilica Aemilia and the Basil-
ica Julia, was the most celebrated and prominent
of Domitian’s public images.16 Memorialized by
Statius as one of the great artistic achievements
of the reign, the portrait, dedicated in 91, depict-
ed Domitian with his right hand outstretched in
a gesture of clementia (dextra vetat pugnas), while his
left hand supported an image of his patron de-
ity Minerva holding the head of Medusa.17 The
horse’s foreleg was raised over a personification
of the Rhine, in commemoration of Domitian’s
German victories. As a colossal monument to
Domitian’s accomplishments in the heart of the
16 C.P. Giuliani in E. Steinby, ed. (1995) 228-9 (with
earlier literature); F. Coarelli (1997) 83.
17 Stat. Sil. 1.1.32-60.
113
Roman Forum, the statue must have been one
of the first portraits to be melted down in the
destruction of images recorded by Pliny.18
As was the case with Caligula and Nero, ar-
chaeological evidence for the intentional muti-
lation of Domitian’s images is rare. However, two
little known Domitianic reliefs in the Antiquarium
of the Villa Barberini at Castel Gandalfo (cat. 5.2;
fig. 108a-b)19 and Anacapri (cat. 5.1)20 appear to
have been deliberately vandalized in antiquity.
The Castel Gandalfo relief preserves the upper
sections of a cuirassed torso, including a muti-
lated head, whose facial features have been en-
tirely disfigured by a claw chisel. Despite its
destruction, surviving remnants of the coiffure on
the side of the head secure an identification of
the figure as Domitian, in a reflection of his third
portrait type.21 The background of the relief
contains indications of wings, likely belonging to
a figure of victory. The combination of victory
figure with cuirassed emperor raises the strong
possibility that the relief is historical, commemo-
rating the military achievements of Domitian’s
reign.22 The relief and the monument it originally
decorated almost certainly derive from the Villa
of Domitian located in the grounds and substruc-
tures of the modern Villa Barberini at Castel
Gandalfo.23
At the proper right of the Anacapri relief, a
figure dressed in the garb of the traveling im-
perator (tunica and paludamentum) gestures with his
outstretched right hand. This figure’s larger scale
and his costume identify him as an emperor.
18 Archaeological evidence suggests that the Domitianic
base may have remained in place after the emperor’s over-
throw, perhaps supporting a subsequent equestrian monu-
ment of Septimius Severus, the Equus Severi; C.P. Giuliani
in E. Steinby, ed. (1995)228-9.
19 Antiquario.
20 Museo della Torre.
21 F. Magi (1968-69) 140-41. P. Liverani has suggested
that the destruction of the portrait features was more prac-
tical in nature and may have been occasioned by the block’s
reuse as building material, (1989a) 17.
22 P. Liverani (1989a) 17-18. F. Magi has suggested a
ceiling panel in the bay of an arch dedicated to Domitian
and cites the panel from the Arch of Trajan at Benevento
as a possible parallel (1968-69) 144.
23 See P. Liverani (1989a).
114 chapter six
Minerva stands to his right, glancing back at him.
At the emperor’s left is a lictor in tunic and
mantle and to the lictor’s left, is the goddess
Roma, flanked by a second lictor, followed by the
front half of a horse and a cuirassed soldier.
Strong correspondences with frieze A of the
Cancelleria Reliefs (cat. 5.17), the prominence
Domitian’s patron deity Minerva, and the full,
curly coiffure of the lictor at Roma’s left suggest
a Domitianic date for the Anacapri relief and an
identification of the imperial figure as Domitian
himself.24 After Domitian’s damnatio, the relief
appears to have been vandalized and the head
of Domitian destroyed. The original context of
the relief is unknown, but it may be from the
vicinity of Naples. If so, the relief would be con-
sonant with other important public monuments
celebrating Domitian on the bay of Naples in-
cluding the bronze equestrian statue reconfigured
as Nerva at Misenum and the honorific inscrip-
tion from Pozzuoli (cat. 5.7).25
Other Domitianic monuments were intention-
ally mutilated and include cuirassed torsos in
Rome (cat. 5.3),26 Princeton (fig. 109),27 and
Osimo.28 Like the Castel Gandalfo and Anacapri
reliefs, the torso in Rome contains a damaged
relief portrait of Domitian. The unusual gorgo-
neion and aegis on the upper section of the cui-
rass indicate that the statue was originally com-
bined with a likeness of Domitian.29 The cuirass
24 The relief is too poorly preserved to determine
whether it reproduces the scene represented in Frieze A
(Domitian’s dedication of weapons to Jupiter Optimus
Maximus after the Sarmatian campaign in 93) or whether
it is a scene of imperial adventus, as F. Magi has suggested
(1954-55) 47-54.
25 On these monuments, see infra.
26 Rome, Art Market.
27 The Art Museum, inv. 84-2, h. 1.2 m.; Sotheby’s,
London, Catalogue of Antiquities (15 July 1980) lot no. 207;
Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 44.1 (1985) 45-
46, with figs.; R. Gergel (1986) 3-15, figs. 1-4, 7-9, 14-18;
R. Gergel (1994) , fig. 12.11; E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner,
ed. (2000) 162-63, no. 36, with figs; E.R. Varner (2001) 49,
fig. 1; H. Meyer in J.M. Padgett, ed. (2001) 27-33, no.7.
28 Commune, K. Stemmer (1978) 174, no. 328.
29 The aegis and gorgoneion have close parallels to the
bronze equestrian statue of Domitian reworked to Nerva
from Miseno (Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei
nel Castello di Baia, 155743).
depicts the goddess Fortuna and Domitian,
dressed in a tunica and paludamentum.30 In a
potent act of denigration, the emperor’s portrait
features have been almost entirely removed, as
has the head of his tutelary goddess.
Although they do not contain portraits of
Domitian, the reliefs decorating the cuirasses in
Princeton and Osimo have also been deliberately
disfigured. The Princeton torso depicts an icono-
graphically complex scene of two Victories
crowning a trophy with a bound German cap-
tive, referring to Domitian’s victory over the
Chatti.31 As a way of posthumously disparaging
Domitian’s military triumphs, the heads of both
Victories on the Princeton torso were attacked
with chisels, as well as some or the figures on the
lappets.32 The heads of the victories on the
Osimo cuirass have also been similarly removed.
The disfigurement of the Victories strongly re-
calls the similar mutilation under Marius of the
monument of Sulla set up by the Mauretanian
king Bocchus on the Capitoline.33 The vandal-
ization of these three cuirasses is all the more
striking in that it rendered them unsuitable for
future reuse and were thus economically expen-
sive expressions of dissatisfaction with Domitian’s
regime.
None of Domitian’s sculpted portraits exhibit
the kind of systematic and intentional mutilation
of the facial features seen in the images of Nero
in Cagliari and Cos (cat. 2.1-2). However, the
fragmentary nature of the portrait of Nero re-
worked to Domitian and later incorporated into
a modern representation of Nero (cat. 2.51),
suggests that it was attacked in much the same
manner as the fragmentary portrait of Caligula
in Aquileia (cat. 1.1; fig. 3), or the fragmentary
images of Nero in Syracuse (cat. 2.3; fig. 43) and
Vienne (cat. 2.5; fig. 44).34
30 K. Stemmer (1978) 113.
31 For an explication of the imagery, see R. Gergel
(1986) 3-15.
32 R. Gergel (1986) 7.
33 Palazzo dei Conservatori (Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2750).
34 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 14,
inv. 427. As mentioned above, the ancient fragment
consists of the forehead, eyes, nose, left cheek and upper
lip.
 domitian
Domitian’s portrait, name and titles have also
been attacked and effaced from an as from Cibyra
in Phrygia (fig. 110).35 The obverse originally de-
picted facing busts of Domitian and Domitia.
Domitian’s image and identifying legend (DOMI-
TIANOS KAISAR) have been removed from the
coin with a chisel and stands in stark contrast to
the untouched portrait of his wife. The Phrygian
coin is a unique example of the defacement of
Domitian’s numismatic likenesses. As with the
earlier defaced coins of Caligula and Nero, and
later with those of Geta, the Domitianic coin was
likely altered by a private individual or soldier.
Like the mutilated coinage of Caligula and Nero,
the defacement of the Cibyra as is probably an
isolated and spontaneous act, expressive of dis-
content with the overthrown emperor and sup-
port of the new regime.
The Transformation of Domitian’s Images
Domitian/Nerva
Continuing the patterns of reuse established for
representations of Caligula and Nero, images of
Domitian were commonly transformed into like-
nesses of his immediate successors Nerva and
Trajan. Fourteen of Domitian’s portraits, a sub-
stantial majority, were altered to represent Ner-
va. The number is all the more startling in that
it represents approximately 82% of Nerva’s ex-
tant images, standing as a salient reminder of the
iconographic impact of sculptural reuse.
Nerva enjoyed only one portrait type during
his brief reign. Nerva was 66 at the time of his
accession; coins and his three unreworked marble
portraits reflect his age and depict him with a full
head of hair with thick, curling locks.36 The
coiffure is arranged over the forehead in three
35
Berlin; R. Mowat (1901) 450-51, pl. 10.1; K. Regling
(1904) 144; K. Harl (1987), pl.12.1 .
36 The three unreworked portraits are in Copenhagen,
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 668, inv. 772 (F. Johansen [1995a]
88, no. 31, with figs); Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv.
1914.132 (G.A. Mansuelli [1961] 77, no. 79, fig. 75; Rome,
Musei Vaticani, Cortile Ottagono 101a, inv. 975 (G.
Spinola [1996] 47-8, no. PE 40).
115
distinct sections, with the locks usually parted
over both the left and right eye. The forehead
itself is unusually high and narrow, with hollow
temples. Nerva’s distinctive nose is long and
hooked. Strong naso-labial lines further empha-
size his maturity. In addition to a basic discrep-
ancy in age (Nerva was approximately twenty
years older than Domitian), Nerva’s physiognomy
differs radically from that of Domitian, diverg-
ing in almost every particular: Nerva’s face is long
and thin, where Domitian’s is more full and
square; Nerva’s eyes are small, where Domitian’s
are long and wide; Nerva’s nose is thin and in-
cludes a very pronounced hook, whereas Domi-
tian’s is wider, less hooked and tends to be more
aquiline; and Nerva’s neck is long and thin, with
a pronounced Adam’s apple, where Domitian’s
neck is shorter and stockier, often without any
adam’s apple indicated. Despite the enormous
technical problems which the differing facial
structures presented to sculptors, Domitian’s
images were nonetheless routinely altered into
images of the new princeps.
Portraits of Nerva which have been reworked
from Domitian’s likenesses naturally contain
details of physiognomy, coiffure, or even style
which differentiate them from the unreworked
images. In a full length statue of Nerva as Jupi-
ter in Copenhagen, Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has
been only slightly modified through the addition
of a second row of locks over the forehead (cat.
5.9; fig. 111a-e).37 The statue is carved from a
single block of marble and depicts the emperor
standing with hip mantle. Although naso-labial
lines have been added to the face, and the chin
has been substantially cut down to endow it with
Nerva’s narrower, more pointed shape, the re-
sulting image is a youthful and idealized depic-
tion of the emperor. A portrait of Nerva in Ber-
lin, part of a colossal seated image of the emperor
as Jupiter also retains recognizable elements of
the original Domitianic coiffure (cat. 5.8).38 Both
sculptures bear witness to the production and
37 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 542, inv. 1454.
38 Schloss Klein-Glienicke, inv. G1 324.
116 chapter six
dissemination of representation of Domitian as
Jupiter (recalling Statius’s evocation of Domitian
as Jupiter Ausonius), as well as Nerva’s willing-
ness to appropriate such divine imagery.39
Other recarved marble representations of
Nerva also exhibit a more idealizing, less idio-
syncratic handling of the facial features when
compared to his numismatic and unaltered por-
traits and have clearly retained physiognomic and
stylistic aspects of the Domitianic originals. In-
deed, a recut portrait in the Sala dei Busti of the
Vatican is the most idealizing of Nerva’s surviv-
ing sculpted images (cat. 5.18; fig. 112a-b).40
Domitian’s type 3 hairstyle, swept forward from
the occiput is clearly visible on the back and sides
of the head. Very shallow naso-labial lines have
been added and modifications to the eyes, nose,
and mouth have resulted in certain asymmetri-
calities endowing the portrait with faint traces of
verism, but the smoothly modeled surfaces and
crisply delineated details of the likeness, combine
to make this Nerva’s most classicizing and youth-
ful image.
Although not as idealized as the Sala dei Busti
head, recut portraits in the Museo Capitolino
(cat. 5.14; fig. 113a-d),41 Holkham Hall (cat. 5.10;
fig. 114), and the Palazzo dei Conservatori (cat.
5.20; fig. 115a-e)42 are remarkable for their
youthful portrayal of the elderly emperor. The
portrait in the Museo Capitolino is unusual in
that it has been recut from a replica of Domitian’s
first portrait type, retaining much its youthfulness.
Evidence of Domitian’s first hairstyle is still vis-
ible at the back of the head. Signs of aging which
have been added to the portrait are superficial
and consist of light furrows on the forehead and
naso-labial lines. The square shape of the
Holkham Hall head and the portrait’s smooth,
classicizing aspect are also clear indications of its
origins as a representation of Domitian. The head
39 Silv. 4.18. The literary reference may, however, be
ironic, intended for an audience hostile to Domitian. On
the problems of interpretation see: B.W. Jones (1992) 31-
2 and E.R. Varner, (1995) 201, n. 73.
40 Sala dei Busti 317, inv. 674.
41 Stanza degli Imperatori, inv. 417.
42 Sala Verde, inv. 423.
is reputedly from sixteenth century excavations
at Tivoli. The Palazzo dei Conservatori portrait
also has retained much of the character of the
original Domitianic likeness. Remnants of
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure are evident at the back
of the head and the forehead, brows, and eyes
essentially remain intact from Domitian’s portrait.
Very light crows’ feet have been added at the
outer corners of both eyes. Like the Holkham
Hall head, the square shape of the face is unchar-
acteristic of Nerva’s portraits and is a stark re-
minder of the limitations imposed by the origi-
nal likeness of Domitian. All three portraits are
from the environs of Rome and underscore the
frequency with which Domitian’s images were re-
fashioned into youthful representations of Nerva
in the capital.
The recutting of a fifth portrait from Rome,
now in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme has re-
sulted in a more emphatically modeled likeness
which exhibits stylistic features foreign to Nerva’s
other images (cat. 5.15; fig. 116a-d).43 The head
is well over life-sized and is worked for insertion
into a togate statue. In an effort to obliterate all
trace of Domitian’s coiffure, the individual locks
of Nerva’s hair have been dramatically undercut
and deeply drilled, resulting in an exuberant play
of light and shadow. The recarving of the brows
has given them a more emphatic, calligraphic
curve, and has caused deep pockets of shadow
to surround the eyes. The resulting sculptural
effects are reminiscent of later baroque sculpture
and have led the portrait to be incorrectly con-
demned as a modern.
Although their provenances are unknown, two
additional recarved likenesses of Nerva in Stutt-
gart (cat. 5.21)44 and formerly in Leipzig (cat.
5.11; fig. 117)45 achieve only superficial signs of
aging. The Stuttgart portrait is said to be of Greek
marble; Domitian’s type 3 hairstyle has survived
behind both ears and the eyes have retained their
length from the original likeness. The bust with
43 Inv. 318.
44 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. arch. 68/3.
45 Archäologisches Institut der Universität (now de-
stroyed).
 domitian
paludamentum formerly in Leipzig preserves the
deep waves of Domitian’s type 3 coiffure almost
in their entirety. In fact, only the hair immedi-
ately over the forehead has been recconfigured.
As in the other recarved youthful images of
Nerva, signs of aging are limited to the naso-labial
lines.
An additional full length portrait of Nerva in
Parma stands as an extremely unusual example
of an image subjected to two separate stages of
recutting (cat. 2.50; cat. 5.13; fig. 61a-e).46 As al-
ready noted, this cuirassed statue originally rep-
resented Nero and came from the cycle of por-
traits decorating the Julio-Claudian Basilica at
Velleiea. After Nero’s death, the image was
recarved into a likeness of Domitian. Subsequent
to Domitian’s damnatio, the portrait features were
again recut, this time into Nerva’s likeness. The
double recarving has resulted in an awkward and
aberrational likeness of Nerva. As a result of the
substantial reduction in sculptural volume, the
current modeling of the likeness fails to give a
coherent sense of the organic structure underly-
ing the face. In its final form as an image of
Nerva, the portrait stands in striking contrast to
the classicizing and naturalistic handling of the
cuirassed body into which it is inserted. The hair
of the portrait has been overworked to such an
extent that only the faintest trace of Domitian’s
coiffure remains, likely from his first portrait
type.47 Further support for an identification of the
secondary likeness as a type 1 replica of Domitian
is provided by a fragmentary inscription from the
Basilica originally honoring Domitian as princeps
iuventutis and subsequently recut to commemorate
Divus Nerva.48 The recutting of the inscription
parallels the recarving of the image and Nerva’s
commemoration as divus in the inscription indi-
cates that, if the recutting of the inscription and
portrait are contemporary, then the alterations
took place no earlier than 98, at least seventeen
46 Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), inv.
827 (1954).
47 A majority of Domitian’s type I portraits have been
recarved from portraits of Nero.
48 CIL 11.1172, 1173; C.C. Vermeule (1959) 47, no.
113; H. Gabelmann (1971) 733; K.P. Goethert (1972) 245;
C. Saletti (1972) 188; H. Jucker (1977) 212-3.
117
months after Domitian’s assassination. Because
of its sculptural anomalies the Parma image in-
sists on its identity as a reconfigured likeness and
it may have been deliberately conceived as a rec-
ognizable sculptural record of two phases of
political transformation and transition.
The enigmatic appearance of a seated statue
of an emperor as Jupiter in Lucera is also likely
the result of multiple reworkings, one of which
may have been a transformation from Domitian
to Nerva (fig. 118a-b).49 The statue preserves the
upper torso and left arm, but all of the portrait
features, including the coiffure, ears and face,
have been entirely eradicated and all that remains
of the head is a cylinder of marble roughly
worked over with a point. The treatment of the
musculature and drapery has similarities with the
seated Jupiter statues from Caere and may indi-
cate that piece was originally created in the later
Julio-Claudian period.50 Scant traces of a curls
still visible just above the remains of a fillet at the
back of the head, however, are not consonant
with the comma-shaped locks which make up
Julio-Claudian hairstyles, but are more charac-
teristic of Flavian coiffures. Perhaps like the
Parma statue, the original image represented
Nero and was subsequently reworked to Domit-
ian. If so, after Domitian’s overthrow, the avail-
able marble in the area of the head may have
been deemed insufficient to recarve into Nerva,
and so the head was roughened for the adher-
ence of new stucco facial features. This solution
would be unique among refashioned imperial
images and may be the result of the paucity of
marble in the area around Lucera.51 The sculp-
ture was discovered in the remains of baths, and
evidently continued to be displayed there after
its transformation.
Sculptors could also choose to suppress the
youthful, classicizing aspects of the original
Domitianic portrait and create supra-realistic
49 Lucera, Museo Civico, inv. 25, h. 1.64 m.; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 318, fig. 1; G. Legrottaglie
(1999) 123-29, pl. 35 (with earlier lieterature).
50 C. Maderna (1988) 175; G. Legrottaglie (1999) 125-
7.
51 G. Legrottaglie (1999) 127-8.
118 chapter six
likenesses of the aged Nerva. It is not surprising,
then, that Nerva’s most veristic image, in Los
Angeles, has been recut from a representation of
Domitian, recalling the realistic portraits of
Claudius recut from Caligula, and of Vespasian
recut from Nero (cat. 5.12; fig. 119a-d).52 The
hair over the forehead has been recarved, as evi-
denced by the sharp straight line which runs
along the current hairline. Domitian’s type 3
coiffure remains above the left temple, behind the
right ear, and on the top of the head and below
the occiput. The striking asymmetricalities
present in the facial features have resulted from
the image’s extensive sculptural alterations. Ac-
centuated indications of age added to the por-
trait include heavy pouches beneath both eyes,
conspicuous crow’s-feet wrinkles and substantial
naso-labial lines. Even the neck has been refash-
ioned and a deep furrow added on the right side
and Nerva’s adam’s apple carved into the exist-
ing mass. The transformation of the Getty por-
trait has resulted in a veristic image of Nerva
remarkable for its exaggerated effects of aging.
Nevertheless, recognizable signs of the image’s
previous identity are still strongly present in the
reconfigured likeness, most notably in the coif-
fure, and the relatively smooth and unlined fore-
head which contrasts with the emphatic signs of
age in the lower face. The portrait is constructed
of three pieces of marble, with the back and top
of the head separately attached. Significantly the
artist who refashioned the image did not choose
to replace these pieces, which are essentially
unaltered segments of Domtian’s coiffure.
A heavily restored statue of Nerva in the Sala
Rotonda of the Vatican, reworked from an ear-
lier representation of Domitian, achieves similar
veristic effects of aging (cat. 5.19; fig. 120a-b).53
The ancient sections of the statue, consisting of
the head and torso belonged to a seated image
depicting the emperor as Jupiter. Although the
hairline over the forehead has been recarved so
that it recedes as in Nerva’s coiffure, individual
details are not well articulated. Remnants of
52 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.43.
53 No. 548, inv. 246.
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure are discernible behind
the left ear. In order to imbue the portrait with
emphatic signs of aging, the temples have been
drastically recut, making them exaggeratedly
hollow, and deep furrows have been added to the
forehead.54 Again, the classicizing, youthful ele-
ments of the Domitianic likeness have been en-
tirely obliterated by the new veristic indications
of aging. The portrait juxtaposes Nerva’s realis-
tic, middle aged physiognomy with the divine
body type of Jupiter and, like the portraits in
Copenhagen and Berlin, attests to the dissemi-
nation of images of Domitian as Jupiter, and their
subsequent expropriation by Nerva.
Another recarved portrait of Nerva now in the
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, from Tivoli, em-
phasizes realistic details of aging (cat. 5.16; fig.
121a-d).55 Traces of Domitian’s third coiffure,
combed forward from the occiput, are clearly
visible on both sides of the head. Horizontal
furrows have been added to the forehead and
vertical creases carved above the nose. In addi-
tion, deep naso-labial lines have been carved
around the mouth. Like the Getty image, this
exaggerated realism underscores the care which
was taken to obliterate all trace of Domitian’s
more youthful and classicizing countenance from
the recarved likeness. The portrait was discov-
ered at the Temple of Hercules Victor complex
at Tivoli in the excavations of an apsidal hall
originally dedicated to Augustus.56 This find-spot
suggests that the reworked image, and perhaps
the Domitianic original, should be associated with
the imperial cult.
The political implications inherent in the re-
worked veristic representations of Nerva are
clear. Not only do they visually distance Nerva
from his condemned friend and predecessor,
effectively subsuming the classicizing and youthful
aspects of the Domitianic originals, but they also
play to senatorial sympathies for the republican
54 Deeply hollow temples are a hallmark of Nerva’s three
unreworked likenesses and are especially apparent in the
replicas in the Cortile Ottagono of the Vatican (101 a, inv.
975) and the Uffizi (inv. 1914.132).
55 Inv. 106538.
56 On the portrait’s discovery, see V. Pacifici (1920) 91-
3, figs. 8-9.
 domitian
past. Nerva’s former position as an imperial
amicus of Domitian certainly necessitated his re-
pudiation of Domitian’s memory, and is ex-
pressed in visual terms by the revival of repub-
lican verism evident in many of his reworked
images.57 Verism had been used in exactly the
same way by Claudius and Vespasian to visually
distance themselves from Caligula and Nero.
Certainly the most well documented image of
Nerva to have been refashioned from a preex-
isting likeness of Domitian is that from frieze A
of the Cancelleria reliefs (cat. 5.17; fig. 122a-b).58
Given the unknown (and probably unknowable)
fate of Julia on the Ara Pacis, as well as the lack
of iconographic context for the Neronian relief
portraits recarved to Domitian (cat. 2.54) and
Augustus (cat. 2.8), the Cancelleria reliefs pro-
vide the first unambiguous evidence for the
reconfiguration of imperial likenesses on Roman
historical reliefs. Domitian’s deeply waved hair-
style is still strikingly visible in the frieze and has
only been cursorily altered. The facial features
have also been modified; as in the three-dimen-
sional portraits, a naso-labial line has been added
as an indication of Nerva’s age. Nevertheless, the
likeness retains much of the fuller, more rectan-
gular facial structure of Domitian. The overall
reduction in the volume of the head has rendered
it disproportionately small in comparison the
emperor’s body and illustrates the great difficul-
ties peculiar to recutting portraits in relief. Al-
though the Cancelleria reliefs are much larger in
scale, they present similar problems to those of
cameos: namely, that the surfaces available for
recarving are extremely limited.
The interpretation of the relief, and even its
date, have proven problematic. The emperor,
dressed in the tunic and paludamentum of the trav-
eling Roman general, appears together with
Minerva, Mars, Roma, Victoria, the Genius
Senatus, the Genius Populi Romani, lictors and
soldiers with ceremonial shields and spears.
57 On Nerva’s prominent position at the court of
Domitian and his pro-Domitianic sympathies, see B.W.
Jones (1992) 52-3.
58 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano.
119
Minerva’s gesture of touching Domitian’s elbow
has led to the predominant interpretation of this
scene as an imperial profectio with Minerva urg-
ing the reluctant Domitian to leave the city and
set out for his German campaigns. However, this
interpretation is extremely unsatisfactory as it is
highly unlikely that Domitian would have been
portrayed in so unflattering a light. Rather, F.
Ghedini’s proposal that the scene depicts Domi-
tian’s reditus from the Sarmatian campaign in
A.D. 93 is surely correct.59 At that time, Domitian
refused a triumph, but made a dedication (dona
militaria) to Jupiter Capitolinus in gratitude for his
military victories. The ceremonial nature of the
spears and shields which the soldiers carry un-
derscore that the occasion depicted is the impend-
ing donation to Jupiter Capitolinus rather than
an emperor and his army setting out for battle.60
In fact, Ghedini has plausibly suggested that the
figures move towards Jupiter himself who would
have completed the relief in the missing right
section. Thus, the relief is a commemoration of
Domitian’s actual return to Rome in 93 and a
subtle and symbolic celebration of the emperor’s
victories, his modesty in refusing a triumph, and
his pietas as evidenced by the dona militaria. The
deities who accompany Domitian further under-
score his imperial virtues and his exalted status.
Domitian’s reditus and his refusal of honors have
striking, and deliberate, parallels in the two reditås
of Augustus in 19 and 13 B.C.61
Domitian, in this case not recarved, also ap-
pears in Frieze B, the companion relief to Frieze
A. This panel is more fragmentary than its coun-
terpart, but Domitian, in a replica of his first
portrait type, is depicted together with his father
Vespasian.62 Behind Vespasian appears the god-
59 (1986) 292-97.
60 F. Ghedini (1986) 294.
61 For a full explication of Domitian’s adoption of
Augustan propaganda and models, see F. Ghedini (1986)
300-302.
62 The most recent suggestions concerning the content
of frieze B rest on the hypothesis that the portrait of
Vespasian has been recut from an original representation
of Domitian. In order to maintain this hypothesis, the fig-
ure of the youth cannot be identified as Domitian. The
exact correspondences of the youth’s physiognomy and
coiffure with Domitian’s first portrait type, as well as the
120 chapter six
dess victory, crowning the emperor, and sur-
rounded by soldiers and lictors. Between the
imperial pair, the Genius Populi Romani stands
on a square plinth, and behind Domitian are the
Genius Senatus, lictors, soldiers, and finally
vestals. Vespasian’s gesture of greeting confirms
that the scene depicts his initial entry into Rome
which did not occur until September of 70.
Domitian welcomes his father, having acted as
a kind of legate at the capital from December to
September. Frieze B forms a perfect complement
to Frieze A. Both depict the triumphant returns
of the princepes to Rome and underscore the virtus
of the Flavian gens and the parallel positions of
father and son. In frieze A, foreign conflicts have
been successfully overcome, and in frieze B, civil
strife brought to an end.
There are no clear indications that the Can-
celleria reliefs were ever set up. They were dis-
covered in 1937 leaning against a wall of the
tomb of Aulus Hirtius, together with other sculp-
tural fragments beneath the Palazzo della
Cancelleria. The area may have been used in
antiquity as storage for a sculptor’s workshop,
which often occur in close proximity to burial
sites or in populous urban areas.63 Indeed, this
entire area of the city has been described by A.
Claridge as a “marble workers’ quarter.”64 The
hierarchic prominence of the figure in the frieze, ensure
that this figure must be Domitian. Evidence for the
recarving of the portrait of Vespasian is also scanty, espe-
cially in comparison to the indisputably recut features of
Nerva in Frieze A. The portrait of Vespasian does not
exhibit the overwhelming discrepancies of scale, asym-
metricalities and wholesale retention of Domitianic ele-
ments, like the deeply waved coiffure, that are apparent
in the recarved portrait of Nerva on Frieze A. The relief
portrait of Vespasian does contain striking resemblances
to likenesses of Domitian, especially in the full head of hair,
the smoother facial features, and the slightly receding
underlip. However, the portrait is clearly recognizable as
Vespasian and resemblances to Domitian must have been
intentional and designed to stress the similarities between
the father and son. Thus, they are the product of the
Domitianic artist originally responsible for the sculpture and
not the result of recarving under Nerva. See F. Ghedini
(1986) 297-300.
63 For the sculptor’s workshop at Aphrodisias located
near the city’s Odeum and which functioned both as a
working studio and storefront, see P. Rockwell, in R.R.
Smith and K.T. Erim (1991) 127-43.
64 (1998) 180.
iconography of both friezes, strongly suggests that
they were intended for the Temple of Fortuna
Redux, which Domitian vowed at the time of his
return from the Sarmatian campaign in 93 and
which was constructed in the Campus Martius.65
However, they may not have been in place at the
time of Domitian’s assassination in 96. The
recarving of Nerva’s portrait was never com-
pleted, as evinced by the unarticulated locks over
the forehead. The recutting was likely interrupted
by Nerva’s own death in 98. Clearly, there was
no longer enough marble to recarve the portrait
features a second time. In addition, the specific-
ity of the events portrayed, as well as the promi-
nence of Minerva, Domitian’s protectress in
Frieze A, may have added further conceptual
difficulties to reusing these pieces. However, the
reliefs are of the highest artistic quality and ap-
pear to have been preserved in the sculptor’s
depot as examples of extremely fine workman-
ship or with the hope that sections of the relief
may have been able to be reused at a later date.
An equestrian portrait of Nerva from the sanc-
tuary of the Augustales at Misenum is the only
surviving bronze imperial image to exhibit signs
of reworking and furthermore is one of only three
bronze imperial equestrian statues to have sur-
vived from antiquity (cat. 5.7; fig. 123a-c).66 The
statue depicts the emperor in cuirass and paluda-
mentum. Domitian originally held a lance in his
raised right hand while the left hand pulled
sharply back on the horse’s reigns. The head and
torso are turned to the right. The partially pre-
served horse rears up on its hind legs.67 The
65 F. Ghedini (1986) 298-300.
66 Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel
Castello di Baia, inv. 155743. The other surviving eques-
trian statues are the Augustus discovered in the Aegean
(Athens, National Museum), and the Marcus Aurelius, on
the Campidoglio. The Misenum portrait differs significantly
from the other two in both gesture and costume. Augustus
and Marcus Aurelius both wear the tunic and paluda-
mentum of the traveling Roman general and raise their
right hands in gestures of clementia, while Domitian/Nerva
wears a cuirass and brandishes a lance.
67 The composition must have been completed with
some supporting element beneath the horses raised fore-
legs, perhaps a foreigner. the figure of Oceanus, or a deco-
rative support; see R. Cantilena in Domiziano/Nerva 37-8:
D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 201.
 domitian
statue’s dynamic disposition indicates that it is
ultimately derived from equestrian representa-
tions of Alexander the Great.68 If the statue also
included a fallen enemy in front of the horse’s
raised forelegs, its aggressive military composition
would have recalled similar depictions of the
emperor on Domitianic coin reverses.69
In an extremely effective and practical gesture
of reuse, Domitian’s facial features have been cut
from the head and removed as if they were a
mask.70 A clearly visible line runs beneath the
chin, along the jaw line, behind the ears, and over
the forehead, documenting the removal of
Domitian’s face. The coiffure which lies behind
this line belongs to the original likeness, a rep-
lica of Domitian’s third portrait type. In front of
the line are the new coiffure and facial features
belonging to Nerva. Naturally, individual locks
in the two coiffures do not match along the line
of removal. However, Nerva’s coiffure over the
forehead is relatively full and strategically masks
these discrepancies when the statue is viewed
frontally and from below.71 Nevertheless, the
position of the new face of Nerva does not ac-
curately reflect the torsion of the neck and torso;
consequently, and perhaps not surprisingly, the
face appears curiously static and mask-like when
compared to the fluid motion of the body. An-
cient repairs in lead to the statue suggest that the
image was attacked and damaged prior to its
reuse and Domitian’s portrait features may have
been vandalized at this time.72 In any case, the
68 As preserved in a bronze statuette from Herculaneum,
now in Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. The statu-
ette may be based on the equestrian portrait of Alexander
by Lysippus from the Granikos Monument, which was
transported to Rome by Metellus in 146 B.C.; see J.J. Pollitt
(1986) 43, n. 41, fig. 36, and R. Cantilena in Domiziano/
Nerva 32-33, fig. 30a-c.
69 As, for instance a sestertius from Rome, BMCRE 409;
RIC 361; American Numismatic Society, inv. 1957.
172.1603; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 154-55, no. 34, with figs.
70 A colossal marble statue of Elagabalus has undergone
the same form of reuse, in which the facial features were
removed, and a new face, belonging to Severus Alexander
was attached, Naples Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv.
5993, here, cat. 7.17.
71 The statue would presumably have been mounted on
a base, insuring that the statue was viewed from below.
72 R. Cantilena in Domiziano/Nerva 36; S. Adamo
Muscettola in P. Miniero, ed. (2000) 31.
121
method of recycling adopted for the statue was
certainly more economical than replacing the
head in its entirety and, more importantly, the
image maintains deliberately readable signs in the
coiffure of its original Domitianic identity.
The figural decoration of the cuirass includes
a variety of marine creatures, an aegis and gor-
goneion on the breast, and a representation of
the infant Hercules strangling snakes on the left
shoulder. Domitian’s preparations for a campaign
against the Parthians at the end of his principate
may have inspired the imagery on the cuirass.73
Domitian intended to embark on this campaign
from Puteoli, and the marine creatures on the
breastplate refer to the emperor’s coming sea
voyage, as well as his dominion over the ocean.74
A fragmentary Domitianic inscription from the
Augustales complex, which was reinscribed un-
der Nerva may have been set up in conjunction
with the statue between December of 94 and
September of 95, which would further suggest
that the image commemorates the completion of
the Via Domitiana linking Rome with the port
of Puteoli;75 the new road facilitated transport of
troops and supplies from the capital to the port
and would have been crucial for the coming
Parthian expedition.76
Fragments of the statue were excavated in
1968 in Building B of a complex associated with
the Augustales of Misenum. The statue is likely to
have been displayed within the complex, whose
main temple contained heroic nude statues of
Vespasian and Titus.77 Despite its specifically
Domitianic connotations, as expressed in the
73 S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 54-65; B.W.
Jones (1992) 159.
74 Ibid.
75 S. Adamo Musecettola (2000) 89; S. Adamo
Musecettola in P. Miniero, ed. (2000) 34.
76 S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 65.
77 Alternatively, the statue may have fallen into this area
during seismic disturbances which destroyed the complex
and other sections of the city at the end of the second
century since no base for the statue has been discovered
supports this idea. M. Borriello in Domiziano/Nerva 18-19;
S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 63. For the
portaits of Vespasian and Titus, see Domiziano/Nerva figs.
9-10; S. Adamo Muscettola in P. Miniero, ed. (2000) 34-
7, figs. 2a-b.
122 chapter six
reliefs on the cuirass, the image was nevertheless
refashioned as a representation of Nerva, a fur-
ther example of the rampant visual cannibalism
which characterized Nerva’s short reign.
Domitian/Trajan
Nerva reigned approximately seventeen months,
and at the time of his death, the fund of Domi-
tianic images available for reuse was by no means
exhausted, as evidenced by the numerous por-
traits recarved into likeness of Nerva’s successor,
Trajan. Although many of these reworked images
have gone unrecognized, most of Trajan’s por-
trait types are attested among the altered repre-
sentations, and indicate that the sculptural trans-
formation of Domitian’s portraits was carried out
throughout Trajan’s reign.
Most of the likenesses recut to Trajan retain
strong aspects of Domitian’s more youthful and
idealized physiognomy, as is especially apparent
in a full length togate statue in Sabratha, refash-
ioned from a provincial variant of Domitian’s
third portrait type (cat. 5.27; fig. 124).78 A styl-
ized version of Domitian’s coiffure is visible at the
back of the head. The coiffure at the front of the
head has been largely recut to reflect Trajan’s
second type (Bürgerkronen-Typus) in which the locks
over the forehead are combed from proper left
to right. This type may have been introduced in
103 to commemorate Trajan’s first Dacian
Triumph.79 The statue was discovered during ex-
cavations of the Forum at Sabratha, together with
a cuirassed portrait of Titus, suggesting the pos-
sibility of an original Flavian group dedication
consisting of the two brothers.80 The use of
Trajan’s second type with its likely date of A.D.
103, indicates that a minimum of seven years
elapsed between the time of Domitian’s damnatio
and the portrait’s eventual reuse, during which
78 Museum.
79 W.H. Gross (1940) 75-77; W.H. Gross (1965) 1109-
10; K. Fittschen (1977a) 71.
80 Sabratha, Museum; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.
Hausmann (1966) 26-7, 29, 95-6, pls. 21c-d, 22b; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 404.
time, the statue must have been warehoused out
of public view.
In addition to the Sabratha statue, a second
provincial image of Trajan was recut from a
portrait of Domitian. This recarved head was
discovered in two fragments near the Temple of
Zeus at Olympia (cat. 5.22.).81 The locks over the
forehead are a variant Trajan’s (fourth) Opfer-
bildtypus.82 However, traces of Domitian’s type 3
hairstyle are clearly visible at the back of the
head. The use of the Opferbildtypus, (which appears
on the Column of Trajan and is clearly in use
by the time of the Column’s dedication on 12
May 113), suggests that a considerable lapse of
time (perhaps as many as 17 years) occurred
between Domitian’s damnatio and the reuse of the
portrait.
A third provincial portrait of Trajan in Split
has also been reconfigured from a likeness of
Domitian (cat. 5.28; fig. 125a-b).83 The over-
lifesized head is worked for insertion and may
originally have formed part of a Flavian dynas-
tic group decorating the Fourm at Issa in
Dalmatia. Domitian appears to have initially been
depicted together with his father Vespasian. After
Domitian’s assassination, Trajan usurped Domit-
ian’s role in the paired portraits and linked him-
self to the revered founder of the Flavian dynasty.
The Olympia, Sabratha and Split portraits are
all important testaments to the recarving of
Domitian’s portraits in the provinces.84
Many vestiges of Domitian’s third portrait type
are also present in a head of Trajan formerly in
Ostia (cat. 5.25).85 Like the portrait in Sabratha,
the hair was recarved into Trajan’s second type
(Bürgerkronen-Typus), but traces of the original
Domitianic coiffure are visible above the ears and
81 Olympia, Museum, inv. A 129.
82 The Olympia portrait introduces a part over the left
eye; on the Opferbildtypus, see W.H. Gross (1940) 105-7.
83 Archaeological Museum, inv. C 271.
84 H.R. Goette and K. Hitzle mention two additional
portraits of Trajan which may be recarved from likenesses
of Domitian; both are unpublished: a portrait of Trajan
from the theater at Corinth, and a portrait in Larissa,
Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 802 + 825 (1987) 292,
n. 59.
85 Now lost, formerly Museo, no. 24.
 domitian
at the back of the head. Despite the addition of
vertical furrows above the nose and deep naso-
labials, the facial features of the Ostia head,
which are relatively smooth and youthful, are
remnants of the underlying representation of
Domitian. A second head from Ostia also exhibits
clear signs of reworking (cat. 5.24).86 The eyes
and mouth have retained their Domitianic con-
figuration and there are traces of Domitian’s
type 3 hairstyle on the nape of the neck at the
left. Like the Olympia portrait, the image is a
replica of the Opferbildtypus (type 4), introduced
by 113, which again suggests that as many as
17 years had elapsed before the portrait was
recut.
A portrait of Trajan in Oslo, reportedly ac-
quired in Rome, has also been reworked from an
image of Domitian (cat. 5.23).87 Domitian’s coif-
fure has been entirely worked away, but strong
traces of his facial features remain including the
large eyes and shape of the lower lip, which is
long, full, and flat along the bottom. In its cur-
rent incarnation, the likeness is a variant of
Trajan’s decennalia type, introduced in 108 and
provides further evidence for the storage of
Domitian’s images prior to reworking, in this
instance for a period of at least twelve years.
Several atypical elements of coiffure and physi-
ognomy of a portrait of Trajan in Venice betray
its origins as a likeness of Domitian (cat. 5.29; fig.
126a-c).88 The hair over the forehead has been
recut into an arrangement resembling that of
Trajan’s first portrait type, nevertheless the steep
arc of the coiffure over the forehead is unchar-
acteristic of Trajan’s portraiture, as is the fullness
of the coiffure over both ears. Remnants of
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure are also visible at the
back of the head. No overt signs of aging have
been added to the face, and, with its very full
head of hair, this representation of Trajan is
extremely youthful and among the most idealized
of Trajan’s images.
A basalt head of Trajan in the Terme altered
86 Museo, inv. 14.
87 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1154.
88 Museo Archeologico, inv. 249.
123
from a preexisting likeness of Domitian stands as
the only instance of a recarved imperial image
in a colored or hard stone (cat. 5.26; fig. 127a-
d).89 The portrait is again a variant of Trajan’s
fourth Opferbildtypus but contains several elements
of Domitian’s coiffure and iconography such as
remnants of his type 3 hairstyle at the back and
top of the head. The large eyes and hooked nose
are additional remnants of the Domitianic image.
The Terme portrait’s status as the only recarved
basalt image underscores enormous technical
difficulties inherent in recutting hard stones.
Domitian/Titus
In contrast to the numerous portraits recut to
represent Nerva or Trajan, only two portraits of
Domitian were recarved into the images of his
brother and predecessor, Titus. These reworked
likenesses were intended as posthumous com-
memorations of Divus Titus and are likely to have
been recut shortly after Domitian’s overthrow,
either in the reign of Nerva or early in the reign
of Trajan as the result of Titus’s enormous pop-
ularity during his lifetime and subsequent deifi-
cation. By celebrating the memory of Titus
through recarved portrait dedications, Domitian’s
successors could reaffirm the continuity of the
principate, and concomitantly dishonor the
memory of the condemned brother Domitian.90
The well known portrait of Titus inserted into
a togate statue in the Braccio Nuovo of the
Vatican originally depicted Domitian (cat. 5.5).91
The reconfigured likeness combines elements of
both Titus’s Erbach and Herculaneum types, but
several traces of Domitian’s coiffure are still evi-
dent: the locks over the left temple have been
almost entirely retained, as have the orientation
and shape of the locks over the forehead. How-
ever, the facial features have been substantially
adjusted. Exaggerated veristic effects in the new
image of Titus, such as the deep furrows in the
89 Inv. 61160.
90 Just as Vespasian honored the memory of Claudius,
while dishonoring that of Nero.
91 26, inv. 2282.
124 chapter six

forehead and the emphatically modeled surfaces Domitian/Constantinian Emperor

of the face, distance the portrait from more ide-
The late recarving, over two hundred years af-
alizing representations of Domitian, and associ-
ter Domitian’s assassination, of a head in Boston
ate Titus with the more realistic likenesses of his
(cat. 5.30; fig. 129a-d) confirms the warehousing
father Vespasian, as well as the veristically
of the emperor’s images.94 As with the late
handled portraits of Nerva. Although its volume
recarved portraits of Caligula and Nero, this
has been reduced, the head still appears to be too
portrait was clearly well-preserved and accessible
large for the togate body (proportions of roughly
to fourth century sculptors who reworked it into
1:6), which suggests that this statue body was not
the likeness of a Constantinian emperor (perhaps
the one on which the original portrait of
one of the sons of Constantine). Although the
Domitian was displayed. The portrait of Domit-
portrait has been subjected to a substantial mod-
ian must have been removed from its original
ern cleaning and retouching in the area of the
context, recarved, and ultimately reused on the
face, likely carried out in the eighteenth century,
current togate body. The statue’s discovery in
the generally classicizing tone of the image, as
1828, together with a representation of Julia
well as the handling of the iris and pupils as a
Titi,92 in gardens near the Lateran Baptistery
two connected dots within semi-circles secures a
suggests that it may have been displayed on the
Constantinian date for the recarving.95 Although
imperial properties which had been expropriated
the coiffure has been altered, especially over the
under Nero in this area of the city.
forehead, the coma in gradus formata arrangement
A second portrait of Titus, in the Galleria
on the top of the head and the orientation of the
Chiaramonti of the Vatican, was also refashioned
locks over the forehead, which are parted over
from a likeness of Domitian (cat. 5.6.; fig. 128a-
the right eye, have been retained from a type 3
d).93 Remains of Domitians’s type 3 coiffure are
portrait of Domitian. The coiffure finds compel-
clearly visible on each side of the head. The treat-
ling parallels in a portrait of Constantine in
ment of the hair on the back of the head, with
Madrid96 and a portrait of one of Constantine’s
its cluster of curls on the nape of the neck is a
sons in Rome, although the locks in these por-
standard feature of Domitian’s sculpted type 3
traits are not as dramatically undercut as in the
images but not of those of his elder brother. As
Boston head.97 The new identification of the
with the Braccio Nuovo portrait of Titus, the
recarved portrait was undoubtedly secured by an
waved arrangement on the top of the head has
accompanying inscription. As part of the Ludovisi
been partially worked away, giving the head a flat
collection, the piece may have been discovered
appearance when seen from behind. The
in the area of the Villa Ludovisi. If so, the por-
Chiaramonti likeness eschews the more pro-
trait’s reuse and display may be considered within
nounced realism of the Braccio Nuovo togatus
the context of the imperial gardens of the Horti
and retains more of the classicism of the origi-
Sallustiani.
nal Domitianic image. Both of these reworked
portraits are posthumous likenesses of Titus and
attest to his abiding popularity and importance
for the continuum of imperial authority and le-
gitimacy. The sculptural reconfiguration of the 94 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 89.6.
Vatican portraits was greatly facilitated by the 95 For instance, a portrait of Constantine in Schloss
strong resemblances in physiognomy and coiffure Fasanerie, FAS. ARP. 54, (H.P. L’Orange [1984] 70, 118-
19, pl. 49a-b, and a Constantinian portrait in New York,
which existed between the brothers. Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 67.107, (H.P. L’Orange
(1984) 87, 133, pl. 58a-b.
96 Prado, inv. 125-E; S.F. Schröder (1993) 296-8, no.

89, with figs. (with earlier literature).

92 Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuovo 108, inv. 2225; M. 97 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala dei Magistrati 1, inv.

Donderer (1991-92) 244, no. 27. 843; Fittschen-Zanker I, 155-56, no. 124, pl. 155 (with
93 31.20, inv. 1687. earlier literature).
 domitian
Domitian/Augustus
Two of Domitian’s gem portraits were also re-
cut in antiquity, including a sardonyx head re-
fashioned retrospectively into a representation
Augustus, which was discovered in 1980 at
Saragoza in Spain (cat. 5.47). 98 The head is
worked for insertion into a miniature bust, per-
haps of marble or bronze.99 Remnants of Domi-
tian’s type 3 coiffure are still clearly visible over
both ears and at the back of the head. The locks
over the forehead have been recarved into a
version of Augustus’s Prima Porta hairstyle. As
with the portraits of Caligula and Nero refash-
ioned to Augustus, overt signs of aging, which can
be a feature of Augustus’s posthumous images,
have been added to the gem and consist of ver-
tical furrows over the nose and naso-labial lines.
Again, the emphatic verism of the portrait, dif-
ferentiates it stylistically from the images of
Domitian. Furthermore, the head evinces stylis-
tic affinities with portraits of Trajan which sug-
gests a Trajanic date for the recutting.100 Because
of its small scale and the use of precious stone,
both the original and recarved likenesses were
likely displayed in public or private shrine asso-
ciated with the imperial cult.101 The skill neces-
sary for recarving such a small portrait worked
in a semi-precious stone suggests that the rework-
ing may have taken place at Rome.102
Domitian/4th Century Emperor
Yet another of Domitian’s gem portraits was
recarved in the fourth century. A sardonyx bust
of an unidentified fourth century emperor in Paris
contains several details of physiognomy and coif-
fure which indicate that it originally conformed
to Domitian’s third portrait type (cat. 5.31; fig.
98 Museo de Zaragoza en Tarazona 80-5-1.
99 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 128.
100 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 120-23.
101 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 128-29, also discusses the
magical properties, which the Romans associated with sard-
onyx.
102 M. Beltrán Lloris (1984) 133.
125
130a-b).103 The shape of the brows, nose, and
mouth are also clear remnants of the original
portrait. Like the marble portrait in Boston, the
Paris gem attests to the preservation of Domi-
tian’s images, in this case glyptic, prior to their
recarving in the fourth century.
The Removal of Domitian’s Images
Like the portraits of condemned emperor’s be-
fore him, Domitian’s images were systematically
removed from public display and many were
destroyed. But the removal of Domitian’s repre-
sentations was also affected by the highly unusual
circumstance that so many of his own images had
in fact been reworked from likenesse of Nero.
They must have been removed from public dis-
play and warehoused, their further recarving
precluded by the fact that they had already been
reconfigured.
Three of the images reworked from Neronian
likenesses are full length portrait statues, includ-
ing the two cuirassed portraits in the Vatican (cat.
2.53; fig. 59)104 and Vaison (cat. 2.58; fig. 60a-
b),105 and the statue as Diomedes in Munich (cat.
2.46; fig. 60a-c).106 The Vatican statue is from
Rome or its environs and was certainly removed
from display following Domitian’s overthrow.
Likewise, there is no archaeological evidence that
the Vaison statue continued to be displayed in
the theater and it is likely to have been buried
or stored in a structure associated with the the-
ater. The Munich portrait, heavily restored in the
eighteenth century by Bartolommeo Cavaceppi,
is reported to have been discovered in the ruins
of a villa belonging to one of Domitian’s freed-
men at Labicum. Political expediency would have
dictated that former supporters or associates of
Domitian remove his images from their homes,
so the Munich portrait must have been stored at
the villa following Domtian’s damnatio. The prior
103 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles.
104 Braccio Nuovo 126, inv. 2213 (Domitian, type 1).
105 Musée Lapidaire (Domitian type 1).
106 Glyptothek 394 (Domitian type 1).
126 chapter six
reworking of all three portraits undoubtedly pre-
vented them from being altered a second time.
Other likenesses of Domitian reworked from
Nero include two portraits in Naples (cat. 2.49;
cat. 2.48; fig. 66a-b),107 and likenesses in the
Terme (cat. 2.52; fig. 63a-d),108 the American
Embassy in Rome (cat. 2.55; fig. 67),109 the Prado
(cat. 2.44),110 Boston (cat. 2.41; fig. 64a-c),111
Vasto (cat. 2.59; fig. 65),112 Munich (cat. 2.47),113
and Stuttgart (cat. 2.57).114 One of the busts in
Naples is a type 3 replica from the Farnese
Collection which strongly suggests a provenance
of Rome or its immediate environs.115 The por-
traits in the Terme, the American Embassy, and
in the Prado all provide additional evidence for
the removal and storage of Domitian’s images at
the capital.116 The second Naples bust, a type 2
replica, is presumably from the environs of
Naples. The Boston image, a replica of Domi-
tian’s first portrait type, was discovered at the
ruins of his villa in Tusculum and is likely to have
originally been displayed, and ultimately ware-
housed on the imperial property. The statue to
which it initially belonged was likely reused via
the insertion of a new portrait likeness. As noted
above, the stylized and linear quality of the Vasto
head indicates that the original likeness and the
subsequent recutting are products of a local work-
shop. The head attests to the removal and stor-
age or burial of Domitian’s images in Apulia.
Both the Munich and Stuttgart heads are exceed-
ingly well preserved and provide additional evi-
dence for the removal and storage of Domitian’s
images. Like the three full-length statues, these
107 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 6061 (Domitian type
3); and Museo Nazionale 5907 (Domitian type 2, see cat.
2.48).
108 Inv. 226.
109 Domitian type 3.
110 321-E (Domitian type 1).
111 Museum of Fine Arts 88.633 (Domitian type 1).
112 Museo Civico (Domitian type 1).
113 Glyptothek, inv. 418 (Domitian type 1).
114 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. 64/28
(Domitian type 1).
115 The head is worked for insertion and is currently
displayed on a modern bust.
116 All three portraits are substantially intact.
images’ previous recutting precluded further
reconfiguration.
Additionally, representations of Domitian re-
worked from likeness of Nero were removed from
public display in Spain and Germany as attested
by portraits in Cologne (cat. 2.42),117 Madrid (cat.
2.43)118 and Sevilla (cat. 2.56).119 The Madrid
portrait was discovered at Almendilla near
Cordova. Like the other portraits of Domitian
recarved from Nero, the image was removed
from its original context and stored or buried and
the prior reworking prevented a second alter-
ation. In contrast, the likeness from Munigua was
apparently disposed of more savagely. The head
was discovered with other marble fragments in
an ancient well.120 The likeness may have origi-
nally pertained to a group dedication in the city’s
Forum, which also honored Titus and
Vespasian.121 Like the portrait of Caligula from
Huelva, Domitian’s image was thrown into the
well in a deliberate act of denigration with fur-
ther intimations of post mortem corpse abuse.122
The reworked relief portrait in the Vatican
must also have been removed from public view
(cat. 2.54; fig. 68).123 Its isolated context suggests
that the head was removed from the monument
to which it belonged. Alternatively, the entire
monument may have been dismantled or de-
stroyed.
Naturally, Domitian’s unreworked likenesses
were also removed and warehoused in great
numbers. A well preserved bust formerly in the
Palazzo dei Conservatori was discovered along
the Via Principe Amadeo on the Esquiline dur-
ing excavations carried out between 1894 and
1904.124 The portrait’s find-spot suggests that it
117 Römisch-Germanisches Museum (Domitian type 1).
118 Museo Arqueológico Nacional, 2770 (Domitian type
3).
119 Museo (Domitian type 1). The head is worked for
insertion into a togate statue.
120 See supra.
121 W. Grünhagen (1986) 321-23.
122 The togate statue body to which the likeness be-
longed was undoubtedly reused.
123 Museo Gregoriano Profano 644, inv. 4065.
124 Museo Nuovo, VII.24, Inv. 1156 (Centrale Monte-
 domitian
may have been originally displayed in the con-
text of the imperial gardens and residences which
covered the hill.125 The Conservatori bust is one
of four well-preserved images of condemned em-
perors discovered on the Esquiline where they
were buried or stored following their removal.126
The unusual find-spot of a portrait of Domi-
tian in Ostia suggests a rather different scenario
for its preservation (fig. 131).127 This type 1 rep-
lica was discovered in the tomb of Julia Procula
at Isola Sacra in March of 1938.128 Other pieces
martini 2.76), h. 0.35 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 36-37, no.
33, pls. 35, 37 (with earlier literature); C. Häuber in M.
Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986) 177, n. 25 (with ear-
lier literature); A.M Leander Touati (1987), 94, pl. 43.1-
2; S.Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 52, figs. 52a-c;
D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 177, fig. 145; F. Johansen (1995a)
10, fig. 9. C. Häuber suggests that the Conservatori por-
trait is identical with the Domitian mentioned in BullCom
26 (1898) 350, no.4 and 351 and in Nsc (1898) 391 (op.cit.).
The back of the head and sides of the bust form have been
broken off and there are abrasions to the tip of the nose,
the chin and damage to the upper edge of the right ear. If
the damage to the bust form and back of the head occurred
in antiquity, it would have rendered the portrait unsuit-
able for reuse.
125 The head is turned sharply to the left, which may
indicate that the portrait originally had a pendant piece
perhaps depicting Domitian’s wife, Domitia Longina; his
niece, Julia Titi; his brother, Titus; or his father, Vespasian.
126 The other images represent Commodus as Hercules
(Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala degli Avazzi, inv. 1120)
Carinus (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini
2.83, inv. 850) and Nero/Domitian, Palazzo Massimo alle
Terme, inv. 226 (cat. 2.52).
127 Museo, inv. 19, h. 0.30 m.; R. Calza (1964) 46-7,
no. 64, pl. 37 (with earlier literature); M. Wegner, G.
Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 33, 104, pl. 24a-b; K.T.
Erim (1973) 139, figs. 10-11; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 358 (not Domitian); C. Pavolini (1983) 90; J. Pollini
(1984) 548, n.7. M. Donderer (1991) 225, fig. 5. The back
of the head and the lower right corner of the face of the
portrait are missing and there is damage to the tip of the
nose, the bottom of the left ear and the top of the right
ear. A light crack runs from the right side of the lower lip
through the lower left side of the face.
128 As the only surviving type 1 replica that has not been
recarved from a preexisting likeness of Nero, the portrait
differs slightly from the other replicas in the arrangement
of the hair over the forehead, which is treated as fuller curls
comparable to the portrait in Boston. The hair is gener-
ally more curly than in other examples and omits the part
over the right eye. The curls are slightly parted over the
outer corner of the left eye. The discrepancies of the hair-
style led M. Bergmann and P. Zanker to reject this image
as a likeness of Domitian, (1981) 358. However, the por-
traits which they accept as Domitian’s first type vary greatly
127
of sculpture were uncovered in the excavations,
including a portrait statue identified by inscrip-
tion as Julia Procula in the guise of Hygeia, and
a herm portrait of Hippocrates.129 Julius Proculus
came to public prominence late in the reign of
Domitian, and the tomb at Isola Sacra may
belong to freedmen associated with the family.130
The representation of Domitian was possibly
placed in the tomb while the family enjoyed
emperor’s favor, or removed and stored there
following his damnatio.131
Additionally, the removal and storage of Do-
mitian’s images in Rome and Italy in sizable
numbers is corroborated by likenesses in the
Centrale Montemartini,132 the Uffizi,133 two por-
traits in Naples,134 and representations in Ber-
in the arrangement of locks over the forehead and the
coiffure of the Ostia head is close enough to other repli-
cas, especially over the left temple (i.e.. Museo Nazionale
Romano delle Terme, inv. 226 and Munich, Glyptothek,
inv. 418) that it should be considered a variant of type I.
In addition, the physiognomy is unmistakably Domitianic.
129 C. Pavolini (1983) 90.
130 Julius Proculus was ab actis under Domitian, and
consul in 109. His sister, Julia Procula married M. Flavius
Aper, consul c. 103. On Procula, see M. T. Raepsaet-
Charlier (1987) 390-91, no. 455; and B.W. Jones (1992) 176.
131. The Trajanic hairstyle of the Isola Sacra statue
indicates that it represents a contemporary of the elite Julia
Procula, who is also known to have been the Domina figli-
narum Viccianarum Tonneianarum under Trajan and Hadrian,
if not that woman herself; see M. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)
390.
132 (Type 3), Braccio Nuovo III.12, inv. 2451 (Centrale
Montemartini 2.75), h. 0.46 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 35-36,
no. 32, pls. 34, 36 (with earlier literature); W. Grünhagen
(1986) pl. 316, 318, 52c-d; H. Meyer (2000) 128, figs. 235-
6, 241. The head was formerly displayed on a togate statue,
to which it did not belong, in the Villa Borghese. It has
suffered minimal damage, including abrasions to the brows,
eyes, cheeks, lips and chin. In addition, most of the nose
has been broken off and there is slight damage to the top
of the right ear. The occiput is also missing; regular chisel
marks and an iron dowel in this area are indicative of a
modern, rather than an ancient repair.
133 (Type 3), inv. 1914.130 h. 0.25 (head); G. Mansuelli
(1961) 75, no. 74, with fig. (with earlier literature); M.
Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 100 (mod-
ern); L. de Lachenal and B. Palma in MusNazRom 1.6, 103
(ancient). From the Ludovisi Collection. A section of the
right eyebrow, the nose, upper lip, chin, and ears are
modern restorations.
134 (Type 2), Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-
216, h. 0.245 m.; M. Wegner, Flavier 24, 29, 89, pl. 17a-
b (Titus) (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P.
128 chapter six
lin,135 Cambridge,136 and Chatsworth House137
which are all substantially well preserved and
exhibit no evidence of deliberate vandalization.
The Conservatori image, worked for insertion
into a cuirassed statue, would have been yet an-
other militaristic representations of the emperor,
underscoring their importance in Domitianic
visual propaganda.
Domitian’s representations were also removed
from public display and warehoused throughout
the provinces, as attested by four type 3 portraits.
A colossal image from Ephesus was originally
inserted into an acrolithic statue and subsequently
stored in the cryptoporticus of the temple origi-
Zanker (1981) 360-63, figs. 35a-d. The portrait was discov-
ered at Minturno. A crack runs through the head and the
portrait has suffered severe damage to the left side of the
forehead, the left eye, the nose, lips and lower left section
of the face. However, the random nature of this damage
indicates that it is not the result of intentional mutilation.
The portrait is worked for insertion and was removed from
its original context as a result of Domitian’s condemnation;
its bust or statue was then reused with the addition of a
new portrait head.
(Type 2), Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6058; h.;
M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 103
(with earlier literature); B. Candida (1967) 33, r. 2, figs.
3-4; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 360, fig. 33a-d;
W. Grünhagen (1986) 315, pl. 52b; A. Amadio, in
MusNazRom 1.9.1, 199;H. Meyer (2000) 136, fig. 255. As
part of the Farnese Collection, the piece is from Rome or
its environs. The portrait includes a corona civica. The head
has undergone extensive modern cleaning. Only the tip of
the nose has been restored.
135 (Type 3) Staatliche Museen, R 28 (351), h. 0.495 m.;
M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 37, 98
(with earlier literature); A. Amadio, MusNazRom 9.1, 198;
The portrait allegedly comes from Sans Souci, and was part
of the Polignac Collection and is likely to have been ac-
quired in Italy. The head has been inserted into a bust to
which it does not belong.
136 (Type 3), Fitzwilliam Museum, GR 14.1850, h. 0.309
m.; L. Budde and R. Nicholls (1964) 68, no. 108, pl. 36
(with earlier literature); M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 99; Fittschen-Zanker I, 36, no. 32, n. 4.
The portrait was presumably acquired in Italy. It has
undergone a harsh modern cleaning. The nose of the
portrait is lost and the tenon has been cut down for inser-
tion into the bust form.
137 C.C. Vermeule (1995) 132, pl. 41.3; M. Wegner, G.
Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 99-100 (with earlier
literature); D. Boschung, H. Von Hesberg and A. Linfert
(1997) 55-56, no. 49, pl. 45.
nally dedicated to Domitian at Ephesus.138 Af-
ter Domitian’s assassination, the temple was re-
dedicated to Vespasian.139 The head was discov-
ered broken in four pieces, together with a left
hand and forearm, during excavations carried out
in 1930.140 Based on the accumulated fragments,
R. Meriç has suggested that the statue was a
cuirassed standing portrait of the emperor.141 The
acrolith may have been overturned as a result of
Domitian’s damnatio, thus damaging the head and
other body parts, which would then have been
stored, with several fragments eventually being
reused in the later wall.142 The statue was defi-
nitely not reused as a likeness of Vespasian as has
been suggested. Within the temple itself, Do-
mitian’s name was also erased on statue bases
which had been dedicated by various cities in
Asia Minor and Vespasian’s name was substi-
tuted.143 Ironically, the storage and eventual
reuse of the fragments from Domitian’s portrait
insured their survival when the rest of the temple
138 Museum, inv. 670. h. 1.20 m.; M. Wegner, G.
Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 26, 86, pl. 15b (with
earlier literature); J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966) 67-
68, no. 27 pl. 16.1; H. Blanck (1969) 85; H. Vetters (1972-
75) 59-60; D.E. Strong (1976) 136, fig. 75; S.R.F. Price
(1984) 129, 140, 178, 182, 255, cat. no. 31. R. Meriç (1985)
239-41, pls. 20-23; S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva
49; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 137, fig. 5.22; D.
Kreikenbom (1992) 213-5, no. 3.93, pl. 19. Although this
portrait has been identified with Titus, the hairstyle is
clearly a colossal interpretation of the coiffure of Domitian’s
third portrait type. In addition, inscriptions from the site
mention only Vespasian and Domitian.
139 S.R.F. Price (1984) 140, 255, cat. no. 31.
140 The fragments had been incorporated into later
masonry work. Further excavations in 1969-70 uncovered
other fragments of the statue also used as spoilia in a later
wall at the west of the cryptoporticus; among the new frag-
ments were: the right hand and forearm, the right knee and
shin, the left knee, the right foot and the left foot; see, R.
Meriç (1985) 239-40, pls. 22-23.
141 R. Meriç (1985) 240.
142 R. Meriç (1985) 240. The image was definitely not
reused as a likeness of Vespasian as suggested by S.R.F.
Price (1984) 255, (with earlier literature). The portrait bears
no resemblance to images of Vespasian, and its survival
suggests that it was in a secure location during the Arab
destruction of iconic images. In addition, fragments of a
colossal hand, which does not belong to the statue of
Domitian, were discovered in 1969-70, and they may be-
long to an image of Vespasian, R. Meriç, op.cit. 240.
143 S. Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 49.
 domitian
and its sculpture were destroyed during the Arab
conquest of the city.
A likeness from Pergamum provides additional
testimony for the removal of Domitian’s images
in Asia Minor,144 while heads in Constantine145
and Kotor146 attest to the removal and storage
of portraits in North Africa and Dalmatia (Mon-
tenegro). Both the Pergamum and Constantine
portraits are worked for insertion, and the busts
or statues to which they originally belonged were
undoubtedly reused through the addition of new
portrait likeness, likely of Nerva or Trajan. A
portrait in Munich is a provincial variant in dark
local stone of type 3.147 The unusual stone used
for the image suggests that it was of local crafts-
manship and provides evidence for the removal
of Domitian’s images in Germany, an area which
had formerly witnessed his most important mili-
tary exploits.
Although poorly preserved and badly weath-
ered, a head in the Getty also exhibits no indi-
cations that it was intentionally vandalized (fig.
132).148 At some point subsequent to its creation,
the portrait was retrofitted with two square
mortises over each temple in order to anchor
144 Now lost; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Haus-
mann (1966) 38, 105, pl. 33a-b (with earlier literature). The
head is worked for insertion. Although the back of the head
has been sheared off, the portrait was remarkably well-
preserved. The nose was entirely intact and there was only
minor damage to the surface of the face.
145 Musée Gustave Mercier; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop,
and U. Hausmann (1966) 38-9, 102, fig. 33c; M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker (1981) 366, figs. 38a-b (with earlier litera-
ture); Fittschen-Zanker I, 35. S. Adamo Muscettola in
Domiziano/Nerva 51; H. Meyer (2000) 128, fig. 238. The
portrait is worked for insertion and has suffered only mini-
mal damage; the nose and parts of the rims of both ears
have broken off.
146 Lapidarium, h. 0.52 m; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and
U. Hausmann (1966) 38-39, 101, pl. 33d; O. Velimiroviƒ-
ðiñiƒ in N. Cambi et al. (1988) 89- 90, no. 82, with figs.
(with earlier literature). The portrait was discovered at
Kumbor in in 1951. The tip of the nose is broken and there
are slight abrasions to the left brow.
147 Residenz, Antiquarium, inv. 271, h. 0.265 m.; E.
Weski in G Hojer, ed. (1987) 229-30, no. 110, pl. 150; H.
Born and K. Stemmer (1996) 99, fig. 47.
148 Inv. 76.AA.72, h. 0.40 m.; R.R.R. Smith (1986) 59-
78, figs. 1.a-d; R.R.R. Smith (1988) 163, no. 41, pl. 29.3-
4 (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann (1998) 242, pl. 44.3-
6.
129
some type of headgear. The portrait is likely to
have been removed from its original context
following Domitian’s assassination.
Two pharaonic basalt images in Mantua149
and the Louvre150 were also removed from public
display. The pharaonic imagery, as well as the
hard stone from which these Egyptianizing stat-
ues were carved may have mitigated against their
reworking.151 The provenance of the Louvre
head is unknown, but the Mantua statue, as part
of the Gonzaga Collection, is likely from Italy,
perhaps displayed in a temple dedicated to Isis
or Serapis; the cults of both deities were pro-
moted by Domitian.152
The archaeological contexts of two other rep-
resentations of Domitian, in the Terme (fig.
133)153 and Copenhagen (fig. 134),154 indicate
that they were disposed of in a much more vio-
lent fashion with overtones of poena post mortem ac-
corded the corpses of condemned criminals. The
149 Palazzo Ducale; Z. Kiss (1975) 293ff, pls. 84, 88c;
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 350, fig. 24. The ar-
rangement of comma shaped locks over the forehead re-
flect Domitian’s type 1 coiffure.
150 Départment des Antiquités Egyptiennes A. 35 (N.
36); h. 0.316 m.; H. Kyrieleis (1975) 177, no. H12; R.
Bianchi in R. Bianchi, ed. (1988) 249-50, no. 137, with figs.
The pattern of locks over the forehead, with part over the
right eye and a section of locks reversing direction over the
left eye, clearly places this portrait within Domitian’s sec-
ond type. The arrangement of locks strongly recalls that
of the type 2 portrait in Naples with corona civica. The shape
of the mouth, with thin upper lip and fuller lower lip, are
also paralleled in other sculpted portraits which are not
egyptianizing in character.
151 Several relief representations of Domitian as Pha-
raoh in purely Egyptian style, identifiable by cartouche,
survive from Egypt: Edfu, Esna, Dendera, Kom, Omblo,
Philae, and Dêt-esch-schelwît, M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and
U. Hausmann (1966) 39, ns. 29, 30, 98.
152 And also by Vespasian and Titus, see B.W. Jones
(1992) 100-101.
153 Inv. 115191, h. 0.42 m.; A.A. Amadio, MusNazRom
9.1, 198-99, no. R 150, with figs. (with earlier literature).
The portrait is worked for insertion but into a draped bust
or statue. The nose appears to be an ancient repair.
154 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768; B. Andreae
(1977) fig. 67; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 365-66,
figs. 36a-c; W. Grünhagen (1986) 315, n. 13; A. Amadio
in MusNazRom 1.9.1, 199. F. Johansen (1995a) 38, no. 8,
(with figs., with earlier literature); The portrait is a
conflation of Domitian’s second and third types and in-
cludes an acanthus leaf motif at the base of the bust form.
130 chapter six
under life-sized bronze bust of Domitian in
Copenhagen was reportedly found in the Tiber
in 1891 and consequently recalls the derogatory
treatment of the miniature bronze and marble
images of Caligula from the Tiber, or the bronze
portrait of Nero from the River Alde. Like the
miniature busts of Caligula, the small-scale of the
image suggests that it was originally associated
with a public or private shrine dedicated to the
imperial cult. The Terme portrait, which includes
a corona civica is severely corroded. It was discov-
ered at the mouth of the Rio Martino (near Lake
Fogliano and Lake Monaci), into which it may
have been thrown in response to the damnatio.
A well preserved bust in Toledo also depicts
Domitian and, if ancient, must have been ware-
housed or buried after Domitian’s condemnation
(fig. 135).155 The image is a replica of Domitian’s
third portrait type and presents many highly
polished surfaces, especially in the area of the
face. The bust form itself is somewhat unusual
for the Flavian period, as is the handling of the
baldric and the drapery covering the left shoul-
der.156 The marble is likely to be Parian which
would accord well Domitian’s known predilec-
tion for Greek marble.157
Two marble portraits of Domitian were never
finished, presumably because his assassination
155 Museum of Art, 1990.3, h. 0.596 m.; R.M. Berko-
witz (2001) 258, fig. 111; S.E. Knudsen, C. Craine and R.
H. Tykot (2002) 237-38.
156 The baldric is wider than most and the fold at the
bottom is unusual although it does occur in a portrait of
Trajan (Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 22, inv.
276). The coiffure also does not exactly correspond to any
other type 3 likenesses. The Toledo portrait includes a
clump of locks which reverse direction over the inner cor-
ner of the left eye which occurs in no other Domitianic
portraits except the type 1 likeness from Ostia (inv. 19). The
hair at the back of the head also omits the swirl of curls
that appear in the altered bronze equestrian portrait from
Misenum and the head worked for insertion from the Villa
Borghese (Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.12,
inv. 2451, Centrale Montemartini 2.75) or the Domitian/
Titus in the Galleria Chiaramonti of the Vatican, 31.20.,
inv. 1687 (cat. 5.6). In general, the hair is also more exu-
berantly modeled than in most of the other replicas.
157 Suet. Dom. 8.5 records the Pentelic marble used in
Domitianic constructions including the Arch of Titus, the
Temple of the Flavian Gens, and the reconstruction of the
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus; S. E.
Knudsen, C. Craine, and R.H. Tykot, (2002) 237-38.
eliminated the need for their completion. A type
3 portrait from Athens is only blocked out on the
top and back of the head and never received the
final surface finish for the face and neck.158 Simi-
larly, work on a portrait from Asia Minor, now
in Los Angeles, must have been interrupted by
Domitian’s overthrow (fig. 136a-d).159 Although
it is only summarily blocked out, the portrait re-
produces physiognomical details of Domitian’s
third portrait type, including the shape of the
mouth and chin. Like the Athenian portrait, the
completion of the Getty head was forestalled by
Domitian’s assassination.160
Numerous extant cuirassed statue bodies are
dated to the Flavian period and many must have
originally belonged to images of Domitian. Cui-
rasses in the Vatican,161 the Palazzo Farnese,162
the Louvre,163 London,164 Auch, 165 Boston,166
Los Angeles,167 and Merida168 either lack their
158 National Museum, inv. 345, h. 0.35 m.; M. Wegner,
G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 37-38, 97, pl. 32c-
d (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 365; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker assign this head
to Domitian’s second portrait type. However, the mature
physiognomy of the portrait. as well as the locks which have
been carved over the right temple and behind the right ear,
clearly mark the portrait as a replica or variant of Domi-
tian’s third type. The section over the left eye which re-
verse the right to left orientation of the locks over the fore-
head may simply be a provincial variant or a contamination
from Domitian’s second portrait type.
159 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 75.AA.26, K.P. Erhart,
J. Frel, Sandra Knudsen Morgan, and S. Nodelman (1980)
46-49, with figs.; J. Frel (1981) 50, no. 34, 124, with figs.;
J. Chamay and J.L. Maier (1982) 111, pl. 20.
160 For unfinished Roman sculpture, see also H. Blanck
(1966) 171-4.
161 Galleria delle Statue, 248; K. Stemmer (1978) 80,
no. VII 10; C. Vermeule (1980b) 4; R. Gergel (1994) 199-
203.
162 K. Stemmer (1978) 94, n. 244; C. Vermeule (1980b)
4.
163 Inv. MA 1150; R. Gergel (1994) 199; K. de Kersau-
son (1996) 76-79, no. 28, with figs.
164 British Museum, inv. 1895 (currently displayed at
Hampton Court); R. Gergel (1994) 203.
165 Inv. MA 1154, Cliché Samuel, dépôt du Musée du
Luovre au Musée des Jacobins; R. Gergel (1994) 199; K.
de Kersauson (1996) 80-83, no. 29, with figs.
166 Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 99.346; K. Stemmer
(1978) no. VII 11, pl. 54.2; C. Vermeule (1980b) 4.
167 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 71.11.436; K. Stemmer
(1978) no. VII 12, pl. 55.3-5; C. Vermeule (1980b) 4.
168 Museo Arqueologico, inv. no. 1.138; K. Stemmer (1978)
no. III 6, pls. 18.2-19.1; C. Vermeule (1980b) 5, fig. 40.
 domitian
portrait heads entirely, or have had new portraits
added. It is reasonable to assume that these stat-
ues were eventually reused after the original like-
nesses of Domitian were removed, and images of
one of his successors, most probably Nerva or
Trajan, were substituted.169 The upper section of
a cuirassed statue in the Vatican which includes
a representation of Romulus and Remus with the
she wolf also originally seems to have been com-
bined with a portrait of Domitian and formed a
pendant with a cuirassed statue likely represent-
ing Titus or Vespasian.170 The Domitianic por-
trait must have been transformed immediately
after Domitian’s condemnation and eventually re-
used in the early third century at the baths of
Caracalla where both cuirass fragments were
found.
The heroic nude statue popularly identified
as Pompey in the Palazzo Spada may provide
additional evidence for the removal of Domitian’s
images.171 It essentially reproduces the same
fourth century statuary type of Diomedes as the
portrait of Nero reworked to Domitian in Munich
(cat. 2.46; fig. 62a-c).172 The current head is a
modern restoration or ancient and doesn’t be-
long. The unusual and elaborate fibula with a
gorgoneion placed on the drapery of the Palazzo
Spada statue is likely intended as a deliberate
reference to Minerva, Domitian’s patron goddess.
D. Facenna has persuasively argued that the
gorgoneion, taken in conjunction with the stat-
ues strong Flavian stylistic traits, argue for an
identification of the piece as a portrait of Domi-
tian.173 The statue was discovered near the The-
ater of Pompey in the Campus Martius, an area
169 D. Gergel (1994) 203-4,
170 Galleria Chiaramonti, 5.5, inv. 1254; P. Liverani
(1989), 20; P. Persicce (2000) 39, no. 13 (with earlier lit-
erature).
171 C. Fea (1812) 12-13; J.J. Bernoulli (1891) 61-62; F.
Magi (1945) 104-5; D. Facenna (1956) 173-201., pls. 41-
46; H. von Heintze in Helbig4II, no. 2008; M. Wegner,
G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 107; H. Niemeyer
(1968) 111, no. 114; K. Fittschen (1970) 551, no. 114; F.
Coarelli (1971-72) 31, pl. 38b; C. Maderna (1988) 79, 170,
199, 217-18, no. UD 4, 219, 221.
172 Glyptothek 394.
173 D. Facenna (1956).
131
of extensive Domitianic building activity. The
statue may have originally been displayed in the
Theater. As a result of Domitian’s damnatio, the
original portrait features of the statue may have
been deliberately damaged, or alternatively, the
head may have been removed from the statue.174
Like the Cancelleria Reliefs, the body itself may
have been stored in a sculptor’s workshop in the
Campus Martius or in structures associated with
the Theater.
Five gem portraits of Domitian have sur-
vived.175 All are type 3 likenesses created during
Domitian’s tenure as Augustus. A sardonyx
cameo, formerly in the Ponsonby Collection,
depicts busts of Domitian and Domitia or Julia
Titi in profile being carried aloft on the back of
an eagle.176 The imagery of apotheosis and the
inclusion of Domitia or Julia Titi precluded the
recutting of the piece. Furthermore, the overlap-
ping portraits would have made recarving ex-
tremely difficult. Similarly, the highly unusual
transgendered iconography of three gem portraits
in Paris, which depicts Domitian in the guise of
his protectress Minerva, undoubtedly prevented
their recutting.177 A sardonyx bust, again in Paris,
also represents Domitian.178 As noted above, the
174 In either case, reworking of the statue would have
been difficult. If the features were intentionally mutilated,
recarving would have been ruled out, and any attempt to
replace the head entirely would have been visually unsat-
isfactory as the join of head to neck, or neck to torso would
have been easily discernible as a result of the statue’s nudity.
175 In addition to the gem portraits, Domitian’s likeness
has been preserved on terracotta lamps, H.G. Bucholz
(1961) 176, figs. 4-5.
176 Whereabouts currently unknown, h. 10 cm.; Exhi-
bition of Ancient Greek Art, Burlington Fine Arts Club (London
1904) 62, no. 101, pl. 64; W.R. Megow (1987) 220, no. A
108, pl. 36.5. The published photograph of the gem is not
clear enough to permit secure identification of the female
figure; see E.R. Varner (1995) 202, n. 77.
177 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 22;
Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 26, 12.0 x
5.5 cm.; Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 128,
13.4 x 8.1 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 108, 124 138, 143,
221-24, nos. A 110-111, 113, pl. 37.1-2,4 (with earlier lit-
erature); H. Guiraud (1994) 94, fig. 2. The identification
of emperors with female deities is unusual, but not unique,
see for instance the reverse of an aureus which may depict
Diana with the portrait features of Augustus (J. Pollini
(1990) 353-4, fig. 29b).
178 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.
132
cameo in Minden has been recarved from a like-
ness of Nero, which surely prevented a second
reworking (cat. 2.45; fig. 69).179 All four of these
gem portraits may have been preserved in ancient
collections as much for their value as semi-
precious stones as for their value as curiosities,
representative of an emperor who had been over-
thrown and whose memory had been con-
demned.
A type 3 portrait of Domitian is also preserved
on a silver mirror cover in Karlsruhe.180 A small
armed figure of Minerva, intended as a represen-
tation of the palladium, is shown in front of Domi-
tian’s neck. Beneath the bust form “+KA?C?K”
has been stamped, indicating that the cover be-
longed to or was created by Euporos. The Greek
name of the owner or artist suggests an eastern
provenance for the piece. The intrinsic value of
the silver probably prevented Euporos from de-
stroying the cover, and, as a private person, it
may have been too much trouble to have the
piece melted down and recast.
In addition to the sculpted, bronze, and glyptic
portraits of Domitian which survived destruction,
more emblematic representations of the emperor
may still be extant on the Arch of Titus. An arch
is depicted on the panel from the interior bay
which represents the spoils of Jerusalem being
carried in the joint triumph of Vespasian and
Titus. The relief arch is probably a representa-
tion of an actual arch dedicated to Vespasian in
honor of the victories in Judaea.181 It is topped
by statuary which includes two quadrigae with
single riders (evidently Titus and Vespasian) and
a single rider on horseback (Domitian).182 Jose-
phus’s account of the triumphal procession con-
firms that Vespasian and Titus rode in quadrigae
no. B 11318, 5.1 x 4.6 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 110, 121,
220-21, no. A 109, pl. 37.2.
179 Minden, Domschatz, cat. 2.X.
180 Badisches Landesmuseum; M. Taddei (1967) 41;
M.R.-Alföldi (ND) 15-22.; K. Vierneisel and P. Zanker
(1979) 20, with fig.; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 36, n. 4, 37, n. 5;
W. Sch?rmann (1985) 41, pl. 3; W.R. Megow (1989) 446-
47, fig. 4.
181 F.S. Kleiner (1990) 129-130.
182 F.S. Kleiner (1990) 129.
chapter six
while Domitian attended his father and brother
riding on a horse.183 The statue of Domitian
depicted in the relief is far too emblematic to have
been included in the destruction of Domitian’s
portraits or the removal of his images from public
display. However the actual bronze statue de-
picted in the relief, which decorated Vespasian’s
arch would certainly have been removed and
melted down.
Domitian’s inscriptions and commemorative
monuments were also included in his damnatio.
Domitian’s name is erased approximately 40%
of the 400 surviving texts and inscriptions which
mention him, and stands as a major attempt to
eradicate his memory directly comparable to the
removal of his portraits from public display.184
Three honorific inscriptions from Olympia were
reused as architectural blocks in a building as-
sociated with the athletes’ guild.185 Indeed, Do-
mitian’s name may even have been erased in a
manuscript of Plutarch’s De Pythiae oraculis.186 As
for architectural monuments, several arches are
known to have been erected by Domitian in
Rome, so many in fact, that a pasquinade was
inscribed •kPgà (enough) on one of the emperor’s
arches as a pun on arcus (arch).187 According to
183 Bell.Iud. 7.152.
184 On Domitian’s inscriptions see, RE 6 (1909) 2580,
2593: A. Martin (1987); E.S. Ramage (1989) 703-4, and
n. 172; J.M. Paillier and R. Sablayrolles (1994) 16-17; on
the erasure of Domitian’s name in Spain, see B.W. Jones
(1992) 112-3, n. 86; H.I. Flower (2001) 630. The majority
of erased inscriptions are from Rome, Spain, and the east-
ern half of the empire, see S. Levin (1985) 285, n. 15. The
Domitianic obelisk now incorporated into Bernini’s Four
Rivers Fountain in Piazza Navona in Rome does not have
Domitian’s cartouch erased, almost certainly because au-
diences in Rome would have been unable to read it and
those in charge of erasing his name in inscriptions at the
capital may not have even recognized the significance of
the cartouche(s) on the obelisk, J.M. Paillier and R.
Sablayrolles (1994)16.
185 AE (1995) 1082, 1406; H.I. Flower (2000) 60, n. 19;
H.I. Flower (2001) 627, n. 12.
186 S. Levin (1985) 285-7. Although it is highly implau-
sible that the erasure was carried out by Plutarch himself,
as suggested by Levin, it does, however, seem likely that
the erasure was effected by a librarian or the owner of the
manuscript.
187 Suet.Dom. 13.2; F.S. Kleiner (1985) 90, n. 85; F.S.
Kleiner (1990) 127, n. 1.
 domitian
Dio, these numerous arches were torn down as
a result of Domitian’s condemnation by the Sen-
ate.188 The foundations of one of these arches,
which spanned the Clivus Palatinus, are pre-
served and some of its sculptural decoration was
also recovered.189 The arch served as a monu-
mental entrance to the Domus Flavia and does
not appear to have been entirely dismantled af-
ter Domitian’s downfall as there are post-Trajanic
modifications to its foundations. Any dedicatory
inscription or imagery explicitly associated with
Domitian, however, must have been altered. The
Domitianic trophies reused by Severus Alexander
in his monumental nymphaeum on the Esquiline
and currently displayed on the balustrade of the
Campidoglio may also derive from one of
Domitian’s dismantled arches.190
An honorific inscription now in Philadelphia
set up by the inhabitants of Puteoli has been
entirely obliterated.191 The dedication likely
formed part of a statue base for portrait of Domi-
tian and enough traces of the original lettering
have been preserved to allow H.I. Flower to
reconstruct its text:
IMP CAESARI
DIVI VESPASIANI F
DOMITIANO AVG
GERMAN PONT MAX
TRIB POT XV IMP XXII
COS XVII CENS PERPET P P
COLONIA FLAVIA AVG
PUTEOLANA
INDVLGENTIA MAXIMI
188 68.1; F.S. Kleiner (1985) 94; F.S. Kleiner (1990) 128.
189 A female torso, often identified as an aura, Rome,
Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 124697; E.
Paribeni (1953) 15, nor. 5; H. von Steuben, Helbig4 III,
165-166, no. 2256; J. Papdapoulos, MusNazRom 1.1, 204-
206, no. 127; S. de Maria (1988) 292; two fragments of a
triumphal procession, Rome, Vatican, Cortile Belvedere 88,
inv. 1022, and Galleria Chiaramonti 46.1, inv. 1936; G.
Koeppel(1984) 4, 22-24, nos. 3-4; on the arch, see also F.
Villedieu in F. Villedieu, ed. (2001) 67-68.
190 J.M. Pailler and R Sablayrolles (1994) 42.
191 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum,
inv. MS4916, h. 1.63 m; M. Cagiano de Azevedo (1939)
45-56; K.A. Waters (1969) 397; C.C. Vermeule (1981) 231,
no. 192 (with figs.); D. Kinney (1997) 143-4, fig. 18; H.I.
Flower (2000) 60-61, figs. 1-2; H.I. Flower (2001).
133
DIVINIQVE PRINCIPIS
VRBI EIVS ADMOTA192
Early in Trajan’s principate, the erased inscrip-
tion was subsequently reused with its back carved
with reliefs of praetorians, two of which are pre-
served. A second relief in Berlin, belongs with the
Philadelphia relief and together they formed part
of a Trajanic monument, perhaps the Porta
Triumphalis, celebrating Trajan’s completion of
the Via Antiniana in 102, which extended and
coopted the Via Domitiana.193 The total eradi-
cation of the original Domitianic inscription,
rather than just the emperor’s names or titles is
highly unusual and suggests that the inhabitants
of Puteoli wished to cancel all trace of their
homage for and relationship to the overthrown
emperor.194 In addition, the gap of time which
occurred between the erasure of the inscription,
which is likely to have taken place shortly after
Domitian’s assassination, and the carving of the
Trajanic reliefs indicates that the erased inscrip-
tion may have remained on public display dur-
ing Nerva’s principate as a visual marker of
Domitian’s posthumous humiliation and repudia-
tion. Whether the obliterated inscription contin-
ued to be displayed with a disfigured or altered
portrait of Domitian, or if it was entirely deprived
of its original statue is impossible to know.
Domitian built on a scale reminiscent of Nero,
and like Nero, Domitian’s major building pro-
grams are often characterized in negative terms
as the excessively ambitious work of an auto-
crat.195 Nevertheless, his public projects were
certainly expropriated by his successors. Most
notably, the forum, which he built to link the
Forum Romanum, the fora of Caesar and
Augustus and his father’s Templum Pacis, was
renamed in honor of Nerva, despite the fact that
it retained all of its Domitianic character, such
192 (2000) 61; (2001) 629.
193 Pergamonmuseum, Sk 887; no. 127, with fig.; H.I.
Flower (2001) figs. 4-5.
194 M. Cagiano de Azevedo (1939) 51; H.I. Flower
(2001) 630.
195 See, for instance, Plut, Pub.15.5. B.W. Jones has
noted that these characterizations have been continued by
modern scholars (London 1992) 96, and n. 129.
134 chapter six
as the temple dedicated to Domitian’s protectress
Minerva and the reliefs of the colonnade which
refer to Miverva, Domitian’s virtus and attempts
at moral reform.196 In addition, Domitian may
have initiated the plans which culminated in
Trajan’s major building projects, including his
forum, markets and baths.197 It has also been
suggested that the great Trajanic frieze reused on
the interior bay and the attic of the Arch of
Constantine is in fact a Domtianic monument.198
However, A.M. Touati has shown that the recut
portrait from the adventus section of the Frieze has
certain correspondences with Trajan’s portrai-
ture, in particular the Opferbildtypus which also
occurs on the Column of Trajan.199 In addition,
a Domitianic dating of the Frieze seems highly
unlikely given the sculptural style of the monu-
ment and the programmatic nature of the reuse
on the arch which is intended to link Constantine
with esteemed emperors of the second century.200
The Continued Display of Domitian’s Images
In contrast to the statues of Domitian which were
warehoused, or the images thrown into the Tiber
or the Rio Martino, a togate portrait from the
theater at Aphrodisias was never removed from
public display.201 The statue was discovered in
196 Nerva completed the forum which was unfinished
at Domitian’s death, Suet.Dom.5.2. The dedicatory inscrip-
tion on the temple read: Imp. Nerva Caes. Aug. pont. max./
trib. pot. II cos. IIII [p.p. aedem Mi]nervae fecit (CIL 6.953); L
Girard (1981) 23 J. 6-7. On the iconography of the reliefs,
see E. D’Ambra (1993)and (1991) 243-48, esp. 248 for
Domitian’s moral legislation.
197 Aur.Vict. Lib.Caes. 13.5; J.C. Anderson (1983) 102-
4; J.E.Packer 1 (1997) 3-4.
198 W. Gauer (1973); A. Claridge (1998) 274.
199 A.M. Touati (1987) 91-5.
200 J. Elsner (2000).
201 Formerly, Geyre (Aphrodisias) depot, 2.11 m.(total),
0.30 m. (head); K.T. Erim (1973) 135-42, figs. 1-9; J. Inan
and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1979) 89-91, no. 38, pls. 30.2,
32; 32, 271.1; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 350;
K.T. Erim (1986) 84; H.R. Goette (1988) 449-64; H.R.
Goette (1989) 128, under no. 314 (possibly a private por-
trait); K.T. Erim in C. Roueché and K.T. Erim, eds (1990)
153, fig. 1; K.T. Erim in R.R.R. Smith and K.T. Erim,
eds. (1991) 82, no. 17, fig. 17. The head is not completely
finished at the back and it is likely that the statue was
several fragments, together with its inscribed base,
between 1966 and 1971. The work is a provin-
cial variant of Domitian’s first type and includes
a light beard.202 It is significant that inscription
on the base of the statue was not erased in an-
tiquity; it reads:
[A]ŒJ@6[V]J[@D]" 5"\[F"D"]
)@:4J4"<Î< Eg$"FJÎ<
'gD:"<46Î< Ò *0y:@H 6"24
XDTFg< ¦B4:g802X<J@H
)4@(X<@L J[@]Ø +Û68X@LH
J@Ø )4@(X<@L.203
The statue itself is badly weathered and its frag-
ments were excavated together with other sculp-
tural and architectural debris from the original
scaenae frons decoration indicating that the image
was not removed from the theater after
Domitian’s overthrow, but rather remained on
public display until the theater’s final destruction
in an earthquake which occurred probably dur-
ing the reign of Heraclius (A.D. 610-41).204 The
survival of this statue strongly suggests that
Domitian’s damnatio was not actively pursued at
Aphrodisias, in contradistinction to the evidence
for Nero’s damnatio from the Sebasteion. The
exemption of Domitian’s statue from the destruc-
tion, removal, or recarving which generally be-
fell his images elsewhere, underscores the au-
tonomy which individual cities enjoyed in
responding to damnationes, as well as Domitian’s
genuine popularity in Greece and Asia Minor.205
Conclusion: Entrenched Practices and a new Paradigm
Domitian’s condemnation was officially man-
dated by the senate, as Nero’s had been previ-
displayed in a niche located in the scaenae frons or all of the
theater complex, K.T. Erim (1973) 138.
202 M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 350.
203 K. T. Erim suggests that this might partly be a re-
sult of the inadequate prominence which is accorded
Domitian’s name in the inscription (1973) 138.
204 The destruction is dated by K.T. Erim to the reign
of Heraclius (A.D. 610-41)(1986) 87.
205 One city in Asia Minor, Sala, even issued coins under
the name Sala Domitianopolis; on Domitian’s popularity
in the East, see B.W. Jones (1992) 110-12.
 domitian
ously. The widespread nature of the surviving
evidence for Domitian’s portraits into images
primarily of Nerva and Trajan indicates that
sculptural recycling had become an entrenched
response to imperial damnationes by the end of the
first century. Almost every single one of Nerva’s
extant marble and bronze images have, in fact,
been reworked from Domitianic representations.
The reconfigured portraits continued to exert an
important stylistic impact and the Getty
Domitian/Nerva stands as one of the most un-
compromising examples of verism from the end
of the first century. As with the early condem-
nations, especially that of Nero, the responses to,
and even acceptance of Domitian’s damnatio were
by no means universal, as the army apparently
resisted his condemnation and insisted that his
assassins be brought to trial; some of his images,
such as that at Aphrodisias, may have remained
on public view.
135
Domitian’s images were also repressed through
destruction and mutilation. The anthropomor-
phic rhetoric which is a centerpiece of Pliny the
Younger’s description of the demolition of
Domitian’s bronze portraits stands out in the
literary sources surrounding condemned emper-
ors and Pliny consciously employs it to illustrate
the public’s disaffection with the murdered
emperor’s personality and policies. Even more
than Nero, Domitian becomes the paradigm of
the overthrown tyrant in later historical
sources.206 It was Domitian’s ill fortune that his
regime was almost immediately succeeded by that
of the Optimus Princeps, Trajan, and the two
emperors were often presented as polar opposites
of imperial behavior.
206J.M. Pailler and Sablayrolles (1994) 23-40; P. Stewart
(1999) 183.
136 chapter seven
CHAPTER SEVEN
COMMODUS, LUCILLA, CRISPINA AND
ANNIA FUNDANIA FAUSTINA
Almost one hundred years intervened between
the damnationes of Domitian and Commodus, and
this period witnessed a profound change in the
physical impact that condemnation had on im-
perial images.1 While removal and destruction of
portraits continued, recarving of sculpted like-
nesses ceased to be practiced on a wide scale.
Indeed, in marked contrast to the treatment of
the images of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian,
none of Commodus’s marble portraits were re-
cut at the time of his condemnation.2
Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus was born
on 31 August 161 at Lanuvium, the eldest sur-
viving son of the emperor Marcus Aurelius and
Annia Galeria Faustina Minor.3 In 177, Com-
modus was elevated to the position of co-Augus-
tus with his father and accompanied him on his
campaigns against the Marcomanni.4 Commodus
1 Prior to the condemnation of Commodus, the Senate
formally declared Avidius Cassius a hostis and confiscated
his property for the public treasury (HA Marc. 24.9: sed per
senatum hostis est iudicatus bonaque eius proscripta per aerarium pub-
licum; HA Av.Cass. 7.7: qui eum hostem iudicaverant bonis
proscriptis). Avidius Cassius had been proclaimed emperor
in opposition to Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 175. After Cassius
was defeated and killed, his head was cut off in an act of
poena post mortem which apparently greatly grieved Marcus,
who ordered its immediate burial (HA Marc. 25.3; Dio
71[72].27.31). Representations of Cassius would have been
included in the sanctions against his memory passed by the
senate.
2 Because of the hiatus in imperial condemnations
during the second century, it is an exaggeration to claim,
as P. Stewart does, that from the first century B.C. through
the fourth century A.C. no generation had not witnessed
the destruction of statues; in addition, while there is con-
tinuity in the processes associated with damnatio, as Stewart
notes, there is also development over time and a shift in
emphasis from sculptural recycling to disfigurement, (1999)
161, 164.
3 A twin brother, Antoninus, died at the age of four,
HA Comm. 1.4.
4. HA Comm. 2.4-5; Dio 71(72).22.2; A. Birley (1966) 270.
5 On Lucilla and Crispina see, infra.
succeeded Marcus Aurelius on 17 March 180 and
assumed the name Marcus Aurelius Commodus
Antoninus.
After his accession, Commodus brought the
war with the Marcomanni to a close by signing
a treaty which thus insured a period of relative
peace on the German frontier. Commodus re-
turned to Rome in October of 180. Opposition
to Commodus surfaced early in his reign. Already
in 182, his sister Lucilla and his wife Crispina
were implicated in a plot to overthrow him.5
Commodus’s ruthless persecution of the senato-
rial aristocracy and his erratic and megalomania-
cal behavior contributed to a growing sense of
instability at the capital and throughout the
empire. Commodus further scandalized the elite
by performing publicly as a gladiator or chari-
oteer and often forced members of the Senate to
attend his performances.6 Much of his imperial
propaganda was intended to promote his iden-
tification with Hercules.7 Rome was renamed
Colonia Commodiana, Carthage renamed Alex-
andria Commodiana Togata, and the months of
the year were also renamed to reflect Commo-
dus’s names, titles and stress his affiliation with
Hercules.8
In addition to the conspiracy involving Lucilla
and Crispina, a number of other unsuccessful
attempts were made to overthrow Commodus.
Finally, on 31 December 192, Commodus was
strangled in his bath by his wrestling companion,
6 HA Comm. 2.9, 11.10-12
7 See W.H. Gross (1973); C.C. Vermeule (1977) 289-
94.
8 Dio 72(73).15.1-5; HA. Comm. 8.5-9; 11.8-12.9; F.
Grosso (1964) 360-63, 365-67, 369-71;A. Birley (1988) 8.
The months were called: Amazonius, Invictus, Pius, Felix,
Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Hercules, Romanus,
Exsuperatorius.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
the athlete Narcissus, at the instigation of a group
of conspirators which included the emperor’s
mistress Marcia, his chamberlain Eclectus, the
Praetorian Praefect, Quintus Aemilius Laetus,
and Commodus’s successor, Publius Helvius
Pertinax.9
Pertinax immediately convened the Senate and
they affirmed his position as augustus and voted
to abolish the memory of Commodus (impuri
gladiatoris memoria aboleatur).10 Commodus was
declared a public enemy11 and his honors were
revoked.12 His name was erased in inscriptions,
especially on buildings which others had actually
constructed but for which he took credit (sed nomen
eius alienis operibus incisum senatus erasit).13 His stat-
ues were to be pulled down (detrahantur)14 and
abolished (abolendas statuas).15 On the 2nd of Janu-
ary, Commodus’s statues were, in fact, over-
thrown (deiecerentur).16 In recounting the mutila-
tion of Commodus’s statues, Dio employs a
graphic and anthropomorphic rhetoric, empha-
sizing that they were also torn limb from limb.17
Dio’s treatment of Commodus’s portraits as sur-
rogate bodies directly recalls Pliny’s anthropo-
morphic description of the destruction of Domi-
tian’s images, or Dio’s own account of the attacks
on Sejanus’s likenesses. The Senate and popu-
lace wished to desecrate Commodus’s corpse and
drag it to the Tiber with a hook, as was custom-
9 A. Birley (1988) 82-88 reviews the evidence for the
conspiracy.
10 HA Comm. 19.1. Earlier in the second century,
Antoninus Pius had prevented the Senate from passing
official sanctions against the memory of Hadrian, and in-
stead, insisted on his deification; HA Had. 27.1-2.6.
11 B@8X:4@l, Dio 73(74).2.1, as well as hostis patriae...hostis
deorum...hostis senatus, HA Comm. 18.3-5.
12 honores detrahantur, HA Comm. 18.3.
13 HA Comm. 17.6. See also HA Comm. 20.5: nomenque ex
omnibus privatis publicisque monumentis eradendum and Victor
Caes. 17 Commodus: Senatus qui ob festa Ianuariorum frequens primo
luci convenerat, simul plebes hostem deorum atque hominum appellavere
radendumque nomen sanxere. His name is erased on selected
inscriptions, as for instance the partial erasure in line 6 of
the Aes Italicense (an edict of A.D. 177 on prices of munera
and gladiators) of et Luci Commodi; CIL 2.6278=ILS 5163;
D.G. Kyle (1998) 84, n. 52, 240, n. 88.
14 HA Comm. 18.12-14.
15 HA Comm. 20.4-5.
16 HA Pert. 6.3.
17 73.2.1.
137
ary in the poena post mortem of capital offenders.18
However, the body had been secretly deposited
in the Mausoleum of Hadrian19 and a funerary
inscription was eventually erected.20 Dio further
states that the populace desecrated Commodus’s
portraits as they wished to abuse his corpse.21
The Senate also proclaimed that he had been
buried wrongfully and without appropriate au-
thority, reinforcing Commodus’s position as hostis
and societal outcast with no right to proper
burial.22 In addition, the ancient accounts of
Commodus’s condemnation consistently employ
the language of the arena concerning the disposal
and abuse of corpses of noxii.23
Commodus’s Portrait Typology
Commodus enjoyed five portrait types during his
lifetime.24 His first official type corresponds to the
period when he held the rank of Caesar, 175-77.
Commodus is depicted as a boy with a full head
of curly hair, wide arching brows, heavy lidded
eyes, a rather small nose which dips in at the
bridge, a full mouth with down turned corners
and receding lower lip and a small, somewhat
squared chin.
Commodus’s type 2 and 3 portraits were not
widely disseminated. Commodus’s second type is
concurrent with his tenure as co-Augustus with
his father from 177-180. This type is similar to
the first type, although the coiffure is slightly more
full and curly and the facial features older, and
the nose is now straight and aquiline. Commo-
dus’s type 3 portraits were intended to com-
18 HA Comm. 17.4; 18-19, quoting Marius Maximus; Dio
74.2.1.
19 HA Comm. 20.1-2 and Dio. 74.2. See alsoA. Birley
(1988) 89-90.
20 CIL 6.992.
21 74.2.1.
22 HA. Comm. 20.2..3-4. Families of condemned hostes
had to petition for the right of burial and their graves were
not protected by the res religiosae; Ulpian Dig. 48.24.1; Paul.
Dig. 47.12.4, 48.24.3; C. W. Hedrick (2000) 106-7; E.R.
Varner (2001) 59-60.
23 D.G. Kyle (1998) 224-8.
24 For the portrait typology of Commodus, see Fittschen-
Zanker I, 81-90, nos. 74-78.
138 chapter seven
memorate his accession in 180. The hairstyle
remains full and curly and generally straight
across the forehead. Likenesses of this type in-
clude a slight beard and moustache intended to
make the young emperor appear more mature.
The third type is succeeded rapidly by the
fourth, which is the most widely disseminated of
his types. On coins, this type replaces Commo-
dus’s third type sometime in late 180, perhaps at
the time of his adventus to Rome in October.
Again, the coiffure is full and curly, with at least
two sections of curls hanging down onto the fore-
head. Most of the ears are left uncovered. The
facial features are slightly heavier and older than
the earlier types. The eyes continue to be char-
acterized by heavy full lids. Naso-labial lines often
frame the mouth. The beard and moustache are
much more luxuriant and curly, and recall those
of his father, Marcus Aurelius, his grandfather
Antoninus Pius, and his brother-in-law, Lucius
Verus.
Commodus’s fifth and final type was created
late in his reign. It appears on coins from 191-
192, with the emperor often wearing a lion skin.
In contrast to the fourth type, the hair is more
upswept and locks no longer hang down on the
forehead. The coiffure often covers the tops of
the ears. The moustache is generally more full,
while the beard slightly shorter. This type, with
its shorter, upswept hair emphasizes Commodus’s
identification with Hercules, and also recalls the
later types of his father, Marcus Aurelius.25
The Mutilation and Destruction of Commodus’s
Images
The effect of the damnatio on the sculpted por-
traits of Commodus is complicated by the fact
that his memory was rehabilitated under Didius
Julianus and Septimius Severus, and that the
latter actually compelled the Senate to deify
25 Marcus is the first emperor to wear his hair upswept
over his forehead in a kind of anastole intended to recall
images of Jupiter, other mature male divinities, and
Alexander the Great.
Commodus in 197.26 Nevertheless, it is extremely
significant that four extant images of Commodus
do, in fact, exhibit clear signs of intentional
mutilation. Restorations to a bust of Commodus’s
first type in the Vatican mask deliberate and
severe ancient damage (cat. 6.4; fig. 137).27 The
bust is draped with a paludamentum and was re-
putedly discovered at Ostia.28 The left brow and
eye, the nose, the mouth, the ears, and portions
of the coiffure have all been restored in marble.
The portrait was attacked at Ostia in response
to news of Commodus’s overthrow, and, as in the
past, its defacement was intended to signal visu-
ally the repudiation of Commodus, and support
for the new leader, Pertinax.
An extremely fragmentary replica of Commo-
dus’s fourth type in the Antiquarium on the
Celio, also owes its deplorable state of preserva-
tion to deliberate destruction (cat. 6.2.).29 The
likeness is badly weathered, the facial features
have been entirely obliterated, and the bottom
of the head is missing. A second, heavily restored
replica of Commodus’s type 4, in the Museo
Capitolino, has also been intentionally damaged
after his overthrow (cat. 6.3).30 Like the Vatican
portrait from Ostia, this image is heavily restored.
The entire face is modern, replacing the origi-
nal portrait features which must have been se-
verely mutilated or completely destroyed. The
marked contrast between the severe damage
suffered by facial features and the well preserved
remainder of the head, including the ears and the
deeply drilled coiffure, underscore the intention-
ality of the image’s destruction. The Caelian and
Capitoline portraits further attest to the mutila-
tion of Commodus’s likenesses in the capital and
its environs.
A type 4 portrait in Phillipi has also been
vandalized (cat. 6.1; fig. 138).31 The portrait has
26 HA Did. 2.6-7; HA Comm. 17.11-12; HA Sev. 11.3-5,
12.8; Dio 75(76).7.4, 8.1. A.M. McCann (1968)) 62; M.
Hammond (1975) 203-9;A. Birley (1988) 95, 127.
27 Galleria Chiaramonti, 3.13, 706, inv. 1235.
28 C. Fea (1819) 89.
29 Rome, Antiquario Communale sul Celio, without inv.
no.
30 Stanza degli Imperatori 30, inv. 445.
31 Museum, inv. 469.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
sustained major damage to the forehead, the
brows, and both eyes, while the nose and mouth
have been almost entirely obliterated. Most of the
portraits surviving sensory organs have been
attacked in the t-shaped format seen in other
intentionally disfigured images. In addition, the
other surfaces of the portrait at the side, back and
top of the head are well preserved and have not
been damaged. One surviving coin of Commo-
dus, from Silandus, has also been attacked and
effaced. 32 The Phillipi head, as well as the
Silandus coin, are graphic indicators that the
deliberate mutilation of Commodus’s images was
not limited to the environs of Rome, but extended
into the provinces. Commodus’s subsequent re-
habilitation and deification suggest that such
mutilation of his representations may have been
generally confined to the brief three month reign
of Pertinax.
The Transformation of Commodus’s Images
Unlike the images of the condemned emperors
of the first century, Commodus’s portraits were
not recarved immediately after his overthrow.
Commodus’s rehabilitation and deification under
Septimius Severus undoubtedly prevented whole-
sale reuse of his portraits. Also, Commodus’s
immediate successors were bearded which add-
ed enormous technical difficulties to the recarv-
ing process. Given the hiatus in imperial condem-
nations between Domitian and Commodus, late
second century sculptors would no longer have
been as adept at recutting imperial images into
convincing new likeness as had their first centu-
ry counterparts.
Commodus/Pupienus?
However, two replicas of Commodus’ fifth type,
in the Vatican (cat. 6.6; fig. 139a-c)33 and Mantua
32
K. Regling (1904) 144.
33
Galleria Chiaramonti 27.8, inv. 1613 (formerly
Magazzini, 690).
139
(cat. 6.5), were recarved in the third century. The
coiffure of the Vatican portrait, which is worked
for insertion into a cuirassed statue, has been
drastically cut down. Short a penna locks have
been incised in place of Commodus’s original full
and curly hairstyle. The beard has also been
shortened. The combination of short, incised
coiffure, with a more plastically modeled beard
finds parallels in portraits from the second quarter
of the third century, most notably those of the
emperor Pupienus.34 The colossal head in
Mantua has been similarly altered.35 The portrait
is worked for insertion and includes a lion skin.
Like the Vatican head, the coiffure, visible be-
neath the lion skin over the forehead, has been
cut back and the beard has been reduced. The
reworking of the Mantua likeness is starkly evi-
dent when it is compared to the unaltered por-
trait of Commodus as Hercules in the Palazzo dei
Conservatori (fig. 141) which includes a full and
curly coiffure beneath the lion’s skin.
The striking resemblances between the re-
worked Vatican and Mantua portraits, as well as
the colossal scale, and lion skin of the Mantua
head, may indicate that both portraits have been
recut to portray the same imperial individual,
possibly Pupienus. Pupienus reigned for only four
months (April-July 238), together with Balbinus.
Six portraits of Pupienus have survived from
antiquity.36 Although these portraits depict a man
considerably older than the recarved Vatican and
Mantua likenesses, there are correspondences in
the long oval shape of the face, the way in which
the cranium bulges out over the ears, the arch-
34 As in the examples in the Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori 50, inv. 477, Fittschen-Zanker I, 126-27,
no. 106, pls. 130-31 and the Musei Vaticani, Braccio
Nuovo, 47, inv. 2265, S. Wood (1986) 34, 41, 128, pl. 3.4.
35 inv. G 6812/1.
36 All of the portraits are presumably from Rome. In
addition to the portraits in the Museo Capitolino and
Vatican already cited, the other portraits are: Copenhagen,
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 457, inv. 788, V. Poulsen (1974)
183, pls. 306-7; Oslo, Private Collection, S. Sande (Rome
1991) 85-86, no. 70, pl. 69; Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA
1020, H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 244, pl. 76a;
Rome, Museo Torlonia, 588, H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 245.
140 chapter seven
ing brows and heavy lidded eyes. The addition
of an accompanying inscription may have ren-
dered the Vatican and Mantua portraits accept-
able likenesses of Pupienus. As a result of the
turbulent political situation during the reign of
Pupienus and Balbinus, speed may also have been
a motivating factor in the reworking.
Regardless of whether or not the Vatican and
Mantua portraits were recarved to represent
Pupienus or a private individual of the third
century, their coiffures indicate that they were
reused approximately sixty years after the over-
throw of Commodus. The portraits may have
been warehoused following Commodus’s assas-
sination and never subsequently re-erected after
his rehabilitation. Their accessibility and the third
century fashion of a short coiffure worn with a
full beard, may have further prompted their re-
working. Alternatively, the portraits may have
never been removed from display, or have been
part of the Commodus’s rehabilitation under
Septimius Severus. In any case, the reconfigura-
tion of the portraits appears to be entirely a
product of practicality or economics rather than
ideology.
Commodus/Licinius?
A fragmentary cuirassed portrait of a tetrarch in
Side also contains compelling evidence that it has
been recarved from an earlier representation of
Commodus (cat. 6.7; fig. 140a-c).37 The head was
originally carved in one piece with the torso. The
type of cuirass, with double row of straps on the
sleeve of the lorica is Antonine in date,38 but
details of the portrait head, including the short
coiffure with incised locks, the short, incised
beard, and the geometric handling of the facial
features are clearly Tetrarchic and are perhaps
intended as a likeness of Licinius.39 In its initial
incarnation, the statue likely depicted one of the
Antonine emperors and traces of an original,
longer and fuller hairstyle are still visible on the
37 Museum, inv. 35 (formerly no. 315).
38 J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966) 86.
39 H.P. L’Orange (1984) 117.
nape of the neck. The head exhibits the long, oval
shape which characterizes likenesses of Commo-
dus and would appear to have been retained from
the original.40 Like the Chiaramonti and Mantua
portraits, Commodus’s rehabilitation complicates
the context surrounding its reuse, that is whether
it had been retrieved from a warehouse, or was
still displayed publicly in the Tetrarchic period.
The Removal of Commodus’s Images
Prior to his rehabilitation, images of Commodus
were also removed from public display. The great
number of portraits of Commodus which have
survived from antiquity indicate that his portraits
were warehoused and probably re-erected under
Septimius Severus. And indeed the archaeologi-
cal context of the well known portrait of Commo-
dus as Hercules in the Palazzo dei Conservatori,
confirms the warehousing of his images after his
overthrow (fig. 141).41 Originally part of a sculp-
tural group which included two flanking tritons,
the portrait is a replica of Commodus’s fifth and
final type and is remarkable for its fine state of
preservation.42 The bust is supported on a plinth
of alabaster, which is ancient and almost certainly
belongs with the portrait. The original, highly
polished surfaces of the marble are still preserved.
Minimal restorations to the portrait include small
40 J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966) 87.
41 Sala degli Arazzi (ex Galleria degli Orti Lamiani 12),
inv. 1120, h. 1.33 m.(excluding alabaster plinth); Fittschen-
Zanker I, 85-90, no. 78, pls. 91-94 (with earlier literature);
R. Hannah (1986) 357-42, pl. 22.1-2; M. Cima and E. La
Rocca, eds. (1986) 53-55 (M. Cima), 90-91, figs. 58-60 (M.
Bertoletti), 173, n. 14, 176-77 (C. Häuber), 202 (C. Usai);
N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 216-17, fig. 8.36; D.E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 277, figs. 243-44. The emperor wears a
lionskin, knotted on his chest and holds a club in his right
hand and the apples of the Hesperides in his extended left.
The bust is supported by a pelta shaped shield with a
gorgoneion. Two cornucopiae, which rest on a globe with
zodiacal signs, surround the shield. Two kneeling amazons,
only one of which is preserved, flank the globe and shield.
R. Hannah has suggested that the zodiacal signs refer to
the month of October, renamed Hercules by Commodus,
further reinforcing the Herculean imagery of the portrait,
(1986) 337-40.
42 Fittschen-Zanker I, 68.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
sections of the lion skin, the index, middle and
little fingers of the right hand, and sections of the
shield.43
The bust and tritons were discovered on 23
December 1874 in a cryptoporticus of the Horti
Lamiani on the Esquiline, together with other
pieces of sculpture.44 None of the sculpture found
in the cryptoporticus postdates the Commodan
period and all of it is remarkably well preserved.
It seems likely that the portrait was removed from
view and stored in the cryptoporticus after Com-
modus’s overthrow.45 During Pertinax’s tenure
as Augustus, it would have been neither accept-
able nor politically expedient to display images
of Commodus in the imperial gardens on the
Esquiline (now the property of the new emperor),
especially a highly charged representation of the
emperor as Hercules Romanus. The rest of the
statues are not homogenous in style or date and
do not form any sort of coherent sculptural pro-
gram. The cryptoporticus itself was restored and
richly decorated under Caligula.46 By Commo-
dus’s reign, the cryptoporticus appears to have
been used for the storage of sculpture no longer
being displayed in the imperial complex. The
latest archaeological find in the cryptoporticus is
a fistula with an inscription referring to Severus
Alexander.47 Severus Alexander built a bath com-
plex near the cryptoporticus and the discovery
of the pipe reinforces the hypothesis of a later
more utilitarian function for the structure. The
43 The left Amazon is entirely missing, while the right
Amazon lacks her head, right arm and left forearm. The
bottom of the right cornucopia is also gone. The Tritons
are well preserved from the waist up and their lower bod-
ies may have been executed in a colored marble. Traces
of gilding are still detectable on both Tritons. The left arm
and right forearm of the right triton are missing, as are the
right arm and left forearm of the left triton.
44 On the discovery of the portrait, see, R. Lanciani
(1897) 407; R. Lanciani (1901) 220; and C. Häuber in
M.Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986) 173, 176-77.
45 P.E. Visconti first proposed this theory shortly after
the sculptures’ discovery, (1875) 3-15.
46 M. Cima in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986)
54-55.
47 M. Cima in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986)
54-55. The inscription on the fistula reads: STATIONIS
PROPRIAE PRIVATAE DOMINI N. ALEXANDRI AVG.
141
bust of Commodus as Hercules is one of four
portraits of condemned emperors discovered in
the area of imperial residences on the Esquiline.48
The well documented archaeological context of
the portrait of Commodus provides invaluable in-
formation concerning the removal and storage of
images on imperial property as a result of damnatio
memoriae.
Another well-preserved portrait of Commodus,
a replica of his first type, was discovered in 1701
with other Antonine portraits near the imperial
holdings at Lanuvium.49 The bust length portrait
depicts the young Caesar with a paludamentum.
Minor sections of the drapery, some of the coif-
fure, and the tip of the nose have been restored.
The bust was found together with as many as six
other portraits50 including: a bust of Antoninus
Pius;51 a fragmentary bust of Faustina Maior;52
a bust of Marcus Aurelius;53 a bust of Faustina
Minor;54 a bust of Lucius Verus;55 and a bust of
“Annius Verus.”56 Recent excavations in the area
indicate that the ancient structures in which
these portraits were discovered were part of a
bath complex.57 It is unclear whether the bust of
48 In addition to the Commodus as Hercules, two por-
traits of Domitian: Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle
Terme, inv. 226, cat. 2.52, and Rome, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini 2.76, inv. 1156, su-
pra; and a portrait of Carinus, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Centrale Montemartini 2.83, inv. 850, infra.
49. Stanza degli Imperatori 60, inv. 454, h. 0.74 m.; ex
Collection Albani, A 32; Fittschen-Zanker I, 81-83, no. 74,
pl. 86-88, Beil. 96 (with earlier literature); D.E.E. Kleiner
(1992) 273, fig. 241; T. Weiss, ed. (1999) 123, no. 26, 150,
no. 75.
50. Fittschen-Zanker, I, 65, n. 1.
51 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 26,
inv. 446, Fittschen-Zanker I, 63-67, no. 59, pls. 67-69.
52 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 27,
inv. 447, Fittschen-Zanker III, 13-15, no. 13, pls. 15-16.
53 Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 29,
inv. 450, Fittschen-Zanker I, 68-69, no. 62 pls. 69, 71, 73.
54 Perhaps to be identified with Rome, Museo Capito-
lino, Galleria 56, inv. 250, Fittschen-Zanker III, 21-22, no.
20, pls. 27-29.
55 Probably to be identified with Rome, Museo
Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 31, inv. 452, Fittschen-
Zanker I, 79-81, no. 73, pls. 84-86.
56 Fittschen-Zanker IV, no. 28.
57 N. Cassieri, “La cosidetto Villa degli Antonini a
Genzano,” lecture delivered in October 1989 at the
Università di Roma.
142 chapter seven
Commodus was removed from display after his
damnatio, stored, and then returned to display after
his rehabilitation or whether, like the portraits of
Caligula from Crete and Iesi, and the boyhood
portraits of Nero from Velleia and Rusellae, it
continued to be displayed as part of the larger
group dedication, despite the damnatio.
The most compelling and dramatic evidence for
the removal of Commodus’s images occurs in the
series of relief panels honoring his father, Marcus
Aurelius.58 Figures of Commodus have been
entirely eradicated in the Triumph panel in the
Palazzo dei Conservatori (fig. 142a-c) and the
“Liberalitas” (largitio/congiarium) panel from the attic
of the Arch of Constantine (fig. 143a-b).59 The
triumph panel exhibits numerous signs that it has
been extensively recut.60 The two column bases
at the proper right of the temple facade in the
background of the relief are depicted differently
than those at the left; in addition, the steps have
been incorrectly extended beyond the front of the
building, along its right flank. Chisel marks vis-
ible below the steps and to the left of Marcus
Aurelius document the removal of the figure of
Commodus in this area. These roughened sur-
58 Eight of the panels were reused in the early fourth
century on the attic of the Arch of Constantine and three
panels were preserved until the early sixteenth century in
the church of S. Martina in the Forum Romanum and are
now displayed in the Palazzo dei Conservatori. A fragmen-
tary twelfth panel with a portrait of Marcus Aurelius ex-
ists in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (701, inv.
1471). M. Cagiano de Azevedo’s theory that the panels
reused on the arch of Constantine all originally honored
Commodus instead of Marcus Aurelius is impossible to
maintain in view of the fact that the figure of Commodus
has been entirely excised from one of these reliefs, the largitio
panel (1953-54) 207-10.
59 I.S. Ryberg (1967) (with earlier literature); E.
Angelicoussis (1984) 141-205 (with earlier literature); G.
Koeppel (1986) 47-76, nos 23-34 (with earlier literature);
E. La Rocca, ed.(1986) 38-52, pls. 1-3, pls. 23-47; S. De
Maria (1988) 303-5, no. 88, pls. 79-81; A. M. Sommella,
ed (1990) 12, with fig. (Triumph panel); D.E.E. Kleiner
(1992) 288-95, figs. 256-62.
60 The panel depicts Marcus Aurelius as triumphator
riding in a chariot. A flying Victory crowns the emperor
and a trumpet player points to an arch through which the
triumphal procession is about to move. A temple, perhaps
that of Fortuna Redux, is shown in the background above
the emperor’s chariot.M. Cafiero in E. La Rocca, ed. (1986)
39.
faces stand in stark contrast to the finishes used
elsewhere on the relief, but the discrepancy is not
visible when the relief is viewed from below.61
The left arm and side of Marcus Aurelius have
also been reworked and, as a result, they appear
truncated and unrealistically foreshortened.
Commodus accompanied his father in the tri-
umphal chariot, as co-celebrant in the triumph
of 176 which commemorated the victories over
the Marcomanni and Quadi,62 The entire lower
half of the second column at the proper right of
the temple door has been recut and establishes
the height of the missing figure of Commodus.63
Commodus’s image has been entirely chiseled out
of the relief. Originally, the goddess Victory
extended a laurel wreath in her left hand over
Commodus’s head; the wreath was erased to-
gether with Commodus, and, as a result, her arm
is awkwardly extended over the empty space at
Marcus’s left, and the fillets of the excised wreath
are left dangling in front of the far right column.
The eradication of Commodus from this panel,
which was originally designed as an overt glori-
fication of the military achievements of the fa-
ther and son, constitutes a powerful manifesta-
tion of abolitio memoriae.64 Quite literally, all visual
trace of Commodus has been removed from this
panel, and concomitantly, his military glory and
links to his revered father, Marcus Aurelius, have
been posthumously canceled and revoked.
Commodus has been similarly eradicated from
the Liberalitas relief on the Arch of Constantine.65
61 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 152, n. 52.
62 On the joint triumph HA Marc. 16.1 and Comm. 2.3-
5; 12.4-5; E. Angelicoussis also supplies numismatic evi-
dence, (1984) 152.
63 As examined by A. Claridge, E. Angelicoussis (1984)
152.
64 See F. Vittinghoff (1936) 64-74.
65 Marcus Aurelius is depicted sitting on a sella curulis.
A figure wearing a tunic stands in front of the emperor and
assists with the distribution of money. A togate figure stands
behind the emperor at his left. Two additional togate fig-
ures are represented directly behind the emperor. The base
upon which the figure at the proper left stands may indi-
cate that both of these togati are intended to represent stat-
ues, although this is far from certain (H. von Heintze [1969]
662-74; E. Angelicoussis, [1984] 158). The emperor and
attendant figures are depicted on a raised platform with a
colonnade at the back. Garlands are suspended between
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
A largitio, jointly distributed by M. Aurelius and
Commodus in 177, shortly after the joint triumph
of December 176, doubled the customary sum of
money and was intended as a spectacular celebra-
tion of the successful conclusion of the German
campaigns, Commodus’s first consulship, and his
assumption of the tribunician powers.66 Like the
triumph panel, this relief contains clear indica-
tions of its alteration. Beside Marcus on the plat-
form is the claw foot of a second sella curulis and
the remnants of Commodus’s own foot. In ad-
dition, much of the togate figure at the far left
of the platform has been recut. The relief height
is much lower along the figure’s right side and
most of the lower half of the body. The left hand
is disproportionately large and the shoulders are
too narrow for the size of the head.67 The drap-
ery in the recut areas is also more schematically
rendered and more cursorily finished than the
rest of the figures in the panel. The togatus in the
background behind Marcus Aurelius and to his
right has also been recut. The drapery of this
figure, below the knees, is in lower relief and
more roughly carved. The recut areas of these
figures allow the original position of Commodus
to be established with some certainty. Marks
caused by a small pick-axe between the feet of
the figure at the left of the platform, provide
further evidence for the excision of Commodus
from the relief.68 As with the triumph panel, the
remnants of Commodus’s foot and sella curulis, as
well as the awkward passages occasioned by the
recarving would not have been readily discern-
ible if the relief were seen from below. Again, the
complete obliteration of Commodus graphically
attests to his abolitio memoriae. In both panels, the
visual record of historical events has been entirely
rewritten: the joint triumph is altered into a single
triumph, and Commodus’s participation in the
liberalitas of 177 is effectively rescinded.
the columns. In the foreground of the relief three men, a
woman, and two children are represented receiving the
emperor’s largesse.
66 HA Marc. 27.4-5,Dio 71(72).32.1, and E. Angelicoussis
(1984) 157.
67 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 156.
68 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 156.
143
Strong evidence exists that portraits of Com-
modus were also erased from the imperial imag-
ines which decorate military standards in two
additional panels from the attic on the Arch of
Constantine. Imagines in the Lustratio and “Sub-
missio” (clementia) panels appear to have been
deliberately defaced and may originally have
represented Commodus as Caesar (figs. 144-
145).69 In the imago from the Lustratio panel, the
bust of Commodus is cuirassed and includes a
paludamentum. The bust form in the “Submissio”
panel is less well preserved, but also appears to
be cuirassed and with a paludamentum. In both
cases, the facial features of these imagines have
been deliberately obliterated.70 The destruction
of Commodus’s imagines additionally underscores
the meticulous care which was taken to remove
all visual trace of the condemned emperor from
the reliefs.71
The nature of the monument or monuments
for which the Aurelian panels were originally
intended has long been surrounded by scholarly
controversy.72 Nevertheless, E. Angelicoussis has
clearly demonstrated the difficulties inherent in
maintaining that the reliefs came from two sepa-
rate monuments.73 Almost certainly the reliefs
come from a single monument, most likely an
arch.74 Antonine column capitals reused on the
69 As first proposed by M. Wegner (1938) 180-86; E.
Angelicoussis (1984) 169. J. Ruysschaert (1962-63) 120-21
and I.S. Ryberg (1967) 3, 40-41, 62 and refute Wegner’s
theories, but largely on reasons of date and protocol in
regard to the use of imperial portraits on standards, rather
than the fairly convincing evidence of the imagines them-
selves. It seems entirely probable that portraits of
Commodus as Caesar could have been used, either alone
or in conjunction with other imperial portraits, on stan-
dards during his father’s reign. Commodus was appointed
Caesar in 166.
70 The defacement of these imagines is readily apparent
when they are compared to other imagines in which the faces
have survived.
71 The defacement of the imagines of Commodus, pre-
dicts the treatment of Geta’s imagines on standards depicted
on the Arch of the Argentarii.
72 For a review of earlier scholarship on the monument
or monuments, see E. Angelicoussis (1984) 159-74.
73 E. Angelicoussis (1984) 159-98.
74 E. Angelicoussis’s theories involving a tetrapylon
erected to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, for which
twelve panels honoring Commodus were entirely destroyed
144 chapter seven
Arch of Constantine and in the Porticus Deorum
Consentium in the Roman Forum, as well as the
panel reliefs, could have belonged to this puta-
tive arch, probably erected in 177 or slightly
later.75 If the reliefs were in place on the hypo-
thetical arch, it would have created logistical
problems for the artists charged with removing
the images of Commodus and recutting the re-
liefs, thus accounting for the somewhat awkward
results on the Triumph and Liberalitas panels.
However, no reliable numismatic, epigraphic,
as a result of his damnatio, are unwieldy. Her arguments
concerning directional theory do not hold up under close
scrutiny. Based on study of the Arch of Trajan at
Benevento, she has formulated a strictly symmetrical theory
concerning the position of the emperor in relief panels
decorating an arch (i.e, for every panel in which the em-
peror looks towards his right, there should be a correspond-
ing panel in which the emperor looks towards his left).
Unfortunately, the Benevento arch is the only preserved
arch which follows this theory. Later arches, such as the
arches of Septimius Severus in the Forum Romanum, his
arch at Lepcis Magna, and the Arch of Constantine do not
conform to this theory. In addition, it seems highly unlikely
that half of the arch’s relief decoration depicting Commodus
would have been entirely destroyed, while that commemo-
rating Marcus Aurelius was left on the monument ( [1984]
174-198). Rather, it seems much more likely that the
monument was decorated with twelve panels, for which
eleven are preserved intact, and a fragment of the twelfth
is in Copenhagen. In nine of the preserved panels, Marcus
Aurelius faces the proper left, and in the remaining two,
plus the Copenhagen fragment he faces right. The direc-
tion which the emperor faces, and the placement of the
panels on the putative arch may have been intended to lead
the viewer around and through the monument. If a single
bayed arch is posited, six of the left hand facing panels could
be used in the attic (two on each facade, and one on each
short side) encouraging the viewer to follow the emperor’s
direction around the arch. Thus the entire attic would be
read from right to left, all the way around the arch, re-
calling a continuous frieze or a line of text. A right hand
and a left hand panel would flank each bay, encouraging
the viewer to enter the bay. Within the bay itself, a right
and a left hand facing panel would decorate each interior
wall, inviting entry through the bay from the principal fa-
cade. Such a hypothetical reconstruction employs all the
preserved relief decoration and does not rely on possibly
lost panels. The column of Trajan uses the direction of the
sculpture to encourage the viewer to walk around the
monument counterclockwise and re-enact the funerary
circumabulatio. It is more than likely that the column had
some impact on the Aurelian panels.
75 On the column capitals, see P. Pensabene in P.
Pensabene and C. Panella, eds. (1999) 33-5.
literary or archaeological evidence has survived
for an arch erected to Marcus Aurelius in
Rome.76 The possibility cannot be discounted
that, like the Cancelleria Reliefs, the reliefs were
never installed on the monument for which they
were intended. The reuse of the eight reliefs on
the Arch of Constantine indicates that, if the
hypothetical arch had been erected it was either
in a grave state of disrepair, entirely destroyed,
or deliberately denuded of its sculpture at the
time of the erection of the Arch of Constantine
between 312 and 315. It is just as possible that
the panels were taken from a depot in which they
had been stored when it became clear that the
arch for which they had been created was never
going to be completed. The reliefs celebrate
events which took place as late as 177 (the joint
liberalitas) and the erection of the arch may have
been delayed by the return of Marcus Aurelius
and Commodus to the German frontier. Upon
Marcus’s death in 180 and Commodus’s return
to the capital, the function of the reliefs and the
arch may have been supplanted by the sculpted
column which Commodus posthumously com-
missioned for his father. Like the reliefs, the col-
umn commemorates Marcus Aurelius’s German
victories. The Historia Augusta explicitly states that
Commodus did not complete building projects
initiated by Marcus, and this may be further
evidence that the putative arch was never con-
structed.77 At the time of Commodus’s death,
there may have been a renewed attempt to use
the panels, thus accounting for the expurgation
of Commodus from the reliefs. The political cli-
mate under Septimius Severus who fostered the
rehabilitation of Commodus’s memory, may have
made the expurgated reliefs impossible to reuse.
In any case, whether the reliefs were in place on
a monument, or in storage, great care was taken
immediately after his assassination to remove all
visual references to Commodus.
76 A problematic and fragmentary inscription which
reads: “because, surpassing all the glories of the greatest
emperors before him, having wiped out or subjugated...”
ILS 374 may refer to or belong to an arch voted by the
senate in 176; A. Birley (1966) 271-2.
77 Comm. 17.7 : nec patris autem sui opera perfecit.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
Representations of Commodus were also fea-
tured on the Column of Marcus Aurelius.78 The
Column’s was begun in 180 and completed by
193.79 Although the reliefs refer to Marcus’s
German campaigns, they have not been rendered
with the same degree of historical specificity as
their counterparts on the Column of Trajan. The
more generic aspect of the scenes depicted on the
Aurelian column make the identification of in-
dividual episodes problematic. The reliefs are also
not as well preserved as those on the Column of
Trajan, which further complicates the accurate
identification of specific scenes and figures. How-
ever, scene 42 may represent Commodus’s as-
sumption of the toga virilis, which occurred at the
battlefront on 7 July 175 .80 Marcus Aurelius is
depicted laying his right hand on the head of a
smaller figure. The smaller figure may be
Commodus. The scene is very badly weathered
and it is impossible to determine if Commodus’s
portrait features were deliberately defaced,
recarved in antiquity, or left intact. Nevertheless,
it is apparent that the figure, if Commodus,
was not entirely removed, as in the Aurelian
panels.
A figure of Commodus may also have been
represented on the reliefs which originally deco-
78 C. Caprino, A.M. Colini, G. Gatti, M. Pallottino, and
P. Romanelli (1955) (with earlier literature); G. Becatti
(1957); G. Becatti (1960); G. Koeppel (1981) 501-3 (with
earlier literature); E. Angelicoussis (1984) 144; D.E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 295-301, figs. 263-68.
79 CIL 6.1585 = ILS 5920.
80 HA,Marc. 22.12, Comm. 2.2; Dio, 71(72).22.2; J.W.
Morris (1952) 41; C.C. Vermeule (1956) 316. This may
have been the only scene in which Commodus appeared.
The section of the column before this scene probably re-
fers to events prior to Commodus’s joining the campaigns.
Vermeule has correctly pointed out that the later scenes
on the column, which come after the toga virilis episode are
presented more as “mopping up” episodes rather than im-
portant victories, (1956) 317. Commodus appears to have
deliberately played down the seriousness of the second
phase of the war (177-80) in order to justify his own aban-
donment of the German campaigns after Marcus’s death.
For this reason, the scenes from the upper third of the
column are not depicted as heroic battles requiring the
participation of the emperor(s) but rather as minor skir-
mishes (and foreign emigrations). Vermeule also points out
that imperial portraits would hardly have been visible in
the upper sections of the column, ibid.
145
rated the base of the Column.81 These reliefs
were chiseled off the base during the restoration
of the Column carried out by Domenico Fontana
under Sixtus V. However, the original appear-
ance of the reliefs is preserved in drawings ex-
ecuted by EneaVico, Francisco d’Hollanda, Gio-
vanni Antonio Dosio, and Itienne du PJrac prior
to their removal. One side of the base depicted
Marcus Aurelius wearing a cuirass and paluda-
mentum receiving or granting clemency to kneel-
ing foreigners. A youthful, beardless figure stands
between the emperor and the barbarians, and
may be Commodus. The reliefs were not well
preserved when Vico recorded them, and his
renditions are fairly schematic. As on the column
itself, it is hard to determine what, if anything,
was done to the putative figure of Commodus as
a result of the damnatio. Nevertheless, it is appar-
ent that the figure from the base was not removed
in its entirety.
In contrast, the conspicuous absence of any
mention of Commodus in the portrait dedications
from the Caserma dei Vigili at Ostia provides
additional confirmation for the removal of his
three-dimensional images. The building housed
the Vigili of Ostia and included a small room
(caesareum) devoted to imperial dedications. The
preserved statue bases from this room commemo-
rate Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius (two bases),
Lucius Verus, and Septimius Severus (originally
dedicated to Commodus).82 It is likely that Com-
modus’s statue was removed from the series in
response to his damnatio and never replaced af-
ter the rehabilitation of his memory.
Further corroboration for the removal of
Commodus’s images is provided by Herodian
who records that a statue of Commodus as an
archer which had been erected in front of the
Curia was replaced with a representation of
Libertas.83 As noted earlier, Commodus remod-
eled the Colossus of Nero into a representation
of himself in the guise of Hercules by reconfig-
81 G. Becatti (1962) 51-3, pl. 5; G. Becatti (1972) 66-
68; A. Bonanno (1976) 139.
82 C. Pavolini (1983) 59.
83 1.14.9-15.1.
146 chapter seven
uring the existing head with his own likeness
(Colossi autem caput demsit...ac suum imposuit); a club,
a lion (or lionskin) and an accompanying inscrip-
tion were also added to the statue, as identify-
ing attributes of Commodus-Hercules.84 The
Commodan additions to the colossus were re-
moved as part of the condemnation following his
assassination.
E. Knauer has suggested that the Campidoglio
bronze equestrian portrait of Marcus Aurelius
may have had a pendant equestrian portrait of
Commodus, and, if so, this likeness also may also
have been removed from public view as a result
of the damnatio.85 The sharp turn of both the
emperor’s and the horse’s heads to the right
supports Knauer’s hypothesis of a pendant im-
age. The statue(s) may have originally decorated
a complex associated with the equites singulares on
the Caelian.86 If the hypothetical statue of Com-
modus were indeed displayed in such a military
setting, it is highly likely to have been removed
and melted down immediately after his assassi-
nation and damnatio.
A portrait of Commodus as Hercules may also
have been removed from the handle of a silver
patera in Britain.87 The handle was part of a sil-
ver hoard discovered in 1747 at Capheaton,
Northumberland.88 A relief bust, identifiable as
Hercules because of the knotted ends of the
lionskin which are still visible, has been deliber-
ately removed from the handle. A skyphus and
club flank the space where the bust originally
appeared.89 M. Rostovetzeff has suggested that,
since the bust had been deliberately removed
from the handle, it may have represented Com-
84 HA Comm. 17.9-10; Dio 72 (73).22.3; Herod. 1.15.9;
ChronPasch (Bonn ed.I 492) A.D. 187.
85 (1990) 300, n. 88.
86 E. Knauer (1990) 280-81.
87 London, British Museum; M. Rostovtzeff (1923) 100,
pl. 5.
88 M. Rostovetzeff (1923) 99.
89 Below the space appear the slain bodies of the Ery-
mathian boar, the Lernaean hydra, and the Stymphalian
birds, and the serpent Ladon encircling the tree of the
Hesperides, with a burning altar at its base. The medal-
lion which decorated the center of the patera depicts
Hercules and Antaeus.
modus-Hercules.90 The way in which the lion-
skin is knotted is also similar to the Conservatori
bust of Commodus as Hercules, as well as to
numismatic representations of the emperor in the
guise of Hercules. The imagery on the patera
emphasizes aspects of Hercules, namely hunting
and athletic prowess, which Commodus particu-
larly promoted. The style of the reliefs is also
compatible with a late Antonine date.91 If the
bust did represent Commodus as Hercules, then
its removal suggests that Commodus’s damnatio
was widespread throughout the Empire immedi-
ately following his assassination and extended to
small scale domestic objects.
The removal of Commodus’s sculpted and
relief images is paralleled by the erasure of his
name in inscriptions. Commodus’s name and
titles have been excised in numerous inscriptions,
including a dedication to Hercules in the Vatican
in which Septimius Severus’s name has been
substituted for that of Commodus.92 Severus’s
name has also replaced that of Commodus in an
inscription at Lepcis Magna which marked the
restoration of the Forum Baths.93 The replace-
ment of Commodus’s name with that of Severus
is especially unusual in light of Severus’s deifi-
cation of Commodus, and underscores again the
wide variability which existed in responses to any
given condemnation on the part of municipali-
ties and individuals. A statue base from Pozzuoli,
which was eventually dedicated to Crispus, origi-
nally may have honored Commodus and been
erased following his damnatio.94 The erasure of
Commodus’s name was also carried out in less
90 M. Rostovetzeff (1923) 100.
91 In addition a second handle from the hoard has a
female bust which Rostovetzeff identifies as an empress,
“perhaps Marcia,” in the guise of Juno, (1923) 100, 101,
pl. 5.3; If so, this would be a highly unusual representa-
tion of a mistress of a Roman emperor, since Marcia was
not, in fact, an empress (augusta), nor was she formally
married to Commodus. The portrait features of the bust
are fairly generic, and it may represent Crispina, rather
than Marcia.
92 A.E. Gordon and J.S. Gordon (1965) 159-61, no. 252;
A.M. McCann (1968)) 87, n. 16.
93 I.M. Barton (1981) 3-12;A. Birley (1988) 148.
94 Crispus’s name was also erased after his downfall, S.
Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 50.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
public dedications, including a Saturn stela from
North Africa.95
The Rehabilitation of Commodus’s Memory
After the murder of Pertinax on 28 March 193,
Didius Julianus, in his bid for imperial power,
promised the praetorian guard that he would
restore the memory of Commodus (Commodi me-
moriam resituturum)96 and re-erect the portraits
which the Senate had ordered removed.97 Per-
suaded by Didius Julianus, the praetorians saluted
him as emperor and added Commodus to his
names.98 The rehabilitation of Commodus’s
memory and the restoration of his monuments
which took place under Didius Julianus indicate
that the removal and destruction of Commodus’s
portraits and inscriptions was essentially limited
to the three month reign of Pertinax.
Septimius Severus, the successor of Didius
Julianus, avidly supported the rehabilitation of
Commodus’s memory. Septimius Severus had
himself posthumously adopted into the Antonine
gens as the son of Marcus Aurelius. His promo-
tion of Commodus’s memory was also clearly
intended to provoke the Senate, who had failed
to initially support Severus’s claims to the
principate.99 Not content with merely restoring
the memory of Commodus and revoking the
damnatio, Septimius Severus forced the Senate to
deify Commodus formally in 197, only four years
after they had officially condemned him.100 The
deification was publicly commemorated on coins
with the legend Consecratio.101 In addition, Com-
modus was voted a flamen Herculaneus Commodianus
and his birthday was celebrated.102 In posthu-
mous inscriptions, Commodus is referred to as
divus and the frater of Septimius Severus.103
95 M.. Le Glay (1961) 47, no. 35.
96 HA Did. 2.6.
97 Herodian, 2.6.10.
98 Dio, 74(74).12.1; Herodian, 6.11.
99 A.M. McCann (1968) 62;A. Birley (1988) 127-28.
100 HA Sev. 11.3-4; 12.8.
101 Cohen 32 294, no. 61, 359, nos 1009-1010.
102 HA Comm. 17.11-12.
103 For example, the dedicatory inscription from the
147
The rehabilitation insured that many portraits
of Commodus were re-erected and help to ac-
count for the large number of his extant im-
ages.104 Commodus’s name is also restored in
inscriptions where it had been erased.105 In ad-
dition, stylistic and iconographic analysis suggests
that four variants of Commodus’s first portrait
type are creations of the Severan period. The
linear and schematic treatment of the coiffure of
an over life-sized portrait of the young Com-
modus as Sol in the Terme, is consonant with a
Severan rather than an Antonine date.106 Five
holes have been drilled in the coiffure, for the
addition of the radiate crown of Sol. The physi-
ognomy is also more idealized than most type 1
portraits of Commodus which further supports
the identification of the Terme likeness as a
divinized image of the emperor.
Although badly weathered, an under life-sized
head in Ostia is similar to the Terme portrait in
its idealizing treatment of the facial features (fig.
146).107 The coiffure is even more schematically
rendered than the Terme head and lacks the rich
drillwork characteristic of Antonine portraiture.
The miniature scale of the head suggests that it
was displayed in a lararium.108 Septimius Severus’s
promotion of the cult of the deified Commodus
would have necessitated the creation of new
images of Commodus for display in public or
private shrines as demonstrations of loyalty for
the reigning dynasty.
theater at Ostia, a statue base in the Cortile della Pigna
of the Vatican, and CIL 8.9317.
104 In addition to the numerous sculpted portraits of
Commodus which have survived, at least five ancient gem
portraits can be attributed to him, W.R. Megow (1987) 237-
39, nos. A 137 - A 141, pls. 45.12-13, 48.8, 48.7.
105 See, for instance IG 22.1113; D.J. Geagan (1979) 407.
Septimius also reinstitued the Komodeia celebrated by the
ephebes at Athens, ibid. 406.
106 Magazzini, inv. 56128, h. 0.38 m.; A. Ciofarelli,
MusNazRom 1.9.2, 300-303, no. R225, with figs (with ear-
lier literature). The treatment of the coiffure at the back
of the head, as long, wavy locks, is also atypical of portraits
of Commodus’s first type, but recalls portraits of Geta’s first
type, further supporting a Severan date.
107 Museo, Sala 6, vetrina a destra, 2, inv. 270, h. 0.105
m.; R. Calza (1977) 23, no. 21, pl. 17 (with earlier litera-
ture); M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 86.
108 R. Calza (1977) 23.
148 chapter seven
Two additional portraits, in Florence109 and
Venice110 closely resemble the Terme and Os-
tia heads. The handling of the eyes in the Flo-
rence image, with their wide, arching brows and
upward gaze strongly recalls the Terme portrait,
as does the treatment of the coiffure. The coif-
fure of the Venice likeness is schematic and not
deeply drilled. The bland expression and ideal-
ized facial features are similar to the Ostian
portrait. The strong similarities in the treatment
of the coiffure and youthful physiognomies of the
four posthumous type 1 portraits of Commodus
visually link them to contemporary type 1 por-
traits of Caracalla and Geta. Like the names
which Caracalla adopted upon his accession as
Caesar in 195 (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus), these
affinities underscore the forged adoptive ties
between the Severan and Antonine dynasties
and help to explain the posthumous revival
of Commodus’s earliest, most youthful portrait
type.
An under life-sized replica of Commodus’s
fourth portrait type in Ostia appears to have been
refashioned as an image of Commodus-Sol in the
Severan period.111 Like the Terme portrait, holes
have been drilled in the top of the head for the
addition of the radiate crown of Sol. Discovered
in the Thermopolium on the Via Diana in 1915,
the image is in excellent condition and may have
been displayed in the Thermopolium, following
the rehabilitation of Commodus’s memory.112
109 Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.195, h. 0.27 m. (head);
G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 104-105, no. 128 (with earlier lit-
erature); M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 80. The head is
displayed on a bust to which it does not belong. The piece
was acquired from the Salviati Collection in 1780.
110 Museo Archeologico, Sala 10, inv. 182, h. 0.39 m.;
G. Traversari (1968) 79-80, no. 62, pl. with fig. (with ear-
lier literature); M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 97. The
portrait is also displayed on a bust form to which it does
not belong. The Venice portrait was part of the Grimani
Legacy of 1586 and is presumably from Rome.
111 Ostia, Museo, Sala VI, inv. 1128, 0.24 m.; R. Calza
(1977) 24, no. 23, pl. 18 (with earlier literature); M. Wegner
and R. Unger (1980) 86; Fittschen-Zanker I, 84. The head
is worked for insertion into a small bust or statuette.
112 A terracotta and stucco portrait, offered for sale at
the Merrin Gallery in New York (June 1992) may be a
depiction of Commodus as Sol. If so, its style suggests that
it is also a product of the Severan period.
Another posthumous representation of Com-
modus has survived in a private funerary context.
Commodus appears to be represented in an imago
from a standard depicted on a funerary altar of
c. 205.113 A centurion of the Praetorian Guard
is shown sacrificing on the front of the altar. The
two corinthian pilasters which flank the centu-
rion are elaborated with signa. The imago from the
left standard apparently depicts Marcus
Aurelius.114 The imago on the right is less well
preserved, but depicts a male wearing the tunic
of the traveling soldier, the paenula. The paenula
was a favorite garment of Commodus and it is
probable that he is presented in the right imago.115
The appearance of an imago of Commodus on the
altar provides evidence for the use of his portraits,
in private contexts, in the Severan period.
Lucilla
Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla, the sister of
Commodus, was born on 7 March A.D. 149.116
In A.D. 164 she married her father’s co-emperor,
Lucius Verus and the couple had one daughter,
born in A.D. 166.117 At the time of her marriage,
Lucilla received the title of Augusta. After the
death of Verus in A.D. 169, Lucilla married her
father’s confidant, Tiberius Claudius Pompeia-
nus.118 After her brother’s accession to the
principate, Lucilla became involved in a plot to
assassinate him (Vita Commodi Quadratum e Lucillam
113 Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Lapidaria, 29.163,
inv. 9330; D.E.E. Kleiner (1987) 264-66, no. 120, pl. 46.3-
4 (with earlier literature).
114 D.E.E. Kleiner (1987) 265.
115 HA Comm. 16.6; L.M. Wilson (1938) 92; D.E.E.
Kleiner (1987) 265.
116 IGR 1.1509; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 67-69,
no. 54.
117 Dio 72(73).4.4; Fronto, Ep. 2.4. CIL 6.360=ILS 366;
M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 140-41, no. 133; although
only one daughter is attested historically or epigraphically,
K. Fittschen has proposed that Lucilla had another daugh-
ter and a son on the basis of numismatic evidence (1982)
74-81.
118 HA Marc. 20.6-7; HA Carac. 3.8; Dio, 72(73).4.5;
Herod. 1.6.4; 1.8.3.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
compulit ad eius interfectionem consilia inire)119 and she
was exiled to Capri where she was eventually
executed in A.D. 182.120 Commodus’s wife
Crispina was also implicated in the conspiracy
and several others co-conspirators were killed
including Lucilla’s stepson, Claudius Pompeianus
Quintianus and Quadratus.121
Lucilla’s Portrait Typology
Lucilla’s initial portrait type was probably cre-
ated at the time of her betrothal in A.D. 162 or
at the time of the marriage in 164.122 The type
depicts her with youthful facial features and a
Melonenfrisur with the hair waved gently around
the face, and large, rolled plaits, usually three in
number, running diagonally along the side of the
head and gathered into a small bun on the nape
of the neck.
Lucilla’s second type depicts her with more
mature facial features, including the heavily lid-
ded eyes common in portraits of her mother,
father, and brother. The Melonenfrisur is replaced
with a centrally parted and waved hairstyle,
drawn into a bun on the nape of the neck, in-
tended to recall the coiffures worn by her mother,
Faustina Minor. This type was likely introduced
to celebrate the birth of her daughter Aurelia in
A.D. 166.123
119 HA.Comm.4.1-2; see also Dio 72(73).4.5; Herod.
1.8.4-6; E.R. Varner (2001b)
120 HA.Comm.4.4, 5.7; Dio 72(73).4-6; Herod. 1.8-9.
121 HA. Comm. 4.4 also mentions Norbana, Norbanus,
and Paralius and that the mother of Paralius was exiled
with Lucilla. In addition, the author of the Historia Augusta
indicates that the praetorian praefect, Tarrutenius Paternus
was involved in the plot, Comm. 4.2. and he was also ex-
ecuted, perhaps in A.D. 182, Dio 72(73) 5.1-2; Herod.
1.9.1-9. The wealthy brothers S. Quintilius Condianus and
S. Quintilius Valerianus Maximus, were also implicated and
their magnificent suburban villa between the Via Latina
and the Via Appia was expropriated Comm. 4.2, 4.4.7-10.
122 On Lucilla’s portrait typology, see most recently, K.
Fittschen in Fittschen-Zanker III, 24-6, nos. 24-5.
123 Fittschen-Zanker III, 25.
149
The Mutilation and Destruction of Lucilla’s Images
As was the case with representations of Messalina
in the first century, Lucilla’s sculpted likenesses
were also intentionally attacked in response to her
condemnation, as attested by a fragmentary
statue of Lucilla’s second type in the Palazzo dei
Conservatori (Centrale Montemartini 3.85) (cat.
6.10; fig. 147).124 Lucilla is portrayed as Venus
Genetrix, with shoulder locks, diadem, and drap-
ery slipping off her right shoulder, imagery es-
pecially appropriate after the birth of her daugh-
ter. The portrait has suffered considerable
damage and is only preserved from the breast up.
Modern restorations mask the destruction of the
nose, mouth, chin, much of the left side of the
face, and the neck. The portrait was discovered
in 1901 on the Quirinal and evidence of a lead
fistula from the site suggests that by 203-5, the
area comprised a domus and gardens belonging
to Plautianus, the kinsman and Praetorian
Praefect of Septimius Severus.125 The domus con-
tained many other sculptural remains, and the
Lucilla was found together with a deliberately
damaged portrait of Macrinus. The divine ico-
nography of the image may have rendered it
entirely inappropriate for continued display and
especially liable to vandalism after Lucilla’s ex-
ecution. After its destruction, the portrait was
apparently stored at the domus.
A second fragmentary portrait statue of Lucilla
with divine attributes, this one depicting the
Augusta as Ceres in Guelma, was also deliberately
defaced after her death (cat. 6.8; fig. 148).126 Only
the upper section of the statue, a replica of
Lucilla’s first portrait type, has been preserved.
The facial features have been attacked with a
hammer and chisel, obliterating most of the right
eye, the nose, mouth, and chin. The remainder
of the Guelma statue is well-preserved, underscor-
124 Formerly, Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv. 1781 (Cen-
trale Montemartini 3.85).
125 The inscription on the fistula.reads: C. Fulvius
Plautianus praef(ectus) pr(aetorio), v(ir) c(larissius). On Plautinus,
see, infra; On the house, see E. Kissi Caronna and W. Eck
in M. Steinby, ed. (1995) 105-6; and F. Astolfi (1998) 33-9.
126 Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396.
150 chapter seven
ing the deliberate nature of its destruction. The
image was discovered during excavations of the
Forum of Madauros (in Roman Mauretania),
where it is likely to have been originally displayed.
After its destruction, it may have been buried or
stored in the area of the Forum.
A colossal portrait from the Forum at Smyrna
has been similarly mutilated (cat. 6.9; fig. 149).127
The facial features have been obliterated with a
chisel, resulting in the T-shaped damage so char-
acteristic of deliberately disfigured images. The
portrait provides important additional evidence
for the violent anthropomorphic assaults on
portraits as sculptural surrogates for the con-
demned’s physical body (see especially cat. nos.
1.3; and 7.12). As principal sensory organs espe-
cially associated with identity, the eyes have
actually been gouged out of the face of the
Smyrna image. In both the Smyrna and Guelma
likenesses, the obliteration of the sensory organs
deprives them of any sentient power as effigies.
In addition, both likenesses demonstrate that wide
geographical scope of the destruction of her
images. Both portraits were situated within the
public context of civic fora which may suggest
their continued exposition as mutilated images,
at least for a time, following Lucilla’s downfall.
The Transformation of Lucilla’s Images
Like the portraits of Caligula, Nero, and Domi-
tian which were not reused until the third or
fourth centuries, two seated portraits of Lucilla
as Venus, not recarved until the fourth century,
further confirm the practice of warehousing
images. These portraits, in the Museo Capitolino
(cat. 6.12; fig. 150a-b)128 and the Uffizi (cat.6.11;
fig. 151a-b),129 are well known as representations
of Helena, the mother of Constantine, but they
have in fact been transformed from earlier like-
nesses of Lucilla. Although the coiffures in both
portraits have undergone a comprehensive re-
127 Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694.
128 Stanza degli Imperatori 59, inv. 496.
129 Inv. 1914.171.
working into conflations of Helena’s Scheitel-
zopffrisur and Haarkranzfrisur, clear traces of the
deep vertical waves of Lucilla’s second portrait
type are still visible in each image.130 The
Imperatori portrait has been substantially cut
back behind both ears, where roughened surfaces
remain as well as on the back of the neck and
head. The volume of head has also been drasti-
cally reduced, causing it to be too small in pro-
portion to the seated body. As with the fragmen-
tary representation of Lucilla as Venus from the
Quirinal, these impressive seated images of the
empress in the guise of the goddess would have
been wholly unsuitable for display after her con-
demnation and were undoubtedly warehoused
until their reuse in the Constantinian period.
Helena’s hairstyles, and Constantinian female
coiffures in general, can physically resemble and
deliberately evoke both Antonine hairstyles and
the perceived “golden age” of the second century.
Physical similarities between Antonine and
Constantinian hairstyles would have facilitated
the sculptural reconfiguration of Lucilla’s images.
The actual transformation of Lucilla’s coiffure
into Helena’s arrangements with the Haarkranz
(hair crown) closely resembles that of the
“Poppaea Albani” in the Palazzo dei Conser-
vatori which itself is an Antonine portrait prob-
ably recut to represent an empress (Aelia Flacilla
or Galla Placidia?) at the end of the fourth cen-
tury, ca. 400.131 The Lucilla-Helena transforma-
tion is also conceptually comparable to the por-
traits of Marcus Aurelius recut to Constantine on
the Aurelian panels from the Arch of Constan-
tine, part of a programmatic attempt to visually
link Constantine and his family to the good
emperors and empresses of the second century.
F.P. Arata has proposed a date of 324, the year
in which Helena received the title of Augusta, or
326, the year in which Constantine celebrated his
vicennalia in Rome, for the refashioning of the
130 On Helena’s hairstyles, see most recently F.P. Arata
(1993) 190-92.
131 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala dei Capitani, inv. 404,
h. 0.24 m; Fittschen-Zanker III, 118-19, pls. 209-10, color
plate (with earlier literature); J. Meischner (1993).
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
Capitoline statue and the same may be true for
the Uffizi image.132
The Removal of Lucilla’s Images
During her ascendancy as the wife of Lucius
Verus, Lucilla would have been commemorated
with numerous sculpted portraits, given her fre-
quent appearance on coins of this period.133 As
a consequence of her condemnation, Lucilla’s
images were necessarily removed from public
display, in addition to being intentionally disfig-
ured. Like her damaged portrait from the house
of Plautianus, the archaeological context of a type
1 portrait in the Conservatori further corrobo-
rates the warehousing of Lucilla’s images (fig.
152).134 The likeness formed part of a sculptural
cache from another important domus near the
Colosseum whose pieces were eventually incor-
porated into a garden wall of the Villa Rivaldi;
the cache also included a portrait of Otacilia
Severa (fig. 206).135 Other well-preserved por-
132 (1993) 200.
133 RIC 3, 275-276, nos. 755-792, 252-55, nos. 1728-
1781, pls. 11.234-38, 13.263; BMCRE 4, 568-81, nos. 1140-
1228, pls. 76.8-13, 77.1-15, 78.1-7; Herodian also records
that Marcus allowed her to retain her imperial insignia after
the death of Verus and Commodus continued this prac-
tice.1.8.4.
134 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.25, inv.
2766 (Centrale Montemartini 2.91), h. 0.21; Fittschen-
Zanker III, 24-5, no. 24, pl. 33 (with previous literature);
K. Fittschen in D.E.E. Kleiner and S.B. Matheson, eds.
(1996) 44, fig. 9.
135 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.23, inv
2765 (Centrale Montemartini 2.95). On the discovery of
the sculpture, see D. Mustili (1933) 89, 109, no. 15, fig.
14; M. Bertoletti, M. Cima, E. Talamo, eds. (1997) 81; In
addition to the portrait of Otacilia Severa, the cache in-
cluded four other imperial images: Antinous, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala X, inv. 2305 (Centrale
Montemartini 2.89) (Fittschen-Zanker I, 61-62, no. 56, pls.
63-4); Septimius Severus, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo
Nuovo, Sala X, inv. 2309 ((Centrale Montemartini 2.92)
(Fittschen-Zanker I, 94-5, no. 82, pl. 101-102); and Cara-
calla, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala X, inv.
2310 (Centrale Montemartini 2.93) (Fittschen-Zanker I,
105-8, no. 91, pls. 110-12). Five private portraits were also
part of the cache: private male portrait, inv. 2302 (Centrale
Montemartini 2.96) (Fittschen-Zanker II, no. 150); a lost
Gallienic male portrait (D. Mustili [1933] 100, no. 8, fig
7; late Antonine-early Severan female portrait, Museo
151
traits of Lucilla are also likely to have been re-
moved from public display and stored or buried
following her condemnation and include like-
nesses in Dresden,136 [Istanbul,137], London,138
Munich,139 the Louvre,140 Ostia,141the Villa
Albani,142 Tripoli,143 and Tunis,144 Dresden,145
and Berlin.146
Crispina
The date of Bruttia Crispina’s birth is not known,
but she was the daughter of Lucius Fulvius Rus-
ticus Gaius Bruttius Praesens and married
Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 6268 (Centrale Montemartini
2.90)(Fittschen-Zanker III, 85, no. 117, pl. 148 ); mid-late
Severan female portrait, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv.
6259 (Fittschen-Zanker III, 107, no. 158, pl. 185); late
Severan female portrait, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv.
6270 (Centrale Montemartini 2.94) (Fittschen-Zanker III,
106-7, no. 156, pl. 184. Other sculpture from the Villa
Rivaldi, also presumably from the domus, was acquired in
1780 by Pius VI for the Vatican, see G. Spinola (1996) 72,
no. LAO 6, 114, no. PER 7, 133-4, no. 32(?), 158-9, no.
100.
136 Staatliche Skulpturensammlung (type 1); K. Fittschen
(1982) 75-6, no. 1 (with earlier literature).
137 Archaeological Museum inv. 4038 (colossal type 1
fragment from the Temple of Artemis at Sardis); K. Fitt-
schen (1982) 77, no. 1 (with earlier literature).
138 British Museum, inv. 1912 (type 1); K. Fittschen
(1982) 75-6, no. 2, pl. 44.1-4 (with earlier literature).
139. Residenz, inv. 86, h. 0.255 m. (type 1); K. Fittschen
(1982) 75-6, no. 3, pl. 46.3-4; H. Frosien Leinz in G. Hojer,
ed. (1987) 343-45, no. 211, pl. 240 (with earlier literature).
140 MA 1171 (type 1, from Carthage); K. Fittschen
(1982) 76, no. 8, pl. 47.1-2 (with earlier literature); K. de
Kersauson (1996) 280-281, no. 127 (with figs.).
141 Museo, inv. 27; h. 0.31 m. (type 1, from the Tem-
pietto Tetrastilo, perhaps originally representing the em-
press as Hygeia); K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 4; T. Mickoki
(1995) 207-8, no. 395 (with earlier literature).
142 inv. 745 (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 6 (with
earlier literature).
143 Museum (type 2, from Lepcis Magna); K. Fittschen
(1982) 76, no. 9 (with earlier literature)
144 Musée du Bardo 3655(2), (Ceres statue from the
Theater at Bulla Regia); K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 10;
T. Mickoki (1995) 207, no. 391, pl. 7 (with earlier litera-
ture).
145 Staatliche Skulpturensammlung (type 2 Venus
statue); K. Fittschen (1982) 78-9, no. 1, pl. 48.1-2 (with
earlier literature).
146 Staatliche Museen (type 2); K. Fittschen (1982) 79,
no. 3, pl. 48.3 (with earlier literature).
152 chapter seven
Commodus in A.D. 178, after the latter had been
raised to the rank of Augustus by Marcus
Aurelius.147 At the time of her marriage, Crispina
received the title of Augusta,148 but by A.D. 182
Crispina was exiled to Capri on charges of adul-
tery.149 Although Dio indicates that she was ex-
ecuted that same year, epigraphic evidence
suggests that she may not have been murdered
until A.D. 187 or as late as 191/92.150 Crispina
was banished in the same year and to the same
island, Capri, as Lucilla. Although he does not
connect the two events, Dio mentions Crispina’s
exile and execution in his account of Lucilla’s
plot, which strongly suggests that Crispina her-
self was implicated in the conspiracy to overthrow
her husband Commodus.
Crispina’s Portrait Typology
As Augusta, Crispina was extensively honored with
public images, during the last two years of Mar-
cus’s reign and the initial years of her hus-
band’s.151 Crispina’s images fall into two portrait
types, in use during the four year period before
her exile.152 The first type commemorates her
marriage to Commodus in A.D. 178. The coif-
fure of this type is the Stirnrollen-melonenfrisur which
combines the typical Melonenfrisur with a heavy
rolled plait which is parted over the center of the
forehead and surrounds the face. The plaits on
the side of the head are four or five in number
147 HA. Marc. 27.8; Comm 5.9; Dio 71(72).33.1; Herod.
1.8.4; CIL 8.2366 = ILS 405; CIL 10.408 = ILS 1117; M.T.
Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 249-50, no. 149. E.R.Varner,
(2001 2) 76-78. Crispina came from an illustrious aristo-
cratic family, which gained prominence under the Flavians,
see B.W. Jones (1992) 176.
148 CIL 3.12487; CIL 8.2366 = ILS 405; CIL 8.16350
= ILAlg 3032; CIL 8.22689 = IRT 2; CIL 10. 408 = ILS
1117 = II 3.3.18; IGR 4.935.
149 HA.Comm. 5.9; Dio 72(73).4.6.
150 CIL 3.12487; CIL 8.16530 = ILAlg 3032; CIL 22689
= IRT 2.
151 See Herod. 1.8.4 on Crispina taking precedence over
Lucilla; For Crispina’s coinage see: BMCRE 4, 765-69, nos.
406-441, pl. 102.1-15.
152 Type 1: K. Fittschen (1982) 82-86, nos. 1-11, pls.
49-52; Type 2: K. Fittschen (1982) 86- 88, nos. 1-6, pls,
53-6.
and are drawn up into a large bun which covers
much of the back of the head. The ears are left
uncovered. Crispina’s forehead is straight, her
eyes long and almond shaped, her nose short, and
her mouth is small and full. The coiffure is a
precursor to the coiffures of the wife and daughter
of Didius Julianus, Manlia Scantilla and Didia
Clara, as well as the Helmfrisuren of Julia Domna
and Plautilla.
Crispina’s second type marks Commodus’s
accession in A.D. 180. The Stirnrollen-melonenfrisur
is replaced by an entirely new coiffure in which
the hair is gently waved, parted in the center, and
again drawn up into a large bun. The hair de-
scends low on the nape of the neck and entirely
covers the ears. The physiognomy is comparable
to the first type.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Crispina’s Images
Crispina’s images were attacked and damaged
after her downfall, either at the time of her ban-
ishment, or at the time of her death. The facial
features of a type 1 portrait from Rome have
been substantially obliterated (cat. 6.17)153 as have
those from a type 1 portrait from Ostia (cat.
6.15).154 Modern restorations to portraits in the
Uffizi (cat. 6.14)155 and Castle Howard (cat. 6.13)
appear to mask intentional ancient mutilation.
The eyes, nose, mouth and chin the bust length
type 2 replica in the Uffizi have all been restored.
The eyes, nose and portions of the mouth in the
type 1 Castle Howard portrait have also been
similarly restored. Excluding the deliberate dis-
figurement of the facial features, the remaining
elements of both portraits are very well preserved.
The fragmentary state of another likeness from
Ostia, a replica of Crispina’s Type 2, were prob-
ably caused by blows dealt to the portrait dur-
ing demonstrations against Crispina’s images (cat.
6.16; fig. 153).156 The damaged likeness was
153 Formerly in the Magazzini of the Domus Aurea.
154 Magazzini, Sala 1, inv. 452.
155 Inv. 1914.13.
156 Magazzini, Sala 7, inv. 1954.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
reused as construction material near the Capito-
lium at a later period.157 Similarly, the rear sec-
tion of another Type 2 portrait from Rome is
possibly a surviving fragment from a vandalized
likeness (cat. 6.18).158 As was the case with
Messalina and other imperial women of the first
century, the vehement destruction of Crispina’s
images at Rome and Ostia suggests that her exile
and execution were the result of political intrigues
against her husband, the reigning emperor, rather
than adultery. As in the past, allegations of adul-
tery or sexual misconduct continued to be lev-
eled against imperial women who exercised po-
litical power and influence against the reigning
emperor.
The Removal of Crispina’s Images
Other well preserved portraits of Crispina are
likely to have been warehoused after her fall
from power: Alexandria,159 Berlin,160 Copen-
hagen,161 Cos,162 Cyrene,163 the Louvre,164 Pet-
worth House,165 two portraits in the Terme,166
the Museo Torlonia167 the Vatican,168 the Villa
157 D. Vaglieri, NSc (1913) 210.
158 Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 2106/S.
159 Graeco-Roman Museum, inv. 23862 (type I); K.
Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 10, pl. 52.3-4 (with earlier litera-
ture).
160 Staatliche Museen (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 84,
no. 4, pl. 51.1 (with earlier literature).
161 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 725, inv. 801 (type 2); K.
Fittschen (1982) 87, no. 4, pl. 55.1-4; F. Johansen (1995a)
236, no. 98 (with figs.) (with earlier literature).
162 Museum (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 11
(with earlier literature).
163 Museum, inv. C 17008 (type 2); K. Fittschen (1982)
87, no. 5 (with earlier literature).
164 MA 1138 (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 87, no. 7, pl.
50.1-2; K. de Kersausson (1996) 331-2, no. 151, with figs.
(with earlier literature).
165 Leconfield Collection (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982)
85, no. 8, pl. 51.4 (with earlier literature).
166 (type 1) inv. 108601, h. 0.27 m.; A. Cioffarelli,
MusNazRom 1.9.2, 324-25, no. R243, with figs. (with ear-
lier literature); K. Fittschen (1982) 84, no. 1, pl. 49.1-4; J.
Raeder (1983) 77, no. I 59; (type 2) inv. 1224, h. 0.265 m.;
A. Cioffarelli, MusNazRom 1.9.2, 327-8, no. R245, with figs.
(with earlier literature).
167 570 (type 1) (ex Cavaceppi Coll.); C. Gasparri and
153
Borghese,169 and Tunis,170 The type 1 portrait
in the Terme was discovered at the Heliocami-
nus baths of Hadrian’s Villa and would likely
have been removed from display at the Villa after
Crispina’s condemnation.
Annia Fundania Faustina
A cousin of Marcus Aurelius, Annia Fundania
Faustina and her daughter Vitrasia Faustina were
also both executed during the principate of Com-
modus.171 Vitrasia appears to have been killed
in A.D. 182, the same year that witnessed the
downfall of Lucilla and Crispina and it is possible
that Vitrasia was also involved in the conspiracy
against Commodus.172 Ten years later, her
mother, Annia Fundania Faustina was executed
in Achaea, in A.D. 192.173 An intentionally
mutilated statue with an erased inscription on its
plinth from Ostia probably depicts Annia Fun-
dania Faustina (cat. 6.19; fig. 154a-b).174 The
physiognomy of the portrait recalls that of other
female members of the Antonine dynasty, espe-
cially in the handling of the heavily lidded eyes.
The hairstyle also closely resembles coiffures worn
by Faustina Minor.175 The right eye, nose, mouth
I Caruso (1980) 222, no 570 (Plautilla) (with earlier litera-
ture); K. Fittschen (1982) 84, no. 3.
168 Galleria Chiaramonti 15.8, inv. 1415 (type II); K.
Fittschen (1982) 86, no. 2, pl. 54.1-4; P. Liverani (1989)
37 (with earlier literature).
169 Portico 31 (type 1); K. Fittschen (1982) 84, no. 2,
pl. 51.3 (with earlier literature).
170 Musée du Bardo, 3656 (2) (type 1 Ceres Statue from
Bulla Regia); K. Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 9, pl. 52.1-2; T.
Mickoki (1995) 208-9, no. 402, pl. 7 (with earlier literature).
171 Annia Fundania Faustina: CIL 6.1540 = ILS 11121;
CIL 12.361 = ILS 1114;CIL 15.520; II 5679 = ILS 1113;
HA.Comm.5.8, 7.7; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 76-77,
no. 60. Vitrasia Faustina: HA.Comm. 4.10; Dio 72(73) 5.1;
CIL 10 4625 = ILS 1115; M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)
642-43, no. 820.
172 HA.Comm.4.10; Dio 72(73) 5.1.
173 HA.Comm.7.7. The Historia Augusta also alleges that
Commodus had an affair with Fundania, Comm 5.8.
174 Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123.
175 The hairstyle further suggests that the subject should
be woman like Annia Fundania Faustina who was closer
in age to Faustina Minor, rather than a younger woman
154 chapter seven
and chin of the Ostia portrait have all been in-
tentionally vandalized with a chisel, and a one
line inscription, undoubtedly giving the name of
the woman, has also been eradicated from the
statue’s base. As with other deliberately mutilated
images, the remainder of the statue is well pre-
served. The portrait was discovered in 1913 near
the Horrea of Hortensius, where it may have
been buried after its defacement.176 If the statue
does indeed represent Annia Fundania Faustina,
it must have been attacked after her murder in
A.D. 192. The defacement of images of Annia
Fundania Faustina and Crispina at Ostia would
have been effective ways for the inhabitants of
the city to manifest their support of Commodus
who took an avid interest in their city through-
out his principate.177 The mutilation and removal
of images of Lucilla, Crispina, and Annia Fun-
dania Faustina also affirms the continued politi-
cal significance of imperial women in the second
century and their willingness to use their influ-
ence and positions against the reigning emperor.
Conclusion: Changing Practices
The condemnations enacted against the memo-
ries of Lucilla, Crispina, and Annia Fundania
Faustina, as well as that against Commodus af-
ter his assassination mark a decided conceptual
shift in the practices of repressing commemora-
tive monuments. In particular, sculpted images
were no longer routinely recycled, but disfigure-
ment emerges a much more common response.
Indeed, none of the portraits from this period
were reconfigured immediately following con-
demnations. Two portraits of Lucilla were not
recut for almost 150 years, when they were re-
fashioned as representations of Constantine’s
mother, Helena. Only three likenesses of Com-
modus have been refashioned, and these were not
like her daughter Vitrasia, or Annia Aurelia Cornificia
Faustina, the sister of Commodus, as R. Calza has suggested
(1977) 21.
176 D. Vaglieri, NSc (1913) 178.
177 Ostia was briefly renamed colonia felix Commodiana. On
Commodus’s building activities in Ostia, see C. Pavolini
(1983) 32.
recut for almost fifty years and over one hundred
years respectively, when they appear to have been
reused as images of Pupienus and possibly
Licinius.
This change in practice further signals a see
change in intention and emphasis from recycling
and a kind of visual cannibalism to disfigurement
and visual denigration. In the past, new images
of victorious successors or revered predecessors
subsumed the original identities of portraits, but
now, the original images are vandalized in order
to degrade the memory of the condemned. Af-
ter a nearly century long hiatus in imperial damna-
tiones, the technical expertise in recutting the
images of overthrown emperors and empresses
may have been in decline. In addition, the long
elaborate beards worn by Commodus in his
mature portraits may have provided further tech-
nical obstacles for sculptors attempting physical
recutting.
Patterns of mutilation which were apparent in
the first century are fully confirmed by the wealth
of evidence from the end of the second century.
The sensory organs of eyes, ears, nose and mouth
are the principal targets in attacks against the
images Lucilla, Crispina, Annia Fundania Faus-
tina and Commodus. In particular, the colossal
damaged portrait of Lucilla from Smyrna with
its gouged out eyes perfectly illustrates the phe-
nomenon of mutilation in effigy. Lucilla’s portrait
has been traumatized as a surrogate for an at-
tack against her living person or corpse. The
savage mutilation of the eyes, as windows onto
the soul and seats of individual identity, serve
further to deprive the portrait of its own iden-
tity as an artistic effigy of Lucilla. The numer-
ous damaged likenesses of Lucilla and Crispina
provide additional evidence for the political in-
fluence and power of political disruption wielded
by imperial women and stands in the tradition
provided by the multitude of evidence for muti-
lated, destroyed or missing female images from
the Julio-Claudian period.
Commodus’s eradication from the relief pan-
els honoring his father Marcus Aurelius provide
crucial testimony for the process of historical
emendation through erasure. Indeed, these are
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
the first surviving examples of erasure as a result
of damnatio in Roman historical relief sculpture.
Two of the panels document known historical
events, namely the triumph of 176 and the
congiarium of 177. Commodus’s relief portraits
have been obliterated from these panels and the
visual record of the events rewritten. Com-
modus’s participation in the triumphal procession
and distribution of money has been posthumously
and categorically negated.
Commodus’s condemnation is further compli-
cated by his rehabilitation and ultimately his deifi-
155
cation under Septimius Severus in 197. As with
Nero, the conflicting assessment of Commodus
is amply reflected in the rehabilitation and
Commodus’s case is even more extreme in that
he is both damned and deified. The contradic-
tory treatment of Commodus’s memory and
monuments underscores both the flexible nature
of the processes associated with both condemna-
tion and apotheosis and also that these practices
were highly susceptible to, if not entirely the result
of, manipulation as the result of current politi-
cal exigencies.
156 chapter eight
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE SEVERANS A.D. 193-235
The Severan period marks a critical juncture in
the history of damnatio memoriae. During the forty-
two year reign of the dynasty (A.D. 193-235),
damnationes memoriae were enacted against numer-
ous members of the imperial family as well as
rival emperors. Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger,
Clodius Albinus, Plautianus, Plautilla, Geta,
Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalus, and Julia
Soemias all suffered some form of official sanc-
tions after their deaths. In addition, portraits and
inscriptions honoring Severus Alexander and his
mother Julia Mammaea were deliberately de-
faced as a result of isolated and spontaneous
demonstrations against their memories.
In certain respects, the condemnations which
occurred under the Severan emperors recall the
previous practices of the first and second centu-
ries A.C. As in the past, portraits of condemned
individuals were often removed or destroyed.
Major monuments of the period, such as the
arches honoring Septimius Severus in the Forum
Romanum and at Lepcis Magna, the Arch of the
Argentarii and the Palazzo Sachetti Relief were
also irrevocably altered as a direct result of post-
humous condemnations. However, as was already
apparent in the treatment of Commodus’s por-
traits, Severan imperial images, with the excep-
tion of representations of Elagabalus altered to
Severus Alexander, were no longer routinely
reworked as an immediate result of damnatio.
Instead spontaneous acts of violence, such as
those carried out against the monuments of
Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea, neither
of whom received official post mortem sanctions,
as well as a substantial increase in the number
of deliberately mutilated portraits, constitute sig-
nificant shift in focus and praxis which would
continue unabated for the remainder of the third
century.
The founder of the dynasty, Lucius Septimius
Severus was born into an aristocratic family of
Italian origins on 11 April A.D. 145 at Lepcis
Magna in Tripolitania.1 Septimius Severus rose
to prominence in the Senate under Marcus
Aurelius and attained the consulship in 190 under
Commodus. He held the governorships of Gallia
Lugdunensis, Sicily, and Upper Pannonia, where,
shortly after the murder of Pertinax in 193,
Severus was saluted as emperor by his troops at
Carnuntum. He spent the next four years sub-
duing the forces of rival claimants to the throne
and established his sole authority by 197. Hav-
ing consolidated his power, Severus waged a
successful campaign against the Parthians, cul-
minating in the capture of the Parthian capital,
Ctesiphon, in 197-8. He continued to defend and
expand the borders of the Empire until his death
at York on 4 February 211.
Severus had intended that after his death, his
two two sons, Caracalla and Geta, would rule as
co-Augusti. However, the two brothers appar-
ently hated one another and their enmity culmi-
nated in Caracalla’s murder of Geta on 26 De-
cember 211.2 Caracalla ruled alone until he
himself was killed, at the instigation of his
Praetorian Praefect, Marcus Opellius Macrinus,
on 8 April 217. Macrinus declared himself em-
peror, but his claim to the throne was contested
by Caracalla’s maternal cousin, Varius Avitus
Bassianus, popularly known as Elagabalus. The
1 There is confusion in the ancient sources surround-
ing the exact date of Septimius Severus’s birth, and it is
possible that the emperor himself may have falsified the date
in order to make the year of his birth more astrologically
favorable; see Z. Rubin (1980) 34-38. However, Dio
(76.[77].17.4) seems reliable; see A. Birley (1988) 220, no.
27.
2 There is conflicting evidence concerning the exact date
of Geta’s murder. T.D.Barnes, has demonstrated that 26
December is almost certainly correct, (1978) 51-2. See also,
A. Birley (1988) 189, n. 3.
 the severans
troops supporting Elagabalus were successful in
defeating those loyal to Macrinus who was even-
tually captured and executed. Significantly, the
accession of Elagabalus had been engineered by
his grandmother, Julia Maesa, the sister of
Severus’s powerful and influential wife Julia
Domna; this essentially matrilineal succession
recalls that of Tiberius, son of Livia and stepson
of Augustus, at the beginning of the Empire.
Elagabalus ruled as Augustus under the name of
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the same name
which had been used by Caracalla, but the Prae-
torian Guard grew so disgusted with his excesses
that they assassinated him along with his mother,
Julia Soemias, in the Praetorian Camp at Rome
on 12 March 222. The Praetorians acclaimed
Elagabalus’s young cousin, Marcus Aurelius
Severus Alexander (born M. Iulius Gessius
Alexianus [Bassianus] in 208) as emperor and he
ruled under the close supervision of his mother
Julia Mammaea; the Severan dynasty ended on
22 March 235 when both mother and son were
murdered by their own troops at Vicus Britan-
nicus where the young emperor had been pre-
paring a campaign against the German tribes.
The Rivals Of Septimius Severus: Didius Julianus,
Clodius Albinus, and Pescennius Niger
Immediately following the assassination of Com-
modus on 31 December A.D. 192, a chaotic
period of civil war ensued in which several promi-
nent men vied for control of the Empire. The
situation finds compelling parallels in the events
of A.D. 68-69 when Galba, Otho, Vitellius and
Vespasian contended for supreme authority. Pu-
blius Helvius Pertinax, praefectus urbi, was saluted
by the Praetorians as Commodus’s immediate
successor. Pertinax, the son of a freedman, had
enjoyed a distinguished military and civil career,
holding the consulship twice. He came to the
throne well respected by the soldiers, Senate and
common people. However, in an effort to re-
plenish the imperial treasury which had been
drastically depleted under Commodus, Pertinax
adopted strict fiscal measures which proved so un-
popular that he was murdered on 28 March by
157
the Praetorian Guard for failing to pay them their
promised bonuses in full and his corpse was
abused through decapitation.3
According to Dio, Marcus Didius Julianus
attained the principate after the death of Pertinax
because he was able to offer the praetorians more
money than the rival claimant, Sulpicianus.4
Although the civil and military career of Didius
Julianus had also been distinguished, he was not
universally supported and on 9 April A.D. 193,
only 11 days after Julianus had been declared the
new Augustus in Rome, Septimius Severus was
saluted as emperor by his own troops in Car-
nuntum. At approximately the same time, Gaius
Pescennius Niger, the governor of Syria, was like-
wise acclaimed emperor at Antioch. In order to
strengthen his position, Septimius formed an
alliance with the governor of Britain, Decimius
Clodius Albinus, to whom he awarded the rank
of Caesar. Severus advanced towards Rome, and
the Senate and plebs repudiated their support of
Didius Julianus in favor of Severus. The Senate
formally condemned Didius Julianus to death on
1 June, after a reign of only sixty-six days. As
was customary with capital offenders, sanctions
against the memory and monuments of Didius
Julianus were swiftly enacted after his execution
and Dio records the destruction of a bronze statue
that had earlier been voted by the Senate (Ò (•D
*@2gÂH "ÛJè P"86@ØH •<"4Dg2X<J@H "ÛJ@Ø 6"2®-
DX20).5 His wife Manlia Scantilla and daughter
Didia Clara were spared, but they were stripped
of their rank of Augusta.6
Septimius Severus consolidated his power and
moved against Pescennius Niger, who was de-
clared a hostis and his monuments were subjected
to destruction; Niger was eventually captured and
killed at Antioch in April of 194.7 Niger’s corpse
was decapitated and the severed head paraded
3 Dio 73(74).10.2; J.L. Voisin (1984) 252.
4 73(74).11.2-6; Didius Julianus offered each member
of the praetorian guard 25,000 sestertii and eventually had
to pay 30,000.
5 73(74).14.2a; A. Birley (1988) 102.
6 HA.Did.Iul. 3.4; 4.5; 8.9-10; Herod. 2.6.7; Zos. 1.7.2.
For Manlia Scantilla, see M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987)
439, no. 520; for Didia Clara, see M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier
(1987) 276, no. 312.
7 HA.Sev.8.13 and Pesc.5.7; A. Birley (1988) 112.
158 chapter eight
on a pole and eventually sent to Rome for pub-
lic display.8 Niger’s wife and children were also
executed.9 Somewhat later, in A.D. 195, Clodius
Albinus, no longer content with his secondary
position as Caesar, was proclaimed Augustus in
his own right by his troops. Severus, having se-
cured his position in the east, moved against
Clodius Albinus in the west and declared him a
hostis.10 After several skirmishes in Gaul, the
forces of the two rivals met at Lugundum on 19
February 197.11 Clodius Albinus was defeated
and committed suicide. His head was cut off and
sent to Rome and, in an additional, merciless act
of poena post mortem, Septimius allegedly ordered
the headless corpse be laid out in front of Clodius
Albinus’s house, where Severus trampled it with
his horse; the body was also exposed as carrion
for dogs before being thrown into the Rhone
along with the remains of Albinus’s wife and
sons.12
As defeated rivals of Septimius Severus, the
memories of Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger,
and Clodius Albinus were condemned, their
names and titles obliterated from the epigraphic
record, and their portraits destroyed or removed
from public display. In the west, the sculptural
evidence for the damnationes of Didius Julianus and
Clodius Albinus is complicated by the difficulties
inherent in identifying their portraits in the
round. The problems of recognizing sculpted
portraits of Didius Julianus and Clodius Albinus
arise primarily from the striking similarities evi-
dent in their numismatic likenesses, which, fur-
thermore, strongly resemble the earliest coin
portraits of Septimius Severus. The numismatic
portraits of all three are derived from those of
Pertinax.13 The coins depict the three rivals as
8 HA Pesc. 6.1 (huius caput cirumlatum pilo Romam missum);
Dio 74.8.3; J.L. Voisin (1984) 252.
9 HA Pesc. 6.1-2.
10 HA.Sev.10.2, Clod.9.1 and A. Birley (1988) 121.
11A. Birley (1988) 125.
12 Herod.3.7.6-7; Dio 75(76).7.1-8; HA.Sev.11.6-9;J.L.
Voisin (1984) 252; A. Birley (1988) 124; C. Wells (1992)
283.
13 The portraits of Pertinax recall the images of Marcus
Aurelius, whose virtues and policies Pertinax tried to emu-
late. Although his reign was brief, the memory of Pertinax
mature men with curly coiffures, full beards and
moustaches, furrowed foreheads, and prominent
noses. However, Didius Julianus usually appears
with a longer beard and fuller coiffure than ei-
ther Septimius Severus or Clodius Albinus who
are virtually indistinguishable on many of the
coins minted during their alliance (A.D. 193-
95).14 The similitudo evident in the coin portraits
of Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus func-
tioned as a visual expression of their concordia and
their political and military alliance, all concepts
which were widely stressed in the numismatic
propaganda of 193-95.
The resemblances present in the coin portraits
cause enormous difficulties in the identification
of contemporary sculpted representations of the
three rivals.15 Although twenty- three related
marble portraits have generally been recognized
as either portraying Didius Julianus, Clodius
Albinus or Septimius Severus in his first portrait
type, specific identifications remain controver-
sial.16 The remarkable iconographic similarities
among this group of images reproduce the cor-
respondences of the numismatic likenesses, in-
cluding: a curly coiffure worn fairly close to the
skull; a full, beard of medium length; a somewhat
bulging forehead; and prominent nose. Based on
the distinguishing features present in the coin
portraits, the twenty-three marble images can be
separated into three groups.
Three of the sculpted portraits have been
tentatively assigned to Didius Julianus. The dis-
was held in high esteem by the Senate and populace and
he remained an important link with the Antonine dynasty.
Septimius Severus portrayed himself as the avenger of
Pertinax; he disbanded the praetorian guard for his
predecessor’s murder and adopted the name of Pertinax
on coins issued from A.D. 193-96.
14 The fuller hair and beard in Didius Julianus’s coin
likenesses may deliberately evoke the portraits of
Commodus, whose avenger Didius Julianus claimed to be;
H. Mattingly, BMCRE 5, lxix; Didius Julianus promised to
rehabilitate the memory of Commodus (HA, Did. 2.6-7); on
the rehabilitation of Commodus see supra.
15 A. M. McCann (1968) 62.
16 This confusion was recognized by J.J. Bernoulli who
found it difficult to distinguish between the early portraits
of Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus, (1894) 19, 34;
A. M. McCann (1968) 40, 88-89; K. Fittschen and P.
Zanker (1985) 91-95, nos. 80-82.
 the severans
tinguishing characteristics which unite these three
portraits are: a longer beard, fuller coiffure, and
a nose with a pronounced bridge.17 Nine of the
marble portraits can plausibly be attributed to
Clodius Albinus on the basis of his individualized
traits, i.e., a coiffure that consists of rather flat
curls combed forward which recede at the
temples and curve over a slightly bulging fore-
head, a bushy moustache and a full beard worn
close to the chin, a tuft of hair beneath his lower
lip and a decidedly hooked nose.18 The remain-
ing eleven portraits constitute Septimius Severus’s
first official portrait type and contain the follow-
ing details: a coiffure of scattered curls worn
relatively straight across the forehead, a full
moustache and short full beard with curls combed
forward, and a fairly straight and aquiline nose.19
Didius Julianus
The brevity of the reign of Didius Julianus, as well
as the destruction of his monuments occasioned
by his downfall, account for the scarcity of his
portraits. However, the three surviving likenesses
are well enough preserved to suggest that they
may have been removed from public display and
warehoused following his death. Portraits in the
Palazzo dei Conservatori,20 in Los Angeles,21 and
the Vatican,22 are all preserved together with
their ancient bust forms and probably attest to
the removal and storage of his image in the en-
virons of the capital.
17 Fittschen-Zanker I, 93.
18 A. M. McCann (1968) 40, 88-89; Fittschen-Zanker
I, 91-92.
19 Fittschen-Zanker I 94-5.
20 Sala Verde, inv. 235; H. 0.725 m; ex Collection Albani
(A 17); Fittschen-Zanker 1, 93, no. 81, pls. 99-100 (with
earlier literature).
21 Private Collection; A. M. McCann (1968) 131-32, no.
9, pl. 28 (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972) 136,
n. 10; Fittschen-Zanker, 1, 93. Presumably from Rome.
22 Sala dei Busti 291, inv. 710, h. 0.67 m.; A. M.
McCann (1968) 130, no. 7, pl. 26 (with earlier literature);
D. Soechting (1972) 144, no. 20; P. Zanker (1983) 29, n.
88, pl. 26.3-4; Fittschen-Zanker 1, 93, beil. 65. From
Otricoli.
159
Clodius Albinus
Clodius Albinus’s images were intentionally
mutilated as a result of the damnatio memoriae
enacted against him. A head of Clodius Albinus
which was discarded in a cistern near the Temple
of Saturn at Dougga has been cut or broken from
a statue or bust.23 The head exhibits extensive
damage to the forehead, nose, and right cheek.24
The disposal of the portrait in a cistern recalls
the images of Caligula and Domitian which were
recovered from wells at Huelva and Munigua in
Spain. The portico of the Dougga temple, com-
pleted in A.D. 195, contained a dedicatory in-
scription which honored both Severus and
Albinus.25 Albinus’s name and titles were erased
from the dedication at the same time the portrait
was attacked and thrown into the cistern.26 Born
at Hadrumentum, not far from Dougga, Clodius
Albinus was undoubtedly honored extensively
with portraits in his native province of Africa
Proconsularis. Destruction of Albinus’s monu-
ments in Africa would have been a way of dis-
avowing former support and celebration of the
native emperor, as well as demonstrating loyalty
to the victorious Septimius Severus, himself a
native of neighboring Tripolitania.
A portrait of Albinus in the Vatican has also
been attacked and damaged.27 The least well
preserved of all Albinus’s likenesses, the nose,
both brows, the right eye and right cheek have
largely been destroyed. The badly weathered
surfaces of the head suggest that it was not stored
but disposed of in a more destructive fashion. The
portrait, provides important evidence for the
violent disposal of Clodius Albinus’s representa-
tions in the capital.
23 Tunis, Musée du Bardo, A.M. McCann (1968) 202
H. pl. 105.
24 The Dougga portrait is compatible with numismatic
likenesses of Albinus which show him with shorter beard
and a more closely cropped coiffure than contemporary
portraits of Septimius Severus; see A. M. McCann (1968)
202.
25 A. M. McCann (1968) 202; C. Poinssot (1983) 65.
26 On the erasure of Albinus’s name in inscriptions, see
also R. Cagnat (1914) 172.
27 Sala dei Busti 322, inv. 682; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91,
no. 6, Beil. 682.
160 chapter eight
In contrast to the Dougga and Vatican por-
traits, Albinus’s remaining likenesses are gener-
ally well preserved and were likely warehoused
after his condemnation. Three of these portraits,
in Bloomington,28 the Museo Capitolino,29 and
Saalburg30 are extraordinary for their fine states
of preservation and survive together with their
original bust forms. Although not as well pre-
served, images in Mantua, 31 the Prado, 32 and
Petworth House33 also present no indications of
deliberate defacement. The Prado portrait pre-
serves its original bust form. These portraits, from
Rome and elsewhere in Italy were undoubtedly
removed from public view and stored for even-
tual reuse. Albinus’s images in North Africa could
also be similarly removed and stored as attested
by another portrait in Tunis which was discov-
ered at Gouraya near Cherchel.34
Pescennius Niger
During his brief reign as rival Augustus in the
east, Pescennius Niger minted coins bearing his
likeness and was presumably honored with por-
traits in the round. His numismatic representa-
tions are distinctive and cannot be confused with
the images of his three rivals, Didius Julianus,
Clodius Albinus, and Septimius Severus. Coins
issued by Pescennius Niger depict him with a
28 Indiana University Art Museum, Inv. 47401, h. 0.63
m.; A. M. McCann (1968) 198-99, pl. 102 (with earlier lit-
erature); D. Soechting (1972) 131, no. 3; Fittschen-Zanker
1, 91, beil. 63. From Rome.
29 Stanza degli Imperatori 37, inv. 463; h. 0.67 m.; ex
Collection Albani (A30); Fittschen-Zanker 1, 91-92, no. 80,
pl. 97-99 (with earlier literature). From Anzio. The bust is
unusual in that it portrays Albinus in mailed armor which
is often associated with the Praetorian Praefect; see
Fittschen-Zanker, 1, 91-2.
30 Museum, inv. 869, h. 0.663 m; M. Bergmann and
G. Lahusen (1982) 16, fig. 6; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91.
31 Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6916; A. M. McCann (1968)
199, C, pl. 104 (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972)
138, no. 12 (Septimius Severus); Fittschen-Zanker I, 91.
32 Inv. 187 E, h. 0.88 m.; S.F. Schröder (1993) 256-8,
no. 73, with figs. (with earlier literature).
33 No. 37; H. 0.30 m.; A. M. McCann (1968) 199-200,
pl. 103 (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972) 140-
41, no. 16 (Septimius Severus); C.A. Picon (1983) 75, no.
74; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91, Beil. 62.
34 Musée du Bardo, inv. 1050; Fittschen-Zanker I, 91
(with earlier literature).
furrowed forehead, prominent, slightly bulbous
nose, and protruding lips. His coiffure is relatively
short, usually with straight locks combed forward
from the occiput. His moustache is long as is his
beard which consists of lengthy rolled curls. Al-
though Pescennius Niger was popular among the
plebs in Rome, it is unlikely that any official
portraits of him were produced in the capital
since his tenure as Augustus was spent entirely
in the east.35 The situation in the eastern portion
of the empire was chaotic largely as a result of
the campaign which Septimius immediately be-
gan against Pescennius Niger in 193 and, in fact,
certain eastern mints may have issued coins in
honor of Septimius Severus as early as A.D. 193
while nominally under Niger’s control.36 Politi-
cal instability in the east probably precluded
production of Pescennius Niger’s sculpted por-
traits in significant numbers.37 Indeed, no marble
images can be securely associated with Pescennius
Niger, despite his distinctive physiognomy and
coiffure.38 After his defeat and death, portraits
honoring Pescennius Niger were destroyed as a
consequence of his proclamation as a hostis.39
Because of their early support of Niger, many
cities of the eastern empire must have been es-
pecially anxious to demonstrate their loyalty to
the victorious Septimius Severus by vigorously
pursuing a damnatio against his defeated rival’s
monuments, further accounting for the lack of
surviving portraits.
35 On Pescennius Niger’s popularity in Rome see
Herod.2.7.6, 2.8.7 and Z. Rubin (1980) 93.
36 Coins may have been struck in Septimius Severus’s
honor as soon as it was realized that he was the likely victor
in the struggle against Niger. The coins are from Laodicea,
Alexandria; BMCRE cxii, cxiv, 83-84, 105-106, 109, 110,
nos. *+*, +, *; Z. Rubin (1980) 14, 202-6.
37 Pescennius Niger’s sphere of influence was limited to
the east. His failure to capture Rome, the center of impe-
rial portrait production, also undoubtedly contributed to
a reduced output of his sculpted images.
38 In the past, attempts have been made to identify a
portrait in the Stanza degli Imperatori of the Museo
Capitolino (no. 36, inv. 460) with Pescennius Niger. How-
ever, this portrait has been convincingly identified as
Macrinus (cat. 7.13). Similarly, a cuirassed statue in the
Palazzo Altieri was identified as Pescennius Niger (D. De
Rossi [1704], pl. 110), but should be associated with
Septimius Severus, A.M. McCann (1968) 173-4, no. 86, pl.
75.
39 See supra.
 the severans
Plautianus
Like his kinsman Septimius Severus, Gaius
Fulvius Plautianus was a native of Lepcis Mag-
na.40 He was singled out for distinction under
Pertinax and his career naturally flourished dur-
ing the principate of Septimius Severus.41 As a
result of his enormous influence with the first
Severan emperor, Plautianus became praefectus
praetorio on 1 January 197.42 Although he was
indispensable to the emperor and unrivaled in
influence, in 202 Plautianus further strengthened
his ties to the imperial family by marrying his
daughter Plautilla to Septimius Severus’s eldest
son and co-Augustus, Caracalla.43 Caracalla was
resentful of Plautianus’s unprecedented power as
well as his public opposition to the empress Julia
Domna. Caracalla’s arranged marriage to Plau-
tilla apparently served to further increase the
hostility he felt towards Plautianus. In January
of A.D. 205, Plautianus was accused of plotting
the murder of both Septimius Severus and
Caracalla.44 Plautianus was immediately executed
and his corpse thrown into the street and pub-
licly desecrated in an act of poena post mortem.45
His extensive domus on the slopes of the Quirnal
in Rome, was also confiscated.46
40 Plautianus was related to Septimius through the
emperor’s mother, Fulvia Pia, A. Birley (1988) 93, 220-21.
The date of his birth is not known.
41 Dio 73(74).15.4; Plautianus was honored by Pertinax
despite the fact that Pertinax, while proconsul of Africa,
had condemned him for unspecified, yet serious offenses
in A.D. 188 or 189, A. Birley (1988) 221.
42 AE 1935.156; see F. Grosso (1968) 14-17.
43 Plautianus was not the first powerful Praetorian
Praefect who attempted to enhance his position by marry-
ing a female relation into the imperial family: Sejanus
brought about the marriage of his kinswoman Aelia Paetina
to the future emperor Claudius; Sejanus also betrothed his
daughter to Claudius’s son by Plautia Urgulanilla; B. Levick
(1990) 25.
44 Dio 76(77).4.1-4; Herod. 3.11.4-12.12. While Dio
claims that Caracalla engineered the charges against
Plautianus, Herodian maintains that there actually was a
plot. The catalyst for these accusations seem to be the
deathbed allegations against Plautianus made by Septimius
Severus’s brother, Publius Septimius Geta, late in 204 (Dio
76[77].2.4).
45 Herod. 3.12.12.
46 The house is identified on the basis of an inscription
on a lead fistula. See recently, F. Astolfi (1998) 34-5; For
161
No securely identified likenesses of Plautianus
have survived, despite Dio’s contemporary ac-
count that statues of the Praefect were produced
in such great numbers that they outnumbered the
portraits of both Septimius Severus and Cara-
calla.47 Dio further states that these statues were
set up in Rome and elsewhere by individuals,
communities and the Senate.48 A colossal repre-
sentation of Plautianus was also erected at Ath-
ens, commemorating his position as patronus of the
city.49 In 203, the vast quantity and public promi-
nence of Plautianus’s images so infuriated
Septimius Severus that he declared his Praefect
a hostis and ordered his bronze portraits to be
removed from public display and melted down.50
Subsequently, Septimius reconciled with Plau-
tianus and rescinded the sanctions against him.
After his execution, representations of Plautianus
were again subject to destruction, as Dio makes
explicitly clear: "Ê gÆ6`<gH "ÛJ@Ø Fb:B"F"4
*4gN2VD0F"<.51 Indeed Plautianus’s images and
inscriptions have been thoroughly and severely
eradicated in an attempt to obliterate all trace
of him from the public consciousness.
Surviving dedicatory inscriptions from which
Plautianus’s name and titles have been erased
simultaneously document his damnatio as well as
his former portrait honors.52 The extraordinary
importance of Plautianus insured the inclusion of
his likenesses in the major monuments and statu-
ary cycles erected during the years of his ascen-
dancy. One of the most significant commissions
from this period was the triple-bayed triumphal
arch erected in the northwest end of the Forum
Romanum to celebrate Septimius Severus’s tri-
the sculpture discovered at the domus, including warehoused
portraits of Lucilla and Macrinus, see cat. 6.10 and cat.
7.14.
47 Dio 75(76).14.7.
48 Ibid.
49 D. J. Geagan (1979) 408.
50 Dio 75(76).16.2-5 and HA Sev.14.7. Dio also records
that, when certain cities and official’s heard of Severus’s
anger they demolished Plautianus’s portraits, but were
subsequently punished for their hasty action.
51 Dio 75(76).16.4.
52 On the career and inscriptions of Plautianus see F.
Grosso (1968) 7-59.
162 chapter eight
umph over the Parthians (figs. 155-156).53 The
eastern and western facades of the monument,
dedicated in A.D. 203, are decorated with relief
panels depicting scenes from the Parthian cam-
paigns. A portrait of Plautianus seems to have
originally been present in the upper right hand
corner of the northwestern panel, which repre-
sents events from the attack and surrender of
Seleucia (fig. 156).54 In the culminating scene of
the panel, the headless figure of Septimius
Severus, identifiable through his larger scale and
prominent position, receives the submission of the
Parthian city.55 Because of its close proximity and
nearly commensurate scale to the portrait of
Septimius Severus, the figure to the emperor’s
proper right should represent his elder son,
Caracalla and the two figures form a closely
linked pair. A third figure, just behind the
emperor’s left shoulder, is also differentiated from
the rest of the emperor’s retinue by position and
scale. Like Severus and Caracalla, he wears a
tunica, paludamentum, and calcei and probably held
a rotulus in his left hand. Because this figure is
placed slightly behind the figures of Caracalla and
Septimius Severus, his position is subsidiary to the
imperial pair; however, he is nearly the same
height as the emperor and slightly taller than
Caracalla. The greater height and subsidiary
placement of this figure indicate that he is older
and, at the same time, less important than
Caracalla, the emperor’s heir; thus, this figure
cannot be identified with the emperor’s younger
son, Geta.56 Unlike the figures of Septimius and
Caracalla, whose heads have deteriorated natu-
rally, the portrait head of the figure behind the
53 R. Nardi (1983-84) 299-312; S. De Maria (1988) 305-
6, no. 89 (with earlier literature); F. Coarelli (1997) 57, 61,
67, 69-73, 75, 117, 182-3; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 329-32,
figs. 293-98; R. Brilliant in E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 103-
5.
54 R. Brilliant (1967) 195.
55 R. Brilliant (1967) 201.
56 Both L. Budde (1955) 3, n. 7, and A. Bonanno (1976)
144 identify this figure as Geta; Budde suggests that the
bearded figure behind the emperor and the headless fig-
ure is Plautianus, (1955) 3, n. 7. The features of this fig-
ure are similar to many others on the arch’s reliefs and are
too generic to be considered a portrait of Plautianus.
emperor was deliberately removed and replaced
in antiquity. The neck has been carefully carved
out, the surface roughened, and an iron dowel
inserted for the attachment of a new head; the
remnants of the iron dowel are still preserved.57
This constitutes persuasive testimony for the
removal and replacement of the portrait head of
Plautianus following his damnatio in 205.58
A second Severan arch in Rome, the privately
dedicated Arch of the Argentarii, furnishes fur-
ther dramatic evidence for the removal of Plau-
tianus images (fig. 157).59 This trabeated arch was
erected in the Forum Boarium by the argentarii,
a guild of silversmiths or bankers 60 and marked
the boundary between the VIII, X, and XI
Augustan regions of the city.61 The arch, dedi-
cated between 10 December 203 and 9 Decem-
ber 204, honors the family of Septimius Severus,
and functioned as a gateway.62 It is richly orna-
mented with relief sculpture and the interior bay
is decorated on each face with a panel depicting
members of the imperial family. A togate portrait
of Caracalla’s first type is the sole figure preserved
in the western panel of the arch (fig. 158). He is
represented frontally at the far left of the relief.
He holds a patera in his right hand over a flam-
ing altar and grasps a rotulus in his left hand. The
relief is entirely blank to Caracalla’s right and the
slightly raised and roughened surface of the
marble in the vacant areas attest to the removal
of two figures.
57 R. Brilliant (1967) 181, n. 62, 206.
58 R. Brilliant (1967) 207. If this is indeed the case, the
artist’s placement of Plautianus just behind the emperor
in a scene of submissio directly recalls the position of Tiberius
Claudius Pompeianus, also son-in-law and close advisor to
an emperor, in the three scenes which depict the emperor’s
clementia towards foreigners in the panel reliefs honoring
Marcus Aurelius.
59 F. Ghedini (1984) 27-53; S. De Maria (1988) 307-9,
no. 90 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 138, no.
152, pl. 25.4-5; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 334-37, figs. 300-
303; S. Diebner in E.M. Steinby, ed. (1993) 105-6, fig. 57;
F. Coarelli (1997) 362-64.
60 On the argentarii see S. De Maria (1988) 308.
61 S. De Maria (1988) 308; F.Coarelli (1997) 363.
62 The date of the monument is based upon the titles
of Septimius Severus given in line 2 of the inscription:
PONTIF. MAX. TRIB. POTEST. XI IMP. XI COS. III
PATER PATRIAE; S. De Maria (1988) 308.
 the severans
The taller of the two excised figures depicted
Caracalla’s father-in-law, Plautianus while the
shorter figure represented Plautilla, the wife of
Caracalla and daughter of Plautianus.63 The
initial composition of the western panel, with its
three closely linked family members, would have
complemented the original threesome of the
corresponding eastern panel, Septimius Seve-
rus, Julia Domna, and Geta (also subsequently
erased).64 Caracalla originally appeared capite
velato, like his father in the opposite relief. Traces
of his veil are still quite visible above his right
shoulder and indications of recarving are clearly
evident above his head.65 The effacement of
Plautianus, immediately to the right of Caracalla
damaged the mantle which initially covered
Caracalla’s head, necessitating its removal. As a
result, Caracalla appears in a manner highly
inconsistent with Roman religious as he sacrifices
with unveiled head (capite aperto), while Septimius
Severus in the corresponding panel sacrifices in
the normal manner with veiled head (capite velato).
The inscription preserved on the attic of the
southern face of the Arch of the Argentarii was
altered at least twice in antiquity (fig. 160).66 The
fifth line, the only line to be entirely erased and
recarved, now honors Caracalla and reads: PAR-
THICI MAXIMI BRITANNICI MAXIMI. Abra-
sions are clearly visible beneath the letters and
spaces of this line, which is shorter than the other
five lines and contains considerably fewer char-
acters.67 It is likely that this line originally hon-
ored Plautianus as comes augustorum and as the
63 See infra for the removal of Plautilla from this monu-
ment.
64 F. Coarelli, following a theory first proposed by J.
Madaule (1924) 130-31, entertains the possibility that Geta
appeared in the western panel with Caracalla and Plau-
tianus, while Plautilla appeared in the eastern panel with
Septimius and Julia, (1997) 364. However, it seems much
more probable that Plautilla appeared in the same panel
as her husband Caracalla. See infra.
65 H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 77; A. Bonanno
(1976) 148.
66 CIL 6.1035; D. E. L. Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939)
3-13; M. Pallotino (1946) 37-8.
67 Line 5 currently contains 30 characters. In ascend-
ing order, the rest of the line counts are as follows:
163
father of the new augusta Plautilla.68 The fifth
line was erased after Plautianus’s death in 205
and remained blank for several years, since its
recarving could not have occurred prior to A.D.
210, the year in which Caracalla received the title
of Britannicus Maximus.69 In all likelihood, this
line was recut when the lines honoring Plautilla
and Geta were transformed in 211 or 212 follow-
ing their damnationes. This line, standing in rasura
for over six years would have been a prominent
visual reminder of Plautianus’s downfall, directly
echoing his conspicuous absence from the inte-
rior western panel. Both eradications served as
graphic expressions of Plautianus’s abolitio memoriae
which mandated the destruction of his portraits
and inscriptions.70
An attempt was also made to erase Plautianus’s
name from a marble inscription plaque reused
as a shelf in the Thermopolium on the Via di
Diana at Ostia.71 The humble and utilitarian
reuse of this inscription is an additional reminder
line 2 (not altered in antiquity) = 47
line 6 (altered in antiquity) = 57
line 1 (not altered in antiquity) = 81
line 4 (altered in antiquity) = 84
68 The most widely accepted reading of the original line
is: VXORI FILLIAE PLAUTIANI PONTIFICIS NOBILISSIMI
PR. PR. COS. II NECESSARII ET COMITIS AVGG; D. E.
L. Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 5-6, n. 10.
69 D.E.L. Haynes and P.D. Hirst (1939) 6.
70 Tentative attempts have also been made to identify
portraits of Plautianus in two Severan reliefs from the prov-
inces: a relief panel from the pulpitum of the theatre at
Sabratha (H.R. Goette [1989]138, no. 154 [with earlier lit-
erature]; D.E.E. Kleiner [1992] 344-45, fig. 312) and a
section of the dextrarum iunctio scene from the Arch of
Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna (see infra). The Sabratha
relief depicts Septimius Severus sacrificing in the presence
of the goddess Roma and other personifications. The togate
figure of Septimius is flanked on his left by Caracalla and
a camillus and on his right by a bearded togate figure. This
bearded figure has been identified as Plautianus, but the
facial features are generic and resemble those of many of
the subsidiary figures from the Arch of Septimius Severus
in the Roman Forum. Although A. Birley has identified two
figures from the Lepcis arch as the consuls of A.D. 203,
Plautianus and Septimius’s brother Publius Septimius Geta,
the arch was probably not constructed until after
Plautianus’s downfall in 205 (A. Di Vita [1982] 553, n.
85;A. Birley [1988] pl. 19, caption.
71 1.2.5. C. Pavolini (1983) 83, C. FV[LVIVS] PL[AU-
TIANUS].
164 chapter eight
of Plautianus’s precipitous fall from power and
recalls the similar utilitarian reuse of the panel
honoring Nero and Agrippina Minor as a pav-
ing stone in the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (fig.
91).
Plautilla
Plautilla’s commemorative portraits and inscrip-
tions were subjected to the same systematic eradi-
cation as those of her father. At the time of her
marriage to Caracalla in 202, Plautilla was
awarded the title of Augusta, yet the contempo-
rary historians Dio and Herodian record Cara-
calla’s feelings of repugnance towards his young
bride.72 Plautilla shared in her father’s downfall
and at the time of his death in A.D. 205, she was
exiled together with her brother Plautius to the
island of Lipari and perhaps divorced at that time
as well. While still alive, Septimius Severus pro-
tected Plautilla from the harshest penalties, but
Caracalla did not hesitate to order her execution
after his accession, sometime in 211 or 212.73
Plautilla’s damnatio, as visually expressed in the
destruction of her public images and the erasure
of her name in inscriptions, was not enacted until
after her death in 211/212,74 when her name and
titles in group dedications were often recut and
72 Dio 76(77).2.5-3.1; Herodian 3.10.8.
73 Septimius had refused to permit the execution of
Plautilla while he remained alive. On her possible divorce
at the time of her exile; A. Birley (1988) 220, no. 29.
74 It would have reflected badly on the Severan dynasty
to enforce sanctions against the monuments of a living
Augusta, especially in view of the numismatic propaganda
of 202-5 which had forcefully proclaimed the concordia of
the imperial couple. BMCRE 5, 206-7, pl. 33.16, 20; 235ff.,
pls. 37.18, 20, 38.6; and F.S.Kleiner in D.E.E. Kleiner and
S.B. Matheson, eds. (1996) 89, no. 52.. The message of
imperial concordia which was broadcast on the coins may
have been intended to counteract the widespread percep-
tion that there was discord between the imperial couple;
both Dio and Herodian claim that Caracalla despised
Plautilla and would not consent to eat or sleep with her,
Dio 76(77).2.5-3.1 and Herod. 3.10.8. Nevertheless, it has
been suggested that, in 204, Plautilla bore a child who did
not survive; J. Gagé (1934) 33-5; D. E. L. Haynes and P.
D Hirst (1939) 5, n. 5. Gagé asserts that the celebration of
the Ludi Saeculares in 204 was occasioned by the birth of
this child.
replaced with new titles for Caracalla or Julia
Domna.75
Plautilla’s Portrait Typology
Although Plautilla remained at the imperial court
as Augusta for less than three years, she enjoyed
an unprecedented number of portrait types.76
Her numismatic representations encompass five
distinct types, differentiated on the basis of coif-
fure and physiognomy.77 Plautilla’s name is ren-
dered in the dative on her earliest coins, indicat-
ing that they have been issued in her honor,
rather than Plautilla minting coins in her own
right.78 On these earliest coins, the empress wears
a version of the Melonenfrisur in which the hair is
parted in the center and braided horizontally,
with the braids, usually five to seven in number
drawn into a bun at the back of the head.79
Individual curls often escape the coiffure on the
forehead, temples and in front of the ears. The
facial features are childish and pump and include
a sloping, slightly rounded forehead, wide eyes
beneath arching brows, a somewhat snub nose,
fleshy cheeks, protruding upper lip over a full
lower lip and small, rounded chin.
75 This also supports the later date for her damnatio; since
her inscriptions are not recut to honor Septimius Severus
or Geta, the erasure likely took place after their deaths.
76 S. Nodelman points out that the great number of
numismatic portrait types of Plautilla issued during her brief
reign as Augusta is unparalleled in the history of imperial
iconography and must be a reflection of the enormous in-
fluence and power which her father Plautianus wielded
during this period, (1965) 227 and in P. Erhart, J. Frel, S.
Knudsen Morgan and S. Nodelman (1980) 81.
77 P.V. Hill (1964) 8. For a review of earlier scholar-
ship on Plautilla’s portrait types, see E. Fileri in MusNazRom
1.9.2, 357-60.
78 As is naturally the case with her later emissions, S.
Nodelman (1965) 227-28, n. 272.
79 The placement of the bun is subject to slight varia-
tion: it is either directly at the back of the head or tucked
slightly under the mass of the coiffure. As a coiffure asso-
ciated with Diana and popular with young girls through-
out the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Melonenfrisur is
particularly appropriate for the first portrait type of Plautilla
who was no more than fourteen at the time of her mar-
riage.
 the severans
In Plautilla’s later types, her facial features are
less childish and fleshy, and her nose is notice-
ably more aquiline. A modified version of the
Plautilla’s first Melonenfrisur appears on the coins
with dative legends, but also continues on later
issues with her name and titles in the nomina-
tive. In the modified coiffure, the braids run more
vertically or diagonally, as opposed to the strictly
horizontal orientation of the first hairstyle.80
Plautilla’s third portrait type is marked by the
appearance of an entirely new hairstyle, the
Scheitelzopf, in which the individual braids are
drawn together to form a broad, flat band of hair
that is folded over on the nape of the neck and
then pulled up the back of the head. Plautilla, the
first of the Roman empresses to wear this distinc-
tive coiffure, appears to have introduced it and
versions of the hairstyle remained popular into
the fifth century.81 As in the first two coiffures,
curls can be shown on the forehead, temples, and
in front of the ears.
Plautilla’s final two arrangements are radical
departures from the first three braided hairstyles.
In the new coiffures, the hair is parted in the
center and gently waved around the face. The
first of these coiffures is a version of the Nestfrisur
in which the hair lies close to the skull and de-
scends fairly low on the nape of the neck, where
a small bun is inserted into the mass of the coif-
fure. The waves of hair are arranged diagonally
and a loose curl is shown in front of the ears
which are left uncovered as in the three previ-
ous coiffures. Plautilla’s fifth coiffure is the Helm-
frisur with waves of hair descending vertically to
a position very low on the nape of the neck and
completely covering the ears. This coiffure is
80 The number of plaits can vary. The bun rests at the
back of the head, usually tucked up under the mass of the
hair. On the earliest coins with dative legend, the bun is
full and round, and is comparable to those of the first coif-
fure. The bun tends to be flatter on the subsequent coins
in which Plautilla’s name and titles appear in the nomi-
native. The new direction of the plaits and the lower po-
sition of the bun lend a more rounded and less elongated
profile to Plautilla’s head than that of the first horizontal
Melonenfrisur. Individual curls are sometimes used to frame
the face.
81 Other Augustae to wear the Scheitelzopf include: Julia
Cornelia Paula, Tranquillina, Otacillia Severa, and Heren-
nia Etruscilla.
165
comparable to that worn by her mother-in-law,
Julia Domna.82
The extraordinary appearance of five numis-
matic portrait types for Plautilla within the space
of three years does not simply document rapidly
changing fashions in contemporary hairstyles, but
publicly signals the enormous influence of her
father and her own pivotal position as the poten-
tial producer of Severan heirs who would have
ensured the continued stability of the dynasty and
the empire.83 Sculptural replicas exist for the first
three numismatic types. Because of her exile in
January of 205, there may not have been suf-
ficient time for the wide production and dis-
semination of the last two types (with nest and
helmet hairstyles) which were probably not intro-
duced before 204.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Plautilla’s Images
Graphic evidence for the intentional mutilation
of Plautilla’s visual images is provided by portraits
in the Vatican (cat. 7.2; fig. 161a-b)84 and Hous-
ton (cat. 7.1; fig. 162a-b).85 The Vatican likeness,
a replica of the first type, has been attacked with
a hammer or chisel in the areas around the eyes,
nose, mouth, cheeks, and ears. The resulting
depredations to the likeness recall the defacement
of representations of Commodus, Crispina, and
Lucilla, as well as the emperors of the first cen-
tury. The Houston portrait has been mutilated
in a more unusual manner: the eyes and right
cheek have been violently gouged with a large
82 The change from the Melonenfrisur to the Nest or
Helmfrisuren may have been engineered in order to make
Plautilla appear more mature and emphasize her position
as the potential producer of Severan heirs; Plautilla wears
the Helmfrisur on a gem in Berlin which depicts the young
Augusta with Caracalla in his second portrait type which
was not introduced before 204, thus this hairstyle must have
been current at the time of her exile in January of 205; S.
Nodelman (1965) 229-230.
83 S. Nodelman (1965) 227, and supra.
84 Magazzini, 731, inv. 4278.
85 Museum of Fine Art, inv. 70-39. The portrait is a
replica of the third portrait type with Scheitelzopf. This type
has been referred to as the Malibu-Houston-Torlonia type
after its three surviving unreworked examples, see S.
Nodelman (1982); N. Cambi (1988) 221.
166 chapter eight
claw chisel or other clawed metal implement. As
with the vandalized portrait of Lucilla from
Smyrna, the gouging out of Plautilla’s eyes is an
anthropomorphic attack against the person of the
empress in effigy, intended to obliterate the es-
sence of the image. The remainder of the Hous-
ton portrait is very well preserved, underscoring
the purposeful nature of the image’s destruction.
These two defaced portraits represent approxi-
mately one third of Plautilla’s surviving sculpted
likenesses, and strongly suggest that mutilation of
her images was widely pervasive, perhaps moti-
vated in part by the hatred Caracalla apparently
felt for his young wife. In addition, K. Fittschen
has associated a badly deteriorated portrait in the
Museo Capitolino with Plautilla’s second portrait
type.86 The portrait is too badly weathered in
details of coiffure and physiognomy for a secure
identification, but if it is indeed Plautilla, it may
be yet another intentionally mutilated image. The
disfigurement of Plautilla’s images also recalls in
effigy the public abuse of her father’s corpse.
The Transformation of Plautilla’s Images
Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress
As with Lucilla and Commodus, no images of
Plautilla were recarved immediately after her
damnatio. However, a portrait of Plautilla worked
for insertion, now part of a private collection in
Irvine, California, was refashioned sometime in
the fourth century A.C., confirming that some of
the empress’s portraits were stored to await re-
use at a later period (cat. 7.3; fig. 163a-b).87 The
coiffure and general physiognomic details con-
form to Plautilla’s third portrait type with Schei-
telzopf.88 Like portraits in the Sala dei Busti and
Museo Torlonia, the Irvine head is diademed.
However, in an effort to make the subject of the
reworked head appear more mature than Plau-
86 Magazzini, inv. 79, h. 0.19 m.; Fittschen-Zanker III
30, no. 32, pl. 40.
87 Irvine, California; Collection of Mr. Robert K.
Martin.
88 S. Nodelman (1982) 110, n. 14.
tilla, the oval shape of the face has been reduced
and squared off in the area of the chin, causing
the neck to be thicker and more heavyset and
adding a fleshy underchin in profile. The eyes of
the new portrait have been emphasized through
enlargement and the addition of deeply drilled
irises and pupils. The recut pupils are distinctively
heart shaped, a hallmark of many Tetrarchic and
Constantinian portraits.89 The reworking of the
eyes has caused them to be set more deeply
beneath the brows, resulting in a heavy contrast-
ing shadow above each eye. The new accentua-
tion of the eyes is consonant with a fourth cen-
tury date for the recarving.
The coiffure has also been refashioned. The
shallowly carved, naturalistic waves of hair which
frame the face in unaltered replicas have been
replaced by deeply carved locks which create an
abstract, linear pattern. Further linear pattern-
ing is evident in the cris-cross design carved into
the plaits covering the head and the braids of the
Scheitelzopf.90 The abstract, linear treatment of
hair is also consonant with a Tetrarchic or Con-
stantinian date for the reconfiguration.91 The
continued popularity of the Scheitelzopf would have
rendered the Irvine portrait particularly well-
suited for reuse during these periods. The
portrait’s diadem suggests that the new image was
intended as a likeness of an empress. However,
the use of the Scheitelzopf by many of the impe-
rial women of the Tetrarchic and Constantinian
period, and the fairly generic nature of the re-
touched portrait features make a more specific
identification difficult.92 Like the portraits of
89 F. Yegul (1981) 66, n. 11. Yegul cites the portrait
identified as Constans in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
(Rogers Fund, 67.107); See also Fittschen-Zanker I, nos.
122-26; and III, nos. 38, 173, 175, 178, 179.
90 This cris-cross pattern is evident in the plaits of the
unrecarved Scheitelzopfen of the Los Angeles, Houston, and
Torlonia portraits, as well as in the Scheitelzopfen of contem-
porary Severan private portraits, but is not seen in the plaits
which cover the heads.
91 F. Yegul (1981) 65, n. 10.
92 For instance, Helena, Fausta, and Glaeria Valeria all
wear modified versions of the Scheitelzopf in some of their
numismatic portraits, H.P. L’Orange and M. Wegner
(1984) pl. 72.a, g, h and i.
 the severans
Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Lucilla, and Com-
modus which were not recut until the third or
fourth centuries, the Irvine Plautilla provides
invaluable evidence for the prolonged storage of
imperial images following their removal from
public display.
The Removal of Plautilla’s Images
Two remarkably well preserved bust length por-
traits of Plautilla, in the Vatican93 and the Museo
Torlonia94 further attest to the warehousing of
Plautilla’s images after her condemnation. Nei-
ther bust exhibits any signs of deliberate deface-
ment. The Vatican portrait is preserved together
with most of its bust form,95 while the Torlonia
portrait is entirely in tact. The Vatican image was
discovered during the excavations of the so-called
Basilica at Otricoli, between 1778-79, which also
yielded the colossal Caligula/Claudius (cat. 1.30).
As it is unlikely that Plautilla’s likeness would
have continued to be exhibited publicly in a
structure dedicated to the imperial cult follow-
ing her exile and subsequent condemnation, the
bust must have been stored at the “basilica.” The
fine state of preservation of a third likeness in
Naples is also likely the result of its storage in a
secure location.96 All three images are from
Rome or its vicinity and were undoubtedly re-
moved from display as a result of Plautilla’s
downfall.
In contrast, a portrait in the Getty museum has
93 Sala dei Busti, no. 300, inv. 687; J. Meischner (1964)
83, no. 65, fig. 59. H. B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971)119, 128, pl. 29 c-d (with earlier literature); Fittschen-
Zanker III, 30, no. 32, n. 1, 93, n. 11; G. Spinola (1999)
120, no. 95. The portrait is a replica of the second type
with diagonally braided Melonenfrisur.
94 609; C. Visconti (1883) 305, no. 609; C. Visconti, I
monumenti del Museo Torlonia (Rome) pl. 158, no. 609; J.
Meischner (1964) 86-7, no. 67; I Caruso in C. Gasparri
(1980) 228, no. 609; S. Nodelman (1982) 110, n. 13, fig.
10. The portrait is a replica of the third portrait type with
Scheitelzopf.
95 The right side of the bust from is a restoration.
96 Museo Nazionale Archeologico 6189 (1057); measure-
ments unavailable; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)
124; MNA 166, no. 95, (with fig.,with earlier literature). The
portrait is a replica of type I.
167
been cut from the statue to which it originally
belonged and its eroded surfaces, especially at the
right side of the head, suggest that it has suffered
long period of partial immersion in water (fig.
164).97 The likeness may have been hacked from
its statue and thrown in a body of water in an
act of denigration and poena post mortem, recalling
the numerous images of earlier emperors and
empresses which were similarly decapitated and
disposed of in bodies of water. Traces of the
statue’s drapery are still visible at the right of the
neck, near the clavicle. The portrait is of Italian
marble, and its fine workmanship may indicate
a metropolitan Roman provenance.
The most striking and persuasive testimony
corroborating the obliteration of Plautilla’s public
images and inscriptions is provided by the Arch
of the Argentarii. Abrasions in the surfaces at the
proper right of the western interior panel mark
Plautilla’s initial position next to her father
Plautianus (fig. 159). Furthermore, Plautilla’s
commemoration in line four of the attic inscrip-
tion has been erased and replaced with a new title
awarded to Julia Domna in A.D. 211, Mater
Senatus et Patriae.98 It has been suggested, quite
plausibly, that the arch originally supported a
bronze statuary group of the imperial family, and
if so, Plautilla’s portrait was certainly removed
(and melted down) at the same time that her
image was eradicated from the relief and her
name obliterated in the inscription.99 As with her
father, all trace of Plautilla has been effectively
eliminated from the arch. Plautilla’s abolitio memo-
riae strongly resembles that of Commodus on the
97 72.AA.118; h. 0.305 m.; J. Frel (1981) 93, no. 76, 130
(with earlier literature); F. Yegul (1981) 65-66, figs. 8-10;
S. Nodelman (1982). The head is a type 3 portrait with
Scheitelzopf.
98 This line originally read: IVLIAE AVG. MATRI AVGG.
ET CASTRORVM ET FVLVIAE PLAVTILLAE AVG. IMP.
CAES. M. AVRELI ANTONINI PII FELECIS AVG. Haynes-
Hirst 4-5 and S. De Maria (1988) 308.
99 S. De Maria (1988) 308; Because of the prominence
of his name on the inscription and the inclusion of his por-
trait in the interior relief panels, a portrait of Plautianus
may also have appeared in the statuary group which is likely
to have adorned the attic. If so, it would have been removed
after his death in 205.
168 chapter eight
panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius and is the only
documented instance of the erasure of an impe-
rial female portrait from a Roman relief, further
underscoring the exactitude with which her
damnatio was pursued under Caracalla.100
Geta
Publius (or Lucius) Septimius Geta, the younger
son of Septimius Severus, was born on 7 March
189.101 He was granted the title of Caesar on 28
January 198 at the same time that Caracalla was
proclaimed Augustus, the date of their elevation
being carefully chosen to coincide with the one
hundredth anniversary of Trajan’s accession.102
Geta held the consulship in 205 and again in 208.
He was officially designated Augustus sometime
in 210, although many inscriptions, including that
from the Arch of the Argentarii in Rome, refer
to him as Augustus much earlier.103 Although
Septimius Severus fully intended that his sons
should rule jointly after his death, they were
incapable of sharing power and their enmity fi-
nally culminated Geta’s murder on 26 Decem-
ber 211.104
Caracalla attempted to justify the execution on
the grounds that Geta was involved in a con-
spiracy to murder him.105 Consequently Geta was
posthumously declared a hostis by the army on
Caracalla’s orders, ensuring the destruction of
Geta’s images and inscriptions.106 Geta’s parti-
sans at Rome were ruthlessly hunted down and
killed.107 Indeed, Dio, a contemporary witness,
100 As noted earlier, Julia Maior’s portrait has almost
certainly been removed or altered on the Ara Pacis.
101A. Birley (1988) 218. Geta is given both the praenomen
Lucius and Publius. It is possible that Lucius was used on
certain occasions in order to avoid confusion with Septimius
Severus’s brother, also named P. Septimius Geta.
102 A. Birley (1988) 130.
103 Ibid.
104 T.D. Barnes (1968) 522-24;A. Birley (1988) 218.
105 Dio 77(78). 3.1-2.
106 Herodian 4.8; HA, Carac., 1.1; Eutr. 8.19.
107 Dio records the number killed as 20,000, 77(78).3.4;
on the damnatio and the murder of Geta’s supporters, see
D.C. MacKenzie (1949) 29-33.
records that Caracalla vented his anger even on
the stones which had supported Geta’s statues
and caused the coins that bore his image to be
melted down: 6"Á J@ÃH J•H gÆ6`<"H "ÛJ@Ø $"FJV-
F"F4 8\2@4H éD(\.gJ@, 6"Á JÎ <`:4F:" JÎ BD@NX-
D@< "ÛJÎ< FL<gPf<gLFg< .108 Furthermore, it
became a capital offence to speak or write Geta’s
name,109 and a man was reportedly put to death
for paying honor to a portrait of Geta after the
damnatio.110 Geta’s name and titles have also been
erased in numerous papyri.111 Geta’s name re-
mains noticeably unmentioned in a papyrus dated
to 212 in which the prefect of Egypt, Baebius
Iuncius relays the senatorial instructions concern-
ing the condemnation.112 Caracalla abolished the
celebration of Geta’s birthday and took the ex-
traordinary step of instituting annual sacrifices to
Geta’s manes in the underworld, thus emphasiz-
ing Geta’s absolute exclusion from the company
of divi, the officially consecrated emperors and
empresses.113 Perhaps out of deference to his
mother, Geta’s corpse was not subjected to the
public indignities of a poena post mortem.114 On the
contrary, his body was cremated, he enjoyed an
elaborate funeral and his ashes were placed in a
tomb modelled on the Septizonium which
Septimius Severus had constructed at the south-
eastern corner of the Palatine.115 Eventually Julia
Maesa, the sister of Julia Domna, deposited
Geta’s remains, together with those of his mother,
in the Mausoleum of Hadrian.116
108 77(78).12.6.
109 Dio 77(78).12.5 includes the information that the
name of Geta, which had been a popular name for slaves
in Latin and Greek comedies, was no longer used by the
playwrights after the damnatio.
110 HA.Carac. 3.5.
111 P. Mertens (1960) 541-52. E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.
112 BGU 2056 in H. Maehler (1968) 77-8; E. Van’t Dack
(1974) 876; T. Pekáry (1985) 137; P. Stewart (2000) 163.
113 Dio 77(78).12.5-6; S.R.F. Price (1987) 91.
114 As the Senate wanted to do with the body of Com-
modus (HA.Comm. 17.4; 18-19; Dio 73[74].2.1) and as was
done with the bodies of Vitellius (Suet. Vit. 17.2), Elagabalus
and Julia Soemias (Dio 80.20; Herod. 5.8.9; HA.Elag. 17.47,
23.7). Geta’s corpse may have been spared this fate out of
respect for Julia Domna.
115 HA.Geta 7.1-2; this account may be fictitious since
the author of the HA suggests that Geta was deified HA
2.7-9; see S. Nodelman (1965) 294, n. 233.
116 Dio 78(79).24.3., who refers to the Mausoleum as
 the severans
Geta’s Portrait Typology
Much of the propaganda disseminated during the
reign of Septimius Severus concentrated on the
emperor’s dynastic ambitions. His retroactive
adoption into the Antonine family provided a
fictive link with the previous ruling family, while
the elevation of Caracalla to the rank of Augustus
in 198 established the succession and future con-
tinuity of the Severan dynasty. As the second
male heir, only slightly younger than Caracalla,
Geta was crucial to the Severan dynastic stabil-
ity. He was frequently honored with portraits and
his likeness was included in the major commemo-
rative relief monuments of the period. In his roles
as Caesar and Augustus, Geta minted coins in his
own right and also appeared on special issues
which celebrated the imperial family.
Although the identification of Geta’s sculpted
portraits is partially complicated by his physiog-
nomical resemblance to his brother Caracalla,
Geta’s first official portrait type, celebrates his
elevation to the rank of Caesar in 198 and is easy
to distinguish from Caracalla’s contemporary
type 1 portraits.117 Geta’s earliest official like-
nesses in marble and on coins depict him with a
coiffure of full, wavy locks; the bangs over his
forehead are parted in the center; the hair on the
side of the head is characterized by long, tousled
S-shaped locks, with the hair on the nape of the
neck combed forward; the ears are generally left
uncovered or only partially covered; his eyes are
wide and almond shaped with prominent lids, a
slightly snub nose, full cheeks, a relatively small
mouth with a full underlip, and a rounded chin;
the z!<JT<\<@L J,:X<4F:”. Dio says that Julia’s ashes were
transferred from the monument of Gaius and Lucius, where
they may have been originally interred because of her
claims of descent from the Julii. This monument is either
the Mausoleum of Augustus or a tomb of his two grand-
sons for which this is the only ancient literary testimony.
117 Caracalla’s contemporary portraits show him with
similar facial features, but Geta’s eyes are generally wider
and his eyebrows often heavier, like those of his mother
Julia Domna. Caracalla’s type I coiffure is also very dif-
ferent from that of Geta, being generally more full and curly
and lacking a central part. On Caracalla’s first portrait type,
see Fittschen-Zanker I, 98-100, no. 86.
169
sometimes a full underchin, reminiscent of baby
fat, can be detected.118
In 205, a new type was created to commemo-
rate Geta’s joint consulship with Caracalla and
it deliberately emphasizes Geta’s physical resem-
blance to his brother. Contemporary coin images
depict the two brothers with virtually indistin-
guishable facial features that include a forehead
with a single furrow, wide eyes beneath arching
brows, an aquiline nose, a small mouth, and
rounded chin. Likewise, their new closely cropped
coiffures are nearly identical, with a series of short
comma shaped locks arranged across the fore-
head. Nevertheless, Caracalla’s hairstyle is occa-
sionally differentiated from Geta’s by the addi-
tion of a short curl extending onto his upper right
cheekbone, or a single longer curl which reverses
the right hand direction of the bangs over the
right eye.119 The length of the side whiskers of
both princes gradually increases on coins of 205-
209, eventually reaching the line of the jaw, and
by 209/210 both wear a full beard.120 The
similitudo of the brother’s numismatic portraits is
intended to promote the concept of imperial
concordia, as well as to evoke associations with
Rome’s twin protectors, the Dioscuri.121
Twenty-one marble portraits, replicas or vari-
ants of a single prototype, closely resemble the
coin portraits of Caracalla and Geta from 205-
211. These sculpted likenesses depict a youth with
a closely cropped coiffure which is slightly fuller
and more curly over the temples. The hair is
arranged in short, comma-shaped locks over the
forehead, usually with a slight part over the in-
ner corner of the left eye. The locks on the nape
of the neck are generally brushed forward. The
face is oval shaped, tapering at the chin, the eyes
are wide and almond shaped beneath arching
118 For Geta’s type I see, Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-102,
no. 87. This type is sometimes referred to as the Munich-
Toulouse type after two well-preserved replicas.
119 See H. Mattingly, BMCRE 5 250, no. 476, 272, no.
576.
120 BMCRE 5, 359, pl. 53.8-9; P.V. Hill (1964) 8, figs
10-16, 22-26; S. Nodelman (1965) 221-22; Fittschen-Zanker
I, 103-15.
121 S. Nodelman (1965) 204.
170 chapter eight
brows, there is a slight bulge in the forehead in
profile over the bridge of the nose. The nose itself
is fairly straight and aquiline.122 The mouth usu-
ally turns slightly up at the corners with a very
full, receding lower lip. The chin is rounded.
While the coiffure and physiognomic details re-
main consistent, the length of sideburns and fa-
cial hair are variable. Like the numismatic por-
traits, the sculpted type can appear without
sideburns, with short sideburns, with long side-
burns down to the jawline, and with a beard or
small moustache. The facial hair is obviously used
to indicate the advancing age and maturity of the
subject.
Because the numismatic evidence is inconclu-
sive, the marble images of this type have been
assigned by some scholars to Caracalla, and by
others to Geta.123 However, the portrait of Geta
from the dextrarum iunctio panel of the Arch of
Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna, which in-
cludes the slight part in the hair over the inner
corner of the left eye, is clearly of this type. The
evidence from the arch would seem to confirm
incontrovertibly the identification of the twenty-
one sculpted portraits as Geta.124 These marble
122 As seen in the coin profiles and the two heads which
preserve their original nose: Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA
1076 and Pegli, Museo Civico.
123 Identified as Caracalla, Typus Gabii, by H. Wiggers
(1971) 22-28; identified as Geta, L. Budde (1951) 33-39;
and S. Nodelman (1965) 212-23.
124 H. Wiggers rejected this identification on the basis
of Geta’s damnatio and assigned the portraits to Caracalla,
claiming that so many replicas would not have survived the
destruction of his images, (1971) 22-28. This cannot be used
as an argument against an association of these portraits with
Geta, since portraits of condemned emperors do escape
destruction, largely as a result of warehousing or storage
following their removal from public display. K. Fittschen’s
suggestion that the artists of the Lepcis arch confused the
portraits of the two brothers because of their strong simi-
larity and that the portrait of the figure in the center of
the imperial group is actually Caracalla, although intended
to represent Geta, is equally unconvincing, Fittschen-
Zanker I, 103. It seems highly unlikely that the artists
responsible for such an important monument at the seat
of the Severan gens would have made so careless an error,
or that, once the relief was executed the mistake was not
recognized and rectified. In addition, Caracalla is given
more prominence in the scene via his position, his dextrarum
iunctio with Septimius and his more massive and mature
portrait features.
portraits must, in fact, be representative of Geta’s
second and final type, which would bring the total
number of his extant sculpted and bronze por-
traits to thirty-five, a number not inconsistent
with surviving portraits of the condemned em-
perors of the first century (Caligula, Nero, and
Domitian). Additional evidence for the identifi-
cation of this group as Geta and not Caracalla
occurs on two gems, in New York125 and
Rome.126 Both gems depict bust length portraits
of Caracalla and Geta together with Septimius
Severus and Julia Domna; in both gems
Caracalla is fully bearded whereas Geta is beard-
less. These gems would seem to indicate that
Caracalla adopted a beard earlier than Geta. The
intaglio in New York was certainly used as a seal
and when stamped, the positive impression de-
picts the parting of locks over the inner corner
of Geta’s left eye.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Geta’s Images
Portraits of Geta’s first and second types were
intentionally vandalized in response to the
damnatio memoriae. The only surviving full length
portrait of Geta, an over-lifesized cuirassed statue
in the Villa del Poggio Imperiale near Florence,
has been savagely mutilated (cat. 7.5; fig. 165a-
b). The image reproduces Geta’s first type and
depicts him wearing a laurel crown, cuirass,
paludamentum, and boots. A captive foreigner in
reduced scale crouches by Geta’s right leg. As
with the deliberately defaced statues of Lucilla in
Guelma and Izmir and Annia Fundania Faustina
from Ostia, the damage to the Poggio image is
confined to the facial features. The upper brow,
most of the left eye and cheek, nose, mouth and
chin are entirely destroyed and a section of the
laurel crown on the left side of the head is also
125 Metropolitan Museum of Art, acc. no. 40.143,
l. .0002 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 71 (not
antique?) (with earlier literature).
126 Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 72147,
0.0002 m. x 0.0012 m. (glass paste); H. von Heintze (1966-
67) 199, n. 49; D. Soechting (1972) 67, 241, nr. 12; H.B.
Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 80 (with earlier literature).
 the severans
missing. The remainder of the statue is generally
well-preserved, again underscoring the inten-
tional nature of its mutilation. Formerly part of
the Della Valle collection, the portrait is from
Rome or its environs and attests to the rigorous
pursual of the damnatio in the capital in conjunc-
tion with Caracalla’s violent persecution of Geta’s
supporters there.127 The extraordinary triumphal
imagery of this representation of the young prince
may have made it especially liable to mutilation.
Nevertheless, the well-preserved condition of the
statue’s body suggests that it was stored (or bur-
ied) following its defacement.
Two other fragmentary type 1 replicas in
Venice (cat. 7.8; fig. 166)128 the Museo Capitolino
(cat. 7.7)129 have also been vandalized. The en-
tire face of the Venice portrait has been disfig-
ured through repeated blows from a chisel. The
destruction is limited to the area of the face and
Geta’s distinctive type 1 coiffure remains intact.
The ears have also suffered no damage. The
Capitoline portrait consists of the upper portion
of the head, all that survives from an image vio-
lently attacked with a hammer or chisel. The
forehead and eyes exhibit clear traces of the blows
they have sustained, while the coiffure and tops
of the ears have not been damaged.
Two portraits of Geta’s second type have also
been attacked and disfigured. Modern restora-
tions to the brows, eyes, nose, and mouth con-
ceal the ancient mutilation of a likeness in the
Palazzo Pitti (cat. 7.4; fig. 167).130 The rest of the
head is fairly well preserved, confirming that the
portrait’s defacement was deliberate. The T-
shaped disfigurement of the likeness recalls the
similar defacement of Geta’s cuirassed portrait
from the Villa del Poggio Imperiale as well rep-
resentations of Nero, Lucilla, and Commodus
(cat. 2.2; cat. 6.1,8-9). A head of Geta from
Guelma in North Africa has suffered severe blows
from a chisel, removing the nose and damaging
the brows and eyes in a nearly identical T-shaped
127 U. Aldovrandi (1563) 220; V. Saladino (1980) 434,
n. 11.
128 Museo Archeologico, inv. 79.
129 Magazzini, inv. 2519.
130 Museo degli Argenti, Sala I, inv. 1036.
171
fashion (cat. 7.6; fig. 168).131 This portrait’s mu-
tilation provides compelling evidence for the de-
struction of Geta’s images in the provinces. Be-
cause Geta’s damnatio was enacted on so vast a
scale, the army may have been instrumental in
the destruction of his images, like the Guelma
portrait, either following directives from the capi-
tal or acting on their own initiative in order to
spontaneously express their loyalty to the victo-
rious Caracalla by deprecating the memory of his
hated brother.
Geta’s type 1 likenesses survive in significantly
fewer numbers than Caracalla’s contemporary
type 1, eleven vs. forty, which provides additional
confirmation for the destruction of Geta’s im-
ages.132 The great discrepancy in the number of
portraits of the two brothers may partially result
from the greater production of Caracalla’s type
1 because of his more prominent position as el-
der son and co-Augustus, but this cannot entirely
account for the fact that there are nearly four
times as many extant replicas of Caracalla’s first
type.133
Dio records that Caracalla melted down Geta’s
coinage at the same time he destroyed his
sculpted portraits, but Geta’s issues survive in
sufficient quantities to suggest that such numis-
matic destruction was limited in scope.134 How-
ever, Geta’s name and portrait have been oblit-
erated on certain issues in the east. Geta’s name
has been erased on coins from Ephesus and
Isaura and his name and portraits have been
deliberately effaced on issues from Clazomenae,
Miletus, Nicea, Pergamum, Perperene, and
Smyrna (figs. 169-70).135 Geta’s image has been
obliterated on issues from Pergamum and
Stratonicea (figs. 171-72).136 The obverses of the
131 Musée Archéologique.
132 Excluding the deliberately damaged type 1 replicas
in the Capitoline and Venice. Caracalla’s type 1 replicas
are listed in Fittschen and Zanker I, 99-100, no. 86; see
also S. Nodelman (1965) 212.
133 S. Nodelman (1965) 212.
134 Dio 77(78).12.6. Perhaps Dio is recording Caracalla’s
intention of melting down the coins.
135 R. Mowat (1901) 448, 452-60; K. Regling (1904)
137-9.
136 K. Regling (1904) 139-42; K. Neugegauer (1936)
162, fig. 5; K. Harl (1987) pl. 12.4-5;
172 chapter eight
Pergamum coin initially depicted facing portraits
of Geta and Caracalla, while those from
Stratonicea depicted Geta and Septimius Severus
or Geta and Caracalla. Another example from
Stratonicea, formerly on the art market, depicted
facing portraits of Geta and Caracalla.137 In the
Stratonicea issues, Geta’s portrait features and
name and titles have been entirely obliterated and
the resulting void spaces often countermarked
with the profile busts of a helmeted female fig-
ure, either Roma or Minerva and sometimes the
inscription 2g@L (of the god, likely referring to
Caracalla’s status as the son of the deified
Septimius Severus).138 The unprecedented num-
ber of disfigured or countermarked coins stands
as an impressive testament to Geta’s numismatic
damnatio memoriae and further suggests that such
erasures and countermarkings were seen as a
practicable alternatives to the total recall and
melting down of Geta’s issues that had been
mandated by Caracalla.139 As in the past,
countermarking or erasure inflicted on Geta’s
coinage is limited to bronze or brass issues.
The Transformation of Geta’s Images
As with the images of Commodus and Plautilla,
Geta’s sculpted likenesses were not recut imme-
diately after his condemnation. Nevertheless, a
type 2 portrait in the Museo Capitolino, was
refashioned in the mid third century and, like the
representations of Caligula, Nero, Domitian,
Commodus, Lucilla, and Plautilla which were re-
used at much later periods, provides compelling
evidence for the warehousing of imperial images
(cat. 7.10; fig. 173).140 The recarving has left the
facial features and the hair over the forehead and
temples intact, securing the identification as Geta.
However, Geta’s short, plastically modeled hair
on the top, sides, and back of the head has been
cut down and replaced by incised locks which
137 (M&M list 561 (January 1993) no. 15.
138 R. Mowat (1901) 454-55; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)
186-8, nos. 45-47, with figs.
139 R. Mowat (1901) 447.
140 Salone 51, inv. 675.
closely follow the contour of the skull. This com-
bination of slightly fuller, plastically rendered
locks over the forehead with an incised coiffure
is characteristic of portraiture from the middle
of the third century.141 Geta’s portrait must have
been fairly easily accessible, perhaps in a sculp-
tural depot thirty or forty years after his
damnatio.142 As with the representation of Plautilla
reworked in the Tetrarchic or Constantinian
period, the rather generic character of the recut
coiffure and physiognomy hinder a specific iden-
tification. It is unclear whether the image has
been altered into a private or imperial individual.
Geta’s image has also been radically trans-
formed on a rock crystal intaglio in the Michael
C. Carlos Museum (cat. 7.9; fig. 174).143 As pre-
served, the gem originally depicted Septimius
Severus and Caracalla sacrificing, with Geta
standing behind Geta and the goddess victory
crowning Septimius from behind. The surviving
letters +IKC have been inscribed on the reverse
of the intaglio. Geta has been refashioned into a
second figure of Victory and the recut sections
are noticeably deeper than the untouched figures.
Nevertheless, the profile of Geta, as well as sec-
tions of his drapery and the rotulus he originally
held are still plainly visible. The difficulties in-
herent in recutting an intaglio of such small di-
mensions are nearly insurmountable and posed
far more technical challenges even than the re-
cutting of cameos, which were at least executed
in relief. As the only surviving intaglio to be
reconfigured, the Carlos rock crystal is yet an-
other visual testament to the pervasive nature of
the condemnation of Geta’s monuments.
141 Fittschen-Zanker, I, 105. For example, see three
portraits of Gordian III in the Musei Capitolini: Museo
Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 53, inv. 490, Fittschen-
Zanker I, 127-28, no. 107, pls., 131-32; Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani, inv. 995, Fitt-
schen-Zanker I, 128-29, no. 108, pl. 133; Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala I, inv. 479, Fittschen-
Zanker I, 129-30, no. 109, pls. 134-35.
142 Its good state of preservation, as well as a corre-
spondence of the locks over the forehead to contemporary
mid third century fashions, would have rendered the por-
trait especially suitable for reuse.
143 Atlanta, Emory University, inv. 2003.25.2.
 the severans
The Removal of Geta’s Images
As in the past, Geta’s sculptural images were re-
moved from public display, and the many sur-
viving well-preserved portraits must have been
warehoused or buried. A portrait of Geta’s sec-
ond type, in Oslo, confirms such warehousing of
his likenesses.144 The portrait was discovered in
Rome, together with a portrait of Elagabalus, also
in Oslo and similarly removed from its original
context.145 The representation of Elagabalus has
not been finished and its completion must have
been interrupted by his condemnation. Both
images may have been stored in a sculptor’s
workshop or depot, securing their preservation
for posterity.
Numerous representations of Geta from
Rome or its environs, with no signs of deliber-
ate defacement, were stored or buried following
his condemnation. Six of these portraits, in the
Louvre,146 the Terme,147 the Vatican (fig. 175),148
Castle Howard,149 and two likenesses in the
Museo Capitolino,150 survive together with their
144 Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet 600, inv. 1433, h. 0.253 m.;
S. Sande (1991) 77-8, no. 63, pl. 62 (with earlier literature).
The upper right portion of the head is missing and there
is damage to the nose and lips, but no indications that this
damage is deliberate.
145 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1434; See infra.
146 Inv. MA 1076 (2282) h. 0.66 m.; S. Nodelman (1965)
216, 219, pls. 126-27; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)
22-24, 44, 52, pl. 5c, 8a-b, 22a; D. Soechting (1972) 196-
97; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102. K. de Kersauson (1996) 394-
5, no. 181, with figs. (with earlier literature).
147 Magazzini, inv. 88; h. 071 m.; A. Cioffarelli in
MusNazRom I.9.2 (Rome 1988) 345-49, no. R264, with figs.
(with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 149-50, no. 33,
pl. 52.4; The portrait has received damage to the ears, nose,
mouth, and chin. There is some chipping to the drapery
and the head has been broken off the neck and reattached.
148 Galleria Chiaramonti 3.16, inv. 1238 (Type 1); S.
Nodelman (1965) 207, 210-11; H. von Heintze (1966-67)
195, n. 30 (Caracalla); H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)
98-100, 111-12; pl 27a-b (with earlier literature); Fittschen-
Zanker I, 101; P. Liverani (1989) 17. Restorations in marble
include the nose and sections of the bust.
149 Fittschen-Zanker I, 102, Beil. 69c; A. Cioffarelli in
MusNazRom I.9.2 (Rome 1988) 348; H.R. Goette (1989)
149, no. 32, pl. 52.3.
150 Stanza degli Imperatori 41, inv. 468, h. 0.68 m.
(Type 2); ex-Collection Albani?; Fittschen-Zanker, I, 102-
173
original bust forms, or sections of their original
bust forms. The Terme portrait was discovered
during excavations for the foundations of the
Ministero delle Finanze on the Quirinal. The
Louvre bust, one of the best preserved of Geta’s
likenesses, was discovered at Gabii together with
portraits of Septimius Severus151 and Julia
Domna.152 The portrait is entirely intact and still
preserves its ancient surface. In addition to the
bust length portraits, an imago clipeata in Spoleto
is likely to have been removed and stored.153
Other well preserved likenesses from Rome or
its surroundings include representations in the
Vatican154 and Munich.155 The Vatican portrait
was discovered at Ostia. Like the bust from Gabii,
the Munich head is extremely well preserved and
retains much of its ancient finish. The portrait
comes from the Palazzo Bevilacqua in Verona,
and its extremely high artistic quality that it is a
product of a metropolitan Roman workshop.
104, no. 88, pls. l06-7 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette
(1989) 67, n. 328, 151, no. 50, pl. 54.1, 94.12.
Salone, no. 40, inv. 660, h. 0.615 m. (Type 2); ex-
Collection Albani ?; Fittschen-Zanker I, 104-5, no. 89, pls.
107-108 (with earlier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 150,
no. 34.
151 Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. MA 1118; A.M .A. M.
McCann (1968) 192, pl. 97 (not antique); D. Soechting
(1972) 196-97, no. 92; K. de Kersauson (1996) 354-55, no.
162.
152 Paris, Louvre, MA 1109; J.J. Bernoulli (1894) 39,
pl. 16; J. Meischner (1964) 30, nr. 2; Fittschen-Zanker III,
28, no. 14, n. 1; K. de Kersauson (1996) 364-65, no. 167.
153 Seminario (type I); Fittschen-Zanker I, 100.
154 Galleria Chiaramonti 23.9, inv. 1551 (type 1);
H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 99-100, 112, pl. 26a-
b (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 101;
P. Liverani (1989) 51. The nose, parts of the neck and bust
form are restorations in marble, and chips in the area of
the brows, cheeks and mouth have been filled with plas-
ter.
155 Glyptothek, F.352, h. 0.XX m. (type I); H. B.
Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 97-99, 108, pl. 25 (with
earlier literature); L. Franzoni (1978) no. 16; Fittschen-
Zanker, I, 101; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 325, fig. 289. Dam-
age is limited to very slight chips to the tip of the nose, to
the left side of the mouth, and to a few locks of the coif-
fure; a crack runs through the neck, and the rims of the
ears have been restored. The shape of the tenon indicates
that the head was originally intended for a draped statue.
174 chapter eight
Additional portraits in Florence;156 Munich;157
Vienna;158 ex Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski (fig.
176);159 Caltanisetta;160 Catania;161 Geneva;162
the Louvre;163 the Prado;164 Pegli (fig. 177);165 the
Museo Torlonia,166 and Stuttgart 167 are all likely
to have been removed from display and stored
or buried following Geta’s condemnation. An
underlifesized bronze bust, a replica of type 1,
has also have escaped the destruction of Geta’s
images.168
Images of Geta were also removed in the prov-
inces, as attested by well preserved likenesses in
Toulouse169 two portraits in Tunis (fig. 178),170
156 Museo Archeologico, inv. 13791 (type 1); Fittschen-
Zanker I, 100.
157 Residenz inv. 271 (type 1), h. 0.13 m.; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 101; E. Weski in G. Hojer, ed. (1987) 251-2, no.
136, pl. 176.
158 Kunsthistorisches Museum, I 237, h. (type 1);
Fittschen-Zanker I, 101.
159 (type 1); Fittschen-Zanker I, 101 (with earlier litera-
ture).
160 Museo Civico, h. 0.50 m. (type 2); E. de Miro (1972)
242, fig. 11; N. Bonacasa Carra (1977) 25-28, pls. 12-13;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.
161 Museo Communale 226, h. (type 2); N. Bonacasa
(1964) 107; no. 138, pl. 63; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 105; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.
162 Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. MF 1347, h. 0.35
(type 2); I. Rilliet-Maillard (1978) 66, no. 21, with figures
(with earlier literature); J. Chamay and J. L. Maier (1982)
no. 64, with figure; Fittschen-Zanker I, 104.
163 Louvre, Mag., MA 2315 (type 2), h. 0.255 m.; H.B.
Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 75; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102,
Beil. 67; K de Kersauson (1996) 396-7, no. 182, with figs.,
(with earlier literature).
164 inv. 197 E, h. 0.885 m. (type 2); S.F. Schröder (1993)
264-66, no. 76, with figs. (with earlier literature). From Italy.
165 Museo Civico (type 2); Fittschen-Zanker I, 102, Beil.
68.c-d.
166 Museo Torlonia 575 (type 2); H.B. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 81; C. Gasparri and I Caruso (1980) 223,
no. 575 (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.
167 Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv. Arch. 68/
1 (type 2), h.0.345 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)
86 (with earlier literature); U. Hausmann (1975) 51-3, no.
17, 128, figs. 52-4; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.
168 H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 99-100, 114;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 101, n. 4.
169 Musée St. Raymond 30109 (type 1); H. Wiggers and
M. Wegner (1971) 97-98; 113; pl. 26.c-d (with earlier lit-
erature); V. Saladino (1980) 436, pls. 81.4, 83,3; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 101; N. Hannestad (1994) 132; K. Fittschen
(1999) ns. 316, 455, pl. 128. The tip of the nose and most
of the chin have been chipped off. The left half of the rear
of the head has broken away and been reattached.
and a fragmentary bronze portrait in Ham-
burg.171 Both of the Tunisian likenesses are from
Thuburbo Maius and one, a head worked for
insertion, was discovered in the remains of an
aedicula near the forum. The portrait was likely
removed from its statue and stored in the area
of the Forum. Likewise, the other portrait which
was discovered near the Summer and Winter
Baths, must have been removed and stored in the
vicinity of the Baths.
The Toulouse portrait was part of a late an-
tique collection of sculpture displayed at the
Roman villa of Chiragan in France. In prepara-
tion for its display at the Villa, Geta’s portrait
head was mounted on a bust of eastern Roman
provenance to which it did not originally belong.
The entire sculptural collection at Chiragan was
formed in the fourth century and is largely com-
posed of reworked or modified earlier sculp-
ture.172 Geta’s bust was included in a cycle of
imperial images representing Augustus, Trajan,
Hadrian, Sabina, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius
Severus and Caracalla, among others.173 At the
time of the collection’s formation, Geta’s image
may have been acquired from a sculptural de-
pot or other secure location where it had been
warehoused following his condemnation.174 As
170 Musée du Bardo C 1397 (type 2), h. ; H.B. Wiggers
and M. Wegner (1971) 90, 199 (with earlier literature);
Fittschen-Zanker I, 102.
Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1347; S. Nodelman
(1965) 218, 220-221, pls. 132-33; H.B. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 12, 53-54, 90, pls. 7, 8D (with earlier lit-
erature); Fittschen-Zanker, I, 102.The portrait is very well
preserved; the major damage to the head has been sustained
in the area of the nose and upper lip and there is inciden-
tal damage to the lower lid of the left eye and the back of
the right ear.
171 Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, inv. 1971.3, h.
0.141 m., W. .087 m; “Erwerbungen des Museums für
Kunst und Gewerbe,” (W.H. Gross) AA (1974) 69-71, figs.
28a-b; Fittschen-Zanker I, 101, n. 4.
172 On the collection, see N. Hannestad (1994) 127-44.
E. Bartman also discusses the collection (1991) 73.
173 N. Hannestad (1994) 128-9.
174 N. Hannestad has suggested that the imperial por-
traits were acquired from an Augusteum. Most of the
imperial portraits appear to have been fairly poorly pre-
served at the time of their acquisition for the villa and
required extensive restoration. Nevertheless, the portrait of
Geta is much better preserved than the other imperial
 the severans
might be expected, Geta’s damnatio was no longer
enforced in the fourth century and clearly the
owner of the Villa wished to have a representa-
tive cycle of imperial images. Additional evidence
for the treatment of Geta’s representations in the
provinces is provided by the fragmentary bronze
portrait from Egypt, now in Hamburg.
A badly weathered under life-sized represen-
tation of Geta in Ostia attests to the more cur-
sory and destructive disposal of his images.175
Seven holes drilled in the top and sides of the
head for the attachment of metal rays indicate
that the likeness depicted Geta with the radiate
crown of Sol.176 The small scale of the head and
its divine attributes further suggest that it was
originally displayed in a public or private lararium,
from which it was removed as a consequence of
the damnatio.
The most spectacular and persuasive evidence
for the removal of Geta’s images occurs on the
major Severan relief monuments from Rome and
Lepcis Magna. As with Plautianus beforehand,
every epigraphic or visual reference to Geta has
bee ruthlessly expunged from the Arch of
Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. As the
preeminent commemorative monument in the
capital celebrating the Severan victory in Parthia,
the arch’s placement diagonally across the Forum
from the Parthian Arch of Augustus was delib-
erately intended to link Severus’s achievements
with those of Rome’s first emperor.177 Further-
images, especially a type 1 portrait of Caracalla which has
been cut down from a statue and whose facial features have
been largely recut. Geta’s features have not been recut, the
only modification to the image being its attachment to the
bust form to which it did not originally belong. It is likely
that the image of Geta had been stored in a secure loca-
tion following his condemnation, accounting for its better
state of preservation in contradistinction to the other por-
traits which remained on public display in the context of
the Augusteum, (1994) 132-33.
175 Magazzini, vetrina 1, inv. 282; h. 0.08 m. (type I);
R. Calza (1977) 51-2, no. 64, pl. 51. Although the head is
very poorly preserved, the central part of the coiffure can
still be discerned and the hair partially covers the ears, as
in the Munich portrait. The oval shape of the face and
general outline of the mouth also recall Geta’s first type.
176 A. Alföldi (1935) 107-8, fig. 9; R. Calza (1977) 52.
177 The arch is securely placed within the predominantly
Julio-Claudian fremework of the Forum, reinforcing the
175
more, the inscription of the arch acknowledged
Severan dynastic claims by honoring Caracalla
and Geta together with their father.178 This in-
scription originally read:
IMP.CAES.LVCIO.SEPTIMIO.M.FIL.SEVERO.PIO.PERTINACI.AVG.
PATRI.PATRIAE.PARTHICO.ARABICO.ET//
PARTHICO.ADIABENICO.PONTIFIC.MAXIMO.TRIBVNIC.POTEST.XI.
IMP.XI.COS.III.PROCOS.ET//
IMP.CAES.M.AVRELIO.L.FIL.ANTONINO.AVG.PIO.FELICI.TRIBVNIC.
POTEST.VI.COS.PROCOS.ET//
P.SEPTIMIO.GETAE.NOB(ILLISIMO).CAESARI//
OB.REM.PVBLICAM.RESTITVTAM.IMPERIVMQUE
POPVLI.ROMANI.PROPAGATVM//
INSIGNIBVS.VIRTVTIBVS.EORVM.DOMI.FORIQVE.S.P.Q.R..179
As an essential part of the monument, the inscrip-
tion is repeated on both the eastern and western
attic facades, and its importance was further
enhanced in antiquity by the addition of gilded
bronze letters.180 Geta’s commemoration has
been obliterated from the inscription: the ET
which ends line three was recarved to P.P. in
order to refer to Caracalla as Pater Patriae, and
line four was entirely recut to refer to Severus
and Caracalla as: OPTIMIS FORTISSIMISQUE
PRINCIBVS.181
At the same time the inscription was altered,
representations of Geta were also removed from
the bronze statuary group which crowned the
arch and the reliefs which decorated the fa-
cades.182 Although the portrait heads are no
longer preserved in the badly weathered reliefs,
the figure of the emperor is consistently recog-
nizable in eight scenes as a result of his larger
scale and central position. In two of these scenes,
Severans’ link to the first dynasty.
178 On the dynastic implications of the monument see
R. Brilliant (1967) 92.
179 CIL 6.1033, ILS 425; R. Brilliant (1967) 91-95; A.
Claridge (1998) 75.
180 R. Brilliant (1967) 91.
181 Line four of the inscription stands in rasura and the
attachment holes for the bronze letters of the original in-
scription are still visible, providing incontrovertible evidence
for the initial appearance of the dedication. Although highly
visible now, the erasure and recutting would have been
substantially masked in antiquity, and, as a result, C.W.
Hedrick’s claims about the legibility of the erasure are
somewhat overstated (2000) 108.
182 Just as Plautianus’s portrait was removed from the
northwestern panel.
176 chapter eight
Geta was depicted next to his father.183 The
southeastern panel (scene I C) depicts an adlocutio
at Nisibis (fig. 156).184 Septimius Severus, flanked
by Caracalla and Geta, is identifiable as the
central figure at the front of the suggestum.185 Geta,
represented as shorter than his brother Caracalla,
appears to Septimius’s left.186 Geta’s head and
upper torso have been sheared off. Geta appears
in the same position, at the emperor’s proper left,
in a scene of adlocutio at Ctesiphon, on the south-
western panel (fig. 179).187 Although these two
figures of Geta are badly damaged, no evidence
for the replacement of the portrait heads exists,
in contrast to the iron dowel which documents
the replacement of Plautianus’s portrait in the
northwestern panel. In addition, a portion of the
right jaw of the figure in the Nisibis adlocutio is
still extant, confirming that Geta’s portrait fea-
tures are likely to have been intentionally severed
from the relief.188 The mutilated state of Geta’s
relief portraits would have been graphic public
reminders in the Forum Romanum of his down-
fall.
Geta’s image was also undoubtedly removed
from the gilded bronze statuary group which
originally decorated the top of the arch. Denarii
183 A. Bonanno (1976) 143-44; S. De Maria (1988) 306;
Geta was represented in conjunction with Septimius Severus
in the both triumphal scenes and the dextrarum iunctio scene
from the attic reliefs of the arch at Lepcis Magna, the south-
eastern panel of the interior bay of the Arch of the
Argentarii, and the Palazzo Sachetti Relief. See infra.
184 R. Brilliant (1967) 186.
185 The emperor is distinguished by his larger scale and
his footgear which consists of calcei without braccae, instead
of the caligae which the common soldiers wear; R. Brilliant
(1967) 187.
186 R. Brilliant (1967) 187-88.
187 Scene IV B; R. Brilliant (1967) 217.
188 Both scenes in which Geta appeared, occur in the
upper registers of the relief panels, near the architrave
which encircles the arch. The top of architrave was reached
through an interior stairway and was enclosed by a metal
parapet, allowing it to function, like the Columns of Trajan
and Marcus Aurelius, as a kind of belvedere from which to
view the Forum, the Capitoline, and Palatine. Thus, the
parapet could have made the upper portions of the reliefs
more accessible to anyone wishing to damage the portraits
of Geta. Additionally, it would have facilitated the recut-
ting of the inscription. On the bronze railing, see R. Nardi
(1983-84) 303.
from the mint of Rome dated to 204-7 depict the
arch topped by a six-horsed chariot, driven by a
single person, and flanked by two standing fig-
ures and two horsemen at the outside.189 The two
equestrian figures are likely to be Caracalla and
Geta.190 As a consequence of his damnatio, Geta’s
image would have been removed from the attic
group and melted down following his death.
Every visual or epigraphic reference to Geta
has also been eradicated from the Arch of the
Argentarii (figs. 157, 180-82) in precisely the same
manner as those of Plautianus and Plautilla. Line
three of the dedication, honoring both Caracalla
and Geta, originally read (fig. 160):
IMP. CAES. M. AVRELIO ANTONINO PIO FELICI AVG. TRIB.
POTEST. VII COS. ET P. SEPTIMIO GETAE NOBILISSIMO
CAESARI ET.191
The reference to Geta as Nobilissimus Caesar was
expunged and replaced by new titles for Cara-
calla, III P.P. PROCOS. FORTISSIMO FELI-
CISSIMOQVE PRINCIPI.192 The reference to
Caracalla as Fortissimvs Princeps directly recalls the
recutting of the inscription from the Arch in the
Forum Romanum in which both Septimius and
Caracalla are called fortissimi principes. A second
reference to Geta has also been erased from the
inscription. In line four, Julia Domna was origi-
nally referred to as “Mother of the Augusti and
the camps” (MATER AVGG. ET CASTRO-
RUM).193 Following Geta’s damnatio the plural
189 BMCRE 5, cxlix, 216, 320-21, pl. 35.5; 252 n. *; 342
n. *; 344 n. +; S. De Maria (1988) 306.
190 Caracalla and Geta were often assimilated to the
Dioscuri; if, in fact, the emperor’s two sons did appear as
the equestrian figures on the arch, a reference to the
Dioscuri may have been intended; G. T, Grisanti (1975)
295; F. Ghedini (1984) 101, n. 175; Fittschen-Zanker I, 103.
Alternatively, Caracalla and Geta may have been depicted
in the chariot with their father, and the horsemen are
soldiers, A. Claridge (1998) 77.
191 D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 4-6; M.
Pallotino (1946) 37-38; S. De Maria (1988) 308.
192 Following COS, the line stands in rasura. Caracalla’s
third consulship began on 1 January 208 and his fourth
on 1 January 213. Since the reworked inscription refers to
him as COS. III, the recutting is securely dated to 208-213,
and must certainly have taken place in 212 following Geta’s
murder and damnatio. See D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst
(1939) 4.
193 D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 4; M.
Pallotino (1946) 31; S. de Maria (1988) 309; Although Geta
 the severans
reference to both Caracalla and Geta as Augusti
(AVGG.) was changed to the singular; Julia’s new
title was given as “Mother of our Augustus and
the Camps” (MATER AVG.N. ET CASTRO-
RUM).194 Such a minute alteration in the inscrip-
tion testifies to the meticulous care which has
been taken to remove any epigraphic reference
to Geta.
Geta’s relief portraits have also been painstak-
ingly removed from the monument. Already in
1690, Giovanni Bellori recognized that the low
relief and clumsy carving of Julia Domna’s left
side in the eastern panel of the arch’s interior bay
were the result of restorations following some kind
of erasure (figs. 180-81).195 As preserved, the proper
right of this panel depicts Septimius Severus, capite
velato, sacrificing over an altar placed to his left.
Julia Domna, veiled, stands to the emperor’s left
and raises her right hand over the altar in a
gesture of dextra elata and holds her left hand stiffly
did not receive the title of Augustus until 211, he is fre-
quently called Augustus prior to that year; D. E. L Haynes
and P. D. Hirst (1939) n. 8; M. Pallotino (1946) 31.. F.
Ghedini has recently questioned the viability of reading
AVGG. in the original inscription. She prefers to see AVG.N.
as the original rendition. She bases her claims chiefly on
the fact that the stone beneath the N does not appear have
been abraded as much as in the other recut portions of the
inscription. She suggests that MATER AVG.N. was substi-
tuted for Julia Domna’s more common title during these
years, MATER AVGVSTI ET CAESARIS, for which there
was not sufficient room in the inscription; (1984) 27-28.
However, it is highly unlikely that Caracalla would have
been called Augustus Noster while Septimius Severus was still
alive, D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 4.
194 New references to Caracalla and Julia Domna re-
sulting from the recutting of the dedications to Geta and
Plautilla have rendered the inscription redundant. Caracalla
is called felix in lines three and four and felicissimus, mak-
ing him simultaneously happy and most happy. In line four,
Caracalla’s names and titles are rendered in the genitive,
originally referring to Plautilla as his wife. However, when
Plautilla’s name was removed and replaced by additional
titles for Julia Domna, Caracalla’s names and titles must
be read with Julia Domna, who is now honored as “Mother
of our Augustus (Caracalla) and the camps and the Sen-
ate and the fatherland and Imperator Caesar Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus (Caracalla)”:
IVLIAE AVG. MATRI AVG. N. ET CASTRORVM ET
SENATVS ET PATRIAE ET IMP. CAES. M. AVRELI
ANTONINI PII FELICIS AVG. Thus Julia Domna is twice
refereed to as Caracalla’s mother.
195 G. Bellori and J. Rubeis (1690) 11, 20-21.
177
at her side.196 The upper portions of a caduceus
are visible in the top left hand corner of the panel.
The rough surfaces of the stone in the empty
space below the caduceus confirm that a shorter
figure, representing Geta, originally completed
the relief at the proper left.197 Geta may have
been depicted as a camillus assisting his father at
the sacrifice.198 Geta’s removal has resulted in the
awkward recarving of Julia Domna’s left side
which is rendered in considerably lower relief
than her upper torso, head, and right hand. In
addition, her left arm and hand are noticeably
shorter and smaller than her right arm and hand
or the arms and hands of Septimius.199 The in-
consistencies occasioned by the recarving of the
Argentarii relief recall the illogical extension of
the temple steps in the Aurelian triumph panel,
from which the figure of Commodus was effaced
(fig. 142a-c).
Geta’s abolitio memoriae on the arch also encom-
passed four smaller bust length images which
originally decorated the principal southern fa-
cade. Each pier of this facade is framed by richly
ornamented pilasters filled with military insignia
including the imperial imagines. The signa from
each of the three visible pilasters contain two
imagines.200 The upper portraits from two of the
pilasters are clearly identifiable as Septimius Seve-
rus and Caracalla (fig. 182). The pendant imag-
196 F. Ghedini (1984) 33-43, interprets this gesture (dextra
elata) as an eastern innovation in imperial iconography.
197 Geta was fourteen or fifteen years at the time of the
monument’s dedication in 204, accounting for his shorter
stature; D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 20-22; M.
Pallotino (1946) 79-80; L. Budde (1957) 6; A. M. McCann
(1968) 73; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 110; A.
Bonanno (1976) 148; F. Ghedini (1984) 29; S. De Maria
(1988) 307; F. Coarelli (1997) 364.
198 D. E. L Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 22; M.
Pallotino (1946) 80; L. Franchi (1960-61) 10; A.Bonanno
(1976) 147; F. Ghedini (1984) 29, n. 21.
199 The left side of her tunica and palla have been
unnaturalistically extended to the left in an effort to fill up
the empty space in this section of the relief. The absence
of sufficient marble for recarving has caused the lower part
of the empress’s drapery to be recut with much more shal-
low and sketchy folds than drapery elsewhere on the re-
lief.
200 The easternmost pilaster has been incorporated into
the west wall of San Giorgio in Velabro.
178 chapter eight
ines from the inner pilaster of the western pier are
badly weathered, but identical to those of the
other piers. Wreaths encircle the standards be-
low each of the portraits of Septimius and Cara-
calla. Sections of the relief directly below the
imagines of Septimius Severus have been drasti-
cally recut as a result of the removal of Geta’s
likenesses from the signa.201 The background has
been carved out to form a curve and the bare
poles of the standards now rise from the wreaths
which originally enlivened the bottom of Geta’s
imagines. The bare poles are not consistent with
representations of signa with portraits on earlier
monuments, such as the Great Trajanic Frieze,
the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, and
the Aurelian panels and together with the blank
background, they stand out as anomalies within
the decorative system of the elaborately carved
pilasters. Indeed, the monument as a whole ex-
hibits a horror vacui in which virtually every sur-
face is decorated with exuberantly articulated
architectural details and figural relief panels. The
gaping voids resulting from Geta’s removed rep-
resentations, as well as Plautianus and Plautilla,
stand in stark contrast to the rest of arch’s elabo-
rate decoration and are eloquent testimonials of
abolitio memoriae.
As with Plautilla, Geta’s portrait would have
been removed from the bronze statuary group
which probably surmounted the arch. The con-
spicuous absence of Geta, Plautilla and Plautianus
from the relief decoration of the monument, the
erasure of their names and titles in the inscrip-
tion, and the removal of any portraits from the
attic comprise a forceful reminder of the reign-
ing emperor’s power to rewrite Roman history
by obliterating all trace of his enemies from the
visual record. No reminders of them have been
allowed to remain for posterity. The ideological
considerations implicit in the erasure of the fig-
ures and inscriptions clearly took precedence over
any aesthetic concerns about the drastic alter-
ations to the monument, including the blank
stretches in the interior reliefs and the pilasters
201 D. E. L. Haynes and P. D. Hirst (1939) 39; A.
Bonanno (1976) 148.
of the facade, as well as the awkward reworking
of the left side of the figure of Julia Domna.
Geta’s portrait features have been also been
excised from the Palazzo Sachetti relief (fig.
183).202 The scale and quality of this relief sug-
gest that it derives from an officially sponsored
monument, and its imagery indicates that it was
designed to commemorate the joint consulship of
Caracalla and Geta in 205. Septimius Severus,
now headless, seated on a sella curulis which rests
on a suggestum, presents his two sons to the Sen-
ate as the new consuls for 205, a politically sig-
nificant event given the princes’ youth. Septimius
is flanked by two other headless figures and the
shorter of these seems to have represented Geta
as the head has been intentionally cut from the
relief. Whereas the necks of the headless figures
of Septimius and the figure in front of Caracalla
are substantially preserved, that of Geta has been
cut off at the base. There is no evidence that
Geta’s portrait features were ever replaced and
his figure seems to have remained decapitated.
Because of the specificity of the event commemo-
rated, the joint consulship for 205, it would have
been impossible to replace Geta’s features with
those of someone else. However, it is important
to keep in mind that Geta’s figure was not re-
moved in its entirety, as in the Arch of the
Argentarii; the headless representation of Geta
functioned as yet another highly visible manifes-
tation of his posthumous disgrace.
As is to be expected, Geta’s images have also
been entirely obliterated in the Severan quadri-
frons arch at Lepcis Magna,203 which commemo-
202 Palazzo Ricci-Sachetti, Via Giulia 66, h. 1.575 m.,
w. 2.335 m.; G. Koeppel (1986) 82-84, no. 44 (with ear-
lier literature); H.R. Goette (1989) 55, 142, no. 31, 157,
no. 68, pl. 35.1-2; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 332-33, fig. 299.
203 The reliefs are now preserved in the Tripoli Mu-
seum; in general, see: R. Bartocini (1931) 116-152; I. S.
Ryberg (1955) 135-6, 161-2, figs. 73a, 89a; R. Bianchi
Bandinelli, E. Vergara Caffarelli, G. Caputo (1967) figs.
33-47; V.M. Strocka (1972) 147-72; F. Ghedini (1984) 55-
10; H.R. Goette (1989) 44, n. 212 e, 51-52, 54, n. 278, 60,
n. 300, 138, no. 153, 144, nr. 22, pls. 25.6, 381-2; N.B.
Kampen (1991) 218-48. N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 225-
7, figs. 9.8-12; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 340-43, figs. 307-310.
Because it lacks a dedicatory inscription, the date of the
arch is controversial. The core of the arch itself may be
 the severans
rates a visit that the Severan family made to
Lepcis likely in 206-207.204 The principal reliefs
decorated the four attic facades, and represent
scenes of sacrifice (northeast), a dextrarum iunctio
between Caracalla and Septimius Severus (south-
west), and mirror triumphal processions (north-
west and southeast). Geta’s likeness has been
eradicated from all four scenes.
The scene of dextrarum iunctio symbolizes the
concordia augustorum of Septimius Severus and
Caracalla, which guarantees the concordia of the
empire (fig. 184a-b).205 At the center of the re-
lief Septimius and Caracalla clasp right hands,
while Geta, depicted between them, glances to-
wards his father. Julia Domna stands to the right
of her husband and sons. Assorted divinities, per-
sonifications, citizens and soldiers witness the
central scene.206 Geta’s portrait head has been
Trajanic or Hadrianic; see A. M. McCann (1968) 74, n.
7; F. Ghedini (1984) 109, n. 328.
204 The reliefs refer to the successful conclusion
Septimius Severus’s second Parthian campaign so they
cannot be earlier than 202 and they originally included
Geta, so they cannot be later than December of 211; A.
Birley (1988) 150, n. 8 prefers 202-3 for the visit to Lepcis
and for the arch, but does not discount the possibility of a
second visit in 206-7; for numismatic evidence for a visit
of 206-7, see H. Mattingly, BMCRE V, clix, P.V. Hill (1964)
6, 33-35 and H. Halfmann (1986) 222-23; V.M. Strocka
dates the arch to 205-9 (1972), 169-70; A.M. McCann
suggests a date for the Arch of 207-9, based on the evi-
dence of imperial portrait types, as well as the conspicu-
ous absence of Plautianus from the monument, (1968) 74-
78. A later dating is also favored by G. Säflund (1968)
121ff.; F. Ghedini reviews the literature and bibliography
surrounding the dating controversy and favors a date of
209, (1984) 88-90, n. 327. Indeed, the absence of both
Plautianus and Plautilla on the arch suggests a date after
January of 205, the date of Plautianus’s damnatio and
Plautilla’s banishment. The inclusion of Geta’s second
portrait type in the dextrarum iunctio scene, which was not
introduced on coins prior to 205, also indicates that the
reliefs should not predate that year.
205 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum, V.M. Strocka
(1972) 157-160 (with earlier literature); H. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 88-89, 113, pls.6.a-b, 8c, 24a-b; A. Bonanno
(1976) 150-55 (with earlier literature); C. Walters (1979)
271-83; P. MacKendrick (1980) 159; F. Ghedini (1984) 63-
68; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102-105.
206 The divinities and personifications include Concor-
dia, above and behind Geta, Hercules behind Caracalla,
Liber Pater in the background behind Septimius Severus’s
left shoulder, Minerva above and behind Julia Domna, and
Roma to Julia Domna’s proper right.
179
carefully sawn off the relief and then buried near
the arch where it was discovered during excava-
tions earlier in this century.207 No new likeness
was ever attached to Geta’s togate body, and, as
with the Arch in the Forum Romanum and the
Palazzo Sachetti Relief, his figure remained head-
less for as long as the arch continued to stand.208
Geta’s decaptitated figure, positioned at the very
center of the dextrarum iunctio scene, would have
stood as a prominent and ever present testimo-
nial to the inhabitants of Lepcis of his denigra-
tion and damnatio memoriae and ultimately the pro-
found lack of concordia within the Severan family.
Geta’s likeness has been similarly shorn off of
the northwestern relief (fig. 185).209 In this frieze
Septimius Severus and his two sons, shown fron-
tally in a quadriga, participate in a triumphal
procession.210 All three imperial figures wear togae
and wreaths. Enough of the portrait features of
the central figure is preserved to identify him as
the emperor. The taller figure to the emperor’s
left clearly represents Caracalla, while the head-
less shorter figure at the emperor’s right is Geta.
Geta’s portrait features have been excised from
the relief in a manner identical to the despolia-
tion of his likeness in the dextrarum iunctio scene.
Again, his headless presence in the quadriga would
have been a powerful statement of disparage-
ment.
207 P.W. Townsend (1938) 517-18; P. MacKendrick
(1980) 159. The head currently displayed on the reconstruc-
tion of the relief is a plaster cast, the original having been
stolen by an allied soldier during World War II, A. Di Vita
(1982) 553, n. 85; M. Donderer (1991-2) 250-51, no. 40.
208 No attempt was made to remove the entire figure
of Geta from the relief, as had been done in the western
interior panel from the Arch of the Argentarii in Rome.
The risk of damage to the clasped right hands of the two
Augusti, the focal point of the entire relief, may have pre-
cluded such an attempt to remove the portrait of Geta in
toto.
209 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum; V.M. Strocka
(1972) 149-54, (with earlier literature); D. Soechting (1972)
168-9, no. 63; A. Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 290-91 (with
earlier literature); G. Hanfmann (1975) 117, fig. 127; F.
Ghedini (1983) 68; F. Ghedini (1984) 69, 70, 73; A. Birley
(1988) Severus 150, fig. 20;
210 Although the ferculum, captives, and chariot clearly
mark this procession as triumphal in content, its location
is much debated; Lepcis, Rome and Ostia have all been
proposed. For a review of the debate, see F. Ghedini (1984)
69.
180 chapter eight
The northeastern and southeastern friezes are
much less well preserved than the dextrarum iunctio
and triumph friezes. Julia Domna is the only
imperial figure preserved from these two friezes,
but Septimius Severus, Caracalla and Geta un-
doubtedly appeared in them as well. The pre-
served sections from the southeastern frieze in-
dicate that its composition closely paralleled that
of the northwestern triumph relief and functioned
as a complementary reference to the victorious
imperial family.211 A head, with traces of a co-
rona visible above the right temple was discovered
during the excavation of the arch and is often
assigned to the missing section of the southeast-
ern triumph frieze.212 This head, now lost, was
clearly intended as a portrait of Caracalla or
Geta, but lacks sufficient iconographic details to
permit secure identification.213 If it is a likeness
of Geta, it is highly probable that it was detached
from the frieze in the same manner as his other
portraits in the southwestern and northwestern
friezes.
The central slab from the northeastern attic
relief, depicting a sacrifice, also does not sur-
vive.214 Victimarii, a popa, soldiers, citizens, deities
211 Tripoli, Archaeological Museum; R. Bartoccini
(1931) 138-45, figs. 101-105; P.W. Townsend (1938) 516;
G.C. Picard (1957) 457, pl. 27-30; R. Brilliant (1967) fig.
51; V.M. Strocka (1972) 154-57 (with earlier literature); A.
Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 298-99 (with earlier literature);
F. Ghedini (1984) 69-74, fig. 8. In fact, a slab from the
central section of the relief, depicting the frontal portions
of three horses, exactly duplicates the three foremost horses
of the quadriga from the northwestern triumph frieze indi-
cating that the quadriga itself and the imperial threesome
were likewise duplicated in the missing slab of the south-
eastern panel. Julia Domna, with the attributes of the
goddess Victory, looks toward the central slab in which the
quadriga would have been depicted. Because of the presence
of divinities, personifications, and Julia Domna represen-
tation as Victory, the southeastern panel may have been
designed as an allegorical reference to the emperor’s virtus
rather than a representation of a specific procession, F.
Ghedini (1984) 74.
212 R. Bartoccini (1931) 142-43, fig. 106; L. Budde
(1951) 12, pl. 6a; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 88,
113; A. Bonanno (1976) 152, pl. 295; Fittschen-Zanker I,
104, no. 88, n. 6, 104, no. 89.
213 H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 88, 113; A.
Bonanno (1976), 152 and infra.
214 R. Bartoccini (1931) 129-38, figs. 95-100; W.
and personifications are shown at the left and
right of the scene. Julia Domna stands to the
proper left of the missing section of the frieze
which presumably depicted Septimius Severus,
assisted by his two sons, officiating at the altar.
Another fragmentary head, also depicting either
Caracalla or Geta, has been restored to this re-
lief.215 Like the lost head from the southeastern
triumph frieze, if it was intended as a portrait of
Geta, its removal and damage can be attributed
to the damnatio.
Geta’s images have also been eradicated from
at least two of the vertical panels which decorated
the internal faces of the arch’s four piers.216
Geta’s head has been cut from a scene in which
the goddess Victoria crowns him with a
wreath.217 Like his portrait from the dextrarum
Technau,(1932) 533, fig. 33; J.B. Ward-Perkins (1948) 77,
pl. 11.1; J.B. Ward-Perkins (1951) 286, 290, pl. 14.2; L.
Budde (1955) 32, fig. 23; I.S. Ryberg (1955) 160-61, pl. 57,
figs. 89a-b; L. Budde (1957) 15 pl. 36, fig. 40; A. Frova
(1961) 692, 694, figs. 599, 601; D.E. Strong (1961) 63, 101,
fig. 116; M. Vilimkova (1963) fig. 87; R. Bianchi Bandinelli,
E. Vergara Caffarelli, and G. Caputo (1966) 33, 67-70, figs.
37-41; M. Floriani Squarciapino (1966) 66 figs. 8, 10; G.
Säflund (1968) 124, fig. 4; R. Bianchi Bandinelli (1970) 271-
2, fig. 247; V.M. Strocka (1972) 160-72, figs. 2-4, pl.; A.
Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 293 a-b, 294; R. Turcan (1978)
1038; F. Ghedini (1984) 57-63.
215 V.M. Strocka (1972) 162, fig. 3.
216 The five panels appear to depict the following scenes:
1) upper register: Septimius Severus as Juppiter, Julia
Domna as Juno, Minerva and a female divinity or personi-
fication (Concordia, Tyche of Lepcis, etc); lower register 2)
upper register: Julia Domna in a scene of dextrarum iunctio
or sacrifice; lower register??? 3) upper register: Septimius
Severus, Caracalla, Geta(?), and Julia Domna (?), Hercules,
Liber Pater, Concordia (?) and Jupiter Dolichenus (?) in
front of a temple; lower register: scene of sacrifice; 4) upper
register: Victory crowning Geta; lower register: Apollo,
Vertumnus (?), seated female divinity, and Diana; 5) up-
per register: Victory crowning Caracalla; lower register: di-
vinities; on the interpretation and significance of the smaller
panels see: R. Bartoccini (1931) 74-88, figs. 44-55; I.S.
Ryberg (1957) 134-6; A. Bonanno (1976) 150-55, pls. 300-
09; M. Floriani Squarciapino (1967) 85-6; A. M. McCann
(1968) 77; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 88-89. 113,
pl. 27c; M.C. Parra (1978) 807-28; F. Ghedini (1984) 74-
88, figs. 9-11; N.B. Kampen 236-40; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992)
340-3.
217 R. Bartoccini (1931) 87, fig. 52 (without portrait
features reattached); H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971)
113, fig. 27c; A. Bonanno (1976) 153, pls. 307-8. Although
the portrait is badly weathered, the treatment of the hair
 the severans
iunctio scene, the detached head was discovered
during the arch’s excavations.218 This relief paral-
lels a similar relief in which Caracalla is crowned
by Victoria.219
The upper register of a second, fragmentary
interior panel depicts the imperial family and
deities arranged in front of a temple facade, while
a scene of sacrifice occupies the lower register (fig.
186).220 Septimius Severus, capite velato, stands at
the center of the relief and looks to his right.
Caracalla, also capite velato, is at the emperor’s left
and glances in the same direction as his father.
There is a gap in the relief near the center, but
the lower portions of drapery from a female fig-
ure indicate that Julia Domna occupied this
position.221 A third veiled male figure, whose
portrait head does not survive, stands to Julia’s
right. By virtue of its position in the composition
of the relief, which corresponds exactly to Cara-
calla’s position at the proper left, this figure must
represent Geta.222 Like Geta’s other portraits on
the Arch, his head has been deliberately cut from
the relief. 223 The goddess Roma, a statue of
and facial features recall Geta’s likeness from the dextrarum
iunctio scene.
218 A. Bonanno (1976) 153.
219 Although headless, this figure is clearly taller than
the corresponding figure of Geta, and as a result has been
plausibly associated with Caracalla.H. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 89; A. Bonanno (1976) 152, fig. 309.
220 R. Bartoccini (1931) 74-83, figs. 44-47; W. Technau,
529-30; fig. 31; P.W. Townsend (1938) 522; I.S. Ryberg
(1955) 134-36, pl. 67.73a-b; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, E
Vergara Caffarelli, and G. Caputo (1964); A. M. McCann
(1968) 77, pl. 18; R. Bianchi Bandinelli (1970) 271-72, fig.
249; D. Soechting (1972) 233, n. 142; M. Floriani
Squarciapino (1974) 50; A. Bonanno (1976) 151, pls. 300-
01; M.C. Parra (1978) 807-28, figs. 1-2; F. Ghedini (1984)
76-80, fig. 10.
221 This figure has most plausibly been identified as Julia
Domna by I.S. Ryberg, (1957) 134-36 and followed by
M.C. Parra (1978) 813, and F. Ghedini (1984) 76-80. R.
Bartocini originally identified the figure as the Tyche of
Lepcis (1931) 74-83 and followed by A. Bonanno (1976)
151; A.M. McCann suggested one of the three Tychai of
Tripolitania (1968) 77.
222 F. Ghedini (1984) 77.
223 Whereas Geta’s head has been entirely shorn off the
relief, the head of the deity to his left (Liber Pater?) has
sustained damage which has left the chin intact. Thus the
damage to Geta’s head appears to be the result of the de-
liberate defacement of his portraits everywhere on the arch,
while the damage to the deities head is likely the result of
181
Silvanus, Hercules and two unidentified deities
complete the composition.224 The removal of
Geta’s heads in these smaller reliefs is consonant
with the obliteration of his features in the four
attic friezes, and his headless representation trans-
formed the arch from a commemoration of the
virtues of the Severan family, into an enduring
monument of his downfall and disgrace. In view
of the persecution of Geta’s followers at Rome,
it must have seemed especially expedient to de-
stroy his images in the dynasty’s hometown in
order to disavow any semblance of partisanship
for the murdered Augustus. Thus, the oblitera-
tion of Geta’s portrait features from the reliefs of
the arch served to powerfully affirm the loyalty
of the citizens of Lepcis Magna to Caracalla.
Geta’s portrait features have also been ruth-
lessly effaced from a painted tondo discovered in
the Fayum (fig. 187).225 The tondo is the only se-
curely identified painted imperial portrait to have
survived from antiquity and depicts Septimius
Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta.226
Geta’s facial features have been entirely erased
leaving a large gap in the composition, but the
the destruction of the arch over time.
224 The deity between Julia and Geta is almost certainly
Liber Pater. His position would correspond to that of
Hercules, the other patron god of Lepcis, between
Septimius and Caracalla. Caracalla and Geta were often
assimilated to Hercules and Liber Pater, respectively, and
the position of the two deities behind the princes may be
a reference to this. In view of the veils worn by the em-
peror and his sons, the sacrifice from the lower register must
be taking place in their presence and, consequently, the
entire panel evokes the pietas of the imperial house, see F.
Ghedini (1984) 77-9.
225 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. 31.329, diam. 0.305;
A. Datsuli-Stavridis (1976) 228-9, fig. 4; K. Parlasca (1977)
64-5, no. 390, pl. 95.1 (with earlier literature); V. Saladino
(1980) 437; H. Heinen (1991) 263-298, color pl. 68; N.H.
and A. Ramage (1991) 222, fig. 9.2; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992)
321-22, fig. 284; E. Doxiadis (1995) 88, fig. 25; E. La Rocca
in S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds. (2000) 11-13, fig. 10. A
bust length portrait of Septimius Severus is depicted at the
proper left of the tondo. He wears an elaborate tunic, jew-
eled laurel crown and is shown with a scepter. Julia Domna
wearing tunica, palla, and jeweled diadem is at emperor’s
right. Caracalla, in front of Septimius Severus, is depicted,
like his father, with a tunic, jeweled corona, and scepter.
226 Painted with tempera on wood, the tondo was cre-
ated by a local artist trained in the techniques of contem-
porary mummy portraits; see D.L. Thompson (1982) 26.
182 chapter eight
tunicate bust form, scepter and remnants of his
corona clearly indicate his original position. Geta’s
image was not merely subjected to erasure, but
it has also been smeared with excrement in an
excessive act of further denigration.227 The Ber-
lin tondo is the only preserved portrait which
physically attests to the smearing of images or
inscriptions as a way of dishonoring an individual,
but the denigration and disfigurement of images
with offal, mud or paint is confirmed in the
ancient sources. The Historia Augusta records that
Elagabalus ordered that the inscriptions of the
portrait statues of Severus Alexander in the
Castrum Praetorium be coated with mud, as was
the custom in denigrating the memory of a ty-
rant: ut fieret solet de tyrannis.228 And in the fourth
century, Eusebius chronicles the smearing of
painted portraits of Maximinus Daia and his
children with dark colored paint in order to ren-
der them useless.229
The very youthful features of Caracalla sug-
gest that the tondo was painted prior to the in-
troduction of his more mature portrait type in
A.D. 205.230 The association of the tondo with
the artists of the Fayum mummy portraits, places
it within the realm of art produced for the pros-
perous middle class inhabitants of Roman Egypt,
whose origins were often mixed Egyptian, Greek
and Roman.231 The tondo is likely to have func-
tioned as an icon for display in a public or do-
mestic setting, perhaps pertaining to the impe-
rial cult. The piece would have demonstrated the
owner’s loyalty and pietas towards the ruling
dynasty. Following his damnatio memoriae, the
defacement of Geta’s portrait ensured that the
227 K. Parlasca (1977) 64; M. Donderer (1991-92) 224,
n. 140.
228 Elag.13.7; see infra.
229 Ecc.Hist.9.11.2; see also P. Stewart (1999) 179.
230 Attempts to date the tondo on the basis of Septimius
Severus’s portrait type have proved inconclusive for two
reasons: 1) there is disagreement over whether the three
corkscrew curls of Septimius Severus’s Serapis type are dis-
cernible in the tondo; 2) the date of the Serapis type itself
is controversial, see A. M. McCann (1968) 79-80; in addi-
tion, the Serapis type was probably in use for the entire
first decade of the third century, Fittschen-Zanker I, 83-
84.
231 S. Nodelman (1965) 242.
tondo would continue to serve its function as a
private expression of loyalty, no longer to the
imperial family as a whole, but to the new vic-
torious emperor, Caracalla and his parents. The
Berlin tondo vividly illustrates that Geta’s damnatio
was not limited to major public monuments such
as the arches in the Forum Romanum or at
Lepcis, or important private commissions like the
Arch of the Argentarii, but also occurs on more
modest private objects.
Just as Geta’s images were routinely removed
from display and relentlessly effaced from relief
monuments, so, too have his name and titles been
erased from virtually every inscription in which
he was honored.232 Of the 174 extant inscriptions
in which Geta’s name originally appeared, it has
survived intact in only thirty-seven (approxi-
mately twenty-one percent).233 In addition to the
obliterated dedications from the monuments in
Rome (the Forum Arch and the Arch of the
Argentarii) erased inscriptions occur from almost
every region of the Empire including Sagalassos
(milestone); Dura Europas (Mithraeum);234 Sardis
(Marble Court);235 Dougga (Arch of Septimius
Severus);236 Lambeisis;237 Great Britain;238 and
numerous instances at Lepcis Magna.239 The
erasure of Geta’s name was also vigorously car-
ried out in papyri.240 In fact, the damnatio memoriae
232 A. Mastino (1981) 177, n. 1.
233 Based on A. Mastino’s indices (1981) 175-77. Many
of the inscriptions in which Geta’s name survive are from
fistulae aquariae, water pipes, which were already in the
ground; Geta’s name is even erased on some of the fistu-
lae, certainly before they were used, A. Mastino (1981)177,
n. 1.
234 Collection of Dura Inscriptions, Yale University Art
Gallery.
235 G.M.A. Hanfmann (1975a) 52, note 48.
236 C. Poinssot (1983) 61.
237 Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 2044; dedicated by the
Legio III Augusta to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and
Geta.
238 RIB 722; CIL 7.269; The inscription was dedicated
by the cohors VII Nerviorum. Now lost, it was discovered
between the Bain and Ure Rivers near Richmond, England.
239 IRT 433, 435, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 443, 444;
IRT 440 is dedication from the Severan baths. After their
erasure, eight of the inscriptions (433, 435, 437, 438, 439,
440, 443, 444) were reused in a later wall, thus ensuring
their survival, I.M. Barton (1977) 8.
240 P. Mertens (1960) 541-52; E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.
 the severans
was so diligently pursued that the name of Geta’s
homonymous uncle, P. Septimius Geta, was of-
ten erroneously effaced from inscriptions.241 The
erased inscriptions were generally recut to honor
Caracalla, Julia Domna or Septimius Severus.242
In a few instances, Lucius or Septimius is not
erased from Geta’s trianomina, out of respect to
Septimius Severus, whose names they also
were.243 The remarkably widespread occurrence
of Geta’s erased and recut inscriptions again
strongly suggests that the army was instrumen-
tal in facilitating the epigraphic as well as artis-
tic damnatio. In this regard, it is significant to note
that it was the army whom Caracalla initially
ordered to declare Geta a hostis, not the Senate.244
Indeed, the decree of the praefect Baebius Iunci-
nus already mentioned mandates the implemen-
tation of Geta’s damnatio.245
At least seventeen portraits of Geta on gems
or seals also escaped destruction caused by the
damnatio. Only four of these gems depict Geta
alone, two in Paris,246 one in Vienna,247 and one
in a private collection,248 whereas on the remain-
ing twelve he appears with other members of the
imperial family, which may account for their
survival. The four gems on which Geta appears
alone depict him with imperial or divine at-
tributes. On the two Paris cameos, Geta is por-
trayed laureate, in his first portrait type. Both
depict him with nude busts, one draped with a
paludamentum, the other with an aegis. The gem
in the private collection depicts Geta in his sec-
ond type with laurel crown, cuirass, and
paludamentum, and the gem in Vienna, also of the
second type, with a corona civica. Like the inscrip-
241A. Mastino (1981) 177, n. 1.
242 Almost always recut to honor Caracalla; A. Mastino
(1981) 137-42, provides a list of these inscriptions.
243 A. Mastino (1981) 177, n. 1.
244 Herod. 4.8.
245 E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.
246 Paris, Bibliothéque National, Cabinet des Medailles,
sardonyx cameo, H. 0047 m., L. 0037 m.; M. Vollenweider
(1988) 100-101, n. 32, fig. 19 (Geta; with earlier literature).
Both gems seem to follow Geta’s type 1 fairly closely with
uncovered ears and S-shaped curls over the temples. A
cameo in Chatsworth House which M. Vollenweider also
identifies as Geta cannot possibly represent him since the
183
tions which give Geta the title of Augustus long
before he officially received it in 210, or the
cuirassed statue in the Villa del Poggio Imperiale,
the two Paris cameos, which employ his first
portrait type of 198-205, indicate that Geta was
portrayed with imperial insignia well before his
official acclamation. As with other surviving gem
portraits of condemned emperors, their intrinsic
value may have precluded outright destruction.
Additionally, the small scale of these pieces makes
recarving or the removal of Geta’s portraits dif-
ficult, if not impossible, especially in the three
gems which present overlapping portraits of the
imperial family, in New York,249 Paris,250
Rome,251and the art market,252 and the cameo
in Paris which depicts a complicated scene of
sacrifice.253 Similarly, a bronze ring with facing
boyhood of Caracalla and Geta in Split has not
been altered or mutilated and may have simply
been discarded after Geta’s murder.254
The Historia Augusta states that after the mur-
der of Geta, Caracalla wept whenever he saw his
brother’s image or statue, which suggests that
portrait lacks the S-shaped curves of type 1, has long side-
burns and shorter hair on the nape of the neck than any
attested examples of type 1; in addition the coiffure is much
too long to include it in type 2; see M. Vollenweider (1988)
101, n. 35, fig. 22.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles,
sardonyx cameo, h. 42. cm., l. 2.1 cm.; M. Vollenweider
(1988) 100-101, n. 31, fig. 18 (Caracalla,with earlier litera-
ture).
247 Kunsthistorisches Museum 22 (inv. IX a 76), h. 6.4
cm, l. 4.5 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 241, no. A 146, pl. 49.3
(with earlier literature).
248 Cast of an intaglio, h. 00185 m., L. 0015 m.; M.
Vollenweider (1988) 101, n. 35, fig. 21.
249 Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 40.143.
250 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 300,
7.5 x 11.2 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 239-40, no. A 143,
pl. 48.11 (with earlier literature).
251 Museo Nazionale Romano 72147.
252 New York, formerly Antiquarium, Ltd.
253 Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, inv.
301, 3.1 x 3.2 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 240, no. A 144,
pl. 49.2 (with earlier literature); M. Vollenweider (1988)
101, n. 36.
254 Archaeological Museum, H 5504, 25 mm; Antike
Porträts aus Jugoslawien 165, no. 185, with fig. (with earlier
literature).
184 chapter eight
some likenesses of Geta could have been visible
following the damnatio: “mirum sane omnimibus vide-
batur quod mortem Getae totiens etiam ipse fleret quotiens
nominis eius mentio fieret, quotiens imago videretur aut
statua.”255 Although the Vita Getae in the Historia
Augusta is notoriously unreliable, this passage may
refer to gem portraits or images kept privately in
the imperial palace by Julia Domna, who seems
to have preferred Geta over her elder son.
Caracalla
During his five year reign as sole emperor, Cara-
calla alienated the senatorial aristocracy by ab-
rogating much of their remaining authority and
prestige, but he secured his popularity with the
common people through lavish building projects,
like his baths in Rome, and his extension of the
benefits of Roman citizenship to all free male
inhabitants of the empire. Nevertheless, Caracalla
was murdered by some of his own soldiers at the
instigation of his Praetorian Praefect, Marcus
Opellius Macrinus on 8 April 217. Despite he
Senate’s dislike of Caracalla, he did not receive
an official damnatio memoriae after his assassination.
Because of his popularity with the soldiers, nei-
ther the new emperor, Macrinus, nor the Sen-
ate wished to openly declare him a hostis.256
However, in an effort to placate the Senators who
had reviled Caracalla as a tyrant upon news of
his murder,257 Macrinus secretly ordered that
certain statues of Caracalla in Rome be removed
from public display: 6"Â :V84F2z ÓJ4 Jä< •<-
*D4V<JT< J4<" x H Jä< ¦< J± {Cf:® ßBz "ÛJ@Ø
z!8g>V<*Då 6"Â "ÛJä | ¦6g\<å FJ"2X<JT< 8V2D‘
6"2®DZ6g4 . 258 After his death, Caracalla was
compared with previous condemned emperors
and there were public calls for the abolishment
of a horse race celebrating his birthday and the
255 Geta 7.5.
256 Dio 78(79).17.2-4-18.1.
257 HA.Macr.7.4.
258 Dio 78(79).19.2, this secret decree also included some
of the statues which Caracalla had set up to Alexander the
Great.
melting down of his gold and silver statues.259 But
any destruction of Caracalla’s monuments occa-
sioned by de facto measures or spontaneous dem-
onstrations against Caracalla’s memory was very
limited in scope; Caracalla’s name is only rarely
erased in inscriptions, and then almost certainly
not as a result of damnatio, but rather through
error or later reuse.260 In fact the Historia Augusta
records that Macrinus honored Caracalla’s
memory by erecting portraits to him.261 Further-
more, Caracalla was deified under Macrinus (or
perhaps slightly later) and commemorated on
coins as Divus Antoninus. 262 Indeed, none of
Caracalla’s images created during his reign as sole
emperor exhibit any signs of intentional mutila-
tion.
Macrinus and Diadumenianus
Born in 164 in Mauretania, Marcus Opellius
Macrinus was of undistinguished origins. Never-
theless, he attained prominence as a jurist under
Septimius Severus, and Caracalla appointed him
Praetorian Praefect, together with Oclatinius
Adventus, in 212. Macrinus accompanied the
emperor on his expedition against the Parthians
and he later engineered Caracalla’s assassination
near Carrhae on 8 April 217.
Macrinus immediately proclaimed himself
Augustus and his young son, Diadumenianus,
Caesar.263 Although initially supported by the
troops and the Senate, Macrinus was unable
259 Dio 78(79).17.4-18.1.
260
A. Mastino (1981) 78-79, n. 401, lists erased or re-
cut inscriptions; CIL 8.7974 has been recut to honor
Constantine.
261 Macr. 6.8, Diad. 3.1.
262 HA. Mac. 6.8; RIC 4.1 128, nos 717-720; BMCRE
531, nos. 7, 8, pl. 85.4, 589; K. Schulten (1979) 115-16,
nos. 300-303, pl. 6; D. Salzmann (1989) 564, n. 29.
Caracalla is of course given the title Divus in inscriptions
dated to the reigns of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander,
A. Mastino (1981) 78-79, n. 401.
263 Diadumenianus also receives the title of Augustus
on coins minted at the end of his father’s reign, although
the title does not seem to have been ratified by the Sen-
ate, BMCRE V, 511, no. 95.
 the severans
sustain their loyalties. The soldiers grew dissat-
isfied with the hardships of the Parthian war and
their extended stay in the east. During his four-
teen months as emperor, Macrinus never left the
eastern half of the empire, and his absence from
Rome certainly contributed to his diminishing
popularity. At the capital, the Plebs manifested
their increasing dissatisfaction with their new
emperor very publicly: at games celebrating the
birthday of Diadumenianus (14 September 217),
they steadfastly refused to honor Macrinus and
his son, and, thenceforth, acted “as if they did
not exist.”264
Elagabalus, a maternal cousin of Caracalla,
had been declared emperor in opposition on 16
May 218 by the Legio III Gallica at Raphaneae
near Emessa in Syria. The troops of Macrinus
were defeated by those of Elagabalus in several
skirmishes and Macrinus was finally forced to flee
his headquarters at Antioch, disguised as a com-
moner. He was captured and executed; Diadu-
menianus was likewise apprehended and killed
after attempting an escape to Parthia and both
corpses were beheaded and the severed heads
paraded by the soldiers.265 When news of the
deaths of Macrinus and Diadumenianus reached
Rome, the Senate swiftly declared them hostes in
an official demonstration of loyalty and support
for the new emperor, Elagabalus.266
As a result of the Senate’s decree, the portraits
of Macrinus and Diadumenianus were destroyed
and their names erased in inscriptions and pa-
pyri. 267 The memory of Diadumenianus was
further denigrated in a graphic manner when one
of his honorific inscriptions was thrown into a
latrine at the barracks of the Vigili at Ostia,268
264 Dio 78(79).20.1-3.
265 HA Diad. 9; Herod. 5.4.11.
266 Dio 79 (80).2.6; P. Cavuoto (1983) 42-8, 61.
267 For erased inscriptions and payri, see SEG 12.516
(Anazarbos); SEG 17.505 (Ephesus); R. Cagnat (1914) 172;
P. Sijpesteijn (1974) 219-27. In the papyri, Antoninus is
sometimes allowed to remain, while Opellius and Macrinus
are eradicated; E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876; It is unclear
whether a partially preserved inscription of Macrinus from
the Odeum at Troy has been erased or intentionally dam-
aged, C.B. Rose (1998) 96-7.
268 ILS 465; AJA 45 (1941) 456; AEpigr (1947) 7; T.
185
thus closely recalling an Suetonius’s anecdote
concerning Nero’s alleged disposal of the images
of artistic rivals in latrines during his Greek
tour.269 Furthermore, the soldiers are reported to
have destroyed Macrinus’s writings and posses-
sions after his death, evoking some of the earli-
est Republican sanctions associated with damnatio
memoriae.
Macrinus’s Portrait Typology
The numismatic portraits of Macrinus can be
separated into two types.270 The earliest type
depicts the emperor as a mature man, with short
military coiffure and beard. His forehead is fur-
rowed, his nose aquiline or slightly hooked, and
the mouth is wide, with a thin upper lip and full
lower lip. In certain variations of the first type,
Macrinus’s coiffure and physiognomy are made
to closely resemble those of Caracalla. The sec-
ond type is very different. While it maintains the
short military coiffure of the first type, the beard
is considerably longer and fuller and often char-
acterized by individual ringlets in conscious imi-
tation of Marcus Aurelius.271 The shape of the
face has been lengthened and Macrinus appears
older, the forehead is still furrowed, but the nose
can be slightly longer in keeping with the longer
proportions of the face, the mouth remains wide,
with the thin upper lip and fuller lower.
Pekáry (1985) 134, n. 11; M. Donderer (1991-2) 224-25;
P. Stewart (1999) 164.
269 Ac ne cuius alterius hieronicarum memoria aut vestigium
exstaret usquam, subverti et unco trahi abicique in latrinas omnium
statuas et imagines imperavit (And, lest any memory or vestige
of any other victors in the sacred games might be promi-
nent, he [Nero] commanded that all their statues and
portraits be overturned, then dragged by a hook and hurled
into latrines, Nero 24.1); see also E. Gowers (1995) 28.
270 D. Salzmann has proposed four distinct prototypes
for Macrinus, but this seems highly unlikely in view of the
brevity of his tenure as Augustus; Salzmann’s types 1 and
2 are very similar and should be considered variations of
a single prototype, as should his types 3 and 4; (1983) 351-
81.
271 Herodian quips that Macrinus might have been able
to defeat Elagabalus and maintain the loyalty of the troops
if he hadn’t spent all of his time at Antioch cultivating his
beard and attempting to imitate Marcus Aurelius, 5.2.3.
186 chapter eight
The Mutilation and Destruction of Macrinus’s Images
Four sculpted portraits, three of marble and one
of bronze, have been identified as Macrinus on
the basis of close parallels with the numismatic
likenesses.272 Significantly, all of Macrinus’s
marble images have been intentionally mutilated
and firmly attest to the increasing frequency of
mutilation as a response to damnationes memoriae
in this period.273 Two of the marble portraits,
replicas of type 1 the Centrale Montemartini (cat.
7.14; fig. 188a-c)274 and the Sackler Museum at
Harvard (cat. 7.12; fig. 189a-b)275 have been sys-
tematically attacked with hammers and flat chis-
els, severely disfiguring the facial features. Dam-
age to the Montemartini portrait is limited to the
face, where repeated blows have removed the
nose, destroyed both the eyebrows and the up-
per lip and gouged the left cheek. The right
eyeball has been chiseled away and the rims of
both ears are chipped. The portrait’s intentional
mutilation parallels the T-shaped damage present
in earlier defacements, as in the portraits of Nero
(cat. 2.2), Lucilla (cat. 6.8-9; figs. 148-49),
Commodus (cat. 6.1; fig. 138), and Geta (cat. 7.4-
6; figs. 166-68), and the gouging of the left eye-
ball signals the anthropomorphic nature of the
attack. As already noted, the portrait was discov-
ered together with a mutilated portrait of Lucilla
as Venus Genetrix in a domus on the Quirinal
which may have at one time belonged to Plautia-
nus (cat. 6.10; fig. 147). Both portraits appear to
have been warehoused following their destruc-
tion. The Harvard head of Macrinus exhibits
identical T-shaped destruction of the facial fea-
tures and the nose, eyes, brows and lower lip have
been entirely chiseled away. The ears have also
been attacked and are largely missing. In con-
trast to the mutilated facial features, the finely
sculpted details of hair and beard are left un-
touched and the skin preserves its ancient highly
polished surface. The stark contrast between
272 As published by D. Salzmann (1983) 351-81.
273 S. Wood (1983) 495. S. Wood (1986) 71.
274 Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757 (Centrale
Montemartini 3.82).
275 Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Museums,
inv. 1949.47.138.
preserved and damaged surfaces pronounces the
deliberate nature of the portrait’s mutilation,
made that much more emphatic by the evident
artistic quality of the work. Although modern
restorations have masked its ancient disfigure-
ment, a portrait of Macrinus’s second type with
longer beard in the Museo Capitolino has also
been vandalized (cat. 7.13; fig. 190a-c).276 Exten-
sive marble restorations include the right brow
and eye, the nose, the lower lip and portions of
the beard, and disguise the T-shaped damage suf-
fered by the face. In all three instances, it is again
the vital sensory organs of eyes, nose, mouth and
ears which have been attacked depriving the
images of any metaphorical power to see, speak,
or hear as effigies.
These three defaced images provide compel-
ling physical evidence of the Senate’s sanctions
against Macrinus’s monuments, and further at-
test to his unpopularity with the inhabitants of
Rome. All three likenesses are from Rome or its
vicinity. The mutilation of these portraits acted
to further repudiate the murdered emperor and
his policies and simultaneously confirmed loyalty
to the restored Severan regime.277 The destruc-
tion of Macrinus’s portraits must have been es-
pecially pleasing to Elagabalus who is recorded
to have made repeated attacks on the reputations
(fama) of both Macrinus and Diadumenianus.278
Like the marble images, a sardonyx cameo
which depicts facing likenesses of Macrinus and
Diadumenianus has been intentionally mutilated
(cat. 7.11; fig. 191).279 The face of Diadumenia-
nus, at the proper left of the cameo, has been
almost entirely chipped away, revealing the dark
blue level of the sardonyx beneath. The features
of Macrinus have also been damaged; the brow,
eye and nose are now missing. This cameo is one
of the rare examples of deliberate defacement of
276 Stanza degli Imperatori 36, inv. 460.
277 Since Elagabalus did not reach Rome until well over
a year after Macrinus’s death, it is possible that these
mutilated portraits remained on public display as a mark
of Macrinus’s disgrace and in order that the new emperor
could witness the posthumous degradation of his rival; S.
Wood (1983) 495.
278 HA.Elag. 8.4.
279 Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseums, inv. 32300.
 the severans
a gem portrait, and its mutilation recalls the ear-
lier vandalization of the cameo of Diva Poppaea
in Bonn (fig. 98). Gems were almost always left
undisturbed, or, in rare instances recarved. The
intentional mutilation of this cameo bears further
witness to the virulence with which the damnatio
of Macrinus and Diadumenianus was pursued
under Elagabalus and, like the Diva Poppaea
cameo, may also reflect an attempt to destroy
any supernatural properties of the gem-stone it-
self.
Coins of Macrinus and Diadumenianus also
appear to have been destroyed as a result of the
damnatio. Although Diadumenianus was pro-
claimed joint Augustus with his father on 16 May
218, the same day on which Elagabalus was
acclaimed Augustus, coins which give Diadume-
nianus this title are extremely rare. C. Clay has
speculated that the eastern mints had sufficient
time to mint coins for Diadumenianus as Au-
gustus between his declaration in May and
Macrinus’s final defeat on 8 June, but that these
issues were never released, and subsequently
melted down after Elagabalus’s victory.280
The Removal of Macrinus’s Images
A bronze portrait of Macrinus in Belgrade has
been severed from its original statue body as a
consequence of the damnatio.281 The head, a rep-
lica of his second type reproduces the slit left
earlobe characteristic of his Mauretanian origins
and has been severed from the portrait statue to
which it originally belonged.282 The portrait was
discovered near Belgrade, along the Roman limes
of Upper Moesia. In antiquity, this area was
known for its wealthy villas and the bronze im-
280 (1979) 33, n. 57.
281 City Museum, inv. 2636, h. 0.33 m.; V. Kondic
(1973) 47-8, pls. 5-7; D. Salzmann (1983) 362-65; 371-79,
figs. 13, 17, 21, 28-30; Fittschen-Zanker I, 113, n. 2; S.
Wood (1986) 30-31, 123. I. Popovic in N. Cambi et. al.
(1988) 153-4, no. 171, with figs. (with earlier literature); D.
Salzmann (1989) 351-83, figs. 13, 17, 21; A. Oliver (1996)
149; M. Donderer (1991-2) 274, no. 8.
282 Dio (78)79.11.1; D. Salzmann (1989) 371-76; A.
Oliver (1996) 149.
187
age of Macrinus may have been displayed in one
of the villas belonging to an aristocratic supporter
of the emperor before being beheaded. After
Macrinus’s overthrow, the image was apparently
decapitated and the head stored or buried in a
manner similar to the gilded bronze head of Nero
(fig. 87a-b).
Macrinus’s likeness is also preserved on six
additional gems which exhibit no signs of inten-
tional mutilation.283 On one of these, a fragmen-
tary carnelian intaglio in Hannover, Macrinus’s
portrait features have been carved on the reverse
of a gem whose obverse depicts facing portraits
of Julia Domna and Caracalla.284 The hair, eye,
and pupil of the portrait of Macrinus are handled
very differently than those of Julia Domna and
Caracalla confirming that Macrinus’s likeness has
been added to a gem originally created during
Caracalla’s reign as sole emperor.285 The addi-
tion of the portrait of Macrinus was clearly in-
tended to link him with the previous dynasty and
legitimize his rule.286 The portraits of Julia
Domna and Caracalla which appear on the
obverse may have further contributed to its sur-
vival.
Diadumenianus’s Portrait Typology
Diadumenianus’s numismatic images represent
him with a closely cropped coiffure with lightly
raised locks which leaves his ears uncovered. The
hairstyle is distinguished by a continuous curv-
ing segment which runs from the sideburns to the
forehead. His physiognomy consists of a straight,
aquiline nose, wide eyes, full lips, and a rounded
chin.
283 St. Petersburg, Ermitage, aquamarine intaglio, inv.
1454, D. Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 36; Zurich, art mar-
ket, carnelian intaglio, D. Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 35;
three from the Lippert Daktyliothek: sardonyx intaglio, D.
Salzmann (1983) 376-79, fig. 33; carnelian intaglio, D.
Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 34; chalcedony intaglio, D.
Salzmann (1983) 376-77, fig. 37; and Hannover, Kestner-
Museum, carnelian intaglio, D. Salzmann (1989) 559-68.
284 Kestner-Museum, 31.3 x 14 x 3.5 mm; D. Salzmann
(1989) 559-68, figs. 1a-b, 2a-b.
285 D. Salzmann (1989) 564-59.
286 D. Salzmann (1989) 564-9.
188 chapter eight
The Mutilation and Destruction of Diadumenianus’s
Images
Sculpted portraits representing the young Cae-
sar Diadumenianus would naturally have been
included in the destruction which befell his
father’s images. A cuirassed bust of Diadume-
nianus in the Vatican, has been violently attacked
(cat. 7.15; fig. 192a-b).287 On stylistic grounds,
this portrait has long been recognized as belong-
ing to the Severan period, but has been variously
identified as Caracalla, Geta, Severus Alexander,
or a private person. Although the bust is severely
damaged, it conforms to Diadumenianus’s numis-
matic portraits in the configuration of the coif-
fure, shape of the face, lips and chin. The curv-
ing segment of the coiffure from the sideburns to
the forehead which the portrait exhibits in pro-
file is not a feature of any other imperial portraits
of the Severan period but does occur on the
coinage of Diadumenianus and helps to secure
the identification of the Vatican bust. The face
has been severely disfigured with a point, caus-
ing damage to the brows, eyes, nose, upper lip,
chin, and deep gashes to the left cheek; both ears
have been almost entirely broken off. The
method of the portrait’s mutilation recalls that of
the damaged likeness of Plautilla in Houston (cat.
7.1; fig. 162a-b). The portrait was discovered in
the area of the castrum for the equites singulares con-
structed by Septimius Severus and the display
and subsequent mutilation of Diadumenianus’s
image likely occurred within the military context
of the castrum. The severe defacement of this por-
trait, possibly carried out by the equites is linked
conceptually to the disposal of Diadumenianus’s
inscription in the latrine of the Ostian vigili, and
bears further witness to the fury with which the
damnatio of the father and son was pursued at the
capital.
Elagabalus and Julia Soemias
Varius Avitus Bassianus, was born in 204, the
child of Sextus Varius Marcellus and Julia Soe-
287 Museo Gregoriano Profano, 651 (10135)(10075).
mias, niece of Julia Domna. Elagabalus’s mater-
nal grandmother, Julia Maesa, cleverly engi-
neered his accession by claiming that Bassianus
was the illegitimate son of Caracalla. Elagabalus
was formally saluted as Augustus by the Legio III
Gallica at Raphanae near Emessa on 18 May
218. The young emperor ruled under the same
name as his fictive father, Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus.288 At the time of his elevation,
Bassianus was the hereditary high priest of the
Emessene sun-god Elagabal, providing him with
his nickname, Elagabalus. After the execution of
Macrinus in 218, Elagabalus, together with his
grandmother and mother, who had both been
awarded the title of Augusta, journeyed to Rome,
arriving in the capital in the autumn of 219.
Elagabalus showed more concern for establish-
ing the rites of Elagabal in the capital than in
ruling the empire, which he largely left to the
governance of Julia Maesa and Julia Soemias.
The orgiastic rites of Elagabal, often performed
publicly by the emperor, disgusted and alienated
the senatorial aristocracy as well as the soldiers.
As a result of his increasingly erratic and unre-
liable behavior, Elagabalus was slain along with
his mother, Julia Soemias on 11 March 222 by
the Praetorians. Julia Maesa’s younger grandson,
Gessius Alexianus Bassianus, who had been
adopted by Elagabalus and named Caesar in 221,
was declared the new emperor.
Like the corpse of Vitellius, Elagabalus’s body
was subjected to the traditional indignities re-
served for hostes and capital offenders ( poena post
mortem) and the corpse was desecrated, the head
cut off, and the body dragged by a hook through
the streets of Rome as well as through the Cir-
cus Maximus and ultimately thrown into the
sewers which ran to the Tiber.289 The disposal
288 Dio 78(79).31.3, 79.32.2-3; Herodian, 5.4.3, 5.3.10;
HA, Car. 9.2, Macr. 9.4, 14.2, 15.2, Elag. 1.4; E.
Kettenhoffen (1979) 23-28;A. Birley (1988) 224, no. 49. An
eastern tetradrachm, went so far as to proclaim Elagabalus
the legitimate son of Caracalla and Plautilla; H. Mattingly,
BMCRE cliv, n. 3.
289 Dio 79(80). 20.2; Herodian, 5.8.9; HA, Elag 17.4-7,
23.7; Epit.Caes. 23.5-7. Alternate versions of the story re-
count the sewer drain was too small for the corpse, and as
a result the body was thrown into the Tiber from the Pons
 the severans
of his body in the Tiber earned Elagabalus the
posthumous nickname, Tiberinus.290 After his
murder, the Senate passed a decree that the name
of Antoninus should be erased from the public
annals when referring to Elagabalus, since he was
unworthy of the name which had been borne by
the revered emperors Antoninus Pius, Marcus
Aurelius, and even Caracalla.291 The Senatorial
sanctions were clearly enforced as forty of the
ninety-two surviving inscriptions which refer to
Elagabalus have had the name of Antoninus
eradicated.292 As part of his literary damnatio, the
name and deeds of Elagabalus are closely linked
with two earlier condemned emperors, Nero and
Commodus.293
Elagabalus’s Portrait Typology
Although he reigned for four years and his coins
reveal at least two distinct portrait types, only six
unaltered sculpted likenesses of Elagabalus have
survived the damnatio memoriae.294 Herodian de-
scribes Elagabalus as a handsome boy and the
emperor’s first numismatic portraits depict him
as a youth with a closely cropped coiffure;295 his
eyes are wide beneath strongly arching brows, his
nose is slightly hooked, his lips are full, with the
lower lip more full than the upper, his chin is
small, and is sometimes depicted as receding.
Sculpted replicas of the first type clarify certain
details of the numismatic portraits: the hair on
the temples joins the locks which cover the fore-
head well over the eyes. This creates a fairly
narrow set of bangs that are rendered as small,
Aemilius, see D.G. Kyle (1998) 223-4. See also, E. Gowers
(1995) 28, n. 49.
290 Dio (79)80.21.3; HA, Elag. 17.5; for Vitellius, see
Suet. Vit. 17 and supra.
291 HA.Elag.17.4, 18.1, Sev.Alex.1.1-2.
292 O.F. Butler (1910) 147.
293 HA.Elag. 1.2 and SevAlex. 7.4.
294 Herodian, 5.5.6, mentions a painted portrait of
Elagabalus which was hung in the Curia in Rome before
the emperor’s arrival in the capital and Dio 79(80).12.22
discusses a golden statue of the emperor, remarkable for
its many adornments.
295 5.3.8, 5.6.10.
189
comma shaped locks all brushed towards the
proper right.
Elagabalus’s second numismatic portrait type
depicts him with essentially the same physiogno-
mic details as the first, although often in more
exaggerated form. Thus, his eyes are wider, his
brows more arched, his nose more hooked, and
his lips more full. The coiffure is longer, consist-
ing of tousled curls. The locks over the forehead
are brushed to the proper right. The length of
the facial hair varies. The type occurs with short
sideburns, long sideburns, long sideburns and
moustache, and full beard. The more exagger-
ated and exotic facial features of this type em-
phasize the emperor’s foreign origins and may
correspond to his increasingly public perfor-
mances of the rites of Elagabalus.
The Destruction of Elagabalus’s Images
A coin portrait of Elagabalus, on an issue from
Nicea, was deliberately defaced in antiquity with
a chisel.296 Other coins from Nicea, as well as
Neapolis, Pieria, Sebaste, Sidon, and Tyre were
also countermarked.297 The countermarks in-
clude a small male bust, perhaps of Severus
Alexander, an A (presumably for Alexander), or
symbols associated with the cities which issued
the coins. Like the coins of Geta from eastern
mints which were also defaced and counter-
marked, the coins of Elagabalus may have been
treated in this manner as a practical alternative
to wholesale recalling and melting down of his
issues. Once again, countermarking and deface-
ment of Elagabalus’s coins were effective ways of
denigrating his memory and at the same time
expressing support and loyalty for the new em-
peror, Severus Alexander. Coins honoring the
mother of Elagabalus, Julia Soemias, his wife,
Aquilia Severa, and his grandmother, Julia Maesa
were also countermarked.298 Although Julia
Soemias undoubtedly suffered a collateral con-
296 A. Kindler (1980) 5.
297 A. Kindler (1980) 4-5.
298 A. Kindler (1980) 4.
190 chapter eight

demnation together with her son, there is no Alexander’s contrast with the fuller, plastically
evidence that his wives or grandmother under- modeled curls of Elagabalus’s first coiffure cov-
went official damnationes and the countermarking ering the rest of the head.
of their coins is undoubtedly a by-product of the Discovered in the Baths of Caracalla, the
sanctions against Elagabalus.299 statue was part of the substantial collection of
ancient sculpture assembled by the Farnese in
Rome.301 Elagabalus continued work on the
The Transformation of Elagabalus’s Images Baths, initiating construction on the great enclo-
sure wall, and in its initial incarnation, the Naples
Elagabalus/Severus Alexander portrait commemorated these building activities
and linked Elagabalus to his Severan predeces-
The reconfiguration of Elagabalus’s likenesses
sor Caracalla.302 The baths’ sculptural decora-
into portraits of Severus Alexander would natu-
tion, including earlier statues and newly commis-
rally have been facilitated by the similarities in
sioned works, was carefully chosen both for
age and facial features which existed between the
subject matter and scale.303 The colossal heroic
two cousins. These physiognomic similarities also
depiction of Elagabalus is entirely consistent with
account for the fact that Elagabalus is the only
the other heroic statuary decorating the baths.
emperor of the second or third centuries whose
Although contemporary and later sources record
images were recarved immediately after his con-
Elagabalus’s participation in chariot racing and
demnation. And in fact, four portraits of Elaga-
other forms of athletics, charges of effeminacy
balus have been refashioned into representations
were also leveled against him and the athletic
of his cousin and successor, Severus Alexander.
emphasis of the Naples portrait may have been
The most impressive of the reconfigured like-
additionally intended to visually refute such
nesses, an over life-sized statue in Naples, how-
charges.304
ever adopts a methodology of alteration unique
The Naples portrait’s initial creation from a
among the reused marble images of condemned
single block of marble certainly accounts for the
emperors (cat. 7.17; fig. 193a-c).300 This portrait,
unusual method of its reworking. Because of the
worked from a single block of marble, depicts the
statue’s nudity, preparation of a mortis and the
emperor in heroic nudity in a version of the
addition of a new head worked for insertion
Cumae/Munich Diomedes type. The original
which would have left a visible join was likely
face of the statue has been detached from the
deemed unsatisfactory. Furthermore, the fact that
back of the head and a new likeness of Severus
the facial features were not recut, but entirely
Alexander has been affixed as if it were a mask
replaced , strongly suggests that the original like-
The attachment of the facial features is exactly
ness of Elagabalus was intentionally mutilated.
analogous to the reworking of the bronze eques-
The statue’s location in one of the most promi-
trian portrait of Domitian/Nerva from Misenum
nent and popular buildings in Severan Rome
(cat. 5.7; fig. 123a-c), in which the face of
would have rendered it a prominent target for
Domitian has been cut from the head and new
deliberate defacement. Furthermore, the version
features of Nerva attached like a mask. The short,
of Severus Alexander’s likeness, with long, full
a penna locks framing the new face of Severus
sideburns and a moustache, was not introduced
until 225, suggesting that the disfigured portrait
299
of Elagabalus may have remained on display as
Their coins may have been countermarked in the
east because they were considered part of the emissions of
Elagabalus. A bronze portrait, likely representing Aquilia
Severa, from Sparta has been intentionally mutilated, but 301Fittschen-Zanker I, 119.
its destruction is the result of Christian iconoclasm rather 302HA.Elag.17.8-9; L. Richardson, jr.(1992) 387 (“Ther-
than damnatio memoriae; see L.A. Riccardi (1997) and also mae Antoninanae [Caracallae]).
M. Donderer (1991-2) 258-9, no. 22, fig. 259. 303 M. Marvin (1983) 347-84.
300 Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 5993. 304 Herod. 5.6.1-2.
 the severans
a highly visible and public symbol of the con-
demned emperor’s denigration for at least three
years.305 The fine workmanship and scale of the
statue indicate that it formed an important and
expensive part of the decoration of the Baths,
and, as yet another example of site specific im-
agery, its wholesale removal was undesirable. The
detachment of the face of Elagabalus and the
addition of Severus Alexander’s portrait features
comprise a practical solution to the statue’s trans-
formation. The portrait’s current sculptural
anomalies, namely the contrasting coiffures, the
overly broad profile of the head and the mask-
life effect of the face, would have been substan-
tially minimized if profile views of the statue were
restricted by its placement in a niche or between
columns.
A colossal portrait of Severus Alexander in the
Terme has also been refashioned from a preex-
isting image of Elagabalus (cat. 7.18; fig. 194a-
c).306 The hair over the left temple has been cut
back and recarved; the resulting arrangement of
locks, which are brushed back from the temple,
is nearly identical to that on a portrait of Severus
Alexander in the Sala dei Busti of the Vatican.307
Evidence of recarving beneath both sideburns
documents the removal of the longer facial hair
of Elagabalus’s second type. The original highly
polished surface of the skin, also present in Elaga-
balus’s type 2 replica in the Stanza degli Impera-
tori, has been roughened in many areas with
cross-hatching. The resulting image is especially
classicizing in its handling of sculptural details,
partially retained from the original and partially
the result of recarving of the eyes and brows. As
an heroic image of Severus Alexander, this clas-
sicizing style is consonant with its colossal scale.
The Terme head was discovered with a pen-
dant portrait of Gordian III, in 1874 during
305 On Severus Alexander’s portrait typology see
Fittschen-Zanker I, 117-23, nos. 99-103, and infra.
306 Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 329.
307 Inv. 361, inv. 632; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 154, 197, pl. 54 (with earlier literature); M.
Bergmann (1977) 27, no. 17, pls. 2,3; D. Stutzinger in Antike
und frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1979) 387-88, no. 7, with
fig.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 119, no. 17, Beil. 86; S. Wood
(1986) 60, 125, pl. 18.26.
191
excavations near the Tempio Rotondo at Os-
tia.308 The portrait of Gordian III is of nearly the
same size as the head of Severus Alexander, but,
is vastly different in style. The head of Gordian
III lacks the overriding classicism of the portrait
of Severus Alexander and contains many veristic
elements including the addition of carved eye-
brows and pupils, the indication of two vertical
furrows above the nose, a moustache, and cleft
chin. In addition, the portrait of Gordian III
emphasizes rounded forms and calligraphic
curves, whereas the Elagabalus/Severus Alex-
ander exhibits a rectilinear, block-like structural
geometry. The Tempio Rotondo, begun under
the Severans and probably finished under Gor-
dian III, was closely modeled on the Pantheon
and the entire complex seems to have functioned
as an Augusteum.309 The original portrait of Ela-
gabalus is likely to have been commissioned for
the temple or its precinct, recarved to Severus
Alexander, and at the completion of the complex,
a portrait of Gordian III was created, commen-
surate in scale with the reworked image of
Severus Alexander, but reflecting new stylistic
trends.
A head formerly in the Palazzo dei Conser-
vatori and now in the Centrale Montemartini has
also been recut from a representation of Elaga-
balus, although the recarving was apparently
never completed (cat.7.19).310 The hair of the
original portrait has been smoothed away with
a flat chisel, but the general shape and volume
of the coiffure, especially over the forehead and
temples, closely conforms Elagabalus’s type 1.
The hair was probably cut down in this manner
to give the cranium an even flatter shaped oc-
ciput which is a distinctive feature of Severus
Alexander’s child portraits of 222-224 A.C.. In
308 Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv.
326, h. 0.63 M; E. Talamo in MusNazRom 1.1 (Rome 1979)
310-12, no. 186 with fig. (with earlier literature); M.
Wegner, J. Bracker, and W. Real (1979) 19, 27, pl. 9;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 130, n. 6; S. Wood (1986) 37-39, 130,
pl. 5.8; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 367, fig. 329.
309 C. Pavolini (1983) 33, 110.
310 Braccio Nuovo 3.24, inv. 2457 (Centrale Monte-
martini 2.81, formerly Antiquario Communale, inv. 10476).
192 chapter eight
an extremely unusual approach to the recon-
figuration, the ears and nose of the original im-
age have been removed and cavities prepared for
the insertion of new ones. Perhaps the original
nose and ears had been damaged in an attack on
the image. The artist responsible for reworking
this portrait may have ultimately decided that the
separately worked nose and ears would create an
unsatisfactory and unconvincing likeness of the
new emperor and, for this reason, the refashion-
ing of the head was never completed. Alterna-
tively, Severus’s Alexander’s second, more ma-
ture type may have been introduced before the
reworking of this likeness could be completed.
A fourth representation of Severus Alexander,
in Kansas City has also been refashioned from
an image of Elagabalus (cat. 7.16; fig. 195a-d).311
The portrait retains the fully modeled and curly
coiffure of Elagabalus’s second portrait type over
the occiput, but his hairstyle has been chiseled
away at the back of the head, and the locks at
the front have been reconfigured with the a
penna arrangement typical of Severus’
Alexander’s likenesses. Like the Naples Elaga-
balus/Severus Alexander, the use of long side-
burns and moustache suggests a date of ca. 225
for the recarving, and at least a three year pe-
riod of storage for the original portrait following
Elagabalus’s assassination. The portrait has been
considerably reduced in scale, so much so that
the ears have been entirely recut. The original
ear canals are still visible below the lobes of the
new ears and an indentations along the jaw line
mark the much lower position of the initial ear
lobes. Like the Montemartini Elagabalus/Severus
Alexander, the Kansas city portrait is unusual for
its complete reworking of the ears, which may
suggest that the original ears had been deliber-
ately damaged prior to the transformation. In
addition, the treatment of the bedding for the
nose of the Kansas City portrait suggests that it,
too is an ancient repair or addition, perhaps
pointing to an attack on the original representa-
tion prior to its reconfiguration.
311 Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 45-66.
The Removal of Elagabalus’s Images
As in the past, the portraits of Elagabalus were
targeted for destruction and removal just as his
inscriptions were effaced, his coins disfigured and
countermarked, and his corpse desecrated. Strong
corroboration for the warehousing of Elagabalus’s
images in Rome is provided by an unfinished
head in Oslo which was discovered together with
a portrait of Geta.312 The head, a replica of the
second and final type, is also worked for inser-
tion and the surface of the skin on the neck and
cheeks still betray signs of the chisel, never hav-
ing received a final finish. A mass of hair above
and behind the right ear is only blocked out;
individual locks in this area have not been indi-
cated, in contrast to the corresponding section of
the coiffure on the left side of the head which has
been completed. The portrait was likely being
carved at the time of Elagabalus’s assassination
and the work was abandoned and the image
stored in a sculptural depot which also included
the likeness of Geta.313
Other well preserved representations of Elaga-
balus confirm the storage of his images in Rome
and its vicinity and include portraits in the Museo
Capitolino,314 Copenhagen,315 the Louvre,316 and
312 Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1434, h. 0.33 m.; S. Sande
(1991) 78-79, no. 64, pl. 63 (with earlier literature). The
nose of the portrait is missing and there is some damage
to the chin.
313 Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet 600, inv. 1433, see supra. The
anomalies occasioned by the image’s unfinished state and
its close affinities with the other type 2 replica in the Stanza
degli Imperatori have engendered doubts about this
portrait’s authenticity. However the unfinished state, as well
as the reputed archaeological context, speak strongly in
favor of an ancient date.
314 Stanza degli Imperatori 55, inv. 470, h. 0.32 m; ex-
Collection Albani B 117; Fittschen-Zanker I, 115-117, no.
98, pls. 120-21 (with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 32,
49-51, 123, pl. 11.14; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 362-3, fig. 320.
315 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 756a, inv. 2073; h.0.52 m.
(type I); S. Nodelman (1965) 378-81, n. 104, pls. 163-64;
H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 66, 107; V. Poulsen
(1974) 137-8, no. 137, pls. 218-19 (with earlier literature);
M. Bergmann (1977) 25, pls. 2.1, 3.2-3; Fittschen-Zanker
I, 114, Beil. 81a, 82 (Elagabalus); F. Johansen (1995b) 42-
3, no. 12 (with figs.)(with earlier literature). The portrait
is unrestored, with incidental damage to the tip of the nose,
the mouth, the right eye, and the rims of the ears.
316 Musée du Louvre, MA 1077 (type 1); H.B. Wiggers
 the severans
Gotha.317 The Capitoline portrait is certainly the
most well known representation of Elagabalus; it
has suffered negligible damage and preserves
much of its ancient surface finish . Restorations
are limited to the nose and left side of the upper
lip; otherwise, the portrait is exceedingly well
preserved. The head is worked for insertion into
a draped statue or bust, from which it must have
been removed after the damnatio.318 The Copen-
hagen head is also very well preserved and sur-
vives with its original bust form, which is
cuirassed and draped with a paludamentum. The
piece comes from Rome, where it was likely
warehoused following Elagabalus’s downfall. The
portraits in the Louvre and Gotha also exhibit
no marks of deliberate defacement, and provide
further evidence for the removal and storage of
Elagabalus’s representations in Rome and
Italy.319
A poorly preserved and very fragmentary rep-
resentation of Elagabalus documents the more
cursory disposal and utilitarian reuse of his im-
ages.320 After it’s removal from display, the back
of this portrait was cut down and dressed in order
to create a flat surface rendering it suitable for
reuse as building material or as a paving stone.321
It is possible that the portrait had been intention-
and M. Wegner (1971) 40, 74, 109 (with earlier literature);
Fittschen-Zanker I, 114, Beil. 81b; K. Kersauson (1996)
392-3, no. 180, with figs. (with earlier literature); The nose
of the Paris portrait is a restoration and there is minor
damage to both ears. The head has been attached to a bust
to which it does not belong.
317 Landesmuseum (type 1); S. Nodelman (1965) 379-
81, n. 106 (Elagabalus); H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 62 (not Caracalla) 100-01, 106 (not Geta); Fittschen-
Zanker I, 114, Beil. 81c-d (Elagabalus). The nose, chin, and
part of the right brow are restored in the Gotha head.
318 The original portrait statue or bust may have de-
picted Elagabalus wearing the toga or in the priestly garb
of Elagabal; Fittschen-Zanker I, 115, n. 1.
319 The Louvre image was part of the Campana Col-
lection and is likely to have been discovered in Rome or
its vicinity. The Gotha head is presumably from Italy.
320 Rome, Musei Capitolini, Magazzino di Via Portico
d’Ottavia, no inventory number, H. 0.31 m; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 114-15, no. 97, pl. 119 (with earlier literature).
Although the portrait is badly weathered and damaged, the
narrow arrangement of the locks over the forehead ensures
the portrait’s identification as a replica of type 1.
321 Fittschen and Zanker, I, 114.
193
ally vandalized prior to its reuse.
A second fragmentary visage, restored in the
th
18 century as an Antonine female portrait in
Newby Hall, may survive from a type 2 portrait
of Elagabalus.322 Although the ancient face is split
into two halves and the nose is restored, the eyes
are intact and there is no internal evidence of
deliberate disfigurement. While the shape of the
eyes and configuration of the sideburns accord
well with Elagabalus’s type 2 portraits in the
Museo Capitolino and Oslo, the configuration of
the locks over the forehead vary considerably,
and may have been substantially altered during
the 18th century reconfiguration of the image. In
addition, the forehead is substantially lower than
the securely identified replicas and it lacks their
incised moustaches. If the ancient section of the
Newby Hall portrait did in fact represent
Elagabalus, it would appear to be a variant of his
second portrait type.
Elagabalus’s name has been erased in numer-
ous inscriptions. A fragmentary statue base, re-
used as a marble step behind the Curia in Rome,
originally honored Elagabalus and his mother
Julia Soemias.323 Their names an titles have been
effaced from the inscription. The base was origi-
nally carved with relief sculpture on one of its
long sides and two of its short sides. The long side
depicted a river deity, while the short sides are
too damaged to permit identification of the re-
liefs. The inscription is apparently later than the
reliefs and reads:
........................... AVG AVIAE
[AVG]VSTI NOSTRI ET
////////////////////////////////////
AVGUSTAE
[TOT]IVSQVE DOMUS DIVINAE
......[A]VRELIVS TITUS M AVRELI
The name of Elagabalus probably appeared in
the missing section of line one, followed by the
name of Julia Maesa, invoked as his grandmother
at the end of the line. Julia Soemias’s name was
inscribed at line three and has been entirely
322 Ripon, Newby Hall 20; EA 3121; E. Bartman (2001)
1-2, fig. 1.
323 Antiquario Forense; A. (1951-52) 50-54; E.R.
Varner, (2001a) 49.
194 chapter eight
excised.324 The inscription was reused as a step
behind the Curia. The erasure of the Curia dedi-
cation attests to the eradication of Elagabalus and
Soemias’s names and the removal of their images
from the Forum, as well as to the further utilitar-
ian reuse of their monuments. In addition, the
inscription documents the care which was taken
to destroy Elagabalus’s monuments in the vicin-
ity of the seat of the Senate. The inscription’s
rather humble reuse is also a further from of
denigration and recalls the reuse of the relief of
Agrippina and Nero face down as a paving slab
at Aphrodisias (fig. 91) or the erased inscription
of Plautianus from the Ostian Thermopolium.
Four images of Elagabalus survive on cameos.
Three of these are single portraits of Elagabalus’s
first type: one in Bonn,325 one in Gannet,326 and
one in Paris.327 All three cameos depict the em-
peror with laurel crowns and the Gannet and
Paris cameos include cuirass and paludamentum. A
fourth gem is a highly unusual representation of
Elagabalus.328 The emperor, bearded and wear-
ing a corona, is depicted nude and ithyphallic. He
stands in a chariot being pulled by two naked
women who wear Severan Scheitelzopf coiffures.
Elagabalus holds a whip in his right hand and
the reigns to the chariot in his left. An enigmatic
inscription appears above and below the figures
and reads: +A3-+;3 ;+35!C. The gem seems
to confirm an anecdote in the Historia Augusta
which describes the emperor riding in a pabillum
pulled by naked women.329 The gem may com-
memorate some rite associated with the worship
324 On the evidence of the barely discernable remains
of a B and an S after the middle of the line, A. Bartoli has
convincingly suggested that the line originally read: [IVLIAE
SOEMIADIS] B[A]S[SIANAE], (1951-52) 53.
325 Akademischen Kunstmuseum, plaster cast of a lost
cameo, probably sardonyx, 2.2 x 1.9 m.; W.R. Megow
(1987) 247, no. A 165, pl. 51.1.
326 Eglise Ste. Croix, sardonyx cameo; W.R. Megow
(1987) 248, no. A 166, pl. 51.2 (with earlier literature).
327 Musée du Louvre, cameo in the “Crown of
Charlemagne,” 4.8 x 3.7 cm; W.R. Megow (1987) 248, no.
A 167.
328 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles
304, 1.9 x 2.2 cm.; W.R. Megow (1987) 247, no. A 164,
pl. 50.5 (with earlier literature).
329 Elag. 29.2.
of the sun god Elagabal or, conversely, it may
have been created after the emperor’s murder
as a kind of posthumous denigration of his mem-
ory.
All six of Elagabalus’s extant likenesses which
have not been recarved, as well as the three
reworked portraits, come from Rome or its vi-
cinity. Those portraits at the capital which were
not destroyed must have been removed from
public display and warehoused. Several were
actually reused. No portraits of Elagabalus have
come to light in the provinces, which suggests that
provincial likenesses may have been destroyed in
greater numbers than in Rome.
The Collateral Condemnation of Julia Soemias
Julia Soemias acted as chief Augusta during the
reign of her son, Elagabalus (A.D. 118-222),
eclipsing in importance her young sons three
wives, Annia Faustina, Aquilia Severa, and Julia
Cornelia Paula.330 Together with her mother,
Soemias appears to have controlled the govern-
ment331 and she is the only empress recorded to
have attended meetings of the Senate as if she
were a rightful member.332 Soemias may have
330 For Soemias see M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier (1987) 394-
95, no. 460. For Annia Faustina, see RE, “Annius,” 2311,
no. 115; for Julia Aquilia Severa, see RE, “Iulius,” 915, no.
557; and for Julia Cornelia Paula see RE, “Iulius,” 925-
26, no. 564.
331 HA. Elag. 2.1.
332 Deinde ubi primum diem senatus habuit, matrem suam in
senatum rogari iussit. quae cum venisset, vocata ad consulum subsellia
scribendo adfuit, id est senatus consulti conficiendi testis, solusque
omnium imperatorum fuit, sub quo mulier quasi clarissima loco viri
senatum ingressa est (Then, when he had his first day with
the Senate, he ordered that his mother be asked into the
senate-house, after she had come, having been called to the
consular seats, she was present for the writing, that is, she
acted as a witness to the preparation of the decree of the
Senate, and he (Elagabalus) was the only emperor under
whom a woman entered the Senate like a man, as if she
were a member, HA.Elag.4.1-2. Julia Maesa is also said to
have attended Elagabalus in the Senate, HA.Elag. 12.3. And
Dio states that Maesa and Soemias stood flanking him when
he announced the adoption of Severus Alexander to the
Senate in A.D. 221, 79(80)17.2. Tacitus describes Agrippina
Minor being present at a meeting of the Senate during the
principate of her son, Nero, but she was concealed behind
a screen, Ann.13.5.
 the severans
even been in charge of a mulierum senatum which
Elagabalus is said to have established on the
Quirinal Hill.333 In addition to the title of Au-
gusta, Soemias is commemorated as Mater
Augusti and Mater Castrorum.334 Soemias shared
her son’s downfall and was murdered together
with him on 11 March A.D. 222.335 Her corpse
was subjected to the same indignities as the body
of Elagabalus: its head was cut off, it was dragged
through the streets, and eventually thrown into
the sewers which ran to the Tiber.336 Julia Soe-
mias is the only empress recorded whose corpse
was desecrated publicly as an act of poena post
mortem.337 The Roman Senate is reported to have
immediately passed a law after her death mak-
ing it a capital offence for anyone to allow a
woman to enter the Senate.338
The collateral condemnation which Soemias
suffered together with Elagabalus has insured that
no securely identified sculpted likenesses of the
empress have survived.339 As already noted some
333 Fecit in colle Quirinali senaculum, id est mulierum senatum,
in quo ante fuerat conventus matronalis, HA, Elag. 4.3. Senaculum
originally denoted any place in which the Senate gathered
before they were formally convoked. Three are mentioned:
one in conjunction with the Curia Hostilia, one in the vi-
cinity of the Temple of Bellona, and one near the Porta
Capena, L. Richardson, jr. (1992) 348, “Senaculum.” It is
also associated with the meeting place of the conventus
matronalis on the Quirinal, and ultimately the institution of
the women’s senate itself, see L. Richardson, jr., ibid,
Senaculum Mulierum . The conventus matronalis was apparently
made up of high ranking women who met on certain fes-
tival days (sollemnibus...diebus) or to confer ornamentum conjugii
consularis on women, especially relatives of the emperor, who
had married outside the nobilitas, HA. Elag. 4.3-4. In an
effort to denigrate Soemias, the author of the Historia Au-
gusta goes on to list the kinds of absurd decrees which the
empress and her senatus mulierum concerned themselves with,
Elag. 4.4. The Historia Augusta records that Aurelian planned
to restore the institution of the Senaculum later in the third
century, Aur. 49.6-7.
334 Herod. 5.8.8; RE 949.
335 HA.Elag.18.2-3; Dio 79(80).20.2. Herod. 5.8.8-10.
336 Dio 79(80).20.2; Herod. 5.8.9; HA. Elag. 17.4-7; 23.7;
Epit.Caes. 23.5-7.
337 The bodies of Lollia Paulina and Octavia were
beheaded, but not otherwise abused; see infra and E.R.
Varner (2001a) 70-72.
338 HA. Elag.18.3.
339 Although several portraits have been identified as
Julia Soemias, they do not form a replica series, and none
are close enough to the numismatic representations of
Soemias to permit secure identification. The hairstyle of a
195
of her coins have been countermarked and her
name has also been erased in inscriptions, such
as the statue base from the Curia which was
reused as a step.340 The name of Julia Soemias
was inscribed at line three and has been entirely
chiseled out. On the evidence of the barely
discernable remains of a B and an S after the
middle of the line, A. Bartoli has convincingly
suggested that the line originally read: [IVLIAE
SOEMIADIS] B[A]S[SIANAE].341 The erasure of
the Curia dedication attests to the eradication of
Soemias’s name and images following her death
and damnatio.
Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea
After the assassination of Elagabalus and Julia
Soemias in 222, the Praetorian Guard proclaimed
the dead emperor’s young cousin, Gessius Alex-
ianus Bassianus as the new Augustus. Alexianus
portrait in a Swiss private collection identified by C.
Trümpler-Ris as Julia Soemias differs substantially from
coin likenesses of the empress, H. Jucker and D. Willers,
eds. (1982) 170-71, no. 70, with figs. Coins depict Soemias
with the hair waved differently over the temples and ears,
and a much smaller chignon nestled into the hair on the
nape of the neck, BMCRE 536-539 nos. 38-60, 576, no. 293,
595-98, nos. 373-87, pls. 85.17-19, 86.1-2, 91.13, 94.10-
15. RIC 4.2, 25, 45, 48, 60, nos. 207, 234-48, 400-408, pl.
7.6-8. Trümpler-Ris suggests that the damage which the
Swiss portrait has sustained, namely to the forehead, eyes,
cheeks and chin has been caused by damnatio memoriae, but
typically, mutilation caused by damnatio includes the mouth
as well and the damage here seems incidental; see infra.
Likewise, a portrait in Stockholm identified by J. Meischner
as Julia Soemias lacks strong correspondences with the
numismatic representations of the empress (1964) 94-6, no.
74, fig. 63. A portrait of a Severan woman as Venus
Anadyomene with Isiac drapery and the Egyptian offering
jar in the Galleria Chiaramonti of the Vatican 8.1, inv.
1306; P. Liverani [1989] 25 from the Forum at Palestrina
was tentatively associated by J.J. Bernoulli with Soemias
(1894) 93-4, pl. 27. Although N. Agnoli (2002) 14 has re-
vived Bernoulli’s suggestion, the portrait does not conform
to Soemias’s numismatic portraits in details of coiffure and
physiognomy and is likely a representation of a private
woman. See also H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 161-
63 and E.R. Varner (2001a) 48-9.
340 For the countermarked coins, see A. Kindler (1980)
4; on the erased inscriptions and Julia Soemias’s damnatio,
see E. Kettenhoffen (1979) 151-3.
341 A. Bartoli (1951-52) 53.
196 chapter eight
had been declared Caesar and adopted by
Elagabalus in the previous year under the name
Marcus Aurelius Alexander. He added Severus
to his names as Augustus, reigning as Marcus
Aurelius Severus Alexander, in an effort to link
himself with the dynasty’s founder, Septimius
Severus. He was approximately fourteen at the
time of his accession and his mother, Julia
Mammaea, who was declared Augusta, acted as
regent for her son. Severus Alexander’s rule lasted
13 years, until he and his mother were assassi-
nated on 22 March 235 at Vicus Britannicus by
their own troops, who had grown dissatisfied with
the emperor’s unsuccessful attempts to quell si-
multaneous disturbances on both the Parthian
and German frontiers. Maximinus Thrax, a sol-
dier of humble origin, seized power after the
murders.
Although neither Alexander nor Julia Mam-
maea received any official sanctions against their
memories after their deaths, some of their por-
traits and inscriptions were nonetheless deliber-
ately defaced or destroyed. The isolated instances
of the destruction of the monuments of Severus
Alexander and Julia Mammaea must have been
the result of spontaneous demonstrations against
their memories, rather than the expression of an
officially sponsored or centrally initiated attempt
to defame them. As in the past, such spontane-
ous demonstrations would have served to express
dissatisfaction with the last of the Severans and,
more importantly, loyalty to the new emperor
Maximinus Thrax. But these demonstrations
were limited in scope, for Severus Alexander was
eventually deified in 238 under Gordian III and,
in general, he is very favorably treated by con-
temporary and later historians. However, these
spontaneous demonstrations are symptomatic of
the increase in the intentional mutilation of por-
traits, which had begun under Commodus and
continued unabated throughout the Severan
period.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Severus
Alexander’s Images
Severus Alexander’s name and titles have been
erased in several inscriptions.342 These erasures
were carried out under Maximinus, for Severus
Alexander’s name has been restored in many of
the erased inscriptions after his deification in
238.343 At the same time his inscriptions were
erased, two of his portraits also were intention-
ally damaged. A fragmentary portrait in the
Museo Capitolino has been split apart with a
chisel (cat. 7.22; fig. 196a-b).344 The head is bro-
ken off above the eyes and the chisel blows which
caused the break are clearly visible above the left
eye. The nose has also been chiseled off. In con-
trast to the deliberately damaged areas, the sur-
face of the skin is well-preserved. The defacement
of the Capitoline head suggests that images in
Rome were mutilated in response to the news of
Severus Alexander’s murder and the accession of
Maximinus Thrax. A fragmentary bronze por-
trait, now in the Terme, may also have been
attacked and then thrown into the Tiber, where
it was discovered near the Ponte Sisto (cat.
7.23).345 The people of Rome, far removed from
the German frontier where Maximinus was de-
clared emperor, may have felt it especially poli-
tic to express their fidelity to the new emperor
and regime by visually denigrating the memory
and monuments of his predecessor.
A mutilated bust length portrait of Severus
Alexander in a Swiss private collection was dis-
covered together with two fragmentary portraits
of Julia Mammaea (cat. 7.24). As usual with de-
liberately defaced images, damage is concentrated
in the areas of the eyes, nose, mouth and chin,
while the rest of the head is well preserved. Frag-
ments of the bust form with toga contabulata are
also preserved. The portrait’s discovery, together
with the fragmentary representations of Julia
Mammaea, suggest that they were stored or
342 G.M. Bersanetti (1964) 18, n. 3; A. Belezza (1964)
77, n. 37.
343 G.M. Bersanetti (1964) 18, n. 3.
344 Magazzini, inv. 1431.
345 Inv. 124492.
 the severans
buried together following their disfigurement.
Another bust length portrait in Munich depict-
ing the emperor with toga contabulata was attacked
and the eyes, nose, mouth, chin and ears oblit-
erated (cat. 7.21).
An over-life-sized bronze head of Severus
Alexander in Bochum also has also been inten-
tionally disfigured (cat. 7.20; fig. 197).346 The
head, severed from its original cuirassed statue,
was discovered at Carnuntum, the seat of gov-
ernment for Upper Pannonia. Gouges to the right
side of the head, the right temple, the corner of
the right eye, the right cheek, and left brow all
appear to have been deliberately caused by a
dolabra (pick-axe).347 As B. Andreae has recog-
nized, the damage has resulted from a kind of
assassination in effigy.348 Furthermore, the van-
dalization of this portrait is clearly the result of
a spontaneous demonstration, likely carried out
by soldiers, against the images of Severus
Alexander, which were intended to show support
of the new emperor, Maximinus Thrax.
It is possible that the portrait was set up in
Carnuntum by Cassius Dio, who was the legatus
augusti in Pannonia from 223-228.349 During the
reign of Severus Alexander, Dio records that the
troops in the Danube region were restive and
mutinous, and the image may have been in-
tended to uphold the emperor’s authority for the
troops who were contesting his supremacy.350 As
a visual representation of Severus Alexander’s
auctoritas, the portrait may have been especially
liable to denigration following the emperor’s
murder and its mutilation recalls the important
roles which images of Galba and Vitellius played
in the military disturbances in Germany during
the civil wars of A.D. 68-9.351 The geographical
context and martial imagery of the image may
indicate that the military were both the agents
and the audience of the portrait’s mutilation.
After its destruction and removal from the
346
Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität.
347 B. Andreae (1979) 98; C. Letta (1981) 42.
348 B. Andreae (1979) 108; C. Letta (1981) 42.
349 C. Letta (1981) 44.
350 79(80).1.3; C. Letta (1981) 43.
351 See supra.
197
cuirassed statue body, the head must have been
replaced with a new portrait, very likely of
Maximinus himself. Like the mutilated miniature
bronze bust of Caligula (cat. 1.3; fig. 2a-b) or the
decaptiated bronze heads of Nero and Macrinus
(fig. 87), the Bochum portrait’s defacement and
disposal is highly unusual, in that bronze images
were normally melted down for their metal con-
tent.
Julia Mammaea
Julia Mammaea’s name and titles have also been
erased in several inscriptions and four of her
surviving portraits were deliberately mutilated.352
Repeated blows from a square hammer have
disfigured an over life-sized portrait of Julia
Mammaea in Ostia (7.26; fig. 198).353 Damage
is concentrated in the area of the face; the fore-
head, both eyeballs, the nose, most of the mouth,
and part of the left cheek have all been obliter-
ated. With the exception of weathering to the top
of the head, the other surfaces of the portrait are
well-preserved including the finely carved details
of the coiffure. Traces of the square instrument
used in the attack on the forehead are readily
visible. The eyeballs have essentially been gouged
out of the head with a chisel and, as in other
instances of this kind of trauma, comprises both
an anthropomorphic attack on the sensory organs
as well as an attempt to deprive the image of its
personal identity. The head is worked for inser-
tion and was discovered at Ostia, reused as part
of the paving of the decumanus. After its deface-
ment the portrait was removed from its statue or
bust form and discarded or warehoused until its
later utilitarian reuse as paving material. The
severe damage which has been inflicted on the
face rendered the head useless for recarving into
a new likeness, hence its reuse in another con-
text.
The face of a representation of Julia Mam-
maea in the Louvre has also been deliberately
352 G.M. Bersanetti (1964) 18, n. 3.
353 Ostia, Museo, inv. 26.
198 chapter eight
disfigured (cat7.27; fig. 199).354 The portrait de-
picts the Augusta with a diadem and is worked
for insertion into a draped bust form (or statue).
The left brow, both eyeballs, the nose, mouth and
chin have all attacked with a chisel. The rest of
the portrait is generally well preserved, again un-
derscoring the intentional nature of the disfigure-
ment. In addition the two fragmentary portraits
of Julia Mammaea in a Swiss private collection
(cat. 7.28) and in Bochum (cat. 7.25).355 discov-
ered in Italy together with the deliberately dam-
aged portrait of Severus Alexander provide fur-
ther persuasive evidence for the intentional
mutilation of her likenesses (cat. 7.24). In these
two representations, only the face is preserved
and in both the noses have been entirely de-
stroyed. The hair may have been worked sepa-
rately as a marble wig.
As part of joint commemorations with her son,
it is not surprising that Julia Mamaea’s portraits
and inscriptions were included in the limited
destruction which befell her son’s monuments as
a result of spontaneous demonstrations.356 She
was, in effect, the reigning Augusta, despite Alex-
ander’s short-lived marriage to Sallustia Barbia
Orbiana, and she wielded enormous power and
influence.357 On coins, Julia Mammaea is granted
the extraordinary title, mater universi generis hu-
mani.358 Contemporary and somewhat later his-
torians, who generally treat Severus Alexander
favorably, are much more harsh in their judge-
ment of Julia Mammaea; the failure of the young
Augustus’s reign is largely blamed on his mother
and her greed.359 Julia Mammaea’s exceptional
position and prominence, as well as the negative
354 No. 3552 (inv. MND 2137).
355
“Julia Mammaea B,” Bochum, Kunstsammlungen
der Ruhr-Universität, inv. S 1090.
356 A sardonyx cameo in Köln which may depict fac-
ing portraits of Severus Alexander and Julia Mammaea has
possibly suffered damage as a result of a damnatio, Römisch-
Germanisches Museum 72, inv. nr. RGM 31.55, 1.9 x 1.4
cm; W.R. Megow (1987) 309, nr. E 7, pl. 50.8-9; however,
the lack of imperial insignia and the generic nature of the
portraits speaks against such an identification.
357 HA, SevAlex. 14.7, 60.2.
358 CIL 2.3413; E. Kettenhoffen (1979) 161.
359 Herod.6.1.8; HA.SevAlex. 14.7, 63.5.
opinions about her, account for the destruction
of her images as a result of spontaneous demon-
strations.
Conclusion: A Crescendo of Desecration and
Destruction
Although there are far fewer individual condem-
nations than in the Julio-Claudian period, the
physical evidence for the destruction and muti-
lation of images from the Severan period is stag-
gering, and in many ways marks the apogee of
the phenomenon of the repression of commemo-
rative monuments. The period boasts the most
widespread and virulent condemnation in Roman
history in the damnatio of Geta ruthlessly pursued
by his brother Caracalla. The wholesale destruc-
tion of images is clearly documented by the case
of Plautianus, who is anecdotally reported by Dio
to have enjoyed more portrait honors than
Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Despite Dio’s
remarkable assertion, no securely identifiable
portraits of Plautianus have survived. Extremely
fragmentary portraits of Geta in Venice and
Rome provide further evidence for the wholesale
destruction of Severan images.
The Severan period furnishes additional pow-
erful evidence for erasure in relief, which comple-
ments the earlier removal of Commodus from the
Aurelian panels. Indeed, the Arch of the Ar-
gentarii has become a visual locus for discussions
of relief portrait suppression. Representations of
Plautianus, Plautilla and Geta have all been
eradicated from the arch, and the resulting blank
passages in the reliefs speak volumes. All three
obliterated individuals are tellingly present
through their conspicuous absences. With its
abraded, recessed, and recarved surfaces, the
dedicatory inscription of the Arch also stands as
a seminal example of insciptional condemnation,
eclipsed only by the obliteration and alteration
of the attic inscription on the Arch of Septimius
Severus in the Forum Romanum. Erasure is also
a potent form of emendation for coins, as evi-
denced by an extraordinary series of bronze is-
sues from Stratonicea, and elsewhere in the east,
in which Geta’s portraits have been effaced.
 the severans
As in the later second century, there are es-
sentially no Severan portraits which were
reconfigured as a result of condemnations. For
example, representations of Geta and Pautilla
which have been recut, were not recycled until
the middle third and fourth centuries, respec-
tively. The exception to this are the portraits of
Elagabalus which were refashioned into likenesses
of his young cousin and successor, Severus
Alexander. These sculptural transformations may
have been facilitated by the similarities in age,
physiognomy, and coiffure between the two cous-
ins, as well as the lack of the complicating fac-
tor of beards in their images.
The anthropomorphic disfigurement of
sculpted images continues with increased fre-
quency in the Severan period and Macrinus is
the first Roman ruler for whom all of his surviv-
ing marble portraits have been deliberately
mutilated. In addition, representations of Plau-
tilla, Geta, Diadumenianus, Severus Alexander
and Julia Mammaea have all been intentionally
attacked. Disfigured portraits of Severus Alex-
ander and Julia Mammaea provide the first in-
controvertible corroboration for the phenomenon
of spontaneous destructive demonstrations, be-
cause their memories were never officially or
unofficially condemned, and Severus Alexander
was, in fact, subsequently deified. Other kinds of
mutilation are also in evidence during the Seve-
ran period. In particular, the decapitated like-
nesses of Geta from the Arch of Septimius
Severus at Lepcis Magna would have been evoca-
tive visual emblems of his posthumous denigra-
tion. His portrait is technically absent from the
199
relief, but his mutilated body remains as a signi-
fier of his condemnation. Similarly, his headless
image is another powerfully denigrative marker
in the Berlin tondo. The closely related practice
of corpse abuse also occurs in this period, with
the body of Septimius’s Severus’s rivals Clodius
Albinus and Pescennius Niger desecrated, as well
as those of Macrinus, Diadumenianus, Elagabalus
and Julia Soemias. Indeed, the extended and very
public abuse of the corpses of Elagabalus and
Julia Soemias and their ultimate disposal as refuse
in the Tiber is notable in the annals of imperial
condemnations. Julia Soemias is the first and only
imperial woman whose remains are known to
have been defiled so drastically and so publicly.
Although the military had been intimately
involved in earlier condemnations, especially in
the period of unrest immediately following the
suicide of Nero in 68, intriguing evidence for the
army as an active agent in pursuing condemna-
tions is provided by Geta’s damnatio. In the ac-
count given by the Historia Augusta, Caracalla first
calls upon the military to declare his murdered
brother a public enemy, rather than the Senate.
Active involvement in the condemnation on the
part of the Roman army may also help to explain
the remarkably wide geographic distribution of
surviving inscriptional and sculptural evidence for
Geta’s condemnation. Furthermore, the soldiers’
participation in and promotion of Geta’s damnatio
signals the major role they would play in the
selection of succeeding emperors during the third
century following the assassination of Severus
Alexander and the demise of the Severan dy-
nasty.
200 chapter nine
CHAPTER NINE
THE LATER THIRD CENTURY (235-285)
Maximinus Thrax, Maximus, and Caecilia Paulina
For nearly fifty years between 235 and 284, the
third century was marked by a rapid succession
of emperors, often chosen by the army. Follow-
ing the murders of Severus Alexander and Julia
Mammaea in 235, the Senate reluctantly con-
firmed the army’s choice of emperor, Gaius Ju-
lius Verus Maximinus, reputedly the son of a
Gothic peasant and a woman of the Alani tribe.1
After embarking on a military career, he even-
tually held the governorship of Mesopotamia.2 In
235, Maximinus was stationed on the Rhine in
command of the troops who revolted against
Severus Alexander and these soldiers saluted
Maximinus as their new emperor.
Maximinus continued to wage war along the
Rhine, and engaged in several battles in which
he was victorious. However, from the outset, his
reign was plagued by revolts.3 In March of 238,
Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus Ro-
manus (Gordian I), the governor of Africa, was
declared emperor together with his homonymous
son (Gordian II). The Senate supported the two
new emperors. However, Capellianus, the gov-
ernor of Numidia, defeated the Gordian parti-
sans in April and Gordian II was killed in the
battle. Shortly afterwards, Gordian I committed
suicide. The Senate was undaunted, and declared
Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus and Decimus
Caelius Calvinus Balbinus as the new augusti.
These two in turn appointed Marcus Antonius
Gordianus (Gordian III Pius), the thirteen year
old grandson of Gordian I and nephew of Gor-
dian II, as Caesar.
1 HA. Max. 1.5.
2 On the career of Maximinus, see G.M. Bersanetti
(1965).
3 HA. Max. 10; 11.2-5; Tyr. 31.7, 12; 32.1-3.
Upon hearing of the uprising in Africa, Max-
iminus marched on Italy. After reaching Italy,
Maximinus was unable to capture Aquilea, and
sustained heavy losses during the siege of the city.
The Legio II Parthica became dissatisfied with
the emperor and, on 10 May, they murdered
him, together with his son Maximus, who held
the titles of caesar and princeps iuuventutis. Herodi-
an records that the corpses of the father and son
were subjected to poena post mortem and were left
for anyone to desecrate or trample on and ulti-
mately as carrion food for birds and dogs; the
heads were cut off and sent to Rome.4 As in the
past, portraits of Maximinus played an important
symbolic role in his overthrow; immediately
before Maximinus and Maximus were assassinat-
ed, the imagines of Maximinus were ripped from
the Praetorian standards to signal his downfall.5
At the time of the Gordians’ revolt in Africa,
the Senate declared both Maximinus and Max-
imus hostes, thus ensuring the destruction of their
monuments.6 The honors which the father and
son had been awarded were revoked and their
names erased from inscriptions and papyri.7 The
Senate’s sanctions against Maximinus coincided
with a false rumor that he had actually been
killed, prompting plebs to overthrow his portraits
in Rome: deiectae sunt statuae et imagines eius qui hostis
4 8.5.9.
5 Herod. 8.5.9.
6 HA, Max. 15.2; Gord. 11.1, 7-10; Max.Balb. 1.4. See
also, ILS 1188.
7 HA, Max. 26.3, 5; Herodian records that the names
of Maximinus and Maximus were erased from African in-
scriptions at the time of the Gordian’s revolt and their
portrait dedications were removed and replaced with im-
ages of the Gordians, 7.7.2. On the erased African inscrip-
tions, see G.M. Bersanetti (1965) 68. n. 2; see also, ILS 487-
89 and R. Cagnat (1914) 173. For the papyri, which also
have the names of Maximinus and Maximus erased, see
E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876.
 the later third century
fuerat iudicatus.8 In addition, the Senate ordered
that paintings commemorating Maximinus’s
German victories which had been erected out-
side the Curia were to be taken down and
burned.9 Furtheromore, outside of the capital,
after Maximinus and Maximus were killed at
Aquileia, the citizens of a neighboring town re-
sponded to the news by overturning Maximinus’s
statues: in oppido igitur vicino statim Maximini statu-
ae atque imagines depositae sunt.10
Maximinus Thrax’s Portrait Typology
Maximinus’s extant sculpted representations
correspond closely to those numismatic likenesses
which include the title Germanicus.11 Maximi-
nus wears a short, closely cropped coiffure which
reveals the contours of the skull, and a lightly
incised beard and moustache. His forehead is
creased by horizontal furrows and two vertical
furrows are depicted above the bridge of his nose.
The nose itself is hooked and prominent. The
mouth is long, and the lips are not overly fleshy.
The shape of the head is massive and rectangu-
lar, while the neck is thick and full.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Maximinus
Thrax’s Images
As with Macrinus, all of Maximinus Thrax’s
surviving marble images have been deliberately
mutilated, a vivid testimony to the denigration
of his memory. Despite the fact that Maximinus
never visited the capital and was despised by both
the Senate and plebs, these six likenesses are from
Rome or its environs. The most fragmentary
image, formerly in the Terme and now in the
Museo Palatino, consists of the top of the head
ending just below the eyes (cat. 8.4; fig. 200a-c).12
8 HA. Gord. 13.6. See also, Herod. 7.7.1-2.
9 HA.Max. 12.11; Herod. 7.2.8.
10 HA. Max. 23.7.
11 R. Delbueck (1940) 65-67, pl.1.6,9-10,13;H.B. Wig-
gers and M. Wegner (1971) pl. 67.
12 Museo Palatino, Sala 8, formerly Museo Nazionale
Romano delle Terme, inv. 52681.
201
Although it is only partially preserved, the vir-
tuoso treatment of the coiffure, forehead, brows,
and eyes clearly mark it as the finest replica of
Maximinus’s only portrait type.13 The piece was
discovered on the Palatine where it was likely
displayed somewhere in the imperial palace com-
plex, which also accounts fro its extremely high
artistic quality. The image has been destroyed as
a direct result of the Senate’s repudiation of
Maximinus’s authority and may have carried out
by official representatives of the Senate, or by
palace functionaries, wishing to comply with the
Senatorial sanctions against Maximinus and to
express support for the new regime of the Gor-
dians.
Modern restorations currently obscure the
ancient mutilation inflicted on Maximinus’s im-
ages in the Museo Capitolino (cat. 8.3)14 and the
Louvre (cat. 8.2).15 In the Capitoline portrait, a
portion of the left brow, the nose, and the left
half of the chin and both ears have been restored
in marble. In addition, the head is severely
cracked from repeated blows. The Louvre por-
trait has suffered even more serious disfigure-
ment. Modern restorations include the right
brow, right eye, most of the left eye, the nose,
the left half of the lower lip, the chin, and most
of the left ear. The rest of the head, and the bust
form, which appears to belong, are much better
preserved and underscore the deliberate nature
of the image’s defacement. Like the Capitoline
portrait, the bust in the Louvre must have been
damaged as a result of the sanctions against
Maximinus or, slightly afterwards, when his death
was announced at Rome. The likeness was dis-
covered at the Villa of Quintilii, on the Via Appia
outside of Rome, probably during the excavations
of 1850-51.16 The mutilated image is likely to
have been stored or buried at the Villa, which
was the largest of the suburban villas in the envi-
13 H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 228.
14 Stanza degli Imperatori 46, inv. 473.
15 MA 1044.
16 A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 108-9; R. Paris, ed. (2000) 23. A
bust of Philip the Arab (St. Petersbur, Ermitage A 31) was
also discovered at the Villa during excavations carried out
in 1764.
202 chapter nine
rons of Rome and had become imperial proper-
ty under Commodus.
Two other portraits of Maximinus from Rome
have been intentionally defaced as a result of his
damnatio. Both are currently displayed on the
facade of the Casino Aurora Ludovisi and have
been attached to modern busts (cat.8.5-6; figs.
201-2).17 Although they are very poorly pre-
served, the heads are recognizable as likenesses
of Maximinus, with strong similarities in their
coiffures and physiognomies to the better pre-
served replicas.18 Both brows, the nose, the lips,
the chin and both ears are restored in one por-
trait. Restorations to the second portrait include
the nose and the chin. The surfaces of both heads
are very corroded as a result of their long expo-
sure to the elements while displayed on the fa-
cade of the Casino. Nevertheless, the loss of fa-
cial features which both portraits have suffered
was almost certainly the result of vandalization
carried out at the time of Maximinus’s downfall.
A portrait in Copenhagen, exhibits signs that
it, too, has been intentionally mutilated in antiq-
uity (cat. 8.1).19 The head is over life-sized and
worked for insertion. The nose, chin, and the
rims of both ears have been attacked with a
chisel.20 There are some minor abrasions to the
surface of the marble, but the portrait is gener-
ally well preserved and still displays the original
porcelain-like finish of the skin. Like the Harvard
Macrinus, the contrast between the highly pol-
ished surfaces and the damaged facial features
again highlight the intentional nature of the
portrait’s disfigurement. After its mutilation, the
portrait must have been removed from the stat-
ue into which it was inserted.21 Maximinus’s
17 T. Schreiber (1880) nos. 158 and 160.
18 K. Fittschen (1977b) 319-26. Two additional portraits
displayed on the facade of the Casino exhibit general sim-
ilarities to the portraits of Maximinus, T. Schreiber (1880)
no. 159, 161; K. Fittschen (1977b), figs. 7-10; L. de Lache-
nal MusNazRom 1.6, 247-50, no. VIII.14, 252-54, no.
VIII.15, with figs.; Both are badly corroded. Because the
similarities are somewhat generic, K. Fittschen identifies
the heads as private portraits, (1977b) 319-26; see also L.
de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 247-50, no. VIII.14, 252-54,
no. VIII.15.
19 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 744, inv. 818.
20 These areas were formerly restored in marble.
21 In addition to the sculpted portraits which have been
numismatic images have also been attacked.
Obverses with facing portraits of Maximinus and
his son Maximus from Elaea and Pergamum have
been entirely obliterated.22 As in the past, these
effacements are forceful and graphic reminders
of the emperor’s denigration.
Maximus’s Portrait Typology
The monuments of Maximinus’s son, Gaius Ju-
lius Verus Maximus, were included in the sanc-
tions enacted against his father.23 Coin portraits
of Maximus depict him with a short military
haircut, similar to that worn by his father. He is
beardless and has a prominent, hooked nose. His
mouth is fairly small, the lips somewhat fleshy,
and the lower lip recedes slightly. The chin is firm
and the jaw is heavy. Like his father, the shape
of the face is rectangular and massive.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Maximus’s Images
Two heads worked for insertion, now in Copen-
hagen, have been deliberately mutilated (cat. 8.7-
8; figs. 203-4).24 Like the portrait of Maximinus
in Copenhagen, the combination of disfigured fa-
cial features with the highly polished surfaces of
the skin in these two portraits vividly underscores
the intentional nature of their destruction. In one
portrait both eyes and the nose have been van-
dalized. The other has been more severely dam-
aged with its eyes and the pupils almost entirely
obliterated. The nose has been destroyed and the
lips are also damaged. Nevertheless, the preser-
vation of the high polish of the skin suggests that
these portraits, as well as the portrait of Maxi-
minus in Copenhagen, were stored or buried in
a secure location after their disfigurement. And
deliberately damaged, D. Salzmann mentions a sestertius
from a private collection in Munich in which the portrait
of Maximinus has been reconfigured (1984) 295, n. 44.
22 K. Regling (1904) 142-4; K. Harl (1987) pl. 12.5-6.
23 HA.Max. 26.5.
24 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 745, inv. 819 and 746, inv.
823.
 the later third century
indeed, all three images appear to have been part
of the group of five “colossal” heads inserted in
togate statues recorded by T. Schreiber and J.J.
Bernoulli as being displayed at the Villa Ludovisi
at the end of the nineteenth century.25 In addi-
tion to being stylistically similar to one another,
both heads of Maximus bear striking resemblanc-
es to the Copenhagen portrait of Maximinus, es-
pecially in the handling of the highly polished skin
surfaces. All three heads are almost certainly the
products of the same sculptural workshop. Orig-
inally these portraits, together with the other two
“colossal” portraits whose whereabouts are no
longer known, may have formed part of a por-
trait gallery, depicting the father and son in var-
ious guises.26 The damage to the facial features
prevented the recarving of these images. How-
ever, the bodies into which they had been insert-
ed are likely to have been reused with the addi-
tion of new portrait heads. The combined
destruction of the images of the father and son
from the presumed portrait gallery recalls the
obliteration of their facing portraits on the coins
from Elaea and Pergamum. All or many of the
portraits may have been found together, suggest-
ing that after their mutilation they were stored
or warehoused in the same location, perhaps a
sculptural depot, perhaps in the Horti Sallus-
tiani.27
The Removal of Maximus’s Images
A third portrait of Maximus in Copenhagen is
life-sized and is worked for insertion into a draped
25 T. Schreiber (1880) nos. 321-325 and J.J. Bernoulli
(1894) 117. Bernoulli lists the measurements of the heads
as ranging from 0.45 m. for the smallest to 0.58 cm. for
the largest. This is not incompatible with the measurements
of the Copenhagen heads. The Maximinus Thrax measures
0.43 m., while both portraits of Maximus measure 0.42 m.
It is possible that the other two portraits mentioned by
Bernoulli, whose whereabouts are no longer known, were
the larger portraits.
26 See also K. Fittschen (1977b) 319-326 and Fittschen-
Zanker I, 125-126, ns. 4-5.
27 K. Fittschen (1977b) 319-20; M. Donderer (1991-2)
220, n. 116.
203
bust or statue.28 Although the portrait lacks its
nose, chin and the rims of both ears, all of which
were formerly restored in marble, it does not
exhibit the corresponding damage to the eyes
present in the other two likenesses, and, as a
result, it is unlikely that the portrait was delib-
erately defaced. Rather, the head must have been
removed from its original context and ware-
housed following Maximinus’s overthrow.
Caecilia Paulina
Maximinus’s wife, Caecilia Paulina, was deceased
at the time of her husband’s accession. On coins
and in inscriptions she is commemorated as
Diva.29 Numismatic portraits depict Paulina
veiled and wearing a deeply waved hairstyle
which reveals her ears. Her eyes are wide, her
nose is long and slightly hooked. Her mouth is
small and the lips are fairly full. Her chin is firm.
These numismatic portraits emphasize Paulina’s
physiognomical resemblance to both her husband
and son.30 No sculpted portraits have been iden-
tified for Paulina, but it is likely that if any were
produced, they were included in the destruction
which befell the images of Maximinus and Max-
imus.
Pupienus and Balbinus
After the death of Maximinus Thrax in May of
238, Pupienus and Balbinus failed to maintain
control of the empire and were murdered by the
praetorians in July. Herodian records that their
corpses were totally mutilated and left exposed.31
28 Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 759, inv. 826, h. 0.34 m.;H.B.
Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 232, 234 (with earlier lit-
erature); H. von Heintze (1964) 161-62, pl. 16a; M. Berg-
mann (1977) 32-34; S. Wood (1986) 66-67, 127. The por-
trait was originally in the Jakobsen Collection in
Copenhagen and was presumably purchased in Italy. F.
Johansen (1995b) 106-7, no. 42.
29 For example, CIL 10.5054; see also R. Cagnat (1914)
172; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 229.
30 On the use of presumably fictive physiognomical
resemblances between imperial husbands and wives, see S.
Wood (1981) 59-68; R.R.R. Smith (1985) 214-5; E.R.
Varner (1995) 191-93
31 8.8.7; see also HA.Max.Balb. 6.14.6.
204 chapter nine
Nevertheless, there is no mention of official sanc-
tions pursued against the murdered emperors.
Their names are not erased in honorific inscrip-
tions and portraits of both men have survived.
Significantly, Balbinus’s sarcophagus is extant
and includes portraits of the emperor and his
wife; the sarcophagus preserves no evidence of
intentional mutilation or destruction.32 Neverthe-
less, the names of Pupienus and Balbinus have
been erased in certain papyri, likely spontaneous
and scattered reactions to the news of their over-
throw and this raises the distinct possibility that
other monuments may have been affected.33 For
instance, the portrait statue of Balbinus as Jupi-
ter discovered in the harbor at Piraeus, may have
been thrown into the harbor after news of the
assassination of Pupienus and Balbinus reached
Athens.34 Indeed, fragments of a pendant portrait
of Pupienus which include the plinth, part of the
eagle and face were also discovered in the har-
bor and may provide additional evidence for the
intentional destruction of these images.35
Gordian III
Pupienus and Balbinus we were succeeded by
their young Caesar, Gordian III. Gordian ruled
the empire for almost six years, initially under the
influence of his mother Maecia Faustina, and
later that of his praetorian praefect, Gaius Sab-
32 Rome, Catacombs of Praetextatus; H. B. Wiggers and
M. Wegner (1971) 249 (with earlier literature); H. Meyer
(1986) 279-290 (with earlier literature). D.E.E. Kleiner
(1992) 384-85, fig. 356; D.E.E. Kleiner in E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 54, fig. 10. Meyer does entertain the possibility that
a damnatio was enacted against Pupienus and Balbinus, 282.
Meyer also suggests that the sarcophagus is a later produc-
tion and represents a kind of rehabilitation of his memo-
ry. The style of his portraits, however, as well as those of
his wife, and her coiffure would be consistent with an earlier
date.
33 E. Van’t Dack (1974) 876; H. Meyer (1986) 282-3.
34 Piraeus, Museum, h. 2.02 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 258, pls. 56b and 78b; S. Wood (1986) 44,
n. 54, 70, 129 (with earlier literature); M. Donderer (1991-
2) 223, n. 129; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 366, fig. 327.
35 Piraeus, Museum (Garden and Magazzini) 125 A;
C.C. Vermeule (1959) 109; C.C. Vermeule (1968) 403;
H.G. Niemeyer (1968) 112, no. 125; H.B. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 244-45.
inus Aquila Timestheus. In 243, the young em-
peror launched a campaign against the Persians.
However, the troops became dissatisfied with
him, and on 25 February 244 he was assassinat-
ed, perhaps at the instigation of Philip the Arab,
the successor of Timestheus as praetorian prae-
fect. Gordian III was succeeded by Philip who
reported to the Senate that Gordian had died of
natural causes.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Gordian III’s
Images
Although no official sanctions were enacted
against the memory of Gordian III and he was
in fact deified under Philip the Arab, certain
monuments may have been subjected to the same
isolated and spontaneous destruction as those of
Pupienus and Balbinus or earlier with Severus
Alexander and Julia Mammaea.36 Indeed, a
bronze portrait of Gordian III from Nicopolis ad
Istrum has been intentionally attacked as result
of such spontaneous demonstrations, and its
mutilation closely parallels that of the bronze
Severus Alexander in Bochum (cat. 8.9; fig.
205).37 Like the Severus Alexander, the head has
been attacked, perhaps by a pickaxe, causing
damage to the nose and the ears have been sev-
ered from the head. Again, the destruction of the
portrait functioned as a kind of mutilation of the
young emperor in effigy, perhaps carried out by
dissatisfied troops. The severing of the ears from
the portrait is striking and they have been at-
tacked as vital auditory organs. After its vandal-
ization, the head was thrown into the River Jan-
tra (Jantros) where it was discovered in 1897. The
portrait provides important additional confirma-
tion of the disposal of images in bodies of water
in the provinces. The spontaneous mutilation of
imperial portraits and monuments in the third
century, like the bronze head of Gordian III, are
visible expressions of the volatile political situa-
tion in this period.
36 HA, Gord. 31.7.
37 Sofia, National Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497.
 the later third century
Philip the Arab, Philip Minor and Otacilia Severa
Marcus Julius Verus Philippus, born ca. 204, was
the son of Marinus, an Arab chief who enjoyed
Roman equestrian status.38 After the death of
Gordian III, Philip concluded a treaty with the
Persians and returned to Rome. His wife, Mar-
cia Otacilia Severa was declared Augusta, and
his son Philip Minor was hailed as Caesar and
Princeps Iuventutis. Philip’s reign began favorably,
with military successes in Dacia in 247.39 In 248,
the millenial anniversary of the foundation of
Rome was celebrated with Ludi Saeculares.40 How-
ever, the remainder of Philip’s reign was marred
by numerous revolts. Finally, in June of 249,
Trajan Decius, commander of the forces in Pan-
nonia and Moesia was declared emperor by his
troops.41 Philip marched against Decius, but was
defeated and killed, together with Philip Minor,
at Verona.42
Philip the Arab’s Portrait Typology
The historical sources are notoriously incomplete
for Philip’s reign and there is no mention of an
official damnatio enacted against him. However,
his name, as well as those of Philip Minor and
Otacilia Severa, are erased in inscriptions and
papyri, which confirm that there were demon-
strations against their memories and monu-
ments.43 In addition, Trajan Decius is reported
to have been hostile to his predecessor’s memo-
ry and the Historia Augusta numbers Philip among
38 Philip also had his father deified, after he became
Augustus.
39 Philip’s major victory was over the Carpi.
40 Based on the Varro’s foundation date of 753 B.C.,
A.D. 248 would have marked the end of Rome’s first mil-
lenium. HA, Gord. 33.2-3.
41 Decius had formerly been Philip’s Praefectus urbi and
had urged Philip against abdicating when the latter had
offered to give up the principate in 248.
42 Alternatively, Philip Minor may have been taken by
the Praetorians to their camp after the battle and murdered
there.
43 R. Cagnat (1914) 173-74. For the erased papyri
mentioning Philip the Arab and Philip Minor, see E. Van’t
Dack (1974) 876.
205
the condemned emperors Caligula, Nero, Vitel-
lius, and Maximinus, further suggesting that his
condemnation was officially sanctioned.44 On
coins, Philip is depicted with a very short, mili-
tary coiffure and closely shaved beard. His fore-
head is fairly low and often marked by two hor-
izontal furrows. The eyes are large and wide, and
are set beneath long brows. The nose is large and
usually hooked, sometimes with a bump below
the bridge. The mouth consists of very full lips
which turn downward at the corners. Naso-labial
lines are occasionally indicated. The chin is firm
and partially rounded.
The Removal of Philip the Arab’s Images
Only two sculpted images representing Philip,
now in St. Petersburg45 and the Vatican,46 have
survived from antiquity. Both portraits are large
busts which depict the emperor wearing the toga
contabulata. The St. Petersburg likeness was dis-
covered in 1764 in the area imperial holdings at
the Villa of the Quintilii on the Via Appia.47 The
Vatican bust was discovered between 1777-80
during excavations of a villa at Tor Paterno. It
is exceedingly well preserved. Only the tip of the
nose and rim of the left ear are restored.48 The
villa housed a large collection of portraits which
included likenesses of Agrippina Minor,49 Hadri-
44 Eus. EcclHist. 6.29.2; HA.Aur.42.6.
45 Ermitage, inv. A 31, h. 0.70 m.; M. Wegner, J. Brack-
er and W. Real (1979) 32-33, 36, pls. 11b, 12b, 14b (with
earlier literature); D. Kiang, “The Iconography of Philip
the Arab,” AJA 85 (1981) 201; Fittschen-Zanker I, 120-121,
ns. 7-10; S. Wood (1986) 41, 132 A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 36,
106, no. 73, pl. 13.3.
46 Braccio Nuovo 124 (formerly 121), inv. 2216, h. 0.71
m.; D. Kiang (1978) 75-84, pls. 3-4; M. Wegner, J. Brack-
er and W. Real (1979) 32. 40, pls. 11a, 12a (with earlier
literature); D. Breckenridge (1982) 505, pl. 20; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 120-121, ns. 7, 10; S. Wood (1986) 39-42, 77,
84, 110, 132, p.6.9; R. Neudecker (1988) 237-40, no. 69.9,
pl. 24.1; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 368-9, fig. 332.
47 U. Schädler in A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 36; R. Paris, ed.
(2000) 23.The nose, rims of the ears and sections of the
drapery are restorations.
48 The tabula and plinth of the bust are ancient but do
not belong to this portrait.
49 Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1917.67; R. Neudecker
206 chapter nine
an,50 Aelius Caesar (?),51 Antoninus Pius,52 Faus-
tina Maior, 53 Faustina Minor (?),54 a private
Severan female,55 and an undated private female
portrait.56 The bust of Philip the Arab is the latest
of these images. In light of the erased inscriptions,
it seems unlikely that portraits of Philip would
have continued to be displayed in Rome follow-
ing his overthrow, especially in the context of an
imperial residence, like the Villa of the Quintili.
Neither bust exhibits any signs that it was inten-
tionally mutilated, which suggests that they may
have been removed from display at the villas and
stored, in contradistinction to the Louvre Max-
iminus Thrax from the Villa of the Quintilii
which was intentionally mutilated before being
warehoused or buried.
The two surviving portraits of Philip from the
Villas are outnumbered by extant sculpted like-
nesses of his son Philip Minor (4 portraits), and
his wife Otacilia Severa (3 portraits). As it is
improbable that portraits of Philip Minor and
Otacilia originally exceeded those of Philip, the
discrepancy in surviving likenesses suggests that
images of Philip were destroyed in antiquity.
Philip Minor’s Portrait Typology
Philip Minor was granted the titles of Caesar and
princeps iunventutis after his father’s accession. Al-
though only a boy, he held the consulship, at least
two times and he was eventually awarded the title
of Augustus. Philip Minor’s coinage is fairly ex-
(1988) 239, no. 69.25 (with earlier literature).
50 Rome, Palazzo Chigi; R. Neudecker (1988) 238, no.
69.6 (with earlier literature).
51 Formerly Rome, Palazzo Chigi; R. Neudecker (1988)
239, no. 69.18.
52 ex Hope Collection; R. Neudecker (1988) 238-9, no.
69.7, pl. 24.3 (with earlier literature).
53 Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum, inv. 933.27.2; R.
Neudecker (1988) 239, no. 69.8, pl. 24.4 (with earlier lit-
erature).
54 Whereabouts unknown; R. Neudecker (1988) 239, no.
69.26 (with earlier literature).
55 Munich, Glyptothek 354; R. Neudecker (1988) 239,
no. 69.10, pl. 24.2 (with earlier literature).
56 Whereabouts unknown; R. Neudecker (1988) 239, no.
69.24 (with earlier literature).
tensive and his public prominence was engi-
neered in an effort to firmly establish a new
dynasty. The numismatic portraits reveal a youth
with short military haircut, similar to that of his
father, a smooth, fairly low forehead, wide eyes
beneath arching brows, straight aquiline nose, a
full mouth, and firm, rounded chin.
The Removal of Philip Minor’s Images
Four sculpted portraits are similar enough to the
numismatic likenesses to permit their identifica-
tion as Philip Minor.57 None of them have been
intentionally mutilated. Three are in marble and
are now in Munich,58 Ostia,59 and Toulouse.60
The Munich and Toulouse heads have been cut
or broken from their original busts or statues,
while the Ostia piece is worked for insertion. The
fourth portrait, in Los Angeles, is of bronze and
is reputedly from Asia Minor.61 The disk-like
attachment to the head supported a radiate
crown. The head has apparently been severed
from a nude body. The radiate crown under-
scores the Philip Minor’s indispensable role in the
dynastic propaganda of his father. Like the ear-
lier decapitated bronzes, its ritual beheading
burial must have been conceptually more impor-
tant than recovering any intrinsic value through
melting it down. After the death of Philip Minor
it no longer would have been politically expedi-
57 The iconography of Philip Minor is still debated.
However, the recent proposals by S. Wood seem most
probable and are followed here (1986) 132-33.
58 Glyptothek, cat. 360, h. 0.XX m.;H.B. Wiggers and
M. Wegner (1971) 189 (with earlier literature); M. Wegn-
er, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 46; S. Wood (1986) 97-
98, 133, pl. 49; S. Wood (1987) 124, fig. 5.
59 Museo, inv. 1129, h. 0.18 m.; H.B. Wiggers and M.
Wegner (1971) 189-90; M. Bergmann (1977) 35-38, pl. 4.1-
2; R. Calza (1977) 75-76. no. 96, pl. 69 (with earlier liter-
ature); M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 25, 46;
Fittschen-Zanker, 120, n. 6; S. Wood (1986) 132.
60 Musée St. Raymond, 30.128 (lifesized); H.B. Wiggers
and M. Wegner (1971) 199 (with earlier literature); B.
Andreae ( 1977) fig. 126; Fittschen-Zanker I, 120, n. 6; S.
Wood (1986) 132.
61 J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 79.AB.120, h. 0.22 m.;
J. Frel (1981) 104, 131, no. 86, with fig.; S. Wood (1986)
132.
 the later third century
ent to display his portraits, especially since they
had reflected his father’s ill-fated dynastic ambi-
tions. It is likely that the four surviving portraits
of Philip Minor were removed from their origi-
nal contexts and warehoused following his death.
Otacilia Severa’s Portrait Typology
Otacilia Severa was prominently featured on the
coinage of her husband’s reign, and she is often
depicted together with her husband and son and
celebrated as the mother of the heir to the
Empire.62 Otacilia’s numismatic portraits depict
her as a mature woman with a coiffure that is
rigidly waved, parted in the center and drawn up
in a Scheitelzopf extending to the top of her oc-
ciput. Her ears are left uncovered. The forehead
is low and rounded. Her eyes are long and al-
mond-shaped. The nose is aquiline and the
cheeks broad. The upper lip is fairly thin, while
the lower lip is much more full. The chin is small
with a fleshy underchin.
The Removal of Otacilia Severa’s Images
Three marble portraits, representing Otacilia,
correspond closely with the numismatic likeness-
es. They are in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (fig.
206),63 the Uffizi,64 and Petworth House.65 Ot-
62 Bimetallic medallion from Rome, c. A.D. 245-47,
Kent 39, 311, no. 457, pl. 126. Antoninianus from Rome,
obv. Philip Minor, rev. Philip Maior and Otacilia, as Patri
Avg and Matri Avg. c. 246-47, RIC 97, no. 229, pl. 8.10;
see also RIC 95, 212 (as: obv. Otacilia, rev. Philip Maior
and Minor) and RIC 102, 261 (dupondius or as: obv. Philip
Minor, rev. facing busts of Otacilia and Philip Maior,
Concordia Augustorum) for Otacilia’s other coins, see also
RIC 82-86, nos. 115-47, 92, no. 196, 93-95, nos. 198-212,
pls. 7.8-20, pl. 9.6-7.
63 Braccio Nuovo 3.23, inv. 2765 (Centrale Montemar-
tini 2.95) , h. 0.26 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 34-35, no. 37,
pls. 45-46 (with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 84, 132,
pl. 38.51; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 378, fig. 348; E.R. Var-
ner (2001a) 52-3, fig. 53.
64 inv. 1914.271; h. 0.29 (head); M. Wegner, J. Brack-
er and W. Real (1979) 57, 50-61 (with earlier literature);
Fittschen-Zanker I, 34; S. Wood (1986) 132.
65 H. 0.52 m.; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real
207
acilia’s ultimate fate is unknown, but her name
is erased in inscriptions, and it is likely that her
memory and monuments were collaterally con-
demned along with those of her husband and
son.66 All three of her portraits are well preserved
and it is likely that they were removed from dis-
play and warehoused after her husband’s over-
throw. The Conservatori portrait was part of the
same sculptural cache as the Conservatori type
1 likeness of Lucilla from the domus near the
Colosseum, whose pieces were later incorporat-
ed into a garden wall of the Villa Rivaldi.
Trajan Decius, Herrenius Etruscus, and Hostilian
Gesius Messius Quintus Decius was born into a
prominent local family of Budalia near Sirmium,
ca. 190. After the defeat of the two Philips at
Verona in 249, he returned to Rome, where the
Senate confirmed his position as Augustus and
granted him the additional name Trajan. Dur-
ing Decius’s brief reign, Kniva, the king of the
Goths mounted a major offensive against the
Romans. Decius moved against the Goths and
enjoyed some initial successes. However, in July
of 251, Decius suffered a devastating defeat.
Decius himself was killed in battle, as was his son,
Herrenius Etruscus, who had been declared co-
augustus earlier in the year. Most of the Roman
forces under their command were also wiped out.
Decius was the first Roman emperor to be killed
in battle against a foreign enemy. He was suc-
ceeded by the governor of upper and lower
Moesia, Trebonianus Gallus.
Trebonianus Gallus ensured the deification of
Decius and Herrenius. After his accession, Gal-
lus raised Decius’s youngest son Hostilian to the
rank of co-Augustus, although Hostilian died
shortly thereafter. Gallus also withheld the rank
of Augusta from his own wife, out of respect for
Decius’s widow, Herrenia Etruscilla, who had
been declared Augusta during her husband’s
(1979) 57, 60-61 (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker
I, 34; S. Wood (1986) 132.
66 R. Cagnat (1914) 174.
208 chapter nine
reign. Nevertheless, the names of Decius and his
two sons, Herrenius Etruscus and Hostilian, are
erased in certain inscriptions, and such demon-
strations may have had an effect on their por-
traits.67
Numismatic portraits of Decius depict him as
an older man with a closely cropped military
coiffure, which recedes substantially at the tem-
ples. The coins show him as both clean-shaven,
and with a short beard and moustache. His fore-
head is broad, tall, slightly rounded and marked
by horizontal furrows. The eyes are wide, and the
brow is fairly straight. His nose is large and some-
what hooked. The cheeks are gaunt, and naso-
labial lines are indicated. The mouth is small and
the lips are fairly thin. The chin is also small and
the jawline is narrow. Five portraits, three of
marble and two of bronze, can plausibly be as-
sociated with Decius on the basis of the numis-
matic evidence. One of the marble likenesses is
a full length statue depicting the emperor in the
guise of Mars,68 while the other two have been
cut or broken from the statues or busts to which
they originally appertained.69 The survival of the
two bronze heads, now in Florence70 and Deva,71
may indicate that they were severed from their
original busts or statues, like the bronze portraits
of Nero, Macrinus, Severus Alexander (cat. 7.20),
Gordian III (cat. 8.9) and Philip Minor, after
Decius’s overthrow. The archaeological context
of the Florence head is not known, but the Deva
67 R. Cagnat (1914) 173; For Hostilian, see CIL 11.3088.
68 Palazzo dei Conservatori, Centrale Montemartini,
inv. 778, h. 2.17 m.; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real
(1979) 67 (with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 44, 79,
133, fig. 46; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 369-71, figs. 334-35.
69 Stanza degli Imperatori 52, inv. 482, h. 0.24 m.;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 130-133, no. 110, pls. 135-7 (with
earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 22, 42-3, 77-78, 104, 133,
fig. 10; D.E.E. Kleiner, (1992) 369-71, fig. 333.
Würzburg, Museum der Universität, h. 0.32m.; S.
Wood (1986) 133 (with earlier literature).
70 Museo Archeologico, inv. 14013, h. 0.32 m.; M.
Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 65, 84-86, 87-88
(with earlier literature); S. Wood (1986) 133.
71 Museum, inv. 19.903, h. 0.25 m.; M. Wegner, J.
Bracker and W. Real (1979) 64-65, pl. 27 (with earlier lit-
erature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 131, n. 12 (private portrait);
S. Wood (1986) 133.
head was discovered at Ulpia Traiana (Sarmige-
tusa), in the geographical region in which Decius
was defeated and killed.
Trebonianus Gallus
Gaius Vibius Afinius Trebonianus Gallus was
born ca. 206 into a distinguished family of Etr-
uscan origins from Perusia. His reign was marred
by renewed disasters on the Persian frontier and
disturbances on the German border. These mil-
itary setbacks culminated in 253 when Aemilian,
the governor of Lower Moesia, was declared
emperor in opposition by his troops and he ad-
vanced into Italy. As a result of the invasion,
Gallus and his son Volusianus, who had been
declared co-augustus, were murdered by their
own forces.
The ancient sources make no mention of an
official damnatio against Gallus. However, it is
likely that his memory and monuments were
disparaged during the brief reign of his succes-
sor Aemelian (July/August - September/October
253). The portraiture of Trebonianus Gallus is
extremely problematical. His coin images depict
him with a short military coiffure and a closely
cropped beard and moustache. He has a fur-
rowed forehead, wide eyes beneath arching
brows, a large prominent nose, which is some-
what hooked. His mouth is fairly small, with a
thin upper lip and fuller lower lip. His chin is also
small and rounded and in some coin portraits
there is a fleshy underchin.
A colossal bronze statue in New York has
strong parallels with the coin likenesses and prob-
ably represents Gallus.72 The colossal scale of the
piece indicates that it is indeed an imperial por-
trait. It depicts the emperor nude, with a man-
tle draped over his left shoulder and forearm. The
statue was discovered near S. Giovanni in Lat-
erano at the beginning of the ninenteenth cen-
72 Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 05.30, h. 2.406;
M. Bergmann (1977) 44-45; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and
W. Real (1979) 65, 84-86, 89-90 (with earlier literature);
A.M. McCann (1981) 630-32, pls. 5-6; S. Wood (1986) 43-
45, 91, 133, pl. 8.11; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 371-2, fig. 336.
 the later third century
tury. It has been pieced together from several
fragments, but only a section of the back is miss-
ing and the statue is generally well-preserved. In
antiquity, the area of the Lateran was the site of
the barracks of the emperor’s personal horse
guard, the equites singulares and it is possible that
the portrait was originally displayed there. The
portrait may have been hacked into to pieces
after the murder of Gallus by his troops and its
storage or burial could account for its preserva-
tion. If so, the portrait’s fate has parallels with
the mutilated bust of Diadumenianus, also dis-
covered in the area of the equites singulares.
Aemilian and Cornelia Supera
Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus is the next of the
third century emperors whose memory was con-
demned. Born in Mauretania, Aemilian was
appointed governor of Lower Moesia in 252. In
the spring of 253, he engineered a great victory
over the Goths and his troops acclaimed him as
emperor in July or August. When Aemilian
marched into Italy as rival emperor, the senate
declared him a hostis at the request of Trebon-
ianus Gallus.73 After Gallus’s murder, Aemilian
entered the capital, and the Senate confirmed his
position as Augustus.
In the meantime, Publius Licinius Valerianus,
in command of the forces on the Upper Rhine,
had been summoned by Gallus in order to aid
him in his conflict with Aemilian. Valerian con-
tinued his march to Rome, despite news of Gal-
lus’s death. His soldiers declared him emperor,
and when Aemilian’s troops learned of this, they
murdered Aemilian and swore allegiance to
Valerian in September, or October of 253. The
Senate confirmed Valerian as the new augustus.
The names of both Aemilian and his wife, Gaia
Cornelia Supera, who had been declared augusta,
are erased in inscriptions.74 Coin portraits of both
are somewhat generic. Aemelian is depicted with
short military coiffure and beard, furrowed fore-
73 Aur. Vict. Caes. 31.3.
74 AEpigr (1911) 104; R. Cagnat (1914) 172-73.
209
head, prominent, hooked nose, naso labial lines,
and rounded chin. These numismatic portraits
are fairly close to those of his predecessor, Tre-
bonianus Gallus.75 Cornelia’s numismatic like-
nesses depict her with a stiffly waved coiffure with
a Scheitelzopf which is pulled up over the top of
her head. She has a rounded forehead, arching
brows, wide eyes, an aquiline nose, and a fairly
small mouth and chin.76 No sculpted portraits of
either have been identified with certainty.77 The
brevity of Aemilian’s reign, coupled with the
probable damnatio inflicted after his murder, al-
most certainly accounts for the lack of three-di-
mensional portraits.78
Soldier Emperor/Valerian?
A head inserted into large bust, now in Antioch,
may represent Aemelian’s successor, Valerian,
and has possibly been recut from a portrait of one
of his imperial predecessors.79 Valerian’s numis-
matic images portray him with a short coiffure.
He is often depicted beardless or with a closely
cropped beard. His forehead is slightly rounded
and sloping. The brows are arching the eyes are
wide. The nose is aquiline with a slight indenta-
tion at the bridge. The cheeks are full and heavy.
The upper lip is thin while the lower lip is more
full. The chin is small and rounded and a fleshy
under chin is often depicted. The Antioch por-
trait agrees fairly closely with the numismatic
75 As first observed by R. Delbrueck 1940) 94-95; B.M.
Felletti Maj (1958) 211; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real
(1979) 97.
76 On the “scarcely individualized” character of these
numismatic portraits, see B.M. Felletti Maj (1958) 213.
77 See B.M. Felletti Maj (1958) 211-24, and M. Wegn-
er, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 97-100.
78 In contrast several portraits of Balbinus (3 +3 on his
sarcophagus) and Pupienus (5) have survived, although they
reigned for approximately the same amount of time as
Aemilian (April-July 238).
79 Museum, h. 0.64 m.; W. Campbell (1936) 9, fig. 16;
R. Stillwell, ed. (1938) 172, no. 134, pl. 5; G.M.A. Han-
fmann (1959) 748; D. Brinkerhoff (1963) 209; J. Bracker
(1966) 66; C.C. Vermeule.(1968) 404; D.M. Brinkerhoff
(1970) 13-19, figs. 10-11; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 246; M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W. Real (1979) 20,
102, 156 (with earlier literature).
210 chapter nine
images, especially in the shape of the forehead,
the nose, mouth, chin and underchin.80 It also
finds compelling parallels in a portrait of Vale-
rian formerly in the Museo Nuovo of the Palaz-
zo dei Conservatori.81 The Antioch head is
placed directly between the two shoulders and its
tenon does not include any of the chest, which
is usual for portraits worked for insertion into cui-
rassed statues; in the Antioch portrait, the sec-
tions of the chest visible above the cuirass are
worked with the bust form rather than with the
portrait head. The bust form itself may have been
cut down from a full-length portrait statue.82 Ev-
idence of recarving of the head includes: the
unusual and rather cursory treatment of the
coiffure; the incredibly asymmetrical handling of
the eyes; the slight recession of the chin; and the
base of the neck which seems too wide in com-
parison with the size of the head. However, in-
sufficient remnants of the original likeness have
been preserved and identification of the individ-
ual initially represented is not possible. Aemelian,
Trebonianus Gallus, or Trajan Decius are all
possible candidates.
“Celsus”
The Historia Augusta presents additional intrigu-
ing, if ambiguous, literary evidence concerning
the mutilation of images in the third century. The
chapter of the history devoted to the “thirty ty-
rants” (tyranni triginta) includes a brief life of
Celsus, a North African who ruled for seven days
during the reign of Gallienus. Ceslsus is some-
what fancifully reported to have been killed by
“Galliena” a North African cousin of Gallienus.
After his death, the inhabitants of Sicca (el-Kef
80 G.M.A. Hanfmann was the first to propose the iden-
tification of the Antioch bust as Valerian (1959) 749.
81 Sala 10.12, inv. 184; Fittschen-Zanker I, 133-134, no.
111, pls. 138-139.
82 The bust has been unevenly cut down on either side
and the back has been cursorily hollowed out. The off-
center tenon at the base of bust form above the plinth
suggests that the upper torso was fitted into a second piece
of marble in order to comprise a full-length statue. See
D.M. Brinkerhoff (1970) 14-15.
in Tunisia) fed Celsus’s corpse to the dogs in a
particularly brutal example of poena post mortem
(corpus eius a canibus consumptum est Siccensibus.83
The passage is also notable for its description
of the “crucifixion” of a likeness of Celsus, also
carried out by the inhabitants of Sicca: et novo
iniuriae genere imago in crucem sublata persultante vul-
go, quasi patibulo ipse Celsus videretur (and in a new
kind of outrage, his portrait was hoisted on a
cross, with the crowd running around as if they
were seeing Celsus himself on the gibbet).84 Al-
though Celsus, as well as the destruction of his
portrait and the mutilation of his corpse, is like-
ly an invention of the author, the passage does
provide important testimony for the practice of
executio in effigie (execution in effigy). Clearly, the
intended audience(s) of the Historia Augusta were
expected to believe that images may have been
used in this way during the period of political
upheaval in the third century. It also suggests that
images may have continued to be executed or
crucified in the fourth and fifth centuries and that
the scene may have been recognizable to the
readers of the Historia Augusta. Furthermore it un-
derscores the crucial roles which imperial repre-
sentations continued to play in periods of polit-
ical transition.
Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian Minor, Saloninus and
Marianianus
Publius Licinius (Valerianus?) Egnatius Gallienus
was declared Co-Augustus when his father, Vale-
rian entered Rome in 253. The two ruled joint-
ly until Valerian was taken captive by the Per-
sians in 260. Gallienus continued to rule as sole
Augustus, but his reign was marred by increased
conflicts along the German frontier, several ri-
val claimants to the throne, and a deteriorating
economic situation. In 268 Gallienus was assas-
sinated as the result of a plot, which may have
83HA Tyr.Trig. 29.4.
84Tyr.Trig. 29.4: J. von Schlosser (1910-11) 184; W.
Brückner (1966) 192; D. Freedberg (1989) 259; P. Stewart
(1999) 169.
 the later third century
included Gallienus’s immediate successor, Clau-
dius Gothicus, as well as the future emperor,
Aurelian.85 During his reign Gallienus had in-
curred the enmity of the senatorial aristocracy by
excluding them from important positions of com-
mand.86 Immediately after his murder, the Sen-
ate demonstrated their dissatisfaction with Gal-
lienus by voting to have his corpse thrown down
the Gemonian steps and then into the Tiber and
his memory was deprecated in public by both the
nobility and the plebeians.87 Gallienus’s surviv-
ing son, Marinianus, who had been appointed
consul in 268, was put to death by order of the
Senate.88 The troops stationed in Rome, initial-
ly outraged by Gallienus’s assassination, were
induced by a donation of twenty aurei to have the
name of Gallienus entered into the public record
as a tyrant: Gallienum tryrannum militari iudico in
fastos publicos rettulerunt.89 The names of Gallienus,
his wife, Julia Cornelia Salonina, and his two
eldest sons Valerian Minor and Saloninus are
erased in inscriptions.90 However, Claudius Go-
thicus induced the Senate to deify Gallienus, so
the defamation of his memory and monuments
must have been limited to the brief period be-
tween his murder and his deification.91 Despite
85 Others implicated in the plot included Heraclianus,
the Praetorian Praefect, and the military commanders Mar-
cianus and Cecropius, HA, Gall. 14.1-5; see also J. Scheid
(1984) 182.
86 Aur. Vict. Caes. 33.31-34.
87 Ibid.: At senatus comperto tali exitio satellites propinquosque
per scalas Gemonias praeceps agendos decrevit, patronoque fisci in
curiam perduci effossos oculos pependisse satis constat, cum irruens
vulgus pari clamore Terram matrem, deos quoque inferos precaretur,
sedes impias uti Gallieno darent. Ac ni Claudius confestim recpta
Mediolani urbe tamquam postulato exercitus parcendum, qui forte
eorum supererant, praecepisset, nobilitas plebesque atrocius grassaren-
tur. Et patres quidem praeter commune Romani malum orbis stim-
ulabat proprii ordinis contumelia, quia primus ipse metu socordiae
suae, ne imperium ad optimos nobilium transferretur, senatum mili-
tia vetuit et adire exercitum.
88 Zon. 12.26.
89 HA, Gall. 15.2.
90 R. Cagnat (1914) 173-4. Valerian Minor and Saloni-
nus predeceased Gallienus, both/Valerian Minor were/was
deified.
91 Claudius Gothicus apparently engineered the deifi-
cation of Gallienus in order to placate the army. The apo-
theosis notwithstanding, the Historia Augusta is extremely
disparaging towards Gallienus and his reign is compared
to that of Domitian and Commodus, Carus 3.3. The hos-
211
the literary evidence, fourteen portraits of Gal-
lienus have survived, which speaks against any
systematic destruction of his images.92 Moreover,
none of these portraits exhibits any signs of in-
tentional mutilation. However, a bronze head in
Kephallania, which appears to be a variant of
Gallienus’s Louvre type, has been intentionally
severed from its original body and discarded in
a well as a result of his condemnation, recalling
the earlier decapitated bronze images.93
Carinus
Like Gallienus, Carinus is vilified in the ancient
sources, especially the Historia Augusta where his
character and reputation are closely linked with
earlier condemned emperors including Nero,
Vitellius, and Domitian.94 Marcus Aurelius Car-
inus was the eldest son of the emperor Carus.
After the death of Carus in 283, Carinus ruled
the empire jointly with his brother Numerian,
with Carinus controlling the west and Numeri-
an the east. Numerian died, or was killed, in 284
and the troops under his command refused to
acknowledge Carinus as sole emperor, and in
opposition, acclaimed Diocletian as Augustus.
The armies of Carinus and Diocletian met in 285
at Margus along a tributary of the Danube, and
tile literary tradition may be a remnant of the senatorial
dissatisfaction with Gallienus. In addition, the character and
deeds of Gallienus are defamed in the Historia Augusta in
order to present his successor, Claudius Gothicus, the (fic-
tive) ancestor of Constantine in a more favorable light.
92 Type 1: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, no. 423; Castle
Howard; Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 767b, inv.
3388; Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori
57, inv. 360; Rome, Palazzo Braschi, Salone, inv. 487; Type
2: Brussels, Musée Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, inv. A 3558;
Lagos, Museo Regional, inv. 1418; New York, Art Mar-
ket (Sotheby’s, 1984); Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 512;
Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1223; Rome, Magazinni dei
Mercati Traianei, inv. 98; Rome, Museo Capitolino,
Magazzini, inv. 2572; Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
delle Terme, inv. 644; Rome, Museo Torlonia 603; Type
3: Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 768, inv. 832. See
Fittschen-Zanker I, 135, 137, and S. Wood (1986)134-
35.
93 Kephallenia, Museum; A.M. McCann (1981) 636, pls.
10.19, 11.21; A. Oliver (1996) 153.
94 Carus. 1.3.
212 chapter nine
although Carinus appeared to be winning the
contest, he was apparently assassinated by one
of his senior officers.95 Carinus’s memory was
condemned and his name, as well as that of his
wife, Magnia Urbica, are erased in inscriptions.96
Carinus’s Portrait Typology
Carinus’s numismatic likenesses portray him with
a short military coiffure combined with a distinc-
tive full, curly beard. His forehead is low and
straight. His eyes are large and wide, set beneath
long, arching brows. The nose is aquiline, with
an indentation at the bridge. The lower lip is full,
and the chin is basically rounded.
The Removal of Carinus’s Images
A marble portrait of Carinus in the Palazzo dei
Conservatori compares very closely with the
numismatic images (fig. 207).97 The head, well
over life-sized, is worked for insertion into a cui-
rassed statue. It was likely discovered during ex-
cavations carried out near the Piazza Vittorio
Emanuele on the Esquiline, an area of imperial
property in antiquity.98 The head remains in an
extremely good state of preservation. Only the
lower front edge of the tenon has been restored
and there are light abrasions to the brows, face,
tip of the nose, and ears. Like the other well-
95 Epit. 38.8; Eutr. 9.20.
96
R. Cagnat (1914) 173-74. RE 2, 2455 (Hentze); On
the damnatio see, G. Gullini (1960) 6; M. Sapelli, MusNazRom
1.1, 300; S. Wood (1987) 131, n. 92.
97 Sala dei Magistrati 9, inv. 850 (Centrale Montemar-
tini 2.83), h. 0.425 m.; Fittschen-Zanker I, 141-42, no. 117,
pls. 145-146; C. Häuber in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds.
(1986) 177, n. 25, 193, n. 296, fig. 121; D.E.E. Kleiner
(1992) 376, fig. 344.
98 The head is often cited as coming from the Castro
Pretorio, Fittschen-Zanker I, 141, 142, n. 1; however, C.
Häuber has rather conclusively demonstrated that it came
from the Esquiline in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. (1986)
177, n. 25, 193, n. 296, fig. 121. There is some confusion
as to whether the portrait is that referred to in BullCom 1
(1872) 296, no. 36 (from the Esquiline) or in BullCom 15
(1887) 92, no. 9 (Castro Pretorio). Whether the head is from
the Castro Pretorio or the imperial holdings on the Es-
quiline, it still was removed from its original context and
stored or buried in one location or the other.
preserved portraits of condemned emperors dis-
covered on the Esquiline, it is inconceivable that
the portrait continued to be displayed on impe-
rial property and it must have been removed and
warehoused or buried.99 The statue into which
it was initially inserted may have been reused
with the addition of a new portrait head. The lack
of any other securely identified sculpted portraits
of Carinus suggests that his images were gener-
ally destroyed. Portraits of Carinus’s wife and
Augusta, Magnia Urbica and his deified son,
Nigrinianus are featured on the coinage, but no
comparable sculpted portraits have survived, and
their memories and monuments were collateral-
ly condemned.100
Carausius and Allectus
Diocletian and Maximian’s authority was serious-
ly challenged in Britain for almost a decade,
where, from 286/7-296 Carausius and his suc-
cessor Allectus ruled in opposition to the tetrar-
chy. M. Aurelius Carausius Mausaeus had been
in charge of Maximian’s naval fleet in the En-
glish channel, but was condemned to death by
Maximian. Carausius fled to Britain and was
declared Augustus in his own right late in 286,
or early in 287. In 293 he suffered an important
defeat at the Gallic port city of Gesoriacum at
the hands of Constantius Chlorus. In that same
year he was murdered at the instigation of Al-
lectus, who was himself declared emperor. Allec-
tus was defeated by the forces of Constantius
Chlorus.101
99 Nero/Domitian, Museo Nazionale Romano delle
Terme, inv. no. 226; Domitian, Centrale Montemartini,
inv. no. 1156; and Commodus as Hercules, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120.
100 Despite H. von Heintze’s attempts to identify the
youth on the Acilia sarcophagus as Nigrinianus (1959b) 175-
91. See S Wood (1987) 131 and M. Sapelli in M.R. Di Mino
and M. Bertenetti, eds. (1990) 145-6; Wood has also sug-
gested that a bust of a young boy with paludamentum in the
Capitoline may possibly represent Nigrinianus (Stanza degli
Imperatori, inv. 481) (1987) 131. However, the Capitoline
portrait’s resemblances to numismatic likenesses of Nigrin-
ianus are tenuous.
101 On the careers of Carausius and Allectus, see P.J.
Casey (1994).
 the later third century
Evidence for the images of Carausius and
Allectus is provided by coins where both emper-
ors are shown with short military coiffures and
beards, similar to those of Diocletian and Max-
imian. Allectus’s hair and beard are generally
represented as slightly more full and curly than
those of Carausius.102 Given Carausius’s condem-
nation by Maximian, and the position of both
Carausius and Allectus as emperors in opposition
to the Tetrarchy, their monuments were un-
doubtedly destroyed following their downfalls. A
deliberately defaced denarius of Carausius appears
to have been mutilated under Allectus.103 The
coin was minted at either London or Rutupiae
and Carausias’s facial features have been inten-
tionally attacked on the obverse, while one of the
clasped right hands on the reverse has been ef-
faced. The mutilation of Carausias’s portrait
features follows the standard pattern for visual
denigration, while the effacement of the right
hand effectively rescinds earlier messages of con-
cordia between Carausias and Allectus.
Conclusion: Condemnation and Political Crisis
Because it was a period of maximum instability
for the Roman Empire, the middle years of the
third century, c. 235-84, were rife with condem-
nations. As in the past, condemnations and the
concomitant repression of visual representations
continued to mark political transitions, which
were nearly unremitting during these years. The
first of the soldier emperors, Maximinus Thrax,
suffered a fate very similar to that of Macrinus.
102 As, for instance, RIC 86, 88, 114; P.J. Casey (1994)
pl. 5.9-10.
103 Numismatik Lanz München, Auktion 42 (29 Novem-
ber 1987) no. 734.
213
After his power base had eroded with the Sen-
ate and people of Rome, he was eventually killed
in battle and his memory condemned. As with
Macrinus, all of the surviving marble portraits of
Maximinus have been intentionally disfigured
and his condemnation also encompassed the
memory and monuments of his son and heir,
Maximus.
Very few principes during this period were able
to establish political legitimacy and dynastic sta-
bility with the result that reigns are predictably
short. These facts, coupled with the general com-
plications resulting from the social, economic,
military and political chaos of the times, have
produced a dearth of physical evidence for con-
demnations, or alternatively a wealth of negative
evidence. For many of these emperors there are
few surviving visual images, or none at all. Never-
theless, portraits continued to be destroyed,
mutilated and warehoused. Coins also remained
targets in condemnations and the period is brack-
eted by examples of numismatic damnatio, be-
ginning with defaced issues of Maximinus Thrax
and Maximus, and ending with damaged coins
of Carausius. In addition, the disfigurement of
Gordian III’s bronze image from Nicopolis ad
Istrum confirms the continued occurrence of
spontaneous demonstrations, comparable to the
similarly damaged bronze head of Severus Alex-
ander in Bochum.
As so many of these emperors were also char-
acterized as usurpers or tyranni, their corpses were
subjected to poena post mortem. The bodies of
Maximinus, Maximus, Pupienus, Balbinus and
Gallienus are all reported to have been desecrat-
ed. Additionally, the vivid description of the vi-
olation of corpse of the invented usurper “Cel-
sus” as well as the crucifixion of his portrait neatly
underscores the conceptual intersection of image
and corpse abuse.
214 chapter ten
CHAPTER TEN
THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY
Maximian
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maximianus was born
at Sirmium, c. 240. His successful military career
ensured his elevation to the rank of caesar after
Diocletian’s defeat of Carinus in 285 and by 286,
Maximian was declared co-augustus in the west.
In 293, the Tetrarchy was established and Con-
stantius Chlorus was appointed Maximian’s jun-
ior colleague. Although he was apparently quite
unwilling to relinquish power, Maximian was
forced to abdicate together with Diocletian on 1
May 305.1
In 306, Maximian’s son Maxentius enlisted the
support of his father against the ruling tetrarchs
and Maximian resumed his former title of Au-
gustus. However, the alliance of father and son
was short-lived and Maximian eventually sided
with his son-in-law Constantine against Maxen-
tius. After the Council of Carnuntum in 308,
Maximian refused to relinquish his position a
second time. His troops were eventually besieged
by those of Constantine at Masilia and he ulti-
mately surrendered. As a result, Maximian was
forced to commit suicide in 310.
After Maximian’s death, Constantine pursued
a damnatio against his father-in-law’s memory and
monuments in the territories under his control.2
Lactantius, writing shortly after the death of
Maximian (ca. 314-318),3 describes the removal
and destruction of Maximian:’s portraits. eodem-
que tempore senis Maximiani statuae Constantini iussu
1 On the possibility that the abdication was engineered
by Galerius, see M. Cullhed (1994) 14-31.
2 The damnatio may not have been officially promulgated
until after the death of Constantine; see Eus. Vita Const. 1.47;
T.D. Barnes (1973) 34-35 and (1981) 47.
3 On the controversy surrounding the date of the com-
position of De Mortibus Persecutorum, see T.D. Barnes (1973)
29-46.
revellebantur et imagines ubicumque pictus esse(n)t detra-
hebantur (At the same time, statues of the elder
Maximian were abolished by order of Constan-
tine, and his portraits, which were displayed
everywhere, were dragged down,).4 In direct op-
position to Constantine’s condemnation of Max-
imian, Maxentius had his father deified and is-
sued coins from the mints at Rome and Ostia in
honor of Divus Maximianus (310-12), despite the
fact that Maximian had joined forces with Con-
stantine.5 Later, Constantine himself reversed his
position and rescinded the damnatio against his
father-in-law and issued coins in honor of Divus
Maximianus (317-18).6
Most of Maximian’s numismatic likeness are
schematic with the result that sculpted images are
extremely difficult to identify with certainty.7
4 Mort.Pers. 42.1.
5 RIC 6.381-83, nos. 243-44, 250-51 (Rome) and 403-
4, nos. 24-26 (Ostia); R. Calza (1972) 120, pl. 24.64 (Os-
tia); M. Cullhed (1994) 77.
6 As part of a series of consecration issues which also
included Claudius Gothicus, the fictional founder of the
Constantinian dynasty, RIC 7.180, 252, 310-11, 395, 429-
30, 503, R.A.G. Carson (1981) 33, no. 1291; see also M.
Cullhed (1994) 22. Constantine probably promoted the con-
secration of Maximian because he was the grandfather of
Constantine’s sons and heirs, T.D. Barnes (1978) 16, n. 6.
7 Klaus Fittschen has suggested the following four por-
traits: Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 771b, inv.
2691; Ostia, Museo, inv. 1844; Rome, Musei Vaticani,
Galleria Chiaramonti 47.19, inv. 1981; Rome, Musei Vat-
icani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 10217; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 144, n. 41. However, these portraits do not ap-
pear to represent the same individual and certainly do not
form a replica series. One individual feature of Maximi-
an’s coin portraits is a short, sometimes snub nose. The
noses on the portraits from Fittschen’s group which are pre-
served (the Ostia and two Vatican portraits) are fairly large
and prominent and somewhat hooked. For other discussions
of Maximian’s portraiture, see, R. Calza (1972); M. 107,
117-18, 139-40, 178-79, ns. 584, 731; and H.P. L’Orange
(1984) 24-25, 104-105.
 the early fourth century
Maximian is however, represented together with
the other members of the first tetrarchy in the
porphyry groups in Venice and Rome.8 Lactan-
tius’s account confirms that some of Maximian’s
portraits were removed from public display and
destroyed, which may also account for the lack
of securely identified portraits.9 Indeed, physical
evidence for the damnatio of Maximian is entire-
ly confined to the provinces. Not surprisingly, his
name is not erased in major dedicatory inscrip-
tions at Rome, which was controlled by his son
Maxentius from 306-12, including that of the
Baths of Diocletian and Maximian.10 Neverthe-
less, a painted portrait effaced from frescoes for-
merly decorating a room devoted to the imperi-
al cult in Luxor corroborates Lactantius’s report
of the destruction of Maximian’s images. A cen-
tral chamber of the Temple of Ammon was re-
modeled during the tetrarchic period, when an
apse and frescoes were added. The frescoes no
longer survive, but were recorded in watercolors
executed by J. Gardner Wilkinson in the nine-
teenth century.11 The program included two
imperial processions, the emperors enthroned
receiving tribute, and, in the apse, the four
members of the first tetrarchy, Diocletian, Max-
imian, Galerius, and Constantius Chlorus, stand-
8 Vatican tetrarchs, H. P. L’Orange (1984) 6-8, 27, 99,
pls. 5, 7; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 403-4, figs. 368-9.
Venice Tetrarchs, H.P. L’Orange, (1984). 4, 6-8, 103,
pls. 4, 6; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 401-3, figs. 366-7.
Although L’Orange, and others have identified the
Vatican tetrarchs as representing the second tetrarchy, the
groups almost certainly come from Rome or its environs
and it is inconceivable that images commemorating a con-
sortium of power which Maxentius did not recognize and
was in opposition to would have been created in an area
under his control. All four of the Venice tetrarchs, which
are generally believed to represent the members of the first
tetrarchy, have been intentionally mutilated, with deliber-
ate damage to the noses, mouths, ears, and badges. This
mutilation is a Christian desecration of the portraits of those
perceived as persecutors and not the result of Maximian’s
damnatio.
9 H.P. L’Orange (1984) 24.
10 CIL 6.1130=3.242=ILS 646.
11 U. Monneret de Villard (1953) 85-105; J.G. Deck-
ers (1973) 1-34; I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (1975) 225-51; J.G.
Deckers (1979) 600-52; J. Elsner (1995) 173-6, figs. 22-24.
215
ing. The two senior emperors are depicted at the
center of the apse, flanked by their junior col-
leagues. The left senior tetrarch has been has
been deliberately erased from the composition
and this figure was undoubtedly Maximian.12
Maximian’s excision from the frescoes must have
occurred shortly after his death, during the brief
period when Lucius Domitius Alexander held
Africa in opposition to Maxentius. The erasure
of the Luxor fresco directly recalls the erasure of
Geta’s portrait features from the Berlin tondo,
also from Egypt, and is another powerful expres-
sion of abolitio memoriae for painted images.
Undoubtedly, some of Maximian’s public
images were removed from display at various
locations s throughout the Empire. The remov-
al of his portraits in the provinces is further con-
firmed by a statue base removed from a tetrapy-
lon commemorating the members of the first
tetrarchy, which decorated the front of the Tem-
ple of Hadrian at Ephesus.13 The statue of Max-
imian was apparently not replaced until the end
of the fourth century when a likeness of Theo-
dosius was set up in its place.
Maxentius, Galeria Valeria Maximilla and Romulus
Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius, born c.276-
83, was the son of Maximian and Eutropia.14 In
order to cement the ties among the members of
the first tetrarchy, Maxentius was married c. 293
to Valeria Maximilla, the daughter of Galerius,
Caesar in the East. Having been passed over in
the establishment of the second tetrarchy after the
retirement of Diocletian and Maximian in 305,
Maxentius was eventually declared emperor by
disaffected troops stationed in Rome in 306.15
12 I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (1975) 227.
13 I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (1975) 247.
14 On the evidence for the date of Maxentius’s birth,
see M. Cullhed (1994) 16, n. 26. Eutropia’s confession, after
Maxentius’s birth that he was, in fact, illegitimate, should
probably be connected with posthumous attempts to black-
en his reputation; T.D. Barnes (1982) 34.
15 28 October; Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.2. As the son of
Maximian, and son-in-law of Galerius, Maxentius may have
reasonably expected to have been made part of the sec-
216 chapter ten
Maxentius enjoyed wide popular and military
support in central and southern Italy, Sicily,
Sardinia, Corsica, Africa, and possibly Spain.16
Attempts by Severus, Augustus in the West af-
ter the death of Constantius Chlorus, and Gale-
rius to attack Rome and depose Maxentius were
entirely unsuccessful; Severus was defeated and
executed (by Maximian) and Galerius abandoned
his attempt.17 In 308, at the conference of Car-
nuntum, Maxentius was declared a hostis. Shortly
afterwards, Lucius Domitius Alexander, the pra-
etorian praefect in Africa revolted, and Maxen-
tius’s grain supply was cut off. In 311, Maxen-
tius’s other praetorian praefect, Gaius Rufius
Volusianus, was sent to Africa where he defeat-
ed Domitius Alexander, but not before there was
a severe famine at the capital. Finally, in 312,
Constantine captured Segusio, Augusta Tau-
rinorum, Verona, and Mutina in rapid succes-
sion in his advance on Rome, where he engaged
Maxentius at the Pons Mulvius. Maxentius was
defeated and drowned during the encounter on
28 October. 18 Maxentius’s condemnation fol-
lowed as a natural consequence of his defeat and
his previous declaration as a hostis in 308. As part
of the damnatio, Maxentius’s corpse was removed
from the Tiber and its head cut off and paraded
though the streets of Rome.19 The Roman Sen-
ate moved quickly to publicly repudiate their
former support of Maxentius by dishonoring his
memory and monuments. The defeated emper-
or was publicly characterized as a tyrannus in the
inscription from the Arch of Constantine.20
Naturally, Maxentius is also vilified by early
Christian writers, eager to exalt the reputation
of Constantine.21
ond tetrarchy. M. Cullhed marshalls the literary and his-
torical evidence for Galerius’s blocking the accession of both
Maxentius and Constantine (1994) 14-31.
16 On the territories controlled by Maxentius, see M.
Cullhed (1994) 68-70.
17 Lactantius, Mort.Pers. 26.6-7; Anon. Vales 7; M.
Cullhed (1994) 36-7.
18 Eumen. Paneg. 12(9).18; Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.3; M.
Cullhed (1994) 32.
19 Paneg. 9 (11) 18.3.
20 CIL 6.1139.
21 See, for instance, Eus. Eccl.Hist. 8.14.1-6. Eusebius
also acknowledges Maxentius’s favorable treatment of the
Maxentius’s Portrait Typology
Nevertheless, during his six year reign, Maxen-
tius was honored with portraits and his sculpted
and numismatic representations are remarkably
consistent. Coin portraits, even the most abstract
or expressionistic issues, depict Maxentius with
a very distinctive coiffure, which combines a short
military hairstyle with carefully arranged comma
shaped locks over the forehead.22 A left profile
on a metropolitan Roman medallion of 308, as
well as a frontal portrait on an Ostian aureus of
308-312 reveal that these comma shaped locks
are essentially parted in the center, with the locks
over the right eye combed lightly to the proper
right and the locks over the left eye combed light-
ly to the proper left.23 Maxentius wears a close-
ly cropped beard and moustache. His forehead
is low and his eyes are wide, set beneath long,
arching brows. The nose is long and aquiline.
The mouth is small, and in some examples the
lower lip appears to recede slightly. The chin is
firm, and often squared.
The Mutilation and Destruction of Maxentius’s
Images
Four sculpted portraits conform closely to the
numismatic likenesses and are clearly replicas of
a single type.24 Modern restorations to a head in
Stockholm mask ancient mutilations to the por-
Christians, although he sese Maxentius’s motives as self-
serving and falsely pious. The archaeological record sup-
ports Maxentius’s policy of toleration of the Christians. Two
of Rome’s earliest public churches, S. Crisogono and S. Se-
bastiano fuori le mura were constructed or substantially re-
modeled during his reign. T.L. Herres (1982) 261, 344.
22 Aureus, Rome, 307-12, RIC VI, 373, no. 173. The
arrangement of locks over the forehead recalls Julio-Clau-
dian and Trajanic coiffures and must certainly have been
intentional revival on the part of Maxentius. After his defeat
of Maxentius, Constantine also adopts a coiffure which
contains Julio-Claudian/Trajanic references.
23 Roman medallion, R.A.G. Carson (1981) 23, nr.
1246; Ostian aureus, R.A.G. Carson (1981) 24, no. 1253.
24 On the iconography of Maxentius, see especially
C. Evers (1992) 9-21; H. P. L’Orange (1984) 34-36, 114-
16.
 the early fourth century
trait (cat. 9.1; fig. 208a-b).25 The eyes have been
attacked with a hammer and the nose, (lower lip),
chin, and most of the ears have all been inten-
tionally destroyed. The mutilation of the facial
features and destruction of the eyes follows the
established patterns of anthropomorphic attacks
on the sensory organs. The square shape of the
tenon indicates that this head was originally part
of a cuirassed representation of Maxentius. As a
military image of the overthrown leader, the
Stockholm portrait may have been especially li-
able to vandalization following Constantine’s
victory. The statue itself may have been recon-
figured through the addition of a new portrait
head, likely of Constantine himself.
The Transformation of Maxentius’s Images
Maxentius/Constantine
In addition to the removal of images of Maxen-
tius, Constantine’s efforts to obliterate the mem-
ory of his defeated rival encompassed the appro-
priation of Maxentius’s major building projects,
including the monumental Basilica Nova to the
east of the Forum Romanum on the Via Sacra,
the circus complex on the Via Appia, and the
imperial baths on the Quirinal.26 Significantly,
sculpted likenesses were also appropriated and
25
Nationalmuseum, inv. 106.
26 On the basis of mortar and brick type, T.L. Heres
has demonstrated that the Basilica was completed entirely
by Maxentius; the addition of the northern apse, often at-
tributed to Constantine, should be dated to the late fourth
or early fifth century and may be the work of Honorius
(1982) 223-32. Similarly, the brickwork of the “Baths of
Constantine” on the Quirinal indicate a Maxentian date
for the sturcuture, E.M. Steinby in A. Giardina, ed. (1986)
142. In addition to the Basilica, Baths and Circus complex,
the six years of Maxentius reign witnessed extensive new
building and restoration to earlier structures, including
“The Temple of Romulus,” “The Temple of Minerva
Medica,” the Secretarium Senatus, the Statio Municipi-
orum, the Basilica Aemilia, the Temple of Venus and
Roma, the Severan baths on the Palatine, the Lateran Pal-
ace, the churches of S. Crisogono and S. Lorenzo Fuori le
Mura, and possibly a restoration of the Ara Pacis. For a
brief survey of Maxentius’s building activity, see M. Cull-
hed (1994) 49-60. On the restorations of the Ara Pacis, see
N. Hannestad (1994) 13-66.
217
recarved. Indeed, the reign of Constantine is
remarkable for the renewed interest in the recut-
ting of portraits, after the relatively limited evi-
dence for the practice in the second and third
centuries. As a mark of this renewed interest in
sculptural transformation, four of Constantine’s
surviving portraits from Rome have been refash-
ioned from likenesses of Maxentius.
Although its origins as a Maxentian portrait
are seldom discussed, the colossal portrait of
Constantine in the cortile of the Palazzo dei
Conservatori is certainly the most famous of these
recarved images, and as such it holds enormously
important implications for the history of damna-
tio as well as for the development of Constantin-
ian portraits and sculptural styles (cat. 9.4; fig.
209a-d).27 The head is worked for insertion into
an acrolighic seated statue. It was discovered in
1486 during the pontificate of Innocent VIII
Cybo (1484-1492) in the ruins of the Basilica
Nova. Fragments of the arms, left breast, legs,
both feet, right arm, right hand, and possible
second right hand have survived.28 The discov-
ery of the left breast, portions of the left shoul-
der and arm in 1951 indicates that the original
image of Maxentius depicted the emperor in the
guise of Jupiter, seated, with upper torso bare and
mantle draped over the hips, and holding a scep-
ter in his right hand.29
The head itself exhibits unmistakable signs of
recutting. The forehead of the portrait has clearly
been cut back beneath the hairline as part of the
transformation of the coiffure, creating a flat
trough in this area in profile. The wide, arching
brows and large eyes have essentially retained
their Maxentian characteristics including the
pouches beneath the eyes. The emphasis on the
27 Inv. 1622.
28 The second right hand was not discovered with the
other fragments in the Basilica but was rather reused in a
medieval wall on the slope of the Capitoline. Although it
is of Parian marble, like the majority of the fragments, it
is not entirely clear that it is from the same colossus, P.
Pensabene, L. Lazzarini, and B. Turi (2002) 254.
29 Gianni Ponti of the Sovrintendenza Archeologica di
Roma has discovered that the right hand has been incor-
rectly restored with the index finger extended, rather than
curled around the scepter.
218 chapter ten
eyes endows the image with its acknowledged
spiritual and hieratic quality which was clearly
a feature of the likeness of Maxentius. The dis-
tinctive treatment of the ears, as well as the type
of marble used for most of the statue, namely
Parian, may indicate that the portrait has been
reconfigured twice, and that it originally repre-
sented Hadrian.30
The visual discrepancies occasioned by the
recarving are exaggerated because of the colos-
sal scale of the portrait, but are substantially less
visible when the portrait is viewed from below.
The portrait was displayed in the Basilica’s west-
ern apse, which would have masked many of the
asymetricalities and exaggerations that are only
visible in profile. The configuration of the colos-
sus as a representation of Maxentius as Jupiter
was designed for the overwhelming scale of the
basilica’s interior. Like other colossi transformed
as a result of damnatio, the image was site-specif-
ic and appropriated or cannibalized by Constan-
tine as a very visible symbol of his triumph over
Maxentius.
A second portrait of Constantine, in the Museo
Capitolino, is also a modified likeness of Max-
entius (cat. 9.3; fig. 210a-c).31 The coiffure of the
portrait has been drastically recut over the fore-
head, but traces of the original Maxentian coif-
fure, which curved down lower in the center, are
still visible. The recarving of the facial features
has also resulted in an inorganic rendering of the
musculature of the cheeks, with little indication
of the structure of the bones beneath. Indeed, the
resulting recarved image is a both remarkably
generic and abstract. Nevertheless, identification
of the portrait was likely secured in antiquity by
an accompanying inscription.
A cuirassed portrait of Constantine, now dis-
played on the Campidoglio, also exhibits clear
signs of reworking (cat. 9.2; fig. 211).32 The plinth
of the portrait is inscribed CONSTANTINUS
AVG. The statue was one of four Constantinian
30 C. Evers (1991); P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini, and B.
Turi (2002) 254.
31 Stanza terrena a destra I.25, inv. 1769.
32 Fittschen-Zanker I, 144-5, no. 120.
portraits from the Baths of Maxentius and Con-
stantine on the Quirinal.33 This statue, and one
inscribed CONSTANTINUS CAES likely rep-
resenting Constantine II were brought to the
Campidoglio under Pope Paul III Farnese in
1535.34 The head of the Constantine Augustus
is overly large in profile, the ears are too large
in proportion to the head, suggesting that the
image is recarved. An indentation in the forehead
indicates that the coiffure has also been recut. In
addition, the head has an exaggerated downward
tilt and is slightly smaller in proportion to the
body than in the corresponding representation of
Constantine Caesar, which appears to have been
created ex novo and likely represents Constantine
II.
A colossal cuirassed statue of Constantine in
the narthex of the Lateran also originally be-
longed to the four statue group from the baths
on the Qurinal (cat. 9.5). Its’ plinth is similarly
inscribed CONSTANTINUS AVG but the por-
trait’s larger scale and different style of lettering
differentiate it from the pair on the Campidoglio.
Its pose, with outstretched left arm is a mirror
image of the Constantine Casear, and also dis-
tinguishes it from the Constantine Augustus. The
Lateran image includes numerous indications that
it has been refashioned. The Baths of Constan-
tine, like the Basilica Nova, were primarily the
work of Maxentius.35 The inscriptions on the
plinths of the statues appear to be recut. H.P.
L’Orange has proposed that the group was a
Constantinian reworking of an earlier tetrarchic
monument, perhaps intended to celebrate Con-
stantine’s new position as sole ruler after the
defeat of Licinius in 324.36 However, it seems
33 On the group, see L’Orange (1984) 58-67; Kleiner
(1992) 436-7.
34 Fittschen-Zanker I, 145-7, no. 121, pls. 149-50. The
colossal cuirassed portrait, also inscribed CONSTANTI-
NUS AVG, in the narthex of S. Giovanni in Laterano is
another of the four statues discovered in the baths. The
fourth statue is now lost; A. Claridge (1998) 235. Howev-
er, the Lateran statue differs from the Campidoglio por-
traits in scale and in the style of lettering on the plinth.
35 M. Cullhed (1994) 56; M. Steinby in A. Giardina ed.,
(1986) 142.
36 (1984) 63-65.
 the early fourth century
more likely that the group, or part of it, was site
specific to the baths as constructed by Maxen-
tius and subsequently appropriated and altered
by Constantine, as in the case of the colossus. If
the Constantine Caesar statue on the Campi-
doglio represented Constantine’s second son,
Constantine II, the group could have been trans-
formed as early as 317, the year in which he
received the title Caesar. It is unclear what the
original group may have consisted of, but per-
haps two slightly different cuirassed representa-
tions of Maxentius in pose and scale (the Later-
an statue and the Campidoglio Augustus). The
slightly larger proportions of the head of the
Constantine Caesar suggest that it, and possibly
the lost statue may have been added later, to
celebrate Constantine and his sons.
The Removal of Maxentius’s Images
Three additional portraits exhibit no signs of
deliberate mutilation and all are likely to have
been removed from public display after Maxen-
tius’s damnatio. Two of the portraits, in Dresden
(fig. 212),37 and Hannover.38 are worked for in-
sertion. Sections of both ears and the back of the
head are missing in the Dresden portrait. The
Hannover head lacks its ears and tip of the nose
and its surfaces are badly abraded. The Dresden
and Hannover heads were inserted into togate
statue bodies, perhaps capite velato.39 Both por-
traits must have been removed from their stat-
ues following Maxentius’s damnatio; the state of
preservation of the Dresden likeness indicate that
it was warehoused following removal, while the
37 Antikensammlung, inv. 406, h. 0.264m (face) H. P.
L’Orange (1984) 35, 114, pl. 27a-b (with earlier literature);
Fittschen-Zanker I, 143-44, n. 2, 145, n. 8; 149, 157, ns.
1, 7; J. Meischner (1986) 235, n. 56; M. Bergmann in Al-
banien (Hildesheim 1988) no. 430-31, no. 343; C. Evers
(1992) 11-21, figs. 2, 8, 14.
38 Kestner-Museum, inv. 1979.1, h. 0.492 m.; the
portrait lacks its ears, and most of its nose, and its surfac-
es are badly abraded; C. Evers (1992) 9-21, figs.
1,2,4,7,9,11,12 (with earlier literature).
39 See C. Evers (1992) 20-21.
219
badly abraded surfaces of the Hannover head
suggests that it has suffered long immersion in
water. As in the past, this image may have been
thrown into a body of water as a mark of Max-
entius’s posthumous denigration. A third portrait
of Maxentius, in the Museo Torlonia, has been
attached to an ancient bust to which it does not
belong (fig. 213).40 The Torlonia likeness is from
Rome or its environs and was removed from its
original context following Maxentius’s over-
throw.41 In addition to the sculpted portraits,
Maxentius’s likeness has been preserved on one
cameo/intaglio.42 The gem depicts Maxentius
with standard coiffure and profile and wearing
the corona civica, as on several monetary issues.
The removal of honorific representations of
Maxentius is corroborated by a statue base in the
Forum,43 as well as erased inscriptions, includ-
ing another base from the Forum dedicated by
Maxentius to Mars Pater Invictus.44 In addition,
an inscription which commemorated the reded-
ication of the Colossus of Nero to Maxentius’s
deified son Romulus was removed and incorpo-
rated into the attic of the arch of Constantine.45
The Collateral Condemnation of Galeria Valeria
Maximilla and Romulus
Images of Galeria Valeria Maximilla are likely
to have been removed or destroyed collaterally
with those of her husband Maxentius.46 As the
daughter of Galerius, Maximilla’s marriage to
Maxentius, which probably took place in 293 the
year in which the dyarchy formally became a
tetrarchy, was intended to link the family of the
40 No. 600, precise measurements unavailable, lifesized;
C. Gasparri and I Caruso (1980) 226, no. 600; H. P.
L’Orange (1984) 35, 115, pl. 26a-b (with earlier literature);
C. Evers, (1992) 11-12.
41 Only the nose of the portrait has been restored.
42 Cades Collection; R. Calza (1972) 193-4, no. 109,
pl. 64.212.
43 CIL 6.31394a=33857.
44 CIL 6.33856=ILS 8935.
45 P. Peirce (1989) 404; M. Cullhed (1994) 61
46 On Maximilla, see, RE suppl. 6 (1903) 662; R. Calza
(1972) 196; M Wegner, in H. P. L’Orange (1984) 152.
220 chapter ten
junior emperor in the East with that of the se-
nior emperor in the West. Maximilla bore two
sons, including Romulus, who died and was
deified c. 309.47 As the mother of Maxentius’s
heirs, and, later his deified son, Maximilla would
have been honored with portraits, especially in
Rome, the capital of her husband’s territory.48
Maximilla was not, however, featured on Max-
entius’s coinage which makes attempts to iden-
tify sculpted portraits highly speculative. Never-
theless, an intentionally mutilated image in the
Museo Capitolino bears strong iconographic sim-
ilarities to the representations of Maxentius and
may represent Maximilla (cat. 9.6; fig. 214).49
The portrait includes a version of the Scheitelzopf
hairstyle popular in the later tetrarchic period.50
The handling of the eyes, with their enlarged
outer corners, the modeling of the cheeks, the
shape of the mouth, and the linear, calligraphic
treatment of the strands of hair are especially
close to the portraits of Maxentius in Dresden
and Stockholm.51 Such similarities of iconogra-
47 On the sons, see Lact. Mort.Pers. 9.9; Paneg.
19(XII).16.5; ILS 672, 673.
48 And indeed, an inscription from the Via Labicana,
in which Maximilla is commemorated as Nobilissima Fem-
ina, a title awarded to imperial women in the Late Roman
period and apparently used here for the first time, provides
evidence for such portrait honors ILS 667; this title may
have been intended to commemorate Maximilla’s position
as the daughter of the reigning Augustus in the East, see
RE 794. R. Calza has suggested that because this portrait
was dedicated by Romulus to his mother, she may have
predeceased him (supra n. 103) 196. If so this would mean
that Maximilla died before 309, and this may help to ex-
plain the lack of sculpted as well as numismatic likenesses.
M. Cullhed has interpreted the inscription as nobilis femina
instead of nobilissima, (1994) 32.
49 Magazzini, inv. 106.
50 For instance, as seen in coins minted in the east of
Galeria Valeria, the step-mother of Maximilla, RIC 6, 15,
33, 64, 109, 478, 489, 524-5, 547-9, 572-3, 626-8, 632-3,
637, 639, 654-5, 671-3, pls. 9.196, 10.43, 11.29, 34, 13.57,
14.58; F. Gnecchi, I, 13, 14, pl. 6.3; For the iconography
of Galeria Valeria see R. Delbrueck (1933) 46, 55, 166; R.
Calza (1972) 148-152; H.P. L’Orange (1984) 151, pl. 72.i;
and infra.
51 Fittschen-Zanker III, 117 and supra. Alternatively, the
strong physiognomic similarities between the Capitoline
head and the Dresden and Stockholm portraits of Maxen-
tius could suggest that the head represents Maxentius’s sis-
ter, Fausta, the wife of Constantine, however, the hairstyle
of the Capitoline head is not does not find close parallels
on Fausta’s numismatic portraits.
phy and style are often typical of representations
of imperial couples.52 The head has been delib-
erately attacked with a hammer or chisel, caus-
ing extensive disfigurement to the forehead, left
eye, nose, mouth and chin which is very similar
to that suffered by the Stockholm likeness of
Maxentius (Cat 9.1). If the Capitoline portrait
represents Maximilla, as seems highly likely, it
must have been defaced at the time of the em-
press’s collateral condemnation together with her
husband.
Maximinus Daia
As the nephew of Galerius, Maximinus Daia was
chosen to become Caesar in the East after the
abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305.
In 308, at the council of Carnuntum, Maximi-
nus was passed over in favor of Licinius for the
rank of Augustus. Nevertheless, Galerius’s troops
refused to recognize the council’s decision and
in 310, declared their commander Augustus.
After the death of Galerius in 311, Maximinus
and Galerius vied for control of east, and on 1
May 313, Galerius suffered a decisive defeat at
Campus Serenus in Thrace. Maximinus fled to
Tarsus, where he became sick and died in Au-
gust. Maximinus’s memory was condemned and
Eusebius vividly describes the destruction which
befell Maximinus Daia’s images:
BDäJ`H Jg ("D 9">4µÃ<@H "ÛJÎH 6@4<ÎH
•B’<JT< A@8X:4@H ßBÎ Jä< 6D"J@b<JT<
•<"(@DgL2g\H, *LFFg$XFJ"J@H 6"Â *LFT-
<L:fJ"J@H 6"Â 2g:4FXFJ"J@H JbD"<@H *4" x
BD@(D"::VJT< *0:@F\T< •<gFJ08\JgLJ@,
(D"N"\ Jg ÓF"4 gÆH J4:¬< "ÛJ@Ø Jg 6"Â
Jä< "ÛJ@Ø B"\*T< 6"J" x B”F"< •<X6g4<J@
B`84< "Ì :g< ¦> àR@LH gÆH §*"N@H Õ4BJ@b-
:g<"4 FL<gJD\$@<J@
As for Maximinus himself, he was the first to be
publicly proclaimed by the rulers as an enemy
common to everyone, and he was entered into
the public records as a most ungodly, ill-omened,
and god-hating tyrant. His painted portraits and
52 See, for instance, S. Wood (1981) 59-68; R.R.R.
Smith (1985) 214-5; E.R. Varner (1995) 191-93.
 the early fourth century
those of his children, which had been set up in
their honor in all cities, were thrown on the ground
and utterly broken, and the faces of some were
covered with dark paint and made worthless. And
the statues which had been erected in his honor
were also hurled down and broken in a similar
manner, and as objects of derision and playthings,
they were exposed for anyone to mock and dis-
honor.53
Although portraits in Berlin,54 Chieti,55 and
Leiden56 have been associated with Maximinus,
none can be identified with certainty, and none
exhibit any signs of intentional mutilation.
Prisca, Galeria Valeria and Candidianus
Prisca, the wife of Diocletian, and her daughter
Galeria Valeria, the widow of Galerius were
executed as a result of their political alliance with
Maximinus Daia. Galeria Valeria was married to
Galerius in A.D. 293. Galeria bore Galerius one
sone, Candidianus and she was awarded the ti-
tle of augusta in 305, at the time of her father’s
retirement and her husband’s assumption of the
position of augustus. After the death of Galerius
in 311, both Galeria Valeria and her mother
Prisca lent their support to Maximinus Daia in
opposition to Licinius. Maximinus Daia may have
even planned to marry Galeria Valeria in order
to validate his position.57 After the defeat of
Maximinus Daia, Licinius ordered the executions
of Prisca, Galeria Valeria, and Candidianus.58
Prisca was not honored with numismatic por-
traits, 59 but images of her daughter, Galeria
Valeria are featured prominently on the coin-
age.60 In addition, she was originally depicted in
53 Ecc.Hist. 9.11.2
54 Skulpturengalerie, inv. 4132; H. P. L’Orange (1984)
32, 112 (with earlier literature).
55 Museo Nazionale, inv. 4296; H. P. L’Orange (1984)
112-13 (with earlier literature).
56 Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, inv. I 1961-63; H. P.
L’Orange (1984) 32, 113 (with earlier literature).
57 M. Cullhed (1994) 81.
58 Lact. Mort.Pers. 36.1-2; 50..1-2.
59 Her likeness may occur on a frieze from the Mau-
soleum of Diocletian at Split; M. Wegner in H.P. L’Orange
(1984) 141, pl. 13 c (with earlier literature).
60 RIC 6, 15, 33, 64, 109, 478, 489, 524-25, 547-9, 572-
33, 626-8, 637, 654-5, 671-3, pl. 9.196, 10.43, 11.29, 34,
13.57; 14.58; F. Gnecchi (1912)1. 13, 14, pl. 6.3.
221
a tondo on the smaller Arch of Galerius at Thes-
salonika (cat. 9.8; fig. 215).61 This relief portrait
has been recut to represent a female deity with
turretted crown (Fortuna or a city presonifica-
tion), almost certainly in response to Galeria
Valeria’s condemnation. No three dimensional
portraits of Prisca, Galeria Valeria, or Candidi-
anus can be positively identified and may be the
result of their fall from power in 314/15 and their
subsequent damnationes under Licinius.
Crispus and Fausta
Crispus was the eldest surviving son of Constan-
tine by his first wife or concubine, Minervina. He
was born c. 303-5, and held the consulship to-
gether with his half-brother Constantine II. Al-
though still relatively young, on 3 July 324 he
enjoyed a major naval victory over Licinius and
seemed destined for an illustrious career or even
the principate. However, he was executed in
March of 326, his memory condemned and his
name erased in inscriptions.62 Crispus’s downfall
is linked with that of his stepmother Fausta who
was killed shortly after him and the two may have
been involved in a plot to overthrow Constan-
tine.
As Constantine’s eldest son and a potential
heir, Crispus was honored with numismatic por-
traits and they depict him with a distinctive coif-
fure of long, comma shaped locks parted in the
center of the forehead;63 the locks at the temples
and in front of the ears reverse direction and curl
back up towards the central part.64 Crispus is
represented with a low forehead, large eyes be-
neath long arching brows, slightly hooked nose
and small mouth.
Although it is bearded, an unfinished head in
Ostia reproduces Crispus’s coiffure as seen on his
61 Museum, inv. 2466.
62 See, for instance, CIL 10.517.
63 Silver miliarensis from Nicomedia (325), RIC 89; Gold
solidus from Nicomedia (325); RIC 104; see also R. Calza
(1972) pls. 95.336 (solidus from Nicomedia), 95.337 (solidus
from Trier [325]), 96.340 (gold medallion from Ticinum).
64 The central part is confirmed by one of the gold solidi
from Nicomedia and the gold medallion from Ticinum
which are left profiles.
222 chapter ten
coins, and many of the physiognomical details,
including the slightly hooked nose.65 If the por-
trait does, indeed, represent Crispus, his condem-
nation may have interrupted its completion, as
in the unfinished portrait of Domitian in the
Getty (fig. 136a-d). Likewise, an unfinished por-
trait from Constantinople now in Berlin, which
also reproduces details of Crispus’s centrally
parted coiffure, may have been left incomplete
at the time of his execution.66
Crispus’s stepmother, Flavia Maxima Fausta,
the daughter of Maximian and sister of Maxen-
tius, was married to Constantine in A.D. 300 and
bore five children, three sons (Constantine II,
Constantius II, and Constans) and two daughters
(Constantia and Helena III).67 She was award-
ed the title of Nobilissima Femina, and on 8 No-
vember 324 and subsequently her importance
was further underscored by the additional title
of Augusta. As with Valeria Maximilla and Gale-
ria Valeria, Fausta’s marriage with Constantine
was carefully engineered to stabilize the alliance
between her father Maximian and his junior col-
league, Constantius Chlorus. Fausta’s position as
the daughter of one ruler and wife of another is
duly enshrined in the panegyricus of A.D. 307.68
Fausta was implicated in the events surround-
ing Crispus’s downfall and execution in A.D. 326.
After Crispus’s execution in 326, Fausta was
locked in the caldarium of her baths at the Do-
mus Faustae in Rome and she suffocated or
burned to death. Her memory was subsequent-
ly damned and her name erased in inscriptions.69
As had happened so often in the past, her con-
demnation is cloaked with allegations of sexual
misconduct, in this case of an incestuous nature
with her stepson Crispus. The allegations of sex-
65 Museo, inv. 45, h. 0.28 m (without the neck); R.
Calza (1972) 275-76, no. 185, pls. 95.335, 96.341; H. P.
L’Orange (1984) 133 (with earlier literature).
66 Staatliche Museen, Frühchristliche-byzantinische
Sammlung, inv. 4694, h. 0.27 m.; R. Calza (1972) 189-90,
no. 189, pl. 97.347; H. P. L’Orange (1984) 67, 129, pl. 45b;
T.M. Schmidt (1987) 54-6, fig. 4.
67 RE, “Fausta,” no. 3, 2084-86.
68 Pan.Lat. 6.8-10; see also S. MacCormack (1981) 177,
264.
69 R. Cagnat (1904) 174.
ual misconduct served to blacken her reputation
and mask the political ramifications of her ac-
tions. It is not surprising that Fausta may have
turned against Constantine, who was responsible
for the deaths of both her father and brother.
Prior to her death, Fausta was undoubtedly
honored with numerous public images. After the
deaths of her father Maximian and her brother
Maxentius, Fausta’s role shifted within the dynas-
ty and she is primarily celebrated as the mother
of Constantine’s heirs. Her likeness was dissem-
inated on coins, where she is depicted with a
version of the Scheitelzopf or a more simple hair-
style which is centrally parted, waved and gath-
ered into a bun at the back of the neck. Some-
times the two coiffures are conflated. Fausta’s
facial features are regular and include a low fore-
head, aquiline noes, small pointed chin, and long
neck.70 Fausta is prominently represented on
the Ada Cameo, which was created ca. A.D.
317-20.71 The cameo depicts bust length portraits
of Fausta, her husband, their two sons Constan-
tius II and Constantine II, and Helena being car-
ried aloft on the backs of two eagles. Fausta is
similarly celebrated as wife and mother on a
bronze medallion in Nantes which depicts her
with Constantine and all three of her sons.72
Fausta’s commemoration on coins, medallions,
and cameos, as well as the surviving marble and
bronze likenesses of her husband, sons, and
mother-in-law indicate that Fausta enjoyed por-
70 For Fausta’s numismatic portrait typology see: R.
Calza (1972) 249; M. Wegner in H.P. L’Orange (1984) 152-
55; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 443.
71 Trier, Stadtbibliotek; H.P. L’Orange (1984) 127, 138,
147, 154, pl. 74.a, with previous literature. Although the
cameo has been variously dated, even as early as the Clau-
dian period, a Constantinian date is virtually assured by
the configuration of the imperial family (i.e., older veiled
woman, emperor, son, empress, son). Because of the ap-
pearance of two rather than three sons, the came is likely
to have been made between the birth of Constantius II in
A.D. 317 and Constans in 320; see also, Diana E.E. Kleiner
(1992) 441-42, fig. 403; E.R. Varner (2001a) 85.
72 Nantes, Musée Debrée; M. Wegner in H.P.
L’Orange (1984) 123, 132-33, 145, 149-50, pl. 75a, with
previous literature. The woman in the medallion has also
been identified as Helena, with whom Fausta may have
been deliberately conflated; see D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 442-
43.
 the early fourth century
trait honors on a similar scale. Nevertheless, her
condemnation mandated the removal and de-
struction of her images and has ensured that no
sculpted representations of the empress can be
identified with certainty.73
Conclusion: the Return of Sculptural Recycling
The resurgence in sculptural recycling stands out
as an important development of the early fourth
century. If the representations of Elagabalus re-
configured into likenesses of Severus Alexander
are discounted as somewhat anomalous because
of the youthfulness of the two emperors and their
familial similarities, the portraits of Maxentius
recut to Constantine are the first examples in over
two centuries of the sculptural recycling of ma-
ture male rulers. Significantly, sculptural recy-
cling was not a limited byproduct of Maxentius’s
condemnation, but a major component in Arch
of Constantine, where relief portraits of revered
predecessors, Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus
Aurelius were reworked into likenesses of Con-
stantine. This kind of positive, prospective recy-
cling recalls similar practice in Ptolemaic Egypt
in which later Ptolemies wished to link themselves
to their powerful and respected ancestors.
Constantine expropriated the portraits of his
defeated rival Maxentius, as well as the architec-
tural monuments of his incredibly ambitious
building program in Rome. Just as Constantine’s
visage visually cannibalizes representations of
73 Several likenesses have been associated with Faus-
ta, but none of them find sufficient correspondences with
her numismatic representations to permit secure identifi-
cation, see M. Wegner in H. P. L’Orange (1984) 152-55.
Although Wegner identifies an underlifesized bronze bust
in Arles as a secure likeness of Fausta (Musée Lapidaire;
[1984]153, pl. 75a-c; see also D.E.E. Kleiner [1992] 443,
fig. 405 and F.P. Arata [1993] 194, pl. 47.1-2), the hair-
style of the bust is quite different from any of those worn
by Fausta on coins, medals or gems. The Arles coiffure is
closest to that seen on a follis from Lyon (RIC 7, 137, no.
235), a medallion from Trier (R.A.G. Carson [1981] 31
no. 1284, with fig.), and a follis from Heraclea (Carson
[1981] 36, no. 1308). However, the hair on the Arles bust
is pulled directly back from the face, causing the locks to
run in a conspicuous horizontal direction, while Fausta’s
coiffure on the coins has the locks running vertically, fram-
ing the face, and then crimped in large horizontal waves.
223
Maxentius in recut likenesses, such as the colos-
sal portrait from the Basilica Nova, so too does
Constantine co-opt the commemorative function
of Maxentius’s architectural achievements. Con-
stantine’s expropriations of Maxentius’s images
and monuments mirrors in microcosm his trans-
formation of the Roman empire from a predom-
inantly pagan to a fundamentally Christian en-
tity.
The process of condemnation and historical
censure known as damnatio memoriae did not cease
with the reign of Constantine, but there is no
longer the persuasive body of physical evidence
in the form of mutilated, damaged or recycled
portraits. Later in the century, sanctions presum-
ably were enacted against Julian, as well as usurp-
ing emperors, such as Flavius Eugenius in the
west who was ultimately defeated by Theodosius
in 394. Inscriptional, as well as historical evidence
indicates a damnatio also for Flavianus Nicoma-
chus, a prominent supporter of Eugenius.74 The
Theodosian Code records sanctions against the
eunuch Eutropius, who was condemned after a
failed coup against Theodosius in 399. The sanc-
tions mandated the destruction of all represen-
tations in bronze or marble of Eutropius in places
both public in private.
Omnes statuas, omnia simulacra, tam ex aere quam ex
marmore seu ex fucis quam ex quacumque materia quae
apta est effingendis, ab omnibus civitatibus oppidis locisque
privatis ac publicis praecipimus aboleri.
We prescribe that all of his statues, all of his
representations, whether made out of bronze or
of marble, or of paint, or whatever material suit-
able for making images are to be abolished from
all cities and towns, in locations both public and
private.75
The specification of both public and private lo-
cations employs nearly identical language to the
sanctions passed against Messalina (nomen et effi-
gies privatis ac publicis locis demovendas).76
74 The damnatio and subsequent rehabilitation are treat-
ed at length by C. W. Hedrick (2000).
75 Cod. Theod. 9.40.17.; P. Stewart (1999) 161; C.W.
Hedrick (2000) 100-101.
76 Tac. Ann. 11.38.3.
224
Spontaneous demonstrations had earlier been
carried out even against the images of Theodo-
sius himself and his family at Antioch, in the
“Riot of the Statues” in 387.77 Early in the fifth
century, the memory of Stilicho was condemned
in 408, and an erased statue base remained in situ
in the Forum Romanum as a mark of his deni-
gration.78
Damnatio memoriae remained a remarkably re-
silient and persistent feature of the Roman his-
torical landscape throughout the imperial peri-
od. Despite evolving and shifting political, social,
and economic patterns, post mortem sanctions
which mutilated and transformed the visual re-
alities of Roman daily life continued to indelibly
77 P. Stewart (1999).
78 CIL 6.31987; C. W. Hedrick, jr. (2000) 110.
chapter ten
stamp the often cataclysmic changes in rulers and
regimes which characterized the imperial system.
Indeed, images proved crucial to the communi-
cation and interaction between subject and ruler
during periods of political transistion and crisis.
Furthermore, artistic representations of con-
demned rulers and other members of the impe-
rial family provided an indispensable physical and
cathartic outlet. The disfigurement, dismember-
ment, destruction and reconfiguration inflicted on
these images were important manifestations of the
experiential aspect of Roman art in both theory
and practice. Ultimately, the conspicuous conti-
nuity exhibited in the processes of historical cen-
sure and redaction as manifested in the visual
record of imperial portraits, spanning over four
centuries, stands as a defining attribute of Roman
cultural identity and romanitas.
 caligula
CATALOGUE 1
MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF CALIGULA
Mutilated Portraits
1.1. Aquiliea, Museo Archeologico, inv.
128
h. 0.12 m.
marble fragment
provenance: unknown
publications: H. Jucker (1982) 111, pl. 15.1-
2; D. Boschung (1989) 120, no. 49, pl. 39.5-
6 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner (2001)
48; here, 24, 44, 114, fig. 3.
The Aquileia fragment is the sole remaining
section, consisting of chin, mouth, and nose from
an over-life-sized representation of Caligula,
which appears to have been destroyed with a
hammer or chisel following Caligula’s condem-
nation.
1.2. Sagunto, Museo Arqueológico
H. 0.25 m.
fragmentary marble head
provenance: Saguntum, Forum
publications: D. Hertel (1982) 261-3, no. 3, pl.
43a-6; D. Boschung (1989) 122, no. *66 (Tibe-
rius); D. Kreikenbom (1992) 196-7, no. 3.58;
E.R. Varner (2001) 48; here, 24, 44.
D. Boschung identifies this fragment as Tiberi-
us, but the arrangement of the hair over the left
temple finds close parallels to Caligula’s portraits
in Genoa (Museo Civico 614), Los Angeles (J.
Paul Getty Museum, 72.AA.155), Richmond
(Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, 71-20), and
Venice (Museo Archeologico, inv. 142). The
damage to the portrait itself also supports an
identification of this portrait as Caligula, a con-
demned emperor, rather than his predecessor,
Tiberius. The head may be associated with frag-
225
ments of a seated statue also discovered at the
Forum.
1.3. Switzerland, Private Collection
h. 0.97 m.
bronze bust
provenance: unknown (Italy?)
publications: H. Jucker (1973) 20; H. Jucker
(1982) 112; D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 49-
50, 54-57, 91, 92, 100, 115, no. 30, pls. 27.1-
4, 45.1 (with previous literature); A. Barrett
(1989)178, n. 30; J. Pollini (1993) 425, and n.
14; E.R. Varner (2001) 47; here, 6, n. 30, 23-
4, 39, n. 148, 44, 45, 49, 130, 150, 197, fig.
2a-b.
One of the only portraits of Caligula to exhibit
explicit signs of intentional disfigurement, this
miniature bronze cuirassed bust has been at-
tacked with a small hammer or other square
headed instrument. In an anthropomorphic at-
tack on the image, the eyes have been deliber-
ately gouged from the head. The small scale of
the portrait suggests that it was either displayed
in the context of a public or private shrine, or
alternatively, it may have decorated a military
standard.
Altered Portraits
Caligula/Augustus
1.4. Condeixa-a-Nova, Museu Monografi-
co de Conimbriga, inv. 67.388
h. 0.45 m.
marble head
provenance: Conimbriga, Forum, 1967
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 5, no. 3, n.
5; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 172-3, no. 3.27; D.
226 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
Boschung (1993a) 86, 149, no. 89. pl. 169 (with
previous literature); here, 33.
The portrait was discovered together with its
statue plinth containing the feet wearing calcei and
part of the toga. The image has been reconfig-
ured into Augustus’s Prima Porta type and may
depicted the emperor capite velato. Sections of
Caligula’s main type coiffure are still visible over
the temples and the sideburns maintain a long-
er, Caligulan length. The face has been recarved
and the resulting loss of sculptural volume has in
this area has caused the profile to be dispropor-
tionately wide and the cap of hair overly large.
1.5. Cophenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp-
totek 611, inv. 746
h. 0.30 m.
marble head
provenance: Sardis
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 35-37, 75-
76, 79, 136, no. 60, pls. 1.7, 64, 68.3 (with pre-
vious literature); F. Johansen (1994) 92-3, no.
34 (with figs.); here, 33, fig. 21a-d.
The portrait is one of the rare examples to have
been reworked into Augustus’s Forbes type, rath-
er than the predominant Prima Porta type. The
hair over the forehead has been entirely recarved,
with the locks swept to Augustus’s right. The hair
at the back of the head retains much of its Caligu-
lan orientation, including the swallow-tail part on
the nape of the neck, derived from his main type
(type 1). The wide forehead and hollow temples
have also been retained from the original like-
ness, as has the configuration of the full reced-
ing lower lip. The brows have recut, to give them
a more straight and flat profile. The reduction
of marble carried out in the area of the face has
not been matched in the area of the occiput and
back of the head, causing the portrait to have an
unnaturally wide profile. The preserved sections
of the neck are also disproportionately broad in
comparison to the reduced volumes of the low-
er face.
1.6. Cuenca, Museo Arquelógico Provin-
cial el Almudi
h. 0.26 m.
marble head
provenance: Segobriga, Theater
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 48-49, 76,
79, 86, 150, no. 91, pls. 91, 165.8 (with pre-
vious literature); here, 33.
This fragmentary portrait has been reworked
from Caligula’s main type to Augustus’s Prima
Porta. The longer Caligulan locks swept forward
on the nape of the neck have not been altered.
The reconfiguration of the likeness has caused the
top of the head to be unusually flat.
1.7. Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arquelo-
gia e Etnologia, inv. 21520 A
h. 0.52 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Mértola
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 158-59, no.
118, pls. 127, 165.9 (with earlier literature);
here, 33.
The hair over the forehead has been recut into
Augustus’s Prima Porta arrangement, but the
mass of the coiffure has been retained from
Caligula’s main type and is no longer commen-
surate in scale with the greatly reduced volumes
of the face. The head is also overly broad in
profile and at the base of the neck. Suggestions
of ageing have been added to the countenance
including slightly sunken cheeks and faint naso-
labial lines.
1.8. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum,
78.AA.261
h. 0.39 m.
marble (Luna?) head worked for insertion
provenance: Pietrabbondante, Italy
publications: K. Vierneisal and P. Zanker
(1979) 75, no. 6.10; H. Jucker (1981a)247-50;
J. Frel (1981) 28; D. Boschung (1993a) 145-
 caligula
46, no. 79, pls. 60, 68.2 (with earlier literature);
E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 122, no. 19, with figs.;
here, 32, 33, fig. 19a-d.
Although Boschung has argued that the portrait
is not recarved from a portrait of Caligula, but
that it might be reworked from one of Augustus’s
other portrait types ([1993a] 145-6), the head
betrays many signs of its original incarnation as
a likeness of Caligula. The configuration of
Caligula’s coiffure over the forehead has been
entirely recarved, and the new locks were creat-
ed out of the pre-existing mass of the coiffure and
forehead. The central locks have been dramati-
cally undercut, creating a marked hole in the
emperor’s forehead. The longer locks which
appear on the nape of the neck in Caligula’s
portraits have been shortened as evidenced by the
traces of horizontal marks caused by a claw chisel
in this area, but the configuration with swallow-
tail part at the center remains from the original
Caligulan arrangement. The reworking of the
hair on the top of the head and over the ears has
resulted in an asymmetrical contour for the top
of the skull. The right sideburn has been reduced
in length and a flat cut is still very visible on its
bottom edge. The left side of the top of the head
and area over the ears is flatter where the orig-
inal coiffure has been more drastically cut back,
while the right side of the head presents a more
rounded profile in an area where the hair is much
more full. Retouching of the nose has also caused
the area above the bridge of the nose to be asym-
metrical
1.9. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6615
h. 0.29 m.
marble head
provenance: Italy (Rome or environs?)
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 76, 80, 162,
no. 126, pl. 138 (with earlier literature); here,
32.
Although the hair over the forehead has been
reworked into Augustus’s Prima Porta configu-
ration, Caligula’s main type coiffure is still clearly
evident at the back and nape of the neck. The
227
portrait has also generally retained the youthful,
smoothly modeled facial features of the original
likeness and no signs of aging have been add-
ed.
1.10. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Scala 7,
inv. 230
h. 0.31 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: D. Boschung (1993) 176, no. 164,
pl. 160.1-2 (with earlier literature); here, 31,
33.
P. Zanker was the first to raise the possibility that
the portrait is reworked from Caligula (Fittschen-
Zanker I, 6, no. 5, n. 4, pl. 8). Augustus’s recut
Prima Porta arrangement over the forehead is
unusually shallow and short and the parting of
the locks over the inner corner of the left eye from
Caligula’s main type coiffure has been main-
tained. Signs of aging, present in several of Au-
gustus’s posthumous images, have also been
added to the portrait. The recutting of the face
has caused the top of the head to be too large in
proportion to the face.
1.11. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
formerly Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7,
inv. 2394 (Centrale Montemartini 1.61)
h. 0.39 m.
marble (Parian?) head worked for insertion
provenance: via del Mare (via di Teatro del
Marcello), near the Theater of Marcellus, 1937
publications: A. Claridge (1990) 143-4, fig. 11e;
Boschung (1993) 45, 49, 75, 175, no. 162, pls.
92, 149.7 (with previous literature). P. Zank-
er raised the possibility that the portrait might
be recarved from Caligula, Fittschen-Zanker
I, 3-6, no. 3, pls. 4-6, especially n. 5; M. Ber-
toletti, , M. Cima, and E. Talamo, eds. (1997)
53 (with fig); here, 31, fig. 17a-b.
The portrait has been recut from a replica of
Caligula’s main type into Augustus’s Prima Por-
ta type. The part over the inner corner of the left
eye from the original Caligulan configuration of
228 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
the locks over the forehead is still visible. In an
effort to make the forehead more narrow, the
temples have been recut, with the result that the
left temple is visibly more sunken than the right.
The hair behind the right ear has also been large-
ly recarved, with a noticeable loss of volume in
this area of the head. The top of the head is no
longer extant and was a separately worked piece
of marble attached with a tenon whose square
mortis still survives in the portrait. The large flat
surface at the top of the head and slightly angled
surfaces mark the extent of the addition. It is
unclear whether the original image of Caligula
was pieced, or if the piecing was a result of the
transfiguration process. The latter may be more
likely.
1.12. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gre-
goriano Profano, inv. 9953
h. 0.715 m.
colossal marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Cerveteri, Roman Theater (1846)
publications: Boschung (1993a) 76, 180, 182,
no. 174, pl. 139 (with earlier literature); C.B.
Rose (1997) 83-4, cat. no. 5; here, 31, 32, 45,
fig. 18a-b.
Caligula’s coiffure has been almost entirely
worked away and replaced over the forehead with
Augustus’s Prima Porta arrangement. The locks
on the nape of the neck have been shortened as
evidenced by the roughened surfaces directly
below them. The hair above and behind both
ears has been worked over with a punch in an
attempt to remove Caligula’s arrangement of
locks. The sideburns have also been noticeably
shortened, leaving smooth, raised surfaces be-
neath them. Asymmetricalities in the eyes indi-
cate that they, too, have been reduced in size.
The left eye is longer than the right and not as
wide in the center. The mouth has been short-
ened by carving in the corners. Chisel marks are
still visible at the left of the upper lip towards the
outer corner. The recarved mouth is asymmet-
rical, being longer on its right side. The chin has
been reduced in size and squared off and now
recedes from the frontal plane of the face. The
reconfigured volume of the head is too small in
proportion to the width of the neck. However,
the tendons of the neck, which bulge unnatural-
ly, suggest that an attempt was made to reduce
the size of the neck in order to make bring it into
scale with the reduced size of the head.
A substantial section of the back of the head
at the right side is missing and was restored af-
ter the head’s excavation. The restorations have
been removed and picked surfaces in these ar-
eas may be ancient and suggest that this section
of the head was separately pieced. Fragments of
a hand, an arm, and a knee of the statue were
also discovered, but have been lost.
1.13. Tomar, Convento de Cristo,
h. 0.6 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Tomar
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 5, no. 3, n.
5; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 176, no. 3.33; D.
Boschung (1993a) 86, 190, no. 198, pl. 168
(with earlier literature); here, 33.
The head is colossal in scale and has been recon-
figured into a replica of Augustus’s Prima Porta
type. Nevertheless, the hair on the back of the
head has been maintained from Caligula’s main
type. The portrait is very badly weathered and
it is impossible to determine if any superficial
signs of ageing were added to the refashioned
image.
1.14. Tunis, Musée du Bardo, C 72
h. 0.28 m.
marble head
provenance: El Djem (Thysdrus)
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 5, no. 3, n. 5;
D. Boschung (1993a) 87, 191, no. 201, pl. 172
(with earlier literature); here, 33, fig. 22a-c.
The Caligulan coiffure has been entirely chiseled
away from the rear of the portrait, and left in a
roughened state. The locks over the forehead
have been recut into Augustus’s Prima Porta
arrangement. The image has been reconfigured
with very slight signs of aging including a slight
 caligula
horizontal furrow in the forehead and partially
sunken cheeks.
1.15. Zadar, Museum
h. 2.3 m.
marble statue (standing Jupiter)
provenance: Aenona, Roman Forum, 1777
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 163-4, no.
3.15; D. Boschung (1993a) 76, 80, 193, no.
207, pls. 140, 219.2 (with earlier literature);
C.B. Rose (1997) 135-6, cat. 65, pls. 179-80;
here, 32, 36, fig. 20a-d.
The statue is carved from a single block of mar-
ble and the sculptural reconfiguration of the head
into a replica of Augustus’s Prima Porta type from
Caligula’s main type (type 1), has caused the head
to be disproportionally small in comparison to the
body. The hair on top of the head behind the
corona civica has been worked over with the point
and the marble left rough in this area. The great-
er sculptural mass of Caligula’s hair is still visi-
ble directly below the corona. Caligula’s hair has
been shortened on the nape of the neck, but his
longer locks, swept forward, are still visible, es-
pecially behind the right ear. The size of the
crown, as well as the size and position of the ears
have been determined by the Caligulan original
and are too large in proportion to the reduced
volumes of the lower face. Indeed, the lower
sections of the face have had much more mar-
ble removed during the portrait’s recarving and
as a result, is much narrower than the upper face
and head. The neck, largely maintained intact
from the original, is also overly broad in com-
parison to the altered proportions of the lower
face and jawline.
Caligula/Tiberius
1.16. Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Liebieghaus
(formerly Basel, private collection)
h. 0.37 m.
marble head, capite velato
provenance:unknown
publications: H. Jucker (1981a) 250-52, fig. 16;
D. Kreikenbom (1992) 193-4, no. 3.54, pl. 12a-
d; here, 33.
229
Traces of Caligula’s coiffure, with locks parted
over the inner corner of the left eye are still vis-
ible. Raised surfaces beneath the current locks
mark the extent of the recutting. The facial fea-
tures have been slightly altered, but generally
maintain the youthful and idealizing physiogno-
my of the Caligulan original.
Caligula/Claudius
1.17. Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv.
108
h. 2.01 m.
provenance: Aquileia, near the western Roman
wall (February 1894)
marble statue (head [luna]; body [Greek?
marble])
publications: V. Santa Maria Scrinari (1972)
30, no. 83, figs. 83a-b. H. Jucker (1981) 268,
n. 95; H.R. Goette (1986) 727-8, n. 48; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 48, n. 30; M. Denti (1991) 87-
90, no. 19, pls. 32.1-2, 33.1-4, 34.1; B. Andre-
ae (1993) 123, p. 24.1-2; C.B. Rose (1997) 82,
cat. 3, pl. 59; H. Meyer (2000) 96-97, figs. 191-
2, 194, 201; here, 29, 61, fig. 12.
The statue represents the emperor wearing the
general’s paludumentum. The hair over the fore-
head has been reconfigured into an approxima-
tion of Claudius’s main type arrangement, and
most of the pre-existing Caligulan coiffure has
been carved away. Although light horizontal
furrows have been added to the forehead, as well
as the suggestion of naso-labial lines, the portrait
retains many details of Caligula’s physiognomy,
especially the eyes and configuration of the
mouth. As the head and body are of two distinct
marble types, Luna for the head, and an unde-
termined, probably Greek marble for the body,
it is uncertain if the head and body belonged
together in the original Caligulan incarnation.
1.18. Berlin Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abtei-
lung, inv. 1965.10,
h. 0.44 m.
marble bust (cut down from a statue)
provenance: said to be from Acerra
230 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12,
44, 46-47, note 29, 52, 56, 92, 113, no. 23,
sketch 22; pls. 24.1-2,47.3 (with previous lit-
erature); here, 27.
The Caligulan hair on the top and upper sides
of the head has been carved away and these areas
were perhaps filled out with a new hairstyle in
stucco. Caligula’s locks have been allowed to
remain, however, on the back of the head and
the nape of the neck and are comparable in treat-
ment to the small bronze bust now in New York
in the White-Levy Collection ( ex Schinz-Rüesch
collection). The locks over the forehead are also
retained from Caligula’s main type. The bust has
been cut down from a full length image with bare
upper torso, originally representing the emper-
or in divine or heroic guise.
1.19. Fano Museo Civico
h. 2.25 m.
marble statue
provenance: Fano (Fanum Fortunum)
publications: F. Battistelli and L de Sanctis
(1984) 54-5, fig. 91; D. Kreikenbom (1992)
197-8, no. III.60 (with earlier literature); B.
Andreae (1993) 123-4, pl. 25.1-2; here, 32, 37,
fig. 6a-c.
The arrangement of the hair over the forehead
is a loose variant of Claudius’s main type, but still
contains the parting of locks over the left eye from
the original Caligulan coiffure. The facial features
have been substantially recarved and the current
proportions of the face are too small in relation-
ship to the overall volume of the head. The head
itself is unnaturally broad in profile and the neck
is too wide in proportion to the refashioned face.
Signs of aging have been added to the image
including horizontal and vertical furrows in the
forehead, slight pouches beneath the eyes, naso-
labial lines, and a fleshy underchin. The eyes are
larger than in many of Claudius’s unaltered like-
nesses and have mostly retained from the origi-
nal likeness. The head is worked separately and
in its reduced aspects is too small for the body.
The neck, however, is consonant with the pro-
portions of the body, which suggests that the head
is original to the statue.
1.20. Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e
d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 97765
h.unavailable
marble (luna) head (with corona civica).
provenance: Rusellae, Collegium of the Au-
gustales
publications: H. Jucker (1981a) 266, n. 91; U.
Baldini, M. Cristofani, G. Maetzke (1983) fig.
126; R. Amedick (1987) 50-51; C.B. Rose
(1997) 116-8, no. 45.15 (with earlier literature);
S. Wood (1999) 128; here, 28, 29, 80, 99, fig.
10.
The coiffure of the portrait has been refashioned
from Caligula’s main type (type 1) into Claudi-
us’s main type. Caligula’s coiffure remains largely
unaltered behind the left ear and in front of the
fillet and sticks noticeably out from the reduced
volume of the head. The mass of the original hair
is also still present at the back of the head, as is
Caligula’s swallow tail part on the nape of the
neck. The hair on top of the head is not articu-
lated but simply worked with a flat chisel. The
occiput is also too large in comparison to the
current mass of the face. The ears, too, are dis-
proportionately large and set too high up on the
head. The eyes have been recarved and the left
eye has been cut back into the surfaces of the face
at its outer corner. The receding lower lip is a
feature inherited from the original likeness. The
recarving of the chin has caused it to retreat from
the frontal plane of the face. The volumetric
reduction of the face has caused the both the
corona to appear too large and the neck to wide
and long in proportion to the face. The crown
itself has been drastically cut back in the area
immediately over the hair framing the forehead,
where the lower leaves are significantly smaller
and lack the plasticity of the leaves above. The
randomly drilled holes which articulate the re-
cut sections of the crown are the termination of
more deeply drilled channels separating the
leaves, still visible in the unaltered passages.
Although C.B. Rose feels that the head was not
 caligula
recut until the reign of Nero, it seems just as likely
(and in fact more probable) that the head was
actually recarved under Claudius. The triangu-
lar shape of the lower face Rose sees as both a
remnant of the original Caligulan image, as well
as an indication of a posthumous Neronian date
([1997] 71 [Neronian], 117 [Caligulan]). How-
ever, it is largely a product of the reconfigura-
tion process. The signs of aging which Rose
observes in the Grosseto portrait as also indica-
tive of a Neronian date are not especially emphat-
ic in comparison to other likeness recut in the
Claudian period, such as that in the Palazzo dei
Conservatori (Cenrale Montemartini, cat. 1.31).
The second, veiled portrait of Claudius from
Rusellae (Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte
della Maremma, inv. 97766) is more likely to
have been added under Nero. Claudius’s veil
would have visually linked him as divus to the
veiled images of the two divae preserved from the
cycle, Livia and Drusilla. In addition, the scale
of the head is much larger than most of portraits
and approaches the colossal seated images of
Augustus and Livia, as well as the headless cui-
rass which may in fact have originally been a
portrait of Nero himself added at the same time
as the veiled Claudius. However, if Rose is cor-
rect in assigning the reworking of the head with
corona civica to the Neronian period, it would
indicate that the portrait of Caligula was likely
removed from the cycle, stored for at least the
thirteen years of Claudius’s reign, and then re-
cut sometime after 54.
1.21. Hannover, Kestnermuseum, inv.
1978.15
h. 0.25 m.
marble head
provenance: (Italy)
publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, note. 12,
44-5, 56, 113, cat. no. 24, sketch 23, pl. 24.3
(with earlier literature); A. Mlasowsky (1992)
90-92, fig. 14; here, 27, fig. 7a-b.
The top of the forehead has been cut down in
order to reduce its mass and breadth; these cuts
are clearly visible in profile. Caligula’s arrange-
231
ment of hair over the forehead, with locks
brushed outward from the central part and re-
versing their direction over the temples, remains
undisturbed despite the recutting of the forehead
itself. Regular holes drilled in this area indicate
that the Caligulan coiffure would have been
masked by the addition of a corona civica, or, more
probably, Claudian locks in stucco or separate
pieces of marble (see H. Jucker [1981a]277 and
A. Mlasowsky [1992] 91).
1.22. Istanbul Archaeological Museum,
inv. 87
h. 0.240 m.
marble head
provenance: Nicomedia
publications: Inan-Rosenbaum 65, no. 22, pl.
14.1-2; D. Boschung (1989) 123, cat. no. *78
(Claudius)(with earlier literature); here, 30, fig.
16a-b.
The recarving of the portrait and the resulting
idealized Claudian facial features have caused the
portrait to be variously identified as Augustus,
Germanicus, Drusus Maior, Caligula, and Clau-
dius. The arrangement of the hair over the fore-
head, as well as the long locks swept forehead on
the nape of the neck have been almost entirely
retained from the original Caligulan image. The
wide forehead and eyes are also almost entirely
unaltered. The lower section of the face has been
recut and the mouth reconfigured with the re-
sult that the chin now recedes from the frontal
plane of the face. The portrait has been mount-
ed on an ancient cuirassed bust to which it did
not originally belong.
1.23. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum,
inv. 4648
h. 2.350 m.
marble (Proconessian) togate statue
provenance: near Kanli Köprü
publications: Inan-Alforldi-Rosenbaum (1979)
288-89, no. 278, pls. 30.3-4, 197 (with earlier
literature); here, 30.
Caligula’s main type coiffure with central part is
232 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
still visible. Signs of aging have been added in-
cluding horizontal furrows in the forehead and
the suggestion of naso-labial lines. The lower
section of the faced has been cut back.
1.24. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale
h. 0.51 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Italy (Rome?)
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 199, no.
3.62, pl. 15b-d, 16 a (with earlier literature);
here, 30, fig. 13a-c.
Slight signs of aging have been added to the
portrait including naso-labial lines and pouches
beneath the eyes and a vertical furrow above the
bridge of the nose. Caligula’s longer locks have
not been altered on the nape of the neck. The
volume of the coiffure and crown at the top of
the head is overly large in comparison with the
reduced proportions of the lower section of the
face. The recarving of the chin has also caused
it to recede slightly from the frontal plane of the
face.
1.25. Naples Museo Nazionale Archeolog-
ico, inv. 150-215
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: previously unpublished; here, 30.
Caligula’s main type coiffure has been removed
from the top and back of the head and not re-
placed, but the configuration of the locks over the
forehead has been retained. Superficial signs of
ageing have been added to the portrait, includ-
ing horizontal furrows in the forehead, slight
pouches beneath the eyes, and naso-labial lines.
1.26. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1219
h. 0.370 m.
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: H.R. Goette (1986) 727-28, n. 48;
K. de Kersauson (1986) 188-9, no. 88 (with
earlier literature); here, 30.
The current coiffure is a variant of Claudius’s
main type. The locks on the top and back of the
head have been roughly worked with a chisel in
an effort to suppress the original hairstyle. The
right sideburn and locks on the right side of the
nape of the neck have also been cut down. How-
ever, traces of Caligula’s main type coiffure are
still visible around the area of the left ear. The
chin has been reduced in size, causing it to re-
cede from the frontal plane of the face, and
making the lower section of the face appear too
small in proportion to the top of the head.
1.27. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità
Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichitá, no. 1, inv.
280 (1870), 834 (1952)
h. 2.22 m.
marble statue
provenance: Velleia, Julio-Claudian Basilica,
(3-17 June 1761)
publications: C. Saletti (1968) 45-49, no. 10,
pl. 31-34 (with previous literature); H. Niem-
eyer (1968) 84, no. 4;H. Blanck (1969) 27-9,
no. A 2, pls. 2-3; K.P. Goethert (1972) 237-
39; H. Jucker (1977) 204-212, 238; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 97-98; H.R. Goette (1989) 33,
34, n. 147 a, 39, n. 179, 119, no. 104, pl. 7.5;
H. von Heintze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995)
263-4; C. B. Rose (1997) 66, 121-26, cat. 50,
pls. 132, 135-136; here, 32, n. 84, 38, 79-80,
97, 258, 276, fig. 34a-b.
The original statue of Caligula appears to have
been created out of a single block of marble, and
after his condemnation, the head detached and
a new likeness of Claudius added. The tenon of
the current head does not fit well in its socket.
Although an attempt has been made to match the
interior and exterior folds of the toga which cover
the head with those of the statue body, a major
discrepancy is apparent on the fold closest to the
neck on the inner right side of the veil. The
portrait head of Claudius seems too large for the
body, especially when compared to the propor-
tions of the other togate figures from the Velle-
ian statuary cycle. Roughly 1:5 for Claudius, as
opposed to 1:6 for the other togate figures. Clau-
 caligula
dius’s head is also carved for insertion different-
ly than the others in the series, with the left edge
of the veil cut substantially higher than those of
the other sculptures. On close examination, the
marble of the head seems slightly whiter than the
marble of the body, which is not the case with
the other togati.
1.28. Perugia, Museo
h. 0.65 m.
marble head
provenance: Carsulae
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 198-9, no.
3.61, pl. 15 a (with earlier literature); here, 30,
fig. 15a-c.
Deeply carved naso-labial lines and slight furrows
in the forehead are the most ostensible signs of
ageing added to this portrait. There is also the
suggestion of sagging pouches of flesh beneath
each eye. The locks over the forehead have been
shortened, but the part over the inner corner of
the left eye remains from the original Caligulan
arrangement.
1.29. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini,
inv. 151
h. 0.275 m.
marble head
provenance: unknown (presumably Rome or
environs)
H. Jucker (1981a)271-2; D. Boschung (1989)
29, note 12, 44, 47, 114, no. 26, sketch 25, pl.
24.5 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 116-19, no. 17, with figs.; here, 29, fig.
11a-d.
Caligula’s main type coiffure, consisting of swal-
lowtail part in the center, with locks radiating out
on either side and a change in direction of locks
near the outer corner of each eye, is still readily
visible over the forehead. A second raised row
of locks, also present in a portrait of Caligula in
Copenhagen (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 637a, inv.
2687) is discernable above this arrangement.
Remains of iron pins are preserved among the
locks of the forehead. Their irregular placement
233
suggests that they are not for the addition of a
corona but rather for small pieces of marble. These
marble pieces, now lost, presumably would have
been elements of Claudius’s hairstyle, most like-
ly of his main type, superimposed over the ex-
isting Caligulan coiffure. The entire reworking of
the hair seems to have been filled in and com-
pleted with stucco. The artist who refashioned
this portrait, instead of entirely recarving the hair
over the forehead as is the case with the colossal
head from Otricoli, chose to use added pieces of
marble and stucco in combination with minimal
recarving. As preserved, the resulting arrange-
ment may have been a variant of the coiffure of
Claudius’s main portrait type. The hair at the top
and back of the head of the Vatican Magazzini
Caligula/Claudius has been carved away and the
coiffure in these areas may also have been com-
pleted in stucco. The marble and stucco additions
to this head can be viewed as experiments in the
developing technology of reworking portraits. In
general, simply recarving the hair must have been
preferred as a more permanent form of refash-
ioning a likeness, since stucco would not have
weathered well in portraits exposed to the ele-
ments.
1.30. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Roton-
da 551, inv. 242
h. 0.78 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Otricoli, “Julio-Claudian Basili-
ca,” 1779
publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, n. 12, 44,
47, 87, 100, 113-14, no. 25, sketch 24, pl. 24.4
(with earlier literature); D. Kreikenbom (1992)
197, no. III. 59; C.B. Rose (1997) 70, 97-8, cat.
25, pl. 92; G. Spinola (1999) 263-5, fig. 44;
E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 11; here, 10, n. 60,
27-28, 29, 32, 45, 167, fig. 9a-d.
Details from Claudius’s earlier Kassel type have
been added to this colossal marble portrait, orig-
inally a replica of Caligula’s main type. A new
fringe of bangs has been carved into the forehead
beneath the existing Caligulan coiffure. As part
of the transformative process, the head has also
234 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
been endowed with very superficial signs of age-
ing, mainly evident in the slightly sunken cheeks
and suggestions of naso-labial lines. Nevertheless,
the resulting portrait is the most youthful and
idealizing of Claudius’s surviving sculpted por-
traits. The recutting has also engendered sever-
al assymmetricalities, further exaggerated by the
colossal scale of the image. There is an unnatu-
ral bulge in the forehead directly above the bridge
of the nose, indicating an area where insufficient
marble from the original portrait has been re-
moved; the left eye is longer and thicker than the
right; the nose has a pronounced S-shaped bend
in its center; and the mouth is longer at the right
side, where it also curves down farther and is
carved more deeply at the corner. Asymmetricali-
tes are present in varying degrees in most impe-
rial portraits, but can be especially prominent in
reworked likenesses as a result of recarving.
1.31. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Braccio Nuovo, inv. 2443 (Centrale Mon-
temartini 2.74)
h. 0.358 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: (presumably) Rome or environs
publications: D. Boschung (1989) 120, no. 50,
pl. 40.1-2 (with earlier literature); H. von Hei-
ntze in A. Cambidoglou, ed. (1995) 262, pl.
89.2-4; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 11; here, 10,
n. 60, 26, 101, n. 159, 231, fig. 4a-d.
This is arguably the most veristic of Claudius’s
portraits, as earlier noted by H. von Heintze
(Helbig4 2 [1966] 421, n. 1618), and it attests to
the overwhelming impact reconfigured images of
condemned emperors can have on the stylistic
development of their successors’ portraiture. The
portrait has been recut from Caligula’s main type
into a variant of Claudius’s own main type, as
for instance a well known replica in Schloss
Erbach (K. Fittschen [1977a] 55-58, no. 17, pl.
19; H. Jucker [1981a] 276, n. 108). Because, so
much of the hairstyle has been retained from the
Caligulan image, the reversal of the direction of
the locks at either edge of the forehead, clearly
evident in unaltered replicas, such as that in
Schloss Erbach, is suppressed. A raised lump of
marble marks an area where the volume of the
longer Caligulan locks have not been entirely
removed. Slightly raised surfaces at the edge of
Claudius’s truncated sideburns also indicate that
they have been reduced in length. A small, raised
area beneath the right ear suggest that the ear-
lobes themselves have been reduced in size. In
any case, the right ear is now carved much clos-
er to the skull and is much less clearly articulat-
ed than the left and both ears are not anatom-
ically accurate.
The addition of the Claudian physiognomic
details, which required a much more vigorous
modeling of facial surfaces than would have been
present in the original portrait of Caligula, ne-
cessitated a great reduction in the volume of the
head. The right side of the neck and tenon have
been cut down so that the reworked head could
be inserted into a new and smaller statue body
commensurate with the portrait’s reduced scale.
Many of the anomalies caused by the recarving
(i.e., high occiput, asymmetrical ears, differing
treatment of hair on the right and left sides of
the head, and overly modeled facial features) are
not so apparent when the head is seen from below
and the profile views are restricted, which indi-
cates that the reworked portrait was very likely
intended for placement high up, perhaps on a
plinth or pedestal and within a niche.
1.32. Vaison, Musée Municipal, inv. 128
B
h. 1.90 m.
marble statue
provenance: Vaison, Roman Theater (scaenae
frons)
publications: H. Jucker (1982) 107; C.B. Rose
(1997) 70, 131-2, cat. 58, pl. 170 (with earlier
literature); here, 30, 32, 58.
The statue is carved from a single block of mar-
ble and represents the emperor as Jupiter, in the
standard standing type with hip mantle. The
reconfiguration has resulted in disproportion-
alites, most notably in the head, whose current
sculptural volume is too small in comparison to
 caligula
the mass of the corona civica and body. Caligula’s
main portrait type has been reworked into a
version of Claudius’s earlier, more youthful type,
suggesting that the reconfiguration took place
early in his reign, perhaps shortly after his acces-
sion. The refashioned portrait was eventually
paired with a cuirassed portrait of Nero, itself
ultimately recut to Domitian (Cat. 2.58).
1.33. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
18, inv. IX A 23
h. 14.5 cm.
chalcedony cameo
provenance: unknown (presumably created at
Rome)
publications: D. Boschung (1989) 51-2, 90,
116, no. 36, sketch 29, pl. 30.4 (with earlier
literature); J.J. Herrmann, jr. (1991) 45; here,
27, 40, fig. 8a-b.
The Vienna cameo is one of the few surviving
imperial gem portraits of condemned emperors
to have been refashioned. The recarving neces-
sitated a reduction in the size of the face which
has contributed to the head appearing too small
in proportion to the length of the neck, the size
of the bust form, and the mass of the hair and
corona. A second row of locks, reflecting Claudi-
us’s main portrait type has been added beneath
the existing Caligulan locks over the forehead.
The physiognomy has been drastically refash-
ioned, essentially through the addition of veris-
tic signs of aging. The original Caligulan image
depicted the emperor capite velato and the current
corona has been recarved from the original veil,
which is still visible at the top of the head. Such
extensive recarving of gems is uncommon and
was largely dependent on the extent of surfaces
available for refashioning. Of the nine likeness-
es of Caligula on gems, only the Vienna cameo
has been reconfigured, which must have been
partly the result of the added surface area pro-
vided by both the veil and the fairly high relief
of the original portrait of Caligula.
235
Cat. 1.34. Woburn Abbey
h. 0.402 m.; h. (of ancient portions) 0.222 m.
marble head
provenance: Rome (purchased between 1822-
23)
publications: E. Angelicoussis (1992) 56-57, no.
25, figs. 121-24, 128 (with earlier literature);
here, 26-27, fig. 5.
Like the Montemartini portrait (cat. 1.11), the
head in Woburn Abbey stands as one of Clau-
dius’s most strikingly veristic representations. The
portrait is remarkable for its assymetricalities and
disproportionalities, all by-products of its recon-
figuration. As is common in recarved portraits,
the neck is too wide for the face. The recut hair
conforms to Claudius’s main type, but Caligula’s
main-type coiffure remains on the back and side
of the head and the long Caligulan locks have
not been shortened on the nape of the neck. In
addition, Caligula’s central part has been retained
over the forehead. Cutting is clearly visible in the
marble in front of the hair on the left temple
where Caligula’s coiffure has been slightly mod-
ified.
Caligula/Titus
1.35. Arles, Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot
h. 0.46.2 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Fontvielleit
publications: D. Boschung (1989) 29, note 12,
44-45, 49, 50, 53, 55, 89-90, 113, cat. no. 22,
sketch 21, pl. 23.1-4 (with earlier literature);
here, 34, fig. 23.
The Arles portrait is worked for insertion and the
flat surfaces of the back of the head and neck
indicate that the portrait probably portrayed the
emperor capite velato. The configuration of locks
over the forehead with central part has been
maintained from Caligula’s main type (type 1).
The ears and nose of the portrait are damaged
and there are extensive abrasions to the surface,
caused by the portrait’s incorporation into a lat-
er wall. Boschung suggests that the portrait is
236 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits

probably reworked to Claudius ([1989] 113) but Caligula/Claudius Gothicus (?)

H. Jucker’s identification of the portrait as Ti-
1.37. New York, Collection of Shelby
tus is much more plausible ([1981] 313-4), espe-
White and Leon Levy Collection
cially given the reconfiguration of the chin which
h. 0.407 m.
endows the new image with the heavy underchin
marble head
characteristic of Titus’s standard images.
provenance: unknown
publications: M.L. Anderson in D. von Both-
1.36. Athens, National Museum, Roman
mer, ed. (1990) 224, with fig; E.R. Varner in
Collection, inv. 348
E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 11-12, fig. 1; here, 34,
h. 29 cm;
fig. 25a-e.
marble head
provenance: Smyrna
The distinctive arrangement of locks behind the
D. Boschung (1989) 112-113, no. 21, pl. 22.1-
ears find their closest parallel in the type 1 por-
4 (with earlier literature); M. Donderer (1991-
trait of Caligula in Tunis (Institut National
2) 221, n. 123; here, 34, fig. 24.
d’Archéologie et d’Art). Although not as compel-
ling as the similarities with Claudius Gothicus,
The portrait retains the central parting of Caligu-
the resulting image also finds correspondences in
la’s main type (type 1). The locks at the left tem-
numismatic representations of his near contem-
ple have been cut back, as have the locks in front
poraries, Aurelian or Florian. However, Aureli-
of the left ear. As a consequence, the left profile
an’s beard generally grows down onto his neck,
view of the head differs noticeably from the right.
which is not the case with the Levy-White head
The lips have also been recarved. Boschung’s
or coin portraits of Claudius Gothicus. Florian
suggestion that the portrait has been reworked
reigned only two months, so it is very unlikely
into an image of Claudius is unconvincing ([1989]
that the Levy-White head represents that emper-
113), and H. Jucker’s earlier proposal that it is
or.
recut to represent Titus is more persuasive (1988]
311-13). The upper lip has been reduced to a thin
line, so that the lower lip no longer recedes sub- Caligula/Deity
stantially, as it can in Caligula’s portraits, mak-
1.38. Algiers, Museum
ing the mouth more consonant with Titus’s rep-
h. 0.90 m.
resentations.
marble head
Unusually for an imperial portrait, the eyes of
provenance: Iol Caesarea
this image were worked separately and inserted,
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 223-4, no.
raising the possibility that the original may have
4.3, pl. 26a-b (with earlier literature); here, 34,
had standard eyes carved together with the head,
66.
which were damaged at the time of Caligula’s
downfall.
The original coiffure has been almost entirely
carved away, but elements of Caligula’s hairstyle
are still clearly visible on the nape of the neck.
The portrait has been retrofitted with holes for
a radiate crown, suggesting that the head has
been reconfigured as representation of Sol, or
Apollo Helios.
 nero
CATALOGUE 2
THE MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF NERO
Multilated Portraits
2.1. Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122,
h. 0.51 m.
marble bust (nude, cut down from full length
statue?)
provenance: Italy (mainland)
publications: U. Hiesinger (1975)115, 118,
120-22, pl. 24.41-2; H. Jucker (1981a) 309;
E.R. Varner (2001) 48; here, 49-50, 114, fig.
42.
The Cagliari portrait has been attacked with a
chisel, and the facial features have been disfig-
ured. It also preserves a unique, added element
of textual denigration, as the word victo (to the
conquered) has been scratched along the upper
chest. The graffito was likely intended as an ironic
and derogatory inversion of and pun on victori (to
the victor).
The unusually long bust from suggested to H.
Jucker that the bust had been cut down to its
current format from the upper part of a full
length statue and the cutting down of the statue
may have been carried out by the sculptor, Zan-
da, who donated the portrait to the Museum (H.
Jucker [1981a] 309). If so, the damaged and frag-
mentary state of the statue itself may also have
been a result of Nero’s condemnation. Two x’s
carved at each clavicle may be sculptor’s marks
preparatory to removing the head from the tor-
so. The portrait was originally a replica of Nero’s
second type, but, like Nero’s portrait in Worces-
ter, numerous signs of recarving and evidence for
stucco additions suggest that it was updated lat-
er in Nero’s principate into a version of his third
or fourth portrait type.
237
2.2. Cos, Museum, inv. 4510
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: Cos, Agora
publications: L. Laurenzi (1955-56) 140, no.
192; V. Poulsen (1962) 99, no. 65; C.C. Ver-
meule (1968) 389, no. 5; U. Hiesinger
(1975)116, n. 22; H. Jucker (1976) 238, fig. 10;
H. Meyer (2000) 25, 57, figs. 37-38, 111-12;
E.R. Varner (2001b) 48; here, 49-50, 114, 171,
186.
The Cos portrait has been cut or broken from a
statue or bust and is the most substantially mu-
tilated of Nero’s surviving marble images. The
face has sustained damage to the eyes, nose,
mouth and chin in the t-shaped pattern typical
of intentionally disfigured images. The mutilation
has been inflicted with a chisel.
2.3. Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383
h. 0.25
marble head (fragment)
provenance: Syracuse, Roman Forum
publications: V. Poulsen (1954) 294, figs. 1-2;
V. Poulsen (1962) 100, no. 65; N. Bonacasa
(1964) 45, no. 52, pl. 24.1-2; J. and J. Ch. Balty
(1966) 537; L. Fabbrini (1966-67) 138-40; U.
Hiesinger (1975)115, pl. 20.32; S. Maggi (1986)
48, 50, n. 15, fig. 8; J.M. Croisille (1999) 398,
fig. 8; E.R. Varner (2001b) 48, here, 48, n. 24,
50, 114, fig. 43.
This fragmentary face belongs to a type 2 image
of Nero with corona civica. The portrait may have
been destroyed after Nero’s suicide, and its frag-
ments stored or buried in the environs of the
Forum at Syracuse, where it is likely to have been
publicly displayed.
238 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
2.4 (?). Vicenza, Museo Civico, inv. EI-19
h. 1.64 m.
marble statue (standing Jupiter)
provenance: Vicenza (Vicetia), Roman The-
ater
publications: M. Denti (1991) 206-9, no. 4, pls.
63.2, 64.4, 65.1-2 (with earlier literature); E.R.
Varner (2001b) 48, here, 50.
The face of the portrait has been shorn off and
the damage appears to be intentional. The long
locks swept forward on the nape of the neck are
characteristic of all three of Nero’s portrait types
produced during his principate (types 2-4).
2.5. Vienne, Musée Archéologique
h. 0.195 m.
marble head (fragment)
provenance: Vienne, Odeum
publications: A. Bruhl (1962) 645, fig. 10; H.
Jucker (1964) 87, fig. 6; M. Bergmann and P.
Zanker (1981)332; H. Jucker (1981a) 304-306,
fig. 74 (Nero reworked to Domitian); E.R.
Varner (2001b) 48, here, 50, 69, 114, fig. 44.
The Vienne fragment originally pertained to a
type 4 portrait of Nero which probably formed
part of the Odeum’s sculptural decoration. Af-
ter its destruction, which might be associated with
events surrounding the revolt of Vindex in Gaul,
the fragments may have been stored or buried
at the Odeum. The shorter locks over the fore-
head and their slightly curving arrangement in-
dicate to H. Jucker ([1981a] 304-6) that this
portrait has been reworked to Domitian; howev-
er, the portrait is in much too fragmentary a state
to determine this with certainty.
Altered Portraits
Nero/Augustus
2.6. Alexandria, Greco Roman Museum,
inv. 24043
h. 0.79 m.
(colossal) marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Athribis
publications: F. el Fakharani in N. Bonacasa
and G. Rizza, eds. (1988) 277, fig. 1; D.
Kreikenbom (1992)173-4, no. 3.29; D. Bos-
chung (1993a) 81-82, 139, no. 65, pls. 144,
194.7 (with previous literature); S. Walker and
P. Higgs, eds. (2000) 188, no. 3.46, with fig.,
(with earlier literature); here, 61, n. 137, 62,
64.
The hair over the forehead has been recut into
Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure, but traces of
Nero’s longer type 3 locks are still clearly visible
at the back and sides of the head. In addition,
the locks at the right of Augustus’s forehead
which curve to the left stick substantially out from
the general mass of the reconfigured coiffure and
their mass has been largely retained from Nero’s
hairstyle. The shape of the brows and general
contours of the mouth are also remnants of the
Neronian likeness. The eyes themselves have
been enlarged from the smaller eyes of Nero’s
type 3, with the result that they are now overly
large in proportion to the face and are given
further prominence by the heavy upper lids. The
ears are also disproportionately large and stick
out from the head in a manner characteristic of
many of Nero’s images, but not usually those of
Augustus. There is also the slight suggestion of
Nero’s full underchin in profile.
2.7. Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazi-
onale, inv. 12
h. 2.2 m.
marble togate statue (capite velato)
provenance: Aquileia, near the Roman Circus
publications: M. Denti (1991) 85-7, no. 18, pls.
30.1, 31.1-4; D. Boschung (1993a) 81, 84, 141,
no. 69, pl. 143, 214.2 (with earlier literature);
C.B. Rose (1997) 82, cat. 3, pl. 58; here, 61,
fig. 71.
Reconfigured into Augustus’s Prima Porta type,
Nero’s type 3 hairstyle is still clearly visible over
both temples. Very slight signs of aging, mostly
visible in profile, have also been added to the
facial features, including faint naso-labial lines,
pouches beneath the eyes and the suggestion of
sagging flesh in the area of the cheeks.
 nero
2.8. Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033
h. 0.43 m.
marble relief head
provenance: Luni
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 82, 161, no.
124, pl. 145 (with earlier literature); M. Berg-
mann (1998) 111-12, pl. 24.4; here, 61, n. 137,
62-63, 119, fig. 73.
Nero’s type 4 coiffure is still evident on the nape
of the neck, as is the wavy arrangement on the
top of the head. The parting of the locks on the
back of the neck is also a feature of Nero’s por-
traits. The hair over the forehead has been re-
cut into Augustus’s Prima Porta coiffure. A long
rectangular cutting and holes in the head over
the right ear and temple are evidence for the
addition of a radiate crown, likely in metal.
2.9. Padua, Museo Civico, inv. 819
h. 0.30 m.
marble head
provenance: precise provenance unknown
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 80-81, 84,
168-9, no. 146, pl. 141 (with earlier literature);
here, 61.
Nero’s longer type 2 sideburns, as well as the hair
on the nape of the neck have been cut back, and
the hair over the forehead reconfigured into
Augustus’s Prima Porta hairstyle. The physiog-
nomy has been modified, principally through the
addition of slight signs of ageing, including slightly
sunken cheeks and light naso-labial lines.
2.10. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei
Busti 274, inv. 715
h. 0.33 m.
marble (Pentelic) bust with corona spicaea
provenance: Rome, possibly Vigna Galletti
(later displayed at the Villa Mattei [Celimon-
tana]), sold to the Vatican in 1770
publications: C. Chirasi-Colombo (Berlin
1981) 423-5; P. Liverani (1990-91) 164-65, figs.
1-2 (reworked from Domitian type 3); D. Bos-
chung (1993a) 73-74, 63, 67, 182-83, no. 176,
239
pls. 113, 225.4 (with earlier literature); B.S.
Spaeth (1994) 92, fig. 16; B.S. Spaeth (1996)
23, fig. 9; G. Spinola (1999) 128, no. 124; here,
11, n. 63, 61-62, fig. 72a-b.
Although the locks over the forehead have been
refashioned as Augustus’s Prima Porta arrange-
ment, most of the coiffure has been retained from
the original type 3 portrait of Nero, especially
evident in the crucial area over the right temple
where the original Neronian locks reverse direc-
tion . P. Liverani has suggested, instead, that the
portrait is recarved from a type 3 portrait of
Domitian, based on the spiraling arrangement of
locks on the back of the head and the stepped
arrangement on the top of the head ([1990-91]
165). These are also features of Nero’s third and
fourth types, and the long locks of the Vatican
portrait are nearly identical in arrangement to the
Nero’s type 3 portrait on the Palatine, as well as
modern reflections of this type in Florence and
Modena. The recarving of the facial features has
also resulted in physiognomical asymmetricali-
ties::the right eye is wider and bulges out slight-
ly farther than the left and the mouth is also
somewhat longer on the right side.
2.11. Rome, Palazzo Colonna, fid. no. 54
h. 0.345 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
(purchased in 1781 from the sculptor V.
Pacetti)
publications: F. Carinci, H. Keutner, L.
Musso, M.G. Picozzi, eds. (1990) 247-50, with
figs. (With earler literature); D. Boschung
(1993a) 80-81, 84, 178, no. 168, pl. 142.1 (with
earlier literature); here, 61, fig. 70.
The head has been mounted on an ancient to-
gate statue to which it does not belong. Most of
the back of the left side of the head, beginning
in front of the ear is a modern restoration. The
principal transformation has been centered on the
hair over the forehead which now replicates
Augustus’s Prima Portra arrangement. Nero’s
type 2 locks are still visible above the right ear
240 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
and on the nape of the neck. The physiognomy
has been largely left intact from the original
Neronian likeness.
2.12. St. Germain-en-laye, Musée des An-
tiquités Nationales, inv. 63734
h. 0.35 m.
marble head
provenance: Marseilles
publications: D. Boschung (1993a) 81, 184, no.
179, pl. 142.2-4 (with earlier literature); here,
61.
Originally a type 2 likeness of Nero, the portrait
has been altered into a replica of Augustus’s
Prima Porta type. The hair over the forehead has
been rearranged, and Nero’s central part re-
placed with the typical Prima Porta configura-
tion. The sideburns, as well as the longer Nero-
nian hair on the nape of the neck have all been
shortened.
Nero/Claudius
2.13. Balitimore, Walters Art Museum,
inv. 23.118
h. 0.36 m.
marble head
provenance: precise provenance unknown
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)346, no. 9, figs. 21a-d (recarved to Ves-
pasian[?]) (with earlier literature); J. Pollini
(1984) 552, n. 45; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 210-
11, no. 3.84; here, 63.
This head is broken at the neck and has been
attached to a modern bust. Much of the coiffure
has been substantially recut into a conflation of
Claudius’s main type hairstyle with part over the
inner corner of the left eye, and a subsidiary
hairstyle which arches slightly over the forehead.
The locks directly behind the left ear which are
combed forward are remnants of Nero’s type
three and four coiffures. The shape of the brows
has not been altered from the original likeness.
However, the eyes have been recut in order to
make them larger. The left eye is now smaller
than the right. The mouth itself has been short-
ened and the lips recarved. The shape of the chin
and jaw line have been reduced in volume, with
the result that the chin now recedes from the
frontal plane of the face. Nero’s fleshy underchin
is clearly visible beneath the recarved chin and
jaw.
Nero/Galba
2.14. Paris, Bibliothèque National, Ca-
binet des Médailles 251
8.8 x 6.6 cm.
sardonyx cameo
provenance: precise provenance unknown
publications: W.R. Megow (1987) 216-18, no.
A 106, pl. 36.3 (with earlier literature); H. Born
and K. Stemmer (1996) 97, 100, fig. 55; E.
Borea and C. Gasparri, eds. (2000) 556, no.
32, with fig.; here, 63, 106-107, fig. 74.
The portrait has been endowed with realistic
signs of ageing such as furrows in the forehead
and strong naso-labial lines appropriate for rep-
resentations of Galba. Nevertheless, the full wavy
coiffure has been largely retained from the pre-
existing type 3 representation of Nero. The nose
has been recut at the bridge, causing it to be
hooked, a characteristic feature of Galba’s numis-
matic portraiture. The neck has also been re-
touched in order to add Galba’s characteristic
adam’s apple. The neck and aegis are too broad
for the current proportions of the head. In ad-
dition, sections of the face, from the forehead
down, where the physiognomy has been recut,
are in lower relief and give the cameo an unusu-
ally modulated surface.
Nero/Vespasian
2.15. Baltimore, Walters Art Museum,
inv. 23.119
h. 0.66 m.
marble (Thasian?) head worked for insertion
provenance: Pergamum, formerly in the col-
 nero
lection of J.P. Lambros, Athens, and G. Dat-
tari, Cairo; purchased by the Walters in 1912
publications: J. Inan and E. Alföldi-Rosen-
baum (1979) 89, no. 37 pl. 31; C.C. Vermeule
1981) 300, no. 256, with fig. (with earlier lit-
erature); P. Zanker (1983) 23-24, 47-48, pl. 30;
J. Pollini (1984) 547, 552-55, pl. 73.10-12; D.
Kreikenbom (1992) 211, no. 3.85, here, 53.
The portrait has been recut from a replica of
Nero’s second portrait type into Vespasian’s more
youthful secondary type. Nero’s coiffure has been
chiseled away on the top and back of the head
and no new locks have been carved in this are.
The right sideburn is essentially that of the orig-
inal portrait of Nero, although slightly reduced
in length. The left sideburn has been more sub-
stantially reduced in size, but the arrangement
of locks remains from the Neronian original. The
roughened surface of marble beneath the current
hairline on the back of the neck indicates that the
hair has been shortened in this area. The locks
on the nape of the neck are combed forward as
they are in Nero’s second portrait type, although
they, too, have been somewhat shortened. Raised
surfaces in the marble behind the ears suggest
that the original coiffure extended nearly to the
back of the ears. The shapes of the eyes and the
mouth, with its receding lower lip, are remnants
of the earlier image of Nero. The suggestion of
a fleshy underchin and ears which stand out from
the head are also characteristic of portraits of
Nero’s second type.
2.16. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 98.768
h. 0.115 cm.
chalcedony bust
provenance:
publications: J. Hermann in Art of the Ancient
Mediterranean (Boston-Nagoya 1999) 39, 235,
illustrations p. 152; here, 55.
A highly unusual example of a reworked minia-
ture glyptic portrait, the Boston chalcedony still
retains traces of the longer Neronian coiffure.
241
2.17. Cleveland, Art Museum, inv.
29.439a
h. 0.41 m.
marble head worked for insertion into a togate
statue
provenance: purchased from the Joseph Brum-
mer Gallery, New York in 1929, perhaps from
a lot purchased by the Brummer Gallery from
the Pier Tozzi Gallery in Florence on Sept. 17
1928
publications: R. Howard (1958) 139-41, ills.;
Art News (Oct. 19) 1, 13, ill.; M. Bieber (1944)
72-73, fig. 11; Handbook of the Cleveland Muse-
um of Art (Cleveland 1958) no. 40; M. Wegn-
er, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 73;
P. Zanker (1982) 308, fig. 201; J. Pollini (1984)
547-52, 555, pl. 72.1-5; E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 136, no. 27, with figs.; here, 53, fig. 49a-
c.
The head is worked for insertion into a togate
statue or bust and has been refashioned from an
image of Nero’s fourth portrait type into Vespa-
sian’s more idealized secondary type. A sharply
delineated line is visible at the back of the head
where the hair has been cut back. The arrange-
ment of locks behind and over the ears and the
sideburns have not been changed and are char-
acteristic of Nero’s fourth type. The small, fleshy
eyes have not been substantially recut from the
original likeness. The receding lower lip also
remains from Nero’s portrait. The top of the head
has been roughened and the remains of two iron
dowels are still extant. Apparently the top of the
head was completed in stucco, perhaps in an
effort to give the cranium more of a domed
shape, which Vespasian’s portraits generally
exhibit. The portrait is very classicizing in appear-
ance. The longer locks which have been retained
from Nero’s likeness and the row of comma
shaped locks across the forehead make this like-
ness exceedingly evocative of Julio-Claudian
portraiture.
242 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
2.18. Copenhagen, National Museum inv.
3425
h. 0.39 m.
marble head worked for insertion into togate
statue (or bust)
provenance: unknown
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 75 (with earlier literature);
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)337-41, no.
4, fig. 16a-d; here, 53-54.
Although refashioned as a secondary type por-
trait of Vespasian, traces of a lightly incised beard
which has not been entirely removed are still
visible beneath both sideburns. The beard re-
mains from the original type 3 Neronain likeness
and is a feature of the only surviving replica of
Nero’s third portrait type in the Museo Palati-
no. Like the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek portrait (inv.
1979, cat. 2.19), the contour line of the brows has
been retained from Nero’s likeness. The oval
shape of the face, the receding lower lip and the
slight underchin are also vestiges of the original
portrait of Nero. The ears of the portrait are
damaged, but they originally stood out from the
head, another clear feature of Nero’s portraiture.
2.19. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp-
totek 463, inv. 1979
h. 0.41 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: purchased in Rome (Alberici
1903).
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)341-43, fig. 18a-b (with earlier litera-
ture); F. Johansen (1995a) 26, no. 2, (with figs.
n), here, 53, fig. 47a-d.
Refashioned into a secondary type Vespasian, the
shape of the eyes and brows have been retained
from the original type 2 likeness of Nero. The
hair on the top and back of the head has been
entirely worked away with a flat chisel, but rough-
ened surfaces in these areas attest to the origi-
nal extent of the Neronian coiffure. The artist
responsible for the recarving has also attempted
to make the chin more prominent and the jaw
line more emphatic by reducing the shape of the
chin and carving in the marble between the lower
lip and chin. As a result, the chin recedes dras-
tically from the frontal plane of the face and the
neck is too thick for the reduced size of the head.
Interestingly, the corona is too small even for the
reduced proportions of the reconfigured face,
suggesting that it must have been carved from the
preexisting mass of Nero’s hair, and thus not a
feature of the original portrait (M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker [1981] 343).
2.20. Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e
d’Arte della Maremma
h. 0.42 m.
marble head worked for insertion into a togate
body
provenance: Rusellae, “Basilica” of the Bassi,
Portico, (1977).
publications: P. B. Pacini (1978) 41-43; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)332, n. 8;
here, 53-54, 244.
The head is slightly over life sized and has been
refashioned into Vespasian’s secondary type. The
longer hair on the nape of the neck of the orig-
inal type 4 portrait of Nero has been cut back,
resulting in a sloping hairline on the back of the
neck. The general orientation and pattern of
Nero’s locks appear to have been essentially re-
tained behind the left ear, at the occiput, and on
the nape of the neck. Nero’s fleshy underchin is
clearly visible in both profile views. Like the
Chiaramonti portrait (cat. 2.25), indications of
age have been added to the Rusellae head includ-
ing two strong horizontal furrows on the fore-
head, a vertical furrow above the nose, strong
naso-labial lines and wrinkles on the neck. The
squarish shape of the tenon suggests that it may
have originally been intended for a cuirassed
statue body, although it is too small to have
belonged with the large Neronian cuirass from
the cycle of Julio Claudian portraits at the Col-
legium of the Augustales.
 nero
2.21. London, British Museum, inv. 1890
h. unavailable
marble head worked for insertion into a cui-
rassed statue
provenance: Carthage, 1835-6
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 10-12, 76, pl. 2 (with earli-
er literature); A. Claridge and J.B. Ward-Per-
kins (1976) no. 4; M. Bergmann and P. Zank-
er (1981) 334, 344, no. 8 fig. 20; J. Pollini
(1984) 551; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 172, fig. 138;
here, 53, fig. 50a-b.
The tenon is square indicating that the head has
presumably been worked for insertion into a
cuirassed statue (or bust form). The head has
been recarved into Vespasian’s secondary type.
The Neronian coiffure at the top and back of the
head has been removed and the surfaces left
rough, with pick marks clearly visible. Howev-
er, the longer curving locks of Nero’s third por-
trait type are still clearly visible over the temples.
The receding lower lip, large ears which stand
out from the head, and the treatment of eyes and
brows have also been retained from the original
portrait. The remains of Nero’s fleshy underchin
continue to be visible in profile. The recarving
has caused the neck to be very wide on the left
side. Indications of aging have not been over-
emphasized in this portrait.
2.22. Lucus Feroniae Magazzini (formerly
Rome, Museo Nazionale di Villa Giulia)
h. unavailable
provenance: Lucus Feroniae, temple near the
Forum
marble head worked for insertion into a togate
statue
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 11, 80, pl. 7a (with earlier
literature); A. Moretti and G. Bordenache
Battaglia (1975) 109, pl. 27; B. Andreae (1977)
fig. 363; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)318-9, n. 2, 334; V. Paladini (1981) pl.
4.13; J. Pollini (1984) 550-51, ns. 29, 31;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 33, no. 27, n. 6; F. Johan-
sen (1995a) 9 fig. 6; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)
243
12; here, 10, n. 58, 52-53, fig. 46a-d.
Although refashioned as a replica of Vespasian’s
secondary type, the head, contains strong phys-
iognomical elements of Nero’s fourth portrait
type, especially in the handling of the brows and
eyes. In addition it has retained the more youthful
and classicizing features of the original, making
it Vespasian’s most idealized surviving marble
portrait.
2.23. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
delle Terme, inv. 38795
h. 0.31 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Castel Porziano
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 410-412, no. 49, fig. 66a-d; A. Amadio
in MusNazRom I.9.1 192-93, no. R 145 (with
earlier literature); M. Anderson and L. Nista
(1988) 52, no. 8 (L. Nista); E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 12, here, 10, n. 59, 54, fig. 52a-d.
The head is slightly under lifesized and was dis-
covered with other marble fragments and build-
ing material. It is the most realistic of Vespasian’s
main type portraits. Nevertheless, Nero’s longer
type 2 hair is still visible on the right side of the
neck and the original hair on the top of the head
has only been cursorily smoothed over with a
chisel. Evidently the reworking was never com-
pleted in this area, perhaps because it is not
readily visible when the portrait is viewed fron-
tally and from below.
2.24. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano.
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53
h. 0.35 m.
marble head
provenance: Tiber
publications: M Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 335-37, no. 2, fig. 14; A. Amadio in
MusNazRom I.9.1, 184-87, no. R 142 (with
earlier literature); E. Calandro in A. La Regi-
na ed. (1998) 90 (with fig.); A. La Regina, ed.
(2001); here, 54, fig. 53a-e.
244 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
The head has been broken from a statue or bust
and was discovered in the Tiber. The surface of
the portrait is badly corroded as a result of its long
immersion in the Tiber, but signs of recarving are
still visible. The portrait has been reconfigured
into Vespasian’s main type. Close examination
of the left side of the head reveals traces of the
hair and sideburns of Nero’s third portrait type.
Behind the right ear, chisel marks from the re-
working have not been smoothed away. The
lower lip of the recarved portrait recedes, as it
would have done it the original portrait of Nero.
Although the rims of the ears have been knocked
off, their position indicates that the ears were
originally prominent, another hallmark of Nero’s
portraiture. As a result of the recutting, the chin
retreats from the frontal plane of the face and,
in profile, the forehead slopes back at an unnat-
uralistic angle. In an attempt to add the charac-
teristic signs of aging of Vespasian’s main portrait
type, the eyes have been extensively recarved,
causing them to be set well back into the head.
The right eye is much rounder than the left and
has a much fuller pad of flesh beneath it. The
top left corner of the right eye has also been
carved very deeply into the head, giving the
whole eye and socket an awkward cast.
2.25. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria
Chiaramonti 7.9, inv. 1291
h. 0.39 m
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 337, no. 3, figs. 15a-d; A. Amadio in
MusNazRom I.9.1, 186; P. Liverani (1989b) 24
(with earlier literature); here, 53-54, 242, fig.
51a-e.
Originally a type 4 portrait of Nero, whose coif-
fure is still clearly visible behind the ears, the
portrait has been reconfigured into a version of
Vespasian’s secondary type. Nevertheless, several
rather emphatic signs of ageing have been add-
ed to the portrait, making it more veristic than
many of Vespasian’s secondary type portraits.
The portrait’s insistence on verism finds paral-
lels in the reconfigured portrait in Grosseto (cat.
2.20).
2.26. Rome, (formerly) Villa Borghese
(currently Palazzo dei Conservatori)
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance
publications: EA nos. 285-37; M Bieber (1944)
73; J. Pollini (1984) 552, n. 43; here, 53, fig.
48.
The head, recycled into a replica of Vespasian’s
second type, has been inserted into a togate statue
from Gabii to which it does not belong and which
likely dates to c. 161-80. J. Pollini was the first
to raise the possibility that the head had been
recarved from a portrait of Nero. Traces of
Nero’s type 3 hairstyle are clearly visible above
the both ears. The sideburns have been slightly
reduced in length, but are still relatively long. The
hair on the nape of the neck has also been short-
ened, but the beginnings of Nero’s characteris-
tic swallowtail part are preserved. The receding
lower lip and prominent ears are remnants of the
original portrait of Nero. The small eyes have also
been retained from Nero’s type 3 portrait. The
brows have been recut, causing them to be asym-
metrical. The overall volumetric reduction of the
head has caused the chin to recede from the
frontal plane of the face, and the neck to be
proportionately too wide and long in compari-
son to the head itself.
2.27. Seville Museo Arquelógico, inv.7.906
h. 0.408 m.
marble head worked for insertion into togate
statue or bust
provenance: Écija (1972)
publications: C. Fernández-Chicarro y de Dios
(1973) 174-80, pls. 24-26; M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker (1981)335, no. 1, fig. 13a-c; J. Pol-
lini (1984) 551; J. Arce, S. Ensoli, and. E. La
Rocca, eds. (1997) 401, no. 199, with fig.; here,
53, 60.
The image has been refashioned into Vespasian’s
 nero
secondary type, but the hair over the forehead,
at the back of the head, the treatment of the
brows and the profile all point to the portrait’s
origins as a replica Nero’s second portrait type.
Nero’s arrangement of locks has been worked
away with a chisel on the left side of the head
behind the ear and at the back of the head, as
well as above the hairline at the back of the neck.
As in Nero’s portraits, the lower lip recedes.
Because of the recutting, the chin retreats from
the frontal plane of the face. Although the naso-
labial lines are fairly emphatic, the furrows on the
forehead are not emphasized and the resulting
portrait is fairly youthful.
2.28. Seville, Museo Arquelógico, inv.
1060
h. 0.62 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Italica
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 212, no.
3.89, pl. 18a-b (with earlier literature); here,
53, 60.
In its current incarnation, the portrait is a ver-
sion of Vespasian’s secondary type. Nero’s coif-
fure has been entirely worked away over the
forehead and at the temples, but the altered like-
ness retains the broad shape of the upper head
characteristic of Nero’s images. The smooth fore-
head has been retained from the Neronian por-
trait as has the general configuration of the eyes.
Schematic naso-labial lines and furrows around
the mouth have been added as indications of
aging. The precise arrangement of Nero’s long-
er locks from his type 3 and 4 images have been
worked away with a flat chisel at the back of the
head and nape of the neck but their volume and
general shape his not been altered. If carved in
the original Neronian portrait, the occiput has
also been entirely removed.
2.29. Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025
h. 0.46 m.
marble head worked for insertion into togate
statue
provenance: Temple of Apollo, Bulla Regia.
245
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 14-15, 83, pl. 6d (with pre-
vious literature); A. Beschaouch, R. Hanoune,
Y. Thébert, (1977) 131-32, fig. 131; M. Berg-
mann and P. Zanker (1981)343, no. 7 fig. 19;
V. Paladini (1981) pl. 4.14; here, 54, fig. 54.
The portrait has been refashioned from a type
2 representation of Nero into a version of Ves-
pasian’s main, more realistic type. Although the
eyes have been recarved and the right eye is now
smaller than the left, the brows over the eyes have
been maintained from the original Neronian
image.
2.30. Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 14, 83, pl. 7c-d; M. Berg-
mann and P. Zanker (1981)334, 341, no. 5,
figs. 17a-c; here, 54, fig. 55a-b.
The portrait has been attached to a modern bust
and is reworked from a replica of Nero’s second
portrait type. The locks over the right temple
remain from Nero’s portrait, as do the shape of
the eyebrows and the fleshy underchin. The hair
on the top and back of the head has been rough-
ened with a chisel, but new locks have not been
carved in this area. Remnants of iron dowels
behind the ears may indicate that these areas of
the hair were completed in stucco.
2.31. Verria Museum, inv. 373,
h. 0.50 m.
marble head with laurel crown
provenance: Verria?
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 210, no.
3.83 (with earlier literature); here, 54-55.
The portrait is an example of Vespasian’s main
type, but the longer locks at the back of the head
are clearly remnants of Nero’s third or fourth
type. In addition, his fleshy underchin is still
246 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
visible. The removal of marble from the area of
the face with no corresponding reduction to the
volumes at the back of the head, has caused the
profile to appear disproportionately wide. In
addition, the corona is too large for the reduced
proportions of the face. D. Kreikenbom has sug-
gested that the image has been reworked twice:
initially into a representation of Vitellius and later
to Vespasian ([1992] 210.). This seems unlikely,
however, since Nero’s memory was rehabilitat-
ed under Vitellius and the damnatio revoked or
in abeyance.
Nero/Titus
2.32. Alexandria, inv. 26958
h. 0.30 m.
marble head
provenance: Egypt
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 85; M. Bergmann and P.
Zanker (1981) 376, no. 26; H. Jucker (1981b)
702-4, fig. 29a-b; here, 56, 64.
The reconfiguration of this portrait has rendered
it a type 1 likeness of Titus. However, the Nero-
nian type 4 pattern of locks, which are combed
directly forward from the back of the head is
clearly visible behind the right ear. The recarv-
ing of the hair over the forehead has caused the
forehead to be unusually high, as in the Louvre
portrait (cat. 2.38). As with the recut Louvre por-
trait, M. Bergmann and P. Zanker ([1981] 376)
again relate the original portrait to Nero’s sec-
ond type. Nevertheless, the thick modeling of the
locks and their arrangement are far closer to
Nero’s fourth type.
2.33. Castel Howard, (Forschungsarchiv
für römische Plastik Köln, neg. no. 1025/
05, 1025/06, 918/10)
h. unknown
marble head
provenance: Italy (Rome?)
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 375, n. 27; Fittschen-Zanker I, 34, no.
28, n. 4. Beil. 17c-d (with earlier literature);
here, 56.
Nero’s type 2 hairstyle is clearly visible behind
the right ear despite the reconfiguration into a
type 2 image of Titus. The hair on the nape of
the neck is also fairly long, as in Nero’s second
portrait type. The brows have been recut in order
to give them Titus’s arching contour. Although
the mouth has been reduced in length, Nero’s
thin upper lip and full, receding lower lip have
not been substantially altered.
2.34. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyp-
totek 664a, inv. 1843
h. 0.44 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Italy
publications: F. Johansen (1995a) 32, no. 5,
with figs. (with earlier literature); here, 56, fig.
56a-d.
Despite its refashioning as a type 1 replica of
Titus, traces of longer locks behind the ears and
on the nape of the neck, as well as the fleshy
handling of the facial features and small eyes all
betray the head’s origins as a type 3 portrait of
Nero. In addition the configuration of the locks
over the forehead and the right temple, with its
reversed orientation, have been substantially
maintained from Nero’s third portrait type.
Rather deep horizontal furrows have also been
added to the forehead as part of the restructur-
ing process.
2.35. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi Inv.
1914.126
h. 0.30 (head and neck)
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs (ex
Ludovisi Collection, 1669)
publications: G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 73-4, no.
71, fig. 70 (with earlier literature); M. Wegn-
er, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966) 86;
K. Fittschen (1977) 64, no. 3; M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker (1981)376-78, no. 27, fig. 46a-
 nero
b; B. Palma, MusNazRom 1.6, 104-5, fig; here,
56, fig. 57.
The head has been recut into a variant of Titus’s
second (Erbach) type. Nevertheless, the hairline
at the back of the neck is sharply and abruptly
defined where Nero’s longer locks from type 3
or 4 have been shortened.. The shape of the
brows has been retained, although the eyes them-
selves have been recarved, causing the right eye
to be significantly smaller than the left. The full
underchin remains from the original portrait, but
the chin and jawline have been recut. The cur-
rent position of the chin recedes substantially
from the frontal plane of the face.
2.36. Hannover, Sammlung des Herzogs
von Braunschweig
h. 0.255 m.
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 100 (with previous litera-
ture); K. Fittschen in Die Skulpturen der Sammlung
Wallmoden (Göttingen 1979) no. 29, fig.; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 375-76, no.
25, fig. 45a-d; here, 56.
Originally a type 2 portrait of Nero, the portrait
has been reconfigured as a type 1 Titus. Long S
shaped locks and the central part in the hairline
on the nape of the neck are plainly Neronian
features. The longer hair on the right side of the
head also remains from the original portrait. The
brows have been slightly recarved to arch upward
at the outer corner, but the almond shaped eyes
with crisply delineated upper and lower lids have
not been recut. The original mouth and fleshy
underchin have also been retained.
2.37. Olympia Museum, no. A 126
h. 2.08 m.
marble (Pentellic) cuirassed statue
provenance: Olympia, Metroon
publications: K. Stemmer (1978) 33-4, no. III
5, pl. 18.1 (with earlier literature); R. Bol
(1986) 294, fig. 13; K. Hitzl (1991) 32, 46-49,
247
no. 4, 59, 67, 75, 85, 93, pls. 20-25 (with earlier
literature); G. Koch (1995) 323-26, pl. 74.2;
C.B. Rose (1997) 147, no. 80; here, 56, 57, 72.
Currently a conflation of Titus’s two portrait
types, the image retains elements of the original
type 3 Neronian hairstyle. The mass of the hair
behind the crown of the head and at the occiput
is also too large in proportion to the face and the
volume of hair over the forehead. A section of
the longer Neronian locks is also evident at the
center left of the forehead.
2.38. Paris, Musée du Louvre MA 3562
h. 0.432 m.
marble head worked for insertion.
provenance: Italy?
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 91; M. Bergmann and P.
Zanker (1981)375, no. 24, fig. 44a-c; K. de
Kersauson (1996) 36-7, no. 8, with figs; here,
56, 246.
The head has been recarved into a version of
Titus’s first portrait type. Nero’s type 4 coiffure,
with long locks combed forward, has not been
recarved on the left side of the head or behind
the right ear and the locks in these areas find their
closest parallels in Nero’s Munich portrait. The
locks over the forehead and at the temples have
been radically recut and as a result, the forehead
is much higher than in standard portraits of Titus.
The configuration of the brows, which curve
down at the outer corners, has also been retained
from the Neronian likeness. The general shape
of the mouth, with receding lower lip has not
been altered. M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)
prefer to see the Louvre head as a reworking of
a replica of Nero’s second type. However, the
hair and profile of the lower face are much clos-
er to Nero’s fourth portrait type.
2.39. Rome, Villa Borghese, Sala del Er-
mafrodito 171, inv. 748
h. 0.66 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
248 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
publications: J.J. Bernoulli (1894) 55, no. 4
(Domitian); R. Calza (1957) 14, no. 133-34; M.
Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann (1966)
24, 95, pl. 17c-d; M. Bergmann and P. Zank-
er (1981)375, n. 27; P. Moreno and C. Stefani,
eds. (2000) 144, no. 4, with fig, here, 56.
The head is currently displayed on a cuirassed
bust to which it does not belong and has been
recarved into Titus’s second (Erbach) type. Trac-
es of the coiffure and youthful facial features of
Nero’s second type are still discernible. The locks
over the forehead and the forehead itself, have
been recut, with the result that there is a notice-
able bulge over the bridge of the nose. The chin
and lower section of the face have also been
reduced in size, causing the chin recedes from the
frontal plane of the face. The hair at the back
of the head has shortened along the nape of the
neck.
2.40. Trieste Civico Museo di Storia e
Arte, inv. 3139
h. 0.48 m.
marble head worked for insertion with corona
(laurel)
provenance: Trieste, Roman Theater
publications: G. Daltrop, U. Hausmann and
M. Wegner (1966) 98, pl. 19.c-d; M. Denti
(1991) 44-49, no. 8, pl. 9.1-4 (with earlier lit-
erature); here, 56, 57, fig. 58.
Vestiges of Nero’s original type 3 coiffure brushed
forward behind the ears are still clearly visible.
The reduction of volume to the facial features
resulting from the reconfiguration as a type 2
(Erbach) image of Titus, has caused the laurel
crown to be disproportionately large and the neck
to appear overly wide at its base.
Nero/Domitian
2.41. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 88.639
h. 0.35 m.
marble head worked for insertion into a togate
statue
provenance: Tusculum, “Villa of Domitian”
publications: M. Comstock and C.C. Ver-
meule (1976) 217, no. 345, with figs. (with
earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)356-59, no. 17, fig. 30a-b; A. Amadio
in MusNazRom 1.9.1, 196; J.J. Herrrmann, jr.
(1991) 45; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 140, no. 28,
with figs.; here, 59, 126, fig. 64a-c.
Refashioned as a type 1 portrait of Domitian, the
arrangement of the locks over both the ears and
on the sides of the head still closely follows the
coiffure of Nero’s fourth type as seen in all three
sculpted replicas (Munich, Oslo, and Worcester).
The hair on the nape of the neck has been cut
back. The fleshy eyes, with small upper lids and
heavy lower lids remain from the original por-
trait of Nero as well. The prominent ears are also
a feature of Nero’s portraiture. The heavy un-
derchin of Nero’s portrait has been reduced in
size, making the chin somewhat overly long in
profile.
2.42. Cologne, Römisch-Germanisches
Museum
h. 0.44 m.
marble head
provenance: Cologne
publications: D. Kreikenbom (1992) 216-7, no.
3.98 (with earlier literature), here, 59, 60, 126.
The hair over the forehead has been reworked
into a subdued version of Domitian’s type I ar-
rangement with central part. Domitian’s fuller
curls have not been added and the image essen-
tially retains the less volumetric comma shaped
locks of Nero’s portraits. Remnants of Nero’s type
3 coiffure are still plainly visible over the right
temple where the locks curve towards the back
of the head. The arrangement of the hair at the
back of the head, as well as the long locks swept
forward on the nape of the neck are also rem-
nants of Nero’s third portrait type.
 nero
2.43. Madrid, Madrid, Museo Arqueológi-
co, inv. 2770
h. 0.16 m.
marble head
provenance: Almedinilla
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 28, 39, 88, 102, pl. 19b (Ti-
tus) (with earlier literature); M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker (1981)369-70, no. 20; here, 60, 126.
Refashioned as a type 3 likeness of Domitian, the
head has been cut or broken from a statue or
bust. The length of the locks over the forehead
and temple have been reworked, but their ar-
rangement is consistent with Nero’s type 3 coif-
fure. The small, fleshy eyes appear to be a local,
schematized rendition of a standard element of
Nero’s iconography. The shape of the mouth,
chin, and underchin directly recall his type 3
replica now in the Museo Palatino. The recut-
ting of the hair has also caused the face to be
drastically out of proportion with the back of the
head, especially in the right profile.
2.44. Madrid, Prado, inv. 321 E
h. 0.27 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: S. Schröder (1993) 158, no. 38-
40, with figs. (with previous literature); here,
59, 126.
The portrait probably formed part of a series of
busts of the twelve Caesars assembled in Rome
in 1562 by Cardinal Ricci da Montepulciano for
Phillip II (S. Schröder [1993] 6). The portrait has
been refashioned as a type 1 image of Domitian,
but traces of Nero’s type II coiffure have been
retained on the nape of the neck and around the
ears. Nero’s receding underlip is also still in ev-
idence.
2.45. Minden, Domschatz,
7.1 x 6.4 cm
sardonyx cameo
provenance: Rome (?)
publications: W.R. Megow (1987) 97, n. 294,
249
101, 107-8, 123, 218-220, no. A107, pl. 36.4
(with earlier literature). K. Jeppesen (1993)
166-7, fig. 4; here, 60-61, 132, fig. 69.
The coiffure and facial features have been exten-
sively recarved, causing a reduction in the over-
all proportions of the head. Consequently, both
the neck, corona and mass of the hair are far too
large for the current size of the face. Nero’s longer
locks have been cut back over the forehead, in
front of the ears and on the nape of the neck, but
traces of Nero’s original type 2 coiffure are still
clearly visible in these areas. The locks on top
of the head have also been reworked into Domi-
tian’s waved arrangement. Nero’s aquiline nose
has been made hooked by recutting the sardonyx
in the area of the bridge of the nose.
2.46. Munich, Glyptothek, 394 (formerly 249)
h. 2.25 m. (with plinth), h. 0.30 m (chin to top
of skull)
provenance: Labicum, Roman Villa (1758)
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 32, 41, 102, pl. 23a, 25c, d
(with previous literature); M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker (1981)370-73, no. 22, pl. 41a-d; A.
Amadio in MusNazRom 1.9.1, 196; C. Mader-
na (1988) 180, 192, 211, 232, 240, 242; D..E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 176, fig. 144; F. Johansen
(1995a) 11, fig. 8; here, 58-59, 67, 125-126,
131, fig. 62a-b.
Extensive restorations to the statue were carried
out by Bartolomeo Cavaceppi in the eighteenth
century. Although the head has been broken from
the body and reattached, the piece was originally
carved from a single block of marble and the
portrait certainly belongs to the body. The hair
has been almost entirely recarved into Domitian’s
type 1 arrangement, but traces of Nero’s type 3
coiffure are still evident. The locks on the right
side of the nape of the neck have been shortened,
but their arrangement corresponds closely to
Nero’s type 3 portrait in the Museo Palatino. The
curls over and in front of the right ear also find
parallels in the Palatine portrait. The hair on the
crown of the head has been worked over with a
250 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
flat chisel and the final surfaces left unfinished.
This area would have been largely masked by the
addition of a corona or diadem, for which dowel
holes exist throughout the coiffure. The eyes, with
their thin upper lids and heavier lower lids, as
well as the shape of the brows, have been retained
from the original portrait of Nero. Nero’s full
cheeks do not appear to have been reduced and
his mouth has not been substantially recut. How-
ever, the original heavy jawline has been nar-
rowed. Nero’s fleshy underchin is still visible in
profile. The unaltered neck is too thick in pro-
portion to the reduced volumes of the head.
2.47. Munich, Glyptothek, 418
h. 0.37 m.
marble head
provenance:
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)352-54, no. 14, figs. 271-d (with earlier
literature); A. Amadio in MusNazRom 1.9.1,
196; here, 59, 126.
The hair on the top and back of the head has
been worked away with the chisel as part of the
reconfiguration into Domitian type 1, but enough
remains on the nape of the neck and over the
temples to identify Nero’s type 4 coiffure. The
sideburns also appear to have been cut back. The
small fleshy eyes and conformation of the brows
have been retained from Nero’s portrait. How-
ever, the recarving of the cheeks, mouth, and chin
has reduced the volume of the face, causing the
neck to be unnaturally thick. Nevertheless, like
the Terme portrait (cat. 2.52), the recarving of
the Munich head has resulted in a subtle and
convincing likeness of Domitian’s first portrait
type.
2.48. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-
gico, inv. 5907
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance:
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)366, no. 19, fig. 37a-c; here, 60, 126.
A rare type 2 portrait of Domitian, the head has
been reconfigured from a pre-existing type 2
portrait of Nero. The locks on the right side of
the nape of the neck have been shortened but the
extent of their original mass is still apparent. The
brows have been recarved and are now rather
high and arching, but Nero’s straighter browline
can still be seen above the left eye. The eyes have
been reworked, making the left wider and long-
er than the right. The lower half of the face has
been reduced in volume with the result that the
neck is too wide.
2.49. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-
gico, inv. 6061
h. 0.72 (with bust)
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Rome or environs (ex Farnese
Collection)
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 36-7, 103, pl. 32a-b (with
earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)369-70, no. 21, fig. 40; H. Jucker (1981a)
297; MusNazNap 1.2, 158, no. 33, with fig.;
here, 60, 126, fig. 66a-b.
In transforming the image into a type 3 portrait
of Domitian, the original coiffure has been re-
moved with a punch/point at the top and left side
of the occiput. Most of the hair has been re-
carved, but traces of Nero’s third style coiffure
are still visible above and in front of the right ear.
The locks at the back of the neck have been
shortened; roughened areas beneath the current
hairline are indications of the length of the orig-
inal hairstyle. Traces of Nero’s longer sideburns
can also be discerned in front of both ears. The
forehead has been substantially cut back. A dra-
matic bulge over the bridge of the nose marks
the extent of the preexisting portrait in this area.
The brows have also been recarved and made to
curve downward at the outer corners. However,
the line of Nero’s straighter brows is still visible
to either side of the bridge of the nose. The eyes
have been recut in an effort to make them less
fleshy. The eyes are remarkably asymmetrical,
with the right eye considerably smaller and low-
 nero
er than the left. The general configuration of the
mouth remains from Nero’s type 3 portrait al-
though it has been slightly reduced in length. As
a result, the mouth is somewhat longer on the
right side. Nero’s fleshy underchin has not been
removed.
2.50. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Anti-
chità, inv. 146 (1870), 827 (1954)
h. 2.04 m. (statue),h. 0.365 m. (head)
marble cuirassed statue
provenance: Velleia, Julio Claudian Basilica (3-
17 June 1761)
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 91, 104-5, 111; H. Niem-
eyer (1968) 95, no. 46; C. Saletti (1968) 52-
57, no. 12, pls. 39-42 (with earlier literature);
K.P. Goethert (1972) 244-45; H. Jucker (1977)
212; K. Stemmer (1978) 8-10, no I 4, pl. 1.4;
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)394-98, no.
36, fig. 57a-d; S. Adamo Musecettola in Do-
miziano/Nerva (1987) 49, fig. 56; C.B. Rose
(1997) 121-6, cat. 50, pls. 152-3; here, 9, 58,
80, fig. 61a-c, and cat. 5.13.
This statue is the only cuirassed image from the
Basilica and it was discovered in the open cen-
tral section, rather than in the surrounding col-
onnades or rooms, where most of the other stat-
ues were found. All of this may indicate that the
original Neronian image was not part of the
group dedication initially and was brought to the
complex after its alteration into an image of
Domitian, or even after its final reworking into
a likeness of Nerva. Remnants of Nero’s type 4
coiffure are clearly visible on the occiput, behind
the ears, and on the nape of the neck. Nero’s
longer locks have clearly been reduced in length
on the nape of the neck, but still follow the pat-
tern of his hairstyle. Although the brows and lids
surrounding the eyes have been extensively re-
cut, resulting in strident asymmetricalities, the
small shape of the eyes has been retained from
the original. The ears which stand out from the
head are typical of Nero’s portraiture as is the
receding underlip. Nero’s fleshy underchin is still
discernible, but the multiple recarvings of the
251
chin and jawline have caused the chin to recede
remarkably from the frontal plane of the face.
Despite the fact that the tenon has been slightly
trimmed, the original portrait of Nero appears
to belong to the cuirass. The recutting of the
tenon was necessitated by the reduction in the
width of the neck. The cutting down of the neck
has caused it to bend unnaturally on the left side.
2.51. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli
Imperatori 14, inv. 427
h. 0.18 (fragment)
marble
provenance: presumably Rome or environs (ex
coll. Giustiniani; ex coll. Albani (B121)
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 35, no. 31,
pls. 32-33 (with earlier literature); J.M. Croisille
(1999) 403, fig. 20; H. Meyer (2000) 136, fig.
254; here, 59, 114.
The likeness is extremely fragmentary and iron-
ically, it was reconstructed in the late sixteenth
or early seventeenth century as a portrait of Nero.
The ancient fragment consists of the hair over
the forehead and the left temple, the forehead
and left temple, the eyes, most of the nose, the
upper lip and the left cheek. Prior to 1631 it was
incorporated into a modern likeness of Nero. In
antiquity, the locks over the forehead and left
temple were reduced and recarved into Domi-
tian’s first coiffure. But the ancient hair at the
front of the top of the head clearly recalls the coma
in gradus formata hair style of Nero’s third and
fourth portrait types. The shape of the brows and
small eyes is also consonant with an identifica-
tion of the initial portrait as a replica of Nero’s
third or fourth type. The ancient fragment pre-
sumably came from Rome or its environs.
2.52. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano.
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 226
h. 0.35 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs (ex
Museo Kircheriano)
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)349-52, no. 12, fig. 25a-d; Fittschen-
252 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
Zanker I, 35; A. Amadio in MusNazRom I.9.1
196, no. R 149, with figs (with earlier litera-
ture); here, 59, 126, 141, n. 48, 212, 250, 264,
fig. 63a-d.
The head has been recut into a replica of Domi-
tian’s first portrait type. The current neck is a
modern restoration in plaster. Much of the coif-
fure has also been restored in plaster, but the hair
on the right side of the head, over the right ear
and on the right temple generally conform to
Nero’s fourth portrait type. The small, deeply set
eyes, the receding lower lip, and the fleshy un-
derchin have also been retained from the origi-
nal likeness of Nero. There is a slight depression
in the marble at the top of the forehead, where
Nero’s longer bangs have been shortened. The
recarving of this portrait has been subtly handled
and the resulting image of Domitian lacks the
asymmetricalities of physiognomy and facial dis-
tortions that are often a product of more radical
reworkings.
2.53. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio
Nuovo, 126 (formerly 129), inv. 2213
h. 2.45 m., statue, h. 0.30 m., head, chin to
skull
marble cuirassed statue
provenance: presumably Rome or environs,
formerly Palazzo Giustiniani; D. de Rossi
(1704) pl. 89; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 33-34; 41, 107, pls. 23b,
28a-b (with previous literature); K.T. Erim
(1973) 140, fig. 14; K. Stemmer (1978) nos.
683, 737; C. Gasparri (1980) 54, n. 34; C.C.
Vermeule (1980b) 4, 78, fig. 39; M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker (1981) 354-56, no. 15, fig. 28a-
d (plaster cast of head); W. Grünhagen (1986)
315; pl. 52a;R. Gergel (1987) 26, fig. 15; W.
Grünhagen (1986) fig. 315, 52a; M. Pfanner
(1989) 219, fig. 35; L. Buccino in G. Fusconi
ed. (2001); 242-44, with fig.; here, 57-58, 70,
n. 206, 72, 125, fig. 59.
The head appears to belong with the body and
they are shown together in the engraving after
F. Perrier from the catalogue of the Galleria
Giustiniani c. 1635, as well as in D. De Rossi’s
illustration of 1704. The head has been refash-
ioned from a conflation of Nero’s second and
third portrait types into a type 1 Domitian. The
locks over the ears and at the nape of the neck
conform to Nero’s type 2 coiffure. The arrange-
ment of the locks on the right side of the nape
of the neck, combed forward, with a downward
curl at the ends, finds compelling parallels in
Nero’s type 2 portraits in the Museo Palatino (ex.
Terme, inv. 616) and the Louvre (no. 3528). The
length of the locks on the back and nape of the
neck has been reduced, as attested by the rough
surface of marble below the hairline. The delin-
eation of the brows, with the broad, calligraphic
curve at the outer corner is also characteristic of
Nero’s type 2 portraits. The small, slightly por-
cine eyes with thin upper lids and heavy lower
lids as found in Nero’s type 3 portraits, have also
not been refashioned. The mouth, with its reced-
ing lower lip has essentially been retained from
Nero’s likeness, although the corners of the
mouth have been retouched. By lightly carving
in the corners, the mouth has been given an
upward cast at the outer edges, a characteristic
feature of Domitian’s portraits. Nero’s rounded
chin has been slightly recut and made more
square. The diminished mass of the recarved
portrait has caused the neck to be somewhat too
wide and long and the head to appear slightly
too small in proportion to the cuirassed body.
The current proportions are approximately 1:7.5.
The more massive, original portrait of Nero
would have been in proportion to the body,
which further supports to the likelihood that the
head and body do, in fact, belong together.
2.54. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gre-
goriano Profano no. 644, inv. 4065,
h. 0.26 m.
marble relief fragment
provenance: presumably Rome or environs.
publications: H. Jucker (1981a) 295-302, figs.
68-70; G. Koeppel (1983) 141-2, fig. 47 (with
earlier literature); here, 60, 62-63, 119, 126,
fig. 68.
 nero
The image, refashioned as a type 3 portrait of
Domitian, preserves holes in the hair over the
forehead for the addition of a radiate crown,
likely a feature of the original portrait of Nero.
Elements of Nero’s type 3 coiffure are still plainly
visible framing the forehead in the recut likeness
as is the coma in gradus format arrangement at the
top of the head. The handling of the eyes and
the fleshy face have also been retained from the
Neronian image. The fragmentary head provides
important evidence for the production relief
sculpture honoring Nero in the capital.
2.55. Rome, Villa Margherita (American
Embassy), wall along the Via Boncompag-
ni
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 208-
9, no. 7.42, with fig. (with earlier literature);
D. Kreikenbom (1992) 217, no. 3.99; here, 60,
126, fig. 67.
Reworked into a type 3 likeness of Domitian, the
head still retains easily recognizable vestiges of
Nero’s own third type coiffure over the right ear.
The breadth of the face as well as the width of
the neck are also remnants of the Neronian image
and are somewhat out of scale with the reduced
proportions of the refashioned hair.
2.56. Seville, Seville, Museo Arqueológi-
co Provincial, inv. 1996/8
h. 0.51 m.
marble head worked for insertion with corona
civica
provenance: Muniqua house 6, well
publications: T. Hauschild (1984) 193; W.
Grünhagen (1986) 309-323, pls. 51-54; M.
Donderer (1991-2) 265, no. 11; W. Trillmich
et al. (1993) 351, pl. 135; J. Arce, S. Ensoli,
and. E. La Rocca, eds. (1997) 401, no. 200,
with fig.; P. Stewart (1999) 164; here, 59, 60,
126.
W. Grünhagen has characterized this portrait as
253
a provincial variant of Domitian’s third portrait
type. He wishes to date the portrait to the early
years of Domitian’s principate, on the basis of the
corona civica, which he suggests is only worn by
reigning emperors. This however is not the case.
Domitian could conceivably have worn the coro-
na as caesar and heir to Vespasian and Titus. And
in fact, a type 2 portrait of Domitian in Naples
which presumably predates his accession, includes
a corona (Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv.
6058; cat. 2.X). The hairstyle and youthful phys-
iognomy of the Munigua portrait proclaim it to
be a variant of type 1. The hair is arranged in
comma shaped locks across the forehead, all
combed from right to left. The locks combed
forward over the temples find close parallels in
the Vasto type 1 portrait of Domitian, which has
also been reworked from a type 4 portrait of
Nero. The configuration of the coiffure, as well
as the broader facial structure of the image have
all been retained from the original type 4 like-
ness of Nero. The locks behind both ears have
been chiseled over. The hair on the nape of the
neck have also been shortened. The lower half
of the face has been substantially recarved, with
the result that the top of the head and corona
appear much too massive in proportion to the rest
of the face. The chin also recedes drastically from
the frontal plane of the face.
2.57. Stuttgart, Württembergisches Landesmu-
seum, 64/28
h. 0.42 m.
marble head
provenance: precise provenance unknown
(from the art market)
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)356, no. 16, fig. 29a-d, here, 59, 126.
Currently a type 1 portrait of Domitian, the head
retains the orientation of curling locks brushed
forward from the occiput seen in Nero’s type 3
images. The treatment of the eyes, as well as the
more massive proportions of the face and neck
are also features held over from the Neroninan
original. The hair has been considerably short-
ened on the nape of the neck. So much so, in fact,
254 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
that it is unusually short for Domitian’s likenesses.
The reconfiguration of the portrait has also
caused it to be especially broad in profile.
2.58. Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Muni-
cipal, inv. 300.315
h. 1.84 m.
marble cuirassed statue
provenance: Vaison, Roman Theater,
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 108 (with earlier literature);
H. Niemeyer (1968) 103, no. 78; K. Stemmer
(1978) 77, no. VII 4, pls. 50.4, 51.1-2; F.
Salviat in L’Archéologie 41 (Feb.-Mar. 1980) 81-
83, with figs; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981)373-74, no. 23, fig. 43a-b; M. Fuchs
(1987)169-70; C.B. Rose (1997) 131-2, no. 59,
pl. 169; here, 58, 72, 125, 234, fig. 60a-b.
The head belongs with the body. The face has
broken away from the head and been reattached.
The portrait itself has suffered much weather
damage, but conforms to Domitian’s first portrait
type. The original arrangement of locks on the
top and sides of the head have been roughly
chiseled over, but the waved coiffure on the top
of the head, as found in Nero’s third and fourth
portrait types, is still visible in profile. No new
locks have been carved in this area. Although it
has been reduced somewhat in length, Nero’s
longer hair is still visible on the nape of the neck.
The eyes have also been recut. Nero’s small fleshy
eyes have been made longer and wider. The
recarving has caused the left eye to be much
wider than the right. Furthermore, the recut eyes
appear too large in relation to size of the face and
are set very noticeably back into the head. How-
ever, the treatment of the brows, which gently
curve at the outer corners, remains from Nero’s
third and fourth portrait type. The mouth, which
turns slightly down at the corners and has a re-
ceding underlip, conforms to surviving replicas
of Nero’s last two types, as does the general form
of the head and chin. M. Bergmann and P.
Zanker suggest type 4 as more likely than type
3 for the original. Neronian likeness ([1981]374).
2.59. Vasto, Museo Civico
h. 0.28 m
marble head
provenance:
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 359-61, no. 18, fig. 32a-d; here, 59, 126,
fig. 65.
A provincial variant of Domitian’s first portrait
type, the locks in front of the ears, most of the
locks over the forehead, and the sideburns have
been substantially retained from Nero’s fourth
coiffure. The locks which are still indicated to-
wards the front of the skull comprise the front
edge of Nero’s wavy hairstyle.
Nero/Trajan
2.60. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no.
1983.11
3.1 x 3.5 cm.
sardonyx cameo
provenance: from a French private collection
publications: W.R. Megow (1987) 112, 225-26,
no. A17, pl. 41.5 (with earlier literature); here,
63, 64, fig. 75.
One of a handful of imperial gems to have been
modified, Nero’s type 3 hairstyle has been left
substantially intact in the cameo, although a
second row of locks which reverse the direction
of the original Neronian coiffure has been light-
ly carved over the forehead. The physiognomy
has also been modified, with the forehead slightly
recut, naso-labial lines added, and the shape of
the chin altered.
Nero/Antinous
2.61. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ca-
binet des Médailles, 238
5.9 x 4.8 cm.
sardonyx cameo
provenance: unknown
publications: W.R. Megow (1987) 97, n. 294,
111, 113-14, 308, no. E6, pl. 42.10 (with ear-
lier literature); here, 63-64, fig. 76.
 nero
The hairstyle has been refashioned into Anti-
nous’s curly coiffure, but the straighter locks of
Nero’s second type are present over the occiput.
In addition, the central part of Nero’s coiffure is
also still visible in the curls over Antinous’s fore-
head. In addition, there are traces of Nero’s long-
er hair on the nape of the neck beneath the
current hairline. The facial features have been
entirely recarved, necessarily reducing the size of
the face, with the result that it is now too small
in comparison to the mass of the coiffure, corona
and bust form. In order to keep the neck com-
mensurate in scale with the smaller recarved
facial features, it, too, has been reduced in size,
causing a noticeable gap between the neck and
paludamentum at the left shoulder.
Nero/Gallienus
2.62. Columbia, Missouri, University of
Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeol-
ogy, acc. no. 62.46
h. 0.42 m.
marble head worked for insertion into a togate
statue capite velato
provenance: Egypt
publications: H. Jucker 1981b) 692-4, figs. 22a-
d (recarved Nero); Bergmann and Zanker
(1981)406-7, no. 46 (Nero recarved in the third
or fourth century); C.C. Vermeule (1981) 297,
no. 253, with fig. (Nero) (with earlier literature);
M. Fuchs (1997) 88, pl. 8.2-4; E.R. Varner in
E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 146 no. 30, with figs.;
here, 64, fig. 77a-d.
The nose is largely destroyed and there is dam-
age to the left eye and the left half of the fore-
head. Nero’s type 3 coiffure is still clearly visi-
ble, especially over the temples. The portrait has
been reconfigured as a representation of Gallie-
nus which conflates the shorter beard of his first
type, in use between 253-60, with the fuller coif-
fure of his last three types. The hair over the
forehead has been recarved, although it is too
damaged in this area to discern the precise Gal-
lienic arrangement intended. The hair on the
nape of the neck has also been cut back, and the
255
hair over the right ear has been slightly recut..
The eyes have been retouched, with the result
that the left eye is smaller and higher than the
right. The cheeks have also been reduced in
volume to make the face more lean. The left
cheek is currently much broader than the right
and the mouth is asymmetrical. There are also
traces of cutting on the left side of the neck and
the along the edges of the tenon. The recutting
of the upper lip has caused the mouth to be
asymmetrical, with the left side being shorter than
the right. Nevertheless, traces of Nero’s fleshy
underchin are still clearly visible in profile.
Nero/Constantinian Emperor
2.63. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
delle Terme, Magazzini, Inv. 126279
h. 0.53 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: Bergmann and Zanker (1981)320,
408-9, no. 47, figs. 64a-c; A.L. Cesarano, Mus-
NazRom 9.2, 420-22, no. R320, with figs. (with
earlier literature); D. Kreikenbom (1992) 206,
no. 3.75, here, 64-65, fig. 78.
The head is poorly preserved; the nose is gone
and the entire surface is extensively weathered.
Nevertheless, elements of Nero’s fourth type
coiffure are still present in the hair over the fore-
head. The eyes have been substantially refash-
ioned to make them larger. The recutting of the
eyes has caused them to be set well back beneath
the brows, which further emphasizes the eyes
through the resulting contrast of light and shad-
ow. Full underlids have also been added to the
eyes, a feature consonant with a Constantinian
date for the recarving. As is often the case in
reworked portraits, the recutting of the eyes has
caused the left eye to be significantly larger than
the right eye.
256 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits

Possibly Altered Portraits 2.65. New Haven, Yale University Art

Gallery, inv. 1961.30
Nero/Private Individuals (?) h. 0.30 m.
marble (Thasian?) head
2.64. Hannover, Sammlung des Herzogs
provenance; possibly Italy,
von Braunschwieg
publications: S. Matheson in E.R. Varner, ed.
h. 0.21 m.
(2000) 71, fig. 1; E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed.
marble head
(2000) 150-3, no. 31, with figs.; here, 65-66, fig.
provenance: purchased in Rome (eighteenth
79a-d.
century)
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
The portrait has been cut or broken from a statue
(1981) 406, no. 45, fig. 63a-c (with earlier lit-
or bust and contains several indications that it
erature); here, 65-66.
may have been recut from a Type 3 portrait of
Nero. The mass of the coiffure is clearly too large
Traces of what appear to be Nero’s type 1 coif-
in proportion to the face. The change in orien-
fure are visible at the back of the head and on
tation of the locks over the right temple, as well
the nape of the neck. The reconfigured hairstyle
as the wavy arrangement on the top of the head
is one worn in the Julio-Claudian through the
find parallels in Nero’s type 3 portrait in the
Trajanic periods. If the original did indeed rep-
Museo Palatino (ex Terme, inv. 618). The hair
resent Nero, it is the only surviving type 1 por-
on the back of the neck may also have been cut
trait to have been transformed and it is difficult
down, causing the hairline to slope. The chin and
to identify the portrait’s new identity. K. Fittschen
jaw line of the Yale head have been reduced in
has suggested one of the sons of Vitellius, but this
volume, causing the chin to recede from the fron-
seems unlikely given his promotion of Nero’s
tal plane of the face. Traces of a light beard are
memory (in Die Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden
also discernible along portions of the jaw line. If
[Göttingen 1979] no. 27). Alternatively, it may
the portrait did originally represent Nero, it has
be an extremely rare example of an imperial
been transfigured into a private Hadrianic like-
portrait refashioned as a private individual.
ness and would be a highly unusual example of
an imperial image reconfigured as a private in-
dividual.
 other julio claudians
CATALOGUE 3
MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS
OF THE JULIO-CLAUDIANS
Messalina
Mutilated Portraits
3.1. Dresden, Albertinum, Skulpturen-
sammlung, cat. 358
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: S. Wood (1992) 219-34, figs. 5-
6 (with previous literature); T. Mikocki (1995)
187, no. 249, pl. 14; S. Wood (1999) 276-80,
pls. 126-7; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 15; here,
96.
Substantial blows to the portrait have smashed
into four pieces from which the image has been
reassembled.
3.2. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chi-
aramonti 39.9, inv. 1814
h. 0.29 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: P. Liveriani (1989) 86; S. Wood
(1992) 219-34, figs. 7-8, with previous litera-
ture; T. Mikocki (1995) 187-8, no. 250, pl. 23;
E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 15, fig. 7; here, 96, fig.
99.
The nose and upper lip have been destroyed and
replaced with modern restorations. The head-
dress has also been attacked and damaged. The
surfaces of the portrait are badly corroded, sug-
gesting sustained immersion in water.
S. Wood has recently rethought her identifi-
cation of this portrait as Messalina and no long-
er feels it is a replica of the same type as the
257
portraits in Dresden (cat. 3.1) and the Louvre
([1999] 276-77, 286-89, figs. 128-9). She suggests
that the portrait may be intended to represent
Messalina’s daughter, Claudia Octavia, and that
the deliberate damage to the portrait would be
equally appropriate for Claudia Octavia. Wood
feels that the Chiaramonti head does, however,
stress the physical similarities between mother
and daughter. It seems highly unlikely that por-
traits of Octavia Claudia would resemble Mes-
salina after her overthrow and damnatio. It is more
likely that Octavia’s images would have stressed
her resemblance to her father Claudius. Indeed,
her childhood portraits from the statue groups at
Baiae and Russelae stress her Julio-Claudian
facial characteristics and her physiognomical sim-
ilarities to Claudius (and ultimately her adoptive
brother Nero). Wood’s original identification of
the portrait seems more probable.
Altered Portraits
3.3. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-
gico. inv. 6242
h. unavailable
provenance: Italy
publications: S. Wood (1999) 247, n. 114 (with
earlier refs.); E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 13, fig.
3; E.R. Varner (2001a); here, fig. 97, 101a-d.
Raised surfaces behind the left shoulder lock
indicate the extent of the original coiffure and
drilled channels throughout the mass of the hair
also remain from the original configuration. The
recutting of the facial features has resulted in the
right eye protruding much more from the sur-
face of the face, an asymmetrical cast to the
258 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
mouth, and the chin receding from the frontal
plane of the face. Drilled holes which punctuate
Agrippina’s waved coiffure are the remnants of
deepest extent of the void spaces in the curls from
Messalina’s hairstyle and they do not align with
the current arrangement. The overall reduction
in sculptural volume entailed by the reconfigu-
ration of the coiffure has resulted in the head
being noticeably flat at the top when seen in
profile and too small in proportion to the body.
3.4. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità,
inv 146 (1870), inv. 830 (1952)
h. 1.69 m
marble statue
provenance: Velleia, Julio-Claudian Basilica
(3-17 June 1761)
publications: C. Saletti (1968) 26-33, no. 2,
120-22, pls. 3-6, with earlier literature; H.
Jucker (1973) 25, n. 6; H. Jucker (1977) 205-
6, 208-9; Fittschen-Zanker III, 6, n. 4; D. Bos-
chung (1989) 96-7; A. Claridge (1990) 143,
148, figs. 10, 22; S. Wood (1992) 473, n. 64;
C.B. Rose (1997) 121-3, pl. 133, 148-9; E.R.
Varner (2001a) 79-80, 96-97; here, 32, n. 84,
fig. 100a-c.
The portrait was initially created as a pendant
with the Caligula/Claudius (cat. 1.27). After Mes-
salina’s downfall, her head was apparently cut
from the statue and a mortis prepared for a new
portrait of Agrippina Minor. The same method-
ology for reconfiguration had been adopted for
the Caligula/Claudius. The current head of
Agrippina exhibits numerous signs that it is a
replacement: it is too small in comparison to the
more massive proportions of the body; the folds
of the drapery covering the head do not accu-
rately match that which covers the body; most
tellingly, the tenon does not sit firmly in its cav-
ity; furthermore, the shallow treatment of the
drapery surrounding the neck indicates that the
head and body of the original portrait were
carved from a single block of marble. The re-
working of this image was first proposed by H.
Jucker ([1973] 25, n. 6 and [1977] 205-206;
followed by D. Boschung [1989] 97). C.B. Rose,
however, sees no indications of reuse ([1997]
123).
 galba, otho, and vitellius 259

CATALOGUE 4

THE MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF A.D. 69

Otho view. The portrait has been refashioned into

Mutilated Portrait
4.1. Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446
h. 0.42 m.
fragmentary colossal marble head
provenance: Ostia, sewer near the Temple of
Hercules (1938)
publications:R. Calza (1964) 47. no. 65, pl. 37
(Domitian); M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 81 (not Domitian); H. Jucker
(1983) 148, n. 75; N. Hannestad (1986)
117,and n. 1; (Otho); N. Hannestad (1988)
328, figs. 5-6 (Otho); M. Donderer (1991-2)
224, n. 140, fig. 4, 265, no. 10; D. Kreiken-
bom 209-10, no. 3.81, pl. 17c-d; here, 107-
108, fig. 103.
The facial features including the eyes, nose and
lips have been disfigured and the image broken
in pieces. Abrasions, caused by hammer or chis-
el blows, are scattered over the surface of the
cheeks. Most of the face below the lower lip is
missing, as is the back of the head.
Vitellius
Altered Portraits
Vitellius/Vespasian
4.2. Hannover, Kestnermuseum
h. 0.53 m.
marble head
provenance: possibly from the Tiber
publications: A. Mlasowsky (1992) 86-93, no.
8, with figs.; here, 109, fig. 105a-b.
The thick neck of the original representation of
Vitellius is especially visible in the left profile
Vespasian’s main type, but the heavy rolls of flesh
on the neck are retained from the original like-
ness.
4.3. Thessalonika, Archaeological
Museum, inv. 1055
h. 0.32 m.
marble head
provenance: Thessalonika
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.
Hausmann, (1966) 82; C.C. Vermeule (1968)
513; A. Rüsch (1969) 130, figs. 42-43; M. Berg-
mann and P. Zanker (1981) 346, no. 10, fig.
22a-c; here, 109, fig. 106a-c.
The head is broken in the area of the neck. The
heavy facial features, and underchin, thick neck
are remnants of the original portrait of Vitellius.
The forehead has been cut back, causing it to
slope backwards at a slightly awkward angle. It
is also somewhat higher than in other replicas of
Vespasian’s main type which have not been re-
carved.
4.4. Trier, Rheinisches Landesmuseum,
ST 5223
h. 0.38 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Trier (?)
publications: M. Wegner in Römer am Rhein
(Köln 1967) 139, no. A 13, pl. 23; M. Berg-
mann and P. Zanker (1981) 349, no. 11, fig.
23a-b; here, 109, fig. 107a-b.
The portrait has been recarved into a version of
Vespasian’s more youthful secondary type. The
front half of the neck has been substantially cut
down, but the thickness of the back half remains
from the Vitellian likeness.
260 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
CATALOGUE 5
MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF DOMITIAN
Mutilated Portraits
5.1. Anacapri, Museo della Torre
h. 0.362 m., w. 0.763 m.
fragmentary marble relief
provenance: Naples or environs ?
publications: F. Magi (1954-55) 45-54, with
fig.; E.R. Varner (2001) 49; here, 113-14.
This fragmentary relief depicts an imperator in
tunica and paludamentum, Minerva, Roma, lictors,
a horse and cuirassed soldier. Correspondences
with frieze A of the Cancelleria reliefs, the ap-
pearance of Minerva (Domitian’s patron deity),
and technical details in the treatment of the curly
coiffure of one of the lictors strongly suggest that
the emperor represented is in fact Domitian. The
emperor’s head appears to have been deliberately
removed from the relief in an act of vandalism.
5.2. Castel Gandalfo
h. 0.48 m.
fragmentary marble relief
provenance: Castel Gandalfo, Villa of Domi-
tian
publications: P. Liverani (1989a) 17-18, no. 1.,
figs. 1-3 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner
(2001) 49; here, 113, fig. 108.
The facial features of this fragmentary cuirassed
portrait in relief have been attacked and entire-
ly eradicated. Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is, how-
ever, still very much in evidence at the sides and
top of the head. The background also reveals
traces of wings, suggesting that the portrait comes
from a larger composition, perhaps historical in
character and intended to celebrate Domitian’s
military victories.
5.3. Rome, Art Market
h. 0.86 m.
marble cuirassed torso
provenance:
publications: K. Stemmer (1978) 112-13, no.
XI 2, pl. 75.2; R. Gergel (1991) 246, n. 70;
E.R. Varner (2001) 49; here, 114.
The cuirass contains a relief depiction of Domi-
tian, as well as his patron goddess Minerva. Both
of their heads have been effaced from the breast-
plate.
Altered Portraits
Domitian/Augustus
5.4. Zaragoza, Museo de Zaragoza en
Tarazona 80-5-1
h. 16 cm.
chalcedony head worked for insertion
provenance: Zaragoza (1980)
publications: M. Beltrán Lloris, J. Royo, and
J. Paz (1980) 117-19; M. Beltrán Lloris (1984)
103-34 (with earlier literature); S. Adamo
Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 49; D. Boschung
(1993a) 193-4, no. 208, pl. 199; J. Arce, S.
Ensoli, and. E. La Rocca, eds. (1997) 355, no.
l 92, with fig; here, 125.
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is still present in the
rear portions of the head, while the locks over
the forehead have been reconfigured into Augus-
tu’s Prima Porta arrangement. The radical recut-
ting of the hair over the forehead and much of
the forehead itself has caused this area of the head
to slope back dramatically when seen in profile.
The hooked nose is also a feature of the Domi-
 domitian
tianic image and not standard in representations
of Augustus.
Domitian/Titus
5.5. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuo-
vo 26, inv. 2282
h. 0.26 m. (head)
marble togate statue
provenance: Rome, gardens near the Lateran
Baptistery (1828)
publications: H.R. Goette (1989) 40, n. 183; 127,
no. 290, pl. 12.1 (with earlier literature); M.
Donderer (1991-92) 244, no. 27; here, 123-24.
The coma in gradus formata arrangement of Domi-
tian’s type 3 coiffure has been smoothed over,
although its remnants are still visible in left pro-
file. The reworking of the top of the coiffure has
resulted in the top of the head being unnatural-
ly flat, especially from the rear. The orientation
of the locks over the forehead and left temple
have been retained from the Domitianic original.
The hair over the right temple has been only
slightly shortened. The eyes have been recarved
and are currently set well back into the face. The
length of the mouth has been reduced by carv-
ing in the corners, which has lent a prominence
and heaviness to the cheeks which is not a stan-
dard feature of Titus’s portrait typology. The chin
has been recut, causing it to recede slightly from
the frontal plane of the face. The entire jawline
has also been redone, in order to give the face a
more square shape. In its current configuration,
the portrait borrows details from both Titus’s
Erbach and Herculaneum type.
The overall reductions carried out in the vol-
ume of the head has caused the neck to be too
thick in proportion to the face. The current head,
even with its sculptural mass reduced as a result
of the reconfiguration is too large for the body,
suggesting that head in its original Domitianic
incarnation did not belong with this body. The
two must have been combined as part of the
recycling process. Nevertheless, the discrepan-
cies in the proportions of the head to body would
not have been noticeable if the statue were dis-
261
played fairly high up and viewed from below.
That this is the optimal viewpoint for the re-
worked portrait is borne out by the cursory re-
carving of the top of the coiffure.
5.6. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chia-
ramonti 31.20, inv. 1687
h. 0.33 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 380, no. 29, figs. 48a-d; P. Liverani
(1989b) 73 (with earlier literature). G. Legrot-
taglie (1999) 93, pl. 23a-d; here, 124, 130, n.
156, fig. 128a-d.
The head is worked for insertion into a togate
bust or statue and traces of the drapery are still
evident on the left shoulder. Traces of Domitian’s
type 3 hairstyle are plainly visible at the side and
back of the head, where the hair exhibits the
spiral configuration characteristic of Domitian’s
portraits. The chin has been recut and somewhat
reduced, adding emphasis to the heavy un-
derchin.
Domitian/Nerva
5.7. Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Cam-
pi Flegrei nel Castello di Baia, inv. 155743
h. 1.28 m.
bronze equestrian statue
provenance: Miseno, sacellum of the Augustales
publications: A. Amadio, MusNazRom 1.9.1,
215; Domiziano/Nerva (with earlier literature);
MusNazNap 1.2, 112, no. 86. G. Dareggi (1982)
9, n.24; M. Torelli in A. M. Vaccaro and A.M.
Sommella, eds. (1989) 93, fig. 64; J. Berge-
mann (1990) 82-6, no. P.31, pls. 56-8; D.E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 201; J. Pollini (1993) 425; A.
Oliver (1998) 148; S. Adamo Muscettola in P.
Miniero, ed. (2000) 29-34, figs. 1a-e; E.R.
Varner, ed. (2000) 12; A. Ramage and N. Ra-
mage (2001) 170, fig. 5.26; here, 114, 120-22,
190, 280, fig. 123a-c.
262 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
The Misenum statue is the only surviving bronze
imperial image to have been altered as a result
of condemnation. Domitian’s facial features have
been severed from the back of the head and
replaced with a new face representing Nerva. As
a result the entire rear portion of the head from
the ears back remains from the original Domi-
tianic likeness. Ancient repairs to the statue sug-
gest that it may have been attacked and damaged
at the time of Domitian’s overthrow.
5.8. Berlin, Schloss Klein-Glienicke, inv.
G1 324
h. 1.7 m.
fragmentary marble statue
provenance: unknown
publications: F.W. Goethert (1972) 8, no. 51,
pl. 26; N. Himmelman (1972) 275-76; M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 400-401, no.
38, fig. 59; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 220-21, no.
3.105, pl. 25; here, 115-116.
The orientation of the locks over the forehead
and at the temples have been retained from
Domitian’s likeness. The mouth also has a typ-
ically Domitianic cast. The chin has been recut,
with the result that it recedes from the frontal
plane of the face. The neck is also very thick in
comparison to the current mass of the head. The
torso of the statue is also preserved and the han-
dling of its musculature finds strong stylistic par-
allels to that of the green basalt statue of Her-
cules from the Domus Augustana, now in Parma
(Museo Nazionale d’Antichità; D.E.E. Kleiner
[1992] 181-3, fig. 152); on the Berlin torso’s af-
finities with the Parma Hercules, see M. Berg-
mann and P. Zanker (1981) 401.
5.9. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
542, inv. 1454
h. 2 m.
marble statue (standing Jupiter)
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
(Palazzo Orsini)
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 391, no. 32, fig. 53; C. Maderna (1988)
160, no. JS 4, pl. 3.2 (with earlier literature);
F. Johansen (1995a) 84, no. 30 (with figs. n);
here, 115-16, fig. 111a-e.
The arms of the statue and large portions of the
mantle are modern restorations in marble. Orig-
inally a type 3 representation of Domitian, the
statue has been refashioned into a likeness of
Nerva. Domitian’s coiffure is essentially unal-
tered. However, the addition of a second row of
locks over the forehead has caused the forehead
to slope back and to be longer and lower than
in unreworked likenesses of Nerva, especially the
portrait in the Vatican (Cortile Ottagano 101a,
inv. 975). The physiognomy also retains much of
its youthful Domitianic aspect. The recutting of
the chin has caused it to recede from the frontal
plane of the face. The mouth has also been con-
siderably shortened in length.
5.10. Holkham Hall
h. 0.35 m., 0.77 m. (with bust form)
marble head
provenance: reportedly Tivoli, 16th century
excavations; purchased in Rome by Thomas
Cook, 1717
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.
Hausmann (1966) 109 (with earlier literature);
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 398-400,
no. 37, fig. 58a-b; D. Kreikenbom (1992) 220,
no. 3.104, pl. 24; E. Angelicoussis (2001) 116-
118, no. 22, pls. 42, 43.1-4; here, 116, fig. 114.
Much of Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has been left
intact in the portrait, although shortened over the
forehead and at the temples in order to make the
hairline recede. The resulting configuration of the
forehead has caused it to appear too narrow in
proportion to the more massive area of the
cheeks, which has been retained from the orig-
inal Domitianic image. The thick locks combed
forward on the nape of the neck are a well-known
feature of Domitian’s third portrait type. The hair
along the left temple has been clearly cut back
and only summarily reworked. The eyes have
been recut, in order to make them less wide, but
they have maintained their Domitianic length.
The mouth and jawline have been altered and
 domitian
the mouth is currently both longer and higher on
the right side. The chin has been made smaller,
with the result that it recedes from the frontal
plane of the face. An adam’s apple has been
carved into the existing surfaces of the neck and
the neck itself has been retouched on the left side.
Nevertheless, the neck has not been substantial-
ly reduced in volume and it is currently too broad
in comparison to the altered proportions of the
lower face and jaw. D. Kreikenbom ([1992] 220)
has suggested on the basis of the heavy underchin
that the likeness has been reworked from an
image of Vitellius, while E. Angelicoussis prefers
to see Vespasian as the original ([2001] 116-8).
However, heavy underchins are often simply the
result of recarving and the clear vestiges of Domi-
tian’s coiffure confirm the portrait’s original iden-
tity.
5.11. Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut der
Universität (now destroyed)
h. 0.495 m.
marble head
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 389-90, fig. 52 (with earlier literature);
G. Legrottaglie (1999) 93; here, 116-117, fig.
117.
Domitian’s type 3 hairstyle has been little altered
in this portrait and is still clearly visible on the
top of the head and behind the ears. The prin-
cipal transformation of the coiffure is limited to
the locks over the forehead. . The eyes have been
recut and are now set well back beneath the
brows. The chin has been recut, causing it to
recede from the front of the face.
5.12. Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv.
83.AA.43;
h. 0.33 m.
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: H. Jucker and D. Willers,
eds.(1982) 113, no. 45, with figs.; E.R. Var-
ner, ed. (2000) 166, here, 118, fig. 119a-d.
The Domitianic type 3 coiffure is still plainly
263
visible at the left temple, behind the right ear and
on the top and back of the head. The locks over
the forehead have been transfigured. The gen-
eral mass of the hair has been reduced more on
the right side of the head than the left. The eyes
have been recarved in an effort to make them
smaller with the resulting in unequal sizes and
shape. The right eye has a fairly regular almond
shape while the left eye has an S-shaped curve
to its lower lid. The left eye is also positioned
farther away from the center of the face than the
right. A raised surface in the marble before the
right ear marks the original surface of Domitian’s
portrait. The lips have been recarved and the
mouth is slightly longer and higher up at the right
side. Although the chin and the area around the
mouth have been recarved and substantially re-
duced in volume, sections along the back of the
jawline have not been so radically recut and
retain the fuller and fleshier forms of the origi-
nal Domitianic portrait. The reworking of the
chin has caused it to recede from the frontal plane
of the face. The head is pieced together from
three separate sections of marble and the ancient
iron pin for attaching the back section is still
extant. As the top and back sections still preserves
strong elements of Domitian’s type 3 coiffure, the
piecing must be original to the portrait and pre-
date its transformation into a likeness of Nerva.
5.13. Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Anti-
chità, inv. 146 (1870), inv. 827 (1954)
h. 2.04 m. (statue),h. 0.365 m. (head)
marble cuirassed statue
provenance: Velleia, Julio Claudian Basilica (3-
17 June 1761)
publications: M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann (1966) 91, 104-5, 111; H. Niem-
eyer (1968) 95, no. 46; C. Saletti (1968) 52-
57, no. 12, pls. 39-42 (with earlier literature);
K.P. Goethert (1972) 244-45; H. Jucker (1977)
212; K. Stemmer (1978) 8-10, no I 4, pl. 1.4;
M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)394-98, no.
36, fig. 57a-d; S. Adamo Musecettola in Do-
miziano/Nerva (1987) 49, fig. 56; C.B. Rose
(1997) 121-6, cat. 50, pls. 152-3; here, 9, 58,
117, fig. 61a-e, and cat. 2.50.
264 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
The coiffure is an extremely schematic rendition
of Nerva’s hairstyle, with a part over the inner
corner of the right eye and faint traces of Domi-
tian’s type 1 hairstyle have survived the second
reworking. The forehead has been reworked and
currently bulges out over the bridge of the nose.
The temples have been drastically recut in or-
der to make them hollow. The recarving of the
eyes has caused the upper lids to be remarkably
heavy and to protrude unnaturally. The eyes
themselves are very asymmetrical, with the right
eye currently much smaller than the left. The
mouth is smaller on the left side than the right.
As a result of being cut back twice, the chin
retreats dramatically from the frontal plane of
face. Just below the jaw line, the neck bulges out
quite noticeably. The neck has also been re-
worked, with the result that it has a noticeable
S-shaped curve when viewed frontally. The sub-
stantial reduction in the volume of the face has
caused the ears, which essentially remain from
the initial likeness of Nero, to stick out substan-
tially from the side of the head.
5.14. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori, inv. 417
h. 0.38 m.;
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs (ex
Albani Coll. [D 59?])
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 394, no. 35, fig. 56a-d; Fittschen-Zanker
I, 37, no. 34, pl. 38 (with earlier literature); S.
Adamo Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 53, fig.
61, here, 116, fig. 113a-d.
The portrait is displayed on a modern bust form
and is an unusual (unique?) example of a type 1
portrait of Domitian reconfigured as Nero. M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker compare the arrange-
ment to the type 1 portrait of Domitian (recarved
from a portrait of Nero) in the Terme, inv. 226
(cat. 2.52) ([1981] 394). The original Domitian-
ic coiffure is plainly visible at the back of the
head. The forehead has been cut back and now
bulges out unnaturally over the inner corners of
the eyes, giving a suggestion of the original sculp-
tural mass. Although most of the nose is a mod-
ern restoration, the extremely narrow bridge pro-
vides evidence for a reduction in the breadth of
the nose in antiquity. The eyes have been slightly
recut in order to make them smaller and more
consistent with Nerva’s portraiture. As a result,
they are asymmetrical, with the left eye being
larger than the right and the left eye socket be-
ing larger and deeper than the right. The re-
carved chin recedes considerably from the fron-
tal plane of the face.
5.15. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
del Palazzo Massimo alle Terme inv. 318
h. 0.60 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome (ex Museo
Kircheriano)
publications: A.A. Amadio, MusNazRom 1.9.1,
212-6, no. R165, with figs. (with earlier liter-
ature); here, 116, fig. 116a-d.
The provenance has been variously listed as the
Palatine (M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U. Haus-
mann [1966] 112, 133) and as the Tiber, H.
Götze ([1948] plate caption). Anomalous stylis-
tic elements caused by the recarving, such as the
baroque handling of the coiffure, have contrib-
uted to doubts concerning the portrait’s authen-
ticity, or have caused scholars to consider the
portrait a posthumous image, dated to the end
of Trajan’s reign or into the reign of Hadrian (see,
for example, H. Götze [1948] 153 [late Hadrian-
ic]; B.M. Felletti Maj [1953] no. 165 [late Tra-
janic/early Hadrianic]; M. Wegner, G. Daltrop,
and U. Hausmann 112 [late Hadrianic]; H. von
Heintze [1969] 373 [late Trajanic/early
Hadrianic]). The recarved coiffure is a simplified
version of Nerva’s hairstyle which omits the sec-
ond part in the locks over the left eye. Raised and
roughened surfaces beneath the current hairline
on the back and sides of the neck indicate areas
where Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has been cut
back. Marble has also been removed from behind
the ears in an effort to reduce the overall volume
of the portrait. The recutting of the mouth has
caused the area around it to be sunken into the
 domitian
surface of the face while the chin has been re-
cut, causing it to recede from the frontal plane
of the face. The reconfiguration in these areas has
contributed to the undulating effects of the por-
traits surfaces.
5.16. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
del Palazzo Massimo alle Terme inv.
106538
h. 0.46 m.
marble head worked for insertion into a togate
statue
provenance: Tivoli, Sanctuary of Hercules
Victor
publications: V. Picciotti Giornetti, Mus-
NazRom 1.1, 278-79, no. 172, with fig. (with
earlier literature); M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 392-94, no. 34, figs. 55a-d; D.E.E.
Kleiner (1992) 200-201, fig. 170; A. La Regi-
na, ed. (1998) xxx; here, 118.
Domitian’s type 3 arrangement is still present in
the coiffure behind the ears, at the back of the
head and along the nape of the neck. The fore-
head has been cut back and now slopes back
unnaturally when seen in profile. The nose re-
tains its general length from Domitian’s portrait,
although its breadth has been reduced in certain
areas, causing it to be crooked at the tip. The
mouth has been recarved, with the result that it
is shorter and more full than in unreworked
portraits of Nerva. The overall reduction in the
volume of the portrait has caused the nose to be
unusually prominent in profile.
5.17. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Rome,
Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Pro-
fano
marble (Luna?) relief
provenance: Rome, Palazzo della Cancelleria
G. Koeppel (1984) 29-34, no. 7-8, figs. 11-12
(with earlier literature); E. Simon (1985) 543-
56; F. Ghednini (1986) 291-309; S. Adamo
Muscettola in Domiziano/Nerva 49, 52, fig. 60a-
b; N.H. and A. Ramage (1991) 132-3, figs.
5.13-14; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 191-92, figs.
158-9; J. M. Pailler and R. Sablayrolles (19940
265
18-19, figs. 1-2; D. Kinney (1997) 144, fig. 19;
H. Meyer (2000) 125-40, figs. 228-235, 237,
240, 245-7, 249-52, 258-59 E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 12, fig. 2; here, 5, 36, n. 115, 60, 114,
119-120, fig. 122a-b.
A type 3 portrait of Domitian has been recon-
figured as Nerva in Frieze A of the Cancelleria
reliefs. The locks over the forehead have been
worked away and no new locks carved, but
Domitian’s coiffure has been essentially left un-
altered on the top and sides of the head.. The
forehead has also been cut back and now slopes
back at a very unnaturalistic angle. The eyes have
been slightly recarved and the right eye is con-
siderably smaller than the left, an effect not readi-
ly visible when the relief is viewed frontally. The
nose has been modified to make it more hooked.
The chin and jawline has been reduced in size
and the left cheek carved in, in an effort to give
the face Nerva’s thinner, more elongated shape.
Rasp marks are still clearly visible on the left
cheek and neck. The chin recedes from the fron-
tal plane of the face and the jawline lacks organic
clarity. Roughened areas in the marble around
the head where the portrait is attached to the
background suggest the extent of the original
likeness of Domitian.
5.18. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei
Busti 317, inv. 674
h. 0.48 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 391-92, no. 33, fig. 54a-d (with earlier
literature); G. Spinola (1999) 143, no. 131
(modern?); here, 116, fig. 112a-b.
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is still clearly visible
on the top and sides of the head. The forehead
has been slightly adjusted, and, consequently
bulges out over the inner corners of both eyes.
These bulges give some indication of the origi-
nal extent of the Domitianic portrait in these
areas. The eyes have been reduced in size and
the right eye socket is now noticeably deeper than
266 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
the left. The nose has been made more narrow
and is somewhat crooked. The size of the mouth
has been reduced, with the result that it is con-
siderably shorter on the right side.
5.19. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Roton-
da, no. 548, inv. 246
h. 2.44 m.
marble statue (seated Jupiter)
provenance: Rome
publications: S.V. Rocca, ed. (1982) 49 (with
fig.). H. Jucker (1983) 139-41, pls. 4, 5.1-4, 6.3-
4; C. Maderna (1988) 52, 163-4, no. JT a, pl.
13.1 (with earlier literature); R.R.R. Smith
(1988) 174-75, no. 104, pl. 61.2-4; C.C. Ver-
meule (1989) 619; Kreikenbom (1992) 26-7,
50-51, 53, 111, 148-51, no. 2. 22, 265; G.
Spinola (1999) 257-58, no. 13; here, 118, fig.
120a-b.
R.R. Smith has identified the portrait as a Hel-
lenistic ruler ([1988] 174-5), but, the style and
physiognomy of the piece support the identifica-
tion as Nerva (see C.C. Vermeule[1989] 619).
The portrait was discovered during the pontifi-
cate of Benedict XIV in 1767 near the Aurelian
walls, between the Lateran and S. Croce in
Gerusalemme. Shortly afterwards, it was exten-
sively restored by Bartolommeo Cavaceppi,
whose substantial restorations have further com-
plicated the portrait’s identification. Nevertheless,
distinctive elements of Nerva’s physiognomy,
including the high narrow forehead, deep naso-
labial lines, and narrow chin are clearly present
in the likeness. In addition, the exaggerated signs
of aging present in the portrait would be highly
unusual in an image of a Hellenistic ruler. Ulti-
mately, the ancient reworking of the piece ac-
counts for many of its anomalous details.
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure is still present be-
hind the left ear. The brows have been recarved
and as a result are unnaturalistically sunken into
the surface of the face. The eyes have also been
recarved and heavy bags added beneath them.
The lower sections of the face have been altered
to make the cheeks appear flaccid and naso-la-
bial added. The reworking of the eyes and brows
has caused asymmetricalities in this area of the
face. The right eye socket is currently much
deeper than that of the left. Reworking of the
mouth has also caused it to be asymmetrical, with
the right side appearing longer than the left. The
overall reductions to the volume of the head,
caused both by the ancient recarving and Cava-
ceppi’s eighteenth century reworking, have result-
ed in the head being much too small in compar-
ison to the torso, while the neck is too long in
proportion to the head.
5.20. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Sala Verde, inv. 423
h. 0.36 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs (ex
Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 12,
ex Palazzo Braschi, Salone)
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, no. 37-38, no.
35, pl.s 38-39 (with earlier literature); S. Ad-
amo Muscettola, “Una statua per due im-
peratori. L’eridità difficile di Domiziano,”
Domiziano/Nerva 53, fig. 62; here, 116, fig. 115
a-e.
The recarved coiffure still maintains its Domitian-
ic configuration at the back of the head and
above the left ear. In contrast, the hair over the
right ear has been more substantially shortened
and conspicuously worked away. Sections of locks
over the forehead also remain from the original.
Furrows have been added to the forehead. How-
ever, owing to the limited volume available, they
are simply incised into the surfaces and lack any
sculptural modeling. The nose has been refash-
ioned and is asymmetrical with a visible bend at
its bridge and does not attain the characteristic
length of Nerva’s nose in unaltered and coin
portraits. The mouth and chin have been sub-
stantially recut and the mouth and nose are fairly
close together. The area around the mouth is
sunken into the surface of the face. The chin
retreats greatly from the frontal plane of the face
and the heavy underchin and suggestion of jowls
remain from the portrait of Domitian.
The neck is unusually broad for Nerva and has
been largely maintained from the more massive
 domitian
proportions of the Domitianic likeness. A very
slight Adam’s apple, an important feature of
Nerva’s physiognomy, has been carved into the
neck.
5.21. Stuttgart, Württembergisches
Landesmuseum, inv. arch. 68/3
h. 0.293 m.
marble (Greek?) head worked for insertion
provenance: unknown
publications: U. Hausmann (1975) 36, 124, no.
10, figs. 29-31; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
(1981) 401-402, no. 39, fig. 60a-b; here, 116-
117.
Domitian’s type 3 coiffure has been substantial-
ly retained. The recut chin recedes from the fron-
tal plane of the face. In an effort to reduce the
size of the neck and articulate the Adam’s apple,
it has undergone sizeable reworking. As a result,
in profile the chin is unusually thin and slopes
forward at an unnaturalistic angle.
Domitian/Trajan
5.22. Olympia, Olympia, Museum, inv. A 129
h. 0.325 m.
provenance: Olympia, near the temple of
Zeus, 1876 and 1879
publications: H.R. Goette and K. Hitzl (1987)
289-293, pls. 27.1-2, 28.1-2; here, 122.
The current hairstyle is a variant of Trajan’s
Opferbildtypus, but remnants of Domitian’s type 3
coiffure have been retained at the back of the
head. The eyes have also been extensively re-
worked and now have heavy upper lids.
5.23. Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet, inv. SK 1154
h. 0.327 m.
marble head
provenance: reportedly acquired in Rome (ex
Coll. C. Paus)
publications: S. Sande (1991) 58, no. 45, pl.
44 (with earlier literature); here, 123.
Domitian’s coiffure has been almost entirely
267
worked away and replaced with Trajan’s decen-
nalia type hairstyle. However, the shape of the
eyes and the mouth have not been substantially
altered from their Domitianic incarnation. The
chin and jawline have been recut, resulting in a
heavy underchin not normally found in images
of Trajan.
5.24. Ostia, Museo, inv. 14
h. 0.48 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Ostia, lime kiln of the Caseggia-
to del Serapide in 1937
publications: R. Calza (1964) 59, no. 88, pl.
51; G. Arbore Popescu (1998) 193, no. 3 (with
fig. n); here, 123.
The portrait has been refashioned as Trajan’s
Opferbildtypus. There are clear signs of the cutting
back of the hair at the back of the neck , although
traces of Domitian’s third type coiffure are
present above the cuts. The configuration of the
eyes and mouth have also been retained from the
Domitianic original. The current neck is too wide
for the reduced volume of the head and the
current ears too large.
The piece was found, together with a head of
Hadrian, and the arms and legs of the statues to
which both portraits belonged. While the por-
traits were likely displayed together as a pair, the
portraits differ in both marble and style. The
Hadrian was likely created during his reign as a
pendant to the recut Domitian/Trajan.
5.25. Ostia, Museo, no. 24 (now lost)
h. 0.35 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Ostia, Via delle Corporazioni
(1913)
publications: W.H. Gross (1940) 81-82, 127,
no. 23, pl. 14a-b; R. Calza (1964) 56, no. 84,
pl. 48; M. Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981)
405-6, no. 44; here, 122-123.
Although traces of the Domitianic type 3 hair-
style are still visible at the side and back of the
head, the hair over the forehead has been refash-
268 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
ioned into Trajan’s second (Bürgerkronen-Ty-
pus). The extreme flatness of the top of the head
documents the removal of Domitian’s wavy ar-
rangement. The hooked nose and much of the
shape of the mouth with its receding underlip are
features of the original portrait. The forehead and
brows have been recarved. The forehead bulges
out noticeably over the nose and the right brow
arches up much higher at the outer corner than
the left. The chin recedes from the frontal plane
of the face. The reworking of the lower half of
the face has caused the neck and top of the head
to be disproportionately wide.
5.26. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
delle Terme, inv. 61160
h. 0.27 m.
basalt head
provenance: from the Roman art market
publications: S. Sorrenti, MusNazRom 1.9.1,
219-20, no. R 167, with figs.(with earlier lit-
erature); B. di Leo in M. L. Anderson and L.
Nista, eds. (1989) 63, no. 5, with fig.; here, 123,
fig. 127a-d.
There is damage to the upper left side of the head
and the neck. The tip of the nose has been re-
stored in plaster. The wavy arrangement of the
Domitianic type 3 hairstyle is still slightly visible
on the top of the head. The arrangement of the
locks over the right eye and temple find no ex-
act parallels in any other sculpted replicas of
Trajan’s Opferbildtypus, and have likely been
caused by the reconfiguration. In addition, the
portrait’s recutting has caused the neck to appear
fairly thick.
5.27. Sabratha, Museum
h. 0.53 cm.
marble togate statue
provenance: Sabratha, Forum
publications: H.R. Goette (1989) 41-42, n. 194,
128, no. 314, pl. 12.3 (with earlier literature);
here, 122, fig. 124.
The forehead and nose have been damaged. The
portrait has been transformed from a type 3
Domitian into a type 2 (Bürgerkronen-typus)
Trajan. Domitian’s coiffure is still visible at the
back of the head.. The mouth has been recut, but
still retains its Domitianic shape. Naso-labial lines
have been added to the face. The neck has not
been significantly reduced and is consequently too
thick in comparison to the altered proportions of
the head..
5.28. Split, Archeological Museum, inv. C
222
h. 0.48 m 0.54 m..
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Issa (Vis), forum
publications: N. Cambi in Antike Porträte aus
Jugoslavien (1988) 106-7, no. 105; D. Kreiken-
bom (1992) 107, pl. 34 (with earlier literature);
here, 122, fig. 125a-b.
The hair over the forehead has been recarved
into a variant of Trajan’s “Paris 1250-Marie-
mont” type (see Fittschen-Zanker I, 41). The hair
at the back of the head and on the nape of the
neck has all been worked away with a chisel and
point. Slight traces of Domitian’s type 3 arrange-
ment are still, however, visible over the left ear
and at the temples. The more massive structure
of the lower face and configuration of the mouth
have also been retained from the Domitianic like-
ness. The reconfiguration of the portrait has
caused the head to be disproportionate with the
face too heavy and broad for the reduced vol-
umes of the coiffure and occiput, which may have
been masked through the addition of a separately
worked crown. The portrait appears to have been
paired with a togate image of Vespasian whose
body is now in Vienna (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches
Museum, inv. I 669; D. Kreikenbom [1992] 107,
247-48, cat. V 23).
5.29. Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv.
249
h. 0.30 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
(Grimani Legacy, 1586)
publications: G. Traversari (1968) 57, no. 35,
 domitian
fig. 37a-b (with earlier literature); M.
Bergmann and P. Zanker (1981) 404, no. 43;
B. Di Leo in M.L. Anderson and L. Nista, eds.
(1989) 63, no. 5; G. Arbore Popescu, ed (1998)
195, no. 4 (with fig.); here, 123, fig. 126a-c.
Sections of the eyebrows, the nose, upper lip,
chin, a portion of the left cheek, and parts of the
ears have all been restored in marble. Domitian’s
type 3 hairstyle, still visible at the back of the
head, has been recut over the forehead into
Trajan’s type 1 arrangement. Roughened and
raised areas in the marble beneath the hairline
over the forehead mark the extent of the recarv-
ing in this area. The eyes have been recut and
the right eye is now considerably larger and set
farther forward in the face than the left. The
lower section of the face has been cut down in
volume, as has the neck, causing it to bulge out
unnaturally on the right side.
Domitian/Constantinian Emperor
5.30. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv.
89.6
h. 0.392
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs (ex
Ludovisi Collection);
publications: M. Comstock and C.C. Ver-
meule (1976) 242, no. 379, with fig. (with ear-
lier literature); B. Palma, MusNazRom 1.4, 194,
n. 21; L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 57-59,
with fig.; E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 172-4, no.
40, with figs.; here, 124, fig. 129a-d.
269
The piece is usually compared to the portrait in
the Fitzwilliam museum (see M. Comstock and
C.C. Vermeule [1976] 242 and L. de Lachenal
in MusNazRom 1.6, 58). The portrait has suffered
a harsh modern cleaning, but the smooth surfaces
of the face also seem to be a feature of the orig-
inal Flavian portrait, as is the typically Domitianic
mouth and chin. The eyes have been recut in
order to give them additional emphasis. The
upper lids have been very sharply delineated and
the iris and pupils have been drilled, which nat-
urally would not have been a feature of the orig-
inal.
Domitian/Fourth Century Emperor
5.31. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cab-
inet des Médailles
h. 9.5 cm.
sardonyx head
provenance: unknown
publications: E. Bablelon (1924) 128, fig. 52;
W.F. Vollbach (1958) pl. 20; R. Calza (1972)
238, no. 150, pl. 82.289; M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker (1981) 409-10, no. 48, fig. 65a-c;
here, 125, fig. 130a-b.
The arrangement of locks at the back of the head,
with its rows of curls above the hairline have been
retained from the Domitianic type 3 portrait. The
locks over the forehead and the forehead itself
have been recut, giving it an unnatural slope in
profile. The general cast of the physiognomy has
also been retained from the original.
270 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
CATALOGUE 6
MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF
COMMODUS, LIVILLA, CRISPINA AND
ANNIA FUNDANIA FAUSTINA
Commodus
Mutilated Portraits
6.1. Phillipi, Museum, inv. 469
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: Phillipi
publications: M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980)
88, pl. 7.1; E.R. Varner (2001) 50; here, 138-
39, 171, 186, fig. 138.
The head has been broken from a bust or stat-
ue. The eyes, nose, and mouth of the image have
been attacked and effaced in the t-shaped format
typical of intentional disfigurement.
6.2. Rome, Antiquario Communale sul
Celio, without inv. no.
h. 0.26 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 85, no. 77,
pl. 94, here, 138.
The facial features have been entirely obliterat-
ed and the bottom section of the head is sheared
off.
6.3. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori 30, inv. 445
h. 0.29 m. (chin to top of head)
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 83-85, no. 76,
pls. 86, 90; here, 138.
The portrait is currently displayed on a Hadrianic
bust to which it does not belong. Most of the face
has been entirely destroyed and restored. The
modern restorations include much of the hair
over the forehead and sections of the beard in
front of the ears and in the area of the chin.
Other than the mutilated facial features, the rest
of the portrait is exceedingly well preserved.
6.4. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chi-
aramonti, 3.13, 706, inv. 1235
h. 0.83 (with bust)
marble bust
provenance: Ostia
publications: M. Wegner (1939) 268 (with
earlier literature); R. Calza (1977) 23, no. 20,
pl. 17; M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 92;
P. Liverani (1989) 17; here, 138, fig. 137.
Modern restorations mask the severe inflicted on
the face of this type 1 portrait of Commodus. The
eyes, nose, and mouth have all been intention-
ally disfigured. The rest of the portrait, includ-
ing the bust form, is generally well preserved.
Altered Portraits
Commodus/Pupienus?
6.5. Mantua, Palazzo Ducale, inv. 6812i
h. 0.47 m.
marble head with lionskin, worked for inser-
tion
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: J.J. Bernoulli (1891) 235, no. 55;
A. Levi (1931) 66, no. 141, pl. 75b; G. Lip-
pold (1934) 370; M. Wegner (1939) 258-59; M.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
Wegner and R. Unger, (1981) 84; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 87; E. Flisi (1989) 93-106, pls. 19-
21 (with earlier literature); here, 139-140.
The replacement of Commodus’s type 5 hairstyle
with incised a penna locks suggests a date for the
recarving of this image in the mid third centu-
ry. The resulting combination of short hair and
long curly beard is also seen in surviving sculpt-
ed portraits of Pupienus created during his brief
tenure as co-Augustus with Balbinus in 238. The
lionskin has also been refashioned and original-
ly may have covered more of the head, as in the
bust in the Palazzo dei Conservatori (E. Flisi
[1989] 95).
6.6. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chi-
aramonti 27.8, inv. 1613 (formerly Mag-
azzini, 690)
h. unavailable
marble head worked for insertion into a cui-
rassed statue
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: G. von Kaschnitz-Weinberg
(1936-37) 285, no. 690, pl. 108; M. Wegner
(1939) 269; M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980)
92; Fittschen-Zanker I, 87; E. Flisi (1989) 93-
106; P. Liverani (1989) 65; here, 139-140, fig.
139a-c.
Commodus’s fifth and final type coiffure has been
entirely worked away and replaced with short a
penna locks typical of mid third century portraits.
The beard has also been slightly shortened. As
with the portrait in Mantua (cat. 6.5), the refash-
ioned portraits has strong iconographic similar-
ities to the images of Pupienus.
Commodus/Licinius?
6.7. Side, Museum, inv. 35 (old no. 315)
h. 0.99 m.
fragmentary marble cuirassed statue
provenance: Side, central niche of “building
M”
publications: J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum (1966)
86-87, no. 63, pls. 40.1-2, 41.3 (with earlier lit-
271
erature); H. Blanck (1969) 48-49, no. A. 22,
pl. 16; D. Brinkerhoff (1970) 18, n. 64, fig. 20;
H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 228 (not
Maximinus Thrax); K. Stemmer (1978) 117,
no. 471; H.P. L’Orange (1984) 117, here, 140,
fig. 140a-c.
The head is broken at the neck and has been
reattached.. Traces of a longer and curlier coif-
fure are still present on the back of the neck. The
forehead has been recarved, with the result that
the brow bulges out noticeably above the nose.
Remnants of a longer moustache, which connect-
ed with the beard, can still be seen, beneath the
current shorter moustache. The incised coiffure,
beard, and moustache combined with the more
schematic rendering of the physiognomy suggest
a tetrarchic date for the reconfiguration, and H.P.
L’Orange has plausibly suggested Licinius as its
most likely identity ([1984] 117).
Lucilla
Mutilated Portraits
6.8. Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396
h. unavailable (overlifesized)
fragmentary marble statue (veiled as Ceres?)
provenance: Madauros, Roman Forum
publications: M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980)
68, pl. 5.3-4; K. Fittschen (1982) 76, no. 7 (with
earlier literature); T. Mickoki (1995) 207, no.
390; E.R. Varner (2001b) 50; E.R. Varner
(2001a) 74-75 (with earlier literature); here,
149, 150, 170-71, 186, fig. 148.
Most of the left eye, the nose mouth and chin of
this type 1 portrait have been effaced. The rest
of the statue is well preserved and has not been
attacked, underscoring the facial features as the
principal targets in the image’s mutilation.
6.9. Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694
h. 0.320 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Smyrna, Roman Forum
publications: K. Fittschen (1982) no. 11, with
272 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
previous literature; E.R. Varner (2001) 51;
E.R. Varner, (2001a), 73-74; here, 150, 154,
170, 171, 186, fig. 149.
The eyes, nose, and mouth of the figure have
been attacked and disfigured in the typical t-
shaped pattern for deliberately mutilated imag-
es. The eyeballs have also been intentionally
gouged out, underscoring the virulent nature of
the portrait’s vandalization. Indeed, the mutila-
tion of the eyes is a strikingly anthropomorphic
attack in effigy intended to obliterate the very soul
or essence of the image.
6.10. Rome, Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv.
1781 (Centrale Montemartini 3.85)
h. 0.54 m.
fragmentary marble portrait as Venus Gene-
trix
provenance: domus on the Quirinal (at one
point belonging to Plautianus), 1901
publications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 25-26, no.
25, pl. 34 (with earlier literature); F.P. Arata
(1993) 195, pl. 51.1-2; T. Mickoki (1995) 208,
no. 397, pl. 33; M. Bertoletti, M. Cima, and
E. Talamo, eds. (1997) 103; E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 15, E.R. Varner (2001a) 73-74 with ear-
lier literature) here, 5, n. 28, 149, 150, 161,
n. 46, 186, 279, fig. 147.
The fragmentary statue of Lucilla, a type 1 rep-
lica, was discovered together with a disfigured
portrait of Macrinus (Museo Nuovo, Sala 7.21,
inv. 1757; Centrale Montemartini 3.82) during
construction of the tunnel which runs beneath the
garderns of the Palazzo Quirinale and connects
the Via Nazionale with the Via Tritone along the
Via Milano. Only the upper section of the stat-
ue survives and it depicts the empress in her
second portrait type in the guise of Venus Gen-
etrix, perhaps to commemorate the birth of her
daughter in 167. Modern restorations mask the
extensive damage to the facial features. The nose,
mouth, chin and much of the left side of the neck
and face have been almost entirely destroyed.
The domus also yielded other undamaged sculp-
ture including two third century male portraits
(a togate bust [inv. 1794] and a somewhat larg-
er heroically nude bust of the same individual at
a slightly more mature age [inv. 1790]; a half life
size portrait of a boy in Greek marble, perhaps
an initiate of Eleusis, c. 2nd century A.C. (inv.
1871); a statue of Hermes with a sacrificed ram,
also in Greek marble, c. 2nd century A.C. (inv.
1875) ; a headless, draped statue of Priapus in
Luna marble (inv. 1875); and a head of Priapus
(inv. 980)(see M. Bertoletti, M. Cima, and E.
Talamo, eds [1997] 102-3, with figs. On the
discovery of the sculpture, see L. Mariani [1901]
158-179, pls. 9-12; figure 5 depicts the portrait
of Lucilla before restorations) (Centrale Mon-
temartini 3.80-81, 83-84, 86-87).
Altered Portraits
Lucilla/Helena
6.11. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, Inv.
1914.171
h. 1.0 m.
marble seated statue (as Venus)
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: G.A. Mansuelli (1961) 131, no.
171, figs. 168a-c (with earlier literature); R.
Calza (1972) 171-72, no. 81, pls. 53.164,
54.167-68; H.P. L’Orange and M. Wegner
(1984) 144; F.P Arata (1993) 194-96, pls. 48-
49; T. Mickoki (1995) 222, no. 490, pl. 35;
E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 13, fig.
5; E.R. Varner (2001a) 75-76; here, 5, n. 20,
97, 150-51, 154, fig. 151a-b.
The portrait, originally a type 2 representation
of Lucilla, has been reconfigured as a likeness of
Helena with a combination of her Scheitelzopf
and Haarkranz arrangements. Evidence for the
alterations is still clearly visible behind the ears.
Because of its potent divine iconography, the
original portrait of Lucilla as Venus was proba-
bly no longer displayed publicly after her down-
fall and warehoused in for almost a century and
a half until its reuse, c. 324-326 (F.P. Arata [1993]
200.
 commodus, lucilla, crispina, and annia fundania faustina
6.12. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori 59, inv. 496
h. 1.21 m.
marble seated statue (as Venus)
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 35-36, no.
38, pls. 47-48 (with earlier literature); L’Oran-
ge and Wegner, 146, pl. 74b-c; F.P. Arata
(1993) 185-200 (pls. 42-45); T. Mickoki (1995)
222, no. 489, pl. 35; E..R. Varner in E.R.
Varner, ed. (2000) 13, fig. 4; E.R. Varner
(2001) 75-76; here, 5, n. 20, 97, 150-51, 154,
fig. 150a-b.
The portrait is nearly identical in iconography
to the Uffizi image and presents a similar scenario
for its reuse. It was also originally a likeness of
Lucilla, the waves of whose type 2 hairstyle are
still visible in the altered coiffure, likewise a com-
bination of Helena’s skull braid and hair crown
arrangements. The date of the portrait’s recon-
figuration should also be placed between 324, the
year Helena assumed the title Augusta, and 326,
the celebration of Constantine’s vicennalia (F.P.
Arata [1993] 200).
Crispina
Mutilated Portraits
6.13. Castle Howard
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: K. Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 6, pl.
50.3-4 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner
(2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here, 152.
Although now masked by modern repairs, this
type 1 portrait of Crispina exhibits the t-shaped
damage of the facial features typical of vandal-
ized portraits. The eyes, nose, and sections of the
mouth have all been restored.
273
6.14. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, Inv.
1914.13
h. 0.6 m.
marble bust
provenance:
publications: K. Fittschen (1982) 85. no. 3, pl.
56.1-2, with previous literature; E.R. Varner
(2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here, 152.
Modern repairs to the eyes, nose mouth and chin
of this type 2 portrait mask ancient damage in
the typical T-shaped pattern in these areas. The
rest of the portrait and bust form are well pre-
served and have not been attacked.
6.15. Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 1,
inv. 452
h. 0.23 m.
fragmentary marble head
provenance:
publications: R. Calza (1977) 24-25, no. 24,
pl. 19; M. Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 101;
E.R. Varner (2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a)
78; here, 152.
The facial features of this type 1 portrait of
Crispina have been almost entirely obliterated
with damage to the nose and mouth. The rest of
the portrait is very well preserved. The head has
been cut or broken from the statue to which it
originally pertained.
6.16. Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 7,
inv. 1954
h. 0.16
fragmentary marble head
provenance: Ostia, near the Capitolium
publications: R. Calza (1977) 25, no. 25, pl.
19, with previous literature; M. Wegner and
R. Unger (1980) 101; E.R. Varner (2001) 51;
E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here, 153, 274, fig.
153.
Only the top of the head, forehead, left eye and
cheek of the image, a replica of Crispina’s sec-
ond portrait type, are preserved. The head ap-
pears to have been violently attacked with a
274 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits

hammer or other heavy instrument and broken Annia Fundania Faustina

apart. The damaged image was later used as
construction material near Ostia’s Capitolium (D. Mutilated Portraits
Vaglieri, NSc [1913] 210).
6.19. Ostia, Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123
h. 1.8 m.
6.17. Rome, Formerly in the Magazzini of
marble statue
the Domus Aurea
provenance: Ostia, near the Horrea of Horten-
h. unavailable
sius (1913)
fragmentary marble head
publications: R. Calza (1977) 20-21, no. 17,
provenance: Rome (Oppian?)
p. 14 (Cornificia?), with earlier literature; M.
publications: H. Jucker (1981b) 171-8, no. 189,
Wegner and R. Unger (1980) 101 (not Crisp-
pl. 53.48a-b (with earlier literature). K.
ina); Fittschen-Zanker III, 91, no. 130, n. 1
Fittschen (1982) 85, no. 5, n. 9, pl. 51.2; E.R.
(private Antonine woman); C. Pavolini (1983)
Varner (2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78;
90; E.R. Varner (2001a) 79-80; here, 153-54,
here, 152.
170, fig. 154a-b.
The head has been quite literally defaced, with
This full length draped statue has been carved
the entire facial features broken away from the
from a single block of marble and is of high
head. The rest of the portrait consisting prima-
artistic quality. The coiffure suggests a woman
rily of the neck , the head and coiffure are well
contemporary in age with Faustina Minor may
preserved. The damaged portrait was subsequent-
be commemorated. The facial features have been
ly “restored” and purchased by the Museum of
attacked with a chisel and the right eye, nose,
Art and Archaeology of the University of Mis-
mouth and chin have been obliterated. A one line
souri at Columbia. The head was returned when
inscription on the statue’s base has also been
it was discovered to be the Domus Aurea por-
erased. The remainder of the statue is exceed-
trait. Its current whereabouts are unknown.
ingly well preserved, including traces of ancient
finish on some of its surfaces. The intensity of the
6.18. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzi-
attacks against the image suggests that a woman
ni, inv. 2106/S
of some prominence is represented, perhaps the
h. 0.20 m.
cousin of Marcus Aurelius, Annia Fundania
fragmentary marble head
Faustina who was executed under Commodus in
provenance: presumably Rome
A.D. 192.
publications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 95-6, no.
139, pl. 165 (with earlier literature); E.R. Var-
ner (2001) 51; E.R. Varner (2001a) 78; here,
153.

Only the rear section of the head, essentially

comprising the bun of Crispina’s type 2 coiffure
is preserved. Like Ostia 1954 (cat. 6.16, the im-
age was likely attacked and smashed to pieces
with a hammer.
 the severans 275

CATALOGUE 7

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS

OF THE SEVERANS. PLAUTILLA, GETA, MACRINUS,
DIADUMENIANUS, ELAGABALUS, SEVERUS ALEXANDER
AND JULIA MAMMAEA

Plautilla E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 176-

8, no. 41, with figs.; E.R. Varner (2001a) 80-
Mutilated Portraits 83, fig. 21; E.R. Varner (2001b) 52, fig. 2; here,
165-66, fig. 161a-b.
7.1. Houston, Museum of Fine Art, inv.
70-39
A chisel has been used to disfigure this type 1
h. 0.355 m.
image of Plautilla. The nose, ears and chin have
marble head worked for insertion into a
been entirely obliterated, as has most of the
draped statue
mouth. Additional damage has been inflicted on
provenance:
the forehead, the eyebros, and the left eye. The
publications: K. Fittschen (1978) 149, n. 29;
remaining surfaces of the portrait are very well
C.C. Vermeule (1981) 355, no. 306, with fig.
preserved including the finely sculpted details of
(with earlier literature); S. Nodelman (1982)
Plautilla’s melonenfrisur. The fresh surfaces of chan-
108-117, figs. 6-9; M. Donderer (1991-2) 222,
nels cut in the area of the missing ears, as well
n. 123; E.R. Varner in D.E.E. Kleiner and
as drilled holes, suggest that modern repairs may
S.B. Matheson, eds. (1996) 85-6, no. 46, with
have been initiated but never completed. There
fig.; E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000)
are similar holes, also presumably for modern
15, fig. 8; E.R. Varner (2001a) 80-83; E.R.
repairs in the areas of damage to the nose and
Varner (2001b) 52-3, fig. 3; here, 165-66, 188,
chin.
fig. 162a-b.

A replica of Plautilla’s third portrait type (“Hous-

ton-Malibu-Torlonia” type), the portrait has been
mutilated with a claw chisel, violently gouging the
eyes and right cheek. The rest of the portrait is
well preserved.
7.2. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini,
731, inv. 4278
h. 0.23 m.
marble (Luna?) head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: G. von Kaschnitz Weinberg
(1936-37) 297, no. 731; S. Nodelman (1965)
232-33; C. Saletti, (1967) 41; H.B. Wiggers and
M. Wegner (1971) 117-18, 127-28, pl. 29a-b;
Altered Portrait
Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress
7.3. Irvine, California; Collection of Mr.
Robert K. Martin
h. 0.275 m.
marble head
provenance: unknown
publications: F.K. Yegul (1981) 63-68, figs. 1-
4; S. Nodelman (1982) 110, figs. 11-12; E.R.
Varner (2001a) 80-83; here, 166-67, fig. 163a-
b.
Originally created as a type 3 portrait of Plau-
276 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
tilla, the portrait was updated sometime in the
Tetrarchic or Constantinian period. The eyes are
the principal focus of the reconfiguration and
have been recarved farther back into the head,
made larger, and endowed with heart-shaped
pupils, seen in many Tetrarchic and Constantin-
ian portraits, but not those of the Severan peri-
od. The lower section of the face has also squared
off in order to make the face look heavier and
more mature. The hair framing the face has been
recarved into a more stiff and linear arrangement.
The coiffure at the back of the head has also been
retouched and a linear pattern of criss-crossing
now enlivens Plautilla’s Scheitelzopf. The presence
of the diadem suggest that an augusta is the sub-
ject of the recarved image, but the rather generic
features of the physiognomy and the wide prev-
alence of the Scheitelzopf in female imperial por-
traits in the late third and fourth centuries hinder
a more specific identification.
Geta
Mutilated Portraits
7.4. Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degli
Argenti, Sala I, inv. 1036
h. 0.33 m.
marble head
provenance: Italy
publications: C. Saletti (1967) 44-50, pls. 15-
16; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 62;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 104; E.R. Varner (2001b)
51; here, 171, 186, fig. 167.
The portrait is attached to a modern bust. Mod-
ern restorations hide ancient damage to the eyes,
nose, mouth and chin in the t-shaped pattern of
deliberately disfigured images.
7.5. Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale
h. 2.08 m.
marble cuirassed statue
provenance: Rome or environs, Della Valle
Collection
publications: C.C. Vermeule (1964) 106, n.
213; K. Stemmer (1978) 67, pl. 42.3; V. Sal-
adino (1980) 433-38, pls. 80, 81.1-3, 82.1-2,
83.1; Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-101, n. 3; E.R.
Varner (2001b) 51; here, 170-171, 186, fig.
165a-b.
The statue is carved from a single block of mar-
ble and extensive damage has been inflicted on
Geta’s type 1 facial features in the areas of the
upper brow, the left eye, nose, mouth and chin.
The young prince originally held a parazonium in
his left hand. No attempt has been made to sep-
arate the head from the body of the statue, as was
the case with the Velleia Caligula/Claudius
(cat.1.27) and the Richmond Caligula, nor have
the damaged facial features been replaced with
a new face, as with the Naples Elagabalus/
Severus Alexander (cat. 7.17). The portrait most
likely celebrates the Severan victories in Parthia
and may have formed part of a group dedication
which included Septimius Severus and Caracal-
la. After Geta’s condemnation this portrait was
mutilated, and, given the well preserved condi-
tion of the body, warehoused or buried.
7.6. Guelma, Guelma, Musée Archéo-
logique
h. unavailable
marble head
provenance: Guelma
publications: P.G. de Pachtère (1909) 36, pl.
7.9; G. Souville (1953) 115-19 pl. 1; S. Nodel-
man (1965) 215, 220-21, pl. 124; H. Wiggers
and M. Wegner (1971) 23-24, 53-54, 63, pl.
9a-b; Fittschen-Zanker I, 102; E.R. Varner
(2001b) 51; here, 171, 183, 186, fig. 168.
The facial features of this type 2 portrait have
been disfigured in the classic t-shaped pattern,
with the eyes, nose and mouth obliterated. The
head’s other surfaces are well preserved. The
intentional mutilation of the Guelma portrait has
important implications for the complicated por-
trait iconography of the two Severan brothers.
The damage to the Guelma portrait must cer-
tainly be associated with Geta’s condemnation,
and other replicas of the type must then be as-
 the severans
sociated with Geta, rather than Caracalla.
7.7. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini,
inv. 2519
h. 0.17 m.
fragmentary marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-102, no.
87, pl. 105 (with earlier literature); E.R. Var-
ner (2001b) 52; here, 171.
This fragment consists of the upper section of a
type 1 likeness of Geta, whose coiffure is well
preserved. The forehead and eyes have been
vandalized with a chisel in an attack which may
ultimately have smashed the head to pieces.
7.8. Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 79
h.. 0.22 m.
marble head
provenance: Italy
publications: G. Traversari (1968) 44-45, no.
24. pl.; H. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 99,
114; Fittschen-Zanker I, 100-101; E.R. Var-
ner (2001b) 51; here, 171.
The facial features have been almost entirely
effaced by a chisel in this type 1 replica. The rest
of the portrait is well preserved.
Altered Portraits
Geta/Victoria
7.9. Atlanta, Emory University, Michael
C. Carlos Museum, inv. 2003.25.2
h.
rock crystal intaglio
provenance: unknown
publications: unpublished; here, 77, 172, fig.
174.
The original composition depicted Septimius
Severus and Caracalla extending their right
hands over a small tripodal altar with Geta stand-
ing behind Caracalla and a figure, presumably
Victoria crowning Semptimius from behind.
277
Although the intaglio is broken at the left, the
hand extending the laurel crown behind Septi-
mius is still visible. Septimius is veiled and de-
picted with the corkscrew curls over his forehead
characteristic of his Serapis type. Caracalla is
beardless, as in his boyhood portrait type and is
also represented wearing a laurel crown and
holding a scepter in his left hand. Serapis appears
above the central altar and VTVXWC is inscribed
in the exergue below the figures.
A second figure of victory has been carved over
the figure of Geta. Most of her figure is engraved
much more deeply into the surface of the crys-
tal except for her wings which nearly come to the
edge of the intaglio and were carved into the pre-
existing blank background. Despite the recutting,
the top of Geta’s head, also laureate, is still vis-
ible and his profile below his type 1 coiffure has
been abraded, canceling his facial features. Most
of the left edge of his toga is still visible and is
merged with Victoria’s drapery and, the goddess-
es resulting drapery is unnaturally wide, especially
at the bottom. Geta’s original left foot, wearing
a calceus has been allowed to remain in place.
The scepter which Geta held, like that of Cara-
calla can also be discerned. The top of a rotulus
which Geta held is also visible beyond Victoria’s
left edge. The carving of her drapery also differs
significantly form that of Caracalla and Septimius
and is cut in much wider and more rounded folds.
The resulting treatment is much less linear than
the drapery of the original figures, which suggests
that the artist responsible for re-engraving the
crystal is not the same as the initial carver. There
is also slight damage to the surface of the gem
between Victoria’s shoulder and wing which may
have occurred during the recarving.1
The new figure of Victoria has been carved
to parallel the original Victoria crowning Septi-
mius and the Caracalla’s original wreath has been
somewhat incongruously extended over the top
of his head in order to accommodate the new
gesture of crowning. The resulting new compo-
1 Renée Stein, Conservator at the Carlos Museum made
this observation as she was cleaning dark deposits from the
intaglio.
278 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
sition is unusual in that Septimius is being
crowned in the standard manner, with the wreath
above the head, whereas Caracalla’s wreath is
already firmly on his head. Also unusual in Seve-
ran compositions is the reduplication of the god-
dess herself, which is a byproduct of the gem’s
reconfiguration. The Carlos rock crystal is the
only known example of an intaglio recut as a
result of damnatio.
Geta/Mid Third Century Portrait
7.10. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone 51,
inv. 675
h. 0235 m.
marble head
publications: Fittschen-Zanker, I, 105, no. 90,
pl. 109 (with earlier literature); here, 172, fig.
173.
Geta’s type 2 coiffure has been maintained over
the forehead and temples, but shortened and
replaced with a penna locks elsewhere. The com-
bination of plastically rendered curls over the
forehead with shorter hair on the cranium is a
mid third century phenomenon, indicating that
the original likeness of Geta was stored for ap-
proximately forty years. The new portrait’s iden-
tification is impossible to secure with certainty.
Macrinus
Mutilated Portraits
7.11. Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum,
inv. 32300
3.3 x 2.8 cm.
sardonyx cameo
provenance: unknown
publications: W.R. Megow (1987) 247, no. A
163, pl. 50.3 (with earlier literature); D. Salz-
mann (1989) 564, n. 24; E.R. Varner (2001b)
54; here, 84, n. 352, 186-187.
Facing bust length portraits of Macrinus and his
son Diadumenianus have been attacked and
defaced. Macrinus’s image has been disfigured in
the area of the brow, eye and nose, while Diad-
umenianus’s facial features have been entirely
effaced.
7.12. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univer-
sity, Arthur M. Sackler Museum, inv.
1949.47.138
h. 0.28 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome or environs
publications: D. Salzmann (1989) 563, n. 19;
A. Brauer and C.C. Vermeule (1990) 155, no.
142, with figs. (with earlier literature); M. Don-
derer (1991-2) 222, n. 123; E.R. Varner in
E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 191-3, no. 49, with
figs.; E.R. Varner (2001b) 53; here, 150, 186,
202, fig. 189a-b.
The striking contrast between the t-shaped dam-
age inflicted with a chisel on the eyes, nose and
mouth of this type 1 image and the other well
preserved sculptural details of coiffure and highly
polished skin surfaces underscores the intentional
character of the disfigurement. The ears and chin
have also been destroyed. The portrait’s remark-
able artistic quality suggests a metropolitan Ro-
man provenance.
7.13. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori, inv. 460
h. 0.37 m.
marble head
provenance: Rome or environs (Albani Collec-
tion B 177)
publications: Fittschen Zanker I, 112-14, no.
96, pls. 118-119 (with earlier literature); D.
Salzmann (1989) 563, n. 19; E.R. Varner
(2001b) 53; here, 160, n. 38, 186, fig. 190a-c.
The head was cut or broken from a bust or stat-
ue and has been combined with a cuirassed bust
of giallo antico to which it does not belong. The
portrait is a replica of Macrinus’s second type and
modern restorations have been added to repair
the t-shaped damage of the facial features in the
area of the right brow, right eye, nose, lower lip
and sections of the beard. The rest of the por-
trait is generally well preserved.
 the severans
7.14. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757 (Cen-
trale Montemartini 3.82)
h. 0.40 m.
marble head worked for insertion into a cui-
rassed portrait
provenance: domus on the Quirinal (at one
point belonging to Plautianus), 1901
publications: Fittschen-Zanker, I, 112-13, no.
95, pls. 116-17 (with earlier literature); L. de
Lachenal in MusNazRom 1.6, 158; S. Wood
(1986) 31, 70-72, 123, pl.25.36; D. Salzmann
(1989) 563, n. 19; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 361-
2, fig. 319; M. Beroletti, M. Cima, E. Tala-
mo, eds. (1997) 102-3; E.R. Varner (2001b) 53;
here, 5, n. 28, 149, 161, n. 46, 186, fig. 188a-
c.
The destruction of the facial features of the this
type 1 portrait encompasses both eyebrows, the
left eyeball, left check, nose, and upper lip. The
t-shaped pattern is familiar. Following the remov-
al of the mutilated head from the cuirassed bust
or statue to which it belonged, the bust or stat-
ue would likely have been reused through the
insertion of a new portrait. The head itself was
discovered together with the disfigured image of
Lucilla as Venus Genetrix (cat. 6.10) and both
mutilated likenesses may have been warehoused
at the domus awaiting some form of eventual re-
use.
Diadumenianus
Mutilated Portraits
7.15. Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gre-
goriano Profano, 651 (10135) inv. 10075?
h. 0.48 m.
marble bust
provenance: Rome, excavations for the foun-
dations of the Seminario Lateranense (1938)
publications: A. Giuliano (1957) 68, no. 80, pl.
48 (with earlier literature); B.M. Felletti Maj
(1958) 100, no. 32; H. von Heintze in Helbig4
no. 116; S. Nodelman (1965) 165-67, pls. 84-
279
85; H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971) 111,
193; E.R. Varner (2001b) 53-4; here, 188, fig.
192a-b.
The head is carved from a single block of mar-
ble with the bust. A claw chisel has been em-
ployed in the attack on the image, damaging the
brows, eyes, nose, cheeks, upper lip and chin. The
rest of the sculpture’s surfaces reveal no traces
of intentional disfigurement.
Elagabalus
Altered Portraits
Elagabalus/Severus Alexander
7.16. Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Museum
of Art, 45-66
h. 0.31 m.
marble head
provenance: unknown
E.R. Varner in E.R. Varner, ed. (2000) 200,
no. 52, with figs.; here, 11, 192, fig. 194a-c.
Elagabalus’s full and more curly type 2 coiffure
is still visible over the occiput, but the shorter hair
surrounding the face corresponds to Severus
Alexander’s images from c. 225. The hair on the
back of the neck has been cut back, but the ter-
mination of the hair maintains the straight hor-
izontal alignment of Elagabalus’s images, rather
than the V-shaped point more typical of Severus
Alexander. The sculptural volume of the head has
been substantially reduced and the ears have
been entirely refashioned and the original ear
canals from the portrait of Elagabalus are still
visible beneath the current earlobes.
7.17. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeolo-
gico, 5993
h. 3,79 m.
colossal marble statue in heroic nudity
provenance: presumably Baths of Caracalla
publications: K. Fittschen and P. Zanker (1970)
248-53, figs. 1, 3, 5; H. B. Wiggers and M.
280 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
Wegner (1971) 189, 249, pl. 50, 56a (with ear-
lier literature); M. Bergmann (1977) 27, no. 9;
Fittschen-Zanker I, 119; S. Wood (Leiden
1986) 44, 58, 125; S. Adamo Muscettola, in
Domiziano/Nerva (Naples 1987) 50, fig. 58; C.
Maderna 1988) 59, 64, 138, ns. 378, 381, 207-
8, no. D 6, pl. 21.3; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 363,
fig. 323; E.R. Varner (1992) 350; J. Elsner
(2000) 175, n. 32; here, 121, n. 70, 190-91,
276, fig. 193a-c.
The palm tree which supports the emperor’s
weight bearing right leg is further reference to
victory. The current face of Severus Alexander
is a separately worked piece of marble attached
to the back of the original head, almost as if it
were a mask. The full curls of Elagabalus’s type
1 hairstyle at the back of the head contrast with
the short a penna locks of the new attached sec-
tion of Severus Alexander’s face. As with bronze
Domitian/Nerva from Misenum (cat. 5.7), a line
is clearly visible in the Elagabalus/Severus Alex-
ander marking the join between the new face and
original head. This line runs from beneath the
chin, in front of the ears and through the top part
of the skull. The addition of the new facial fea-
tures has caused the head to appear unnatural-
istically wide in profile. The position of the new
portrait features also fail to properly adjust to the
torsion present in the neck and body. Like the
equestrian Domitian/Nerva, the resulting confor-
mation of the face is unrealistic and contributes
substantially to the mask like effect of the new
likeness. Nevertheless, the apparent disjunction
between new face and old body would not have
been readily apparent if the statue were displayed
in a niche, as is likely, which would have restrict-
ed profile views. The discordant effects would also
are further ameliorated when the portrait is
viewed from below.
The degree of facial hair present in the like-
ness does not appear in Severus Alexander’s
portraits until 225 indicating that at least 3 years
elapsed between the condemnation of Elagabal-
us and the reconfiguration of the statue. The fact
that Elagabalus’s features have been entirely
replaced with a new piece of marble, rather than
recarved suggest that his portrait features may
have been deliberately disfigured. If so, the
mutilated image may have remained on display
at the baths as a prominent public marker of
Elagabalus’s posthumous shame and denigration.
7.18. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano,
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 329
h. 0.59 m.
colossal marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Ostia, Tempio Rotondo
publications: E. Fileri in MusNazRom 1.9.2
(Rome 1989) 360-62, with figs (with earlier lit-
erature). E.R. Varner (1992) 350; K. Rieger
(2001) 259, fig. 17; here, 191, fig. 194a-c.
The head is worked for insertion into an acroli-
thic statue and exhibits numerous signs of recut-
ting: the hair over the forehead has been cut back
and the surface roughened with a punch for the
addition of a diadem or vegetal crown; in order
to further facilitate the addition of the head or-
nament, the right ear has been almost entirely
carved away, but traces of it are still visible. The
left ear has been partially removed. Evidence for
the removal of Elagabalus’s long and full type 2
sideburns exists below the current sideburns. The
brows have also been recarved, causing the left
brow to be longer than the right. The eyes them-
selves have also been altered and have been set
back beneath heavy lids. The pupils are not
carved, as they almost certainly would have been
in the original. The chin has been recut, caus-
ing it to recede slightly from the frontal plane of
the face. The recutting of the head has also
caused the neck to appear unnaturally thick.
7.19. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori
Braccio Nuovo 3.24, inv. 2457 (Centrale
Montemartini 2.81, formerly Antiquario
Communale, inv. 10476)
h. 0.255 m.
marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 121-22, no.
101, pl. 124 (with earlier literature); S. Wood
(1986) 124, here, 191.
 the severans
The likeness has been refashioned into a repre-
sentation of Severus Alexander’s earliest imag-
es, in use between 222 and 224. The portrait
exhibits rather thick, incised eyebrows almost
meeting over the bridge of the nose. The eye-
brows are proportionally larger than the eyes and
have been largely retained from the original type
1 likeness of Elagabalus. There are also traces of
the more fully modeled original surfaces behind
and in front of the right ear. K. Fittschen sug-
gests that the portrait may actually be a more
radical reworking of Elagabalus’s second type, in
which the volume of the head has been reduced
(Fittschen-Zanker I, 122); however, the shape of
the eyes and coiffure are much closer to Elagabal-
us’s first type.
Severus Alexander
Mutilated Portraits
7.20. Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der
Ruhr-Universität
h. 0.485 m.
bronze head from a cuirassed statue
provenance: Carnuntum
publications: B. Andreae (1979) 98-111, with
figs.; C. Letta (1981) 43-4, figs. 1-3; Fittschen-
Zanker I, 120, no. 21, n. 21; M. Donderer
(1991-2) 274, no. 9; E.R. Varner (2001b) 55;
here, 9, n. 57, 197, 204, 208, 213, 285, fig.
197.
The portrait has been attacked with a pick-axe,
gouging holes in the right side of the head, the
right temple, the corner of the right eye, the right
cheek, and left brow. The portrait appears to
have been severed from the cuirassed statue to
which it originally pertained and then buried.
7.21. Munich, Glyptothek, no. 550
h. 0.71 m.
marble (Luna) bust with toga contabulata
publications: R. Wünsche (1989); here, 197.
The eyes, nose, mouth, chin and ears of the
portrait have all been disfigured and the bust
281
form itself damaged. The remaining surfaces of
the head, including finely carved details of the
hair, are well preserved.
7.22. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzi-
ni, inv. 1431
h. 0.165 m.
fragmentary marble head
provenance: presumably Rome
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 122-23, no.
102, pl. 125 (with earlier literature); E.R. Var-
ner (2001b) 55, here, 196.
This fragmentary portrait has been attacked with
a chisel and broken apart. The chisel was also
used to destroy the nose.
7.23. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano
delle Terme, Inv. 124492
h. 0.225 m.
fragmentary bronze portrait
provenance: from the Tiber
publications: A.L. Cesnaro, MusNazRom 1.9.2,
362-3, no. R274 (with fig. n)(with earlier lit-
erature); M. Donderer (1991-2) 222, 260-61,
no. 7 (with earlier literature); E.R. Varner
(2001b) 55; here, 196.
The fragmenary face of a bronze image of
Severus Alexander, comprising the hair over the
forehead and face to just below the mouth, may
have been vandalized and thrown into the Tiber
during spontaneous demonstrations after his
murder.
7.24. Switzerland, Private Collection
h. 0.314 m.
marble (Luna) bust (with toga contabulata)
provenance: presumably Italy (discovered with
fragmentary portraits of Julia Mammaea,
cat. 7.25 and cat.7.28)
publications: H. Jucker and D. Willers (1982) 173,
no. 71 (with fig. n); E.R. Varner (2001b) 55; here,
196, 198, 282.
The eyes, nose, mouth and chin of the image
have all been disfigured in the usual t-shaped
282 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
pattern. The rest of the portrait has not been
damaged intentionally and is generally well pre-
served.
Julia Mammaea
7.25. Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der
Ruhr-Universität, inv. S 1090
h. 0.18 m.
fragmentary (Luna) marble head
provenance: presumably Italy
publictions: H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds.
(1982) 176-8, no. 73, with figs. (H. Jucker);
E.R. Varner (2001a) 51; E.R. Varner (2001b)
55; here, 9, n. 57, 198.
Only the face of this image has survived and the
nose is damaged. The portrait was discovered
together with the intentionally mutilated bust of
Severus Alexander (cat. 7.24) and another disfig-
ured Julia Mammaea (cat. 7.28), both now in
Switzerland.
7.26. Ostia, Museo, inv. 26
h. 0.58 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Ostia, Decumanus Maximus,
near the theater (originally from the Tempio
Rotondo?)
publications: R. Calza (1977) 66-67, no. 83,
pl. 61 (with earlier literature); Fittschen-Zanker
III, 31; S. Wood (1986) 126; M. Donderer
(1991-2) 222, n. 123; J.P. P. Pensabene (2001)
298, fig. 13; E.R. Varner (2001) 55; E.R.
Varner (2001a) 50-51; here, 5, n. 26, 9, n. 57,
197, fig. 198.
The forehead has been attacked with a square
instrument whose indentations pockmark the
surfaces in this area. A chisel has been used to
gouge out the eyeballs, as well as to disfigure the
nose, most of the mouth, and part of the left
cheek. The rest of the portrait is very well pre-
served, with the exception of slight weathering
to the top of the head. The mutilated image was
eventually reused, face down as a paving stone
in the Decumanus.
7.27. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 3552
h. 0.41;
marble bust
provenance:
publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 211, pl. 60 (with earlier literature);
Fittschen-Zanker III, 31; S. Wood (1986) 59,
126; K. de Kersauson (1996) 424-5, no. 196,
with figs., (with earlier literature); E. Bartman
(2001) 21-2, fig. 16; E.R. Varner (2001) 55;
E.R. Varner (2001a) 50-51; here, 9, n. 57, 197-
98.
A chisel has been used to disfigure the image,
destroying the left brow, the eyes, the nose, the
mouth, and the chin. As in other intentionally
mutilated images, the portraits other areas are
well preserved. The lower sections of her nestfri-
sur on either side of the neck were separately
worked pieces of marble, now lost.
7.28. Switzerland, Private Collection
h. 0.18 m.
fragmentary marble (Luna) head
provenance: presumably Italy
publications: H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds.
(1982) 174-75, no. 72, with figs. (H. Jucker);
E.R. Varner (2001a) 51; E.R. Varner (2001b)
55; here, 9, n. 57, 196, 198.
Similar to the fragmentary portrait in Bochum
(cat. 7.25) with which it was discovered, togeth-
er with the damaged bust of Severus Alexander
(cat. 7.24), only the face survives and the nose
has been obliterated.
 the later third century
CATALOGUE 8
MUTILATED PORTRAITS OF THE THIRD CENTURY
Maximinus Thrax
Mutilated Portraits
8.1. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
744, inv. 818
h. 0.43 m.
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: presumably Rome (Ludovisi
Collection)
publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 225, 227, pl. 69a (with earlier
literature); V. Poulsen (1974) 161-62, no. 164;
M. Bergmann (1977) 30-31, no. 2; K.
Fittschen, (1978) 151; M. Bergmann (1981a)
187-89; Fittschen-Zanker I, 125, no. 6; L. de
Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 48, no. II.16, with
fig.; SS. Wood (1986) 33-34, 66, 71, 120, 126-
27, pl. 2.3; A.L. Cesarano, MusNazRom 1.9.2,
370; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 364-65, fig. 324;
F. Johansen (1995b) 100-101, no. 39 (with figs.
n); E.R. Varner (2001b) 56; here, 202, fig. 203.
A chisel has been used to disfigure the nose, chin
and both ears. The remainder of the portrait is
very well preserved and maintains the highly
polished surfaces of the skin.
8.2. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1044
h. 0.58 m.
marble bust
provenance: Rome, Villa of the Quintilii
(1850-51?)
publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 227, pl. 64b (with earlier literature); M.
Bergmann (1977) 30-31; Fittschen-Zanker I,
125; L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 48; S.
Wood (1986) 127; A.L. Cesarano, MusNazRom
1.9.2, 370. K. de Kersauson (1996) 563, no.
283
277, with figs.; A. Ricci, ed. (1998) 108-109,
nos. 80, 83, pl. 14.2; here, 201, 202, 206.
The image has been disfigured in the areas of the
right brow, right eye, most of the left eye, the
nose, the left half of the lower lip, the chin, and
most of the left ear, all now restored in marble.
Other surfaces and the bust form itself are well
preserved.
The bust was formerly part of the Campana
collection. Although de Kersauson has published
the bust as an eighteenth century copy of the bust
in the Stanza degli Imperatori from the Albani
collection, the piece is by no means an exact (or
even close) copy. Furthermore, it’s associations
with the Villa of the Quintilli as documented by
Ricci, as well as its damaged state, help to con-
firm the portrait’s authenticity and antiquity.
8.3. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza
degli Imperatori 46, inv. 473
h. 0.275 m.
marble head
provenance: Presumably Rome or environs (ex
Coll. Albani, B 199)
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 124-27, no.
105, pl. 128-29 (with earlier literature); S.
Wood (1986) 33, 137; A.L. Cesarano, Mus-
NazRom 1.9.2, 127; E.R. Varner (2001b) 56;
here, 201.
The head is attached to a bust to which it does
not belong. Modern restorations mask damage
to the left brow, the nose, the left half of the chin
and both ears. Severe breakage, visible in cracks
running throughout the portrait suggest an ad-
ditional attack with a heavy object.
284 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits

8.4. Rome, Museo Palatino, Sala 8, for- 8.6. Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Auro-
merly Museo Nazionale Romano delle ra
Terme, inv. 52681 h. precise measurements unavailable (slightly
h. 0.21 m. over lifesized)
fragmenatry marble head marble head
provenance: Rome, Palatine provenance: presumably Rome (Ludovisi
publications: A.L. Cesarano, MusNazRom 1.9.2, Collection)
369-72, no. R278, with figs., (with earlier lit- publications: (pl. ) T. Shreiber, (1880). no. 160;
erature); M.A. Tomei (1997) 95, no. 68 (with K. Fittschen,(1977b). figs. 5-6; Fittschen-Zank-
fig.); E.R. Varner (2001b) 56; here, 68, n. 190, er I, 125; L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6,.
201, fig. 200a-c. 250-52, with figs.; S. Wood, (1986) 127, no.
6; E.R. Varner (2001b) 57; here, 202, fig. 202.
Only the upper section of the head is preserved.
The head appears to have been attacked and split Modern restorations to the head include the nose
apart by violent blows. There is slight damage and the chin, both likely to have been attacked
to the right brow and both eyes. The rims of both and damaged in antiquity.
ears are no longer extant. Most of the surfaces
are extremely well preserved, including the high
polish of the skin and the finely carved details of Maximus
the hair. The surface between the eyes, the orig-
inal position of the bridge of the nose, has been Mutilated Portraits
worked with the punch and chisel. The work in
8.7. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
this area suggests that the piece was repaired in
745, inv. 819
antiquity, or was being prepared for a modern
h. 0.42 m.
restoration which was never carried out (A.L.
marble head worked for insertion
Cesarano, MusNazRom 1.9.2, 372).
provenance: Rome or environs (Ludovisi
Collection)
8.5. Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Auro-
publications:H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
ra
(1971) 232, 234, pl. 71 (with earlier literature);
h. precise measurements unavailable (slightly
V. Poulsen (1974) 163, no. 166, pls. 266-
over lifesized)
267;K. Fittschen (1977b) 320; K. Fittschen
marble head
(1978) 151-52; M. Bergmann (1981a) 187-89;
provenance: presumably Rome (Ludovisi
L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom 1.6, 48-52, no.
Collection)
II.17, with figs.; S. Wood (1986) 66-67, 127,
publications: T. Schreiber (1880) no. 158;K.
no. 1, pl. 33.23; F. Johansen (1995b) 104-5,
Fittschen (1977b) 319-26, figs. 3-4; Fittschen-
no. 41 (with figs. n); E.R. Varner (2001b) 56;
Zanker I, 125; L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom
here, 202-203, fig. 203.
1.6, 246-47, with figs.; S. Wood (1986) 127,
no. 5; E.R. Varner (2001b) 56; here, 202, fig.
Both eyes, the nose, chin and edges of the ears
201.
have been mutilated. The remainder of the head
has not been damaged and its modeled and
The portrait has recently fallen from the facade
polished surfaces well preserved.
of the Casino, causing severe cracks through the
head, but both brows, the nose, the lips, the chin
and the ears are earlier modern restorations. The
head may be worked for insertion possibly into
a togate statue (S. Wood [1986] 127, no. 5).
 the later third century
8.8. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
746, inv. 823
h. 0.42
marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Rome or environs (Ludovisi
Collection)
publications: H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner
(1971) 232, 234, pl. 70a (with earlier literature);
V. Poulsen (1974). 162-63, no. 165, pls. 264-
65; L. de Lachenal , MusNazRom 1.6, 52, with
fig.; S. Wood (1986) 66-67, 127, n. 2; F. Jo-
hansen (1995b) 102-3, no.40 (with figs. n); E.R.
Varner (2001b) 56; here, 202-203, fig. 204.
The face has been attacked with a chisel, disfig-
uring both eyes, the nose and moth, as well as
damaging both ears. Other than the damage to
the sensory organs, sculptural details of the hair
and highly polished flesh are very well preserved.
285
Gordian III
Mutilated Portraits
8.9. Sofia, National Archaeological Muse-
um, inv. 1497
h. 0.37 m.
bronze head
provenance: Jantra (Jantros) River (1897)
publications: M. Wegner, J. Bracker and W.
Real (1979)28-9 (with earlier literature); V.P.
Vasilev (1988) 541-6, figs. 1-6; M. Donderer
(1991-2) 222, fig. 3, 262, no. 17; E.R. Varner
(2001b) 56; here, 9, n. 57, 204, 208, 213, fig.
205.
The portrait has been attacked and the nose
damaged. The ears have been severed from the
head. The damage to the portrait is analogous
to that inflicted on the bronze head of Severus
Alexander in Bochum (cat. 7.20).
286 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits

CATALOGUE 9

MUTILATED AND ALTERED PORTRAITS OF THE

FOURTH CENTURY
Maxentius The ears are too large in comparison to the re-
duced volumes of the head. As in many other
Mutilated Portraits reconfigured portraits, the profile has also be-
come overly wide. The current proportions of the
9.1. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv.
head are too small in comparison to the body.
106
h. 0.40 m.
9.3. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza ter-
marble head worked for insertion into a cui-
rena a destra I.25, inv. 1769
rassed statue
h. 0.35 m.
provenance: unknown
marble head
publications: D. Stutzinger in Spätantike und
provenance: presumably Rome
frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1983) 417-18, no.
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 143-44, no.
35, with fig.; H. P. L’Orange (1984) 35, 115-
119, pl. 148 (with earlier literature); here, 218,
16, pls. 27c-d (with earlier literature);
fig. 210a-c.
Fittschen-Zanker I 143-44, n. 2, 145, n. 8, 149,
152, n. 1; J. (1986) 234-37, fig. 14; C. Evers
Much the coiffure has been worked over with a
(1992) 11-21, figs. 6, 10, 13; E.R. Varner
flat chisel in order to remove the Maxentian
(2001b) 56; here, 216-17, 220, fig. 208a-b.
arrangement; no new locks have been indicated.
A claw chisel has also been used at the back of
The nose, the lower lip, top of the right ear, and
the head. The reworking of this portrait may not
back of the head and neck have all been restored.
have been completed, or the portrait may have
The modern additions to the portrait hide the
been displayed in a niche which would have
ancient damage in these areas. The eyes have
hidden the cursorily worked parts of the coiffure
been attacked with a chisel and not restored. The
from view. Like the colossal image in the cortile
rest of the portrait is well preserved.
of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the eyes and
brows essentially retain their original shape.
Altered Portraits Recutting in this area has, however, resulted in
certain assymetricalities, including the brow over
Maxentius/Constantine
the left eye being higher than the right and the
9.2. Rome, Campidoglio left eye being wider and set higher in the head
h. unavailable than the right eye. The mouth has been short-
marble cuirassed statue ened but the thinner upper lip and fuller reced-
provenance: Quirinal, Baths of Maxentius and ing lower lip remains from the representation of
Constantine Maxentius. Maxentius’s beard has also not been
publications: Fittschen-Zanker I, 144-5, no. entirely removed and raised surfaces on the right
120, pls. 149-50 (with earlier literature); D.E.E. cheek follow the line of the original beard.
Kleiner (1992) 476, fig. 397; here, 218, fig.
211.
 the fourth century
9.4. Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori,
Cortile, Inv. 1622
h. 2.97 m.
colossal marble head worked for insertion
provenance: Rome, Basilica of Maxentius and
Constantine (1486)
publications: H. Jucker (1983b) 55-57; U.
Peschlow, in Spätantike und frühes Christentum
(Frankfurt 1983) 67, fig. 35; H. P. L’Orange
(1984) 70-78, 125, pls. 50-54; Fittschen-Zanker
I, 147-52, no. 122, pls. 151-52 (with previous
literature); F. Coarelli in A. Giardina, ed.,
(1986) 32, and n. 151; A.M Leander Touati
(1987), 93-5, pl. 42.4-5. D. Wright (1987) 493-
94; C. Maderna (1988) 185-7, no. JT 36; C.
Evers (1991) 794-9; D.E.E. Kleiner (1992) 438-
40, figs. 399-401; R. Brilliant (1993) 303-12,
fig. 13; M. Cullhed (1994) 52; D. Kinney
(1997) 119, 138, figs. 3 and 13; G. Legrotta-
glie (1999) 125. S. Ensoli in S. Ensoli and E.
La Rocca, eds. (2000) 77, 88; E.R. Varner, ed.
(2000) 14, fig. 6; P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini,
and B. Turi (2002) 250-55; here, 11, 217-218,
286, fig. 209a-d.
The coiffure has been reconfigured over the fore-
head and the forehead itself substantially carved
back as a result. The eyes have been slightly
recut, accounting for assymetricalities including
the fact that the left eye is larger and has a larg-
er fold of flesh beneath it than the right eye.
Maxentius’s aquiline nose has been modified into
the hooked nose of Constantine. As a result, the
bulge in the forehead over the brows is exagger-
ated and the nose appears too short and pro-
trudes unnaturally in profile. Although the mouth
has been recarved, causing it to be noticeably
longer on the left side, it still retains its general
Maxentian shape and receding lower lip. The
recutting of the mouth has also caused the space
between the lips to be much wider on the right
side. The chin is fairly deeply cleft, a standard
feature of Maxentius’s portraits, but not usually
of Constantine’s. Removal of the cleft was clearly
impractical as it would have substantially reduced
the volume of marble in the lower section of the
face. Constantine’s portraits without cleft chins
287
include: Copenhagen, 744a, inv. 3147 [F. Johans-
en [1995b] 170, no. 74, with figs.); Madrid, Pra-
do, 125 E (S.F. Schröder [1993]); New York,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv. 26229 (H.P.
L’Orange, [1984] 69, 123, 48d); Tunis, Musée
du Bardo, C77 (H.P. L’Orange [1984] 55-56,
127, pl. 39 c-d). The reconfiguration has also
caused the neck to be disproportionately large in
comparison with the lower section of the face.
Additionally, the top of the head seems too small
in proportion to the overall dimensions of the
face, but this would have been hidden by the
addition of a metal diadem or crown; cuttings for
such a headpiece are visible on both temples and
on the left side of the coiffure.
F. Coarelli, citing unpublished observations by
P. Zanker, mentions that the portrait in all prob-
ability is a reworked Maxentius ([1986] 32 and
n. 151), as also suggested earlier by H. Jucker
([1983b] 55-57), while C. Evers’ has suggested
that the head might instead be reworked from an
image of Hadrian based on the distinctive treat-
ment of the ears. The overwhelming physical
details of the portrait, however, confirm that the
image’s most recent incarnation prior to its re-
cutting to Constantine was as a likeness of Max-
entius. Isotopic anaylsis of the marble seems to
support a double reconfiguration, as most of the
fragments (head, left foot, right foot, sections of
the left leg, right calf, right knee, and the possi-
ble second right hand) are Parian marble, while
the two sections of the neck, and right hand are
Luna. Since it is unlikely that Maxentius would
have had access to such unusually large blocks
of Parian marble from which to create the por-
trait ex novo, it may have been recycled from a
pre-existing representation of Hadrian. The
putative Hadrianic colossus may have been dam-
aged, thus necessitating the new right hand and
repairs to the neck in Luna, and accessible in a
marble depository (P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini,
and B. Turi [2002] 254). Maxentius’s reuse of
a Hadrianic original would accord well with his
interest in that emperor as manifested in archi-
tectural projects like the rebuilding of the Tem-
ple of Venus and Roma.
288 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
9.5. Rome, S. Giovanni in Laterano,
Narthex
h. unavailable
colossal cuirassed marble statue
provenance: Quirinal, Baths of Maxentius and
Constantine
publications: H. P. L’Orange and M. Wegn-
er (1984) 55, 58-9, 126, pls. 43-4 (with earlier
literature); Fittschen-Zanker I, 144, no. 120,
n. 3; 147, no. 121, n. 10; 151, no. 122, rep. C
13; S. Ensoli in S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, eds.
(2000) 78, fig. 25; here, 218-19.
There is a distinctive indentation in the forehead
where it has been cut back. The coiffure behind
the right ear is much greater in volume than the
hair over the forehead. The scale of the face is
generally too small in comparison to the larger
mass of the corona and the neck, and the right
profile is unnaturally wide. The left eye is also
lower than the right and includes a much larger
pouch of flesh beneath it.
Valeria Maximilla
Mutilated Portrait
9.6. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini,
inv. 106
h. 0.26 m.
marble head
provenance:
publications: Fittschen-Zanker III, 227, no.
177, pl. 206; E.R. Varner (2001b) 57; E.R.
Varner (2001a) 55-57; here, 220.
The portrait’s strong stylistic and physiognomi-
cal affinities with the surviving sculpted represen-
tations of Maxentius, as well as its high artistic
quality, suggest that this portrait may represent
his wife, Valeria Maximilla. The forehead, left
eye, nose, mouth and chin have been attacked
and disfigured. The coiffure and other surfaces
of the image are well preserved. The intentional
mutilation of the portrait further suggest that the
woman portrayed suffered some kind of condem-
nation.
Galeria Valeria
Altered Portrait
9.8. Thessalonika Museum, inv. 2466
h.
marble relief portrait
provenance: Thessaloniki, smaller Arch of
Galerius
publications: M. Wegner in H.P. L’Orange
(1984) 151, pl. 21b (with earlier literature) E.R.
Varner (2001a) 85-86; here, 97, 221.
Originally a pendant tondo image to one of
Galerius, this relief head appears to have origi-
nally represented his wife, the daughter of Dio-
cletian, Galeria Valeria. The head has been re-
configured as a turretted female deity.
 select bibliography
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Adriani, “Scavi di Minturno,” NSc (1938) 211.
N. Agnoli, Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina. Le sculture
(Xenia Antiqua Monografie 11, Rome 2002).
F. Albertson, rev of M. Bergmann (1994), AJA 100 (1996)
802-3.
——, “Pliny and the Vatican Laocoon,” RM 100 (1993)
133-40.
——, “Zenodorus’s Colossus of Nero,” MAAR 46 (2001)
95-118.
A. Alföldi, “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser,”
RM 50 (1935) 1-171.
——, (“Redeunt saturnia regna VII: Frugifer-Triplemos im
ptolemäisch-römischen Herrscherkult,” Chiron 9 (1979)
553-606.
—— and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Die Kontorniat-Medallion
(AMUGS 6.1, Berlin 1976).
M.R. Alföldi, “Silberspiegel mit Domitianporträt in
Karlsruhe, Festoen. Opgedragen aan A.N. Zadoks-Josephus
Jitta bij haar zeventigste verjaardag (Scripta Archaeologica
Groningana 6, Gröningen, ND) 15-22.
U. Aldovrandi, Delle statue antiche che per tutta Roma in diversi
luoghi, e case si veggono (Venice 1563).
W. Alzinger, Die Ruinen von Ephesos (Berlin 1972) 46-9.
R. Amedick, Frühkaiserzeitliche Bildhauerstile (Rheinfelden
1987).
——, “Die Kinder des Kaisers Claudius: zu den Porträts
des Tiberius Claudius Britannicus und der Octavia
Claudia,” RM 98 (1991) 95-104.
J.C. Anderson, jr., “Domitian, the Argiletum and the
Temple of Peace,” AJA 86 (1982) 101-10.
——, “A Topographical Tradition in the Fourth Century
Chronicles. Domitian’s Building Programe,” Historia
32 (1983) 93-105.
M.L. Anderson, “The Portrait Medallions of the Imperial
Villa at Boscotrecase,” AJA 91 (1987) 127-35.
—— and L. Nista, Roman Portraits in Context. Imperial and
Private Likenesses from the Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome
1988).
——, eds., Radiance in Stone. Sculpture in Colored Marble from
the Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome 1989).
B. Andreae, The Art of Rome (New York 1977).
——, “Der Bronzekopf des Kaisers Severus Alexander in
der Sammlung Paul Dierichs,” Plastik. Antike und mo-
derne Kunst der Sammlung Paul Dierichs, M. Imdahl and
N. Kunish, eds. (Kassel-Bonn 1979) 98-111.
——, “Auftraggeber und Bedeutung der Dirke-Gruppe,”
RM 100 (1993) 107-31.
——, “Le statue del palazzo sommerso dell imperatore
Claudio a Baia. Terza puntata,” Forma Urbis 3.6 (1998)
32-4.
—— et al., Bildkatalog der Skulpturen des Vatakanischen Museums
I: Museo Chiaramonti 1-3 (Berlin 1995).
289
A. Angelicoussis, “The Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius,”
RM 91 (1984) 141-205.
——, The Woburn Abbey Collection of Classical Antiquities
(Monumenta Artis Romanae 20, Mainz 1992).
Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien (Frankfurt 1988).
Antike und frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1979).
F.P. Arata, “La statua seduta dell Imperatrice Helena nel
Museo Capitolino. Nuove cosiderazioni conseguenti
il recente restauro,” RM 100 (1993) 185-200.
G. Arbore Popescu, ed. Traiano ai confini dell Impero (Milan
1998).
J. Arce, S. Ensoli, and E. La Rocca, eds., Hispania Romana:
da terra di Conquista a provincia dell’impero (Milan 1997).
D. Arnold, J.P. Allen, and L. Green, The Royal Women of
Amarna. Images of Beauty from Ancient Egypt (New York
1996).
F. Astolfi, “Il quartiere romano di via in Arcione,” Forma
Urbis 3.4 (1998) 33-9.
S. Aurigemma, L’arco quadrifronte di Marco Aurelio e di Lucio
Vero in Tripoli (Libya Antiqua suppl. 3, Rome 1970).
E. Babelon, Catalogue des Camées Antiques et Modernes de la
Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris 1897).
——, Les Cabinet des Médailles et Antiques 1 (Paris 1924).
A. Bahrani, “Assault and Abduction: The Fate of the Royal
Image in the Ancient Near East,” Art History 18 (1995)
363-82.
S. Bailey, “Metamorphoses of the Grimani Vitellius ,”
GettyMusJ 5 (1979) 105-22.
U. Baldini, M. Cristofani, G. Maetzke, Arte in Toscana 1
(Milan 1983).
L.F. Ball, “A Reappraisal of Nero’s Domus Aurea,” Rome
Papers (JRA supplement 11, Ann Arbor 1994) 182-254.
——, The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution
(Cambridge 2003).
J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius (Oxford 1934).
——, “The Principate of Tiberius and Gaius,” ANRW 2.2
(Berlin 1975) 86-94.
J. Balty, Essai d’iconographie de l’empereur Clodius Albinus,
CollLatomus (85) 1966.
——, “Notes d’iconographie sévérienne,” AntCl 41 (1972)
623-42.
—— and J. Ch. Balty, “Problèmes d’Iconographie Im-
périale en Sicilie,” AntCl 35 (1966) 527-47.
A. Banti and L. Simonetti, Corpus Nummorum Romanorum 18
(Florence 1979).
H. Bardon, Les empereurs et les lettres latines d’Auguste à Hadrien
(Paris 1968).
T.D. Barnes, “Pre-Decian acta martyrum,” Journal of
Theological Studies 19 (1968) 522-24.
——, “Ultimum Antininorum,” BHAC 1970 (1972) 53-74.
——, “Lactantius and Constantine,” JRS 63 (1973) 29-46.
——, Sources of the Historia Augusta (Brussels 1978).
——, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass. 1981).
290 select bibliography
——, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge,
MA 1982).
A. Barrett, Caligula. The Corruption of Power (New Haven
1989).
——, Agrippina. Sex, Power and Politics in the Early Empire (New
Haven 1996).
E. Bartman, “Sculptural Collecting and Display in the
Private Realm,” Roman Art in the Private Sphere, E.
Gazda, ed. (Ann Arbor 1991) 71-88.
——, “Cataloguing Roman Portraits,” JRA 7 (1994) 339-
44.
——, Portraits of Livia. Imaging the Imperial Woman in Augustan
Rome (Cambridge 1999).
——, “Hair and the Artifice of Roman Female Adorn-
ment,” AJA 105 (2001) 1-25.
R. Bartoccini, “L’Arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepcis,”
AfrIt 4 (1931) 116-152.
A. Bartoli, “Ricordi di Elagabalo nella sede del Senato
Romano,” RendPontAcc 27 (1951-52) 47-54.
I.M. Barton, “The Inscriptions of Septimius Severus and
His Family at Lepcis Magna,” Melanges L. Senghor
(Dakar 1977) 3-12.
T. Barton, Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and
Medicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor 1995).
S. Bartsch, Actors in the Audience. Theatricality and Doublespeak
from Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge, Mass. 1994).
P. Bastien, Le buste monetaire des Empereurs Romains 1-3
(Wetteren 1992-4).
F. Battistelli and L de Sanctis Museo Civico del Palazzo
Malatesteiano (Fano 1984).
G. Bauchhenss, Die grosse Iuppitersäule aus Mainz (Mainz
1984).
—— and P. Noelke, Die Iupitersäulen in den germanischen
Provinzen (BJb Beih. 41, Cologne 1981).
R.A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestastis in the Roman Republic
and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg 1967).
——, Impietas in Principem (Munich 1974).
——, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London 1992).
——, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (London 1996).
A. Bay, “The Letters SC on Augustan Aes Coinage,” JRS
62 (1972) 109-22.
G. Bean, “An Inscription from Amisus,” Belleten 20 (1956)
213-16.
M. Beard, “Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the
Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion,”
Literacy in the Roman World, J.H. Humphrey ed., (JRA
Supp. 31, Ann Arbor 1991) 35-58.
G. Becatti, “Il culto di Ercole ad Ostia ed un nuovo rilievo
votivo,” BullCom 18 (1939) 37-60.
——, La colonna di Marco Aurelio (Milan 1957).
——, La colonna coclide istoriata. Problemi storici, stilistici,
iconografici (Rome 1960).
——, “Osservazioni sui rilievi di Marco Aurelio,” ArchCl
19 (1967) 321-31.
——, “Il rilievo della Liberalitas di Marco Aurelio,” ArchCl
24 (1972) 59-74.
A. Belezza, Massimino il Trace (Rome 1964).
G. Bellori and J. Rubeis, Veteres Arcus Augustorum (Rome
1690).
M. Beltrán Lloris, “El retrato de ‘Divus Augustus’ del
Municipium Turiaso (Tarazona, Zaragoza). Un pa-
limpsesto de época trajana,” MM 25 (1984) 103-34.
——, J. Royo, and J. Paz, “Las excavaciones del Museo
Provincial de Zaragoza en el Municpium Turiaso
(Tarazona, Zaragoza),” Caesaraugusta 51-52 (1980) 117-
19.
T. Beran, “Leben und Tod der Bilder,” in G. Mauer and
U. Magen, eds., Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller (Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn 1988) 55-60.
H.W. Benario, “Rome of the Severi,” Latomus 17 (1958)
712-20.
H. Bengtson, Die Flavier (Munich 1979).
J. Bergemann, Römische Reiterstatuen (Mainz 1990).
B. Bergmann, “The House as Memory Theater: The House
of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii,” ArtB 86 (1994) 225-
56.
M. Bergmann, Studien zum römischen Porträt des 3 Jhr. n. Chr.
(Antiquitas 18, Bonn 1977).
——, rev. V. Poulsen (1974), Gnomon 53 (1981a) 176-90.
——, “Zum Fries B der flavischen Cancelleriareliefs,”
MarbWPr (1981b) 19-31.
——, “Zum römischen porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n.
Chr.,” Spätantike und frühes Christentum (Frankfurt 1983)
41-59.
——, Der Koloss Neros: Die Domus Aurea und der Mentalitäts-
wandel im Rom der frühen Kaiserzeit (TrWPr 13, Mainz
1994).
——, Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild und
politische Symbolik in Hellenismus und in der römischen
Kaiserzeit (Mainz 1998).
—— and G. Lahusen, “Die römischen Porträtbüsten der
Saalburg,” Saalburg Jahrbuch 38 (1982) 12-16.
—— and P. Zanker, “‘Damnatio Memoriae’ Umgearbeitete
Nero- und Domitiansporträts. Zur Ikonographie der
flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva,” JdI 96 (1981) 317-
412.
R.M. Berkowitz “Selected Acquisitions made by the Toledo
Museum of Art 1990-2001,” Burlington Magazine 143.
1177 (April 2001).
J.J. Bernoulli, Römische Ikonographie 2.1 (Stuttgart 1886).
——, Römische Ikonographie 2.2 (Stuttgart 1891).
——, Römische Ikonographie 2.4 (Stuttgart 1894).
G.M. Bersanetti, Studi sull’imperatore Massimino Trace (Rome
1964).
M.E. Bertoldi, “Recenti scavi e scoperte a Cuma,” BdA 58
(1973) 38-42.
M. Bertoletti, , M. Cima, and E. Talamo, eds., Sculture di
Roma Antica. Collezioni dei Musei Capitolini alla Centrale
Montemartini (Rome 1997).
R. Bertolotti, G. Ioppolo, and G. Sartorio, La residenza
imperiale di Massenzio (Rome 1988).
A. Beschaouch, R. Hanoune, Y. Thébert, Les Ruines de Bulla
Regia (Collection de l’École Francaise de Rome 28, Rome
1977).
R. Bianchi, ed. Cleopatra’s Egypt, Age of the Ptolemies (Mainz
1988).
R. Bianchi Bandinelli, “Per l’iconografia di Germanico,”
RM 47 (1932) 153-69.
——, Roma, l’arte romana nel centro del potere (Rome 1969).
——, Roma, la fine dell’arte antica (Rome 1970).
——, E. Vergara Caffarelli, G. Caputo, The Buried City
(Philadelphia 1967).
M. Bieber, “The Roman Sculpture in the Cleveland
Museum of Art,” Art in America 32 (1944) 65-83.
 select bibliography
R. Billows, “The Religious Procession of the Ara Pacis
Augustae: Augustus’s supplicatio in 13 B.C.,” JRA 6
(1993) 80-92.
W. Binsfeld, Grylloi (Diss., Köln 1956).
H. W. Bird, Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool 1994).
A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (London 1966).
——, Septimius Severus, the African Emperor (New Haven 1988).
H. Blanck, “Zwei unfertige antiken Arbeiten,” Bjb 166
(1966) 171-4.
——, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmäler bei
Griechen und Römern (Studia Archaeologica 11, Rome 1969).
P.H. von Blanckenhagen and C. Alexander, The Augustan
Villa at Boscotrecase [DAIR Sonderschriften 8, Mainz 1990].
J. Bleicken, Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (AbhGött 3.53,
Göttingen 1962).
C. Blinkenberg, Lindos II (Berlin 1941).
H. Bloch, “The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of
the Fourth Century,” in A. Momigliano, ed., Paganism
and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1963).
P. Pray Bober, Sculptures of the Arch of Septimius Severus at Leptis,
(diss., New York University 1943).
J. Bodel, “Monumental Villas and Villa Monuments,” JRA
10 (1997) 5-35.
P.C. Bol, ed., Forschungen zur Villa Albani. Katalog der antiken
Bildwerke I-III (Berlin 1988-92).
R. Bol, “Ein Bildnis der Claudia Octavia aus dem
olympischen Metroon,” JdI 101 (1986) 294-307.
N. Bonacasa, Ritratti greci e romani della Sicilia (Palermo 1964).
—— and G. Rizza, eds., Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti
della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano. Roma,
26-30 Settembre 1984 (Rome 1988).
A. Bonanno, Portraits and Other Heads on Roman Historical Relief
up to the Age of Septimius Severus (BAR Supplementary Series
6, Oxford 1976).
L. Bonfante and H. von Heintze, eds., In Memoriam Otto J.
Brendel. Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities (Mainz
1976) 158.
G.C. Boon, “QUALIS ARTIFEX PERIIT. A Silchester coin
and an Unfortunate Parallel,” Numismatic Circular 82
(1974) 11.
——, “A Countermarked and Defaced As of Nero,” NC
(1978) 178-80.
E. Borea and C. Gasparri, eds., L’Idea del Bello. Viaggio per
Roma nel Seicento con Giovan Pietro Bellori (Rome 2000).
H. Born and K. Stemmer, Damnatio Memoriae. Das Berliner
Nero-porträt (Sammlung Axel Guttman 5, Mainz 1996).
D. Boschung, “Römische Glasphalerae mit Porträtbusten,”
Bjb 187 (1987) 193-258.
——, Die Bildnisse des Caligula (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.4,
Berlin 1989).
——, Die Bildnisse des Augustus (Das römische Herrscherbild 1.2,
Berlin 1993a).
——, “Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiser-
familie,” JRA 6 (1993b) 39-79.
—— and W. Eck, “Ein Bildnis der Mutter Traians? Zum
Kolossalkopf der sogenannten Agrippina Minor um
Traiansforum,” AA (1998) 473-81.
——, H. von Hessberg and A. Linfert, Die antiken Skulpturen
in Chatsworth (Monumenta Artis Romanae 26, Mainz 1997).
D. von Bothmer, ed., Glories of the Past. Ancient Art from the
Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (New York 1990).
J. Bracker, Bestimmung der Bildnisse Gordians III. nach einer neuen
291
ikonographischen Methode (diss. Westfälische Wilhelms
Universität, Münster 1966).
K.R. Bradley, Suetonius’ Life of Nero. An Historical Commentary
(CollLatomus 157, Brussels 1978).
A. Brauer and C.C. Vermeule, Stone Sculptures. The Greek,
Roman, and Etruscan Collections of the Harvard University
Art Museums (Cambridge, Mass. 1990).
D. Breckenridge, “Imperial Portraiture from Augustus to
Gallienus,” ANRW 2.12.2 (Berlin 1982) 477-512.
R. Brilliant, The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum,
MAAR 29 (1967).
——, “An Early Imperial Portrait Type of Caligula,”
ActaAArtHist 4 (1969) 13ff.
——, “Adoption, Substitution and the ‘damnatio memo-
riae’ in Severan Monuments,” Acta XI Int. Congress Cl.
Arch.- London 1978 (London 1979).
——, “Hairiness: A Matter of Style and Substance in
Roman Portraits,”R.T. Scott and A.R. Scott, eds., Eius
virtutis studiosi. Classical and Postclassical Studies in Memory
of Frank Edward Brown (1908-1988) (Studies in the History
of Art 43, Center for the Advanced Study in the Visual Arts
Symposium Papers 23, Hanover and London 1993) 303-
12.
D. Brinkerhoff, “Changing Methods in the Distribution of
Sculpture in the Eastern Mediterranean Area during
the Later Imperial Age,” AJA 67 (1963) 208-9.
——, A Collection of Sculpture in Classical and Early Christian
Antioch (Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts 22,
New York 1970).
British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins of Phoenicia (Bologna
1965).
W. Brückner, Bildnis und Brauch: Studien zur Bildfunktion der
Effigies (Berlin 1966).
A. Bruhl, “Informations archéologiques: Circonscription de
Grenoble,” Gallia 20 (1962) 641-54.
P. Brunt, “The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero,”
Latomus 18 (1959) 531-59.
H.G. Bucholz, “Kaiserporträts auf Tonlampen,” JdI 76
(1961) 173-87.
K. Bucholz, Die Bildnisse der Kaiserinnen der Severerzeit nach ihren
Frisuren. (193-235 n. Chr.) (Frankfurt 1963).
L. Budde, Jugenbildnisse des Caracalla und Geta (Münster 1951).
——, Severisches Relief in Palazzo Sachetti (Berlin 1955).
——, Die Entstehung des antiken Repräsentationsbildes (Berlin
1957).
—— and R. Nicholls, A Catalogue of Greek and Roman Sculpture
in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Cambridge 1964).
O.F. Butler, Studies in the Life of Heliogabalus, University of
Michigan Humanistic Studies Series 4 (1910).
M. Cagiano de Azevedo, “Una dedica abrasa e i rilievi
puteolani dei musei di Filadelphia e Berlino,” BullCom
67 (Bulletino del Museo dell Impero Romano 10) (1939) 45-
56.
——, “Rilievi storici aureliani,” RM 60-61 (1953-54) 207-
10.
R. Cagnat, Cours d’epigraphie latine2 (Paris 1914).
P. Cain, Mannerbildnisse neronisch-flavischer Zeit (Munich 1993).
S. Calderone, “Teologia politica, successione dinastica e
consecratio in età constantiniana,” in Le culte des
souverains dans l’empire romain (Geneva 1972) 215-61.
G. Calza, Le Necropoli del Porto di Roma nell’Isola Sacra (Rome
1940).
292 select bibliography
R. Calza, Scavi di Ostia 5. I ritratti, parte 1 (Rome 1964).
——, Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287-
363 d.C.) (Rome 1972).
——, Scavi di Ostia 9. I ritratti, parte 2 (Rome 1977).
——, ed. Galleria Borghese, Collezione degli oggetti antichi (Rome
1957).
N. Cambi, “Un contributo all ritrattistica dell’imperatrice
Plautilla,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto Privato. Atti della II
Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano, N. Bonacasa
and G. Rizza, eds., (Rome 1988) 221-228.
A. Cambidoglou, ed., Classical Art in the Nicholson Museum,
Sydney (Mainz 1995).
G. Camodeca, “Ricerche su Puteoli tardo-romana,” Pueteoli
4-5 (1981) 59-128.
J.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart of
Classical Athens (London 1986).
W. Campbell, “Excavations at Antioch-on-the-Orontes,”
AJA 40 (1936) 1-10.
B. Candida, I calchi rinascimentali della collezione Mantova
Benavides (Padova 1967).
E. Cantarella, I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma (Milan
1991).
C. Caprino, A.M. Colini, G. Gatti, M. Pallottino, and P.
Romanelli, La colonna di Marco Aurelio (Rome 1955).
N. Bonacasa Carra, Nuovi ritratti romani della Sicilia (Palermo
1977).
F. Carinci, H. Keutner, L. Musso, M.G. Picozzi, eds.,
Catalogo della Galleria Colonna. Sculture (Rome 1990)
K.K. Carroll, The Parthenon Inscription (New York 1982).
R.A.G. Carson, The Principal Coins of the Romans 3. The
Dominate, A.D. 294-498 (London 1981).
A. Cassatella and M.I. Conforto, L’Arco di Costantino. Il
restauro della sommitá (Rimini 1989).
P.J. Casey, Carausius and Allectus. The British Usurpers (London
1994).
D. Castriota, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of
Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art
(Princeton 1995) .
P. Cavuoto, Macrino (Naples 1983).
L. Cesano, “Sesterzio unico ed inedito dell’imperatore
Ottone,” Atti e memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica
6 (1930) 117ff.
J. Chamay and J.L. Maier, Le monde des Césars (Hellas et Rome
1, Geneva 1982).
E. Champlin, “Notes on the Heirs of Commodus,” AJP 100
(1979) 288-306.
H. Chantraine, Novaesium 3: Die antike Fundmunzen des
Ausgraben in Neuss (Limesforschungen 8, Berlin 1968).
M. Charlesworth, “The Banishment of the Elder Agrip-
pina,” CP 17 (1922) 260-61.
——, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius and Nero
(Cambridge 1939).
C. Chirasi-Colombo, “Funzioni politiche ed implicazioni
culturali nell’ideologia religiosa di Ceres nell’impero
romano,” ANRW 2.17.1 (Berlin 1981) 403-28.
M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds., Le tranquille dimore degli dei.
La residenza imperiale degli horti Lamiani (Venice 1986).
A. Claridge, “Ancient Techniques of Making Joins in
Marble Statuary,” Marble. Art Historical and Scientific
Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture (Malibu 1990) 135-64.
——, The Oxford Archaeological Guide to Ancient Rome (Oxford
1998).
—— and J.B. Ward-Perkins, Pompeii A.D. 79. Exhibition at
the Royal Academy (Bristol 1976).
J.R. Clarke, “Deconstructing Roman Texts, Viewers, and
Art,” rev. J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (Cam-
bridge 1995) JRA 9 (1996a) 375-80.
——, “ Just Like Us : Cultural Constructions of Sexuality
and Race in Roman Art,” ArtB 88 (1996b) 599-603.
——, Looking at Lovemaking. Constructions of Sexuality in Roman
Art. 100 B.C. - A.D. 250 (Berkeley 1998).
——, Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. Visual Representation
and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 B.C. - A.D. 315
(Berkeley 2003).
C.L. Clay, The Types and Chronology of the Severan Coinage of
Rome AD 193-98 (Thesis, Christ Church Oxford 1972).
——, “The Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadume-
nian,” NZ 93 (1979) 21-40.
F. Coarelli, “Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio
e la sua decorazione scultorea,” RendPontAcc 44 (1971-
72) 99-122.
——, Guida Archeologica di Roma (Verona 1974).
——, Guide Archeologiche Laterza 6. Nova Ed. Roma2 (Rome
and Bari 1997).
——, Roma6 (Guide archeologiche Laterza 6, Rome and Bari
1980).
R. Cohon, Discovery and Deceit. Archaeology and the Forger’s Craft
(Kansas City 1996).
K. Coleman, Statius Silvae IV (Oxford 1988).
M. Comstock and C.C. Vermeule, Sculpture in Stone (Boston
1976).
D. Atnally Conlin, “The Reconstruction of Antonia Minor
on the Ara Pacis,” JRA 5 (1992) 209-15.
——, The Artists of the Ara Pacis. The Process of Hellenization
in Roman Relief Sculpture (Chapel Hill 1997).
W.R. Connor, “The Razing of the House in Greek So-
ciety,” TAPA 115 (1985) 79-102.
B.F. Cook, The Townley Marbles (London 1985).
L. Correra, “Graffiti di Roma,” BullCom 22 (1894) 89-100.
J. Couisson, “Suéton physiognomiste dans les vies des XII
Césars,” REL 31 (1953) 234-56.
J.M. Croisille, “Néron dans la statuaire: le problème des
identifications e des faux,” in J.M. Croisille, R. Martin,
and Y. Perrin, eds. Neronia V. Néron: histoire et légende.
Actes du Ve Colloque international de la SIEN (Clermont-
Ferrand et Saint-Étienne, 2-6 novembre 1994) (Coll. Latomus
247, Brussells 1999). 397-406.
M. Cullhed, Maxentius. Conservator Urbis Suae. Studies in the
Politics and Propaganda of the Empeor Maxentius (Acta
Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae 8.20, Stockholm 1994).
L. Curtius, “Ikonographische Beiträge zum Porträt der
römischen Republik und der julisch-claudischen
Familie,” MdI 1 (1948) 69-94.
A.M. Dabrowski, Problems in the tradition about the principate
of Gaius (diss. Toronto 1972).
K. Dahmen, “Ein Loblied auf den schönen Kaiser. Zur
möglichen Deutung der mit Nero-Münzen verzoertem
römischen Dosenspiegel,” AA (1988) 3-9-45.
G. Daltrop, “L. Settimio Severo e i cinque tipi del suo
ritratto,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto Privato. Atti della II
Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano, N. Bonacasa
and G. Rizza, eds., (Rome 1988) 67-74.
E. D’Ambra, “Pudicitia in the Frieze of the Forum
Transitorium,” RM 98 (1991) 243-48.
 select bibliography
——, Private Lives, Imperial Virtues. The Frieze of the Forum
Transitorium in Rome (Princeton 1993).
G. Dareggi, “Il ciclo statuario della “Basilica” di Otricoli:
Le fase giulio-claudia,” BdA 14 (1982) 1-36.
A. Datsuli-Stavridis, “Damnatio Memoriae,” AAA 9 (1976)
225-39.
P.J.E. Davies, “The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan’s
Column and the Art of Commemoration,” AJA 101
(1997) 41-65.
——, Death and the Emperor. Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments
from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge 2000).
L. De Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Studies of the
Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 7, Leiden 1976).
D. de Decker, “La politique religeuse de Maxence,”
Byzantion 38 (1968) 472-562.
J.D. Deckers, “Die Wandmalerei des tetrarchischen
Lagerheiligtums im Ammon-Tempel von Luxor,”
RömQSchr 68 (1973) 1-34.
——, “Die Wandmalerei im Kaiserkultraum von Luxor,”
JdI 94 (1979) 600-652.
A. Degrassi, “Le iscrizioni dipinte del sepolcro di Irzio,”
RendPontAcc 19 (1942-43) 389-96.
——, “L edificio dei Fasti Capitolini,” RendPontAcc 21 (1945-
6) 57-104.
——, ed. Inscriptiones Italiae 13.1. Fasti consulares et triumphales
(Rome 1947).
R. Delbrueck, Spätantike Kaiserporträts von Constantinus Magnus
bis zum Ende des Westreichs (Berlin 1933).
——, Die Munzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (Das römische
Herrscherbild 3.2, Berlin 1940).
S. D’Elia, “Osservazioni su cultura e potere nell’età flavia,”
QuadStor 6 (1980) 351.
G. De Luca, I monumenti antichi di Palazzo Corsini in Roma
(Rome 1976).
S. de Maria, Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell Italia romana (Rome
1988).
M. Denti, Ellenismo e Romanizzazione nella X Regio. La scultura
delle élites locali dall età repubblicana ai giulio-claudi
(Archaeologica 97, Rome 1991).
D. de Rossi, Raccolta di statue antiche e moderne data in luce sotto
i gloriosi auspici della Santità di N. S. Papa Clemente XI
(Rome 1704).
K. M. Dickson, Agrippina Minor: Optima Mater or Semper Atrox
(diss., Emory University, 2002).
M.R. Di Mino and M. Bertenetti, eds., Archeologia a Roma.
La materia e la tecnica nell’arte antica (Rome 1990).
A. Di Vita, “La ricostruzione dell’Arco dei Severi a Leptis
Magna in un disegno di C. Catanuso ed esistenza e
significato di un tetrapilo preseveriano,” QAL 7
(1975)1-26.
——, “Ancora del tetrapilo precedente l’arco dei Severi a
Leptis Magna: una mesa a punto,” QAL 9 (1977) 135-
43.
——, “Gli ‘Emporia’ di Tripolitania dall’età di Massinissa
a Diocleziano: un profilo storico-istituzionale,” ANRW
2.10.2 (Berlin 1982) 515-95.
F. Dohna, “Marcus Aurelius auf dem Ravenna-Relief,” RM
105 (1998) 295-304.
Domiziano/Nerva. La statua equestre. Una proposta di ricomposizione
(Naples 1987).
M. Donderer, “Irreversible Deponierung von Grossplastik
bei Griechen, Etruskern und Römern,” Öjh 61 (1991-
92) 193-276.
293
H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanannäische und aramäische
Inscschriften 3 (Wiesbaden 1968).
P.F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical
Methodology (London 1988).
E. Doxiadis, The Mysterious Fayum Portraits. Faces from Ancient
Egypt (New York 1995).
W. Eck, Agrippina, die Stadtgründerin Kölns. Eine Frau in der
frühkaiserzeitlichen Politik (Cologne 1993).
——, A. Caballos, and F. Fernandez, Das Senatus Consultum
de Cn. Pisone Patre (Vestigia 48, Munich 1996).
C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome
(Cambridge 1993).
F. Eichler, AnzAW 23 (1970) 71.
F. el Fakharani, “The Different Trends in the Official and
Private Portraits of Roman Egypt,” in
N. Bonacasa and G. Rizza, eds., Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto
Privato. Atti dellla II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto
Romano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984 (Rome 1988) 277-
82.
J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer (Cambridge 1995).
——, ed. Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge 1996).
——, “From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The
Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique
Forms,” PBSR 68 (2000) 149-184
—— and J. Masters eds., Reflections of Nero (Chapel Hill
1994).
S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca, es., Aurea Roma. Dalla città pagana
alla città cristiana (Rome 2000).
K.P. Erhart, “A Portrait of Antonia Minor in the Fogg Art
Museum and Its Iconographical Tradition,” AJA 82
(1978) 193-212.
——, J. Frel, Sandra Knudsen Morgan, and S. Nodelman,
Roman Portraits, Aspects of Self and Society (Malibu 1980).
K. Erim, “A Portrait Statue of Domitian from Aphrodisias,”
OpRom 9 (1973) 135-42.
——, Aphrodisias, City of Venus Aphrodite (New York 1986).
E.C. Evans, Physiognomics in the Ancient World (TAPhS 59,
Philadelphia 1969).
C. Evers, “Betrachtungen zur Ikongraphie des Maxentius.
Zu einer neuen Porträt-Replik im Kestner-Museum
Hannover,” Niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 31
(1992) 9-22.
——, “Remarques sur l’iconographie de Constantin,”
MEFRA 103 (1991) 785-806.
L. Fabbricotti, Galba (Rome 1967).
L. Fabbrini, “Caligola: il ritratto dell’adolescenza e il ritratto
dell’apoteosi,” RM 73-74 (1966-67) 138-46.
D. Facenna, “Il Pompeo di Palazzo Spada,” ArchCl 8 (1956)
173-201.
I. Faldi, Galleria Borghese. Le Sculture dal Secolo XVI al XIX
(Rome 1954).
J.C. Faur, “Un nouveau visage de Caligula,” ActaArch 42
(1971) 35-42.
A. Faustoferri, “Una testa di Domiziano nel Museo Civico
etrusco-romano di Todi,” AnnPerugia 21 (1983-4) 143-
52.
I. Favoretto, Arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni venete
al tempo della serenissima (StArch 55, Rome 1990).
—— and G.L. Ravagna, eds., Lo statuario pubblico della
Serenissima. Due secoli di collezionismo di antichità (Venice
1997).
C. Fayer, Il Culto della dea Roma (Pescara 1976).
294 select bibliography
C. Fea, Osservazioni intorno alla celebre statua detto di Pompeo
lette il 10 settembre nella Accademia Romana d’Archeologia
(Rome 1812).
——, Nuova descrizione de’ monumenti antichi ed oggetti d’arte
contenuti nel Vaticano e nel Campidoglio (Rome 1819).
J.R. Fears, “The Solar Monarchy of Nero and the Imperial
Panegyric of Q. Curtius Rufus,” Historia 25 (1976) 494-
96.
J. Fejfer, The Ince Clundell Collection of Classical Sculpture 1.2.
The Roman Male Portraits (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani
3.9, Liverpool 1997).
B.M. Felletti-Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano—I Ritratti (Rome
1953).
——, Iconografia romana imperiale da Severo Alessandro al M.
Aurelio Carino (222-285 d.C.) (Rome 1958).
——, “Nerone,” EAA 5 (Rome 1963) 424-7.
——, “Vespasiano,” EAA 7 (Rome 1966) 1147-48
C. Fernández-Chicarro y de Dios, “Hallazgo de un retrato
de Vespasiano en Écija (Seville),” MM 14 (1973) 174-
80.
A. Ferril, “Augustus and His Daughter,” Studies in Latin
Literature and Roman History 2 (Coll.Latomus 168, Brussels
1980) 332-46.
K. Fittschen, “Bemerkungen zu den Porträts des 3.
Jahrhunderts nach Christus,” JdI 84 (1969) 197-236.
——, rev. H. Niemeyer (1968), Bjb 170 (1970) 541-52.
——, “Die Bildnisse der Mauretanischen Könige und ihre
stadtrömischen Vorbilder,” MM 15 (1974) 156-73.
——, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen in Schloss Erbach (AF 3,
Berlin 1977a).
——, “Siebenmal Maximinus Thrax,” AA (1977b) 319-26.
——, rev. of H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner (1971), GGA
230 (1978)133-53.
——, Die Bildnistypen der Faustina minor und die Fecunditas
Augustae (AbhGött 126, Göttingen 1982).
——, Prinzenbildnisse antoninischer Zeit (Beiträge zur Erschliessung
hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur 18,
Mainz 1999).
—— and P. Zanker, “Die Kolossalstatue in Neapel – eine
wiederverwendete Statue des Elagabal,” AA 85 (1970)
248-53.
——, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen
und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom 3.
Kaiserinnen- und Prinzessinnenbildnisse Frauenporträts (Mainz
1983).
——, Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen
und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom 1.
Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse (Mainz 1985).
M.B. Flory, “Livia and the History of Public Honorific
Statues for Women in Rome,” TAPA 123 (1993) 287-
308.
H.I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman
Culture (Oxford 1996).
——, “Rethinking Damnatio Memoriae : The Case of Cn.
Calpurnius Piso Pater in A.D. 20,” Classical Antiquity
17 (1998) 155-86.
——, “A Tale of Two Monuments: Domitian, Trajan and
some Praetorians at Puteoli,” AJA 105 (2001) 625-48.
G. Förschner, “Das Porträt Vespasians auf römischen
Münzen,” BerlNumZ 25 (1959) 3-10.
——, “Das Porträt Vespasians auf römischen Münzen,”
BerlNumZ 26 (1960) 25-32.
L. Franchi, Ricerche sull’arte di età severiana in Roma (StudMisc
4, Rome 1960-61).
A. de Franciscis, “Per l’iconografia di Vespasiano,” RendNap
50 (1975) 211-24.
——, “Un gruppo equestre di bronzo da Miseno,” Studi di
Storia dell’arte in Memoria di M. Rotili (Naples 1984) 35-
39.
——, “Qualche ritratto romano dell’Antiquarium Flegreo,”
BdA 48 (1963) 23.
C.M. Franzero, The Life and Times of Nero (London 1954).
L. Franzoni, Nobilità e collezionismo nel’ 500 veronese (Verona
1978).
D. Freedberg, The Power of Images. Studies in the History and
Theory of Response (Chicago 1989).
J. Frel, Roman Portraits in the Getty Museum (Malibu 1981).
F. Friedländer, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire
(trans. of Darstellungen aus Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit
August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine7 by L.A. Magnus,
London 1907).
R. Friggeri, La Collezione Epigrafica del Museo Nazionale Romano
alle Terme di Diocleziano (Rome 2001).
A. Frova, L’arte di Roma e del mondo romano (Turin 1961).
——, “Ritrattistica romana a Luni,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto
Privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto
Romano (Rome 1988) 307-16.
M. Fuchs, Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer Theater in
Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum
(Mainz 1987).
——, “Besser als sein Ruf,” Boreas 20 (1997) 83-96.
——, P. Liverani, and P. Santoro eds. Caere 2. Il teatro e il
ciclo statuario Giulio-Claudio (Rome 1989).
M.D. Fullerton, “Domus Augusti in Imperial Iconography of
13-12 B.C.,” AJA 89 (1985) 473-83.
A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der Glyptothek2 (Munich 1910).
G. Fusconi, ed. I Giustiniani e l’Antico (Rome 2001).
H. Gabelmann, rev. C. Saletti (1968) Gnomon 43 (1971) 732-
33.
J. Gagé, “Le Colosse et le fortune de Rome,” MEFR 45
(1928) 106-22.
——, “Les jeux séculaires de 204 ap. J.-C. et la dynastie
Sévères,” MEFR 51 (1934) 33-78.
R. Gagé, “Vespasian et le mémoire de Galba,” REA 54
(1952) 290-315.
E. Galli, “Ritratto di Domiziano,” Le arti 3 (1940-41) 136.
A. Gallina, “Bauli, Bacoli (Campania, Napoli),” FA 23
(1978) 5049.
B. Garlick, S. Dixon, and P. Allen eds., Stereotypes of Women
in Power. Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views (New
York 1992).
C. Gasparri, “Sculture provenienti dalle Terme di Caracalla
e di Diocleziano,” RIA 6-7 (1983-84) 133-50.
—— and I. Caruso, “Materiali per servire allo studio del
Museo Torlonia di scultura antica,” MemLinc 8.24
(1980) 38-238.
W. Gauer, “Ein Dakerdenkmal Domitians. Die Trajansäule
und das sogenannte Grosse trajanische Relief,” JdI 88
(1973) 318-50.
D.J. Geagan, “Roman Athens I,” ANRW 2.71 (Berlin 1979)
371-437.
A. Geissen, Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung
des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln I.
Augustus-Trajan (Papyrologica Coloniensia 5, Opladen
1974).
 select bibliography
R. Gergel, “An Allegory of Imperial Victory on a Cuirassed
Statue of Domitian,” Record of the Art Museum, Princeton
University 45.1 (1986) 3-15.
——, “A Julio-Claudian Torso in the Walters Art Gallery,”
JWalters 45 (1987) 19-31.
——, “The Tel Shalem Hadrian Reconsidered,” AJA 95
(1991) 231-51.
T. Gestelyi, “Die porträts des Caracalla und Geta auf
Gemmen in en provinzen,” ArchErt 112 (1985) 180-
86.
F. Ghedini, Giulia Domna tra Oriente e Occidente. Le fonti
archeologiche (Rome 1984).
——, “Il panello nord ovest dell’Arco dei Severi a Leptis
Magna: una proposta di lettura,” RdA 8 (1984b) 68-
87.
——, “Riflessi della politica domizianea nei rilievi flavi di
Palazzo della Cancelleria,” BullCom 91 (1986) 292-309.
A. Giacchero, “Le reminiscenze erodotée in Seneca e la
condanna di Caligola,” Sandalion 3 (1980) 175-89.
A. Giardina, ed., Roma. Politica, economia, paesaggio urbano
(Società romana e impero tardoantico 1, Rome and Bari
1986).
J.F. Gilliam, “On Divi under the Severi,” Hommages à M.
Renard 2, Coll. Latomus 102 (Brussels 1969) 284-89.
J.B. Girard, Catalogue des monnaies de l’Empire romain de la
Bibliothèque Nationale I: Auguste (Paris 1976).
L Girard, “Domitien et Minverve: une prédilection
impériale,” ANRW 2.17.1 (Berlin 1981) 233-45.
C.F. Giuliani and P. Verducchi, Foro Romano, l’area centrale
(Florence 1980).
A. Giuliano, Arco di Costantino (Milan 1956).
——, Catalogo dei ritratti romani del Museo profano Lateranense
(Rome 1957).
——, ed., Museo Nazionale Romano. Le Sculture 1.1-1.9.2
(Rome 1979-88).
——, ed., I Cammei della Collezione Medicea del Museo Ar-
cheologico di Firenze (Rome 1989).
F. Gnecchi, I medaglioni romani (Milan 1912).
F.W. Goethert, “Ein Panzertorso in Beyrut,” Berytus 2 (1935)
133-8.
——, Katalog der Antikensammlung des Prinzen Carl von Preussen
im Schloss zu Klein-Glienicke bei Potsdam (1972).
K.P. Goethert, “Zur Einheitlichkeit der Statuengruppe aus
der Basilika von Velleia,” RM 79 (1972) 235-47.
H.R. Goette, “Antiken Skulpturen im Herzog Anton
Ulrich-Museum, Braunsschweig,” AA (1986) 711-44.
——, “Muellas-Embas-Calceus. Ikonografische Studien zu
römischen Schuwerke,” JdI 103 (1988) 449-64.
——, Studien zu römischen Togadarstellung (Beiträge zur Er-
schliessung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und
Architektur 10, Mainz 1989).
—— and K. Hitzl, “Zwei umgearbeitete Porträtkopfe in
Olympia,” AM 102 (1987) 283-93.
A.E. Gordon and J.S. Gordon, Album of Dated Latin In-
scriptions 2 (Los Angeles 1965).
E. Gordon (later Angelicoussis), The Panel Reliefs of Marcus
Aurelius (diss., Inst. of Fine Arts, New York 1979).
H. Götze, “Ein neues Bildnis des Nerva,” MdI 1 (1948).
E. Gowers, “The Anatomy of Rome from Capitol to
Cloaca,” JRA 85 (1995) 23-32.
J.D. Grainger, Nerva and the Roman Succession Crisis of A.D.
96-99 (London 2003).
295
M. Grant, Nero (New York 1970).
P. Green, From Alexander to Actium (Berkeley 1990).
P.A.L. Greenhalgh, The Year of the Four Emperors (New York
1975).
A.P. Gregory, “‘Powerful Images’: Responses to Portraits
and the Political Uses of Images in Rome,” JRA 7
(1994) 80-99.
M.T. Griffin, Nero, the End of a Dynasty (New Haven 1984).
G. Grimm, “Zum Bildnis der Iulia Augusti,” RM 80 (1973)
279-82.
——, “Die Porträts der Triumvirn C. Octavius, M.
Antonius, und M. Aemilius Lepidus. Uberlegungen
zur Entstehung und Abfolge der Bildnistypen des
Kaiser Augustus,” RM 96 (1989) 347-64.
G. T. Grisanti, “Un rilievo romano dalle cave di Carrara:
i ‘Fanti Scritti’,” Atti Modena 10 (1975) 295.
W.H. Gross, Bildnisse Traians (Das römische Herrscherbild 2.2,
Berlin 1940).
——, Julia Augusta (AbhGött 3, no. 52, Göttingen 1962).
——, “M. Ulpius Traianus,” RE supp. 10 (1965) 1109-10.
——, “Caligula oder zulassige und unzulassige Interpreta-
tionen eines römisches Herrscherbildes,” Römisches
Porträt (WissZBerl 31.2-3, 1982) 205-7.
——, Herakliskos Commodus (Nachrichten der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Göttingen 4, Göttingen 1973).
F. Grosso, “Aspetti della politica orientale di Domiziano
I,” Epigraphica 16 (1954) 117-119.
——, “Aspetti della politica orientale di Domiziano II,”
Epigraphica 17 (1955) 33-78.
——, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Turin 1964).
——, “Ricerche su Plauziano e gli avvenimenti del suo
tempo,” RendLinc 23 (1968) 7-59.
W. Grünhagen, “Ein Porträt des Domitian aus Munigua,”
MM 27 (1986) 309-323.
L. Guerrini, ed. Palazzo Mattei di Giove. Le antichità (Rome
1982).
——, and C. Gasparri eds., Il Palazzo Quirinale. Catalogo delle
Sculture (Rome 1993).
H. Guiraud, Intailles et camées romains (Paris 1996).
G. Gullini, Maestri e Botteghe in Roma da Gallieno alla Tetrarchia
(Turin 1960).
R.A. Gurval, Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions
of Civil War (Ann Arbor 1995).
B. Haarlov, New Identifications of Third Century Roman Portraits
(Odense 1975).
M. L. Hadzi, The Portraiture of Gallienus (A.D. 253-260) (diss.,
Yale University 1956).
H. Halfmann, Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der
Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich (Stuttgart 1986).
M. Hammond, The Antonine Monarchy (MAAR 24, 1956).
——, “The Antonine Monarchy,” ANRW 2.2 (Berlin 1975)
329-53.
G. Hanfmann, rev. B.M. Felletti Maj (1958), Gnomon 31
(1959) 748-9.
——, From Croesus to Constantine. The Cities of Western Asia
Minor and Their Arts in Greek and Roman Times (Ann
Arbor 1975a).
——, Roman Art. A Modern Survey of the Art of Imperial Rome
(New York 1975b).
—— and C.C. Vermuele, “A New Trajan,” AJA 61 (1957)
223-53.
R. Hanke, Amarna-Reliefs aus Hermopolis: Neue Veröffentlichungen
296 select bibliography
und Studien (Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 2, Hildes-
heim 1978) 188-96.
R. Hannah, “The Emperor’s Stars: The Conservatori
Portrait of Commodus,” AJA 90 (1986) 337-42.
N. Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus 1986).
——, “Nero, or the Potentialities of the Emperor,” Ritratto
ufficiale e ritratto privato. Atti della II Conferenza Inter-
nazionale sul Ritratto Romano, Roma 26-30 settembre 1984,
N. Bonacasa and G. Rizza, eds., (Rome 1989) 319-
24.
——, Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Conservation, Moderni-
zation, Production (Acta Jutlandica 69.2, Aarhus 1994).
A. Hansen, “Caligulan Month Names at Philadelphia and
Related Matters,” Atti del XVII congresso internazionale
di papirologia (Naples 1984) 1107-18.
C. Hanson and F.P. Johnson, “On Certain Portrait
Inscriptions,” AJA 50 (1946) 389-400.
K. W. Harl, Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East,
A.D. 180-275 (Berkeley 1987).
——, Coinage in the Roman Economy. 300 B.C. to A.D. 700
(Baltimore 1996).
D. Harris, “Bronze Statues on the Athenian Acropolis: The
Evidence of a Lycurgan Inventory,” AJA 96 (1992)
637-52.
E. B. Harrison, “Repair, Reuse, and Reworking of Ancient
Greek Sculpture,” Marble. Art Historical and Scientific
Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture (Malibu 1990) 163-84.
T. Hauschild, “Munigua. Voerbericht über die Grabungen
in Haus 1 und Haus 6, Kampagne 1982,” MM 25
(1984) 159-80.
U. Hausmann, Römerbildnisse (Stuttgart 1975).
D.E.L. Haynes and P.D. Hirst, Porta Argentariorum (London
1939).
C. W. Hedrick, jr., History and Silence. The Purge and
Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity (Austin 2000).
H. Heinen, “Herrscherkult im römischen Ägypten und
Damnatio Memoriae Getas. Überlegungen zum Berliner
Severertondo und zu Papyrus Oxryhynchus XII
1449,” RM 98 (1991) 263-298.
H. von Heintze, “Der Feldherr des grossen ludovisischen
Schlachtsarkophages,” RM 64 (1959a) 69-91.
——, “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jhr. n. Chr., 5. Der
Knabe des Acilia Sarkophags,” RM 66 (1959b) 175-
91.
——, “Aspekte römischer Porträtkunst,” Gymnasium Beih.
4 (1964) 149-62.
——, “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.:
7. Caracalla, Geta, Elagabal, und Severus Alexander,”
RM 73-74 (1966-67) 190-231.
——, “Caracalla und Geta,” RM 75 (1968) 174-79.
——, “Zum Relief mit der Liberalitas des Marc Aurel,”
Hommages à Marcel Renard (CollLatomus 103, Brussels
1969) 662-74.
——, “Ein unbekanntes Augustusbildnis. Gedanken zum
postumen Kaiserporträt,” Essays in Archaeology and the
Humanities. In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel (Mainz 1976)
143-54.
——, “Studien zu den Porträts des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.:
8. Die Kaiser der Krisenjahre 193-197 N. Chr.,” RM
84 (1977) 159-80.
W. Helck, “Kija,” in W. Helck and W. Westendorf eds.
Lexikon der Ägyptologie 2 (Wiesbaden 1980) cols. 422-24.
——, “Kijê,” MDIK 40 (1984) 159-67.
R.W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero
(London 1903-5).
M. Henig, The Content Cameos (Oxford 1990).
——, and M. Vickers, eds., Cameos in Context. The Benjamin
Zucker Lectures, 1990 (Oxford 1993).
D. Hennig, L. Aelius Sejanus. Untersuchungen zur Regierungedes
Tiberius (Vestigia 21, Munich 1975).
J.J. Herrmann, jr., “Rearranged Hair: A Portrait of a
Roman Woman in Boston and Some Recarved
Portraits of Earlier Imperial Times,” JMFB 3 (1991)
35-50.
D. Hertel, “Caligula-Bildnisse vom Typus Fasanerie in
Spanien.,” MM 23 (1982) 258-95.
U. Hiesinger, “The Portraits of the Emperor Nero,” AJA
79 (1975) 113-24.
D.K. Hill, “A Cache of Bronze Portraits of the Julio-
Claudians,”AJA 43 (1939) 401-9.
P.V. Hill, The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family of
the Mint of Rome, A.D. 193-217 (London 1964).
——, The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London
1989).
N. Himmelman, “Ein verkannter Nerva,” AA (1972) 275-
6.
F. Hinard, Les Proscriptions de la Rome république (CEFR 83,
Rome 1985).
H. Hinz, W. Hagen, and D. Haupt, BJB 166 (1966) 580.
K. Hitzl, Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon
(Olympische Forschungen 19, Berlin 1991).
E. Hohl, Kaiser Commodus und Herodian (Berlin 1954).
G. Hojer, ed. Das Antiquarium der Munchner Residenz. Katalog
der Skulpturen (Munich 1987).
T. Hölscher, Monumenti Statali e Pubblico (Rome 1994).
K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge 1978).
C. Houser, Greek Monumental Bronze Sculpture of the Fifth and
Fourth Centuries B.C. (New York 1987).
R. Howard, “The Portrait of Roman Statesman,” Bulletin
of the Cleveland Museum of Art 16 (Cleveland 1958) 139-
41.
P. Howell, “The Colossus of Nero,” Athenaeum 46 (1968)
292-99.
C.J. Howgego, Greek Imperial Countermarks, Studies in the
Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire (Royal Numismatic
Society Special Publication 17, London 1985).
J. Humphrey, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing
(Berkeley and Los Angeles 1985).
D. Hurley, An Historical and Historigraphical Commenary of
Suetonius Life of Caligula (American Classical Studies 32,
Atlanta 1993).
H. Hurst, “Nuovi scavi nell’area di Santa Maria Antiqua,”
Quaderni del Centro di Studio per l’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica.
Atti degli inconrti di studio del Comitato per l’archeologia laziale
9 (1988) 13-17.
——, G. Morganti, and F. Scoppola, “Area di S. Maria
Antiqua,” BullComm 91 (1986) 470-78.
J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait
Sculpture in Asia Minor (London 1966).
J. Inan and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Römische und frühbyzanti-
nische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei. Neue Funde (Mainz
1979).
J. Inan and C. Jones, “Der Bronzetorso im Burdur-Museum
aus Bubon, und die Bronzekopf im J.P. Getty
Museum,” IstMitt 27-28 (1977-78) 268-95.
 select bibliography
H.U. Instinsky, “Kaiser Nero und die Mainzer Jupiter-
säule,” JRGZ 6 (1959) 128-29.
E. Iverson, “The date of the so-called inscription of Caligula
on the Vatican Obelisk,” JEA 51 (1965) 149-54.
G. Jacopi, “Littoria: Testa dell’imperatore Domiziano,” NSc
(1934) 106-108.
A. Jakobson and H.M. Cotton, “Caligula’s Recusatio Im-
perii,”Historia 34 (1985) 497-503.
W. Jakob-Sonnabend, Untersuchungen zum Nero-Bild der Spät-
antike (Hildesheim-Zurich-New York 1990).
A. Jaworksi, The Power of Silence. Social and Pragmatic
Perspectives (Newbury Park 1993)
K. Jeppesen, Neues zum Rätsel des Grand Camée de France (Acta
Jutlandica 44.1, Aarhus 1974).
——, “The Grand Camée de France: Sejanus Reconsidered
and Confirmed,” RM 100 (1993) 141-75.
F. Johansen, “Antike Porträts von Caligula in der Ny
Carlsberg Glyptothek,” Römisches Porträt (WissZberl
31.2-3, Berlin 1982) 223-4.
——, “Portraetter af C. Iulius Caesar Germanicus kaldet
Caligula,” MedKøb 37 (1981) 70-99.
——, “The Sculpted Portraits of Caligula,” Ancient Portraits
in the J. Paul Getty Museum 1 (Malibu 1987) 87-106.
——, Roman Portraits I: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen
1994).
——, Roman Portraits II: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen
1995a).
——, Roman Portraits III: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen
1995b).
F. Johnson, “The Imperial Portraits at Corinth,” AJA 30
(1926) 158-76.
E. Jonas, “A Damnatio Memoriae alkalmazasa egyik duo-
pondiusan Caligula,” Numizm. Kozlony 36-37 (1936-38)
89-91.
B.W. Jones, Domitian and the Senatorial Order. A Prosopographical
Study of Domitian’s Relationship with the Senate, A.D. 81-
96 (Philadelphia 1979).
——, “C. Vettulenus Civica Cerialis and the False Nero
of A.D. 88,” Athenaeum 61 (1983) 516-21.
——, The Emperor Domitian (London 1992).
M. Jones, ed., Fake? The Art of Deception (Berkeley 1990) .
H. Jucker, Das Bildnis in Blätterkelch (Olten 1961).
——, “Porträtsminiaturen von Augustus, Nero, und
Trajan,” SchwMbll 13-14 (1964) 87,
——, “Caligula,” Arts in Virginia 13.2 (1973) 17-25.
——, “Die Glasphalerae mit dem Porträt des Nero Iulius
Caesar,” SchwMbll 25 (1975) 50-60.
——, “Der grosse Pariser Kameo,” JdI 91 (1976) 211-250.
——, “Die Prinzen des Statuenzyklus von Veleia,” JdI 92
(1977) 204-40.
——, “Iulisch-claudische Kaiser- und Prinzenporträts als
‘Palimpseste’,” JdI 96 (1981a) 236-316.
——, “Römische Herrscherbildnisse aus Ägypten,” ANRW
2.12.2 (Berlin 1981b) 667-725.
——, “Die Bildnisstrafen gegen den toten Caligula,”
Praestant Interna. Festschrift fur Ulrich Hausmann (Tübingen
1982) 110-118.
——, “Marmorporträts aus dem römischen Ägypten —
Beobachtungen, Vorschläge und Fragen,” Das römisch-
byzantinische Ägypten. Akten des Internazionales Symposions.
Trier 1978 (Trier 1983) 139-50.
297
——, “Von der Angemessenheit des Stils und einigen
Bildnissen Konstantins des Grossen,” in F. Deuchler,
M. Flory-Lemberg, and K. Otavsky, eds. Von Angesicht
zu Angesicht. Porträtstudien. Festschrift für M. Stettler (Bern
1983b) 40-70.
—— and D. Willers, eds., Gesichter. Griechische und römische
Bildnisse aus schweizer Besitz (Bern 1982).
I. Jucker, Skulpturen der Antiken-Sammlung Ennetwies (Monumenta
Artis Romae 25, Mainz 1995).
H.M. von Kaenel, “Augustus, Caligula, oder Claudius,”
GNS 28 (1978) 39-44.
——, “Britannicus, Agrippina Minor und Nero in Thra-
kien,” ScwNr 63 (1984) 127-50.
——, Münzpragnung und Münzbildnis des Claudius (Berlin
1986).
Kaiser Augustus und die Verlorene Republik (Berlin (1988).
M. Kajava, “Some Remarks on the Erasure of Inscriptions
in the Roman World (with Special Reference to the
case of Gn. Piso, cos. 7 BC),” in H. Solin, O. Salomies,
and U.M. Liertz, eds. Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini
(Helsinki 1995) 201-10.
I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, “The Imperial Chamber at
Luxor,” DOP 29 (1975) 225-51.
N.B. Kampen, “Between Public and Private: Women as
Historical Subjects in Roman Art,” Women’s History and
Ancient History S.B. Pomeroy, ed. (Chapel Hill 1991)
218-48.
——, ed. Sexuality in Ancient Art (Cambridge 1996).
G. von Kaschnitz-Weinberg, Le Sculture del magazzino del
Museo Vaticano (Rome 1936-37).
——, Marcus Antonius, Domitian und Christus (Halle 1938).
C. Kerrigan, “Vespasian’s Templum Pacis: The Symbolic
Intention of Its Gardens and Architecture,” AJA 100
(1996) 359.
K. de Kersauson, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des portraits
romains 1 (Paris 1986).
——, Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des portraits romains 2 (Paris
1996).
E. Kettenhofen, Die syrischen Augustae in der historischen
Überlieferung (Antiquitas 3, Bonn 1979).
D. Kiang, “The Metropolitan Antiochus and the Vatican
Philip,” ActaAArtHist 8 (1978) 75-84.
——, “The Iconography of Philip the Arab,” AJA 85 (1981)
201.
A. Kindler, “The ‘Damnatio Memoriae’ of Elagabal on
City-coins of the Near-East,” SchwMbll 30.117 (1980)
3-7.
D. Kinney, “Spolia: Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae,”
MAAR 42 (1997) 117-48.
Z. Kiss, MDIK 31 (1975) 293.
——, L’iconographie des Princes Julio-Claudièns au temps d Auguste
et de Tibère (Warsaw 1975).
——, Etudes sur le portrait impérial romain en Egypte (Warsaw
1984).
D.E.E. Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits
(Rome 1987).
——, Roman Sculpture (New Haven 1992).
—— and S.B. Matheson, eds, I, Claudia. Women in Ancient
Rome (New Haven 1996).
F.S. Kleiner, The Arch of Nero (Rome 1985).
——, “The Arch of Galba at Tarragona & Dynastic
298 select bibliography
Portraiture on Roman Arches,” MM 30 (1989) 329-
52.
——, “The Arches of Vespasian in Rome,” RM 97 (1990)
127-136.
K. Kluge and K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken Gross-
bronzen 2 (Berlin-Leipzig 1927).
E. Knauer, “Multa egi cum regibus et pacem confirmavit. The
Date of the Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius,”
RM 97 (1990) 277-306.
S. E. Knudsen, C. Craine, and R. H. Tykof, “Analysis of
Classical Marble sculptures in the Toledo Museum of
Art,” in J.J. Herrmann, jr., N. Herz, and R. Newman,
eds, Asmosia 5. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone
(London 2002) 231-39.
G. Koch, “Ein römischer Kaiser in Dyrrachium,” RM 102
(1995) 321-26.
G. Koeppel, “Profectio und Adventus,” BJb 169 (1969) 130-
94.
——, “Official State Reliefs of the City of Rome in the
Imperial Age. A Bibliography,” ANRW 2.12.1 (Berlin
1981) 477-506.
——, “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit
I. Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bausuge-
hörigkeit aus augusteischer und julisch-claudischer
Zeit,” BJb 183 (1983) 62-144.
——, “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit
II,” BJb 184 (1984) 13-15, 51-61.
——, “Die historischen reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit
IV,” BJb 186 (1986) 47-76.
——, “The Third Man: Restoration Problems on the North
Frieze of the Ara Pacis Augustae,” JRA 5 (1992) 216-
8.
E. Köhne, C. Ewigleben, and R. Jackson, eds. Gladiators
and Caesars. The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome
(London 2000).
V. Kondic, “Two Recent Acquisitions in Belgrade
Museums,” JRS 63 (1973) 47-9.
C.F. Konrad, “Proconsuls of Africa, the Future Emperor
Galba, and the Togatus in the Villa Massimo,” JRA 7
(1994) 151-62.
D. Kreikenbom, Griechische und römische Kolossal porträts bis
zum späten ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus (JdI-EH, Berlin
1992).
H. Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im
römischen Reiche (Paderborn 1934).
A. Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest, and Ceremonial: from
Babylonia to Persia,” Rituals of Royalty. Power and
Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, D. Cannadine and
S.R.F. Price, eds., (Cambridge 1987) 20-55.
H. Kunckel, Die römischen Genius (RMErg 20, 1974).
C. Kunst and V. Riemer, eds. Grenzen der Macht: Zur Rolle
der römischen Kaiserfrauen (Potsdamer Altertumwissenschaftliche
Beiträge 3, Stuttgart 2000).
A. Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus. The Case
of the Boscoreale Cups (Berkeley 1995).
D.G. Kyle, “Disposal of Victims from Roman Arenas,” AJA
97 (1993) 306.
——, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London 1998).
H. Kyrieleis, “Zu einem Kameo in Wien,” AA 85 (1970)
492-98.
——, Bildnisse der Ptolemäer (AF 2, Berlin 1975).
G. Lahusen, Schriftquellen zum römischen Bildnis 1 (Bremen
1984).
R. Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome (London
1897).
——, New Tales of Ancient Rome (New York 1901).
A. La Regina, ed. Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo
alle Terme (Rome 1998).
——, ed. Sangue ed Arena (Rome 2001).
E. La Rocca, ed., Rilievi storici capitolini. Il restauro dei panelli
di Adriano e di Marco Aurelio nel Palazzo dei Conservatori
(Rome 1986).
S. Laser, “Zur Ikonographie des Caligula,” AA 69 (1954)
241-51.
L. Laurenzi, “Sculture inedite del Museo di Coo,” ASAtene
17-18 (1955-56) 59-157.
C. Lega, “Il Colosso di Nerone,” BullCom 93 (1989-90) 339-
78.
——, “Colossus: Nero,” in M. Steinby, ed., LTUR 1 (Rome
1993) 295-8.
M. Le Glay, Saturne africain I. Monuments (Paris 1961).
G. Legrottaglie, Ritratti e statue iconiche de età romana nel Museo
Civico G. Fiorelli di Lucera (Bari 1999).
C. Letta, “Il ritratto di Severo Alessandro da Carnuntum
e la legazione pannonica di Cassio Dione,” Prospettiva
25 (1981) 43-45.
A. Levi, Sculture greche e romane del Palazzo Ducale a Mantova
(Rome 1931).
M. Levi, “I Flavi,” ANRW II.2 (Berlin 1975) 177-207.
B. Levick, “The Fall of Julia the Younger,” Latomus 35
(1976) 301-39.
——, “Domitian and the Provinces,” Latomus 41 (1982a)
50-51.
——, “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage, “Antichthon
16 (1982b) 104-16.
——, Claudius (New Haven 1990).
S. Levin, “Plutarch and the Damnatio Memoriae of Domitian,”
in La Béothie Antique. Lyon-Saint Étienne 16-20 mai 1983
(Paris 1985) 283-90.
J. Linderski, “Julia in Regium,” ZPE 72 (1988) 181-200.
——, “A Missing Ponticus,” AJAH 12.2 (1987[1995]) 148-
66.
A. Linfert, “Propaganda und Programm. Eine Deutung der
Cancelleria-Reliefs,” KölnJb 10 (1969) 56ff.
G. Lippold, rev. A. Levi (1931) Gnomon 10 (1934) 358-71.
P. Liverani, L’Antiquarium di Villa Barberini a Castel Gandalfo
(Rome 1989a).
——, Museo Chiaramonti (Guide Cataloghi Musei Vaticani 1,
Rome 1989b).
——, “Rilavorazioni antiche e moderne su sculture dei
Musei Vaticani,” RendPontAcc 63 (1990-91) 163-92.
H.P. L’Orange, “Zur Ikonographie des Kaisers Elagabals,”
SymbOslo 20 (1940) 152-59.
——, “Le Nerón constitutionnel et le Nerón apothéosé,”
From the Collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 3 (1942)
247-67.
——, Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo 1947).
——, Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den
Konstantin-Söhnen (284-361 n. Chr.) (Das römische
Herrscherbild 3.4, Berlin 1984).
G. Lugli and P. Mingazzini, “L’Arco di Marco Aurelio sul
Campidoglio,” ArchCl 17 (1965) 147-53.
T.O. Mabbot, “Epictetus and Nero’s Coinage,” CP 36
(1941) 398-99.
S. G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity
(Berkeley 1981).
 select bibliography
G. MacDonald, “A Note on Some Fragments of Imperial
Statues and a Statuette of Victory,” JRS 16 (1926) 3-
10.
D.W. MacDowell, “CAC, a Claudian countermark from
lower Germany,” GNS 20 (1970) 37-41.
——, The Western Coinages of Nero (Numismatic Notes and
Monographs 161, New York 1979).
P. MacKendrick, The North African Stones Speak (Chapel Hill
1980).
D.C. MacKenzie, The Reign of Caracalla (diss., Princeton
1949).
J. Madaule, “Le Monument de Septime Sévère au Forum
Boarium,” MEFRA 1 (1924) 111-50.
C. Maderna, Iuppiter Diomedes und Merkur als Vorbilder für
römische Bildnisstatuen (Archäologie und Geschichte 1,
Heidelberg 1988).
S. Maggi, “Il ritratto giovanile di Nerone. Un esempio a
Mantova,” RdA 10 (1986) 47-51.
F. Magi, I rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria (Rome 1945).
——, “Un rilievo di Anacapri,” RendPontAcc 28 (1954-55)
45-54.
——, “Un nuovo ritratto di Domiziano,” RendPontAcc 41
(1968-69) 137-44.
——, “Brevi osservazioni su di una nuova datazione dei
rilievi della Cancelleria,” RM 80 (1973) 289-91.
G. Mancini, “Le statue loricate imperiali,” BullComm 50
(1922) 151-204.
C. Mango, “Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder,”
DOP 17 (1963) 55-75.
G.A. Mansuelli, Galleria degli Uffizi: le sculture 2 (Rome 1961).
L. Mariani, “Some Roman Busts in the Museum of the
Syllogos of Candia,” AJA 1 (1897) 266-78.
——, “Sculture Provenienti dalla Galleria sotto il
Quirinale,” BullComm 29 (1901) 158-179.
R. Martini, “Osservazioni su contromarche ed erosioni su
assi di Caligola,” RIN 82 (1980) 53-83.
M. Marvin, “Freestanding Sculpture from the Baths of
Caracalla,” AJA 87 (1983) 347-84.
A.K. Massner, Bildnisangleichung. Untersuchungen zur Ent-
stehungs- Wirkungeschichte der Augustusporträts (43 v. Chr.-
68 n. Chr.) (Das römische Herrscherbild 4, Berlin 1982).
A. Mastino, “L’erasione del nome di Geta dalle iscrizioni
nel quadro della propaganda politica di Caracalla,”
AnnCagliari n.s. 2, 39 (1978-79) 67.
——, Le titotlature di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni (indici)
(Bologna 1981).
K.D. Matthews, “Domitian, the Lost Divinity,” Expedition
8.2 (1966) 30-36.
H. Mattingly, “The Events of the Last Months of Nero from
the Revolt of Vindex to the Accession of Galba,” NC
13 (1953).
F. Matz, “Ein Kameo mit dem Bildnis Domitians,” RM 54
(1939) 145-60.
J.A. Maurer, A Commentary on C. Suetoni Tranquilli, Vita C.
Caligulae Caesaris, Chapters I-XXI (Philadelphia 1949).
A.M. McCann, The Portraits of Septimius Severus (MAAR 30,
Rome 1968).
——, “A Re-dating of the Reliefs from the Palazzo della
Cancelleria,” RM 79 (1972) 249-79.
——, “Beyond the Classical in Third Century Portraiture,”
ANRW 2.12.2 (Berlin 1981) 623-45.
M. McCrum and A.G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the
Principates of the Flavian Emperors (Cambridge 1961).
299
W.C. McDermott and A.E. Orentzel, “Silius Italicus and
Domitian,” AJP 98 (1977) 24-34.
W.R. Megow, Antiken in rheinischen Privatbesitz (Bonn 1973).
——, Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus (AMUGS 11,
Berlin 1987).
——, “Zwei Gemmen in Bonner Privatbesitz,” AA (1989)
443-457.
J. Meischner, Das Frauenporträt der Severerzeit (Berlin 1964).
——, “Die Porträtkunst der ersten und zweiten Tetrarchie
bis zur allenscherrschaft Konstantins: 293 bis 324
n.Chr,” AA (1986) 223-50.
——, “Zum Porträt der ‘Poppäa’ Albani,” Latomus 52
(1993).
E. Meise, Untersuchungen zur iulisch-claudischen Dynastie (Vestigia
10, Munich 1969).
R. Mellor, Thea Roma: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the
Greek World (Göttingen 1975).
G. Mendel, Musées Imperiaux Ottomans. Catalogue des sculptures
grecques, romains, et byzantines 2 (1914).
R. Meric, “Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des
Domitian in Ephesos,” Pro arte antiqua 2. Festschrift für
H. Kenner (Vienna 1985).
P. Mertens, “La damnatio memoriae de Géta dans les papyrus,”
Hommages à L. Hermann (Coll. Latomus 44, Brussels 1960)
541-42.
D. Metzler, “Bilderstürme und Bilderfeindlichkeit in der
Antike,” in Bildersturm. Die Zerstörung des Kunstwerks , M.
Warnke, ed. (Munich 1973) 14-29.
H. Meyer, “Zu römischen Umbestattungen (Noch eine
Behauptung des Balbinus),” BullCom 91 (1986) 279-
290.
——, Antinoos: die archäologischen Denkmäler unter Einbeziehung
des numismatischen und epigraphischen Materials sowie der
literarischen Nachrichten: ein Beitrag zur Kunst – und Kul-
turgeschichte der hadrianisch- frühantonisch Zeit (Munich
1991).
——, H. Meyer, Prunkkameen und Staatsdenkmäler römischer
Kaiser. Neue Perspektiven zur Kunst der frühen Prinzipatzeit
(Munich 2000).
M.E. Micheli in L. Guerrini and C. Gasparri, Il Palazzo
Quirinale. Catalogo delle Sculture (Rome 1993).
M. Michelucci, “Un nuovo ritratto di Tiberio da Roselle,”
Prospettiva 2 (July 1975) 40-43.
T. Mickoki, Sub specie deae. Les Impératrices et princesses romaines
assimilées à des déeses: Étude iconologique (RdA suppl. 14,
Rome 1995).
P. Miniero, ed. Il sacello degli augustali di Miseno (Naples 2000).
P. Mingazzini, “E’ mai esistito l’arco di trionfo di Mar-
caurelio sul Clivo Argentino?” RM 70 (1963) 147-55.
E. de Miro, “Nuove acquisizioni dei Musei e Gallerie dello
Stato,” BdA 57 (1972) 242.
A. Mlasowsky, Herrscher und Mensch. Römische Marmorbildnisse
in Hannover (Hannover 1992).
U. Monneret de Villard, “The Temple of the Imperial Cult
at Luxor,” Archaeologia 95 (1953) 85-105.
P. Moreno and C. Stefani, eds. Galleria Borghese (Milan
2000).
P. Moreno and A. Viacava, Galleria Borghese. Le Sculture
Antiche (Rome 2003).
A. Moretti and G. Bordenache Battaglia, “Materiale ar-
cheologici scoperti a Lucus Feroniae,” in A. Morretti,
ed. Nuove scoperte e acquisizioni nell’Etruria meridionale
(Rome 1975) 109.
300 select bibliography
E. Moorman, “A Ruin for Nero on the Oppian Hill,” JRA
8 (1995) 403-5.
R. Mowat, “Martelage et abrasion des monnaies sous
l’empire romaine,” RN (1901) 443-71.
S. Adamo Muscettola, “Miseno: culto imperiale e politica
nel compesso degli Augustai,” RM 107 (2000) 79-108.
C. L. Murison, Rebellion and Reconstruction. Galba to Domitian:
An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History
Books 64-67 (A.D. 68-96) (Atlanta 1999).
K. Mustakallio, Death and Disgrace. Capital Penalties with post
mortem Sanctions in Early Roman Historiography (Helsinki
1994).
D. Mustili, “”Di alcune sculture, trovate tra il Foro della
Pace e L’Anfiteatro,” BullComm 61 (1933) 89-109.
H. Muthman, Statuestuzen und dekoratives Beiwork an greichischen
und römischen Bildwerken . Ein Beitrag zu Geschichte der
römischen Kopistentätigkeit (AbhHeid 3 [1950], Heidelberg
1951).
R. Nardi, “L’arco di Settimio Severo: indagini storiche e
conservative,” RendPontAcc 55-56 (1983-84) 299-312.
K. Neugebauer, “Die Familie des Septimius Severus,” Die
Antike 12 (1936) 155-72.
O. Neverov, “Nero-Helios,” Pagan Gods and Shrines of the
Roman Empire, M. Henig and A. King, eds., (Oxford
1986) 189-94.
——, “Nero-Jupiter and Nero-Helios,” Chadozentennye Isdelija
anticnuch masterov. Sbornik stlej (Leningrad 1982) 101-401.
J. N. Newland, ed., Catalogue of the Miho Museum (Shiga
1997).
H. Niemeyer, Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen
Kaiser (Monumenta Artis Romae, Berlin 1968).
C.F. Nims, “The Date of the Dishonouring of Hatchepsut,”
ZAS (1966) 97-100.
W. Nippel, Public Order in Ancient Rome (Cambridge 1995).
S. Nodelman, Severan Imperial Portraits. A.D. 193-217 (diss.,
Yale University 1965).
——, “A Portrait of the Empress Plautilla,” GettyMusJ 10
(1982) 105-20.
——, “The Portrait of Brutus the Tyrannicide,” Ancient
Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum 1 (Malibu 1987) 41-
86.
D. Nony, Caligula (Paris 1986).
——, “Quelques as d’imitation de Caligula trouves a
Bordeaux,” Tresors monetaires 3.
H. Nuber, “Waage mit Kaiserporträts aus Heidelberg-
Neuenheim,” FuBerBadWürt 6 (1981) 501-28.
C. Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated
‘Sargon’s’ Head?,” AJA 84 (1980) 329-33.
A. Oliver, “Honors to Romans: Bronze Portraits,” in C.
Mattusch, ed. The Fire of Hephaistos: Large Classical
Bronzes from North American Collections (Cambridge, Mass.
1996) 138-60.
M. Oppermann, Römische Kaiserreliefs (Leipzig 1985).
R. Osborne, “Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai,”
PCPS 211, N.S. 31 (1985) 47-73.
W. Otto and H. Bengston, Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des
Ptolemäerreichs. Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. Und
9. Ptolemäers (Munich 1938).
P.G. de Pachtère, Le Musée de Guelma. Musées de l’Algèrie et
de la Tunisie 16 (Paris 1909).
V. Pacifici, “Notes on Some Recent Discoveries at Tivoli,”
JRS 10 (1920) 91-3.
P.B. Pacini, “Ritratto di Vespasiano da Roselle,” Prospettiva
12 (1978) 41-3.
J.E. Packer, The Forum of Trajan (Berkeley 1997).
J.M. Padgett, “A Chalcedony Statuette of Herakles,” The
Record of the Art Museum Princeton University 54 (1995)
3-22.
J.M. Paillier and R. Sablayrolles, “Damnatio memoriae: une
vraie perpétuité,” Pallas 40 (1994) 11-55.
G. Paladini, “Tradizione e intenzione nel ritratto di
Vespasiano,” ANRW II.12.2 (Berlin 1981) 612-22.
M. Pallotino, L’arco degli Argentari (Rome 1946).
C. Panella, ed., Meta Sudans I. Un area sacra in Palatio e la
valle del Colosseo prima e dopo Nerone (Rome 1996).
D. Pandermalis, “Capita Transformata,” 5+C;?E (Thessa-
lonika 1972).
A.E. Pappano, “The False Neros,” CJ 32 (1937) 385.
E. Paribeni, Museo Nazionale Romano. Sculture greche del V secolo,
originali e repliche (Rome 1953).
R. Paris, “Propaganda e iconografia. Una lettura del fron-
tone del Tempio di Quirino sul frammento del Rilievo
Hartwig, nel Museo Nazionale Romano,” BdA 52
(1988) 27-38.
——, ed., Via Appia. La Villa dei Quintili (Rome 2000).
K. Parlasca, Ritratti di mummie, Repertorio d’arte dell’Egitto greco-
romano serie B, II (Rome 1977).
M.C. Parra, “A proposito di un rilievo con statua di Silvano
(Leptis Magna),” MEFRA 90 (1978) 807-28.
A. B. Paterakis, “Two Gilded Bronze Sculptures from the
Athenian Agora,” in T. Drayman-Weisser, ed. Gilded
Metals. History, Technology and Conservation (London 2000)
97-107.
C. Pavolini, Guida Archeologica Laterza 8. Ostia (Rome-Bari
1983).
P. Peirce, “The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda and
Ideology in Late Roman Art,” Art History 12 (1989)
387-418.
T. Pekáry, Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und
Gesellschaft (Das römische Herrscherbild 3.5, Berlin 1985).
P. Pensabene and C. Panella, eds., Arco di Costantino. Tra
archeologia e archemetria (StudArch 100, Rome 1999).
P. Pensabene, “New Archeometric Investigations on the
Fragments of the Colossal Statue of Constantine in
the Palazzo dei Conservatori,” in J.J. Herrmann, jr.,
N. Herz, and R. Newman, eds, Asmosia 5. Interdis-
ciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone (London 2002) 250-55.
P. Parisi Persicce, La Lupa Capitolina (Rome 2000).
M. Pfanner, “Technische Beobachtungen an den Cancel-
leria- Reliefs,” AA (1981) 514-18.
——, “Über das Herstellen von Porträts,” JdI 104 (1989)
157-257.
G.C. Picard, Les trophées romains (Paris 1957).
C.A. Picon, Bartolomeo Cavaceppi (London 1983).
C. Pietrangeli, “Su un ritratto bronzeo dei Musei Capi-
tolini,” BullCom 72 (1946-48) 57-65.
L. Polacco, Il volto di Tiberio (Rome 1955).
L. Poinssot, Inscriptions de Thugga (Paris 1913).
C. Poinssot, Les ruins de Dougga (Tunis 1983).
J. Pollini, “A Flavian Relief Portrait in the J. Paul Getty
Museum,” GettyMusJ 5 (1977) 63.
——, “Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and the Ravenna
Relief,”RM 88 (1981) 117-40.
——, “A Pre-principate Portrait of Gaius (Caligula),” JWalt
40 (1982) 1-12.
 select bibliography
——, “Damnatio Memoriae in Stone: Two Portraits of Nero
Recut to Vespasian in American Museums,” AJA 88
(1984) 547-55.
——, The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius (New York 1987).
——, “Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in
the Late Republic and Early Principate,”in K.A.
Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds. (1990) 334-63.
——, “The Acanthus of the Ara Pacis as an Apolline and
Dionysiac Symbol of Anamorphosis, Anakyklosis and
Numen Mixtum,” in Von der Bauforschung zur Denkmal-
pflege. Festschrift für Alois Machatschek, M Kubelik and
M. Schwarz, eds. (Vienna 1993a) 181-217.
——, “The Cartoceto Bronzes: Portraits of a Roman
Aristocratic Family of the Late First Century B.C.,”
AJA 97 (1993b) 423-46.
——, “Caligula and the Madness of the Jews,” Second Annual
Societas Conference: Roman Political Ideology, JRA Supplement
(forthcoming).
J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (New Haven 1986).
P. Postel, Katalog der antiken Münzen in der Hamburger Kunsthalle
(Hamburg 1976).
V. Poulsen, “Studies in Julio-Claudian Iconography,”
ActaArch 17 (1946) 1-48.
——, “Nero, Britannicus and Others,” ActaArch 25 (1954a)
119-35.
——, “Once More the Young Nero,” ActaA 25 (1954b) 294-
301.
——, “Caligulas billede,” MedKøb 14 (1957) 29-47.
——, “The Portraits of Caligula,” ActaArch 29 (1958) 175-
90.
——, Les portraits romains 1 (Copenhagen 1962).
——, Les portraits romains 2 (Copenhagen 1974).
C. Preáux, Le Monde hellenistique. La Grèce et l’Orient de la mort
d Alexandre à la conquête romaine de la Grèce (323-146 av.
J.-C.) (Paris 1978).
S.R.F. Price, Rituals of Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia
Minor (Cambridge 1984).
——, “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult; The
Consecration of the Roman Emperor,” in D.
Cannadine and S.R.F. Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty.
Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge
1987) 56-105.
K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher, eds., Between Republic and
Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate
(Berkeley 1990).
J. Raeder, Die statuarische Ausstattung der Villa Hadriana bei
Tivoli (European University Studies 37.4, Frankfurt and
Bern 1983).
M.T. Raepsaet-Charlier, Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordre
sénatorial (Ier-IIe siècles) (Louvain 1987).
E.S. Ramage, “Denigration of a Predecessor under Clau-
dius, Galba, and Vespasian,” Historia 32 (1983) 202-
6.
——, “Juvenal and the Establishment. Denigration of
Predecessor in the Satires ,” ANRW 2.33.1 (Berlin
1989) 640-707.
N.H. and A. Ramage, Roman Art. Romulus to Constantine
(Englewood Cliffs 1991)
R. Rea, “Calendar of Gaius,” Oxyrhynchus Papyri 55 (1988)
10-14.
K. Regling, “Zur greichischen Münzkunde III,” ZfN 24
(1904) 129-44.
301
J. Reynolds, “New Evidence for the Imperial Cult at Julio-
Claudian Aphrodisias,” ZPE 43 (1981) 317-27.
—— and J.B. Ward Perkins, The Inscriptions of Roman
Tripolitania (Rome 1952).
L.A. Riccardi, “The Mutilation of the Bronze Portrait of
a Severan Empress from Sparta: Damnatio Memoriae
or Christian Iconoclasm?” AM 113 (1997) 259-69.
A. Ricci, La villa dei Quintilli. Fonti scritte e fonti figurate (Rome
1998).
L. Richardson, jr. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient
Rome (Baltimore 1992).
A. Richlin, “Julia’s Jokes, Galla Placidia, and the Roman
Use of Women as Political Icons,” in B.S. Garlick, S.
Dixon, and P. Allend, eds., Stereotypes of Women in Power.
Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views (New York
1992).
G.M.A. Richter, Catalogue of Greek and Roman Antiquities in
the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Cambridge, Mass. 1956).
——, Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans II.
Engraved Gems of the Romans (London 1971).
I. Rilliet-Maillard, Les portraits romains du Musée d’Art et
d’Histoire (Geneva 1978).
H.W. Ritter, “Ein neuer Deutungvorschlag zum Fries B der
Cancelleriareliefs,” MarbWPr (1982) 25-36.
G. Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt (London 1993).
S.V. Rocca, ed. Guide Rionale di Roma. Rione 15. Esquilino
(Rome 1982).
R.S. Rogers, “Heirs and Rivals to Nero,” TAPA 86 (1954)
190-212.
J. Rohman, “Die spätantike Kaiserporträts am Konstantins-
bogen in Rom,” RM 105 (1998) 259-82, pls. 43-55.
J.P. Rollin, Untersuchungen zu Rechtsfragen römischer Bildnisse
(Bonn 1979).
Römer am Rhein (Köln 1967).
C.B. Rose, “ Princes and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis,”
AJA 94 (1990) 453-67.
——, Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the
Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge 1997).
——, “The 1997 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia,”
Studia Troica 8 (1998) 71-113.
M. Rostovtzeff, “Commodus-Hercules in Britain,” JRS 13
(1923) 91-109.
C. Roueché and K. T. Erim, eds, Aphrodisias Papers 1. Recent
Work in Architecture and Sculpture (JRA Suppl 1, Ann Arbor
1990).
Z. Rubin, Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography (Collection
Latomus 173, Brussels 1980).
V.A. Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero (London 1993).
Dissidence and Literatue under Nero: The Price of Rhetorization
(London 1997).
A. Rüsch, “Kaiserzeitliche Porträt in Makedonien,” JdI 84
(1969) 59-196.
J. Ruysschaert, “Essai d’interpretation synthetique de l’arc
de Constantin,” RendPontAcc 35 (1962-63) 79-100.
——, “Les onze panneaux de l’arc de Marc-Aurèle érigé
à Rome en 176,” RendPontAcc 35 (1962-63) 101-21.
L. Ruzicka, “Doppelte Erasion auf einer Münze des Nero
von Thessalonike,” ZfNum 25 (1924) 354-55.
I. S. Ryberg, The Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (MAAR
20 1955).
——, The Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (Monographs on
Archaeology and Fine Arts 14, New York 1967).
G. Säflund, “Zur Ikonographie des Kaisers Septimius
302 select bibliography
Severus,” Stockholm Studies in Classical Archäologie (Opu-
scula F. Kerényi) 5 (1968) 121ff
V. Saladino, “Geta Caesar,” Tainia. Festschrift fur R. Hampe
(Mainz 1980) 433-38.
C. Saletti, Ritratti severiani (StArch 10, Rome 1967).
——, Il ciclo statuario della basilica di Velleia (Milan 1968).
——, “Gruppo e serie del ciclo statuario Veleiate,”
Athenaeum 50 (1972) 182-90.
——, “Tre Ritratti Imperiali da Luni: Tiberio, Livia,
Caligola,” Athenaeum Pavia 51 (1973) 42-45.
——, “La scultura di età romana in Sardegna: ritratti e
statue iconiche,” RdA 13 (1989) 76-100.
F. Salviat and D. Terner, “Les portraits d’Agrippa
Postumus et les monnaies de Corinth,” RANarb 15
(1982) 237-41.
D. Salzmann, “Beobachtungen zu Münzprägnung und
Ikonographie des Claudius,” AA (1976) 252-64.
——, “Die Bildnisse des Macrinus,” JdI 98 (1983) 351-81.
——, “Vespasian statt Nero — Ein numismatische Pa-
limpsest,” AA (1984) 295-99.
——, “Macrinus mit Caracalla und Julia Domna. Zu einer
Gemme im Kestner-Museum Hannover,” AA (1989)
559-68.
S. Sande, Greek and Roman Portraits in Norwegian Collections
(ActaAArtHist 10, Rome 1991).
A. Savio, “La coerenza di Caligola nella gesione della mo-
neta, Publicazioni dell’Istituto di Papirologia dell’Università
di Milano 1 (Milan 1988) 1-51.
T. Schäfer, Imperii insignia: Sella curulis und fasces (RM EH
29, Rome 1989).
——, “Ein Prokonsul von Africa in der Villa Massimo?”
JRA 3 (1990) 187-94.
K. Schefold, “Neue Deutung der Reliefs von der
Cancelleria in Vatican,” Atlantis 12 (1949) 546.
J. Scheid, “La mort du tyran. Chronique de quelques morts
programmées,” Du châtiment dans la cité. Supplices corporels
et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Collection de L’École
Française de Rome 79, Rome 1984) 177-193.
——, Romulus et ses Frères. Le Collège des Frères Arvales, Modèle
du Culte Public dans la Rome des Empereurs (BEFAR 275,
Rome 1990).
J. von Schlosser, “Geschichte der Porträtbildnerei in
Wachs,” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
Allerhöchsten Kaiserhaus 29 (1910-11) 171-258.
T.M. Schmidt, “Damnatio memoriae—unbeliebte Köpfe
römischer Kaiser,” Altertum 37.1 (1991) 50-56.
B. Schneider, Studien zu kleinformatigen Kaiserporträts von den
Anfängen der Kaiserzeit bis ins 3. Jh. (diss. Munich 1979).
T. Schreiber, Die antiken Bildwerke der Villa Ludovisi (Leipzig
1880).
S. F. Schröder, Katalog der antiken Skulpturen des Museo del Prado
in Madrid 1. Die Porträts (Mainz 1993).
A.R. Schulman, “Some Remarks on the Alleged ‘Fall’ of
Senemut,” JARCE 8 (1968-70) 29-48.
K. Schulten, Die Typologie der römischen Konsekrationsprägungen
(Frankfurt 1979).
W. Schürmann, Typologie und Bedeutung der stadtrömischen
Minerva-Kultbilder (Rome 1985).
K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart- Berlin
1936).
V. Santa Maria Scrinari, “Le donne dei Severi nella
monetazione dell’epoca,”BullCom 75 (1953-55) 119-35.
——, Museo Archeologico di Aquileia. Catalogo delle sculture romane
(Rome 1972).
——, “Dalla residenza dei Laterani all domus di Fausta,”
Foruma Urbis 2.6 (1997) 4-9.
D.R. Sear, Roman Coins and Their Values (London 1988).
J.L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante, eds., The World of Roman
Costume (Madison, WI and London, 1994).
B. Sester, “Arco di Domiziano all’Iseo Campense in
Roma,” RIN 57 (1957) 99-93.
S. Settis, ed., La Colonna Traiana (Turin 1988).
N. Sevinç, R. Körpe, M. Tombul, C.B. Rose, D. Strahan,
H. Kieswetter, and J. Wallrodt, “A New Painted
Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan,” Studia Troica
11 (2001) 383-20.
Lo sguardo di Roma. Ritratti delle provincie occidentali dell Impero
Romano dai Musei di Mèrida, Toulouse e Tarragona (Rome
1996).
T.L. Shear, jr. “The Athenian Agora Excavations of 1971,”
Hesperia 42 (1973) 183-210.
H. Sichtermann, “Archäologische Funde und Forschungen
in Libyen. Kyrenaika 1959-61, Tipolitanien 1942-61,”
AA (1962) 420-35.
P.J. Sijpesteijn, “Macrinus’ damnatio memoriae und di Papyri,”
ZPE 13 (1974) 219-27.
E. Simon, “Zu den flavischen Reliefs von der Cancelleria,”
JdI 75 (1960) 134-56.
——, Ara Pacis Augustae (Tübingen 1967).
——, “Virtus und Pietas. Zu den Friesen A und B von der
Cancelleria,” JdI 100 (1985) 543-56.
C.J. Simpson, “The Cult of the Emperor Gaius,” Latomus
90 (1981) 489-511.
Die Skulpturen der Sammlung Wallmoden (Göttingen 1979).
N. W. Slater, “Nero’s Masks,” CW 90 (1996) 33-40.
A.M. Small, “A New Head of Antonia Minor and its
Significance,” RM 97 (1990) 217-34.
——, ed., Subject and Ruler: The Cult of Ruling Power in Classical
Antiquity (JRA Supp. 17, Ann Arbor 1996).
J.P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory
and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (London 1997).
E.M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius,
Claudius, and Nero (Cambridge 1967).
——, Roman History and Coinage 44 B.C. – A.D. 69 (Oxford
1987).
R.R.R. Smith, “Roman Portraits: Honours, Empresses, and
Late Emperors,” JRS 75 (1985) 209-28.
——, “Three Hellenistic Rulers at the Getty,” GettyMusJ
14 (1986) 59-78.
——,”The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at
Aphrodisias,” JRS 77 (1987) 88-138.
——, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford 1988a).
——, “Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion
at Aphrodisias,” JRS 78 (1988b) 50-77.
——, “Myth and Allegory at the Sebasteion,” Aphrodisias
Papers 1. (JRA Suppl. 1, Ann Arbor 1990) 89-100.
——, “Typology and Diversity in the Portraits of Augus-
tus,” JRA 9 (1996) 30-47.
——, “Nero and the Sun-god: Divine Accessories and
Political Symbolsin Roman Imperial Images,” JRA 13
(2000) 532-42.
—— and K.T. Erim, eds, Aphrodisias Papers 2. The Theater,
a Sculptor’sWorkshop, Philosophers and Coin Types (JRA
Suppl. 2 , Ann Arbor 1991).
 select bibliography
D. Soechting, Die Porträts des Septimius Severus (Bonn 1972).
H. Solin, “Obbligo o libertà? Sull onomastica dell aristo-
crazia romana,” ORom 3 (1986)70-73.
——, “Namenwechsel un besondere Vornamen römischer
Senatoren. Betrachtungen zur kaiserlichen Namen-
politik,” Philologus 133 (1989) 252-59.
A. M. Sommella, ed., Il Marco Aurelio in Campidoglio (Rome
1990).
P. Southern, Domitian. The Tragic Tyrant (Bloomington 1997).
G. Souville, “Un portrait de Géta au Musée de Guelma,”
Libyca 1 (1953) 115-19.
B.S. Spaeth, “The Goddess Ceres in the Ara Pacis Augustae
and the Carthage Relief,” AJA 98 (1994) 65-100.
——, The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin 1996).
L. Sperti, Nerone e la “submissio” di Tiridate in un bronzetto da
Opitergium (RdA Suppl. 8, Rome 1990).
G. Spinola, Guide Cataloghi Musei Vaticani 3. Il Museo Pio
Clementino 1 (Rome 1996).
——, Guide Cataloghi Musei Vaticani 4. Il Museo Pio Clementino
2 (Rome 1999).
M. Floriani Squarciapino, Leptis Magna (Basel 1966).
——, “Fortuna o Astarte-Genius coloniae,” QAL 5 (1967).
——, Sculture del foro severiano di Leptis Magna (Rome 1974).
C.R. Stanton, “Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Com-
modus, 1969-72,” ANRW 2.2 (Berlin 1975) 478-549.
E.M. Steinby, ed., Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae 1 (Rome
1993).
——, Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae 2 (Rome 1995).
——, Lexicon Topigraphicum Urbis Romae 3 (Rome 1996).
K. Stemmer, “Fragment einen Kolossalen Panzerstatue
Domitians ?,” AA (1971) 563-80..
——, Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie
der Panzerstatuen (AF 4, Berlin 1978).
A. Stewart, Faces of Power. Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic
Politics (Berkeley 1993).
P. Stewart, “The Destruction of Statues in Late Antiquity,”
in R. Miles, ed. Constructing Identity in Late Antiquity (Lon-
don 1999) 159-89.
R. Stillwell, ed., Antioch on the Orontes II. The Excavations of
1933-36 (Princeton 1938).
V.M. Strocka, “Beobachtungen an den Attikareiliefs des
severischen Quadrifons von Lepcis Magna,” Antiquités
Africaines 6 (1972) 147-72.
D.E. Strong, Roman Imperial Sculpture (Harmondsworth
1961).
——, Roman Art (London 1976).
E. Strong, “A Bronze Bust of a Julio-Claudian Prince,” JRS
6 (1916) 27-46.
M. Stuart, “How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed,” AJA
43 (1939) 601-17.
H. Stuart Jones, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved
in the Municipal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of the
Palazzo dei Conservatori (Oxford 1912).
——, A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures Preserved in the Munici-
pal Collections of Rome: The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino
(Oxford 1926).
S. Stucchi, “Cantiere esterno dell’Arco Severiano a Leptis
Magna,” QAL 8 (1976) 123-25.
C.H.V. Sutherland, “A Coin of Nero Overstruck for
Galba,” NC 20 (1940) 265-66.
——, Roman History and Roman Coinage (Oxford 1987).
R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939).
303
——, Tacitus (Oxford 1958).
——, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968).
——, Emperors and Biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta
(Oxford 1971).
——, “The Son of the Emperor Macrinus,” Phoenix 26
(1972) 275-91.
M. Taddei, East and West 17 (1967) 41ff
W. Technau, “Archäologischen Funde in Italien, Tripli-
tanien, und der Kyrenaika von Oktober 1931 bis
Oktober 1932,” AA (1932) 447-539.
R. Terdiman, Present and Past. Modernity and the Memory Crisis
(Ithaca 1993).
J. Ternbach, “Further Comments on ‘Caligula’,” Art in Vir-
ginia 14.2 (1974) 29-31.
A.P. Thomas, “The Other Woman at Akhetaten: Royal
Wife Kiya,” Amarna Letters 3 (San Francisco1994) 72-
81.
D. L. Thompson, Mummy Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum
(Malibu 1982).
H.A. Thompson, “Athens Faces Diversity,” Hesperia (1981)
343-55.
M.A. Tomei, “Gli scavi di Pietro Rosa per Napoleone III,”
Orti Farnesiani sul Palatino. Atti del Convegno Internazionale,
École Française de Rome, 28-30 novembre 1980 (Rome
1990) 61-107.
——, Museo Palatino (Rome 1997).
——, Scavi Francesi sul Palatino. Le Indagini di Pietro Rosa per
Napoleone III (1861-1870) (Rome 1999).
M. Torelli, “Culto imperiale e spazi urbani in età flavia.
Dai rilievi Hartwig all’Arco di Tito,” L’Urbs. Space
urbain et histoire, I siècle av. J.C. - III siècle ap. J.C. Actes
du colloque international (Rome 1985-87) 563-82.
A.M Leander Touati, The Great Trajanic Frieze (Acta Instituti
Romani Regni Sueciae 4.45 Stockholm 1987).
P.W. Townsend, “The Significance of the Arch of the
Severi at Lepcis,” AJA 42 (1938) 512-24.
J.M.C. Toynbee, “Ruler-Apotheosis in Ancient Rome,” NC
7 (1947) 126-49.
——, The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria in
Rome (London 1957).
J.M.C. Toynbee, “A Note on the Sculptured Torso of a
Bird,” in P.T. Bidwell et al., eds., The Legendary Bath-
House and Baslica and Forum at Exeter with a Summary
Account of the Legionary Fortress (Exeter 1979) 130-2.
J.C. Traupman, The Life and Reign of Commodus (Princeton
1956).
G. Traversari, Museo Archeologico di Venezia. I ritratti (Rome
1968).
W. Trillmich, Familienpropaganda der Kaisar Caligula und
Claudius (AMUGS 8, 1978).
——, et. al. Denkmäler der Römerzeit (Mainz 1993).
R. Turcan, “Le culte impérial au IIIe siècle,” ANRW 2.16.2
(Berlin 1978) 996-1084.
——, “Les premières effigies monétaires d’Elagabal:
Problèmes politiques et dynastiques,” Ritrtatto Ufficale
e Ritratto Privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul
Ritratto Romano, N. Bonacasa and G. Rizzo, eds.,
(Rome 1988) 535-40.
J. Tyldesley, Hatchepsut. The Female Pharaoh (Harmondsworth
1996).
L. Ungaro and M. Milella, eds., I luoghi del consenso imperiale.
Il Foro di Augusto, Il Foro di Traiano (Rome 1995).
304 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
A. M. Vaccaro and A.M. Sommella, eds. Marco Aurelio. Storia
di un monumento e del suo restauro (Milan 1989).
P. Valesio, Ascoltare il silenzio: la retorica come teoria (Bologna
1986).
C. Van Siclen, “New Data on the Date of the Defacement
of Hatchepsut’s Name and Image on the Chapelle
Rouge,” Göttinger Miszellen 107 (1989).
E. de Grazia Vanderpool, “Fathers and Daughters: Julia
f. Augusti,” AJA 99 (1994) 285.
E. Van ’t Dack, “La papyrologie et l’histoire du Haut-
Empire: Les formulae” des empereurs,” ANRW 2.1
(Berlin 1974) 857-88.
E.R. Varner, “Condemnation in Crisis: Three Portraits of
Severus Alexander and Damnatio Memoriae in the Late
Severan Period,” AJA 96 (1992) 350.
——, “Domitia Longina and the Politics of Portraiture,”
AJA 99 (1995) 187-206.
——, ed. Tyranny and Transformation in Roman Portraiture
(Atlanta 2000).
——, “Portraits, Plots and Politics: Damnatio Memoriae and
the Images of Imperial Women,” MAAR 46 (2001a)
41-93.
——,”Punishment after Death: Mutilation of Images and
Corpse Abuse in Ancient Rome,” Mortality 6 (2001b)
45-64.
V.P. Vasilev, “Untersuchungen zu Bronzekopf Gordian III
aus Nicopolis ad Istrum,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto
Privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto
Romano (Rome 1988) 541-6.
C.C. Vermeule, rev. C. Caprino, A.M. Collini, G. Gatti,
M. Pallottino, and P. Romanelli (1955), AJA 60
(1956) 315-8.
——, “Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues,” Berytus
13 (1959) 3-82.
——, “Roman Cuirassed Statues. A Supplement,” Berytus
15 (1964) 95-109.
——, Roman Imperial Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Cambridge,
Mass 1967).
——, “Commodus, Caracalla, and the Tetrarchs: Roman
Emperors as Hercules,” Festschrift für F. Brommer (Mainz
1977) 289-94.
——, Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues (Boston 1980a).
——, Hellenistic and Roman Cuirassed Statues. Concordance of
Greek and Roman Cuirass Statues in Marble and Bronze
(Boston 1980b).
——, Greek and Roman Sculpture in America (Berkeley 1981).
——, Rev. C. Maderna (1988), AJA 93 (1989) 619.
H. Vetters, “Domitianterasse und Domitiangerasse,” JÖAI
50 (1972-75) 59-60.
K. Vierneisal and P. Zanker, Die Bildnisse des Augustus
(Munich 1979).
M. Vilimkova, Roman Art in Africa (London 1963) .
M.P. Vinson, “Domitia Longina, Julia Titi, and the Literary
Tradition,” Historia 38 (1989) 431-51.
C. Visconti, Catalogo del Museo Torlonia (Rome 1883).
—, I monumenti del Museo Torlonia (Rome).
P.E. Visconti “Commodo rappresentato come Ercole
Romano, busto sino al torace,” BullCom 3 (1875) 3-
15.
F. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit:
Untersuchungen zur damnatio memoriae (Berlin 1936).
J. L. Voisin, “Les Romains, chasseurs des tetes,” Du châtiment
dans la cité. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde
antique (Collection de L’École Française de Rome 79, Rome
1984) 241-93.
W.F. Volbach, Frühchristliche Kunst (Munich 1958).
M.L. Vollenweider, “Portrait glyptique à l’époque des
Antonins et des Sévères,” Ritratto Ufficiale e Ritratto
Privato. Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto
Romano, N. Bonacasa and G. Rizzo, eds., (Rome 1988)
87-104.
J. Wagner, “Provincia Osrhoenae: new archaeological finds
illustrating the military organization under the Severan
dynasty,” Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine
Tripolitania S. Mitchell, ed., (BAR S156 Oxford 1983)
103-30.
S. Walker, “The Imperial Family as Seen in Cyrene,” Libyan
Studies 25 (1994) 167-84.
—— and P. Higgs, eds., Cleopatra. Regina d’Egitto (Milan
2000).
C. Walters, “The ‘dextrarum iunctio’ of Leptis Magna in
Relationship to the Iconography of Marriage,” AntAfr
14 (1979) 271-83.
D. Wardle, Suetonius Life of Caligula. A Commentary (CollLatomus
225, Brussels 1994).
A.E. Wardman, “Description of Personal Appearance in
Plutarch and Suetonius: the Use of the Statues as
Evidence,” CQ n.s. 17 (1967) 414-20.
——, “Usurpers and Internal Conflicts in the Fourth
Century A.D.,” Historia 33 (1984) 220-37.
J.B. Ward-Perkins, “Severan Art and Architecture at Lepcis
Magna,” JRS 38 (1948) 59-80.
——, “The Art of the Severan Age in the Light of the
Tripolitanian Discoveries,” ProcBritAc 37 (1951) 269-
304.
K.H. Waters, “The Character of Domitian,” Phoenix 18
(1964) 49- 77.
——, “Traianus Domitiani Continuator,” AJP 90 (1969)
385-405.
M. Wegner, “Bemerkungen zu den Ehrendenkmälern des
Marcus Aurelius,” AA 53 (1938) 155-91.
——, Die Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit (Das römische
Herrscherbild 2.4, Berlin 1939).
——, G. Daltrop, and U. Hausmann, Die Flavier (Das
römische Herrscherbild 2.1, Berlin 1966).
——, J. Bracker, and W. Real, Gordianus III bis Carinus, (Das
römische Herrscherbild 3.3, Berlin 1979).
—— and R. Unger, “Verzeichnis der Kaiserbildnisse von
Antoninus Pius bis Commodus II,” Boreas 3 (1980) 12-
116.
T. Weiss, ed. Von der Schönheit weissen Marmors. Zum 200.
Todestag Bartolomeo Cavaceppis (Mainz 1999).
K. Weitzmann, ed., The Age of Spirituality (New York 1979).
C. Wells, The Roman Empire (London 1992).
D.A. Wend, “A Bronze Head of Domitian in the Museum
of Lyon,” Antipolis 1 (1976) 111-14.
H.B. Wiggers and M. Wegner, Caracalla bis Balbinus, Das
römische Herrscherbild, 3.1 (Berlin 1971).
L.M. Wilson, The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (Baltimore
1938).
R. Winkes, Livia Octavia Julia. Porträts und Darstellung (Louvain
1995).
H.E. Winlock, “The Egyptian Expedition 1925-27,” BMMA
23 (1928) 1-75.
 select bibliography
——, “The Egyptian Expedition 1927-28,” BMMA 23
(1928) 1-28.
I. J. Winter, “Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the
Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology,” Assyria 1995
S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting, eds. (Helsinki 1997)
359-81.
T.P. Wiseman, “Conspicui postes tectaque digna deo: The Public
Image of Aristocratic and Imperial Houses in the Late
Republic and Early Empire,” L’Urbs: Espace urbain et
histoire (I ersiècle av. J.C.-III siècle ap. J.C. (Collection de
l’Ecole Française de Rome 98, 1987) 393-413.
——, “Killing Caligula,” Pegasus 31 (1988) 2-9.
S. Wood, “Subject and Artist. Studies in Roman Portraiture
of the Third Century,” AJA 85 (1981) 59-68.
——, “A Too Successful Damnatio Memoriae: Problems in
Third Century Roman Portraiture,” AJA 87 (1983)
489-96.
——, Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260 A.D. (Leiden 1986).
——, “Child Emperors and Heirs to Power in Third-
Century Portraiture,” Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty
Museum 1 (Malibu 1987) 115-36.
——, “Memoriae Agrippinae: Agrippina the Elder in Julio-
Claudian Art and Propaganda,” AJA 92 (1988) 409-
26.
——, “Messalina, Wife of Claudius: Propaganda Successes
and Failures of the Reign,” JRA 5 (1992) 219-34.
——, “Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Caligula,”
AJA 99 (1995) 457-82.
——, “Forgotten Women in the Imperial Portrait Group
from Béziers,” ArchNews 21-22 (1996-97) 1-19.
305
——, Imperial Women. A Study in Public Images, 40 B.C. - A.D.
68 (Leiden 1999).
S. Woodford, “The Iconography of the Infant Herakles
Strangling Snakes,” Image et céramique gréque, Actes du
Colloque de Rouen 25-26 nov. 1982 (Rouen 1983).
D. Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great,” DOP
41 (1987) 43-94.
R. Wünsche, “Bildnisbüste des Kaiser Alexander Severus,”
MüJb 40 (1989) 238-39.
F. Yegul, “A Roman Lady from a Southern California
Collection,” GettyMusJ 9 (1981) 63-68.
J. E. Young, “The Biography of a Memorial Icon: Nathan
Rapoport’s Warsaw Ghetto Monument,” Representations
26 (1989) 69-106.
R. Zahn, “Otho, Nero und Poppaea auf einer Karneol-
gemme,” FuB 14 (1972) 173-81.
P. Zanker, “Herrscherbild und Zeitgesicht,” Wissenschlaftliche
Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Ges.-Sprachw.
R. 31 (1982).
——, Provinzielle Kaiserporträts. Zur Rezeption de Selbstdarstellung
des Princeps (AbhMünchen N.F. 90, Munich 1983).
——, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor
1988).
V. Zedelius, “Nero Calvus? Antike Veränderungen an
Bronzemünzen des Kaisers Nero,” Das Rhein.
Landesmuseum Bonn 2 (1979) 20-21.
G. Zedler, De memoriae damnatione quae dicitur (diss. Leipzig
1885).
F. Zevi, “The Equestrian Statue of Nerva from Miseno,”
The Horses of San Marco (Venice 1979) 44-47.
306 catalogue of mutilated and altered portraits
 general index 307

INDEX OF MUSEUMS AND COLLECTIONS

Alexandria, Museum Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel

inv. 23862 (Crispina) 153 Castello di Baia
inv. 24043 (Nero/Augustus) 61-62, n. 137, 64, 238 (Claudia Octavia) 100
inv. 26958 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246, 64 inv. 155743 (Domitian/Nerva) 114, 120-122, 190,
261-262, 280
Alexandria, Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie
(M. Antonius?) 18 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum
inv. 23.104 (Nero) 5, n. 28, 70
Algiers, Museum inv. 23.105 (Augustus) 70, n. 208
(Caligula/deity) 34, 66, 236 inv. 23.118 (Nero/Claudius) 63, 240
(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167 inv. 23.119 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 240-241
Anacapri, Museo della Torre inv. 23.190 (Julio Claudian prince) 70
(Domitian) 113-14, 260 Barcelona, Museo de la Historia de la Ciuidad
Antioch, Museum inv. 7440 (Claudia Octavia?) 101
(Soldier Emperor/Valerian?) 209-210 Belgrade, City Museum
Aphrodisias, inv. 2636 (Macrinus) 187, 197, 208
66-27, 67-282-85, 71-477(2.11) (Domitian) 7, n. 43, Berlin, Pergamonmuseum
134-135 SK 887, no. 127 (Puteoli Relief) 133
Aeneas 73
Nero 74 Berlin, Schloss Klein-Glienicke
Nero and Agrippina 5, n. 26, 72, n. 220, 73-74, 97, inv. GI 324 (Domitian/Nerva) 115-116, 262
164, 194
Nero and Armenia 74 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Antiken-Abteilung
(Crispina) 153
Aquileia, Museo Archeologico 368 (Neronian cuirass) 72
(Livilla) 94, n. 101 11096 (Livilla) 94, n. 102, 95
inv. 12 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 238 inv. 423 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
inv. 108 (Caligula/Claudius) 29, 61, 229 inv. 1802 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167
inv. 128 (Caligula) 24, 44, 114, 225 inv. 4132 (Tetrarchic male) 221
inv. 4694 (Crispus?) 222
Arles, Musée Lapidaire inv. 31.329 (Septimius Severus,
(Constantinian female) 223, n. 73 Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta) 181-182, 199
Arles, Musée Réattu inv. 1965.10 (Caligula/Claudius) 27, 229-30
Cellar Depot (Caligula/Titus) 34, 235-236 inv. 1976.10 (Cleopatra VII) 20
inv. 1983.11 (Nero/Trajan) 63, 64, 254
Athens, Akropolis Museum inv. 30219.710 (Nero) 76
GL 1037 (erased plaque of Megakles) 14, n. 89 inv. R 28 (351)(Domitian) 128
Athens, National Museum inv. SK 157 (Genius of Caligula) 44
inv. 345 (Domitian) 130 Bloomington, Indiana University Art Museum
inv. 348 (Caligula/Titus) 34, 236 inv. 47401 (Clodius Albinus) 160
inv. 3590 (Caligula) 39-40
inv. X23322 (Augustus) 120, n. 66 Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität
(Julia Mammaea) 9, n. 57, 198, 282
Atlanta, Emory University, Michael C. Carlos (Severus Alexander) 9, n. 57, 197, 204, 208, 213,
Museum 281, 285
inv. 2003.25.2 (Geta/Victoria, Caracalla,
and Septimius Severus) 77, 172, 277-278 Bonn, Akademischen Kunstmuseum
(Elagabalus) 194
Baghdad, Museum
(mutilated bronze Akkadian head) 12, n. 70 Bonn, Private Collections
(Nero) 76
(Diva Poppaea) 84, 187
308 index of museums and collections
Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum
( Julia?, Gaius?, and Lucius?) (scabbard)
inv. 32300 (Macrinus and Diadumenianus)
186-187, 278
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts
inv. 59.51 (Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX) 15-16
inv. 88.639 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 248
inv. 89.6 (Domitian/Constantinian Emperor) 124, 269
inv. 98.768 (Nero) 55, 241
inv. 99.346 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131
inv. 1988.327 (private Flavian/Trajanic female) 4,
n. 23
Brooklyn, Museum
21..479.12 (Caligula) 37
Brussels, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire
A 3558 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
E 1839 (Ptolemy VII Euergetes II Physkon) 49, n. 29
Budapest, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum
inv. 3942 (private portrait) 64, n. 162
Cagliari, Museo Nazionale
inv. 6122 (Nero) 49-50, 114, 237
inv. 35533 (Nero) 48, 69
Cairo, Egyptian Museum
13/3/15/3 (M. Antonius?) 18
JE 42891 (M. Antonius?) 18
Caltanisetta, Museo Civico
(Geta) 174
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum
(Livilla) 94, n. 101
GR 14.1850 (Domitian) 128
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, Arthur
M. Sackler Museum
inv. 1949.47.138 (Macrinus) 150, 186, 202, 278
Castel Gandalfo, Villa Barberini, Antiquario
(Domitian) 113, 260
Castel Howard
(Crispina) 152, 273
(Gallienus) 211, n. 92
(Geta) 173
(Nero/Titus) 56, 246
Catania, Museo Communale
226 (Geta) 174
Chatsworth House
(Domitian) 128
Cherchel, Museum
(Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103
inv. S 66 (Cleopatra VII) 20
Chieti, Museo Nazionale
inv. 4296 (Tetrarchic male) 221
Cleveland, Art Museum
inv. 29.439a (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 241
Cologne, Cathedral
87 Dreikönigenschrein I B a 17 (Nero and Agrippina)
84, n. 352, 73, n. 237, 76, 97
Cologne, Römisch-Germanisches Museum
(Nero/Domitian) 59-60, 126, 248
inv. 564 (Agrippina Minor) 99, n. 141, 100, n. 152
Columbia, University of Missouri, Museum of
Art and Archaeology
62.46 (Nero/Gallienus) 64, 255
Condeixa-a-Nova, Museo Monográfico de
Conimbriga
inv. 67.388 (Caligula/Augustus) 33, 225-26
Constantine, Musée Gustave Mercier
(Domitian) 129
Content Collection
(Nero) 76
Copenhagen, National Museum
inv. 3425 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 242
Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek
AE.I.N 1776 (relief of Meretaten or
Ankhesenpaaten) 13, ns. 82, 84
AE.I.N. 1797 (relief of Meretaten or
Ankhesenpaaten) 13, n. 82
457, inv. 788 (Pupienus) 139, n. 36
463, inv. 1979 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 242
542, inv. 1454 (Domitian/Nerva) 115-116, 262
611, inv. 746 (Caligula/Augustus) 30, n. 74, 33, 226
628, inv. 750 (Nero) 68-69
634, inv. 753 (Agrippina Minor) 99
655a, inv. 3167 (Vitellius) 109
637a, inv. 2687 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-37, 233
664, inv. 768 (Domitian) 6, n. 32, 129-30
664a, inv. 1843 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246
668, inv. 772 (Nerva) 115, n. 36
701, inv. 1471 (Marcus Aurelius) 142
725, inv. 801 (Crispina) 153
744, inv. 818 (Maximinus Thrax) 202, 283
744a, inv. 3147 (Constantine) 287
745, inv. 819 (Maximus) 202-203, 284
746, inv. 823 (Maximus) 202-203, 285
756a, inv. 2073 (Elagabalus) 192-193
759, inv. 826 (Maximus) 203
767b, inv. 3398 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
768, inv. 832 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
771b, inv. 2691 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7
Corinth
(Domitian/Trajan?) 122, n. 84
Cos, Museum
(Crispina) 153
inv. 4510 (Nero) 49, 50, 114, 171, 186, 237
Cuenca, Museo Arquelógico Provincial el Almudi
(Caligula/Augustus) 33, 226
Cyrene, Museum
inv. C 170008 (Crispina) 153
 index of museums and collections 309

Detroit, Institute of Arts Genoa-Pegli, Museo

69.218 (Nero) 67 inv. 609 (Diva Drusilla?) 43
inv. 614 (Caligula) 7, n. 43, 43, 225
Deva, Museum
inv. 19.903 (Trajan Decius) 208 Gortyna, Antiquarium
(Caligula) 7, n. 43, 43
Dresden, Albertinum, Skulpturensammlung
(Lucilla) 151 Gotha, Landesmuseum
352 (Drusilla) 96, n. 119 (Elagabalus) 193
358 (Messalina) 96, 258
406 (Maxentius) 219, 220 Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della
Maremma
Durres, Museum (Antonia Minor) 80
inv. 4415 (Neronian cuirass) 72 (Britannicus) 80, 99
(Claudia Octavia) 80, 99, 101
Ephesus, Museum (Diva Drusilla) 80, 99, 231
inv. 670 (Domitian) 128-129 (Diva Livia) 80, 231
Fano, Museo Civico (Divus Augustus) 80
(Caligula/Claudius) 27, 32, 230 (Drusus Caesar) 80, 91, n. 72, 99
(Julia Livilla) 80, 99
Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi (Nero) 7, n. 43, 80
inv. 1914.13 (Crispina) 152, 273 (Nero Caesar) 80, 99, 91, n. 72
inv. 1914.111 (modern Otho) 108, n. 32 (Nero/Vespasian) 53-54, 242, 244
inv. 1914.112 (modern Nero) 68, n. 189, 82 (Neronian cuirass) 72, 80
inv. 1914.123 (modern Nero) 82 inv. 97740 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167
inv. 1914.126 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246-47 inv. 97765 (Caligula/Claudius) 28-29, 80, 230-231
inv. 1914.130 (Domitian) 127-128 inv. 97766 (Divus Claudius) 80, 231
inv. 1914.132 (Nerva) 115, n. 36 inv. 1729148 (Agrippina Maior) 91, n. 66
inv. 1914.171 (Lucilla/Helena) 5, n. 20, 97, 150-151,
154, 272 Guelma, Musée Archéologique
inv. 1914.195 (Commodus) 148 (Geta) 171, 186, 276-277
inv. 1914.271 (Otacilia Severa) 207 M 396 (Lucilla) 149-150, 170, 171, 186, 271
Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi Hamburg, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe
(mother of Trajan?) 99, n. 141 inv. 1971.3 (Geta) 174-175
Florence, Museo Archeologico Hannover, Kestnermuseum
inv. 13791 (Geta) 174 (Macrinus, Caracalla and Julia Domna) 187
inv. 14013 (Trajan Decius) 208 (Vitellius/Vespasian) 109, 259
inv. 14519 (Diva Poppaea) 84 inv. 1979.1 (Maxentius) 219
inv. 14539 (Caligula) 40 Hannover, Sammlung des Herzogs von
inv. 14540 (Caligula) 40 Braunschweig
inv. 14543 (Galba) 63, n. 155, 107 (Nero/private individual?) 65, 66, 256
inv. 14656 (Galba) 63, n. 155, 107 (Nero/Titus) 56, 247
Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degli Argenti Hannover, Private Collection
inv. 1036 (Geta) 171, 183, 186, 276 (private portrait) 64, n. 162
Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale Heraklion, Archaeological Museum
(Geta) 170-171, 186, 276 no. 64 (Caligula) 7, n. 43, 42
Fossombrone, Museo no. 65 (Tiberius) 42
(Caligula) 23, n. 20, 38 no. 66 (Livia) 42
no. 67 (Gaius Caesar) 42
Frankfurt, Liebieghaus
(Caligula/Tiberius) 33, 229 Holkham Hall
(Domitian/Nerva) 116, 262-263
Gannet, Eglise Ste. Croix
(Elagabalus) 194 Hope Collection
(formerly, Antoninus Pius) 206
Geneva, Musée d’Art et Histoire
inv. 224 (Nero) 76 Houston, Museum of Fine Art
inv. C 186 (Nero) 69 inv. 70-39 (Plautilla) 165-166, 188, 275
inv. MF 1347 (Geta) 174 Huelva, Museo Provinical
(Caligula) 6, n. 32, 38-9, 126, 159
310 index of museums and collections

Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria 72 AA 155 (Caligula) 36-37, 225

(Caligula) 7, n. 43, 42 74 AA 37 (Galba) 106
75 AA 26 (Domitian) 130
Ionides Collection 76 AA 72 (Domitian) 129
(Caligula) 40 78 AA 261 (Caligula/Augustus) 32, 33, 226-227
Irvine, Private Collection 79 AB 120 (Philip Minor) 206-207, 208
(Plautilla/Tetrarchic or 83 AA 43 (Domitian/Nerva) 118, 263
Constantinian Empress) 166-167, 276-277 83 AA 205 (Ptolemy VIII) 49, n. 29
83 AA 330 (Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX) 16
Istanbul, Museum
inv. 87 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 231 Los Angeles, Private Collection
inv. 584 (Nero) 71-72 (Didius Julianus) 159
inv. 4038 (Lucilla) 151 Lucera, Museo Civico
inv. 4648 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 231-232 inv. 25 (Nero/Domitian/Nerva?) 117
Izmir, Museum Lucus Feroniae, Magazzini
inv. 3694 (Lucilla) 150, 170, 186, 271-272 (Nero/Vespasian) 10, n. 58, 50-51, 243
Kansas City, Nelson Atkins Museum Luni, Antiquario
45-66 (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 11, n. 64, 192, CM 1033 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 62-63, 119, 239
279
Madrid, Museo Arqueológico
Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum inv. 2770 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 249
(Domitian) 132
Madrid, Prado
Kephallenia, Museum inv. 125 E (Constantine) 124
(Gallienus) 211 inv. 187 E (Clodius Albinus) 160
Kotor, Lapidarium inv. 197 E (Geta) 174
(Domitian) 129 inv. 321 E (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 249
Lagos, Museo Regional Mainz, Romanisch-Germanisches Zentral
inv. 1418 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92 Museum
B 30431 (Caligula) 41
Larissa, Archaeological Museum
inv. 802 + 815 (Domitian/Trajan?) 122, n. 84 Málaga, Museo Arqueológico Provincial
inv. 553 (Caligula) 39-40
Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden
inv. I 1961.63 (Tetrarchic male) 221 Malta, La Valetta
(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167
Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut der
Universität Mantua, Palazzo Ducale
(Domitian/Nerva) (now destroyed) 116-117, 263 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 232
(Commodus/Pupienus) 139-140, 270-271
Lisbon, Museu Nacional de Arquelogia e (Domitian) 129
Etnologia (Nero) 69
inv. 21520 A (Caligula/Augustus) 33, 226 inv. 6615 (Caligula/Augustus) 32, 227
London, British Museum inv. 6916 (Clodius Albinus) 160
1890 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 243 Marna di Ascea, Soprintendenza Archeologica
1895 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131 inv. 3994 (17486) (Nero Caesar) 91, n. 72
1912 (Lucilla) 151
1805.7-3.246 (modern Nero recut from Hadrian) 82- Merida, Museo Arqueologico
83 inv. 1.138 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-31
72.6-4.1420 (Livilla) 94, n. 101 Miho, Museum
1923.4-1.946 (3434) (Livilla) 94, n. 101 (Tiye/Arsinoe II) 14, n. 87
1972.1-26.1 (PS 284008) (Caligula) 41
3600, inv. 68.5-20.2 (Nero) 76 Minden, Domschatz
3618 (Nero) 76 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 132, 249
3621, inv. RPK 21 (Nero) 76
Blacas 497 (Nero) 76-77 Modena, Palazzo Ducale
PRB 1870.2-24.2 (Germanicus) 40 (modern Nero) 68, n. 189, 82
PRB 1965.12-1.1 (Nero) 72-3, 130 Munich, Glyptothek
Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum 316 (Drusilla) 69, n.119
71 11 436 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131 321 (Nero) 68-69, 247, 248
72 AA 118 (Plautilla) 166, n. 90, 167 352 (Geta) 173-174
 index of museums and collections 311

354 (Severan female) 206 Newby Hall

360 (Philip Minor) 206-207 (Elagabalus/Antonine female) 193
394 (formerly 249) (Nero/Domitian) 58-59, 67, 125,
131, 249-250 Olympia, Archeological Museum
418 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 250 126 (Nero/Titus) 56, 57, 247
550 (Severus Alexander) 281 A 129 (Domitian/Trajan) 122, 267
125 (Claudius) 33, n. 89, 56
Munich, Residenz
inv. 85 (Julia Livilla) 102 Osimo, Commune
inv. 86 (Lucilla) 151 (Domitianic cuirass) 114
inv. 157 (Domitian) 129 Oslo, Nasjonalgalleriet
inv. 271 (Geta) 174 inv. 1154 (Domitian/Trajan) 123, 267
Munigua, Museo inv. 1248 (Nero) 57, n. 110, , 248
(Domitian) 6, n. 32, 126, 159 inv. 1433 (Geta) 5, n. 28, 173, 192
inv. 1434 (Elagabalus) 5, n. 28, 173, 192
Nancy, Bibliothèque Publique
(Nero) 76 Oslo, Private Collection
(Pupienus) 139, n. 36
Naples, Antiquario Flegreo
no. 68 (Caligula) 23, n. 20 Ostia, Museo
inv. 14 (Domitian/Trajan) 123, 267
Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico inv. 19 (Domitian) 127, 130, n. 156
inv. 11021 (Galba) 107 inv. 24 (Domitian/Trajan) 122-123, 267-268
inv. 4996 (Alexander) 121, n. 68 inv. 26 (Julia Mammaea) 5, n. 26; 9, n. 57, 197, 282
inv. 5593 (Claudius) 33, n. 89 inv. 27 (Lucilla) 151
inv. 5609 (Agrippina) 99 inv. 45 (Crispus?) 221-222
inv. 5612 (Agrippina) 99 inv. 270 (Commodus) 147
inv. 5907 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 250 inv. 282 (Geta) 175
inv. 5993 (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 121, n. 70, inv. 446 (Otho) 6, n. 32, 107-108, 259
190-191, 276, 279-280 inv. 452 (Crispina) 152, 273
inv. 6058 (Domitian) 128 inv. 1123 (Annia Fundania Faustina) 153-154, 171,
inv. 6061 (Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 250-251 274
inv. 6189 (1057) (Plautilla) 167 inv. 1128 (Commodus) 148
inv. 6242 (Messalina/Agrippina Minor) 97, 257-58 inv. 1129 (Philip Minor) 206
inv. 110127 (Galba) 106 inv. 1844 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7
inv. 150-215 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 232 inv. 1954 (Crispina) 153, 273-274
inv. 150-216 (Domitian) 127-128
inv. 150-226 (Caligula) 35 Oxford, Ashmolean
1917.67 (Agrippina Minor) 205
New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery
inv. 1961.30 (Nero/private individual?) 65-66, 256 Padua, Museo Civico
inv. 1987.70.1 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-37 inv. 819 (Nero/Augustus) 61, 239

New York, Hispanic Society Palermo, Museo Nazionale

(Drusilla) 43 inv. 705(Julia Livilla) 94, 102, n. 167

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art Palestrina, Museo Archeologico Nazionale

05.50 (Trebonianus Gallus) 208-209 inv. 23555 (Divus Augustus) 31, n.78
11.195.7 (Caligula) 40 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des
14.37 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-7 Médailles
23.162.23 (Caligula) 37 (Domitian/4th century emperor) 125, 269
25.78.35 (Caligula) 37 (Geta) 183
26.229 (Constantine) 287 (Geta) 183
40.143 (Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla and 17 (Nero) 76-77
Geta) 170, 183 21 (Claudia Octavia?) 101, n. 155
41.160.762 (Nero) 76-77 26 (Domitian) 131
67.107 (Constantinian Emperor) 124, n. 95, 166 128 (Domitian) 131
1985.328.8 (relief of Meretaten or Ankhesenpaaten) 131 (Livilla) 94, n. 101
13, n. 83 238 (Nero/Antinous) 63-64, 254-255
New York, White-Levy Collection 242 (Livilla) 94, n. 101
Caligula 39, 45, 130, 230 243 (Livilla) 94, n. 101, 95
Caligula/Claudius Gothicus 5, n. 30, 6, n. 32, 34 244 (Livilla) 94, n. 101
251 (Nero/Galba) 63, 106-107, 240
260 (Antonia Minor) 94, n. 101
312 index of museums and collections

261 (Antonia Minor) 94, n.101 Perugia, Museo

264 (Grand Camée de France) 75-76, 92-93, n. 82, (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 233
94, n. 102
276 (Agrippina and Nero) 76 Petworth House
287 (Nero) 82 (Crispina) 153
300 (Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and (Otacilia Severa) 207
Geta) 183 no. 37 (Clodius Albinus) 160
301 (Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta) 183 Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum
304 (Elagabalus) 194 inv. MS4916 (Domitianic inscription) 133
B 11318 (Domitian) 131-132
Phillipi, Museum
Paris, Musée du Louvre inv. 469 (Commodus) 138-139, 171, 186, 270
“Crown of Charlemagne”(Elagabalus) 194
A 35 (N.36) (Domitian) 129 Piraeus, Museum
MA 512 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92 (Balbinus) 204
MA 849 (Ptolemy I Soter) 49, n. 29 125 A (Pupienus) 204
MA 1020 (Pupienus) 139, n. 36 Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University
MA 1044 (Maximinus Thrax) 201-202, 206, 283 loan (Caligula) 41
MA 1076 (Geta) 170, n. 122, 173 inv. 84-2 (Domitianic cuirass) 114
MA 1077 (Elagabalus) 192
MA 1109 (Julia Domna) 173 Richmond, Virginia Art Museum
MA 1118 (Septimius Severus) 173 acc. no. 71-20 (Caligula) 35-6, 225
MA 1138 (Crispina) 153
MA 1150 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131 Rome, Antiquario sul Celio
MA 1154 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-31 (Commodus) 138, 270
MA 1169 (Lucius Verus) 62, n. 149 Rome, Art Market
MA 1171 (Lucilla) 151 (Domitianic cuirass) 114
MA 1180 (Antoninus Pius) 62, n. 149
MA 1210 (Nero) 67 Rome, Domus Aurea, Magazzini
MA 1215 (Diomedes body) 59, n. 118 (Crispina) 152, 274
MA 1219 (Caligula/Augustus) 30, 232
Rome, Mercati Traianei, Magazzini
MA 1222 (modern Nero) 82
(Mother of Trajan?) 99, n. 141
MA 1223 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
inv. 98 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
MA 1234 (Caligula) 36-7
MA 1246 (Augustus) 31, n. 81 Rome, Museo Capitolino
MA 1251 (Diomedes body) 59, n. 118 (“Annius Verus”) 141
MA 1267 (Caligula) 36 (equestrian Marcus Aurelius) 120, n. 66
MA 1887 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103 inv. 106 (Magazzini) (Valeria Maximilla) 220, 288
MA 1888 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103 inv. 230 (Scala 7) (Caligula/Augustus) 31, 33, 227
MA 2315 (Geta) 174 inv. 250 (Galleria 56) (Faustina Minor) 141
MA 3183 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103 inv. 276 (Stanza degli Imperatori 22) (Trajan) 130,
MA 3449 (Ptolemy VIII) 49, n. 29 n. 156
MA 3528 (Nero) 73 inv. 360 (Stanza degli Imperatori 57) (Gallienus) 211,
MA 3552 (Julia Mammaea) 9, n. 57, 197-198, 282 n. 92
MA 3562 (Nero/Titus) 56, 246, 247 inv. 417 (Stanza degli Imperatori) (Domitian/Nerva)
3384 (Neronian cuirass) 72 116, 264
inv. 418 (Stanza degli Imperatori 4) (Nero) 48, n. 24,
Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità
68-69
inv. 146 (1870), 830 (1952) (Messalina/Agrippina Mi-
inv. 421 (Stanza degli Imperatori 7) (Agrippina Maior)
nor) 32, n. 84, 79-80, 96-7, 258
91, n. 66
inv. 146* (1870), 827 (1954)(Nero/Domitian/Nerva) 9,
inv. 426 (Stanza degli Imperatori) (modern Nero) 82
58, 117, 251, 263-64,
inv. 427 (Stanza degli Imperatori 14) (Nero/Domitian)
inv. 280 (1870), 834 (1952) (Caligula/Claudius) 32, n.
59, 114, 251
84, 38, 79-80, 232-233, 258, 276
inv. 430 (Stanza degli Imperatori 19) (“Otho”) 107,
inv. 826 (Nero) 7, n. 43
n. 27
inv. 828 (Agrippina Maior) 91, n. 66
inv. 434 (Stanza degli Imperatori 15) (Busto Fonseca)
Pegli, Museo Civico 59, n. 125
(Geta) 170, 174 inv. 445 (Stanza degli Imperatori 30) (Commodus)
138, 270
Pergamum inv. 446 (Stanza degli Imperatori 26) (Antoninus Pius)
(Domitian) (now lost) 129 141
 index of museums and collections 313

inv. 447 (Stanza degli Imperatori 27) (Faustina Maior) inv. 115191 (Domitian) 129-30
141 inv. 121316 (Agrippina Minor) 101, n. 158
inv. 450 (Stanza degli Imperatori 29) (Marcus Aurelius) inv. 124129 (Claudia Octavia?) 101
141
inv. 452 (Stanza degli Imperatori 31) (Lucius Verus) Rome, Museo Palatino
141 inv. 616 (ex Terme) (Nero) 48, ns. 24, 25, 61, n. 144,
inv. 454 (Stanza degli Imperatori 60) (Commodus) 141 67-68
inv. 460 (Stanza degli Imperatori 36) (Macrinus) 160, inv. 618 (ex Terme) (Nero) 57, 64, n. 162, 67-68, 249,
n. 38, 186, 278 256
inv. 463 (Stanza degli Imperatori 37) (Clodius Albinus) inv. 52681 (Maximinus Thrax) 201, 284
160 inv. 115176 (Julio-Claudian female portrait) 67
inv. 468 (Stanza degli Imperatori 41) (Geta) 173 Rome, Museo Torlonia
inv. 470 (Stanza degli Imperatori 55) (Elagabalus) 191, (Plautilla) 166, n. 90, 167
192-193 (Pompey) 59, n. 118
inv. 473 (Stanza degli Imperatori 46) (Maximinus Thrax) (Pupienus) 139, n. 36
201, 283 570 (Crispina) 153
inv. 477 (Stanza degli Imperatori 50) (Pupienus) 139, 575 (Geta) 174
n. 34 600 (Maxentius) 219
inv. 481 (Stanza degli Imperatori) (Nigrinianus?) 212, 603 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92
n. 100
inv. 482 (Stanza degli Imperatori 52) (Trajan Decius) Rome, Musei Vaticani
208 Biblioteca
inv. 490 (Stanza degli Imperatori 53) (Gordian III) (porphyry Tetrarchs) 215
172, n. 141 (Nero) 82
inv. 496 (Stanza degli Imperatori 59) (Lucilla/Helena) inv. 5286 (Caligula) 40
5, n. 20, 97, 150-151, 154, 273 Braccio Nuovo
inv. 660 (Salone 40) (Geta) 173 26, inv. 2282 (Domitian/Titus) 123-124, 261
inv. 675 (Salone 51)(Geta/Mid Third Century Portrait) 47, inv. 2265 (Pupienus) 139, n. 34
172, 278 65, inv. 2253 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103
inv. 1431 (Magazzini) (Severus Alexander) 9, n. 57, 108, inv. 2225 (Julia Titi) 124
196 281 124 (formerly 121), inv. 2216
inv. 1769 (Stanza terrena a destra I.25) (Maxentius/ (Philip the Arab) 205-206
Constantine) 218, 286 126 (formerly 129) (Nero/Domitian) 57-58, 70, n. 206,
inv. 2106/S (Magazzini) (Crispina) 153, 274 72, 125, 252
inv. 2519 (Magazzini) (Geta) 171, 277 Cortile Ottagono
inv. 2572 (Magazzini) (Gallienus) 211, n. 92 without 101a, inv. 975 (Nerva) 115, n. 36, 262
inventory number (Magazzino di Via Portico d’Ot- Gabinetto delle Maschere
tavia) (Elagabalus) 193 429, inv. 816 (Drusilla) 28
Galleria Chiaramonti
Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano 3.13, inv. 1235 (Commodus) 138, 270
(Julia) (lead tessera) 87 3.16, inv. 1238 (Geta) 173
inv. 88 (Geta) 173 7.9, inv. 1291 (Nero/Vespasian) 53-54, 242, 244
inv. 226 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 141, n. 48, 212, 8.1, inv. 1306 (Severan woman as
n. 99, 250, 251-252, 264 Venus Anadyomene) 195, n. 339
inv. 1224 (Crispina) 153 15.8 inv. 1415 (Crispina) 153
inv. 38795 (Nero/Vespasian) 10, n. 59, 54, 243 23.9, inv. 1551 (Geta) 173
inv. 56128 (Commodus) 147 27.8, inv. 1613 (Commodus/Pupienus?) 139-140, 271
inv. 61160 (Domitian/Trajan) 123, 268 31.20, inv. 1687 (Domitian/Titus) 124, 261
inv. 72147 (Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, 39.9, inv. 1814 (Messalina) 96, 258
and Geta) 170 47.19, inv. 1981 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7
inv. 124492 (Severus Alexander) 196, 281 Galleria dei Candelabri
inv. 126279 (Nero/Constantinian Emperor) 64-65, 4.93, inv. 2622 (Nero Caesar ?) 28
255 Galleria delle Statue
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme 248 (Domitianic cuirass) 130-131
inv. 53 (Nero/Vespasian) 54, 243-244 Galleria Lapidaria
inv. 318 (Domitian/Nerva) 116, 264-265 29.163, inv. 9330 (funerary altar) 148
inv. 326 (Gordian III) 191 Ingresso (old)
inv. 329 (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 191, 280 5, inv. 103 102, n. 167
inv. 620 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167 Magazzini
inv. 644 (Gallienus) 211, n. 92 inv. 151 (Caligula/Claudius) 29, 233
inv. 4256 (Caligula) 6, n. 32, 39, 45, 130 inv. 731 (Plautilla) 165-166, 275
inv. 108601 (Crispina) 153
314 index of museums and collections
Museo Gregoriano Profano
Cancelleria Reliefs 5, 36, n. 115, 60, 114, 119-120,
265
inv. 3851 (Cleopatra VII) 20
inv. 5065 (no. 644) (Nero/Domitian) 60, 62-3, 119,
126, 252-253
inv. 9950 (Claudius) 31, n. 81
inv. 9948 (Nero) 71-72
inv. 9952 (Drusilla) 97, n. 125
inv. 9953 (Caligula/Augustus) 31, 32,228, 45
inv. 9961 (Tiberius) 31, n. 81, 32, n. 84
inv. 9963 (Nero Caesar) 91, n. 72
inv. 10198 (no. 595) (Nero) 68-69
inv. 10135 (10075) (no. 651) 188, 279
inv. 10217 (fourth century male) 214, n. 7
Sala a Croce Greca
565, inv. 181 (Augustus) 28, 59, n. 118
597, inv. 199 (Gaius Caesar) 28
Sala dei Busti
274, inv. 715 (Nero/Augustus) 11, n. 63, 61-62, n.
137, 239
291, inv. 710 (Didius Julianus) 159
300, inv. 687 (Plautilla) 167
317, inv. 674 (Domitian/Nerva) 116, 265-266
322, inv. 159 (Clodius Albinus) 159
352, inv. 637 (Livia) 28
361, inv. 632 (Severus Alexander) 191
385, inv. 59 (Gaius Caesar/Nero) 48, n. 24, 69-70
Sala Rotonda
no. 548, inv. 246 (Domitian/Nerva) 118, 266
no. 550, inv. 243 (Claudius) 33, n. 89, 101, n. 159
no. 551, inv. 242 (Caligula/Claudius) 27-29, 32, 45,
167, 233-234
Rome, Palazzo Altieri
(Septimius Severus) 160, n. 38
Rome, Palazzo Chigi
(formerly, Aelius Caesar?) 206
(Hadrian) 206
Rome, Palazzo Colonna
(Neronian cuirass) 72
Fid. no. 15 (pseudo Vitellius) 110
Fid. no. 54 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 239-240
Rome, Palazzo Corsini
Scalone (modern Nero) 82
Scalone (modern Nero) 82
Rome, Palazzo Dei Conservatori
inv. 184 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 10.12) (Valerian) 210
inv. 235 (ex Palazzo Braschi, Salone; Sala Verde) (Didius
Julianus) 159
inv. 404 (Sala dei Capitani) (“Poppaea Albani”) 150
inv. 423 (Sala Verde) (Domitian/Nerva) 116, 266
inv. 479 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 1) (Gordian III) 172,
n. 141
inv. 487 (ex Palazzo Braschi; Sala Verde) (Gallienus)
211, n. 92
inv. 778 (ex Sala dei Magistrati 6; Centrale Monte-
martini 2.85) (Trajan Decius) 208
inv. 843 (ex Sala dei Magistrati; Centrale Montemartini
2.84) (son of Constantine) 124
inv. 850 (ex Sala dei Magistrati 9; Centrale Monte-
martin 2.83) (Carinus) 127, n. 126, 212
inv. 995 (ex Sala degli Orti Mecenanziani) (Gordian
III) 172, n. 141
inv. 1072 (ex Sala dei Bronzi; Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi)
(Constantine) 66, n. 170
inv. 1120 (ex Sala degli Orti Lamiani 12, Sala degli
Arazzi) (Commodus) 5, n. 28, 127, n. 126, 140-
141, 212, n. 99
inv. 1156 (ex Museo Nuovo 7.24;Centrale Montemartini
2.76) (Domitian) 126-127, 141, n. 48, 212, n. 99
inv. 1622 (Cortile) (Maxentius/Constantine) 11, 217-
218, 286, 287
inv. 1757 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 7.21; Centrale Monte-
martini 3.82) (Macrinus) 5, n. 28, 149, 161, n. 46,
186, 279
inv. 1781 (ex Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.19; Centrale Monte-
martini 3.85)
(Lucilla) 5, n. 28, 149, 150, 161, n. 46, 186, 272,
279
inv. 1790 (Centrale Montemartini 3.83) (fourth century
male) 272
inv. 1794 (Centrale Montemartini 3.84) (fourth century
male) 272
inv. 2171 (ex Sala dei Bronzi; Centrale Montemartini
1.25a) (Gaius Caesar) 70
inv. 2302 (Centrale Montemartini 2.96) (private male
portrait) 151, n. 135
inv. 2305 (ex Museo Nuovo, 10; Centrale Montemartini
2.89) (Antinous) 151, n. 135
inv. 2309 (ex Museo Nuovo, 10; Centrale Montemartini
2.92) (Septimius Severus) 151, n. 135
inv. 2310 (ex Museo Nuovo, 10; Centrale Montemartini
2.93) (Caracalla) 151, n. 135
inv. 2385 (ex Sala dei Bronzi; Centrale Montemartini
1.25b) (Nero) 5, n. 28, 57, n. 110, 70
inv. 2394 (ex Sala degli Orti Mecenanziani 7; Centrale
Montemartini 1.61) (Caligula/Augustus) 31, 227-
8
inv. 2443 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.10; Centrale Monte-
martini, 2.74) (Caligula/Claudius) 10, n. 60, 26-
7, 101, n. 159, 231, 234
inv. 2451 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.12; Centrale Monte-
martini 2.75) (Domitian) 127-128, 130 n. 156
inv. 2457 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.24; Centrale Monte-
martini 2.81) (Elagabalus/Severus Alexander) 191-
192, 280-281
inv. 2750 (ex Braccio Nuovo) (Bocchus Monument) 18,
114
inv. 2765 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.23;Centrale Monte-
martini 2.95) (Otacilia Severa) 5, n. 26, 151, 207
inv. 2766 (ex Braccio Nuovo 3.25; Centrale Monte-
martini 2.91) (Lucilla) 5, n. 26, 151, 207
inv. 2882 (Cortile) (Constantinian Emperor) 65
inv. 6259 (Magazzini) (Severan female) 151, n. 135
inv. 6268 (Centrale Montemartini 2.90) (private An-
tonine/Severan female) 151, n. 135
inv. 6270 (Centrale Montemartini 2.94) (private Severan
female) 151, n. 135
inv. 1.882 (Centrale Montemartini 2.43) (Agrippina
Minor) 99
 index of museums and collections 315

inv. MC 808 (Scalone) (Triumph Panel of Marcus Au- Schaffhausen, Museum zu Allerheiligen
relius) 142-144 (Livilla) 94, n. 101, 95
Rome, Palazzo Farnese Schloss Erbach
(Domitianic cuirass) 130-131 no. 20 (Neronian cuirass) 72
(Sala delle Guardie/del Ercole Farnese)
(modern Nero) 82 Schloss Fasanerie bei Fulda
FAS.ARP 21 (Caligula) 36-37
Rome, Palazzo Mattei FAS ARP 23 (Drusilla) 96, n. 119
(cortile) (modern Nero) 82 FAS ARP 54 (Constantine) 124, n. 95
Rome, Palazzo Quirinale Seville, Museo Archeológico
DP 100 (Sala del Bronzino) (modern Nero) 82 inv. 7.906 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 60
SM 5071 (Sala delle Quattro Stagioni) (Gallienus) 64, inv. 1060 (Nero/Vespasian) 53, 60
n. 161 inv. 1996/8 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 159, 253
Rome, Palazzo Spada Side, Museum
(“Pompey”) 131 inv. 35 (formerly 315)
(Commodus/Licinius?) 140, 271
Rome, Villa Borghese
(facade) (currently Palazzo dei Conservatori) (Nero/ Sikyon, Museum
Vespasian) 53, 244 (Neronian cuirass) 72
(Sala del Ingresso) (modern Nero) 82
(Sala IV) (modern Nero) 82 Sofia, Archaeological Museum
inv. 31 (Portico 33) (Crispina) 153 inv. 1497 (Gordian III) 9, n. 57, 204, 208, 213, 285
inv. 748 (Sala del Ermafrodito 171) (Nero Titus) 56, Split, Archaeological Museum
247-248 inv. C 222 ( C 271) 122, 268
Rome, Villa Albani inv. H 5504 (Caracalla and Geta) 183
Portico, no. 54 (Caligula) 36-7 Spoleto, Collezione Antonelli
inv. 58 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103 (Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167
inv. 745 (Lucilla) 151
Spoleto, Seminario
Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora (Geta) 173
(Maximinus Thrax) 202, 284
(Maximinus Thrax) 202, 284 Stockholm, National Museum
inv. 106 (Maxentius) 216-217, 220, 286
Rome, Villa Margherita (American Embassy)
(Nero/Domitian) 60, 126, 253 Stuttgart, Württembergisches Landesmuseum
inv. 64/28 (Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 253-254
Rome, Villa Massimo inv. 65/11 (Nero) 69
(Galba) 107 inv. 68/1 (Geta) 174
Saalburg, Museum inv. 68/3 (Domitian/Nerva) 116-117, 267
inv. 869 (Clodius Albinus) 160 inv. SS.17 (Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX) 16

Sabratha, Museum Sweden, Private Collection

(Domitian/Trajan) 122, 268
inv. 650 (Caligula) 35
Sagunto, Museo Arqueológico
(Caligula) 24, 44, 225
St. Germaine-en-laye, Musée des Antiquités
Nationales
inv. 637434 (Nero/Augustus) 61, n. 137, 240
St. Petersburg, Ermitage
inv. 1454 (Macrinus) 187
inv A 31 (Philip the Arab) 201, n. 16, 205-206
inv. J. 275 (Nero) 76
Sardis, Depot
NOEX 60.12 (Julio-Claudian portrait)
Sassari, Museo Sanna
7890 (Neronian cuirass) 72
(Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103
Switzerland, Antiken-Sammlung Ennetwies
(Nero) 68-69
Switzerland, Private Collections
(Agrippina Minor) 94, n. 96
(Caligula) 6, n. 30, 23-4, 39, n. 148, 44, 45, 49, 130,
150, 197
(Caligula) 40
(Julia Mammaea) 9, n. 57, 196, 198, 282
(Severus Alexander) 9, n. 57, 196, 281-282
Syracuse, Museo Nazionale
inv. 6383 (Nero) 48, n. 24, 50,114, 237
34, n. 104 Thessalonika, Museum
inv. 1055 (Vitellius/Vespasian) 109, 259
inv. 2466 (Galeria/Valeria/deity) 97, 221, 288
Toledo, Museum of Art
1990.3 (Domitian) 130
316 index of museums and collections

Tomar, Convento de Cristo inv. 20 (Grimani “Vitellius”) 110

(Caligula/Augustus) 33, 228 inv. 79 (Geta) 171, 277
inv. 142 (Caligula) 36-37, 225
Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum inv. 182 (Commodus) 148
inv. 933.27.2 (Faustina Maior) 206 inv. 249 (Domitian/Trjan) 123, 268-269
Toulouse, Musée St. Raymond inv. 276 (Nero) 71, 72, n. 220
inv. 30004 (Vipsania Agrippina) 88 Venice, S. Marco
inv. 30109 (Geta) 174-175 (porphyry Tetrarchs) 215
inv. 30128 (Philip Minor) 206-207
Verria, Museum
Trier, Rheinisches Landesmuseum inv. 373 (Nero/Vespasian) 54-55, 245-246
ST 5223 (Vitellius/Vespasian) 109, 259
Vicenza, Museo Civico
Trier, Stadtbibliotek inv. EI-19 (Nero?) 50, 238
(Ada Cameo) (Constantine, Fausta, Helena,
Constantius II, ConstantineII) 222 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
inv. 1821.161, no. 45 (Livilla) 94, n. 101
Tripoli, Archaeological Museum inv. I 237 (Geta) 174
(Arch of Septimius Severus) 178-181 inv. I 669 (Vespasian) 268
(Julia Livilla) 102, n. 167 inv. IX A 23 (Caligula/Claudius) 27, 235
Trieste, Museo Civico inv. IX A 34 (Livilla) 94, n. 101
inv. 2177 (Caligula) 36 inv. IX A 59 (Caligula) 40
inv. 2228 (Caligula) 40 inv. IX A 63 (Gemma Claudia) 92, n. 82
inv. 3139 (Nero/Vespasian) 56, 248 inv. IX A 76 (Geta) 183
inv. XI B 8 (Germanicus) 40
Tunis, Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art inv. XI 1160 (Livilla) 94, n. 101
(Caligula) 35
Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski (formerly)
Tunis, Musée du Bardo (Geta) 174
(Clodius Albinus) 6, n. 32, 159
inv. 1050 (Clodius Albinus) 160 Vienne, Musée Archéologique
3656(2) (Crispina) 153 (Nero) 50, 69, 114, 238
C 72 (Caligula/Augustus) 33, 228-229 Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks
C 77 (Constantine) 287 acc. no. 46.10 (Caligula) 40
C 1025 (Nero/Vespasian) 54, 245
C 1347 (Geta) 174 Whereabouts Unknown
C 1397 (Geta) 174 (Domitian and Domitia Longina or Julia Titi) 131
Turin, Museo d’Antichità Woburn Abbey
(Neronian cuirass) 71 (Caligula/Claudius) 26-7, 235
inv. 244 (Nero/Vespasian) 54, 245 (Ptolemy of Mauretania) 103
United States, Private Collections Worcester, Art Museum
(Augustus) 70, n. 208 inv. 1914.23 (Caligula) 23, n. 20, 36-37
(Nero) 64, n. 162, 70-71, 187, 197, 208 inv. 1915.23 (Nero) 68-69, 237, 248
Vaison, Musée Municipal Würzburg, Museum der Universität
inv. 128 (Caligula/Claudius) 30, 32, 45, 234-235 (Trajan Decius) 208
inv. 300.315 (Nero/Domitian) 58, 72, 125, 234-235,
254 Zadar, Museum
(Caligula/Augustus) 32-33, 45, 229
Vasto, Museo Civico
(Nero/Domitian) 59, 126, 254 Zaragoza, Museo de Zaragoza in Tarazona
80-5-1 (Domitian/Augustus) 125, 260-261
Venice, Museo Archeologico
inv. 11 (Agrippa) 59, n. 118
 general index 317

GENERAL INDEX

abolitio memoriae 1, 142, 167-168, 177-178, 215 corona spicea attribute 62

Accera 229 depiction as Roma-Concordia 73
accusationes adulterii 86, n. 9 destruction of images and portraits 98
Acte 46 diminishing political prominence 73, 98
Temple of Ceres on Sardinia 69, n. 200 exclusion from the Mausoleum of Augustus 46-47, 99
Actium 18, 19 exile 97
adlocutio 24, n. 28 Gemma Claudia 92
aegis 76, 84, 121 Grand Camée 94, n. 102
Aelia Flacilla 150 guarantrix of Nero’s imperium 73, 76, 97
Aelia Paetina 101, 161, n. 43 influence with Claudius 95
Aelius Caesar 206 murder 47
Aemilian 210 persecution of Lollia Paulina 102
declaration as emperor 208, 209 portrait recut from Messalina 97
declaration as hostis 209 posthumous portraits 99
erasure of inscriptions 209 priestess of Divus Claudius 99
L. Aemelius Paullus 89 receding lower lip 31, n. 75, 94, n. 102
Q. Aemelius Laetus “regency” 97
plot to assassinate Commodus 137 rehabilitation of Agrippina Maior 91
aenatores 98 rehabilitation of Julia Livilla 102
Aeneas 73, 75 reinternment in the Mauseoleum of Augustus 99
Aenona removal and destruction of portraits 98-99
Roman Forum 33, 229 supervision of Nero 46
Aesis 42, 142 ties to Cologne 59-60
Africa 107, 159, 216 Akhenaten
Agrippa 80, n. 298, 88 destruction of images 13-14
Agrippa Postumus Akraiphia 78
adoption by Augustus 88, 89 Albani Collection 141, n. 59, 159, n. 20, 173, n. 150, 192,
absence in group dedications 89 n. 314, 251, 264, 283
exile 87, 88 Alexander 22-3, n. 15, 49, n. 27, 78, 121
murder 88 anastole 138, n. 25
portraits and inscriptions 89 statues set up by Caracalla 184, n. 258
rehabilitation under Caligula 89 Alexandria 19, 20, 160, n. 36
Agrippina Maior 29, 38, 43, 56, 75, 79, 80, 100, 104 Claudian group dedication 96
birthday as dies nefastus 90 coins of Octavia 100, n. 153
burial 99 erased inscription of Caligula 41
exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 46-47, Alexandria (nurse of Nero) 46, 111
90, 99 Allectus
exile to Pandateria and death 90, 92 coin portraits 213
Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82 defeat 211
inscription from Mausoleum of Augustus 41 Almendilla 126, 248
marriage to Germanicus 90 Amenhotep III
opposition to Tiberius 90 images refashioned to Rameses II
production of portraits under Caligula and Claudius Amisus 81, 83, n. 346
91 Anatolia 15
recinsion of dies nefastus 91 Anchises 73
rehabilitation under Caligula and Agrippina Minor animism 12
91 Ankhesenpaaten 13
retrieval and reinternment of ashes 91 Annia Faustina
Agrippina Minor 75, 79, 96, 100, 101, 102, 104, 205 marriage to Elagabalus 194
absence in group dedications 99 Annia Fundania Faustina
birthday declared dies nefastus 98 conspiracy against Commodus 153
burial of Caligula, 21, n. 9 execution 153
coiffures 84, n. 350 mutilation of portrait 153-154
318 general index

“Annius Verus” 141 Piraeus 204

Antinous Athribis 238
portrait recut from Nero 64 auctoritas 73, n. 237, 76, 80
Antioch 90, 157, 185 aurigae 49, n. 27
“Riot of the Statues” 224 Augusta Taurinorum 216
Antium 46 Augustus 1, 9, 11, 18, 20, 27, 29, 42, 44, 62, 67, 77, 79,
Claudia Antonia 96 80, 88, 90, 98, 120, n. 66, 157, 174, 231
ivolvement in Pisonian conspiracy 101 adoption of Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius 88, 89
removal and destruction of portraits 101-102 adoption of Gaius and Lucius 86
Antonia Minor 29, 80, 94, 96 banishment of Julia 86-87
corona spicea attribute 62 depiction as divus 56
Antonius 106, n. 8 Forbes type 30, 226
Iullus Antonius 86 portrait as Diomedes 28
M. Antonius 18, 20, 86, 103 portrait typology 30-31, n. 74
birthday as dies nefastus 19 portrait recut from Domitian 125, 260-261
declaration as hostis 19 portraits recut from Caligula 30-33, 61, 225-229
portraits 18-19 portraits recut from Nero 61-63, 85, 238-240
rehabilitation 19 posthumous portraits with signs of ageing 31, 32, 61,
Antoninus Pius 67, 138, 141, 145, 189, 206 125
deification of Hadrian 6 Prima Porta statue 57
62, n. 149 Prima Porta type 30, 61, 125, 226, 227, 228, 229, 238-
Aphrodisias, 240, 260
Demos 73 reditus 119
sculptor’s workshop 120, n. 63 rehabilitation of M. Antonius 19
Sebasteion 5, 73-75, 134 Sanctuary of Hercules Victor at Tivoli 118
Theater 134, 135 temples 21, n. 11
Apicata 92 Aurelian
aplustre 75, n. 251 involvement in plot to assassinate Gallienus 211
Apollo 79, 82, 96, 180, n. 216 numismatic portraits 236
Apollo-Helios 62, 71, 236
Apollo-Mithras 75 Bacchus 97
Appius Claudius 86 Badouin II 76
Apulia 126 Baebius Iuncius 168, 183
Aquileia 200-201 Baiae
Roman Circus 61, 238 Julio-Claudian statuary group 97, 100
Aquilia Severa Balbinus 139, 140, 209, n. 78
bronze portrait from Sparta 190 corpse abuse 4, 203, 213
countermarked coins 189 declaration as emperor 200
marriage to Elagabalus 194 destruction of portraits 204
Aquitania 105 erased papyri 204
Archibius 20 murder 203
Argentarii 162 sarcophagus 204
Ariccia 20 balteus 58
Arimaspes 71 Benevento
Armenia 57 Arch of Trajan 113, n. 22
Arneae 95 Béziers-Kiel type 87, n. 25
Arsinoe II Bilbilis 93, 104
image reworked from Queen Tiye 14 Bocchus18
Ascanius/Iulus 73 Bologna
Ashurbanipal erased inscription of Caligula 41
mutilated relief at Nineveh 12 Lucien Bonaparte 69
Asia Minor 33, 67, 81, 134, 206 Borghese Collection 67
Asinius Gallus 90, n. 61 Boubon 43, n. 191, 79
Dr. Anthony Askew 83 Britain 182
Athena Parthenos 96 Britannicus 75, n. 251, 80, 81, 95, 96, 97, 99, 102
Athens 83 Brutus (tyrannicide)
Acropolis 89 corpse abuse 17
Acropolis statue inventory 14 images 17-18
Agora 15 Budalia 207
colossal portrait of Plautianus 161 bulla 28, 80, 99
erased Neronian inscriptions 78 Bulla Regia
Komodeia 147, n. 105 Temple of Apollo 54, 245
Parthenon 78 Burrus 46
 general index 319

Caecilia Paulina execution 221

coin portraits 203 Capellianus 200
Q. Caecilius Metellus 121, n. 68 Capri 149, 152
A. Caecina Alienus 108 Caracalla 162, 163, 164, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178,
Caere 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189
theater 31, 32, n. 84, 43, 71, 91, 97, 117, 228 accession as Caesar 148
Caesareia in Samaria assassination 156, 184
countermarked Neronian coinage 51 assimilation with Geta to Dioscuri 176, n. 190
caesareum 145 condemnation of Geta 6, 198
Caligula 11, 16, 64, n. 162, 84, 99, 102, 110, 126, 170, deification 184
172, 197, 205 hatred of Plautilla 165, 166
amphitheater near the Saepta Julia 41 hostility to Plautianus 161
assassination 21 murder of Geta 156
birth 21 persecution of Geta’s supporters 168, 171
building program 41-2 removal of portraits 184
burial on Esquiline 21 statue base recut from Geta 8
cannibalism of corpse 21 statues set up to Alexander 184, n. 258
coins melted for portraits of Mnester 95, n. 109 type 1 portraits 169, n. 117
condemnation desired by Senate 9, 21 Carinus 127, n. 126
continued display of portraits 7, 42-44, 142 assassination 212
countermarking and destruction of coins 24-25, 93, 115 association with Nero, Vitellius and Domitian 211
depictions as Jupiter 27, 28, 30, 31, 45 defeat by Diocletian 214
disposal of portraits in the Tiber 39, 45, 72, 108, n. 31, erased inscriptions 212
130 portrait typology 212
erasure of inscriptions 32, 41 removal of portrait 212
exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 47 Carnuntum 156, 197, 216, 281
exile of Agrippina Minor and Julia Livilla 97 carpentum 24, n. 28
gem portraits 40 Carrhae 184
Horti Lamiani 141 Carsulae 233
innovations in group dedications 11 Cártama 40
militaristic images 29 Carthage 53, 136, 243
modern portraits 109 Carausius
mutilation of images 23-25, 44, 45, 113, 225 defaced denarius 213
name allowed to remain in inscriptions 41 murder 212
popularity with plebs and praetorians Carus 211
portrait recut to Claudius Gothicus(?) 5, n. 30, 34, 236 Cassius (tyrannicide) 17-8
portrait recut to a deity 34, 236 Cassius Longinus 17
portrait recut to Tiberius 33, 229 Sp. Cassius Vecellinus 16
portrait typology 22-23 Castel Gandalfo
portraits recut to Augustus 22, 30-33, 125, 225-229 Villa of Domitian 113, 260
portraits recut to Claudius 10, 22, 25-30, 79, 80, 85, Castel Porziano 54, 243
229-235 Bartolomeo Cavaceppi 125, 249, 266
portraits recut to Titus 33-34, 235-236 Celsus
recall of bronze coinage 25 corpse abuse 210, 213
rehabilitation of Agrippa Postumus 89 “crucifixion” of portrait 3, 210
rehabilitation of Agrippina Minor 91 Ceres 62, 75, 97, 149
rehabilitation of M. Antonius 19 Cherchel 160
removal of portraits 35-42 Chiragan
retrieval of ashes of Agrippina Minor, Nero and Drusus Roman Villa 174-175
Caesar 91 Cibyra 115
reuse of portraits 4, 10, 25-34, 44-45 Cicero
L. Calpurnius Piso 38, n. 140 corpse abuse 18
L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus destruction of houses 16
corpse abuse 105 cingulum 41
G. Calpurnius Piso 101 Claudia Augusta 81, 83
destruction of house 17 Claudius 9, 24, 41, 43, 44, 45, 56, 67, 72-73, n. 232, 74,
Gn. Calpurnius Piso 3, n. 11, 9, n. 56, 90, 16 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 108, 123, n. 90, 161, 231
destruction of houses 17 adoption of Nero 46, 75, 92-93, n. 82
senatorial sanctions 17 choice of coin types 42
Campana Collection 193, n. 314 classicizing portraits 25, 27-30, 44
Campus Serenus 220 Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82
Candidianus image as Divus 29
320 general index

inscription as Divus 72 posthumous portraits 147-148

portrait typology 25-26 proposed abuse of corpse 39, n. 149, 137, 168, n. 114
portrait recut from Nero 63, 85, 240 reconfiguration of Colossus 66, 145-146
portraits on coins of Titus and Domitian 63, n. 153 rehabilitation 138, 147-148, 154
portraits recut from Caligula 25-30, 80, 85, 229-235 removal of portraits 2, 140-147
possible involvement in Caligula’s assassination 21 restoration of inscriptions 147
refusal to complete Caligulan building projects 41 triumph of 176 142
rehabilitation of M. Antonius 19 warehousing of portraits 140, 141
repair of Aqua Virgo 41 Comilodunum 73
trial and execution of Caligula’s assassins 22 concordia 158, 164, n. 74, 169, 179, 207, n. 62, 213
veristic portraits, 25-27, 44 Concordia 73, 97, 179, 180, n. 216
Claudius Gothicus 214, n. 6 congiarium 142, 155
deification of Gallienus 211, n. 91 Condeixa-a-Nova
involvement in plot against Gallienus 211 Forum 33
portrait recut from Caligula 5, n. 30, 34, 236 congiarium 55
Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus 162, n. 58 consecratio 6, 24, n. 28
marriage to Lucilla 148 Constans 222
Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus 149 Constantia 222
Clazomenae Constantine 6, 124, 134, 211, n. 91, 221
effaced coins of Geta 171 battle of the Milvian Bridge 216
Clemens 89 condemnation of Maximian 214
clementia 71, 120, n. 66, 143, 145, 162, n. 58 defeat of Maximian 214
Cleopatra VII 103 portraits recut from Maxentius 5, 11, 65, 217-219, 223
declaration as hostis 19, 100, n. 151 vicennalia 150
portraits 20 Constantine II 218, 219, 222
Cleopatra Selene 103 Constantius Chlorus 215, 222
Clodius 16 death 216
Clodius Albinus 160 defeat of Allectus 212
corpse abuse 4, 100, 158, 199 elevation to Caesar 214
death of wife and sons 158 Constantius II 222
declaration as hostis 158 Thomas Cook 262
destruction of portraits 158, 159 Corinth 89
elevation to Caesar 157 Basilica 88
official sanctions 156 coin of Octavia 100
portrait typology 158-159 Gaia Cornelia Supera
removal of portraits 159-160 erased inscriptions 209
suicide 158 Faustus Cornelius Sulla
L. Clodius Macer marriage to Claudia Antonia 101
revolt against Nero 46 cornicines 98
Cologne (Colonia Agrippinensis) 59 corona civica 24, n. 28, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 53, 60,
Fabrizio Colonna 72 64, 127-128, n. 134, 129, n. 150, 130, 183, 219, 229,
Commodus 4, 11, 151, n. 133, 156, 172, 186, 196, 211, 230, 231, 234, 237, 253
n. 91 corona spicea 12, 62, 239
association with Hercules 136,138, 146 corpse abuse 2, 3-4, 17, 21, 39, n. 149, 45, 72, 73, n. 233,
assumption of toga virilis 145 92, 100, 102, 105, 108, n. 31, 109, 110, 126, 137, 157,
burial in Mausoleum of Hadrian 137 158, 161, 168, n. 114, 185, 188, 189, n. 290, 195, n.
consecratio 6 337, 199, 200, 203, 210, 211, 213, 216
conspiracies 136-137 Corsica 216
declaration as hostis 137 Cos
erasure of inscriptions 137, 146-147 Agora 237
erasure of relief portraits 142-145, 154, 167-168, 177 Crispus
largitio of 177 142-143 coin portraits 221
literary links to Nero and Elagabalus 189 erased inscriptions 221
mutilated coin 139 execution 221
mutilation of portraits 4, 137, 138-139, 165, 270 unfinished portraits 221-222
murder 136-137, 157 Crispina 4, 12, 146, n. 91
official condemnation 6, 9, 137, 154 exile to Capri 151-152
portrait as Hercules 5, 127, n. 126, 139, 140-141 murder 151-152
portrait recut to Licinius? 140, 154, 271 mutilation of portraits 152-153, 154, 165, 273-274
portrait typology 137-38 plot to overthrow Commodus 136, 149, 151-152
portraits recut to Pupienus? 5, n. 30, 139-40, 154, 270- portrait typology 152
271 removal of portraits 153
 general index 321

Q. Crispinus 86 execution and condemnation 102-3

Crispus 146 maiestas charges 102
Ctesiphon 156 Domitia Longina 115, 127, n. 125, 131
Cumae assassination of Domitian
“crypta romana” 35 coiffures 84, n. 350
Forum 35 Domitian 11, 44, 67, 81, n. 313, 107, n. 29, 139, 170,
Q. Curtius Rufus 22-3, n. 15 172, 211, n. 91, 239
Cybele 96 assassination 111
Cyme building program 133-134
erased Neronian coin 51 continued display of portraits 7, 134
Cyzicus cremation and burial 111
erased inscription of Caligula 41 cuirasses 114, 128, 130-31
cults of Isis and Serapis 129
Dacia 205 defaced as 115
Dalmatia 33, 122, 129 depictions as Jupiter 115-116, 117, 118
erased inscription of Caligula 41 depictions as Minerva 131
Danube 211 despotic behavior 111
Darius 12 destruction of arches 132-133
Domenico De Rossi 252 disposal of portrait in the Rio Martino 130, 134
Decebalus disposal of portrait in the Tiber 108, n. 31, 129-30, 134
corpse abuse 100 disposal of portrait in well 126
Decrius Calpurnianus 95, n. 109 effacement of relief portrait 15, 113-114, 260
Della Valle Collection 171
Egyptianizing depictions as Pharaoh 129, n. 151
Demeter/Kore 38
Ephesus temple 128-129
Demetrius Poliorcetes
erased inscriptions 132
destruction of statue in the Athens Agora 15
erased manuscript 132
demolition of houses 16-17, 78
Dendera erasure from statue bases 128
pharaonic image and cartouche of Caligula 40 official condemnation 6, 9, 111
Deva 208 erasure of inscriptions 111
dextrarum iunctio 179-181 mutilation of images 113-114, 269
Diadumenianus 209 Palatine Arch 133
corpse abuse 4, 100, 185, 199 Pliny’s description of destruction of portraits 3, 112-113,
declaration as Caesar 184 135, 137
declaration as hostis 185 portrait recut to Constantinian emperor 5, n. 30
destruction of coinage 187 portrait typology 57, 111-112
erasure of inscriptions and papyri 185 portrait warehoused in tomb of Julia Procula 5-6, n. 31
mutilation of portraits 185, 186, 188, 199, 279 portraits recut from Nero 57-61, 80, 85, 125-126
official sanctions 156, 185 portrait recut to Augustus 125, 260-261
portrait typology portraits recut to fourth century emperors 124-125, 269
Diana 180, n. 216 portraits recut to Titus 123-124, 261
Didia Clara portraits recut to Trajan 122-123, 135, 267-269
coiffures 152 portraits reworked to Nerva 80, 115-122, 135, 190, 261-
loss of title of Augusta 157 267
Didius Julianus 152, 160 premature baldness 57, n. 107
accession 157 proposed Parthian campaign 121
destruction of bronze statute 157 reditus from Sarmatian campaign 119
destruction of portraits 158 reuse of portraits 4, 9
official sanctions 156, 157 titles and offices 111
portrait typology 158-159 trophies 133
rehabilitation of Commodus 138, 147 unfinished portraits 130
removal of portraits 159 Via Domitiana 121, 133
dies nefastus 1, 19, 91, 98 victory over Chatti 114
Diocletian 212, 214, 215, 221 Gn. Domitius Ahenobarbus 46
abdication 214 arval vows on birthday 62, n. 149
Diomedes 28, 58, 125, 131, 190 Gn. Domitius Corbulo 57
Dion L. Domitius Alexander 215
destruction of Macedonian votive images 15 revolt against Maxentius 216
Dionysus II dona militaria 119
destruction of monuments at Syracuse 15 Giovanni Antonio Dosio 145
Dioscuri 176 Dougga
Domitia Lepida 95, 104 Arch of Septimius Severus 182
322 general index

Temple of Saturn 159 charges of adultery with Claudia Octavia 100, n. 142
Drusilla 79, 99 Eumolpus 71
inscription as Diva 32 Euporos 132
representations as Diva 29, 38, 43-44, 80, 231 Euthymides
statue as Venus Genetrix 28 erased plaque 14
Drusus Caesar 29, 38, 40, 80, 99 Eutropia 215
birth 91 Eutropius 223
corpse abuse 4 execution in effigy 3, 210
exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 47, 91 exilium 89
portraits 91-2
retrieval and reinternment of ashes 91 Fabius Valens 108
Drusus Maior 38, n. 140, 75, 93, n. 91, 231 Farnese Collection 250
receding lower lip 31, n. 75 fasti 1
Drusus Minor 32, 38, n. 140, 75, 88, 89, 90, 102 Fausta 12, 220, n. 51
marriage to Livilla 93 coiffures 166
murder 93 death 221, 222
Dura Europos erased inscriptions 222
Mithraeum 182 marriage to Constantine 222
portraits 222-223
Écija 53, 244 Faustina Maior 92, n. 82, 141, 206
Egloge 46, 111 Faustina Minor 136, 141, 153, 206
effigies 3, 49 Ferdinando II dei Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany 56
Flavianus Nicomachus 223
Eirene and Ploutos 96
M. Flavius Aper 127, n. 130
Elaea
Flavius Eugenius 223
effaced coins of Maximinus Thrax and Maximus 202,
Florian
203 numismatic portraits 236
Elagabal 188, 194 Forum Clodii 89
Elagabalus 184, n. 262, 187 Fortuna 114
arrival in Rome 186, n. 279 Forutuna Augusta 28
assassination 157 fratres arvales 62
chief priest of Elagabal 188 Fulvia 86
claims to be Caracalla’s son 188, n. 288
corpse abuse 4, 39, n. 149, 108, n. 31, 168, n. 114, 188, Gabii 67
199 Gaetulicus 103
defacement and countermarking of coins 189 Gaius Caesar 42, 43, 75, n. 251, 86, 87, 89
defeat and execution of Macrinus 156-157, 185, 188 bronze portrait 70
erasure of inscriptions 193-194 marriage to Livilla 93
erasure of name Antoninus 189 portrait reworked to Nero 48, n. 24, 69-70
gem portraits 194 taking toga virilis 88
literary links to Nero and Commodus 189 togate statue 28
nickname of Tiberinus 189 Galba 47, 50, 77, 81, 157
official condemnation 6, 9, 156, 188-189 adoption of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus 105
painted portrait at the Curia 189, n. 294 corpse abuse 4, 105
portrait typology 189 countermarks 51
portraits refashioned to Severus Alexander 5, 11 , 156, destruction of portraits 105, 110, 197
190-192, 199, 223, 279-81 portrait recut from Nero 63, 85, 106-107, 240
portraits of Severus Alexander smeared with mud 182 portrait typology 106
removal of portraits 192-193 rehabilitation and re-erection of portraits 105-106
El Djem 228 reinternment of ashes of Nero’s victims in Mausoleum
Electus of Augustus 99
plot to assassinate Commodus 137 removal of portraits 106
Eleusinian Mysteries 62 revolt against Nero 46, 105
el Kef 210 Galeria Valeria 222
Emessa 185, 188 coiffures 166, n. 90
Epaphroditus 46 coin portraits 221
Ephesus 89 execution 221
Temple of Domitian/Vespasian 128-129 portrait recut to deity 97, 221, 288
Temple of Hadrian 215 support of Maximinus Daia 221
equites singulares 146 Galerius 215, 216, 219
Eros 75 Galla Placidia 150
Ethnoi 73 Gallia Lugdunensis 46, 156
Eucaerus “Galliena” 210
 general index 323

Gallienus declaration as emperor 200

assassination 210 Gordian III 191, 196
association with Domitian and Commodus 211, n. 91 assassination 204
corpse abuse 4, 211, 213 deification 9, 204
declaration as tyrant 211 elevation to Caesar 200
deification 211, n. 91 revival of Neroniana 81
erased inscriptions 211 spontaneously attacked portrait 9, 204, 213, 285
portrait discarded in well 211 Gortyna 79, 142
portrait recut from Nero 64, 85, 255 Agora 42-3
portrait typology 64, n. 161 Gouraya 160
removal of portraits 2 Grand Camée de France 92, n. 82. 94, n. 102
Gaul 61, 69, 158 Grimani bequest 37
Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82 Grimani “Vitellius” 110
Genius Populi Romani 119, 120
Genius Senatus 119, 120 Hadrian127, n. 131, 174, 205, 218, 223, 287
Gens Augusta 28 death 64
Genzano 20 deification 6
Germania 40, 89, 105, 129 portrait recut to modern Nero 82-83
Germanicus 21, 29, 32, 38, 41, 43, 57, 71, n. 215, 74, relocation of Colossus 66
75, 79, 231 Hadrumentum 159
adoption by Tiberius 75, 89 Hathor 84, n. 351
death 17, 90, 91 Hatchepsut
Gemma Claudia 92, n. 82 mutilated images and cartouches 13
Grand Camée de France 92, n. 82 Helena 222
marriage to Agrippina Maior 90 coiffures 166, n. 92
portraits on glass phalerae 40 portraits recut from Lucilla 5, n. 20, 97, 150-151, 154
receding lower lip 31, n. 75 title of Augusta 150
Germanicus Julius Caesar 93, 95 Helena II 222
Geta 147, n. 106, 147, 162, 186, 188, 192 Heraclea
assimilation with Caracalla to Dioscuri 176, n. 190 follis of Fausta 223
condemnation as hostis 6, 168, 183, 199 Heraclius 134
cremation and burial 168 Hercules 5, 108, n. 30, 136, 179, n. 206, 180, n. 216,
defaced coins 115 181
destruction and countermarking of coins 168, 189 Herculaneum
destruction of portraits 168, 198 cuirassed statue of Titus 55
effaced painted portrait 181-182, 199 Herrenia Etruscilla 165, n. 81, 207-208
effacement of relief portraits 15, 163, 175-81, 198, 199 Herrenius Etruscus
elevation to Caesar 168 death and deification 207
erasure of inscriptions and papyri 168, 175, 176- erased inscriptions 208
177,182-83 Hippocrates 127
gem portraits 183 Hispania Tarraconensis 105
murder 156, 168 Francisco d’Hollanda 145
mutilation of portraits 170-172, 199, 276-277 Honorius 217, n. 26
official sanctions 156 Hostilian 207
portrait recut to 3rd century private individual 5, n. 30, erased inscriptions 208
172, 199, 278 hostis 1, 6, 18-19, 157 , 158, 168, 183, 188, 199, 200,
portrait typology 169-170 209, 216
praenomen 168 traditional punishment 47
recut intaglio 172, 277
removal of portraits 173-182 Iberia 60
sacrifice to manes 168 Illyricum 89
statue base recut to Caracalla 8 imagines 1, 9, 17, 143, 148, 177-178, 200
Giustiniani Collection 251, 252 imperium 73, 93, n. 90
Glaukon infamia 3
erased kalos inscription 14 infula 43
Gonzaga Collection 69, n. 199, 129 iniuria 3
Gordian I Innocent VIII Cybo 217
declaration as emperor 200 Iol Caesarea 20
suicide 200 Isis 129
Gordian II Issa
death 200 Forum 122
324 general index

Italica 53, 245 governance 188, 194-195

mulierum senatum 195
Juba II 103 official condemnation 6, 156
Judaea 132 Julia Titi 124, 127, n. 125, 131
Julia Cornelia Paula 165, n. 81 Julian 223
marriage to Elagabalus 194 Julius Caesar 18, 20
Julia Domna 68, n. 190, 157, 163, 164, 169, n. 117, 173, proposed abuse of corpse 39, n. 149
176-177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, 188 villa near Misenum 99
burial in Mausoleum of Hadrian 168 Julius Proculus 127
coiffures 152 Gaius Julius Vindex
Julia Drusilla (daughter of Caligula) revolt against Nero 46, 47, 51, 105
murder 21, 44 Juncus Vergilianus 95, n. 109
Julia Drusilla (daughter of Drusus Minor) Junia Tertulla 17
marriage to Nero Caesar 93, n. 91, 104 Juno-Isis 84
marriage to Rubellius Blandus 102 Jupiter 27, 28, 30, 31, 45, 50, 75, 79, 115-116, 117, 118,
murder 102 119, 217
Julia Livilla 29, 80, 94, 99, 104 anastole 138, n. 25
charges of adultery 102 Jupiter Dolichenus 180, n. 216
burial of Caligula 21, n. 9
execution 102 kataskafhv 15, 17
exile 97 Kephisodotos 96
Lepcis-Malta type 68, n. 190, 102 Kiya
rehabilitation of memory 102 altered images and inscriptions 13, ns. 84, 85
Julia Maesa 193 Kniva 207
accession of Elagabalus 157 Kresilas 58
burial of Geta and Julia Domna in Mausoleum of Ha- Kula 40
drian 168
countermarked coins 189-190 Labicum 59, 125, 249
governance 188 Lake Albano 37
Julia Maior 12, 100, 104 Lambeisis 182
absence on Ara Pacis 88, 119, 168, n. 100 Lanuvium 141-142
adultery charges 86-87 Laodicea 160, n. 36
banishment 86-87 lararia 39, 147
birth 86 largitio 142-143, 155
condemnation 86-88 laurel crowns 40, 76, 170
death by starvation 86 Legio II Parthica 200
exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 46-47, 87 Legio III Gallica 185 , 188
identification as Aphrodite 87 Lepcis Magna 156, 161, 179, n. 210, 182
marriages 86 Arch of Septimius Severus 2, 156, 163, n. 70, 169, 178-
plot against Augustus 86-87 181, 182, 199
portraits 87 Forum Baths 146
Julia Mammaea Severan Baths 182, n. 239
assasination at Vicus Britannicus 157, 196, 200 Temple of Roma and Augustus 94, n. 95, 95
erased inscriptions 197 Tyche 181, n. 221
political power 198 Lepcis-Malta type 68, n. 190, 94, n. 101, 102
spontaneously attacked portraits 5, n. 26, 9, 156, 196, liberalitas 142, 144
197-198, 199, 282 Liber Pater 179, n. 206, 180, n. 216, 181, ns. 223, 224
Julia Minor 12, 102, 104 Libertas 145
banishment and death 89-90 Licinius
conspiracy 90 defeat 218
exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 46-47, 90 execution of Prisca, Galeria Valeria, and Candidianus
exposure of child 90 221
portraits 90 portrait reworked from Commodus? 140, 154
razing of villa 90 Lindos 95
Julia Procula 5-6, n. 31, 127 Lipari 164
Julia Soemias liticines 98
assassination 157, 188, 195 Livia 20, 28, 38, 42, 43, 44, 87, n. 22, 80, 88, 231
attendance at Senate 194 accession of Tiberius 157
collateral condemnation 189-190 centrally parted hairstyle 94, n. 102, 100, n. 153
corpse abuse 4, 108, n. 31, 168, n. 114, 195, 199 corona spicea attribute 62
countermarked coins 189, 195 receding lower lip 31, n. 75
erased statue base 193, 195 Livilla 12, 16, 100, 104
 general index 325

adultery charges 93 corpse abuse 4, 100, 185, 199

conspiracy with Sejanus against Tiberius 92, 93 declaration as hostis 185
death 93 defeat and execution 156-157, 185, 188
erasure of inscriptions 94 destruction of coinage 187, 202
glyptic portraits 94-95 destruction of portraits 185
marriages to Gaius Caesar and Drusus Minor 93 dissatisfaction of plebs 185
murder of Drusus Minor 93 erasure of inscriptions and papyri 185
official condemnation and maiestas charges 6, 93-95 mutilation of portraits 5, n. 28, 149, 185-187, 199, 201,
portraits 94-95 202, 213, 278-279
potential marriage with Sejanus 93 official sanctions 156
Lollia Paulina 104 portrait typology 185
corpse abuse 4, 102, 195, n. 337 removal of portraits 187
exile and execution 102 Madauros
rehabilitation of memory 102 Forum 150
London 213 Sp. Maelius 16
Louis IX of France 76 Magliana
Lower Moesia 208, 209 arval sanctuary 62
Lucera Magnia Urbica
Baths 117 collateral condemnation 212
Lucilla 4, 12, 172, 186 erased inscriptions 212
exile and execution 149 maiestas 6, 9, n. 56, 17, 86, n. 9, 89, 90, 102, n. 166
marriages 148 Mainz
mutilation of portraits 149-150, 154, 165, 271-72 Jupiter Column 79
removal of portraits 151 Manlia Scantilla
plot to overthrow Commodus 136, 148-149 coiffures 152
portrait typology 149-150 loss of title of Augusta 157
portraits recut to Helena 5, n. 30, 97, 150-151, 154, mappa 82
272-273 Marcia 146, n. 91
warehoused portrait 5, n. 26 plot to assassinate Commodus 137
Lucius Caesar 75, n. 251, 80, n. 298, 86, 87, 88, 89 Margus 211
Lucius Verus 62, n. 149, 138, 141, 145, 151, n. 133 Marius Manlius Capitolinus 16
marriage to Lucilla 148 Marcus Aurelius 2, 136, 120, n. 66, 141, 145, 148, 150,
Lucus Feroniae 151, n. 133, 156, 158, n. 13, 162, n. 58, 174, 185, 189,
building associated with Augustales 223
Forum 52-53, 243 anastole 138, n. 25
Lugundum 158 campaigns against the Marcomanni and Quadi 136, 142
Ludi Palatini 21 equestrian statue 146
Ludi Saeculares 205 largitio of 177, 142-143
Ludovisi Collection 56, 124, 127, n. 133, 246, 269, 283, triumph of 176, 142
284, 285 Marinianus
Luna (goddess) 71 death 211
Luna (site) 43, 81, 83, n. 346 Marino 37
Luna marble 29, 35, 69, 226, 275, 281, 282, 287 Marius 18
Lusitania 107 Mars 119
lustratio 143 Mars Pater Invictus 219
Q. Lutatius Catullus 16 Marseilles 61
Luxor Marxism 10, n. 58
Temple of Ammon 215 Mauretania 20, 103, 150
luxuria 49, 112 Maxentius 11, 222
Lycurgus battle of the Milvian Bridge 216
Akropolis statue inventory 14 condemnation as tyrannus on Arch of Constantine 6, 216
Lydia 40 corpse abuse 4, 100, 216
Lyon declaration as emperor 215
countermarked Neronian aes 51 declaration as hostis 216
erased Neronian sestertius 51 deification of Maximian 214
follis of Fausta 223, n. 73 erasure of inscriptions 219
Lysippus marriage to Valeria Maximilla 215, 219
Granikos Monument 121 mutilated images 216-217, 286
portrait typology 216
Maecia Faustina 204 portraits recut to Constantine 5, 11, 65, 217-219, 222,
Macrinus 197 286-288
assassination of Caracalla 156, 184 rededication of Colossus to Romulus 66, 219
326 general index

removal of portraits 219 Misenum 99

Maximian 222 Sanctuary of the Augustales 120-122, 261
abdication 214 Mithradates 18
condemnation of Carausius 212-213 Mnester
defeat and execution of Severus 216 portraits created from Caligulan coins 95, n. 109
destruction of portraits 214-215 Moesia 205, 207
erased fresco 215 Mummia Achaica 105
portrait typology 214-215 Munigua 253
removal of portraits 215 Forum 126
resumption of title of Augustus 214 Mustis
suicide 214 Temple of Fortuna Augusta 35
Maximinus Daia mutilation in effigy 3, 12, 154
death 220-221 Mutina 216
declaration as emperor 220
destruction of portraits 220-221 Napoleon III 67, n. 186
portraits smeared with dark colored paint 182 Narcissus 136-137
Maximinus Thrax 197, 205 Neapolis
accession 196, 200 countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189
corpse abuse 4, 100, 200, 213 Nefertiti 13-14, n. 85
declaration as hostis 200-201 Nero 9, 11, 16, 17, 29, 44, 97, 98, 99, 105, 107, 110, 123,
destruction of portraits 200 n. 90, 134, 135, 155, 170, 172, 186, 187, 197, 199, 205,
effaced coins 202, 213 231
adoption by Claudius 46, 47, 92-3, n. 82
erasure of inscriptions and papyri 200
Aeneas panel Aphrodisias 73
murder 200
Armenia panel Aphrodisias 74
mutilated portraits 68, n. 190, 201-202, 213, 283-84
birth 46
portrait typology 201 building program 77-78, 133
Maximus Capitoline Arch 77
corpse abuse 4, 100, 200, 213 charges against Octavia 100
declaration as hostis 200 Colossus 66-67, 71, n. 216, 219
effaced coins 202, 203, 213 coma in gradus formata coiffures 49, 65-66, 81, 107, 112,
erasure of inscriptions and papyri 200 251, 252
murder 200 conflation of portrait types 57, 70, 72, n. 230
mutilated portraits 202-3, 285-286 continued display of portraits 7, 79-81, 142
portrait typology 202 contorniate medallions 81
removal of portraits 203 countermarking of coins 51
Medusa 113 cuirassed statues 71-72, 80
Megakles decennaliai 49
erased kalos inscription 14 denigration of Claudius 63, n. 153
Meretaten 13 depictions as Jupiter 50, 76
Mértola 226 disposal of portrait in the Alde 108, n. 31
Mesopotamia 200 disposal of portraits in the Tiber 72
Statilia Messalina 62, 78, 81 disposal of portraits of artistic rivals in latrines 185
Valeria Messalina 12, 16, 79, 99, n. 136, 102, 104, Domus Aurea 63, n. 153, 66, 71, 77-78
153 erasure of inscriptions 78-79
adultery and maiestas 86, n. 9 exclusion from the Mausoleum of Augustus 46-47
destruction and removal of portraits 95-97, 257 fire of A.D. 64 46
erasure of inscriptions and coins 95-96 funeral and tomb 46, 111
“marriage” to Gaius Silius 95 gem portraits 75-77
official condemnation and maiestas charges 6, 95, 223 Horti Maiani portrait 67
portraits reconfigured to Agrippina Minor 97, 257-258 involvement with fratres arvales 62
reuse of portraits 96-97 liberation of Greece 78
Milan literary links to Commodus and Elagabalus 189
erased inscription of Caligula 41 military imagery 11, 57-58, 71-72, 74
Miletus modern portrait recut from ancient Hadrian 82-3
effaced coins of Geta 171 modern portraits 82-83, 109
Milonia Caesonia mutilation of coin portraits 50-51, 115
murder 21, 44 mutilation of images 49-51, 84, 113, 237-238
Minerva 101,n. 155, 113, 114, 119, 120, 131, 132, 134, Nero and Agrippina panel Aphrodisias 5, n. 26, 73-74,
179, n. 206, 260 164, 194
Minervina 221 Neroniana 81
Minia Procula 54, n. 88 official condemnation as hostis 6, 47, 84
Minturno 127-128, n. 134 Palatine graffito 77
 general index 327

Parthenon inscription 78 mutilated bronze Akkadian head 12

patron of Circus Maximus 82 mutilated reliefs of Sennacerib, Ashurbanipal and Um-
popularity with plebs 81, 85 manigash 12
portrait disposed in the Alde 72-73, 130 Nisibis 176
portrait recut to Antinous 63-64, 85, 254-255 Norbana 149, n. 121
portrait recut to Claudius 63, 85, 240 Norbanus 149, n. 121
portrait recut to fourth century emperor 5, n. 30, 64- North Africa 33
65, 255 noxii 39, n. 149, 45, 137
portrait recut to Galba 63, 85, 240 Numerian 211
portrait recut to Gallienus 5, n. 30, 64, 255 Numidia 200
portrait recut to Trajan 63, 85, 254 Nysa-Skythopolis
portrait typology 48-49 countermarked Neronian coinage 51
portraits recut to Augustus 61-62, 125, 238-240 Nymphidius 105
portraits recut to Domitian 57-61, 80, 85, 125-126, 248-
254 Oclantius Adventus 184
portraits recut to private individuals 65-66, 256 Claudia Octavia 80, 95, 96, 99, 102, 104
portraits recut to Titus 55-57, 85, 246-248 accusations of adultery and infertility 100
portraits recut to Vespasian 10, 52-55, 61, 85, 240-246 coin portrait 50, n. 41
posthumous imposters 81, 85 corpse abuse 4, 100, 195, n. 337
quinquennalia 49 condemnation 100
recall of coinage 51 exile and execution 100
receding lower lip 31, n. 75, 48 portraits 100-101
rehabilitation 81-82, 84 resuscitation of memory 100
removal of portraits 67-77 spontaneous demonstrations involving images 9, n. 56,
reuse of portraits 4, 9, 52-67, 84-85 100
solar iconography 68, 71 Octavia Minor 20, 88, 95
suicide 46 Olbia 69, n. 198
testimony against Domitia Lepida 102 Olympia 132
Tiridates’s visit to Rome 71 Metroon 33, n. 89, 56
trip to Greece 62, n. 149 chryselephantine statue of Zeus 33
Nero Caesar 29, 40, 80, 99 Temple of Zeus 122, 267
birth 91 Opitegerium 71
corpse abuse 4 Ostia 138, 179, n. 210
exclusion from Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 47, 91 Capitolium 153, 273
exile and death 91 Caserma dei Vigili 8, 145, 185, 188
marriage to Julia (daughter of Drusus Minor and Livilla) Cassegiato del Serapide 267
93, n. 91 decumanus maximus 5, 197
official condemnation 6 Horrea of Hortensius 154, 274
portraits 91-92 Isola Sacra 5-6, 127
retrieval and reinternment of ashes 91 Tempio Rotondo 191, 280, 282
togate statue with bulla 28 Temple of Hercules 108, 259
Neroniana 81 Thermopolium on the Via di Diana 148
Nerva 38, n. 140, 44, 129, 131 Via delle Corporazioni 267
commemoration as divus 117 Otacilia Severa 165, n. 81, 206
depictions as Jupiter 115-116, 117, 118 declaration as Augusta 205
portrait typology 115 portrait typology 207
portraits reworked from Domitian 9, 80, 115-22, 135, removal of portraits 207
190, 261-267 warehoused Villa Rivaldi portrait 5, n. 26
veristic portraits 117-119, 124 Otho 157
Nicea birthday as dies nefastus 107
countermarked Neronian coinage 51 completion of Domus Aurea 77, 81
effaced coins of Geta 171 countermarks 51
effaced and countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189 marriage to Poppaea 83, 107
Nicomedia 231 mutilation of portraits 6, 106-7, 110, 259
coins of Crispus 221, ns. 63, 64 overthrow of Galba 105, 107
countermarked Neronian coinage 51 portrait typology 107
Nicopolis presentation as the new Nero 107
recall of Neronian coinage 51 suicide 107, 108
Nicopolis ad Istrum 204, 213 re-erection of Nero’s statues 67, 81, 85
Nigrinianus re-erection of Poppaea’s statues 81
collateral condemnation 212 Otricoli
Nineveh Julio-Claudian “Basilica” 28, 43, 79, 167
328 general index

Ovid 90 Phyllis 111

physiognomical theory 22, 47-8, 112
paenula 148 Pieria
palladium 58, 132 countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189
paludamentum 37, 39, 53, 55, 61, 65, 74, 75, n. 251, 82, pietas 119, 181, n. 224, 182
113, 117, 119, 120, 138, 143, 145, 162, 170, 183, 193, Pietrabbondante 32, 226
229, 260 Pisonian conspiracy 17, 101
Pandateria 90, 92 Planasia 88
Pannonia 205 Plautia Urgulanilla 161, n. 43
Paralius 149, n. 121 Plautianus 179, n. 204
Parian marble 31, 130, 218, 227, 287 Caracalla’s hostility 161
Paris colossal portrait at Athens 161
Sainte Chapelle 76 corpse abuse 2, 161
parocinium 74, n. 242 declaration as hostis 161
Pasquino Group 74, n. 242 erasure of inscriptions 161, 163-4, 194
Paul III Farnese 218 Domus on Quirinal 149, 151, 161, 186, 271, 279
Pentelic marble 130, n. 157, 239, 247 execution 161, 164
Étienne du Pérac 145 removal of portraits 2, 161-163, 167, n. 99, 175, n. 182,
perduellio 6 176, 178, 198
Pergamum 53 Plautilla 172, 179, n. 204, 188, n. 288
effaced coins of Geta 171-172 coiffures 152
effaced coins of Maximinus Thrax and Maximus 202, effacement of relief portrait 163, 176, 178, 198
erasure of inscriptions 164, 167, 177, n. 194
203
exile to Lipari 164, 165
Temple of Roma and Augustus 73
marriage to Caracalla 161, 164
Perinthus
murder 164
countermarked Neronian coins 51 mutilation of portraits 165-66, 199, 275
Perperene removal of portraits 2, 167-68
effaced coins of Geta 171 portrait recut to 4th century empress 5, n. 30, 166-67,
F. Perrier 252 199, 275-276
Persepolis portrait typology 164-165
mutilated royal reliefs 12 Plautius 164
Pertinax 139, 141 poena post mortem 3, 6, 18, 39, 45, 49, 72, 90, 92, 100, 102,
assassination 147, 156, 157 108, 129, 137, 158, 161, 167, 168, 188, 200, 210, 213
consecratio 6, 158, n. 13 Pompeii
corpse abuse 4, 157 erased inscription of Caligula 41
plot to assassinate Commodus 137 Gn. Pompeius Magnus
Perusia 208 marriage to Claudia Antonia 101
Pescennius Niger 7 Pompeius Urbicus 95, n. 109
corpse abuse 4, 157-158, 199 Pompey 41, n. 165, 131
declaration as hostis 157, 159 pontifex maximus 33, 42, 61, 64, 68
destruction of portraits 158, 159 Poppaea 79, n. 292, 81
execution of wife and children 158 deification 83
official sanctions 156 depictions as diva 84
portrait typology 158-159, 160 destruction of portraits 84
phalerae 40 marriage to Otho 81, 83, 107
Phidias 33 marriage to Rufius Crispinus 83
Philip V portraits 83-4
Athenians’ resolution against monuments 14-15 re-erection of statues 81, 83
Philip Minor spontaneous demonstrations involving images 9, n. 56,
death 205 100
portrait typology 206 viewing of Octavia’s head 100
removal of portraits 206-207 “Poppaea Albani” 150
Philip the Arab 201, n. 16 portraits
assassination of Gordian III 204 conflation of types 57
association with Caligula, Nero, Vitellius and Maxi- disposal in water 6, 39, 108, 129-130, 159
minus 205 mutilation 3
death 205 reuse 4-5
erased inscriptions and papyri 205-206 spontaneously mutilated 9
Ludi Saeculares 205 warehousing 2,5
portrait typology 205 porphyry 46
removal of portraits 205-206 Portugal 33
Phillip V of Spain 249 Prisca
 general index 329

execution 221 Baths of Nero 78

profectio 119 Baths of Titus 77
Providentia 75 Baths of Trajan 77, 78, 134
Prusa Caelian 17, 138, 146
countermarked Neronian coinage 51 Campus Martius 109, 120, 131
Ptolemy I Soter 49, n. 29, 16 Campidoglio 133, 218, 219
Ptolemy IV Eurgetes 62 Cancelleria Reliefs 5, 36, n. 115, 60, 114, 119-20
Ptolemy VII Eurgetes II Physkon 49, n. 29 Castrum of the Equites Singulares 188, 209
Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros Castrum Praetorium 182, 212, n. 98
portraits reworked from Ptolemy X 15-16 Circus Maximus 82, 188
Ptolemy X Alexander I Physkon Circus of Maxentius 217
portraits reworked to Ptolemy IX Collis Hortulorum 46
Ptolemy XII Auletes 49, n. 29 Colosseum 66, 77, 78, 151
Ptolemy of Mauretania Colossus 66-67, 71, n. 216, 145-146, 219
destruction and removal of portraits 103 Column Base of Antoninus Pius and Faustina 92, n. 82
portrait of Cleopatra VII 20 Column of Marcus Aurelius 145, 178
Pupienus 209, n. 78 Column of Phocus 8
corpse abuse 4, 203, 213 Column of Trajan 122, 134, 143-144, n. 74, 145, 178
declaration as emperor 200 Curia 145, 189, 192-193, , 200
destruction of portraits 204 Domitianic trophies 133
erased papyri 204 Domus Aurea 63, n. 153, 66, 68, 71
murder 203 Domus of Plautianus 149, 151, 186, 271, 279
portrait recut from Commodus 5, n. 30, 139-140, 154
Domus Transitoria 68
Puteoli 121, 146
equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius 146
Domitianic inscription 133
Equus Domitiani 113
Quadratus 149 Equus Severi 113, n. 18
quinquennium Neronis 98 erased Neronian sestertius 51
S. Quintilius Condianus 149, n. 121 Esquiline 77, 127, 133, 141, 212
S. Quintilius Valerianus Maximus 149, n. 121 fire of A.D. 64 46
fire of A.D. 104 78
radiate crowns 62, 69, 82, 147 Forum Augustum 95
Rameses II Forum Boarium 162
images refashioned from Amenhotep III 14 Forum Iulium 133
Raphaneae 185, 188 Forum Romanum 41-42, 47, 66, 105, 106, 108, 219,
Ravenna Relief 96 224
reditus 119 Forum Traianum 134
relegatio ad insulam 89 Forum Transitorium 133-134
Rendham 72 Gemonian Steps 90, 108, 211
Rhine 113 Great Trajanic Frieze 65, 134, 178
Cardinal Ricci di Montepulciano 249 Horti Lamiani 141
ricinium 88 Horti Maiani 67
Roma 73, 96, 97, 114, 119, 63, n. 70, 179, n. 206, 181 Horti Sallustiani 124
Rome 7, 136, 179, n. 210 Lacus Curtius 105
Actian Arch 19 Lateran Palace 217, n. 26
aenatores monument 98 Markets of Trajan 134
amphitheater near the Saepta Julia 41 Mausoleum of Augustus 21, 41, 46-47, 90, 99, 100, 168-
Aqua Virgo 42 169, n. 116
Ara Pacis Augustae 88, 168, n. 100, 217, n. 26 Mausoleum of Hadrian 137, 168
Arch of the Argentarii 2, 156, 162-163, 168, 176-178, “Monument of Gaius and Lucius” 168-169, n. 116
179, n. 208, 182, 198 Museo Kircheriano 251, 264
Arch of Claudius 80 Palatine 16, 41-2, 77, 168, 201, 284
Arch of Constantine 5, 6, 65, 134, 142-144, 150, 216, Palazzo Barberini 37
219, 223 Palazzo Colonna 35, 72
Arch of Septimius Severus 2, 156, 161-162, 175-176, Palazzo della Cancelleria 120, 265
179, 182, 198 Palazzo Orsini 262
Arch of Titus 130, n. 157, 132 Palazzo Ruspoli 68, n. 194
Arch of Vespasian 132 Palazzo Sachetti Relief 156, 178, 179
Basilica Nova (Maxentius and Constantine) 217, 218, Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius 2, 65, 142-144, 150,
223, 287 155, 167-168, 177, 178
Baths of Caracalla 184, 190, 279 Pantheon 191
Baths of Diocletian and Maximian 215 Parthian Arch of Augustus 19, 175
Baths of Maxentius and Constantine 217, 218, 286, 288 Piazza Colonna 109
330 general index

Piazza Navona Obelisk 132, n. 184 Rufus Gallus

Pincio 46 destruction of Nero’s statues 47
Pons Aemilius 188-189, n. 189 Rusellae 7
Pons Sublicius 6 “Basilica” of the Bassi 242
Ponte Milvio 37, 216 Collegium of the Augustales 28-29, 80, 94, 99, 142, 230,
Ponte Sisto 196 242
Porticus Deorum Consentium 144 Domus dei Moasici 91, n. 66
Praetorian Camp 161 Rutupiae 213
Quirinal 37, 111, 149, 150, 173, 186, 195, 217, 271,
279 Sabbioneta
Rostra 18, 81, 86 Villa Gonzaga 69
S. Crisogono 216, n. 21, 217, n. 26 Sabina 174
S. Maria Antiqua 41, n. 176 Sabratha
S. Sebastiano fuori le mura, 216, n. 21, 217, n. 26 Basilica 35
Secretarium Senatus 217, n. 26 Forum 122, 268
Senaculum 195, n. 333 Theater pulpitum 163, n. 70
Septizonium 168 Sacra Argeorum 6
Sessorium 105 sacra privata 39, n. 147
Severan Baths on the Palatine 217, n. 26 sacra publica 39, n. 147
Statue of Marsyas 86 Sagalassos 182
Temple fo Apollo Palatinus 67-68 Saguntum
Temple of Castor and Pollux 41-2 Forum 24, 225
Salonina
Temple of the Curiae Veteres 99, n. 135
erased inscriptions 211
Temple of Divus Claudius 63, n. 153, 99
Saloninus
Temple of the Flavian gens 111, 130, n. 157
erased inscriptions 211
Temple of Fortuna Redux 120, 142, n. 60
Salvius Cocceianus 107
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus 42,
Samos 89
130, n.157 erased inscription of Caligula 41
“Temple of Minerva Medica” 217, n. 26 Sardinia 69, 216
“Temple of Romulus” 217, n. 26 Sardis 33, 226
Temple of Tellus 16 Marble Court 182
Temple of Venus and Roma 66, 217, n. 26 Temple of Artemis 151, n. 137
Templum Pacis 77, 133 Sargon 12-13
Temple of Venus Genetrix 20 Sarmigetusa 208
Theater of Marcellus 31, 35, 227 Saturn 147
Theater of Pompey 41, 71, 131 Saufeius Trogus 95, n. 109
Tiber 6, 39, 45, 72, 73 , 92, 108, 110, 130, 137, 188, Scipio 86
194, 196, 211, 216, 243, 259, 281 scaenae frons 41
Tomb of Aulus Hirtius 120 L. Scribonius Libo 89
Tomb of the Domitii 46 M. Scribonius Libo Drusus 17, 89
Vatican Circus of Caligula and Nero 78 Sebaste
Velia 66 countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189
Via Appia 217 Segobriga
Via Principe Amadeo 127 Theater 33, 226
Via Sacra 217 Segusio 216
Villa beneath the Anglican Church on the Via Babuino Seleucia 162
70 sella curulis 107, 143, 178
Villa Ludovisi 124, 202, 203, 284 Sejanus 161, n. 43
Villa Mattei (Celimontana) 239 conspiracy with Livilla against Tiberius 92
Villa of the Quintilii 20, 149, n. 121, 201-202, 205-206, corpse abuse 4, 92
283 destruction of statues 3, 92-3, 110, 137
Villa Rivaldi 151, 207 erasure of inscriptions 92
Romulus and Remus 131 erasure of tria nomina in coins 93, 104
Romulus (son of Maxentius) joint consulship with Tiberius 93
death and deification 220 official condemnation and maiestas charges 6, 92
rededication of Colossus 66 persecution of Agrippina Maior 92
Pietro Rosa 67, n. 186 Sempronius Gracchus 86
Rubellius Blandus 102 Seneca 46
Rufius Crispinus Senenmut 13, n. 79
marriage to Poppaea 83 Sennacherib
G. Rufius Volusianus 216 mutilated relief at Nineveh 12
 general index 331

P. Septimius Geta 163, n. 70 supplicationes 98

accusations against Plautianus 161, n. 44 Syracuse
erroneous erasure of inscriptions 183 destruction of monuments of Dionysus II 15
Serapis 129 Forum 50, 237
Severus
defeat and execution 216 Tarrutenius Paternus 149, n. 121
Septimius Severus 145, 146, 156, 159, 160, 161, 163, 173, Tharsis
174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 196, 199 Roman well 38
campaigns against Parthians 156, 162, 175-176, 179, Thasian marble 46, 240
n. 204 Theodosius 215, 223
Clodius Albinus as Caesar 157 “Riot of the Statues” 224
consecrationes of Pertinax and Commodus 6, 158, n. 13 Theoi Sebastoi 73
death at York 156 Thera
dynastic propaganda 169 theater, erased inscription of Caligula 41
protection of Plautilla 164 Thessalonika
rehabilitation of Commodus 138, 144, 147, 154 Arch of Galerius 221
salutation as emperor 157 countermarked Neronian coinage 51
Serapis type 182, n. 230 Thrace 220
Severus Alexander 184, n. 262, 188 Thugga 41
accession 157, 188, 195-196 Thuburbo Maius
assasination at Vicus Britannicus 157, 196, 199, 200 Forum 174
bust used as countermark 189 Winter Baths 174
deification 9, 196 Thutmoses II 13, n. 78
erased inscriptions 196 Thutmoses III
Esquiline Nymphaeum 133 mutilation of images and cartouches of Hatchepsut 13
Horti Lamiani 141 thymeterium 58
portrait typology 191-192, n. 305 Tiberius 9, n. 56, 17, 21, 28, 35, n. 108, 38, 42, 43, 79,
portraits reworked from Elagabalus 5, 11, 156, 190-192, 88
199, 223, 279-281 accession 157
portraits smeared with mud 182 adoption by Augustus 88, 89
spontaneously attacked portraits 9, 156, 196-197, 199, adoption of Germanicus 75, 89
213, 281 conspiracy of Sejanus and Livilla, 92, 93
Sibylline Oracle 81 exile of Agrippina Maior 90
Sicca 210 Grand Camée de France 92, n. 82
Sicily 156 joint consulship with Sejanus 93
Side marriage to Vipsania Agrippina 88
building M 140, 271 mutinies at outset of principate 89
Sidon portrait recut from Caligula 33, 229
countermarked coins of Elagabalus 189 proposed abuse of corpse 39, n. 149, 73, n. 233
signa 148, 177-178 receding lower lip 31
Silandus 139 retirement on Rhodes 86
Silchester 50 starvation of Julia Maior 86
Silvanus 181 Tiberius Gemellus 38, 79, 93, 94, 95
similitudo 158, 169 Ticinum
Sinope 100, n. 153 coins of Crispus 221, ns. 63, 64
Sirmium 207, 214 Timestheus 204
Smyrna 34, 236 Timolean
effaced coins of Geta 171 destruction of monuments of Dionysus II 15
Forum 150, 272 Tindari 94
Sol 147, 148 Tiridates
Spain 33, 216 visit to Rome 71
Spiculus 47, n. 14 Titius Proculus 95, n. 109
Split Titus 11, 44, 59, 61, 67, 76, 122, 126 , 127, n. 125, 131,
Mausoleum of Diocletian 221, n. 59 132
Stilicho commemoration as Divus 123
erased statue base 224 cults of Isis and Serapis 129, n. 152
Stratonicea portrait features on Colossus 66
effaced and countermarked coins of Geta 171-172, 198 portrait typology 55
submissio 143, 162, n. 58 portraits recut from Caligula 33-4, 235-236
Sulla 18 portraits recut from Domitian 123-124, 261
G. Sulpicius Galba 105 portraits recut from Nero 55-57, 85, 246-248
Sulpicius Rufus 95, n. 109 Sanctuary of the Augustales at Misenum 121
332 general index

scarcity of cameo portraits 60 theater 30, 58, 125, 234, 254

Tivoli 116, 262 Valeria Maximilla 222
Sanctuary of Hercules Victor 118, 265 collateral condemnation 219-220
Tiye marriage to Maxentius 215, 219
image reworked to Arsinoe II mutilated portrait 220, 288
toga contabulata 196-197 Valerian 64, 210
toga virilis 88 declaration as emperor 209
Tor Paterno portrait recut from soldier emperor? 209-210
Roman Villa 205-206 portrait typology 209-210
Trajan 11, 18, n. 122, 72-73, n. 232, 89, 99, n. 141, 125, Valerian Minor
127, n. 131, 129, 131, 135, 174, 223 erased inscriptions 211
centenary anniversary of accession 168 M. Valerius Messala Barbatus 95
completion of Via Antiniana 133 S. Varius Marcellus 188
Decennalia Type 122 Velia
Burgerkronentypus 122-123 collegium 88, 91
Opferbildtypus 122-23, 134 Velleia 7, 9, 43
Optimus Princeps 135 Basilica 38, 79-80, 96-97, 117, 142, 232-233, 251, 258,
Pliny’s panegyricus 112 263
portraits recut from Domitian 122-123, 267-269 Venus 150, 272
portrait recut from Nero 63, 85 Venus Anadyomene 195, n. 339
posthumous Parthian triumph 3 Venus-Aphrodite 73
Trajan Decius 210 Venus Genetrix 28, 149, 186
death 207
Verona 205, 207, 216
defeat of Philip the Arab 205, 207
Palazzo Bevilacqua 173
deification 207
Vertumnus 180, n. 216
erased inscriptions 208
portrait typology 2089 Vespasian 9, 41, 44, 47, 67, 76, 77, 81, 83, 107, 110, 111,
Tralles 71, 95-96 122, 123, n. 90, 126, 127, n. 125, 131, 132, 157, 262
Tranquillina 165 Cancelleria Reliefs 119-20
Trebonianus Gallus 209, 210 completion of Temple of Divus Claudius 63, n. 153
accession 207 countermarks 51
declaration of Aemilian as hostis 209 cults of Isis and Serapis 129, n. 152
deification of Trajan Decius and Herrenius Etruscus 207 depleted treasury 61
destruction of portraits 208-209 Ephesus Temple 128-129
murder 208 idealizing portraits 52-54
portrait typology 208 portrait typology 52
Trier portraits recut from Galba 109-110
coins of Crispus 221, n. 63 portraits recut from Nero 52-55, 61, 85, 240-246
Trieste portraits recut from Vitellius 109, 259
Roman Theater 56 refusal of monument to Galba 106
Trimerus 89 Sanctuary of the Augustales at Misenum 121
Tripolis scarcity of cameo portraits 60
countermarked Neronian coins 51 thrifty personality 61, n. 136
Tripolitania 156, 159, veristic portraits 54-55, 124
Tychai 181, n. 221 Vettius Valens 95, n. 109
Triptolemus 62 G. Vettulenus Civica Cerialis 81, n. 313
triumphator 40, 76 Enea Vico 145
Troy Victoria 142, 172, 180, ns. 211, 216, 217, 277
Odeum 185, n. 267 Vicus Britannicus 157, 196
tubicines 98 Vicenza
Tusculum 69, 126, 248 Theater 50, 238
Tyche 96 Vienne
tyrannus 80 , 211, 213 Odeum 50, 51, 238
Tyre M. Vinicius 102
countermarked coins of Elabablus 189 Vipsania Agrippina 88
Vistilia 44
Ulpia Traiana 208 visual cannibalism 4, 10, 25, 223
Ummanigash Vitellius 157, 205, 262
mutilated relief at Nineveh 12 corpse abuse 4, 39, n. 149, 108-109, 110, 168, n. 114,
Upper Moesia 187 189, n. 290
Upper Pannonia 156, 197 defeat of Otho 107
destruction of portraits 108-109, 110, 197
Vaison modern portraits 109-110
 general index 333

portraits recut to Vespasian 109, 259 York 156

rehabilitation of Nero and Poppaea’s memory 81, 83,
85 Zenodorus 66
removal of portraits 109 Zeus Eleutherios 78-79
son’s portraiture 65, 256
L. Vitellius 108
Marius Vitruvius Flaccus 16
Volusianus
murder 208
vi table of contents
 list of illustrations 335

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND PHOTO CREDITS

Figure 1. Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.330 (photo courtesy J. Paul
Getty Museum).
Figure 2a-b. Caligula, Switzerland, private collection (after H. Jucker and D. Willers, eds. [1982] no. 117).
Figure 3. Caligula, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128 (after H. Jucker [1982] pl. 15.1).
Figure 4a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2443, Centrale Montemartini, 2.74 (DAIR
41.2566-69).
Figure 5. Caligula/Claudius, Woburn Abbey (photo after E. Angelicoussis [1992] fig. 12c).
Figure 6a-c. Caligula/Claudius Fano, Museo Civico (DAIR 1084-6).
Figure 7a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Hannover, Kestnermuseum, inv.1978.15 (photo after A. Mlasowsky [1992], fig.
14).
Figure 8a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, IX.A 23 (photo after W.R. Megow [1987]
pl. 21).
Figure 9a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda 551, inv. 242 (DAIR 81.2841-44).
Figure 10. Caligula/Claudius, Grosseto, Museo Archeologico e d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 97765 (DAIR 81.1758).
Figure 11a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, inv. 151 (photo courtesy Musei Vaticani).
Figure 12. Caligula/Claudius, Aquileia, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108 (DAIR 82.240).
Figure 13a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Mantua, Palazzo Ducale (DAIR 73.2337-38, 73.2341).
Figure 14a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215 (DAIR 85.828, 831-33).
Figure 15a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Perugia, Museo (DAIR 82.1198-1200).
Figure 16a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 87 (after Inan-Rosenbaum 65, no. 22,
pl. 14.1-2).
Figure 17a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, formerly Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv.
2394 (Centrale Montemartini 1.61) (DAIR 2001.2065-66).
Figure 18a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9953 (after A. Giuliano
[1957] pl.9.13a-b).
Figure 19a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 78.AA.261 (photo courtesy J. Paul Getty
Museum).
Figure 20a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Zadar, Museum (DAIR 82.3627, 82.3630-2).
Figure 21a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek).
Figure 22a-c. Caligula/Augustus, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, C 72 (DAIR 79.1663-5).
Figure 23. Caligula/Titus, Arles, Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot (after H. Jucker [1981] fig. 81).
Figure 24. Caligula/Titus, Athens, National Museum, Roman Collection, inv. 348 (after H. Jucker [1981] fig. 82).
Figure 25a-e. Caligula/Claudius Gothicus (?), New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (photos courtesy
Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection).
Figure 26a-b. Caligula, Tunis, Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art (DAIR 64.4-5).
Figure 27. Caligula, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.155 (photo courtesy J. Paul Getty Museum).
Figure 28. Caligula, Worcester, Worcester Art Museum, inv. 1914.23 (photo courtesy of the Worcester Art Museum).
Figure 29. Caligula, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1987.70.1 (funded by the Peggy and Richard
Danziger, L.L.B 1963, George Hooper Fitch B.A. 1932, Allen Grover B.A. 1932, Allen Grover B.A. 1922,
Leonard C Hanna, Jr. BA 1913, Fund, H. John Heinz III Charitable Trust, and the H.J. Heinz Family Fund,
photo courtesy of the Yale University Art Gallery).
Figure 30. Caligula, Fulda, Schloss Fasanarie, FAS.ARP 21 (DAIR 67.1180).
Figure 31. Caligula, Brooklyn, Art Museum, inv. 21.479.12 (photo courtesy the Brooklyn Art Museum).
Figure 32. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1923.160.23 (photo courtesy of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Figure 33. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fletcher Fund, 1925.78.35 (photo courtesy of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Figure 34a-b. (Caligula)/Claudius, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, no. 1, inv. 280 (1870), inv. 834 (1942)
(DAIR 67.1583-4).
Figure 35. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (photo courtesy of Shelby White and Leon
Levy Collection).
336 list of illustrations

Figure 36. Caligula, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 4256 (DAIR 80.969).
Figure 37. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (photo courtesy of Shelby White and Leon
Levy Collection).
Figure 38. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1911.195.7 (photo courtesy of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Figure 39. Caligula and Roma, Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Collection, inv. 46.10 (photo courtesy of
Dumbarton Oaks Collection).
Figure 40. Caligula, Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria (DAIR 75.1066).
Figure 41. Caligula, Genoa-Pegli, Museo, inv. 614 (DAIR 68.1407).
Figure 42. Nero, Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122 (after U. Heisinger [1975] pl. 24.41).
Figure 43. Nero, Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383 (DAIR 88.349).
Figure 44. Nero, Vienne, Vienne, Musée Archéologique (after H. Jucker [1981a] fig. 74).
Figure 45. Nero, dupondius, New York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.1308 (photo courtesy of the
American Numismatic Society).
Figure 46a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Lucus Feroniae (DAIR 62.517, 519-20, 525).
Figure 47a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 463, inv. 1979 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek).
Figure 48. Nero/Vespasian (cast), Rome, Villa Borghese (photo author).
Figure 49a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Cleveland, Museum of Art, inv. 1929.439.2 (photo courtesy Cleveland Museum of
Art).
Figure 50a-b. Nero/Vespasian, London, British Museum, inv. 1890 (photos after M. Wegner, G. Daltrop and U.
Hausmann [1966] pl. 2).
Figure 51a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 7.9, inv. 1291 (DAIR 80.1404, 87Vat44-
47).
Figure 52a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 38795 (photos after M. Anderson
and L. Nista, eds. [1989] no. 8).
Figure 53a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53 (photos
author).
Figure 54. Nero/Vespasian, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025 (DAIR 61.627).
Figure 55a-b. Nero/Vespasian, Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244 (photo after M. Wegner, G. Daltrop, and U.
Hausmann [1966] pl. 7c-d).
Figure 56a-d. Nero/Titus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664a, inv. 1843 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek).
Figure 57. Nero/Titus, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.126 (photo after G.A. Mansuelli [1961] fig. 70).
Figure 58. Nero/Titus, Trieste Civico Museo di Storia e Arte, inv. 3139, cat. 2.40 (DAIR 81.4113-16).
Figure 59. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuovo 126, inv. 2213 (photo author).
Figure 60a-b. Nero/Domitian, Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Municipal, inv. 300.315 (photo after M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker [1981] fig. 43a-b).
Figure 61a-e. Nero/Domitian/Nerva, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), 827 (1954) (DAIR
31.1225, 79.3386-89).
Figure 62a-b. Nero/Domitian, Munich, Glyptothek, 394 (formerly 249) (photos after M. Bergmann and P. Zanker
[1981] fig. 41).
Figure 63a-d. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 226 (DAIR
79.3925-28).
Figure 64a-c. Nero/Domitian, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 88.639 (Benjamin Pearce Cheney Fund 1888,
photo courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).
Figure 65. Nero/Domitian, Vasto, Museo Civico (photo after M. Bergmann and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 32a).
Figure 66a-b. Nero/Domitian, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6061 (DAIR 40.491, 65.697).
Figure 67. Nero/Domitian, Rome Villa Margherita (American Embassy), wall along the Via Boncompagni (photo
after L. de Lachenal, MusNazRom no. 7.42).
Figure 68. Nero/Domitian, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano no. 644, inv. 4065 (photo after H. Jucker
[1981a] fig. 68).
Figure 69. Nero/Domitian, Minden, Domschatz (photo after W.R. Megow [1987] pl. 36.4).
Figure 70. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo Colonna, fid. no. 54 (DAIR 82.2525).
Figure 71. Nero/Augustus, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 12 (DAIR 82.247).
Figure 72a-b. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 274, inv. 715 (photos author).
Figure 73. Nero/Augustus, Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033 (photo after M. Bergmann [1998] pl. 24.4).
Figure 74. Nero/Galba, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles 251 (photo after W.R. Megow [1987]
pl. 36.3).
Figure 75. Nero/Trajan, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 1983.11 (photo after W.R. Megow [1987] pl. 41.5).
 list of illustrations 337

Figure 76. Nero/Antinous, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 238 (photo after W.R. Megow
[1987] pl. 42.10).
Figure 77a-d. Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Missouri, University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, acc.
no. 62.46, cat. (photo courtesy of Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri-Columbia, gift of
Mr. T.E. Bachman).
Figure 78. Nero/Constantinian Emperor, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, Magazzini, inv. 126279
(photo after MusNazRom 1.9.2, no. R320).
Figure 79a-d. Nero(?)/Private Individual, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1961.30 (photo courtesy
of the Yale University Art Gallery, gift of Maitland F. Griggs BA. 1896).
Figure 80. Nero, Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1210 (photo after K. de Kersauson [1986] no. 99).
Figure 81a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 616 (photos author).
Figure 82a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 618 (photos author).
Figure 83. Nero, Munich, Glyptothek, inv. 321 (DAIR 71.2664).
Figure 84a-b. Nero, Worcester, Art Gallery, inv. 1915.23 (photo courtesy Worcester Art Museum).
Figure 85. Gaius/Nero, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 385, inv. 591 (photos after J. Pollini [1987] pl. 22).
Figure 86. Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2835 (Centrale Montemartini 1.25b) and Baltimore, Walters
Art Museum, inv. 23.104 (photo after D. K. Hill [1939] fig. 1).
Figure 87a-b. Nero, Private Collection (photos courtesy of the Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University).
Figure 88. Neronian cuirass, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano 9948 (photo after A. Guiliano
[1957] pl. 18).
Figure 89. Neronian cuirass, Durres, Museum, inv. 4415 (photo courtesy Iris Pojani, Institute of Archaeology, Tirana).
Figure 90. Nero, London, British Museum, inv. 1965.12-1.1 (photo after H. Jucker [1981a] fig. 75).
Figure 91. Agrippina and Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum (photo courtesy Aphrodisias Photo Archives).
Figure 92a-c. Nero and Armenia, Aphrodisias, Museum (photo courtesy Aphrodisias Photo Archives).
Figure 93. Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum (photo courtesy Aphrodisias Photo Archives).
Figure 94. Grand Camée de France, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles, 264 (photo courtesy
Bibliothèque Nationale).
Figure 95. Nero, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of W. Gedney Beatty, 1941, inv. 1941.160.762
(photo courtesy the Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Figure 96. Nero, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 826 (DAIR 67.1587).
Figure 97. Poppaea, Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 14519 (photo after A. Giuliano, ed. [1989] no. 229).
Figure 98. Poppaea, Bonn, Private Collection (after W.R. Megow [1987] pl. 34.16).
Figure 99. Messalina, Rome, Musei Vaticani, 39.9, inv. 1814 (DAIR 87Vat301).
Figure 100a-c. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), inv. 830 (1952)
(DAIR 67.1590-92).
Figure 101a-d. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. inv. 6242 (DAIR 36.907-10).
Figure 102. Galba (?), Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 74.AA.37 (photo after J. Frel [1981] no. 32).
Figure 103. Otho, Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446 (DAIR 70.3258).
Figure 104. Vitellius, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 655A, inv. 3167 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).
Figure 105a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Hannover, Kestnermuseum (photos after A. Mlasowsky (1992) no. 8)
Figure 106a-c. Vitellius/Vespasian, Thessalonika, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055 (photos after M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 22a-c).
Figure 107a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Trier Rheinisches Landesmuseum, ST 5223 (photos after M. Bergmann and
P. Zanker [1981] fig. 23a-b).
Figure 108a-b. Domitian, Castel Gandalfo, Antiquario (photo after P. Liverani [1989] fig. 1.2).
Figure 109. Domitianic Cuirass, Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University, Museum Purchase, Caroline
G. Mather Fund inv.84-2 (photo courtesy Trustees of Princeton University, photo by Clem Fiori).
Figure 110. (Domitian) and Domitia, as, Cibyra (photo after K. Harl [1987] 12.1).
Figure 111a-e. Domitian/Nerva, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 542, inv. 1454 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek).
Figure 112a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 317, inv. 674 (photos after M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 54).
Figure 113a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Museo Capitolino Stanza degli Imperatori (formerly Stanza Terrena a
destra), inv. 417 (photo author).
Figure 114. Domitian/Nerva, Holkham Hall (photo after M. Bergmann and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 58a).
Figure 115a-e. Domitian/Nerva, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala Verde, inv. 423 (photos author).
Figure 116a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Museo Nazionale Romano del Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 318 (DAIR
70.226-8, 231).
Figure 117. Domitian/Nerva, formerly Leipzig, Archäologisches Institut der Universität (photo after M. Bergmann
and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 52).
338 list of illustrations

Figure 118a-b. Domitian(?)/Nerva(?), Lucera, Museo Civico, inv. 25 (photos after G. Legrottaglie [1999] pl. 35).
Figure 119a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.43 (photos courtesy J. Paul Getty
Museum).
Figure 120a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda, inv. 246 (photos after R.R.R. Smith [1988]
pl. 61.3-4).
Figure 121a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 106538
(DAIR 70.233-35, 38).
Figure 122a-b. Cancelleria Reliefs, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano (photos courtesy Musei Vaticani).
Figure 123a-c. Domitian/Nerva, Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel Castello di Baia, inv. 155743
(photos after Domiziano/Nerva figs.).
Figure 124. Domitian/Trajan, Sabratha, Museum (DAIR 61.2143).
Figure 125a-b. Domitian/Trajan, Split, Archeological Museum, inv. C 222 (DAIR 82.2731-2).
Figure 126a-c. Domitian/Trajan, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 249 (DAIR 68.5038-39, 82.708).
Figure 127a-d. Domitian/Trajan, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 61160 (DAIR 80.594-97).
Figure 128a-d. Domitian/Titus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 31.20, inv. 1687 (DAIR 87 Vat 180-
83).
Figure 129a-d. Domitian/Constantinian Emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 89.6 (photos courtesy Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston).
Figure 130a-b. Domitian/4th Century Emperor, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles (photos after
M. Bergman and P. Zanker [1981] fig. 65).
Figure 131. Domitian, Ostia, Museo, inv. 19 (DAIR 63.2346).
Figure 132. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 76.AA.72 (photos after M. Bergmann [1998] pl.
44).
Figure 133. Domitian, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 115191 (DAIR 81.4113).
Figure 134. Domitian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).
Figure 135. Domitian, Toledo, Museum of Art, inv. 1990.30 (photo courtesy the Toledo Museum of Art).
Figure 136a-d. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 75.AA.26 (photos courtesy J. Paul Getty Museum).
Figure 137. Commodus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti, 3.13, inv. 1235 (DAIR 88 Vat 1062).
Figure 138. Commodus, Phillipi, Museum, inv. 469 (photo after M. Wegner and R. Unger [1980] pl. 7.1).
Figure 139a-c. Commodus/Pupienus(?), Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 27.8, inv. 1613 (formerly
Magazzini, 690) (DAIR 87 Vat 193, 195, 197).
Figure 140a-c. Commodus/Licinius(?), Side, Museum, inv. 35 (old no. 315) (photos after J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum
[1966] pls. 40.1-2, 41.3).
Figure 141. Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120 (photo author).
Figure 142a-c. Marcus Aurelius, Triumph of A.D. 176, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori (photos after I.S. Ryberg
[1967] figs. 9a, 11b).
Figure 143a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Congiarium of A.D. 177, Rome, Arch of Constantine (photos after I.S. Ryberg
[1967] fig. 49).
Figure 144a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Lustratio, Rome, Arch of Constantine (photos after I.S. Ryberg [1967] figs. 27,
30a.).
Figure 145a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Clemency, Rome, Arch of Constantine (photos after I.S. Ryberg [1967] figs. 44,
45b).
Figure 146. Commodus, Ostia, Museo, inv. 270 (photo after R. Calza [1977] pl. 17).
Figure 147. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv. 1781 (Centrale Montemartini
3.85) (DAIR 36.1237).
Figure 148. Lucilla, Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396 (photo after M. Wegner and R. Unger [1980] pl. 5.3).
Figure 149. Lucilla, Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694 (photo after J. Inan and E. Rosenbaum [1966] pl. 33).
Figure 150a-b. Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 59, inv. 496 (DAIR 57.1378,
77.1718).
Figure 151a-b. Lucilla, Helena, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.171 (DAIR 65.2145, 2147).
Figure 152. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo 3.25 (Centrale Montemartini 2.91), inv. 2766
(DAIR 59.1454).
Figure 153. Crispina, Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 7, inv. 1954 (photo after R. Calza [1977] pl. 19).
Figure 154a-b. Annia Fundania Faustina(?), Ostia, Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123 (DAIR 70.1958, 1964).
Figure 155. Arch of Septimius Severus, Eastern Facade, Rome, Forum Romanum (photo author).
Figure 156a-b. Arch of Septimius Severus, Northwestern Panel, Rome, Forum Romanum (photo author).
Figure 157. Arch of the Argentarii, Rome (DAIR 59.746).
Figure 158. Caracalla (Plautianus and Plautilla), Arch of the Argentarii, Western Interior Panel, Rome (DAIR
70.1000).
Figure 159. Caracalla, Plautianus and Plautilla, Arch of the Argentarii, Western Interior Panel, Reconstruction
(courtesy S. de Maria).
Figure 160. Arch of the Argentarii, Attic Inscription, Rome (photo author).
 list of illustrations 339

Figure 161a-b. Plautilla, Rome, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, 731, inv. 4278 (photo courtesy Musei Vaticani).
Figure 162a-b. Plautilla, Houston, Museum of Fine Art, inv. 70-39 (photo courtesy the Museum of Fine Arts,
Houston).
Figure 163a-b. Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress, Irvine, California, Collection of Mr. Robert K. Martin
(photos after S. Nodelman [1982] figs. 11-12).
Figure 164. Plautilla, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.118 (photo courtesy J. Paul Getty Museum).
Figure 165a-b. Geta, Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale (photos after V. Saladino [1978] pls. 80-81).
Figure 166. Geta, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 79 (photo after G. Traversari [1968] no. 24).
Figure 167. Geta, Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degli Argenti, Sala I, inv. 1036 (photo after C. Saletti [1967] pl.
15).
Figure 168. Geta, Guelma, Musée Archéologique (photo after H. Wiggers and M. Wegner [1971] pl. 9a-b).
Figure 169. Geta, erased coin, from Isaura (after R. Mowat [1901] pl. 10.2).
Figure 170. Geta, defaced coin, from Smyrna (after R. Mowat [1901] pl. 10.4).
Figure 171a-e. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea (after R. Mowat [1901] pls. 10.6-10).
Figures 172a-c. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea, New York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.830,
inv. 1944.100.48080, inv. 1967.152.461 (photos courtesy the American Numismatic Society).
Figure 173. Geta/Mid-Third Century Portrait, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone 51, inv. 675 (photo after Fittschen-
Zanker I, pl. 109).
Figure 174a-b. Geta/Victoria, Rock Crystal Intaglio, Atlanta, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, inv.
2003.25.2 (photos courtesy Renée Stein, Michael C. Carlos Museum).
Figure 175. Geta, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 3.16, inv. 1238 (DAIR 87 Vat 159).
Figure 176. Geta, formerly Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski (DAIR 75.762).
Figure 177. Geta, Pegli, Museo Civico (DAIR 68.1409).
Figure 178. Geta, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1347 (DAIR 61.630).
Figure 179. Arch of Septimius Severus, Southwestern Panel, Rome, Forum Romanum (photo author).
Figure 180. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna (and Geta), Arch of the Argentarii, Eastern Interior Panel, Rome
(DAIR 70.993).
Figure 181. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta, Arch of the Argentarii, Eastern Panel, Reconstruction
(courtesy S. de Maria).
Figure 182. Septimius Severus and Caracalla, Arch of the Argentarii, Southern Facade, Rome (photo author).
Figure 183. Palazzo Sachetti Relief, Rome, Palazzo Sachetti (photo after L. Budde [1955]).
Figure 184a-b. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Dextrarum Iunctio, Southwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius
Severus, Lepcis Magna (photos after R. Bartocini [1931]).
Figure 185. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Triumphal Procession, Northwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius
Severus, Lepcis Magna (photo after R. Bartocini [1931]).
Figure 186. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta, interior panel, Arch of Septimius Severus, Lepcis
Magna (photo after R. Bartocini [1931]).
Figure 187. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. 31.329 (DAIR 69.159).
Figure 188a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757 (Centrale Monte-
martini 3.82) (DAIR 69.2168-70).
Figure 189a-b. Macrinus, Cambridge, Mass., Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University, inv. 1949.47.138
(photo courtesy Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Museums, Alpheus Hyatt Fund).
Figure 190a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 36, inv. 460 (DAIR 70.2, 76.2060,
2062).
Figure 191. Macrinus and Diadumenianus, Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum, inv. 32300 (photo after W.R. Megow
[1987] pl. 50.3).
Figure 192a-b. Diadumenianus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, 651 (10135) inv. 10075 (photos
after A. Giuliano [1957] pl. 48).
Figure 193a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 5993 (photos author).
Figure 194a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,
inv. 329 (photos after MusNazRom 1.9.2, no. R273).
Figure 195a-d. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Kansas City, Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 45-66
(photo courtesy the Nelson Atkins Museum).
Figure 196a-b. Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431 (DAIR 70.12-13).
Figure 197. Severus Alexander, Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität (photo after B. Andreae [1978]).
Figure 198. Julia Mammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26 (photo after R. Calza [1977] pl. 61).
Figure 199. Julia Mammaea, Paris, Musée du Louvre, no. 3552 (inv. MND 2137), (photo after H.B. Wiggers and
M. Wegner [1971] pl. 60).
Figure 200a-c. Maximinus Thrax, Museo Palatino, inv. 52681 (photos author).
Figure 201. Maximinus Thrax, Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora (photo after L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom
1.6, 246-47).
340 list of illustrations

Figure 202. Maximinus Thrax, Rome, Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora (photo after L. De Lachenal, MusNazRom
1.6, 2, 250-52).
Figure 203. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 745, inv. 819 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).
Figure 204. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 746, inv. 823 (photo courtesy Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek).
Figure 205. Gordian III, Sofia, National Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497 (DAIR 37.968).
Figure 206. Otacilia Severa, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2765 (Centrale Montemartini 2.95) (DAIR
69.2161).
Figure 207. Carinus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 850 (Centrale Montemartini 2.83) (photos after Fittschen-
Zanker I, pl. 146).
Figure 208a-b. Maxentius, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. 106 (photo after H.P. L Orange and M. Wegner
[1984] pl. x.x).
Figure 209a-d. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Cortile (photos author).
Figure 210a-c. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza terrena a destra I.25, inv. 1769 (photos
after Fittschen-Zanker I, pl. 148).
Figure 211. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Campidoglio (photo author).
Figure 212. Maxentius, Dresden, Antikensammlung, inv. 406 (photo after H.P. L’Orange [1984] pl. 27a).
Figure 213. Maxentius, Rome, Museo Torlonia (photo after H.P. L’Orange [1984] pl. 26a).
Figure 214. Valeria Maximilla (?), Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 106 (photos after Fittschen-Zanker
III, pl. 206).
Figure 215. Galeria Valeria/Deity, Thessalonika, Museum, inv. 2466 (photo after H.P. L’Orange [1984] pl. 21b).
ILLUSTRATIONS 1–215
Fig. 1. Ptolemy X/Ptolemy IX, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.330.
 Fig. 2a-b. Caligula, Switzerland, private collection.

Fig. 3. Caligula, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 128.

Fig. 4a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv. 2443, Centrale Montemartini, 2.74.
Fig. 5. Caligula/Claudius, Woburn Abbey.
Fig. 6a-c. Caligula/Claudius Fano, Museo Civico.
 Fig. 7a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Hannover, Kestnermuseum, inv.1978.15.

Fig. 8a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum 18, IX.A 23.

Fig. 9a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala Rotonda 551, inv. 242.
Fig. 10. Caligula/Claudius, Grosseto, Museo Archeo-
logico e d’Arte della Maremma, inv. 97765.

Fig. 11a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Rome Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, inv. 151.

Fig. 12. Caligula/Claudius, Aquileia,
Aquileia, Museo Archeologico, inv. 108.

Fig. 13a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Mantua, Palazzo Ducale.

Fig. 14a-d. Caligula/Claudius, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 150-215.
Fig. 15a-c. Caligula/Claudius, Perugia, Museo.
 Fig. 16a-b. Caligula/Claudius, Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 87.

Fig. 17a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, formerly Sala degli Orti Mecenaziani 7, inv.
2394 (Centrale Montemartini 1.61).
Fig. 18a-b. Caligula/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo
Gregoriano Profano, inv. 9953.
Fig. 19a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 78.AA.261.
Fig. 20a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Zadar, Museum.
Fig. 21a-d. Caligula/Augustus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 611, inv. 746.
Fig. 22a-c. Caligula/Augustus, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, C 72.
Fig. 23. Caligula/Titus, Arles, Musée Réattu, Cellar Depot.

Fig. 24. Caligula/Titus, Athens, National Museum, Ro-

man Collection, inv. 348.
Fig. 25a-e. Caligula/Claudius Gothicus (?), New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.
Fig. 26a-b. Caligula, Tunis, Institut National d’Archeologie et d’Art.

Fig. 27. Caligula, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.155.
Fig. 28. Caligula, Worcester, Worcester Art Museum, Fig. 29. Caligula, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv.
inv. 1914.23. 1987.70.1.

Fig. 30. Caligula, Fulda, Schloss Fasanarie, FAS.ARP 21.

 Fig. 32. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Fig. 33. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1923. Museum of Art, Fletcher Fund, 1925.78.35.
160.23.

Fig. 31. Caligula, Brooklyn, Art Museum, inv. 21.479.12.

Fig. 34a-b. (Caligula)/Claudius, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, no. 1, inv. 280 (1870), inv. 834 (1942).
Fig. 35. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection.
Fig. 36. Caligula, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Fig. 37. Caligula, New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 4256. Collection.

Fig. 38. Caligula, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Fig. 39. Caligula and Roma, Washington D.C., Dumbarton
Art, Rogers Fund, 1911.195.7. Oaks Collection, inv. 46.10.
 Fig. 40. Caligula, Iesi, Palazzo della Signoria. Fig. 41. Caligula, Genoa-Pegli, Museo, inv. 614.

Fig. 42. Nero, Cagliari, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6122. Fig. 43. Nero, Syracuse, Museo Nazionale, inv. 6383.
 Fig. 44. Nero, Vienne, Vienne, Musée Archéologique.

Fig. 45. Nero, dupondius, New York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.
171.1308.
Fig. 46a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Lucus Feroniae.
Fig. 47a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 463, inv. 1979.
Fig. 48. Nero/Vespasian (cast), Rome, Villa Borghese.
Fig. 49a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Cleveland, Museum of Art, inv. 1929.439.2.
Fig. 50a-b. Nero/Vespasian, London, British Museum, inv. 1890.
Fig. 51a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 7.9, inv. 1291.
Fig. 52a-d. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 38795.
Fig. 53a-e. Nero/Vespasian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 53.
 Fig. 54. Nero/Vespasian, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1025.

Fig. 55a-b. Nero/Vespasian, Turin, Museo di Antichità, inv. 244.

Fig. 56a-d. Nero/Titus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664a, inv. 1843.
Fig. 57. Nero/Titus, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv.
1914.126.

Fig. 58a-d. Nero/Titus, Trieste Civico Museo di Storia e Arte, inv. 3139, cat. 2.40.
 Fig. 59. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Braccio Nuo-
vo 126, inv. 2213.

Fig. 60a-b. Nero/Domitian, Vaison-la-Romaine, Musée Municipal, inv. 300.315.

Fig. 61a-e. Nero/Domitian/Nerva, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), 827 (1954).
Fig. 62a-b. Nero/Domitian, Munich, Glyptothek, 394
(formerly 249).
Fig. 63a-d. Nero/Domitian, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 226.
Fig. 64a-c. Nero/Domitian, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts,
inv. 88.639. Fig. 65. Nero/Domitian, Vasto, Museo Civico.
Fig. 66a-b. Nero/Domitian, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, inv. 6061.

Fig. 67. Nero/Domitian, Rome Villa Margherita

(American Embassy), wall along the Via Boncom-
pagni.
Fig. 68. Nero/Domitian, Musei Vaticani, Museo Fig. 69. Nero/Domitian, Minden, Domschatz.
Gregoriano Profano no. 644, inv. 4065.

Fig. 70. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Palazzo Colonna, Fig. 71. Nero/Augustus, Aquileia, Museo Archeologico
fid. no. 54. Nazionale, inv. 12.
 Fig. 72a-b. Nero/Augustus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 274, inv. 715.

Fig. 73. Nero/Augustus, Luni, Antiquario, CM 1033. Fig. 74. Nero/Galba, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale,
Cabinet des Médailles 251.
Fig. 75. Nero/Trajan, Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. no. 1983.11.

Fig. 76. Nero/Antinous, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des

Médailles, 238.
Fig. 77a-d. Nero/Gallienus, Columbia, Missouri, University of Missouri, Museum of Art and Archaeology, acc. no.
62.46, cat.
Fig. 78. Nero/Constantinian Emperor, Rome, Museo
Nazionale Romano delle Terme, Magazzini, inv. 126279.

Fig. 79a-d. Nero(?)/Private Individual, New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1961.30.
Fig. 80. Nero, Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA 1210.

Fig. 81a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 616.

Fig. 82a-c. Nero, Rome, Museo Palatino, inv. 618.

Fig. 83. Nero, Munich, Glyptothek, inv. 321.

 Fig. 84a-b. Nero, Worcester, Art Gallery, inv. 1915.23.

Fig. 85a-b. Gaius/Nero, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 385, inv. 591.
Fig. 86. Nero, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, inv.
2835 and Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, inv. 23.104.

Fig. 87a-b. Nero, Private Collection.

Fig. 88. Neronian cuirass, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo
Gregoriano Profano 9948.

Fig. 89. Neronian cuirass, Durres, Museum, inv. 4415

Fig. 90. Nero, London, British Museum, inv. 1965.12-1.1.

Fig. 91. Agrippina and Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum.

Fig. 92a-c. Nero and Armenia, Aphrodisias, Museum.
 Fig. 93. Nero, Aphrodisias, Museum.

Fig. 94. Grand Camée de France, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des
Médailles, 264.
Fig. 95. Nero, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Bequest of W. Gedney Beatty, 1941, inv. 1941.160.762.

Fig. 96. Nero, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv.

826.

Fig. 97. Poppaea, Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. Fig. 98. Poppaea, Bonn, Private Collection.
14519.
Fig. 99. Messalina, Rome, Musei Vaticani, 39.9, inv.
1814.

Fig. 100a-c. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Parma, Museo Nazionale d’Antichità, inv. 146 (1870), inv. 830
(1952).
Fig. 101a-d. Messalina/Agrippina Minor, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico. inv. 6242.
Fig. 102. Galba (?), Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Fig. 103. Otho, Ostia, Magazzini, inv. 446.
Museum, inv. 74.AA.37.

Fig. 104. Vitellius, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg

Glyptotek 655A, inv. 3167.
 Fig. 105a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Hannover, Kestnermuseum.

Fig. 106a-c. Vitellius/Vespasian, Thessalonika, Archaeological Museum, inv. 1055.

Fig. 107a-b. Vitellius/Vespasian, Trier Rheinisches Landesmuseum, ST 5223.

Fig. 108a-b. Domitian, Castel Gandalfo, Antiquario.

Fig. 109. Domitianic Cuirass, Princeton, The Art Museum, Princeton University, Museum Pur-
chase, Caroline G. Mather Fund inv.84-2.
Fig. 110. (Domitian) and Domitia,
as, Cibyra.

Fig. 111a-e. Domitian/Nerva, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, 542, inv. 1454.

Fig. 112a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei
Vaticani, Sala dei Busti 317, inv. 674.

Fig. 113a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome,

Museo Capitolino Stanza degli
Imperatori (formerly Stanza Terrena
a destra), inv. 417.
Fig. 114. Domitian/Nerva, Holkham Hall.

Fig. 115a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Palazzo dei

Conservatori, Sala Verde, inv. 423.
Fig. 116a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Museo Nazionale Romano del Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 318.
 Fig. 117. Domitian/Nerva, formerly Leipzig, Archäologisches
Institut der Universität.

Fig. 118a-b. Domitian(?)/Nerva(?), Lucera, Museo Civico, inv. 25.

Fig. 119a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 83.AA.43.
Fig. 120a-b. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Musei Vaticani,
Sala Rotonda, inv. 246.
Fig. 121a-d. Domitian/Nerva, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, inv. 106538.
Fig. 122a-b. Cancelleria Reliefs, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano.
Fig. 123a-c. Domitian/Nerva, Baia, Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei nel Castello di Baia, inv. 155743.
 Fig. 124. Domitian/Trajan, Sabratha, Museum.

Fig. 125a-b. Domitian/Trajan, Split, Archeological Museum, inv. C 222.

Fig. 126a-c. Domitian/Trajan, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 249.
Fig. 127a-d. Domitian/Trajan, Museo Nazionale Romano delle Terme, inv. 61160.
Fig. 128a-d. Domitian/Titus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 31.20, inv. 1687.
Fig. 129a-d. Domitian/Constantinian Emperor, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. 89.6.
Fig. 130a-b. Domitian/4th Century Emperor, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles.

Fig. 131. Domitian, Ostia, Museo, inv. 19.

Fig. 132. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 76.AA.72.

Fig. 133. Domitian, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo

Massimo alle Terme, inv. 115191.
Fig. 134. Domitian, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 664, inv. 768.
Fig. 135. Domitian, Toledo, Museum of Art, inv. 1990.30.

Fig. 136a-d. Domitian, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 75.AA.26.
Fig. 137. Commodus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti, 3.13, inv. 1235.
Fig. 138. Commodus, Phillipi, Museum, inv. 469.

Fig. 139a-c. Commodus/Pupienus(?), Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiaramonti 27.8, inv. 1613.
Fig. 140a-c. Commodus/Licinius(?), Side, Museum, inv. 35.
Fig. 141. Commodus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conser-
vatori, Sala degli Arazzi, inv. 1120.

Fig. 142a-c. Marcus Aurelius, Triumph of A.D. 176, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori.
Fig. 143a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Congiarium of A.D. 177, Rome, Arch of Constantine.

Fig. 144a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Lustratio, Rome, Arch of Constantine.

Fig. 145a-b. Marcus Aurelius, Clemency, Rome, Arch of Constantine.

Fig. 146. Commodus, Ostia, Museo, inv. 270.

Fig. 147. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Fig. 148. Lucilla, Guelma, Museum, inv. M. 396.
Museo Nuovo, Sala 1.9, inv. 1781 (Centrale
Montemartini 3.85).

Fig. 149. Lucilla, Izmir, Museum, inv. 3694.

Fig. 150a-b. Lucilla/Helena, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 59.

Fig. 151a-b. Lucilla, Helena, Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.171.
Fig. 152. Lucilla, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Fig. 153. Crispina, Ostia, Museo, Magazzini, Sala 7, inv.
Braccio Nuovo 3.25 (Centrale Montemartini 2.91), inv. 1954.
2766.

Fig. 154a-b. Annia Fundania Faustina(?), Ostia, Museo, Sala 6.2, inv. 1123.
Fig. 155. Arch of Septimius Severus, Eastern Facade, Rome, Fig. 156a-b. Arch of Septimius Severus, Northwestern Panel,
Forum Romanum. Rome, Forum Romanum.

Fig. 157. Arch of the Argentarii, Rome. Fig. 158. Caracalla (Plautianus and Plautilla), Arch of
the Argentarii, Western Interior Panel, Rome.
Fig. 159. Caracalla, Plautianus and Plau-
tilla, Arch of the Argentarii, Western
Interior Panel, Reconstruction.

Fig. 160. Arch of the Argentarii, Attic Inscription, Rome.

Fig. 161a-b. Plautilla, Rome, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Magazzini, 731, inv. 4278.
 Fig. 162a-b. Plautilla, Houston, Museum of Fine Art, inv. 70-39.

Fig. 163a-b. Plautilla/Tetrarchic or Constantinian Empress, Irvine, California, Collection of Mr. Robert K. Martin.
Fig. 164. Plautilla, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, inv. 72.AA.118.
Fig. 165a-b. Geta, Florence, Villa del Poggio Imperiale.

Fig. 166. Geta, Venice, Museo Archeologico, inv. 79.

Fig. 167. Geta, Florence, Palazzo Pitti, Museo degli Fig. 168. Geta, Guelma, Musée Archéologique.
Argenti, Sala I, inv. 1036.

Fig. 169. Geta, erased coin, from Isaura. Fig. 170. Geta, defaced coin, from Smyrna.
Fig. 171a-e. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea.
Figures 172a-c. Geta, defaced coins, from Stratonicea, New
York, American Numismatic Society, inv. 1953.171.830, inv.
1944.100.48080, inv. 1967.152.461.

Fig. 173. Geta/Mid-Third Century Portrait, Rome, Museo

Capitolino, Salone 51, inv. 675.
 Fig. 175. Geta, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Galleria Chiara-
monti 3.16, inv. 1238.

Fig. 174a-b. Geta/Victoria, Rock Crystal Intaglio, Atlanta, Michael

C. Carlos Museum, Emory University, inv. 2003.25.2.

Fig. 176. Geta, formerly Vienna, Palais Lanckoronski.

 Fig. 177. Geta, Pegli, Museo Civico.

Fig. 179. Arch of Septimius Severus, Southwestern Panel, Rome, Fo-

rum Romanum.

Fig. 178. Geta, Tunis, Musée du Bardo, inv. C 1347.

 Fig. 181. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta,
Arch of the Argentarii, Eastern Panel, Reconstruc-
Fig. 180. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna (and Geta), Arch of tion.
the Argentarii, Eastern Interior Panel, Rome.

Fig. 182. Septimius Severus and Caracalla, Arch of the Argentarii,

Southern Facade, Rome.
 Fig. 183. Palazzo Sachetti Relief, Rome, Palazzo Sachetti.

Fig. 184a-b. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Dextrarum Iunctio, Southwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius Severus,
Lepcis Magna.
Fig. 185. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, Triumphal Procession, Northwest Attic Panel, Arch of Septimius
Severus, Lepcis Magna.

Fig. 186. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta, interior panel, Arch of Septimius Severus, Lepcis
Magna.
Fig. 187. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Geta, Berlin,
Staatliche Museen, inv. 31.329.

Fig. 188a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Museo Nuovo, Sala 7, 21, inv. 1757
(Centrale Montemartini 3.82).
Fig. 189a-b. Macrinus, Cambridge, Mass., Arthur M. Sackler Museum,
Harvard University, inv. 1949.47.138.
Fig. 190a-c. Macrinus, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 36, inv. 460.
 Fig. 191. Macrinus and Diadumenianus, Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum, inv. 32300.

Fig. 192a-b. Diadumenianus, Rome, Musei Vaticani, Museo Gregoriano Profano, 651 (10135) inv. 10075.
Fig. 193a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 5993.
Fig. 194a-c. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme,
inv. 329.
Fig. 195a-d. Elagabalus/Severus Alexander, Kansas City, Kansas City, Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 45-66.
 Fig. 196a-b. Severus Alexander, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magazzini, inv. 1431.

Fig. 197a-b. Severus Alexander, Bochum, Kunstsammlungen der Ruhr-Universität.

Fig. 198. Julia Mammaea, Ostia, Museo, inv. 26. Fig. 199. Julia Mammaea, Paris, Musée du Louvre, no.
3552 (inv. MND 2137).

Fig. 200a-c. Maximinus Thrax, Museo Palatino, inv. 52681.

Fig. 201. Maximinus Thrax, Rome, Fig. 202. Maximinus Thrax, Rome,
Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora. Villa Ludovisi, Casino Aurora.

Fig. 203. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 745, inv. 819.

Fig. 204. Maximus, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 746, inv. 823.
Fig. 205. Gordian III, Sofia, National Fig. 206. Otacilia Severa, Rome, Palazzo Fig. 207. Carinus, Rome, Palazzo dei
Archaeological Museum, inv. 1497. dei Conservatori, inv. 2765 (Centrale Conservatori, inv. 850 (Centrale
Montemartini 2.95). Montemartini 2.83).

Fig. 208a-b. Maxentius, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. 106.

Fig. 209a-d. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Cortile.
Fig. 210a-c. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza terrena a destra I.25, inv. 1769.
 Fig. 211. Maxentius/Constantine, Rome, Campidoglio.

Fig. 212. Maxentius, Dresden, Antikensammlung, inv. Fig. 213. Maxentius, Rome, Museo Torlonia.
406.
Fig. 214. Valeria Maximilla (?), Rome, Museo Capitolino, Magaz-
zini, inv. 106.

Fig. 215. Galeria Valeria/Deity, Thessalonika, Museum, inv. 2466.